Hi Cortney, 

 

I've attached a number of the documents you'd requested on our 12/8 call. I've included a preamble/rule 

with your comments addressed. I've also attached a copy of your summary of comments with our 

responses to the comments on the preamble. 

 

Additionally, I've attached an Excel spreadsheet with the fugitive emissions calculations, another 

spreadsheet with all of the raw data for the lead stack tests, and a Word document with excerpts from the 

1997 NESHAP explaining the use of lead as a surrogate for HAP metals in the original standard. On the 

"Comparison of Estimates" tab, you'll find a side-by-side comparison of our estimates of fugitive emissions 

to estimates submitted via the ICR and TRI estimates. 

 

I've also attached our current draft of the response to comment document. Finally, I've included a PDF file 

with the Exide Frisco facility's emission inventory in which their fugitive emissions were estimated. 

 

Let me know what times work for you to set up another call early this week, if possible. 

 

Nathan Topham 

Environmental Engineer 

US EPA/OAQPS/SPPD/MIG 

Phone - (919)541-0483 

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

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

Date: 12/11/2011 12:04 AM

Subject:

 

E.O. 12866 Review - Secondary Lead Smelting RTR - Response to OMB Comments and 

Requested Documents

CC:

 

<french.chuck@epa.gov>, <talcott.fred@epa.gov>, <silverman.steven@epa.gov>, 

<malave.maria@epa.gov>, <clemons.teresa@epa.gov>, <doolan.stephanie@epa.gov>, 

<chang.andy@epa.gov>, <benner.tim@epa.gov>, <stewart.michael@epa.gov>, 

<guinnup.dave@epa.gov>, <donna.lazzari@erg.com>

Attachments:

 

DRAFT-SecondaryLeadFugitiveCalcs-12-9-2011.xlsx; Secondary Lead Comment Response 

12-10-2011-DRAFT.docx; Secondary Lead interagency comments under EO 12866 Dec 

10_EPA Responses.docx; EO 12866 Secondary Lead Smelting RTR 2060_AQ68 Final Rule 

_12-10-2011.docx; Lead Stack Test Data-12-10-2011.xlsx; Lead as surrogate - 1994 preamble 

discussion.docx; Frisco 2009 EI Report (03_31_2010).pdf

Page 1 of 1
Secondary Lead - REVISED Fugitive Emissions Estimates

Estimates based upon Exide Frisco detailed fugitive estimates and comparison of facility descriptions

Basis: size 

factor and 

housekeepi

ng factor Fugitive Emissions - Other Metals. Basis Average of Production and Area factors

Facility Code Size Factor Enclosure Factor

Enclosure 

Category 

Housekeeping factor 

(based on practices 

plus ambient 

monitoring values)

Fugitive Pb 

Emissions 

Tons/yr 

Fugitive Pb 

Emissions lb/yr As Tons/yr Be Tons/yr Cd Tons/yr Cr Tons/yr Cr+6 Tons/yr Cr+3 Tons/yr Mn Tons/yr Hg Tons/yr

Elemental 

Gaseous Mercury

Gaseous 

Divalent 

Mercury Particulate DivalenNit MTons ercu/yrry Se Tons/yr Sb Tons/yr

Exide Baton Rouge 0.84 1.07 Unenclosed 1 0.64 1276 1.62E-02 1.11E-04 1.18E-02 2.40E-03 2.40E-05 2.37E-03 1.09E-02 5.34E-03 4.27E-03 5.34E-04 7.01E-04 4.51E-03 8.75E-03 2.04E-02

Exide Forest City 0.76 0.75 Partial 1 0.40 807 1.03E-02 7.00E-05 7.49E-03 1.52E-03 1.52E-05 1.50E-03 6.89E-03 3.38E-03 2.70E-03 3.38E-04 6.33E-04 2.85E-03 2.38E-02 1.29E-02

Exide Frisco 1.03 1 Partial- Model 1 0.73 1463 1.86E-02 1.27E-04 1.36E-02 2.75E-03 2.75E-05 2.72E-03 1.25E-02 6.12E-03 4.90E-03 6.12E-04 8.60E-04 5.17E-03 2.75E-02 2.34E-02

Exide Muncie 1.04 0.25 Enclosed 1 0.18 370 4.70E-03 3.21E-05 3.43E-03 6.95E-04 6.95E-06 6.88E-04 3.16E-03 1.55E-03 1.24E-03 1.55E-04 4.35E-04 1.31E-03 1.50E-02 5.92E-03

Exide Reading 1.00 0.75 Partial 1 0.53 1069 1.36E-02 9.27E-05 9.93E-03 2.01E-03 2.01E-05 1.99E-03 9.12E-03 4.47E-03 3.58E-03 4.47E-04 4.19E-04 3.78E-03 1.25E-02 1.71E-02

Exide Vernon 1.84 0.25 Enclosed 0.5 0.16 327 4.15E-03 2.83E-05 3.03E-03 6.14E-04 6.14E-06 6.08E-04 2.79E-03 1.37E-03 1.09E-03 1.37E-04 7.69E-04 1.16E-03 1.50E-02 5.23E-03

RSR NY 1.37 0.25 Enclosed 0.25 0.06 121 1.54E-03 1.05E-05 1.12E-03 2.27E-04 2.27E-06 2.25E-04 1.03E-03 5.07E-04 4.06E-04 5.07E-05 5.70E-04 4.28E-04 1.75E-02 1.94E-03

Quemetco CA 1.19 0.25 Enclosed 0.2 0.04 84 1.07E-03 7.32E-06 7.84E-04 1.59E-04 1.59E-06 1.57E-04 7.21E-04 3.54E-04 2.83E-04 3.54E-05 4.97E-04 2.99E-04 1.88E-02 1.35E-03

Quemetco IN 1.28 0.25 Enclosed 0.25 0.06 113 1.44E-03 9.81E-06 1.05E-03 2.12E-04 2.12E-06 2.10E-04 9.66E-04 4.74E-04 3.79E-04 4.74E-05 5.32E-04 4.00E-04 6.25E-03 1.81E-03

Sanders, Al 1.40 1.07 Unenclosed 1 1.07 2134 2.71E-02 1.85E-04 1.98E-02 4.01E-03 4.01E-05 3.97E-03 1.82E-02 8.93E-03 7.14E-03 8.93E-04 1.17E-03 7.54E-03 1.50E-02 3.41E-02

Envirofocus 0.44 0.75 Partial 1 0.24 472 5.99E-03 4.09E-05 4.38E-03 8.86E-04 8.86E-06 8.77E-04 4.03E-03 1.97E-03 1.58E-03 1.97E-04 3.70E-04 1.67E-03 1.25E-02 7.55E-03

Gopher, Eagan Mn 1.56 0.25 Enclosed 1 0.28 553 7.02E-03 4.79E-05 5.13E-03 1.04E-03 1.04E-05 1.03E-03 4.72E-03 2.31E-03 1.85E-03 2.31E-04 6.50E-04 1.95E-03 1.63E-02 8.84E-03

Doe Run, Boss Mo 3.14 1.07 Unenclosed 1 2.39 4774 6.06E-02 4.14E-04 4.43E-02 8.96E-03 8.96E-05 8.87E-03 4.07E-02 2.00E-02 1.60E-02 2.00E-03 2.62E-03 1.69E-02 9.13E-02 7.64E-02

East Penn 1.34 0.25 Enclosed 0.25 0.06 119 1.51E-03 1.03E-05 1.10E-03 2.23E-04 2.23E-06 2.21E-04 1.01E-03 4.98E-04 3.98E-04 4.98E-05 5.60E-04 4.20E-04 2.13E-02 1.90E-03

Arecibo, Puerto Rico 0.32 1.07 Unenclosed 1 0.24 488 6.19E-03 4.23E-05 4.53E-03 9.16E-04 9.16E-06 9.07E-04 4.16E-03 2.04E-03 1.63E-03 2.04E-04 1.72E-03 0.00E+00 7.80E-03

Johnson controls Enclosed

Total 7.08 0.180 0.001 0.132 0.027 0.000 0.121 0.059 0.050 0.301 0.227

Total all metals 8.18
Updates Include:

Used reduced Exide Frisco Emissions estimates - eliminated double counting of blast and reverb furnace fugitives

Estimated fugitive reduction for the enclosure of raw material storage area based on information submitted by Frisco. (Previous estimates prior to enclosure)

Assigned emissions to unenclosed facilities based on a ratio higher than the Exide Frisco, but similar to their emissions prior to enclosure of Raw material area (1.07 factor)

Revised East Penn fugitive emissions based on information provided in the comments, using a work practice factor of 0.25 (equivalent to best of industry, but not to level of Quemetco CA)

Included Arecibo facility using factors similar to other facilities. Because their facility is small and has low production, fugitives were moderate. 

Fugitive Reductions

Current Reduction TPY

Lead 7.08 6.43

As 0.180 0.16

Be 0.001 0.00

Cd 0.132 0.12

Cr 0.027 0.02

Mn 0.121 0.11

Hg 0.059 0.05

Ni 0.050 0.05

Se 0.301 0.29

Sb 0.227 0.21

total 8.18 7.44
Secondary Lead - REVISED Fugitive Emissions Estimates

Estimates based upon Facility C detailed fugitive estimates and comparison of facility descriptions

Fugitive Emissions - Other Metals. Basis Average of Production and Area factors

Facility Code Size Factor Enclosure Factor

Enclosure 

Category 

Housekeeping factor 

(based on practices 

plus ambient 

monitoring values)

Fugitive Pb 

Emissions 

Tons/yr 

Fugitive Pb 

Emissions 

lb/yr As Tons/yr Be Tons/yr Cd Tons/yr

Exide Baton Rouge 0.84 0.25 Unenclosed 0.2 0.03 60 7.57E-04 5.16E-06 5.53E-04

Exide Forest City 0.76 0.25 Partial 0.2 0.03 54 6.83E-04 4.67E-06 5.00E-04

Exide Frisco 1.03 0.25 Partial- Model 0.2 0.04 73 9.29E-04 6.34E-06 6.79E-04

Exide Muncie 1.04 0.25 Enclosed 0.2 0.04 74 9.40E-04 6.41E-06 6.87E-04

Exide Reading 1.00 0.25 Partial 0.2 0.04 71 9.05E-04 6.18E-06 6.62E-04

Exide Vernon 1.84 0.25 Enclosed 0.2 0.07 131 1.66E-03 1.13E-05 1.21E-03

RSR NY 1.37 0.25 Enclosed 0.2 0.05 97 1.23E-03 8.40E-06 9.00E-04

Quemetco CA 1.19 0.25 Enclosed 0.2 0.04 84 1.07E-03 7.32E-06 7.84E-04

Quemetco IN 1.28 0.25 Enclosed 0.2 0.05 91 1.15E-03 7.85E-06 8.40E-04

Sanders, Al 1.40 0.25 Unenclosed 0.2 0.05 100 1.27E-03 8.64E-06 9.25E-04

Envirofocus 0.44 0.25 Partial 0.2 0.02 31 3.99E-04 2.73E-06 2.92E-04

Gopher, Eagan Mn 1.56 0.25 Enclosed 0.2 0.06 111 1.40E-03 9.58E-06 1.03E-03

Doe Run, Boss Mo 3.14 0.25 Unenclosed 0.2 0.11 223 2.83E-03 1.93E-05 2.07E-03

East Penn 1.34 0.25 Enclosed 0.2 0.05 95 1.21E-03 8.25E-06 8.83E-04

Arecibo, Puerto Rico 0.35 0.25 Unenclosed 0.2 0.01 25 3.15E-04 2.15E-06 2.30E-04

Johnson controls 1.44 Enclosed

0.66 0.017 0.000 0.012

average 0.05

Updates Include:

Used reduced Exide Frisco Emissions estimates - eliminated double counting of blast and reverb furnace fugitives

Estimated fugitive reduction for the enclosure of raw material storage area based on information submitted by Frisco. (Previous estimates prior to enclosure)

Assigned emissions to unenclosed facilities based on a ratio higher than the Exide Frisco, but similar to their emissions prior to enclosure of Raw material area (1.07 factor)

Revised East Penn fugitive emissions based on information provided in the comments, using a work practice factor of 0.25 (equivalent to best of industry, but not to level of Quemetco 

Included Arecibo facility using factors similar to other facilities. Because their facility is small and has low production, fugitives were moderate. 
oduction and Area factors

Cr Tons/yr Cr+6 Tons/yr Cr+3 Tons/yr Mn Tons/yr Hg Tons/yr

Elemental 

Gaseous Mercury

Gaseous 

Divalent 

Mercury Particulate DivaleNni t ToMenrsc/uyrry Se Tons/yr Sb Tons/yr

1.12E-04 1.12E-06 1.11E-04 5.08E-04 2.49E-04 1.99E-04 2.49E-05 2.49E-05 2.10E-04 3.72E-04 9.53E-04

1.01E-04 1.01E-06 1.00E-04 4.59E-04 2.25E-04 1.80E-04 2.25E-05 2.25E-05 1.90E-04 3.36E-04 8.61E-04

1.37E-04 1.37E-06 1.36E-04 6.24E-04 3.06E-04 2.45E-04 3.06E-05 3.06E-05 2.58E-04 4.57E-04 1.17E-03

1.39E-04 1.39E-06 1.38E-04 6.31E-04 3.10E-04 2.48E-04 3.10E-05 3.10E-05 2.61E-04 4.62E-04 1.18E-03

1.34E-04 1.34E-06 1.33E-04 6.08E-04 2.98E-04 2.39E-04 2.98E-05 2.98E-05 2.52E-04 4.46E-04 1.14E-03

2.46E-04 2.46E-06 2.43E-04 1.12E-03 5.47E-04 4.38E-04 5.47E-05 5.47E-05 4.62E-04 8.17E-04 2.09E-03

1.82E-04 1.82E-06 1.80E-04 8.27E-04 4.06E-04 3.24E-04 4.06E-05 4.06E-05 3.42E-04 6.06E-04 1.55E-03

1.59E-04 1.59E-06 1.57E-04 7.21E-04 3.54E-04 2.83E-04 3.54E-05 3.54E-05 2.99E-04 5.28E-04 1.35E-03

1.70E-04 1.70E-06 1.68E-04 7.72E-04 3.79E-04 3.03E-04 3.79E-05 3.79E-05 3.20E-04 5.66E-04 1.45E-03

1.87E-04 1.87E-06 1.85E-04 8.50E-04 4.17E-04 3.34E-04 4.17E-05 4.17E-05 3.52E-04 6.23E-04 1.59E-03

5.91E-05 5.91E-07 5.85E-05 2.68E-04 1.32E-04 1.05E-04 1.32E-05 1.32E-05 1.11E-04 1.97E-04 5.03E-04

2.08E-04 2.08E-06 2.05E-04 9.43E-04 4.63E-04 3.70E-04 4.63E-05 4.63E-05 3.91E-04 6.91E-04 1.77E-03

4.18E-04 4.18E-06 4.14E-04 1.90E-03 9.33E-04 7.46E-04 9.33E-05 9.33E-05 7.87E-04 1.39E-03 3.57E-03

1.79E-04 1.79E-06 1.77E-04 8.12E-04 3.98E-04 3.19E-04 3.98E-05 3.98E-05 3.36E-04 5.95E-04 1.52E-03

4.65E-05 4.65E-07 4.61E-05 2.11E-04 1.04E-04 8.30E-05 1.04E-05 1.04E-05 8.76E-05 1.55E-04 3.96E-04

0.002 0.000 0.011 0.006 0.005 0.008 0.021

ea (1.07 factor)

ut not to level of Quemetco CA)
Metals in Secondary Lead analysis

Arsenic 2.5%

Beryllium 0.02%

Cadmium 1.9%

Chromium 0.4%

Manganese 1.7%

Mercury 0.8%

Nickel 0.7%

Selenium 1.3%

Antimony 3.2%

* This is an approximate average metal content compared to lead content. 

 The ratio for each source tested varied significantly, this is an approximate average for the industry
Comparison of Fugitive Emissions Estimates 

Facility

Final Rule Estimate 

Fugitive Pb Emissions 

(lb/yr)

Proposal Fugitive 

Pb Emissions 

(lb/yr) 

Fugitive Emissions 

Estimates Submitted 

in ICR (lb/yr) TRI estimates (lb/yr)

Exide Baton Rouge 1277 1680 4 0

Exide Forest City 807 1140 No estimate provided 0

Exide Frisco 1463 2060 1463 458

Exide Muncie 370 520 440 0.0003

Exide Reading 1070 1500 1540 306

Exide Vernon 327 460 206 83

RSR 121 180 No estimate provided 0

Quemetco (CA) 85 120 No estimate provided 0

Quemetco (IN) 113 160 No estimate provided 0

Sanders Lead 2133 2800 6480 2520

EnviroFocus 472 660 140 426

Gopher Eagan 553 780 700 502

Buick RRF 4773 6260 37.6 25880

East Penn 119 660

No estimate provided, later 

email received estimated 

140 544

TBR 488 7
2 

NATIONAL EMISSIONS STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS: 

SECONDARY LEAD SMELTERS 

SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

Sector Policies and Programs Division 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711 

DRAFT – 11-4-2011 

The primary contact regarding questions or comments on this document is: 
3 

Nathan Topham 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

OAQPS/Sector Policies and Programs Division 

Metals and Inorganic Chemicals Group (D243-02) 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711 

Email: topham.nathan@epa.gov
4 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Section Page No. 

1.0 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................... 7

2.0 LIST OF COMMENTERS.............................................................................................. 7

3.0 SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS......................................................................... 3

3.1 Emissions Limits and Guidelines......................................................................... 3

3.1.1 Statutory Basis......................................................................................... 3

3.1.2 Fugitive Emissions Limits......................................................................13

a. General ..................................................................................................13

b. Ambient Monitoring Requirements ........................................................20

c. Rule Clarifications .................................................................................21

3.1.3 Stack Emissions Limits ..........................................................................23

a. Lead and Other Metal HAP ....................................................................23

b. Total Hydrocarbons (THC) and Dioxins and Furans (D/F) .....................41

c. Mercury .................................................................................................47

3.2 Risk Assessment ................................................................................................49

3.2.1 Risk Assessment Methodology...............................................................49

3.2.2 Emissions Used......................................................................................93

3.3 Baseline Emissions Estimates............................................................................95

3.3.1 Fugitive Emissions Estimates.................................................................95

3.3.2 Stack Emissions Estimates .....................................................................97

3.4 Compliance Timeline.........................................................................................98

3.5 Performance Testing ........................................................................................104

3.5.1 Testing Frequency................................................................................104

3.5.2 Continuous Emissions Monitoring Systems (CEMS)............................104

3.5.3 Bag Leak Detection Systems (BLDS)...................................................108

3.6 Typographical Corrections...............................................................................109

3.7 SSM and Affirmative Defense .........................................................................109

3.8 Request for Comment Period Extension...........................................................125

3.9 Miscellaneous..................................................................................................125
5 

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations 

Acronyms

ABR Association of Battery Recyclers 

ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry 

BLDS Bag Leak Detection System 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CEMS Continuous Emissions Monitoring System 

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980

CL Confidence Limit 

CSEFH Child-Specific Exposure Factors Handbook 

CTE Central Tendency Exposure 

D/F Dioxins and Furans 

EFH Exposure Factors Handbook 

EPA U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 

FR Federal Register 

GACT Generally Available Control Technology 

HAP Hazardous Air Pollutant 

HEM Human Exposure Model 

HEPA High Efficiency Particulate Air Filter 

HI Hazard Index 

HON Hazardous Organic NESHAP 

HQ Hazard Quotient 

IRIS Integrated Risk Information System 

LOAEL Lowest Observable Adverse Effect Level 

MACT Maximum Achievable Control Technology 

MEI Maximum Exposed Individual 

MIR Maximum Individual Risk 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

NEI National Emissions Inventory 

NESHAP National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

NOAEL No Observable Adverse Effect Level 

OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

ODW Office of Drinking Water 

OHEA Office of Health and Environmental Assessment 

PB-HAP Persistent Bioaccumulative Hazardous Air Pollutant 

PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

PTFE polytetrafluoroethylene 

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

REL Recommended Exposure Limit 

REL Recommended Exposure Limit 
6 

RfC Reference Concentrations 

RME Reasonable Maximum Exposure 

RQ Reportable Quantity (CERCLA) 

RTR Risk and Technology Review 

SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District 

SIC Standard Industrial Classification 

SIP State Implementation Plan 

SOP Standard Operating Procedure 

SSM Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction 

TEF Toxic Equivalency Factor 

THC Total Hydrocarbon 

TOSHI Target Organ specific Hazard Index 

TRI Toxic Release Inventory 

UPL Upper Predictive Limit 

URE Unit Risk Exposure 

WESP Wet Electrostatic Precipitator 

WHO World Health Organization 
7 

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

On May 19, 2011, EPA proposed revisions to the National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Secondary Lead Smelters. Some significant comments 

and responses appear in the preamble to the final rule. This document contains summaries of the 

public comments that the EPA received on the proposed standards that are not summarized and 

addressed in the preamble to the final rule. Copies of all comments submitted are available at the 

EPA docket Center Public Reading Room. Comment letters and transcripts of the public hearings 

are also available electronically through http://www.regulations.gov by searching Docket ID 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344.

2.0 LIST OF COMMENTERS 

The EPA received 30 comment letters on the proposed NESHAP for secondary lead 

smelters before the comment period closed on July 25, 2011. All comments are contained in 

Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344. The commenter, affiliation, and item number in Docket 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344 is listed in Table 2-1. 

Table 2-1. Public Comments Received by July 25, 2011 for National Emissions Standards 

for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP): Secondary Lead Smelters, Proposed Rule Docket 

EPA EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344

Docket ID Commenter ID 

Code 

Commenter and Affiliation 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344-

0069.1 69 

Robert Steinwurtzel, Attorney, Baker 

Hostetler on behalf of the Association of 

Battery Recyclers 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344-

0070.1 70 

Robert Steinwurtzel, Attorney, Baker 

Hostetler on behalf of the Association of 

Battery Recyclers 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344-0071 71 

Dennis Lane, Attorney, Stinson Morrison 

Hecker LLP on behalf of Doe Run 

Resources Corporation 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344-0072 72 

Frederick A. Ganster, Director, 

Environmental Health and Safety, Exide 

Technologies 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344-0073 73 Michael Carr, Vice President, Johnson 

Controls Battery Group, Inc. 
8 

Docket ID Commenter ID 

Code 

Commenter and Affiliation 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344-

0074.1 74 

Robert Steinwurtzel, Attorney, Baker 

Hostetler on behalf of the Association of 

Battery Recyclers 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344-0075 75 Michael Carr, Vice President, Johnson 

Controls Battery Group, Inc. 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344-0076 76 

Robert Steinwurtzel, Attorney, Baker 

Hostetler on behalf of the Association of 

Battery Recyclers 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344-

0078.1 78 

Kerry Russell, Attorney, Russell and 

Rodriguez on behalf of the City of Frisco, 

Texas 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344-

0079.1 79 John Cooper, President, Cooper 

Environmental Services 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344-0080 80 

James Kavanaugh, Director, Air Pollution 

Control Program, Missouri Department of 

Natural Resources 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344-

0081.1 81 John Cooper, President, Cooper Environmental Services 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344-0082 82 

Jerry Campbell, Director, Air Management 

Division, Environmental Protection 

Commission of Hillsborough County, 

Tampa, FL 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344-0083 83 Anonymous 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344-0084 84 John Cooper, President, Cooper 

Environmental Services 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344-0085 85 Krag Petterson, Pall Corporation 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344-0086 86 

G. Vinson Hellwig and Robert Colby, CoChairs, National Association of Clean Air 

Agencies Air Toxics Committee 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344-

0087.1 87 

Timothy J. LaFond, Environmental 

Committee Chairman, Battery Council 

International 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344-

0088.1 88 

Billy Nichols, Principal Engineer, URS 

Corporation on behalf of Sanders Lead 

Company 
9 

Docket ID Commenter ID 

Code 

Commenter and Affiliation 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344-

0089.1 89 

Michael Carr, Vice President, Johnson 

Controls Battery Group, Inc.; John Tapper, 

Chief Operating Officer, Gopher Resources, 

EnviroFocus Technologies; Dean A. Rossi, 

Vice President – Global EHS, Exide 

Technologies; Richard Leiby, Vice 

President, Metals Operations, East Penn 

Manufacturing; N. Kenneth Campbell, 

Executive Vice President, Sanders Lead 

Company 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344-

0090.1 90 Michael Carr, Vice President, Johnson Controls Battery Group, Inc. 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344-

0091.1 91 

Dennis Lane, Attorney, Stinson Morrison 

Hecker LLP on behalf of Doe Run 

Resources Corporation 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344-

0092.1 92 

J. Jared Snyder, Assistant Commissioner for 

Air Resources, Climate Change and Energy, 

New York Department of Environmental 

Conservation 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344-

0093.1 93 Richard Leiby, Vice President, Metals 

Operations, East Penn Manufacturing 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344-

0094.1 94 Dean A. Rossi, Vice President – Global 

EHS, Exide Technologies 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344-

0095.1 95 Homer P. Hine, Vice President, RSR 

Corporation 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344-

0096.3 96 

Robert Steinwurtzel and Mark DeLaquil, 

Attorneys, Baker Hostetler on behalf of the 

Association of Battery Recyclers 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344-0096-

A5 N/A (Attachment) 

Robert Steinwurtzel and Mark DeLaquil, 

Attorneys, Baker Hostetler on behalf of the 

Association of Battery Recyclers 

Attachment A 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344-0096-

A6 N/A (Attachment) 

Robert Steinwurtzel and Mark DeLaquil, 

Attorneys, Baker Hostetler on behalf of the 

Association of Battery Recyclers 

Attachment B 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344-0096-

A7 N/A (Attachment) 

Robert Steinwurtzel and Mark DeLaquil, 

Attorneys, Baker Hostetler on behalf of the 

Association of Battery Recyclers 

Attachment C 
10 

Docket ID Commenter ID 

Code 

Commenter and Affiliation 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344-0096-

A8 N/A (Attachment) 

Robert Steinwurtzel and Mark DeLaquil, 

Attorneys, Baker Hostetler on behalf of the 

Association of Battery Recyclers 

Attachment D 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344-0096-

A9 N/A (Attachment) 

Robert Steinwurtzel and Mark DeLaquil, 

Attorneys, Baker Hostetler on behalf of the 

Association of Battery Recyclers 

Attachment E 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344-0096-

A10 N/A (Attachment) 

Robert Steinwurtzel and Mark DeLaquil, 

Attorneys, Baker Hostetler on behalf of the 

Association of Battery Recyclers 

Attachment F 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344-0096-

A11 N/A (Attachment) 

Robert Steinwurtzel and Mark DeLaquil, 

Attorneys, Baker Hostetler on behalf of the 

Association of Battery Recyclers 

Attachment G 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344-0096-

A12 N/A (Attachment) 

Robert Steinwurtzel and Mark DeLaquil, 

Attorneys, Baker Hostetler on behalf of the 

Association of Battery Recyclers 

Attachment H 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344-0097-

A2 97 

Myra C. Reece, Chief, Bureau of Air 

Quality, South Carolina Department of 

Health and Environmental Control 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344-0098 98 

Earthjustice, on behalf of California 

Communities Against Toxics, Desert 

Citizens Against Pollution, Missouri 

Coalition for the Environment, Natural 

Resources Defense Council, and Sierra 

Club 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344-0099-

A1 N/A (Attachment) 

Earthjustice, on behalf of California 

Communities Against Toxics, Desert 

Citizens Against Pollution, Missouri 

Coalition for the Environment, Natural 

Resources Defense Council, and Sierra 

Club Attachment 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344-0099-

A2 N/A (Attachment) 

Earthjustice, on behalf of California 

Communities Against Toxics, Desert 

Citizens Against Pollution, Missouri 

Coalition for the Environment, Natural 

Resources Defense Council, and Sierra 

Club Attachment 
11 

Docket ID Commenter ID 

Code 

Commenter and Affiliation 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344-0099-

A3 N/A (Attachment) 

Earthjustice, on behalf of California 

Communities Against Toxics, Desert 

Citizens Against Pollution, Missouri 

Coalition for the Environment, Natural 

Resources Defense Council, and Sierra 

Club Attachment 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344-0099-

A4 N/A (Attachment) 

Earthjustice, on behalf of California 

Communities Against Toxics, Desert 

Citizens Against Pollution, Missouri 

Coalition for the Environment, Natural 

Resources Defense Council, and Sierra 

Club Attachment 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344-0099-

A5 N/A (Attachment) 

Earthjustice, on behalf of California 

Communities Against Toxics, Desert 

Citizens Against Pollution, Missouri 

Coalition for the Environment, Natural 

Resources Defense Council, and Sierra 

Club Attachment 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344-0099-

A6 N/A (Attachment) 

Earthjustice, on behalf of California 

Communities Against Toxics, Desert 

Citizens Against Pollution, Missouri 

Coalition for the Environment, Natural 

Resources Defense Council, and Sierra 

Club Attachment 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344-0099-

A7 N/A (Attachment) 

Earthjustice, on behalf of California 

Communities Against Toxics, Desert 

Citizens Against Pollution, Missouri 

Coalition for the Environment, Natural 

Resources Defense Council, and Sierra 

Club Attachment 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344-0099-

A8 N/A (Attachment) 

Earthjustice, on behalf of California 

Communities Against Toxics, Desert 

Citizens Against Pollution, Missouri 

Coalition for the Environment, Natural 

Resources Defense Council, and Sierra 

Club Attachment 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344-0099-

A9 N/A (Attachment) 

Earthjustice, on behalf of California 

Communities Against Toxics, Desert 

Citizens Against Pollution, Missouri 

Coalition for the Environment, Natural 

Resources Defense Council, and Sierra 

Club Attachment 
12 

Docket ID Commenter ID 

Code 

Commenter and Affiliation 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344-0099-

A10 N/A (Attachment) 

Earthjustice, on behalf of California 

Communities Against Toxics, Desert 

Citizens Against Pollution, Missouri 

Coalition for the Environment, Natural 

Resources Defense Council, and Sierra 

Club Attachment 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344-0100-

A1 N/A (Attachment) 

Earthjustice, on behalf of California 

Communities Against Toxics, Desert 

Citizens Against Pollution, Missouri 

Coalition for the Environment, Natural 

Resources Defense Council, and Sierra 

Club Attachment 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344-0100-

A2 N/A (Attachment) 

Earthjustice, on behalf of California 

Communities Against Toxics, Desert 

Citizens Against Pollution, Missouri 

Coalition for the Environment, Natural 

Resources Defense Council, and Sierra 

Club Attachment 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344-0100-

A3 N/A (Attachment) 

Earthjustice, on behalf of California 

Communities Against Toxics, Desert 

Citizens Against Pollution, Missouri 

Coalition for the Environment, Natural 

Resources Defense Council, and Sierra 

Club Attachment 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344-0100-

A4 N/A (Attachment) 

Earthjustice, on behalf of California 

Communities Against Toxics, Desert 

Citizens Against Pollution, Missouri 

Coalition for the Environment, Natural 

Resources Defense Council, and Sierra 

Club Attachment 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344-0100-

A5 N/A (Attachment) 

Earthjustice, on behalf of California 

Communities Against Toxics, Desert 

Citizens Against Pollution, Missouri 

Coalition for the Environment, Natural 

Resources Defense Council, and Sierra 

Club Attachment 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344-0100-

A6 N/A (Attachment) 

Earthjustice, on behalf of California 

Communities Against Toxics, Desert 

Citizens Against Pollution, Missouri 

Coalition for the Environment, Natural 

Resources Defense Council, and Sierra 

Club Attachment 
13 

Docket ID Commenter ID 

Code 

Commenter and Affiliation 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344-0100-

A7 N/A (Attachment) 

Earthjustice, on behalf of California 

Communities Against Toxics, Desert 

Citizens Against Pollution, Missouri 

Coalition for the Environment, Natural 

Resources Defense Council, and Sierra 

Club Attachment 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344-0100-

A8 N/A (Attachment) 

Earthjustice, on behalf of California 

Communities Against Toxics, Desert 

Citizens Against Pollution, Missouri 

Coalition for the Environment, Natural 

Resources Defense Council, and Sierra 

Club Attachment 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344-0100-

A9 N/A (Attachment) 

Earthjustice, on behalf of California 

Communities Against Toxics, Desert 

Citizens Against Pollution, Missouri 

Coalition for the Environment, Natural 

Resources Defense Council, and Sierra 

Club Attachment 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344-0101-

A1 N/A (Attachment) 

Earthjustice, on behalf of California 

Communities Against Toxics, Desert 

Citizens Against Pollution, Missouri 

Coalition for the Environment, Natural 

Resources Defense Council, and Sierra 

Club Attachment 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344-0101-

A2 N/A (Attachment) 

Earthjustice, on behalf of California 

Communities Against Toxics, Desert 

Citizens Against Pollution, Missouri 

Coalition for the Environment, Natural 

Resources Defense Council, and Sierra 

Club Attachment 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344-0101-

A3 N/A (Attachment) 

Earthjustice, on behalf of California 

Communities Against Toxics, Desert 

Citizens Against Pollution, Missouri 

Coalition for the Environment, Natural 

Resources Defense Council, and Sierra 

Club Attachment 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344-0101-

A4 N/A (Attachment) 

Earthjustice, on behalf of California 

Communities Against Toxics, Desert 

Citizens Against Pollution, Missouri 

Coalition for the Environment, Natural 

Resources Defense Council, and Sierra 

Club Attachment 
14 

Docket ID Commenter ID 

Code 

Commenter and Affiliation 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344-0101-

A5 N/A (Attachment) 

Earthjustice, on behalf of California 

Communities Against Toxics, Desert 

Citizens Against Pollution, Missouri 

Coalition for the Environment, Natural 

Resources Defense Council, and Sierra 

Club Attachment 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344-0102-

A1 N/A (Attachment) 

Earthjustice, on behalf of California 

Communities Against Toxics, Desert 

Citizens Against Pollution, Missouri 

Coalition for the Environment, Natural 

Resources Defense Council, and Sierra 

Club Attachment 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344-0102-

A2 N/A (Attachment) 

Earthjustice, on behalf of California 

Communities Against Toxics, Desert 

Citizens Against Pollution, Missouri 

Coalition for the Environment, Natural 

Resources Defense Council, and Sierra 

Club Attachment 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344-0102-

A3 N/A (Attachment) 

Earthjustice, on behalf of California 

Communities Against Toxics, Desert 

Citizens Against Pollution, Missouri 

Coalition for the Environment, Natural 

Resources Defense Council, and Sierra 

Club Attachment 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344-0102-

A4 N/A (Attachment) 

Earthjustice, on behalf of California 

Communities Against Toxics, Desert 

Citizens Against Pollution, Missouri 

Coalition for the Environment, Natural 

Resources Defense Council, and Sierra 

Club Attachment 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344-0102-

A5 N/A (Attachment) 

Earthjustice, on behalf of California 

Communities Against Toxics, Desert 

Citizens Against Pollution, Missouri 

Coalition for the Environment, Natural 

Resources Defense Council, and Sierra 

Club Attachment 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344-0102-

A6 N/A (Attachment) 

Earthjustice, on behalf of California 

Communities Against Toxics, Desert 

Citizens Against Pollution, Missouri 

Coalition for the Environment, Natural 

Resources Defense Council, and Sierra 

Club Attachment 
15 

Docket ID Commenter ID 

Code 

Commenter and Affiliation 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344-0103-

A1 N/A (Attachment) 

Earthjustice, on behalf of California 

Communities Against Toxics, Desert 

Citizens Against Pollution, Missouri 

Coalition for the Environment, Natural 

Resources Defense Council, and Sierra 

Club Attachment 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344-0103-

A2 N/A (Attachment) 

Earthjustice, on behalf of California 

Communities Against Toxics, Desert 

Citizens Against Pollution, Missouri 

Coalition for the Environment, Natural 

Resources Defense Council, and Sierra 

Club Attachment 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344-0111 111 Matt Todd, Chair, The Residual Risk 

Coalition 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344-0120 120 Krag Petterson, Pall Corporation 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344-0127 127 

Robert Steinwurtzel, Attorney, Baker 

Hostetler on behalf of the Association of 

Battery Recyclers 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344-0130 130 

Robert Steinwurtzel, Attorney, Baker 

Hostetler on behalf of the Association of 

Battery Recyclers 
3 

3.0 SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS 

Comments received on the proposed amendments to the secondary lead smelting rule that 

were not presented in the preamble to the final rule are summarized in the following sections 

along with EPA’s responses. In many instances, commenters provided additional documents as 

background information or otherwise in support of their comments. Those documents are 

contained in the docket to this rulemaking but are not summarized here. 

3.1 Emissions Limits and Guidelines 

3.1.1 Statutory Basis 

Comment (58,74, 75, 111, 112, 115, 167 192): Comments received from the Secondary 

Lead Smelting industry (Commenters 90, 91, 94, 96) challenged what they characterize as the 

dual regulation under both the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and the 

NESHAP programs. These commenters made the following claims: 

• The provisions of CAA §§ 112(b)(2) and 112 (b)(7) preclude EPA from setting 

emission standards or work practices under CAA § 112 for lead and other criteria 

pollutants. EPA has listed both lead and its compounds as a criteria pollutant 

under CAA § 108(a), for which NAAQS have been promulgated at all relevant 

times. EPA has already embarked on a path to reduce the health risks of 

exceeding the lead NAAQS through CAA §109 regulation and the statute 

precludes EPA from seeking to reduce the same risk via a CAA § 112 route. 

• Further risk reduction through revision of the NESHAP is not required taking into 

account the emissions controls required to achieve the NAAQS, therefore a 

NESHAP revision is not required to protect public health or prevent 

environmental effects, and so is not authorized. 

• Emissions will be reduced completely independent of the NESHAP because states 

must assemble SIPs without being able to wait for NESHAP completion. 

• The two standards would be effectively duplicative, and revising the NESHAP to 

address risk is not required if EPA considers emissions controls required through 

implementation of the NAAQS. The NAAQS already ensures that risks are 

addressed with an adequate margin of safety. 
4 

• Congress gave elemental lead special treatment in the Clean Air Act, providing a 

separate and unique prohibition against EPA listing elemental lead as a hazardous 

air pollutant under this subsection. EPA is effectively regulating under 112 (f)(2) 

based on the toxicity of elemental lead, and this violates section 112 (b)(7) of the 

Act which prohibits listing of elemental lead as a HAP. EPA is not permitted to 

count lead atoms from lead compounds and create a NESHAP that governs total 

lead in all chemical forms, but may establish standards for individual and unique 

lead compounds when appropriate based on toxicity or other factors. 

• The proposed rule negates the SIP process for lead NAAQS attainment. The 

proposed MACT rule accelerates Lead NAAQS attainment without any 

explanation of why acceleration is appropriate. 

Response: With respect to the comment that the EPA may not address lead compounds 

in section 112 (d) rules, the EPA notes that the EPA issued MACT rules regulating lead 

compounds in 1997 and no commenter objected to the approach. EPA did not reopen the issue 

in this rule, or otherwise reconsider its long-established approach. Consequently, EPA believes 

this issue to have been resolved long since. 

If any substantive response is considered to be necessary, , the lead emitted from 

secondary lead smelting is lead compounds1, a HAP listed by Congress in section 112 (b)(1) 

The commenter did not provide data to refute this. Nor has the EPA listed elemental lead as a 

HAP either explicitly or effectively. The EPA does not accept the commenter’s argument that the 

EPA is implicitly regulating elemental lead under section 112 (f) standards by evaluating risk 

from exposure to lead compounds emitted by secondary lead facilities. The EPA’s obligation 

under section 112 (f) is to evaluate whether unacceptable risk to human health or the 

environment from a source category’s emissions remains after the EPA has promulgated section 

 

1 Harrison, R.M. and Williams, C.R. (1981). Environmental Science and Technology, Vol. 15:10, p. 1197-1204.; 

Ohmsen, G.S.(2001). Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association, Vol. 51, p. 1443-1451.; Uzu, G., 

Sobanska, S., Sarret, G., Sauvain, J.J., Pradère, P., and Dumat, C. (2011). Journal of Hazardous Materials, Vol. 186, 

p. 1018-1027.; Spear, T.M., Svee, W., Vincent, J.H., and Stanisich, N. (1998). Environmental Health Perspectives, 

Vol. 106:9, p. 565-571.; Czaplicka, M., and Buzek, Ł. (2011). Water, Air, & Soil Pollution, Vol. 218, p. 157-163.; 

Sobanska, S., Ricq, N., Laboudigue, A., Guillermo, R., Brémard, C., Laureyns, J., Merlin, J.C., Wignacourt, J.P. 

(1999). Environmental Science and Technology, Vol. 33, p. 1334-1339.; Harrison, R.M. and Williams, C.R. (1983). 

The Science of the Total Environment, Vol. 31, p. 129-140.; Batonneau, Y., Bremard, C., Gengembre, L., Laureyns, 

J., Maguer, A.L., Maguer, D.L., Perdrix, E., and Sobanska, S. (2004). Environmental Science and Technology, Vol. 

38, p. 5281-5289.; Foster, R.L. and Lott, P.F. (1980). Environmental Science and Technology, Vol. 14:10, p. 1240-

1244. 
5 

112 (d) MACT standards for the source category and to amend those standards if unacceptable 

risk remains. The standards thus build off of the section 112 (d) standards, and as just noted, it 

has long been resolved that those standards apply to lead compounds and not to elemental lead. 

The commenter also invokes section 112 (f)(6) which states that “[i]n establishing standards for 

the control of unique chemical substances under this subsection without CAS numbers [of which 

“lead compounds” are an example], the Administrator shall establish such standards with respect 

to the health and environmental effects of the substances actually emitted by sources and direct 

transformation byproducts of such emissions...”. The EPA has done so here, evaluating risks 

with respect to actual emissions of lead compounds from secondary lead sources. See 76 FR at 

29035. 

In addition, the rule regulates other HAP metals for which lead serves as a surrogate. See 

National Lime Ass’n v. EPA, 233 F. 3d 625, 637-39 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (permissible for EPA to 

use a criteria pollutant as a surrogate for HAP). The commenter does not question the use of lead 

as a surrogate for other metal HAP, and did not question use of that approach in the 1997 

NESHAP. Consequently, the standards for lead also rest on this independent justification. 

The commenters raise a number of issues regarding the relation of this rule to the lead 

NAAQS. First, the fact that control of emissions from secondary lead sources has positive 

implications for attaining the lead NAAQS does not mean that EPA is impermissibly controlling 

emissions of a criteria pollutant. As just stated, section 112 (b) makes clear that regulating lead 

compounds under section 112 standards is not only permissible but mandated. The fact that such 

controls aid in attaining a NAAQS is a collateral benefit of the rule, not a prohibition on adopting 

it. (Similarly, this rule may aid in attaining the PM NAAQS but this doesn’t mean that the rule 

impermissibly regulates emissions of PM.) Nor does the rule negate the section 110 SIP process 

whereby states develop implementation plans for attaining and maintaining the NAAQS. That 

process will necessarily go forward and states may look to the emission reductions from this rule 

as part of the SIP process (just as emission reductions from EPA mobile source controls or 

controls on stationary sources can be invoked in SIPs for PM and ozone). In this regard, EPA’s 

discussion in the preamble of the relationship of this rule to implementation of the lead NAAQS 

(76 FR at 29603), which a commenter mistakenly takes as showing that this rule was adopted to 

assure attainment of the lead NAAQS, was intended only as a ‘good government’ type of 

discussion to show that the timing of this rule could fit in with the NAAQS implementation 

process. We repeat that this rule rests on the exclusive authority of sections 112 (d) and (f), and 
6 

not on sections 107, 110 or any other provision applicable to NAAQS implementation. Put 

another way, section 112 of the CAA explicitly requires the EPA to perform the reviews that 

form the basis of these rule amendments and to act in accord with the results of those reviews. 

The requirements of the final rule are necessary to achieve acceptable risk with an ample margin 

of safety and to prevent adverse environmental effects (and are also “necessary” within the 

meaning of section 112 (d)(6) of the Act). The measures that facilities are required to implement 

to achieve those requirements should also have positive effects on areas attaining and 

maintaining the lead NAAQS, but the standards are required and justified under section 112 (f) 

and (d)(6) whether or not that were the case. Ironically, the EPA could well interfere with the 

SIP process if it accepted the commenter’s (incorrect) argument that EPA must take into account 

“NAAQS-mandated emissions reductions” (See EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344-0096, p. 31). The 

lead NAAQS itself does not mandate anything. It is an air quality standard only. States 

determine how to implement it. The suggestion that EPA attribute emission reductions to the 

SIP process which lies within states’ authority, and which has not yet occurred, therefore would 

be unwarranted speculation at best and impermissible interference at worst. 

In the proposed rule, the lead NAAQS, a health based standard, was used by EPA to 

determine whether or not there was unacceptable risk from lead compounds emitted by 

secondary lead smelting sources. It is permissible for EPA to look to the lead NAAQS as a 

measure of acceptable risk (see responses at page 66 of this document and section V.A of the 

final rule preamble), and doing so does not mean that EPA is using this rule to implement the 

lead NAAQS. Rather, EPA must, and has, independently justified the use of the lead primary 

NAAQS as a reasonable measure for ascertaining acceptability or unacceptability of emissions of 

lead from this source category, within the meaning of section 112 (f)(2) of the Act. Given that 

modeled ambient lead concentrations resulting from emissions from the facilities in the source 

category were greater than the lead NAAQS, it was concluded that risk was unacceptable, and 

that it would continue to be unacceptable until the NAAQS was met. See 76 FR at 29054. Once 

we determined a level of emissions that result in risks being acceptable, under the two-step 

residual risk decision process, the EPA then considered additional controls that might further 

reduce risk to achieve an ample margin of safety considering cost and feasibility, and determined 

that there were none. We repeat that this process implements section 112 (f) of the Act, and is 

not part of NAAQS implementation. 
7 

Comment (114): Commenter 91 stated that the use of lead concentration in air does not 

fit within the meaning of “emission standard” as used in CAA 112(d), (f), or (h). The NAAQS 

addresses ambient air quality, not source emissions, and as such, does not limit the quantity rate 

or concentration of emissions from a particular source. Ambient monitoring measures something 

other than emissions at and from a source, and cannot be equated with or used to determine 

compliance with an emission standard. 

Response: The commenters mistake the purpose of the fenceline monitoring compliance 

alternative in the proposed rule. The proposed rule provided that fugitive emissions would need 

to be addressed by work practice standards (as is allowed under section 112(h)(1)). Finally, it 

proposed to establish the option for a fenceline monitoring requirement to ensure that the work 

practice standards adequately address fugitive emissions consistent with the requirements of 

section 112(f) as an alternative to totally enclosing fugitive generating processes. However, the 

EPA is not adopting this proposed compliance option so the comment is essentially moot. 

Comment (61, 62, 63, 64, 194): Commenter 90 challenged the decision to establish 

MACT floors for reverberatory, rotary and electric furnaces not collocated with blast furnaces. In 

the final rule published on June 13, 1997, EPA determined that no THC limits (and thus no other 

organic HAP limits) would apply to theses furnace types. Thus, EPA effectively established the 

MACT floor for these sources. According to the commenter, “EPA has already established the 

MACT floor for D/F and THC as addressed in CAA §§112(d)(2) and (3) as it applies for 

reverberatory, rotary and electric arc furnaces, and no additional “setting of the floor” is possible 

under these sections at this time. Commenter 96 further stated that MACT standards pursuant to 

section 112(d)(3) “have never been intended as having the “inexorable downward ratcheting 

effect.”” 

Commenter 90 also stated that EPA cited an improper legal basis for setting new 

emission limits for THC and Dioxins and Furans. The commenter stated that “EPA may revise a 

prior determination only as necessary according to explicit statutory criteria... The CAA is not 

intended to allow the Agency to revisit previously-established MACT standards in effort to fill in 

the gaps.” EPA stated in the preamble to the proposed rule that “because the 1997 NESHAP did 

not include emissions limits, we are proposing emissions standards for dioxins and furans 
8 

pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(3).” According to the commenter, “This explanation makes it 

clear that EPA is invoking 112(d)(2) and (3) directly as authority to amend Subpart X as if a 

MACT standard for these sources does not already exist...EPA lacks authority for setting any 

new standards under CAA §§112(d)(2) and(d)(3).” 

The commenter further stated that “The RTR Proposed Rule does not attempt to predicate 

its decision to set controls for THC and D/F (for sources other than blast furnaces), on the 

Court’s decision in Sierra Club v EPA, 479 F.3d 875(D.C. Cir. 2007) (Brick MACT). Having 

made the determination not only to rely on Sierra Club in support of the proposed rule, EPA may 

not change course without issuing a supplemental proposal and allowing an opportunity for 

public comment....EPA would have to justify why the decisions reflected in the current 

standards are wrong and why the new standards meet the required criteria that EPA must satisfy 

in issuing MACT standards under CAA 112(d)(2) and (3). EPA has not made either showing in 

the RTR Proposed rule.” The commenter noted that EPA cited National Lime v. EPA, 233 F. 3d 

625, 624 (DC Cir. 2000), in support of its decision to set emission standards for THC and dioxins 

and furans from subcategories other than blast furnaces. The commenter points out, however, 

that as set forth in Sierra Club, EPA has not interpreted National Lime as requiring the Agency 

to set such standards. Furthermore, National Lime does not control because the decision did not 

address EPA’s authority to set standards pursuant to section 112(d)(6) and 112(f). Instead, 

National Lime addressed what emission standards the agency should propose in a MACT 

rulemaking pursuant to deadlines set forth in section 112(e). 

Commenter 90 also raised the issue that challenges to the MACT standards are to be 

raised within 60 days of their promulgation and that facilities regulated by Subpart X have 

already made capital investments to meet the existing MACT standards. EPA should justify why 

the decisions reflected in the current standards are wrong and why the new standards meet the 

criteria under CAA §§ 112(d)(2) and (3). 

Commenter 96 made a similar argument that the proposed rule lacks a sufficient legal 

basis to support its proposed promulgation of emission standards for dioxins and furans and 

THC. According to the commenter, “Clean Air Act §§112(d)(6) allows EPA to revise only 

emission standards promulgated under this section” 42 U.S.C. §7412(d)(6). EPA has not 

promulgated emission standards for dioxins and furans or THC (for furnaces other than blast 

furnaces), so it may not promulgate revised standards for these substances under that authority”. 
9 

Commenter 90 stated that the proposed rule improperly reset MACT floors pursuant to 

the CAA 112 (d)(6) process and that the CAA does not require EPA to recalculate MACT floors. 

According to the commenter: 

The RTR Proposed Rule’s basis for revising the lead emission MACT floors 

pursuant to CAA § 112(d)(6) is that the Agency "believe[s] that these proposed 

revisions, identical to those proposed under CAA section 112(f)(2), are cost 

effective revisions that reflect the level of control achievable in practice by a wellperforming fabric filter." 76 Fed. Reg. at 29,059-60. Whether a control is costeffective and achievable is relevant to the availability of a particular control, but 

does not answer the antecedent question of whether or not imposing such control 

is necessary to protect public health or the environment in light of other legal 

requirements that the CAA applies to the secondary lead smelting industry. 

Response: In Medical Waste Institute v. EPA, 645 F. 3d 420, 425-27 (D.C. Cir. 2011), 

the D.C. Circuit held that EPA may permissibly amend improper MACT determinations, 

including amendments to improperly promulgated floor determinations, using its authority under 

section 112 (d) (2) and (3). (The lack of a remand on these issues here is a distinction without a 

difference. The absence of standards for these HAP is not proper. National Lime, 233 F. 3d at 

633-34; see also Medical Waste Incinerator, 645 F. 3d at 426 (resetting MACT floor, based on 

post-compliance data, permissible when originally-established floor was improperly established, 

and permissibility of EPA’s action does not turn on whether the prior standard was remanded or 

vacated). The commenters are thus incorrect that section 112 (d)(6) provides the exclusive 

authority to address THC, dioxin and mercury emissions here. Put another way, if EPA did not 

adopt a proper MACT standard initially, it is not amending a MACT standard but adopting one 

for the first time. That is the case here for THC (from some furnace types), dioxin and mercury 

emissions. Here, EPA adopted no MACT standard at all for these HAP, an approach soundly 

rejected by the D.C. Circuit in National Lime, 233 F. 3d at 633-34. Consequently, EPA is not 

barred from making MACT floor determinations and issuing MACT standards pursuant to 

section 112 (d)(2) and (3) here. 

Comment (76, 193): Commenters 90 and 96 claim that the EPA's proposed regulation of 

lead compounds under the NESHAP program conflicts with its regulation of lead under the PSD 
10 

program. The commenters point out that that section 112(b)(6) of the CAA prescribes the 

regulation of pollutants listed under section 112, including lead compounds, under PSD, and that 

section 112(b)(7) precludes listing elemental lead under section 112. 

The commenters allege that the EPA has previously suggested in a PSD rulemaking that 

it counts the lead portion of lead compounds towards PSD significance levels for lead. See 67 

Fed. Reg. 80,186, 80,239 (Dec. 31, 2002). Thus, the commenters allege that, because the EPA 

can disaggregate the "elemental lead" portion of lead compounds for purposes of PSD, it can also 

disaggregate the toxic effects of lead from lead compounds, and the commenters allege that this 

is required for the EPA to avoid regulating elemental lead under section 112 (f) and (d)(6) 

standards. Thus, the commenters claim that there is a conflict between the proscriptions of 

sections 112(b)(7), and the regulation of lead compounds on the basis of their lead toxicity 

pursuant to sections 112. 

 The commenters claim that, in the alternative, if the EPA concludes that it may 

regulate lead compounds on the basis of their lead toxicity pursuant to section 112, then 

the EPA cannot consider the lead aspect of lead compounds for purposes of regulating 

elemental lead under PSD. The commenters argue that, to conclude otherwise would 

mean that lead compounds are subject to duplicative regulation under both the NESHAP 

program and PSD, which the commenters claim is unlawful. 

Response: The commenters are correct in stating that section 112 (b)(7) forbids the EPA 

from listing elemental lead as a hazardous air pollutant and that by extension this precludes the 

EPA from regulating elemental lead as a HAP under section 112 (d) and (f) standards. The 

commenters are further correct in stating that section 112 (b)(6) prohibits the agency from 

subjecting hazardous air pollutants that are listed under section 112(b)(1) and (2) of the Act to 

PSD regulation. However, the EPA disagrees that these provisions prevent the EPA from 
11 

regulating lead compounds under section 112 (d) and (f), and disagrees that any actions taken 

under the PSD program are inconsistent with regulation of lead compounds in this rule. 

Furthermore, to the extent that any response is deemed necessary, the EPA disagrees that any 

actions taken under the PSD rules with respect to elemental lead and lead compounds is 

inconsistent with section 112 (b)(6). 

First, as explained in the first response in this section 3.1.1, this rule (like the 1997 

NESHAP) regulates lead compounds not elemental lead. Lead compounds are listed HAP which 

the EPA must regulate under section 112 (see section 112 (b)(1) item 106423), and objections to 

the EPA doing so are untimely by at least 14 years (the date of the initial NESHAP for this 

source category). 

The commenter’s comparison with actions under the PSD program are misplaced. In the 

PSD rule, for purposes of assessing whether sources were emitting at the statutory rate thresholds 

or volumetric concentrations, the commenter claims that the EPA determined that the weight of 

elemental lead could be disaggregated from lead compounds, citing 67 Fed. Reg. at 80,329. 

While the EPA did not use the term “disaggregation” in the cited rule preamble, the EPA did 

communicate that it counts the lead component of lead compounds in determining the mass of 

lead emitted from a source. Nevertheless, in relying on this EPA statement here, the commenter 

is comparing apples to oranges. The present rulemaking deals with issues of toxicity and risk, not 

weight. What is involved is not a straight-forward counting exercise but a determination of risk 

posed by exposure to lead compounds. It is entirely reasonable for the EPA to consider the 

toxicity of lead compounds based on elemental lead toxicity, and indeed, there are no 

suggestions on this record that there is any technical error in doing so. 

The commenter’s suggestion that the EPA amend its PSD rules is well beyond the scope 

of this proceeding, and is misplaced in any case given the apples-to-oranges nature of its 
12 

comparison. The EPA is not reconsidering, reexamining, reassessing, or otherwise reopening its 

PSD rules in any way. To the extent that any response to the comments relating to PSD is 

considered to be necessary, the EPA disagrees with the commenter's assertion that sections 

112(b)(6) and (7) preclude the EPA from both regulating lead compounds on account of their 

elemental lead toxicity and considering the lead component of lead compounds when calculating 

levels of lead emissions for purposes of PSD. Although section 112(b)(6) prevents the agency 

from subjecting hazardous air pollutants that are listed under section 112(b)(1) and (2) of the Act 

to PSD regulation, the EPA has interpreted section 112(b)(6) to permit the regulation of a HAP 

listed in section 112 to the extent it is a constituent or precursor of a more general pollutant that 

is subject to PSD regulation. This interpretation was outlined in the 1991 New Source Review 

(NSR) Transitional Guidance, John S. Seitz (March 11, 1991), which was issued to address 

changes made to the new source review program in the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. In 

that memo, the EPA explained that “[a]ny hazardous air pollutants listed in section 112(b)(1) 

which are regulated as constituents of a more general pollutant listed under section 108 of the 

Act are still subject to PSD as part of the more general pollutant.” Id. at 2. The EPA further 

explained that lead compounds are subject to the exception described “[l]ead compounds are 

exempt from Federal PSD by Title III, but the elemental lead portion of lead compounds (as 

tested for in 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A, Method 12) is still considered a criteria pollutant 

subject to the lead NAAQS and still regulated under PSD.” Id. at 3. 

The EPA relied on the reasoning contained in the 1991 guidance memo when it proposed 

to retain its interpretation of section 112 that permits the lead component of lead compounds to 

be subject to PSD regulation as a part of the regulation of lead generally. Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Nonattainment New Source Review (NSR), 61 Fed. Reg. 

38250, 38310 (July 23, 1996). In the PSD rule to which the commenter cites, the EPA finalized 
13 

this position: "When any pollutant listed under section 112 of the Act is also a constituent or 

precursor of a more general pollutant that is regulated under section 108 of the Act, that listed 

pollutant may be regulated under NSR but only as part of regulation of the general pollutant." 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Nonattainment New Source Review (NSR): 

Baseline Emissions Determination, Actual-to-Future-Actual Methodology, Plantwide 

Applicability Limitations, Clean Units, Pollution Control Projects, 67 Fed. Reg. at 80,240 (Dec. 

31, 2002). The EPA reiterated in that final rule that it would continue to consider the lead 

component of lead compounds to be a constituent or precursor of lead in the atmosphere, as 

consistent with the 1991 guidance memo. Thus, the EPA has consistently determined that there 

is no conflict between regulating lead compounds under section 112 and considering the lead 

component of lead compounds for purposes of PSD with respect to the lead NAAQS, so long as 

the lead compounds themselves are not subject to PSD regulation.

3.1.2 Fugitive Emissions Limits 

a. General

Comment (241, 242, 243): Commenter 98 stated that EPA’s proposed standard for 

fugitive lead emissions does not meet the requirements of section 112(d)(6). According to the 

commenter, “EPA must set a stronger standard for fugitive dust emissions of lead, which make 

up a significant amount of the lead emissions for this source category”. The commenter 

contends that neither proposed alternative complies with section 112(d)(6). The alternative of 

total enclosures “imposes a numerical limit only on the emissions vented to a stack from the total 

enclosure and not for the other work practices. This will not ensure the necessary reduction of 

fugitive emissions at these facilities... EPA must set a numerical limit that applies to emissions 

resulting from the work practice standards in addition to setting a numerical limit for emissions 

from total enclosure (vented to a stack). The fugitive emissions standard for the additional work 

practice should be based on modeling of ambient levels achieved as a result of optimal 
14 

implementation of those work practices. This standard may not simply replicate the limit of the 

lead NAAQS.” 

For the alternative of monitoring lead concentrations in air plus work practices, the 

commenter stated that “Simply replicating the lead NAAQS through monitoring... is not a valid 

substitute for doing an actual 112(d)(3) and 112(d)(6) analysis based on achievable emission 

reductions.... EPA should set a numerical limit for emissions resulting from the additional work 

practice standards.” 

Response: In the final rule, we have removed the proposed option for facilities to 

implement lead monitoring in lieu of installing total enclosures. Therefore, the final rule requires 

secondary lead facilities to construct total enclosures for fugitive emission sources and to 

conduct a list of prescribed fugitive emission control work practices. The commenter’s 

objections to the alternative monitoring approach are thus moot. 

We disagree that the final fugitive emission standard does not meet the requirements of 

section 112(d)(6). First, it is clearly permissible for EPA to set work practice standards to 

control fugitive emissions. According to section 112(h) of the CAA, “...if it is not feasible in 

the judgment of the Administrator to prescribe or enforce an emission standard for control of a 

hazardous air pollutant or pollutants, the Administrator may, in lieu thereof, promulgate a design, 

equipment, work practice, or operational standard, or combination thereof, which in the 

Administrator’s judgment is consistent with the provisions of subsection (d) or (f) of this 

section.” It is not feasible to enforce a numerical emissions standard for fugitive emissions from 

secondary lead smelters that are not vented to a stack since these emissions are not directly 

measurable (this is why they are termed ‘fugitive emissions’). However, we note that fugitive 

emissions which are enclosed, captured, and vented to a control device are subject to the 

numerical standard for individual stacks and are count against the facility-wide stack emission 

limit for lead, and thus are effectively subject to a numerical limitation. 

The commenter suggests that the standards – which require total enclosure of lead 

bearing materials – could be made stricter still. We are not aware of a more effective means to 

control fugitive emissions than total enclosure of process areas that generate fugitive emissions 

and requiring that those enclosures be vented to a control device. We are also requiring work 

practice standards along with those enclosures that will ensure that there are no opportunities for 

any fugitive dust generated inside those enclosures to be carried outside. The final rule includes 
15 

every work practice possible that would limit fugitive lead emissions without creating workplace 

safety hazards. (After the public comment process, EPA’s statement at proposal – “[w]e 

acknowledge that there may be other control measures and alternative approaches that we have 

not identified that are effective in reducing fugitive emissions at other facilities (76 FR at 

29056/3)—no longer holds. After considering the public comments, we are not aware of any 

such measures.) 

The commenter also indicates that any work practice standards should be reinforced by 

some type of numeric standard tied to fenceline monitoring. EPA is not adopting this type of 

provision. The EPA evaluated available preexisting ambient monitoring data and compared the 

ambient concentrations with the degree of enclosure and presence of work practice standards 

similar to those included in this final rule. This comparison demonstrated that the measures 

required in this final rule will achieve reductions in ambient lead concentrations to levels below 

the NAAQS. See Summary of Ambient Lead Monitoring Data Around Secondary Lead Smelting 

Facilities, which is available in the docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344). Monitoring in perpetuity 

for the NESHAP to observe this already demonstrated fact will impose burden without any 

further environmental benefit. The requirements in the NESHAP include measures for 

determining continuous compliance that are sufficient to ensure that emissions, and ambient 

concentrations, will remain low. The requirement to totally enclose buildings and maintain them 

under negative pressure with ventilation to a control device ensures that fugitive emissions will 

not escape buildings through doorways or other openings. Work practice standards, such as those 

requiring vehicle washing prior to leaving a total enclosure ensure that lead bearing dust within 

buildings is not inadvertently transported outside of the structure and re-entrained later. The 

requirements in the final rule that prevent fugitive emissions from escaping buildings in the first 

place make it unnecessary to include ambient monitoring. 

Section 112(h) of the CAA further states that “In the event the Administrator promulgates 

a design or equipment standard under this subsection, the Administrator shall include as part of 

such standard such requirements as will assure the proper operation and maintenance of any such 

element of design or equipment.” We believe that the monitoring and recordkeeping required for 

the work practices and the measurement of building differential pressure ensure “proper 

operation and maintenance” of the work practice requirements for fugitive emissions that are not 
16 

vented to a stack. Hence, the final standards for fugitive lead emissions are clearly warranted 

under sections 112(f) and 112(d)(6). 

We note that we did evaluate the work practices already employed by some facilities as 

well as South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) rule 1420.1 and while some 

of the work practices adopted in this final rule are similar to some requirements of SCAQMD, 

that rule included a number of measures that are geared towards specific challenges posed by 

conditions in the Los Angeles area. For example, roof washing is required in the SCAQMD rule, 

and while this measure may be appropriate for the warm, dry climate in Los Angeles, it is 

inappropriate for areas with higher levels of precipitation (e.g. Puerto Rico) or for areas with 

cold climates (e.g. New York, Minnesota) where falling ice could present safety hazards for 

workers. The final rule includes all of the enclosure and work practice requirements for fugitive 

emissions that were deemed necessary to provide the public with an ample margin of safety 

while ensuring that those requirements do not create redundant requirements or workplace 

hazards. 

Comment (82, 83, 84, 97, 100, 101 203, 204, 213, 117, 150): Several commenters (90, 

96, 91, 93) suggested that EPA had not adequately explained the emissions benefits of the 

proposed work practice requirements, and that EPA lacks any legitimate basis for its estimate of 

emissions reductions that would result. Commenter 96 stated that there was no documentation in 

the record explaining how EPA derived an estimate of 4.2 tons per year attributed specifically to 

the work practices. The commenter notes their assumption that the underlying basis of the 

anticipated total aggregate fugitive emissions reduction of 9.5 tons per year is based on the 

emissions estimates in the RTR emissions dataset, an assumption that the commenter asserts is 

incorrect for two reasons. First, EPA’s methodology to calculate the 9.5 tons per year is wrong 

because EPA overestimated fugitive emissions for Exide Frisco whose estimates form the basis 

for estimated emissions from the remaining secondary lead sources. Second, the Exide Frisco 

emissions estimates do not contain estimates of emissions for many of the activities that the 

proposed work practice requirements are aimed at addressing. 

The commenters further note that the agency does not identify which facilities undertake 

all the design standards and work practices. According to the commenters, “EPA’s failure to 

include this information in the record contravenes Clean Air Act § 307(d).” The commenter 

further stated that “EPA”s failure to include this information underlying the Proposed Rule’s 
17 

design standards and work practices is prejudicial to the ABR because the Association cannot 

meaningfully comment on whether EPA has correctly described and transformed into proposed 

legal requirements the practices on which these proposed work practice standards are 

predicated.” Commenters 90 and 96 offered that “In order for the design standards and work 

practices to be consistent with Clean Air Act §112(d)(2), they collectively must be undertaken 

by, or at least consistent with, the best performing five sources in the industry.” The commenter 

further stated that “EPA cannot predicate a risk-based CAA 112(f) emission standard for metal 

HAPs on compliance with the NAAQS absent a specific factual determination by the 

Administrator that the designs and work practice standards collectively are necessary to meet 

...public health criteria.”

EPA stated in its preamble to the proposed standards that “these controls are necessary to 

ensure that three-month rolling average lead concentration near the boundaries at all facilities in 

this source category do not exceed the lead NAAQS.” Commenters 90 and 96 commented that 

“This rationale is incorrect because several facilities meet the lead NAAQS at all monitors near 

their property boundaries without applying these measures.” The commenter provides Gopher 

Resources, East Penn, RSR (NY), and RSR (IN) as examples of facilities that are currently and 

regularly meeting the NAAQS at monitors near their boundaries without applying all the 

proposed work practices. The commenter state that the facilities do NOT conduct the following 

proposed work practices: cleaning of pavement with a water application rate of at least 0.48 

gallons/square yard, rooftop washing, and inspection of battery storage areas more frequently 

than once per week. 

Commenter 96 noted that although the SCAQMD issued a rule that requires sources to 

undertake some of the work practices proposed by EPA, “EPA did not state that it was relying on 

the SCAQMD rule, nor did it introduce that rule or any administrative materials underlying its 

consideration into the record. “ The commenter argues that introducing the record of the 

SCAQMD rule “would have shown that it was potentially justified only in light of the unique 

local concerns in that area...” The commenter stated that “EPA has no basis for concluding that 

the work practices that the SCAQMD required would be effective at all outside the specific 

conditions in that region...” 

Commenter 90 agrees with EPA’s proposed use of an SOP manual for fugitive emissions 

control procedures but requested that EPA reassess the overall strategy related to fugitive 

emissions. The commenter “recommends that the RTR proposed rule require that each facility’s 
18 

SOP manual require consideration of the various work practices and total enclosure 

requirements...but not require implementation of specific requirements without consideration of 

site-specific factors... Ambient monitoring at each facility will be the test to verify that fugitive 

dust control measures are effective...” The commenter requests that EPA specifically exclude 

the following areas from requirements to address in an SOP manual: intact battery storage, lead 

ingot product handling where fugitive lead dust is not generated, handling of storm water and 

wastewater treatment residuals, and clean battery casing plastic handling. 

Commenter 93 stated that the work practice requirements represent a cost burden 

disproportionate with any perceived benefit, and are unnecessary for facilities to operate in 

compliance with the current lead NAAQS. The commenter requested that the mandatory work 

practice requirements be removed from Subpart X. 

Response: The technical document describing the technology review for this source 

category clearly described the methodology used to calculate the emissions benefits in the 

proposed work practice requirements. See Summary of the Technology Review for the Secondary 

Lead Smelting Source Category, which is available in docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344. We 

used the same methodology to calculate the emissions reductions as was used to calculate the 

baseline fugitive emissions for each facility. The commenter is correct that there was a 

miscalculation in the baseline fugitive emissions estimates. See section V.E of the final rule 

preamble. We have corrected the baseline fugitive emission estimates and the subsequent 

emissions reductions associated with the proposed work practice. We have done additional 

modeling for the source category based on the updated fugitive emission estimates (reflecting 

slightly reduced emissions from fugitive emissions) and the conclusions remain the same as at 

proposal. Lead emissions still remain unacceptably high and revisions to the standard are 

necessary to provide acceptable risk with an ample margin of safety. See Residual Risk 

Assessment for the Secondary Lead Smelting Source Category, available in docket ID EPA-HQOAR-2011-0344. The EPA has also adjusted the emission reduction estimates resulting from the 

revisions to the standard. While the cost effectiveness of the metal HAP emission reductions has 

decreased slightly, we believe that the revisions to the standard to address fugitive emissions are 

still cost effective and necessary under section 112(d)(6). 

The commenters note that in order for the design and work practice standards to be 

consistent with section 112(d)(2), they must be undertaken by the best performing five sources in 
19 

industry. However, the work practices are being adopted under section 112(d)(6) (and under 

section 112 (f)(2), as noted in the next paragraph), not 112(d)(2). Section 112(d)(6) does not 

require a MACT floor-like calculation involving the best performing five sources, but rather is 

based on developments in control practices, processes and technologies and may reflect 

considerations of cost (including cost effectiveness) of adopting additional controls and non-air 

and energy impacts associated with additional controls. All of the work practices included in the 

final rule that were not in the original NESHAP are performed at least by the well-controlled 

Exide Technologies facility in Vernon and Quemetco facility in City of Industry that are subject 

to the SCAQMD 1420.1 rule, while some of these work practices are conducted by many other 

facilities (e.g., pavement or groundcover of facility grounds, transport of dust in sealed 

containers or conveyor systems). 

The work practices are also being adopted under section 112(f)(2). The preamble to the 

proposed rule clearly described that our analyses indicated that the proposed work practices were 

necessary to achieve lead concentrations near the boundaries of the facilities that are at, or below 

the lead NAAQS, a benchmark that represents an acceptable level of risk. 76 FR at 29056/3. 

Section 112(f)(2) of the CAA also does not require a MACT floor calculation based on the 

performance of the top 12% of sources (or top 5 sources for a category with less than 30 

facilities). In fact, if section 112 (f)(2) standards are required, the standards must result in 

acceptable risk whether or not any sources in the category are currently performing at that level. 

With regards to the facilities described by the commenter as meeting the lead NAAQS 

without implementation of the proposed work practices and therefore should not require further 

control under section 112 (f) (2), we note that this rule implements section 112 (f)(2), not the 

lead primary NAAQS. Section 112 (f)(2) standards apply on a source category-wide basis, so the 

commenter’s suggestion that EPA adopt facility-by-facility standards predicated on the 

individual area’s attainment status is not legally permissible. Nevertheless, as a result of these 

and other comments received on the proposed rulemaking, we have removed some of the 

proposed specific work practices mentioned by the commenter that present safety hazards or are 

redundant as noted in section V.C of the final rule preamble. 

We agree that the SCAQMD rule may contain some work practices that are most 

effective at the two facilities in southern California. However, the final list of work practice 

standards will ensure that fugitive dust is not generated outside of total enclosures which are 

vented to control devices, thereby ensuring the public is protected from these emissions with an 
20 

ample margin of safety. Each facility must also develop and submit a SOP to their local 

permitting authority for approval to ensure that the facility properly implements the enclosure 

requirements and work practice standards. 

Comment (215, 99): Commenters 90 and 96 proposed regulatory language to address the 

specific issues identified for the alternative to total enclosures (§63.544(d)(1) – (d)(8)). 

Response: We thank the commenters for drafting recommended language; however, 

because we have removed the alternative to total enclosures, these issues are no longer relevant. 

b. Ambient Monitoring Requirements

Comment (244, 214, 126, 98, 28): The EPA requested comments on the proposed 

alternative requirement of ambient monitoring, including whether two monitors would be 

sufficient or if more monitors may be necessary. 

Commenter 98 stated that installing two monitors, with at least one located where highest 

air concentrations are expected, is not sufficient. According to the commenter, the requirement 

“... should be strengthened to require continuous measurement from a sufficient number of 

monitors to capture both the dominant and intermittent wind patterns and regular verification and 

oversight by the permitting agency.” The commenter also suggested that a 30-day rolling 

average be adopted because a greater lag time exists before exceedances are identified and 

rectified using a three month rolling average. 

Commenter 82 stated that two monitors would be sufficient, and offered the following 

support and suggestions: “Our historical air monitoring record and experience in the Pb 

emissions from these sources illustrates the significant influence of wind speed and direction on 

ambient air concentrations in the surrounding community. Therefore, we believe the placement 

of at least one compliance monitor at the location of expected maximum concentration impact 

should be based on the most recent five years of meteorological data and approved regulatory 

modeling. A second compliance monitor located at or near the plant boundary is necessary to 

observe impacts due to seasonal changes in meteorology. This level of monitoring would be 

adequate for compliance demonstration provided the monitors were located according to the 

Probe and Monitoring Path Siting Criteria for Ambient Air Quality Appendix E to 40 CFR Part 

58.” 
21 

Commenters 90, 96, and 91 recommended that the EPA follow the NAAQS siting 

requirements for ambient monitors in 40 CFR Part 58. Commenter 91 noted that, when 

promulgating the Lead NAAQS siting criteria, the EPA rejected selecting sites solely based on 

the location of maximum estimated concentration. Instead, the EPA considered the potential for 

population exposure and logistical considerations as factors to consider in siting decisions and 

changed paragraph 4.5 of 50 C.F.R. Part 58 accordingly. The commenter further noted that the 

siting criteria in the proposed rule is not consistent with the NAAQS as it does not require the 

placement of monitors in “ambient air” locations, but requires siting “at or near the facility 

boundary...” 

Response: We have removed the lead concentration in air monitoring alternative from 

this rule. Therefore, the commenter’s concerns related to the fenceline monitoring requirements 

need not be addressed in this rulemaking. 

Comment (98): Commenter 90 noted that the EPA used the terminology “continuous 

monitoring system” in the proposed ambient monitoring requirements. This monitoring system 

is not a continuous monitoring system and the specifications for CMS in §63.8(c) would not be 

appropriate. 

Response: We have removed the lead concentration in air monitoring alternative from 

this rule. Therefore, the commenter’s concerns related to the fenceline monitoring requirements 

need not be addressed in this rulemaking. 

c. Rule Clarifications 

Comment (98, 214): Two commenters (90, 96) requested a clarification that sources 

may switch between the two means of compliance. 

 

Response: We have removed the option for facilities to monitor lead concentrations at 

the fenceline in lieu of totally enclosing fugitive generating processes. Therefore, this comment 

is no longer relevant. 
22 

Comment (98, 205, 214): Two commenters (90, 96) requested that the EPA clarify that 

its proposed alternative design standards do not preclude a regulated entity from offering 

alternative design standards. According to the commenter, “EPA should include a provision... 

reaffirming regulated facilities’ statutory right to seek approval of alternative measures that are 

equivalent to design standards and alternative design standards proposed by EPA.” The 

commenters also requested that the EPA clarify its alternative work practice equivalency 

requirements to provide clarity for sources that wish to exercise their statutory right under CAA 

112(h)(3) to engage in equivalent alternative work practices. 

Response: We note that the general provisions in 40 C.F.R. Part 63 Subpart A at 

§63.6(g) that apply to a request for approval of an alternative to a standard are specifically 

included in this rule as referenced in Table 1 to Subpart X. Facilities have the option to develop 

and submit an alternative set of fugitive emission control work practices to the Administrator for 

approval. However, we note that it is the facilities’ responsibility under these provisions to 

demonstrate to the Administrator that their proposed work practices are equivalent to those 

required in the final rule, and this would include being equivalent in terms of mass emission 

reductions. 

Comment (214): Three commenters (90, 96, 94) stated that it would be inappropriate to 

consider the lead NAAQS as an emission standard because lead NAAQS values are affected by 

other sources and by background lead concentrations. The commenters requested confirmation 

that monitored NAAQS exceedances would not constitute a violation of the CAA that could lead 

to civil or criminal liability under CAA §113. Commenter 94 stated that it would not be 

appropriate to impose penalties for exceedances over 0.15 μg/m3 since the monitored level is not 

isolated to emissions from the secondary lead smelter (and the ambient level is not an emissions 

standard).” Commenter 96 noted that section 112(h) only allows for the EPA to promulgate a 

work practice, design, or equipment standard where “it is not feasible ... to prescribe or enforce 

an emission standard.” The commenter notes that “This provision would make no sense if 

design, equipment, or work practice standards were already “emission standards.” 

Response: We have removed the lead concentration in air monitoring alternative from 

this rule. We are requiring total enclosures rather than providing the alternative for ambient 

monitoring. Since we are requiring total enclosures, differential pressure monitoring to 
23 

demonstrate continuous compliance with the enclosure requirement, and work practice standards 

to prevent fugitive emissions, ambient monitoring at the fenceline is not necessary. Ambient 

monitoring data is already available from NAAQS monitors near secondary lead smelters. As 

noted in response at page 15 above, those data show that facilities with total enclosures and work 

practices like the ones being promulgated in this rule achieve ambient lead concentrations well 

below facilities that do not have such enclosures and well below the primary NAAQS for lead (a 

measure of unacceptable risk here). 

Comment (29, 98, 214): Several commenters (82, 90, 96) requested that the EPA clarify 

what actions facilities must undertake in the case of an exceedance of the lead NAAQS. 

Commenter 82 encourages the EPA to include a requirement to fully enclose process fugitive 

emission sources as corrective actions or, at a minimum, require the facility to submit a 

corrective action plan as part of a standard operating and maintenance procedure manual under 

the alternative compliance option. Other commenters suggested that the EPA require sources to 

report the exceedances to the relevant permitting authority so that the permitting authority can 

determine what additional steps may be necessary. 

Response: We have removed the lead concentration in air monitoring alternative from 

the final rule. Therefore, these concerns related to the fenceline monitoring requirements need 

not be addressed in this rulemaking. 

3.1.3 Stack Emissions Limits 

a. Lead and Other Metal HAP 

Comment: Commenters 90 and 96 argue that EPA has misapplied CAA section 

112(d)(6) and should not be adopting any standards pursuant to that provision. The argument is 

based on the term “necessary” in CAA section 112 (d)(6). The argument goes that CAA section 

112(d)(6) standards are not “necessary” here because they are unnecessary to protect public 

health and the environment. 

RESPONSE: The EPA does not agree that determining whether standards under CAA 

section 112(d)(6) are “necessary”2is determined exclusively by considerations of risk. The 

 

2 Because the meaning of “necessary” is ambiguous and “varies with context . . .[,] dueling over dictionary 

definitions is pointless, for it fails to produce any plain meaning of the disputed word.” Cellular Telecomms. & 
24 

“core requirement” of CAA section 112(d)(6) is the existence or non-existence of developments 

in practices, processes, and control technologies, not a public health-based determination . 

NRDC v. EPA, 529 F. 3d 1077, 1084 (D.C. Cir. 2008). CAA section 112(d)(6)is also a 

continuation of the technology-based section 112 (d) standard-setting process, again indicating 

that the determination is not controlled exclusively by risk-based considerations. Consequently 

the EPA does not believe that a CAA section 112 (d)(6) standard is “necessary” only if 

justifiable based on public health/risk considerations. 

The EPA further notes that this is an argument without practical consequence here, 

because the EPA has found that standards are warranted to prevent unacceptable risk. Moreover, 

there have been developments in control technologies (e.g. improvements in baghouse design 

and enclosure practices) which are available at reasonable cost and cost effectiveness. .For 

example, all of the lead emissions data received after proposal reinforced our conclusion that the 

emissions limit proposed for lead stack emissions was warranted based on demonstrated levels of 

performance achieved in the industry. See Development of the RTR Emissions Dataset for the 

Secondary Lead Smelting Source Category for a description of the updated emissions estimates 

and see Cost Impacts for the Secondary Lead Smelting Source Category for a description of the 

cost and cost effectiveness of the revisions to the rule. Consequently, EPA does not accept the 

commenter’s argument that standards under section 112 (d)(6) are unnecessary and further does 

not believe that the argument has practical significance in this rulemaking given that the section 

112 (d) (2) standards for this source category do not reduce public health risk to an acceptable 

level with an ample margin of safety. 

Comment (77): Commenter 90 stated that the EPA has provided no basis for proposing 

a lead stack concentration limit of 0.20 mg/dscm for all emission sources. According to the 

commenter:

 

EPA modeled stack and fugitive emissions of lead from facilities and compared 

the predicted results with the lead NAAQS. EPA’s conclusion was that lead 

concentrations exceeded the NAAQS and determined the risk was unacceptable. 

EPA then remodeled facilities considering the reductions required by the RTR 

 

Internet Ass’n v. FCC, 330 F.3d 502, 509-10 (D.C. Cir. 2003). The Supreme Court hasdirected that “a statutory 

reference to ‘necessary’ must be construed in a fashion that is consistent with the ordinary and fair meaning of the 

word,” and EPA’s interpretation of “necessary” is entitled to Chevron deference if it is “rationally related to the 

goals of the Act.” AT & T Corp. v. Iowa Utils. Bd., 525 U.S. 366, 388 (1999). 
25 

Proposed Rule. The regulatory changes that affect emissions included reducing 

the stack lead concentration to 0.20 mg/dscm and reducing the fugitive emissions 

to account for work practices in the RTR proposed rule. The results indicate that 

the facilities’ predicted concentrations after implementing these changes were 

below the NAAQS; therefore, these changes are necessary under the residual risk 

review. 

The commenter first noted that there are facilities in this source category that currently 

comply with the NAAQS or are projected to comply in the near future without imposition of 

significantly reduced concentration limits for baghouses. RSR’s Middletown, NY facility 

currently complies with the NAAQS. The Exide Technologies facility in Frisco, TX and the 

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) developed an attainment demonstration 

for Collin County, Texas that does not require stack emissions to be reduced to 0.20 mg/dscm. 

The commenter points out that at the Exide Frisco facility, in fact, the average flow-weighted 

concentration of lead from all modeled emission sources exceeds 0.20 mg/dscm and one source 

has emissions that exceed 1 mg/dscm. 

The commenter also stated that sensitivity analyses have not been conducted to determine 

the individual impacts of stack reductions and fugitive reductions, and that the reduction in 

fugitive emissions is likely sufficient to show predicted offsite lead concentrations below the 

NAAQS. The commenter stated that “although the impact of stack reductions on offsite sources 

is likely to be small relative to the contribution of fugitives, EPA artificially inflated the impact 

of stack emissions by running a modeling scenario at the allowable emission levels instead of the 

actual emission levels.” The commenter requested that the EPA rerun the models using actual 

stack emissions to determine if fugitive emission reductions alone are sufficient to result in 

modeled lead concentrations below the NAAQS. The commenter also stated that in the cases that 

stack emissions are still determined to be relevant, the EPA should consider not only achievable 

reductions in emissions but also other methods that improve dispersion such as ensuring stacks 

are designed to minimize building downwash. 

Response: As noted above, section 112 (f)(2) standards apply to an entire source 

category, but do not require every facility to pose unacceptable risk to trigger the section 112 

(f)(2) standard requirement. Just the opposite: the final sentence of section 112 (f)(2)(A) makes 

clear that section 112 (f)(2) standards are triggered (for cancer risks) based on risks “to the 
26 

individual most exposed to emissions from a source in the category” (emphasis added). The 

standards then apply to all sources in the category or subcategory. Moreover, the stack emission 

standards are performance based and do not require adoption of any particular control measure. 

Thus, sources that already are emitting less than the specified level will not require further stack 

control. The commenter initially notes that several facilities currently comply with the NAAQS 

or are projected to comply with the NAAQS in the near future whether or not EPA adopts 

standards for lead which are more stringent than those of the 1997 NESHAP, specifically citing 

RSR’s Middletown, NY facility and Exide’s Frisco, TX facility. The commenter is correct that 

RSR’s Middletown, NY facility currently reports ambient lead concentrations near the facility 

that are below the lead NAAQS. However, as supported by the ICR responses available in the 

docket, RSR’s stack emissions of lead are far below the facility-wide flow-weighted 

concentration limit of 0.20 mg/dscm presented in the proposed rule so this rule should not result 

in that source adopting further stack control for its lead compound emissions. With regard to 

Exide’s Frisco, TX facility, we note that the agreed order between Exide and the TCEQ in 

support of the SIP (available in the docket) requires Exide to replace two existing baghouses 

with new baghouses fitted with polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) membrane media and improved 

seating design, retrofit five other baghouses with new PTFE membrane media, and replace all the 

baghouse tube sheets with an improved seating design. The order also requires installation of 

secondary HEPA filtration on all baghouses that receive lead emissions with the exception of the 

furnace baghouses which are required to either install secondary HEPA filters or PTFE 

secondary filtration devices. 

The commenter questions evaluating potential for risk based on allowable emissions. 

EPA did provide risk estimates considering MACT allowable emissions from stacks, and it is 

permissible and reasonable to do so. For carcinogens, in fact, EPA is require to assess whether 

“standards promulgated pursuant to subsection (d)” pose a designated measure of risk to a most 

exposed individual, language which clearly can be read to apply to allowable emissions (i.e. 

emissions allowed by the standards – the subject of the review). The statutory language for noncarcinogens is less specific but still readily amenable to consideration of allowable emissions 

(especially given no indication that Congress intended a different approach for carcinogens and 

non-carcinogens). The EPA also assessed risk considering actual emissions from stacks. 

Further, the EPA disagrees with the comment that reductions in fugitive emissions are likely 

sufficient to show predicted offsite lead concentrations below the lead primary NAAQS. 
27 

Although this may be the case for most facilities in the source category, it is not the case for all 

facilities in the source category. As noted in the preamble, there was a facility that was 

estimated to have lead concentrations about three times the NAAQS for lead based on actual 

stack emissions only. See 76 FR 29052. Thus, for this facility, reductions beyond those in 

fugitive emissions would clearly be needed to achieve acceptable risk from lead emissions. 

Moreover, we note that controls that result in reductions in lead emissions would also decrease 

the emissions of other HAP metals. As a result, at some facilities we would anticipate that these 

controls would also result in reduced cancer and acute risk from metals. 

We have discussed the use of both allowable and actual emissions in previous actions, 

including the final Coke Oven Batteries residual risk rule (70 FR 19998-19999, April 15, 2005) 

and in the proposed and final Hazardous Organic NESHAP (HON) residual risk rules (71 FR 

34428, June 14, 2006, and 71 FR 76603, December 21, 2006, respectively). In those previous 

actions, we noted that modeling the allowable levels of emissions (i.e., the highest emission 

levels that could be emitted while still complying with the NESHAP requirements) is inherently 

reasonable since they reflect the maximum level sources could emit and still comply with 

national emission standards. But we also explained that it is reasonable to consider actual 

emissions, where such data are available, in both steps of the risk analysis, in accordance with 

the Benzene NESHAP. 

Comment (169): Commenter 95 stated that the proposed standard for stack emissions of 

metal HAP does not satisfy the CAA’s risk and technology review provisions. The commenter 

stated that the EPA relied on practices and technologies that are out of date. The commenter 

stated that “CAA Section 112(f)(2)(A)... states that if, upon completion of the eight year review, 

the existing MACT standards for a carcinogenic pollutant do not reduce lifetime cancer risks to 

less than 1-in-1 million, then EPA must promulgate standards under section 112(f) for sources 

emitting that pollutant”. The commenter argues that the EPA must revise the proposed standard 

for lead emissions to reduce maximum lifetime cancer risk due to metal HAP emissions to below 

1-in-1 million. 

Response: As an initial matter, we disagree that the technology review relied on 

practices and technologies that are out of date. Section 112(d)(6) requires the EPA to evaluate 

developments in practices, processes, and control technologies. Issues of cost and technical 

feasibility are legitimate consideration as part of determining whether standards are “necessary” 
28 

under section 112 (d)(6). Our analysis indicated that there have been developments in fabric 

filtration that warrant a lower lead emission standard for this source category. The stack 

emissions limit for lead adopted in this final rule will achieve an estimated 8.2 tons per year of 

metal HAP reductions at an annualized cost of $2.7 million dollars ($0.33 million dollars per ton 

of HAP reduced). This limit is based on the performance of a well-operated baghouse. 

Baghouses meeting this limit sometimes employ HEPA filters as a polishing measure after the 

primary filter. However, HEPA filters are not always feasible or necessary. These polishing 

filters are amenable to control of particulate from building ventilation sources that do not have 

extremely high temperatures or particle loading. While the lead concentrations from stacks 

equipped with HEPA filters were on average about 20% lower than those without, the existence 

of the HEPA filter was not the lone variable influencing the difference in concentration. Other 

factors such as age of the primary control device, type of baghouse used, and type of process 

vented to the emission point likely contributed significantly to the distribution of lead 

concentrations from the stacks. Additionally, HEPA filters are only applicable to some sources 

where high exhaust temperature or high particulate loading will not interfere with the proper 

operation of the filter. Because of these reasons, we did not believe the dataset warranted 

establishing an emissions standard lower than 0.20 mg/dscm based on the use of a HEPA filter. 

See Summary of the Technology Review for the Secondary Lead Smelting Source Category, 

available in the docket. 

To achieve significant reductions beyond those possible using a well operated baghouse, 

we evaluated an additional polishing control device, a wet electrostatic precipitator. This 

technology could achieve metal HAP reductions of about 19.2 tons per year (i.e. an additional 11 

tons of metal HAP), however the cost (annualized cost of $46 million dollars, $2.4 million 

dollars per ton of HAP reduced) would be over 15 times higher than the costs of using a welloperated baghouse. The use of a wet electrostatic precipitator would also increase electricity 

demand, increased emissions associated with electricity generation (with attendant carbon and 

NOx pollution), and additional wastewater generation. These significantly increased costs, poor 

cost effectiveness, and collateral adverse energy and environmental impacts support EPA’s 

decision not to require further reductions under section 112 (d)(6). 

The commenter is mistaken that section 112 (f)(2) requires EPA to reduce maximum 

lifetime cancer risk to below 1-in-1 million, and the D.C. Circuit has in fact rejected the 

commenter’s argument. Moreover, as stated in the Benzene NESHAP, in determining the need 
29 

for residual risk standards, we strive to limit to no higher than approximately 1-in-10 thousand 

(100 in a million) the estimated cancer risk that a person living near a plant would have if he or 

she were exposed to the maximum pollutant concentration for 70 years and, in the ample margin 

of safety decision, to protect the greatest number of persons possible to an individual lifetime 

risk level of no higher than approximately 1-in-1 million. As noted in the proposal preamble, 

actual emissions from this source category were estimated to result in a cancer risk as high as 50-

in-1 million, below the 100-in-1 million threshold identified in the benzene NESHAP. See 76 

FR at 29052, Table 3. We therefore determined that the inhalation risk due to actual emissions 

from this source category was acceptable. See 76 FR at 29055/1. We determined that the 

overall risk due to allowable emissions was, however, unacceptable, and we proposed a revised 

standard that would reduce the MIR due to allowable emissions to acceptable levels. The 

proposed standard also reduced the MIR due to actual emissions from 50-in-1 million to 10-in-1 

million. Since the MIR estimated after the proposed controls for metal HAP emissions was 

above 1-in-1 million, we evaluated the need for additional controls to provide an ample margin 

of safety for public health taking into account cost and feasibility. See 76 FR at 29057. However, 

we did not identify any further feasible and cost-effective controls, and we therefore concluded 

that the revisions proposed under section 112(f)(2) will provide an ample margin of safety with 

regard to lead emissions from this source category. We remodeled the source category after the 

proposal to incorporate public comments regarding emissions, boundary and other information 

relevant to performing a risk assessment. The results estimate the same baseline inhalation 

cancer risks based on actual emissions (50 in a million) although the MIR facility has changed. 

Post-control we now estimate that MIR to be 7 in a million (i.e. slightly less than estimated risk 

at proposal). See EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344-0036 at page 36, stating the post-control cancer 

MIR was 10 in based on the proposal risk assessment and see Residual Risk Assessment for the 

Secondary Lead Smelting Source Category, which is available in EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344 at 

page 35 for the post-control risk results for the final rule. Moreover, we note that the baseline 

MIR due to allowable emissions remains 200 in a million and will be reduced to acceptable 

levels after controls. We performed an ample margin of safety analysis to determine whether 

additional controls are warranted considering cost and technical feasibility. We have determined 

that the controls required in this final rule include all of the controls that are technically and 

economically feasible to reduce cancer risks from fugitive emissions. This analysis resulted in 

some specific work practices which we proposed not being required in the final rule (e.g. roof 
30 

washing). However, total enclosures are a requirement in the final rule rather than an option. 

This requirement, coupled with the work practices prescribed in the final rule, will prevent 

fugitive emissions from being generated outside of total enclosures or entrained inside enclosures 

and carried out. These requirements will protect the public health with an ample margin of 

safety. 

Comment (170, 233, 234): Commenters 95 and 98 disagreed with the EPA’s analysis 

regarding the WESP. Commenter 95 stated that the EPA overstated the cost of the WESP and 

that the EPA should revisit the MACT floor for this industry to account for this new technology 

that has resulted in the RSR Corporation far out-performing every other company and facility. 

Commenter 95 stated that RSR submitted cost data showing that costs are between $18 and $20 

million, or a total cost to the industry of $234 to $260 million. Commenter 95 stated that the 

WESP cost (per ton of lead) represents 0.4 percent of the value of one ton of lead. Commenter 

98 stated that the fact that three facilities in this source category are able to install the technology 

shows that reductions from the technology are achievable, taking into account cost. Commenter 

98 noted that the Clean Air Act is a technology-forcing statute, not one meant to enshrine the 

practices already achieved by all or the vast majority of the industry. Commenter 98 further 

stated that the EPA fails to provide a rational justification for not requiring emissions reductions 

based on the WESP technology. The commenter notes that the non-cancer HQ that the EPA 

found is five times the level associated with public health concerns and that the fact that costs are 

“high” is not sufficient reason for the EPA not to consider how much acute or cancer risk 

reduction would occur if the EPA were to require further emissions reductions based on the 

WESP. 

 Commenter 95 also stated that the WESP is a polishing unit and the EPA appears to have 

compared the WESP with industries where WESPs are used as primary controls. The 

commenter stated that the EPA also appears to believe that RSR uses the WESP unit to treat 

fugitive emissions. 

Response: First, whether or not section 112 (d)(6) is “technology forcing”3

, the EPA 

retains very significant discretion in balancing relevant factors in determining whether it is 

 

3 Technology forcing provisions are predicated on performance of technologies not yet in existence but for which a 

compliance path can clearly be documented (see, e.g. Husqvarna AB v. EPA, 254 F. 3d 195, 201 (D.C. Cir. 2001)) 
31 

“necessary” to revise the existing technology-based MACT standards. Sierra Club v. EPA, 325 

F. 3d 374, 378 (D.C. Cir. 2003). In reviewing section 112 (d) (2) standards, and determining 

whether to revise them is “necessary” under section 112 (d)(6), the EPA may take into 

consideration cost and feasibility when evaluating developments in practices, processes, and 

control technologies. Indeed, it is reasonable that any such “review” consider the same factors 

which EPA is required to consider under section 112 (d)(2) – cost, non-air environmental 

impacts, potential impacts on energy usage among them.4 The EPA determined that requiring 

installation of the WESP at all facilities would result in a total capital cost to the industry of 

approximately $400 million. See Cost Impacts for the Secondary Lead Smelting Source 

Category, at page 5, available in the docket (Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344-0040). 

Given the amount of emissions reductions that would occur with installation of the WESP, and 

given that the impact of stack emissions on risk is low relative to fugitive emissions and that the 

emission limits in the final rule will obtain substantial reductions in HAP emissions, the EPA 

determined that the WESP is not a cost-effective control option and is not warranted under 

section 112(d)(6) or 112(f)(2). Specifically, an emissions limit based on this technology would 

result in annualized cost to the industry of about $46 million dollars per year with a cost 

effectiveness of about $2.4 million dollars per ton of HAP reduced. As noted in a previous 

response, this is roughly 20 times greater than the control based on performance of state-of-theart baghouses without the following step of a WESP. We have determined that the limits 

included in the final rule will provide an ample margin of safety, and the additional cost to meet 

a limit based on WESP technology is not warranted under either statutory provision. As noted 

above, the energy use associated with operation of a WESP also has negative environmental 

implications and is another factor in EPA’s decision not to adopt standards predicated on use of 

this technology. 

Commenter 95 asserted that RSR submitted cost data showing that total cost to the 

industry of installing WESPs is between $234 and $260 million. The EPA did consider the data 

submitted by RSR in estimating the potential cost to the industry of installing WESPs. However, 

it would not be appropriate to simply assign the $18 to $20 million cost incurred by the RSR 

facility to each of the additional facilities, as the facilities differ significantly in several aspects 

 

whereas section 112 (d)(6) is predicated not on performance of future projected technologies, but on developments 

which have occurred in the intervening years following promulgation of the MACT standard. 

4 See also AT&T Corp. v. Iowa Utils. Bd., 525 U.S. 366, 388 (1999) (broad meaning to ‘necessary’, and an agency 

interpretation consistent with statutory goals and objectives is entitled to deference). 
32 

(e.g., number of emission points, furnace types, furnace stack flow rates, process fugitive 

enclosure hood flow rates, etc). Instead, the EPA scaled the costs submitted by RSR for each 

individual facility based on the reported flow-rates of each emissions point. For example, the 

costs incurred would be influenced by the size of a facility and the distance between existing 

control devices. The Quemetco CA facility covers a much smaller area than many of the 

facilities and the costs for ducting existing control devices into a polishing WESP could be 

substantially higher for larger facilities. We further note that the EPA assumed that, at each 

facility, the WESP would treat both process and process fugitive emissions (those emissions that 

are controlled via baghouses rather than those controlled via cartridge collectors), consistent with 

information submitted by RSR. Commenter 95 is therefore incorrect in their statement that the 

EPA believes that RSR uses the WESP unit to treat fugitive emissions (i.e., building ventilation 

systems). The EPA believes the cost estimate developed for installation of a WESP at other 

secondary leads smelting facilities is a reasonable estimate. Furthermore, the commenter 

provided no facility-specific cost estimates to demonstrate that the EPA’s estimates are not 

reasonable. See response at page 87-88 for discussion of the proposal post-control acute hazard 

index of 5. 

Comment (172): Commenter 95 stated that the EPA should have relied on SCAQMD 

rule 1420.1 as a basis for adopting alternative standards and requirements for stack emissions of 

metal HAP. The commenter argued that SCAQMD rule 1420.1 covers the secondary lead 

smelting facility with the best control (Quemetco, CA) as well as one identified by EPA as most 

likely to flirt with non-compliance (Exide Technologies, CA). The commenter stated that the 

SCAQMD rule is based on an “up-to-date and robust technical basis reflecting SCAQMD staff 

analyses...” 

Response: We are familiar with SCAQMD 1420.1, and did in fact take many aspects of 

that rule into consideration when developing the revised NESHAP for this source category. 

However, we believe first that all of the SCAQMD 1420.1 standards are not necessary to reduce 

risk to an acceptable level under section 112 (f)(2) and that further controls are not needed to 

provide an ample margin of safety, and also believe that the full panoply of control under the 

SCAQMD rule is not necessary as part of further technology-based standards under section 112 

(d)(6). Thus, it is neither necessary nor appropriate to uncritically apply to an entire source 
33 

category the standards developed by SCAQMD for two facilities in a unique geographic area 

with particularly unusual meteorological characteristics. The commenter cites the total facility 

mass lead emission rate of 0.045 pounds per hour and the maximum lead emission rate of 0.01 

pounds per hour specified in SCAQMD 1420.1. The commenters claim that “SCAQMD’s 

decision to adopt the new Rule 1420.1 and the more rigorous standards it contains was driven by 

the need to meet the NAAQS as revised in 2008...” We acknowledge that SCAQMD’s analysis 

may have determined that the aforementioned emissions limits may be necessary in order for the 

Exide Technologies and Quemetco, Inc. facilities located in southern California to meet the 

revised lead NAAQS. However, our analysis indicates that unacceptable risk from lead 

emissions can be eliminated, with an ample margin of safety, by adopting the controls in this 

final rule. See The Residual Risk Assessment for the Secondary Lead Smelting Source Category, 

available in the docket. The lowered stack emission limit will ensure that unacceptable risk from 

stacks is eliminated and we have finalized requirements to significantly reduce fugitive 

emissions (the dominant contributor to risk from this source category) from secondary lead 

smelters through the implementation of fugitive emission work practices, many of which are 

included in SCAQMD 1420.1, and total enclosures maintained under negative pressure and 

vented to a control device. 

Comment (238, 239): Commenter 98 argued that any standard set under section 112(d), 

including those set under section 112(d)(6), must meet the requirements of section 112(d)(2) 

requiring standards to reflect the maximum achievable degree of emission reduction. By this 

logic, the commenter stated that the EPA has no justification for failing to recalculate the MACT 

floor for lead based on new technologies. The commenter stated that the EPA therefore must set 

the standard for existing sources at the average emission level achieved by the best performing 5 

sources, and at the level achieved by the best controlled similar source for new sources. 

The commenter stated that the EPA cannot rely on the HON case to evade its duty to 

satisfy section 112(d)(6). According to the commenter, 

EPA is right that the HON decision stated that it did “not think the words ‘review, 

and revise as necessary’” required EPA to recalculate the floors “from scratch” in 

that case. NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d at 1084. The court explained that there was no 

need to address whether EPA had satisfied section 112(d)(6), and that “we do not 
34 

have to decide this questions because in its final rule, EPA squarely found that 

there were no significant developments in practices, processes and control 

technologies, and petitioners do not challenge this conclusion.” 

As noted, there are such “developments” for this source category. Therefore, 

EPA cannot rely on the HON case to evade its duty to satisfy section 112(d)(6). 

Even under NRDC – assuming arguendo that its section 112(d)(6) holding is in 

any way relevant here – section 112(d)(6) requires EPA to recalculate the MACT 

floor when there have been advances in technology, practices, and processes, and 

when there is information showing that greater emission reductions have been 

“actually achieved.” Commenter contend that, based on the information EPA has, 

it is therefore “necessary” for EPA to strengthen the existing MACT floor to 

ensure it now complies with section 112(d)(2)-(3). 

The commenter further argues that since the EPA must set new MACT floors based on 

developments in technologies, practices, and processes, it may not consider cost in setting the 

new MACT standard for lead. 

Response: First, EPA determined long ago that section 112 (d)(6) does not require 

MACT floors to be recalculated, and why EPA’s interpretation that no further floor analysis is 

required was reasonable. See 70 FR at 20008 (April 15, 2005). EPA is not reopening that issue 

here, or otherwise reconsidering its interpretation. Thus, this comment is considerably out of 

time. Moreover, the argument was soundly rejected by the D.C. Circuit in the HON opinion. 

See 529 F. 3d at 1084 (“It is argued that EPA was obliged to completely recalculate the 

maximum achievable control technology-in other words, to start from scratch. We do not think 

the words "review, and revise as necessary" can be construed reasonably as imposing any such 

obligation.”). We thus disagree with the assertion that the HON Court’s ruling that CAA section 

112(d)(6) does not require re-calculation of MACT floors was limited to instances in which there 

have not been developments in practices, processes, or control technologies. In fact, the Court 

was quite clear on this point, and declined to rule only on whether it was appropriate for the EPA 

to consider costs and risks in conducting CAA section 112(d)(6) reviews, as the issue was 

rendered moot by the litigants’ failure to preserve it. 
35 

To the extent that the commenter is arguing more generally that section 112 (d)(2) is 

technology-forcing and therefore dictates that EPA must revise MACT standards to reflect new 

technological developments, see responses on pages 29-31 above. 

Comment (240): Commenter 98 stated that the proposed standard for lead and other 

metal HAPs pursuant to the technology review is arbitrary and capricious for three reasons. 

First, the EPA fails to discuss controls required by the South Coast Air Quality Management 

District (SCAQMD) and compare them to its proposed rule. The commenter argues that such an 

omission violates the EPA’s requirements under section 112(d)(6). Second, the EPA provides no 

explanation for not considering reductions achievable by the use of HEPA filters downstream of 

baghouses. The commenter stated that the DHEQ permit for Johnson Controls mandates use of 

HEPA filters which demonstrates their feasibility. Third, the commenter argues that the EPA 

does not provide a rationale for proposing a standard at a level where almost all facilities have 

achieved it, rather than set at a lower level of pollution that is “achievable”. The commenter 

stated that “Implicitly, EPA suggests that it chose the proposed standard because it happened to 

match the proposed standard it developed under the residual risk analysis.” 

The commenters contend that “EPA’s proffered justifications show that the proposed 

standard is arbitrary and capricious. They fail to comport with the technology-forcing aspect of 

the Act and of the MACT. They render the standard a mostly empty formality since almost all 

facilities and stacks are already meeting the standards.” 

Response: As noted above, we did evaluate the controls required in SCAQMD 1420.1. 

For example, we evaluated a significantly lower lead emissions limit based on the WESP 

technology implemented at the Quemetco facility in City of Industry, California. See 76 FR 

29058 and pages 29-31 above. We also evaluated and ultimately proposed to require total 

enclosures for the same process and process fugitive emissions sources listed in SCAQMD 

1420.1. See 76 FR at 29072. Furthermore, several of our proposed fugitive emission work 

practices, though not identical to, are very similar in nature to those listed in SCAQMD 1420.1. 

We have explained at pages 29-31 above why further stack controls on lead emissions are not 

necessary under section 112 (d)(6), and why further controls on fugitive emissions (beyond those 

based on total enclosure of all lead-based materials) is also not necessary. With regard to HEPA 

filters, the EPA did consider whether significant reductions in emissions were demonstrated by 

use of this technology and determined that the most significant factors influencing reduced lead 
36 

emissions in this industry were not the use of HEPA filters. See Summary of the Technology 

Review for the Secondary Lead Smelting Source Category, at page 5. We did not believe that 

the data warranted an emissions standard based on the technology. While the lead 

concentrations from stacks equipped with HEPA filters were about 20% lower than those 

without, the existence of the HEPA filter was not the lone variable influencing the difference in 

concentration. Other factors such as age of the primary control device, type of process vented to 

the emission point, and flow rates likely contributed significantly to the distribution of lead 

concentrations from the stacks. Additionally, HEPA filters are only applicable to some sources 

where high exhaust temperature or high particulate loading will not interfere with the proper 

operation of the filter. Because of these reasons, we did not believe the dataset warranted 

establishing an emissions standard lower than 0.20 mg/dscm based on the use of a HEPA filter. 

See Summary of the Technology Review for the Secondary Lead Smelting Source Category, 

available in the docket. 

We disagree with the commenter that the EPA failed to provide a rationale for the lead 

emissions standard proposed under section 112(d)(6). Section 112(d)(6) requires the EPA, in 

reviewing section 112 (d)(2) standards and determining whether it is necessary to revise them, to 

evaluate developments in practices, processes, and control technologies. The data presented in 

the technical document describing the technology review for this source category clearly 

demonstrates that advances in fabric filtration have allowed sources in this industry to achieve 

lead emissions far below the limits established in the 1997 NESHAP. The data collected from 

industry in ICR responses demonstrated that the average lead concentration in stacks was 0.16 

mg/dscm, far below the 2.0 mg/dscm level prescribed in the 1997 NESHAP. See Summary of the 

Technology Review for the Secondary Lead Smelting Source Category, at page 7, available in the 

docket. To that end, we have proposed to revise the lead emission standard for this source 

category to reflect those developments. The proposed lead emissions standard was not chosen 

because “most stacks are meeting the standards already”, but rather because we determined it to 

represent a lead concentration achievable by well-performing fabric filters. Important factors 

that influenced the outlet concentration achieved by fabric filters were the type of baghouse used 

(pulse-jet and reverse-air baghouses achieved lower concentrations than shaker baghouses) and 

the age of the baghouse. Older baghouses had substantially higher outlet concentrations. Possible 

reasons for the improved performance in newer baghouses include improvements in bag design, 

improved seating to ensure proper sealing between bags, and more efficient bag cleaning 
37 

mechanisms. We further note that we did evaluate an emissions limit based on the WESP used 

following a fabric filter, another development in practices, processes, and control technologies 

identified in our review. However, we determined that the WESP was not a cost-effective 

control option for this source category The estimated costs that would be incurred to install this 

technology at all of the facilities in the industry would be roughly $400 million dollars in capital 

investment with about $46 million dollars of total annualized cost. The cost effectiveness of this 

option was unacceptably high, given the incremental risk reductions that would be achieved 

based on this technology. Adverse energy implications of use of a WESP also militate against 

adopting standards predicated on use of the technology. Finally, the lead emissions standards 

under section 112(f)(2) did not, and do not dictate the standards under section 112(d)(6). The 

final standards satisfy the requirements of both sections, the analyses under these respective 

sections are independent of each other. We further note that the ample margin of safety analysis 

under section 112 (f)(2) is internally consistent with our determinations under section 112 (d)(6) 

in that we did not find that further controls were justified based on considerations of cost, cost 

effectiveness, technical feasibility, and energy use implications. 

Comment (233): Commenter 98 stated that in setting the emission standard for lead, the 

EPA inadequately supported its findings that there are no other less expensive or feasible control 

options. The commenter notes that the EPA identified in its own analysis that other facilities are 

using HEPA filters in addition to baghouses to achieve approximately 20 percent lower outlet 

lead concentrations than baghouses alone. The commenter also notes that the DHEQ permit for 

Johnson Controls mandates construction of HEPA filters with baghouses, demonstrating the 

viability of their use. 

Response: While the lead concentrations from stacks equipped with HEPA filters were 

on average lower than those without HEPA filters, the dataset did not show a large difference in 

lead concentrations between the emission points. Outlet concentrations for stacks equipped with 

fabric filters averaged about 0.14 mg/dscm while stacks equipped with a HEPA filter following a 

fabric filter averaged about 0.11 mg/dscm. Fabric filters used in pulse-jet baghouses averaged 

well below 0.10 mg/dscm. See Summary of the Technology Review for the Secondary Lead 

Smelting Source Category, which is available in docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344 at page 5.

The key indicator of performance does not appear to be whether a HEPA filter is used, rather it is 
38 

what type of baghouse is used and the age of the baghouse. Furthermore, other factors such as 

age of the primary control device, type of process vented to the emission point, and type of 

baghouse likely contributed significantly to the distribution of lead concentrations from the 

stacks. Additionally, the use of HEPA filters can be difficult for stacks with high particle loading 

and exhaust gas temperature. Since the use of a properly designed, well operated baghouse can 

achieve outlet concentrations that provide an ample margin of safety and do not present the 

potential technical challenges that can hamper performance of HEPA filters, we do not believe 

the establishing an emissions standard based on the use of a HEPA filter is warranted. 

Comment (123): According to commenter 91: 

EPA proposes “a facility-wide, flow-weighted average lead concentration limit of 

0.20 mg/dscm to cover all stacks in this source category.” 76 FR at 29055-56. 

This limit is based on a finding that the allowable emission rate at two facilities 

was approximately 10 times the Lead NAAQS level, with that finding adjusted 

downward by 90% to set the proposed limit. Shell Consulting Report at 4. 

The commenter stated that the EPA used fewer than 5 facilities and allowable, not actual 

emissions to set the limit. According to the commenter, this raises questions as to whether the 

limit complies with statutory directions and also whether it reflects conditions that are 

representative of those two facilities, rather than the industry as a whole. The commenter notes 

that, for example, the approach taken by the EPA in setting the limit “fails to recognize that a 

number of facilities in the category emit from very tall stacks (e.g., Buick’s 200 foot stack) that 

disperse the plume over a much larger area, and thus have relatively low ground level 

concentration at the unit.” 

Response: The EPA is adopting a flow-weighted average lead concentration limit of 

0.20 mg/dscm under the authority of section 112(f)(2) and separately under the authority of 

section 112(d)(6). 

The limit being promulgated under section 112(f)(2) ensures that the risk due to 

allowable stack emissions from this source category is acceptable. We have discussed the use of 

both allowable and actual emissions in previous actions, including the final Coke Oven Batteries 

residual risk rule (70 FR 19998-19999, April 15, 2005) and in the proposed and final Hazardous 
39 

Organic NESHAP (HON) residual risk rules (71 FR 34428, June 14, 2006, and 71 FR 76603, 

December 21, 2006, respectively). In those previous actions, we noted that modeling the 

allowable levels of emissions (i.e., the highest emission levels that could be emitted while still 

complying with the NESHAP requirements) is inherently reasonable since they reflect the 

maximum level sources could emit and still comply with national emission standards. We 

further note that standards set under section 112(f)(2) are not MACT floors and are therefore are 

not developed using the MACT floor setting procedures (i.e., consideration of the five best 

performing facilities) of section 112(d)(2) and (3). 

The limit being promulgated under section 112(d)(6) was a result of the technology 

review conducted for this source category. As described in the preamble, we determined that the 

main development in practices, processes, and control technologies for this source category was 

for fabric filtration. We also identified an additional control technology (i.e., a WESP), but 

determined that it was not cost effective, 76 FR at 29059-60, and has negative energy 

implications. We also noted that in conducting the section 112(d)(6) reviews, the EPA is not 

obliged to completely recalculate the prior MACT determination, and, in particular, is not 

obligated to recalculate the MACT floors. NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1084 (D. C. Cir., 

2008). The commenter expressed concern that the proposed limit may reflect the conditions of 

the two facilities, rather than the industry as a whole. We disagree with this assessment since 74 

of the 93 stacks identified in the ICR that are controlled using a baghouse reported average lead 

concentrations of less than 0.20 mg/dscm. 

Comment (171): Commenter 95 recommended that the EPA revise the proposed rule to 

include emission standards for lead and other HAP that reflect the best control technologies 

currently utilized by the industry, and limit emissions to nine pounds of lead per year from 

process stacks. The commenter also recommends a facility-wide stack emissions limit of 25 

pounds per year of lead. 

The commenter stated that the current emission standard for lead will not result in mass 

reductions of lead and other HAPs. The commenter contends that instead of installing additional 

air pollution controls or procedures to achieve compliance, facilities will simply direct air flow 

through “cleaner” process vents that would offset higher concentrations from “dirtier” process 

vents. 
40 

Response: The emission standard for lead in the final rule reflects our assessment of the 

developments in practices, processes, and control technologies for this industry. Based on our 

review, advances in fabric filtration have made it feasible for sources in this industry to achieve 

stack lead concentrations less than 0.20 mg/dscm. We did identify one add-on control 

technology with the ability to reduce lead concentrations substantially beyond the levels 

achieved by a well-maintained fabric filter (i.e., the WESP). However, we note that our 

technology review under section 112(d)(6) includes an analysis of the technical feasibility of 

applying the identified developments in practices, processes, and control technologies, as well as 

the estimated impacts of applying these developments, including cost. Based on these 

considerations, we determine whether it is necessary to amend the regulation to require any of 

the identified developments. As discussed in Summary of the Technology Review for the 

Secondary Lead Smelting Source Category, we determined that the WESP is not a cost-effective 

control technology, and has negative energy implications, and that it would therefore not be 

appropriate to revise the lead emission standard based on use of this technology. 

We believe that it is highly unlikely that facilities will simply direct additional air flow 

through the “cleaner” process vents in order to offset higher concentrations from the “dirtier” 

process vents because rerouting these processes and modifying the control devices could require 

significant investments. Additionally, facilities would be required to modify their Title V 

permits, it is unlikely that their permitting agencies would allow for such modifications when the 

intention would clearly be to flout the intention of an emission standard. 

Comment (233): Commenter 98 noted that the vast majority of stacks are already 

meeting the proposed emission standard for lead. The commenter also notes that even the 

average lead emissions from all sources, which distorts the representation of what most facilities 

are achieving, stands below the proposed emission standard. The commenter contends that the 

data demonstrate that the emission standard can be lowered, taking feasibility and cost into 

account. 

Response: The emission standard for lead represents a level that we determined is 

achievable by a well-performing fabric filter, which is the main technology we identified that is 

currently used by this industry. We evaluated proposing a lower emission standard based on the 

WESP technology, but determined that it was not appropriate when considering cost. Therefore, 
41 

a flow-weighted average lead concentration limit of 0.20 mg/dscm is appropriate for this source 

category since it represents a level achievable by the best-performing version of the control 

technology implemented by this industry (i.e., a new, well operated and maintained baghouse). 

Comment (242): Commenter 98 stated that the data support a lower standard for lead 

for fugitive emissions that are vented to a stack from the required total enclosure. 

Response: We agree that the average lead concentration in stacks that only contain vents 

from buildings is lower than the process vent stacks. These vents are expected to have lower 

lead concentrations because the inlet lead concentration is far lower from building sources than 

from process sources. Furthermore, our analysis indicates that building vents are the sources 

most amenable to the addition of HEPA filtration. The EPA considered establishing subcategories for the lead emission standard. However, there are several different types of vents 

that would need to be considered. Furthermore, each facility combines these process vents in 

different ways, limiting the information available from any individual source type. Therefore, 

we adopted a flow weighted average limit that takes into account all types of sources, adding 

compliance flexibility for the same emission reductions, and making it unnecessary to adopt a 

separate emission standard for each type of vent. 

Comment (60, 154): Two commenters (90, 93) agreed with the EPA’s conclusions with 

respect to the evaluation of the WESP technology. 

Response: We acknowledge the commenters’ support. 

Comment (129): Two commenters (92, 80) supported the EPA’s facility-wide flow 

weighted emissions limit for lead. 

Response: We acknowledge the commenters’ support. 

b. Total Hydrocarbons (THC) and Dioxins and Furans (D/F) 

Comment (136): Commenter 92 fully supports the work practice requirement to separate 

plastics entering the furnace. The commenter suggested including a procedure to correlate the 

approximate plastic separation with the stack test results for organic HAP and dioxin and furans. 
42 

The chromium electroplating NESHAP was given as an example regulation that tied an 

operating parameter to performance testing. 

Response: We note that we have modified the proposed plastics separation requirement 

to apply to automotive batteries. We agree with the commenter that it can be useful to tie 

performance testing results to an operating parameter that can be continuously monitored. That is 

why we have included exhaust temperature monitoring to demonstrate continuous compliance 

with the standards for THC and dioxins. While plastics are a source of organic HAP in furnace 

exhaust, they are not the only source. Therefore, we feel that temperature monitoring is the 

appropriate measure for demonstrating continuous compliance rather than measurement of 

plastics separation effectiveness. 

Comment (57, 199): Commenters 90 and 96 requested that the EPA clarify proposed 40 

C.F.R. § 63.547(e)(2) by including a specific reference to the 2005 Toxic Equivalency Factors 

(TEF) from the World Health Organization (WHO). 

Response: We have made the commenters’ suggested revision to the regulatory text. 

Comment (57): Commenter 80 recommended that the EPA set the dioxin and furan 

MACT floor for existing blast furnaces based on the data from the mixed sources (blast furnace 

off-gas mixed with reverberatory furnace off-gas). 

Response: We did consider assigning all of the D/F emissions from tests at facilities 

where the vents from blast furnaces are mixed with the vents from reverberatory furnaces after 

the streams are cooled (where the reverberatory furnace is not controlling emissions from the 

blast furnace) to the blast furnace in order to calculate MACT floors for the blast furnace 

subcategory. However, unlike the case of the stack emission standard for lead (where one limit 

exists regardless of furnace type), we did not have information regarding the individual flow rate 

from each furnace during the emission tests (which was necessary to incorporate these data into 

the pool of data used to calculate the MACT floor), and were therefore unable to assess the 

relative contribution of each furnace type. 

Comment (142): Commenter 93 stated that numeric D/F standards for this industry 

represent a cost burden disproportionate with any perceived benefit. The commenter notes that 
43 

Method 23, the reference method for D/F emission testing, specifies a very complex sampling 

train, long sample times, and intricate sample recovery and analytical procedures. The 

commenter stated that a typical D/F test program will cost an affected facility between $15,000 

and $20,000 per test program to complete and will require the emission test team to be on-site for 

over three days. The commenter contends that the EPA should reconsider the imposition of 

numeric D/F standards on affected Subpart X sources.

Response: First, EPA is legally obligated to promulgate section 112 (d)(2) standards 

for listed HAP emitted by a major source category. National Lime, 233 F. 3d at 634. It is not 

disputed that secondary lead sources emit CDD/CDFs. Second, this standard must be numeric 

unless the criteria for establishing work practices under section 112 (h) are satisfied. No 

commenter attempted such a justification for CDDs, and EPA is not aware of any. In addition, 

no commenter suggested a legitimate surrogate for CDDs which could be tested at less expense. 

Consequently, EPA believes that some type of numeric standard for CDD/CDF is legally 

required. 

Comment (164, 198): Commenter 94 and 96 noted that the EPA has proposed to change 

the definition of collocated blast furnace and reverberatory furnace by removing from the 

subcategory those blast and reverberatory furnaces whose gases are not mixed prior to cooling. 

The commenters noted that ABR and the EPA worked collaboratively to identify a subset 

of industry stacks across facilities for emission testing intended to inform this rulemaking. The 

commenters contend that the EPA did not indicate in this information collection process that the 

Agency was considering redefining the collocated blast and reverberatory furnace subcategory. 

As a result of this change in approach unanticipated by the commenter, only one collocated blast 

and reverberatory furnace was tested, the result being that the EPA’s proposed dioxin and furan 

emission limits for this subcategory of five collocated blast and reverb furnace pairs were based 

solely on emissions test data from a single facility. 

Commenter 94 stated that establishing a dioxin and furan limit for collocated blast and 

reverberatory furnaces based on a single unit is improper because it “do[es] not represent the 

average achieved by the best-performing sources in the subcategory.”. The commenter also 

notes that Exide advised the EPA on June 15, 2011 that it is in the process of coordinating stack 

testing on a collocated blast and reverberatory furnace at its Reading, Pennsylvania facility; 
44 

Exide expects the data to be available in September, 2011. The commenter contends that the 

EPA should ensure that it allows for adequate time to accept and consider the pending test data 

from Reading in determining the dioxin TEQ limit for collocated blast and reverberatory 

furnaces. 

Response: We believe that our proposed change to the definition of collocated blast and 

reverberatory furnace is appropriate. We maintain that designating a blast furnace and 

reverberatory furnace as “collocated” should imply that the much hotter off-gas of the 

reverberatory furnace is providing some level of control for the organic HAP in the relatively 

cooler blast furnace off-gas. In order for this to occur, the off-gas from the reverberatory furnace 

should be mixed with the blast furnace off-gas prior to cooling. Section 112 (d)(3) 

determinations are to reflect sources “for which the Administrator has emissions information” 

which in this case is the East Penn facility. The data from additional testing at Exide’s Reading 

facility was not provided to the EPA until November 17, 2011. The data were submitted too late 

for the proper quality assurance analyses to be performed prior to being incorporated into the 

MACT floor calculation. However, we note that a preliminary analysis indicates that the limit 

would have been slightly more stringent if these data were incorporated. See Summary of MACT 

Floor Analysis for the Secondary Lead Smelting Source Category. The data from the East Penn 

facility remains the data on which the limit is based. The commenter did not provide any data 

showing that the proposed limits were infeasible or unrepresentative of performance at the East 

Penn facility; furthermore, the test data provided by Exide in November 2011 only reinforce that 

this limit is representative of performance of furnaces in this subcategory. 

Comment (164): Commenter 90 requested confirmation that reverberatory furnaces that 

are collocated with blast furnaces are only subject to the proposed standards for collocated blast 

and reverberatory furnaces even at times when the facility’s blast furnace is not operating. 

Response: The commenter is correct that reverberatory furnaces that are collocated with 

blast furnaces are subject to the standards for collocated reverberatory and blast furnaces even at 

times when the facility’s blast furnace is not operating. When the blast furnace is not operating, 

the emissions should be less than the combined emissions from the mixed exhaust produced with 

both furnaces operate. The reverberatory furnace will thus operate well within the limit for 

collocated furnaces when the blast furnace is not operating. 
45 

Comment (175): Commenter 95 expressed support for the EPA’s proposal to establish 

emission standards for organic HAP and dioxins for reverberatory and rotary furnaces. The 

commenter believes that the EPA is exercising a mandatory duty in addressing these emissions. 

Response: We acknowledge the support. 

Comment (234): Commenter 98 stated that the EPA failed to give a reasoned 

explanation for not proposing a stronger standard for dioxins and furans, to provide an ample 

margin of safety for public health. The commenter notes that the EPA identified a control that 

could lead to greater risk reduction – the installation of additional afterburner capacity. The 

commenter stated that the EPA did not calculate the cancer risk reduction that would occur if the 

EPA required these emissions reductions. Instead, it relied on the Benzene Rule’s 100-in-1 

million presumption to conclude that emissions reductions would reduce cancer risk to a level 

that is “clearly less than” that benchmark. The commenter contends that section 112(f)(2) 

requires the EPA to consider additional reductions to provide an “ample margin,” not just the 

bare minimum amount of protection for public health. The commenter further stated that the 

potential for increased emissions of NOx and CO2 is not a relevant factor or valid justification for 

not requiring HAP reductions under § 112. 

Response: The EPA believes it is appropriate to maintain the benzene NESHAP decision 

framework for determining risk acceptability. See section 112 (f)(2) (B) adopting that decision 

framework into the section 112 (f) decision process. Under the Benzene NESHAP we strive to 

limit to no higher than approximately 1-in-10 thousand (100 in a million) the estimated cancer 

risk that a person living near a plant would have if he or she were exposed to the maximum 

pollutant concentration for 70 years and, in the ample margin of safety decision, to protect the 

greatest number of persons possible to an individual lifetime risk level of no higher than 

approximately 1-in-1 million taking into account cost, feasibility of controls, and non-air 

impacts. In this regard, EPA certainly may consider if there are collateral environmental impacts 

of controls, including increased emissions of other air pollutants, or energy implications and 

attendant emissions of CO2 air pollution. These are, in fact, among the “other relevant factors” 

which EPA may consider. See section 112 (f)(2)(A). (Indeed, the commenter’s construction 

would lead to the anomaly that further controls could lead to adverse health or environmental 
46 

impacts which EPA would have to disregard – this when implementing a provision whose 

ultimate purpose is to protect against such risks.) 

Results of the multipathway risk assessment supporting the proposed rule indicated that 

the cancer MIR associated with dioxin and furan emissions was 30-in-1 million, within (in fact 

below) the acceptability threshold from the Benzene NESHAP. As required in the ample margin 

of safety analysis, we did evaluate a control option that would further reduce emissions of 

dioxins and furans, but we determined those controls to not be cost-effective. 76 FR at 29050/3. 

In addition, we note that a recent stack test submitted by Exide Frisco (i.e., the facility with the 

multipathway MIR of 30-in-1 million at proposal) during the public comment period show that 

emissions of dioxins and furans from this facility are in fact approximately 70 times lower than 

the emissions used as inputs used in the multipathway risk assessment. Taking this into 

consideration, we believe that the multipathway MIR for this facility would be appreciably less 

than 1-in-1 million. Moreover, the cost effectiveness of use of an afterburner remains quite high 

as it was at proposal ($105,000/gram reduction). Use of high temperature afterburners to control 

a modest additional increment of dioxin not only has very poor cost-effectiveness, but has 

adverse environmental impacts in the form of increased NOx emissions, and increased energy use 

with attendant CO2 emissions. 76 FR at 29050/3.Taking all these factors into consideration, we 

maintain that it is not appropriate to require further control to provide an ample margin of safety. 

Moreover, this same analysis supports not adopting beyond-the-floor standards for 

CDD/CDF pursuant to section 112 (d)(2) and makes it unnecessary to have further control under 

section 112 (d)(6). The EPA also disagrees with the commenter that such factors as energy use, 

and increased NOx and CO2 emissions, are irrelevant in making determinations under section 

112(d)(6). Technologies with ultimate adverse environmental implications do not have to be 

regarded as ‘best’ or ‘maximum’. See Essex Chemcial Corp. v. EPA, 486 F. 2d 427, 439 (D.C. 

Cir. 1973); Portland Cement Assn v. Ruckelshaus, 486 F. 2d 375, 385 n. 41 (D.C. Cir. 1973). 

Moreover, the fact that the EPA must consider “energy requirements” in adopting standards 

under section 112(d)(2) makes it reasonable to review those requirements when conducting 

further analysis pursuant to section 112(d)(6). Adverse environmental implications of additional 

energy use are an aspect of that consideration. 

Comment (245): Commenter 98 stated that the EPA failed to carry out a technology 

review for THC emissions from the category. The commenter notes that the EPA clearly states 
47 

that “[n]o changes are being considered in this action for the THC limits for blast and collocated 

last and reverberatory furnaces established in the 1997 NESHAP.” The commenter contends that 

this omission fails to satisfy section 112(d)(6). 

Response: In the technology review conducted for this source category, the EPA did 

consider additional controls for organic HAP emissions. As described in the Technology Review 

for the Secondary Lead Smelting Source Category document at page 8 (available in docket ID 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344), we did not identify new control technologies that would achieve 

reductions in organic HAP emissions beyond the limits considered in the current NESHAP. 

However, we do believe that facilities may be able to achieve additional reductions in organic 

HAP emissions by designing and operating an afterburner with a higher temperature and 

residence time. However, because the reverberatory furnace often operates at temperatures 

higher than those that can be reasonably achieved by an afterburner, this option is only feasible 

for blast furnaces. The EPA considered additional afterburner capacity for blast furnaces as a 

beyond-the-floor option for organic HAP, but decided against requiring this control after a 

consideration of potential emission reductions, cost, and non-air environmental impacts. The 

beyond-the-floor option would achieve roughly 300 tpy in reductions of THC. However, this 

option would impose about $2.9 million dollars total annualized cost on the industry and achieve 

no significant environmental benefit or reductions in public health risks. The adverse energy 

implications associated with operating an afterburner, with attendant carbon and NOx pollution, 

also makes this an undesirable option. 

c. Mercury 

Comment (237, 234): Commenter 98 states that Section 112(d)(6) and 112(d)(3) each 

require the EPA to set a numerical limit for mercury emissions. The commenter stated that it is 

necessary for the EPA to close inherently unlawful gaps in the original MACT by setting a 

standard for an uncontrolled HAP and that the EPA must set an emission standard for each HAP 

listed on the section 112(b)(1) list that this source category emits, including mercury. The 

commenter argued that the EPA’s own test showed that, for 32% of the data set, mercury 

emissions were above the detection level; therefore, the EPA did have and did use some 

information on mercury emissions to perform the risk assessment. The commenter suggests that 

the EPA could set the MACT limit using the data it used to perform the risk assessment for those 

sources with emissions below the detection threshold. Additionally the commenter stated that 
48 

the EPA has failed to demonstrate that this proposal provides an ample margin of safety for 

public health from mercury emissions. 

Response: EPA did not set a standard for mercury in the original MACT rule and is 

rectifying that deficiency (see National Lime, 233 F. 3d at 634) here by establishing standards 

pursuant to sections 112 (d)(2) and (3). The commenter further maintains that it is impermissible 

to establish a work practice standard because the criteria under section 112 (h) aren’t satisfied 

since emissions of mercury from these sources were measured in a limited number of instances. 

Section 112 (h)(1) and (2)(B) indicate that EPA may adopt a work practice standard rather than a 

numeric standard when “the application of measurement methodology to a particular class of 

sources is not practicable due to technological and economic limitations.” 

The majority of the mercury data collected during the ICR test program for this 

rulemaking was below the limit of analytic detection. Under these circumstances, EPA does not 

believe that it is technologically and economically practicable to measure mercury emissions 

from this source category. “[A]pplication of measurement methodologies” (section 112 

(h)(2)(B)) means more than taking a measurement. It must also mean that a measurement has 

some reasonable relation to what the source is emitting, i.e. that the measurement yields a 

meaningful value. That is not the case here and EPA therefore does not believe it reasonable to 

establish a numerical standard for mercury in this rule. 

Mercury control can occur as a “cobenefit” of conventional control technologies that 

have been installed for other purposes. Particulate-bound Hg can be effectively removed along 

with other flue gas PM (including non-Hg metal HAP) in the primary PM control device. Fabric 

filters (FF) have been shown to provide very high levels of control when there is adequate 

halogen (or other oxidant) available to convert the Hg to the oxidized form. See 76 FR at 29051 

and Control of Mercury Emissions from Coal Fired Electric Utility Boilers, available at 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/utility/utiltoxpg.html. The stack emission standard for lead is 

predicated on optimized performance of a well-maintained new baghouse. We thus believe that 

this standard will also result in the level of control of the exceedingly small amounts of mercury 

present in secondary lead emissions achieved by the best performing facilities in the source 

category. 
49 

Comment (216, 102): Commenter 90 and 96 support the EPA’s reasoning and 

conclusion that no work practice requirements for mercury are appropriate or necessary. The 

commenters do not believe that the data confirm that mercury is actually emitted by the industry. 

Response: The test data do indicate that a small amount of mercury is emitted from this 

industry, however, as described above, a numerical standard for this pollutant is not warranted. 

3.2 Risk Assessment 

3.2.1 Risk Assessment Methodology

 

Comment (20, 35): Two commenters (80, 86) support the use of CalEPA’s acute REL 

for arsenic. 

Response: We acknowledge the support. 

Comment (31, 132): Two commenters (86, 92) commended the EPA for using 

allowable emissions in its risk assessment for this source category. 

Response: We acknowledge the support. 

Comment (33, 133): Two commenters (86, 92) commended the EPA for conducting 

multipathway exposure and risk modeling for those HAPs known to be persistent and bioaccumulative in the environment and for selecting facilities that represent the high end of 

potential risks from this source category. 

Response: We acknowledge the support. 

Comment (129, 133): Commenter 92 stated that they were satisfied with many aspects 

of the residual risk assessment. According to the commenter, the strengths of the risk assessment 

were, 

• The use of facility specific emission point parameters, 

• The review and use of emissions data from stack testing reports; 

• The inclusion of allowable emissions when predicting risk under the proposed risk 

assessment, 

• The inclusion of an analysis of the pre- and post-emission control impacts on the MIR 
50 

• The assessment of the available ambient lead monitoring data collected in the vicinity 

of these facilities, and 

• The effort to conservatively assess the impact of fugitive emissions in a sound 

technical manner that goes beyond what other residual risk assessments have 

achieved. 

The commenter also stated that they agree with the use of the lead NAAQS with which to 

compare the predicted maximum modeled 3-month average lead concentration as the NAAQS 

was “rigorously derived to protect public health with an adequate margin of safety.” 

Response: We acknowledge the support. 

Comment (19, 32, 55, 131, 190, 226): Four commenters (80, 86, 92, 98) disagreed with 

the use of the census block centroid to determine risk from the facilities’ emissions. Commenter 

86 argues that using the census block centroid to estimate risk “dilutes the effect of sources’ 

emissions by estimating the impact at the centroid of the census block instead of at the facility 

fence or the property line.” Commenter 86 noted that in larger census blocks, the maximum 

point of impact can be far from the centroid. Commenter 86 further pointed out that nondeveloped areas near the property line can become developed over time. Commenter 98 noted 

that the center of a census block is almost always further away from the facility than the 

fenceline. Commenter 98 stated that census blocks vary greatly in size but the EPA provided no 

evidence of reviewing census block sizes or configurations to consider how pollutant 

concentrations might vary within these blocks. Commenter 98 is concerned that the areaweighted centers of census blocks may significantly underestimate exposure in some cases and 

recommends moving receptor points closer to the facility to assess chronic exposure in those 

instances where local residents live nearer to a facility than the geographic centroid of the census 

block. All four commenters noted that HEM-3 gives the EPA the capability to identify that 

maximum individual risk at any point in a census block that is within a 50-km radius from the 

center of the facility. 

In response to the above comments, two commenters (90, 96) noted that the EPA 

“estimated the MIR associated with each facility by purporting to determine the risk associated 

with a lifetime exposure at the highest concentration outside the property boundary...” These 

commenters further noted that the census block centroid risk estimates were used only to 
51 

“estimate population risks and that if EPA considered only the maximum individual risk in each 

census block, there would be no information from which to estimate populations risks.” 

Response: As we have noted in the development of previous residual risk regulations, 

such as the HON, in a national-scale assessment of lifetime inhalation exposures and health risks 

from facilities in a source category, it is appropriate to identify exposure locations where it may 

be reasonably expected that an individual will spend a majority of his or her lifetime. Further, it 

is appropriate to use census block information on where people actually reside, rather than points 

on a fenceline, to locate the estimation of exposures and risks to individuals living near such 

facilities. Census blocks are the finest resolution available as part of the nationwide population 

data (as developed by the US Census Bureau); each is typically comprised of approximately 40 

people or about 10 households. In EPA risk assessments, the geographic centroid of each census 

block containing at least one person is used to represent the location where all the people in that 

census block live. The census block centroid with the highest estimated exposure then becomes 

the location of maximum exposure, and the entire population of that census block is assumed to 

experience the maximum individual risk. In some cases, because actual residence locations may 

be closer to or farther from facility emission points, this may result in an overestimate or 

underestimate of the actual annual concentrations (although there is no systematic bias for 

average levels). Given the relatively small dimensions of census blocks in densely-populated 

areas, there is little uncertainty introduced by using the census block centroids. There is more 

uncertainty when census blocks are larger, although there is still no bias on average. Thus, the 

EPA concludes that the most appropriate locations at which to estimate chronic exposures and 

risks are the census block centroids because: 1) census blocks are the finest resolution available 

in the national census data, 2) facility fence lines do not typically represent locations where 

chronic exposures are likely (i.e, people do not typically live at the fence line of facilities) and 3) 

as just described above, there is no systematic bias with respect to using census block centroids 

as an exposure surrogate for all individuals residing in that block. 

This has been EPA’s approach for estimating maximum individual exposures and risks 

throughout the RTR program. In addition, in its peer review of the methodologies used to 

estimate risks as part of the RTR rulemaking efforts, the EPA’s Science Advisory Board (SAB) 

endorsed this approach. 

 
52 

Comment (54, 137, 189): Two commenters (90, 96) stated that the EPA should not use 

the CalEPA’s acute REL for arsenic because it is “invalid and substantially overestimates acute 

risks from arsenic exposure.” The commenters noted that the California REL relied on the 

Nagymajtenyi study which did not evaluate the fetal effects on a litter basis, therefore making it 

impossible to determine whether the observed effects were due to arsenic exposure or other litter 

effects. The commenters cited a similar study “that was conducted in accordance with 

appropriate guidelines” in which researchers observed no fetal effects at As2O3 concentrations of 

10 mg/m3. The commenters also stated that the fact that the California REL is approximately 

100 times lower than that for arsine gas despite the fact that arsine gas is much more toxic than 

As2O3 is anomalous. So too, according to the commenters, is the fact that despite the greater 

toxicity of arsine, a study conducted by the National Toxicology Program showed “no evidence 

of developmental toxicity in either rats or mice at concentrations up to 2.5 ppm...” The 

commenter further noted that use of the California REL is “inconsistent with and would 

constitute a departure from EPA’s practice, which has considered a fetal weight reduction of 0.1 

g to be not toxicologically significant.” The commenter also argued that the California REL is 

inconsistent with ATSDR’s guidance, which deems 0.26 mg/m3to be a NOAEL rather than a 

LOAEL. The commenter stated that the EPA should either not attempt to quantify acute arsenic 

risks or should correct the California REL by increasing it by at least an order of magnitude, 

citing the Morrissey study that suggests that the California REL should be set at a level at least 

100 times greater than the current standard. 

Commenter 92 stated that the state of New York did not adopt the California REL 

because “it is policy in New York to adopt the most stringent of either a non-cancer chronic or 

cancer air guideline concentration.” The commenter notes that New York multiplied the EPA’s 

IRIS unit risk value for Arsenic of 2.3E-4 μg/m3by 65 to obtain a REL of 0.015 μg/m3. 

Response: With regard to the acute Cal EPA REL for arsenic, the EPA recognizes that 

there are limitations associated with the database used in the derivation of this value. 

Nevertheless, given that the acute Cal EPA REL is the only existing peer-reviewed acute doseresponse value, the EPA considers it reasonable to use this value for an acute analysis. It is 

important to note that assessments of risks from acute exposures to HAPs represent worst-case 
53 

scenarios, and that the estimated acute impacts of arsenic did not weigh heavily in the regulatory 

decision. 

With respect to New York benchmark value for arsenic, we note that the EPA has a 

hierarchy of appropriate health benchmark values. In general, this hierarchy places greater 

weight on EPA derived health benchmarks than those derived by other States or agencies 

(http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata1999/99pdfs/healtheffectsinfo.pdf). Moreover, multiplying a 

chronic IRIS cancer value by 65 to obtain an acute REL is an arbitrary approach that to our 

knowledge, has not received favorable scientific support or been subject to peer review. 

Comment (47, 182): Two commenters (90, 96) claimed that the EPA’s risk review 

violated section 112(f)(2) because it considered risk from sources that are not part of the 

secondary lead smelting source category. The commenters noted that by including facility-wide 

emissions the EPA may overestimate risks associated with the secondary lead smelting industry 

and promulgate risk-based standards for risks that are not attributable to its emissions. The 

commenter further stated that “it would be unlawful for EPA to use information from the 

National Air Toxics Assessment or otherwise to include non-source category (or subcategory) 

risk in setting standards pursuant to Clean Air Act § 112(f)(2). The commenter similarly noted 

that by proposing emission standards based on sources emitting lead at levels that exceed the 

NAAQS, the EPA is improperly considering background ambient lead concentrations in its 

analysis. 

Response: The finding of unacceptable risk from the secondary lead smelting source 

category was based on risk estimates and emissions from the secondary lead source category. 

More specifically, we found estimated risks resulting from secondary lead smelting emissions at 

these facilities to be unacceptable primarily based on source category emissions of lead 

compounds. See 76 FR at 29054-29055. The finding of unacceptable risk was not based on 

emissions or estimated risks associated with the facility wide analysis. In addition, we disagree 

with the comment that the EPA is “improperly considering background ambient lead 

concentrations in its analysis.” The estimates of lead risk in the risk assessment, as well as the 

controls in the final rule, are based solely on emissions from the facilities in the secondary lead 

smelting source category. They do not take into account additional sources that may be outside 

the source category contributing to ambient lead background concentrations because the 
54 

emissions from the source category were the same as the facility wide emissions. See 76 FR at 

29042/2 (“In this rulemaking ... there are no other significant HAP emissions sources present. 

Thus, there was no need to perform a separate facility wide risk assessment”). 

Comment (51, 120, 160, 186): Four commenters (90, 91, 94, 96) argued that the EPA’s 

risk review is invalid because it is predicated on risks to hypothetical populations that may not 

exist. The commenters cited the specific example of the EPA’s estimated multipathway risk to 

Laotian anglers near the Exide Technologies facility in Frisco, Texas. The commenters contend 

that census statistics indicate that the Laotian population in this area of Texas is very small and 

that the EPA should demonstrate that there are actually Laotian anglers who consume fish from 

Lewisville Lake. 

Commenter 94 stated that, in the case of the Laotian anglers, multiple layering of 

conservative assumptions result in an unrealistic and overstated estimate of risk. The commenter 

further stated that there is no evidence that particular groups in Texas eat exceptionally high 

amounts of fish. Moreover, even ethnic groups that eat high amounts of fish will not 

continuously eat exclusively fish from one corner of Lewisville Lake for 70 years. 

The commenters also stated that the EPA’s risk assessment erred in its estimate of fish 

concentrations in Silver Lake near the RSR facility in Middletown, NY. The EPA stated in its 

risk assessment that Silver Lake is too small to support fishing unless it is stocked regularly. The 

commenters noted that stocking reduces the exposure period for fish and decreases expected fish 

tissue concentrations relative to lakes where fish are not stocked. The commenters further noted 

that there is no indication in the risk assessment that the EPA has considered this factor in their 

risk calculations. 

Response: We agree with the commenter that some of the risk estimates presented in the 

multipathway analysis reflect conservative assumptions. As noted in the risk assessment 

document, in order to more fully characterize the potential multipathway risks associated with 

high end consumption of PB-HAP contaminated food, we present results based on reasonable 

maximum exposure (RME) and central tendency estimate (CTE) scenarios. The RME scenario 

utilizes 90th percentile ingestion rates for farmers, recreational anglers, and for three 

subpopulations of recreational anglers) who have higher rates of fish consumption (Hispanic, 

Laotian, and Vietnamese descent), while the CTE scenario utilizes mean ingestion rates for each 
55 

of these groups. We provide results from both scenarios to illustrate the range of potential 

modeled exposures and risks that may exist in the high-end of the complete distribution of 

potential multipathway risks for this source category. In addition, the risk assessment document 

also notes the risk range for the entire distribution of recreational anglers, which have 

significantly lower rates of fish consumption than the three sub populations mentioned above. 

Thus, in order to estimate a distribution of potential multipathway risks, we think it is reasonable 

to consider fish ingestion rates across multiple groups, including the Laotian population. 

Moreover, we note that it is entirely possible that individuals other than Laotians may consume 

fish at any of the ingestion rates described in the multipathway assessment. This again supports 

the use of a range of ingestion rates in order to estimate a broad range of potential multipathway 

risks. 

With respect to the comment that Silver Lake is too small to support fishing unless it is 

stocked regularly, we note that the TRIM.FaTE model does not currently model fish population 

dynamics, including processes like birth, death, growth, and stocking, although it does account 

for predation. Because the model estimates long-term concentrations in fish, it is unlikely that 

introducing changes to account for stocking would substantially impact the calculated PB-HAP 

concentrations in adult fish, especially if the fish are assumed to be stocked as fingerlings. 

Comment (49, 119, 184): Three commenters (90, 91, 96) disagreed with the use of the 

lead NAAQS as a hazard index. The commenters argued that the lead NAAQS was based on 

only risks to young children, and that the EPA has inappropriately concluded that exceedances of 

the lead NAAQS result in unacceptable risks to adolescents and adults. The commenters 

contend that hazard indices should not be presented in Tables A-5 through A-8 of the 

demographics analysis for age groups other than young children. 

Response: If the commenter is arguing that the proposed, and now final, standards for 

lead provide too much protection because they protect susceptible populations – notably young 

children living near lead emitting sources – and thus provide too much protection to other 

exposed individuals, this argument has been sharply rejected in the section 109 (d) NAAQS 

context (see Coalition of Battery Recyclers, 604 F. 3d at 617-18) and is just as misplaced here 

where EPA is charged to provide an ample of margin of safety in setting standards. 
56 

In addition, we disagree with the commenter that the lead NAAQS cannot be used in a 

quantitative manner. The review of the lead NAAQS clearly resulted in a quantitative standard: 

3-month maximum lead concentration not to exceed a level of 0.15 μg/m3. This standard was set 

to protect public health, including the health of sensitive populations (i.e., children), with an 

adequate margin of safety. As the commenter notes, the lead NAAQS applies in all areas of the 

United States regardless of the age of the individuals living in a particular area. Thus, we find it 

appropriate to evaluate potential multipathway risks, in a quantitative manner, using the NAAQS 

for lead. 

Comment (56, 115, 116, 157, 191): Five commenters (90, 91, 94, 96, 111) disagreed 

with the use of MACT-allowable emissions to estimate risk. The commenters argued that the 

purpose of reviewing emissions under section 112(f)(2) is to assess the actual risks to people 

living near facilities in this source category. Commenter 91 noted that “Nothing in § 112(f)(2) 

allows EPA to replace the statutory directive to examine what health risks are present at actual 

emission levels with a risk assessment that asks what health risks might be present a maximum 

allowable emission levels.” Commenter 91 further stated that less stringent rules would have 

likely been required had the EPA relied only on actual emissions to conduct its risk assessment. 

Commenter 94 contends that even if allowable emissions are used for the risk assessment, the 

EPA should consider all applicable permit and legal limits on emissions. The commenter 

specifically cited Exide’s Frisco, Texas and Vernon, California facilities that are subject to more 

stringent limitations than what is specified in the NESHAP. Based on the commenter’s 

calculations, the EPA has overstated the allowable emissions at the Frisco and Vernon facilities 

by factors of three and 100, respectively. Commenter 111 stated that the EPA’s failure to 

provide a reasoned explanation as to why using MACT-allowable emissions to calculate risk is 

justified renders the proposal insupportable under the law. The commenter stated that the EPA’s 

risk assessment already reflects numerous conservative assumptions and that applying another 

layer of conservatism based on the hypothetical assumption that affected sources should be 

expected to emit more than the data indicates is not reasonable or justified. The commenter 

points out that the EPA’s own analysis indicates that all the facilities in this source category emit 

significantly less than what is allowed under the current MACT standard. 
57 

Response: We have discussed the use of both allowable and actual emissions in previous 

actions, including the final Coke Oven Batteries residual risk rule (70 FR 19998-19999, April 15, 

2005) and in the proposed and final Hazardous Organic NESHAP (HON) residual risk rules (71 

FR 34428, June 14, 2006, and 71 FR 76603, December 21, 2006, respectively). In those previous 

actions, we noted that modeling the allowable levels of emissions (i.e., the highest emission 

levels that could be emitted while still complying with the NESHAP requirements) is inherently 

reasonable since they reflect the maximum level sources could emit and still comply with 

national emission standards. Quite simply, in determining whether unacceptable residual risk 

remains after promulgation of section 112 (d) technology-based standards, it is reasonable to 

consider the emissions allowed by those standards. But we also explained that it is reasonable to 

consider actual emissions, where such data are available, in both steps of the risk analysis, in 

accordance with the Benzene NESHAP. 

Comment (21): Commenter 80 stated that area sources should be modeled as area 

sources rather than “pseudo point sources.” The commenter contends that forcing area emissions 

into point source “distorts their impacts on ambient concentrations.” 

Response: Table 2.2-1 of the risk assessment document contained a typographical error. 

Area sources are modeled with a length, width and any other available characteristics at the 

proper location, not as point sources. This table has been corrected in the final risk assessment. 

Comment (22): Commenter 80 stated that the use of a polar grid reduces the number of 

modeled receptors and makes it much less likely that the actual maximum concentration and 

location is modeled. 

Response: We disagree with the commenter that the use of a polar grid reduces the 

number of modeled receptors and makes it much less likely that the actual maximum 

concentration and location is modeled. We note that the polar grid used in our exposure 

modeling utilizes a greater concentration of receptors in locations in close proximity to a given 

facility. Thus, we have the greatest concentration of model receptors in areas where we would 

expect the site of maximum concentration to occur. As a result, we believe that our polar 

receptor grid is sufficiently dense to capture the site of maximum concentration. 

 
58 

Comment (23): Commenter 80 questions the use of meteorological data from 1991. 

The commenter contends that there is ample data from more recent years and that improvements 

in the number and quality of meteorological instruments over the years makes using data that is 

twenty years old inappropriate. 

Response: When we began performing RTR risk assessments, we chose meteorological 

data considering the amount of data quality assurance needed, and AERMOD run times. We 

restricted our meteorological data to that collected prior to the installation of the Automated 

Surface Observation System (ASOS). The ASOS had been found to omit the ceiling height for a 

large percentage of the observations at a number of meteorological stations. Because installation 

and operation of ASOS equipment began in 1992, we selected the year 1991. As newer, higher 

quality ASOS data have become available, we have added newer data and additional data site 

locations to the meteorological data library we use in our risk assessments. Currently, 

approximately forty percent of our data is for years since 2000, and we will continue to process 

and add more recent data. The commenter did not provide evidence regarding their comment 

questioning the quality of meteorological instruments. 

Although five years of meteorological data is preferred for assessing chronic exposures 

and risks, we use a single year of meteorological data in our risk assessments because of 

AERMOD model run times. Because we frequently run AERMOD for entire source categories 

with many individual emission points and for many receptors, using five years of meteorological 

data would increase already significant model run times by a factor of five compared to a single 

year. In a sensitivity analysis of the impact of using a single year of meteorological data 

compared to five years, we found that modeled concentrations differed by less than ten percent 

on average and thus, the use of one year of meteorological data is not likely to appreciably affect 

the results of the risk assessment. 

Comment (36, 138): Two commenters (86, 92) questioned why certain factors 

recommended by the EPA in the EJSEAT were not considered in the risk assessment for this 

industry. Commenter 086 stated that the EPA should consider addressing existing 

disproportionate impacts on minority, low-income or indigenous populations during rulemaking. 

Commenter 86 further recommended that the EPA conduct a full evaluation of how the risk 

assessment for this source category could reduce risks to those communities. Commenter 92 
59 

stated that the evaluation should have included an assessment of childhood blood-levels in 

neighborhoods near the smelters. 

Response: We note that EJSEAT is currently a draft tool in development. The EPA 

disagrees that a full assessment of child blood-levels should have been included in its risk 

assessment. We note that the NAAQS for lead was used as a health benchmark value in our risk 

assessment and in developing the NAAQS for lead, child blood-lead levels were already taken 

into account. See section V.A in the final rule preamble and later responses in this document. 

Moreover, we also note that we did a demographic analysis for this source category and with 

respect to lead risk, we found that the percentages of specific demographic groups (e.g., minority 

groups, those below the poverty level) living around these facilities in areas with lead 

concentrations above the NAAQS for lead is similar to the corresponding national percentages 

for these groups. In addition, we performed a similar analysis with respect to cancer risk above 1 

in a million. In brief, although we did find the percentage of some demographic groups around 

these facilities with cancer risks above 1 in a million to be higher than their corresponding 

national percentages (e.g., a greater percentage of minorities and those below the poverty level 

live around secondary aluminum facilities and have a cancer risk greater than 1- in a million 

compared to the national percentages for these groups; see Risk and Technology Review - 

Analysis of Socio-Economic Factors for Populations Living Near Secondary Lead Smelting 

Facilities in the docket for this rule), we note that post-control cancer risks were substantially 

reduced for all demographic groups. For example, the pre control MIR was estimated to be 

about 40 in a million, but the post-control MIR was reduced to 8 in a million (see Residual Risk 

Assessment for the Secondary Lead Smelting Source Category available in the docket for this 

rule). 

More important, what matters is whether persons exposed to emissions from secondary 

lead smelters would experience an unacceptable level of risk. The rule will result in lead 

exposures which are less than the lead NAAQS and substantially reduced cancer risks. The 

NAAQS is itself predicated on being protective with an adequate margin of safety to the most 

susceptible sub-population: children living near these sources who are exposed at the level of 

the standard and accounts for multi-pathway impacts of long-term emissions, as well as the 

differential incremental risk of Pb faced by populations at different levels of exposure. See 
60 

section V.A of the final rule preamble and later responses in this document. These standards will 

therefore reduce risk of exposure to an acceptable level to all groups. 

Comment (52, 159, 187): Three commenters (90, 94, 96) argued that the EPA should 

more clearly state the conservative nature of its risk assessment. Commenters 90 and 96 stated 

that the EPA overestimated the cancer incidence for population living around the smelters. The 

EPA estimates cancer incidence by multiplying the estimated cancer risk for each census block 

by the number of people living within the block. Cancer risk for each census block is estimated 

by multiplying lifetime average exposure by a Unit Risk Exposure (URE). The commenters 

contend that because cancer incidences are calculated on the basis of these URE’s, the cancer 

incidences are upper bound estimates that may be lower than predicted and could be zero. The 

commenter requested that the EPA clearly identify the cancer incidence estimates as upperbound estimates and explain that actual cancer incidence could be as low as zero. 

Commenter 94 stated that the EPA should not make and layer conservative assumptions 

that yield risks that are clearly out of line with any risk faced in the real world. The commenters 

cited the EPA’s use of the maximum exposed individual (MEI). The commenter contends that 

the use of the MEI alone results in an overestimation of cancer risks by at least a factor of three. 

The commenter further cited the Superfund context in which the EPA “recognizes and places 

limits on the applications of conservative estimates...” The commenter stated that the EPA 

should make clear the conservative nature of its assumptions and should also adopt a risk 

assessment approach that meets the Superfund reasonable maximum exposure (RME) definition. 

Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter that it does not describe the nature of 

its risk assessments, including their limitations, uncertainties, and the possible interpretations of 

results. Indeed, in this proposed rule and in the risk assessment documentation accompanying it, 

as in all RTR rulemakings, there are lengthy sections discussing the uncertainties associated with 

each step of the assessment process, including justifications for health-protective assumptions to 

cover uncertainty gaps, where appropriate. As one example, the risk assessment clearly states 

cancer incidence estimates are upper bound and actual cancer incidence could be as low as zero. 

The risk assessment states in section 2.7: 
61 

For each carcinogenic HAP included in an assessment that has a potency estimate 

available, individual and population cancer risks were calculated by multiplying the 

corresponding lifetime average exposure estimate by the appropriate URE. This 

calculated cancer risk is defined as the upper-bound probability of developing cancer 

over a 70-yr period (i.e., the assumed human lifespan) at that exposure. Because UREs 

for most HAPs are upper-bound estimates, actual risks at a given exposure level may be 

lower than predicted, and could be zero. 

The EPA further notes that it does not currently use the maximum exposed individual 

(MEI) metric in its chronic risk assessments, instead using the maximum individual risk (MIR) 

metric for the source category -- which is defined as the cancer risk associated with a lifetime of 

exposure at the highest concentrations associated with carcinogenic HAP emissions from the 

source category. The MIR is estimated at a location where people live, whereas the MEI is 

estimated at a location on the property boundary of a facility (see section 2.3 of the final risk 

assessment for a description of the MIR and section 4.1 for a description of uncertainties 

associated with the MIR estimate). See section 112 (f)(2)(A) essentially dictating such an 

approach. 

Comment (138): Commenter 92 states that the EPA should have conducted the socioeconomic analysis separately for each of the 14 secondary lead smelting facilities, rather than 

combining the outcome for all the facilities. 

Response: The EPA disagrees that it should have conducted the socio-economic analysis 

separately for each of the 14 secondary lead smelting facilities, rather than combining the 

outcome for all the facilities. As noted in the preamble and demographics analysis, the purpose 

of the demographics analysis was to identify demographic groups that may be impacted by the 

proposed rule. For this purpose, the EPA believes that a source-category wide socio-economic 

analysis is a reasonable approach. 

Comment (123): Commenter 91 questioned several aspects of the air dispersion 

modeling conducted by the EPA, including: 

• Failure to account for dry depletion. 

• Failure to include building profile data in downwash calculations. 
62 

• Using one degree rather than 7.5 minute to estimate ground level and hill height 

elevations close to a source. 

• Failure to rely on actual boundary data. 

• Mischaracterizing the stack height and diameter and exit temperature and location of two 

sources at the Doe Run facility. 

• Modeling fugitive emissions with a release height of 10 feet rather than as being emitted 

from a building that is 80 feet high. 

• Including results from two monitors located within Buick Recycling’s fence line and 

relying on a three-month average lead concentration level that occurred during upset 

condition. 

• Lack of clarity regarding whether allowable emissions incorporated enforceable emission 

restriction that are currently in place. 

Response: We agree that accounting for dry depletion would result in lower estimated 

air concentrations. However, the impact of dry depletion on gaseous emissions is usually not 

significant, and for particulate emissions the impact depends on multiple factors, including the 

distance from the source to the receptor, and particle properties. The impact of depletion on 

maximum estimated air concentrations and risks likely would be minimal because of the short 

distance between the sources and receptors. At longer distances, the impact would be greater, 

but the extent of that impact is difficult to estimate because we typically do not have sufficient 

particle property data (aerodynamic particle diameters, particle densities, and mass fractions) to 

model depletion. Also, deposited emissions can be resuspended in the air, and plume depletion 

does not account for that. 

We agree that, in certain cases, building downwash can result in higher estimated air 

concentrations near buildings (up to five to ten building heights away). However, the impact of 

downwash on maximum estimated exposures and risks is likely not significant because the 

receptors we use to estimate chronic exposures (populated census block centroids) are typically 

farther from the source. Downwash would have an even lower impact on cancer incidence and 

population risks because those are driven by receptors even farther from the source. Also, the 

detailed building information required to model building downwash is usually not available for 

most sources. 
63 

For RTR risk assessments, we have used 1-degree elevation data, which has a resolution 

of approximately 90 meters. We used this elevation data to compute the elevation and hill height 

scale for each populated census block (2000 Census) in the nation, which is approximately six 

million blocks. This was done over a decade ago, and at that time, EPA's modeling guidance (40 

CFR 51, Appendix W) did not require the use of 30-meter resolution data for regulatory 

applications. We used the 1-degree data because of its availability and because of 

computational efficiencies with interpolating the data for the approximately six million census 

blocks. For future RTR assessments, we will use the 2010 Census data and 30-meter resolution 

elevation data. 

Detailed facility boundary information is typically not available for most of the sources 

we assess for RTR, but the lack of this information does not have a significant impact on our risk 

assessments. For chronic exposures, we use populated census block centroids as surrogates for 

where people live, so facility boundaries are not relevant. For acute exposures, we estimate the 

highest concentration outside facility boundaries, and boundary information would be useful. In 

cases where estimated acute concentrations exceed relevant health reference values, we do need 

some source of information on facility boundaries, and we typically use publicly available aerial 

images of facilities for this purpose. Similarly, for lead we also estimate the highest 

concentration outside facility boundaries and in instances where the NAAQS for lead is 

exceeded, we typically use publicly available aerial images of facilities for further refinement of 

concentrations. 

Finally, we note that the mischaracterized stack dimensions and exhaust temperatures at 

the Doe Run facility have been corrected and are reflected in the results of the final risk 

assessment document (see sections 3.2 and 3.3 as well as Appendix 5 of the final risk assessment 

document for updated risk estimates) . 

We have noted the commenter’s point that two of the monitor locations listed in the 

Summary of the Ambient Lead Monitoring Data near Secondary Lead Smelting Facilities, and a 

corrected version has been included in the docket for this final rule. 

We did not incorporate facility-specific permit limits that differed from the requirements 

of the secondary lead smelting NESHAP into the risk assessment. The assessment of allowable 

emissions focused on what is allowable after implementation of the NESHAP rather than 

facility-specific permit limits that may have been put in place for compliance with other 

regulations. 
64 

Comment (161): Commenter 94 stated that the EPA’s estimate of risk to farmers near 

the Exide Frisco facility is unrealistic. The commenter noted that the 2001 land data that the 

EPA used to assign locations to the farms did not account for development that has occurred near 

the facility in the last decade. Given the level of development that has occurred, the commenter 

contends that it is unlikely that the level of farming needed to provide all of a person’s food 

would continue around the facility for 70 years into the future. The commenter further argued 

that the assumption that a single individual is exposed via all pathways is unrealistic. 

Response: To parameterize the surrounding land use for the Exide Frisco facility, EPA 

used the 2001 National Land Cover Database (NLCD) from the U.S. Geological Survey. In late 

2010 (i.e., November/December), when assigning input parameter values for the secondary lead 

smelter source category risk assessment, EPA reviewed Google Earth satellite imagery to ensure 

that the characterization based on the 2001 data still appeared to be reasonable. Based on that 

review, EPA determined that the 2001 data adequately represented the surrounding land use of 

the Exide Frisco facility. Although Google Earth does not provide the resolution necessary to 

quantify the land uses surrounding the facility in sufficient detail to use in TRIM.FaTE, the 

resolution is adequate to see areas of undeveloped land that appeared to be dedicated to 

agriculture (i.e., appeared to be either tilled or in pasture). Additionally, in November 2011, 

Google Earth was reviewed to respond to this comment, and based on an image dated March 31, 

2011, the characterization of the farming scenario was still possible. 

EPA acknowledges that it is unlikely that an individual would be exposed to 

contaminants from emissions from this facility for an entire 70-year lifetime. However, to be 

protective of health, EPA assumes that a child grows into an adult in the vicinity of the facility 

and is exposed for their lifetime (i.e., exposure duration of 70 years). This default assumption is 

used unless there is clear justification to vary the exposure duration. EPA acknowledges that 

there has been development in the vicinity of the Exide Frisco facility and this development 

likely will continue. However, that facility was modeled to encompass one of the likely worst 

case scenarios possible for the source category based on data for all of the facilities in the source 

category. Moreover, even at the Exide Frisco facility, as noted above, there is still the potential 

for agricultural production and subsistence consumption patterns in the vicinity. 
65 

EPA also acknowledges that it is unlikely that one individual would be exposed to all of 

the ingestion pathways modeled in this assessment in the vicinity of the Exide Frisco facility for 

an entire lifetime. However, EPA believes that the possibility exists, however remote, and in the 

absence of information suggesting otherwise, makes this health protective assumption. Such 

conservative assumptions are consistent with Agency policy for chemical risk assessment for 

which all existing and potential future facilities cannot be assessed. Use of these assumptions in 

national-level risk assessments has been reviewed by the National Academy of Sciences and 

EPA’s Science Advisory Board. 

Comment (227): Commenter 98 noted that the EPA stated that it has performed no risk 

assessment for some HAPs due to the fact that they have no peer-reviewed reference values for 

cancer or chronic non-cancer or acute effects. The commenter stated that the EPA cannot simply 

ignore these risks and must, at minimum, add an uncertainty factor to account for the risk that 

these HAP may cause. The commenter further stated that the EPA should “prioritize those HAPs 

for which it needs data in this rulemaking and the next upcoming rulemakings and ensure that the 

development of this process and IRIS review have sufficient funding and resources to get the job 

done.” The commenter contends that the EPA must set a regulatory deadline to review the 

current risk analysis and perform another residual risk rulemaking once additional data on 

reference values becomes available. 

The commenter also stated that the fact that the EPA did not state which HAPs currently 

have no reference value denies commenters the opportunity to provide comments or information 

to the EPA that could improve its risk assessment and is a violation of the Clean Air Act’s public 

notice and comment provision. 

Response: This issue was addressed by the EPA’s Science Advisory Board (SAB) in 

their May 10, 2010, (EPA-SAB-10-007) response to the EPA Administrator; 

http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/4AB3966E263D943A8525771F00668381/$File/EPA

-SAB-10-007-unsigned.pdf. In that response, the SAB Panel recommended that, for HAPs that 

do not have dose-response values from the EPA’s hierarchy list, the EPA should consider and 

utilize, as appropriate, additional sources for such values that have undergone adequate and 

rigorous scientific peer review. They further recommended that the inclusion of additional 

sources of dose-response values into the EPA’s hierarchy should be adequately documented in a 
66 

transparent manner in any residual risk assessment case study. We agree with this approach and 

have considered other sources of dose-response data when conducting our risk determinations 

under RTR. However, in some instances no sources of information in addition to the EPA’s 

hierarchy are available. 

The EPA agrees that we should ultimately develop toxicity values for all Hazardous Air 

Pollutants (HAPs) utilizing all credible and relevant toxicity information. The need to update 

assessments with newly available data as well as the need to complete toxicological assessments 

for all HAPs lacking dose-response assessments further increases the importance of Agency 

activities to streamline and fully utilize the EPA’s already overloaded IRIS program. To that 

end, the EPA has always prioritized for future IRIS assessments those HAP without doseresponse values but with the greatest potential for public exposure. As a result of this 

prioritization, while not all HAPs may have scientifically accepted dose-response values that can 

be used in residual risk assessments, it is clear that the vast majority of HAPs which might carry 

the potential to significantly impact the results of residual risk assessments do, in fact, have 

credible dose-response values. Thus, while we are not yet at the point where all HAPs have 

dose-response values, we are generally capable of deriving reasonable risk estimates for those 

HAP which dominate the risks from any one source category. In the course of each residual risk 

assessment, should we encounter HAP without dose-response values which carry the potential to 

create significant risks, we shall clearly point those out as uncertainties and target them for future 

IRIS assessments. Moreover, as additional dose-response values become available, the EPA will 

incorporate these dose-response values into future risk assessments. 

 The EPA disagrees that with the commenter that we did not state which HAPs currently 

have no reference value. In the risk assessment document, Table 3.1-1 lists all the HAP emitted 

by the source category, as well as whether there is an available cancer, chronic noncancer, and/or 

acute dose-response value. 

Comment (228): Commenter 98 stated that the EPA underestimated risk to the most 

vulnerable populations by failing to account for the increased susceptibility of children and the 

developing fetus to HAP exposure. The commenter stated that accounting for the increased 

susceptibility of infants and children to pesticides is required for risk assessments conducted 

under the Food Quality Protection Act and that the EPA should use this statute as a model to 

incorporate into its residual risk assessment. The commenter contends that the EPA should 
67 

“assume that the maximum exposed individual is a child or pregnant woman, conduct an 

evaluation of health risks that incorporates impacts from early life exposure, and set childprotective standards.” 

With regards to lead emissions, the commenter stated that the EPA may not simply rely 

on the lead NAAQS to protect children. The commenter stated that the EPA must incorporate 

the best available information, including the CHPAC recommendation and California’s current 

health benchmark for children’s blood-lead level change. With regards to emissions of all HAP, 

the commenter stated that the EPA should examine developments in the methodology of 

California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA)’s that could affect 

the development of RfC and URE values. The commenter also stated that the EPA should 

consider and apply its 2008 handbook on child-specific exposure factors. 

The commenter expressed support for the EPA’s implementation of the 2005 

Supplemental Guidance for Assessing Susceptibility from Early-Life Exposure to Carcinogens in 

the assessment of cancer risk from POM emissions, but contends that the EPA should follow the 

lead of OEHHA on the issue of age-dependent adjustment factors for carcinogens. The 

commenter noted that the 2005 Supplemental Guidance was generated in 2006 and must be 

updated to incorporate more recent evaluations of carcinogenic modes of action. The commenter 

further noted that the 2005 Supplemental Guidance does not account for increased cancer risk 

resulting from prenatal exposure. 

The commenter stated that the EPA’s lack of analysis regarding increased early life 

susceptibility to HAP emissions “systematically underestimates risk” from the following 

pollutants: 

• Hexavalent Chromium 

• Dioxins 

• Arsenic 

• Cadmium 

• POM 

The commenter stated that failing to account for early life vulnerability and increased 

risks to children adds additional uncertainty to the risks from this source category. The 

commenter noted that the Food Quality Protection Act uses an uncertainty factor of ten to 

account for this type of increased uncertainty and recommended that the EPA, at a minimum, do 

the same. 
68 

Response: With respect to exposures to emissions of lead, EPA believes that the lead 

NAAQS is a reasonable health benchmark for determining risk acceptability and for the 

protection of children. The NAAQS for lead was set to protect, with an adequate margin of 

safety, the health of children and other at-risk populations against an array of adverse health 

effects, most notably including neurological effects, particularly neurobehavioral and 

neurocognitive effects, in children. Moreover, as noted in the following three citations in 

determining the NAAQS for lead, EPA specifically took into account children living near these 

types of facilities. 

73 FR 67000/3--(“The framework in effect focuses on the sensitive subpopulation 

that is the group of children living near sources and more likely to be exposed at 

the level of the standard. The evidence-based framework estimates a mean airrelated IQ loss for this subpopulation of children; it does not estimate a mean for 

all U.S. children”;) . 

73 FR 67002/3--“More specifically, in applying the evidence-based framework, 

we are focused on a subpopulation of U.S. children, those living near air sources 

and more likely to be exposed at the level of the standard. While the air related Pb 

in the blood of this subpopulation is expected to be greater than that for the 

general population given their greater air-related Pb exposure, we do not have 

information on the mean total blood Pb level (or, more specifically, the nonair 

component) for this subpopulation. However, even if we were to assume, as an 

extreme hypothetical example, that the mean for the general population of U.S. 

children included zero contribution from air-related sources, and added that to our 

estimate of air related Pb for this subpopulation, the result would still be below 

the lowest mean blood Pb level among the set of quantitative C–R analyses.”; 

73 FR 67005/1--(“the air-related IQ loss framework provides estimates for the 

mean air-related IQ loss of a subset of the population of U.S. children, and there 

are uncertainties associated with those estimates. It provides estimates for that 

subset of children likely to be exposed to the level of the standard, which is 

generally expected to be the subpopulation of children living near sources who are 

likely to be most highly exposed.”) 

In addition, in reviewing and sustaining the primary lead NAAQS, we note that the D.C. Circuit 

specifically stated that: 

“EPA explained that the scientific evidence showing the impact of lead exposure 

in young children in the United States led it ‘to give greater prominence to 

children as the sensitive subpopulation in this review’ and to focus its revision of 

the lead NAAQS on the ‘sensitive subpopulation that is the group of children 

living near [lead emission] sources and more likely to be exposed at the level of 
69 

the standard.’ Given the scientific evidence on which it relied, EPA’s decision to 

base the revised lead NAAQS on protecting the subset of children likely to be 

exposed to airborne lead at the level of the standard was not arbitrary or 

capricious.” Coalition of Battery Recyclers, 604 F. 3d at 618. 

 

The commenter nonetheless noted that in setting the NAAQS, the EPA recognized that 

there would be greater impacts to the more exposed individuals. The commenter contends that 

children living near secondary lead smelters are not only a population with increased 

susceptibility, but they also face elevated levels of exposure because they live near secondary 

lead smelters. The commenter states that EPA’s staff paper for the lead NAAQS shows that 

children living near the lead smelting facilities would still be subject to an IQ loss as high as 3.9 

(at the median) to 7.3 (at the 95th percentile), even if the EPA had set the NAAQS at 0.02 instead 

of 0.15 μg/m3. The commenter stated that this shows that an ambient air concentration of 0.02 

μg/m3 would not achieve an acceptable level of risk for children living near a secondary lead 

smelter, let alone provide an ample margin of safety. The commenter stated that the EPA must 

set a residual risk standard that prevents the local ambient lead concentration from exceeding the 

CHPAC-recommended limit of 0.02 μg/m3as a monthly average. 

The commenter contends that in choosing the lead NAAQS, the EPA “chose to allow an 

IQ point loss for the children...living near lead smelting facilities, above the 1 to 2 points that is 

considered to be “highly significant from a public health perspective,” and above the 2 points 

that is considered to allow an “adequate margin of safety” for the national population level of 

exposed children.” Therefore, replicating the NAAQS in this rulemaking fails the section 

112(f)(2) test to provide an ample margin of safety to communities near secondary lead smelters. 

In establishing the 2008 Pb NAAQS, EPA recognized that more highly exposed 

individuals were at risk of greater adverse effects from lead, and EPA promulgated a revised Pb 

NAAQS that would provide the requisite degree of protection, with an adequate margin of 

safety, for the health of these individuals, specifically targeting protection at children living near 

sources of lead emissions exposed at the level of the standard, as demonstrated above. EPA did 

not find that this standard would result in greater IQ loss for children living near lead sources. 

As shown above, these are precisely the susceptible subpopulation at which the standard is 

targeted. EPA’s determination that this susceptible subpopulation would be exposed to an airrelated IQ loss of no more than 2 points was supported by the evidence-based framework (i.e. 
70 

epidemiological studies and related materials) that was the primary basis for EPA’s decision. 

See 73 FR at 67006, where the Agency explained 

The Administrator notes that the evidence-based framework indicates that for 

standard levels above 0.15 ųg/m3, the estimated mean air-related IQ loss in the 

subpopulation of children exposed at the level of the standard would range in 

almost all cases from above 2 points to 5 points or more with the range of air-toblood ratios considered. He concludes, in light of his consideration of all of the 

evidence, including the framework discussed above, that the protection from airrelated Pb effects at the higher blood Pb levels that would be allowed by standards 

above 0.15 ųg/m3 would not be sufficient to protect public health with an 

adequate margin of safety. In addition, the Administrator notes that for standard 

levels below 0.15 ųg/m3, the estimated mean IQ loss from air-related Pb in the 

subpopulation of children exposed at the level of the standard would generally be 

somewhat to well below 2 IQ points regardless of which air-to-blood ratio within 

the range of ratios considered was used. The Administrator concludes in light of 

all of the evidence, including the evidence-based framework, that the degree of 

public health protection that standards below 0.15 ųg/m3 would likely afford 

would be greater than what is necessary to protect public health with an adequate 

margin of safety. 

The commenter’s statement that the most susceptible subpopulation are children already 

exposed and so having high blood lead levels. This is not correct. The most neurologically 

susceptible children are those with lower, not higher, blood lead levels. Thus, “[m]ultiple 

epidemiologic studies of Pb and child development have demonstrated inverse association 

between blood Pb concentrations and children’s IQ and other cognitive-related outcomes.... The 

current evidence ... with regard to the quantitative relationship between neurocognitive 

decrement, such as IQ, and blood Pb levels indicates that the slope for Pb effects on IQ is nonlinear and is steeper at lower blood Pb levels, such that each [mu]g/dL increase in blood Pb may 

have a greater effect on IQ at lower blood Pb levels... than at higher levels.” 73 FR at 66976-77; 

to the same effect, see 73 FR at 67002, 67004. Consequently, the most susceptible target 

population for neuro-impairment are children living near lead sources exposed to the level of the 

standard who do not have high blood lead levels -- the population targeted for protection by the 

lead primary NAAQS. Other less susceptible populations, including children with higher blood 

lead levels due to past exposures, will necessarily be accorded protection as well. 

The commenter appears to basing its assertions on portions of EPA’s quantitative 

assessment report prepared for the primary Pb NAAQS prepared as part of the NAAQS review 
71 

process. EPA–452/R–07–014a and EPA–452/R–07–014b.5 The commenter goes too far. 

Although the results of the risk assessment were generally supportive of the evidence-based airrelated IQ estimates, EPA did not rely on those estimates in establishing the level of the standard. 

See 73 FR at 67006. The lead NAAQS was based primarily on the scientific evidence and to a 

lesser extent the results of the risk and exposure assessment -- that is, on the epidemiologic 

information rather than on the exposure and risk assessment due to its associated limitations and 

uncertainties (see 73 FR from 66979 to 66982). Thus, EPA disagrees that the current or previous 

risk assessment reports or Staff Papers provides a basis for concluding that the current NAAQS 

is inadequate to protect the health of children living near sources of lead emissions and that the 

lead NAAQS serves as a reasonable measure of acceptable risk. 

Furthermore, we disagree with the general comment that EPA does not consider the 

groups that may be most at-risk in its risk assessments (e.g, pregnant woman). By providing 

protection to the most susceptible parts of the population – here, children living near lead sources 

with low blood lead levels exposed at the level of the standard – the standard necessarily 

provides protection to less susceptible populations. 73 FR at 67005/1. Thus, the lead NAAQS 

was based on the prevention of adverse health effects of children based on preventing effects to 

the developing nervous system in children living near lead sources and exposed at the level of 

the standard. Similarly, when EPA derives exposure reference concentrations and unit risk 

estimates for non-lead HAP, it also considers the most sensitive populations identified in the 

available literature, and importantly, these are the values used in our risk assessments (see US 

EPA. (2002). A review of the reference dose and reference concentration processes. 

EPA/630/P-02/002F. Risk Assessment Forum, Washington DC. Available online at 

http://www.epa.gov/raf/publications/pdfs/rfd-final.pdf). Finally, with respect to maternal 

exposure in utero specifically, we are unaware of literature that would allow for a robust 

characterization of risk during this stage of development. 

We further note that in developing the NAAQS for lead, because of the multi-pathway, 

multi-media impacts of lead, the risk assessment supporting the NAAQS considered direct 

 

5 The commenter refers to the EPA Staff Paper for its statement. However, EPA has not been able to find or 

duplicate the quantified numbers appearing in their comment. The Staff Paper and notice of final rulemaking (p. 

66982) indicates a median air-related IQ loss estimated to be less than 3.7 (using the higher confidence loglinear CR function, and less than (1.2-5.1) via the other 2 functions) for children living within 1.5 km of primary smelters. 

6 An approach which has been repeatedly upheld by the courts. See, e.g. American Trucking Ass’n v. EPA, 283 F. 

3d at 374; American Farm Bureau v. EPA, 559 F. 3d at 527 (EPA justified in not relying on exposure and risk 

assessment to set PM NAAQS given uncertainties inherent in these assessments). 
72 

inhalation exposures and indirect air-related multi-pathway exposures from industrial sources 

like primary and secondary lead smelting operations. More specifically, EPA assessed the IQ 

loss associated with the cumulative environmental impact of long-term emissions in 

communities living near stationary sources of Pb emissions, specifically Pb smelters. (USEPA, 

2007; 73 FR 66979-66983, also see the lead NAAQS Human Exposure and Health Risk 

Assessment available at http://epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pb/s_pb_cr_td.html). As noted, these 

risk estimates were judged to be generally supportive of the scientific evidence that was the 

primary basis for revising the lead NAAQS (73 FR at 67004). Taken together, the EPA believes 

that the lead NAAQS is a reasonable benchmark to use in evaluating the potential for 

multipathway health effects from lead compounds. 

Furthermore, as noted in the risk assessment document, there is no RfD or other 

comparable chronic health benchmark value for lead compounds. That is, in 1988, the EPA’s 

IRIS program reviewed the health effects data regarding lead and its inorganic compounds and 

determined that it would be inappropriate to develop an RfD for these compounds, saying, “A 

great deal of information on the health effects of lead has been obtained through decades of 

medical observation and scientific research. This information has been assessed in the 

development of air and water quality criteria by the agency's Office of Health and Environmental 

Assessment (OHEA) in support of regulatory decision-making by the Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards (OAQPS) and by the Office of Drinking Water (ODW). By comparison 

to most other environmental toxicants, the degree of uncertainty about the health effects of lead 

is quite low. It appears that some of these effects, particularly changes in the levels of certain 

blood enzymes and in aspects of children's neurobehavioral development, may occur at blood 

lead levels so low as to be essentially without a threshold. The agency's RfD Work Group 

discussed inorganic lead (and lead compounds) at two meetings (07/08/1985 and 07/22/1985) 

and considered it inappropriate to develop an RfD for inorganic lead.” The EPA’s IRIS 

assessment for Lead and compounds (inorganic) (CASRN 7439-92-1), 

http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0277.htm. 

With respect to the comment concerning HAP emissions other than lead, the EPA 

disagrees with the commenter’s assertion that the chronic noncancer health benchmarks used for 

the assessment are not protective of children. The EPA uses RfC values and chronic REL values 

that are expressly derived with the intention of protecting sensitive subpopulations, including 

children (see U.S. EPA. (2002). A review of the reference dose and reference concentration 
73 

processes. EPA/630/P-02/002F. Risk Assessment Forum, Washington DC. Available online at 

http://www.epa.gov/raf/publications/pdfs/rfd-final.pdf. With respect to cancer, the EPA uses the 

age-dependent adjustment factor approach referred to by the commenter, but limits the use of 

those factors only to carcinogenic pollutants that are known to act via mutagenic mode of action, 

in contrast to the OEHHA approach which uses them across the board for all carcinogens 

regardless of mode of action. The EPA believes the OEHHA approach is unwarranted and 

overly conservative, and provides its lengthy rationale for this approach in the 2005 

Supplemental Guidance, as referred to by the commenter. With respect to the commenter’s 

recommendation for EPA to use the California benchmarks developed explicitly for protecting 

children, we note that the EPA is currently evaluating whether or not it is appropriate to use the 

CalEPA child-specific reference doses, and further notes that there are currently no such values 

for HAP inhalation, so their current utility would be limited to PB-HAP which may be associated 

with non-negligible ingestion exposures. That is, before using these child-specific reference 

doses, the EPA wants to evaluate whether they have been appropriately derived7. In addition, the 

EPA has a hierarchy of appropriate health benchmark values and in general, this hierarchy places 

greater weight on the EPA derived health benchmarks than those from other agencies (see 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata1999/99pdfs/healtheffectsinfo.pdf). Notably, this hierarchy 

favoring EPA benchmarks (when they exist) over all others has been endorsed by the SAB. 

The commenter also makes the legal argument that the primary NAAQS provides an 

“adequate” margin of safety, but that section 112 (f)(2) requires that a residual risk standard 

provide an “ample” margin of safety, reasoning from this that a NAAQS cannot just be 

substituted as the measure for evaluating acceptability of risk and that some greater level of 

protection is required. EPA is considering the NAAQS (which incorporates an adequate margin 

of safety) in determining which lead risks from air-borne lead from secondary lead smelters are 

acceptable or unacceptable. Margin-of-safety determinations for this rule are conducted 

separately, in accord with the two-step framework set forth in the Benzene NESHAP and the en 

banc opinion in Vinyl Chloride. See not only Vinyl Chloride, 824 F. 2d at 1165, 1166 but 

NRDC v. EPA, 902 F. 2d 962, 973-74 (D.C. Cir. 1990). It may be, that after consideration of 

feasibility and cost (and other factors relevant under the benzene NESHAP), standards more 

stringent than those necessary to provide an acceptable level of risk are needed to provide an 

 

7 The California acute value for arsenic, which has been considered by EPA and is discussed above at page 67 is not 

child-specific. 
74 

ample margin of safety. However, the difference in the terms “adequate” and “ample” does not 

dictate such a result. 

EPA’s analysis in this rulemaking reflects these distinctions. These different processes 

may result in standards which are the same or different depending on the facts involved. 

However, EPA disagrees with the commenter that section 112 (f)(2) standards must be more 

stringent than primary NAAQS as a matter of law. 

Comment (229): Commenter 98 stated that the list of contaminants identified in the 

2003 Risk Assessment Guidance as being both persistent and bio-accumulative (‘PB’) in the 

environment is inaccurate and ignores HAPs which present a multipathway risk. The commenter 

noted, for example, that arsenic is a metal and is persistent in the environment. Therefore, 

assessing arsenic risk solely from inhalation underestimates risks associated with ingestion of 

arsenic-contaminated soil and fish. The commenter also stated that excluding lead from the 

multipathway risk assessment is not justifiable as lead is persistent in the environment and also 

bio-accumulates in biota. 

The commenter further noted that restricting the multipathway risk assessment to only 

contaminants that bioaccumulate is not supported by the 2003 guidance. The commenter 

contends that the 2003 Guidance does not direct that the multipathway risk assessment be limited 

to PB-HAPs. 

The commenter further stated that excluding contaminants that persist in soils 

underestimates risks from HAPs emitted from secondary lead smelters and it is therefore 

insufficient to rely on the lead NAAQS standard as a benchmark for multipathway risk due to 

lead. The commenter stated that “Only a forward calculation of the estimated cumulative and 

multipathway risk from the lead and other HAP emissions satisfies the requirements for the 

residual risk assessment.” The EPA may not simply assume that the lead NAAQS satisfies 

section 112(f)(2), but must actually perform the residual risk analysis required to set standards 

under section 112(f)(2), avoid unacceptable risk, and provide an ample margin of safety for 

public health. The commenter noted that the lead NAAQS separated lead exposure into “recent” 

and “past” air and “did not include both categories equally in setting of the standard.” 

Response: In the Air Toxics Assessment Library (see 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/fera/risk_atra_main.html), we developed the current persistent and 
75 

bioaccumulative HAP (PB-HAP) list considering all of the available information on persistence 

and bioaccumulation. This list was peer-reviewed by the SAB, and it is reasonable to use it in 

the RTR program. Based on the limited available information on the persistence and 

bioaccumulation of arsenic, we do not believe that the potential for multipathway risk rises to the 

level of the PB-HAP currently on the list. 

We disagree with the commenter that a separate multipathway risk assessment should 

have been performed for lead. As noted in previous responses, the NAAQS for lead was used as 

a health based standard in this review but was not simply adopted mechanically, but rather is 

justified under the independent decision framework in section 112 (f)(2). We note that the 

NAAQS for lead was set to protect, with an adequate margin of safety, the health of the most 

susceptible children and other potentially at-risk populations against an array of adverse health 

effects, most notably including neurological effects, particularly neurobehavioral and 

neurocognitive effects (which are the most effects to which children are most sensitive) (73 FR 

at 67007). We further note that in developing the NAAQS for lead, air-related multipathway 

effects were already taken into account. That is, as noted at 73 FR at 66971: 

“As was true in the setting of the current standard, multimedia distribution of and 

multipathway exposure to Pb that has been emitted into the ambient air play a key 

role in the Agency’s consideration of the Pb NAAQS.” 

 In addition, the commenter is correct that a distinction was made between 

“recent” and “past” air in the exposure and risk assessment to support the lead NAAQS review 

(73 FR 66980). However, as explained in commenter response at page 72 of this document, 

EPA based the lead primary NAAQS primarily on the scientific evidence and to a lesser extent 

the results of the risk assessment. 

 Thus, the distinction between “recent” and “past” air in the risk and exposure assessments 

had little effect on the final decisions reached in the lead NAAQS. 

We also note that there is no statutory bar to the EPA determining, based on the best 

science it has, that the NAAQS, which is to protect public health with an adequate margin of 

safety will also protect public health from lead compound emissions with an ample margin of 

safety as provided under section 112(f)(2). 

Comment (229): Commenter 98 stated that the EPA failed to include an exposure 

scenario that assesses cumulative risk from HAPs in the urban environment and therefore 
76 

potentially significantly underestimates risks from this source category. The commenter noted 

that soil contaminants are of particular concern to children due to particular behaviors that 

increase their exposures via incidental ingestion. The commenter contends that the EPA’s failure 

to assess an urban child scenario as part of the cumulative risk assessment “ignores the exposure 

that may pose the most significant risk from this source category.” 

The commenter further noted that the EPA’s multipathway risk assessment relies on 

incidental soil ingestion exposures taken from the EPA’s 1997 Exposure Factors Handbook. The 

commenter stated that these values are outdated and that the EPA should use more recent studies 

and estimates found in the 2009 update to the handbook. The commenter noted that the EPA 

also has a 2008 child-specific exposure factor handbook that it failed to consider. The 

commenter also stated that risks from exposure to soil contaminants should evaluate both direct 

and indirect exposure. 

Response: The criteria for selecting the facilities in the multipathway case study 

analyses are described in sections 2.4 and 2.5 of the Human Health Multipathway Residual Risk 

Assessment for the Secondary Lead Smelting Source Category (available in the docket for this 

rulemaking). As noted in that document, the EPA believes that these locations are in the upper 

end of the potential for multipathway risks from this source category (see page 1 of the 

multipathway assessment available in the docket for this rule). Thus, even though neither of 

these scenarios are in an urban environment, we believe that they were reasonable locations to 

conduct a multipathway assessment, especially considering that proximity to farm land and/or 

fishable lakes is a major consideration for a multipathway risk assessment. With respect to our 

inhalation risk assessment, this assessment was conducted to evaluate exposures occurring within 

50 km of each facility in the source category. See 76 FR at 29039. Thus, any facilities located in 

urban areas would have been included in the inhalation risk assessment. 

The commenter’s assertion that EPA should have used estimates for children’s soil 

ingestion from the updated (2009) Exposure Factors Handbook, instead of the 1997 Exposure 

Factors Handbook (‘EFH’), is not well taken. At the time of the multipathway assessment, the 

2009 revision was a draft that had been released for public comment. Thus, it was premature to 

adopt conclusions from this type of draft document. We now note that this document has 

recently been finalized, but that its use would not have yielded any change in the soil ingestion 

rates that were used in the analysis to support the proposed rule (as detailed below). 
77 

For adults, the recommended central tendency (i.e., mean) soil ingestion rate is 50 

mg/day for both the 1997 EFH and the 2009 draft EFH; and this rate was used in the analysis 

underlying this rule. The 1997 EFH did not provide an upper percentile soil ingestion rate for 

adults; therefore, as noted in Table C-3 of Appendix C of the background document (Human 

Health Multipathway Residual Risk Assessment for the Secondary Lead Smelting Source 

Category), the EPA used an upper percentile value from Stanek et al. 1997. The draft 2009 EFH 

only provides an upper percentile ingestion rate for adults that is reflective of geophagy (i.e. dirteating) behavior, which we believe would result in overly conservative risk results and, as such, 

is not appropriate for this type of risk assessment. 

As provided in Table C-3 of Appendix C of the background document Human Health 

Multipathway Residual Risk Assessment for the Secondary Lead Smelting Source Category, the 

Child-Specific EFH (CSEFH) was used by the EPA, where applicable, for child soil ingestion 

rates. The CSEFH-recommended central-tendency ingestion rate of 50 mg/day was used in the 

analysis (note that this value is one-half the mean 100 mg/day ingestion rate recommended for 

children in the 1997 EFH). However, for the upper percentile ingestion rate, the 1997 EFH 

recommended ingestion rate of 400 mg/day was used for young children (those less than 6 years 

old) because the 2008 CSEFH only provides upper percentile ingestion rates that are reflective of 

pica and geophagy behaviors, which, as noted above, we believe would result in overly 

conservative risk estimates. For older children (6 years of age and older) we assume the same 

soil ingestion rate as for that of the adult. 

With regards to incidental soil contamination, the EPA has estimated risks from both 

direct and indirect pathways. Direct routes of exposure include direct ingestion of soil and 

exposure through dermal contact. However, because it has been demonstrated in past analyses 

that exposure levels associated with dermal contact are but a small fraction of exposure levels 

associated with ingestion and inhalation pathways, dermal exposures were not assessed for 

secondary lead smelters. Indirect soil-exposure pathways are assessed through analysis of the 

consumption of produce and animal products that are grown or raised in contaminated soils. 

Comment (229): Commenter 98 stated that the EPA’s overall risk assessment is 

incomplete because it fails to add the inhalation and multipathway risk assessments in order to 

come up with a total risk that the EPA and the public can analyze. The commenter contends that 

the EPA should use this total risk to determine whether or not the risks from secondary lead 
78 

smelters are acceptable and what standards would be needed to provide an ample margin of 

safety. 

Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter. Even though it is highly unlikely 

that the same person would have the highest inhalation and multipathway risk (the premise 

behind adding the two types of risk), the EPA did include in its risk assessment document, a 

combined inhalation and multipathway MIR for the Exide Frisco facility (see section 3.2 of the 

draft risk assessment document, available in the docket for this rulemaking). We note that of the 

two multipathway case studies, this facility was estimated to have the highest multipathway 

cancer risk, and the EPA therefore used it as the multipathway MIR facility for the source 

category. However, we also note that based on updated emissions information (i.e., emissions 

information received during the public comment period for the proposed rule which showed that 

emissions were lower than the EPA estimated at proposal), multipathway risk associated with the 

Exide Frisco facility is likely to be well below 1-in a million. See section IV.A of the final rule 

preamble and other comment responses for discussion of the updated Exide Frisco dioxin data. 

Comment (229): Commenter 98 stated that the EPA underestimated the total risk that 

maximum exposed people are likely to face and also failed to account for the increased risk 

caused by a person’s exposure to multiple HAPs by not performing a full cumulative risk 

analysis. The commenter noted that the EPA’s stated reasons for not addressing cumulative risk 

are “uncertainties.” The commenter stated that, where public health is concerned, uncertainty is 

not “a rational explanation”. The commenter contends that the EPA should follow SAB 

recommendations that the EPA conduct a sensitivity analysis to identify major uncertainties in 

the risk assessments, explain these risks clearly in the risk characterization section, and take steps 

to reduce them. 

The commenter further stated that if the EPA chooses not to calculate cumulative risk, 

then it should, “at minimum, use the fact that it knows there is a greater risk than it has calculated 

as a reason to find a lower cancer, chronic non-cancer, and acute threshold to be acceptable.” 

The commenter argued that the EPA has failed to gather the information needed to determine 

whether stronger standards are needed for this source category. 

Response: We disagree with the commenter’s statement that our risk assessments do not 

consider cumulative risk. We note that our assessment of cancer risks is, in fact, cumulative, 
79 

summing the risks associated with all carcinogens emitted by a facility (see risk assessment 

document, section 3.2). Similarly, the use of the target organ specific hazard index (TOSHI) for 

chronic non-cancer effects evaluates the cumulative effects of HAP on a given target organ. 

Further, our assessment is cumulative in that it considers all emission points within the fence line 

(since they are all covered by the MACT). Moreover, the lead NAAQS is a cumulative standard 

in that it considered all air-related exposures in its derivation as explained in comment response 

at pages 68-74. 

Moreover, to provide the quantitative risk information necessary to inform RTR 

regulatory decisions, the EPA conducts a comprehensive assessment of the risks associated with 

exposure to the HAPs emitted by the source category (i.e., those emissions that can actually be 

affected by the specific rulemaking) and supplements that with additional available information 

about other possible concurrent and relevant risks. In some cases, we have additional information 

about HAP emissions that are outside the scope of the particular rulemaking but within the 

boundaries of the subject facilities. In other cases, we may have ambient HAP monitoring data 

that can be considered as part of the regulatory decision-making. In still other cases, we may 

have very little additional risk information that can be considered. In all cases, however, when 

we consider additional information about risks, we also consider its attendant uncertainties, and 

information which carries significant uncertainties generally carries much less weight in the 

overall regulatory decision. 

All of the quantitative risk assessment information about HAP emissions from the source 

category under consideration is also considered in the manner prescribed by the decision 

framework set forth by the CAA for residual risk decision-making (i.e., the Benzene NESHAP 

decision framework), and this means that the general guidelines of risk acceptability have been 

developed in a way that they already take into account the impossibility of accurately quantifying 

the health risks posed by outside forces on every individual in the population. This 

acknowledgment allows the EPA to make risk-based decisions by focusing on the risks 

associated with the emissions that are themselves the subject of regulation being considered. 

Comment (230): Commenter 98 stated that, with regards to lead emissions, the EPA 

violated section 112(f)(2) by stopping once it determined the level of emissions reductions 

needed to avoid exceedances of the lead NAAQS. The commenter contends that the EPA did 

not perform an analysis to decide whether reducing emissions to a level that would comply with 
80 

the NAAQS would also reduce risk to an acceptable level. The commenter noted that “what is 

acceptable at the population level is not necessarily acceptable at the community level.” The 

commenter stated that rather than setting a standard that would reduce emissions enough to 

comply with the NAAQS, the EPA must set a standard to reduce risks to an acceptable level. 

The commenter also noted that the EPA may not consider cost in determining the reduction in 

emissions needed to reduce risk to an acceptable level. 

Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter – the NAAQS for lead did consider lead 

risks for children living around these types of facilities – i.e. considerations of risk at the 

community level. As explained in the preamble for the lead NAAQS at 73 FR 67002/3: 

“More specifically, in applying the evidence-based framework, we are focused on 

a subpopulation of U.S. children, those living near air sources and more likely to 

be exposed at the level of the standard. While the air related Pb in the blood of 

this subpopulation is expected to be greater than that for the general population 

given their greater air-related Pb exposure, we do not have information on the 

mean total blood Pb level (or, more specifically, the nonair component) for this 

subpopulation. However, even if we were to assume, as an extreme hypothetical 

example, that the mean for the general population of U.S. children included zero 

contribution from air-related sources, and added that to our estimate of airrelated 

Pb for this subpopulation, the result would still be below the lowest mean blood 

Pb level among the set of quantitative C–R analyses 

See also comment response at pages 68-74 above, for further discussion of this issue. 

Moreover, as noted in the preamble to the proposed rule, the lead NAAQS, a health based 

standard set to protect public health with an adequate margin of safety (including the health of 

sensitive populations), was chosen as a health benchmark to ensure that risks associated with 

lead exposure were acceptable. See 76 FR at 29041-29042. In using this benchmark to 

determine the highest level of emissions that could be associated with an acceptable level of airborne risks to lead-bearing emissions from secondary lead smelters, EPA chose to ensure that the 

worst-case impact created by any source in the category was acceptable to the most sensitive 

individual in the entire population (which is, in this case, known to be children living near the 

smelter and exposed to the level of the lead primary NAAQS), regardless of whether or not the 

most sensitive individual in the population (i.e., a child) was deemed to reside at that point of 

worst-case impact. This approach ensures that any smaller (and potentially more susceptible) 
81 

community within the larger exposed population is still at an acceptable level of risk. The EPA 

then considered in its ample margin of safety discussion whether additional cost effective, 

technically feasible controls were available to reduce risk further. However, the EPA did not 

find any additional controls that were justified under the second step of the residual risk analysis. 

Comment (231): Commenter 98 generally commented that the EPA needs to update its 

framework for determining “acceptability” of risks under the RTRs to reflect more current 

science and societal mores as to what risks are considered to be acceptable. The commenter 

notes that the science has evolved significantly since the late 1980’s and they question why “100 

in-a-million” cancer risk level is still appropriate in light of current science and evolving 

community standards (this later point based on language in the en banc Vinyl Chloride opinion). 

The commenter stated that for non-lead emissions; the EPA presumes that the lifetime cancer 

risk here is “acceptable” because it is lower than 100-in-1 million. The EPA does not address or 

explain why any risk below that level remains acceptable today. It is arbitrary and capricious for 

the EPA to continue to rely on that presumption as a basis for its decision for several reasons: 

1. The Clean Air Act requires an up-to-date, contemporary assessment and relying on an 

out-dated presumption conflicts with the very purpose of the residual risk analysis. 

2. There is significant new information on the factors the EPA discussed in its old 

rulemaking that should influence its analysis today of what level of risk is currently 

“acceptable”. 

3. Scientific research has evolved dramatically since the EPA set that presumption. There 

has been a vast increase in understanding of the relationship between the environment 

and public health, in particular, appreciation for the importance of assessing 

environmental hazards and exposures with respect to community health and as they are 

experienced by individuals who live in communities. Commenter cites risk assessment 

studies and guidance, studies on children’s exposure to toxics, and CDC reports as 

providing evidence of the EPA and other federal funded research and developments in 

health effects of chemicals. 

4. The EPA’s commitment to environmental justice must inform its consideration of what 

level of risk is “acceptable” as required by the 1994 Environmental Justice Executive 

Order and 2010 guidance to direct all federal agencies to take environmental justice into 
82 

consideration. The consideration of environmental justice should factor into the question 

of what level of risk is “acceptable” today. 

5. American values and policies have evolved to tolerate less health risk from industrial 

pollution. As pollution-control technology and industrial practices have evolved to be 

able to better protect human health, their evolution has also changed the “world in which 

we live” and with it, the public’s views on what level of risk may be acceptable (or not). 

The commenter contends that a lifetime cancer risk below the level of 100-in-1 million 

can no longer be presumed “safe” or “acceptable” in “the world in which we live” due to the 

dramatic evolution of science, technology, and social values that have occurred in recent 

decades. Due to these changed circumstances, the EPA must reassess whether a level below 

100-in1 million and closer to the “aspirational goal” of 1-in-1 million should be adopted as a 

more stringent, presumptive upper limit for what is considered “acceptable.” This is a question 

that the EPA cannot evade by assuming everything it did in the Benzene Rule will remain per se 

lawful for all time, all persons and communities, and all source categories. Ignoring the 

substantial new information and changed circumstances since the EPA last considered that 

question is arbitrary and capricious. 

Commenter 98 stated that the EPA fails to give a reasoned explanation for not proposing 

a stronger standard for arsenic and cadmium to provide an ample margin of safety. The 

commenter noted that the risk assessment number the EPA found is five times the level 

associated with public health concerns and that the fact that cost are “high” for the WESP 

technology is not sufficient reason for the EPA not to consider how much acute or cancer risk 

reduction would occur if the EPA were to require further emission reductions based on this 

technology. Commenter 95 also stated that emissions of arsenic and cadmium contribute to the 

risks posed by secondary lead smelters, yet the EPA’s proposal will not address these risks in a 

manner consistent with the CAA. According to the commenter, “When considering the risks 

associated with MACT-allowable emissions, the MIR could be up to 200 in 1 million. EPA 

nevertheless has not proposed sufficiently protective residual risk standards.” 

Response: As an initial matter, we note that in 1990 Congress codified in section 112(f) 

(2)(B) of the CAA the approach we use for our residual risk analyses. Under that approach, the 

100 in a million cancer risk is not a bright line indicating that risk is “acceptable.” Rather, we 
83 

consider this health metric in conjunction with a variety of health factors to determine whether 

the risk is acceptable. Where we conclude that the risk is not acceptable, we cannot and do not 

consider costs in requiring controls to bring risks down to an acceptable level. However, the 

analysis of whether risk is acceptable is not the endpoint. Once we determine that controls are 

sufficient to ensure that risk is acceptable, we again review the health metrics in conjunction with 

the costs of controls, technical feasibility, and other relevant factors, to determine whether 

additional controls should be required to provide an ample margin of safety. 

EPA also does not accept that the language in the en banc Vinyl Chloride opinion 

regarding risks “acceptable in the world in which we live”, 824 F. 2d at 1165, dictates any 

particular quantitative result based on societal preference – especially when the court, in using 

this language, was indicating that risk-based standards for hazardous air pollutants did not need 

to be risk-free. Moreover, the commenter does not support its contention that people are now 

unwilling to accept a level of risk that was acceptable at the time the CAA was amended in 1990. 

Nor does the commenter support how science has evolved in a way that would undermine the 

statutorily codified framework for determining risk acceptability. We note that for purposes of 

the proposed and final rule, we performed a demographic analysis for the purpose of informing 

the public of what demographic groups could potentially be impacted by a given rulemaking, and 

that analysis is in the docket. We also note that since risks from exposure to lead compounds 

are acceptable to the most susceptible subpopulation after controls under EPA’s approach here, 

other less susceptible populations likewise will be exposed to an acceptable level of risk as well. 

 Comment (231): Commenter 98 stated that the EPA must reduce risk to a TOSHI of 0.2 

or below. According to the commenter: 

EPA has determined that this source category’s HAP emissions result in a TOSHI 

or hazard quotient as high as 3 based on allowable emissions (or 0.6 based on 

“actual” emissions). In its discussion of whether the risk is “acceptable” and what 

reductions may be required to reach such a level, EPA did not discuss the high 

TOSHI at all. EPA must address chronic non-cancer health effects in its analysis 

before finalizing this rule. 

In finding that a non-cancer TOSHI of 1.0 or less is not a human health concern, 

EPA has ignored its staff’s scientific assessment and reversed its hazard index 
84 

policy to align it with industry wishes. In an internal memo from 2002, Residual 

Risk Program: Selection of Hazard Index Limits, EPA stated that the default HI 

limit for chronic non-cancer risks should be well under 1.0 for individual 

sources—specifically, it should be 0.2. The rationale for a maximum non-cancer 

HI of 0.2 expressed in the 2002 EPA memo states that a limit of 0.2 would allow 

an individual source to account for 20 percent of the contribution to total exposure 

in its vicinity. An HI limit of 0.2 attempts to provide a de minimis fraction below 

which contributions are considered insignificant to total exposure while not 

allowing a single source to dominate the total exposures to similar 

noncarcinogens in its vicinity. 

EPA has not evaluated other nearby sources of HAPs, it has not considered the 

multipathway exposure from certain pollutants, and it has failed to consider the 

interaction of multiple health risks found for affected communities. Therefore, 

EPA’s analysis provides only one piece of the chronic non-cancer health risk. 

Failing to ensure that chronic non-cancer health risks do not exceed a TOSHI of 

0.2 from this source category does not sufficiently protect local communities’ 

health from cumulative exposure. EPA must address and account for cumulative 

impacts and multiple contributors to risk. It may not permit a single source 

covered by this rulemaking to consume the entire non-cancer risk safety factor. 

Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter’s notion that any TOSHI value 

greater than 0.2 should be considered unacceptable. We note that pollutant-specific reference 

concentrations (RfCs) are not absolute thresholds, but estimates of chronic inhalation exposures 

at or below which health effects would not be expected to occur, including in sensitive 

subgroups. We further note that these RfCs are developed using a health-protective approach 

(see uncertainty discussion in risk assessment document section 4.2), that TOSHI values of 1 or 

less are (like RfC levels) generally considered to carry no appreciable risk of adverse health 

effects and that there is generally no need to compound this protection by suggesting that any 

source category maximum TOSHI value would need to be at or below 0.2 before we would 

consider it to be acceptable. 
85 

We further note that we generally draw no bright lines of acceptability regarding cancer 

or noncancer risks from source category HAP emissions, and that it is always important to 

consider the specific uncertainties of the emissions and health effects information regarding the 

source category in question when deciding exactly what level of cancer and noncancer risk 

should be considered acceptable. In addition, the source category-specific decision of what 

constitutes an acceptable level of risk should be a holistic one; that is, it should simultaneously 

consider all potential health impacts -- chronic and acute, cancer and noncancer, and 

multipathway, -- along with their uncertainties, when determining the acceptable level of source 

category risk. Experience with source category rulemakings in the past tells us that this means 

that drawing bright lines for such decision-making is impossible. The Benzene NESHAP 

decision framework of 1989 acknowledged this; in today’s world, such flexibility is even more 

imperative, because new information relevant to the question of risk acceptability is being 

developed all the time, and the accuracy and uncertainty of each piece of information must be 

considered in a weight-of-evidence approach for each decision. This relevant body of 

information is growing fast (and it will continue to grow faster and faster), necessitating a 

flexible weight-of-evidence approach that acknowledges both complexity and uncertainty in the 

simplest and most transparent way possible. While this challenge is formidable, it is nonetheless 

the goal of the EPA’s RTR decision-making, and it is the goal of the risk assessment to provide 

the information to support the decision-making process. 

In this case, the pollutant primarily driving the unacceptable risk is lead compounds, and 

control of lead compounds to meet the primary lead NAAQS reduces lead risk of air-borne lead 

emissions from this source category to an acceptable level. See Section IV.A of the preamble. 

With regard to lead as well as to other HAP, as part of the second step ample margin of safety 

analysis, we did look for additional controls and process improvements that might further reduce 

risks in a cost-effective, technically feasible manner. In this case, we didn't find any additional 

cost-effective controls and ultimately concluded that the level of control that brought risks to an 

acceptable level was also the level of control that resulted in public health being protected with 

an ample margin of safety. See 76 FR at 29057-59. Moreover, control of lead will effectively 

co-control all other non-mercury metal HAP, see Secondary Lead Smelting-- Background 

Information for Promulgated Standards (EPA-453/R-95- 008b) at page 2-19, a conclusion 

unchallenged in the record for this rulemaking. 
86 

Finally, we note that the commenter’s source for its statement that default limits HI 

should or must be established at 0.2 rest on an internal EPA staff memo (from 2002) which was 

never adopted as agency policy (and never reviewed by the public or by any peer review body) 

and consequently carries no precedential weight. 

Comment (232): Commenter 98 stated that the EPA did not appropriately address issues 

of socioeconomic disparity in health risks from this source category. While supporting the 

EPA’s effort to gather demographic data and to incorporate environmental justice into their 

consideration of what level of public health risk is “acceptable” or not under section 112(f)(2) 

the commenter stated that the EPA should use these data to protect families from unacceptable 

risk. A level of risk that might otherwise be “acceptable” becomes unacceptable when, as here, 

lower income individuals are disproportionately affected. 

Response: As explained in response at pages 68-74 above, there is higher incremental 

IQ loss at low blood lead levels and a standard that would protect against incremental IQ loss at 

low blood levels would also protect populations with higher blood lead levels. Moreover, the 

lead primary NAAQS targets protection at the most susceptible subpopulation for the most 

sensitive effect: children living near a lead source with low blood lead levels who are exposed to 

air-borne lead at the level of the NAAQS. By assuring that risks to this most susceptible 

subpopulation are reduced to acceptable levels, subpopulations who are less susceptible are also 

necessarily protected from unacceptable risk. As EPA explained in the lead NAAQS 

proceeding, 

“EPA agrees with commenters that on average in the U.S., minority and lowincome children have higher blood Pb levels than the general population, as 

shown by the NHANES information referenced in section II.A.2.b of the 

preamble and described in section II.B.1.a of the proposal (e.g.,

http://www.epa.gov/envirohealth/children/body_burdens/b1-table.htm). EPA also 

agrees that these higher average blood Pb levels are indicative of these 

subpopulations being sensitive with regard to total Pb exposures. However, EPA 

notes that this evidence does not provide information regarding a potential for 

increased sensitivity to air-related Pb exposure. Due to the nonlinear doseresponse relationship between IQ loss and blood Pb, EPA concludes that the 

population with lower blood Pb levels from both air and nonair sources would be 

expected to have a greater incremental sensitivity to Pb impacts on IQ (i.e., 
87 

greater risk of IQ loss per incremental unit of blood Pb). Thus, a standard that is 

selected to provide protection from the incremental amount of blood Pb 

associated with air-related Pb to populations with lower total blood Pb levels will 

also necessarily provide protection from the air-related Pb associated with 

exposures at the level of the standard to populations with higher total blood Pb 

levels. As explained in section II.C.3.b of the preamble, the air-related IQ loss 

framework focuses on children exposed at the level of the standard, children 

living near air sources of Pb who are likely to be most highly exposed. In 

concentrating on this highly exposed group of children, EPA has focused on 

providing sufficient protection for the appropriate subpopulation for this review.” 

Pb NAAQS, Response to Comment Document p. 7, available at 

http://epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pb/s_pb_cr_rc.html. 

To reiterate, since the revisions to this standard will protect the most sensitive 

subpopulations, it will also protect all other population subgroups and demographic groups. 

Comment (231): Commenter 98 stated that the EPA has failed to justify not requiring 

the reduction of acute health risk below 1. According to the commenter: 

EPA recognizes that the worst-case acute hazard quotient is 30. Nine existing 

facilities have a worst-case hazard quotient above 1. EPA has recognized that a 

hazard quotient of 1 or above indicates the potential for acute risk. EPA”s 

proposal states that the controls it is proposing for arsenic emissions will reduce 

the acute HQ values to 5 or below. 

However, this is five times the hazard quotient that may be associated with acute 

health effects. EPA fails to address or explain why it is not requiring additional 

emissions reductions of arsenic to ensure that the acute risk is reduced to a level 

below 1. 

Response: The commenter is correct that post-control, there would be one facility with 

an estimated acute risk of 5 in the risk assessment supporting the proposed rule. See Appendix 5 

to the risk assessment for the proposed rule at page 4, docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344-

0036. This does not mean that the risk is unacceptable. We first note that there would be only 

two facilities in the source category with an estimated worst-case acute risk greater than 1 postcontrol. In addition, the EPA notes that acute risk of 5 post-control is based on a reference 
88 

exposure level (REL) value, which is not a concentration at which health effects are expected to 

be observed. That is, the REL is defined as “the concentration level at or below which no 

adverse health effects are anticipated for a specified exposure duration” (see section 2.6.2 of the 

draft risk assessment document in the docket for this rulemaking). Moreover, we note that the 

acute risk assessment is a worst case assessment. For example, the acute assessment assumes 

worst-case meteorology, peak emissions and an individual being located at the site of maximum 

concentration for an hour. Taken together, the EPA does not believe that in all RTR reviews, 

HQ values must be less than or equal to 1. Rather, the EPA finds that acute risks must be judged 

on a case by case basis in the context of all the available health evidence and risk analyses. Here, 

for the reasons just given, EPA considers the risk from acute exposure to be acceptable given the 

generally low HIs (even based on allowable emissions and other worst case assumptions) and 

one plant exceeding an HI of 1 reflecting an REL and based on quite conservative assumptions. 

Comment (233): Commenter 98 stated that the EPA’s proposal fails to provide an ample 

margin of safety to protect public health from lead emissions. The commenter stated that the 

EPA’s proposal has not met the legal standard of section 112(f)(2) as it merely replicates the lead 

NAAQS. The commenter contends that the Clean Air Act sets different tests for the NAAQS 

and NESHAP rules and that the EPA cannot substitute one for the other. 

The commenter noted that the plain text of section 112(f)(2) uses the term “ample margin 

of safety”, while the lead NAAQS is a standard that allows an “adequate margin of safety.” 

Citing the definitions of the words “ample” and “adequate”, the commenter contends that using 

the term “ample” demonstrates that the EPA is required to do more than just set an “adequate” or 

bare minimum level of protection. 

The commenter further noted that the lead NAAQS “merely aims to prevent a loss above 

2 IQ points at the mean population level of exposure, even though in EPA’s staff’s view, a loss 

below that, of 1-2 IQ points, could be considered ‘highly significant from a public health 

perspective.’” The commenter also stated that section 112(f)(2) requires a different focus than 

section 109. More specifically, the NAAQS’s focus is protecting the national population as a 

group, whereas under section 112(f)(2), the EPA is required to protect the people living near the 

sources in the category. 

The commenter noted that in setting the NAAQS, the EPA recognized that there would 

be greater impacts to the more exposed individuals. The commenter contends that children 
89 

living near secondary lead smelters are not only a population with increased susceptibility, but 

they also face elevated levels of exposure because they live near secondary lead smelters. The 

EPA’s staff paper for the lead NAAQS shows that children living near the lead smelting facilities 

would still be subject to an IQ loss as high as 3.9 (at the median) to 7.3 (at the 95th percentile), 

even if the EPA had set the NAAQS at 0.02 instead of 0.15 μg/m3. The commenter stated that 

this shows that an ambient air concentration of 0.02 μg/m3 would not achieve an acceptable level 

of risk for children living near a secondary lead smelter, let alone provide an ample margin of 

safety. The commenter stated that the EPA must set a residual risk standard that prevents the 

local ambient lead concentration from exceeding the CHPAC-recommended limit of 0.02 μg/m3

as a monthly average. 

The commenter contends that in choosing the lead NAAQS, the EPA “chose to allow an 

IQ point loss for the children...living near lead smelting facilities, above the 1 to 2 points that is 

considered to be “highly significant from a public health perspective,” and above the 2 points 

that is considered to allow an “adequate margin of safety” for the national population level of 

exposed children.” Therefore, replicating the NAAQS in this rulemaking fails the section 

112(f)(2) test to provide an ample margin of safety to communities near secondary lead smelters. 

The commenter further stated that replicating the lead NAAQS as a standard is also 

problematic because it ignores cumulative, long-term impact to individuals from prior lead 

emissions. Ambient lead concentrations are not the only relevant thing because it does not 

account for reservoirs of lead in soil and elsewhere. The commenter contends that children can 

face higher levels of exposure from dust and soil than from inhaling air. 

The commenter claimed that “EPA says the standard provides an ample margin of safety 

because EPA has not identified any further feasible and cost-effective controls beyond the wet 

electrostatic precipitator which it deems too expensive.” The commenter stated that the EPA 

provides no explanation as to how the fact that it was unable to identify less expensive control 

options means the ample margin of safety requirement is met. The commenter further noted that 

the EPA, in its own analysis, identified other facilities that are using HEPA filters in addition to 

baghouses to achieve lower concentrations of lead. 

The commenter noted that the ample margin of safety determination is “a decision about 

whether to set the standard lower than the acceptable risk, taking feasibility into account.” The 

commenter further noted that most facilities achieve emission levels well below those proposed 
90 

by the EPA and that the data demonstrates that the risks can be reduced further beyond the 

EPA’s proposed standard, taking feasibility and cost into account. 

Response: Most of this comment is addressed at page 64 above. We add that in order to 

assess multipathway risks associated with emissions of lead, the EPA compared modeled rolling 

three month average lead concentrations estimated from emissions to the NAAQS for lead. As 

noted above, we believe that this is a reasonable approach given that the NAAQS is a health 

based standard set to protect the public health, including the health of sensitive sub-populations 

(such as children) with an adequate margin of safety. Moreover, the NAAQS for lead specifically 

is targeted to provide requisite protection with an adequate margin of safety to prevent 

neurologic effects to children with low blood lead levels living near a lead source and exposed at 

the level of the NAAQS. While we conclude that the NAAQS presents an acceptable level of 

risk from lead in ambient air, and are requiring controls to ensure that the NAAQS is not 

exceeded, as part of our “ample margin of safety” analysis, we examined whether there were 

additional cost effective controls available to further protect public health including monitoring 

at a level below 0.15 μg/m3. For the reasons explained elsewhere in this notice and other 

supporting documents available in the docket, we have determined that there are no additional 

cost effective, technically feasible controls that would provide further risk reductions. 

In addition, the commenter states: “EPA’s staff paper for the lead NAAQS shows that 

children living near the lead smelting facilities would still be subject to an IQ loss as high as 3.9 

(at the median) to 7.3 (at the 95th percentile), even if the EPA had set the NAAQS at 0.02 

instead of 0.15 μg/m3.” As noted above, this comment may be in error. The Staff Paper and 

notice of final rulemaking (73 FR at 66982) indicates a median air-related IQ loss estimated to be 

less than 3.7 (using the higher confidence loglinear C-R function, and less than (1.2-5.1) via the 

other 2 functions) for children living within 1.5 km of primary smelters. Moreover, as noted in 

the earlier comment response, EPA did not rely on the risk assessment as the primary basis for its 

revisions to the primary lead NAAQS. 

With respect to the California benchmark for protecting children, the EPA has a hierarchy 

of appropriate health benchmark values. In general, this hierarchy places greater weight on EPA 

derived health benchmarks than those from other agencies 

(http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata1999/99pdfs/healtheffectsinfo.pdf). For the reasons provided 

above, we believe that the lead NAAQS establishes an appropriate benchmark for addressing 
91 

acceptability of risk and we therefore disagree with the commenter that we should instead use an 

ambient concentration of 0.02 μg/m3based on a one month average. 

Comment (236): Commenter 98 cited the following from the preamble to the proposed 

rule regarding environmental risk from this source category for HAPs other than lead: 

With respect to potential for adverse environmental effects from non PB-HAP, we 

note that there is a lack of information about specific adverse environmental 

effects occurring at a given concentration of HAP for this source category. 

However, given that all chronic non-cancer HQ values considering actual 

emissions are less than 1 using human health reference values, we believe that it 

is unlikely that adverse environmental effects would occur at the actual HAP 

concentrations estimated in our human health risk assessment. 

The commenter noted that the EPA provides no explanation as to why its conclusion 

regarding environmental risk from non-PB HAPs is true. The commenter further noted that the 

EPA has recognized the need to look at emissions above the actual level for human health. The 

commenter stated that the EPA must perform an ecological risk assessment and may not simply 

rely on the human health assessment without a reasoned explanation for doing so. 

The commenter noted that chemicals that are persistent in the environment or 

bioaccumulate in living tissue will remain or increase over time. Therefore, additional exposure 

would be added to a background that is likely already unsafe for wildlife and other 

environmental resources. Lack of human health risks from inhalation does not mean that the 

EPA can conclude that there would be no effects to wildlife or other natural resources either 

form inhalation or air deposition of HAP emissions, exacerbated by persistence and 

bioaccumulation. 

Response: First, the secondary NAAQS for lead, which is requisite to protect public 

welfare from known or anticipated adverse effects, is identical to the primary lead NAAQS. 

Thus, in meeting the controls for lead (which also result in co-control of all other non-mercury 

HAP metals) emissions will be controlled to levels less than allowed by the secondary lead 

NAAQS. Second, EPA is to adopt more stringent standards directed to adverse environmental 

effects only upon taking into consideration “costs, energy, safety, and other relevant factors”. As 
92 

discussed as part of the ample margin of safety analysis, EPA has determined that these factors 

militate against adopting any further controls (and reached a similar conclusion based on similar 

factors in its section 112 (d)(6) analysis) and this same reasoning applies with respect to adopting 

further controls to prevent adverse environmental effects. Moreover, without specific 

information about how, and at what concentration a given HAP affects a given ecological 

receptor, the EPA is unaware of how it could have performed a separate ecological risk 

assessment. As noted by the commenter and in the risk assessment document, we generally 

conclude that for non PB-HAP, if all chronic non-cancer HQ values are less than 1 using human 

health reference values, than we believe that it is unlikely that adverse environmental effects 

would occur. However, we disagree with the commenter that we do not provide a rationale for 

this judgment. The risk assessment states in section 2.5: 

Human health dose-response reference values are generally derived from studies 

conducted on laboratory animals (such as rodents) and developed with the 

inclusions of uncertainty factors that could be as high as 3000. As a result, these 

human reference values are often significantly lower than the level expected to 

cause an adverse effect in an exposed rodent. It should be noted that there is a 

scarcity of data on the direct atmospheric impact of these HAP on other receptors, 

such as plants, birds, and wildlife. Thus, if the maximum inhalation hazard in an 

ecosystem is below the level of concern for humans (i.e., is below the human 

health reference value which is itself a lower reference value than would be 

expected for an ecologic effect), we have generally concluded that mammalian 

receptors should be at no risk of adverse effects due to inhalation exposures from 

non PB-HAP, and have assurance that other ecological receptors are also not at 

any significant risk from direct atmospheric impact. 

With respect to the potential for ecological risk associated with PB-HAP, we note that 

our multipathway analysis indicated that all chronic non-cancer HQ values were less than 1 using 

human health reference values. Thus, we believe that it is unlikely that adverse environmental 

effects would occur considering actual emissions. We further believe this is a reasonable 

interpretation of the multipathway analysis given a lack of information on the effects of PB-HAP 

on specific ecological receptors. 

Finally, we agree with the commenter that the potential for ecological effects should be 

noted when considering MACT-allowable emissions. Thus, when HQ values are greater than 1 
93 

considering MACT allowable emissions, we note that there is at least some potential for 

ecological effects. 

3.2.2 Emissions Used

Comment (53, 188): Two commenters (90, 96) stated that the EPA’s risk review is 

invalid because it fails to consider the reduction in dioxin and arsenic risks that would occur with 

the use of the proposed additional controls. The commenters compared the dioxin concentrations 

and risks to background dioxin concentrations and risks for the entire US populations and 

concluded that dioxin emissions from secondary lead smelters produce a contribution to the 

environment that is “not distinguishable from background concentrations.” The commenters 

contend that additional controls on dioxin emissions from this source category will result in less 

than a 1% reduction in an exposed individual’s risk. 

With respect to arsenic, the commenters stated that the average background levels of 

arsenic in urban air (20 to 30 ng/m3) result in inhalation risks between 35 and 50-in-1 million, 

similar to the MIR risk that the EPA yielded for the secondary lead smelters. The commenter 

contends that the EPA should demonstrate how arsenic emissions from the secondary lead 

smelting industry would affect the extant risk from arsenic. 

Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenters that it did not consider reductions in 

risk after the proposed controls. Section 3.3 of the draft risk assessment document is titled: 

“Post-control risk characterization” and it describes the estimated risks after potential controls 

are in place. Moreover, we note that the risk estimates calculated by the EPA are those 

associated with emissions from the source category. Similarly, risk reductions estimated after 

considering the proposed controls are based on estimated reductions in emissions from the 

source category. Thus, the estimated risk reductions described in the draft risk assessment and 

preamble are independent of the background levels for a given HAP. 

Comment (224): Commenter 98 stated that the EPA’s failure to recalculate the risk 

assessment after changing its fugitive dust estimates is problematic given that the EPA’s 

modeling shows that fugitive emissions are the largest contributor to risks from this source 

category. The commenter further stated that because the EPA failed to “test or provide a reliable 

accounting for its measure of fugitive dust emissions...”, it has underestimated risk and should 

compensate by setting a stronger standard. 
94 

Response: We have updated the fugitive emissions based on corrections received in 

public comments. However, we disagree that the methodology used for calculating fugitive 

emissions are underestimating emissions or risk and require a stronger standard. The estimates 

provided by some facilities were unrealistically low and we developed the methodology to better 

account for fugitive emission levels as described in the proposal. See 76 FR at 28038. However, 

the estimates of fugitive emissions which EPA developed were overstated due to an error in the 

emission estimate for Exide Frisco, which was used to calculate estimates for the other facilities. 

The recalculated (and reduced) fugitive emission estimates led to a slight decrease in the risks 

due to fugitive emissions; however, we disagree that the methodology was fundamentally flawed 

in a way that would yield an underestimate of risk. 

Comment (229): Commenter 98 stated that failing to include MACT-allowable 

emissions in the multipathway risk assessment is a “glaring inconsistency in the EPA’s analysis 

that is arbitrary and capricious. The commenter contends that relying on actual emissions does 

not sufficiently protect populations living near the smelters, which have a range of emissions and 

may exceed levels allowed by the MACT standard. 

Response: We did not have detailed enough information to perform a multipathway risk 

assessment considering MACT allowable emissions. In fact, for dioxins and furans as well as 

for mercury there was no MACT standard in the 1997 NESHAP and thus, we would be unable to 

calculate MACT allowable emissions for these pollutants. However, as noted in the proposal 

preamble, the proposed limit for dioxins and furans and mercury would lower multipathway risk 

somewhat and would also ensure that multipathway risks associated with dioxins and furans and 

mercury did not increase. See 76 FR at 29064.

Comment (17, 110, 250): Three commenters (80, 90, 91) noted that the docket did not 

contain the data inputs to the AERMOD and Human Exposure Model (HEM-3) and that they 

were thus unable to properly comment on the methods or results of air dispersion and risk 

modeling. Commenter 90 supplied a list of technical documents not available that included stack 

test reports, survey responses, and underlying data sets. 
95 

Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenters. The docket contains model input 

information that could be used to replicate the HEM-3 results. This includes emissions and 

emissions location information. Disks with the technical documents mentioned by the 

commenters were sent to the Docket Center; however, CD availability was not posted because 

some of the test reports included in the disks contained confidential business information. 

3.3 Baseline Emissions Estimates 

3.3.1 Fugitive Emissions Estimates 

Comment (48,122,183): Commenters 90, 91, and 96 stated that the EPA’s factoring 

approach for estimating fugitive emissions is methodologically unsound. The EPA classified 

each facility as Level 1, Level 2, or Level 3 based on the degree of fugitive emissions control 

implemented at each facility. The commenters claimed that the EPA failed to take into account 

the fact that Exide Frisco itself is a Level 2 facility, meaning that the EPA effectively used the 

“wrong common denominator” for each facility. This resulted in overstating emissions from 

Level 3 facilities and understating emissions from Level 1 and Level 2 facilities. Commenter 80 

stated that there is no description of the method the EPA used to determine scaling factors, nor 

how the calculation was verified. 

Response: Although the Exide Frisco facility was classified as a level 2 facility, the 

enclosures at the Frisco facility were limited to the material handling area. For this reason, the 

facility had many similarities to the facilities classified as level 1. In an attempt not to overstate 

or understate emissions from any facilities by a large amount, a decision was made to perform 

the calculations as described in the Development of the RTR Emissions Dataset for the 

Secondary Lead Smelting Source Category document available in the docket. We also note that 

the scaling factors were partly based on confidential business information that was not 

appropriate to publish. 

Comment (14,162): Commenters 80 and 94 stated that the fugitive emissions estimate 

for the Exide Forest City facility is over an order of magnitude higher than the NEI estimate of 

0.06 tons per year and that such an overestimation calls into question the reliability of the EPA’s 

estimates. 
96 

Response: Because of their nature, fugitive emissions are not readily measurable. The 

National Emission Inventory (NEI) estimates for this source category were inconsistent and 

unreliable for many facilities. The estimates used for the Exide Forest City facility were 

developed using the same methodology that was used for the other facilities in this source 

category. We note that although ambient lead data is not available near the Exide Forest City 

facility, a comparison of modeled and actual ambient lead concentrations for those facilities that 

did have ambient monitors located nearby indicated that our estimates of fugitive emissions were 

reasonable. See Residual Risk Assessment for the Secondary Lead Smelting Source Category and 

Summary of the Ambient Lead Monitoring Data near Secondary Lead Smelting Facilities, 

available in docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344.

 

Comment (146): Commenter 93 stated that the use of both ambient air data and TRI 

emissions data to estimate fugitive emissions at the East Penn Manufacturing facility is 

inappropriate since East Penn operates six lead-acid battery manufacturing facilities in addition 

to its secondary lead smelting sources. The commenter stated that considering that East Penn has 

managed a reduction in emissions of HAP to levels at or below the numerical limits of all 

applicable standards while operating several lead-acid battery manufacturing sources in addition 

to its secondary lead smelting sources, the EPA’s assertion that fugitive dust emissions are the 

largest contributor to the risk due to lead emissions is overstated. 

Response: The absolute amount of emissions from fugitive sources is not directly 

measurable and therefore can only be estimated. We acknowledge that the fugitive emissions 

from the secondary lead manufacturing process at East Penn may be lower than the estimates 

used for the development of this rule; this has been taken into account in our revised estimates. 

We note that the East Penn facility is a well controlled facility that utilizes total enclosure to 

control fugitive emissions from the majority of the manufacturing process. It is a facility that has 

demonstrated the level of control we believe is necessary to reduce fugitive lead emissions from 

this source category to an acceptable level. We performed dispersion modeling based on 

emissions from the East Penn facility. Our modeling did not include emissions from nearby 

facilities that are not within the same contiguous property boundary. The dispersion modeling 

showed that emissions from East Penn’s secondary lead smelting operations yield ambient 
97 

concentrations well below the NAAQS. See Table 1 in the preamble for the final rule, showing 

that East Penn’s emissions are about 1/10th the NAAQS. 

Comment (224): Commenter 98 stated that it is inappropriate to call the EPA’s fugitive 

emissions estimates “actual”. The commenter claims that the EPA should measure fugitive dust 

emissions, such as through ambient monitoring. If estimates are used, the commenter stated that 

the EPA should use actual ambient monitoring data and conservative factors to make up for 

uncertainty created by the failure to measure directly. 

Response: The nature of future emissions makes them impossible to directly measure. 

Based on a comparison of modeled ambient lead concentrations with actual ambient monitoring 

data near the secondary lead smelting facilities, we believe that our estimates of fugitive 

emissions for this source category are reasonable. Therefore, we disagree that it is not 

appropriate to regard these estimates as “actual” emissions. (In any case, this comment is 

somewhat semantic. Whether referred to as actual or estimated actual emissions, EPA has 

explained above, and in detail at 76 FR 29038, why its estimates for fugitive emissions are 

reasonable.) 

3.3.2 Stack Emissions Estimates 

Comment (224): Commenter 98 stated that the EPA should not refer to its emissions 

estimates as “actual” emissions for the following reasons: (1) the EPA failed to collect emission 

test data for all stack emissions or all pollutants; and (2) the EPA failed to account for potential 

malfunctions and exceedances of the standard. 

Response: We disagree that the emission estimates should not be referred to as “actual” 

emissions. The emissions estimates were calculated based on the best available stack test data in 

all instances where stack test data was available. If stack tests for a certain source were not 

available, we assigned emissions to the source based on the closest match for a similar source for 

which test data was available. 

We disagree with the commenter that emissions that exceed standards and are violations, 

whether or not caused by malfunction events, should be considered as part of the risk analysis. 

The purpose of the risk review is to evaluate whether the emission limits -- the “standards 

promulgated pursuant to subsection (d)” not the non-compliance with those standards (section 
98 

112 (f)(2)(A) -- should be made more stringent to reduce the risk posed after compliance with the 

underlying MACT standard. To the extent that a source is violating the underlying MACT 

standard, no tightening of the emission standard under the residual risk rule will avoid or 

mitigate against such violations8. In other words, a source that is violating the MACT emissions 

standard promulgated under section 112(d) would not be any more likely to be able to avoid such 

violations and comply with a different presumably more stringent standard promulgated under 

section 112(f). Such events are violations and subject to enforcement by the EPA, the States or 

citizens and an action for injunctive relief is the most effective means to address violations 

whether or not they are caused by malfunctions if an emissions event poses a significant health 

or environmental risk. 

Although we disagree that emissions that result in a violation should be considered as 

part of the risk review, we note that we believe malfunction events in this source category do not 

contribute significantly to cancer or chronic noncancer risks for the source category in this 

rulemaking because malfunction events in this source category are inherently short-term and 

infrequent relative to annual operations and emissions. The commenter did not supply any data 

to the contrary. 

Furthermore, the conservative estimates built into the acute risk assessment are sufficient 

to gauge worst-case potential acute health effects. The conservative estimates built in to the 

assessment include worst-case meteorology, emissions at ten times the maximum peak emission 

rate from all point sources simultaneously, and the sum of the maximum impact of each emission 

source, regardless of receptor location. Thus, even if we were to consider emissions that are in 

violation of the standard, we do not believe that they would result in any different level of 

control than we are promulgating here. 

3.4 Compliance Timeline 

Comment (104, 220): Commenters 90 and 96 stated that section 112(i)(3)(A) 

establishes 3 years for compliance for “any” section 112 standards, including those established 

under Section 112(f). The commenter cites the following excerpt from CAA §112 (i): 

After the effective date of any emissions standard, limitation or regulation 

promulgated under this section and applicable to a source, no person may operate 

 

8 In this regard, note that the affirmative defense for malfunctions is a defense to civil penalties only, not to liability. 

The malfunction event remains a violation. 
99 

such source in violation of such standard, limitation or regulation except, in the 

case of an existing source, the Administrator shall establish a compliance date or 

dates for each category or subcategory of existing sources, which shall provide for 

compliance as expeditiously as practicable, but in no event later than 3 years after 

the effective date of such standard, except as provided in subparagraph (B) and 

paragraphs (4) through (8). 

The commenters contend that the EPA did not address CAA § 112(i)’s 

applicability to the proposed rule. Instead, the EPA relied on 40 C.F.R. §63.6(f)(4)(ii), 

which states that “the owner or operatory of an existing source unable to comply with a 

relevant standard established ... pursuant to section 112(f) ... may request that the 

Administrator grant an extension allowing the source up to 2 years after the standard’s 

effective date to comply with the standard.” 

The commenters stated that CAA § 112(i)’s application is mandatory. The 

commenters noted that Congress used the word “any” in defining CAA § 112(i)(3)(A)’s 

applicability. According to the commenter, “A broad construction of CAA § 

112(i)(3)(A) mandates that this section, and the Administrator’s discretion for extension, 

apply to all regulations under CAA §112, including standards promulgated under 

subsections (d) or (f). 

The commenters further noted that 40 C.F.R. § 63.6(i)(4)(ii) applies only to 

standards set pursuant to section 112(f) and that while the EPA’s proposed revised 

emission standard for lead is a section 112(f) standard, the design and work practice 

standards for fugitive emissions are also section 112(d)(6) standards, and dioxins and 

furans would be wholly new standards set pursuant to section 112(d)(3). 

Response: Section 112(i)(3) establishes the compliance timeframe for any standard 

issued under section 112 for existing sources and provides that the compliance date shall be as 

expeditious as practicable but no later than 3 years following the effective date of the standard. 

Section 112(f)(4), however, expressly provides more specific requirements for standards issued 

under section 112(f) and thus for section 112(f) standards those more specific requirements (i.e. 

a specific requirement for section 112 (f) standards) govern in place of the more general 

compliance date requirements in section 112(i)(3). Specifically, section 112(f)(4) provides that a 
100 

source cannot emit an air pollutant in violation of a standard issued under subsection (f) except 

that the standard will not apply until 90 days after its effective date. It also provides that the 

Administrator may grant a waiver for a period of up to 2 years from the effective date if 

necessary for the installation of controls and if measures will be taken in the interim to ensure 

public health is protected from imminent endangerment. 

As stated in the technical documents supporting the proposed rule, we do not believe that 

additional controls will be required for facilities to meet the new dioxin and furan standards. 

However, the two year compliance date is appropriate to allow facilities the time needed to 

perform testing to determine whether they will need to modify existing control devices and 

complete such modifications, if necessary, to comply with the standard for dioxins and THC. 

See also 76 FR at 29064/1 explaining why it is possible for EPA to find at this time that sources 

need two years to comply with the risk-based standards for metal HAP. 

Comment (104, 220): Commenters 90 and 96 stated that a two year compliance 

schedule is insufficient and unrealistic based on the required controls set forth in the proposed 

RTR, particularly the total enclosures. The commenters stated that for facilities that do not 

currently contain total enclosures, designs must consider efficient movement of materials 

between processing steps and the indoor work environment. The construction must also be 

carefully staged around the process equipment and it is likely that the large enclosures could only 

be constructed during scheduled periodic maintenance downtimes which are scheduled at least 

six months apart. 

Response: As just stated, CAA section 112(f)(4) expressly provides specific 

requirements for compliance dates for standards issued under section 112(f). Specifically, section 

112(f)(4) provides that a source cannot emit an air pollutant in violation of a standard issued 

under subsection (f) except that the standard will not apply until 90 days after its effective date. It 

also provides that the Administrator may grant a waiver for a period of up to 2 years from the 

effective date if necessary for the installation of controls and if measures will be taken in the 

interim to ensure public health is protected from imminent endangerment. Two years has been 

provided for compliance with the rule given that the two year period is necessary to install 

controls. 
101 

Comment (104, 220): Commenters 90 and 96 stated that the facilities are facing 

obligations to attain the 2008 lead NAAQS and require time to determine the degree to which 

these obligations overlap with the NESHAP implementation in order to develop appropriate 

design and construction plans. 

Response: CAA section 112(f)(4) expressly provides specific requirements for standards 

issued under section 112(f). Specifically, section 112(f)(4) provides that a source cannot emit an 

air pollutant in violation of a standard issued under subsection (f) except that the standard will 

not apply until 90 days after its effective date. It also provides that the Administrator may grant a 

waiver for a period of up to 2 years from the effective date if necessary for the installation of 

controls and if measures will be taken in the interim to ensure public health is protected from 

imminent endangerment. Two years has been provided for compliance with the rule given that 

the two year period is necessary to install controls. 

Comment (104, 220): Commenters 90 and 96 stated that the EPA is engaging in 

numerous actions that affect other industry sources (e.g., Boiler MACT, Utility MACT, other 

RTR actions) that will increase the cost of compliance by increasing the demand for construction 

services. 

Response: We believe that it is unlikely that any of the mentioned actions will impact 

the availability of the necessary services to the secondary lead smelting facilities. The 

commenter provides no evidence to the contrary. Nor does the comment provide details as to 

how these other actions impact the compliance dates set forth in the CAA for section 112(f) 

standards. 

Comment (59, 196): Commenters 90 and 96 stated that it is possible that the EPA could 

take the position that for an area to be designated as attaining the lead NAAQS, the monitored 

ambient lead levels for the three years before November 2015 must be below 0.15 μg/m3on a 

three-month rolling average. If ambient lead levels must be below the NAAQS by November 

2012, then a final rule promulgated in early 2012 would not allow time for NESHAP control 

measures implemented by March 2014, to provide for timely NAAQS attainment. 

The commenter further stated that “an EPA position that states must demonstrate 

attainment of the NAAQS based on the three-month average over a three year period before the 
102 

NAAQS attainment deadline would be contrary to the Clean Air Act.” The commenter asked 

that the EPA clarify its position with respect to the NAAQS-NESHAP compliance timeline and 

state that the NAAQS measures do not need to be implemented to reach the ambient standard 

until the attainment year. 

Response: The CAA clearly presents the compliance dates for standards promulgated 

under section 112(f). We also note as a point of information that the CAA requires areas to attain 

the various NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than specified dates. For the 

2008 lead NAAQS, areas are required to attain the standard as expeditiously as practicable, but 

no later than December 31, 2015. The Act not only contemplates but requires, if practicable, for 

areas to attain the 2008 lead NAAQS earlier than December 31, 2015. Furthermore, no action 

EPA is taking in this rulemaking changes, modifies, or otherwise bears upon legal obligations to 

attain the lead NAAQS.

Comment (247): Comment (247): Commenter 98 stated that the two year compliance 

schedule for the proposed RTR is unlawful. The commenter stated that the two year compliance 

date violates the plain text of Sections 112(f)(3)-(4) which requires immediate compliance for 

new sources and a 90-day compliance date for existing sources. The commenter stated that 

under section 112(f), individual facilities may file an application for a 2-year extension of 

compliance. The EPA must then evaluate each request on a case-by-case basis. The commenter 

stated that the EPA is not authorized to grant a Section 112(f)(4) “waiver” to a category of 

facilities without going through the case-by-case process – application, submission of specific 

information, participation by affected communities -- set out in EPA’s implementing regulation. 

The commenter stated that the EPA’s proposal also violates section 112(f)(4) because the EPA’s 

record included no evidence that statutory factors are met. The commenter stated that the 

document entitled “Estimated Time Needed to Achieve Compliance” was not available in the 

publically viewable docket when checked by the commenter on July 12 and July 25, 2011. The 

commenter stated that the record does not state how many sources need two years to comply, or 

whether faster compliance may be possible for sources like Quemetco, Inc. in City of Industry, 

CA that have already reduced their emissions to low levels. The commenter further stated that 

even if the document provided information that any facility may need additional time, the second 

statutory factor bars the compliance delay proposed by the EPA because there is “no evidence in 

the record that the necessary “steps” will be taken during the additional two years “to assure that 

the health of persons will be protected from imminent endangerment.” The commenter stated 
103 

that even if the compliance delay were justifiable for existing sources, extending the delay for 

new sources violates the plain text of the statute. The commenter further stated that the EPA has 

already delayed satisfying its legal duties by failing to begin this rulemaking until 2011, and that 

the EPA has no lawful justification to delay the compliance date any longer. 

Response: EPA is of course aware of the requirements of section 112 (f)(3) and (4). See 

76 FR at 29064/1. EPA is not ignoring the requirements of this provision. Rather, as 

documented in the memorandum Estimated Time Needed to Achieve Compliance with the 

Proposed Revision to the MACT standard for Secondary Lead Smelters, EPA has made case-bycase findings for each existing source as to the amount of time required to comply with the risk 

based stack and fugitive emission standards for metal HAP.9 EPA does not interpret section 63.6 

(i)(4)(ii) of its regulations to mandate individual applications when all of the necessary 

information is already before EPA and EPA applies that information in an individualized, caseby-case manner, as done here. Moreover, section 112 (f)(4)(B) is a direct grant of authority 

which can be implemented not just by regulation but by other EPA action, as done here. As 

documented in the memorandum cited above, the existing sources discussed in the memorandum 

will need to undertake such improvements as construction of enclosures, and replacement of 

baghouses (with such attendant interim steps as obtaining capital, purchase and delivery of 

equipment, installation of equipment, and shakedown operation). These activities simply cannot 

be accomplished in 90 days, and two years is a reasonable amount of time to carry them out.10 

The statute likewise contains the requirement that EPA must find that “steps will be taken 

during the period of the waiver to assure that the health of persons will be protected from 

imminent endangerment” in order to extend the compliance date. We note first that EPA does 

not believe that any unacceptable risk under section 112 (f) automatically equates to an 

“imminent endangerment”, given that Congress authorized extensions of the compliance date. 

We note further that existing secondary lead sources are already controlled to some degree, and 

 

9 EPA does not understand the commenter’s inability to locate this memorandum. It was posted to the docket on 

May 19, 2011. 

10 The commenter points out that the Quemetco facility was given a 9 month compliance period to meet stringent 

standards adopted by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. This is accurate on its face, but EPA’s 

information is that the facility had commenced the needed improvements well before the 9 month period started to 

run, so that 9 months is not a fair measure of the time actually needed for the compliance upgrades. In fact, in 

comments on the proposed SCAQMD rule 1420.1, this facility requested a tighter point source emission limit for 

lead than SCAQMD proposed. 
104 

will necessarily make further reductions of their emissions as they implement steps toward full 

compliance. For example, fugitive emissions will be reduced as total enclosures are constructed; 

fugitive emissions will be reduced as work practices are phased in. Emissions will also be 

reduced during the pre-compliance period as sources upgrade baghouses and develop means of 

better maintaining them. Under these circumstances, EPA believes that steps will be indeed 

taken in the period before full compliance to reduce emissions and prevent an imminent 

endangerment. 

Finally, the commenter correctly points out that no extension of time for new sources is 

permissible under the statute. The compliance date for new sources to meet the section 112 

(f)(2) standards is consequently are immediately subject to the standard. 

3.5 Performance Testing 

3.5.1 Testing Frequency

Comment (10, 37, 202): Commenters 80 and 86 stated that language in § 63.543(4) 

implies that testing must be done on a monthly basis while § 63.543(5)(f) makes it clear that 

testing must be done on an annual basis; the commenter asks for clarification. Commenters 90 

and 96 stated that their understanding is that testing is required on an annual basis while the 

average emissions are calculated monthly based on the most recent annual stack tests; the 

commenters ask that the EPA confirm that this is the intent of the proposed rule. 

Response: The commenters are correct in their understanding that testing is required on 

an annual basis while the average emissions are calculated monthly based on the most recent 

annual stack tests. 

3.5.2 Continuous Emissions Monitoring Systems (CEMS)

Comment (251): Commenter 84 recommended that the EPA require enhanced 

monitoring systems for lead on both existing and new secondary lead smelting facilities. The 

commenter noted that congress mandated the EPA in the CAA to use enhanced monitoring 

systems when available. The commenter further contends that direct measurement of lead and 

other HAP metals is essential for the EPA to comply with the intent of the CAA and to evaluate 

residual risk and improvements in control. The commenter noted that new proven, commercial 
105 

monitoring technology for continuous measurement of lead and other HAP metals including 

mercury is available. 

Commenter 81 stated that the most significant and relevant observation impacting this 

proposed rule is that there appears to be no threshold for lead exposure below which no health 

effects are observed. The commenter contends that timely feedback regarding emissions is 

therefore particularly important because of the potential of fumigation from relatively low stacks 

and the potential for secondary lead smelting facilities to produce significant dose exposures 

over short time periods. The commenter stated that significant advances in continuous metals 

monitoring technology have been made since the last NESHAP and provides evidence that nearreal-time monitoring of lead and other metal HAP is commercially available. 

Commenter 81 stated that installation of a multi-metal CEMS would eliminate the EPA 

concerns over the effectiveness of baghouses in capturing mercury and would eliminate the need 

for a BLDS as well as the need to measure mercury content in scrap metals. The commenter 

further stated that installation of a multi-metal CEMS would alleviate concerns over possible 

arsenic emissions. The commenter also suggested that if the EPA does not require CEMS for 

stacks, they should require at least two ambient near-real-time lead monitors. 

In response to the EPA’s stated concerns about the costs associated with lead CEMS, 

commenter 81 stated that “there are costs associated with no action” and that “the real problem is 

not that a number of stacks might require CEMS, but that there are too many low level stacks 

contributing to fumigation events in the local neighborhoods.” The commenter suggested that 

one potential strategy would be to direct these low level stacks to a common stack that could 

then be monitored with a single CEMS. The commenter contends that “most secondary lead 

smelters are relatively small...”, so that the cost to duct emissions to a common stack “should 

not be too high, particularly in comparison to the cost of monitoring all stacks individually.” 

Commenter 81 stated that the lack of a performance specification for a lead CEMS is not 

a justifiable reason for not requiring them. The commenter noted that the lack of a published 

performance specification did not prevent the EPA from requiring mercury CEMS or HCl CEMS 

for coal fired power plants. The commenter further noted that the performance specification and 

QA procedure for multi-metal CEMS are currently available on the EPA’s website. The 

commenter stated that modifying these performance specifications specifically for a lead CEMS 

could be easily completed. 
106 

Commenter 81 noted emissions during start-up, shutdown, and/or malfunctions can 

represent a significant fraction of a plant’s emissions. The commenter contends that it is critical 

to be able to monitor emissions during SSM periods and that it is impossible to do so unless a 

CEMS is in place. 

Commenter 85 provided data regarding an X-ray fluorescence based multi-metals 

continuous emissions monitor. The commenter also provided proposed performance 

specifications and on-going QA procedures for lead CEMS. Commenter 85 also later submitted 

comments requesting that the EPA comment on all aspects of its original comments, citing 

specifically the adequacy of the presented data in demonstrating the feasibility of using the Xact 

as a Pb CEMS, the feasibility of the performance specifications, on-going quality assurance 

procedures, and the submitted traceability protocol, and any changes the agency feel may be 

necessary to assure the data quality of Pb CEMS. The commenter also states that the Xact 

instrument cost is $141,665 with an annual operating cost of $10,693. 

Response: It is not appropriate to require lead CEMS for new or existing sources absent a 

promulgated performance specification for this technology. There is not a numerical standard for 

HAP metals other than lead; therefore, the effectiveness of a CEMS at measuring these metals is 

not relevant to compliance with subpart X. We also note that measuring mercury content in scrap 

metals is not required by this rule, so it is unclear how the presence of a CEMS capable of 

measuring mercury would affect a facility with respect to measuring mercury content in scrap. 

With respect to facilities reconfiguring their stacks to make their facility more amenable 

to CEMS and prevent emissions from shorter stacks, we note that the risk assessment considered 

risks from all stacks, regardless of height and the results were considered in our decision making 

regarding the lead emission limit. The process of developing a performance specification for a 

monitoring method involves a period of notice and comment. Since a performance specification 

was not included in the proposed rule, the public was not provided with an opportunity to 

comment on the performance specification provided by the commenters after the proposal. The 

performance specifications provided by the commenters have been provided to the appropriate 

EPA staff. However, we do not find it appropriate to approve the performance specifications in 

the context of this final rule without first providing the public an opportunity to comment. With 

regard to the commenter’s request that the EPA respond to the specific issues raised in their late 

comments, we reiterate that a lead CEMS performance specification must be proposed and 
107 

finalized as a rulemaking action and the issues raised by the commenter are best addressed 

through that rulemaking. When such a performance specification is proposed by the EPA, the 

public will have the opportunity to comment on the types of issues raised in the commenter’s 

letter, such as ongoing quality assurance procedures and traceability protocols. These issues are 

best addressed through that rulemaking. The technical basis of the performance specification will 

be evaluated by EPA staff when developing the proposed performance specification for this 

technology. Subsequently, the application of a lead CEMS to demonstrate compliance in this 

rulemaking must be evaluated with respect to whether the current form of the emission standard 

(based on manual test data) is appropriate. 

Comment (79, 218): Commenters 90 and 96 commented on data and comments 

submitted by Cooper Environmental Services and Pall Corporation regarding a commercially 

available lead CEM. The commenters note that Cooper Environmental Services informed the 

ABR that the CEM cost approximately $400,000 per stack to install, a cost that the commenters 

claims is extremely high and would be multiplied many times over as facilities in this industry 

typically have 7-8 stacks. The commenters note further concern that the price of a lead CEM 

could rise if the EPA requires it as the technology is only offered by one company. 

The commenters stated that there is no discussion in the record justifying the need for 

advances in monitoring and surveillance on stack sources in this industry, nor is there any 

indication that the BLDS technology that is currently required is inadequate. The commenters 

claim that Cooper Environmental Service’s comments are “rife with irrelevant and incorrect 

information”. The commenters further noted that Cooper Environmental Service’s comments 

regarding multi-metal CEMS are irrelevant as the EPA neither proposed multi-metal CEMS nor 

requested comment on their applicability. 

Response: We agree that measurement of HAP metals other than lead is not necessary 

for compliance with subpart X and therefore not relevant to this rulemaking. We have considered 

the cost estimates provided by all commenters and maintain that it is appropriate to include the 

requirement for lead CEMS for new sources. However, this requirement will not be effective 

until a lead CEMS performance specification has been promulgated. 

Comment (78, 218, 141, 174): Four commenters (90, 93, 95, and 96) stated that the 

EPA should abandon its proposal to require CEMS for new and modified sources. The 
108 

commenters stated that because the EPA has not set forth a performance specification for a lead 

CEM, stakeholders are unable to assess the systems and their applicability to this industry. The 

commenters also argued that the EPA must assess cost-effectiveness under Section 112(f)(2)(A). 

The commenters stated further stated that the EPA’s analysis of technological feasibility for 

CEM is inadequate. The commenters also express concern over using a different method to 

show compliance than the one used to set the standard. The commenters further stated that lead 

CEMS should not be included in Subpart X until performance specifications and procedures are 

promulgated and feasibility and effectiveness on secondary lead smelters has been demonstrated. 

Response: A performance specification for lead CEMS will be promulgated prior to the 

requirement becoming effective in this subpart. The process for promulgating a lead CEMS 

method includes proposing such a method and providing the opportunity for public comment. In 

addition, EPA would consider as part of the rulemaking proceeding, whether it is appropriate to 

adjust the level of any standard measured by a CEM considering the more frequent measurement 

and hence dampening of variability over time of multiple measurements. 

3.5.3 Bag Leak Detection Systems (BLDS)

Comment (81): Commenter 90 stated that the current language in § 63.543(f), (g), and 

(h) require annual compliance testing for lead, THC, and D/F for all process vents. The 

commenter contends that the term process vent in the proposed rule includes sources that are 

either not suitable for testing given their configuration or do not have emissions limits in the 

proposed rule. The commenter stated that D/F and THC testing should be limited only to those 

sources that have emission limitations on D/F and THC. 

The commenter further stated that the Johnson Controls facility will utilize filtered roof 

exhausts that do not have stacks that allow measurement of velocity or meet isokinetic sampling 

requirements under EPA Method 29. The commenter stated that the following sources should be 

excluded from the definition of process vent: roof exhausts equipped with HEPA filters, vents 

from buildings that are not partial or total enclosures, and building vents from non-lead bearing 

process areas. 

Response: We have revised the proposed regulatory text to clarify that compliance tests 

need only be conducted for those sources that have emissions limitations for the applicable 

pollutant. We agree that building vents from non-lead bearing process areas should be excluded 
109 

from the definition of process vent and have reflected such in the regulatory text. However, we 

disagree that all roof exhausts equipped with HEPA filters should be excluded from the 

definition of process vent. 

Comment (151): Commenter 93 stated that the requirement for monthly calculation of 

flow-weighted average emissions is unnecessary and represents an additional burden without 

benefit. The commenter argued that sources will typically schedule the annual compliance tests 

for all process vents at a facility in the same week, and therefore, the results produced by the 

monthly calculation will not change over a period of nearly a year. Therefore, requiring the 

facilities to perform complicated summation calculations for multiple process vent stacks each 

month when the results each month will be the same provides no additional benefit or assurance 

of compliance with the standard. 

Response: We disagree that performing a calculation of flow-weighted average 

emissions is complex or represents an unnecessary additional burden. We understand that it is 

possible that facilities may test different process vents at different times throughout the year. 

Calculating the flow-weighted average emissions on a monthly basis will ensure that the value 

consistently includes the most up-to-date stack test data available. 

3.6 Typographical Corrections 

Comment (138): Commenter 92 requested clarification on a footnote of Table 2 that 

references January 2010 NEI data as being the basis for which emissions from this source 

category were estimated. The commenter stated their understanding that the NEI is developed 

on a 3-year cycle and that 2010 is not one of the development years. The commenter further 

stated that since the 2005 NEI data was used in the risk assessment, an explanation as to why an 

alternative year was utilized in the socio-economic analysis should be provided. 

Response: The commenter is correct that 2010 is not a development year. The 2005 

NEI data was used for the socio-economic analysis. 

3.7 SSM and Affirmative Defense 

Comment (225): Commenter 98 agreed with the EPA in the removal of the unlawful 

malfunction exemption under the existing rules, but noted that the EPA failed to assess cancer 
110 

and non-cancer chronic health risk from malfunction or other violations of the MACT standard. 

Specifically; 

EPA must consider the full potential for risk from all emissions that are likely to 

occur, even though the standard is in place, not just the risk based on the 

“allowable” number of emissions. 

EPA acknowledges that malfunctions inevitably occur. EPA has information 

available or can collect information on major sources’ malfunction and violation 

history. Research by the Environmental Integrity Project (“EIP”) from 2004 

found that significant emission exceedances occur routinely, across a range of 

different industries. Moreover, EIP found that “releases from upsets actually 

dwarf a facility’s routine emissions. EPA must look at data, like the EIP report, 

and ensure that its risk analysis and resulting standard prepare for the likelihood 

that malfunctions will occur and that the public will need protection from the high 

emissions they cause. 

EPA cannot ignore the additional emissions from malfunctions or other violations 

in calculating risk. It may not assume that malfunction or other violation-based 

emissions are zero when it knows that they are not and when its own proposal is 

likely to perpetuate the problem of malfunctions in overburdened communities. 

For the purpose of assessing health risk, EPA cannot presume that a facility will 

be in full compliance with the standard at all times, as this runs counter to past 

history. 

By failing to account for the heightened risk from exceedances of the MACT in 

its calculation, EPA fails to consider the full risk to public health and the 

environment from this source, especially for the maximum exposed individual 

and most-affected communities. This violates section 112(f)(2). The Act 

specifically requires EPA to base its risk analysis on the highest possible level of 

risk “to the individual most exposed to emissions from a source in the category or 

subcategory.” 42 U.S.C. § 7412(f)(2)(A); § 7412(f)(1)(C). To do this, it is 

necessary for EPA to determine the highest level of potential emissions from the 
111 

worst-performing source, and then use that information to establish the maximum 

individual risk. That requires consideration of risk from malfunction- and other 

violation-based emissions. Heightened emissions that occur during a malfunction 

and other types of violations pose increased acute health risks, as EPA has 

recognized. 76 Fed. Reg. at 29,040. Chronic cancer and non-cancer health risks 

may also be more severe than those calculated by EPA because of 

malfunction/violation emissions. For example, EPA’s MIR (maximum individual 

risk of cancer) is based on the assumption that exposure is constant for a lifetime 

(unless EPA uses age dependent adjustment factors). Failing to look at the true 

potential for spikes will significantly underestimate the amount of emissions 

considered for this analysis. 

EPA has accounted for some risk beyond the “MACT allowable” emission level 

in its acute health risk assessment, demonstrating that it is necessary and 

appropriate to do so for all parts of the risk assessment. To calculate acute health 

risk, EPA is using a “worst-case” scenario approach that appears to include some 

accounting for additional health risk due to upsets, malfunctions or other 

exceedances of the standard. For acute health risk, EPA is using a peak hourly 

emissions number that is “10 times the average annual hourly emissions rate for 

that source.” 76 Fed. Reg. at 29,040. EPA’s use of a factor that accounts for risk 

beyond the “MACT allowable” emissions number for acute risk in some manner 

in the proposed rule demonstrates that EPA has found a method to account for 

risk from higher than allowable emissions that occur from malfunctions and 

violations. It must apply a similar method to assess the maximum lifetime cancer 

risk and chronic non-cancer health risk for the maximum exposed individual. The 

failure to do so violates § 112(f)(2) and is arbitrary and capricious. The fact that 

EPA has done this for acute health risk shows that it is possible to do and should 

also be done for the other health risks that EPA must address in this rulemaking. 

Commenters also urge EPA to improve its acute health risk analysis by using a 

similar worst-case factor for fugitive dust emissions as well as stack emissions. 

EPA cannot justify ignoring the potential for increased fugitive dust emissions to 
112 

occur as a result of a malfunction or violation, whether or not the malfunction is 

combined with low-wind atmospheric conditions, as it attempts to do. 76 Fed. 

Reg. at 29,040. Further, accurately evaluating fugitive dust emissions is crucial 

because these emissions are the largest contributor to lead emission risks. See id. 

at 29,038. 

Response: We disagree with the commenter that emissions that exceed standards 

and are violations, whether or not caused by malfunction events, should be considered as 

part of the risk analysis. The purpose of the risk review is to evaluate whether the emission 

limits should be made more stringent to reduce the risk posed after compliance with the 

underlying MACT standard. To the extent that a source is violating the underlying MACT 

standard, no tightening of the emission standard under the residual risk rule will avoid or 

mitigate against such violations. In other words, a source that is violating the MACT 

emissions standard promulgated under section 112(d) would not be any more likely to be 

able to avoid such violations and comply with a different presumably more stringent 

standard promulgated under section 112(f). Such events are violations and subject to 

enforcement by the EPA, the States or citizens and an action for injunctive relief is the 

most effective means to address violations whether or not they are caused by malfunctions 

if an emissions event poses a significant health or environmental risk. 

Although we disagree that emissions that result in a violation should be considered 

as part of the risk review, we note that we believe malfunction events do not contribute 

significantly to cancer or chronic non-cancer risks for the source category in this 

rulemaking because malfunction events are inherently short-term and infrequent relative to 

annual operations and emissions. The commenter did not supply any data to the contrary. 

Furthermore, the conservative estimates built into the acute risk assessment are 

sufficient to gauge worst-case potential acute health effects. The conservative estimates 

built in to the assessment include worst-case meteorology, emissions at ten times the 

maximum peak emission rate from all point sources simultaneously, and the summation of 

the maximum impact of each emission source, regardless of receptor location. Thus, even if 
113 

we were to consider emissions that are in violation of the standard, we do not believe that 

they would result in any different level of control than we are promulgating here. 

Comment (246): Commenter 98 noted that the affirmative defense is unlawful and 

unjust, would create a new unlawful loophole, would have harmful consequences for 

communities, undermines citizen’s rights, and will greatly reduce the deterrent impact of the 

standards: 

Commenters support EPA’s proposed removal of the start-up, shut-down, and 

malfunction exemption... However, EPA’s proposal to promulgate an 

“affirmative defense” to penalties due to a malfunction would create a new 

unlawful loophole. It also would have harmful consequences for local 

communities affected by secondary lead smelters, and will greatly reduce the 

deterrent impact of the proposed standards. 

The statute makes clear how the courts are to assess civil penalties, whether a case 

is brought by EPA or a citizen. 42 U.S.C. § 7413(e). Congress plainly intended 

citizens to be able to enforce emission standards under the CAA using the full 

range of civil enforcement mechanisms available to the government, and, in the 

HAP context, subject only to the limitation that government not be “diligently 

prosecuting” its own civil enforcement action, CAA § 304(b)(1)(B), 42 U.S.C. § 

7604(b)(1)(B). EPA’s rule proposal, by shifting this careful balance and 

contravening these mandates, violates the CAA. 

The affirmative defense that the EPA proposes to allow in case of malfunctions goes 

directly against congressional intent in two ways. First, Congress expressed a clear intent as to 

how judges should determine the size of civil penalties whenever they are sought and thus, under 

Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 842-43 (1984), flatly 

barred the EPA from limiting when civil penalties can be assessed. In this proposal, the EPA acts 

outside of its delegated authority to limit civil penalties available in citizen suits or its own 

enforcement actions. Second, the proposal will impermissibly chill citizen participation, and the 

ability to win an effective, deterrent remedy, in CAA enforcement actions. 
114 

The affirmative defense is fatally flawed because the EPA does not have the authority to 

decide when civil penalties will not be allowed. The CAA itself spells out the only limits that 

Congress intended to impose on citizens’ ability to seek and recover penalties in enforcement 

suits under CAA § 304, 42 U.S.C. § 7604. See 42 U.S.C. § 7413(e). By attempting to impose 

additional agency-created limits, the EPA exceeds its authority. The commenter goes on to say: 

Congressional intent on civil penalties is clear—they are a remedy available to citizen 

plaintiffs, and judges have a list of factors to consider in assessing them. As such, 

EPA cannot interpret the statute to contravene that intent. By attempting to eliminate, 

via regulations, civil penalties in cases of malfunction where the violator 

demonstrates that certain factors [exist], EPA has done just that. 

The CAA grants EPA minimal discretion that only applies to administrative penalties, 

allowing EPA to “compromise, modify, or remit, with or without conditions, any 

administrative penalty which may be imposed under [subsection 113(d)].” 42 U.S.C. 

§ 7413(d)(2)(B). However, there is no similar grant of authority to EPA to 

compromise, modify or limit civil penalties that a court may impose under section 

113(e) or section 304. Section 304(a), 42 U.S.C. § 7604(a), grants courts the sole 

authority “to apply appropriate civil penalties” in citizen suits. The explicit reference 

to EPA’s ability to modify penalties in one subsection and its absence in the other 

subsection of the same provision can only be understood as an intentional decision by 

Congress that EPA cannot contravene by rule. 

If a local community group sued a covered facility for a violation of the emission 

standards, the owner might argue that it is exempt from paying civil penalties so long as the 

owner satisfied the requirements set forth in the EPA’s proposed affirmative defense regulations. 

See 76 Fed. Reg. at 29,061-62 (proposing 40 C.F.R. § 63.552). The owner must not be able to 

evade civil penalties that apply when the congressionally mandated factors in the statute are met. 

210 See 42 U.S.C. § 7413(e) (listing factors). It is improper for a court to fail to consider these 

factors, or to fail to make its own determination of what civil penalties are “appropriate” under 

CAA § 304(a), and the EPA should not ask a court to ignore its legal duty. A fortiori it is 

impermissible for the EPA to attempt to displace those factors or in any way alter their 
115 

significance by creating a bar to penalties if certain agency-defined considerations are met 

instead. 

Citizen participation in CAA enforcement also will be hindered, in violation of citizens’ 

rights to protect themselves from pollution and in direct conflict with congressional intent. The 

affirmative defense would likely be used on a routine basis by polluters seeking to avoid 

penalties, just as the malfunction exemption was. As a result, citizens who seek the assessment of 

civil penalties against polluters in order to protect themselves and achieve the Act’s goals may be 

forced to engage in fact-intensive disputes over the cause of emission violations and adequacy of 

responsive measures – an outcome Congress intended to prevent with the simple straightforward 

enforcement and penalty provisions in the Clean Air Act. As a result, enforcement of the Act 

could suffer, for civil penalties provide a powerful deterrent to violators as Congress intended. 

As the Supreme Court explained: “To the extent that they [civil penalties] encourage defendants 

to discontinue current violations and deter them from committing future ones, they afford redress 

to citizen plaintiffs who are injured or threatened with injury as a consequence of ongoing 

unlawful conduct.” Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs., 528 U.S. 167, 186 (2000). 

Thus, the affirmative defense also runs counter to two clearly expressed intentions of Congress: 

(1) the burden it places on citizens makes it less likely that they will enforce the Act, see, e.g., 

Pennsylvania v. Del. Valley Citizens’ Council for Clean Air, 478 U.S. 546, 560 (1986); and (2) 

several of the factors at issue in the affirmative defense undercut Congress’s intent that citizen 

suit enforcement should avoid re-delving into “technological or other considerations.” NRDC v. 

Train, 510 F.2d 692, 724 (D.C. Cir. 1974). Both result from the technical burden the EPA 

imposes on citizens with the affirmative defense, and both render the defense impermissible. 

In addition to these problems, there is simply no need for an affirmative defense to 

penalties to be written into the regulations and cause the harm that will result. EPA has discretion 

to decide what cases to prosecute, to consider settlements, and to request civil penalties in a caseby-case manner, as long as it acts consistent with the Clean Air Act to protect clean air as its top 

priority, see 42 U.S.C. § 7401. Promulgating this affirmative defense is equivalent to giving 

polluters “get out of jail free” cards for serious emission exceedances and MACT violations. 

Polluters are likely to claim that any violation of the standard is due to a malfunction in order to 

evade the requirements. Allowing polluters to evade financial penalties – which are the real teeth 

of the standards – through this type of measure is likely to lead to polluters simply ignoring or 

factoring potential standard violations into their cost of doing business, rather than actually 
116 

trying to prevent malfunctions and violations of the standards as a way to avoid financial losses 

from the application of penalties. 

Assuming arguendo that the EPA had authority to promulgate any type of affirmative 

defense to penalties for malfunctions, the EPA should also promulgate the following provisions: 

1. A specific amount of compensatory penalties should apply to each reported 

malfunction (consistent with the Act). These funds should be dedicated to 

enforcement, inspections, and monitoring in the local community around the 

specific facility, to create greater assurance that malfunctions will not happen 

again. 

2. The EPA should modify the regulations so that the affirmative defense cannot 

be used by a specific facility or company more than once within a set period of 

time, such as 10 years. The affirmative defense should become automatically 

unavailable to a facility that has previously had a malfunction within the last 10 

years, to ensure that this defense does not swallow the value of the standards. 

3. The EPA should promulgate specific public reporting and notification 

requirements for malfunctions, or any emission exceedance that occurs of which 

an operator is aware. Specifically, the EPA should require that when a facility 

provides the EPA with a notification of a malfunction or emission standard 

exceedance under the regulations, this notice will be made publicly available on 

the EPA’s website within 14 days. In addition, the EPA should promulgate the 

requirement that when such notification is made, the facility must also provide for 

community notification of the malfunction or emission standard exceedance 

within 2 business days, through an appropriate public forum that is designed to 

reach residents who live near the facility, including but not limited to a notice on 

the facility’s own website (if it has one), a written notice to the local municipality 

and local school district, a press release to the local newspaper, radio, and TV 

news station that contains information community members may need to protect 

themselves and their families from the additional air pollution. 
117 

Commenters urge the EPA not to adopt an affirmative defense that undermines citizen 

right and remedies under the Clean Air Act. People living near secondary lead smelters are 

exposed to unacceptably high levels of hazardous air pollution that no one should have to face 

simply because of where they live. Attempting to take away a right granted to citizens by 

Congress through an agency regulation sets a dangerous precedent. The EPA should work to 

expand and protect the ability of people harmed by air pollution to seek all appropriate and 

available forms of relief in court. The EPA should not retract or weaken citizen rights and 

remedies, as this proposal does, by making it more difficult for people to win meaningful relief 

from facilities that have released toxic air pollution into their communities for years. 

Response: As the EPA explained in the preamble to the proposed rule and in the 

response to comment document, the EPA recognizes that even equipment that is properly 

designed and maintained can fail and that such failure can cause an exceedance of the relevant 

emission standard. The EPA included an affirmative defense in the final rule in an attempt to 

balance a tension, inherent in many types of air regulation, to ensure adequate compliance while 

simultaneously recognizing that despite the most diligent of efforts, emission limits may be 

exceeded under circumstances beyond the control of the source. The EPA must establish 

emission standards that “limit the quantity, rate, or concentration of emissions of air pollutants 

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

standard”). See generally Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019, 1021 (D.C. Cir. 2008) ( emissions 

limitations under CAA section 112 must both continuously apply and meet section 112’s 

minimum stringency requirements, even during periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction). 

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 caselaw 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 
118 

Association v. Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 375 (D.C.Cir. 1973). Though intervening caselaw such as 

Sierra Club v. EPA and the CAA 1977 amendments undermine the relevance of these cases 

today, they support the EPA’s view that a system that incorporates some level of flexibility is 

reasonable. The affirmative defense simply provides for a defense to civil penalties for excess 

emissions that are proven to be beyond the control of the source. By incorporating an affirmative 

defense, the EPA has formalized its approach to upset events. In a Clean Water Act setting, the 

Ninth Circuit required this type of formalized approach when regulating “upsets beyond the 

control of the permit holder.” Marathon Oil Co. v. EPA, 564 F.2d 1253, 1272-73 (9th Cir. 1977). 

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

informal approach is adequate). The affirmative defense provisions give the EPA the flexibility 

to both ensure that its emission limitations are “continuous” as required by 42 U.S.C. § 7602(k), 

and account for unplanned upsets and thus support the reasonableness of the standard as a whole. 

Further, the EPA’s view is that the affirmative defense is not inconsistent with CAA 

section 113(e) or 304. Section 304 gives district court’s jurisdiction “to apply appropriate civil 

penalties.” Section 113(e)(1) identifies the factors that the Administrator or a court shall take into 

consideration in determining the amount of a penalty to be assessed, once it has been determined 

that a penalty is appropriate. The affirmative defense regulatory provision is not relevant to the 

amount of any penalty to be assessed. If a court determines that the affirmative defense elements 

have been established, then a penalty is not appropriate and penalty assessment pursuant to the 

section 113(e)(1) factors does not occur. 

In exercising its authority under section 112 to establish emission standards (at a level 

that meets the stringency requirements of section 112), the EPA necessarily defines conduct that 

constitutes a violation. The EPA view is that the affirmative defense is part of the emission 

standard and defines two categories of violation. If there is a violation of the emission standard 

and the source demonstrates that all the elements of the affirmative defense are met, only 

injunctive relief is available. All other violations of the emission standard are subject to 

injunctive relief and penalties. The CAA does not require that all violations be treated equally. 

Further, a citizen suit claim under section 304 allows citizens to commence a civil action against 

any person alleged to be in violation of “an emission standard or limitation under this chapter.” 

The CAA, however, allows the EPA to establish such “enforceable emission limitations.” Thus, 
119 

the citizen suit provision clearly contemplates enforcement of the standards that are defined by 

the EPA. As a result, where the EPA defines its emissions limitations and enforcement measures 

to allow a source the opportunity to prove its entitlement to a lesser degree of violation (not 

subject to penalties) in narrow, specified circumstances, as the EPA did here, penalties are not 

“appropriate” under section 304. 

The EPA’s view is that an affirmative defense to civil penalties for exceedances of 

applicable emission standards during periods of malfunction appropriately balances competing 

concerns. On the one hand, citizen enforcers are concerned about additional complications in 

their enforcement actions. On the other hand, industrial sources are concerned about being 

penalized for violations caused by malfunctions that could not have prevented and were 

otherwise appropriately handled (as reflected in the affirmative defense criteria). The EPA has 

utilized its Section 301(a)(1) authority to issue regulations necessary to carry out the Act in a 

manner that appropriately balances these competing concerns. 

The EPA disagrees that the affirmative defense provision will hamper citizen 

enforcement. First, injunctive relief is still available and the threat of penalties would not deter 

violations in cases where all of the conditions of the affirmative defense have been satisfied 

because the affirmative defense criteria ensure that all reasonable steps were taken to prevent a 

malfunction that causes excess emissions. Further, litigating whether a source has met the 

affirmative defense will not burden citizen group any more or less than would litigating the 

appropriate penalty amount in the penalty assessment stage of a citizen suit enforcement action, 

because the 113(e) penalty assessment criteria and the affirmative defense criteria are similar and 

in fact overlap. For example, the requirement that the Administrator or the court consider “good 

faith efforts to comply” is bound to generate the type of fact-intensive disputes that the 

commenter complains of. In addition, several of the affirmative defense criteria are exactly the 

type of criteria the Administrator or Court might consider in determining whether a source made 

“good faith efforts to comply.” For example, to take advantage of the affirmative defense, the 

source must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that, among other things, the excess 

emissions “were caused by an unavoidable failure of air pollution control and monitoring 

equipment, process equipment, or a process to operate in a normal or usual manner” and “could 

not have been prevented through careful planning, proper design or better operation and 
120 

maintenance practices” and “did not stem from any activity or event that could have been 

foreseen and avoided, or planned for.” 

Thus, the EPA does not expect the affirmative defense provision to significantly alter the 

burden of bringing a citizen enforcement action. For those cases that do proceed to trial, even in 

the absence of this affirmative defense, sources generally raise equitable arguments to argue for a 

low penalty and citizens often rebut such arguments. Therefore, as a practical matter, the EPA 

does not expect the affirmative defense provision to materially affect the practice of CAA 

enforcement. 

Additionally, the affirmative defense is reasonable. The EPA’s judgment is that the 

affirmative defense criteria capture the appropriate considerations in determining whether 

penalties are appropriate when a violation occurs as the result of a malfunction. As noted above, 

the affirmative defense criteria overlap to some extent with the penalty assessment criteria set 

forth in section 113(e), but are not identical. For example, size of business is one of the factors 

listed in section 113(e), but is not reflected in the EPA’s affirmative defense. This reflects the 

EPA’s view that when a violation is caused by a malfunction, the size of the business is not 

relevant to whether penalties should be excused. If the violation was unavoidable and could not 

have been prevented, the EPA’s view is that it would be unfair to impose a penalty no matter the 

size of the business. 

The EPA is not adopting commenters’ suggestion with respect to compensatory damages 

or limits on the frequency of use of the affirmative defense. It is not clear that the EPA has 

authority to require the automatic imposition of compensatory damages and even if such 

authority exists, the EPA does not think automatic imposition of damages is appropriate. 

Ensuring that malfunctions do not recur can be handled through imposition of appropriate 

injunctive relief. In addition, the EPA’s view is that it would not be appropriate to limit a 

source’s ability to take advantage of the affirmative defense to one time over a specified period 

of time such as ten years given that the affirmative defense is only available when the source 

could not have prevented the excess emissions. With respect to commenters’ suggested reporting 

requirements, the reporting requirements in the rules promulgated today already require 

malfunction reporting and the affirmative defense provisions require that parties choosing to 
121 

assert the affirmative defense meet additional malfunction reporting requirements. Any such 

reports submitted to the EPA are publicly available pursuant to CAA section 114. 

Comment (248): Commenter 111 stated that the affirmative defense provisions do not 

cure the EPA’s failure to set emission standards that are achievable during SSM events and are 

not a substitute for setting emissions standards for these periods. The commenter further state 

that the proposed standards with the affirmative defense do not represent emission limitations 

achieved by the best-performing existing sources, nor do they meet the criteria for establishing 

beyond-the-floor emission standards and that the affirmative defense is not a permissible 

substitute for setting standards for periods of malfunction and is insufficient to meet the EPA’s 

obligations under CAA §112. Commenter 87 requests the EPA set aside the proposed 

affirmative defense for periods of malfunction and establish a work practice standard for these 

periods. 

Response: The affirmative defense applies to malfunction events and not to periods of 

startup and shutdown. The affirmative defense is not intended as a substitute for standards under 

section 112 – the applicable standard applies during malfunctions, but a source may assert an 

affirmative defense in an enforcement action for penalties for emissions in excess of the 

standard. Elsewhere in this document, we address the commenter’s concern regarding whether 

the EPA has met its obligation under section 112 in addressing emissions during startup and 

shutdown. 

Comment (201, 103): Commenter 96 and 90 advised that the EPA should promulgate 

work practice standards for emissions during startups, shutdowns and malfunctions, rather than 

requiring compliance with the proposed emissions standards during these events. The EPA has 

not demonstrated that the best-performing units can achieve the proposed MACT emission 

standards during SSM events. The commenter stated that “the unpredictability and variability of 

emissions during SSM events makes measuring their emissions infeasible using current 

measurement methods...” Commenter 90 suggested that the standards should require the 

development and implementation of an emissions minimization plan that would be a dynamic 

document maintained at the facility. 
122 

Response: Work practice standards have been included in the final rule for startup and 

shutdown periods where a facility will not be able to demonstrate compliance with the D/F and 

THC limits based performance testing during these periods. See section III.A.3 of the final rule 

preamble for a discussion of these work practice standards and the impracticality of performance 

testing for THC and D/F during periods of startup and shutdown. No exemption for startup 

periods was requested or determined to be necessary for the lead emission standard. 

Comment (103): Commenter 90 provided additional support for incorporating work 

practice standards for periods of SSM. According to the commenter: 

EPA claims that its approach to SSM is required by Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 

1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 2265 (2010). In this 

decision, the D.C. Circuit vacated the exemption in 40 C.F.R. § 63.6(f)(1) and 

(h)(1) for SSM periods, and in light of this decision, EPA proposed emissions 

standards in the RTR Proposed Rule that apply at all times, including periods of 

SSM. 76 Fed. Reg. at 29,072. 

When setting standards in the early 1990’s under CAA § 112(d), EPA used its 

New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) program as a model. The § 112 

standards were acknowledged by EPA to be "essentially equivalent to [§ 111] 

performance standards" and that "unpredicted and reasonably unavoidable failures 

of air pollution control systems" would occur. 58 Fed. Reg. at 42,762, 42,777 

(Aug. 11, 1993). To address this situation, EPA adopted an exemption similar to 

the one in the NSPS Program for SSM events and imposed a "general duty" to 

minimize emissions. Thus, EPA acknowledged, as early as 1993, that SSM events 

are not appropriate for inclusion in a MACT standard and that an alternative 

approach should be used to address these situations. While the D.C. Circuit in the 

Sierra Club vs. EPA case ruled that sources cannot be exempt from complying 

with MACT standards, the court noted that Congress recognized in some 

instances that it may not be feasible to prescribe or enforce an emission standard 

under § 112, and so § 112(h) "work practices" or "operational" standards are 

available in certain situations. See Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d at 1028. 
123 

The D.C. Circuit also has recognized that standards based on what sources 

achieve must account for the limitations inherent in the technology used to reduce 

emissions. For example, in a case reviewing NSPS under § 111 of the CAA, 

Portland Cement Ass’n v. Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 375, 398 (D.C. Cir. 1973), the 

court acknowledged that " 'start-up' and 'upset' conditions due to plant or emission 

device malfunction, is an inescapable aspect of industrial life and that allowance 

must be made for such factors in the standards that are promulgated." Id. 

Furthermore, in National Lime Ass’n v. EPA, 627 F.2d 416 (D.C. Cir. 1980), the 

court noted that "a uniform standard must be capable of being met under most 

adverse conditions which can reasonably be expected to recur." Id. at 431 n.46. 

The D.C. Circuit acknowledged this same principle almost 20 years later when 

reviewing emission standards for new sources in the medical waste incinerator 

rule under § 129 in Sierra Club v. EPA, 167 F.3d 658 (D.C. Cir. 1999). In that 

case, while the court did not find the record sufficient to support EPA’s approach 

for new sources, the D.C. Circuit did not object to a standard-setting approach 

which would account for the performance of technology under the "worst 

reasonably foreseeable circumstances." See id. at 665. Furthermore, the D.C. 

Circuit reiterated the principle in National Lime that "where a statute requires that 

a standard be 'achievable,' it must be achievable 'under the most adverse 

circumstances which can reasonably be expected to recur.' " Id. at 665 (citing 

National Lime Ass’n v. EPA, 627 F.2d 416, 431 n.46 (D.C. Cir. 1980)). 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." 76 Fed. Reg. at 29,061. Considering that EPA’s proposed MACT 

standards are supposed to apply at all times, the implication is that periods of 

malfunction also are covered by the MACT standards that apply during normal 

operations. This approach directly conflicts with the statutory requirement that the 

MACT standard be "achievable." EPA has failed to recognize what Congress 

acknowledged in enacting §112: that it is likely that even best performers will 

experience malfunctions. It is possible for pollution control equipment to fail in 

various ways. Power failures do occur, fabric filters fail, scrubber pumps fail even 

at best performers and despite the best efforts of companies to prevent and 
124 

minimize such events. Industry can and does work to minimize such periods, but 

they do occur. Further, manufacturers of such equipment routinely make emission 

guarantees for normal operations and although they sometimes oversize 

equipment to account for some of the variability described above, it is very 

doubtful that vendors would provide sufficient numerical guarantees for 

equipment under such situations. Given that the MACT floor data does not 

consider malfunctions and that the statute requires that the MACT standard be 

"achievable," EPA should, if it is determined that it is appropriate to amend the 

MACT at all, set work practice requirements to address periods of malfunctions 

as well. 

Response: We have included work practice standards for periods of startup and shutdown 

for THC and D/F. With respect to standards for lead, EPA believes that the standards that 

otherwise apply are also appropriate for startup and shutdown because the bag leak detection 

systems used to determine compliance with the emission standard for lead operates properly 

during these periods. With respect to malfunctions, we do not find it appropriate to make a 

blanket determination that work practices should be applied for periods of malfunctions (which 

do not always cause situations that will satisfy the criteria of section 112(h) regarding technical 

and economic practicality of measuring emissions). We have included an affirmative defense for 

malfunctions in the final rule that addresses situations that are beyond the control of the owner or 

operator, reflecting the caselaw in this area, as stated in response at pages 117-121 of this 

document. 

Comment (109): Commenter 90 stated that the EPA’s basis of cost for implementation 

of the affirmative defense is not supported, and in their estimate is significantly less than what 

would be expected. The EPA’s estimate of the number of occurrences per year of 2-3 seems low 

as well. 

 

Response: We believe that the cost estimate for implementation of the affirmative 

defense is reasonable. The commenter provided no specific data to support their claims. 
125 

3.8 Request for Comment Period Extension 

Comment: Several commenters requested more time to review the proposed package. 

Three commenters (70.1, 72, 73) requested a 60 day extension, one commenter (80) requested a 

58 day extension, and one commenter (71) requested a 45 day extension. 

Commenters 70, 71, and 73 stated that the period for comments is insufficient to allow 

them to fully review the proposed rule and docket materials, and develop meaningful comments 

to assist the Agency in finalizing its proposal. Commenter 72 stated that the proposal raises a 

host of complicated issues that warrant careful consideration in order to comment meaningfully. 

Commenter 73 stated that an extension is warranted because not all documents on which the 

EPA relied in drafting the proposed rule were located in the docket on May 19. The commenter 

further noted that the comment period included Memorial Day and Independence Day, 

effectively shortening the time available to conduct the necessary analyses. Commenter 74 notes 

that the comment period for the EPA’s proposed rule and that for the EPA’s First External 

Review Draft Integrated Science Assessment for Lead share a common deadline. The 

commenter contends that it is not reasonable to review both of these lengthy documents on the 

same time frame. 

Response: The EPA granted a 21 day extension of the comment period. The 21 day 

extension was the longest that the EPA could grant while still providing enough time to meet the 

court-ordered deadline for signature of this final rule. See also response at pages 127-127 below, 

explaining in more detail why further extensions were inappropriate and unnecessary. 

3.9 Miscellaneous 

Comment (16): Commenter 80 provided comment on the Draft Summary of Ambient 

Lead Monitoring Data near Secondary Lead Smelting Facilities document (EPA-HQ-2011-0344-

0041). The commenter stated that two of the monitoring sites listed for the Buick Resource 

Recycling Facility are not ambient, but are located within the facility fenceline and should not 

appear in the table. The commenter also notes that the listed maximum 3-month concentration of 

2.46 μg/m3at site 29093016 in 2008 resulted from an upset condition at the facility, not typical 

operation. 

Response: We have added footnotes to the applicable tables of the technical document 

clarifying the commenter’s points. 
126 

Comment (8, 30): Commenter 78 and 83 stated that they support the proposed rule as 

published. 

Response: We acknowledge the commenters’ support. 

Comment (108, 168, 181): Industry respondents (90, 95, 96) commented on the EPA’s 

statement in the preamble to the proposed rule that “No new secondary lead smelters have been 

built in the last 20 years, and we anticipate no new secondary lead smelting facilities in the 

foreseeable future, although there is one facility currently in the process of expanding 

operations.” The commenters note a secondary lead smelting facility that is currently operating 

in Puerto Rico. Additionally, JCI is currently constructing a battery recycling facility in 

Florence, S.C., and Exide Technologies holds an active Title V permit for a facility in Columbus, 

GA. The commenters contend that the EPA’s failure to accurately and completely describe the 

industry is grounds for withdrawal and re-proposal of the rule. 

Response: The commenters are correct in their statements regarding these facilities. 

However, we note that the JCI facility in Florence, SC and the Exide facility in Columbus, GA 

are not operational. Therefore, ‘emissions’ (non-existent) from these two facilities could not 

have affected any revised emissions limits in the proposed rulemaking. 

With regards to the Puerto Rico facility, the EPA contacted The Battery Recycling 

Company requesting information in an effort to determine the potential impacts of the proposed 

rule on this facility. The stack test data obtained by the EPA revealed that stack emissions of 

lead from this facility are below the limit proposed by the EPA and therefore would not have 

affected the EPA’s stance that its proposed emissions limit for lead for this source category is 

technologically feasible and represents a level that is achieved in practice by a well-performing 

fabric filter. The data received can be found in docket ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344-0124 and 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344-0125. With regards to total hydrocarbons and dioxins and furans 

from rotary furnaces, EPA is not setting section 112 (d) standards in this rule because of an 

absence of data to represent performance of rotary furnaces and is now preparing to send out 

section 114 information requests to obtain additional data. We have conducted analyses to 

evaluate the cost impacts of the proposed rule on the aforementioned facilities and have revised 

the technical document describing the cost impacts accordingly. None of the data or information 
127 

collected from these facilities alters the decisions made by the EPA in this rulemaking. As such, 

we do not believe that this issue merits delay of this rulemaking. 

Comment (259): Commenter 75 requested that the EPA issue a supplemental notice of 

rulemaking for the secondary lead smelting NESHAP. The commenter claims that there are 

“significant problems with the proposed rule that undermine EPA’s proposed MACT floors and 

its Risk and Technology Review (RTR).” 

First, the commenter notes that the proposed rule fails to consider emissions from The 

Battery Recycling Company’s secondary lead smelter in Puerto Rico. The commenter notes that, 

with regards to risk, the EPA is required to consider emission from all members in the source 

category. The commenter further notes that the MACT floors proposed by the EPA for THC and 

D/F must be based on the best-performing 5 sources and that the EPA’s failure to consider 

emissions from the Puerto Rico facility prejudices these standards. 

Second, the commenter states that the proposed rule is flawed because its risk review is 

based on a overestimation of dioxin emissions at the Exide Frisco facility. The commenter notes 

that Exide conducted a stack test in October 2010 demonstrating emissions 69 times lower than 

the estimate used by the EPA in its risk assessment. 

Third, the commenter states that a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking would 

allow the EPA to take into account additional stack testing data submitted by the industry. 

Response: We do not believe that it is appropriate to issue a supplemental notice of 

rulemaking for this source category. We received data from the overwhelming majority of the 

industry in the ICR developed for the proposal. However, we did obtain data from the Battery 

Recycling Company after the proposal and the data did not change any of the substantive 

conclusions of the rulemaking. As noted in the final rule preamble, we have deferred standards 

for organic HAP and dioxin for rotary furnaces. We will collect data from the Battery Recycling 

Company and the JCI facility currently under construction in South Carolina (if it is operational) 

and use those data to develop appropriate emission standards for those pollutants. The test data 

for dioxins and furans from the Exide Frisco facility mentioned by the commenter were not made 

available to the EPA until June of 2011, despite the testing being conducted in October 2010. 

The EPA requested these data from Exide repeatedly before the proposal and did not receive 

them. As noted by the commenter, the data showed that the multipathway risks from dioxins and 
128 

furans are below 1 in a million. However, the overestimated risk used in the proposal did not 

lead to any emission standards for dioxins and furans being proposed under section 112(f). These 

data thus did not substantively change any decisions made for this rulemaking making it 

unnecessary to reopen the comment period. There were two additional stack tests mentioned by 

the commenter. First, the commenter mentioned that RSR’s Middletown, NY facility was 

performing additional testing on their rotary furnace for THC or dioxins and furans. However, 

the facility provided additional test data for lead and confirmed that they did not perform 

additional testing for THC or dioxins and furans. The additional lead test data showed that the 

tested furnace was meeting the lead emission standard promulgated in this final rule. The second 

test cited by the commenter occurred at the Exide Reading facility but was not provided to the 

EPA until late November 2011, too late to be incorporated into the MACT floor calculations. 

The concerns presented by the commenter have been addressed elsewhere in this document. 

Comment (34, 134): Commenters 86, 92, and 98 recommended that the EPA adopt a 

consolidated emissions reporting rule for HAPs. According to the commenters, “The lack of a 

federal requirement to collect the basic information on how many HAPs are released from 

stationary sources into the surrounding community is a serious impediment to any attempt to 

evaluate total HAP exposure and risk in a sound technical manner.” 

Response: We agree and the EPA is currently considering how to collect such data.

Comment (235): Commenter 98 stated that the EPA should commit to review and 

update its residual risk determination in this final rule at the same time as it is next required to 

review its § 112(d) technology-based standard (i.e., 8 years from promulgation of the final rule). 

Response: This comment is beyond the scope of this rule. 

Comment: Commenter 130 stated that the EPA finalized far less prescriptive design 

standards and work practices for the primary lead processing source category than it proposed for 

the secondary lead smelting category. The commenter believes that the less prescriptive work 

practices and design standards should be applied to the secondary lead smelting rule. Specific 

proposed work practices that were proposed for secondary lead include the water application rate 

in pavement cleaning, the requirement to wash building roofs, and the requirement to conduct all 
129 

maintenance activities within enclosures. The primary lead rule does not require these work 

practices. 

Response: We have revised the list of required work practices to remove redundancy or 

potential workplace hazards based on a number of comments received on the proposed rule for 

the secondary lead smelting source category. The specific water application rate for pavement 

cleaning, and the requirement to wash building roofs which EPA proposed are not included as 

requirement in the final rule. The proposed requirement to perform all maintenance activities 

within enclosures has been modified to ensure that maintenance activities that could generate 

lead dust are conducted in a manner that minimizes emissions of fugitive dust. However, the 

final list of work practice standards will ensure that fugitive dust is not generated outside of total 

enclosures, thereby ensuring the public is protected with an ample margin of safety. 

Comment: Commenter 130 discussed the requirement for total enclosures to be 

maintained at a negative pressure of at least 0.02 mm of Hg with an in-draft velocity of 300 feet 

per minute with continuous multiple negative pressure monitoring units fitted with backup power 

supplies. The commenter compared the final primary lead standard to the proposed secondary 

lead standard. The primary lead standard is less prescriptive than the proposed secondary lead 

standard, and the commenter stated that there is no reason that the design standards for 

enclosures need to be more prescriptive. 

Response: We believe that monitoring of building differential pressure is the most 

accurate means by which to ensure that the enclosure building is under negative pressure at all 

times. This method provides direct measurements that the building is indeed maintained at 

negative pressure and thus not emitting contained material. 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 agree with these comments and 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 the EPA 

Method 204’s criteria for verification of a permanent or temporary total enclosure. Because 

fugitive lead emissions are the predominant contributor to overall risk for the secondary lead 
130 

source category, EPA concluded that total enclosures with continuous monitoring of negative 

pressure were appropriate for this category. 

Comment: Commenter 130 compared the bag leak detection system requirement in the 

proposed secondary lead rule to the requirement in the final primary lead rule. The EPA 

proposed to remove the 1997 NESHAP exemption in the secondary lead rule for bag leak 

detection system on baghouses fitted with secondary HEPA filtration. In the final primary lead 

rule, EPA included this exemption. 

Response: We agree with the commenters that baghouses equipped with HEPA filters 

do not need bag leak detection systems as well. Measurement of pressure drop across a HEPA 

filter provides the needed information to determine that the filter is performing effectively so a 

bag leak detection system would be redundant. 

Comment: Commenter 130 noted that a comment by the ABR was included in the 

primary lead rule docket opposing the proposed requirement that new primary lead processing 

facilities install and operate continuous emission monitoring systems for lead. The comment 

also explained why the EPA should not include a similar requirement in the secondary lead 

smelting rule. The ABR comment to the primary lead proposed rule stated that without setting a 

performance specification at the time of proposal, there is no way for the commenter to 

meaningfully assess the system and the potential applicability. There is no assurance that the 

CEM technology will be sufficiently sensitive and robust to provide reliable data on emissions 

for secondary lead smelter stacks. Additionally the requirement to install a CEMS would impose 

a cost burden that would be greater than any incremental environmental benefit. 

Response: We have considered the cost estimates provided by all commenters and 

maintain that it is appropriate to include the requirement for lead CEMS for new sources. 

However, a performance specification for lead CEMS will be promulgated prior to the 

requirement becoming effective in this subpart. The process for promulgating a lead CEMS 

method includes proposing such a method and providing the opportunity for public comment. In 

addition, EPA would consider as part of the rulemaking proceeding, whether it is appropriate to 

adjust the level of any standard measured by a CEM considering the more frequent measurement 

and hence dampening of variability over time of multiple measurements. 

Comment: Commenter 127 submitted late comments in response to late-filed additional 

comments from the Pall Corporation. The commenter is concerned that EPA is not providing a 
131 

complete record of supporting materials in the docket, in that minutes of a meeting between EPA 

and Pall in September 2011 are not docketed. The commenter noted that the comments provided 

by Pall do not include any explanation as to why the information was not submitted before the 

end of the comment period. The commenter does not believe there is sufficient information in 

the EPA’s proposal and supporting documentation regarding the feasibility, performance 

specifications or quality assurance procedures of a Pb CEMS. The cost noted by the Pall 

Corporation in the late-filed comments is incomplete and misleading in that it does not include 

all installation costs. 

Response: While the commenter is correct that the additional comments submitted by the 

Pall Corporation were received after the close of the public comment period, that does not bar 

the EPA from considering those comments, just as it did not bar the EPA from considering the 

multiple comments submitted by ABR after the close of the public comment period. The 

additional comments submitted by the Pall Corporation essentially emphasized their request that 

the agency respond to their original comments rather than raising new issues (with the exception 

of new cost information). The updated cost information provided by the Pall Corporation did 

include caveats that certain costs were excluded, as mentioned by the commenter. The EPA has 

considered both the cost estimate provided by the commenter and by Pall Corporation. The costs 

submitted by the commenter ($400,000 per device) were the values that the EPA used to 

determine whether it was appropriate to require these devices for new sources. We deemed that it 

was appropriate. Whether the costs remain at $400,000 or are indeed lower, we maintain that it is 

an appropriate requirement. With regard to comments on the feasibility of a Pb CEMS, the EPA 

has included the requirement for new sources to install a CEMS only after the performance 

specifications for a lead CEMS method have been promulgated. The EPA will conduct an 

investigation into the feasibility and cost effectiveness of a Pb CEMS before as a part of the 

rulemaking process for the performance specification. That rulemaking will involve a public 

comment period during which the commenter may inform the EPA of any potential problems 

with the performance specification that is proposed. The total cost of installing and operating a 

CEMS will be considered in the evaluation. Notes from the September 2011 between the EPA 

and Pall Corporation were posted in the docket well before the signature date of the final rule, 

see EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344-0128. 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under

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

1

Secondary Lead Risk Assessment: EPA sent a redline risk assessment before our 12/8 call. 

• 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.

o Added language clarifying that 94-99% of the ambient lead concentrations were 

from fugitives at 8 of the 9 facilities where there were exceedances, consistent with 

language added to the risk assessment.

o Also added language re: uncertainty of estimating fugitive emissions and a citation 

to the emissions memo where our estimates are compared to the ICR responses and 

the TRI reported estimates.

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

modified?

o The concentration has been fixed. 

• 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.
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under

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

3

o Added the following language, consistent with language added to the risk 

assessment: “The REL is the only available acute health benchmark value for arsenic. All 

other pollutants had HQ values less than or equal to 1.”

• 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.

o Clarified this language to read as follows: “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 risk from exposure to 

air-borne lead emissions but also considers other risk 

metrics such as cancer and non-cancer risks associated 

with actual and allowable stack emissions. As mentioned 

above, fugitive dust emissions cause modeled 

concentrations of lead above the lead NAAQS at 9 of 15 

facilities. Allowable stack emissions of lead also cause 

modeled concentrations exceeding the NAAQS and allowable 

stack emissions of other HAP metals cause cancer risks of 

200 in a million.“

o The added language should make it clearer that stack and fugitive emissions were 

both drivers in the decision making process. 

• 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?

o We talked about this at our 12/8 call. The cost estimates at proposal were able to 

separate the cost of ambient monitoring from the costs of total enclosure. However, 

for the option that only required ambient monitoring, we assumed that all facilities 

would have to totally enclose in order to meet the ambient monitoring value. 

Therefore, the costs presented for that option were very similar to the option that 

required total enclosure. 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under

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

4

o The response to comment re: enclosure hoods agrees with the commenter that 

these devices are effective for control of some process fugitive emission sources. 

However, those process fugitive emission sources are not 100% controlled by these 

hoods, nor are these sources the only fugitive dust emission sources.

• 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.

o Our analysis found that the cost for pressure monitors was minimal and that these 

monitors are the most direct method to verify negative pressure. 

o Added the following language in response to the assertion that total enclosure 

would increase the emissions of lead: “It is unclear to us how 

directing previously uncontrolled fugitive emissions 

through a fabric filter would increase the overall 

emissions from a structure.”

• 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?

o We spoke about this on our 12/8 call. The maximum modeled lead risk went from 

about 19x the NAAQS to about 16x the NAAQS. The allowable risks due to stack 

emissions weren’t affected by the change in the fugitive estimates.

• 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? 

o Added language at p. 34-35 that clarifies that fugitive emissions contribute 94-99% 

of modeled ambient concentrations at 8 of 9 facilities that had modeled 

concentrations above the NAAQS.

• 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.

o We spoke about this on our call on 12/8. The total annual lead reductions are about 

13.3 tpy. We’ve clarified the language to make that more clear.

o The language also presents reductions of other metal HAP along with lead.
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under

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

5

o Also added the reductions of lead to the rows in Table 5 so the cost effectiveness 

based on lead alone can be easily calculated from the information in the table.

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

document and section where they are addressed.

o The comments and responses related to the changes in the multipathway risk results 

based on the updated emissions information received in public comments have been 

moved to the preamble. 

o There are a few other comments related to the multipathway risk assessment in the 

response to comment document, a draft of which has been sent along with this 

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

Release During Review***

Page 1 of 183

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 

final amendments include revisions to the emissions limits for lead 

compounds, revisions to the standards for fugitive emissions, the 

addition of total hydrocarbon and dioxin and furan emissions limits 

for reverberatory and electric furnaces, the addition of a work 

practice standard for mercury emissions, the modification and addition 

of testing and monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements, 

related notifications and revisions to the regulatory provisions 

related to emissions during periods of startup, shutdown and 

malfunction.

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

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

incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the rule 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 2 of 183

is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of [INSERT THE 

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

FEDERAL REGISTER].

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

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

listed on the http://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in 

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

confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either electronically through 

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

EPA West Building, Room Number 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, 

Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room hours of operation are 8:30 

a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST), Monday through Friday. 

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

the telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket and Information 

Center is (202) 566–1742.

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

Release During Review***

Page 3 of 183

topham.nathan@epa.gov. For additional contact information, see the 

following SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For specific information regarding the risk 

assessment and exposure modeling methodology, contact Dr. Michael 

Stewart, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Health and 

Environmental Impacts Division, Air Toxics Assessment Group (C504–06), 

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

27711; telephone number: (919) 541–7524; fax number: (919) 541–0840; 

and email address: stewart.michael@epa.gov. For information about the 

applicability of this NESHAP to a particular entity, contact the 

appropriate person listed in Table 1 to this preamble.

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

Action

NESHAP for: OECA 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 Electronic Reporting Tool 

HAP hazardous air pollutants 

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

Release During Review***

Page 4 of 183

ICR information collection request

lbs/yr pounds per year 

MACT maximum achievable control technology 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standard

NESHAP National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

ng/dscm nanograms per dry standard cubic meter

NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

OP Office of Policy

ppbv parts per billion by volume

ppbw parts per billion by weight

ppmv parts per million by volume 

ppmw parts per million by weight 

REL recommended exposure limit

RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act

RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis

RIN Regulatory Information Number 

RTR Risk and Technology Review

SRF short rotary furnace

TEF toxic equivalency factor 

TEQ toxic equivalency quotient

THC total hydrocarbons 

TTN Technology Transfer Network 

UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

UPL upper prediction limit 

WWW World Wide Web 

Background Information Document. On May 19, 2011 (76 FR 29032), the 

EPA proposed revisions to the Secondary Lead Smelting NESHAP based on 

evaluations performed by the EPA in order to conduct our risk and 

technology review. In this action, we are finalizing decisions and 

revisions for the rule. Some of the significant comments and our 

responses are summarized in this preamble. A summary of the public 

comments on the proposal not presented in the preamble and the EPA’s 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 5 of 183

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?

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 Conducted 

Pursuant to CAA Section 112(d)(6)

V. Summary of Significant Comments and Responses

A. Use of lead primary NAAQS as a measure of acceptability of risk 

for public health

B. Total Enclosure Requirements

B. Work Practice Standard Requirements for Fugitive Emissions

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

Release During Review***

Page 6 of 183

A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review, and 

Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory 

Review

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 

Tribal Governments

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental 

Health Risks and Safety Risks

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

K. Congressional Review Act

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

Regulated Entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated by 

this action are shown in Table 2 of this preamble. 

Table 2 – NESHAP and Industrial Source Categories Affected By 

This Final Action

NESHAP and Source Category NAICS1 Code MACT2

Code

Secondary Lead Smelting 331492 0205

1 North American Industry Classification System

2 Maximum Achievable Control Technology

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

rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be 

affected by the final action for the source category listed. To 

determine whether your facility would be affected, you should examine 

the applicability criteria in the appropriate NESHAP. As defined in 

the source category listing report published by the EPA in 1992, the 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 7 of 183

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

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

Secondary Lead Smelting source category is defined as any facility at 

which lead-bearing scrap materials (including, but not limited to lead 

acid batteries) are recycled by smelting into elemental lead or lead 

alloys.1 For clarification purposes, all reference to lead emissions 

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

pollutant) and all reference to lead production means elemental lead 

(which is not a hazardous air pollutant) as provided under CAA section 

112(b)(7).

If you have any questions regarding the applicability of any 

aspect of this NESHAP, please contact the appropriate person listed in 

Table 1 of this preamble in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 

CONTACT section.

B. What is the affected source?

The final rule applies to owners and operators of secondary lead 

smelters. The affected source for this subpart is any of the following 

sources at a secondary lead smelter: blast, reverberatory, rotary and 

electric furnaces; refining kettles; agglomerating furnaces; dryers; 

process fugitive emissions sources; buildings containing lead bearing 

materials; and fugitive dust sources. A new affected source is any 

affected source at a secondary lead smelting facility of which the 

construction or reconstruction commenced after May 19, 2011. If 

components of an existing affected source are replaced such that the 

replacement meets the definition of reconstruction in 40 CFR 63.2 and 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 8 of 183

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 THIS FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL 

REGISTER], whichever is later.

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

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

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

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

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

guidance page for newly proposed and promulgated rules at the 

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

provides information and technology exchange in various areas of air 

pollution control.

Additional information is available on the residual risk and 

technology review (RTR) web page at 

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

includes source category descriptions and detailed emissions and 

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

D. Judicial Review

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

review of this final action is available only by filing a petition 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 9 of 183

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

Columbia Circuit by [INSERT THE DATE 60 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF 

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

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

may not be challenged separately in any civil or criminal 

proceedings brought by the EPA to enforce the requirements.

Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that “[o]nly an 

objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable 

specificity during the period for public comment (including any public 

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

provides a mechanism for us to convene a proceeding for 

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

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

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

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

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

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

a demonstration to us should submit a Petition for Reconsideration to 

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

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

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

INFORMATION CONTACT section, and the Associate General Counsel for the 

Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General Counsel (Mail Code 

2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 10 of 183

II. Background 

Section 112 of the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory process 

to address emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from stationary 

sources. In the first stage, after the EPA has identified categories 

of sources emitting one or more of the HAP listed in CAA section 

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

sources. “Major sources” are those that emit, or have the potential to 

emit, any single HAP at a rate of 10 tons per year (tpy) or more or 25 

tpy or more of any combination of HAP. For major sources, these 

technology-based standards must reflect the maximum degree of emission 

reductions of HAP achievable (after considering cost, energy 

requirements, and non-air quality health and environmental impacts) 

and are commonly referred to as maximum achievable control technology 

(MACT) standards.

For MACT standards, the statute specifies certain minimum 

stringency requirements, which are referred to as floor requirements 

and may not be based on cost considerations. See CAA section 

112(d)(3). For new sources, the MACT floor cannot be less stringent 

than the emission control that is achieved in practice by the best 

controlled similar source. The MACT standards for existing sources can 

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

stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the bestperforming 12 percent of existing sources in the category or 

subcategory (or the best-performing five sources for categories or 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 11 of 183

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

also consider control options that are more stringent than the floor, 

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

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

the emissions reductions, any non-air quality health and environmental 

impacts and energy requirements. In promulgating MACT standards, CAA 

section 112(d)(2) directs us to consider the application of measures, 

processes, methods, systems or techniques that reduce the volume of or 

eliminate HAP emissions through process changes, substitution of 

materials, or other modifications; enclose systems or processes to 

eliminate emissions; collect, capture or treat HAP when released from 

a process, stack, storage or fugitive emissions point; and/or are 

design, equipment, work practice or operational standards.

In the second stage of the regulatory process, we undertake two 

different analyses, as required by the CAA. CAA section 112(d)(6) 

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 to do so within 8 years after promulgation of the technology 

standards. CAA section 112(f) calls for us to evaluate the risk to 

public health remaining after application of the technology-based 

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

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

into consideration costs, energy, safety and other relevant factors, 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 12 of 183

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

standards equal to existing MACT standards if the EPA determines that 

the existing standards are sufficiently protective. NRDC v. EPA, 529 

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

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

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

subpart X that took into consideration the residual risk and 

technology review (RTR) analyses. 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 text.

• Addressing technical and editorial corrections in the rule.

III. Summary of the Final Rule
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 13 of 183

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

source category?

EPA promulgated the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutant Emissions: Secondary Lead Smelting on June 13, 1997 (62 FR 

32216). The standards are codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart X. The 

secondary lead smelting industry consists of facilities that recycle 

lead-bearing scrap material, typically lead acid batteries, into 

elemental lead or lead alloys. The source category covered by this 

MACT standard currently includes 16 facilities, including one facility 

that is not currently operating and one facility that is in the 

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

Release During Review***

Page 14 of 183

provide the public with an ample margin of safety from exposure to 

emissions from the secondary lead smelter source category. 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 

associated with emissions from this source category are unacceptable 

primarily due to fugitive emissions of lead. ANETWe 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 the 

requirements of CAA sections 112(d)(6) and 112(f)(2), 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 modified or ‘greenfield’ new 

facility.

• A requirement for the facility to ANEToperate sources of fugitive 

lead emissions within total enclosures that are maintained under 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 15 of 183

negative pressure and vented to a control deviceANET. These source of 

fugitive emissions include the smelting furnaces, smelting 

furnace charging areas, lead taps, slag taps, molds during 

tapping, battery breakers, refining kettles, casting areas, 

dryers, material handling areas and areas where dust from 

fabric filters, sweepings or used fabric filters are 

processed. The facilities are also required to adopt a list 

of specified work practice standards to minimize fugitive 

emissions.

2. Organic HAP Emissions Standards

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

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

emission limits (with THC serving as a surrogate for non-dioxin 

organic HAP). These emission limits are summarized in Table 3 of this 

preamble.

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

Source Type D/F Emission 

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

Release During Review***

Page 16 of 183

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 

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 periods of operation. We have also revised Table 1 to 

subpart X (the General Provisions table) in several respects. For 

example, we have eliminated that incorporation of the General 

Provisions’ requirement that the source develop an SSM plan. We have 

also eliminated or revised certain recordkeeping and reporting that 

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

have not included in the regulatory language any provisions that are 

inappropriate, unnecessary or redundant in the absence of the SSM 

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

Release During Review***

Page 17 of 183

In establishing the standards in this rule, the EPA has taken 

into account startup and shutdown periods and, for the reasons 

explained below, has established different standards for non-dioxin 

organic HAP during those periods. 

Information on periods of startup and shutdown in the industry 

indicate that lead emissions during these periods do not increase 

(consistent with engineering judgment that lead emissions would not 

increase during these periods because lead-bearing feed is not being 

smelted during these periods). Furthermore, all lead-emitting 

processes are controlled by either control devices or work practices 

and these controls would not typically be affected by startup or 

shutdown. Therefore, the EPA is not adopting separate lead-emission 

standards for periods of startup and shutdown. 

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

to meet a work practice standard that requires the development of 

standard operating procedures designed to minimize emissions of THC 

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

subject to THC limits. Temperature monitoring is the metric used to 

determine continuous compliance with emission standards for THC and 

dioxins. This metric is inappropriate as a measure of the destruction 

efficiency of these organic pollutants during periods of startup and 

shutdown. 

The EPA is not including a standard for dioxins and furans during 

periods of startup and shutdown. This is because dioxins and furans 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 18 of 183

will not be emitted during those periods. During startup and 

shutdown, scrap feed materials (including chlorinated plastics and 

flame retardants) that contain the precursors needed for dioxin 

formation are not introduced into the smelter so there are no 

conditions that could give rise to dioxin and furan emissions.

The EPA determined that it is not technically and economically 

feasible for units subject to THC limits to perform stack testing for 

this pollutant during periods of startup and shutdown due to technical 

and economic impracticality associated with testing secondary lead 

smelting furnaces during these periods. The furnaces are heated during 

periods of startup through slow feeding of natural gas and small 

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

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

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

test over multiple startups or shutdowns, the length of which could 

vary depending on the type of secondary lead smelting furnace being 

tested, that would happen infrequently to gather enough data to 

complete a three run test. 

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

Release During Review***

Page 19 of 183

section 112 does not require that emissions that occur during periods 

of malfunction be factored into development of CAA section 112 

standards. Under section 112, emissions standards for new sources must 

be no less stringent than the level “achieved” by the best controlled 

similar source and for existing sources generally must be no less 

stringent than the average emission limitation “achieved” by the best 

performing 12 percent of sources in the category. There is nothing in 

section 112 that directs the agency to consider malfunctions in 

determining the level “achieved” by the best performing or best 

controlled sources when setting emission standards. Moreover, while 

the EPA accounts for variability in setting emissions standards 

consistent with the section 112 case law, nothing in that case law 

requires the agency to consider malfunctions as part of that analysis. 

Section 112 uses the concept of “best controlled” and “best 

performing” unit in defining the level of stringency that section 112 

performance standards must meet. Applying the concept of “best 

controlled” or “best performing” to a unit that is malfunctioning 

presents significant difficulties, as malfunctions are sudden and 

unexpected events.

Further, accounting for malfunctions would be difficult, if not 

impossible, given the myriad different types of malfunctions that can 

occur across all sources in the category and given the difficulties 

associated with predicting or accounting for the frequency, degree and 

duration of various malfunctions that might occur. As such, the 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 20 of 183

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 

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. In Section IV.G of this preamble, we respond to comments that 

emissions during malfunctions should be accounted for in assessing 

risk pursuant to CAA section 112 (f)(2).
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 21 of 183

In the event that a source fails to comply with the applicable 

CAA section 112(d) standards as a result of a malfunction event, the 

EPA would determine an appropriate response based on, among other 

things, the good faith efforts of the source to minimize emissions 

during malfunction periods, including preventative and corrective 

actions, as well as root cause analyses to ascertain and rectify 

excess emissions. The EPA would also consider whether the source's 

failure to comply with the CAA section 112(d) standard was, in fact, 

“sudden, infrequent, not reasonably preventable” and was not instead 

“caused in part by poor maintenance or careless operation.” 40 CFR 

63.2 (definition of malfunction).

Finally, the EPA recognizes that even equipment that is properly 

designed and maintained can sometimes fail and that such failure can 

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

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

Emissions During Malfunctions, Startup and Shutdown (September 20, 

1999); Policy on Excess Emissions During Startup, Shutdown, 

Maintenance and Malfunctions (February 15, 1983).) The EPA is 

therefore adding to the final rule an affirmative defense to civil 

penalties for exceedances of emission limits that are caused by 

malfunctions. See 40 CFR 63.542 (defining “affirmative defense” to 

mean, in the context of an enforcement proceeding, a response or 

defense put forward by a defendant, regarding which the defendant has 

the burden of proof, and the merits of which are independently and 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 22 of 183

objectively evaluated in a judicial or administrative proceeding). We 

also have added other regulatory provisions to specify the elements 

that are necessary to establish this affirmative defense; the source 

must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that it has met all of 

the elements set forth in 63.552. (See 40 CFR 22.24). The criteria 

ensure that the affirmative defense is available only where the event 

that causes an exceedance of the emission limit meets the narrow 

definition of malfunction in 40 CFR 63.2 (sudden, infrequent, not 

reasonable preventable and not caused by poor maintenance and or 

careless operation). For example, to successfully assert the 

affirmative defense, the source must prove by a preponderance of the 

evidence that excess emissions “[w]ere caused by a sudden, infrequent, 

and unavoidable failure of air pollution control and monitoring 

equipment, process equipment, or a process to operate in a normal or 

usual manner....” The criteria also are designed to ensure that steps 

are taken to correct the malfunction, to minimize emissions in 

accordance with 40 CFR 63.552 and to prevent future malfunctions. For 

example, the source must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that 

“[r]epairs were made as expeditiously as possible when the applicable 

emission limitations were being exceeded...” and that “[a]ll possible 

steps were taken to minimize the impact of the excess emissions on 

ambient air quality, the environment and human health....” In any 

judicial or administrative proceeding, the Administrator may challenge 

the assertion of the affirmative defense and, if the respondent has 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 23 of 183

not met its burden of proving all of the requirements in the 

affirmative defense, appropriate penalties may be assessed in 

accordance with CAA section 113 (see also 40 CFR 22.27). 

The EPA is including an affirmative defense in the final rule in 

an attempt to balance a tension, inherent in many types of air 

regulations, to ensure adequate compliance while simultaneously 

recognizing that despite the most diligent of efforts, emission limits 

may be exceeded under circumstances beyond the control of the source. 

The EPA must establish emission standards that “limit the quantity, 

rate, or concentration of emissions of air pollutants on a continuous 

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

standard”). See generally Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019, 1021 

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

emissions limitations are continuous. The affirmative defense for 

malfunction events meets this requirement by ensuring that even where 

there is a malfunction, the emission limitation is still enforceable 

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

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

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

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

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

acknowledged that in setting standards under CAA section 111 “variant 

provisions” such as provisions allowing for upsets during startup, 

shutdown and equipment malfunction “appear necessary to preserve the 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 24 of 183

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 

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

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

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

informal approach is adequate). The affirmative defense provisions 

give the EPA the flexibility to both ensure that its emission 

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

account for unplanned upsets and thus support the reasonableness of 

the standard as a whole.

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

The revisions to the MACT standards being promulgated in this 

action are effective on [INSERT THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THIS 

FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. For the MACT standards being 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 25 of 183

addressed in this action, the compliance date for the revised SSM 

requirements is the effective date of the standards, [INSERT THE 

DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THIS FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. The 

compliance date for existing sources for the revised stack lead 

emission limit and the revised fugitive emission standard including 

the requirement to adopt work practice standards and install total 

enclosures for specified process fugitive emission sources, and for 

the new D/F and THC emission limits, is 2 years from the effective 

date of the standard, [INSERT THE DATE 2 YEARS AFTER THE DATE OF 

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

must comply with the standard immediately upon the effective date of 

the standard, [INSERT THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THIS FINAL RULE IN 

THE FEDERAL REGISTER], or upon startup, whichever is later.

C. What are the requirements for submission of performance test data

to the EPA?

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

data submittal and improve data accessibility, the EPA is requiring 

the electronic submittal of select performance test data. 

Specifically, the EPA is requiring owners and operators of secondary 

lead smelting facilities to submit electronic copies of performance 

test reports required under 40 CFR 63.543 to the EPA’s WebFIRE 

database. The WebFIRE database was constructed to store performance 

test data for use in developing emission factors. A description of the 

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

Release During Review***

Page 26 of 183

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

The EPA must have performance test data to conduct effective 

reviews of CAA sections 112 and 129 standards, as well as for many 

other purposes including compliance determinations, emission factor 

development, and annual emission rate determinations. In conducting 

these required reviews, the EPA has found it ineffective and time 

consuming, not only for us, but also for other regulatory agencies and 

for source owners and operators, to locate, collect and submit 

performance test data because of varied locations for data storage and 

varied data storage methods. In recent years, though, stack testing 

firms have typically collected performance test data in electronic 

format, making it possible to move to an electronic data submittal 

system that would increase the ease and efficiency of data submittal 

and improve data accessibility.

One major advantage of submitting performance test data through 

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

Release During Review***

Page 27 of 183

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 

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

Release During Review***

Page 28 of 183

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 

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

Release During Review***

Page 29 of 183

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 

submissions, the EPA revised its analyses. Revised methods, model 

inputs, and risk results are presented in the report: Residual Risk 

Assessment for the Secondary Lead Smelting Source Category, which is 

available in the docket for this rulemaking. In addition, a discussion 

of the updated emissions information used in the final risk assessment 

can be found in the memorandum titled: Development of the RTR 

Emissions Dataset for the Secondary Lead Smelting Source Category, 

which can also be found in the docket for this rulemaking. 

Considering the updated emissions information received during the 

public comment period for the proposed rule, our final risk analysis 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 30 of 183

2 Values of 1 or less in the last column indicate that modeled lead concentrations are at or below the NAAQS for lead

estimates that the NAAQS for lead, used in this rule as a measure of 

acceptable risk from air-borne lead emissions, could be exceeded at 9 

of 15 facilities, largely due to fugitive dust emissions (see Table 

4)ANET. This analysis also estimates that 3-month maximum lead 

concentrations from a secondary lead smelter could be up to about 20 

times the NAAQS for lead. While there are uncertainties associated 

with estimating fugitive emissions, we find that the methodology used 

in this rulemaking provided reasonable estimates when generally 

compared well with the more thorough estimates submitted via the ICR. 

See Development of the RTR Emissions Dataset for the Secondary Lead 

Smelting Source Category, available in docket ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-

0344, for a presentation of the data submitted via our methodology 

compared to data submitted via the ICR and TRI reported data. 

Table 4 - Secondary Lead Smelting Facility Modeled Maximum Ambient Lead 

Concentrations Considering Actual Emissions2

(rolling 3-month average values)

Facility Name City State Highest 

Modeled Lead 

Concentration 

(μg/m3)ANET

Concentration 

is X times the 

NAAQS

DOE RUN COMPANYBUICK MILLBOSS MO 2.38 20

SANDERS LEAD CO TROY AL 2.16 10

EXIDE CORPORATION VERNON CA 1.14 8

BATTERY RECYCLING 

CO. 

ARECIBO PR 0.76 5
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 31 of 183

GULF COAST 

RECYCLING, INC.

TAMPA FL 0.38 3

EXIDE TECHNOLOGIESCANON HOLLOW PLANTFOREST CITY MO 0.47 3

GOPHER RESOURCE 

CORP

EAGAN MN 0.35 2

FRISCO BATTERY 

RECYCLING

FRISCO TX 0.32 2

EXIDE TECH/READING 

SMELTER

READING PA 0.25 2

QUEMETCO INC INDUSTRY CA 0.17 1

EXIDE TECHNOLOGIES MUNCIE IN 0.15 1

EXIDE 

TECHNOLOGIES/B R 

SMELTER

BATON ROUGE LA 0.14 1

REVERE SMELTING & 

REFINING CORP

MIDDLETOWN NY 0.10 0.7

QUEMETCO, INC. INDIANAPOLIS IN 0.07 0.5

EAST PENN MFG CO 

INC/SMELTER PLT

LYON STATION PA 0.02 0.1

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

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

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

assessment performed for the final rule. With respect to our updated 

cancer risk assessment, we estimate that the maximum individual risk 

(MIR) of cancer due to actual emissions is 50 in a million 

predominantly due to fugitive dust emissions of arsenic and cadmium 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 32 of 183

(as compared to the analysis at proposal of risk of 50 in a million 

but based on a different secondary lead facility); 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; the REL is the only available acute health benchmark value 

for arsenic. All other pollutants had HQ values less than or equal to 

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

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

the REL for arsenic at one facility driven by emissions from stacks). 

Finally, the risk assessment supporting the final rulemaking estimates 

that the cancer MIR values from both multipathway case study analyses 

(i.e., in Frisco, TX and Middletown, NY; see section 3.2 of the final 

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

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

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

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

multipathway risks resulted from updated emissions information 

received during the public comment period with respect to these 

facilities.

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

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

emissions from this source category are unacceptable. Our conclusion 

is primarily based on risk from exposure to air-borne lead emissions 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 33 of 183

3

For all facilities, the percent contribution of fugitive and stack emissions to modeled ambient lead concentrations has only 

been estimated for the model receptor representing the site of maximum lead impact. 

but also considers other risk metrics such as cancer and non-cancer 

risks associated with actual and allowable stack emissions. As 

mentioned above, fugitive dust emissions cause modeled concentrations 

of lead above the lead NAAQS at 9 of 15 facilities. At 8 of these 9 

facilities, fugitive dust emissions account for about 94 to 99% of the 

estimated 3-month maximum lead concentrations. At the remaining 

facility, fugitive dust emissions account for about 80% of the 3-month 

maximum lead concentration, while emissions from stacks account for 

the remainder.3 Allowable stack emissions of lead also cause modeled 

concentrations exceeding the NAAQS and allowable stack emissions of 

other HAP metals cause cancer risks of 200 in a million. Thus, we note 

that stack and fugitive emissions ANETof lead must be reduced to assure 

that lead concentrations in ambient air beyond the facility fenceline 

are acceptable – that is, do not exceed the lead NAAQS (the measure of 

risk acceptability for exposure to air-borne lead in this rule). To 

provide acceptable levels of risk with an ample margin of safety, we 

are finalizing the requirement that secondary lead smelting facilities 

must operate the following fugitive dust emissions sources within 

total enclosures that must be maintained at negative pressure at all 

times and vented to a control device designed to capture lead 

particulate: smelting furnaces, smelting furnace charging areas, lead 

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

kettles, casting areas, dryers, material handling areas, and areas 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 34 of 183

where dust from fabric filters, sweepings, or used fabric filters are processed. ANETHowever, 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, efficacy, and safety of the work practices which the EPA 

proposed.

We are also finalizing the requirement limiting stack lead 

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

limiting stack lead emissions from any single stack to 1.0 mg/dscm as 

proposed.

B. Changes to the Technology Review Performed Under Conducted Pursuant 

to CAA Section 112(d)(6)

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

EPA proposed to change the stack lead emission limits from 2.0 mg/dscm 

for any individual stack to a facility-wide, flow-weighted average 

emission limit of 0.20 mg/dscm with a limit of 1.0 mg/dscm applicable 

to any individual stack. The proposed limit was based on emissions 

data collected from industry, which indicated that well-performing 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 35 of 183

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 commentANETs on this issue and are adopting the 

limits as proposed. 

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

standard requiring operation of the following process fugitive 

emission sources in total enclosures that are maintained under 

negative pressure at all times and vented to a control device: 

smelting furnaces, smelting furnace charging areas, lead taps, slag 

taps, and molds during charging, battery breakers, refining kettles, 

casting areas, dryers, agglomerating furnaces and agglomerating 

furnace product taps, material handling areas for any lead bearing 

materials, and areas where dust from fabric filters, sweepings, or 

used fabric filters are processed. This proposed requirement was based 

on information collected from the industry that indicated that several 

operating facilities currently enclose most or all of their process 

fugitive emission sources, and that the ambient lead concentrations 

near these facilities are significantly lower than those facilities 

that do not have enclosures. We have considered the public comments on 

this issue, and have decided to adopt the requirements largely as 

proposed. This requirement is identical to that adopted to eliminate 

unacceptable risk for fugitive emissions pursuant to CAA section 112 

(f)(2). However, as described in Section IV.C of this preamble, based 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 36 of 183

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, efficacy, and safety of the work practices 

which the EPA proposed.

We are also finalizing the requirement limiting stack lead 

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

limiting stack lead emissions from any single stack to 1.0 mg/dscm as 

proposed.

We note that although we have adopted the same standards under 

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

independent statutory authorities and independent rationales. 

Consequently, these standards remain independent and legally 

severable.ANET

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

Release During Review***

Page 37 of 183

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 

rule to clarify requirements for enclosures and work practices 

for fugitive emissions.

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

revised to exclude transfer of raw materials in enclosed 

containers.

• The definition of “plant roadway” has been revised to exclude 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 38 of 183

roadways inside total enclosures.

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

it includes only vents from lead processing equipment and from 

buildings containing lead bearing material.

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

opening” have been added to the rule to clarify the differential 

pressure and monitoring requirements and the requirement to 

maintain an inward flow of air through enclosure openings.

• The definition of “total enclosure” was modified by specifically 

including modified text from 40 CFR 265.1101 and EPA method 204 

“Criteria for and Verification of a Permanent or Temporary Total 

Enclosure” rather than citing the reference to the requirements 

for a hazardous waste containment area. We also clarified the 

requirement for total enclosures to be vented to a control device 

designed to capture lead particulates. 

3. Enclosure Requirements

• The proposed requirement to maintain an in-draft velocity of 300 

feet per minute at enclosure openings (see 76 FR at 29072) was 

replaced with a requirement to maintain an inward flow of air 

through all natural draft openings. 

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

differential pressure monitors required for the total enclosures 

(see 76 FR at 29077) was eliminated, and a reporting requirement 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 39 of 183

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 (see 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, 

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

Release During Review***

Page 40 of 183

• 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 proposed work practice (see 76 FR at 29073) has 

been removed from the list of required fugitive emission work 

practices.

• The specific proposed water application rate of 0.48 gallons per 

square yard (see 76 FR at 29073) has been removed from the road 

washing requirement.

• The proposed battery storage area inspection frequency (see 76 FR 

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

• The proposed 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 

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

• The proposed 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.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 41 of 183

(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.ANET

• 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”.

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

Release During Review***

Page 42 of 183

6. Other changes

• A provision was added for sources to develop procedures to 

minimize emissions of THC limits during periods of startup and 

shutdown.

• We modified the proposed plastic separation work practice 

requirement (see 76 FR 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. Use of lead primary NAAQS as a measure of acceptability of risk 

for public health

Comment: A number of commenters from the environmental community 

challenged the use of the lead primary NAAQS as a measure of 

acceptable risk for public health, and further challenged whether the 

lead NAAQS (primary) provided an ample margin of safety given that 

primary NAAQS provide an “adequate” rather than “ample” margin of 

safety. The commenters assert that the EPA simply assumed that the 

lead primary NAAQS was a legitimate measure of acceptable risk, and 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 43 of 183

4

“While adults are susceptible to Pb effects at lower blood Pb levels than previously understood..., the greater influence of 

past exposures on their current blood Pb levels... leads us to give greater prominence to children as the sensitive 

subpopulation in this review. Children are at increased risk of Pb-related health effects due to various factor that enhance 

that this assumption is unwarranted. These commenters’ main argument 

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

from the standard for residual risk. What is acceptable at the 

population level is not necessarily acceptable at the community 

level.” More specifically, the commenters assert that “EPA must set a 

standard for those people living near facilities subject to the MACT 

who were left with insufficient protection... It is these specific 

communities near the facilities and the children living in these 

communities, and not a broad U.S. sub-population, that must be 

protected... The fact is that the lead NAAQS does not sufficiently 

protect people living near secondary lead smelters.” 

Response: The commenter is mistaken both that the EPA applied the 

lead primary NAAQS unthinkingly as a measure of acceptable risk, and 

further mistaken in its argument that the primary lead NAAQS is an 

inappropriate measure of risk acceptability (for lead) here because 

(according to the commenter) it is not designed to, and does not 

protect sensitive populations living near secondary lead smelters. 

First, the lead NAAQS primary standard targets protection to the most 

susceptible group in the human population – children – and is designed 

to protect against adverse effects to children’s most sensitive organ 

system – the developing neurological system. See 73 FR at 66975, 

66976.4 Second, the primary NAAQS for lead is specifically targeted 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 44 of 183

their exposures )e.g., via the hand-to-mouth activity that is prevalent in very young children...) and susceptibility.” 73 FR at 

66975. With regard to neurological effects, the EPA stated “[a]mong the wide variety of health endpoints associated with 

Pb exposures, there is general consensus that the developing nervous system in children is among the, if not the, most 

sensitive.” 73 FR at 66976.

at those children living near major sources of lead, such as secondary 

smelters. See 73 FR at 67002/3 (“in applying the evidence-based 

framework, we are focused on a subpopulation of U.S. children, those 

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

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

in effect focuses on the sensitive subpopulation that is the group of 

children living near sources and more likely to be exposed at the 

level of the standard. The evidence-based framework estimates a mean 

air-related IQ loss for this subpopulation of children; it does not 

estimate a mean for all U.S. children”;). 73 FR 67005/1--(“the airrelated IQ loss framework provides estimates for the mean air-related 

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

uncertainties associated with those estimates. It provides estimates 

for that subset of children likely to be exposed to the level of the 

standard, which is generally expected to be the subpopulation of 

children living near sources who are likely to be most highly 

exposed.”)

The commenter further maintains that the primary lead NAAQS is an 

inappropriate measure of acceptability of risk “because it ignores the 

cumulative, long-term impacts to individuals in the local affected 

communities from prior lead emissions”. This again is incorrect. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 45 of 183

First, as part of the Risk and Exposure Assessment supporting the lead 

primary NAAQS, the EPA assessed the IQ loss associated with the 

cumulative environmental impact of long-term emissions in communities 

living near stationary sources of Pb emissions, specifically Pb 

smelters. See Lead Human Exposure and Health Risk Assessments for 

Selected Case Studies; Volume I Human Exposure and Health Risk 

Assessments 00 Full Scale; and Volume II: Appendices ((USEPA, 2007) 

(Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, 

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

66983. The Risk and Exposure Assessment assessed exposure to Pb from 

the inhalation route as well as the multiple air-related ingestion 

pathways. Although the EPA relied primarily upon the evidence-based 

framework (i.e. epidemiological studies and related information) in 

developing the lead primary NAAQS, the EPA nonetheless found the airrelated Pb risk estimates from the Risk and Exposure Assessment to be 

generally supportive of that scientific evidence. 73 FR at 67003-04. 

Equally important, the greatest risk per unit Pb in blood is 

faced by those children with lower, not higher, blood lead levels. 

Thus, “[m]ultiple epidemiologic studies of Pb and child development 

have demonstrated inverse association between blood Pb concentrations 

and children’s IQ and other cognitive-related outcomes.... The current 

evidence... with regard to the quantitative relationship between 

neurocognitive decrement, such as IQ, and blood Pb levels indicates 

that the slope for Pb effects on IQ is non-linear and is steeper at 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 46 of 183

5 We add that in responding to these comments, EPA is not reconsidering, reopening, or otherwise reassessing any aspect 

of the lead NAAQS (either primary or secondary).

lower blood Pb levels, such that each [mu]g/dL increase in blood Pb 

may have a greater effect on IQ at lower blood Pb levels... than at 

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

67002, 67004. Consequently, the EPA disagrees with the commenter that 

the impacts of air-related exposure will be even greater for children 

with significant non-air related Pb exposure. In the case of the child 

who experiences significant exposure to Pb due to non-air sources in 

addition to ambient air-related Pb exposure (producing a relatively 

larger total Pb exposure), the IQ loss for each increment of airrelated Pb exposure will likely be less than it is for a child with 

lower total Pb exposure. 

Thus, the evidence-based framework used in developing the Pb 

NAAQS is focused on children with total Pb exposure closer to the 

current U.S. average (than the more highly Pb exposed upper 

percentiles of the population), since these children will have greater 

response to each increment of air-related Pb exposure than would 

children with higher overall blood Pb levels. Other less susceptible 

populations, including children with higher blood lead levels due to 

past exposures, will necessarily be accorded protection from airrelated Pb as well.5

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

NAAQS is not a suitable measure for assessing acceptability of risk 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 47 of 183

6

 The court was referring to the predecessor provision to the current section 112 (f), but its analysis is equally applicable to 

the revised provision. 

7

Indeed, EPA’s utilization of a standard which also incorporates an adequate margin of safety to evaluate acceptability of 

risk is an added conservative (i.e. protective) element in its approach here. 

with an ample margin of safety because (the argument goes) a primary 

NAAQS is requisite to protect public health with an adequate margin of 

safety. First, the EPA is using the lead primary NAAQS as a measure of 

acceptability or unacceptability of risk from lead exposure. Thus, to 

the extent the commenter’s argument rests on the difference between 

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

Second, once we determined a level of emissions that results in risks 

being acceptable, under the two-step residual risk decision process, 

the EPA then considered whether there were additional controls that 

might further reduce risk to achieve an ample margin of safety 

considering cost and feasibility. See NRDC v. EPA, 902 F. 2d 962. 973 

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

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

the two-step process (acceptability of risk and margin of safety) 

utilized in making residual risk determinations under section 112).6

Using that framework, with its consideration of costs, costeffectiveness, technological feasibility, and other factors set out in 

the Benzene NESHAP, we did not identify any additional controls beyond 

those that would need to be implemented to ensure an acceptable level 

of risk.7

In sum, the EPA has reasonably applied the lead primary NAAQS as 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 48 of 183

a measure of evaluating acceptability or unacceptability of risk from 

exposure to lead emissions from sources in this category. The lead 

primary NAAQS targets protection to children living near these sources 

who are exposed at the level of the standard -- the population most 

sensitive to the health impacts of these emissions -- and accounts for 

multi-pathway exposures to the environmental impacts of long-term 

emissions, as well as the differential incremental risk of Pb faced by 

populations at different levels of exposure. This reasoned approach is 

therefore fully in accord with the requirements of section 112(f)(2). 

Additional responses to comments on this issue are found in the 

Response to Comment Document for this rulemaking, available in docket 

ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344.

B. Total Enclosure Requirements

Comment: Several commenters supported a requirement for total 

enclosures of enumerated sources of fugitive emissions. Some of those 

commenters did not support the alternative that would have allowed 

ambient monitoring in lieu of total enclosures. 

According to one commenter, “The purpose of establishing emission 

standards and control technology regulations is to reduce, by 

empirically proven technical means, the release of hazardous air 

pollutants into the atmosphere.” The commenter therefore recommended 

that the EPA require enclosures in all instances to limit fugitive 

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

Release During Review***

Page 49 of 183

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

reductions associated with total enclosures of all lead bearing 

processes to reduce fugitive emissions are clearly demonstrated for 

all facilities in the post control scenario contained in the residual 

risk assessment. These benefits also have been observed based on our 

experience with total enclosures that are under negative pressure and 

vented to air pollution controls....The annual geometric mean of lead 

measured [in ambient air near the facility] dropped from a high of 

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

and fugitive emission controls were in place. The benefits of 

requiring total enclosures as demonstrated by the ambient monitoring 

results were clearly apparent to the Department and surrounding 

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

of allowing partial enclosures with an air monitoring requirement 

option in this rulemaking.”

Another commenter stated “We do not support allowing partial 

enclosures with an air monitoring requirement option, since the total 

enclosures have been shown to be extremely effective in reducing 

fugitive emissions of lead and the other metal HAPs from these 

sources.”

One commenter indicated that neither proposed alternative (total 

enclosure or the ambient monitoring alternative) complies with CAA 

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

reductions would occur if a facility used total enclosure”. This 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 50 of 183

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 

under negative pressure are the most effective means by which to 

reduce fugitive emissions. Facilities in this source category that 

implement total enclosures as a means of controlling fugitive 

emissions are able to achieve significantly lower ambient lead 

concentrations near the boundaries of their facilities, as clearly 

demonstrated in the Summary of Ambient Lead Monitoring Data Around 

Secondary Lead Smelting Facilities document available in docket ID EPA-
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 51 of 183

HQ-OAR-2011-0344. About half of the existing facilities currently have 

such full enclosures, and a few other facilities are currently 

constructing such enclosures. The prevalence of total enclosures in 

the secondary lead smelting source category suggests that this measure 

is cost effective and it is clearly technically feasible. There is 

more certainty that fugitive emissions are well controlled through the 

use of total enclosures than would exist with the proposed alternative 

to use fenceline ambient monitoring. The work practice standards in 

the final rule have been revised from those proposed to ensure that 

there are no requirements that pose safety hazards, are unnecessary to 

achieve emission reductions, or result in duplicative burden on 

regulated facilities. The work practice standards in the final rule 

are already implemented at some of the facilities. 

Furthermore, we assumed at proposal that total enclosures would 

be required at all facilities regardless of which option they chose. 

The facilities that do not operate total enclosures are unlikely to 

achieve fenceline ambient concentrations at or below the lead primary 

NAAQS. The monitoring data just mentioned and the ICR responses 

indicated that the facilities which have totally enclosed their 

processes are generally achieving ambient concentrations substantially 

lower than those which have not totally enclosed. Since we based our 

analysis at proposal on the assumption that all facilities would have 

to construct total enclosures and assumed that the rule would impose 

those costs on all sources which have not yet installed total 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 52 of 183

enclosures, our cost analysis has already accounted for the cost of 

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

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

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

that process fugitive emissions sources and other fugitive dust 

emissions sources will not generate fugitive emissions that escape the 

facility uncontrolled. The work practice standards for process 

fugitive emissions sources and fugitive dust emissions sources in 

section 63.545 ensure that the sources that fugitive dust is not 

generated outside of total enclosures and that fugitive dust generated 

inside total enclosures is not carried outside of those enclosures.

We note that one commenter’s statements appear to pertain to 

process fugitive emissions from secondary lead smelters that are 

captured by enclosure hoods and vented to a control device. We agree 

that enclosure hoods near sources of process fugitive emissions (e.g., 

lead taps, charging hoppers, etc.) can be an effective method to 

control emissions from these sources. We also recognize that these 

devices are important to minimize exposure of workers to lead dust. 

However, we note that the enclosure hoods are not 100 percent 

effective at controlling these emissions, and that process fugitives 

that are amenable to control with hoods are not the only source of 

fugitive emissions from secondary lead processes. We thus disagree 

that enclosure hoods without total enclosures represent a better 

alternative for controlling all fugitive emissions.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 53 of 183

Comment: Several commenters objected to requiring monitoring of 

both building pressure differential and the in-draft velocity at 

building openings for the total enclosures and stated that the 

duplicate monitoring requirements are redundant and unjustified. The 

commenters also requested that the EPA abandon its proposed specific 

minimum velocity requirement at doorway openings or lower the proposed 

requirement of 300 feet per minute. Two commenters stated that “A 

number of the existing total enclosures in this industry do not meet 

the proposed 300 feet per minute in-draft velocity requirement, and 

their modification to achieve 300 feet per minute would require 

substantial expenditures.” One commenter stated that much larger 

volumes of air would be exhausted from the smelter buildings and that 

“the greater the volume of air exhausted, the greater the emissions of 

lead. Therefore increasing exhaust volumes above current levels could 

possibly have negative impacts.” The commenters requested an exemption 

from demonstration of compliance with the in-draft requirements for 

access points that are normally closed. One commenter requested 

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

context of the differential pressure monitoring. 

One commenter stated that they have demonstrated that none of 

these total enclosure monitoring requirements and continuous 

monitoring systems are necessary to reduce actual emissions of HAP. 

The commenter recommended continued compliance with the original 1997 

NESHAP which requires facilities to demonstrate that total enclosures 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 54 of 183

were maintained under constant negative pressure by maintaining 

process enclosure hoods at the prescribed face velocities. As an 

alternative, measurements of face velocity at doorways and windows and 

pressure measurements at prescribed intervals would provide a viable 

monitoring option. 

Response: We agree with the commenters that monitoring of both 

building differential pressure and in-draft velocity at building 

openings is unnecessary. However, we disagree that continuous 

monitoring of differential pressure is overly prescriptive. We believe 

that monitoring of building differential pressure is the most accurate 

means by which to ensure that the building is under negative pressure 

at all times. This method provides direct measurements that the 

building is indeed maintained at negative pressure. Some commenters 

stated persuasively that specifying doorway velocities could require 

substantial additional in-draft, which could cause strain to building 

structures, wind chill problems for workers, and pilot lights being 

extinguished. We have therefore not adopted the proposed requirement 

to measure in-draft velocity at the openings of the total enclosures 

but have retained the continuous differential pressure monitoring 

requirement. However, we have altered the differential pressure 

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

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

permanent or temporary total enclosure. It is unclear to us how 

directing previously uncontrolled fugitive emissions through a fabric 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 55 of 183

filter would increase the overall emissions from a structure.

Comment: Several commenters objected to requiring a back-up power 

source for the differential pressure monitors. According to the 

commenters, during a power outage, the “negative pressure would not be 

maintained and the pressure drop monitors would simply be measuring 

and documenting this known and predictable fact.... The same information 

could be obtained by requiring facilities to note periods when power 

has been lost to the ventilation fans such that negative pressure 

could not be maintained”. One commenter recommended requiring an 

uninterruptible power supply for the control device as well as the 

total enclosure monitoring system or removing the current requirement. 

Response: We agree with the commenters’ assessment that a back-up 

power source for the building differential pressure monitors is not 

needed. We also agree with the 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 56 of 183

used fabric filters are ‘handled’ is upon removal from the baghouse 

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

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

enclosures. Best practices in the industry when replacing fabric 

filters are to place the used filter bags in sealed plastic bags or 

other closed containers in the cell while the filters are being 

replaced, but prior to removing the used filters to the catwalk”.

Response: We agree that the proposed requirement to enclose all 

areas where fabric filters are handled or processed may be impractical 

at times, the enclosure of a catwalk being an example. We also agree 

that fabric filters cannot be enclosed under the circumstances 

described in these comments. We have therefore revised the regulatory 

text to require used fabric filters to be placed in sealed plastic 

bags or containers before removal from the baghouse cell. 

B. Work Practice Standard Requirements for Fugitive Emissions

Comment: Several industry respondents expressed concern about the 

proposed requirement to perform all maintenance activities for any 

equipment potentially contaminated with lead bearing material inside 

an enclosure. 

Two commenters requested clarification that once an item that is 

not already subject to total enclosure requirements has been cleaned, 

its maintenance or repair is not subject to the enclosure 

requirements. Both commenters also gave an example of circumstances 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 57 of 183

where the best course of action would be to make an immediate repair 

on a leak in an elevated duct rather than wait until a temporary 

structure was constructed. One commenter expressed concern that 

inspection and maintenance of filters that are in need of removal and 

replacement would need to be performed within a total enclosure. 

Two commenters stated that 72 hours to make repairs to any gaps 

or leak points in enclosures or structures was not feasible to 

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

require initiation of repairs within 24 hours of discovery and 

completion of repairs as soon as practicable. Rather than seeking and 

obtaining approval for extensions from the Administrator, the source 

should be required to file and to keep a record listing when the 

problem was discovered, when the repair was initiated and when the 

repair was completed.” Another commenter stated that “the presence of 

leak points is irrelevant to collection as long as the size and 

location of these leak points does not change over time. Once a 

facility documents that any total enclosure criteria (for negative 

pressure) are met, the presence of existing leak points is 

irrelevant.” 

One commenter requested that the EPA allow facilities to route 

emissions from partial or temporary enclosures to control devices that 

meet the performance requirements stated in the rule. According to the 

commenter, “This compliance option is requested, because as written, 

the provisions would require manufacturer’s specification alone and 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 58 of 183

not allow use of an otherwise compliant control device.”

Response: With regard to the comment that the proposed 

maintenance practices were overly prescriptive, we have revised the 

regulatory text to require performance of maintenance “in a manner 

that minimizes emissions of fugitive dust” that includes several 

options to control fugitive emissions. With regard to the comment 

pertaining to inspection and maintenance of fabric filters, we have 

edited the regulatory text such that this enclosure requirement does 

not apply to inspection and maintenance practices for fabric filters.

We also agree with commenters that making prompt and timely 

repairs for leaks is often more effective than first constructing a 

total enclosure around the leak. However, we believe that the 

formulation to initiate repairs “as soon as practicable” is too vague. 

We have edited the regulatory text to require completion of repairs to 

enclosures within one week and inserted language allowing facilities 

to initiate immediate repairs of ductwork or structure leaks without 

an enclosure provided that the time necessary to construct a temporary 

enclosure would exceed the time necessary to make a temporary or 

permanent repair. This change ensures that the requirement is 

technically practicable and the most cost-effective means for fixing 

leaks while minimizing the period during which the leak causes 

emissions. 

We disagree with the commenter that the presence of a leak point 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 59 of 183

is irrelevant to collection as long as the size and location of these 

leak points do not change over time. Total enclosures are designed 

with openings of specific size and location to provide appropriate 

airflow into a building and to maintain the negative pressure at all 

locations. Multiple leak points at different locations of non-uniform 

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

difficult to ensure that the building negative pressure is uniform at 

all locations.

We agree with the commenter that facilities should be allowed to 

route emissions from partial temporary enclosures to existing control 

devices that meet the performance specification stated in the rule 

provided the control device has the capability to accommodate the 

additional air flow and that its permit accounts for the additional 

air flow and emissions. The regulatory text has been edited 

accordingly. 

Comment: Several commenters expressed concerns about the 

requirement in the proposed rule for cleaning of building rooftops. 

The commenters stated that the EPA did not provide a basis to 

demonstrate that roof washing is effective or necessary. One commenter 

stated that roof cleaning was unnecessary to operate in compliance 

with the current lead NAAQS, and that current work practices are 

sufficient to meet the standard. Several commenters also stated that 

roof cleaning is potentially dangerous to workers and in some cases 

not possible due to the rooftop construction and weather conditions. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 60 of 183

Several commenters noted that the requirement unnecessarily applied at 

all times, even when natural precipitation makes cleaning unnecessary.

Response: We agree that the proposed roof washing requirement may 

not be feasible and may cause worker safety hazards in some cases, and 

we have therefore removed this activity from the list of required 

fugitive emission work practices.

Comment: Several commenters opposed the specific requirement for 

a mobile vacuum sweeper used for pavement cleaning when a water flush 

is used. The commenters stated that the EPA provides no justification 

for the minimum water application rate of 0.48 gallons per square yard 

of pavement cleaned or evidence that equipment currently used could 

achieve this rate. The commenters suggested that this specific 

requirement be replaced with a “requirement that pavement be 

periodically cleaned, leaving methods, and minimum water application 

rates to individual facilities and, as relevant, their permitting 

authorities.” According to the commenter, “EPA should further exempt 

pavement cleaning on days when natural precipitation makes cleaning 

unnecessary or when sand or a similar material has been spread on 

plant roadways to provide traction on ice or snow.” 

Two commenters also expressed concerns that the rule requires 

pavement cleaning in the battery breaking, furnace, refining and 

casting areas when a total enclosure is not used. According to the 

commenters, certain locations within these areas are not capable of 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 61 of 183

being cleaned on a routine basis due to safety, access, or other 

reasons. The commenters give an example of paved areas under process 

equipment as being an area that is not safe to access during operation 

of the equipment. One commenter also stated that roadway cleaning and 

washing of truck tires and undercarriages are redundant requirements 

with no incremental benefit. 

Response: We agree with the commenters’ suggestion to remove the 

minimum water application rate requirement from the regulatory text. 

We note that the proposal did include an exemption for cleaning on 

days when natural precipitation makes cleaning unnecessary or when 

sand or a similar material has been spread on plant roadways to 

provide traction on ice or snow. That exemption remains in the final 

rule. See 40 CFR 63.545(c)(2).

With regard to the comments regarding pavement cleaning 

requirements when total enclosures are not used, we note that the 

final rule requires total enclosures rather than including them as an 

option. Furthermore, it is our understanding that in the cases where 

mobile sweeping or wet washing equipment is not feasible (e.g., 

underneath process equipment), facilities can utilize hand held vacuum 

equipment to clean these areas. Therefore, we do not believe it is 

appropriate to exempt these areas from the cleaning requirements since 

these areas contain fugitive lead which can be emitted and reach human 

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

Release During Review***

Page 62 of 183

We disagree with the commenter that roadway cleaning and 

undercarriage washing are redundant requirements. While truck tires 

may be a significant source of lead bearing material on the roadway, 

we understand that they are not the only source. Therefore, we have 

maintained both requirements in the final rule.

Comment: One commenter recommended modifying the requirement to 

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

routine vehicle traffic.” The commenter noted that areas not subject 

to routine traffic do not have the potential to generate significant 

quantities of fugitive dust and that paving these areas would increase 

the amount of storm water generated.

Response: We agree with the commenter that there may be some 

instances where paving and cleaning a roadway is impractical. We have 

included an exemption in the rule for limited access and limited use 

roadways that access remote, infrequently used locations on the 

facility’s property. See 40 CFR 63.545(c)(2).

Comment: Two commenters objected to the proposed frequency of 

inspection of the unenclosed battery storage areas. One commenter 

“finds this requirement to impose an administrative burden of minimal 

value.” According to the commenter, “Spent lead acid batteries, even 

if accidentally broken and leaking, pose minimal potential for 

generation of fugitive dust containing HAPs. Inspection of these areas 

is typically required on a weekly basis as part of the facilities’ 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 63 of 183

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act obligations and such frequency 

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

One commenter suggests that identifying and mitigating leaks within 72 

hours will prevent generation of fugitive lead emissions. The 

commenter also states that it is unclear whether batteries stored in 

partial enclosures are exempted from the twice daily inspection 

requirement and proposes the following regulatory language 

incorporating both of these issues. 

You must inspect any batteries that are not stored 

in a partial or total enclosure once each day and 

move any broken batteries to a partial or total 

enclosure within 72 hours of detection. You must 

also clean residue from broken batteries within 72 

hours of identification. Storage of batteries in 

trucks and railcars consistent with Department of 

Transportation requirements are specifically 

exempted from these requirements. 

Response: We agree with the commenters that requiring inspection 

of these areas on a twice daily basis is not necessary. We have 

modified the regulatory text to require inspection of these areas 

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

Release During Review***

Page 64 of 183

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 

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

Release During Review***

Page 65 of 183

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: 

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

Release During Review***

Page 66 of 183

commodity. However, not all spent lead acid batteries are amenable to 

separation. Certain battery types such as small sealed-lead-acid 

batteries and certain industrial lead-acid batteries are fed into the 

blast furnace without ever passing through the facility’s battery 

breaker. These batteries are either too small or too large to be 

broken by the automated battery breaking equipment. One commenter 

requested that the EPA estimate the cost of the systems that would be 

required. Another commenter offered that mandatory separation could be 

used for facilities that are not meeting TEQ limits as one of several 

options to reduce emissions. Two commenters stated that the current 

dioxin emission levels pose no incremental health risk presented by 

background dioxin and that there is no valid justification for 

imposing this burden.

Response: Based on these comments, we have revised the proposed 

plastics separation work practice requirement to be specific to 

automotive batteries, which should be amenable to separation based on 

current practices used in the industry. We agree with the commenters 

that some industrial batteries are not easily processed in battery 

breakers and that the retrofits or additional equipment required to 

process such batteries are not justified since automotive batteries 

make up the vast majority of lead acid batteries processed at these 

facilities. We believe that plastics separation from automotive 

batteries is sufficient to minimize emissions of organic HAP. We 

further note that the use of battery breakers to separate plastics 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 67 of 183

from automotive batteries is clearly a development in practices that 

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

appropriate part of a standard under 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 (two test runs, see 76 FR at 29049) from the slag-processing 

rotary furnace at RSR’s Middletown, NY facility. One commenter stated 

that rotary furnace standards should not be based on emissions that 

are not from stand-alone rotary furnace operations. The commenter 

stated that the EPA should not derive standards for rotary furnaces 

from performance of a different source type or subcategory that 

includes a furnace combination (i.e., reverberatory/short rotary 

furnace). The commenter also contends that there are insufficient data 

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

The commenter contends that the EPA used one source that is not 

representative of or similar to true rotary furnace operation to 

establish the limits for “rotary furnaces.” The commenter stated that 

the emissions limit established in the proposed rule is arbitrary 

because it is not based on operations of rotary furnaces using lead 

bearing materials from lead acid batteries as feedstock.

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

test data were used as the basis for the THC and D/F limits, only uses 

their rotary furnace to process one type of lead bearing material, 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 68 of 183

reverberatory slag, and this furnace is not representative of the full 

capabilities of rotary furnace operation. The commenter notes that 

JCI’s Florence Recycling Center plans to utilize stand-alone rotary 

furnaces to process lead paste, battery components, and “other 

materials with recoverable quantities of lead.” The commenter further 

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

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

docket whether testing of the SRF occurred at a location prior to the 

combination of these exhaust streams.

The commenter also stated that JCI and RSR differ in raw 

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

application for its Middletown facility indicates that RSR may process 

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

as lead bearing materials received from 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 69 of 183

considered inadequate for setting emission limits since 40 CFR 

63.7(e)(3) requires three test runs for compliance demonstration 

purposes.

One commenter supports the individual stack emission limits for 

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

statistical variability for the rotary furnace subcategory. The 

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

inflate the variability because the statistical procedure attempts to 

accommodate the highest emission measurement at the same facility and 

not necessarily the variability between facilities as the MACT floor 

is intended to achieve. Additionally, the UPL is very dependent on the 

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

number of samples have been collected, the 99 percent confidence limit 

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

the interval contains the true mean. The commenter suggests that 

caution be used when determining a MACT floor from limited test data 

and that the 99 percent CL is more appropriate for this particular 

industry.

One commenter noted that the EPA did not consider a secondary 

lead smelting facility in Puerto Rico that operates a stand-alone 

rotary furnace. The commenter contends that even if it were 

appropriate to set MACT floor emission rates or standards for rotary 

furnaces, the EPA would have to obtain and consider data from the 

Puerto Rico facility. According to the commenter, failure to consider 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 70 of 183

data from the facility “undermines the RTR Proposed Rule and any 

attempt by EPA to establish emission standards for the rotary furnace 

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

separate ICR for the Puerto Rico facility and publish a supplemental 

notice of proposed rulemaking that takes into account the emission 

information for this facility.

Response: The EPA agrees that rotary furnaces fueled by natural 

gas could be different from rotary furnaces operating using different 

fuel types, and that rotary furnaces processing slag could be 

different types of rotary furnaces than those processing lead acid 

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

which to promulgate organic HAP standards for rotary furnaces. The 

proposed standards for THC and D/F were based on less than one single 

complete test, consisting only of two test runs from the natural gas 

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

test consists of three test runs.) When calculating variability using 

a limited dataset (in this case, the two test runs) the effect of 

variability can be substantial. Id. The proposed THC and D/F standards 

likewise were based on two test runs and similarly reflected enormous 

statistical variability due to the limited data. Id. at 29049/1. The 

EPA does not believe that these data are sufficient to adopt a 

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

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

adopting standards for organic HAP emissions from rotary furnaces at 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 71 of 183

this time and instead we intend to issue CAA section 114 information 

requests to sources operating rotary furnaces to obtain more 

representative emission data and plan to propose standards for organic 

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

standards included in this action do apply to rotary furnaces 

processing slag or lead acid batteries. 

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 

for the blast and reverberatory furnace fugitive emissions to 0.32 tpy 

based on the assumption that fugitives would not be on the same 

operating schedule as process emissions. The commenter contends that 

this scaling is inappropriate since furnace fugitives can only occur 

when the associated process furnaces are operating. The commenter 

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

tpy by assigning the value to each of the blast and reverberatory 

furnaces, despite the fact that Exide reported the value as combined 

emissions for both the reverberatory and blast furnace.

Response: The commenter is correct in both respects. The EPA has 

accordingly adjusted its calculation of the fugitive emissions from 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 72 of 183

Exide’s Frisco facility (thereby reducing the facility’s fugitive dust 

emissions estimate) and adjusted the emissions estimates for each 

facility to reflect the revised estimate of the Frisco facility. The 

resulting risk results have also been adjusted. We note that the 

updated emissions estimates and risk results did not substantively 

alter our decisions under section 112(f). The modeling showed 9 of 15 

facilities above the lead NAAQS, down from 12 of 14 facilities at 

proposal. The maximum modeled lead concentration in the source 

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

NAAQS. We still find that risks from this source category are not 

acceptable and that revisions under section 112 (f)(2) are therefore 

required, and further find that it is necessary under section 112 

(d)(6) to revise the standards for fugitive emissions considering the 

developments in cost-effective control technologies for their control.

Comment: Three commenters stated that the EPA’s multipathway risk 

estimates are incorrect because they relied on incorrect dioxin and 

furan emissions from Exide’s Frisco, Texas facility. The commenters 

contend that a dioxin and furan test conducted in October 2010 at the 

Frisco facility revealed an emissions rate of 6.2E-08 tons/year on a 

toxic equivalency quotient (TEQ) basis, 69 times lower than the 

estimate used by the EPA. One commenter noted that the exact effect 

that the difference in emissions would have on the calculated risks is 

unknown since the EPA has not placed the full methodology behind its 

multipathway risk calculations in the record. However, the commenter 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 73 of 183

noted that assuming the relationship between emissions and risk is approximately linear, the EPA’s 

calculated risk would be approximately 69 times lower than that estimated at proposal, 

and less than 1 in a million. The commenter further requested that the 

EPA disclose its multipathway risk calculation methodology and allow 

for public notice-and-comment. ANETAnother commenter stated that the 

EPA’s overestimation of dioxin and furan emissions may lead to 

unwarranted public concern about the Frisco facility. The commenter 

requested that the EPA include a clarifying explanation regarding the 

Frisco emissions data and the lower multipathway risk in the final 

rule as well as in the risk assessment document.

Response: As noted in previous responses, the final risk 

assessment reflects updated emission information received during the 

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

updated dioxin/furan test data were not made available to the EPA, 

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

estimated emissions of D/F, the commenter is correct that EPA 

overestimated these emissions at proposal by a factor of 69 for the 

reasons stated. Considering this updated emissions information, the 

EPA estimates that multipathway risk associated with the Exide Frisco 

facility is less than 1 in a million (and so contributes very little 

to the estimates of risk posed by this source category, and is not a 

driver of the determination that risks from this source category are 

unacceptable). See Residual Risk Assessment for the Secondary Lead 

Smelting Source Category, available in the docket, at pages 32-33.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 74 of 183

This additional information does not warrant any reopening of the 

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

disclosed its multipathway risk methodology; the commenter’s 

assertions to the contrary are simply mistaken. The risk assessment 

document along with its appendices was available in the docket for the 

proposed rulemaking and describes in detail the methodology used in 

the assessment. See The Residual Risk Assessment for the Secondary 

Lead Smelting Source Category, at page 10, available in the docket. 

Also see Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344-0037 for a thorough discussion 

of the EPA’s human health multipathway risk assessment methodology. 

Second, the new information reinforces the tentative conclusion 

the EPA reached at proposal: risks associated with emissions of dioxin 

and furans from the secondary lead source category are not primary 

drivers in the unacceptable risks from this source category (i.e. 

dioxin and furan emissions are not the reason that risks from 

secondary lead smelter emissions are unacceptable). See 76 FR at 

29055/2. The new analysis reinforces that risks posed by dioxin and 

furan emissions are acceptable, since emission levels are 69 times 

less than estimated at proposal (when risks from CDD and CDFs were 

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

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

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

warranted, since further comment would not have a practical effect on 

the rule.8
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 75 of 183

8

 The comment that EPA’s standards for dioxin and furans do not result in significant risk reduction is misplaced given 

that EPA is not adopting any risk-based (i.e. section 112 (f)(2)) standards based on the need for reduction of emissions of 

dioxin and furan. 

Comment: One commenter stated that the EPA inappropriately summed 

risks from the inhalation and multipathway risk assessments at the 

Exide Frisco facility. The commenter noted that it is impossible for 

the person with the highest chronic inhalation cancer risk to also be 

the same person with the highest individual multipathway cancer risk 

since the two MIR values are location dependent and are at locations 

that are widely separated. The commenter further noted that the EPA 

has indicated in other contexts that when populations are exposed via 

more than one pathway, the combination of exposures across pathways 

must also represent a reasonable maximum exposure.

Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter. While highly 

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

document), it is theoretically possible for the person with the 

highest chronic inhalation cancer risk to also be the same person with 

the highest individual multipathway cancer risk. The EPA notes that 

the multipathway risk assessment does not provide a specific location 

for the MIR; thus, it is possible (although highly unlikely) that the 

person with the highest inhalation MIR is also consuming fish (at the 

fish ingestion rates described in the multipathway report) from the 

theoretically contaminated lake. That being said, however, we note 

that considering updated emissions information for this facility, 

updated multipathway results indicate multipathway risk associated 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 76 of 183

with the Exide Frisco facility are well below 1-in a million. 

Considering these updated results, multipathway risk would not 

appreciable add to any inhalation risk associated with this facility.

Comment: Commenter 94 stated that the EPA improperly calculated 

the inhalation cancer MIR for the Exide Frisco facility in a vacant 

field to the north of the facility within the facility’s property 

line. The commenter noted that the lifetime cancer risk of the MEI 

cannot be at a location within the facility property line. 

Response: The commenter is correct and the EPA has corrected the 

receptor location resulting in a change in the results in the final 

risk assessment. The MIR for this facility is now located at a 

populated census block (based on the 2001 census).

E. Miscellaneous Changes to the Regulatory Text

Comment: Three commenters requested that the EPA replace the term 

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

rule nor the EPA’s general Part 63 regulations define the term 

“modified source”. The term is defined in the CAA, but that definition 

would require a source to install maximum achievable control 

technology and impose a “new source” requirement like CEMS on a 

modified source, rather than appropriately imposing the existing 

source provisions that do not require installation of a CEMS.

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

rule at 40 CFR 63.548(l) under the proposed requirement to install a 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 77 of 183

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 

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 

section 112(a). The commenter “understands EPA intends to address any 

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

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

in Nine Metal Fabrication and Finishing Area Source Categories, 40 CFR 

Part 63 (6X) NESHAP, Questions and Answers, April 2011 would apply 

with respect to implementation of any amendments to subpart X 

requirements. The Q&A explains that the “CAA uses the word ‘source’ to 

mean the entire facility in terms of the classification of ‘new’ vs. 

‘existing’ whereas for the Subpart 6X rule, what is referred to as the 

‘affected source’ is actually one of the processes at the facility”.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 78 of 183

Response: The EPA has clarified the application of these terms in 

the final rule. The definition in 40 CFR 63, subpart A requires each 

relevant standard to define the “affected source,” as the collection 

of equipment, activities, or both within a single contiguous area and 

under common control that is included in a CAA section 112(c) source 

category or subcategory for which a CAA section 112(d) standard or 

other relevant standard is established pursuant to CAA section 112 

unless a different definition is warranted based on a published 

justification as to why this definition would result in significant 

administrative, practical, or implementation problems and why the 

different definition would resolve those problems. We have adopted a 

definition of “affected source” in this rulemaking as any of the 

listed individual sources at a secondary lead smelter. This 

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

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

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

definition is appropriate for the secondary lead source category 

because the chief source of emissions from these facilities are the 

furnaces, and as these furnaces are replaced or reconstructed, the 

replacement equipment would be subject to the standard for a new 

source.

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

secondary lead facility that undergoes construction or reconstruction 

after May 19, 2011, the date of the proposed CAA section 112(f)(2) and 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 79 of 183

112(d)(6) rules. A building that is constructed for the purpose of 

controlling fugitive emissions from an existing source is not 

considered to be a new source because it is effectively a control 

device for fugitive emissions.

Comment: One commenter noted that the last sentence in the 

current definition of “Materials storage and handling area” has been 

deleted in the proposed definition. This sentence reads: “Materials 

storage and handling area does not include areas used exclusively for 

storage of blast furnace slag”. The commenter disagreed with the EPA’s 

assessment that this is a minor change. “EPA should provide an 

explanation of what changed circumstances justify a new rule”. Two 

other commenters requested that the definition be modified to exclude 

the transfer of raw materials of any type in enclosed conveyors. The 

commenter stated that “as currently worded, the enclosure requirement 

proposed would apply to handling of fabric filter dust in enclosed 

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

The commenter suggested revising the definition to include the 

following: “Material storage and handling area shall not include any 

closed containers or enclosed mechanical conveyors.”

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

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

material in the definition of “materials storage and handling area” 

based on the originating process, this definition establishes lead 

content as the criterion for determining whether materials must be 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 80 of 183

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 

proposed rule that could be used to make a determination of which 

materials needed to be handled in a manner that prevents dust 

formation. By adding a definition of “lead bearing material” to the 

rule, we have clarified and quantified the definition of “materials 

storage and handling area”.

The EPA is using the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure 

(TCLP), EPA Method 1311 to measure which materials are lead-bearing, 

and using the characteristic level of 5.0 mg/l (in the extract from 

the test)as the specific level for being lead-bearing. See 40 CFR 

261.24. This assures that only materials with at least 100 ppm total 

lead will be considered to be ‘lead-bearing’. See EPA Method 1311 

section 2.2 which describes that the liquid to solid ratio of material 

tested should be 20:1 (i.e. 5 mg/l in the TCLP extract is equal to 

100ppm in the material being tested). The specific definition of lead 

bearing material chosen ensures that materials that contain relatively 

substantial amounts of lead (0.01%) are included while minimizing 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 81 of 183

additional testing burden for facilities who must determine what does 

or doesn’t meet the definition. Testing burden is minimized because 

facilities already use the TCLP to determine whether or not the wastes 

they manage are hazardous, pursuant to subtitle C of the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act. Imposing a different threshold for 

defining material as “lead bearing” could impose duplicative or 

conflicting requirements between subpart X and other regulatory 

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

grinding step, which is a conservative measure of determining whether 

a material could generate fugitive emissions. See Method 1311 steps 

7.1.3 and 7.2.10. 

To address the concern that fabric filter dust in enclosed 

conveyors, containers or wet slurries must be additionally handled 

only inside an enclosure, we have added an exemption from the 

enclosure requirement for materials that are “lead bearing” but are 

not expected to generate fugitive lead dust. While these materials do 

contain lead in amounts that could otherwise meet the definition of 

lead bearing material, they are either in a stabilized form that will 

not create fugitive dust or in a container that prevents fugitive dust 

formation. These materials include: lead ingot products, stormwater 

and wastewater, intact batteries, lead bearing material that is stored 

in closed containers or enclosed mechanical conveyors, and clean 

battery casing material. 

Comment: One commenter requested a change to the definition of 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 82 of 183

“plant roadway” specifically to exclude finished lead product storage 

areas and roadways or traffic areas located within enclosed buildings.

Response: We accept the commenter’s suggestion to exclude 

roadways or traffic areas located within enclosed buildings from the 

definition of “plant roadway.” However, we do not believe that it is 

appropriate to exclude finished lead product storage areas since these 

areas may be located in close proximity to areas that may require 

cleaning (e.g., slag storage areas).

Comment: One commenter requested a change to the definition of 

process vent. As currently drafted, it appears overly broad and could 

lead to confusion concerning the ventilation systems that must be 

tested. 

Response: We have made revisions to the regulatory text to 

clarify that the term “process vent” includes various process vents 

and vents from buildings containing lead bearing material. Vents from 

office or other non-process areas are not considered to be process 

vents. 

Comment: Two comments were received on the terminology used for a 

lead CEMS. According to the commenter, “Paragraph 63.548(m) specifies 

that lead CEMS be “continuous emission rate monitors”. The standard is 

a concentration standard, not an emission rate standard, so the term 

“continuous emission rate monitor” is not appropriate”. Since flow and 

concentration monitors are needed to calculate compliance with the 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 83 of 183

flow weighted average, one commenter recommended a requirement for 

flow and concentration monitors rather than citing a type of 

monitoring system that is not applicable to the standard.

Response: We agree with the commenter that the term continuous 

emissions rate monitor is not appropriate. We have replaced the term 

“continuous emissions rate monitor” with “continuous emissions 

monitoring system”. 

Comment: Two commenters noted that the term “accidental release” 

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

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

accidental release of lead-containing dust. Two commenters recommended 

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

be changed to require that the facility initiate cleaning activities 

within one hour after discovery of an accidental release.

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

reportable quantity threshold of 10 pounds to define an accidental 

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

suggestion to require initiation of cleaning within one hour of 

discovery of an accidental release.

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

Release During Review***

Page 84 of 183

generate fugitive lead dust:” 

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

the definition of “maintenance activity.” If this definition was 

adopted, the facility would be allowed to proceed with a maintenance 

activity and then, if the activity began generating dust, controls 

would need to be adopted but otherwise-controllable lead emissions 

would be released to ambient air. However, we have modified the 

definition to read “any of the following routine maintenance and 

repair activities that could generate fugitive lead dust”. This 

definition ensures that proactive, rather than reactive, actions would 

be taken for activities with the potential to generate lead dust. 

Comment: One commenter stated that a definition of lead-bearing 

material should be added and should include such characteristics as 

the material should be semi-granular, have a lead content of greater 

than 10%, 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 lead content of 5 mg/l or greater as measured by the 

TCLP (Method 1311), which means that materials would need to contain 

at least 100 ppm. This is equivalent to the toxicity characteristic 

level for a hazardous waste containing lead as defined at 40 CFR 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 85 of 183

261.24.

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

proposed rule makes reference to the requirements in subsections 

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

eight subsections applicable to 40 CFR 63.544(d) and subsection (d)(2) 

further refers to meeting requirements through (d)(8).

Response: The EPA agrees with the commenter and has made the 

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

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

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

conditions as the administrator specifies based on representative 

performance of the affected source for the period being tested”. The 

commenter requested that the EPA replace this “cumbersome” language 

with “...under normal operating conditions.”

Response: We have modified the text to require sources to conduct 

testing “under maximum representative operating conditions for the 

process.” The term maximum is included to ensure that the testing 

occurs during a time period of full production at the facility that is 

representative of normal operation. This language allows sources to 

develop test conditions which approximate the variability they can 

reasonably encounter during operation. Parametric monitoring 

requirements, based on parameters measured during the performance 

test, would then reasonably reflect this operating variability and 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 86 of 183

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

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

(upholding use of such data to set MACT standards under CAA section 

112 (d)(3)).

Comment: One commenter noted that Table 3 of the proposed rule is 

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

Equivalency Factors”. As the commenter points out, the table is 

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

Response: The EPA agrees with the commenter and has made the 

suggested change to Table 3 of the proposed rule.

Comment: Two commenters pointed out that there is a typographical 

error in Equation 2 of the proposed rule at 40 CFR 63.543(c). The 

definition of the term CELI includes the word lead, though the equation 

is not applicable to lead.

Response: The EPA agrees with the commenter and has adjusted the 

definition of the term CELI in Equation 2 of 40 CFR 63.543(c) 

accordingly.

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

Release During Review***

Page 87 of 183

emission standards. The commenter further argued that the EPA has not demonstrated any 

environmental benefits associated with annual testing versus biannual testing for well controlled 

facilities. The commenter contends that the East Penn facility has made strategic decisions 

to invest capital resources to reduce lead emissions and that the 

removal of the biannual testing exemption would unnecessarily increase 

the annual operating costs of the facility.

Response: We agree with the commenter that a biannual testing 

exemption for well performing facilities can be retained in this 

NESHAP. We have added an exemption for any stacks that report a lead 

concentration of 0.1 mg/dscm or lower allowing biannual testing. The 

concept of decreased testing frequency for well-performing sources was 

discussed in the proposal as a part of the fenceline monitoring 

approach (See 76 FR at 29057). 

Comment: Two commenters disagreed with the annual testing 

requirement for total hydrocarbons (THC). One commenter stated that 

since the risk assessment did not identify significant risks drivers 

among the organic HAP represented by THC, the THC testing should be 

conducted concurrently with the dioxin and furan tests every 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 40 CFR 63.543(k).

Response: We disagree with the commenter that THC testing should 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 88 of 183

be conducted on the same schedule as dioxins and furans. Testing for 

THC is substantially less expensive than testing for dioxins and 

furans and we do not believe annual THC testing presents an 

unnecessary burden. However, we have added an exemption allowing 

biannual testing of THC for any stack that reports concentrations that 

are less than half of the applicable emissions limit. Annual stack 

testing is obviously not required if a THC CEMS is used.

Comment: Three commenters stated that the EPA should allow 

facilities to use EPA Method 12 for lead compounds to calculate 

compliance with the process vent limitations in order to be consistent 

with testing requirements that exist in many facility permits.

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

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

Release During Review***

Page 89 of 183

differential is an effective method to monitor baghouse performance. 

The commenter contends that the BLDS requirement will pose an 

unnecessary and redundant burden on facilities that proactively chose 

to install HEPA filtration systems and that the proposed revisions are 

a disincentive for facilities to install HEPA filters. Finally, the 

commenter stated that the proposed BLDS requirement and the 

elimination of the BLDS exemption for HEPA filters are arbitrary and 

not supported by test data.

Response: We agree with the commenters that baghouses equipped 

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

measurement of pressure drop across a HEPA filter provides the indicia 

of superior performance for determining continuous compliance. 

However, we disagree that sources should be exempt from annual stack 

testing based solely on the use of a HEPA filter. The emission 

standard includes calculation of a facility-wide emission average and 

testing the process vents subject to that limit is needed to determine 

compliance. Monitoring pressure drop across HEPA filters is a means 

for determining continuous compliance, similar to a bag leak detection 

system in baghouses without HEPA filters. In both cases, periodic 

stack tests are necessary to ensure that lead emissions are below the 

applicable emission standard. However, we note that we have included a 

biannual testing exemption for stacks that report lead concentrations 

less than 0.1 mg/dscm.

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

Release During Review***

Page 90 of 183

Comment: One commenter expressed concerns related to the total 

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

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

which compliance with the THC standard has been demonstrated during 

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

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

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

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

no emissions of process-related THC emissions. Emissions during this 

time period will consist entirely of combustion products associated 

with the fuels natural gas and foundry coke. The afterburner or post 

combustion system are equipped with rudimentary burners that provide 

supplementary heat but rely on the excess heat contained within the 

combined furnace exhaust gases during production operations to achieve 

an afterburner temperature that assures the efficient combustion of 

the process off-gases. The afterburner supplementary burners are not 

sufficient to maintain the required temperature during 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 91 of 183

of standard operating procedures designed to minimize emissions of THC 

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

subject to THC emission limits. We considered whether temperature (the 

metric used to determine continuous compliance for the THC standard in 

this rule) or performance testing and enforcement of numeric emission 

limits would be practicable during periods of startup and shutdown. 

The EPA determined that there are a number of significant technical 

challenges associated with emissions measurements of THC emissions 

during periods of startup and shutdown. These challenges make 

establishing and complying with numerical emissions limits 

impracticable. 

There are multiple factors informing this decision. Temperature 

is obviously an inappropriate measure to determine continuous 

compliances for these furnaces during periods of startup and shutdown 

when the furnaces are being heated during startup (or cooled during 

shutdown) from ambient to the steady state operating temperature. The 

furnaces are heated during periods of startup through slow feeding of 

natural gas and small amounts of coke with no lead acid batteries fed 

to the furnace. It is impossible for furnace exhaust to be maintained 

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

startup and shutdown. However, the inability to maintain this 

temperature in secondary lead smelter furnace exhaust does not 

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

emissions are likely minimal because there are no plastics being fed 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 92 of 183

to the furnace and minimal fuel use (mostly natural gas). Temperature 

is not the appropriate measure of continuous compliance during these 

periods and we are unaware of another metric that can be used to 

determine continuous compliance with a numerical standard for these 

furnaces during startup and shutdown. During these periods, we do not 

believe dioxins and furans can form because there are no chlorinated 

plastics or flame retardants being fed as these materials are only 

introduced as impurities with the lead feed material. Therefore, we 

have not included a standard for dioxins and furans during periods of 

startup and shutdown because these pollutants are not emitted. In 

terms of staff scheduling, test crews would have to be on-site and 

ready to begin THC testing at the beginning of a period of startup or 

shutdown, have multiple test crews on site for startup or shutdown 

periods lasting longer than 12 hours, and be prepared to stop and 

restart measurements to coincide with process trips that can occur 

during startup and shutdown of secondary lead smelting furnaces. Since 

startups and shutdowns of these furnaces are not necessarily scheduled 

long in advance, scheduling such testing to coincide with the 

beginning of startup or shutdown periods would require having testing 

crews on-site nearly full time. These staff resource issues would 

dramatically increase the cost of testing during startup and shutdown 

periods. 

For these technical and economic reasons, we have determined that 

conducting manual test methods during these secondary lead furnace 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 93 of 183

startup or shutdown periods for THC to be impracticable within the 

meaning of CAA section 112(h)(2)(B). As a result, we have established 

a separate work practice standard for emissions of D/F and THC during 

periods of startup and shutdown.

This startup and shutdown work practice applies only to the THC 

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

provisions for emissions of lead from any source because the fabric 

filters used to control particulate and lead emissions are not less 

effective during startup or shutdown periods (nor would we expect 

sources to have any difficulty meeting the lead standard since leadbearing feed is not charged during either startup or shutdown 

conditions). Additionally, the metrics for determining continuous 

compliance with these standards are appropriate for periods of startup 

and shutdown. Therefore, we have established the separate work 

practice standard only for THC for periods of startup and shutdown. 

Periods of startup, normal operations, and shutdown are all 

predictable and routine aspects of a source’s operations. However, by 

contrast, malfunction is defined as a ‘‘sudden, infrequent, and not 

reasonably preventable failure of air pollution control and monitoring 

equipment, process equipment or a process to operate in a normal or 

usual manner * * * ’’(40 CFR 63.2). The EPA has determined that 

malfunctions should not be viewed as a distinct operating mode and, 

therefore, any emissions that occur at such times do not need to be 

factored into development of CAA section 112(d) standards, which, once 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 94 of 183

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 

rulemakingNET.ANET The final rule will result in estimated annual lead 

emissions reductions of 6.9 tpy from process and process fugitive 

sources and annual lead emissions reductions of 6.4 tpy from fugitive 

dust sources from 2009 baseline emissions (for a total annual 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 95 of 183

9

 Total metal HAP consists of antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese, nickel and selenium.

reduction of 13.3 tons per year). ANETThe expected annual reduction in 

total metal HAP9 is 8.7 tpy from process and process fugitive sources 

and the expected annual reduction is 7.2 tpy from fugitive dust 

sources (total annual metal HAP reductions are estimated at 15.9 

tons). We estimate that these controls will also reduce emissions of 

total particulate matter (PM) ANETby 135 tpy.

Based on the emissions data available to the EPA, we believe that 

all facilities will be able to comply with the final emissions limits 

for THC and D/F without additional controls. However, we expect that 

emissions reductions will occur due to increased temperatures of 

afterburners ANETand from improved work practices. Nevertheless, it is 

difficult to estimate accurate reductions from these actions and, 

therefore, we are not providing quantified estimates of reductions for 

THC and D/F.

C. What are the cost impacts?

As a result of this final rule, certain secondary lead smelting 

facilities are expected to incur capital costs for the following types 

of control measures: replacement of existing baghouses with new, 

higher-performing baghouses, replacement of bags in existing baghouses 

with better-performing materials, construction of new enclosures for 

processes not currently enclosed, modification of partially enclosed 

structures to meet the requirements of total enclosure, and 

installation of fabric filters on enclosures. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 96 of 183

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 97 of 183

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 98 of 183

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 99 of 183

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 CAA 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 of this preamble provides a 

summary of the estimated costs and emissions reductions associated 

with the final amendments to the Secondary Lead Smelting NESHAP 

presented in today’s action. More detail on the estimated costs of 

today’s final rule can be found in Cost Impacts 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 100 of 183

Estimated 

Capital 

Cost 

($MM)

Estimated 

Annual 

Cost 

($MM)

Total HAP 

Emissions 

Reductions 

(tons per year)

Cost Effectiveness 

in $ per ton total 

HAP reduction 

($ per pound)

Revised stack 

lead 

emissions 

limit

12.6 3.0 8.7 of metal 

HAP2 (6.9 of 

which is lead)

$0.34 MM per ton 

($170 per pound)

Total 

enclosure of 

fugitive 

emissions 

sources

38 6.4 5.2 of metal 

HAP2 (4.6 of 

which is lead)

$1.0 MM per ton

($500 per pound)

Fugitive 

control work 

practices

0 3.0 2.0 of metal 

HAP2 (1.8 of 

which is lead)

$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.

2Metal HAP consisting of antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, 

lead, manganese, nickel, and selenium

The EPA notes that the cost effectiveness of the controls for 

stack emissions of metal HAP are within the range of values the agency 

has determined to be reasonable in other section 112 rules. Indeed, 

EPA determined that a value of $175 per pound of metal HAP removed was 

reasonable when determining standards for the iron and steel foundry 

source category, an area source standard reflecting the less rigorous 

Generally Available Control Technology under section 112(d)(5). See 73 

FR at 249. Thus, EPA regards the cost effectiveness of the standards 

for metal HAP here as reasonable, for purposes of the standards 

adopted pursuant to sections 112 (f)(2) (ample margin of safety 

determination) and 112 (d)(6). The measures required to control 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 101 of 183

fugitive emissions are also cost effective, based largely on the fact 

that much of the industry has implemented some or all of the measures 

required in this final rule. The cost effectiveness for THC and D/F is 

presented as a point of information. Since those standards are MACT 

floor standards adopted pursuant to sections 112 (d)(3), 

considerations of cost and cost-effectiveness played no part in EPA’s 

consideration.

D. What are the economic impacts?

We performed an economic impact analysis for secondary lead 

consumers and producers nationally. Most secondary lead producers 

will incur annual compliance costs of much less than 1 percent of 

their sales, but one firm will incur costs of greater than 1 percent. 

Both demand and supply in this sector are generally inelastic to price 

changes as shown in the Economic Impact Analysis at page 4. Thus, if 

producers could pass through the entire cost of the rule to consumers, 

we would expect prices to increase by no more than one percent, with 

no change in output. Conversely, if producers could not pass through 

any of the cost by increasing the price, we would expect output to 

decline by less than one percent. 

Hence, the overall economic impact of this proposed rule should 

be low on most of the affected industry and its consumers. For more 

information, please refer to the Economic Impact Analysis for this 

rulemaking that is in the docket.

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

Release During Review***

Page 102 of 183

10 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/finalpbriach5.pdf

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)10 attaining a 

standard of 0.15 ug/m3 nationwide would yield 400,000 IQ points for 

children younger than age 7. These additional IQ points estimated for 

the lead NAAQS provide an economic benefit of between $3.5 and $5 

billion (3% discount rate, 2006$), a reflection of increased lifetime 

earnings among these populations. 

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

health effects for which the EPA was unable to quantify a monetized 

benefit--particularly among adults. These potential impacts included 

hypertension, non-fatal strokes, reproductive effects and premature 

mortality, among others. 

When viewed in this context, the reductions in concentrations of 

ambient lead that will be achieved with this RTR for secondary lead 

smelters are expected to provide important benefits to both children 

and adults. The EPA did not quantify these benefits because this rule 

did not trigger the requirement for conducting an RIA under Executive 

Order 12866, in addition to resource and data limitations for this 

rule. However, as noted at proposal, this rule should result in areas 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 103 of 183

11 It is possible that SIPs may require some of the same types of controls on these sources (or may rely on the controls in 

these rules as part of a control strategy). EPA cannot, of course, pre-judge the SIP process. What is clear is that this rule 

should contribute significantly to attainment of the lead NAAQS.

12 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2009. Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter (Final 

Report). EPA-600-R-08-139F. National Center for Environmental Assessment—RTP Division. 

<http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=216546>. 

attaining the lead NAAQS where the secondary lead smelting source dominates the areas’ ambient 

lead concentrations. See 76 FR at 29063-64. Although these standards are not adopted to implement 

the lead NAAQS, and rest on legal and policy justifications that are 

unrelated to the requirements for adopting, revising, and implementing 

a NAAQS (e.g. CAA sections 112 (d) (2), (3), 6 and CAA section 112 

(f)(2) as opposed to CAA sections 107-110), nonetheless these rules 

will aid in the attainment of the lead NAAQS.11

In addition to the benefits likely to be achieved for lead 

reductions, we also estimate that this final RTR rule will achieve 

about 39 to 63 tons of reductions in PM2.5 emissions as a co-benefit of 

the HAP reductions annually. See Development of the RTR Emissions 

Dataset for the Secondary Lead Smelting Source Category at section 

8.3, which is available in the docket for information on how the PM2.5 

emission reductions were calculated based on total PM reductions. 

Reducing exposure to PM2.5 is associated with significant human health 

benefits, including avoiding mortality and respiratory morbidity. 

Researchers have associated PM2.5 exposure with adverse health effects 

in numerous toxicological, clinical and epidemiological studies (U.S. 

EPA, 2009)12. When adequate data and resources are available and an 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 104 of 183

13 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2010. Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Proposed Federal Transport 

Rule. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. 

<http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/proposaltrria_final.pdf>. 

RIA is required, the EPA generally quantifies several health effects 

associated with exposure to PM2.5 (e.g., U.S. EPA, 2010)13. These health 

effects include premature mortality for adults and infants, 

cardiovascular morbidities such as heart attacks, hospital admissions, 

and respiratory morbidities such as asthma attacks, acute and chronic 

bronchitis, hospital and emergency department visits, work loss days, 

restricted activity days, and respiratory symptoms. Although the EPA 

has not quantified certain outcomes including adverse effects on birth 

weight, pre-term births, pulmonary function and other cardiovascular 

and respiratory effects, the scientific literature suggests that 

exposure to PM2.5 is also associated with these impacts (U.S. EPA, 

2009). 

 Finally, the final rule will provide human health benefits 

through reductions in arsenic and cadmium emissions, as well as 

reductions in emissions of organic HAP (including dioxins and furans).

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review, and 

Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 

action is a “significant regulatory action.” This action is a 

significant regulatory action because it raises novel legal and 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 105 of 183

policy issues. Accordingly, the EPA submitted this action to the 

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Executive 

Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011), 

and any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been 

documented in the docket for this action.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection requirements in this rule have been 

submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 

under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The 

Information Collection Request (ICR) document prepared by the EPA has 

been assigned EPA ICR number 1686.09. The information collection 

requirements are not enforceable until OMB approves them. The 

information requirements are based on notification, recordkeeping, and 

reporting requirements in the NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 

63, subpart A), which are mandatory for all operators subject to 

national emissions standards. These recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements are specifically authorized by CAA section 114 (42 U.S.C. 

7414). All information submitted to the EPA pursuant to the 

recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which a claim of 

confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to Agency policies 

set forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.

We are promulgating new paperwork requirements to the Secondary 

Lead Smelting source category in the form of stack testing for THC and 

D/F as described in 40 CFR 63.543(h)-(k). In conjunction with setting 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 106 of 183

THC limits for reverberatory and electric furnaces, additional 

monitoring and recordkeeping is required for furnace outlet 

temperature on these units. We believe temperature monitors currently 

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

capital cost due to this requirement (and received no comments to 

indicate otherwise). Additionally, increased monitoring is required 

for demonstrating negative pressure in all total enclosures. To 

provide the public with an estimate of the relative magnitude of the 

burden associated with an assertion of the affirmative defense 

position adopted by a source, the EPA has provided administrative 

adjustments to this ICR to show what the notification, recordkeeping 

and reporting requirements associated with the assertion of the 

affirmative defense might entail. The EPA’s estimate for the required 

notification, reports and records for any individual incident, 

including the root cause analysis, totals $3,141 and is based on the 

time and effort required of a source to review relevant data, 

interview plant employees, and document the events surrounding a 

malfunction that has caused an exceedance of an emissions 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 107 of 183

occur, as well as differences among sources' operation and maintenance 

practices, we cannot reliably predict the severity and frequency of 

malfunction-related excess emissions events for a particular source. 

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

estimating the number of malfunctions for which an affirmative defense 

to penalties might be asserted. Current historical records would be an 

inappropriate basis, as source owners or operators previously operated 

their facilities in recognition that they were exempt from the 

requirement to comply with emissions standards during malfunctions. Of 

the number of excess emissions events reported by source operators, 

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

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

caused by malfunctions would result in the source choosing to assert 

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

which source operators might be expected to assert the affirmative 

defense will be extremely small. For this reason, we estimate no more 

than 2 or 3 such occurrences for all sources subject to subpart X over 

the 3-year period covered by this ICR. We expect to gather information 

on such events in the future and will revise this estimate as better 

information becomes available. We estimate 16 regulated entities are 

currently subject to subpart X and will be subject to all standards. 

The annual monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping burden for this 

collection (averaged over the first 3 years after the effective date 

of the standards) for these amendments to subpart X (Secondary Lead 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 108 of 183

Smelting) is estimated to be $790,000 per year. This includes 1,600 

labor hours per year at a total labor cost of $347,000 per year, and 

total non-labor capital and operation and maintenance (O&M) costs of 

$440,000 per year. This estimate includes performance tests, 

notifications, reporting, and recordkeeping associated with the new 

requirements for front-end process vents and back-end process 

operations. The total burden for the Federal government (averaged over 

the first 3 years after the effective date of the standard) is 

estimated to be 1,150 hours per year at a total labor cost of $52,000 

per year. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not 

required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays 

a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the 

EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When these 

ICRs are approved by OMB, the Agency will publish a technical 

amendment to 40 CFR part 9 in the Federal Register to display the OMB 

control numbers for the approved information collection requirements 

contained in the final rules. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency 

to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 

notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative 

Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that 

the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 109 of 183

number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, 

small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts of this final rule on small 

entities, small entity is defined as: (1) a small business as defined 

by the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 

121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of 

a city, county, town, school district or special district with a 

population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is 

any not-for-profit enterprise that is independently owned and operated 

and is not dominant in its field. For this source category, which has 

the NAICS code 331419 (i.e., Secondary Smelting and Refining of 

Nonferrous Metal (except copper and aluminum)), the SBA small business 

size standard is 750 employees according to the SBA small business 

standards definitions. We have estimated the cost impacts and have 

determined that the impacts do not constitute a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small entities (see: Small Business 

Analysis for the Secondary Lead Smelting Source Category which is 

available in the docket for this action). 

After considering the economic impacts of today’s final rule on 

small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Two of the 

eight parent companies affected are considered a small entity per the 

definition provided in this section. However, we estimate that this 

action will not have a significant economic impact on those companies 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 110 of 183

(See: Small Business Analysis for the Secondary Lead Smelting Source 

Category). All other affected parent companies are not small 

businesses according to the SBA small business size standard for the 

affected NAICS code (NAICS 331419). 

Although this final rule will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small entities, the EPA nonetheless 

has tried to reduce the impact of this rule on small entities. To 

reduce the impacts, we are promulgating stack limits for lead that 

allow sources to meet a standard based on aggregated emissions that 

are based on a weighted average approach (with each stack required to 

achieve a specified minimum level of control) and have been 

established at the least stringent levels that we estimate will still 

result in acceptable risks to public health with an ample margin of 

safety. Moreover, the compliance testing requirements were established 

in a way that minimizes the costs for testing and reporting while 

still providing the Agency the necessary information needed to ensure 

continuous compliance with the standards. For more information, please 

refer to Small Business Evaluation for the Secondary Lead Smelting 

Source Category, which is available in docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

This action does not contain a Federal mandate under the 

provisions of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538 for State, local, or tribal governments or 

the private sector. The action would not result in expenditures of 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 111 of 183

$100 million or more for State, local, and tribal governments, in 

aggregate, or the private sector in any 1 year. The action imposes no 

enforceable duties on any State, local or tribal governments or the 

private sector. Thus, this action is not subject to the requirements 

of sections 202 or 205 of the UMRA.

This action is also not subject to the requirements of section 

203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might 

significantly or uniquely affect small governments because it contains 

no requirements that apply to such governments nor does it impose 

obligations upon them.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

This action does not have federalism implications. It will not 

have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels 

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

rules primarily affect private industry, and do not impose 

significant economic costs on State or local governments. Thus, 

Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action. 

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

Release During Review***

Page 112 of 183

relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on 

the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal 

government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental 

Health Risks and Safety Risks

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997) because it is not economically significant as defined 

in Executive Order 12866. However, the Agency does believe there is a 

disproportionate risk to children due to current emissions of lead 

from this source category. Children living near secondary lead 

smelters are the subpopulation most susceptible to effects of airborne lead, as explained in detail in section V.A above. The primary 

NAAQS for lead targets protection to this population, and is a 

reasonable measure for evaluating acceptability of risk here, again as 

explained in section V.A. Modeled ambient air lead concentrations, 

based on actual emission levels, from about 9 of the 15 facilities in 

this source category are in excess of the NAAQS for lead. Also, the 

results of the demographic analysis indicate that of the 84,000 people 

exposed to a cancer risk greater than 1-in-1 million, the age 0 to 17 

demographic percentage (of 30%) 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 113 of 183

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 action, for discussions of postcontrol risks.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

This action is not a “significant energy action” as defined in 

Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)), because it is not 

likely to have a significant adverse energy effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy. This action will not create any new 

requirements for sources in the energy supply, distribution, or use 

sectors. Further, we have concluded that these final rules are not 

likely to have any adverse energy effects (and indeed, rejected 

certain types of control options, such as standards based on use of 

wet electrostatic precipitators, in part because of adverse energy 

implications).

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

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

Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 114 of 183

applicable law or otherwise impractical. VCS are technical standards 

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

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

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

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

This action involves technical standards. The EPA requires use of 

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

methods of measuring the oxygen or carbon dioxide content of the 

exhaust gas. These parts of ASME PTC 19.10-1981 are acceptable 

alternatives to EPA Method 3B. This standard is available from the 

American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), Three Park Avenue, 

New York, NY 10016–5990. 

Under 40 CFR 63.7(f) and 40 CFR 63.8(f) of Subpart A of the 

General Provisions, a source may apply to the EPA for permission to 

use alternative test methods or alternative monitoring requirements in 

place of any required testing methods, performance specifications, or 

procedures in the final rule.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes 

federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision 

directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and 

permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission 

by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 115 of 183

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

Release During Review***

Page 116 of 183

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.

K. Congressional Review Act

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

the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 

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

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

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

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

this final rule and other required information to the United States 

Senate, the United States House of Representatives, and the 

Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the 

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

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

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

rules will be effective on [INSERT THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THIS 

FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 117 of 183

List of Subjects for 40 CFR Part 63

Environmental protection, Administrative practice and 

procedures, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, 

Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

______________

Dated: XXXXX XX, 2011.

________________________

Lisa P. Jackson,

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

Release During Review***

Page 118 of 183

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 total enclosure standards?

63.545 What are my standards for fugitive dust sources?

63.546 Compliance dates.

63.547 Test methods.

63.548 Monitoring requirements.

63.549 Notification requirements.

63.550 Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

63.551 Implementation and enforcement.

63.552 Affirmative Defense to Civil Penalties for Exceedance of 

Emissions Limit During Malfunction

Tables to Subpart X

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

to Subpart X 

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

Lead Smelting Furnaces

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

Subpart X—National Emission Standards For Hazardous Air 

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

Release During Review***

Page 119 of 183

§63.541 Applicability.

(a) You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate 

any of the following affected sources at a secondary lead 

smelter: blast, reverberatory, rotary, and electric furnaces; 

refining kettles; agglomerating furnaces; dryers; process 

fugitive emissions sources; buildings containing lead bearing 

materials; and fugitive dust sources. The provisions of this 

subpart do not apply to primary lead processors, lead refiners, 

or lead remelters.

(b) Table 1 to this subpart specifies the provisions of 

subpart A of this part that apply to owners and operators of 

secondary lead smelters subject to this subpart.

(c) If you are subject to the provisions of this subpart, 

you are also subject to title V permitting requirements under 40 

CFR parts 70 or 71, as applicable. 

(d) Emissions standards in this subpart apply at all times. 

§63.542 Definitions.

Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act, 

in subpart A of this part, or in this section as follows:

Affected source means any of the following sources at a 

secondary lead smelter: blast, reverberatory, rotary, and 

electric furnaces; refining kettles; agglomerating furnaces; 

dryers; process fugitive emissions sources; buildings containing 

lead bearing materials; and fugitive dust sources.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 120 of 183

Affirmative defense means, in the context of an enforcement 

proceeding, a response or defense put forward by a defendant, 

regarding which the defendant has the burden of proof, and the 

merits of which are independently and objectively evaluated in a 

judicial or administrative proceeding.

Agglomerating furnace means a furnace used to melt into a 

solid mass flue dust that is collected from a baghouse.

Bag leak detection system means an instrument that is 

capable of monitoring particulate matter (dust) loadings in the 

exhaust of a baghouse in order to detect bag failures. A bag leak 

detection system includes, but is not limited to, an instrument 

that operates on triboelectric, light scattering, transmittance 

or other effect to monitor relative particulate matter loadings.

Battery breaking area means the plant location at which 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 °Celsius) 

that lead compounds are chemically reduced to elemental lead 

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

Release During Review***

Page 121 of 183

Blast furnace charging location means the physical opening 

through which raw materials are introduced into a blast furnace.

Collocated blast furnace and reverberatory furnace means 

operation at the same location of a blast furnace and a 

reverberatory furnace where the vent streams of the furnaces are 

mixed before cooling, with the volumetric flow rate discharged 

from the blast furnace being equal to or less than that 

discharged from the reverberatory furnace.

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

remove moisture from lead-bearing materials before they are 

charged to a smelting furnace.

Dryer transition equipment means the junction between a 

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

the dryer and the smelting furnace feed chute or hopper located 

at the ends of the dryer.

Electric furnace means a smelting furnace consisting of a 

vessel into which reverberatory furnace slag is introduced and 

that uses electrical energy to heat the reverberatory furnace 

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

compounds are reduced to elemental lead metal.

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

Release During Review***

Page 122 of 183

roadways, storage piles, lead bearing material handling transfer 

points, lead bearing material transport areas, lead bearing 

material storage areas, other lead bearing material process 

areas, and buildings.

Furnace and refining/casting area means any area of a 

secondary lead smelter in which:

(1) Smelting furnaces are located;

(2) Refining operations occur; or

(3) Casting operations occur.

Lead alloy means an alloy in which the predominant component 

is lead.

Lead bearing material means material with a lead content 

equal to or greater than 5 mg/l as measured by EPA Method 1311 

(Under Method 1311, only materials with at least 100 ppm lead 

will be considered to be lead bearing).

Leeward wall means the furthest exterior wall of a total 

enclosure that is opposite the windward wall. 

Maintenance activity means any of the following routine 

maintenance and repair activities that could generate fugitive 

lead dust: 

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

external part of equipment used to process, handle or control 

lead-containing materials. 

(2) Replacement of any duct section used to convey lead-
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 123 of 183

containing exhaust. 

(3) Metal cutting or welding that penetrates the metal 

structure of any equipment, and its associated components, used 

to process lead-containing material such that lead dust within 

the internal structure or its components can become fugitive lead 

dust. 

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

concrete, or asphalt. 

Materials storage and handling area means any area of a 

secondary lead smelter in which lead-bearing materials 

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

reverberatory furnace slag, flue dust, and dross) are stored or 

handled between process steps including, but not limited to, 

areas in which materials are stored in open piles, bins, or tubs, 

and areas in which material is prepared for charging to a 

smelting furnace. 

Natural draft opening means any permanent opening in an 

enclosure that remains open during operation of the facility and 

is not connected to a duct in which a fan is installed. 

New source means any affected source at a secondary lead 

smelting facility the construction or reconstruction of which is 

commenced after May 19, 2011. A building that is constructed for 

the purpose of controlling fugitive emissions from an existing 

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

Release During Review***

Page 124 of 183

Partial enclosure means a structure comprised of walls or 

partitions on at least three sides or three-quarters of the 

perimeter surrounding stored materials or process equipment to 

prevent the entrainment of particulate matter into the air. 

Pavement cleaning means the use of vacuum equipment, water 

sprays, or a combination thereof to remove dust or other 

accumulated material from the paved areas of a secondary lead 

smelter.

Plant roadway means any area of a secondary lead smelter 

outside of a total enclosure that is subject to vehicle traffic, 

including traffic by forklifts, front-end loaders, or vehicles 

carrying whole batteries or cast lead ingots. Excluded from this 

definition are employee and visitor parking areas, provided they 

are not subject to traffic by vehicles carrying lead-bearing 

materials.

Pressurized dryer breaching seal means a seal system 

connecting the dryer transition pieces which is maintained at a 

higher pressure than the inside of the dryer. 

Process fugitive emissions source means a source of 

hazardous air pollutant emissions at a secondary lead smelter 

that is associated with lead smelting or refining, but is not the 

primary exhaust stream from a smelting furnace, and is not a 

fugitive dust source. Process fugitive emissions sources include, 

but are not limited to, smelting furnace charging points, 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 125 of 183

smelting furnace lead and slag taps, refining kettles, 

agglomerating furnaces, and drying kiln transition pieces.

Process vent means furnace vents, dryer vents, agglomeration 

furnace vents, vents from battery breakers, vents from buildings 

containing lead bearing material, and any ventilation system 

controlling lead emissions.

Refining kettle means an open-top vessel that is constructed 

of cast iron or steel and is indirectly heated from below and 

contains molten lead for the purpose of refining and alloying the 

lead. Included are pot furnaces, receiving kettles, and holding 

kettles.

Reverberatory furnace means a refractory-lined furnace that 

uses one or more flames to heat the walls and roof of the furnace 

and lead-bearing scrap to such a temperature (greater than 980 

°Celsius) that lead compounds are chemically reduced to elemental 

lead metal.

Rotary furnace (also known as a rotary reverberatory 

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

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

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

such a temperature (greater than 980 °Celsius) that lead 

compounds are chemically reduced to elemental lead metal.

Secondary lead smelter means any facility at which leadbearing scrap material, primarily, but not limited to, lead-acid 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 126 of 183

batteries, is recycled into elemental lead or lead alloys by 

smelting.

Shutdown means the period when no lead bearing materials are 

being fed to the furnace and smelting operations have ceased 

during which the furnace is cooled from steady-state operating 

temperature to ambient temperature. 

Smelting means the chemical reduction of lead compounds to 

elemental lead or lead alloys through processing in hightemperature (greater than 980 °Celsius) furnaces including, but 

not limited to, blast furnaces, reverberatory furnaces, rotary 

furnaces, and electric furnaces.

Startup means the period when no led bearing materials have 

been fed to the furnace and smelting operations have not yet 

commenced during which the furnace is heated from ambient 

temperature to steady-state operating temperature.

Total enclosure means a containment building that is 

completely enclosed with a floor, walls, and a roof to prevent 

exposure to the elements and to assure containment of lead 

bearing material with limited openings to allow access and egress 

for people and vehicles. The total enclosure must provide an 

effective barrier against fugitive dust emissions such that the 

direction of air flow through any openings is inward and the 

enclosure is maintained under constant negative pressure. 

Vehicle wash means a device for removing dust and other 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 127 of 183

accumulated material from the wheels, body, and underside of a 

vehicle to prevent the inadvertent transfer of lead contaminated 

material to another area of a secondary lead smelter or to public 

roadways.

Wet suppression means the use of water, water combined with 

a chemical surfactant, or a chemical binding agent to prevent the 

entrainment of dust into the air from fugitive dust sources.

Windward wall means the exterior wall of a total enclosure 

that is most impacted by the wind in its most prevailing 

direction determined by a wind rose using available data from the 

closest representative meteorological station. 

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

Release During Review***

Page 128 of 183

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

ii

FWA

F

CF

C

1

(Eq. 1)

Where: 

CFWA = Flow-weighted average concentration of all process 

vents.

n = Number of process vents.

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

feet per minute, as measured during the most recent 

compliance test.

Ci = Concentration of lead in process vent i, as measured 

during the most recent compliance test.

(4) Each month, you must use the concentration of lead and 

flow rate obtained during the most recent compliance test 

performed prior to or during that month to perform the 

calculation using Equation 1 of this section. 

(5) If a continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS) is 

used to measure the concentration of lead in a vent, the monthly 

average lead concentration and monthly average flow rate must be 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 129 of 183

used rather than the most recent compliance test data. 

(b) For new sources that begin construction or 

reconstruction after May 19, 2011 you must maintain the 

concentration of lead compounds in any process vent gas at or 

below 0.20 milligrams of lead per dry standard cubic meter 

(0.000087 grains of lead per dry standard cubic foot). 

(c) You must meet the applicable emissions limits for total 

hydrocarbons and dioxins and furans from furnace sources 

specified in Table 2 of this subpart. There are no standards for 

dioxins and furans during periods of startup and shutdown. 

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

furnaces and these furnaces do not meet the definition of 

collocated blast and reverberatory furnaces, you must calculate 

your emissions limit for the combined furnace stream using 

Equation 2 of this section.

∑

∑=

×

= n

i

i

n

i

ELii

EL

F

CF

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

Release During Review***

Page 130 of 183

vent i as specified in Table 2 of this subpart.

(e) If you combine furnace emissions with the furnace 

charging process fugitive emissions and discharge them to the 

atmosphere through a common emissions point, you must demonstrate 

compliance with the applicable total hydrocarbons concentration 

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

downstream from the point at which the two emissions streams are 

combined.

(f) If you do not combine the furnace charging process 

fugitive emissions with the furnace process emissions, and 

discharge such emissions to the atmosphere through separate 

emissions points, you must maintain the total hydrocarbons 

concentration in the exhaust gas at or below 20 parts per million 

by volume, expressed as propane and corrected to 4 percent carbon 

dioxide.

(g) Following the initial performance or compliance test to 

demonstrate compliance with the lead emissions limits specified 

in paragraph (a) or (b) of this section, you must conduct 

performance tests according to the schedule in paragraph (g)(1) 

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

Release During Review***

Page 131 of 183

operate a CEMS meeting the requirements of §63.8. 

(2) If an annual compliance test demonstrates that a 

process vent emitted lead compounds at 0.10 milligram of lead per 

dry standard cubic meter or less during the time of the annual 

compliance test, you may submit a written request to the 

Administrator applying for an extension of up to 24 calendar 

months from the previous compliance test to conduct the next 

compliance test for lead compounds. 

(h) Following the initial performance or compliance test to 

demonstrate compliance with the total hydrocarbons emissions 

limits in paragraphs (c) and (f) of this section, you must 

conduct an annual performance test for total hydrocarbons 

emissions from each process vent that has established limits for 

total hydrocarbons (no later than 12 calendar months following 

the previous compliance test), unless you install and operate a 

CEMS meeting the requirements of §63.8. If an annual compliance 

test demonstrates that a process vent emitted total hydrocarbons 

at less than 50 percent of the allowable limit during the time of 

the annual compliance test, you may submit a written request to 

the Administrator applying for an extension of up to 24 calendar 

months from the previous compliance test to conduct the next 

compliance test for total hydrocarbons.

(i) Following the initial performance or compliance test to 

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

Release During Review***

Page 132 of 183

limits specified in paragraph (c) of this section, you must 

conduct a performance test for dioxins and furans emissions from 

each process vent that has established limits for dioxins and 

furans at least once every 6 years following the previous 

compliance test. 

(j) You must conduct the performance tests specified in 

paragraphs (g) through (i) of this section under maximum 

representative operating conditions for the process. During the 

performance test, you may operate the control device at maximum 

or minimum representative operating conditions for monitored 

control device parameters, whichever results in lower emission 

reduction. Upon request, you must make available to the 

Administrator such records as may be necessary to determine the 

conditions of performance tests.

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

affected source, including associated air pollution control 

equipment and monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with 

safety and good air pollution control practices for 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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 133 of 183

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

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

and shutdown periods following the manufacturer’s recommended 

procedures, if available. You must develop and follow standard 

operating procedures designed to minimize emissions of total 

hydrocarbon for each startup or shutdown scenario anticipated. 

You must submit a signed statement in the Notification of 

Compliance Status report that indicates that you conducted 

startups and shutdowns according to the manufacturer’s 

recommended procedures, if available, and the standard operating 

procedures designed to minimize emissions of total hydrocarbons.

(m) In addition to complying with the applicable emissions 

limits for dioxins and furans listed in Table 2 to this subpart, 

you must operate a process to separate plastic battery casing 

materials from all automotive batteries prior to introducing feed 

into a furnace.

§63.544 What are my total enclosure standards?

(a) You must operate the process fugitive emissions sources 

and fugitive dust sources listed in paragraphs (a)(1) through 

(a)(9) of this section in a total enclosure that is maintained at 

negative pressure at all times and vented to a control device 

designed to capture lead particulate. The total enclosure must 

meet the requirements specified in paragraph (c) of this section. 

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

Release During Review***

Page 134 of 183

(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) except those listed in 

paragraph (b) of this section. 

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

fabric filters are processed. 

(b) Total enclosures are not required in the following 

areas: lead ingot product handling areas, stormwater and 

wastewater treatment areas, intact battery storage areas, areas 

where lead bearing material is stored in closed containers or 

enclosed mechanical conveyors, and areas where clean battery 

casing material is handled. 

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

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

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

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

deterioration that could cause lead bearing material to be 

released from the primary barrier. Measures must be in place to 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 135 of 183

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 

other possible routes for emissions of lead to the atmosphere 

within one week of identification unless you obtain approval for 

an extension from the Administrator before the repair period is 

exceeded. 

§63.545 What are my standards for fugitive dust sources?

(a) You must prepare, and at all times operate according 

to, a standard operating procedures manual that describes in 

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

control the fugitive dust emissions from the sources listed in 

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

(1) Plant roadways.

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

Release During Review***

Page 136 of 183

(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 

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

Release During Review***

Page 137 of 183

 (3) Accidental releases. You must initiate cleaning of all 

affected areas within one hour after detection of any accidental 

release of lead dust that exceeds 10 pounds (the Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) 

reportable quantity for lead at 40 CFR 302.4). 

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

that are not stored in a total enclosure 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 

areas. The vehicle wash must include washing of tires, 

undercarriage and exterior surface of the vehicle followed by 

vehicle inspection. 

(6) Equipment maintenance. You must perform all maintenance 

activities that could generate lead dust in a manner that 

minimizes emissions of fugitive dust. This must include one or 

more of the following: 

(i) Performing maintenance inside a total permanent 

enclosure maintained at negative pressure. 

(ii) Performing maintenance inside a temporary enclosure 

and use a vacuum system either equipped with a filter rated by 

the manufacturer to achieve a capture efficiency of 99.97 percent 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 138 of 183

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. 

(vi) Activities required for inspection of fabric filters 

and maintenance of filters that are in need of removal and 

replacement are not required to be conducted inside of total 

enclosures. Used fabric filters must be placed in sealed plastic 

bags or containers prior to removal from a baghouse. 

(7) Material transport. You must collect and transport all 

lead bearing dust (i.e. lead bearing material which is a dust) 

within closed conveyor systems or in sealed, leak-proof 

containers unless the collection and transport activities are 

contained within a total enclosure. All other lead bearing 

material must be contained and covered for transport outside of a 

total enclosure in a manner that prevents spillage or dust 

formation. Intact batteries and lead ingot product are exempt 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 139 of 183

from the requirement to be covered for transport. 

(d) Your standard operating procedures manual must specify 

that records be maintained of all pavement cleaning, vehicle 

washing, and battery storage inspection activities performed to 

control fugitive dust emissions. 

(e) You must pave all grounds on the facility or plant 

groundcover sufficient to prevent wind-blown dust. You may use 

dust suppressants on unpaved areas that will not support a 

groundcover (e.g., roadway shoulders, steep slopes, limited 

access and limited use roadways).

(f) As provided in §63.6(g), as an alternative to the 

requirements specified in this section, you can demonstrate to 

the Administrator (or delegated State, local, or Tribal 

authority) that an alternative measure(s) is equivalent or better 

than a practice(s) described in this section.

§63.546 Compliance dates.

(a) For affected sources that commenced construction or 

reconstruction on or before May 19, 2011, you must demonstrate 

compliance with the requirements of this subpart no later than 

[INSERT THE DATE TWO YEARS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE 

FEDERAL REGISTER]. 

(b) For affected sources that commenced construction or 

reconstruction after May 19, 2011, you must demonstrate 

compliance with the requirements of this subpart by [INSERT THE
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 140 of 183

DATE OF PUBLICATION 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 

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

Release During Review***

Page 141 of 183

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 

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

Release During Review***

Page 142 of 183

2

0.4

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 

concentration by multiplying the measured total hydrocarbons 

concentration by the correction factor (F) determined for each 

compliance test.

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

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

section, as specified, to determine compliance with the emissions 

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

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

the sampling port location and the number of traverse points.

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

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

positive pressure fabric filters to measure volumetric flow rate.

(3) EPA Method 3A or 3B at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-2 to 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 143 of 183

determine the oxygen and carbon dioxide concentrations of the 

stack gas.

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

determine moisture content of the stack gas.

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

determine the dioxins and furans concentration.

(e) You must determine the dioxins and furans toxic 

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

through (e)(3) of this section.

(1) Measure the concentration of each dioxins and furans 

congener shown in Table 3 of this subpart using EPA Method 23 at 

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

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

O2 using Equation 3 of this section.

20( )2%9.

)79.20(

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

Release During Review***

Page 144 of 183

specified in paragraph (e)(1) of this section, multiply the 

congener concentration by its corresponding toxic equivalency 

factor specified in Table 3 to this subpart.

(3) Sum the values calculated as specified in paragraph 

(e)(2) of this section to obtain the total concentration of 

dioxins and furans emitted in terms of toxic equivalency. 

§63.548 Monitoring requirements.

(a) You must prepare, and at all times operate according 

to, a standard operating procedures manual that describes in 

detail procedures for inspection, maintenance, and bag leak 

detection and corrective action plans for all baghouses (fabric 

filters or cartridge filters) that are used to control process 

vents, process fugitive, or fugitive dust emissions from any 

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

63.544, and 63.545, including those used to control emissions 

from building ventilation. 

(b) You must submit the standard operating procedures 

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

the Administrator or delegated authority for review and approval.

(c) The procedures that you specify in the standard 

operating procedures manual for inspections and routine 

maintenance must, at a minimum, include the requirements of 

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

(1) Daily monitoring of pressure drop across each baghouse 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 145 of 183

cell.

(2) Weekly confirmation that dust is being removed from 

hoppers through visual inspection, or equivalent means of 

ensuring the proper functioning of removal mechanisms.

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

baghouses.

(4) An appropriate methodology for monitoring cleaning 

cycles to ensure proper operation.

(5) Monthly check of bag cleaning mechanisms for proper 

functioning through visual inspection or equivalent means.

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

baghouses using self-tensioning (spring loaded) devices.

(7) Quarterly confirmation of the physical integrity of the 

baghouse through visual inspection of the baghouse interior for 

air leaks.

(8) Quarterly inspection of fans for wear, material 

buildup, and corrosion through visual inspection, vibration 

detectors, or equivalent means.

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

section, continuous operation of a bag leak detection system, 

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

Release During Review***

Page 146 of 183

(d) The procedures you specify in the standard operating 

procedures manual for baghouse maintenance must include, at a 

minimum, a preventative maintenance schedule that is consistent 

with the baghouse manufacturer's instructions for routine and 

long-term maintenance.

(e) The bag leak detection system required by paragraph 

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

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

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

manufacturer to be capable of detecting particulate matter 

emissions at concentrations of 1.0 milligram per actual cubic 

meter (0.00044 grains per actual cubic foot) or less. 

(2) The bag leak detection system sensor must provide 

output of relative particulate matter loadings.

(3) The bag leak detection system must be equipped with an 

alarm system that will alarm when an increase in relative 

particulate loadings is detected over a preset level.

(4) You must install and operate the bag leak detection 

system in a manner consistent with the guidance provided in 

“Office of Air quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) Fabric 

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

Release During Review***

Page 147 of 183

(5) The initial adjustment of the system must, at a 

minimum, consist of establishing the baseline output by adjusting 

the sensitivity (range) and the averaging period of the device, 

and establishing the alarm set points and the alarm delay time.

(6) Following initial adjustment, you must not adjust the 

sensitivity or range, averaging period, alarm set points, or 

alarm delay time, except as detailed in the approved standard 

operating procedures manual required under paragraph (a) of this 

section. You cannot increase the sensitivity by more than 100 

percent or decrease the sensitivity by more than 50 percent over 

a 365 day period unless such adjustment follows a complete 

baghouse inspection that demonstrates that the baghouse is in 

good operating condition.

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

positive pressure baghouses that are discharged to the atmosphere 

through a stack, you must install the bag leak detector 

downstream of the baghouse and upstream of any wet acid gas 

scrubber.

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

instrumentation and alarm may be shared among detectors.

(f) You must include in the standard operating procedures 

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

action plan that specifies the procedures to be followed in the 

case of a bag leak detection system alarm. The corrective action 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 148 of 183

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

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

as the corrective actions taken to minimize emissions as 

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

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

must be initiated within 30 minutes of the alarm.

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

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

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

(f)(2)(vi) of this section.

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

filter elements, or any other malfunction that may cause an 

increase in emissions.

(ii) Sealing off defective bags or filter media.

(iii) Replacing defective bags or filter media, or 

otherwise repairing the control device.

(iv) Sealing off a defective baghouse compartment.

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

otherwise repairing the bag leak detection system.

(vi) Shutting down the process producing the particulate 

emissions.

(g) Baghouses equipped with high efficiency particulate air 

(HEPA) filters as a secondary filter used to control emissions 

from any source subject to the lead emission standards in 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 149 of 183

§65.543(a) or (b), are exempt from the requirement to be equipped 

with a bag leak detection system. You must monitor and record the 

pressure drop across each HEPA filter system daily. If the 

pressure drop is outside the limit(s) specified by the filter 

manufacturer, you must take appropriate corrective measures, 

which may include but not be limited to those given in paragraphs 

(g)(1) through (g)(4) of this section.

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

and torn or broken filters.

(2) Replacing defective filter media, or otherwise repairing 

the control device. 

(3) Sealing off a defective control device by routing air to 

other control devices

(4) Shutting down the process producing the particulate 

emissions. 

(h) Baghouses followed by a wet electrostatic precipitator 

used as a secondary control device for any source subject to the 

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

Release During Review***

Page 150 of 183

performance or compliance test conducted to demonstrate 

compliance with the lead emissions limit under §63.543(a) or (b). 

Thereafter, you must monitor and record the pressure drop and 

water flow rate values at least once every hour and you must 

maintain the pressure drop and water flow rate at levels no lower 

than 30 percent below the pressure drop and water flow rate 

measured during the initial performance or compliance test.

(j) You must comply with the requirements specified in 

paragraphs (j)(1) through (j)(4) of this section to demonstrate 

continuous compliance with the total hydrocarbons and dioxins and 

furans emissions standards. During periods of startup and 

shutdown, the requirements of paragraph (j)(4) of this section do 

not apply. Instead, you must demonstrate compliance with the 

standard for total hydrocarbon by meeting the requirements of 

§63.543(l).

(1) Continuous temperature monitoring. You must install, 

calibrate, maintain, and continuously operate a device to monitor 

and record the temperature of the afterburner or furnace exhaust 

streams consistent with the requirements for continuous 

monitoring systems in §63.8.

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

or compliance test to determine compliance with §63.543(c), you 

must conduct a performance evaluation for the temperature 

monitoring device according to §63.8(e). The definitions, 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 151 of 183

installation specifications, test procedures, and data reduction 

procedures for determining calibration drift, relative accuracy, 

and reporting described in Performance Specification 2, 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix B, sections 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10 must be 

used to conduct the evaluation. The temperature monitoring device 

must meet the following performance and equipment specifications:

(i) The recorder response range must include zero and 1.5 

times the average temperature identified in paragraph (j)(3) of 

this section.

(ii) The monitoring system calibration drift must not 

exceed 2 percent of 1.5 times the average temperature identified 

in paragraph (j)(3) of this section.

(iii) The monitoring system relative accuracy must not 

exceed 20 percent.

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

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

Release During Review***

Page 152 of 183

for total hydrocarbons and dioxins and furans, you must maintain 

an afterburner or exhaust temperature such that the average 

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

°Celsius (50 °Fahrenheit) below the average established in 

paragraph (j)(3) of this section. 

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

differential pressure monitoring system to continuously monitor 

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

(k)(5) of this section.

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

digital differential pressure monitoring system at each of the 

following three walls in each total enclosure that has a total 

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

(i) The leeward wall.

(ii) The windward wall.

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

Release During Review***

Page 153 of 183

digital differential pressure monitoring system at the leeward 

wall of each total enclosure that has a total ground surface area 

of less than 10,000 square feet.

(3) The digital differential pressure monitoring systems 

must be certified by the manufacturer to be capable of measuring 

and displaying negative pressure in the range of 0.01 to 0.2 

millimeters of mercury (0.005 to 0.11 inches of water) with a 

minimum accuracy of plus or minus 0.001 millimeters of mercury 

(0.0005 inches of water). 

(4) You must equip each digital differential pressure 

monitoring system with a continuous recorder. 

(5) You must calibrate each digital differential pressure 

monitoring system in accordance with manufacturer’s 

specifications at least once every 12 calendar months or more 

frequently if recommended by the manufacturer. 

(l) Except as provided in paragraph (l)(2) or (l)(3) of 

this section, all new or reconstructed sources subject to the 

requirements under §63.543 must install, calibrate, maintain, and 

operate a CEMS for measuring lead emissions. In addition to the 

General Provisions requirements for CEMS in §63.8(c) that are 

referenced in Table 1 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 154 of 183

emissions within 180 days of promulgation by the EPA of 

performance specifications for lead CEMS.

(2) Prior to 180 days after the EPA promulgates performance 

specifications for CEMS used to measure lead concentrations, you 

must use the procedure described in §63.543(g)(1) to determine 

compliance. 

(3) Vents from control devices that serve only to control 

emissions from buildings containing lead bearing materials are 

exempt from the requirement to install a CEMS for measuring lead 

emissions. 

(m) If a CEMS is used to measure lead emissions, you must 

install a continuous emissions monitoring system with a sensor in 

a location that provides representative measurement of the 

exhaust gas flow rate at the sampling location of the CEMS used 

to measure lead emissions, taking into account the manufacturer’s 

recommendations. The flow rate sensor is that portion of the 

system that senses the volumetric flow rate and generates an 

output proportional to that flow rate.

(1) The continuous emissions monitoring system must be 

designed to measure the exhaust gas flow rate over a range that 

extends from a value of at least 20 percent less than the lowest 

expected exhaust flow rate to a value of at least 20 percent 

greater than the highest expected exhaust gas flow rate. 

(2) The continuous emissions monitoring system must be 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 155 of 183

equipped with a data acquisition and recording system that is 

capable of recording values over the entire range specified in 

paragraph (m)(1) of this section. 

(3) You must perform an initial relative accuracy test of 

the continuous emissions monitoring system in accordance with the 

applicable Performance Specification in appendix B to part 60 of 

this chapter. 

(4) You must operate the continuous emissions monitoring 

system and record data during all periods of operation of the 

affected facility including periods of startup, shutdown, and 

malfunction, except for periods of monitoring system 

malfunctions, repairs associated with monitoring system 

malfunctions, and required monitoring system quality assurance or 

quality control activities including, as applicable, calibration 

checks and required zero and span adjustments.

(5) If you have a CEMS to measure lead emissions, you must 

calculate the average lead concentration and flow rate monthly to 

determine compliance with §63.543(a).

(6) When the continuous emissions monitoring system is 

unable to provide quality assured data, the following apply: 

(i) When data are not available for periods of up to 48 

hours, the highest recorded hourly emissions rate from the 

previous 24 hours must be used.

(ii) When data are not available for 48 or more hours, the 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 156 of 183

maximum daily emissions rate based on the previous 30 days must 

be used.

§63.549 Notification requirements.

(a) You must comply with all of the notification 

requirements of §63.9. Electronic notifications are encouraged if 

suitable for the specific case (e.g., by electronic media such as 

Excel spreadsheet, on CD or hard copy), and when required by this 

subpart. 

(b) You must submit the fugitive dust control standard 

operating procedures manual required under §63.545(a) and the 

standard operating procedures manual for baghouses required under 

§63.548(a) to the Administrator or delegated authority along with 

a notification that the smelter is seeking review and approval of 

these plans and procedures. You must submit this notification no 

later than [INSERT THE DATE ONE YEAR AFTER PUBLICATION IN THE 

FEDERAL REGISTER]. For sources that commenced construction or 

reconstruction after [INSERT THE DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE 

FEDERAL REGISTER], you must submit this notification no later 

than 180 days before startup of the constructed or reconstructed 

secondary lead smelter, but no sooner than [INSERT THE DATE OF 

PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. For an affected source that 

has received a construction permit from the Administrator or 

delegated authority on or before [INSERT THE DATE OF PUBLICATION 

IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], you must submit this notification no 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 157 of 183

later than [INSERT THE DATE ONE YEAR AFTER PUBLICATION IN THE 

FEDERAL REGISTER].

§63.550 Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

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

reporting requirements specified in §63.10 that are referenced in 

Table 1 to this subpart.

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

readily available for expeditious review, according to 

§63.10(b)(1). However, electronic recordkeeping and reporting if 

suitable for the specific case (e.g., by electronic media such as 

Excel spreadsheet, on CD or hard copy), and when required by this 

subpart. 

(2) Records must be kept on site for at least 2 years after 

the date of occurrence, measurement, maintenance, corrective 

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

(b) The standard operating procedures manuals required in 

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

in electronic format for review and approval of the initial 

submittal and whenever an update is made to the procedure.

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

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

this section.

(1) Electronic records of the bag leak detection system 

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

Release During Review***

Page 158 of 183

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

detection system alarms, the time that procedures to determine 

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

explanation of the corrective actions taken, and the date and 

time the cause of the alarm was corrected. 

(3) All records of inspections and maintenance activities 

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

the standard operating procedures manual for baghouses required 

under §63.548(a).

(4) Electronic records of the pressure drop and water flow 

rate values for wet scrubbers used to control metal hazardous air 

pollutant emissions from process fugitive sources as required in 

§63.548(i).

(5) Electronic records of the output from the continuous 

temperature monitor required in §63.548(j)(1), and an 

identification of periods when the 3-hour average temperature 

fell below the minimum established under §63.548(j)(4), and an 

explanation of the corrective actions taken. 

(6) Electronic records of the continuous pressure monitors 

for total enclosures required in §63.548(k), and an 

identification of periods when the pressure was not maintained as 

required in §63.544(c)(1).

(7) Records of any time periods power was lost to the 

continuous pressure monitors for total enclosures required in 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 159 of 183

§63.548(k) and records of loss of power to the air handling 

system maintaining negative pressure on total enclosures. 

(8) Records of the inspections of facility enclosures 

required in §63.544(d). 

(9) Records of all cleaning and inspections required as 

part of the practices described in the standard operating 

procedures manual required under §63.545(a) for the control of 

fugitive dust emissions.

 (10) Electronic records of the output of any CEMS 

installed to monitor lead emissions meeting the requirements of 

§63.548(m).

(11) Records of the occurrence and duration of each 

malfunction of operation (i.e., process equipment) or the air 

pollution control equipment and monitoring equipment. 

(12) Records of actions taken during periods of malfunction 

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

corrective actions to restore malfunctioning process and air 

pollution control and monitoring equipment to its normal or usual 

manner of operation. 

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

Release During Review***

Page 160 of 183

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 

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

Release During Review***

Page 161 of 183

(4) Records of all alarms from the bag leak detection 

system specified in §63.548.

(5) A description of the procedures taken following each 

bag leak detection system alarm pursuant to §63.548(f)(1) and 

(2).

(6) A summary of the records maintained as part of the 

practices described in the standard operating procedures manual 

for baghouses required under §63.548(a), including an explanation 

of the periods when the procedures were not followed and the 

corrective actions taken.

(7) An identification of the periods when the pressure drop 

and water flow rate of wet scrubbers used to control process 

fugitive sources dropped below the levels established in 

§63.548(i), and an explanation of the corrective actions taken.

(8) Records of the temperature monitor output, in 3-hour 

block averages, for those periods when the temperature monitored 

pursuant to §63.548(j) fell below the level established in 

§63.548(j)(4).

(9) Certification that the plastic separation process for 

battery breakers required in §63.543(m) was operated at all times 

the battery breaker was in service.

(10) Records of periods when the pressure was not 

maintained as required in §63.544(c) or power was lost to the 

continuous pressure monitoring system as required in §63.548(k).
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 162 of 183

(11) If a malfunction occurred during the reporting period, 

the report must include the number, duration, and a brief 

description for each type of malfunction that occurred during the 

reporting period and caused or may have caused any applicable 

emissions limitation to be exceeded. The report must also include 

a description of actions taken during a malfunction of an 

affected source to minimize emissions in accordance with 

§63.543(k), including actions taken to correct a malfunction. 

(12) A summary of the fugitive dust control measures 

performed during the required reporting period, including an 

explanation of the periods when the procedures outlined in the 

standard operating procedures manual pursuant to §63.545(a) were 

not followed and the corrective actions taken. The reports must 

not contain copies of the daily records required to demonstrate 

compliance with the requirements of the standard operating 

procedures manuals required under §63.545(a). 

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

furnace including an explanation of the periods when the 

procedures required in §63.543(l) were not followed and the 

corrective actions taken. 

(14) You must submit records pursuant to paragraphs 

(e)(14)(i) through (iii) of this section 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 163 of 183

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

except opacity data, electronically to EPA’s Central Data 

Exchange by using the Electronic Reporting Tool (see 

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

collected using test methods compatible with the Electronic 

Reporting Tool are subject to this requirement to be submitted 

electronically into EPA’s WebFIRE database. 

(ii) Within 60 days after the date of completing each CEMS 

performance evaluation test, as defined in §63.2 and required by 

this subpart, you must submit the relative accuracy test audit 

data electronically into EPA’s Central Data Exchange by using the 

Electronic Reporting Tool as mentioned in paragraph (e)(14)(i) of 

this section. Only data collected using test methods compatible 

with the Electronic Reporting Tool are subject to this 

requirement to be submitted electronically into EPA’s WebFIRE 

database.

(iii) All reports required by this subpart not subject to 

the requirements in paragraph (e)(14)(i) and (ii) of this section 

must be sent to the Administrator at the appropriate address 

listed in §63.13. The Administrator or the delegated authority 

may request a report in any form suitable for the specific case 

(e.g., by electronic media such as Excel spreadsheet, on CD or 

hard copy). The Administrator retains the right to require 

submittal of reports subject to paragraph (e)(14)(i) and (ii) of 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 164 of 183

this section in paper format.

§63.551 Implementation and Enforcement.

(a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by the 

U.S. EPA, or a delegated authority such as the applicable State, 

local, or tribal agency. If the U.S. EPA Administrator has 

delegated authority to a State, local, or tribal agency, then 

that agency, in addition to the U.S. EPA, has the authority to 

implement and enforce this subpart. Contact the applicable U.S. 

EPA Regional Office to find out if this subpart is delegated to a 

State, local, or tribal agency.

(b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority 

of this subpart to a State, local, or tribal agency under subpart 

E of this part, the authorities contained in paragraph (c) of 

this section are retained by the Administrator of U.S. EPA and 

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

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

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

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

Release During Review***

Page 165 of 183

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

(4) Approval of major alternatives to recordkeeping and 

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

in this subpart.

§63.552 Affirmative Defense to Civil Penalties for Exceedance of 

Emissions Limit During Malfunction.

In response to an action to enforce the standards set forth 

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

for civil penalties for exceedances of such standards that are 

caused by malfunction, as defined at §63.2. Appropriate penalties 

may be assessed, however, if you fail to meet your burden of 

proving all of the requirements in the affirmative defense. The 

affirmative defense shall not be available for claims for 

injunctive relief.

(a) Affirmative defense. To establish the affirmative 

defense in any action to enforce such a limit, you must timely 

meet the notification requirements in paragraph (b) of this 

section, and must prove by a preponderance of evidence that:

(1) The excess emissions: 

(i) Were caused by a sudden, infrequent, and unavoidable 

failure of air pollution control and monitoring equipment, 

process equipment, or a process to operate in a normal or usual 

manner.

(ii) Could not have been prevented through careful 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 166 of 183

planning, proper design or better operation and maintenance 

practices. 

(iii) Did not stem from any activity or event that could 

have been foreseen and avoided, or planned for.

(iv) Were not part of a recurring pattern indicative of 

inadequate design, operation or maintenance.

(2) Repairs were made as expeditiously as possible when the 

applicable emissions limitations were being exceeded. Off-shift 

and overtime labor were used, to the extent practicable to make 

these repairs.

(3) The frequency, amount and duration of the excess 

emissions (including any bypass) were minimized to the maximum 

extent practicable during periods of such emissions.

(4) If the excess emissions resulted from a bypass of 

control equipment or a process, then the bypass was unavoidable 

to prevent loss of life, personal injury or severe property 

damage.

(5) All possible steps were taken to minimize the impact of 

the excess emissions on ambient air quality, the environment and 

human health.

(6) All emissions monitoring and control systems were kept 

in operation if at all possible, consistent with safety and good 

air pollution control practices.

(7) All of the actions in response to the excess emissions 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 167 of 183

were documented by properly signed, contemporaneous operating 

logs. 

(8) At all times, the affected source was operated in a 

manner consistent with good practices for minimizing emissions.

(9) A written root cause analysis has been prepared, the 

purpose of which is to determine, correct, and eliminate the 

primary causes of the malfunction and the excess emissions 

resulting from the malfunction event at issue. The analysis shall 

also specify, using best monitoring methods and engineering 

judgment, the amount of excess emissions that were the result of 

the malfunction. 

(b) Notification. The owner or operator of the affected 

source experiencing an exceedance of its emissions limit(s) 

during a malfunction, shall notify the Administrator by telephone 

or facsimile transmission as soon as possible, but no later than 

two business days after the initial occurrence of the 

malfunction, it wishes to avail itself of an affirmative defense 

to civil penalties for that malfunction. The owner or operator 

seeking to assert an affirmative defense, shall also submit a 

written report to the Administrator within 45 days of the initial 

occurrence of the exceedance of the standard in this subpart to 

demonstrate, with all necessary supporting documentation, that it 

has met the requirements set forth in paragraph (a) of this 

section. The owner or operator may seek an extension of this 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 168 of 183

deadline for up to 30 additional days by submitting a written 

request to the Administrator before the expiration of the 45 day 

period. Until a request for an extension has been approved by the 

Administrator, the owner or operator is subject to the 

requirement to submit such report within 45 days of the initial 

occurrence of the exceedance. 

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

to Subpart X 

Reference Applies to 

subpart X

Comment

63.1 Yes

63.2 Yes

63.3 Yes

63.4 Yes

63.5 Yes

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

63.6(d) No Section reserved.

63.6(e)(1)(i) No See 63.543(k) for 

general duty 

requirement. 

63.6(e)(1)(ii) No

63.6(e)(1)(iii) Yes

63.6(e)(2) No Section reserved.

63.6(e)(3) No

63.6(f)(1) No

63.6(g) Yes

63.6(h) No No opacity limits in 

rule.

63.6(i) Yes

63.6(j) Yes

63.7(a)-(d) Yes

63.7(e)(1) No See 63.543(j)

63.7(e)(2)-(e)(4) Yes

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

63.8(a)-(b) Yes

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

general duty 

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

Release During Review***

Page 169 of 183

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. 

63.10(c)(12)-(c)(14) Yes

63.10(c)(15) No

63.10(d)(1)-(4) Yes

63.10(d)(5) No See 63.550(e)(11) for 

reporting of 

malfunctions.

63.10(e)-((f) Yes

63.11 No Flares will not be 

used to comply with 

the emission limits

63.12 to 63.15 Yes

Table 2 to Subpart X of Part 63-–Emissions Limits for Secondary 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 170 of 183

Lead Smelting Furnaces

For vents from these 

processes...

You must meet the following emissions 

limits...

1

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 ppmv 170 ng/dscm

Blast furnaces that 

commence 

construction or 

reconstruction 

before June 9, 1994

360 ppmv 170 ng/dscm

Blast furnaces that 

commence 

construction or 

reconstruction 

after June 9, 1994

70 ppmv 170 ng/dscm

Blast furnaces that 

commence 

construction or 

reconstruction after 

May 19, 2011

70 ppmv 10 ng/dscm

Reverberatory and 

electric furnace

12 ppmv 0.20 ng/dscm

Reverberatory and 

electric furnace 

that commence 

construction or 

reconstruction after 

12 ppmv 0.10 ng/dscm
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 171 of 183

May 19, 2011

1There are no standards for dioxins and furans during periods of 

startup and shutdown.

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

Dioxin/furan congener Toxic equivalency factor

2,3,7,8-tetrachlorinated dibenzop-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
Facility Emission Point Process Test Date Sample # Lead Concentration (mg/dscm) BDL Flag

Quemetco IN 1 Rotary Furnace, Reverb Furnace 4/7/2010 1 1.66E-02

Quemetco IN 1 Rotary Furnace, Reverb Furnace 4/7/2010 2 1.45E-02

Quemetco IN 1 Rotary Furnace, Reverb Furnace 4/7/2010 3 1.26E-02

Quemetco IN 1 Rotary Furnace, Reverb Furnace 8/10/2010 1 9.11E-03

Quemetco IN 1 Rotary Furnace, Reverb Furnace 8/10/2010 2 8.42E-03

Quemetco IN 1 Rotary Furnace, Reverb Furnace 8/10/2010 1 3.03E-03

Quemetco IN 1 Rotary Furnace, Reverb Furnace 8/11/2010 3 4.34E-03

Quemetco IN 1 Rotary Furnace, Reverb Furnace 8/11/2010 2 3.54E-03

Quemetco IN 1 Rotary Furnace, Reverb Furnace 8/12/2010 3 5.01E-03

Quemetco IN 2 Rotary Dryer, Kettles 4/6/2010 1 5.45E-02

Quemetco IN 2 Rotary Dryer, Kettles 4/6/2010 2 8.01E-03

Quemetco IN 2 Rotary Dryer, Kettles 4/6/2010 3 7.80E-02

Quemetco IN 2 Rotary Dryer, Kettles 8/11/2010 1 1.33E-02

Quemetco IN 2 Rotary Dryer, Kettles 8/12/2010 2 3.21E-02

Quemetco IN 2 Rotary Dryer, Kettles 8/12/2010 3 2.15E-02

Quemetco IN 3 Busch Unit 1 10/21/1997 1 9.64E-02

Quemetco IN 3 Busch Unit 1 10/21/1997 2 6.85E-02

Quemetco IN 3 Busch Unit 1 10/21/1997 3 4.89E-02

Quemetco IN 4 Busch Unit 2 10/22/1997 1 5.32E-02

Quemetco IN 4 Busch Unit 2 10/22/1997 2 3.02E-02

Quemetco IN 4 Busch Unit 2 10/22/1997 3 1.81E-02

Quemetco IN 5 Busch Unit 3 10/22/1997 1 1.33E-02

Quemetco IN 5 Busch Unit 3 10/22/1997 2 1.20E-02

Quemetco IN 5 Busch Unit 3 10/22/1997 3 7.80E-03

Quemetco IN 6 Busch Unit 4 10/21/1997 1 6.16E-02

Quemetco IN 6 Busch Unit 4 10/21/1997 2 1.99E-02

Quemetco IN 6 Busch Unit 4 10/21/1997 3 1.35E-02

Quemetco IN 7 Busch Unit 5 10/23/1997 1 3.70E-02

Quemetco IN 7 Busch Unit 5 10/23/1997 2 2.14E-02

Quemetco IN 7 Busch Unit 5 10/23/1997 3 9.70E-03

Quemetco IN 8 Busch Unit 6 4/15/2009 1 6.43E-02

Quemetco IN 8 Busch Unit 6 4/15/2009 2 2.38E-02

Quemetco IN 8 Busch Unit 6 4/15/2009 3 4.46E-02

Quemetco IN 9 Busch Unit 7 4/14/2009 1 2.23E-02

Quemetco IN 9 Busch Unit 7 4/14/2009 2 2.19E-02

Quemetco IN 9 Busch Unit 7 4/14/2009 3 4.81E-02

Quemetco IN 10 Busch Unit 8 4/14/2009 1 3.73E-01

Quemetco IN 10 Busch Unit 8 4/14/2009 2 2.52E-02

Quemetco IN 10 Busch Unit 8 4/14/2009 3 2.11E-02

Quemetco IN 11 Busch Unit 9 4/14/2009 1 1.90E-02

Quemetco IN 11 Busch Unit 9 4/14/2009 2 3.18E-02

Quemetco IN 11 Busch Unit 9 4/14/2009 3 1.93E-02

Exide Forest City EP01 Main Stack 12/11/2008 1 1.60E-01

Exide Forest City EP01 Main Stack 12/11/2008 2 1.23E-01

Exide Forest City EP01 Main Stack 12/11/2008 3 4.90E-02

Exide Forest City EP01 Main Stack 10/5/2010 1 1.19E-01

Exide Forest City EP01 Main Stack 10/5/2010 2 1.33E-01

Exide Forest City EP01 Main Stack 10/5/2010 3 8.39E-02

Exide Vernon C38 Refining Area Ventilaiton 8/18/2009 1 5.40E-02

Exide Vernon C39 Smelting Area Ventilation 2/3/2010 1 9.61E-03

Exide Vernon S139 Reverb & Blast Exhaust 9/8/2010 1 2.77E-03

Exide Vernon S139 Reverb & Blast Exhaust 9/9/2010 2 2.86E-03

Exide Vernon S139 Reverb & Blast Exhaust 9/10/2010 3 2.11E-03

Exide Vernon S140 Blast Furnace Lead and Slag Tap, Kettles 8/20/2009 1 1.86E-02

Exide Vernon S141 Reverb Charging, Kettles 8/21/2009 1 1.94E-02

Exide Vernon S142 Raw Materials Storage Building 8/19/2009 1 2.49E-02

Exide Vernon S145 Rotary Dryer 5/15/2008 1 1.13E-01

Exide Vernon S145 Rotary Dryer 9/14/2010 1 1.93E-01

Exide Vernon S145 Rotary Dryer 9/16/2010 2 2.85E-01

Exide Vernon S145 Rotary Dryer 9/17/2010 3 3.36E-01

Exide Vernon S158 MAC Baghouse 2/14/2008 1 1.71E-02

Exide Vernon S158 MAC Baghouse 2/17/2009 1 4.12E-03

Exide Vernon S166 Battery Breaker Scrubber 10/20/2008 1 5.39E-02

Quemetco CA 1 WESP 11/9/2008 1 3.74E-03

Quemetco CA 1 WESP 11/9/2008 2 1.31E-03

Quemetco CA 1 WESP 11/9/2008 3 3.50E-03

Quemetco CA 3 Busch Unit A 4/1/2009 1 6.00E-04

Quemetco CA 4 Busch Unit B 2/1/2010 1 7.04E-04

Page 1 of 8
Facility Emission Point Process Test Date Sample # Lead Concentration (mg/dscm) BDL Flag

Quemetco CA 5 Busch Unit C 2/1/2010 1 1.70E-03

Quemetco CA 6 Busch Unit D 5/1/2009 1 1.30E-03

Quemetco CA 6 Busch Unit D 8/31/2010 1 2.50E-03

Quemetco CA 6 Busch Unit D 9/1/2010 2 1.69E-03

Quemetco CA 6 Busch Unit D 9/2/2010 3 2.58E-03

Quemetco CA 7 Busch Unit E 2/1/2010 1 4.90E-04

Quemetco CA 8 Busch Unit F 4/1/2009 1 1.10E-03

Quemetco CA 9 Busch Unit G 8/31/2010 1 8.81E-04

Quemetco CA 9 Busch Unit G 9/1/2010 2 8.76E-04

Quemetco CA 9 Busch Unit G 9/2/2010 3 9.37E-04

Quemetco CA 10 Busch Unit H 2/1/2009 1 4.14E-04

Quemetco CA 11 Busch Unit I 4/1/2009 1 6.61E-04

RSR 1 Rotary Furnace, Rotary Dryer 8/17/2010 1 1.51E-01

RSR 1 Rotary Furnace, Rotary Dryer 8/18/2010 2 1.19E-01

RSR 1 Rotary Furnace, Rotary Dryer 5/17/2011 1 1.59E-01

RSR 1 Rotary Furnace, Rotary Dryer 5/18/2011 2 9.41E-03

RSR 1 Rotary Furnace, Rotary Dryer 5/19/2011 3 5.47E-03

RSR 2 Kettles 10/14/2009 1 6.41E-02

RSR 2 Kettles 10/14/2009 2 3.43E-02 1

RSR 2 Kettles 10/14/2009 3 3.43E-02 1

RSR 4 Busch Unit 10/15/2009 1 4.12E-02 1

RSR 4 Busch Unit 10/16/2009 2 3.89E-02 1

RSR 4 Busch Unit 10/16/2009 3 4.58E-02 1

RSR 7 Busch Unit 10/15/2009 1 4.35E-02 1

RSR 7 Busch Unit 10/16/2009 2 4.35E-02 1

RSR 7 Busch Unit 10/16/2009 3 4.35E-02 1

RSR 8 Busch Unit 10/14/2009 1 3.43E-02 1

RSR 8 Busch Unit 10/14/2009 2 3.43E-02 1

RSR 8 Busch Unit 10/14/2009 3 3.43E-02 1

RSR 9 Busch Unit 10/14/2009 1 3.89E-02 1

RSR 9 Busch Unit 10/14/2009 2 3.66E-02 1

RSR 9 Busch Unit 10/14/2009 3 3.66E-02 1

RSR 10 Busch Unit 10/14/2009 1 3.43E-02 1

RSR 10 Busch Unit 10/14/2009 2 3.43E-02 1

RSR 10 Busch Unit 10/14/2009 3 3.43E-02 1

RSR 11 Busch Unit 10/14/2009 1 2.97E-02 1

RSR 11 Busch Unit 10/14/2009 2 3.20E-02 1

RSR 11 Busch Unit 10/14/2009 3 3.43E-02 1

RSR 12 Busch Unit 10/23/2009 1 4.81E-02 1

RSR 12 Busch Unit 10/23/2009 2 5.03E-02 1

RSR 12 Busch Unit 10/23/2009 3 5.26E-02 1

RSR 14 Busch Unit 10/15/2009 1 3.66E-02 1

RSR 14 Busch Unit 10/15/2009 2 3.66E-02 1

RSR 14 Busch Unit 10/16/2009 3 3.66E-02 1

RSR 16 Busch Unit 10/21/2009 1 4.81E-02 1

RSR 16 Busch Unit 10/21/2009 2 5.03E-02 1

RSR 16 Busch Unit 10/21/2009 3 8.01E-02

RSR 17 Reverb Furnace 10/8/2009 1 1.30E-01

RSR 17 Reverb Furnace 10/8/2009 2 1.44E-01

RSR 17 Reverb Furnace 10/8/2009 3 8.70E-02

RSR 17 Reverb Furnace 8/17/2010 1 6.42E-02

RSR 17 Reverb Furnace 8/18/2010 2 1.84E-01

EnviroFocus SV001 Blast Furnace Exhaust 7/19/2006 1 7.94E-01

EnviroFocus SV001 Blast Furnace Exhaust 7/19/2006 2 5.42E-01

EnviroFocus SV001 Blast Furnace Exhaust 7/19/2006 3 6.66E-01

EnviroFocus SV001 Blast Furnace Exhaust 8/30/2007 1 1.22E+00

EnviroFocus SV001 Blast Furnace Exhaust 8/30/2007 2 1.12E+00

EnviroFocus SV001 Blast Furnace Exhaust 8/30/2007 3 1.22E+00

EnviroFocus SV001 Blast Furnace Exhaust 9/23/2008 1 8.38E-01

EnviroFocus SV001 Blast Furnace Exhaust 9/23/2008 2 7.48E-01

EnviroFocus SV001 Blast Furnace Exhaust 9/23/2008 3 6.48E-01

EnviroFocus SV004 Blast Furnace Charging and Tapping 7/18/2006 1 5.72E-02

EnviroFocus SV004 Blast Furnace Charging and Tapping 7/18/2006 2 4.12E-02

EnviroFocus SV004 Blast Furnace Charging and Tapping 7/18/2006 3 7.09E-02

EnviroFocus SV004 Blast Furnace Charging and Tapping 8/29/2007 1 3.66E-02

EnviroFocus SV004 Blast Furnace Charging and Tapping 8/29/2007 2 4.35E-02

EnviroFocus SV004 Blast Furnace Charging and Tapping 8/29/2007 3 5.26E-02

EnviroFocus SV004 Blast Furnace Charging and Tapping 9/22/2008 1 3.20E-02

Page 2 of 8
Facility Emission Point Process Test Date Sample # Lead Concentration (mg/dscm) BDL Flag

EnviroFocus SV004 Blast Furnace Charging and Tapping 9/22/2008 2 4.58E-02

EnviroFocus SV004 Blast Furnace Charging and Tapping 9/22/2008 3 5.03E-02

EnviroFocus SV011 Refining and Casting 7/17/2006 1 2.97E-02

EnviroFocus SV011 Refining and Casting 7/17/2006 2 2.29E-02

EnviroFocus SV011 Refining and Casting 7/17/2006 3 1.60E-02

EnviroFocus SV011 Refining and Casting 8/28/2007 1 3.66E-02

EnviroFocus SV011 Refining and Casting 8/28/2007 2 1.14E-02

EnviroFocus SV011 Refining and Casting 8/28/2007 3 9.15E-03

EnviroFocus SV011 Refining and Casting 9/9/2008 1 3.07E-01

EnviroFocus SV011 Refining and Casting 9/9/2008 2 2.06E-02

EnviroFocus SV011 Refining and Casting 9/9/2008 3 1.30E+00

EnviroFocus SV011 Refining and Casting 4/22/2009 1 3.91E-02

EnviroFocus SV011 Refining and Casting 4/22/2009 2 2.70E-02

EnviroFocus SV011 Refining and Casting 4/22/2009 3 8.92E-03

EnviroFocus SV015 Ventilation Torit 2/9/2009 1 7.78E-03

EnviroFocus SV015 Ventilation Torit 2/9/2009 2 1.03E-02

EnviroFocus SV015 Ventilation Torit 2/9/2009 3 6.87E-03

EnviroFocus SV015 Ventilation Torit 1/11/2010 1 7.32E-02

EnviroFocus SV015 Ventilation Torit 1/11/2010 2 5.03E-02

EnviroFocus SV015 Ventilation Torit 1/11/2010 3 2.29E-02

TBR EP1 Main Stack 8/8/2007 1 2.76E-01

TBR EP1 Main Stack 8/8/2007 2 3.48E-01

TBR EP1 Main Stack 8/8/2007 3 3.40E-01

TBR EP1 Main Stack 12/3/2007 1 1.65E-01

TBR EP1 Main Stack 12/3/2007 2 1.33E-01

TBR EP1 Main Stack 12/3/2007 3 1.05E-01

TBR EP1 Main Stack 12/3/2007 1 1.53E-01

TBR EP1 Main Stack 12/3/2007 2 1.92E-01

TBR EP1 Main Stack 12/3/2007 3 1.81E-01

TBR EP1 Main Stack 2/17/2010 1 5.72E-02

TBR EP1 Main Stack 2/17/2010 2 2.52E-02

TBR EP1 Main Stack 2/17/2010 3 8.01E-02

TBR EP1 Main Stack 6/29/2010 1 2.29E-02

TBR EP1 Main Stack 6/29/2010 2 1.37E-01

TBR EP1 Main Stack 6/29/2010 3 2.29E-02

Exide Baton Rouge 93-1a Blast Furnace Exhaust 3/5/2009 1 1.15E+00

Exide Baton Rouge 93-1a Blast Furnace Exhaust 3/5/2009 2 1.06E+00

Exide Baton Rouge 93-1a Blast Furnace Exhaust 3/5/2009 3 1.56E+00

Exide Baton Rouge 93-2a Reverb Furnace 1/6/2006 1 8.82E-01

Exide Baton Rouge 93-2a Reverb Furnace 1/6/2006 2 2.41E-01

Exide Baton Rouge 93-2a Reverb Furnace 1/6/2006 3 2.09E-01

Exide Baton Rouge 93-2a Reverb Furnace 4/16/2008 1 5.72E-01

Exide Baton Rouge 93-2a Reverb Furnace 4/16/2008 2 7.78E-01

Exide Baton Rouge 93-2a Reverb Furnace 4/16/2008 3 2.52E-01

Exide Baton Rouge 93-3 Blast Furnace Charging and Tapping 12/3/2007 1 1.49E-01

Exide Baton Rouge 93-3 Blast Furnace Charging and Tapping 12/3/2007 2 5.76E-01

Exide Baton Rouge 93-3 Blast Furnace Charging and Tapping 12/3/2007 3 7.94E-01

Exide Baton Rouge 97-1 Reverb Charging and Tapping, Kettles 2/17/2005 1 1.64E-01

Exide Baton Rouge 97-1 Reverb Charging and Tapping, Kettles 2/17/2005 2 3.10E-02

Exide Baton Rouge 97-1 Reverb Charging and Tapping, Kettles 2/17/2005 3 4.10E-02

Exide Frisco EPN18 Kettles 10/24/2007 1 9.00E-02

Exide Frisco EPN18 Kettles 10/24/2007 2 1.50E-01

Exide Frisco EPN18 Kettles 10/24/2007 3 2.50E-01

Exide Frisco EPN18 Kettles 10/27/2009 1 5.30E-01

Exide Frisco EPN18 Kettles 10/27/2009 2 3.10E-01

Exide Frisco EPN18 Kettles 10/27/2009 3 2.40E-01

Exide Frisco EPN21 Feed Dryer, Kettles 10/22/2007 1 9.40E-01

Exide Frisco EPN21 Feed Dryer, Kettles 10/22/2007 2 1.01E+00

Exide Frisco EPN21 Feed Dryer, Kettles 10/26/2009 1 1.50E-01

Exide Frisco EPN21 Feed Dryer, Kettles 10/26/2009 2 2.30E-01

Exide Frisco EPN21 Feed Dryer, Kettles 10/26/2009 3 2.10E-01

Exide Frisco EPN22 Kettles 10/26/2007 1 7.00E-02

Exide Frisco EPN22 Kettles 10/26/2007 2 8.00E-02

Exide Frisco EPN22 Kettles 10/26/2007 3 7.00E-02

Exide Frisco EPN22 Kettles 10/28/2009 1 2.90E-01

Exide Frisco EPN22 Kettles 10/28/2009 2 4.00E-02

Exide Frisco EPN22 Kettles 10/28/2009 3 1.00E-02

Exide Frisco EPN23 Refining Building 10/24/2003 1 1.60E-01

Page 3 of 8
Facility Emission Point Process Test Date Sample # Lead Concentration (mg/dscm) BDL Flag

Exide Frisco EPN23 Refining Building 10/24/2003 2 1.32E-01 1

Exide Frisco EPN23 Refining Building 10/24/2003 3 2.04E-01 1

Exide Frisco EPN37 Furnace Fugitives 10/25/2007 1 1.60E-01

Exide Frisco EPN37 Furnace Fugitives 10/25/2007 2 1.10E-01

Exide Frisco EPN37 Furnace Fugitives 10/25/2007 3 1.20E-01

Exide Frisco EPN37 Furnace Fugitives 10/28/2009 1 3.00E-02

Exide Frisco EPN37 Furnace Fugitives 10/28/2009 2 0.00E+00

Exide Frisco EPN37 Furnace Fugitives 10/28/2009 3 3.00E-02

Exide Frisco EPN38 Reverb & Blast Exhaust 6/14/2007 1 2.20E-01

Exide Frisco EPN38 Reverb & Blast Exhaust 6/14/2007 2 1.70E-01

Exide Frisco EPN38 Reverb & Blast Exhaust 6/14/2007 3 5.80E-01

Exide Frisco EPN38 Reverb & Blast Exhaust 6/24/2009 1 2.10E-01

Exide Frisco EPN38 Reverb & Blast Exhaust 6/24/2009 2 1.30E-01

Exide Frisco EPN38 Reverb & Blast Exhaust 6/24/2009 3 4.00E-01

Exide Frisco EPN45 Raw Materials Storage Building 10/23/2007 1 1.30E-01

Exide Frisco EPN45 Raw Materials Storage Building 10/23/2007 2 1.20E-01

Exide Frisco EPN45 Raw Materials Storage Building 10/23/2007 3 7.00E-02

Exide Frisco EPN45 Raw Materials Storage Building 10/29/2009 1 1.60E-01

Exide Frisco EPN45 Raw Materials Storage Building 10/29/2009 2 1.30E-01

Exide Frisco EPN45 Raw Materials Storage Building 10/29/2009 3 2.40E-01

Exide Reading C11 Reverb & Blast Charging and Tapping 12/15/2006 1 7.09E-02

Exide Reading C11 Reverb & Blast Charging and Tapping 12/15/2006 2 7.89E-01

Exide Reading C11 Reverb & Blast Charging and Tapping 12/15/2006 3 9.61E-02

Exide Reading C11 Reverb & Blast Charging and Tapping 9/26/2007 1 1.03E+00

Exide Reading C11 Reverb & Blast Charging and Tapping 9/26/2007 2 1.83E-01

Exide Reading C11 Reverb & Blast Charging and Tapping 9/26/2007 3 1.14E-01

Exide Reading C11 Reverb & Blast Charging and Tapping 8/27/2009 1 2.29E-01

Exide Reading C11 Reverb & Blast Charging and Tapping 8/27/2009 2 1.37E-01

Exide Reading C11 Reverb & Blast Charging and Tapping 8/27/2009 3 1.14E-01

Exide Reading C13 Battery Breaker Scrubber 9/28/2007 1 6.87E-02

Exide Reading C13 Battery Breaker Scrubber 9/28/2007 2 9.15E-02

Exide Reading C13 Battery Breaker Scrubber 9/28/2007 3 6.87E-02

Exide Reading C13 Battery Breaker Scrubber 8/17/2009 1 1.14E-01

Exide Reading C13 Battery Breaker Scrubber 8/17/2009 2 9.15E-02

Exide Reading C13 Battery Breaker Scrubber 8/17/2009 3 6.87E-02

Exide Reading C19 Reverb & Blast Charging and Tapping 11/6/2007 1 4.12E-02

Exide Reading C19 Reverb & Blast Charging and Tapping 11/6/2007 2 3.66E-02

Exide Reading C19 Reverb & Blast Charging and Tapping 11/6/2007 3 3.43E-02

Exide Reading C19 Reverb & Blast Charging and Tapping 8/25/2009 1 1.60E-01

Exide Reading C19 Reverb & Blast Charging and Tapping 8/25/2009 2 2.29E-01

Exide Reading C19 Reverb & Blast Charging and Tapping 8/25/2009 3 2.52E-01

Exide Reading C19 Reverb & Blast Charging and Tapping 4/1/2010 1 2.06E-01

Exide Reading C19 Reverb & Blast Charging and Tapping 4/1/2010 2 1.83E-01

Exide Reading C19 Reverb & Blast Charging and Tapping 4/1/2010 3 1.83E-01

Exide Reading C22 Raw Materials Storage Building 12/27/2007 1 1.05E+00

Exide Reading C22 Raw Materials Storage Building 12/27/2007 2 6.36E-01

Exide Reading C22 Raw Materials Storage Building 12/27/2007 3 1.09E+00

Exide Reading C22 Raw Materials Storage Building 8/19/2009 1 6.87E-02

Exide Reading C22 Raw Materials Storage Building 8/19/2009 2 1.01E+00

Exide Reading C22 Raw Materials Storage Building 8/19/2009 3 1.14E-01

Exide Reading C23 Raw Materials Storage Building 9/24/2007 1 1.37E-01

Exide Reading C23 Raw Materials Storage Building 9/24/2007 2 9.15E-02

Exide Reading C23 Raw Materials Storage Building 9/24/2007 3 9.15E-02

Exide Reading C23 Raw Materials Storage Building 8/19/2009 1 4.35E-02

Exide Reading C23 Raw Materials Storage Building 8/19/2009 2 3.89E-02

Exide Reading C23 Raw Materials Storage Building 8/19/2009 3 3.89E-02

Exide Reading C28 Furnace Fugitives 11/7/2007 1 7.55E-02

Exide Reading C28 Furnace Fugitives 11/7/2007 2 8.01E-02

Exide Reading C28 Furnace Fugitives 11/7/2007 3 6.87E-02

Exide Reading C28 Furnace Fugitives 8/24/2009 1 1.37E-01

Exide Reading C28 Furnace Fugitives 8/24/2009 2 1.14E-01

Exide Reading C28 Furnace Fugitives 8/24/2009 3 9.15E-02

Exide Reading C28 Furnace Fugitives 6/4/2010 1 2.29E-01

Exide Reading C28 Furnace Fugitives 6/4/2010 2 6.87E-02

Exide Reading C28 Furnace Fugitives 6/4/2010 3 6.87E-02

Exide Reading C47 Refining and Casting 9/27/2007 1 6.87E-02

Exide Reading C47 Refining and Casting 9/27/2007 2 9.15E-02

Exide Reading C47 Refining and Casting 9/27/2007 3 6.87E-02

Page 4 of 8
Facility Emission Point Process Test Date Sample # Lead Concentration (mg/dscm) BDL Flag

Exide Reading C47 Refining and Casting 8/21/2009 1 4.58E-02

Exide Reading C47 Refining and Casting 8/21/2009 2 9.15E-02

Exide Reading C47 Refining and Casting 8/21/2009 3 1.14E-01

Exide Reading C55 Blast and Reverb Exhaust 11/5/2007 1 3.43E-02

Exide Reading C55 Blast and Reverb Exhaust 11/5/2007 2 3.43E-02

Exide Reading C55 Blast and Reverb Exhaust 11/5/2007 3 4.12E-02

Exide Reading C55 Blast and Reverb Exhaust 8/18/2009 1 1.37E-01

Exide Reading C55 Blast and Reverb Exhaust 8/18/2009 2 9.15E-02

Exide Reading C55 Blast and Reverb Exhaust 8/18/2009 3 6.87E-02

Exide Reading C58 Raw Materials Storage Building 12/10/2007 1 8.70E-02

Exide Reading C58 Raw Materials Storage Building 12/10/2007 2 5.03E-02

Exide Reading C58 Raw Materials Storage Building 12/10/2007 3 4.12E-02

Exide Reading C58 Raw Materials Storage Building 8/20/2009 1 3.89E-02

Exide Reading C58 Raw Materials Storage Building 8/20/2009 2 4.81E-02

Exide Reading C58 Raw Materials Storage Building 8/20/2009 3 3.66E-02

Sanders 1 Blast Furnaces 1&2, Agglomeration Furnace 2/7/2006 1 2.79E-01

Sanders 1 Blast Furnaces 1&2, Agglomeration Furnace 2/7/2006 2 5.55E-01

Sanders 1 Blast Furnaces 1&2, Agglomeration Furnace 2/7/2006 3 2.65E-01

Sanders 1 BF 1&2, Agg. Furnace 2/19/2008 1 1.32E+00

Sanders 1 BF 1&2, Agg. Furnace 2/19/2008 2 1.60E+00

Sanders 1 BF 1&2, Agg. Furnace 2/19/2008 3 1.32E+00

Sanders 1 BF 1&2, Agg. Furnace 2/24/2009 1 1.11E-01

Sanders 1 BF 1&2, Agg. Furnace 2/24/2009 2 5.33E-02

Sanders 1 BF 1&2, Agg. Furnace 2/24/2009 3 6.76E-02

Sanders 4 BF 1&2 Charging and Tapping, Alloying 10/23/2007 1 2.84E-01

Sanders 4 BF 1&2 Charging and Tapping, Alloying 10/23/2007 2 3.41E+00

Sanders 4 BF 1&2 Charging and Tapping, Alloying 10/23/2007 3 9.30E-02

Sanders 4 BF 1&2 Charging and Tapping, Alloying 10/29/2008 1 3.40E-01

Sanders 4 BF 1&2 Charging and Tapping, Alloying 10/29/2008 2 1.68E+00

Sanders 4 BF 1&2 Charging and Tapping, Alloying 10/29/2008 3 1.42E-01

Sanders 4 BF 1&2 Charging and Tapping, Alloying 5/28/2009 1 2.35E-01

Sanders 4 BF 1&2 Charging and Tapping, Alloying 5/28/2009 2 1.70E-01

Sanders 4 BF 1&2 Charging and Tapping, Alloying 5/28/2009 3 1.71E-01

Sanders 5 Blast Furnaces 3&4, Alloying Operations 2/7/2006 1 6.96E-01

Sanders 5 Blast Furnaces 3&4, Alloying Operations 2/7/2006 2 7.10E-01

Sanders 5 Blast Furnaces 3&4, Alloying Operations 2/7/2006 3 3.95E-01

Sanders 5 Blast Furnaces 3&4, Alloying Operations 2/19/2008 1 2.84E+00

Sanders 5 Blast Furnaces 3&4, Alloying Operations 2/19/2008 2 2.63E+00

Sanders 5 Blast Furnaces 3&4, Alloying Operations 2/19/2008 3 2.35E+00

Sanders 5 Blast Furnaces 3&4, Alloying Operations 4/15/2008 1 5.72E-01

Sanders 5 Blast Furnaces 3&4, Alloying Operations 4/15/2008 2 3.39E-01

Sanders 5 Blast Furnaces 3&4, Alloying Operations 4/15/2008 3 1.90E-01

Sanders 5 Blast Furnaces 3&4, Alloying Operations 4/6/2010 1 2.65E-01

Sanders 5 Blast Furnaces 3&4, Alloying Operations 4/6/2010 2 1.23E-01

Sanders 5 Blast Furnaces 3&4, Alloying Operations 4/6/2010 3 1.75E-01

Sanders 5 Blast Furnaces 3&4, Alloying Operations 8/10/2010 1 3.32E-02

Sanders 5 Blast Furnaces 3&4, Alloying Operations 8/10/2010 2 2.55E-02

Sanders 5 Blast Furnaces 3&4, Alloying Operations 8/10/2010 3 2.38E-02

Sanders 10 Slag Treatment 10/17/2006 1 1.36E-01

Sanders 10 Slag Treatment 10/17/2006 2 5.47E-02

Sanders 10 Slag Treatment 10/17/2006 3 7.44E-02

Sanders 10 Slag Treatment 10/28/2008 1 4.64E-01

Sanders 10 Slag Treatment 10/28/2008 2 8.70E-02

Sanders 10 Slag Treatment 10/28/2008 3 7.34E-02

Sanders 10 Slag Treatment 8/12/2010 1 1.35E-02

Sanders 10 Slag Treatment 8/12/2010 2 4.69E-02

Sanders 10 Slag Treatment 8/12/2010 3 1.06E-02

Sanders 4a BF 3&4 Charging and Tapping 5/27/2009 1 1.59E-01

Sanders 4a BF 3&4 Charging and Tapping 5/27/2009 2 1.52E-01

Sanders 4a BF 3&4 Charging and Tapping 5/27/2009 3 1.04E-01

Sanders 4a BF 3&4 Charging and Tapping 8/12/2010 1 1.63E-01

Sanders 4a BF 3&4 Charging and Tapping 8/12/2010 2 3.54E-02

Sanders 4a BF 3&4 Charging and Tapping 8/12/2010 3 5.18E-02

Doe Run EP08 Main Stack 5/23/2006 1 2.97E-01

Doe Run EP08 Main Stack 5/23/2006 2 8.01E-01

Doe Run EP08 Main Stack 5/23/2006 3 9.15E-02

Doe Run EP08 Main Stack 8/16/2007 1 5.42E-01

Doe Run EP08 Main Stack 8/16/2007 2 5.42E-01

Page 5 of 8
Facility Emission Point Process Test Date Sample # Lead Concentration (mg/dscm) BDL Flag

Doe Run EP08 Main Stack 8/16/2007 3 3.80E-01

Doe Run EP08 Main Stack 5/20/2009 1 3.23E-01

Doe Run EP08 Main Stack 5/20/2009 2 5.42E-01

Doe Run EP08 Main Stack 5/20/2009 3 2.59E-01

Doe Run EP08 Main Stack 8/19/2010 1 1.01E+00

Doe Run EP08 Main Stack 8/19/2010 2 1.33E+00

Doe Run EP08 Main Stack 8/19/2010 3 1.24E+00

Doe Run EP16 Battery Breaker Scrubber 8/16/2010 1 4.27E-01

Doe Run EP16 Battery Breaker Scrubber 8/16/2010 2 7.93E-01

Doe Run EP16 Battery Breaker Scrubber 8/16/2010 3 3.76E-01

Doe Run EP31A Drum Shredder Feed Hopper 8/30/2005 1 4.03E-01

Doe Run EP31A Drum Shredder Feed Hopper 8/30/2005 2 2.11E-01

Doe Run EP31A Drum Shredder Feed Hopper 8/30/2005 3 2.47E-01

Doe Run EP31B Drum Shredder Building Hygiene 8/10/2005 1 3.32E-01

Doe Run EP31B Drum Shredder Building Hygiene 8/10/2005 2 2.18E-01

Doe Run EP31B Drum Shredder Building Hygiene 8/10/2005 3 2.27E-01

Doe Run EP31C Drum Shredder 8/23/2005 1 1.38E+00

Doe Run EP31C Drum Shredder 8/23/2005 2 1.87E+00

Doe Run EP31C Drum Shredder 8/23/2005 3 1.95E+00

Doe Run EP71 Reverb Slag Tap Fugitives 7/22/2009 1 7.09E-01

Doe Run EP71 Reverb Slag Tap Fugitives 7/22/2009 2 9.38E-01

Doe Run EP71 Reverb Slag Tap Fugitives 7/22/2009 3 7.09E-01

Doe Run EP71 Reverb Slag Tap Fugitives 8/16/2010 1 2.00E-01

Doe Run EP71 Reverb Slag Tap Fugitives 8/16/2010 2 3.61E-01

Doe Run EP71 Reverb Slag Tap Fugitives 8/16/2010 3 2.13E-01

Doe Run EP72 Kettles 8/17/2010 1 1.31E-01

Doe Run EP72 Kettles 8/17/2010 2 5.97E-02

Doe Run EP72 Kettles 8/17/2010 3 3.97E-02

Doe Run EP73 Sweat Furnace Fugitives 12/22/2005 1 2.38E+00

Doe Run EP73 Sweat Furnace Fugitives 12/22/2005 2 7.76E-01

Doe Run EP73 Sweat Furnace Fugitives 12/22/2005 3 6.61E-01

Doe Run EP81 Kettls 8/17/2010 1 6.23E-02

Doe Run EP81 Kettls 8/17/2010 2 7.96E-02

Doe Run EP81 Kettls 8/17/2010 3 2.59E-02

East Penn S01 Reverb & Blast Exhaust 6/6/2006 1 2.52E-02

East Penn S01 Reverb & Blast Exhaust 6/6/2006 2 1.83E-02

East Penn S01 Reverb & Blast Exhaust 6/6/2006 3 2.06E-02

East Penn S01 Reverb & Blast Exhaust 6/5/2008 1 4.35E-02

East Penn S01 Reverb & Blast Exhaust 6/5/2008 2 4.35E-02

East Penn S01 Reverb & Blast Exhaust 6/5/2008 3 4.35E-02

East Penn S01 Reverb & Blast Exhaust 8/11/2010 1 2.03E-03

East Penn S01 Reverb & Blast Exhaust 8/12/2010 2 4.56E-03

East Penn S01 Reverb & Blast Exhaust 8/13/2010 3 2.84E-03

East Penn S02 Blast Furnace Charging 6/5/2006 1 2.97E-02

East Penn S02 Blast Furnace Charging 6/5/2006 2 2.29E-02

East Penn S02 Blast Furnace Charging 6/5/2006 3 1.83E-02

East Penn S02 Blast Furnace Charging 6/9/2008 1 4.12E-02

East Penn S02 Blast Furnace Charging 6/9/2008 2 4.35E-02

East Penn S02 Blast Furnace Charging 6/9/2008 3 4.35E-02

East Penn S02 Blast Furnace Charging 8/17/2010 1 8.49E-04

East Penn S02 Blast Furnace Charging 8/17/2010 2 1.02E-03

East Penn S02 Blast Furnace Charging 8/17/2010 3 1.47E-03

East Penn S10 Refining and Casting 6/6/2006 1 1.14E-02

East Penn S10 Refining and Casting 6/6/2006 2 2.29E-03

East Penn S10 Refining and Casting 6/6/2006 3 4.58E-03

East Penn S10 Refining and Casting 6/4/2008 1 7.09E-02

East Penn S10 Refining and Casting 6/4/2008 2 1.83E-01

East Penn S10 Refining and Casting 6/4/2008 3 1.08E-01

East Penn S202 Rotary Scrap Dryer 6/7/2006 1 2.77E-01

East Penn S202 Rotary Scrap Dryer 6/7/2006 2 2.77E-01

East Penn S202 Rotary Scrap Dryer 6/7/2006 3 2.06E-01

East Penn S202 Rotary Scrap Dryer 8/28/2008 1 3.78E-01

East Penn S202 Rotary Scrap Dryer 8/28/2008 2 5.95E-01

East Penn S202 Rotary Scrap Dryer 8/28/2008 3 3.07E-01

East Penn S03 Material Building Storage Fugitive 6/5/2006 1 6.87E-03

East Penn S03 Material Building Storage Fugitive 6/5/2006 2 1.14E-02

East Penn S03 Material Building Storage Fugitive 6/5/2006 3 1.14E-02

East Penn S03 Material Building Storage Fugitive 6/2/2008 1 3.66E-02

Page 6 of 8
Facility Emission Point Process Test Date Sample # Lead Concentration (mg/dscm) BDL Flag

East Penn S03 Material Building Storage Fugitive 6/2/2008 2 3.66E-02

East Penn S03 Material Building Storage Fugitive 6/2/2008 3 3.89E-02

East Penn S03 Material Building Storage Fugitive 8/3/2010 1 1.93E-03

East Penn S03 Material Building Storage Fugitive 8/3/2010 2 5.48E-03

East Penn S03 Material Building Storage Fugitive 8/3/2010 3 2.04E-03

East Penn S21 Slag Storage Building Fugitives 8/5/2010 1 1.31E-03

East Penn S21 Slag Storage Building Fugitives 8/5/2010 2 1.45E-03

East Penn S21 Slag Storage Building Fugitives 8/5/2010 3 1.87E-03

East Penn S39 Reverb Slag Tap, Kettles 6/7/2006 1 1.37E-02

East Penn S39 Reverb Slag Tap, Kettles 6/7/2006 2 9.15E-03

East Penn S39 Reverb Slag Tap, Kettles 6/7/2006 3 9.15E-03

East Penn S39 Reverb Slag Tap, Kettles 6/6/2008 1 9.15E-02

East Penn S39 Reverb Slag Tap, Kettles 6/6/2008 2 4.58E-02

East Penn S39 Reverb Slag Tap, Kettles 6/6/2008 3 4.12E-02

Exide Muncie BH-BR Bin Room 8/8/2007 1 8.24E-02

Exide Muncie BH-BR Bin Room 8/8/2007 2 8.24E-02

Exide Muncie BH-BR Bin Room 8/8/2007 3 7.55E-02

Exide Muncie BH-BR Bin Room 10/28/2008 1 2.29E-04

Exide Muncie BH-BR Bin Room 10/29/2008 2 2.29E-04

Exide Muncie BH-BR Bin Room 10/29/2008 3 3.20E-03

Exide Muncie BH-R Refining and Casting 8/28/2007 1 1.30E-01

Exide Muncie BH-R Refining and Casting 8/28/2007 2 1.19E-01

Exide Muncie BH-R Refining and Casting 8/28/2007 3 9.84E-02

Exide Muncie BH-R Refining and Casting 8/25/2009 1 2.06E-02

Exide Muncie BH-R Refining and Casting 8/25/2009 2 1.37E-02

Exide Muncie BH-R Refining and Casting 8/25/2009 3 1.14E-02

Exide Muncie BH-RD Rotary Dryer 7/5/2006 1 2.97E-02

Exide Muncie BH-RD Rotary Dryer 7/5/2006 2 2.29E-02

Exide Muncie BH-RD Rotary Dryer 7/5/2006 3 2.52E-02

Exide Muncie BH-RD Rotary Dryer 6/26/2008 1 1.30E-02

Exide Muncie BH-RD Rotary Dryer 6/26/2008 2 4.26E-02

Exide Muncie BH-RD Rotary Dryer 6/26/2008 3 1.95E-02

Exide Muncie BH-V Blast & Reverb Charging 9/6/2006 1 8.24E-03

Exide Muncie BH-V Blast & Reverb Charging 9/6/2006 2 2.01E-02

Exide Muncie BH-V Blast & Reverb Charging 9/6/2006 3 2.13E-02

Exide Muncie BH-V Blast & Reverb Charging 8/19/2008 1 5.49E-03

Exide Muncie BH-V Blast & Reverb Charging 8/19/2008 2 7.32E-03

Exide Muncie BH-V Blast & Reverb Charging 8/19/2008 3 6.41E-03

Exide Muncie SCR-N Reverb & Blast Exhaust 7/19/2007 1 7.09E-02

Exide Muncie SCR-N Reverb & Blast Exhaust 7/19/2007 2 7.55E-02

Exide Muncie SCR-N Reverb & Blast Exhaust 7/19/2007 3 6.18E-02

Exide Muncie SCR-N Reverb & Blast Exhaust 8/26/2009 1 1.37E-02

Exide Muncie SCR-N Reverb & Blast Exhaust 8/26/2009 2 1.14E-02

Exide Muncie SCR-N Reverb & Blast Exhaust 8/26/2009 3 9.15E-03

Exide Muncie SCR-S Reverb & Blast Exhaust 7/20/2007 1 5.95E-02

Exide Muncie SCR-S Reverb & Blast Exhaust 7/20/2007 2 2.97E-02

Exide Muncie SCR-S Reverb & Blast Exhaust 7/20/2007 3 6.41E-02

Exide Muncie SCR-S Reverb & Blast Exhaust 8/26/2009 1 1.60E-02

Exide Muncie SCR-S Reverb & Blast Exhaust 8/26/2009 2 1.60E-02

Exide Muncie SCR-S Reverb & Blast Exhaust 8/26/2009 3 1.60E-02

Exide Muncie SCR-V Battery Breaker Scrubber 10/4/2006 1 8.01E-02

Exide Muncie SCR-V Battery Breaker Scrubber 10/4/2006 2 2.01E-01

Exide Muncie SCR-V Battery Breaker Scrubber 10/4/2006 3 1.77E-01

Exide Muncie SCR-V Battery Breaker Scrubber 8/22/2008 1 1.98E-01

Exide Muncie SCR-V Battery Breaker Scrubber 8/22/2008 2 2.87E-01

Exide Muncie SCR-V Battery Breaker Scrubber 8/22/2008 3 2.00E-01

Gopher Eagan SV001 Battery Breaker Scrubber 8/3/2010 1 1.66E-01

Gopher Eagan SV001 Battery Breaker Scrubber 8/3/2010 2 1.68E-01

Gopher Eagan SV001 Battery Breaker Scrubber 8/3/2010 3 2.34E-01

Gopher Eagan SV002 Ventilation Torit 6/27/2006 1 1.70E-02

Gopher Eagan SV002 Ventilation Torit 6/27/2006 2 8.00E-03

Gopher Eagan SV002 Ventilation Torit 6/27/2006 3 1.70E-02

Gopher Eagan SV002 Ventilation Torit 9/11/2007 1 1.30E-02

Gopher Eagan SV002 Ventilation Torit 9/11/2007 2 2.10E-02

Gopher Eagan SV002 Ventilation Torit 9/11/2007 3 2.50E-02

Gopher Eagan SV002 Ventilation Torit 9/17/2008 1 9.80E-02

Gopher Eagan SV002 Ventilation Torit 9/17/2008 2 2.80E-02

Gopher Eagan SV002 Ventilation Torit 9/17/2008 3 2.60E-02

Page 7 of 8
Facility Emission Point Process Test Date Sample # Lead Concentration (mg/dscm) BDL Flag

Gopher Eagan SV002 Ventilation Torit 9/22/2009 1 5.00E-02

Gopher Eagan SV002 Ventilation Torit 9/22/2009 2 4.30E-02

Gopher Eagan SV002 Ventilation Torit 9/22/2009 3 2.40E-02

Gopher Eagan SV002 Ventilation Torit 8/3/2010 1 1.86E-02

Gopher Eagan SV002 Ventilation Torit 8/3/2010 2 1.74E-02

Gopher Eagan SV002 Ventilation Torit 8/3/2010 3 1.59E-02

Gopher Eagan SV003 Main Stack 6/27/2006 1 1.20E-01

Gopher Eagan SV003 Main Stack 6/27/2006 2 1.30E-01

Gopher Eagan SV003 Main Stack 6/27/2006 3 2.20E-01

Gopher Eagan SV003 Main Stack 9/11/2007 1 3.30E-02

Gopher Eagan SV003 Main Stack 9/11/2007 2 4.70E-02

Gopher Eagan SV003 Main Stack 9/11/2007 3 6.30E-02

Gopher Eagan SV003 Main Stack 9/17/2008 1 2.10E-02

Gopher Eagan SV003 Main Stack 9/17/2008 2 1.70E-02

Gopher Eagan SV003 Main Stack 9/17/2008 3 1.60E-02

Gopher Eagan SV003 Main Stack 9/22/2009 1 2.50E-01

Gopher Eagan SV003 Main Stack 9/22/2009 2 3.00E-02

Gopher Eagan SV003 Main Stack 9/22/2009 3 1.10E-01

Gopher Eagan SV008 Ventilation Torit 10/13/2009 1 4.00E-03

Gopher Eagan SV008 Ventilation Torit 10/13/2009 2 3.20E-03

Gopher Eagan SV008 Ventilation Torit 10/13/2009 3 3.40E-03

Gopher Eagan SV008 Ventilation Torit 8/4/2010 1 2.56E-03

Gopher Eagan SV008 Ventilation Torit 8/4/2010 2 2.21E-03

Gopher Eagan SV008 Ventilation Torit 8/4/2010 3 2.00E-03

Page 8 of 8
Excerpts from 1994 Proposal and Final rule 

Discussion of Lead as surrogate for other metals 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/lead2nd/fr09jn94.pdf

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) 

(Secondary Lead Smelters) 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rule; notice of public hearing.

The standards being proposed to address metal and organic HAP emissions establish 

limits for surrogates rather than for individual compounds. 

Establishing emission limits for each of the numerous metal and 

organic HAP compounds emitted from secondary lead smelters is 

considered impractical because measuring each compound would be too 

costly and would pose unreasonable compliance and monitoring costs and 

would achieve little, if any, emission reduction above the surrogate 

pollutant approach. On the other hand, strong correlations exist 

between emissions of the selected surrogate pollutants and emissions of 

the pollutant classes they represent. In addition, the technologies 

identified for the control of HAP's have equivalent performance on the 

selected surrogates. Therefore, emissions standards requiring good 

control of the selected surrogates will also achieve good control of 

HAP's. 

Candidate surrogates for the mix of metal HAP's present, including 

lead compounds, are PM and lead, both of which are criteria pollutants. 

The selected surrogate is lead. Compounds of lead are the most 

prevalent metal HAP contained in secondary lead smelter emissions. In 

addition, lead is concentrated, along with metal HAP's, in the smaller 

size fractions of PM, which are the most difficult to control. 

Therefore, controlling lead will also control metal HAP's. Available 

data on the performance of baghouses used to control particulate 

emissions at secondary lead smelters indicate a much stronger 

correlation of metal HAP's with lead emissions than with total PM 

(Docket No. A-92-43, Item Nos. II-A-1, II-A-2, II-A-3, II-I-1, and III9). Therefore, lead is a better surrogate than PM. Lastly, there is a 

validated test method (EPA reference method 12) for the determination of inorganic lead 

emissions from stationary sources.

Secondary Lead Smelting-- Background Information for Promulgated Standards (EPA-453/R-95- 008b)

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/lead2nd/seclead.pdf

Comment: Two commenters (IV-D-01 and IV-D-16) discussed 

the surrogate pollutants selected by the EPA for organic HAP's 

and metal HAP's. One commenter (IV-D-01) supported the EPA's 

decision to use THC as a surrogate for organic HAP emissions. 

Another commenter (IV-D-16) requested that the EPA reconsider 

its decision to establish an emission standard for lead rather 
than particulate matter (PM) as a surrogate for metal HAP's. 

The commenter stated that because baghouses are the MACT for 

metal HAP control and because baghouses control PM without 

discriminating among PM species, it may be more appropriate to 

establish a limit for PM rather than lead. The commenter also 

noted that the EPA test data indicate that the ratio of lead 

to PM is variable and lead emissions may vary with no 

variation in the efficiency of the baghouse in controlling PM. 

Response: As stated in the proposal preamble 

(59 FR 29761), the EPA evaluated both PM and lead as 

surrogates for all metal HAP's for which emission standards 

would be established. The EPA found that compounds of lead 

are the most prevalent metal HAP in secondary lead smelter 

emissions. The EPA also found that lead is concentrated with 

other metal HAP's in the smallest and most difficult to 

control size fraction of PM from smelters. In addition, it 

was determined that there is a stronger correlation of metal 

HAP emissions with lead emissions than with PM emissions. No 

data have been received since proposal that would change any 

of these conclusions. 

The EPA agrees that the ratio of lead to PM is variable 

and lead emissions may vary with no variation in control 

efficiency for PM. The EPA is therefore establishing a limit 

for lead to ensure that controls are designed and operated to 

achieve effective control of lead compounds and other metal 

HAP's that are found in the smallest size fractions of PM, 

regardless of the overall control efficiency of PM.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

720 West Arapaho Road • Richardson, Texas • 75080 • 972/480-9800 • Fax 972/480-9865 

Exide Technologies 

2009 TCEQ Air Emissions Inventory 

Frisco Battery Recycling Facility 

Frisco, Texas

March 2010 
Sage Environmental Consulting, L.P. i Exide Technologies – Frisco Battery Recycling Facility 

March 2010 2009 EI Report (03.22.2010) 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1-1

2 Process Description ................................................................................................................. 2-1

2.1 Smelting and Refining Operations............................................................................ 2-1

2.2 Oxide Process ........................................................................................................... 2-2

3 Emission Calculation Methodology ....................................................................................... 3-1

3.1 Raw Material Storage ............................................................................................... 3-1

3.2 Battery Breaker Operations ...................................................................................... 3-1

3.3 Smelting Operations ................................................................................................. 3-2

3.4 Refining and Casting Operations .............................................................................. 3-3

3.5 Slag Treatment Building ........................................................................................... 3-4

3.6 Oxide Process ........................................................................................................... 3-4

3.7 Truck Loading Operations ........................................................................................ 3-5

3.8 Other Sources............................................................................................................ 3-5

3.9 Miscellaneous Natural Gas Combustion Sources ..................................................... 3-6

3.10 EE and SMSS Emissions .......................................................................................... 3-6

4 Ancillary Data ......................................................................................................................... 4-1

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1 2009 Emissions Summary (tons per year) ..................................................................... 1-2

Table 2 2009 Emissions Summary (pounds per day) ................................................................. 1-3

Table 3 Annual Emission Rate Summary by Contaminant ........................................................ 1-4

Table 4 Detailed Source Specific Emission Rate Summary ....................................................... 1-5

LIST OF APPENDICES 

Appendix A Emission Calculation Spreadsheets

Appendix B Supporting Calculations

Appendix C Updated Emissions Inventory Printout

Appendix D Process Flow Diagrams

Appendix E Plot Plan

Appendix F Lone StarS Printout
Sage Environmental Consulting, L.P. 1-1 Exide Technologies – Frisco Battery Recycling Facility 

March 2010 2009 EI Report (03.22.2010) 

1 

INTRODUCTION 

The Exide Technologies, Inc. Recycling Division facility (Exide), Texas Commission on 

Environmental Quality (TCEQ) CN600129787, is a battery recycling plant located in Frisco, 

Collin County, Texas. The Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code for the facility is 3341. 

The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code is 331492. The TCEQ 

Regulated Entity Number (RN) is RN100218643 and the TCEQ account number is CP-0029-G. 

Pursuant to Texas Health & Safety Code §382.014 and Title 30 of the Texas Administration 

Code (TAC) §101.10 (Emissions Inventory Requirements), Exide is submitting the following 

Emissions Inventory (EI) for the calendar year 2009. 

Exide is submitting the 2009 Emissions Inventory electronically to the TCEQ in the State of 

Texas Air Reporting System (STARS) format. A delta file has been prepared using the STARS 

Electronic Reporting Guidelines. The delta file is provided on a Compact Disc (CD) included 

with this report. As Exide is submitting the 2009 Emissions Inventory electronically, the paperbased Emissions Inventory Questionnaire (EIQ) printout is not provided this year. 

The emissions calculation spreadsheets, additional supporting calculations, updated EIQ 

Signature and Summary of Emissions pages, Process Flow Diagrams, and Site Plot Plan are 

located in Appendices A, B, C, D, and E, respectively. Emissions are summarized in 

Tables 1 (tpy) and 2 (lbs/day). An annual emission rate summary is provided in Table 3 and a 

detailed source-specific emission rate summary is provided in Table 4 at the end of this section. 

For the EIQ report, 70% of overall particulate emissions were assumed to be PM10 and 30% of 

the total particulate emissions were assumed to be PM2.5 based on engineering judgment and 

consistency with EI reports submitted for previous years. 

SECTION
Table 1

 Sitewide Pollutant Emissions Summary (tons per year)

2009 Air Emissions Inventory

Exide Technologies Battery Recycling Facility - Frisco, TX

EPN Total PM Lead H2SO4 VOC SO2 NOx CO

10 Blast Furnace Fugitives 1.9197 0.0893

11 Oxide Reactor 3 Baghouse 0.0289 0.0026

12 Oxide Reactor 2 Baghouse 0.0124 0.0053

13 Oxide Reactor 1 Baghouse 0.0191 0.0008

14 Oxide Hygiene Baghouse 0.0983 0.0071

15 North Oxide Hammermill Baghouse 0.0328 0.0010

16 Oxide Reactor 4 Baghouse 0.0190 0.0013

17 South Oxide Hammermill Baghouse 0.0153 0.0002

18 Hard Lead Baghouse 2.3846 0.1296 2.4624 0.0864 0.3024 2.1600

21 Soft Lead Baghouse 4.2379 0.2160 0.3024 25.0128 6.4800 4.8384 33.2640

22 Special Alloys Baghouse 3.1925 0.0432 1.2312 0.5184 0.3024 2.5920

23 Smelter Central Vacuum Baghouse 0.2851 0.0019

24 Oxide Reactor 5 Baghouse 0.0141 0.0006

25 Oxide Reactor 6 Baghouse 0.0135 0.0007

26 Oxide Central Vacuum Baghouse 0.0236 0.0010

27 West Truck Loading Fugitives 0.0001

28 East Truck Loading Fugitives 0.0002

35 Reverberatory Furnace Fugitives 4.4445 0.2067

36 Casting Area Fugitives 0.0851 0.0261

37 Supplemental Ventilation Baghouse 20.9065 0.0419 5.4863 23.0340 34.3416 1.0470 14.2392

38 Metallurgical Scrubber 13.0333 0.1653 8.0365 2.2444 599.6160 42.5144 595.0356

39 Slag Crush and Screen Baghouse 0.6288 0.0017

41 Road Traffic West Fugitives 0.2143 0.1072

42 Road Traffic South Fugitives 0.2143 0.1072

43 Road Traffic East Fugitives 0.2143 0.1072

44 Covered Material Storage Area 0.0107 0.0107

45 Raw Material Storage Bldg. Baghouse 7.4736 0.2160

46 Oxide Building Fugitives 0.0071 0.0052 0.0006 0.0881 0.0375

47* Raw Material Storage Bldg. Fugitives 0.0000 0.0000

48 Battery Breaker Scrubber 1.0140 0.0293 0.0293

48FUG Battery Breaker Fugitives 0.0657

49 Reagent Silo #1 Baghouse 0.1689

50 Reagent Silo #2 Baghouse 0.1689

Sage Environmental Consulting, L.P.

March 2010

1-2 Exide Technologies - Frisco Battery Recycling Facility

2010_03_30 2009 EI, Tbl 1

50 Reagent Silo #2 Baghouse 0.1689

51 Sodium Bicarbonate Storage Silo Filter 0.7509

52 Slag Handling Fugitives 0.0470 0.0070

53 Material Handling Fugitives 0.0781 0.0391

54 Soft Lead Kettle Heating Stack 0.0192 0.0139 0.0015 0.2520 0.2117

55 Hard Lead & Sp. Alloy Kettle Heating Stack 0.0483 0.0349 0.0038 0.6354 0.5337

56 Oxide Process Combustion Sources 1 0.0114 0.0083 0.0009 0.1506 0.1265

57 Oxide Process Combustion Sources 2 0.0114 0.0083 0.0009 0.1506 0.1265

58 Oxide Process Combustion Sources 3 0.0114 0.0083 0.0009 0.1506 0.1265

DT Diesel Tank 0.0086

D-1 Degreasers 0.0000

CRYSTLBLR Crystallizer Boiler 0.0904 0.1446 0.0090 1.0665 1.3557

FLASHDRYER Crystallizer Flash Dryer 0.0816 0.0583 0.0069 1.1431 0.9564

Totals 62.0313 1.5659 13.9202 54.2752 641.0669 52.6416 650.7654

Notes:

* - Any emissions that may occur from this source are below levels that necessitate quantification. The TCEQ only requires reporting of lead emissions that exceed 0.001 tpy.

Sage Environmental Consulting, L.P.

March 2010

1-2 Exide Technologies - Frisco Battery Recycling Facility

2010_03_30 2009 EI, Tbl 1
Table 2

 Sitewide Pollutant Emissions Summary (pounds per day)

2009 Air Emissions Inventory

Exide Technologies Battery Recycling Facility - Frisco, TX

EPN Total PM Lead H2SO4 VOC SO2 NOx CO

10 Blast Furnace Fugitives 11.2923 0.5252

11 Oxide Reactor 3 Baghouse 0.8688 0.0768

12 Oxide Reactor 2 Baghouse 0.3744 0.1584

13 Oxide Reactor 1 Baghouse 0.5736 0.0240

14 Oxide Hygiene Baghouse 1.8216 0.1320

15 North Oxide Hammermill Baghouse 1.9752 0.0624

16 Oxide Reactor 4 Baghouse 0.5712 0.0384

17 South Oxide Hammermill Baghouse 0.9192 0.0120

18 Hard Lead Baghouse 13.2480 0.7200 13.6800 0.4800 1.6800 12.0000

21 Soft Lead Baghouse 23.5440 1.2000 1.6800 138.9600 36.0000 26.8800 184.8000

22 Special Alloys Baghouse 17.7360 0.2400 6.8400 2.8800 1.6800 14.4000

23 Smelter Central Vacuum Baghouse 1.5840 0.0106

24 Oxide Reactor 5 Baghouse 0.4248 0.0192

25 Oxide Reactor 6 Baghouse 0.4056 0.0216

26 Oxide Central Vacuum Baghouse 0.4368 0.0192

27 West Truck Loading Fugitives 0.0013

28 East Truck Loading Fugitives 0.0052

35 Reverberatory Furnace Fugitives 26.1440 1.2160

36 Casting Area Fugitives 0.4676 0.1433

37 Supplemental Ventilation Baghouse 119.8080 0.2400 31.4400 132.0000 196.8000 6.0000 81.6000

38 Metallurgical Scrubber 75.1200 0.9528 46.3200 12.9360 3456.0000 245.0400 3429.6000

39 Slag Crush and Screen Baghouse 4.8369 0.0161

41 Road Traffic West Fugitives 1.1745 0.5873

42 Road Traffic South Fugitives 1.1745 0.5873

43 Road Traffic East Fugitives 1.1745 0.5873

44 Covered Material Storage Area 0.0587 0.0587

45 Raw Material Storage Bldg. Baghouse 41.5200 1.2000

46 Oxide Building Fugitives 0.1368 0.0990 0.0108 1.6920 0.7200

47* Raw Material Storage Bldg. Fugitives 0.0000 0.0000

48 Battery Breaker Scrubber 12.4800 0.3600 0.3600

48FUG Battery Breaker Fugitives 0.6066

49 Reagent Silo #1 Baghouse 0.9257

50 Reagent Silo #2 Baghouse 0.9257

Sage Environmental Consulting, L.P.

March 2010

1-3 Exide Technologies - Frisco Battery Recycling Facility

2010_03_30 2009 EI, Tbl 2

50 Reagent Silo #2 Baghouse 0.9257

51 Sodium Bicarbonate Storage Silo Filter 4.1143

52 Slag Handling Fugitives 0.2762 0.0413

53 Material Handling Fugitives 0.4293 0.2146

54 Soft Lead Kettle Heating Stack 0.1140 0.0825 0.0090 1.5000 1.2600

55 Hard Lead & Sp. Alloy Kettle Heating Stack 0.2754 0.1993 0.0217 3.6240 3.0442

56 Oxide Process Combustion Sources 1 0.2280 0.1650 0.0180 3.0000 2.5200

57 Oxide Process Combustion Sources 2 0.2280 0.1650 0.0180 3.0000 2.5200

58 Oxide Process Combustion Sources 3 0.2280 0.1650 0.0180 3.0000 2.5200

DT Diesel Tank 0.0714

D-1 Degreasers 0.0000

CRYSTLBLR Crystallizer Boiler 1.0043 1.6068 0.1004 11.8502 15.0638

FLASHDRYER Crystallizer Flash Dryer 0.4536 0.3240 0.0381 6.3504 5.3136

Totals 369.0799 9.4644 80.4066 307.2940 3692.3941 315.2966 3755.3615

Notes:

* - Any emissions that may occur from this source are below levels that necessitate quantification. The TCEQ only requires reporting of lead emissions that exceed 0.001 tpy.

Sage Environmental Consulting, L.P.

March 2010

1-3 Exide Technologies - Frisco Battery Recycling Facility

2010_03_30 2009 EI, Tbl 2
Table 3

Annual Emission Rate Summary by Contaminant

2009 Air Emissions Inventory

Exide Technologies Battery Recycling Facility - Frisco, TX

Contaminant Code Pollutant Emission Rate

(tpy)

Emission Rate

(ppd)

29999 TOTAL PM10 PARTICULATE 43.3313 258.0183

14310 LEAD-PB 1.5659 9.4644

70510 SULFUR DIOXIDE 641.0669 3692.3941

70400 NITROGEN OXIDES 52.6416 315.2966

90300 CARBON MONOXIDE 650.7654 3755.3615

59999 VOC-TOTAL 54.2752 307.2940

39999 TOTAL PM2.5 PARTICULATE 18.5370 110.1714

Contaminant Code Pollutant Emission Rate

(tpy)

Emission Rate

(ppd)

14590 SELENIUM-SE 0.0100 0.0576

14601 SILICA OXIDE 0.1083 0.6235

19999 TOTAL PARTICULATE 62.0313 369.0799

20000 PM10 PART-U 42.1789 251.3172

24020 PM10 ANTIMONY-SB 0.0199 0.1161

24030 PM10 ARSENIC - AS 0.0106 0.0617

24110 PM10 CADMIUM-CD 0.0463 0.2688

24310 PM10 LEAD-PB 0.9927 5.7777

24590 PM10 SELENIUM-SE 0.0021 0.0122

24601 PM10 SILICA OXIDE 0.0758 0.4365

50001 VOC-UNCLASSIFIED 51.4749 291.3862

52420 BENZENE 0.3701 2.1212

52450 ETHYL BENZENE 0.0823 0.4667

52490 TOLUENE 0.9937 5.6184

52512 META-XYLENE 0.2373 1.3519

52514 ORTHO-XYLENE 0.1182 0.6709

54065 METHYL ETHYL KETONE 0.1622 0.9140

54070 METHYL ISOBUTYL KETONE 0.3288 1.8489

56600 HEXANE 0.0711 0.4045

70200 HYDROGEN CHLORIDE 1.6613 9.4800

70516 SULFURIC ACID (VAPOR) 13.9202 80.4066

59300 NAPHTHA 0.0000 0.0000

59150 DIESEL 0.0086 0.0714

70511 SULFUR DIOXIDE (LIQUID) 0.0000 0.0000

52516 PARA-XYLENE 0.1842 1.0462

53390 1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE 0.0124 0.0686

55150 1,3- BUTADIENE 0.1099 0.6292

24595 PM10 SELENIUM & COMPOUNDS 0.0049 0.0282

14010 ALUMINUM - AL 0.0006 0.0053

52480 STYRENE 0.1215 0.6960

14315 LEAD OXIDE 0.0003 0.0064

Criteria Pollutant Emissions Summary

Non-Criteria Pollutants Emissions Summary

Sage Environmental Consulting, L.P.

March 2010

1-4 Exide Technologies - Frisco Battery Recycling Facility

2010_03_30 2009 EI, Tbl 3
Table 4

Detailed Source Specific Emission Rate Summary

2009 Air Emissions Inventory

Exide Technologies Battery Recycling Facility - Frisco, TX

FIN EPN Contam Code Contaminant 2009 

Emission 

Rate

(tpy)

Ozone Season 

Emission Rate

(ppd)

BLAST 38 10000 PART-U 3.8343 22.1075

BLAST 38 14020 ANTIMONY-SB 0.0031 0.0181

BLAST 38 14030 ARSENIC - AS 0.0018 0.0101

BLAST 38 14110 CADMIUM-CD 0.0079 0.0456

BLAST 38 14310 LEAD-PB 0.0499 0.2874

BLAST 38 14590 SELENIUM-SE 0.003 0.0174

BLAST 38 14601 SILICA OXIDE 0.0314 0.181

BLAST 38 19999 TOTAL PARTICULATE 3.9314 22.6592

BLAST 38 20000 PM10 PART-U 2.684 15.4753

BLAST 38 24020 PM10 ANTIMONY-SB 0.0022 0.0127

BLAST 38 24030 PM10 ARSENIC - AS 0.0012 0.0071

BLAST 38 24110 PM10 CADMIUM-CD 0.0055 0.0319

BLAST 38 24310 PM10 LEAD-PB 0.0349 0.2012

BLAST 38 24590 PM10 SELENIUM-SE 0.0021 0.0122

BLAST 38 24601 PM10 SILICA OXIDE 0.022 0.1267

BLAST 38 29999 TOTAL PM10 PARTICULATE 2.752 15.867

BLAST 38 39999 TOTAL PM2.5 PARTICULATE 1.1794 6.7978

BLAST 38 50001 VOC-UNCLASSIFIED 0.4186 2.4127

BLAST 38 52420 BENZENE 0.0801 0.4617

BLAST 38 52450 ETHYL BENZENE 0.0068 0.039

BLAST 38 52490 TOLUENE 0.0688 0.3967

BLAST 38 52512 META-XYLENE 0.053 0.3057

BLAST 38 52514 ORTHO-XYLENE 0.0113 0.065

BLAST 38 54065 METHYL ETHYL KETONE METHYL ETHYL KETONE 0 0113 . 0 065 .

BLAST 38 54070 METHYL ISOBUTYL KETONE 0.0226 0.1301

BLAST 38 56600 HEXANE 0.0045 0.026

BLAST 38 59999 VOC-TOTAL 0.677 3.902

BLAST 38 70200 HYDROGEN CHLORIDE 0.2462 1.4189

BLAST 38 70400 NITROGEN OXIDES 12.8241 73.914

BLAST 38 70510 SULFUR DIOXIDE 180.8685 1,042.4696

BLAST 38 70516 SULFURIC ACID (VAPOR) 2.4241 13.972

BLAST 38 90300 CARBON MONOXIDE 179.4868 1,034.5062

BLASTFUG 10 10000 PART-U 1.8148 10.6752

BLASTFUG 10 14020 ANTIMONY-SB 0.0045 0.0263

BLASTFUG 10 14030 ARSENIC - AS 0.0022 0.0131

BLASTFUG 10 14110 CADMIUM-CD 0.0089 0.0525

BLASTFUG 10 14310 LEAD-PB 0.0893 0.5252

BLASTFUG 10 19999 TOTAL PARTICULATE 1.9197 11.2923

BLASTFUG 10 20000 PM10 PART-U 1.2703 7.4726

BLASTFUG 10 24020 PM10 ANTIMONY-SB 0.0031 0.0184

BLASTFUG 10 24030 PM10 ARSENIC - AS 0.0016 0.0092

BLASTFUG 10 24110 PM10 CADMIUM-CD 0.0063 0.0368

BLASTFUG 10 24310 PM10 LEAD-PB 0.0625 0.3677

BLASTFUG 10 29999 TOTAL PM10 PARTICULATE 1.3438 7.9046

BLASTFUG 10 39999 TOTAL PM2.5 PARTICULATE 0.5759 3.3877

BLASTFUG 10 59999 VOC-TOTAL -0- -0-

BREAKER 48 10000 PART-U 0.9848 12.12

BREAKER 48 14310 LEAD-PB 0.0293 0.36

Sage Environmental Consulting, L.P.

March 2010

1-5 Exide Technologies - Frisco Battery Recycling Facility

2010_03_30 2009 EI, Tbl 4
Table 4

Detailed Source Specific Emission Rate Summary

2009 Air Emissions Inventory

Exide Technologies Battery Recycling Facility - Frisco, TX

FIN EPN Contam Code Contaminant 2009 

Emission 

Rate

(tpy)

Ozone Season 

Emission Rate

(ppd)

BREAKER 48 19999 TOTAL PARTICULATE 1.014 12.48

BREAKER 48 20000 PM10 PART-U 0.6893 8.484

BREAKER 48 24310 PM10 LEAD-PB 0.0205 0.252

BREAKER 48 29999 TOTAL PM10 PARTICULATE 0.7098 8.736

BREAKER 48 39999 TOTAL PM2.5 PARTICULATE 0.3042 3.744

BREAKER 48 59999 VOC-TOTAL -0- -0-

BREAKER 48 70516 SULFURIC ACID (VAPOR) 0.0293 0.36

BREAKERFUG 48FUG 19999 TOTAL PARTICULATE -0- -0-

BREAKERFUG 48FUG 29999 TOTAL PM10 PARTICULATE -0- -0-

BREAKERFUG 48FUG 59999 VOC-TOTAL -0- -0-

BREAKERFUG 48FUG 70516 SULFURIC ACID (VAPOR) 0.0657 0.6066

COVRMSB44 44 14310 LEAD-PB 0.0107 0.0587

COVRMSB44 44 19999 TOTAL PARTICULATE 0.0107 0.0587

COVRMSB44 44 24310 PM10 LEAD-PB 0.0107 0.0587

COVRMSB44 44 29999 TOTAL PM10 PARTICULATE 0.0107 0.0587

COVRMSB44 44 39999 TOTAL PM2.5 PARTICULATE 0.0032 0.0176

COVRMSB44 44 59999 VOC-TOTAL -0- -0-

CRYSTLBLR CRYSTLBLR 70510 SULFUR DIOXIDE 0.009 0.1004

CRYSTLBLR CRYSTLBLR 70400 NITROGEN OXIDES 1.0665 11.8502

CRYSTLBLR CRYSTLBLR 90300 CARBON MONOXIDE 1.3557 15.0638

CRYSTLBLR CRYSTLBLR 50001 VOC-UNCLASSIFIED 0.1446 1.6068

CRYSTLBLR CRYSTLBLR 59999 VOC-TOTAL 0.1446 1.6068

CRYSTLBLR CRYSTLBLR 10000 PART-U 0.0904 1.0043

CRYSTLBLR CRYSTLBLR CRYSTLBLR 19999 TOTAL PARTICULATE 0.0904 1.0043 CRYSTLBLR 19999 TOTAL PARTICULATE 0 0904 1 0043

CRYSTLBLR CRYSTLBLR 20000 PM10 PART-U 0.0904 1.0043

CRYSTLBLR CRYSTLBLR 29999 TOTAL PM10 PARTICULATE 0.0904 1.0043

D-1 D-1 19999 TOTAL PARTICULATE -0- -0-

D-1 D-1 29999 TOTAL PM10 PARTICULATE -0- -0-

D-1 D-1 59300 NAPHTHA -0- -0-

D-1 D-1 59999 VOC-TOTAL -0- -0-

DIESELTK1 DT 19999 TOTAL PARTICULATE -0- -0-

DIESELTK1 DT 29999 TOTAL PM10 PARTICULATE -0- -0-

DIESELTK1 DT 50001 VOC-UNCLASSIFIED -0- -0-

DIESELTK1 DT 59150 DIESEL 0.0086 0.0714

DIESELTK1 DT 59999 VOC-TOTAL 0.0086 0.0714

DROSSBIN 22 19999 TOTAL PARTICULATE -0- -0-

DROSSBIN 22 29999 TOTAL PM10 PARTICULATE -0- -0-

DROSSBIN 22 59999 VOC-TOTAL -0- -0-

DRYTPIECE 45 19999 TOTAL PARTICULATE -0- -0-

DRYTPIECE 45 29999 TOTAL PM10 PARTICULATE -0- -0-

DRYTPIECE 45 59999 VOC-TOTAL -0- -0-

FDRYHOP 45 19999 TOTAL PARTICULATE -0- -0-

FDRYHOP 45 29999 TOTAL PM10 PARTICULATE -0- -0-

FDRYHOP 45 59999 VOC-TOTAL -0- -0-

FEEDDRYER 45 19999 TOTAL PARTICULATE -0- -0-

FEEDDRYER 45 29999 TOTAL PM10 PARTICULATE -0- -0-

FEEDDRYER 45 59999 VOC-TOTAL -0- -0-

FLASHDRYER FLASHDRYER 70510 SULFUR DIOXIDE 0.0069 0.0381

Sage Environmental Consulting, L.P.

March 2010

1-6 Exide Technologies - Frisco Battery Recycling Facility

2010_03_30 2009 EI, Tbl 4
Table 4

Detailed Source Specific Emission Rate Summary

2009 Air Emissions Inventory

Exide Technologies Battery Recycling Facility - Frisco, TX

FIN EPN Contam Code Contaminant 2009 

Emission 

Rate

(tpy)

Ozone Season 

Emission Rate

(ppd)

FLASHDRYER FLASHDRYER 70400 NITROGEN OXIDES 1.1431 6.3504

FLASHDRYER FLASHDRYER 90300 CARBON MONOXIDE 0.9564 5.3136

FLASHDRYER FLASHDRYER 59999 VOC-TOTAL 0.0583 0.324

FLASHDRYER FLASHDRYER 50001 VOC-UNCLASSIFIED 0.0583 0.324

FLASHDRYER FLASHDRYER 10000 PART-U 0.0816 0.4536

FLASHDRYER FLASHDRYER 19999 TOTAL PARTICULATE 0.0816 0.4536

FLASHDRYER FLASHDRYER 20000 PM10 PART-U 0.0816 0.4536

FLASHDRYER FLASHDRYER 29999 TOTAL PM10 PARTICULATE 0.0816 0.4536

HLSACOMB 55 10000 PART-U 0.0483 0.2754

HLSACOMB 55 19999 TOTAL PARTICULATE 0.0483 0.2754

HLSACOMB 55 20000 PM10 PART-U 0.0338 0.1928

HLSACOMB 55 29999 TOTAL PM10 PARTICULATE 0.0338 0.1928

HLSACOMB 55 39999 TOTAL PM2.5 PARTICULATE 0.0145 0.0826

HLSACOMB 55 50001 VOC-UNCLASSIFIED 0.0349 0.1993

HLSACOMB 55 59999 VOC-TOTAL 0.0349 0.1993

HLSACOMB 55 70400 NITROGEN OXIDES 0.6354 3.624

HLSACOMB 55 70510 SULFUR DIOXIDE 0.0038 0.0217

HLSACOMB 55 70511 SULFUR DIOXIDE (LIQUID) -0- -0-

HLSACOMB 55 90300 CARBON MONOXIDE 0.5337 3.0442

KETTLE2 22 10000 PART-U 3.1472 17.4844

KETTLE2 22 14020 ANTIMONY-SB 0.0006 0.0031

KETTLE2 22 14030 ARSENIC - AS 0.0001 0.0006

KETTLE2 22 14110 CADMIUM-CD 0.0014 0.0079

KETTLE2 KETTLE2 22 14310 LEAD-PB 0.0432 0.24 22 14310 LEAD PB 0 0432 0 24

KETTLE2 22 19999 TOTAL PARTICULATE 3.1925 17.736

KETTLE2 22 20000 PM10 PART-U 2.203 12.2391

KETTLE2 22 24020 PM10 ANTIMONY-SB 0.0004 0.0022

KETTLE2 22 24030 PM10 ARSENIC - AS 0.0001 0.0004

KETTLE2 22 24110 PM10 CADMIUM-CD 0.001 0.0055

KETTLE2 22 24310 PM10 LEAD-PB 0.0302 0.168

KETTLE2 22 29999 TOTAL PM10 PARTICULATE 2.2347 12.4152

KETTLE2 22 39999 TOTAL PM2.5 PARTICULATE 0.9577 5.3208

KETTLE2 22 50001 VOC-UNCLASSIFIED 1.2312 6.84

KETTLE2 22 59999 VOC-TOTAL 1.2312 6.84

KETTLE2 22 70400 NITROGEN OXIDES 0.3024 1.68

KETTLE2 22 70510 SULFUR DIOXIDE 0.5184 2.88

KETTLE2 22 90300 CARBON MONOXIDE 2.592 14.4

KETTLE3 18 10000 PART-U 0.5625 3.1253

KETTLE3 18 14020 ANTIMONY-SB 0.0001 0.0008

KETTLE3 18 14030 ARSENIC - AS 0.0001 0.0004

KETTLE3 18 14110 CADMIUM-CD 0.0006 0.0032

KETTLE3 18 14310 LEAD-PB 0.0324 0.18

KETTLE3 18 14601 SILICA OXIDE 0.0004 0.0023

KETTLE3 18 19999 TOTAL PARTICULATE 0.5962 3.312

KETTLE3 18 20000 PM10 PART-U 0.3938 2.1877

KETTLE3 18 24020 PM10 ANTIMONY-SB 0.0001 0.0005

KETTLE3 18 24030 PM10 ARSENIC - AS 0.0001 0.0003

KETTLE3 18 24110 PM10 CADMIUM-CD 0.0004 0.0023

Sage Environmental Consulting, L.P.

March 2010

1-7 Exide Technologies - Frisco Battery Recycling Facility

2010_03_30 2009 EI, Tbl 4
Table 4

Detailed Source Specific Emission Rate Summary

2009 Air Emissions Inventory

Exide Technologies Battery Recycling Facility - Frisco, TX

FIN EPN Contam Code Contaminant 2009 

Emission 

Rate

(tpy)

Ozone Season 

Emission Rate

(ppd)

KETTLE3 18 24310 PM10 LEAD-PB 0.0227 0.126

KETTLE3 18 24601 PM10 SILICA OXIDE 0.0003 0.0016

KETTLE3 18 29999 TOTAL PM10 PARTICULATE 0.4173 2.3184

KETTLE3 18 39999 TOTAL PM2.5 PARTICULATE 0.1788 0.9936

KETTLE3 18 50001 VOC-UNCLASSIFIED 0.6156 3.42

KETTLE3 18 59999 VOC-TOTAL 0.6156 3.42

KETTLE3 18 70400 NITROGEN OXIDES 0.0756 0.42

KETTLE3 18 70510 SULFUR DIOXIDE 0.0216 0.12

KETTLE3 18 90300 CARBON MONOXIDE 0.54 3.

KETTLE4 18 10000 PART-U 0.5625 3.1253

KETTLE4 18 14020 ANTIMONY-SB 0.0001 0.0008

KETTLE4 18 14030 ARSENIC - AS 0.0001 0.0004

KETTLE4 18 14110 CADMIUM-CD 0.0006 0.0032

KETTLE4 18 14310 LEAD-PB 0.0324 0.18

KETTLE4 18 14601 SILICA OXIDE 0.0004 0.0023

KETTLE4 18 19999 TOTAL PARTICULATE 0.5962 3.312

KETTLE4 18 20000 PM10 PART-U 0.3938 2.1877

KETTLE4 18 24020 PM10 ANTIMONY-SB 0.0001 0.0005

KETTLE4 18 24030 PM10 ARSENIC - AS 0.0001 0.0003

KETTLE4 18 24110 PM10 CADMIUM-CD 0.0004 0.0023

KETTLE4 18 24310 PM10 LEAD-PB 0.0227 0.126

KETTLE4 18 24601 PM10 SILICA OXIDE 0.0003 0.0016

KETTLE4 18 29999 TOTAL PM10 PARTICULATE 0.4173 2.3184

KETTLE4 KETTLE4 18 39999 TOTAL PM2.5 PARTICULATE 0.1788 0.9936 18 39999 TOTAL PM2 5 PARTICULATE 0 1788 0 9936

KETTLE4 18 50001 VOC-UNCLASSIFIED 0.6156 3.42

KETTLE4 18 59999 VOC-TOTAL 0.6156 3.42

KETTLE4 18 70400 NITROGEN OXIDES 0.0756 0.42

KETTLE4 18 70510 SULFUR DIOXIDE 0.0216 0.12

KETTLE4 18 90300 CARBON MONOXIDE 0.54 3.

KETTLE5 21 10000 PART-U 0.6698 3.7212

KETTLE5 21 14020 ANTIMONY-SB 0.00003 0.0002

KETTLE5 21 14030 ARSENIC - AS 0.00002 0.0001

KETTLE5 21 14110 CADMIUM-CD 0.00003 0.0001

KETTLE5 21 14310 LEAD-PB 0.036 0.2

KETTLE5 21 14601 SILICA OXIDE 0.0004 0.0024

KETTLE5 21 19999 TOTAL PARTICULATE 0.7063 3.924

KETTLE5 21 20000 PM10 PART-U 0.4689 2.6048

KETTLE5 21 24020 PM10 ANTIMONY-SB 0.00002 0.0001

KETTLE5 21 24030 PM10 ARSENIC - AS 0.00001 0.0001

KETTLE5 21 24110 PM10 CADMIUM-CD 0.00002 0.0001

KETTLE5 21 24310 PM10 LEAD-PB 0.0252 0.14

KETTLE5 21 24601 PM10 SILICA OXIDE 0.0003 0.0017

KETTLE5 21 29999 TOTAL PM10 PARTICULATE 0.4944 2.7468

KETTLE5 21 39999 TOTAL PM2.5 PARTICULATE 0.2119 1.1772

KETTLE5 21 50001 VOC-UNCLASSIFIED 3.9884 22.1575

KETTLE5 21 52420 BENZENE 0.0083 0.046

KETTLE5 21 52450 ETHYL BENZENE 0.0052 0.0286

KETTLE5 21 52490 TOLUENE 0.0799 0.444

Sage Environmental Consulting, L.P.

March 2010

1-8 Exide Technologies - Frisco Battery Recycling Facility

2010_03_30 2009 EI, Tbl 4
Table 4

Detailed Source Specific Emission Rate Summary

2009 Air Emissions Inventory

Exide Technologies Battery Recycling Facility - Frisco, TX

FIN EPN Contam Code Contaminant 2009 

Emission 

Rate

(tpy)

Ozone Season 

Emission Rate

(ppd)

KETTLE5 21 52512 META-XYLENE 0.0111 0.0616

KETTLE5 21 52514 ORTHO-XYLENE 0.0072 0.04

KETTLE5 21 52516 PARA-XYLENE 0.0111 0.0616

KETTLE5 21 53390 1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE 0.0021 0.0114

KETTLE5 21 54065 METHYL ETHYL KETONE 0.016 0.0888

KETTLE5 21 54070 METHYL ISOBUTYL KETONE 0.0361 0.2004

KETTLE5 21 55150 1,3- BUTADIENE 0.0005 0.0029

KETTLE5 21 56600 HEXANE 0.0031 0.0172

KETTLE5 21 59999 VOC-TOTAL 4.1688 23.16

KETTLE5 21 70200 HYDROGEN CHLORIDE 0.0641 0.356

KETTLE5 21 70400 NITROGEN OXIDES 0.8064 4.48

KETTLE5 21 70510 SULFUR DIOXIDE 1.08 6.

KETTLE5 21 70516 SULFURIC ACID (VAPOR) 0.0504 0.28

KETTLE5 21 90300 CARBON MONOXIDE 5.544 30.8

KETTLE6 21 10000 PART-U 0.6698 3.7212

KETTLE6 21 14020 ANTIMONY-SB 0.00003 0.0002

KETTLE6 21 14030 ARSENIC - AS 0.00002 0.0001

KETTLE6 21 14110 CADMIUM-CD 0.00003 0.0001

KETTLE6 21 14310 LEAD-PB 0.036 0.2

KETTLE6 21 14601 SILICA OXIDE 0.0004 0.0024

KETTLE6 21 19999 TOTAL PARTICULATE 0.7063 3.924

KETTLE6 21 20000 PM10 PART-U 0.4689 2.6048

KETTLE6 21 24020 PM10 ANTIMONY-SB 0.00002 0.0001

KETTLE6 KETTLE6 21 24030 PM10 ARSENIC - AS 0.00001 0.0001 21 24030 PM10 ARSENIC AS 0 00001 0 0001

KETTLE6 21 24110 PM10 CADMIUM-CD 0.00002 0.0001

KETTLE6 21 24310 PM10 LEAD-PB 0.0252 0.14

KETTLE6 21 24601 PM10 SILICA OXIDE 0.0003 0.0017

KETTLE6 21 29999 TOTAL PM10 PARTICULATE 0.4944 2.7468

KETTLE6 21 39999 TOTAL PM2.5 PARTICULATE 0.2119 1.1772

KETTLE6 21 50001 VOC-UNCLASSIFIED 3.9884 22.1575

KETTLE6 21 52420 BENZENE 0.0083 0.046

KETTLE6 21 52450 ETHYL BENZENE 0.0052 0.0286

KETTLE6 21 52490 TOLUENE 0.0799 0.444

KETTLE6 21 52512 META-XYLENE 0.0111 0.0616

KETTLE6 21 52514 ORTHO-XYLENE 0.0072 0.04

KETTLE6 21 52516 PARA-XYLENE 0.0111 0.0616

KETTLE6 21 53390 1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE 0.0021 0.0114

KETTLE6 21 54065 METHYL ETHYL KETONE 0.016 0.0888

KETTLE6 21 54070 METHYL ISOBUTYL KETONE 0.0361 0.2004

KETTLE6 21 55150 1,3- BUTADIENE 0.0005 0.0029

KETTLE6 21 56600 HEXANE 0.0031 0.0172

KETTLE6 21 59999 VOC-TOTAL 4.1688 23.16

KETTLE6 21 70200 HYDROGEN CHLORIDE 0.0641 0.356

KETTLE6 21 70400 NITROGEN OXIDES 0.8064 4.48

KETTLE6 21 70510 SULFUR DIOXIDE 1.08 6.

KETTLE6 21 70516 SULFURIC ACID (VAPOR) 0.0504 0.28

KETTLE6 21 90300 CARBON MONOXIDE 5.544 30.8

KETTLE7 21 10000 PART-U 0.6698 3.7212

Sage Environmental Consulting, L.P.

March 2010

1-9 Exide Technologies - Frisco Battery Recycling Facility

2010_03_30 2009 EI, Tbl 4
Table 4

Detailed Source Specific Emission Rate Summary

2009 Air Emissions Inventory

Exide Technologies Battery Recycling Facility - Frisco, TX

FIN EPN Contam Code Contaminant 2009 

Emission 

Rate

(tpy)

Ozone Season 

Emission Rate

(ppd)

KETTLE7 21 14020 ANTIMONY-SB 0.00003 0.0002

KETTLE7 21 14030 ARSENIC - AS 0.00002 0.0001

KETTLE7 21 14110 CADMIUM-CD 0.00003 0.0001

KETTLE7 21 14310 LEAD-PB 0.036 0.2

KETTLE7 21 14601 SILICA OXIDE 0.0004 0.0024

KETTLE7 21 19999 TOTAL PARTICULATE 0.7063 3.924

KETTLE7 21 20000 PM10 PART-U 0.4689 2.6048

KETTLE7 21 24020 PM10 ANTIMONY-SB 0.00002 0.0001

KETTLE7 21 24030 PM10 ARSENIC - AS 0.00001 0.0001

KETTLE7 21 24110 PM10 CADMIUM-CD 0.00002 0.0001

KETTLE7 21 24310 PM10 LEAD-PB 0.0252 0.14

KETTLE7 21 24601 PM10 SILICA OXIDE 0.0003 0.0017

KETTLE7 21 29999 TOTAL PM10 PARTICULATE 0.4944 2.7468

KETTLE7 21 39999 TOTAL PM2.5 PARTICULATE 0.2119 1.1772

KETTLE7 21 50001 VOC-UNCLASSIFIED 3.9884 22.1575

KETTLE7 21 52420 BENZENE 0.0083 0.046

KETTLE7 21 52450 ETHYL BENZENE 0.0052 0.0286

KETTLE7 21 52490 TOLUENE 0.0799 0.444

KETTLE7 21 52512 META-XYLENE 0.0111 0.0616

KETTLE7 21 52514 ORTHO-XYLENE 0.0072 0.04

KETTLE7 21 52516 PARA-XYLENE 0.0111 0.0616

KETTLE7 21 53390 1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE 0.0021 0.0114

KETTLE7 21 54065 METHYL ETHYL KETONE 0.016 0.0888

KETTLE7 KETTLE7 21 54070 METHYL ISOBUTYL KETONE 0.0361 0.2004 21 54070 METHYL ISOBUTYL KETONE 0 0361 0 2004

KETTLE7 21 55150 1,3- BUTADIENE 0.0005 0.0029

KETTLE7 21 56600 HEXANE 0.0031 0.0172

KETTLE7 21 59999 VOC-TOTAL 4.1688 23.16

KETTLE7 21 70200 HYDROGEN CHLORIDE 0.0641 0.356

KETTLE7 21 70400 NITROGEN OXIDES 0.8064 4.48

KETTLE7 21 70510 SULFUR DIOXIDE 1.08 6.

KETTLE7 21 70516 SULFURIC ACID (VAPOR) 0.0504 0.28

KETTLE7 21 90300 CARBON MONOXIDE 5.544 30.8

KETTLEA 18 10000 PART-U 0.5625 3.1253

KETTLEA 18 14020 ANTIMONY-SB 0.0001 0.0008

KETTLEA 18 14030 ARSENIC - AS 0.0001 0.0004

KETTLEA 18 14110 CADMIUM-CD 0.0006 0.0032

KETTLEA 18 14310 LEAD-PB 0.0324 0.18

KETTLEA 18 14601 SILICA OXIDE 0.0004 0.0023

KETTLEA 18 19999 TOTAL PARTICULATE 0.5962 3.312

KETTLEA 18 20000 PM10 PART-U 0.3938 2.1877

KETTLEA 18 24020 PM10 ANTIMONY-SB 0.0001 0.0005

KETTLEA 18 24030 PM10 ARSENIC - AS 0.0001 0.0003

KETTLEA 18 24110 PM10 CADMIUM-CD 0.0004 0.0023

KETTLEA 18 24310 PM10 LEAD-PB 0.0227 0.126

KETTLEA 18 24601 PM10 SILICA OXIDE 0.0003 0.0016

KETTLEA 18 29999 TOTAL PM10 PARTICULATE 0.4173 2.3184

KETTLEA 18 39999 TOTAL PM2.5 PARTICULATE 0.1788 0.9936

KETTLEA 18 50001 VOC-UNCLASSIFIED 0.6156 3.42

Sage Environmental Consulting, L.P.

March 2010

1-10 Exide Technologies - Frisco Battery Recycling Facility

2010_03_30 2009 EI, Tbl 4
Table 4

Detailed Source Specific Emission Rate Summary

2009 Air Emissions Inventory

Exide Technologies Battery Recycling Facility - Frisco, TX

FIN EPN Contam Code Contaminant 2009 

Emission 

Rate

(tpy)

Ozone Season 

Emission Rate

(ppd)

KETTLEA 18 59999 VOC-TOTAL 0.6156 3.42

KETTLEA 18 70400 NITROGEN OXIDES 0.0756 0.42

KETTLEA 18 70510 SULFUR DIOXIDE 0.0216 0.12

KETTLEA 18 90300 CARBON MONOXIDE 0.54 3.

KETTLEA 4 19999 TOTAL PARTICULATE -0- -0-

KETTLEA 4 29999 TOTAL PM10 PARTICULATE -0- -0-

KETTLEA 4 59999 VOC-TOTAL -0- -0-

KETTLEA 5 19999 TOTAL PARTICULATE -0- -0-

KETTLEA 5 29999 TOTAL PM10 PARTICULATE -0- -0-

KETTLEA 5 59999 VOC-TOTAL -0- -0-

KETTLEA 6 19999 TOTAL PARTICULATE -0- -0-

KETTLEA 6 29999 TOTAL PM10 PARTICULATE -0- -0-

KETTLEA 6 59999 VOC-TOTAL -0- -0-

KETTLEA 7 19999 TOTAL PARTICULATE -0- -0-

KETTLEA 7 29999 TOTAL PM10 PARTICULATE -0- -0-

KETTLEA 7 59999 VOC-TOTAL -0- -0-

KETTLEA 8 19999 TOTAL PARTICULATE -0- -0-

KETTLEA 8 29999 TOTAL PM10 PARTICULATE -0- -0-

KETTLEA 8 59999 VOC-TOTAL -0- -0-

KETTLEB 18 10000 PART-U 0.5625 3.1253

KETTLEB 18 14020 ANTIMONY-SB 0.0001 0.0008

KETTLEB 18 14030 ARSENIC - AS 0.0001 0.0004

KETTLEB 18 14110 CADMIUM-CD 0.0006 0.0032

KETTLEB KETTLEB 18 14310 LEAD-PB 0.0324 0.18 18 14310 LEAD PB 0 0324 0 18

KETTLEB 18 14601 SILICA OXIDE 0.0004 0.0023

KETTLEB 18 19999 TOTAL PARTICULATE 0.5962 3.312

KETTLEB 18 20000 PM10 PART-U 0.3938 2.1877

KETTLEB 18 24020 PM10 ANTIMONY-SB 0.0001 0.0005

KETTLEB 18 24030 PM10 ARSENIC - AS 0.0001 0.0003

KETTLEB 18 24110 PM10 CADMIUM-CD 0.0004 0.0023

KETTLEB 18 24310 PM10 LEAD-PB 0.0227 0.126

KETTLEB 18 24601 PM10 SILICA OXIDE 0.0003 0.0016

KETTLEB 18 29999 TOTAL PM10 PARTICULATE 0.4173 2.3184

KETTLEB 18 39999 TOTAL PM2.5 PARTICULATE 0.1788 0.9936

KETTLEB 18 50001 VOC-UNCLASSIFIED 0.6156 3.42

KETTLEB 18 59999 VOC-TOTAL 0.6156 3.42

KETTLEB 18 70400 NITROGEN OXIDES 0.0756 0.42

KETTLEB 18 70510 SULFUR DIOXIDE 0.0216 0.12

KETTLEB 18 90300 CARBON MONOXIDE 0.54 3.

KETTLEC 21 10000 PART-U 0.6698 3.7212

KETTLEC 21 14020 ANTIMONY-SB 0.00003 0.0002

KETTLEC 21 14030 ARSENIC - AS 0.00002 0.0001

KETTLEC 21 14110 CADMIUM-CD 0.00003 0.0001

KETTLEC 21 14310 LEAD-PB 0.036 0.2

KETTLEC 21 14601 SILICA OXIDE 0.0004 0.0024

KETTLEC 21 19999 TOTAL PARTICULATE 0.7063 3.924

KETTLEC 21 20000 PM10 PART-U 0.4689 2.6048

KETTLEC 21 24020 PM10 ANTIMONY-SB 0.00002 0.0001

Sage Environmental Consulting, L.P.

March 2010

1-11 Exide Technologies - Frisco Battery Recycling Facility

2010_03_30 2009 EI, Tbl 4
Table 4

Detailed Source Specific Emission Rate Summary

2009 Air Emissions Inventory

Exide Technologies Battery Recycling Facility - Frisco, TX

FIN EPN Contam Code Contaminant 2009 

Emission 

Rate

(tpy)

Ozone Season 

Emission Rate

(ppd)

KETTLEC 21 24030 PM10 ARSENIC - AS 0.00001 0.0001

KETTLEC 21 24110 PM10 CADMIUM-CD 0.00002 0.0001

KETTLEC 21 24310 PM10 LEAD-PB 0.0252 0.14

KETTLEC 21 24601 PM10 SILICA OXIDE 0.0003 0.0017

KETTLEC 21 29999 TOTAL PM10 PARTICULATE 0.4944 2.7468

KETTLEC 21 39999 TOTAL PM2.5 PARTICULATE 0.2119 1.1772

KETTLEC 21 50001 VOC-UNCLASSIFIED 3.9884 22.1575

KETTLEC 21 52420 BENZENE 0.0083 0.046

KETTLEC 21 52450 ETHYL BENZENE 0.0052 0.0286

KETTLEC 21 52490 TOLUENE 0.0799 0.444

KETTLEC 21 52512 META-XYLENE 0.0111 0.0616

KETTLEC 21 52514 ORTHO-XYLENE 0.0072 0.04

KETTLEC 21 52516 PARA-XYLENE 0.0111 0.0616

KETTLEC 21 53390 1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE 0.0021 0.0114

KETTLEC 21 54065 METHYL ETHYL KETONE 0.016 0.0888

KETTLEC 21 54070 METHYL ISOBUTYL KETONE 0.0361 0.2004

KETTLEC 21 55150 1,3- BUTADIENE 0.0005 0.0029

KETTLEC 21 56600 HEXANE 0.0031 0.0172

KETTLEC 21 59999 VOC-TOTAL 4.1688 23.16

KETTLEC 21 70200 HYDROGEN CHLORIDE 0.0641 0.356

KETTLEC 21 70400 NITROGEN OXIDES 0.8064 4.48

KETTLEC 21 70510 SULFUR DIOXIDE 1.08 6.

KETTLEC 21 70516 SULFURIC ACID (VAPOR) 0.0504 0.28

KETTLEC KETTLEC 21 90300 CARBON MONOXIDE 5.544 30.8 21 90300 CARBON MONOXIDE 5 544 30 8

KETTLED 21 10000 PART-U 0.6698 3.7212

KETTLED 21 14020 ANTIMONY-SB 0.00003 0.0002

KETTLED 21 14030 ARSENIC - AS 0.00002 0.0001

KETTLED 21 14110 CADMIUM-CD 0.00003 0.0001

KETTLED 21 14310 LEAD-PB 0.036 0.2

KETTLED 21 14601 SILICA OXIDE 0.0004 0.0024

KETTLED 21 19999 TOTAL PARTICULATE 0.7063 3.924

KETTLED 21 20000 PM10 PART-U 0.4689 2.6048

KETTLED 21 24020 PM10 ANTIMONY-SB 0.00002 0.0001

KETTLED 21 24030 PM10 ARSENIC - AS 0.00001 0.0001

KETTLED 21 24110 PM10 CADMIUM-CD 0.00002 0.0001

KETTLED 21 24310 PM10 LEAD-PB 0.0252 0.14

KETTLED 21 24601 PM10 SILICA OXIDE 0.0003 0.0017

KETTLED 21 29999 TOTAL PM10 PARTICULATE 0.4944 2.7468

KETTLED 21 39999 TOTAL PM2.5 PARTICULATE 0.2119 1.1772

KETTLED 21 50001 VOC-UNCLASSIFIED 3.9884 22.1575

KETTLED 21 52420 BENZENE 0.0083 0.046

KETTLED 21 52450 ETHYL BENZENE 0.0052 0.0286

KETTLED 21 52490 TOLUENE 0.0799 0.444

KETTLED 21 52512 META-XYLENE 0.0111 0.0616

KETTLED 21 52514 ORTHO-XYLENE 0.0072 0.04

KETTLED 21 52516 PARA-XYLENE 0.0111 0.0616

KETTLED 21 53390 1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE 0.0021 0.0114

KETTLED 21 54065 METHYL ETHYL KETONE 0.016 0.0888

Sage Environmental Consulting, L.P.

March 2010

1-12 Exide Technologies - Frisco Battery Recycling Facility

2010_03_30 2009 EI, Tbl 4
Table 4

Detailed Source Specific Emission Rate Summary

2009 Air Emissions Inventory

Exide Technologies Battery Recycling Facility - Frisco, TX

FIN EPN Contam Code Contaminant 2009 

Emission 

Rate

(tpy)

Ozone Season 

Emission Rate

(ppd)

KETTLED 21 54070 METHYL ISOBUTYL KETONE 0.0361 0.2004

KETTLED 21 55150 1,3- BUTADIENE 0.0005 0.0029

KETTLED 21 56600 HEXANE 0.0031 0.0172

KETTLED 21 59999 VOC-TOTAL 4.1688 23.16

KETTLED 21 70200 HYDROGEN CHLORIDE 0.0641 0.356

KETTLED 21 70400 NITROGEN OXIDES 0.8064 4.48

KETTLED 21 70510 SULFUR DIOXIDE 1.08 6.

KETTLED 21 70516 SULFURIC ACID (VAPOR) 0.0504 0.28

KETTLED 21 90300 CARBON MONOXIDE 5.544 30.8

KETTLEE 21 10000 PART-U 0.6698 3.7212

KETTLEE 21 14020 ANTIMONY-SB 0.00003 0.0002

KETTLEE 21 14030 ARSENIC - AS 0.00002 0.0001

KETTLEE 21 14110 CADMIUM-CD 0.00003 0.0001

KETTLEE 21 14310 LEAD-PB 0.036 0.2

KETTLEE 21 14601 SILICA OXIDE 0.0004 0.0024

KETTLEE 21 19999 TOTAL PARTICULATE 0.7063 3.924

KETTLEE 21 20000 PM10 PART-U 0.4689 2.6048

KETTLEE 21 24020 PM10 ANTIMONY-SB 0.00002 0.0001

KETTLEE 21 24030 PM10 ARSENIC - AS 0.00001 0.0001

KETTLEE 21 24110 PM10 CADMIUM-CD 0.00002 0.0001

KETTLEE 21 24310 PM10 LEAD-PB 0.0252 0.14

KETTLEE 21 24601 PM10 SILICA OXIDE 0.0003 0.0017

KETTLEE 21 29999 TOTAL PM10 PARTICULATE 0.4944 2.7468

KETTLEE KETTLEE 21 39999 TOTAL PM2.5 PARTICULATE 0.2119 1.1772 21 39999 TOTAL PM2 5 PARTICULATE 0 2119 1 1772

KETTLEE 21 50001 VOC-UNCLASSIFIED 3.9884 22.1575

KETTLEE 21 52420 BENZENE 0.0083 0.046

KETTLEE 21 52450 ETHYL BENZENE 0.0052 0.0286

KETTLEE 21 52490 TOLUENE 0.0799 0.444

KETTLEE 21 52512 META-XYLENE 0.0111 0.0616

KETTLEE 21 52514 ORTHO-XYLENE 0.0072 0.04

KETTLEE 21 52516 PARA-XYLENE 0.0111 0.0616

KETTLEE 21 53390 1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE 0.0021 0.0114

KETTLEE 21 54065 METHYL ETHYL KETONE 0.016 0.0888

KETTLEE 21 54070 METHYL ISOBUTYL KETONE 0.0361 0.2004

KETTLEE 21 55150 1,3- BUTADIENE 0.0005 0.0029

KETTLEE 21 56600 HEXANE 0.0031 0.0172

KETTLEE 21 59999 VOC-TOTAL 4.1688 23.16

KETTLEE 21 70200 HYDROGEN CHLORIDE 0.0641 0.356

KETTLEE 21 70400 NITROGEN OXIDES 0.8064 4.48

KETTLEE 21 70510 SULFUR DIOXIDE 1.08 6.

KETTLEE 21 70516 SULFURIC ACID (VAPOR) 0.0504 0.28

KETTLEE 21 90300 CARBON MONOXIDE 5.544 30.8

KETTLESA 22 10000 PART-U -0- -0-

KETTLESA 22 14020 ANTIMONY-SB -0- -0-

KETTLESA 22 14030 ARSENIC - AS -0- -0-

KETTLESA 22 14110 CADMIUM-CD -0- -0-

KETTLESA 22 14310 LEAD-PB -0- -0-

KETTLESA 22 19999 TOTAL PARTICULATE -0- -0-

Sage Environmental Consulting, L.P.

March 2010

1-13 Exide Technologies - Frisco Battery Recycling Facility

2010_03_30 2009 EI, Tbl 4
Table 4

Detailed Source Specific Emission Rate Summary

2009 Air Emissions Inventory

Exide Technologies Battery Recycling Facility - Frisco, TX

FIN EPN Contam Code Contaminant 2009 

Emission 

Rate

(tpy)

Ozone Season 

Emission Rate

(ppd)

KETTLESA 22 20000 PM10 PART-U -0- -0-

KETTLESA 22 24020 PM10 ANTIMONY-SB -0- -0-

KETTLESA 22 24030 PM10 ARSENIC - AS -0- -0-

KETTLESA 22 24110 PM10 CADMIUM-CD -0- -0-

KETTLESA 22 24310 PM10 LEAD-PB -0- -0-

KETTLESA 22 29999 TOTAL PM10 PARTICULATE -0- -0-

KETTLESA 22 39999 TOTAL PM2.5 PARTICULATE -0- -0-

KETTLESA 22 50001 VOC-UNCLASSIFIED -0- -0-

KETTLESA 22 59999 VOC-TOTAL -0- -0-

KETTLESA 22 70400 NITROGEN OXIDES -0- -0-

KETTLESA 22 70510 SULFUR DIOXIDE -0- -0-

KETTLESA 22 90300 CARBON MONOXIDE -0- -0-

L39 39 19999 TOTAL PARTICULATE -0- -0-

L39 39 29999 TOTAL PM10 PARTICULATE -0- -0-

L39 39 59999 VOC-TOTAL -0- -0-

MATLHNDFUG 53 10000 PART-U 0.0391 0.2146

MATLHNDFUG 53 14310 LEAD-PB 0.0391 0.2146

MATLHNDFUG 53 19999 TOTAL PARTICULATE 0.0781 0.4293

MATLHNDFUG 53 20000 PM10 PART-U 0.0379 0.2085

MATLHNDFUG 53 29999 TOTAL PM10 PARTICULATE 0.0379 0.2085

MATLHNDFUG 53 39999 TOTAL PM2.5 PARTICULATE 0.0112 0.0613

MATLHNDFUG 53 59999 VOC-TOTAL -0- -0-

NOXIDEHM 15 10000 PART-U 0.0318 1.9128

NOXIDEHM NOXIDEHM 15 14310 LEAD-PB 0.001 0.0624 15 14310 LEAD PB 0 001 0 0624

NOXIDEHM 15 19999 TOTAL PARTICULATE 0.0328 1.9752

NOXIDEHM 15 20000 PM10 PART-U 0.0222 1.339

NOXIDEHM 15 24310 PM10 LEAD-PB 0.0007 0.0437

NOXIDEHM 15 29999 TOTAL PM10 PARTICULATE 0.023 1.3826

NOXIDEHM 15 39999 TOTAL PM2.5 PARTICULATE 0.0098 0.5926

NOXIDEHM 15 59999 VOC-TOTAL -0- -0-

OXIDCLEAN 26 10000 PART-U 0.0225 0.4176

OXIDCLEAN 26 14310 LEAD-PB 0.001 0.0192

OXIDCLEAN 26 19999 TOTAL PARTICULATE 0.0236 0.4368

OXIDCLEAN 26 20000 PM10 PART-U 0.0165 0.3058

OXIDCLEAN 26 29999 TOTAL PM10 PARTICULATE 0.0165 0.3058

OXIDCLEAN 26 39999 TOTAL PM2.5 PARTICULATE 0.0071 0.131

OXIDCLEAN 26 59999 VOC-TOTAL -0- -0-

OXIDEBUILD 14 10000 PART-U 0.0912 1.6896

OXIDEBUILD 14 14310 LEAD-PB 0.0071 0.132

OXIDEBUILD 14 19999 TOTAL PARTICULATE 0.0983 1.8216

OXIDEBUILD 14 20000 PM10 PART-U 0.0688 1.2751

OXIDEBUILD 14 29999 TOTAL PM10 PARTICULATE 0.0688 1.2751

OXIDEBUILD 14 39999 TOTAL PM2.5 PARTICULATE 0.0295 0.5465

OXIDEBUILD 14 59999 VOC-TOTAL -0- -0-

OXIDEFUG 1 46 10000 PART-U 0.0071 0.1368

OXIDEFUG 1 46 19999 TOTAL PARTICULATE 0.0071 0.1368

OXIDEFUG 1 46 20000 PM10 PART-U 0.005 0.0958

OXIDEFUG 1 46 29999 TOTAL PM10 PARTICULATE 0.005 0.0958

Sage Environmental Consulting, L.P.

March 2010

1-14 Exide Technologies - Frisco Battery Recycling Facility

2010_03_30 2009 EI, Tbl 4
Table 4

Detailed Source Specific Emission Rate Summary

2009 Air Emissions Inventory

Exide Technologies Battery Recycling Facility - Frisco, TX

FIN EPN Contam Code Contaminant 2009 

Emission 

Rate

(tpy)

Ozone Season 

Emission Rate

(ppd)

OXIDEFUG 1 46 39999 TOTAL PM2.5 PARTICULATE 0.0021 0.041

OXIDEFUG 1 46 50001 VOC-UNCLASSIFIED 0.0052 0.099

OXIDEFUG 1 46 59999 VOC-TOTAL 0.0052 0.099

OXIDEFUG 1 46 70400 NITROGEN OXIDES 0.0881 1.692

OXIDEFUG 1 46 70510 SULFUR DIOXIDE 0.0006 0.0108

OXIDEFUG 1 46 90300 CARBON MONOXIDE 0.0375 0.72

OXPRCOMB1 56 10000 PART-U 0.0114 0.228

OXPRCOMB1 56 19999 TOTAL PARTICULATE 0.0114 0.228

OXPRCOMB1 56 20000 PM10 PART-U 0.008 0.1596

OXPRCOMB1 56 29999 TOTAL PM10 PARTICULATE 0.008 0.1596

OXPRCOMB1 56 39999 TOTAL PM2.5 PARTICULATE 0.0034 0.0684

OXPRCOMB1 56 50001 VOC-UNCLASSIFIED 0.0083 0.165

OXPRCOMB1 56 59999 VOC-TOTAL 0.0083 0.165

OXPRCOMB1 56 70400 NITROGEN OXIDES 0.1506 3.

OXPRCOMB1 56 70510 SULFUR DIOXIDE 0.0009 0.018

OXPRCOMB1 56 90300 CARBON MONOXIDE 0.1265 2.52

OXPRCOMB2 57 10000 PART-U 0.0114 0.228

OXPRCOMB2 57 19999 TOTAL PARTICULATE 0.0114 0.228

OXPRCOMB2 57 20000 PM10 PART-U 0.008 0.1596

OXPRCOMB2 57 29999 TOTAL PM10 PARTICULATE 0.008 0.1596

OXPRCOMB2 57 39999 TOTAL PM2.5 PARTICULATE 0.0034 0.0684

OXPRCOMB2 57 50001 VOC-UNCLASSIFIED 0.0083 0.165

OXPRCOMB2 57 59999 VOC-TOTAL 0.0083 0.165

OXPRCOMB2 OXPRCOMB2 57 70400 NITROGEN OXIDES 0.1506 3. 57 70400 NITROGEN OXIDES 0 1506 3

OXPRCOMB2 57 70510 SULFUR DIOXIDE 0.0009 0.018

OXPRCOMB2 57 90300 CARBON MONOXIDE 0.1265 2.52

OXPRCOMB3 58 10000 PART-U 0.0114 0.228

OXPRCOMB3 58 19999 TOTAL PARTICULATE 0.0114 0.228

OXPRCOMB3 58 20000 PM10 PART-U 0.008 0.1596

OXPRCOMB3 58 29999 TOTAL PM10 PARTICULATE 0.008 0.1596

OXPRCOMB3 58 39999 TOTAL PM2.5 PARTICULATE 0.0034 0.0684

OXPRCOMB3 58 50001 VOC-UNCLASSIFIED 0.0083 0.165

OXPRCOMB3 58 59999 VOC-TOTAL 0.0083 0.165

OXPRCOMB3 58 70400 NITROGEN OXIDES 0.1506 3.

OXPRCOMB3 58 70510 SULFUR DIOXIDE 0.0009 0.018

OXPRCOMB3 58 90300 CARBON MONOXIDE 0.1265 2.52

RAWMATBLDG 45 10000 PART-U 7.2576 40.32

RAWMATBLDG 45 14310 LEAD-PB 0.216 1.2

RAWMATBLDG 45 19999 TOTAL PARTICULATE 7.4736 41.52

RAWMATBLDG 45 20000 PM10 PART-U 5.0803 28.224

RAWMATBLDG 45 24310 PM10 LEAD-PB 0.1512 0.84

RAWMATBLDG 45 29999 TOTAL PM10 PARTICULATE 5.2315 29.064

RAWMATBLDG 45 39999 TOTAL PM2.5 PARTICULATE 2.2421 12.456

RAWMATBLDG 45 59999 VOC-TOTAL -0- -0-

REACTOR 1 13 10000 PART-U 0.0183 0.5496

REACTOR 1 13 14310 LEAD-PB 0.0008 0.024

REACTOR 1 13 19999 TOTAL PARTICULATE 0.0191 0.5736

REACTOR 1 13 20000 PM10 PART-U 0.0133 0.4015

Sage Environmental Consulting, L.P.

March 2010

1-15 Exide Technologies - Frisco Battery Recycling Facility

2010_03_30 2009 EI, Tbl 4
Table 4

Detailed Source Specific Emission Rate Summary

2009 Air Emissions Inventory

Exide Technologies Battery Recycling Facility - Frisco, TX

FIN EPN Contam Code Contaminant 2009 

Emission 

Rate

(tpy)

Ozone Season 

Emission Rate

(ppd)

REACTOR 1 13 29999 TOTAL PM10 PARTICULATE 0.0133 0.4015

REACTOR 1 13 39999 TOTAL PM2.5 PARTICULATE 0.0057 0.1721

REACTOR 1 13 59999 VOC-TOTAL -0- -0-

REACTOR 2 12 10000 PART-U 0.0072 0.216

REACTOR 2 12 14310 LEAD-PB 0.0053 0.1584

REACTOR 2 12 19999 TOTAL PARTICULATE 0.0124 0.3744

REACTOR 2 12 20000 PM10 PART-U 0.0087 0.2621

REACTOR 2 12 29999 TOTAL PM10 PARTICULATE 0.0087 0.2621

REACTOR 2 12 39999 TOTAL PM2.5 PARTICULATE 0.0037 0.1123

REACTOR 2 12 59999 VOC-TOTAL -0- -0-

REACTOR 3 11 10000 PART-U 0.0263 0.792

REACTOR 3 11 14310 LEAD-PB 0.0026 0.0768

REACTOR 3 11 19999 TOTAL PARTICULATE 0.0289 0.8688

REACTOR 3 11 20000 PM10 PART-U 0.0202 0.6082

REACTOR 3 11 29999 TOTAL PM10 PARTICULATE 0.0202 0.6082

REACTOR 3 11 39999 TOTAL PM2.5 PARTICULATE 0.0087 0.2606

REACTOR 3 11 59999 VOC-TOTAL -0- -0-

REACTOR 3 9 19999 TOTAL PARTICULATE -0- -0-

REACTOR 3 9 20000 PM10 PART-U -0- -0-

REACTOR 3 9 29999 TOTAL PM10 PARTICULATE -0- -0-

REACTOR 3 9 59999 VOC-TOTAL -0- -0-

REACTOR 4 16 10000 PART-U 0.0177 0.5328

REACTOR 4 16 14310 LEAD-PB 0.0013 0.0384

REACTOR 4 REACTOR 4 16 19999 TOTAL PARTICULATE 0.019 0.5712 16 19999 TOTAL PARTICULATE 0 019 0 5712

REACTOR 4 16 20000 PM10 PART-U 0.0133 0.3998

REACTOR 4 16 29999 TOTAL PM10 PARTICULATE 0.0133 0.3998

REACTOR 4 16 39999 TOTAL PM2.5 PARTICULATE 0.0057 0.1714

REACTOR 4 16 59999 VOC-TOTAL -0- -0-

REACTOR 5 24 10000 PART-U 0.0135 0.4056

REACTOR 5 24 14310 LEAD-PB 0.0006 0.0192

REACTOR 5 24 19999 TOTAL PARTICULATE 0.0141 0.4248

REACTOR 5 24 20000 PM10 PART-U 0.0099 0.2974

REACTOR 5 24 29999 TOTAL PM10 PARTICULATE 0.0099 0.2974

REACTOR 5 24 39999 TOTAL PM2.5 PARTICULATE 0.0042 0.1274

REACTOR 5 24 59999 VOC-TOTAL -0- -0-

REACTOR 6 25 10000 PART-U 0.0128 0.384

REACTOR 6 25 14310 LEAD-PB 0.0007 0.0216

REACTOR 6 25 19999 TOTAL PARTICULATE 0.0135 0.4056

REACTOR 6 25 20000 PM10 PART-U 0.0094 0.2839

REACTOR 6 25 29999 TOTAL PM10 PARTICULATE 0.0094 0.2839

REACTOR 6 25 39999 TOTAL PM2.5 PARTICULATE 0.004 0.1217

REACTOR 6 25 59999 VOC-TOTAL -0- -0-

REAGTSILO1 49 10000 PART-U 0.1689 0.9257

REAGTSILO1 49 19999 TOTAL PARTICULATE 0.1689 0.9257

REAGTSILO1 49 20000 PM10 PART-U 0.1183 0.648

REAGTSILO1 49 29999 TOTAL PM10 PARTICULATE 0.1183 0.648

REAGTSILO1 49 39999 TOTAL PM2.5 PARTICULATE 0.0507 0.2777

REAGTSILO1 49 59999 VOC-TOTAL -0- -0-

Sage Environmental Consulting, L.P.

March 2010

1-16 Exide Technologies - Frisco Battery Recycling Facility

2010_03_30 2009 EI, Tbl 4
Table 4

Detailed Source Specific Emission Rate Summary

2009 Air Emissions Inventory

Exide Technologies Battery Recycling Facility - Frisco, TX

FIN EPN Contam Code Contaminant 2009 

Emission 

Rate

(tpy)

Ozone Season 

Emission Rate

(ppd)

REAGTSILO2 50 10000 PART-U 0.1689 0.9257

REAGTSILO2 50 19999 TOTAL PARTICULATE 0.1689 0.9257

REAGTSILO2 50 20000 PM10 PART-U 0.1183 0.648

REAGTSILO2 50 29999 TOTAL PM10 PARTICULATE 0.1183 0.648

REAGTSILO2 50 39999 TOTAL PM2.5 PARTICULATE 0.0507 0.2777

REAGTSILO2 50 59999 VOC-TOTAL -0- -0-

REFCASTFUG 36 10000 PART-U 0.0589 0.3236

REFCASTFUG 36 14020 ANTIMONY-SB 0.00002 0.0001

REFCASTFUG 36 14110 CADMIUM-CD 0.0001 0.0004

REFCASTFUG 36 14310 LEAD-PB 0.0261 0.1433

REFCASTFUG 36 19999 TOTAL PARTICULATE 0.0851 0.4676

REFCASTFUG 36 20000 PM10 PART-U 0.0412 0.2266

REFCASTFUG 36 24020 PM10 ANTIMONY-SB 0.00002 0.0001

REFCASTFUG 36 24110 PM10 CADMIUM-CD 0.00004 0.0002

REFCASTFUG 36 24310 PM10 LEAD-PB 0.0183 0.1003

REFCASTFUG 36 29999 TOTAL PM10 PARTICULATE 0.0596 0.3273

REFCASTFUG 36 39999 TOTAL PM2.5 PARTICULATE 0.017 0.0935

REFCASTFUG 36 59999 VOC-TOTAL -0- -0-

REVERB 38 10000 PART-U 8.8772 51.1652

REVERB 38 14020 ANTIMONY-SB 0.0073 0.0419

REVERB 38 14030 ARSENIC - AS 0.0041 0.0235

REVERB 38 14110 CADMIUM-CD 0.0183 0.1056

REVERB 38 14310 LEAD-PB 0.1154 0.6654

REVERB 38 14590 SELENIUM-SE 0.007 0.0402 38 14590 SELENIUM SE 0 007 0 0402

REVERB 38 14601 SILICA OXIDE 0.0727 0.419

REVERB 38 19999 TOTAL PARTICULATE 9.1019 52.4608

REVERB 38 20000 PM10 PART-U 6.214 35.8156

REVERB 38 24020 PM10 ANTIMONY-SB 0.0051 0.0293

REVERB 38 24030 PM10 ARSENIC - AS 0.0028 0.0164

REVERB 38 24110 PM10 CADMIUM-CD 0.0128 0.0739

REVERB 38 24310 PM10 LEAD-PB 0.0808 0.4658

REVERB 38 24595 PM10 SELENIUM & COMPOUNDS 0.0049 0.0282

REVERB 38 24601 PM10 SILICA OXIDE 0.0509 0.2933

REVERB 38 29999 TOTAL PM10 PARTICULATE 6.3714 36.7225

REVERB 38 39999 TOTAL PM2.5 PARTICULATE 2.7306 15.7382

REVERB 38 50001 VOC-UNCLASSIFIED 0.9692 5.586

REVERB 38 52420 BENZENE 0.1855 1.069

REVERB 38 52450 ETHYL BENZENE 0.0157 0.0903

REVERB 38 52490 TOLUENE 0.1594 0.9185

REVERB 38 52512 META-XYLENE 0.0614 0.3538

REVERB 38 52514 ORTHO-XYLENE 0.0261 0.1506

REVERB 38 52516 PARA-XYLENE 0.0614 0.3538

REVERB 38 54065 METHYL ETHYL KETONE 0.0261 0.1506

REVERB 38 54070 METHYL ISOBUTYL KETONE 0.0522 0.3011

REVERB 38 56600 HEXANE 0.0104 0.0602

REVERB 38 59999 VOC-TOTAL 1.5674 9.034

REVERB 38 70200 HYDROGEN CHLORIDE 0.57 3.2851

REVERB 38 70400 NITROGEN OXIDES 29.6904 171.126

Sage Environmental Consulting, L.P.

March 2010

1-17 Exide Technologies - Frisco Battery Recycling Facility

2010_03_30 2009 EI, Tbl 4
Table 4

Detailed Source Specific Emission Rate Summary

2009 Air Emissions Inventory

Exide Technologies Battery Recycling Facility - Frisco, TX

FIN EPN Contam Code Contaminant 2009 

Emission 

Rate

(tpy)

Ozone Season 

Emission Rate

(ppd)

REVERB 38 70510 SULFUR DIOXIDE 418.7475 2,413.5304

REVERB 38 70516 SULFURIC ACID (VAPOR) 5.6124 32.348

REVERB 38 90300 CARBON MONOXIDE 415.5488 2,395.0938

REVERBFUG 35 10000 PART-U 4.2016 24.7152

REVERBFUG 35 14020 ANTIMONY-SB 0.0103 0.0608

REVERBFUG 35 14030 ARSENIC - AS 0.0052 0.0304

REVERBFUG 35 14110 CADMIUM-CD 0.0207 0.1216

REVERBFUG 35 14310 LEAD-PB 0.2067 1.216

REVERBFUG 35 19999 TOTAL PARTICULATE 4.4445 26.144

REVERBFUG 35 20000 PM10 PART-U 2.9411 17.3006

REVERBFUG 35 24020 PM10 ANTIMONY-SB 0.0072 0.0426

REVERBFUG 35 24030 PM10 ARSENIC - AS 0.0036 0.0213

REVERBFUG 35 24110 PM10 CADMIUM-CD 0.0145 0.0851

REVERBFUG 35 24310 PM10 LEAD-PB 0.1447 0.8512

REVERBFUG 35 29999 TOTAL PM10 PARTICULATE 3.1111 18.3008

REVERBFUG 35 39999 TOTAL PM2.5 PARTICULATE 1.3333 7.8432

REVERBFUG 35 59999 VOC-TOTAL -0- -0-

REVERBPFS 35 19999 TOTAL PARTICULATE -0- -0-

REVERBPFS 35 20000 PM10 PART-U -0- -0-

REVERBPFS 35 29999 TOTAL PM10 PARTICULATE -0- -0-

REVERBPFS 35 59999 VOC-TOTAL -0- -0-

RMSBFUG47 47 14310 LEAD-PB -0- -0-

RMSBFUG47 47 19999 TOTAL PARTICULATE -0- -0-

RMSBFUG47 RMSBFUG47 47 20000 PM10 PART-U -0- -0- 47 20000 PM10 PART U 0 0

RMSBFUG47 47 29999 TOTAL PM10 PARTICULATE -0- -0-

RMSBFUG47 47 39999 TOTAL PM2.5 PARTICULATE -0- -0-

RMSBFUG47 47 59999 VOC-TOTAL -0- -0-

SHREDDER 45 19999 TOTAL PARTICULATE -0- -0-

SHREDDER 45 20000 PM10 PART-U -0- -0-

SHREDDER 45 29999 TOTAL PM10 PARTICULATE -0- -0-

SHREDDER 45 59999 VOC-TOTAL -0- -0-

SLAGCRUSH 39 10000 PART-U 0.6265 4.8154

SLAGCRUSH 39 14010 ALUMINUM - AL 0.0006 0.0053

SLAGCRUSH 39 14310 LEAD-PB 0.0017 0.0161

SLAGCRUSH 39 19999 TOTAL PARTICULATE 0.6288 4.8369

SLAGCRUSH 39 20000 PM10 PART-U 0.4402 3.3858

SLAGCRUSH 39 29999 TOTAL PM10 PARTICULATE 0.4402 3.3858

SLAGCRUSH 39 39999 TOTAL PM2.5 PARTICULATE 0.1886 1.4511

SLAGCRUSH 39 59999 VOC-TOTAL -0- -0-

SLAGHNDFUG 52 10000 PART-U 0.0362 0.2127

SLAGHNDFUG 52 14020 ANTIMONY-SB 0.0011 0.0063

SLAGHNDFUG 52 14030 ARSENIC - AS 0.0005 0.0032

SLAGHNDFUG 52 14110 CADMIUM-CD 0.0022 0.0127

SLAGHNDFUG 52 14310 LEAD-PB 0.007 0.0413

SLAGHNDFUG 52 19999 TOTAL PARTICULATE 0.047 0.2762

SLAGHNDFUG 52 20000 PM10 PART-U 0.0253 0.1489

SLAGHNDFUG 52 24020 PM10 ANTIMONY-SB 0.0008 0.0044

SLAGHNDFUG 52 24030 PM10 ARSENIC - AS 0.0004 0.0022

Sage Environmental Consulting, L.P.

March 2010

1-18 Exide Technologies - Frisco Battery Recycling Facility

2010_03_30 2009 EI, Tbl 4
Table 4

Detailed Source Specific Emission Rate Summary

2009 Air Emissions Inventory

Exide Technologies Battery Recycling Facility - Frisco, TX

FIN EPN Contam Code Contaminant 2009 

Emission 

Rate

(tpy)

Ozone Season 

Emission Rate

(ppd)

SLAGHNDFUG 52 24110 PM10 CADMIUM-CD 0.0015 0.0089

SLAGHNDFUG 52 24310 PM10 LEAD-PB 0.0049 0.0289

SLAGHNDFUG 52 29999 TOTAL PM10 PARTICULATE 0.0329 0.1933

SLAGHNDFUG 52 39999 TOTAL PM2.5 PARTICULATE 0.0141 0.0829

SLAGHNDFUG 52 59999 VOC-TOTAL -0- -0-

SLCOMB 54 10000 PART-U 0.0192 0.114

SLCOMB 54 19999 TOTAL PARTICULATE 0.0192 0.114

SLCOMB 54 20000 PM10 PART-U 0.0134 0.0798

SLCOMB 54 29999 TOTAL PM10 PARTICULATE 0.0134 0.0798

SLCOMB 54 39999 TOTAL PM2.5 PARTICULATE 0.0057 0.0342

SLCOMB 54 50001 VOC-UNCLASSIFIED 0.0139 0.0825

SLCOMB 54 59999 VOC-TOTAL 0.0139 0.0825

SLCOMB 54 70400 NITROGEN OXIDES 0.252 1.5

SLCOMB 54 70510 SULFUR DIOXIDE 0.0015 0.009

SLCOMB 54 90300 CARBON MONOXIDE 0.2117 1.26

SMELTCLEAN 23 10000 PART-U 0.2832 1.5734

SMELTCLEAN 23 14310 LEAD-PB 0.0019 0.0106

SMELTCLEAN 23 19999 TOTAL PARTICULATE 0.2851 1.584

SMELTCLEAN 23 20000 PM10 PART-U 0.1983 1.1014

SMELTCLEAN 23 24310 PM10 LEAD-PB 0.0013 0.0074

SMELTCLEAN 23 29999 TOTAL PM10 PARTICULATE 0.1996 1.1088

SMELTCLEAN 23 39999 TOTAL PM2.5 PARTICULATE 0.0855 0.4752

SMELTCLEAN 23 59999 VOC-TOTAL -0- -0-

SODBICSILO SODBICSILO 51 10000 PART-U 0.7509 4.1143 51 10000 PART U 0 7509 4 1143

SODBICSILO 51 19999 TOTAL PARTICULATE 0.7509 4.1143

SODBICSILO 51 20000 PM10 PART-U 0.5256 2.88

SODBICSILO 51 29999 TOTAL PM10 PARTICULATE 0.5256 2.88

SODBICSILO 51 39999 TOTAL PM2.5 PARTICULATE 0.2253 1.2343

SODBICSILO 51 59999 VOC-TOTAL -0- -0-

SOXIDEHM 17 10000 PART-U 0.0151 0.9072

SOXIDEHM 17 14310 LEAD-PB 0.0002 0.012

SOXIDEHM 17 19999 TOTAL PARTICULATE 0.0153 0.9192

SOXIDEHM 17 20000 PM10 PART-U 0.0107 0.6434

SOXIDEHM 17 29999 TOTAL PM10 PARTICULATE 0.0107 0.6434

SOXIDEHM 17 39999 TOTAL PM2.5 PARTICULATE 0.0046 0.2758

SOXIDEHM 17 59999 VOC-TOTAL -0- -0-

SUPPVENT 37 10000 PART-U 20.8587 119.5342

SUPPVENT 37 14020 ANTIMONY-SB 0.0009 0.005

SUPPVENT 37 14030 ARSENIC - AS 0.0009 0.0049

SUPPVENT 37 14110 CADMIUM-CD 0.0042 0.0239

SUPPVENT 37 14310 LEAD-PB 0.0419 0.24

SUPPVENT 37 19999 TOTAL PARTICULATE 20.9065 119.808

SUPPVENT 37 20000 PM10 PART-U 14.6011 83.6739

SUPPVENT 37 24020 PM10 ANTIMONY-SB 0.0006 0.0035

SUPPVENT 37 24030 PM10 ARSENIC - AS 0.0006 0.0034

SUPPVENT 37 24110 PM10 CADMIUM-CD 0.0029 0.0167

SUPPVENT 37 24310 PM10 LEAD-PB 0.0293 0.168

SUPPVENT 37 29999 TOTAL PM10 PARTICULATE 14.6345 83.8656

Sage Environmental Consulting, L.P.

March 2010

1-19 Exide Technologies - Frisco Battery Recycling Facility

2010_03_30 2009 EI, Tbl 4
Table 4

Detailed Source Specific Emission Rate Summary

2009 Air Emissions Inventory

Exide Technologies Battery Recycling Facility - Frisco, TX

FIN EPN Contam Code Contaminant 2009 

Emission 

Rate

(tpy)

Ozone Season 

Emission Rate

(ppd)

SUPPVENT 37 39999 TOTAL PM2.5 PARTICULATE 6.2719 35.9424

SUPPVENT 37 50001 VOC-UNCLASSIFIED 22.1817 127.1158

SUPPVENT 37 52420 BENZENE 0.0549 0.3144

SUPPVENT 37 52450 ETHYL BENZENE 0.0289 0.1656

SUPPVENT 37 52480 STYRENE 0.1215 0.696

SUPPVENT 37 52490 TOLUENE 0.286 1.6392

SUPPVENT 37 52512 META-XYLENE 0.0563 0.3228

SUPPVENT 37 52514 ORTHO-XYLENE 0.0376 0.2153

SUPPVENT 37 52516 PARA-XYLENE 0.0563 0.3228

SUPPVENT 37 54065 METHYL ETHYL KETONE 0.0289 0.1656

SUPPVENT 37 54070 METHYL ISOBUTYL KETONE 0.0376 0.2153

SUPPVENT 37 55150 1,3- BUTADIENE 0.1068 0.612

SUPPVENT 37 56600 HEXANE 0.0376 0.2153

SUPPVENT 37 59999 VOC-TOTAL 23.034 132.

SUPPVENT 37 70200 HYDROGEN CHLORIDE 0.4607 2.64

SUPPVENT 37 70400 NITROGEN OXIDES 1.047 6.

SUPPVENT 37 70510 SULFUR DIOXIDE 34.3416 196.8

SUPPVENT 37 70516 SULFURIC ACID (VAPOR) 5.4863 31.44

SUPPVENT 37 90300 CARBON MONOXIDE 14.2392 81.6

TRAFFIC41 41 10000 PART-U 0.1072 0.5873

TRAFFIC41 41 14310 LEAD-PB 0.1072 0.5873

TRAFFIC41 41 19999 TOTAL PARTICULATE 0.2143 1.1745

TRAFFIC41 41 20000 PM10 PART-U 0.0536 0.2936

TRAFFIC41 TRAFFIC41 41 24310 PM10 LEAD-PB 0.0536 0.2936 41 24310 PM10 LEAD PB 0 0536 0 2936

TRAFFIC41 41 29999 TOTAL PM10 PARTICULATE 0.1072 0.5873

TRAFFIC41 41 39999 TOTAL PM2.5 PARTICULATE 0.0643 0.3524

TRAFFIC41 41 59999 VOC-TOTAL -0- -0-

TRAFFIC42 42 10000 PART-U 0.1072 0.5873

TRAFFIC42 42 14310 LEAD-PB 0.1072 0.5873

TRAFFIC42 42 19999 TOTAL PARTICULATE 0.2143 1.1745

TRAFFIC42 42 20000 PM10 PART-U 0.0536 0.2936

TRAFFIC42 42 24310 PM10 LEAD-PB 0.0536 0.2936

TRAFFIC42 42 29999 TOTAL PM10 PARTICULATE 0.1072 0.5873

TRAFFIC42 42 39999 TOTAL PM2.5 PARTICULATE 0.0643 0.3524

TRAFFIC42 42 59999 VOC-TOTAL -0- -0-

TRAFFIC43 43 10000 PART-U 0.1072 0.5873

TRAFFIC43 43 14310 LEAD-PB 0.1072 0.5873

TRAFFIC43 43 19999 TOTAL PARTICULATE 0.2143 1.1745

TRAFFIC43 43 20000 PM10 PART-U 0.0536 0.2936

TRAFFIC43 43 24310 PM10 LEAD-PB 0.0536 0.2936

TRAFFIC43 43 29999 TOTAL PM10 PARTICULATE 0.1072 0.5873

TRAFFIC43 43 39999 TOTAL PM2.5 PARTICULATE 0.0643 0.3524

TRAFFIC43 43 59999 VOC-TOTAL -0- -0-

TRUCKLOAD1 27 14315 LEAD OXIDE 0.0001 0.0013

TRUCKLOAD1 27 19999 TOTAL PARTICULATE 0.0001 0.0013

TRUCKLOAD1 27 20000 PM10 PART-U 0.00004 0.0006

TRUCKLOAD1 27 29999 TOTAL PM10 PARTICULATE 0.00004 0.0006

TRUCKLOAD1 27 39999 TOTAL PM2.5 PARTICULATE 0.00001 0.0002

Sage Environmental Consulting, L.P.

March 2010

1-20 Exide Technologies - Frisco Battery Recycling Facility

2010_03_30 2009 EI, Tbl 4
Table 4

Detailed Source Specific Emission Rate Summary

2009 Air Emissions Inventory

Exide Technologies Battery Recycling Facility - Frisco, TX

FIN EPN Contam Code Contaminant 2009 

Emission 

Rate

(tpy)

Ozone Season 

Emission Rate

(ppd)

TRUCKLOAD1 27 59999 VOC-TOTAL -0- -0-

TRUCKLOAD2 28 14315 LEAD OXIDE 0.0002 0.0052

TRUCKLOAD2 28 19999 TOTAL PARTICULATE 0.0002 0.0052

TRUCKLOAD2 28 20000 PM10 PART-U 0.0001 0.0024

TRUCKLOAD2 28 29999 TOTAL PM10 PARTICULATE 0.0001 0.0024

TRUCKLOAD2 28 39999 TOTAL PM2.5 PARTICULATE 0.00003 0.0008

TRUCKLOAD2 28 59999 VOC-TOTAL -0- -0-

Sage Environmental Consulting, L.P.

March 2010

1-21 Exide Technologies - Frisco Battery Recycling Facility

2010_03_30 2009 EI, Tbl 4
Sage Environmental Consulting, L.P. 2-1 Exide Technologies – Frisco Battery Recycling Facility 

March 2010 2009 EI Report (03.22.2010) 

2 

PROCESS DESCRIPTION 

The Frisco Battery Recycling facility is a lead-acid battery reclamation facility. Spent 

automobile and industrial batteries are the primary source of lead to the operation, but Exide also 

receives quantities of scrap lead and lead-contaminated wastes for lead recovery. The facility's 

operations yield four products: soft lead, hard lead (alloys), lead oxide, and sodium sulfate. 

Process flow diagrams for lead smelting/refining operations and for the lead oxide process are 

provided in Appendix D (Figures 1 and 2). 

2.1 Smelting and Refining Operations 

Scrap batteries are delivered to Exide by trucks and stored in the battery storage area prior to 

processing. The batteries received by Exide are broken in the battery breaker (EPN 48FUG) and 

the component parts are separated by gravity in a water bath. Sulfuric acid emissions from the 

Battery Breaker are controlled by a scrubber (EPN 48). The lead from the batteries is rinsed to 

remove residual sulfuric acid before being stored in the raw material storage area (EPN 44) and 

the raw material storage building along with other lead-bearing scraps. Emissions from the raw 

material storage building are controlled by a ventilation system and dust collector (EPN 45). 

Material to be fed to the reverberatory furnace is first mixed inside the raw material storage 

building and then dried in a natural gas-fired dryer to remove moisture. Residual sulfuric acid is 

also removed. The removal of moisture minimizes steam explosions in the furnace and the 

removal of sulfuric acid reduces the amount of SO2 generated in the reverberatory furnace. 

Dryer flue gases are vented through a baghouse and a flushed de-mister before being emitted 

through the soft lead baghouse stack (EPN 21). 

Materials in both raw material storage facilities are transported by front-end loaders. The 

material is taken from the storage areas and charged to either the blast furnace or the 

reverberatory furnace via front-end loader as required. Stack gases from the blast furnace pass 

initially through a low-NOx afterburner to completely burn CO or any other uncombusted 

compounds present. Stack gases from each furnace then pass through cooling zones, primary 

settling chambers ("A-pipes"), baghouses, and finally a common scrubber for sulfur dioxide 

control prior to being emitted to the atmosphere (EPN 38). 

Fugitive emissions from the reverberatory furnace, blast furnace, and the lead refining building 

have been assigned their own EPNs (35, 10, and 36, respectively). Process fugitive emissions 

from the blast furnace are routed to the hard lead, special alloy, and supplemental ventilation 

baghouses (EPNs 18, 22, and 37). Process fugitive emissions from the reverberatory furnace are 

routed to the special alloy and supplemental ventilation baghouses (EPNs 22 and 37). 

Refining of the lead bullion is accomplished in several large natural gas fired kettles. The 

bullion from the blast furnace is refined into hard lead, also called lead alloys. The bullion from 

SECTION
Sage Environmental Consulting, L.P. 2-2 Exide Technologies – Frisco Battery Recycling Facility 

March 2010 2009 EI Report (03.22.2010) 

the reverberatory furnace is refined into soft lead, a portion of which feeds the lead oxide 

process. The soft lead, hard lead, and special alloy refining areas all have dedicated vacuum 

hooding with a baghouse to control lead fumes and other contaminant emissions (EPNs 18, 21, 

and 22). Products of the natural gas combustion are vented to the atmosphere (EPNs 54 and 55). 

Slag from the reverberatory furnace, drosses from both refining operations, and metals from 

wastewater treatment become feed for the blast furnace. Slag from the blast furnace is taken by 

front end loader to the slag treatment building where it is crushed, screened, and mixed with 

cement, water, and a patented fixing agent to chemically fix the remaining lead content in a nonleachable form. The slag treatment operations have a dedicated ventilation system with a 

baghouse, which maintains negative pressure on the entire building for particulate emissions 

control (EPN 39). 

2.2 Oxide Process 

Much of the soft lead produced at the facility is further processed into lead oxide. Soft lead 

ingots are initially melted in three melting pots and then reacted with air in six Barton Pot 

reactors to form lead oxide. The lead oxide particles are removed in six settling chambers 

controlled by baghouses. Emissions from the reactors and the settling chambers are from these 

baghouse stacks (EPNs 11, 12, 13, 16, 24, and 25). The settling chambers feed two oxide 

hammermills with separate baghouses (EPNs 15 and 17). The homogenized oxide particles then 

feed storage hoppers and weigh hoppers before being shipped. Two covered screw-conveyors 

load the oxide product into hopper trucks for shipment. Both conveyors have ventilators, and a 

bag filter is installed on the hopper truck vent before oxide loading begins (EPN 26). The oxide 

hygiene baghouse controls fugitive emissions from the oxide building including three melting 

pots and from both truck loading stations (EPN 14). Emissions from the melting pots and the 

oxide reactors natural gas burners are emitted to the atmosphere through their dedicated stacks 

(EPNs 56, 57, and 58). 

All smelting, refining, and oxide production facilities operate 24 hours a day, 5-7 days a week, 

about 50 weeks a year (345 days/yr). The slag treatment facility operates 4 hours a day, 5 days a 

week, 52 weeks a year. 

2.3 Crystallization Process 

The crystallization process is conducted in the area of the plant referred to as the crystallizer. 

The focus of the operations in the crystallizer is to produce sodium sulfate (salt) as a byproduct. 

The sodium sulfate is crystallized from the waste water generated by the recycling of lead acid 

batteries. The waste water is provided from the upstream operations after metals removal. The 

waste water is preheated by a heat exchanger and then sent to the vapor body. The vapor body 

will concentrate the salt solution by recirculation to a heat exchanger via a compressor. This 

process heats the solution and the higher concentration / denser salt solution is removed from the 

vapor body, dried and stored for shipment. A boiler is used to indirectly heat the solution from 

the vapor body that is in recirculation. This indirect heat stream (water) is then used to preheat 

the waste water before it enters the vapor body. The use of a compressor on the recirculation 
Sage Environmental Consulting, L.P. 2-3 Exide Technologies – Frisco Battery Recycling Facility 

March 2010 2009 EI Report (03.22.2010) 

stream allows the boiler to operate at various firing rates ranging from idle to max (100%) in 

automatic mode. The final outputs are Sodium Sulfate in dry powder form and condensed water 

(condensate). 
Sage Environmental Consulting, L.P. 3-1 Exide Technologies – Frisco Battery Recycling Facility 

March 2010 2009 EI Report (03.22.2010) 

3 

EMISSION CALCULATION METHODOLOGY 

The primary emission sources in the battery recycling operations are the Battery Breaker, Raw 

Material Building, Reverberatory and Blast Furnaces, Soft Lead Refining Kettles, Hard Lead 

Refining Kettles, Specialty Alloy Refining Kettles, Lead Ingot Casting Machine, Lead Oxide 

Production Units and Slag Fixation Building. 

Emission calculations for the primary point sources are based mostly on 1995 sampling analyses 

plus adjustments for process variances. Lead emissions from six baghouses (EPNs 18, 21, 22, 

37, 38, and 45) are estimated based on the latest (2009) stack test results. Lead emissions from 

the Vacuum System Baghouse (EPN 23) are estimated based on the latest (2003) stack test 

results. Lead emissions from the Slag Treatment Baghouse (EPN 39) are estimated based on the 

1999 stack test results. Emissions from additional sources, including material handling fugitives, 

process fugitives, and natural gas combustion are estimated using AP-42 emission factors. 

Emissions from the silo filters (EPNs 49-51) are estimated based on the fan flowrates and 

maximum exhaust stream grain loading. 

3.1 Raw Material Storage 

Fugitive emissions the outdoor, covered raw material storage area (EPN 44) were calculated 

using OSHA sampling test results, an assumed air velocity from the areas of 25 ft/min, and the 

area of each enclosure open to the atmosphere. Water sprays are used in the raw material storage 

area to control particulate emissions (70% control efficiency). A dust collector was installed in 

mid-1994 to control fugitives from the raw material storage building. Total particulate emissions 

from this dust collector (EPN 45) are based on 1994 stack test results. Lead emissions from this 

baghouse were re-tested in 2009. The 2009 lead concentration and the 2009 hours of operation 

were used in the calculations. See Table A-1 for the input data and calculation results. 

The Feed Dryer is also located inside the Raw Material Building, but vents sulfuric acid, 

particulate matter, lead, and products of combustion emissions through a dedicated duct to the 

Feed Dryer Baghouse and Feed Dryer Scrubber. The outlet from the Feed Dryer Scrubber 

combines with the outlet from the Soft Lead Baghouse, and vents to the atmosphere from 

EPN 21, Soft Lead Ventilation. The emissions from EPN 21 are discussed in Section 3.4. 

3.2 Battery Breaker Operations 

Emissions from the battery breaking operation are collected and vented to the Battery Breaker 

water scrubber (EPN 48). The scrubber's atmospheric exhaust vent was tested for particulate 

matter, lead and sulfuric acid mist emissions over multiple sampling runs in 1995. Emission 

estimates for the scrubber are based on sampling results as shown in Table A-1. 

SECTION
Sage Environmental Consulting, L.P. 3-2 Exide Technologies – Frisco Battery Recycling Facility 

March 2010 2009 EI Report (03.22.2010) 

The battery breaker operation also results in fugitive emissions of sulfuric acid and particulate 

matter that escape capture by the vent hoods and are therefore not controlled by the scrubber. 

Since the battery breaker water bath remains slightly acidic, sulfuric acid fugitive emissions 

result as battery parts are removed on screens and transferred on screw conveyors. Fugitive 

sulfuric acid mist emissions from the battery breaker operation are estimated based on ambient 

concentrations from OSHA employee monitoring around the battery breaker in 1995. Fugitive 

sulfuric acid emissions are calculated in Appendix B, page B-5 using the monitored 

concentration, an estimated representative area, and the average wind speed. Slight emissions of 

particulate matter can occur as light battery plastics are loaded into trucks for recycling. The 

minor emissions of particulate matter from the open end of the plastic recycling truck, which 

escape capture by the battery breaker scrubber, are expected to be below levels which necessitate 

emission quantification. No emission factors for fugitive TSP and/or lead are currently 

available. 

3.3 Smelting Operations 

The reverberatory and blast furnaces are the primary sources of emissions from the lead 

recycling process. The exhaust gas streams from the reverb and blast furnaces each pass through 

a separate, dedicated baghouses, and the streams combine prior to control in the metallurgical 

scrubber, EPN 38. 

The combined vent stack from the Metallurgical Scrubber was sampled in 1995 for all expected 

emissions including particulate matter, volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, carbon 

monoxide, sulfur dioxide, hydrochloric acid, sulfuric acid, silica oxide and numerous metals, 

including lead. Numerous organic compounds were also sampled. Many of the compounds 

were below the sampling detection limit. 

VOC emissions from the metallurgical scrubber were re-tested in 1999. The test results were 

presented to the TCEQ. VOC emissions calculated based on the 1999 test results were speciated 

using ratios obtained during the 1995 test results as shown in Table A-2 and as discussed in the 

following paragraph. Lead emissions from the metallurgical scrubber were re-tested in 2009. 

The test results were presented to the TCEQ and used in the attached calculations. 

Emissions estimates for all sampled organic compounds and inorganic matter from the 

metallurgical scrubber are included in Tables A-10 and A-11 in Appendix A. However, only ten 

organic compounds and six inorganic matter are included in the resulting Table A-2 and in the 

2009 EIQ. TCEQ requires that at least 90% of PM and VOC are to be speciated. As seen from 

Tables A-10 and A-11, 93.58% of VOC emissions and 99.78% PM emissions are speciated. All 

emissions are scaled based on the tons of metal produced in 2009 and hours of operation as 

appropriate. 

An additional point source associated with the furnace operations is the refining building 

supplemental ventilation baghouse stack (EPN 37). Exide tested the emissions from this 

baghouse in 1995 for most of the compounds sampled for the metallurgical scrubber (see above). 

Methodology of 2009 emission calculations for the supplemental ventilation baghouse is similar 

to the one described above for the metallurgical scrubber. Lead emissions were re-tested in 
Sage Environmental Consulting, L.P. 3-3 Exide Technologies – Frisco Battery Recycling Facility 

March 2010 2009 EI Report (03.22.2010) 

2009. The 2009 lead concentrations and the number of 2009 hours of operation were used in the 

calculations. The results are shown in Table A-9 and, partially, in Table A-1. 

Both the reverb and blast furnace are sources of fugitive emissions. Exide utilizes primary and 

supplemental hooding to control both reverb and blast furnace fugitives. Based on the overall 

design of the primary and supplemental hooding, a hooding collection efficiency of 98% is 

applied to estimate furnace fugitive emissions. Emission factors from AP-42, 5th Edition, Table 

12.11-4 are used to estimate uncontrolled furnace fugitives for particulate matter. 

For furnace fugitive emissions of lead, the current AP-42 for Secondary Lead Processing (5th

Edition Chapter 12.11) provides a lead emission factor range of 0.2 lb/ton to 0.6 lb/ton for 

furnace fugitives. Therefore, Exide used the factor to 0.4 lb/ton to reflect the average factor 

provided in the current AP-42. Fugitive emissions of arsenic, antimony and cadmium are 

similarly calculated based on sample concentrations and a concentration adjustment factor; the 

calculated results are extremely minor. The fugitive emission estimates are shown in Appendix 

A, Table A-3. 

3.4 Refining and Casting Operations 

The soft lead refining kettles emissions are vented to the soft lead baghouse. The outlet 

emissions from the soft lead baghouse combine with the outlet emissions from the feed dryer 

scrubber and vent to the atmosphere from EPN 21 (soft lead ventilation). The Hard Lead 

Baghouse, EPN 18, includes emissions from Hard Lead Refining Kettles and their associated 

drossing operation vents. The Specialty Alloy Baghouse, EPN 22, includes emissions from Hard 

Lead Refining Kettle, the associated drossing operation vent, a small melting kettle and the 

ventilated dross bins. 

Emissions from the soft lead, hard lead, and special alloys baghouses were quantified in 1995 

stack tests. The lead emissions from the EPNs 18, 21, and 22 were re-tested in 2009. Emissions 

are based on the stack test results and 2009 hours of operation. The atmospheric emissions from 

EPNs 18, 21, and 22 include particulate matter, lead, products of combustion, volatile organic 

compounds, trace metals and other trace compounds. Emissions from EPN 18 also include 

sulfuric acid and hydrochloric acid. Extensive sampling analysis has been performed on these 

stacks to characterize emission rates of these compounds. The sampling results and 2009 

emissions are detailed in Appendix A, Tables A-6 (EPN 18), A-7 (EPN 21), A-8 (EPN 22), A-10 

(organic compounds), and A-11 (inorganic matter). The emissions are summarized in Table A1. Methodology of calculations is similar to the one described above for the metallurgical 

scrubber. 

There are six soft lead, four hard lead, and two special alloy refining kettles at the facility. Each 

kettle is individually represented in this EIQ. Emissions from each emission point were 

estimated based on the stack test results. Total emissions from each emission point were divided 

on the number of sources vented to it to satisfy the EIQ requirements. 

Fugitive emissions of particulate matter and lead occur from the refining kettles during drossing 

operations. AP-42 5th Edition emission factors (Table 12.11-4) are used to estimate 
Sage Environmental Consulting, L.P. 3-4 Exide Technologies – Frisco Battery Recycling Facility 

March 2010 2009 EI Report (03.22.2010) 

uncontrolled refining and casting particulate matter emissions (EPN 36). Fugitive emissions of 

lead, arsenic, antimony, and cadmium are based on the particulate matter emissions and the 

concentrations sampled in the hard lead refining baghouse during the 1995 emissions test. 

Although the drossing operations occur inside the smelting building which realistically would 

capture a significant portion of the fugitives, no fugitive emission abatement is assumed. The 

fugitive emission estimates are shown in Appendix A, Table A-3. 

An additional point source associated with the kettles operations is the refining building central 

vacuum stack. Exide uses a portable industrial vacuum cleaner to remove dust particles from the 

floor of the building. The exhaust from the industrial vacuum cleaner vents through a dedicated 

baghouse (EPN 23). Emissions from the refining building central vacuum system are based on 

the 1987 stack test for total suspended particulates and the 2003 stack tests for lead. Central 

vacuum emissions for TSP and lead were increased by 10% since the housekeeping operations 

are not a strong function of the facility throughput. 

Each refining kettle is fired at the bottom of the kettle with natural gas to maintain the lead 

product in molten form and enhance the refining process. The combustion emissions from all 

kettles (soft lead, hard lead, etc.) are captured beneath the refining building and vented though a 

dedicated stack (EPN 54 for soft lead, EPN 55 for hard lead and special alloys). Each kettle has 

a dedicated burner with a design capacity of 1.0 MMBtu/hr. The AP-42, 5th Edition, 

Supplement D (July 1998) emission factors from Tables 1.4-1 and 1.4-2 for natural gas 

combustion for commercial boilers (< 100 MMBtu/hr) are used to estimate the combustion 

emissions. The emission calculations for natural gas combustion from soft lead refining 

(EPN 54) are included in Appendix B (page B-6). The emission calculations for natural gas 

combustion from hard lead refining and hard alloys (EPN 55) are found in Appendix B on Pages 

B-7 and B-8). AP-42 also contains emission factors for several organic and inorganic HAPs 

(Tables 1.4-3 and 1.4-4). Emission estimations from all combustion sources show extremely low 

HAPs emission. Therefore, neither PM nor VOC emissions from these sources are speciated. 

3.5 Slag Treatment Building 

TSP emission estimations from the crushing/screening baghouse (EPN 39) were based on 1994 

measurements of PM concentration in the baghouse exhaust. Rates were scaled based on the 

number of hours of operation (see Appendix B, page B-1). Emission estimations for aluminum 

and lead from this source were based on 1993 and 1999 stack tests, respectively. Rates were 

scaled based on the 2009 annual tons of the slag processed. The building has no fugitive 

emissions due to the negative pressure generated by the crushing/screening baghouse system. 

Smoke bomb testing supporting this assertion was conducted on March 18, 1994. The test 

results were submitted to TCEQ. The calculation results are shown in Table A-1. 

3.6 Oxide Process 

Emissions from the six oxide reactor baghouses (EPNs 13, 12, 11, 16, 24, and 25), the two 

hammermill baghouses (EPNs 15 and 17), the oxide building central vacuum system baghouse 

(EPN 26), and the oxide hygiene baghouse (EPN 14) were estimated based on December 1995 

stack tests. The tests results were reported to TCEQ and included in 1995 Emissions Inventory. 
Sage Environmental Consulting, L.P. 3-5 Exide Technologies – Frisco Battery Recycling Facility 

March 2010 2009 EI Report (03.22.2010) 

The measured rates were scaled based on 2009 annual lead oxide tons produced. In keeping 

with the stack test results, the emissions from these sources are reported as TSP and lead only, 

although the actual lead emissions are in the form of lead oxide particles. The oxide hygiene 

baghouse system capture efficiency was estimated to be 99.5%. See Table A-1. 

The melting pots and the oxide reactors burners combust natural gas. The products of 

combustion from the burners are captured and vented through dedicated stacks (EPN 56 for the 

melting pot #2 and the oxide reactors #3 and #4, EPN 57 for the melting pot #1 and the oxide 

reactors #1 and #2, and EPN 58 for the melting pot #3 and the oxide reactors #5 and #6). Each 

oxide reactor's burner has a design capacity of 1.5 MMBtu/hr. Each melting pot's burner has a 

design capacity of 1.0 MMBtu/hr. The AP-42, 5th Edition, Supplement D (July 1998) emission 

factors from Tables 1.4-1 and 1.4-2 for natural gas combustion for commercial boilers (< 100 

MMBtu/hr) were used to estimate the combustion emissions. The emission calculations for 

EPNs 56, 57, and 58 are found in Appendix B on pages B-3 and B-4. AP-42 also contains 

emission factors for several organic and inorganic HAPs (Tables 1.4-3 and 1.4-4). Emission 

estimations from all combustion sources show extremely low HAPs emission. Therefore, neither 

PM nor VOC emissions from these sources are speciated. 

Three 0.25 MMBtu/hr natural gas-fired "trough heaters" combustion products are emitted inside 

the building and release to the atmosphere as fugitive emissions. The oxide building fugitive 

emissions (EPN 46) were estimated based on the AP-42, 5th Edition, Supplement D (July 1998) 

emission factors from Tables 1.4-1 and 1.4-2 for natural gas combustion for residential furnaces 

(<0.3 MMBtu/hr). The calculations are included in Appendix B, page B-9. 

3.7 Truck Loading Operations 

Truck loading emissions were calculated using AP-42 5th Edition Section 13.2.4 formula (1) for 

material drops into trucks. An emission factor of 0.00537 lb/ton was developed for the drops 

(detailed calculations are found in Appendix B, page B-2). 100% of the auger emissions were 

assumed to emit from the auger vent. The auger vent capture efficiency was estimated at 99.0%. 

Thirty percent of the plant's annual lead oxide production was the basis for the west loading 

rack's emissions (EPN 27) and seventy percent was the basis for the east rack's (EPN 28). 

Twelve tons per hour was used as the maximum hourly loading rate for the west rack. Twentyfour tons per hour was used as the maximum hourly loading rate for the east rack. See Table A4 for the calculation results. 

3.8 Other Sources 

Vehicle traffic emissions are calculated in accordance with TCEQ guidance from the Mechanical 

Division for Rock Crushing Facilities. Vehicle traffic emissions result from raw material 

deliveries in trucks, large and small front-end loader operations, and forklift operations. For 

each vehicle operation, worst-case assumptions are used for the calculation parameters including 

distance traveled, number of trips per day, and vehicle weight. The control factor is based on a 

combination of watering, wet sweeping and vacuuming, which equals a 94.5% annual control 

factor. The emissions were divided into three primary traffic fugitive areas: west (EPN 41), 
Sage Environmental Consulting, L.P. 3-6 Exide Technologies – Frisco Battery Recycling Facility 

March 2010 2009 EI Report (03.22.2010) 

south (EPN 42), and east (EPN 43). For 2009, the emissions from each area were scaled based 

on 2009 annual production. 

There are three insignificant sources of emissions at the facility that were first reported to the 

TCEQ in the 2003 EI. A diesel fuel storage tank (FIN: DIESELTK1) emissions were evaluated 

using the U.S. EPA program TANKS 4.09b. Forms to document the new path were included in 

2003 EIQ. Emissions from two degreasers (FINs: DEGREASER1 and DEGREASER2) were 

bundled per the TCEQ EIQ instructions for insignificant sources. These emissions are reported 

using the path FIN: D-1, EPN: D-1 in the TCEQ printout. The emissions were evaluated using 

the degreasing solvent material balance. 

3.9 Miscellaneous Natural Gas Combustion Sources 

Emissions from the crystallizer boiler (EPN: CRYSTLBLR) were based on vendor provided 

performance data, annual operating hours, and annual average heat duty. Emissions from all 

other natural gas combustion sources listed on Table A-13 (EPNs FLASHDRYER, 

PLASTDRYER, WATERHTR1, WATERHTR2, WATERHTR3, and WATERHTR4) are based 

on AP-42 factors, annual operating data, and maximum heat duty. 

3.10 EE and SMSS Emissions 

The Frisco facility did not have any reportable upsets (emission events) or start-up, shutdown, or 

regular maintenance (SSM) emissions that should be reportable in the emissions inventory per 

the EIQ guidelines and TCEQ regulations in Year 2009. 

There was one non-recordable emission event that occurred on December 10, 2009. On this day, 

an electrical short caused loss of power at the dryer. When the dryer shut-off, the reverb furnace, 

blast furnace including afterburner, soft lead baghouse and scrubber were shutoff. Power was 

restored to the blast furnace without restarting the scrubber resulting in a non-reportable SO2

emission event. 
Sage Environmental Consulting, L.P. 4-1 Exide Technologies – Frisco Battery Recycling Facility 

March 2010 2009 EI Report (03.22.2010) 

4 

ANCILLARY DATA 

Process flow diagrams (Appendix D) of the smelting/refining and the oxide processes were 

prepared detailing the air emission controls and points. These diagrams were based on drawings 

and information provided by Exide personnel. 

A plot plan of site was prepared according to TCEQ requirements showing emission points. See 

Appendix E. 

Each field was calculated, determined or estimated from information supplied by Exide 

Technologies. 

SECTION
Sage Environmental Consulting, L.P. Exide Technologies – Frisco Battery Recycling Facility 

March 2010 2009 EI Report (03.22.2010) 

APPENDIX A 

EMISSION CALCULATION SPREADSHEETS 

This appendix includes the following items in the following order: 

• Table A-1 – Site Emissions Summary 

• Table A-2 – Furnace Scrubber Emissions 

• Table A-3 – Fugitive Emissions 

• Table A-4 – Truck Loading Fugitive Emissions 

• Table A-5 – Annual Process Rates 

• Table A-6 – Hard Lead Baghouse Emissions 

• Table A-7 – Soft Lead Baghouse Emissions 

• Table A-8 – Special Alloys Baghouse Emissions 

• Table A-9 – Supplemental Ventilation Baghouse Emissions 

• Table A-10 – Volatile Organic Compounds Emissions Summary 

• Table A-11 – Inorganic Particulates Emissions Summary 

• Table A-12 – Storage Silo Vent Emissions 

• Table A-13 – Miscellaneous Sources Natural Gas Combustion Emissions 

• Table A-14 – Vehicle Traffic 

• Table A-15 – Emission Event – December 10, 2009 
Table A-1

Site Emissions Summary

2009 Air Emissions Inventory

Exide Technologies Battery Recycling Facility - Frisco, TX

Past Testing 

Estimation Test Emissions Year's Annual 

Emission Point EPN Method Date Contaminant lbs/hr * Charge (tons) Charge (tons) 

Refining Operations

Blast Furnace Fugitives 10 AP-42 PM-Total SEE TABLE A-3 

Lead SEE TABLE A-3 

Arsenic SEE TABLE A-3 

Antimony SEE TABLE A-3 

Cadmium SEE TABLE A-3 

Part-U SEE TABLE A-3 

Hard Lead Baghouse 18 Stack Test 1995 PM-Total 0.5520 62,888 74,002 

2009 Lead 0.0300 70,714 74,002 1995 NOx 0.0700 72,000 74,002 1995 CO 0.5000 72,000 74,002 1995 SO2 0.0200 72,000 74,002 

1995 VOC 0.5700 72,000 74,002 

PM-Unspeciated SEE TABLE A-6 

Soft Lead Baghouse 21 Stack Test 1995 PM-Total 0.9810 62,888 74,002 

2009 Lead 0.0500 70,714 74,002 

1995 NOx 1.1200 72,000 74,002 1995 CO 7.7000 72,000 74,002 1995 SO2 1.5000 72,000 74,002 

1995 VOC 5.7900 72,000 74,002 1995 HCl 0.0890 72,000 74,002 1995 Sulfuric Acid 0.0700 72,000 74,002 

PM-Unspeciated SEE TABLE A-7 

VOC-Unspeciated SEE TABLE A-7 

S i l All B h Special Alloys Baghouse 22 Stack Test 1995 PM-Total 22 St k T t 1995 PM T t l 0 7390. 62 888, 74,002 

74 002 

2009 Lead 0.0100 70,714 74,002 1995 NOx 0.0700 72,000 74,002 1995 CO 0.6000 72,000 74,002 1995 SO2 0.1200 72,000 74,002 

1995 VOC 0.2850 72,000 74,002 

PM-Unspeciated SEE TABLE A-8 

Smelter Central Vacuum Baghouse 23 Stack Test 1987 TSP 0.0600 37,171 N/A** 

2003 Lead 0.0004 70,212 N/A** 

Part-U 

Reverberatory Furnace Fugitives 35 AP-42 PM-Total SEE TABLE A-3 

Lead SEE TABLE A-3 

Arsenic SEE TABLE A-3 

Antimony SEE TABLE A-3 

Cadmium SEE TABLE A-3 

Part-U SEE TABLE A-3 

Casting Area Fugitives 36 AP-42, Test PM-Total SEE TABLE A-3 

Lead SEE TABLE A-3 

Arsenic SEE TABLE A-3 

Antimony SEE TABLE A-3 

Cadmium SEE TABLE A-3 

Part-U SEE TABLE A-3 

Sage Environmental Consulting, L.P.March 2010

Page 1 of 4 
Table A-1

Site Emissions Summary

2009 Air Emissions Inventory

Exide Technologies Battery Recycling Facility - Frisco, TX

Past Testing 

Estimation Test Emissions Year's Annual 

Emission Point EPN Method Date Contaminant lbs/hr * Charge (tons) Charge (tons) 

Supplemental Ventilation Baghouse 37 Stack Test 1995 PM-Total 4.9920 62,888 74,002 

2009 Lead 0.0100 70,714 74,002 1995 NOx 0.2500 62,888 74,002 1995 CO 3.4000 62,888 74,002 1995 SO2 8.2000 62,888 74,002 

1995 VOC 5.5000 62,888 74,002 1995 HCl 0.1100 62,888 74,002 1995 Sulfuric Acid 1.3100 62,888 74,002 

PM-Unspeciated SEE TABLE A-9 

Metallurgical Scrubber 38 Stack Test 1995 PM-Total SEE TABLE A-2 

2009 Lead SEE TABLE A-2 1995 Antimony SEE TABLE A-2 1995 Arsenic SEE TABLE A-2 1995 NOx SEE TABLE A-2 1995 CO SEE TABLE A-2 1995 SO2 SEE TABLE A-2 

1999 VOC SEE TABLE A-2 1995 HCl SEE TABLE A-2 1995 Sulfuric Acid SEE TABLE A-2 

PM-Unspeciated SEE TABLE A-2 

Slag Crush and Screen Baghouse 39 Stack Test 1993 Aluminum 0.0012 9,283 10,795 

1999 Lead 0.0033 8,729 10,795 

TSP SEE APPENDIX B, PAGE B-1 

PM-Unspeciated 

Covered Material Storage Area 44 OSHA Sampling Lead (TSP) 0.0082 Control Eff: 70%*** 

R M t i l St Bld B h Raw Material Storage Bldg. Baghouse 45 St k T t Stack Test 1994 PM T t l PM-Total 1 7300 . 72 000 , 74 002 , 

2009 Lead 0.0500 70,714 74,002 

PM-Unspeciated 

Raw Material Storage Bldg. Fugitives 47**** OSHA Sampling Lead (TSP) 0.0115 

Battery Breaker Scrubber 48 Stack Test 1995 PM-Total 0.5200 72,000 74,002 

1995 Lead 0.0150 72,000 74,002 1995 H2SO4 0.0150 72,000 74,002 

PM-Unspeciated 

Battery Breaker Fugitives 48FUG Sampling Test 1995 H2SO4 SEE APPENDIX B, PAGE B-5 

Slag Handling Fugitives 52 AP-42 PM-Total SEE TABLE A-3 

Lead SEE TABLE A-3 

Arsenic SEE TABLE A-3 

Antimony SEE TABLE A-3 

Cadmium SEE TABLE A-3 

Part-U SEE TABLE A-3 

Material Handling Fugitives 53 AP-42 PM-Total SEE APPENDIX B, PAGE B-10 44,644 

PM-10 

PM-2.5 

Lead 

Soft Lead Kettle Heating Stack 54 AP-42 VOC SEE APPENDIX B, PAGE B-6 

NOx SEE APPENDIX B, PAGE B-6 

CO SEE APPENDIX B, PAGE B-6 

SO2 SEE APPENDIX B, PAGE B-6 

PM-Total SEE APPENDIX B, PAGE B-6 

Sage Environmental Consulting, L.P.March 2010

Page 2 of 4 
Table A-1

Site Emissions Summary

2009 Air Emissions Inventory

Exide Technologies Battery Recycling Facility - Frisco, TX

Past Testing 

Estimation Test Emissions Year's Annual 

Emission Point EPN Method Date Contaminant lbs/hr * Charge (tons) Charge (tons) 

Hard Lead & Sp. Alloy Kettle Heating Stack 55 AP-42 VOC SEE APPENDIX B, PAGE B-7, B-8 

NOx SEE APPENDIX B, PAGE B-7, B-8 

CO SEE APPENDIX B, PAGE B-7, B-8 

SO2 SEE APPENDIX B, PAGE B-7, B-8 

PM-Total SEE APPENDIX B, PAGE B-7, B-8 

Oxide Process

Oxide Reactor 3 Baghouse 11 Stack Test 1995 Lead 0.0032 8,192 1,755 

1995 TSP 0.0362 8,192 1,755 

Part-U 

Oxide Reactor 2 Baghouse 12 Stack Test 1995 Lead 0.0066 8,192 1,755 

1995 TSP 0.0156 8,192 1,755 

Part-U 

Oxide Reactor 1 Baghouse 13 Stack Test 1995 Lead 0.0010 8,192 1,755 

1995 TSP 0.0239 8,192 1,755 

Part-U 

Oxide Hygiene Baghouse 14 Stack Test 1995 Lead 0.0055 49,150 10,528 

1995 TSP 0.0759 49,150 10,528 

Part-U 

North Oxide Hammermill Baghouse 15 Stack Test 1995 Lead 0.0026 24,575 5,264 

1995 TSP 0.0823 24,575 5,264 

Part-U 

Oxide Reactor 4 Baghouse 16 Stack Test 1995 Lead 0.0016 8,192 1,755 

1995 TSP 0.0238 8,192 1,755 

Part-U 

South Oxide Hammermill Baghouse South Oxide Hammermill Baghouse 17 Stack Test Stack Test 1995 Lead 0 0005 . 24 575 , 5 264 , 

1995 TSP 0.0383 24,575 5,264 

Part-U 

Oxide Reactor 5 Baghouse 24 Stack Test 1995 Lead 0.0008 8,192 1,755 

1995 TSP 0.0177 8,192 1,755 

Part-U 

Oxide Reactor 6 Baghouse 25 Stack Test 1995 Lead 0.0009 8,192 1,755 

1995 TSP 0.0169 8,192 1,755 

Part-U 

Oxide Central Vacuum Baghouse 26 Stack Test 1995 Lead 0.0008 49,150 10,528 

1995 TSP 0.0182 49,150 10,528 

Part-U 

West Truck Loading Fugitives 27 AP-42 PM-Total SEE TABLE A-4 

PM-10 SEE TABLE A-4 

PM-2.5 SEE TABLE A-4 

Lead Oxide SEE TABLE A-4 

East Truck Loading Fugitives 28 AP-42 PM-Total SEE TABLE A-4 

PM-10 SEE TABLE A-4 

PM-2.5 SEE TABLE A-4 

Lead Oxide SEE TABLE A-4 

Sage Environmental Consulting, L.P.March 2010

Page 3 of 4 
Table A-1

Site Emissions Summary

2009 Air Emissions Inventory

Exide Technologies Battery Recycling Facility - Frisco, TX

Past Testing 

Estimation Test Emissions Year's Annual 

Emission Point EPN Method Date Contaminant lbs/hr * Charge (tons) Charge (tons) 

Oxide Building Fugitives 46 AP-42 TSP SEE TABLE A-3 & APP. B, PAGE B-9 

SO2 SEE TABLE A-3 & APP. B, PAGE B-9 

NOx SEE TABLE A-3 & APP. B, PAGE B-9 

CO SEE TABLE A-3 & APP. B, PAGE B-9 

VOC SEE TABLE A-3 & APP. B, PAGE B-9 

Oxide Process Combustion Sources 1 56 AP-42 TSP SEE APPENDIX B, PAGES B-3 & B-4 

SO2 SEE APPENDIX B, PAGES B-3 & B-4 

NOx SEE APPENDIX B, PAGES B-3 & B-4 

CO SEE APPENDIX B, PAGES B-3 & B-4 

VOC SEE APPENDIX B, PAGES B-3 & B-4 

Oxide Process Combustion Sources 2 57 AP-42 TSP SEE APPENDIX B, PAGES B-3 & B-4 

SO2 SEE APPENDIX B, PAGES B-3 & B-4 

NOx SEE APPENDIX B, PAGES B-3 & B-4 

CO SEE APPENDIX B, PAGES B-3 & B-4 

VOC SEE APPENDIX B, PAGES B-3 & B-4 

Oxide Process Combustion Sources 3 58 AP-42 TSP SEE APPENDIX B, PAGES B-3 & B-4 

SO2 SEE APPENDIX B, PAGES B-3 & B-4 

NOx SEE APPENDIX B, PAGES B-3 & B-4 

CO SEE APPENDIX B, PAGES B-3 & B-4 

VOC SEE APPENDIX B, PAGES B-3 & B-4 

Other Sources

Diesel Tank DT TANKS4 VOC SEE APPENDIX B, TANKS4 CALCS 

Gasoline Tank GASTANK1 TANKS4 VOC SEE APPENDIX B, TANKS4 CALCS 

Degreasers D-1 Mat. Balance VOC g 

Reagent Silo #1 Baghouse 49 Fan capacity TSP SEE TABLE A-12 Reagent Silo #2 Baghouse 50 and filter grain TSP SEE TABLE A-12 

Sodium Bicarbonate Storage Silo Filter 51 loading TSP SEE TABLE A-12 

Crystallizer Boiler CRYSTLBLR Vendor SO2 SEE TABLE A-13 

NOx SEE TABLE A-13 

CO SEE TABLE A-13 

VOC SEE TABLE A-13 

PM10 SEE TABLE A-13 

Crystallizer Flash Dryer FLASHDRYER AP-42 SO2 SEE TABLE A-13 

NOx SEE TABLE A-13 

CO SEE TABLE A-13 

VOC SEE TABLE A-13 

PM10 SEE TABLE A-13 

* Past years' stack testing emissions from respective reports. Emissions were determined for maximum potential production of 72,000 tons of lead per year.

** Vacuum system emissions are not directly related to production. A 10% increase in emissions since stack test(s) is assumed.

*** Water sprays in place as control. OSHA testing was performed prior to the installation of this control.  Any emissions that may occur from this source are below levels that necessitate quantification. The TCEQ only requires reporting of lead emissions that exceed 0.001 tpy.

Sage Environmental Consulting, L.P.March 2010

Page 4 of 4 
Table A-2

Furnace Scrubber Emissions

2009 Air Emissions Inventory

Exide Technologies Battery Recycling Facility - Frisco, TX

EPN 

Stack Annual

Contaminant Test Emissions Op. Hrs. (tpy) (lbs/day) (tpy) (lbs/day) (tpy) 

(lbs/hr)

Total Particulates 3.13 8,328 3.9314 22.6592 9.1019 52.4608 13.0333 7

NOx 10.21 8,328 12.8241 73.9140 29.6904 171.1260 42.5144 2

CO 142.90 8,328 179.4868 1034.5062 415.5488 2395.0938 595.0356 34

SO2 144.00 8,328 180.8685 1042.4696 418.7475 2413.5304 599.6160 34

VOC 0.54 8,328 0.6770 3.9020 1.5674 9.0340 2.2444 

HCl 0.20 8,328 0.2462 1.4189 0.5700 3.2851 0.8161 

H2SO4 1.93 8,328 2.4241 13.9720 5.6124 32.3480 8.0365 4

Pb 0.0397 8,328 0.0499 0.2874 0.1154 0.6654 0.1653 

Sb 0.0025 8,328 0.0031 0.0181 0.0073 0.0419 0.0104 

As 0.0014 8,328 0.0018 0.0101 0.0041 0.0235 0.0058 

Se 0.0024 8,328 0.0030 0.0174 0.0070 0.0402 0.0100 

SiO2 0.0250 8,328 0.0314 0.1810 0.0727 0.4190 0.1041 

Cd 0.0063 8,328 0.0079 0.0456 0.0183 0.1056 0.0262 

PM-U 3.0519 8,328 3.8332 22.0936 8.8747 51.1513 12.7080 7

Blast Emissions Reverb Emissions Total Scrubber E

Speciated PM Emissions

Sage Environmental Consulting, L.P.March 2010

Page 1 of 1 Exide T

Toluene 5.48E-02 8,328 0.0688 0.3967 0.1594 0.9185 0.2282 

m,p-Xylene 4.22E-02 8,328 0.0530 0.3057 0.1228 0.7077 0.1758 

Benzene 6.38E-02 8,328 0.0801 0.4617 0.1855 1.0690 0.2656 

4-Methyl-2-Pentanone 1.80E-02 8,328 0.0226 0.1301 0.0522 0.3011 0.0748 

2-Butanone 8.98E-03 8,328 0.0113 0.0650 0.0261 0.1506 0.0374 

o-Xylene 8.98E-03 8,328 0.0113 0.0650 0.0261 0.1506 0.0374 

Ethylbenzene 5.39E-03 8,328 0.0068 0.0390 0.0157 0.0903 0.0224 

n-Hexane 3.59E-03 8,328 0.0045 0.0260 0.0104 0.0602 0.0150 

VOC-U 0.4186 2.4127 0.9692 5.5860 1.3878 

Total 2009 tons lead processed: 74,002 Notes:Tons processed in blast furnace: 22,322 1 2009 Emissions are calculated as 1995 emissions scaledTons processed in reverb furnace: 51,680 based on the number of hours of operation.

2 VOC emissions are speciated based on the 1999 stack test.3 Lead emissions are calculated based on the 2009 stack test.4 Only chemicals which significantly contribute to total PM and VOC emissions are presented (see Tables A-10 and A-11  for full speciation).

Speciated VOC Emissions

Sage Environmental Consulting, L.P.March 2010

Page 1 of 1 Exide T
Table A-3

Fugitive Emissions

2009 Air Emissions Inventory

Exide Technologies Battery Recycling Facility - Frisco, TX

Emission 2009 Conventional Supplemental

Factor Tons Control Hooding Controlled Emis

Fugitive Source EPN Contaminant lbs/ton Processed Efficiency Efficiency lbs/hr lbs/day Blast Furnace 10 TSP 8.6 22,322 98% 0.4705 11.2923 

Lead**  0.4 22,322 98% 0.0219 0.5252 

As 0.01 22,322 98% 0.0005 0.0131 Sb 0.02 22,322 98% 0.0011 0.0263 Cd 0.04 22,322 98% 0.0022 0.0525 Part-U 0.4448 10.6752 

West Truck Loading * 27 PbO SEE TABLE A-4 0.0006 0.0013 

East Truck Loading * 28 PbO SEE TABLE A-4 0.0013 0.0052 

Reverberatory Furnace 35 TSP 8.6 51,680 98% 1.0893 26.1440 

Lead** 0.4 51,680 98% 0.0507 1.2160 

As 0.01 51,680 98% 0.0013 0.0304 Sb 0.02 51,680 98% 0.0025 0.0608 Cd 0.04 51,680 98% 0.0051 0.1216 Part-U 1.0298 24.7152 

Slag Handling Fugitives 52 TSP 0.0087 10,795 0.0115 0.2762 

Lead 0.0013 10,795 0.0017 0.0413 As 0.0001 10,795 0.0001 0.0032 Sb 0.0002 10,795 0.0003 0.0063 Cd 0.0004 10,795 0.0005 0.0127 Part-U 0.0089 0.2127 

Refining 36 TSP 0.002 74,002 0.0169 0.4066 

Lead 6.00E-04 74,002 0.0051 0.1220 

As 5.70E-07 74,002 0.0000 0.0001 Sb 5.70E-07 74,002 0.0000 0.0001 

Cd 1.50E-06 74,002 0.0000 0.0003 

Part-U 0.0118 0.2841 

Casting 36 TSP 0.002 74,002 85% 0.0025 0.0610 

Lead 7.00E-04 74,002 85% 0.0009 0.0213 

As 5.70E-07 74,002 85% 0.0000 0.0000 

Sb 5.70E-07 74,002 85% 0.0000 0.0000 

Cd 1.50E-06 74,002 85% 0.0000 0.0000 Part-U 85% 0.0016 0.0396 

Oxide Building 46 TSP SEE 0.0057 0.1368 

SO2 ATTACHED 0.0005 0.0108 

NOx CALCULATION 0.0705 1.6920 CO SHEET 0.0300 0.7200 VOC (APPENDIX B, PAGE B-9) 0.0041 0.0990 

Raw Material Storage Area 44 Lead SEE TABLE A-1 0.0024 0.0587 Raw Material Storage Bldg 47 Lead SEE TABLE A-1 0.0000 0.0000 Material Handling Fugitives 53 PM-Total SEE APPENDIX B, PAGE B-10 0.0179 0.4293 

PM-10 0.0087 0.2085 PM-2.5 0.0026 0.0613 Lead 0.0089 0.2146 

Battery Breaker 48FUG H2SO4 SEE APPENDIX B, PAGE B-5 0.0337 0.6066 

* PbO emission factor calculated based on AP-42 for material handling drop points - see calculation sheet in Appendix B.** Lead emission factor based on the average factor provided in AP-42 Chapter 12.11 (5th Edition) Table 12.11-4.

Sage Environmental Consulting, L.P.March 2010

Page 1 of 1 
Table A-4

Truck Loading Fugitive Emissions

2009 Air Emissions Inventory

Exide Technologies Battery Recycling Facility - Frisco, TX

Fugitive Fugitive

PbO Emission Hourly Daily

Loaded Factor ** Collection Emissions Emissions

Operation EPN Pollutant (tons/hr) (lbs/ton) Efficiency (lbs/hr) (lbs/day)*

East Truck 28 TSP 24 0.00537 99.0% 0.0013 0.0052

Loading Fugitives PM-10 0.00254 99.0% 0.0006 0.0024

PM-2.5 0.00080 99.0% 0.0002 0.0008

West Truck 27 TSP 12 0.00537 99.0% 0.0006 0.0013

Loading Fugitives PM-10 0.00254 99.0% 0.0003 0.0006

PM-2.5 0.00080 99.0% 0.0001 0.0002

 Total Particulates (as Lead Oxide) 0.0019 0.0064

 Total PM-10 0.0009 0.0030

 Total PM-2.5 0.0003 0.0010

Fugitive Fugitive

PbO Emission Annual Annual

Loaded Factor ** Collection Emissions Emissions

Operation EPN Pollutant (tons/yr) (lbs/ton) Efficiency (lbs/yr) (tpy)

East Truck 28 TSP 7,370 0.00537 99.0% 0.3958 0.0002

Loading Fugitives PM-10 0.00254 99.0% 0.1872 0.0001

PM-2.5 0.00080 99.0% 0.0588 0.0000

West Truck 27 TSP 3,158 0.00537 99.0% 0.1696 0.0001

Loading Fugitives PM-10 0.00254 99.0% 0.0802 0.0000

PM-2.5 0.00080 99.0% 0.0252 0.0000

 Total Particulates (as Lead Oxide) 0.5654 0.0003

 Total PM-10 0.2674 0.0001

 Total PM-2.5 0.0841 0.0000

* Based on 3-hour average operating day for the East truck loading and 4-hour day for the West truck loading.

** Emission factor calculations are shown in Appendix B, page B-2

Sage Environmental Consulting, L.P.

March 2010

Page 1 of 1 Exide Technologies - Frisco Battery Recycling Facility

2010_03_23 2009 EI, A-4
Table A-5

Annual Process Rates

2009 Air Emissions Inventory

Exide Technologies Battery Recycling Facility - Frisco, TX

Year FY/CY Oxide Oxide (as Pb) Smelt

1987 Calendar Year 32,512 30,179 37,171

1990 Financial Year 44,764 41,244

1990 Calendar Year 44,732 41,523 45,102

1991 Financial Year 44,700 48,959

1991 Calendar Year 45,832 42,544 49,959

1992 Financial Year 46,964 50,958

1992 Calendar Year 47,847 44,414 53,346

1993 Financial Year 48,730 55,734

1993 Calendar Year 48,613 45,125 56,018

1994 Financial Year 48,496 56,301

1994 Calendar Year 48,632 45,143 56,595

1995 Financial Year 47,516 59,038

1995 Calendar Year 49,150 45,624 62,888

1996 Calendar Year 51,689 47,980 64,856

1997 Calendar Year 49,276 45,741 67,967

1998 Calendar Year 48,502 45,022 68,414

1999 Calendar Year 47,502 44,094 68,414

2000 Calendar Year 46,807 43,449 71,996

2001 Calendar Year 40,269 37,380 69,867

2002 Calendar Year 31,860 29,574 64,420

2003 Calendar Year 27,364 25,401 70,212

2004 Calendar Year 25,324 23,507 67,993

2005 Calendar Year 29,869 27,726 66,755

2006 Calendar Year 15,717 14,589 67,942

2007 Calendar Year 18,848 17,496 67,985

2008 Calendar Year 18,005 16,713 70,714

2009 Calendar Year 10,528 9,773 74,002

 Tons

Sage Environmental Consulting, L.P.

March 2010

Page 1 of 1 Exide Technologies - Frisco Battery Recycling Facility

2010_03_23 2009 EI, A-5
Table A-6

Hard Lead Baghouse Emissions

2009 Air Emissions Inventory

Exide Technologies Battery Recycling Facility - Frisco, TX

EPN 18

Stack Annual Total Baghouse Emissions Each of the 4 kettles

Contaminant Test Emissions Op. Hrs. tpy lbs/day tpy lbs/day

(lbs/hr)

Total Particulates 0.552 8,640 2.3846 13.2480 0.5962 3.3120

Pb 0.03000 8,640 0.1296 0.7200 0.0324 0.1800

Sb 1.30E-04 8,640 0.0006 0.0031 0.0001 0.0008

As 7.10E-05 8,640 0.0003 0.0017 0.0001 0.0004

Cd 5.40E-04 8,640 0.0023 0.0130 0.0006 0.0032

SiO2 3.80E-04 8,640 0.0016 0.0091 0.0004 0.0023

PM-U 0.5209 8,640 2.2502 12.5011 0.5625 3.1253

Notes:

 2009 Emissions are calculated as 1995 emissions scaled based on 2009 annual hours of operation.

 Lead emissions are calculated based on the 2009 stack test results.

Speciated PM Emissions

Sage Environmental Consulting, L.P.

March 2010

Page 1 of 1 Exide Technologies - Frisco Battery Recycling Facility

2010_03_23 2009 EI, A-6

Sage Environmental Consulting, L.P.

March 2010

Page 1 of 1 Exide Technologies - Frisco Battery Recycling Facility

2010_03_23 2009 EI, A-6
Table A-7

Soft Lead Baghouse Emissions

2009 Air Emissions Inventory

Exide Technologies Battery Recycling Facility - Frisco, TX

EPN 21

Stack Annual Total Baghouse Emissions Each of the 6 kettles

Contaminant Test Emissions Op. Hrs. tpy lbs/day tpy lbs/day

(lbs/hr)

Total Particulates 0.981 8,640 4.2379 23.5440 0.7063 3.9240

NOx 1.120 8,640 4.8384 26.8800 0.8064 4.4800

CO 7.700 8,640 33.2640 184.8000 5.5440 30.8000

SO2 1.500 8,640 6.4800 36.0000 1.0800 6.0000

VOC 5.790 8,640 25.0128 138.9600 4.1688 23.1600

HCl 0.089 8,640 0.3845 2.1360 0.0641 0.3560

H2SO4 0.070 8,640 0.3024 1.6800 0.0504 0.2800

Pb 0.0500 8,640 0.2160 1.2000 0.0360 0.2000

Sb 4.05E-05 8,640 0.0002 0.0010 0.0000 0.0002

As 2.35E-05 8,640 0.0001 0.0006 0.0000 0.0001

Cd 3.65E-05 8,640 0.0002 0.0009 0.0000 0.0001

SiO2 6.00E-04 8,640 0.0026 0.0144 0.0004 0.0024

PM-U 0.9303 8,640 4.0189 22.3272 0.6698 3.7212

Benzene 1.15E-02 8,640 0.0497 0.2760 0.0083 0.0460

1,3-Butadiene 7.16E-04 8,640 0.0031 0.0172 0.0005 0.0029

Ethylbenzene 7.16E-03 8,640 0.0309 0.1717 0.0052 0.0286

n Hexane 4 29E 03 8 640 0 0185 0 1030 0 0031 0 0172

Speciated PM Emissions

Speciated VOC Emissions

Sage Environmental Consulting, L.P.

March 2010

Page 1 of 1 Exide Technologies - Frisco Battery Recycling Facility

2010_03_23 2009 EI, A-7

n-Hexane 4.29E-03 8,640 0.0185 0.1030 0.0031 0.0172

2-Butanone 2.22E-02 8,640 0.0959 0.5328 0.0160 0.0888

4-Methyl-2-Pentanone 5.01E-02 8,640 0.2164 1.2024 0.0361 0.2004

Tetrachloroethane 2.86E-03 8,640 0.0124 0.0686 0.0021 0.0114

Toluene 1.11E-01 8,640 0.4795 2.6640 0.0799 0.4440

m,p-Xylene 3.08E-02 8,640 0.1331 0.7392 0.0222 0.1232

o-Xylene 1.00E-02 8,640 0.0432 0.2400 0.0072 0.0400

Total 1.0827 6.0149 0.1804 1.0025

VOC - Unspeciated 23.9301 132.9451 3.9884 22.1575

Notes:

 2009 Emissions are calculated as 1995 emissions scaled based on 2009 annual hours of operation

 Lead emissions are calculated based on the 2009 stack test results.

Sage Environmental Consulting, L.P.

March 2010

Page 1 of 1 Exide Technologies - Frisco Battery Recycling Facility

2010_03_23 2009 EI, A-7
Table A-8

Special Alloys Baghouse Emissions

2009 Air Emissions Inventory

Exide Technologies Battery Recycling Facility - Frisco, TX

EPN 22

Stack Annual

Contaminant Test Emissions Op. Hrs. tpy lbs/day tpy lbs/day

(lbs/hr)

Total Particulates 0.7390 8,640 3.1925 17.7360 3.1925 17.7360

Pb 0.0100 8,640 0.0432 0.2400 0.0432 0.2400

Sb 1.30E-04 8,640 0.0006 0.0031 0.0006 0.0031

As 2.50E-05 8,640 0.0001 0.0006 0.0001 0.0006

Cd 3.30E-04 8,640 0.0014 0.0079 0.0014 0.0079

PM-U 0.7285 8,640 3.1472 17.4844 3.1472 17.4844

Note:

 2009 Emissions are calculated as 1995 emissions scaled based on 2009 annual hours of operation

 Lead emissions are calculated based on the 2009 stack test results.

 Kettle FIN: KETTLESA did not operate in 2009.

Speciated PM Emissions

Total Baghouse Emissions FIN: KETTLE2

Sage Environmental Consulting, L.P.

March 2010

Page 1 of 1 Exide Technologies - Frisco Battery Recycling Facility

2010_03_23 2009 EI, A-8

Sage Environmental Consulting, L.P.

March 2010

Page 1 of 1 Exide Technologies - Frisco Battery Recycling Facility

2010_03_23 2009 EI, A-8
Table A-9

Supplemental Ventilation Baghouse Emissions

2009 Air Emissions Inventory

Exide Technologies Battery Recycling Facility - Frisco, TX

EPN 37

Stack Annual Total Baghouse Emissions

Contaminant Test Emissions Op. Hrs. tpy lbs/day

(lbs/hr)

Total Particulates 4.992 8,376 20.9065 119.8080

NOx 0.250 8,376 1.0470 6.0000

CO 3.400 8,376 14.2392 81.6000

SO2 8.200 8,376 34.3416 196.8000

VOC 5.500 8,376 23.0340 132.0000

HCl 0.110 8,376 0.4607 2.6400

H2SO4 1.310 8,376 5.4863 31.4400

Speciated PM Emissions

Pb 0.0100 8,376 0.0419 0.2400

Sb 2.10E-04 8,376 0.0009 0.0050

As 2.05E-04 8,376 0.0009 0.0049

Cd 9.95E-04 8,376 0.0042 0.0239

PM-U 4.9806 8,376 20.8587 119.5342

Sage Environmental Consulting, L.P.

March 2010

Page 1 of 1 Exide Technologies - Frisco Battery Recycling Facility

2010_03_23 2009 EI, A-9

Speciated VOC Emissions

1,3-Butadiene 2.55E-02 8,376 0.1068 0.6120

2-Butanone 6.90E-03 8,376 0.0289 0.1656

2,3,7,8-TCDD/TCDF 8.98E-09 8,376 0.0000 0.0000

4-Methyl-2-Pentanone 8.97E-03 8,376 0.0376 0.2153

Benzene 1.31E-02 8,376 0.0549 0.3144

Ethylbenzene 6.90E-03 8,376 0.0289 0.1656

m,p-Xylene 2.69E-02 8,376 0.1127 0.6456

n-Hexane 8.97E-03 8,376 0.0376 0.2153

o-Xylene 8.97E-03 8,376 0.0376 0.2153

Styrene 2.90E-02 8,376 0.1215 0.6960

Toluene 6.83E-02 8,376 0.2860 1.6392

VOC-U 22.1817 127.1158

Note:

 2009 Emissions are calculated as 1995 emissions scaled based on 2009 annual hours of operation.

 Lead emissions are calculated based on the 2009 stack test results.

Sage Environmental Consulting, L.P.

March 2010

Page 1 of 1 Exide Technologies - Frisco Battery Recycling Facility

2010_03_23 2009 EI, A-9
Table A-10

Volatile Organic Compounds Emissions Summary

2009 Air Emissions Inventory

Exide Technologies Battery Recycling Facility - Frisco, TX

Speciated VOC Furnaces Scrubber Soft Lead Baghouse Supplem. Ventilation All Emissions EPN 38 EPN 21 EPN 37 sources 

tpy lbs/day tpy lbs/day tpy lbs/day tpy 

Toluene 0.2282 1.3152 0.4795 2.6640 0.2860 1.6392 0.9937 m,p-Xylene 0.1758 1.0133 0.1331 0.7392 0.1127 0.6456 0.4215 Benzene 0.2656 1.5308 0.0497 0.2760 0.0549 0.3144 0.3701 4-Methyl-2-Pentanone 0.0748 0.4312 0.2164 1.2024 0.0376 0.2153 0.3288 2-Butanone 0.0374 0.2156 0.0959 0.5328 0.0289 0.1656 0.1622 Styrene 0.1215 0.6960 0.1215 o-Xylene 0.0374 0.2156 0.0432 0.2400 0.0376 0.2153 0.1182 1,3-Butadiene 0.0031 0.0172 0.1068 0.6120 0.1099 Ethylbenzene 0.0224 0.1294 0.0309 0.1717 0.0289 0.1656 0.0823 n-Hexane 0.0150 0.0862 0.0185 0.1030 0.0376 0.2153 0.0711 Carbon Disulfide 0.0449 0.2587 0.0449 Chloromethane 0.0449 0.2587 0.0449 Naphthalene 0.0348 0.2007 0.0348 Methylene Chloride 0.0150 0.0862 0.0150 3,4-Methylphenol 0.0145 0.0834 0.0145 Phenol 0.0144 0.0828 0.0144 Tetrachloroethane 0.0124 0.0686 0.0124 Bromomethane 0.0075 0.0431 0.0075 Formaldehyde 0.0028 0.0164 0.0028 bis-(2-Ethylhexy)phthalate 0.0023 0.0132 0.0023 di-n-Butylphthalate 0.0023 0.0130 0.0023 Dibenzofuran 0.0019 0.0110 0.0019 2-Methylphenol 0.0016 0.0089 0.0016 Acetaldehyde 0.0009 0.0050 0.0009 Hexachlorobenzene 0.0007 0.0042 0.0007 Chrysene 0.0003 0.0017 0.0003 2,3,7,8-TCDD/TCDF 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Benzo(a)anthracene 0.0000 0.0002 0.0000 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.0000 0.0001 0.0000 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.0000 0.0002 0.0000 Total 1.0452 6.0244 1.0827 6.0149 0.8523 4.8842 2.9803 Note: TCEQ EIQ requires at least 90% or >0.1 tpy speciation of VOC/HAP emissions.  Only compounds contributing >2% are included in EIQ (total = 93.58%

Sage Environmental Consulting, L.P.March 2010

Page 1 of 1 Exide Tec
Table A-11

Inorganic Particulates Emissions Summary

2009 Air Emissions Inventory

Exide Technologies Battery Recycling Facility - Frisco, TX

Speciated VOC Emissions 

tpy lbs/day tpy lbs/day tpy lbs/day tpy lbs/day tpy lbs/day 

Pb 0.1653 0.9528 0.1296 0.7200 0.2160 1.2000 0.0432 0.2400 0.0419 0.2400 SiO2 0.1041 0.6000 0.0016 0.0091 0.0026 0.0144 Cd 0.0262 0.1512 0.0023 0.0130 0.0002 0.0009 0.0014 0.0079 0.0042 0.0239 Sb 0.0104 0.0600 0.0006 0.0031 0.0002 0.0010 0.0006 0.0031 0.0009 0.0050 Se 0.0100 0.0576 

As 0.0058 0.0336 0.0003 0.0017 0.0001 0.0006 0.0001 0.0006 0.0009 0.0049 Zn 0.0025 0.0146 Hg 0.0009 0.0053 Total 0.3253 1.8751 0.1344 0.7469 0.2190 1.2168 0.0453 0.2516 0.0478 0.2738 Note: TCEQ EIQ requires at least 90% or >0.1 tpy speciation of PM/HAP emissions.  Only compounds contributing >0.5% are included in EIQ (total = 99.78%)

Spec. Alloy Baghouse

EPN 22

Supplem. Ventilation

EPN 38 EPN 37

Furnaces Scrubber Hard Lead Baghouse

EPN 18

Soft Lead Baghouse

EPN 21

Sage Environmental Consulting, L.P.March 2010

Page 1 of 1 Exide Tec
Table A-12

Storage Silo Vent Emissions

2009 Air Emissions Inventory

Exide Technologies Battery Recycling Facility - Frisco, TX

Maximum

Fan Grain Hourly Daily Annual

Capacity Loading ** Emissions Emissions Emissions

Storage Silo EPN (scfm) (gr/scfm) (lb/hr) (lb/day) (tpy)*

Reagent Silo #1 49 450 0.01 0.0386 0.9257 0.1689

Reagent Silo #2 50 450 0.01 0.0386 0.9257 0.1689

Sodium Bicarbonate 51 1000 0.02 0.1714 4.1143 0.7509

Storage Silo

* Based on 8760 hours of operation

** Maximum grain loading is from the filter manufacturer's specifications

Example calculations:

450 (scfm) * 0.01 (gr/scfm) * 60 (min/hr) / 7,000 (lbs/grain) = 0.0386 (lb/hr)

0.0386 (lb/hr) * 24 (hrs/day) = 0.9257 (lb/day)

0.0386 (lb/hr) * 8,760 (hrs/yr) / 2,000 (lbs/ton) = 0.1689 (ton/yr)

Sage Environmental Consulting, L.P.

March 2010

Page 1 of 1 Exide Technologies - Frisco Battery Recycling Facility

2010_03_23 2009 EI, A-12
Annual Emissions

ANNUAL TYPICAL GAS HEAT EMISSION FACTORS MAXIMUM ANNUAL EMIS

RATING HOURS VALUE (lb/MMBtu) (ton/yr)

(MMBtu/hr) (hrs/yr) (Btu/scf) S02 NOx CO VOC PM10 2 S02 NOx CO VOC 

CRYSTLBLR CRYSTLBLR Crystallizer Boiler 2.09 8,640 1,000 Vendor Data 0.001 0.118 0.150 0.016 0.010 0.0090 1.0665 1.3557 0.144

FLASHDRYER FLASHDRYER Crystallizer Flash Dryer 2.70 8,640 1,000 AP-42 1 0.001 0.098 0.082 0.005 0.007 0.0069 1.1431 0.9564 0.058

PLASTDRYER PLASTDRYER Plastic Dryer 2.00 3,900 1,000 AP-42 1 0.001 0.098 0.082 0.005 0.007 0.0023 0.3822 0.3198 0.019

WATERHTR1 WATERHTR1 Shower Water Heater 1 0.25 8,640 1,000 AP-42 1 0.001 0.098 0.082 0.005 0.007 0.0006 0.1058 0.0886 0.005WATERHTR2 WATERHTR2 Shower Water Heater 2 0.25 8,640 1,000 AP-42 1 0.001 0.098 0.082 0.005 0.007 0.0006 0.1058 0.0886 0.005WATERHTR3 WATERHTR3 Shower Water Heater 3 0.35 8,640 1,000 AP-42 1 0.001 0.098 0.082 0.005 0.007 0.0009 0.1482 0.1240 0.007WATERHTR4 WATERHTR4 Shower Water Heater 4 0.35 8,640 1,000 AP-42 1 0.001 0.098 0.082 0.005 0.007 0.0009 0.1482 0.1240 0.007

Ozone Emissions

MAX GAS HEAT EMISSION FACTORS MAXIMUM HOURLY EMISSIONS 

RATING VALUE (lb/MMBtu) (lb/hr) 

(MMBtu/hr) (Btu/scf) S02 NOx CO VOC PM10 2 S02 NOx CO VOC PM10 

CRYSTLBLR CRYSTLBLR Crystallizer Boiler 4.18 1,000 Vendor Data 0.001 0.118 0.150 0.016 0.010 0.004 0.494 0.628 0.067 0.042 

FLASHDRYER FLASHDRYER Crystallizer Flash Dryer 2.70 1,000 AP-42 1 0.001 0.098 0.082 0.005 0.007 0.002 0.265 0.221 0.014 0.019 

PLASTDRYER PLASTDRYER Plastic Dryer 2.00 1,000 AP-42 1 0.001 0.098 0.082 0.005 0.007 0.001 0.196 0.164 0.010 0.014 

WATERHTR1 WATERHTR1 Shower Water Heater 1 0.50 1,000 AP-42 1 0.001 0.098 0.082 0.005 0.007 0.000 0.049 0.041 0.003 0.004 WATERHTR2 WATERHTR2 Shower Water Heater 2 0.50 1,000 AP-42 1 0.001 0.098 0.082 0.005 0.007 0.000 0.049 0.041 0.003 0.004 WATERHTR3 WATERHTR3 Shower Water Heater 3 0.70 1,000 AP-42 1 0.001 0.098 0.082 0.005 0.007 0.000 0.069 0.057 0.004 0.005 WATERHTR4 WATERHTR4 Shower Water Heater 4 0.70 1,000 AP-42 1 0.001 0.098 0.082 0.005 0.007 0.000 0.069 0.057 0.004 0.005 

Notes: 1. Emission factors are from AP-42, 5th Edition, Supplement D (July 1998), Section 1.4.

2. All particulates are assumed to be less than 10 microns in aerodynamic diameter.3. In accordance with TCEQ EI Guidance, sources are excluded from the EI if all of the sources' individual pollutants are less than 1 tpy, and the collective emission rates are less than 5 tpy.

Annual Emissions Sample Calculation:(2.09 MMBtu/hr) * (8640 hr/yr) * (0.118 lb NOx/MMBtu) / (2000 lb/ton) = 1.067 ton NOx/yrDaily Ozone Emissions Sample Calculation:(4.18 MMBtu/hr) * (0..118 lb NOx/MMBtu) * (24 hrs/day) = 11.850 lbs NOx/day

EPN FIN DESCRIPTION

EMISSION 

FACTOR 

BASIS

EPN

FIN DESCRIPTION

EMISSION 

FACTOR 

BASIS

Table A-13

Miscellaneous Sources - Natural Gas Combustion Emissions

2009 Air Emissions Inventory

Exide Technologies Battery Recycling Facility - Frisco, TX

Sage Environmental Consulting, L.P.March 2010

Page 1 of 1 
Table A-14

2009 Emissions Inventory

Vehicle Traffic (EPNs: 41, 42 and 43)

Exide Technologies Battery Recycling Facility - Frisco, TX

Parameters Full Empty Full Empty Full Empty Incoming Outgoin

Small Small Large Large Forklifts Forklifts Trucks Trucks

Loaders Loaders Loaders Loaders

k = Particle Size Multiplier 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8SC= Silt Content of Road Surface 7.10 7.10 7.10 7.10 7.10 7.10 7.10 7.10S= Average Vehicle Speed (mph) 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5WT = Average Vehicle Weight (tons) 7 6 10 7 4 3 40 18w = Number of Wheels per Truck 4 4 4 4 4 4 18 18P= numbers of days at least 0.01 inches of rain per year 90.00 90.00 90.00 90.00 90.00 90.00 90.00 90.00CF = Control Factor 2 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055

AP = Annual Production Rate (tons/yr) ********DT= Distance Traveled per Trip (feet) 40 40 150 150 150 150 1500 1500DT= Distance Traveled per Trip (miles) 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.28 0.28Number of trips per day 1 123 123 99 99 296 296 26 26

TC= Average Truck Capacity per Trip (tons) * * * * * * * *WT1 = Average Weight Factor 1.810 1.625 2.323 1.810 1.223 1.000 6.130 3.505W1 = Wheel Factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 2.121 2.121Days per Year 365 365 365 365 365 365 365 365VMT = Vehicle Miles Traveled 341 341 1023 1023 3069 3069 2664 2664E 21 = annual TSP Emissions (ton/yr) 0.0060 0.0053 0.0229 0.0179 0.0362 0.0296 0.3341 0.1911 

E22 = annual PM10 emissions (ton/yr)3 E22 = annual PM10 emissions (ton/yr) 0 0030 . 0 0027 . 0 0115 . 0 0089 . 0 0181 . 0 0148 . 0 1671 . 0 0955 . Annual Lead Emissions (ton/yr) 0.0030 0.0027 0.0115 0.0089 0.0181 0.0148 0.1671 0.0955 Annual PM10 Lead Emissions (ton/yr)3 0.0015 0.0013 0.0057 0.0045 0.0091 0.0074 0.0835 0.0478 

Annual PM2.5 Emissions (ton/yr)4 0.0018 0.0016 0.0069 0.0054 0.0109 0.0089 0.1002 0.0573 Daily TSP Emissions (lb/day) 0.0326 0.0293 0.1256 0.0978 0.1984 0.1622 1.8308 1.0469 Daily PM10 emissions (lb/day)3 0.0163 0.0146 0.0628 0.0489 0.0992 0.0811 0.9154 0.5234 Daily Lead Emissions (lb/day) 0.0163 0.0146 0.0628 0.0489 0.0992 0.0811 0.9154 0.5234 Daily PM10 Lead Emissions (lb/day)3 0.0082 0.0073 0.0314 0.0245 0.0496 0.0405 0.4577 0.2617 Daily PM2.5 Emissions (lb/day)4 0.0098 0.0088 0.0377 0.0294 0.0595 0.0487 0.5492 0.3141 Notes:1 - Based on ratio of permit basis production rate and vehicle traffic trips/day.2 - Based on TCEQ Guidance for Rock Crushing Oeprations (watering, wet sweeping, and vacuuming).3 - PM10 is assumed to be 50% of TSP.4 - PM2.5 is assumed to be 30% of TSP.

Sage Environmental Consulting, L.P.March 2010

Page 1 of 2 Exide Tech
Equations

WT1= (WT/3)^0.7W1 = (w/4)^0.5WMT = (APxDT/TC)E21 = k x 5.9 x (SC/12) x (S/30) x WT1 x W1 x ((365-P)/365) X VMT X CF X (1 ton/2000lb)E22 = 0.5 x E21Actual Production (ton/yr) 74,002 74,002 74,002 74,002 74,002 74,002 74,002 74,002PTE Annual Production (ton/yr) 72,000 72,000 72,000 72,000 72,000 72,000 72,000 72,000PTE Basis Trips per Day 120 120 96 96 288 288 25 25Adjusted Trips per Day* 123 123 99 99 296 296 26 26* Adjusted trips per day is calculated by the ratio of the actual production to PTE production times the PTE basis trips per day.

Sage Environmental Consulting, L.P.March 2010

Page 2 of 2 Exide Tech
Table A-15

2009 Emissions Inventory

Emission Event - December 10, 2009

Exide Technologies Battery Recycling Facility - Frisco, TX

Cause

Corrective Action

Retrained all supervisors on the blast furnace startup procedures and associated checklist.

Emission Calculation

Throughput1 11.4 tons

Emission Factor 35.5 lbs SO2/ton

SO2 Emissions 404.7 lbs SO2

SO2 Emissions 0.2024 tons SO2

Notes:

AP-42 Emission Factor Description

lb SO2/ton

18 Low End of Range

53 Recommended Factor

110 High End of Range

35.5 Average of Low and Recommended Emission Factor 

An electrical short caused loss of power at the dryer. When the dryer shut-off, the reverb furnace, blast furnace including 

afterburner, soft lead baghouse and scrubber were shutoff. Power was restored to the blast furnace without restarting the 

scrubber resulting in a non-reportable SO2 emission event. Inadequate training on standard blast furnace operating 

procedures was determined to be the root cause. A blast furnace startup checklist exists and should be used for recovery 

after a power failure. The shift supervisor was inadequately trained on this procedure.

During the determination of this emission factor range, coke typically contained an excess of 3% sulfur. Current coke 

quality reports for Exide show a sulfur content off approximately 0.62%. Additionally, the blast furnace feed material is 

lower in sulfur now since Exide no longer feeds batteries directly to blast. Therefore, the emission factor used in this 

calculation is conservatively estimated as the average of the low end of the emission factor range and the AP-42 

recommended factor.

2. Table 12.11-2 from AP-42 Chapter 12.11 for Secondary Lead Processing provides the following uncontrolled SO2 

emission factor range for a blast melting cupola.

1. On December 9, 2009 at 11:30 PM, the power went out due to the electrical short. At 1:30AM on December 10, 2009, 

the blast was run without restarting the scrubber. During this time, 17 inches of lead tapped from kettle B was produced, 

which equates to 11.39 tons of lead production.

Sage Environmental Consulting, L.P.

March 2010

Page 1 of 1 Exide Technologies - Frisco Battery Recycling Facility

2010_03_23 2009 EI, A-15
Sage Environmental Consulting, L.P. Exide Technologies – Frisco Battery Recycling Facility 

March 2010 2009 EI Report (03.22.2010) 

APPENDIX B 

SUPPORTING CALCULATIONS 

This appendix includes the following items in the following order: 

• Slag Crush And Screen Baghouse - EPN 39 

• Lead Oxide Truck Loading Emission Factor Calculations - EPNs 27 And 28 

• Oxide Process Combustion Sources Emissions - EPNs 56, 57, And 58 

• Battery Breaker Fugitive Emissions Calculations - EPN 48FUG 

• Soft Lead Refining Kettles - EPN 54 

• Hard Lead And Special Alloy Refining Kettles - EPN 55 

• Oxide Building Fugitive Emissions Calculations - EPN 46 

• Material Handling Fugitives Emission Factor Calculations - EPN 53 

• Diesel Tank Emission Calculation – EPN DT 
Table B-1

SLAG CRUSH AND SCREEN BAGHOUSE 

EPN 39

TSP EMISSIONS CALCULATIONS

2009 Air Emissions Inventory

Exide Technologies Battery Recycling Facility - Frisco, TX

Measured velocity: V = 13,000 scfm

1994 Measured baghouse stack concentration: [PM] = 0.01 gr/scfm

2009 Annual operating hours: 1,040 hrs/yr

2009 Daily operating hours 4 hrs/day

2009/1994 Slag processing ratio: 10795 tpy / 9947 tpy = 1.0852

Hourly emissions:

13,000 scfm * 60 min/hr * 0.01 gr/scfm * 1.09 / 7,000 gr/lb = 1.2092 lbs/hr

Daily emissions:

1.2092 lbs/hr * 4 hrs/day = 4.8369 lbs/day

Annual emissions:

1.2092 lbs/hr * 1040 hrs/yr / 2,000 lbs/ton = 0.6288 tpy

Sage Environmental Consulting, L.P.

March 2010

Page 1 of 1 Exide Technologies - Frisco Battery Recycling Facility

2010_03_23 2009 EI, SC.P1
Table B-2

LEAD OXIDE TRUCK LOADING EMISSION FACTOR CALCULATIONS

EPNs 27 and 28

2009 Air Emissions Inventory

Exide Technologies Battery Recycling Facility - Frisco, TX

AP-42 5th Edition Section 13.2.4 (Aggregate Handling) material drop emission factor:

where E - emission factor (lb/ton),

k - particle size multiplier (dimensionless);

U - mean wind speed (miles per hour);

M - material moisture content (%).

U = 5 mph - estimation, 

U1 = 1.0000

M 1 114 (%) ti ti

E k

U

M =

⎛

⎝

⎜ ⎞

⎠

⎟

⎛

⎝

⎜ ⎞

⎠

⎟

*. * ,

.

. 0 0032 5

2

1 3

1 4

M = 1.114 (%) - estimation, 

M1 = 0.4409

E.F. = k * 0.0032 * U1 * M1, k=0.74 (for particles <30 mm)

k=0.35 (for particles <10 mm)

k=0.11 (for particles <2.5 mm)

E.F. = 0.74 * 0.0032 * 1.000 / 0.4409 = 0.0054 lb/ton for TSP

E.F. = 0.35 * 0.0032 * 1.000 / 0.4409 = 0.00254 lb/ton for PM-10

E.F. = 0.11 * 0.0032 * 1.000 / 0.4409 = 0.00080 lb/ton for PM-2.5

E k

U

M =

⎛

⎝

⎜ ⎞

⎠

⎟

⎛

⎝

⎜ ⎞

⎠

⎟

*. * ,

.

. 0 0032 5

2

1 3

1 4

Sage Environmental Consulting, L.P.

March 2010

Page 1 of 1 Exide Technologies - Frisco Battery Recycling Facility

2010_03_23 2009 EI, SC.P2
Table B-3

OXIDE PROCESS COMBUSTION SOURCES EMISSIONS

EPNs 56, 57, and 58

2009 Air Emissions Inventory

Exide Technologies Battery Recycling Facility - Frisco, TX

(Because all burners are similar, the following calculations are applicable to each EPN).

a. Oxide Reactors’ Burners

Two (2) Burners per Reactor with the Burning Capacity = 1.5 MMBtu/hr each.

Daily typical hours Oxide Reactors’ Burners, 2 per EP, EPNs # 56, 57, & 58 each = 2 hrs

Annual hours Oxide Reactors’ Burners, 2 per EP, EPNs # 56, 57, & 58 each = 104 hrs/yr

Annual Burning Capacity of Each Burner:

1.5 MMBtu/hr * 104 hrs/yr = 156 MMBtu/yr

Natural Gas Consumption per Burner:

156 MMBtu / 1,000 Btu/scf = 0.156 MMscf NG

Annual Criteria Pollutants Emissions:

PM: 0.0012 tpy

SO2: 0.0001 tpy

NOx: 0.0156 tpy

CO: 0.0131 tpy

VOC: 0.0009 tpy

Daily and Hourly Emissions:

PM: 0.0228 lb/hr

SO2: 0.0018 lb/hr

NOx: 0.3000 lb/hr

CO: 0.2520 lb/hr

VOC: 0.0165 lb/hr

Notes to all calculations:

1 Emission factors obtained from AP-42 5th Edition, Supplement D (July 1998) Section 1.4 

for natural gas combustion (<100 MMBtu/hr).

2 Emissions are based on a heating value of natural gas of 1,000 Btu/scf.

3 Design capacity is used for each burner to represent worst-case emission.

4 All particulates are assumed to be PM-10.

7.6 lb/MMscf * 0.156 MMscf NG = 1.19 lb/hr * 2 Reactors / 2,000 lb/ton = 

0.6 lb/MMscf * 0.156 MMscf NG = 0.09 lb/hr * 2 Reactors / 2,000 lb/ton = 

100 lb/MMscf * 0.156 MMscf NG = 15.60 lb/hr * 2 Reactors / 2,000 lb/ton = 

84 lb/MMscf * 0.156 MMscf NG = 13.10 lb/hr * 2 Reactors / 2,000 lb/ton = 

0.0131 tpy / 52 days/yr * 2000 lb/ton = 0.5040 lb/day / 2 hrs/day = 

0.0009 tpy / 52 days/yr * 2000 lb/ton = 0.0330 lb/day / 2 hrs/day = 

5.5 lb/MMscf * 0.156 MMscf NG = 0.86 lb/hr * 2 Reactors / 2,000 lb/ton = 

0.0012 tpy / 52 days/yr * 2000 lb/ton = 0.0456 lb/day / 2 hrs/day = 

0.0001 tpy / 52 days/yr * 2000 lb/ton = 0.0036 lb/day / 2 hrs/day = 

0.0156 tpy / 52 days/yr * 2000 lb/ton = 0.6000 lb/day / 2 hrs/day = 

Sage Environmental Consulting, L.P.

March 2010

Page 1 of 1 Exide Technologies - Frisco Battery Recycling Facility

2010_03_23 2009 EI, SC.P3
Table B-3 (Continued)

OXIDE PROCESS COMBUSTION SOURCES EMISSIONS

EPNs 56, 57, and 58

(continued)

2009 Air Emissions Inventory

Exide Technologies Battery Recycling Facility - Frisco, TX

(Because all burners are similar, the following calculations are applicable to each EPN).

b. Oxide Melting Pots.

One (1) Burner per Pot with the Burning Capacity = 1.0 MMBtu/hr

Daily typical hours Oxide Melting Pots, 1 per EP, EPNs # 56, 57, & 58 each = 24 hrs

Annual hours Oxide Melting Pots, 1 per EP, EPNs # 56, 57, & 58 each = 2,700 hrs/yr

Annual Burning Capacity of Each Burner:

1.0 MMBtu/hr * 2700 hrs/yr = 2700 MMBtu/yr

Natural Gas Consumption per Burner:

1 MMBtu/hr / 1,000 Btu/scf = 0.001 MMscf/hr NG

2700 MMBtu / 1,000 Btu/scf = 2.7 MMscf/yr NG

Annual Criteria Pollutants Emissions:

PM: 7.6 lb/MMscf * 2.700 MMscf/yr / 2000 lb/ton = 0.0103 tons/yr

SO2: 0.6 lb/MMscf * 2.700 MMscf/yr / 2000 lb/ton = 0.0008 tons/yr

NOx: 100 lb/MMscf * 2.700 MMscf/yr / 2000 lb/ton = 0.1350 tons/yr

CO: 84 lb/MMscf * 2.700 MMscf/yr / 2000 lb/ton = 0.1134 tons/yr

VOC: 5.5 lb/MMscf * 2.700 MMscf/yr / 2000 lb/ton = 0.0074 tons/yr

Daily and Hourly Emissions:

PM: 7.6 lb/MMscf * 0.001 MMscf/hr = 0.0076 lb/hr * 24 hrs/day = 0.1824 lb/day

SO2: 0.6 lb/MMscf * 0.001 MMscf/hr = 0.0006 lb/hr * 24 hrs/day = 0.0144 lb/day

NOx: 100 lb/MMscf * 0.001 MMscf/hr = 0.1000 lb/hr * 24 hrs/day = 2.4000 lb/day

CO: 84 lb/MMscf * 0.001 MMscf/hr = 0.0840 lb/hr * 24 hrs/day = 2.0160 lb/day

VOC: 5.5 lb/MMscf * 0.001 MMscf/hr = 0.0055 lb/hr * 24 hrs/day = 0.1320 lb/day

c. Total Emissions for Criteria Pollutants (for each EPN).

PM: 0.0012 tpy + 0.0103 tpy = 0.0114 tpy; 0.0456 lb/day + 0.1824 lb/day =0.2280 lb/day

SO2: 0.0001 tpy + 0.0008 tpy = 0.0009 tpy; 0.0036 lb/day + 0.0144 lb/day =0.0180 lb/day

NOx: 0.0156 tpy + 0.1350 tpy = 0.1506 tpy; 0.6000 lb/day + 2.4000 lb/day =3.0000 lb/day

CO: 0.0131 tpy + 0.1134 tpy = 0.1265 tpy; 0.5040 lb/day + 2.0160 lb/day =2.5200 lb/day

VOC: 0.0009 tpy + 0.0074 tpy = 0.0083 tpy; 0.0330 lb/day + 0.1320 lb/day =0.1650 lb/day

Sage Environmental Consulting, L.P.

March 2010

Page 1 of 1 Exide Technologies - Frisco Battery Recycling Facility

2010_03_23 2009 EI, SC.P4
Table B-4

BATTERY BREAKER FUGITIVE EMISSIONS CALCULATIONS

EPN 48FUG

2009 Air Emissions Inventory

Exide Technologies Battery Recycling Facility - Frisco, TX

Contaminant: Sulfuric Acid (H2SO4)

1995 Sampled Concentration: 102.3 mg/m^3

Measured Velocity: 880 ft/min = 268.14 m/min

Fugitive Area: 100 ft^2 = 9.29 m^2

Air Volume: 268.14 m/min * 9.29 m^2 = 2491.021 m^3/min

Fugitive air emissions:

= 102.3 μg/ cubic meter * 2491.02 cubic meter/min = 254831.4 μg/min = 

= 254831.41 μg/min * 60 min/hr * (1/ 10^6) gm * (0.0022 lbs / 1 g) =

= 0.033708 lb/hr

2009 Typical hours per day: = 18 hrs/day

2009 Daily fugitive emissions:

0.0337 lb/hr * 18 hrs/day = 0.6068 lb/day

2009 Annual hours: = 3,900 hrs/yr

2009 Annual fugitive emissions:

0.0337 lb/hr * 3900 hrs/yr / 2,000 lb/ton = 0.0657 tpy

Sage Environmental Consulting, L.P.

March 2010

Page 1 of 1 Exide Technologies - Frisco Battery Recycling Facility

2010_03_23 2009 EI, SC.P5
Table B-5

SOFT LEAD REFINING KETTLES

EPN 54

2009 Air Emissions Inventory

Exide Technologies Battery Recycling Facility - Frisco, TX

Contaminant: Sulfuric Acid (H2SO4)

Number of kettles = 5

Total Maximum Heat Input = 5 MMBtu/hr

Fuel Gas Usage = 5 MMBtu/hr / (1,000 Btu/scf) = 0.005 MMscf/hr 

Emission 

Factor Emissions Emissions Emissions

(Units) (lb/hr) (lbs/day) (tons/year)

VOC 5.5 lb/MMscf 0.0275 0.0825 0.0139

NOx 100 lb/MMscf 0.5000 1.5000 0.2520

CO 84 lb/MMscf 0.4200 1.2600 0.2117

SO2 0.6 lb/MMscf 0.0030 0.0090 0.0015

Particulate 7.6 lb/MMscf 0.0380 0.1140 0.0192

(1) Emission factors obtained from AP-42, 5th Edition, Supplement D (July 1998)

 Section 1.4 for natural gas combustion (<100 MMBtu/hr).

(2) Daily emissions are based on 3 hours of continuous fuel firing at the maximum rate.

(3) Annual emissions are based on 1,008 hours of continuous fuel firing at the maximum rate. 

(4) Emissions are based on a heating value of natural gas of 1000 BTU/scf.

(5) A burner firing rate of 1 MMBtu/hr is used for each kettle to represent worst-case emissions.

(6) All particulates are assumed to be PM-10.

Emission 

Factor Component

Sage Environmental Consulting, L.P.

March 2010

Page 1 of 1 Exide Technologies - Frisco Battery Recycling Facility

2010_03_23 2009 EI, SC.P6
Table B-6

HARD LEAD AND SPECIAL ALLOY REFINING KETTLES

EPN 55

2009 Air Emissions Inventory

Exide Technologies Battery Recycling Facility - Frisco, TX

a. Hard Lead Refining Kettles.

Number of kettles = 4

Total Maximum Heat Input = 4 MMBtu/hr

Fuel Gas Usage = 4 MMBtu/hr / (1,000 Btu/scf) = 4000 scf/hr 

Emission 

Factor Emissions Emissions Emissions

(Units) (lb/hr) (lbs/day) (tons/year)

VOC 5.5 lb/MMscf 0.0220 0.1320 0.0235

NOx 100 lb/MMscf 0.4000 2.4000 0.4274

CO 84 lb/MMscf 0.3360 2.0160 0.3590

SO2 0.6 lb/MMscf 0.0024 0.0144 0.0026

Particulate 7.6 lb/MMscf 0.0304 0.1824 0.0325

(1) Emission factors obtained from AP-42, 5th Edition, Supplement D (July 1998)

 Section 1.4 for natural gas combustion (<100 MMBtu/hr).

(2) Daily emissions are based on 6.00 hours of continuous fuel firing at the maximum rate.

(3) Annual emissions are based on 2,137 hours of continuous fuel firing at the maximum rate. 

(4) Emissions are based on a heating value of natural gas of 1000 BTU/scf.

(5) A burner firing rate of 1 MMBtu/hr is used for each kettle to represent worst-case emissions.

(6) All particulates are assumed to be PM-2.5

Emission 

Factor Component

Sage Environmental Consulting, L.P.

March 2010

Page 1 of 1 Exide Technologies - Frisco Battery Recycling Facility

2010_03_23 2009 EI, SC.P7
b. Special Alloy Refining Kettles

Number of kettles = 2

Total Maximum Heat Input = 2 MMBtu/hr

Fuel Gas Usage = 2 MMBtu/hr / (1,000 Btu/scf) = 2000 scf/hr 

Emission 

Factor Emissions Emissions Emissions

(Units) (lb/hr) (lbs/day) (tons/year)

VOC 5.5 lb/MMscf 0.0110 0.0673 0.0114

NOx 100 lb/MMscf 0.2000 1.2240 0.2080

CO 84 lb/MMscf 0.1680 1.0282 0.1747

SO2 0.6 lb/MMscf 0.0012 0.0073 0.0012

Particulate 7.6 lb/MMscf 0.0152 0.0930 0.0158

(1) Emission factors obtained from AP-42, 5th Edition, Supplement D (July 1998)

 Section 1.4 for natural gas combustion (<100 MMBtu/hr).

(2) Daily emissions are based on 6.12 hours of continuous fuel firing at the maximum rate.

(3) Annual emissions are based on 2,080 hours of continuous fuel firing at the maximum rate. 

(4) Emissions are based on a heating value of natural gas of 1000 BTU/scf.

(5) A burner firing rate of 1 MMBtu/hr is used for each kettle to represent worst-case emissions.

(6) All particulates are assumed to be PM-2.5

c. Total EPN 55 emissions (the total of a. and b.)

VOC: 0.1993 lbs/day 0.0349 tpy

NOx: 3.6240 lbs/day 0.6354 tpy

CO: 3.0442 lbs/day 0.5337 tpy

SO2: 0.0217 lbs/day 0.0038 tpy

Particulate: 0.2754 lbs/day 0.0483 tpy

Table B-6 (Continued)

Emission 

Factor Component

HARD LEAD AND SPECIAL ALLOY REFINING KETTLES

(Continued)

EPN 55

2009 Air Emissions Inventory

Exide Technologies Battery Recycling Facility - Frisco, TX

Sage Environmental Consulting, L.P.

March 2010

Page 1 of 1 Exide Technologies - Frisco Battery Recycling Facility

2010_03_23 2009 EI, SC.P8
Table B-7

OXIDE BUILDING FUGITIVE EMISSIONS CALCULATIONS

 EPN 46

2009 Air Emissions Inventory

Exide Technologies Battery Recycling Facility - Frisco, TX

a. "Trough Heaters".

Operate 3,624 hrs/yr each.

Three (3) Heaters with the Burning Capacity 0.25 MMBtu/hr each

Annual operating hours for Trough Heaters in Oxide Bldg 2,500 hrs/yr

Annual Burning Capacity of All 3 Burners:

1,875 MMBtu/yr

Total Natural Gas Consumption:

1875 MMBtu / 1,000 Btu/scf = 1.875 MMscf/yr NG

Criteria Pollutants Emissions:

PM: 7.6 lb/MMscf * 1.875 MMscf/yr / 2000 lb/ton = 0.0071 tons/yr

SO2: 0.6 lb/MMscf * 1.875 MMscf/yr / 2000 lb/ton = 0.0006 tons/yr

NOx: 94 lb/MMscf * 1.875 MMscf/yr / 2000 lb/ton = 0.0881 tons/yr

CO: 40 lb/MMscf * 1.875 MMscf/yr / 2000 lb/ton = 0.0375 tons/yr

VOC: 5.5 lb/MMscf * 1.875 MMscf/yr / 2000 lb/ton = 0.0052 tons/yr

(1) Emission factors obtained from AP-42, 5th Edition, Supplement D (July 1998)

 Section 1.4 for natural gas combustion (<0.3 MMBtu/hr).

(2) Daily emissions are calculated similarly based on 24 hours of continuous fuel firing at the maximum rate.

(3) Annual emissions are based on 2,500 hours of continuous fuel firing at the maximum rate.

(4) Emissions are based on a heating value of natural gas of 1000 BTU/scf.

(5) All particulates are assumed to be PM-2.5.

(6) A firing rate of 0.25 MMBtu/hr is used for each heater to represent worst-case emission.

0.25 MMBtu/hr * 2500 hrs/yr * 3 =

Sage Environmental Consulting, L.P.

March 2010

Page 1 of 1 Exide Technologies - Frisco Battery Recycling Facility

2010_03_23 2009 EI, SC.P9
Table B-8

MATERIAL HANDLING FUGITIVES EMISSION FACTOR CALCULATIONS 

EPN 53

Exide Technologies Battery Recycling Facility - Frisco, TX

AP-42 5th Edition Section 13.2.4 (Aggregate Handling) material drop emission factor:

where E - emission factor (lb/ton),

k - particle size multiplier (dimensionless);

U - mean wind speed (miles per hour);

M - material moisture content (%).

U = 5 mph - estimation, 

U1 = 1.0000

M 1 5 (%) ti ti

E k

U

M =

⎛

⎝

⎜ ⎞

⎠

⎟

⎛

⎝

⎜ ⎞

⎠

⎟

*. * ,

.

. 0 0032 5

2

1 3

1 4

M = 1.5 (%) - estimation, 

M1 = 0.6685

E.F. = k * 0.0032 * U1 * M1, k=0.74 (for particles <30 mm)

k=0.35 (for particles <10 mm)

k=0.11 (for particles <2.5 mm)

E.F. = 0.74 * 0.0032 * 1.000 / 0.6685 = 0.0035 lb/ton for TSP

E.F. = 0.35 * 0.0032 * 1.000 / 0.6685 = 0.0017 lb/ton for PM-10

E.F. = 0.11 * 0.0032 * 1.000 / 0.6685 = 0.0005 lb/ton for PM-2.5

Lead emissions are assumed 50 percent of particulate emissions.

E k

U

M =

⎛

⎝

⎜ ⎞

⎠

⎟

⎛

⎝

⎜ ⎞

⎠

⎟

*. * ,

.

. 0 0032 5

2

1 3

1 4

Sage Environmental Consulting, L.P.

March 2010

Page 1 of 1 Exide Technologies - Frisco Battery Recycling Facility

2010_03_23 2009 EI, SC.P10
TANKS 4.0.9d

Emissions Report - Detail Format 

Tank Indentification and Physical Characteristics

Identification User Identification: DIESELTK1 City: Dallas-Fort Worth State: Texas Company: Exide Technologies Type of Tank: Horizontal Tank Description:Tank Dimensions Shell Length (ft): 35.00 Diameter (ft): 11.00 Volume (gallons): 25,000.00 Turnovers: 5.61 Net Throughput(gal/yr): 140,151.47 Is Tank Heated (y/n): N Is Tank Underground (y/n): NPaint Characteristics Shell Color/Shade: Gray/Light Shell Condition GoodBreather Vent Settings Vacuum Settings (psig): -0.03 Pressure Settings (psig) 0.03

Meterological Data used in Emissions Calculations: Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas (Avg Atmospheric Pressure = 14.44 psia)

TANKS 4.0 Report 

file://C:\Program Files\Tanks409d\summarydisplay.htm 
DIESELTK1 - Horizontal Tank

Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas

TANKS 4.0.9d

Emissions Report - Detail Format 

Liquid Contents of Storage Tank

Daily Liquid Surf. 

Temperature (deg F)

Liquid

Bulk

Temp Vapor Pressure (psia)

Vapor

Mol. 

Liquid 

Mass 

Vapor

Mass Mol. Basis for Vapo

Mixture/Component Month Avg. Min. Max. (deg F) Avg. Min. Max. Weight. Fract. Fract. Weight Calculations

Distillate fuel oil no. 2 Jun 82.85 70.62 95.08 67.65 0.0131 0.0092 0.0190 130.0000 188.00 Option 1: VP70 Distillate fuel oil no. 2 Jul 84.92 72.47 97.38 67.65 0.0140 0.0097 0.0204 130.0000 188.00 Option 1: VP70 Distillate fuel oil no. 2 Aug 83.85 72.15 95.56 67.65 0.0135 0.0096 0.0193 130.0000 188.00 Option 1: VP70 

TANKS 4.0 Report 

file://C:\Program Files\Tanks409d\summarydisplay.htm 
DIESELTK1 - Horizontal Tank

Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas

TANKS 4.0.9d

Emissions Report - Detail Format 

Detail Calculations (AP-42)

Month: January February March April May June July August September Standing Losses (lb): 1.6104 1.7900 1.6315 Vapor Space Volume (cu ft): 2,118.5740 2,118.5740 2,118.5740 Vapor Density (lb/cu ft): 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 Vapor Space Expansion Factor: 0.0867 0.0881 0.0826 Vented Vapor Saturation Factor: 0.9962 0.9959 0.9961Tank Vapor Space Volume: Vapor Space Volume (cu ft): 2,118.5740 2,118.5740 2,118.5740 Tank Diameter (ft): 11.0000 11.0000 11.0000 Effective Diameter (ft): 22.1460 22.1460 22.1460 Vapor Space Outage (ft): 5.5000 5.5000 5.5000 Tank Shell Length (ft): 35.0000 35.0000 35.0000Vapor Density Vapor Density (lb/cu ft): 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 Vapor Molecular Weight (lb/lb-mole): 130.0000 130.0000 130.0000 Vapor Pressure at Daily Average Liquid Surface Temperature (psia): 0.0131 0.0140 0.0135 Daily Avg. Liquid Surface Temp. (deg. R): 542.5222 544.5919 543.5239 Daily Average Ambient Temp. (deg. F): 80.9500 85.3000 84.9000 Ideal Gas Constant R  (psia cuft / (lb-mol-deg R)): 10.731 10.731 10.731 Liquid Bulk Temperature (deg. R): 527.3183 527.3183 527.3183 Tank Paint Solar Absorptance (Shell): 0.5400 0.5400 0.5400 Daily Total Solar Insulation Factor (Btu/sqft day): 2,192.0184 2,228.5045 2,019.4236Vapor Space Expansion Factor

 Vapor Space Expansion Factor: 0.0867 0.0881 0.0826 Daily Vapor Temperature Range (deg. R): 48.9113 49.8230 46.8057 Daily Vapor Pressure Range (psia): 0.0099 0.0107 0.0097 Breather Vent Press. Setting Range(psia): 0.0600 0.0600 0.0600 Vapor Pressure at Daily Average Liquid Surface Temperature (psia): 0.0131 0.0140 0.0135 Vapor Pressure at Daily Minimum Liquid Surface Temperature (psia): 0.0092 0.0097 0.0096 Vapor Pressure at Daily Maximum Liquid  Surface Temperature (psia): 0.0190 0.0204 0.0193 Daily Avg. Liquid Surface Temp. (deg R): 542.5222 544.5919 543.5239 Daily Min. Liquid Surface Temp. (deg R): 530.2944 532.1361 531.8225 Daily Max. Liquid Surface Temp. (deg R): 554.7500 557.0476 555.2253 Daily Ambient Temp. Range (deg. R): 21.9000 22.4000 22.6000Vented Vapor Saturation Factor  Vented Vapor Saturation Factor: 0.9962 0.9959 0.9961 Vapor Pressure at Daily Average Liquid: Surface Temperature (psia): 0.0131 0.0140 0.0135 Vapor Space Outage (ft): 5.5000 5.5000 5.5000Working Losses (lb): 0.4750 0.5050 0.4895 Vapor Molecular Weight (lb/lb-mole): 130.0000 130.0000 130.0000 Vapor Pressure at Daily Average Liquid Surface Temperature (psia): 0.0131 0.0140 0.0135 Net Throughput (gal/mo.): 11,679.2892 11,679.2892 11,679.2892

TANKS 4.0 Report 

file://C:\Program Files\Tanks409d\summarydisplay.htm 
 Annual Turnovers: 5.6061 5.6061 5.6061

 Turnover Factor: 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Tank Diameter (ft): 11.0000 11.0000 11.0000 Working Loss Product Factor: 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000Total Losses (lb): 2.0855 2.2950 2.1210

TANKS 4.0 Report 

file://C:\Program Files\Tanks409d\summarydisplay.htm 
Emissions Report for: June, July, August 

DIESELTK1 - Horizontal TankDallas-Fort Worth, Texas

TANKS 4.0.9d

Emissions Report - Detail Format 

Individual Tank Emission Totals

Losses(lbs)

Components Working Loss Breathing Loss Total EmissionsDistillate fuel oil no. 2 1.47 5.03 6.50

TANKS 4.0 Report 

file://C:\Program Files\Tanks409d\summarydisplay.htm 
TANKS 4.0 Report 

file://C:\Program Files\Tanks409d\summarydisplay.htm 
TANKS 4.0.9d

Emissions Report - Detail Format 

Tank Indentification and Physical Characteristics

Identification User Identification: DIESELTK1 City: Dallas-Fort Worth State: Texas Company: Exide Technologies Type of Tank: Horizontal Tank Description:Tank Dimensions Shell Length (ft): 35.00 Diameter (ft): 11.00 Volume (gallons): 25,000.00 Turnovers: 5.61 Net Throughput(gal/yr): 140,151.47 Is Tank Heated (y/n): N Is Tank Underground (y/n): NPaint Characteristics Shell Color/Shade: Gray/Light Shell Condition GoodBreather Vent Settings Vacuum Settings (psig): -0.03 Pressure Settings (psig) 0.03

Meterological Data used in Emissions Calculations: Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas (Avg Atmospheric Pressure = 14.44 psia)

TANKS 4.0 Report 

file://C:\Program Files\Tanks409d\summarydisplay.htm 
DIESELTK1 - Horizontal Tank

Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas

TANKS 4.0.9d

Emissions Report - Detail Format 

Liquid Contents of Storage Tank

Daily Liquid Surf. 

Temperature (deg F)

Liquid

Bulk

Temp Vapor Pressure (psia)

Vapor

Mol. 

Liquid 

Mass 

Vapor

Mass Mol. Basis for Vapo

Mixture/Component Month Avg. Min. Max. (deg F) Avg. Min. Max. Weight. Fract. Fract. Weight Calculations

Distillate fuel oil no. 2 Jan 60.88 53.57 68.19 67.65 0.0067 0.0052 0.0085 130.0000 188.00 Option 1: VP60 Distillate fuel oil no. 2 Feb 63.95 55.57 72.33 67.65 0.0075 0.0056 0.0097 130.0000 188.00 Option 1: VP60 Distillate fuel oil no. 2 Mar 69.22 59.56 78.87 67.65 0.0088 0.0064 0.0117 130.0000 188.00 Option 1: VP60 Distillate fuel oil no. 2 Apr 74.27 63.68 84.86 67.65 0.0103 0.0074 0.0139 130.0000 188.00 Option 1: VP70 Distillate fuel oil no. 2 May 78.34 67.20 89.49 67.65 0.0115 0.0083 0.0158 130.0000 188.00 Option 1: VP70 Distillate fuel oil no. 2 Jun 82.85 70.62 95.08 67.65 0.0131 0.0092 0.0190 130.0000 188.00 Option 1: VP70 Distillate fuel oil no. 2 Jul 84.92 72.47 97.38 67.65 0.0140 0.0097 0.0204 130.0000 188.00 Option 1: VP70 Distillate fuel oil no. 2 Aug 83.85 72.15 95.56 67.65 0.0135 0.0096 0.0193 130.0000 188.00 Option 1: VP70 Distillate fuel oil no. 2 Sep 78.95 68.96 88.95 67.65 0.0117 0.0087 0.0156 130.0000 188.00 Option 1: VP70 Distillate fuel oil no. 2 Oct 73.13 63.99 82.27 67.65 0.0099 0.0075 0.0129 130.0000 188.00 Option 1: VP70 Distillate fuel oil no. 2 Nov 66.82 59.20 74.44 67.65 0.0082 0.0063 0.0103 130.0000 188.00 Option 1: VP60 Distillate fuel oil no. 2 Dec 62.11 55.11 69.12 67.65 0.0070 0.0055 0.0088 130.0000 188.00 Option 1: VP60 

TANKS 4.0 Report 

file://C:\Program Files\Tanks409d\summarydisplay.htm 
DIESELTK1 - Horizontal Tank

Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas

TANKS 4.0.9d

Emissions Report - Detail Format 

Detail Calculations (AP-42)

Month: January February March April May June July August September Standing Losses (lb): 0.5353 0.6169 0.9143 1.1177 1.3428 1.6104 1.7900 1.6315 1.1745  Vapor Space Volume (cu ft): 2,118.5740 2,118.5740 2,118.5740 2,118.5740 2,118.5740 2,118.5740 2,118.5740 2,118.5740 2,118.5740 2 Vapor Density (lb/cu ft): 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003  Vapor Space Expansion Factor: 0.0522 0.0602 0.0692 0.0756 0.0792 0.0867 0.0881 0.0826 0.0705  Vented Vapor Saturation Factor: 0.9980 0.9978 0.9974 0.9970 0.9967 0.9962 0.9959 0.9961 0.9966 Tank Vapor Space Volume: Vapor Space Volume (cu ft): 2,118.5740 2,118.5740 2,118.5740 2,118.5740 2,118.5740 2,118.5740 2,118.5740 2,118.5740 2,118.5740 2 Tank Diameter (ft): 11.0000 11.0000 11.0000 11.0000 11.0000 11.0000 11.0000 11.0000 11.0000  Effective Diameter (ft): 22.1460 22.1460 22.1460 22.1460 22.1460 22.1460 22.1460 22.1460 22.1460  Vapor Space Outage (ft): 5.5000 5.5000 5.5000 5.5000 5.5000 5.5000 5.5000 5.5000 5.5000  Tank Shell Length (ft): 35.0000 35.0000 35.0000 35.0000 35.0000 35.0000 35.0000 35.0000 35.0000 Vapor Density Vapor Density (lb/cu ft): 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003  Vapor Molecular Weight (lb/lb-mole): 130.0000 130.0000 130.0000 130.0000 130.0000 130.0000 130.0000 130.0000 130.0000  Vapor Pressure at Daily Average Liquid Surface Temperature (psia): 0.0067 0.0075 0.0088 0.0103 0.0115 0.0131 0.0140 0.0135 0.0117  Daily Avg. Liquid Surface Temp. (deg. R): 520.5484 523.6207 528.8854 533.9363 538.0142 542.5222 544.5919 543.5239 538.6224  Daily Average Ambient Temp. (deg. F): 43.4000 47.9000 56.7000 65.5000 72.7500 80.9500 85.3000 84.9000 77.3500  Ideal Gas Constant R  (psia cuft / (lb-mol-deg R)): 10.731 10.731 10.731 10.731 10.731 10.731 10.731 10.731 10.731  Liquid Bulk Temperature (deg. R): 527.3183 527.3183 527.3183 527.3183 527.3183 527.3183 527.3183 527.3183 527.3183  Tank Paint Solar Absorptance (Shell): 0.5400 0.5400 0.5400 0.5400 0.5400 0.5400 0.5400 0.5400 0.5400  Daily Total Solar Insulation Factor (Btu/sqft day): 914.0549 1,170.0918 1,496.5626 1,772.9048 1,981.0339 2,192.0184 2,228.5045 2,019.4236 1,649.1695 Vapor Space Expansion Factor

 Vapor Space Expansion Factor: 0.0522 0.0602 0.0692 0.0756 0.0792 0.0867 0.0881 0.0826 0.0705  Daily Vapor Temperature Range (deg. R): 29.2285 33.5318 38.6120 42.3583 44.5692 48.9113 49.8230 46.8057 39.9834  Daily Vapor Pressure Range (psia): 0.0033 0.0041 0.0052 0.0065 0.0075 0.0099 0.0107 0.0097 0.0068  Breather Vent Press. Setting Range(psia): 0.0600 0.0600 0.0600 0.0600 0.0600 0.0600 0.0600 0.0600 0.0600  Vapor Pressure at Daily Average Liquid Surface Temperature (psia): 0.0067 0.0075 0.0088 0.0103 0.0115 0.0131 0.0140 0.0135 0.0117  Vapor Pressure at Daily Minimum Liquid Surface Temperature (psia): 0.0052 0.0056 0.0064 0.0074 0.0083 0.0092 0.0097 0.0096 0.0087  Vapor Pressure at Daily Maximum Liquid  Surface Temperature (psia): 0.0085 0.0097 0.0117 0.0139 0.0158 0.0190 0.0204 0.0193 0.0156  Daily Avg. Liquid Surface Temp. (deg R): 520.5484 523.6207 528.8854 533.9363 538.0142 542.5222 544.5919 543.5239 538.6224  Daily Min. Liquid Surface Temp. (deg R): 513.2413 515.2377 519.2324 523.3467 526.8718 530.2944 532.1361 531.8225 528.6266  Daily Max. Liquid Surface Temp. (deg R): 527.8556 532.0036 538.5384 544.5259 549.1565 554.7500 557.0476 555.2253 548.6183  Daily Ambient Temp. Range (deg. R): 21.4000 22.0000 22.2000 21.6000 20.3000 21.9000 22.4000 22.6000 20.9000 Vented Vapor Saturation Factor  Vented Vapor Saturation Factor: 0.9980 0.9978 0.9974 0.9970 0.9967 0.9962 0.9959 0.9961 0.9966  Vapor Pressure at Daily Average Liquid: Surface Temperature (psia): 0.0067 0.0075 0.0088 0.0103 0.0115 0.0131 0.0140 0.0135 0.0117  Vapor Space Outage (ft): 5.5000 5.5000 5.5000 5.5000 5.5000 5.5000 5.5000 5.5000 5.5000 Working Losses (lb): 0.2429 0.2707 0.3183 0.3716 0.4158 0.4750 0.5050 0.4895 0.4224  Vapor Molecular Weight (lb/lb-mole): 130.0000 130.0000 130.0000 130.0000 130.0000 130.0000 130.0000 130.0000 130.0000  Vapor Pressure at Daily Average Liquid Surface Temperature (psia): 0.0067 0.0075 0.0088 0.0103 0.0115 0.0131 0.0140 0.0135 0.0117  Net Throughput (gal/mo.): 11,679.2892 11,679.2892 11,679.2892 11,679.2892 11,679.2892 11,679.2892 11,679.2892 11,679.2892 11,679.2892 1

TANKS 4.0 Report 

file://C:\Program Files\Tanks409d\summarydisplay.htm 
 Annual Turnovers: 5.6061 5.6061 5.6061 5.6061 5.6061 5.6061 5.6061 5.6061 5.6061 

 Turnover Factor: 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000  Tank Diameter (ft): 11.0000 11.0000 11.0000 11.0000 11.0000 11.0000 11.0000 11.0000 11.0000  Working Loss Product Factor: 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total Losses (lb): 0.7782 0.8876 1.2326 1.4894 1.7587 2.0855 2.2950 2.1210 1.5969 

TANKS 4.0 Report 

file://C:\Pro

gram Files\Tanks409d\summar

ydispla

y.htm 
Emissions Report for: January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, Octob

December 

DIESELTK1 - Horizontal TankDallas-Fort Worth, Texas

TANKS 4.0.9d

Emissions Report - Detail Format 

Individual Tank Emission Totals

Losses(lbs)

Components Working Loss Breathing Loss Total EmissionsDistillate fuel oil no. 2 4.42 12.87 17.29

TANKS 4.0 Report 

file://C:\Program Files\Tanks409d\summarydisplay.htm 
Sage Environmental Consulting, L.P. Exide Technologies – Frisco Battery Recycling Facility 

March 2010 2009 EI Report (03.22.2010) 

APPENDIX C 

UPDATED EMISSIONS INVENTORY PRINTOUT 

Exide is submitting the 2009 Emissions Inventory electronically. Therefore, the updated 

Emissions Inventory Questionnaire (EIQ) is not provided this year. The delta file has been 

prepared in the TCEQ required STARS format for the electronic submittal. The delta file is 

provided on a Compact Disc (CD) included with this report. 

The following pages from the EIQ are included in this appendix: 

• Account Information 

• Criteria Emissions Totals 

• Emissions Inventory Signature Page 





Sage Environmental Consulting, L.P. Exide Technologies – Frisco Battery Recycling Facility 

March 2010 2009 EI Report (03.22.2010) 

APPENDIX D 

PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAMS 


Sage Environmental Consulting, L.P. Exide Technologies – Frisco Battery Recycling Facility 

March 2010 2009 EI Report (03.22.2010) 

APPENDIX E 

PLOT PLAN 

Sage Environmental Consulting, L.P. Exide Technologies – Frisco Battery Recycling Facility 

March 2010 2009 EI Report (03.22.2010) 

APPENDIX F 

LONE STARS PRINTOUT 

Sage used a third party software, Lone StarS ver. 1.4.1.2 developed by Environmental Software 

Solutions, to generate the TCEQ STARS delta file submitted to the TCEQ on the enclosed 

compact disc. This appendix contains the Lone StarS printout documenting the emissions 

inventory data included in the TCEQ STARS delta file. 
Account # - Report Year: RN100218643 - 2009 

FIN: BLAST EPN:38

FIN: BLAST BLAST FURNACE Plant ID: SMELTER

Comments:

SCC: 30400403 SEC. LEAD SMELTING FURNACE BLAST(CUPOLA)

Status: A Date: Operating Schedule: 24 7 52 hrs/day days/wk wks/year

Annual Operating Hours: 8160 % Max Capacity: 99.00 Start Time: 0

Spring %: Summer %: Fall %: Winter %: 25 25 25 25

Group Type: COMBUSTN

Profile: FURNACE

Characteristic Value UnitDESIGN CAPACITY 0 MMBTU/HRFIRING TYPE OT

Control Efficiencies:

CIN: Name: AFTERBURN AFTERBURN

Abatement Code: 501 AFTERBURNERS,DIRECT FLAME

# of Units: Annual Operating Hours: % time offline: IM Schedule: 1 00

CO: TSP: 90 0 0 90 PM10: VOC:

IOC: C1-C3: 00 0 0 SO2: NOX:

C4+: H2S: 00 0 NH3:

Control Efficiencies:

CIN: Name: BLASTBH BLASTBH

Abatement Code: 301 FILTERS-FABRIC(BAGHOUSE),MECHANICAL SHAKING

# of Units: Annual Operating Hours: % time offline: IM Schedule: 1 00

CO: TSP: 0 95 0 0 PM10: VOC:

IOC: C1-C3: 00 0 0 SO2: NOX:

C4+: H2S: 00 0 NH3:

Control Efficiencies:

CIN: Name: SO2SCRUBER SO2SCRUBER

Abatement Code: 600 SULFER DIOXIDE REMOVAL

# of Units: Annual Operating Hours: % time offline: IM Schedule: 1 00

CO: TSP: 0 90 0 0 PM10: VOC:

IOC: C1-C3: 0 85 0 0 SO2: NOX:

C4+: H2S: 00 0 NH3:
Account # - Report Year: RN100218643 - 2009 

EMISSION POINT INFORMATION

EPN: Name: 38 OFF-GAS SCRUBBER

UTM Zone: UTM East (m): UTM North (m): 14 702662.38 3668046

Latitude: Longitude: 330756 964939

Characteristic Value Unit

DIAMETER 4.5 FEETHEIGHT 162 FEETHORDSCHG NMOISTURETEMP 95 DEG FVELOCITY 64.4 FT/SEC

Contaminant

Code

Ozone Determination

(lb/day)

Annual

(ton/yr)

Upset

(ton/year)

Maintenance

(ton/year)

Cas # Contaminant Name EE/SMSS

10000 0 PART-U 3.8343 22.1075 .0000 .0000M .000014020 7440360 ANTIMONY-SB .0031 .0181 .0000 .0000M .000014030 7440382 ARSENIC - AS .0018 .0101 .0000 .0000M .000014110 7440439 CADMIUM-CD .0079 .0456 .0000 .0000M .000014310 7439921 LEAD-PB .0499 .2874 .0000 .0000M .000014590 7782492 SELENIUM-SE .0030 .0174 .0000 .0000M .000014601 0 SILICA OXIDE .0314 .1810 .0000 .0000M .000020000 0 PM10 PART-U 2.6840 15.4753 .0000 .0000M .000024020 7440360 PM10 ANTIMONY-SB .0022 .0127 .0000 .0000M .000024030 7440382 PM10 ARSENIC - AS .0012 .0071 .0000 .0000M .000024110 7440439 PM10 CADMIUM-CD .0055 .0319 .0000 .0000M .000024310 7439921 PM10 LEAD-PB .0349 .2012 .0000 .0000M .000024590 7782492 PM10 SELENIUM-SE .0021 .0122 .0000 .0000M .000024601 0 PM10 SILICA OXIDE .0220 .1267 .0000 .0000M .000039999 0 TOTAL PM2.5 PARTICULATE 1.1794 6.7978 .0000 .0000E .000050001 0 VOC-UNCLASSIFIED .4186 2.4127 .0000 .0000M .000052420 71-43-2 BENZENE .0801 .4617 .0000 .0000M .000052450 100414 ETHYL BENZENE .0068 .0390 .0000 .0000M .000052490 108883 TOLUENE .0688 .3967 .0000 .0000M .000052512 108383 META-XYLENE .0530 .3057 .0000 .0000M .000052514 95476 ORTHO-XYLENE .0113 .0650 .0000 .0000M .000054065 78933 METHYL ETHYL KETONE .0113 .0650 .0000 .0000M .000054070 108101 METHYL ISOBUTYL KETONE .0226 .1301 .0000 .0000M .000056600 110543 HEXANE .0045 .0260 .0000 .0000M .000070200 7647010 HYDROGEN CHLORIDE .2462 1.4189 .0000 .0000M .000070400 0 NITROGEN OXIDES 12.8241 73.9140 .0000 .0000M .0000

Profile: STACK
Account # - Report Year: RN100218643 - 2009 

EMISSION POINT INFORMATION

Contaminant

Code

Ozone Determination

(lb/day)

Annual

(ton/yr)

Upset

(ton/year)

Maintenance

(ton/year)

Cas # Contaminant Name EE/SMSS

70510 7446095 SULFUR DIOXIDE 180.8685 1,042.4696 .0000 .0000M .000070516 SULFURIC ACID (VAPOR) 2.4241 13.9720 .0000 .0000M .000090300 630080 CARBON MONOXIDE 179.4868 1,034.5062 .0000 .0000M .0000
Account # - Report Year: RN100218643 - 2009 

FIN: BLASTFUG EPN:10

FIN: BLASTFUG BLAST FURNACE SMELTING FUGITIVES Plant ID: GNBFP. 1

Comments:

SCC: 30400403 SEC. LEAD SMELTING FURNACE BLAST(CUPOLA)

Status: A Date: Operating Schedule: 24 7 52 hrs/day days/wk wks/year

Annual Operating Hours: 8160 % Max Capacity: 99.00 Start Time: 0

Spring %: Summer %: Fall %: Winter %: 25 25 25 25

Group Type: OTHER

Profile: OTHER

EMISSION POINT INFORMATION

EPN: Name: 10 BLAST FUGITIVE AREA

UTM Zone: UTM East (m): UTM North (m): 14 702672.94 3668785.8

Latitude: Longitude: 330820 964938

Characteristic Value Unit

DEGREES 0 DEGREESHEIGHT 30 FEETLENGTH 110 FEETOFNORTH EWIDTH 55 FEET

Contaminant

Code

Ozone Determination

(lb/day)

Annual

(ton/yr)

Upset

(ton/year)

Maintenance

(ton/year)

Cas # Contaminant Name EE/SMSS

10000 0 PART-U 1.8148 10.6752 .0000 .0000 A .000014020 7440360 ANTIMONY-SB .0045 .0263 .0000 .0000 A .000014030 7440382 ARSENIC - AS .0022 .0131 .0000 .0000 A .000014110 7440439 CADMIUM-CD .0089 .0525 .0000 .0000 A .000014310 7439921 LEAD-PB .0893 .5252 .0000 .0000 A .000020000 0 PM10 PART-U 1.2703 7.4726 .0000 .0000 A .000024020 7440360 PM10 ANTIMONY-SB .0031 .0184 .0000 .0000 A .000024030 7440382 PM10 ARSENIC - AS .0016 .0092 .0000 .0000 A .000024110 7440439 PM10 CADMIUM-CD .0063 .0368 .0000 .0000 A .000024310 7439921 PM10 LEAD-PB .0625 .3677 .0000 .0000 A .000039999 0 TOTAL PM2.5 PARTICULATE .5759 3.3877 .0000 .0000 A .0000

Profile: FUGITIVE
Account # - Report Year: RN100218643 - 2009 

FIN: BREAKER EPN:48

FIN: BREAKER BATTERY BREAKER Plant ID:

Comments:

SCC: 30400499 SEC. LEAD NOT CLASSIFIED SEE COMMENT

Status: A Date: Operating Schedule: 24 7 50 hrs/day days/wk wks/year

Annual Operating Hours: 3900 % Max Capacity: 99.00 Start Time: 0

Spring %: Summer %: Fall %: Winter %: 25 25 25 25

Group Type: OTHER

Profile: OTHER

Control Efficiencies:

CIN: Name: SCRUB SCRUB

Abatement Code: 270 SCRUBBERS - MISC. TYPES

# of Units: Annual Operating Hours: % time offline: IM Schedule: 1 00

CO: TSP: 00 0 0 PM10: VOC:

IOC: C1-C3: 00 0 0 SO2: NOX:

C4+: H2S: 00 0 NH3:

EMISSION POINT INFORMATION

EPN: Name: 48 BATTERY BREAKER SCRUBBER

UTM Zone: UTM East (m): UTM North (m): 14 702593 3668772

Latitude: Longitude: 330819.59 964941.06

Characteristic Value Unit

DIAMETER 3.2 FEETHEIGHT 35 FEETHORDSCHG NMOISTURETEMP 75 DEG FVELOCITY 50.8 FT/SEC

Contaminant

Code

Ozone Determination

(lb/day)

Annual

(ton/yr)

Upset

(ton/year)

Maintenance

(ton/year)

Cas # Contaminant Name EE/SMSS

10000 0 PART-U .9848 12.1200 .0000 .0000 M .000014310 7439921 LEAD-PB .0293 .3600 .0000 .0000 M .000020000 0 PM10 PART-U .6893 8.4840 .0000 .0000 M .000024310 7439921 PM10 LEAD-PB .0205 .2520 .0000 .0000 M .000039999 0 TOTAL PM2.5 PARTICULATE .3042 3.7440 .0000 .0000 E .000070516 SULFURIC ACID (VAPOR) .0293 .3600 .0000 .0000 M .0000

Profile: STACK
Account # - Report Year: RN100218643 - 2009 

FIN: BREAKERFUG EPN:48FUG

FIN: BREAKERFUG BATTERY BREAKER FUGITIVE Plant ID:

Comments:

SCC: 30400499 SEC. LEAD NOT CLASSIFIED SEE COMMENT

Status: A Date: Operating Schedule: 24 7 49 hrs/day days/wk wks/year

Annual Operating Hours: 3900 % Max Capacity: 55.00 Start Time: 700

Spring %: Summer %: Fall %: Winter %: 25 25 25 25

Group Type: OTHER

Profile: OTHER

EMISSION POINT INFORMATION

EPN: Name: 48FUG BATTERY BREAKER FUGITIVES

UTM Zone: UTM East (m): UTM North (m): 14 702582 3668775

Latitude: Longitude: 330819.72 964941.5

Characteristic Value Unit

DEGREES 0 DEGREESHEIGHT 3 FEETLENGTH 10 FEETOFNORTH WWIDTH 10 FEET

Contaminant

Code

Ozone Determination

(lb/day)

Annual

(ton/yr)

Upset

(ton/year)

Maintenance

(ton/year)

Cas # Contaminant Name EE/SMSS

70516 SULFURIC ACID (VAPOR) .0657 .6066 .0000 .0000 S .0000

Profile: FUGITIVE
Account # - Report Year: RN100218643 - 2009 

FIN: COVRMSB44 EPN:44

FIN: COVRMSB44 COVERED RAW MATERIAL STORAGE BUILDING FUGITIVES Plant ID:

Comments:

SCC: 30400499 SEC. LEAD NOT CLASSIFIED SEE COMMENT

Status: A Date: Operating Schedule: 24 7 52 hrs/day days/wk wks/year

Annual Operating Hours: 8760 % Max Capacity: 99.00 Start Time: 0

Spring %: Summer %: Fall %: Winter %: 25 25 25 25

Group Type: OTHER

Profile: OTHER

EMISSION POINT INFORMATION

EPN: Name: 44 RAW MAT'L. STOR. FUGITIVE

UTM Zone: UTM East (m): UTM North (m): 14 702621.75 3668754

Latitude: Longitude: 330819 964940

Characteristic Value Unit

DEGREES 0 DEGREESHEIGHT 3 FEETLENGTH 100 FEETOFNORTHWIDTH 5 FEET

Contaminant

Code

Ozone Determination

(lb/day)

Annual

(ton/yr)

Upset

(ton/year)

Maintenance

(ton/year)

Cas # Contaminant Name EE/SMSS

14310 7439921 LEAD-PB .0107 .0587 .0000 .0000 E .000024310 7439921 PM10 LEAD-PB .0107 .0587 .0000 .0000 E .000039999 0 TOTAL PM2.5 PARTICULATE .0032 .0176 .0000 .0000 A .0000

Profile: FUGITIVE
Account # - Report Year: RN100218643 - 2009 

FIN: CRYSTLBLR EPN:CRYSTLBLR

FIN: CRYSTLBLR CRYSTALLIZER BOILER Plant ID:

Comments:

SCC: 10100602 ELECTRIC GENERATNNATURAL GAS <100MMBTU/HR EXTF

Status: A Date: Operating Schedule: 24 7 52 hrs/day days/wk wks/year

Annual Operating Hours: 8640 % Max Capacity: 50.00 Start Time: 0

Spring %: Summer %: Fall %: Winter %: 25 25 25 25

Group Type: COMBUSTN

Profile: BOILER-ELECTRIC GENERATN

Characteristic Value UnitDESIGN CAPACITYFIRING TYPEGENERATION CAPACITY

EMISSION POINT INFORMATION

EPN: Name: CRYSTLBLR CRYSTALLIZER BOILER

UTM Zone: UTM East (m): UTM North (m): 14 702391 3668885

Latitude: Longitude: 330823.41 964948.81

Characteristic Value Unit

DIAMETER 2 FEETHEIGHT 20 FEETHORDSCHG NMOISTURETEMP 414 DEG FVELOCITY 28.56 FT/SEC

Contaminant

Code

Ozone Determination

(lb/day)

Annual

(ton/yr)

Upset

(ton/year)

Maintenance

(ton/year)

Cas # Contaminant Name EE/SMSS

10000 0 PART-U .0904 1.0043 .0000 .0000 V .000020000 0 PM10 PART-U .0904 1.0043 .0000 .0000 V .000050001 0 VOC-UNCLASSIFIED .1446 1.6068 .0000 .0000 V .000070400 0 NITROGEN OXIDES 1.0665 11.8502 .0000 .0000 V .000070510 7446095 SULFUR DIOXIDE .0090 .1004 .0000 .0000 V .000090300 630080 CARBON MONOXIDE 1.3557 15.0638 .0000 .0000 V .0000

Profile: STACK
Account # - Report Year: RN100218643 - 2009 

FIN: D-1 EPN:D-1

FIN: D-1 DEGREASERS Plant ID:

Comments:

SCC: 30400499 SEC. LEAD NOT CLASSIFIED SEE COMMENT

Status: A Date: Operating Schedule: 24 7 52 hrs/day days/wk wks/year

Annual Operating Hours: 8760 % Max Capacity: 99.00 Start Time: 0

Spring %: Summer %: Fall %: Winter %: 25 25 25 25

Group Type: CLEANING

Profile: VAPOR DEGREASING

EMISSION POINT INFORMATION

EPN: Name: D-1 DEGREASER 1

UTM Zone: UTM East (m): UTM North (m): 14 702661.88 3668070

Latitude: Longitude: 330756.78 964939

Characteristic Value Unit

DIAMETER 3 FEETHEIGHT 10 FEETHORDSCHG NMOISTURETEMP 77 DEG FVELOCITY 0.01 FT/SEC

Contaminant

Code

Ozone Determination

(lb/day)

Annual

(ton/yr)

Upset

(ton/year)

Maintenance

(ton/year)

Cas # Contaminant Name EE/SMSS

59300 64741668 NAPHTHA .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 B .0000

Profile: STACK
Account # - Report Year: RN100218643 - 2009 

FIN: DIESELTK1 EPN:DT

FIN: DIESELTK1 DIESEL TANK 1 Plant ID:

Comments:

SCC: 40301021 FIXED ROOF TANKS DIST FUEL NO.2 WORKING LOSS

Status: A Date: Operating Schedule: 24 7 52 hrs/day days/wk wks/year

Annual Operating Hours: 8760 % Max Capacity: 100.00 Start Time: 0

Spring %: Summer %: Fall %: Winter %: 25 25 25 25

Group Type: TANKS

Profile: HORIZONTAL FIXED ROOF TANK

Characteristic Value UnitDIAMETER 11 FEETFILL MTHD UHEIGHTHOT PRODUCT (Y/N)LENGTH 35 FEETPAINT COND GROOF COLOR AD

SHELL COLOR ADSHLL CONST WSTORE CAPACITY 25000 MGALLONSVAPR SPACE HGT

EMISSION POINT INFORMATION

EPN: Name: DT DIESEL TANK 1

UTM Zone: UTM East (m): UTM North (m): 14 702235 3668826

Latitude: Longitude: 330821.59 964954.88

Characteristic Value Unit

DIAMETER 3.0 FEETHEIGHT 15 FEETHORDSCHG NMOISTURE 0 %TEMP 78 DEG FVELOCITY 0.01 FT/SEC

Contaminant

Code

Ozone Determination

(lb/day)

Annual

(ton/yr)

Upset

(ton/year)

Maintenance

(ton/year)

Cas # Contaminant Name EE/SMSS

50001 0 VOC-UNCLASSIFIED .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 S .000059150 0 DIESEL .0086 .0714 .0000 .0000 A .0000

Profile: STACK
Account # - Report Year: RN100218643 - 2009 

FIN: DROSSBIN EPN:22

FIN: DROSSBIN VENTILATED DROSS BINS Plant ID:

Comments:

SCC: 30400411 SEC. LEAD SCRAP PRETREATMNTSCRAP CRUSHING

Status: A Date: Operating Schedule: 24 7 52 hrs/day days/wk wks/year

Annual Operating Hours: 8736 % Max Capacity: 95.00 Start Time: 0

Spring %: Summer %: Fall %: Winter %: 25 25 25 25

Group Type: OTHER

Profile: OTHER

Control Efficiencies:

CIN: Name: SPECALLOY SPECALLOY

Abatement Code: 301 FILTERS-FABRIC(BAGHOUSE),MECHANICAL SHAKING

# of Units: Annual Operating Hours: % time offline: IM Schedule: 1 8736 0 D

CO: TSP: 0 95 0 0 PM10: VOC:

IOC: C1-C3: 00 0 0 SO2: NOX:

C4+: H2S: 00 0 NH3:

EMISSION POINT INFORMATION

EPN: Name: 22 SPEC. ALLOY VENT STACK

UTM Zone: UTM East (m): UTM North (m): 14 702824 3668018

Latitude: Longitude: 330754.97 964932.75

Characteristic Value Unit

DIAMETER 2.7 FEETHEIGHT 75 FEETHORDSCHG NMOISTURETEMP 81 DEG FVELOCITY 68 FT/SEC

Contaminant

Code

Ozone Determination

(lb/day)

Annual

(ton/yr)

Upset

(ton/year)

Maintenance

(ton/year)

Cas # Contaminant Name EE/SMSS

14310 7439921 LEAD-PB .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 E .0000

Profile: STACK
Account # - Report Year: RN100218643 - 2009 

FIN: DRYTPIECE EPN:45

FIN: DRYTPIECE DRYER TRANSITION PIECE Plant ID:

Comments:

SCC: 30400411 SEC. LEAD SCRAP PRETREATMNTSCRAP CRUSHING

Status: A Date: Operating Schedule: 24 7 52 hrs/day days/wk wks/year

Annual Operating Hours: 8736 % Max Capacity: 95.00 Start Time: 0

Spring %: Summer %: Fall %: Winter %: 25 25 25 25

Group Type: OTHER

Profile: OTHER

EMISSION POINT INFORMATION

EPN: Name: 45 STORAGE DUST COLLECTOR ST

UTM Zone: UTM East (m): UTM North (m): 14 702257.63 3668808

Latitude: Longitude: 330821 964954

Characteristic Value Unit

DIAMETER 6 FEETHEIGHT 100 FEETHORDSCHG NMOISTURETEMP 72 DEG FVELOCITY 59 FT/SEC

Contaminant

Code

Ozone Determination

(lb/day)

Annual

(ton/yr)

Upset

(ton/year)

Maintenance

(ton/year)

Cas # Contaminant Name EE/SMSS

10000 0 PART-U .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 E .000014310 7439921 LEAD-PB .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 E .0000

Profile: STACK
Account # - Report Year: RN100218643 - 2009 

FIN: FDRYHOP EPN:45

FIN: FDRYHOP FEED DRYER LOADING HOPPER Plant ID:

Comments:

SCC: 30400411 SEC. LEAD SCRAP PRETREATMNTSCRAP CRUSHING

Status: A Date: Operating Schedule: 24 7 52 hrs/day days/wk wks/year

Annual Operating Hours: 8160 % Max Capacity: 95.00 Start Time: 0

Spring %: Summer %: Fall %: Winter %: 25 25 25 25

Group Type: OTHER

Profile: OTHER

EMISSION POINT INFORMATION

EPN: Name: 45 STORAGE DUST COLLECTOR ST

UTM Zone: UTM East (m): UTM North (m): 14 702257.63 3668808

Latitude: Longitude: 330821 964954

Characteristic Value Unit

DIAMETER 6 FEETHEIGHT 100 FEETHORDSCHG NMOISTURETEMP 72 DEG FVELOCITY 59 FT/SEC

Contaminant

Code

Ozone Determination

(lb/day)

Annual

(ton/yr)

Upset

(ton/year)

Maintenance

(ton/year)

Cas # Contaminant Name EE/SMSS

10000 0 PART-U .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 E .000014310 7439921 LEAD-PB .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 E .0000

Profile: STACK
Account # - Report Year: RN100218643 - 2009 

FIN: FEEDDRYER EPN:45

FIN: FEEDDRYER FEED DRYER Plant ID:

Comments:

SCC: 30400411 SEC. LEAD SCRAP PRETREATMNTSCRAP CRUSHING

Status: A Date: Operating Schedule: 24 7 52 hrs/day days/wk wks/year

Annual Operating Hours: 8160 % Max Capacity: 95.00 Start Time: 0

Spring %: Summer %: Fall %: Winter %: 25 25 25 25

Group Type: OTHER

Profile: OTHER

EMISSION POINT INFORMATION

EPN: Name: 45 STORAGE DUST COLLECTOR ST

UTM Zone: UTM East (m): UTM North (m): 14 702257.63 3668808

Latitude: Longitude: 330821 964954

Characteristic Value Unit

DIAMETER 6 FEETHEIGHT 100 FEETHORDSCHG NMOISTURETEMP 72 DEG FVELOCITY 59 FT/SEC

Contaminant

Code

Ozone Determination

(lb/day)

Annual

(ton/yr)

Upset

(ton/year)

Maintenance

(ton/year)

Cas # Contaminant Name EE/SMSS

10000 0 PART-U .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 E .000014310 7439921 LEAD-PB .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 E .0000

Profile: STACK
Account # - Report Year: RN100218643 - 2009 

FIN: FLASHDRYER EPN:FLASHDRYER

FIN: FLASHDRYER CRYSTALLIZER FLASH DRYER Plant ID:

Comments:

SCC: 30400419 LEAD RAW MATERIAL DRYER

Status: A Date: Operating Schedule: 24 7 52 hrs/day days/wk wks/year

Annual Operating Hours: 8640 % Max Capacity: 0 Start Time: 0

Spring %: Summer %: Fall %: Winter %: 25 25 25 25

Group Type: COMBUSTN

Profile: DRYER

Characteristic Value UnitDESIGN CAPACITYFIRING TYPE

EMISSION POINT INFORMATION

EPN: Name: FLASHDRYER CRYSTALLIZER FLASH DRYER

UTM Zone: UTM East (m): UTM North (m): 14 702362 3668896

Latitude: Longitude: 330823.78 964949.88

Characteristic Value Unit

DIAMETER 0.67 FEETHEIGHT 80 FEETHORDSCHG YMOISTURETEMP 75 DEG FVELOCITY 0.003 FT/SEC

Contaminant

Code

Ozone Determination

(lb/day)

Annual

(ton/yr)

Upset

(ton/year)

Maintenance

(ton/year)

Cas # Contaminant Name EE/SMSS

10000 0 PART-U .0816 .4536 .0000 .0000 A .000020000 0 PM10 PART-U .0816 .4536 .0000 .0000 A .000050001 0 VOC-UNCLASSIFIED .0583 .3240 .0000 .0000 A .000070400 0 NITROGEN OXIDES 1.1431 6.3504 .0000 .0000 A .000070510 7446095 SULFUR DIOXIDE .0069 .0381 .0000 .0000 A .000090300 630080 CARBON MONOXIDE .9564 5.3136 .0000 .0000 A .0000

Profile: STACK
Account # - Report Year: RN100218643 - 2009 

FIN: HLSACOMB EPN:55

FIN: HLSACOMB HARD LEAD AND SPECIAL ALLOY GAS COMBUSTION Plant ID:

Comments:

SCC: 10300603 COMMERCL-INSTUTNLNATURAL GAS <10MMBTU/HR

Status: A Date: Operating Schedule: 24 7 52 hrs/day days/wk wks/year

Annual Operating Hours: 4217 % Max Capacity: 100.00 Start Time: 0

Spring %: Summer %: Fall %: Winter %: 25 25 25 25

Group Type: COMBUSTN

Profile: HEATER

Characteristic Value UnitDESIGN CAPACITY 6 MMBTU/HRFIRING TYPE OT

EMISSION POINT INFORMATION

EPN: Name: 55 HARD LEAD KETTLE HEATING

UTM Zone: UTM East (m): UTM North (m): 14 702683.56 3668786

Latitude: Longitude: 330820 964937.63

Characteristic Value Unit

DIAMETER 3 FEETHEIGHT 40 FEETHORDSCHG NMOISTURETEMP 200 DEG FVELOCITY 0.01 FT/SEC

Contaminant

Code

Ozone Determination

(lb/day)

Annual

(ton/yr)

Upset

(ton/year)

Maintenance

(ton/year)

Cas # Contaminant Name EE/SMSS

10000 0 PART-U .0483 .2754 .0000 .0000 A .000020000 0 PM10 PART-U .0338 .1928 .0000 .0000 A .000039999 0 TOTAL PM2.5 PARTICULATE .0145 .0826 .0000 .0000 A .000050001 0 VOC-UNCLASSIFIED .0349 .1993 .0000 .0000 A .000070400 0 NITROGEN OXIDES .6354 3.6240 .0000 .0000 A .000070510 7446095 SULFUR DIOXIDE .0038 .0217 .0000 .0000 A .000070511 0 SULFUR DIOXIDE (LIQUID) .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 A .000090300 630080 CARBON MONOXIDE .5337 3.0442 .0000 .0000 A .0000

Profile: STACK
Account # - Report Year: RN100218643 - 2009 

FIN: KETTLE2 EPN:22

FIN: KETTLE2 KETTLE 2 Plant ID:

Comments:

SCC: 30400426 LEAD KETTLE REFINING

Status: A Date: Operating Schedule: 24 7 52 hrs/day days/wk wks/year

Annual Operating Hours: 2080 % Max Capacity: 95.00 Start Time: 0

Spring %: Summer %: Fall %: Winter %: 25 25 25 25

Group Type: OTHER

Profile: OTHER

EMISSION POINT INFORMATION

EPN: Name: 22 SPEC. ALLOY VENT STACK

UTM Zone: UTM East (m): UTM North (m): 14 702824 3668018

Latitude: Longitude: 330754.97 964932.75

Characteristic Value Unit

DIAMETER 2.7 FEETHEIGHT 75 FEETHORDSCHG NMOISTURETEMP 81 DEG FVELOCITY 68 FT/SEC

Contaminant

Code

Ozone Determination

(lb/day)

Annual

(ton/yr)

Upset

(ton/year)

Maintenance

(ton/year)

Cas # Contaminant Name EE/SMSS

10000 0 PART-U 3.1472 17.4844 .0000 .0000 M .000014020 7440360 ANTIMONY-SB .0006 .0031 .0000 .0000 M .000014030 7440382 ARSENIC - AS .0001 .0006 .0000 .0000 E .000014110 7440439 CADMIUM-CD .0014 .0079 .0000 .0000 E .000014310 7439921 LEAD-PB .0432 .2400 .0000 .0000 M .000020000 0 PM10 PART-U 2.2030 12.2391 .0000 .0000 M .000024020 7440360 PM10 ANTIMONY-SB .0004 .0022 .0000 .0000 M .000024030 7440382 PM10 ARSENIC - AS .0001 .0004 .0000 .0000 M .000024110 7440439 PM10 CADMIUM-CD .0010 .0055 .0000 .0000 M .000024310 7439921 PM10 LEAD-PB .0302 .1680 .0000 .0000 M .000039999 0 TOTAL PM2.5 PARTICULATE .9577 5.3208 .0000 .0000 E .000050001 0 VOC-UNCLASSIFIED 1.2312 6.8400 .0000 .0000 M .000070400 0 NITROGEN OXIDES .3024 1.6800 .0000 .0000 M .000070510 7446095 SULFUR DIOXIDE .5184 2.8800 .0000 .0000 M .000090300 630080 CARBON MONOXIDE 2.5920 14.4000 .0000 .0000 M .0000

Profile: STACK
Account # - Report Year: RN100218643 - 2009 
Account # - Report Year: RN100218643 - 2009 

FIN: KETTLE3 EPN:18

FIN: KETTLE3 KETTLE 3 Plant ID:

Comments:

SCC: 30400426 LEAD KETTLE REFINING

Status: A Date: Operating Schedule: 24 7 52 hrs/day days/wk wks/year

Annual Operating Hours: 2137 % Max Capacity: 95.00 Start Time: 0

Spring %: Summer %: Fall %: Winter %: 25 25 25 25

Group Type: OTHER

Profile: OTHER

Control Efficiencies:

CIN: Name: HARDLEADBH HARDLEADBH

Abatement Code: 301 FILTERS-FABRIC(BAGHOUSE),MECHANICAL SHAKING

# of Units: Annual Operating Hours: % time offline: IM Schedule: 1 8736 0 D

CO: TSP: 0 95 0 0 PM10: VOC:

IOC: C1-C3: 00 0 0 SO2: NOX:

C4+: H2S: 00 0 NH3:
Account # - Report Year: RN100218643 - 2009 

EMISSION POINT INFORMATION

EPN: Name: 18 HARD LEAD BAGHOUSE STACK

UTM Zone: UTM East (m): UTM North (m): 14 702647.69 3668754.5

Latitude: Longitude: 330819 964939

Characteristic Value Unit

DIAMETER 3.2 FEETHEIGHT 125 FEETHORDSCHG NMOISTURETEMP 100 DEG FVELOCITY 64 FT/SEC

Contaminant

Code

Ozone Determination

(lb/day)

Annual

(ton/yr)

Upset

(ton/year)

Maintenance

(ton/year)

Cas # Contaminant Name EE/SMSS

10000 0 PART-U .5625 3.1253 .0000 .0000 M .000014020 7440360 ANTIMONY-SB .0001 .0008 .0000 .0000 M .000014030 7440382 ARSENIC - AS .0001 .0004 .0000 .0000 M .000014110 7440439 CADMIUM-CD .0006 .0032 .0000 .0000 M .000014310 7439921 LEAD-PB .0324 .1800 .0000 .0000 M .000014601 0 SILICA OXIDE .0004 .0023 .0000 .0000 M .000020000 0 PM10 PART-U .3938 2.1877 .0000 .0000 M .000024020 7440360 PM10 ANTIMONY-SB .0001 .0005 .0000 .0000 M .000024030 7440382 PM10 ARSENIC - AS .0001 .0003 .0000 .0000 M .000024110 7440439 PM10 CADMIUM-CD .0004 .0023 .0000 .0000 M .000024310 7439921 PM10 LEAD-PB .0227 .1260 .0000 .0000 M .000024601 0 PM10 SILICA OXIDE .0003 .0016 .0000 .0000 M .000039999 0 TOTAL PM2.5 PARTICULATE .1788 .9936 .0000 .0000 E .000050001 0 VOC-UNCLASSIFIED .6156 3.4200 .0000 .0000 M .000070400 0 NITROGEN OXIDES .0756 .4200 .0000 .0000 M .000070510 7446095 SULFUR DIOXIDE .0216 .1200 .0000 .0000 M .000090300 630080 CARBON MONOXIDE .5400 3.0000 .0000 .0000 M .0000

Profile: STACK
Account # - Report Year: RN100218643 - 2009 

FIN: KETTLE4 EPN:18

FIN: KETTLE4 KETTLE 4 Plant ID:

Comments:

SCC: 30400426 LEAD KETTLE REFINING

Status: A Date: Operating Schedule: 24 7 52 hrs/day days/wk wks/year

Annual Operating Hours: 2137 % Max Capacity: 95.00 Start Time: 0

Spring %: Summer %: Fall %: Winter %: 25 25 25 25

Group Type: OTHER

Profile: OTHER

Control Efficiencies:

CIN: Name: HARDLEADBH HARDLEADBH

Abatement Code: 301 FILTERS-FABRIC(BAGHOUSE),MECHANICAL SHAKING

# of Units: Annual Operating Hours: % time offline: IM Schedule: 1 8736 0 D

CO: TSP: 0 95 0 0 PM10: VOC:

IOC: C1-C3: 00 0 0 SO2: NOX:

C4+: H2S: 00 0 NH3:
Account # - Report Year: RN100218643 - 2009 

EMISSION POINT INFORMATION

EPN: Name: 18 HARD LEAD BAGHOUSE STACK

UTM Zone: UTM East (m): UTM North (m): 14 702647.69 3668754.5

Latitude: Longitude: 330819 964939

Characteristic Value Unit

DIAMETER 3.2 FEETHEIGHT 125 FEETHORDSCHG NMOISTURETEMP 100 DEG FVELOCITY 64 FT/SEC

Contaminant

Code

Ozone Determination

(lb/day)

Annual

(ton/yr)

Upset

(ton/year)

Maintenance

(ton/year)

Cas # Contaminant Name EE/SMSS

10000 0 PART-U .5625 3.1253 .0000 .0000 M .000014020 7440360 ANTIMONY-SB .0001 .0008 .0000 .0000 M .000014030 7440382 ARSENIC - AS .0001 .0004 .0000 .0000 M .000014110 7440439 CADMIUM-CD .0006 .0032 .0000 .0000 M .000014310 7439921 LEAD-PB .0324 .1800 .0000 .0000 M .000014601 0 SILICA OXIDE .0004 .0023 .0000 .0000 M .000020000 0 PM10 PART-U .3938 2.1877 .0000 .0000 M .000024020 7440360 PM10 ANTIMONY-SB .0001 .0005 .0000 .0000 M .000024030 7440382 PM10 ARSENIC - AS .0001 .0003 .0000 .0000 M .000024110 7440439 PM10 CADMIUM-CD .0004 .0023 .0000 .0000 M .000024310 7439921 PM10 LEAD-PB .0227 .1260 .0000 .0000 M .000024601 0 PM10 SILICA OXIDE .0003 .0016 .0000 .0000 M .000039999 0 TOTAL PM2.5 PARTICULATE .1788 .9936 .0000 .0000 E .000050001 0 VOC-UNCLASSIFIED .6156 3.4200 .0000 .0000 M .000070400 0 NITROGEN OXIDES .0756 .4200 .0000 .0000 M .000070510 7446095 SULFUR DIOXIDE .0216 .1200 .0000 .0000 M .000090300 630080 CARBON MONOXIDE .5400 3.0000 .0000 .0000 M .0000

Profile: STACK
Account # - Report Year: RN100218643 - 2009 

FIN: KETTLE5 EPN:21

FIN: KETTLE5 KETTLE 5 Plant ID:

Comments:

SCC: 30400426 LEAD KETTLE REFINING

Status: A Date: Operating Schedule: 24 7 52 hrs/day days/wk wks/year

Annual Operating Hours: 1008 % Max Capacity: 95.00 Start Time: 0

Spring %: Summer %: Fall %: Winter %: 25 25 25 25

Group Type: OTHER

Profile: OTHER

Control Efficiencies:

CIN: Name: SOFTLEADBH SOFTLEADBH

Abatement Code: 301 FILTERS-FABRIC(BAGHOUSE),MECHANICAL SHAKING

# of Units: Annual Operating Hours: % time offline: IM Schedule: 1 8736 0 D

CO: TSP: 0 95 0 0 PM10: VOC:

IOC: C1-C3: 00 0 0 SO2: NOX:

C4+: H2S: 00 0 NH3:
Account # - Report Year: RN100218643 - 2009 

EMISSION POINT INFORMATION

EPN: Name: 21 SOFT LEAD BAG HOUSE STACK

UTM Zone: UTM East (m): UTM North (m): 14 702629.63 3668723.3

Latitude: Longitude: 330818 964939.75

Characteristic Value Unit

DIAMETER 5 FEETHEIGHT 125 FEETHORDSCHG NMOISTURETEMP 90 DEG FVELOCITY 57.3 FT/SEC

Contaminant

Code

Ozone Determination

(lb/day)

Annual

(ton/yr)

Upset

(ton/year)

Maintenance

(ton/year)

Cas # Contaminant Name EE/SMSS

10000 0 PART-U .6698 3.7212 .0000 .0000 M .000014020 7440360 ANTIMONY-SB .0000 .0002 .0000 .0000 M .000014030 7440382 ARSENIC - AS .0000 .0001 .0000 .0000 M .000014110 7440439 CADMIUM-CD .0000 .0001 .0000 .0000 M .000014310 7439921 LEAD-PB .0360 .2000 .0000 .0000 M .000014601 0 SILICA OXIDE .0004 .0024 .0000 .0000 M .000020000 0 PM10 PART-U .4689 2.6048 .0000 .0000 M .000024020 7440360 PM10 ANTIMONY-SB .0000 .0001 .0000 .0000 M .000024030 7440382 PM10 ARSENIC - AS .0000 .0001 .0000 .0000 M .000024110 7440439 PM10 CADMIUM-CD .0000 .0001 .0000 .0000 M .000024310 7439921 PM10 LEAD-PB .0252 .1400 .0000 .0000 M .000024601 0 PM10 SILICA OXIDE .0003 .0017 .0000 .0000 V .000039999 0 TOTAL PM2.5 PARTICULATE .2119 1.1772 .0000 .0000 E .000050001 0 VOC-UNCLASSIFIED 3.9884 22.1575 .0000 .0000 M .000052420 71-43-2 BENZENE .0083 .0460 .0000 .0000 M .000052450 100414 ETHYL BENZENE .0052 .0286 .0000 .0000 M .000052490 108883 TOLUENE .0799 .4440 .0000 .0000 M .000052512 108383 META-XYLENE .0111 .0616 .0000 .0000 M .000052514 95476 ORTHO-XYLENE .0072 .0400 .0000 .0000 M .000052516 106423 PARA-XYLENE .0111 .0616 .0000 .0000 M .000053390 79345 1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE .0021 .0114 .0000 .0000 M .000054065 78933 METHYL ETHYL KETONE .0160 .0888 .0000 .0000 M .000054070 108101 METHYL ISOBUTYL KETONE .0361 .2004 .0000 .0000 M .000055150 106990 1,3- BUTADIENE .0005 .0029 .0000 .0000 M .000056600 110543 HEXANE .0031 .0172 .0000 .0000 M .000070200 7647010 HYDROGEN CHLORIDE .0641 .3560 .0000 .0000 A .0000

Profile: STACK
Account # - Report Year: RN100218643 - 2009 

EMISSION POINT INFORMATION

Contaminant

Code

Ozone Determination

(lb/day)

Annual

(ton/yr)

Upset

(ton/year)

Maintenance

(ton/year)

Cas # Contaminant Name EE/SMSS

70400 0 NITROGEN OXIDES .8064 4.4800 .0000 .0000 M .000070510 7446095 SULFUR DIOXIDE 1.0800 6.0000 .0000 .0000 M .000070516 SULFURIC ACID (VAPOR) .0504 .2800 .0000 .0000 A .000090300 630080 CARBON MONOXIDE 5.5440 30.8000 .0000 .0000 M .0000
Account # - Report Year: RN100218643 - 2009 

FIN: KETTLE6 EPN:21

FIN: KETTLE6 KETTLE 6 Plant ID:

Comments:

SCC: 30400426 LEAD KETTLE REFINING

Status: A Date: Operating Schedule: 24 7 52 hrs/day days/wk wks/year

Annual Operating Hours: 1008 % Max Capacity: 95.00 Start Time: 0

Spring %: Summer %: Fall %: Winter %: 25 25 25 25

Group Type: OTHER

Profile: OTHER

Control Efficiencies:

CIN: Name: SOFTLEADBH SOFTLEADBH

Abatement Code: 301 FILTERS-FABRIC(BAGHOUSE),MECHANICAL SHAKING

# of Units: Annual Operating Hours: % time offline: IM Schedule: 1 8736 0 D

CO: TSP: 0 95 0 0 PM10: VOC:

IOC: C1-C3: 00 0 0 SO2: NOX:

C4+: H2S: 00 0 NH3:
Account # - Report Year: RN100218643 - 2009 

EMISSION POINT INFORMATION

EPN: Name: 21 SOFT LEAD BAG HOUSE STACK

UTM Zone: UTM East (m): UTM North (m): 14 702629.63 3668723.3

Latitude: Longitude: 330818 964939.75

Characteristic Value Unit

DIAMETER 5 FEETHEIGHT 125 FEETHORDSCHG NMOISTURETEMP 90 DEG FVELOCITY 57.3 FT/SEC

Contaminant

Code

Ozone Determination

(lb/day)

Annual

(ton/yr)

Upset

(ton/year)

Maintenance

(ton/year)

Cas # Contaminant Name EE/SMSS

10000 0 PART-U .6698 3.7212 .0000 .0000 M .000014020 7440360 ANTIMONY-SB .0000 .0002 .0000 .0000 M .000014030 7440382 ARSENIC - AS .0000 .0001 .0000 .0000 M .000014110 7440439 CADMIUM-CD .0000 .0001 .0000 .0000 M .000014310 7439921 LEAD-PB .0360 .2000 .0000 .0000 M .000014601 0 SILICA OXIDE .0004 .0024 .0000 .0000 M .000020000 0 PM10 PART-U .4689 2.6048 .0000 .0000 M .000024020 7440360 PM10 ANTIMONY-SB .0000 .0001 .0000 .0000 M .000024030 7440382 PM10 ARSENIC - AS .0000 .0001 .0000 .0000 M .000024110 7440439 PM10 CADMIUM-CD .0000 .0001 .0000 .0000 M .000024310 7439921 PM10 LEAD-PB .0252 .1400 .0000 .0000 M .000024601 0 PM10 SILICA OXIDE .0003 .0017 .0000 .0000 V .000039999 0 TOTAL PM2.5 PARTICULATE .2119 1.1772 .0000 .0000 E .000050001 0 VOC-UNCLASSIFIED 3.9884 22.1575 .0000 .0000 M .000052420 71-43-2 BENZENE .0083 .0460 .0000 .0000 M .000052450 100414 ETHYL BENZENE .0052 .0286 .0000 .0000 M .000052490 108883 TOLUENE .0799 .4440 .0000 .0000 M .000052512 108383 META-XYLENE .0111 .0616 .0000 .0000 M .000052514 95476 ORTHO-XYLENE .0072 .0400 .0000 .0000 M .000052516 106423 PARA-XYLENE .0111 .0616 .0000 .0000 M .000053390 79345 1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE .0021 .0114 .0000 .0000 M .000054065 78933 METHYL ETHYL KETONE .0160 .0888 .0000 .0000 M .000054070 108101 METHYL ISOBUTYL KETONE .0361 .2004 .0000 .0000 M .000055150 106990 1,3- BUTADIENE .0005 .0029 .0000 .0000 M .000056600 110543 HEXANE .0031 .0172 .0000 .0000 M .000070200 7647010 HYDROGEN CHLORIDE .0641 .3560 .0000 .0000 M .0000

Profile: STACK
Account # - Report Year: RN100218643 - 2009 

EMISSION POINT INFORMATION

Contaminant

Code

Ozone Determination

(lb/day)

Annual

(ton/yr)

Upset

(ton/year)

Maintenance

(ton/year)

Cas # Contaminant Name EE/SMSS

70400 0 NITROGEN OXIDES .8064 4.4800 .0000 .0000 M .000070510 7446095 SULFUR DIOXIDE 1.0800 6.0000 .0000 .0000 M .000070516 SULFURIC ACID (VAPOR) .0504 .2800 .0000 .0000 M .000090300 630080 CARBON MONOXIDE 5.5440 30.8000 .0000 .0000 M .0000
Account # - Report Year: RN100218643 - 2009 

FIN: KETTLE7 EPN:21

FIN: KETTLE7 KETTLE 7 Plant ID:

Comments:

SCC: 30400426 LEAD KETTLE REFINING

Status: A Date: Operating Schedule: 24 7 52 hrs/day days/wk wks/year

Annual Operating Hours: 1008 % Max Capacity: 95.00 Start Time: 0

Spring %: Summer %: Fall %: Winter %: 25 25 25 25

Group Type: OTHER

Profile: OTHER

Control Efficiencies:

CIN: Name: SOFTLEADBH SOFTLEADBH

Abatement Code: 301 FILTERS-FABRIC(BAGHOUSE),MECHANICAL SHAKING

# of Units: Annual Operating Hours: % time offline: IM Schedule: 1 8736 0 D

CO: TSP: 0 95 0 0 PM10: VOC:

IOC: C1-C3: 00 0 0 SO2: NOX:

C4+: H2S: 00 0 NH3:
Account # - Report Year: RN100218643 - 2009 

EMISSION POINT INFORMATION

EPN: Name: 21 SOFT LEAD BAG HOUSE STACK

UTM Zone: UTM East (m): UTM North (m): 14 702629.63 3668723.3

Latitude: Longitude: 330818 964939.75

Characteristic Value Unit

DIAMETER 5 FEETHEIGHT 125 FEETHORDSCHG NMOISTURETEMP 90 DEG FVELOCITY 57.3 FT/SEC

Contaminant

Code

Ozone Determination

(lb/day)

Annual

(ton/yr)

Upset

(ton/year)

Maintenance

(ton/year)

Cas # Contaminant Name EE/SMSS

10000 0 PART-U .6698 3.7212 .0000 .0000 M .000014020 7440360 ANTIMONY-SB .0000 .0002 .0000 .0000 M .000014030 7440382 ARSENIC - AS .0000 .0001 .0000 .0000 M .000014110 7440439 CADMIUM-CD .0000 .0001 .0000 .0000 M .000014310 7439921 LEAD-PB .0360 .2000 .0000 .0000 M .000014601 0 SILICA OXIDE .0004 .0024 .0000 .0000 M .000020000 0 PM10 PART-U .4689 2.6048 .0000 .0000 M .000024020 7440360 PM10 ANTIMONY-SB .0000 .0001 .0000 .0000 M .000024030 7440382 PM10 ARSENIC - AS .0000 .0001 .0000 .0000 M .000024110 7440439 PM10 CADMIUM-CD .0000 .0001 .0000 .0000 M .000024310 7439921 PM10 LEAD-PB .0252 .1400 .0000 .0000 M .000024601 0 PM10 SILICA OXIDE .0003 .0017 .0000 .0000 M .000039999 0 TOTAL PM2.5 PARTICULATE .2119 1.1772 .0000 .0000 E .000050001 0 VOC-UNCLASSIFIED 3.9884 22.1575 .0000 .0000 M .000052420 71-43-2 BENZENE .0083 .0460 .0000 .0000 M .000052450 100414 ETHYL BENZENE .0052 .0286 .0000 .0000 M .000052490 108883 TOLUENE .0799 .4440 .0000 .0000 M .000052512 108383 META-XYLENE .0111 .0616 .0000 .0000 M .000052514 95476 ORTHO-XYLENE .0072 .0400 .0000 .0000 M .000052516 106423 PARA-XYLENE .0111 .0616 .0000 .0000 M .000053390 79345 1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE .0021 .0114 .0000 .0000 M .000054065 78933 METHYL ETHYL KETONE .0160 .0888 .0000 .0000 M .000054070 108101 METHYL ISOBUTYL KETONE .0361 .2004 .0000 .0000 M .000055150 106990 1,3- BUTADIENE .0005 .0029 .0000 .0000 M .000056600 110543 HEXANE .0031 .0172 .0000 .0000 M .000070200 7647010 HYDROGEN CHLORIDE .0641 .3560 .0000 .0000 M .0000

Profile: STACK
Account # - Report Year: RN100218643 - 2009 

EMISSION POINT INFORMATION

Contaminant

Code

Ozone Determination

(lb/day)

Annual

(ton/yr)

Upset

(ton/year)

Maintenance

(ton/year)

Cas # Contaminant Name EE/SMSS

70400 0 NITROGEN OXIDES .8064 4.4800 .0000 .0000 M .000070510 7446095 SULFUR DIOXIDE 1.0800 6.0000 .0000 .0000 M .000070516 SULFURIC ACID (VAPOR) .0504 .2800 .0000 .0000 M .000090300 630080 CARBON MONOXIDE 5.5440 30.8000 .0000 .0000 M .0000
Account # - Report Year: RN100218643 - 2009 

FIN: KETTLEA EPN:18

FIN: KETTLEA KETTLE A; HARD LEAD AND SPEC. ALLOY GAS COMBUST. Plant ID:

Comments:

SCC: 30400401 SEC. LEAD KETTLE REFINING POT FURNACE

Status: A Date: Operating Schedule: 24 7 52 hrs/day days/wk wks/year

Annual Operating Hours: 2137 % Max Capacity: 0 Start Time: 0

Spring %: Summer %: Fall %: Winter %: 25 25 25 25

Group Type: OTHER

Profile: OTHER

Control Efficiencies:

CIN: Name: HARDLEADBH HARDLEADBH

Abatement Code: 301 FILTERS-FABRIC(BAGHOUSE),MECHANICAL SHAKING

# of Units: Annual Operating Hours: % time offline: IM Schedule: 1 8736 0 D

CO: TSP: 0 95 0 0 PM10: VOC:

IOC: C1-C3: 00 0 0 SO2: NOX:

C4+: H2S: 00 0 NH3:
Account # - Report Year: RN100218643 - 2009 

EMISSION POINT INFORMATION

EPN: Name: 18 HARD LEAD BAGHOUSE STACK

UTM Zone: UTM East (m): UTM North (m): 14 702647.69 3668754.5

Latitude: Longitude: 330819 964939

Characteristic Value Unit

DIAMETER 3.2 FEETHEIGHT 125 FEETHORDSCHG NMOISTURETEMP 100 DEG FVELOCITY 64 FT/SEC

Contaminant

Code

Ozone Determination

(lb/day)

Annual

(ton/yr)

Upset

(ton/year)

Maintenance

(ton/year)

Cas # Contaminant Name EE/SMSS

10000 0 PART-U .5625 3.1253 .0000 .0000 M .000014020 7440360 ANTIMONY-SB .0001 .0008 .0000 .0000 M .000014030 7440382 ARSENIC - AS .0001 .0004 .0000 .0000 M .000014110 7440439 CADMIUM-CD .0006 .0032 .0000 .0000 M .000014310 7439921 LEAD-PB .0324 .1800 .0000 .0000 M .000014601 0 SILICA OXIDE .0004 .0023 .0000 .0000 M .000020000 0 PM10 PART-U .3938 2.1877 .0000 .0000 M .000024020 7440360 PM10 ANTIMONY-SB .0001 .0005 .0000 .0000 M .000024030 7440382 PM10 ARSENIC - AS .0001 .0003 .0000 .0000 M .000024110 7440439 PM10 CADMIUM-CD .0004 .0023 .0000 .0000 M .000024310 7439921 PM10 LEAD-PB .0227 .1260 .0000 .0000 M .000024601 0 PM10 SILICA OXIDE .0003 .0016 .0000 .0000 M .000039999 0 TOTAL PM2.5 PARTICULATE .1788 .9936 .0000 .0000 E .000050001 0 VOC-UNCLASSIFIED .6156 3.4200 .0000 .0000 M .000070400 0 NITROGEN OXIDES .0756 .4200 .0000 .0000 M .000070510 7446095 SULFUR DIOXIDE .0216 .1200 .0000 .0000 M .000090300 630080 CARBON MONOXIDE .5400 3.0000 .0000 .0000 M .0000

Profile: STACK
Account # - Report Year: RN100218643 - 2009 

FIN: KETTLEB EPN:18

FIN: KETTLEB KETTLE B Plant ID:

Comments:

SCC: 30400426 LEAD KETTLE REFINING

Status: A Date: Operating Schedule: 24 7 52 hrs/day days/wk wks/year

Annual Operating Hours: 2137 % Max Capacity: 95.00 Start Time: 0

Spring %: Summer %: Fall %: Winter %: 25 25 25 25

Group Type: OTHER

Profile: OTHER
Account # - Report Year: RN100218643 - 2009 

EMISSION POINT INFORMATION

EPN: Name: 18 HARD LEAD BAGHOUSE STACK

UTM Zone: UTM East (m): UTM North (m): 14 702647.69 3668754.5

Latitude: Longitude: 330819 964939

Characteristic Value Unit

DIAMETER 3.2 FEETHEIGHT 125 FEETHORDSCHG NMOISTURETEMP 100 DEG FVELOCITY 64 FT/SEC

Contaminant

Code

Ozone Determination

(lb/day)

Annual

(ton/yr)

Upset

(ton/year)

Maintenance

(ton/year)

Cas # Contaminant Name EE/SMSS

10000 0 PART-U .5625 3.1253 .0000 .0000 M .000014020 7440360 ANTIMONY-SB .0001 .0008 .0000 .0000 M .000014030 7440382 ARSENIC - AS .0001 .0004 .0000 .0000 M .000014110 7440439 CADMIUM-CD .0006 .0032 .0000 .0000 M .000014310 7439921 LEAD-PB .0324 .1800 .0000 .0000 M .000014601 0 SILICA OXIDE .0004 .0023 .0000 .0000 M .000020000 0 PM10 PART-U .3938 2.1877 .0000 .0000 M .000024020 7440360 PM10 ANTIMONY-SB .0001 .0005 .0000 .0000 M .000024030 7440382 PM10 ARSENIC - AS .0001 .0003 .0000 .0000 M .000024110 7440439 PM10 CADMIUM-CD .0004 .0023 .0000 .0000 M .000024310 7439921 PM10 LEAD-PB .0227 .1260 .0000 .0000 M .000024601 0 PM10 SILICA OXIDE .0003 .0016 .0000 .0000 M .000039999 0 TOTAL PM2.5 PARTICULATE .1788 .9936 .0000 .0000 E .000050001 0 VOC-UNCLASSIFIED .6156 3.4200 .0000 .0000 M .000070400 0 NITROGEN OXIDES .0756 .4200 .0000 .0000 M .000070510 7446095 SULFUR DIOXIDE .0216 .1200 .0000 .0000 M .000090300 630080 CARBON MONOXIDE .5400 3.0000 .0000 .0000 M .0000

Profile: STACK
Account # - Report Year: RN100218643 - 2009 

FIN: KETTLEC EPN:21

FIN: KETTLEC SOFT LEAD REFINING Plant ID: SMELTER

Comments:

SCC: 30400401 SEC. LEAD KETTLE REFINING POT FURNACE

Status: A Date: Operating Schedule: 24 7 52 hrs/day days/wk wks/year

Annual Operating Hours: 1008 % Max Capacity: 99.00 Start Time: 0

Spring %: Summer %: Fall %: Winter %: 25 25 25 25

Group Type: OTHER

Profile: OTHER

Control Efficiencies:

CIN: Name: SOFTLEADBH SOFTLEADBH

Abatement Code: 301 FILTERS-FABRIC(BAGHOUSE),MECHANICAL SHAKING

# of Units: Annual Operating Hours: % time offline: IM Schedule: 1 8736 0 D

CO: TSP: 0 95 0 0 PM10: VOC:

IOC: C1-C3: 00 0 0 SO2: NOX:

C4+: H2S: 00 0 NH3:
Account # - Report Year: RN100218643 - 2009 

EMISSION POINT INFORMATION

EPN: Name: 21 SOFT LEAD BAG HOUSE STACK

UTM Zone: UTM East (m): UTM North (m): 14 702629.63 3668723.3

Latitude: Longitude: 330818 964939.75

Characteristic Value Unit

DIAMETER 5 FEETHEIGHT 125 FEETHORDSCHG NMOISTURETEMP 90 DEG FVELOCITY 57.3 FT/SEC

Contaminant

Code

Ozone Determination

(lb/day)

Annual

(ton/yr)

Upset

(ton/year)

Maintenance

(ton/year)

Cas # Contaminant Name EE/SMSS

10000 0 PART-U .6698 3.7212 .0000 .0000 M .000014020 7440360 ANTIMONY-SB .0000 .0002 .0000 .0000 O .000014030 7440382 ARSENIC - AS .0000 .0001 .0000 .0000 M .000014110 7440439 CADMIUM-CD .0000 .0001 .0000 .0000 M .000014310 7439921 LEAD-PB .0360 .2000 .0000 .0000 M .000014601 0 SILICA OXIDE .0004 .0024 .0000 .0000 M .000020000 0 PM10 PART-U .4689 2.6048 .0000 .0000 M .000024020 7440360 PM10 ANTIMONY-SB .0000 .0001 .0000 .0000 M .000024030 7440382 PM10 ARSENIC - AS .0000 .0001 .0000 .0000 M .000024110 7440439 PM10 CADMIUM-CD .0000 .0001 .0000 .0000 M .000024310 7439921 PM10 LEAD-PB .0252 .1400 .0000 .0000 M .000024601 0 PM10 SILICA OXIDE .0003 .0017 .0000 .0000 M .000039999 0 TOTAL PM2.5 PARTICULATE .2119 1.1772 .0000 .0000 E .000050001 0 VOC-UNCLASSIFIED 3.9884 22.1575 .0000 .0000 M .000052420 71-43-2 BENZENE .0083 .0460 .0000 .0000 M .000052450 100414 ETHYL BENZENE .0052 .0286 .0000 .0000 M .000052490 108883 TOLUENE .0799 .4440 .0000 .0000 M .000052512 108383 META-XYLENE .0111 .0616 .0000 .0000 M .000052514 95476 ORTHO-XYLENE .0072 .0400 .0000 .0000 M .000052516 106423 PARA-XYLENE .0111 .0616 .0000 .0000 M .000053390 79345 1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE .0021 .0114 .0000 .0000 M .000054065 78933 METHYL ETHYL KETONE .0160 .0888 .0000 .0000 M .000054070 108101 METHYL ISOBUTYL KETONE .0361 .2004 .0000 .0000 M .000055150 106990 1,3- BUTADIENE .0005 .0029 .0000 .0000 M .000056600 110543 HEXANE .0031 .0172 .0000 .0000 M .000070200 7647010 HYDROGEN CHLORIDE .0641 .3560 .0000 .0000 M .0000

Profile: STACK
Account # - Report Year: RN100218643 - 2009 

EMISSION POINT INFORMATION

Contaminant

Code

Ozone Determination

(lb/day)

Annual

(ton/yr)

Upset

(ton/year)

Maintenance

(ton/year)

Cas # Contaminant Name EE/SMSS

70400 0 NITROGEN OXIDES .8064 4.4800 .0000 .0000 M .000070510 7446095 SULFUR DIOXIDE 1.0800 6.0000 .0000 .0000 M .000070516 SULFURIC ACID (VAPOR) .0504 .2800 .0000 .0000 M .000090300 630080 CARBON MONOXIDE 5.5440 30.8000 .0000 .0000 M .0000
Account # - Report Year: RN100218643 - 2009 

FIN: KETTLED EPN:21

FIN: KETTLED KETTLE D Plant ID:

Comments:

SCC: 30400426 LEAD KETTLE REFINING

Status: A Date: Operating Schedule: 24 7 52 hrs/day days/wk wks/year

Annual Operating Hours: 1008 % Max Capacity: 95.00 Start Time: 0

Spring %: Summer %: Fall %: Winter %: 25 25 25 25

Group Type: OTHER

Profile: OTHER

Control Efficiencies:

CIN: Name: SOFTLEADBH SOFTLEADBH

Abatement Code: 301 FILTERS-FABRIC(BAGHOUSE),MECHANICAL SHAKING

# of Units: Annual Operating Hours: % time offline: IM Schedule: 1 8736 0 D

CO: TSP: 0 95 0 0 PM10: VOC:

IOC: C1-C3: 00 0 0 SO2: NOX:

C4+: H2S: 00 0 NH3:
Account # - Report Year: RN100218643 - 2009 

EMISSION POINT INFORMATION

EPN: Name: 21 SOFT LEAD BAG HOUSE STACK

UTM Zone: UTM East (m): UTM North (m): 14 702629.63 3668723.3

Latitude: Longitude: 330818 964939.75

Characteristic Value Unit

DIAMETER 5 FEETHEIGHT 125 FEETHORDSCHG NMOISTURETEMP 90 DEG FVELOCITY 57.3 FT/SEC

Contaminant

Code

Ozone Determination

(lb/day)

Annual

(ton/yr)

Upset

(ton/year)

Maintenance

(ton/year)

Cas # Contaminant Name EE/SMSS

10000 0 PART-U .6698 3.7212 .0000 .0000 M .000014020 7440360 ANTIMONY-SB .0000 .0002 .0000 .0000 M .000014030 7440382 ARSENIC - AS .0000 .0001 .0000 .0000 M .000014110 7440439 CADMIUM-CD .0000 .0001 .0000 .0000 M .000014310 7439921 LEAD-PB .0360 .2000 .0000 .0000 M .000014601 0 SILICA OXIDE .0004 .0024 .0000 .0000 M .000020000 0 PM10 PART-U .4689 2.6048 .0000 .0000 M .000024020 7440360 PM10 ANTIMONY-SB .0000 .0001 .0000 .0000 M .000024030 7440382 PM10 ARSENIC - AS .0000 .0001 .0000 .0000 M .000024110 7440439 PM10 CADMIUM-CD .0000 .0001 .0000 .0000 M .000024310 7439921 PM10 LEAD-PB .0252 .1400 .0000 .0000 M .000024601 0 PM10 SILICA OXIDE .0003 .0017 .0000 .0000 M .000039999 0 TOTAL PM2.5 PARTICULATE .2119 1.1772 .0000 .0000 E .000050001 0 VOC-UNCLASSIFIED 3.9884 22.1575 .0000 .0000 M .000052420 71-43-2 BENZENE .0083 .0460 .0000 .0000 M .000052450 100414 ETHYL BENZENE .0052 .0286 .0000 .0000 M .000052490 108883 TOLUENE .0799 .4440 .0000 .0000 M .000052512 108383 META-XYLENE .0111 .0616 .0000 .0000 M .000052514 95476 ORTHO-XYLENE .0072 .0400 .0000 .0000 M .000052516 106423 PARA-XYLENE .0111 .0616 .0000 .0000 M .000053390 79345 1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE .0021 .0114 .0000 .0000 M .000054065 78933 METHYL ETHYL KETONE .0160 .0888 .0000 .0000 M .000054070 108101 METHYL ISOBUTYL KETONE .0361 .2004 .0000 .0000 M .000055150 106990 1,3- BUTADIENE .0005 .0029 .0000 .0000 M .000056600 110543 HEXANE .0031 .0172 .0000 .0000 M .000070200 7647010 HYDROGEN CHLORIDE .0641 .3560 .0000 .0000 M .0000

Profile: STACK
Account # - Report Year: RN100218643 - 2009 

EMISSION POINT INFORMATION

Contaminant

Code

Ozone Determination

(lb/day)

Annual

(ton/yr)

Upset

(ton/year)

Maintenance

(ton/year)

Cas # Contaminant Name EE/SMSS

70400 0 NITROGEN OXIDES .8064 4.4800 .0000 .0000 M .000070510 7446095 SULFUR DIOXIDE 1.0800 6.0000 .0000 .0000 M .000070516 SULFURIC ACID (VAPOR) .0504 .2800 .0000 .0000 M .000090300 630080 CARBON MONOXIDE 5.5440 30.8000 .0000 .0000 M .0000
Account # - Report Year: RN100218643 - 2009 

FIN: KETTLEE EPN:21

FIN: KETTLEE KETTLE E Plant ID:

Comments:

SCC: 30400426 LEAD KETTLE REFINING

Status: A Date: Operating Schedule: 24 7 52 hrs/day days/wk wks/year

Annual Operating Hours: 1008 % Max Capacity: 95.00 Start Time: 0

Spring %: Summer %: Fall %: Winter %: 25 25 25 25

Group Type: OTHER

Profile: OTHER

Control Efficiencies:

CIN: Name: SOFTLEADBH SOFTLEADBH

Abatement Code: 301 FILTERS-FABRIC(BAGHOUSE),MECHANICAL SHAKING

# of Units: Annual Operating Hours: % time offline: IM Schedule: 1 8736 0 D

CO: TSP: 0 95 0 0 PM10: VOC:

IOC: C1-C3: 00 0 0 SO2: NOX:

C4+: H2S: 00 0 NH3:
Account # - Report Year: RN100218643 - 2009 

EMISSION POINT INFORMATION

EPN: Name: 21 SOFT LEAD BAG HOUSE STACK

UTM Zone: UTM East (m): UTM North (m): 14 702629.63 3668723.3

Latitude: Longitude: 330818 964939.75

Characteristic Value Unit

DIAMETER 5 FEETHEIGHT 125 FEETHORDSCHG NMOISTURETEMP 90 DEG FVELOCITY 57.3 FT/SEC

Contaminant

Code

Ozone Determination

(lb/day)

Annual

(ton/yr)

Upset

(ton/year)

Maintenance

(ton/year)

Cas # Contaminant Name EE/SMSS

10000 0 PART-U .6698 3.7212 .0000 .0000 M .000014020 7440360 ANTIMONY-SB .0000 .0002 .0000 .0000 M .000014030 7440382 ARSENIC - AS .0000 .0001 .0000 .0000 M .000014110 7440439 CADMIUM-CD .0000 .0001 .0000 .0000 M .000014310 7439921 LEAD-PB .0360 .2000 .0000 .0000 M .000014601 0 SILICA OXIDE .0004 .0024 .0000 .0000 M .000020000 0 PM10 PART-U .4689 2.6048 .0000 .0000 M .000024020 7440360 PM10 ANTIMONY-SB .0000 .0001 .0000 .0000 M .000024030 7440382 PM10 ARSENIC - AS .0000 .0001 .0000 .0000 M .000024110 7440439 PM10 CADMIUM-CD .0000 .0001 .0000 .0000 M .000024310 7439921 PM10 LEAD-PB .0252 .1400 .0000 .0000 M .000024601 0 PM10 SILICA OXIDE .0003 .0017 .0000 .0000 M .000039999 0 TOTAL PM2.5 PARTICULATE .2119 1.1772 .0000 .0000 E .000050001 0 VOC-UNCLASSIFIED 3.9884 22.1575 .0000 .0000 M .000052420 71-43-2 BENZENE .0083 .0460 .0000 .0000 M .000052450 100414 ETHYL BENZENE .0052 .0286 .0000 .0000 M .000052490 108883 TOLUENE .0799 .4440 .0000 .0000 M .000052512 108383 META-XYLENE .0111 .0616 .0000 .0000 M .000052514 95476 ORTHO-XYLENE .0072 .0400 .0000 .0000 M .000052516 106423 PARA-XYLENE .0111 .0616 .0000 .0000 M .000053390 79345 1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE .0021 .0114 .0000 .0000 M .000054065 78933 METHYL ETHYL KETONE .0160 .0888 .0000 .0000 M .000054070 108101 METHYL ISOBUTYL KETONE .0361 .2004 .0000 .0000 M .000055150 106990 1,3- BUTADIENE .0005 .0029 .0000 .0000 M .000056600 110543 HEXANE .0031 .0172 .0000 .0000 M .000070200 7647010 HYDROGEN CHLORIDE .0641 .3560 .0000 .0000 M .0000

Profile: STACK
Account # - Report Year: RN100218643 - 2009 

EMISSION POINT INFORMATION

Contaminant

Code

Ozone Determination

(lb/day)

Annual

(ton/yr)

Upset

(ton/year)

Maintenance

(ton/year)

Cas # Contaminant Name EE/SMSS

70400 0 NITROGEN OXIDES .8064 4.4800 .0000 .0000 M .000070510 7446095 SULFUR DIOXIDE 1.0800 6.0000 .0000 .0000 M .000070516 SULFURIC ACID (VAPOR) .0504 .2800 .0000 .0000 M .000090300 630080 CARBON MONOXIDE 5.5440 30.8000 .0000 .0000 M .0000
Account # - Report Year: RN100218643 - 2009 

FIN: MATLHNDFUG EPN:53

FIN: MATLHNDFUG MATERIAL HANDLING FUGITIVES Plant ID:

Comments:

SCC: 30488801 FUGITIVE EMISSIONNOT CLASSIFIED SEE COMMENT

Status: A Date: Operating Schedule: 24 7 52 hrs/day days/wk wks/year

Annual Operating Hours: 8160 % Max Capacity: 100.00 Start Time: 0

Spring %: Summer %: Fall %: Winter %: 25 25 25 25

Group Type: OTHER

Profile: OTHER

EMISSION POINT INFORMATION

EPN: Name: 53 MATL HANDLING FUGITIVES

UTM Zone: UTM East (m): UTM North (m): 14 702603 3668788

Latitude: Longitude: 330820.13 964940.69

Characteristic Value Unit

DEGREES 0 DEGREESHEIGHT 30 FEETLENGTH 100 FEETOFNORTH EWIDTH 20 FEET

Contaminant

Code

Ozone Determination

(lb/day)

Annual

(ton/yr)

Upset

(ton/year)

Maintenance

(ton/year)

Cas # Contaminant Name EE/SMSS

10000 0 PART-U .0391 .2146 .0000 .0000 S .000014310 7439921 LEAD-PB .0391 .2146 .0000 .0000 S .000020000 0 PM10 PART-U .0379 .2085 .0000 .0000 S .000039999 0 TOTAL PM2.5 PARTICULATE .0112 .0613 .0000 .0000 S .0000

Profile: FUGITIVE
Account # - Report Year: RN100218643 - 2009 

FIN: NOXIDEHM EPN:15

FIN: NOXIDEHM NORTH OXIDE HAMMER MILL Plant ID:

Comments:

SCC: 30400408 SEC. LEAD BARTON PROCESS OXIDATION KETTLE

Status: A Date: Operating Schedule: 24 7 52 hrs/day days/wk wks/year

Annual Operating Hours: 4900 % Max Capacity: 0 Start Time: 0

Spring %: Summer %: Fall %: Winter %: 25 25 25 25

Group Type: OTHER

Profile: OTHER

Control Efficiencies:

CIN: Name: BHNOXIDEHM BHNOXIDEHM

Abatement Code: 307 FILTERS-FABRIC(BAGHOUSE),REVERSE AIR FLOW

# of Units: Annual Operating Hours: % time offline: IM Schedule: 1 8736 0 D

CO: TSP: 0 95 0 0 PM10: VOC:

IOC: C1-C3: 00 0 0 SO2: NOX:

C4+: H2S: 00 0 NH3:

EMISSION POINT INFORMATION

EPN: Name: 15 N. OXIDE HAMMERMILL SYST.

UTM Zone: UTM East (m): UTM North (m): 14 702649.75 3668014.8

Latitude: Longitude: 330755 964939.5

Characteristic Value Unit

DIAMETER 1 FEETHEIGHT 55 FEETHORDSCHG NMOISTURETEMP 113 DEG FVELOCITY 46.5 FT/SEC

Contaminant

Code

Ozone Determination

(lb/day)

Annual

(ton/yr)

Upset

(ton/year)

Maintenance

(ton/year)

Cas # Contaminant Name EE/SMSS

10000 0 PART-U .0318 1.9128 .0000 .0000 M .000014310 7439921 LEAD-PB .0010 .0624 .0000 .0000 M .000020000 0 PM10 PART-U .0222 1.3390 .0000 .0000 M .000024310 7439921 PM10 LEAD-PB .0007 .0437 .0000 .0000 M .000039999 0 TOTAL PM2.5 PARTICULATE .0098 .5926 .0000 .0000 E .0000

Profile: STACK
Account # - Report Year: RN100218643 - 2009 

FIN: OXIDCLEAN EPN:26

FIN: OXIDCLEAN OXIDE BLDG. CENTRAL VACUUM SYSTEM Plant ID:

Comments:

SCC: 30400499 SEC. LEAD NOT CLASSIFIED SEE COMMENT

Status: A Date: Operating Schedule: 24 7 50 hrs/day days/wk wks/year

Annual Operating Hours: 4900 % Max Capacity: 0 Start Time: 0

Spring %: Summer %: Fall %: Winter %: 25 25 25 25

Group Type: OTHER

Profile: OTHER

EMISSION POINT INFORMATION

EPN: Name: 26 OXIDE VACUUM STACK

UTM Zone: UTM East (m): UTM North (m): 14 702295.69 3668223.3

Latitude: Longitude: 330802 964953

Characteristic Value Unit

DIAMETER 0.5 FEETHEIGHT 30 FEETHORDSCHG NMOISTURETEMP 81 DEG FVELOCITY 38 FT/SEC

Contaminant

Code

Ozone Determination

(lb/day)

Annual

(ton/yr)

Upset

(ton/year)

Maintenance

(ton/year)

Cas # Contaminant Name EE/SMSS

10000 0 PART-U .0225 .4176 .0000 .0000 E .000014310 7439921 LEAD-PB .0010 .0192 .0000 .0000 E .000020000 0 PM10 PART-U .0165 .3058 .0000 .0000 E .000039999 0 TOTAL PM2.5 PARTICULATE .0071 .1310 .0000 .0000 E .0000

Profile: STACK
Account # - Report Year: RN100218643 - 2009 

FIN: OXIDEBUILD EPN:14

FIN: OXIDEBUILD OXIDE HYGIENE BAGHOUSE DUST COLLECTOR SYSTEM Plant ID:

Comments:

SCC: 30400411 SEC. LEAD SCRAP PRETREATMNTSCRAP CRUSHING

Status: A Date: Operating Schedule: 24 7 52 hrs/day days/wk wks/year

Annual Operating Hours: 4900 % Max Capacity: 99.00 Start Time: 0

Spring %: Summer %: Fall %: Winter %: 25 25 25 25

Group Type: OTHER

Profile: OTHER

Control Efficiencies:

CIN: Name: BHHYGIENE BHHYGIENE

Abatement Code: 307 FILTERS-FABRIC(BAGHOUSE),REVERSE AIR FLOW

# of Units: Annual Operating Hours: % time offline: IM Schedule: 1 00

CO: TSP: 0 99.5 99.5 0 PM10: VOC:

IOC: C1-C3: 00 0 0 SO2: NOX:

C4+: H2S: 00 0 NH3:

EMISSION POINT INFORMATION

EPN: Name: 14 OXIDE HYGIENE BAGHS. VENT

UTM Zone: UTM East (m): UTM North (m): 14 702582 3668775

Latitude: Longitude: 330819.72 964941.5

Characteristic Value Unit

DIAMETER 1.75 FEETHEIGHT 40 FEETHORDSCHG NMOISTURETEMP 565 DEG FVELOCITY 91.74 FT/SEC

Contaminant

Code

Ozone Determination

(lb/day)

Annual

(ton/yr)

Upset

(ton/year)

Maintenance

(ton/year)

Cas # Contaminant Name EE/SMSS

10000 0 PART-U .0912 1.6896 .0000 .0000 M .000014310 7439921 LEAD-PB .0071 .1320 .0000 .0000 M .000020000 0 PM10 PART-U .0688 1.2751 .0000 .0000 M .000039999 0 TOTAL PM2.5 PARTICULATE .0295 .5465 .0000 .0000 M .0000

Profile: STACK
Account # - Report Year: RN100218643 - 2009 

FIN: OXIDEFUG 1 EPN:46

FIN: OXIDEFUG 1 LEAD OXIDE PROCESS TROUGH HEATERS Plant ID:

Comments:

SCC: 30183001 ORGANIC CHEMICALSGENERAL PROCESSESSTORAGE/TRANSFER

Status: A Date: Operating Schedule: 24 7 52 hrs/day days/wk wks/year

Annual Operating Hours: 4900 % Max Capacity: 0 Start Time: 0

Spring %: Summer %: Fall %: Winter %: 25 25 25 25

Group Type: COMBUSTN

Profile: HEATER

Characteristic Value UnitDESIGN CAPACITY 0.75 MMBTU/HRFIRING TYPE OT

EMISSION POINT INFORMATION

EPN: Name: 46 HEATERS COMBUSTION FUG.

UTM Zone: UTM East (m): UTM North (m): 14 702831 3668350

Latitude: Longitude: 330805.75 964932.25

Characteristic Value Unit

DEGREES 90 DEGREESHEIGHT 5 FEETLENGTH 138 FEETOFNORTH WWIDTH 112 FEET

Contaminant

Code

Ozone Determination

(lb/day)

Annual

(ton/yr)

Upset

(ton/year)

Maintenance

(ton/year)

Cas # Contaminant Name EE/SMSS

10000 0 PART-U .0071 .1368 .0000 .0000 A .000020000 0 PM10 PART-U .0050 .0958 .0000 .0000 A .000039999 0 TOTAL PM2.5 PARTICULATE .0021 .0410 .0000 .0000 A .000050001 0 VOC-UNCLASSIFIED .0052 .0990 .0000 .0000 A .000070400 0 NITROGEN OXIDES .0881 1.6920 .0000 .0000 A .000070510 7446095 SULFUR DIOXIDE .0006 .0108 .0000 .0000 A .000090300 630080 CARBON MONOXIDE .0375 .7200 .0000 .0000 A .0000

Profile: FUGITIVE
Account # - Report Year: RN100218643 - 2009 

FIN: OXPRCOMB1 EPN:56

FIN: OXPRCOMB1 LEAD OXIDE PROCESS COMBUSTION SOURCES 1 Plant ID:

Comments:

SCC: 10300603 COMMERCL-INSTUTNLNATURAL GAS <10MMBTU/HR

Status: A Date: Operating Schedule: 3 1 50 hrs/day days/wk wks/year

Annual Operating Hours: 5716 % Max Capacity: 100.00 Start Time: 0

Spring %: Summer %: Fall %: Winter %: 25 25 25 25

Group Type: COMBUSTN

Profile: HEATER

Characteristic Value UnitDESIGN CAPACITY 4 MMBTU/HRFIRING TYPE OT

EMISSION POINT INFORMATION

EPN: Name: 56 OXIDE PROCESS COMBUSTION

UTM Zone: UTM East (m): UTM North (m): 14 702725 3668805

Latitude: Longitude: 330820.59 964936

Characteristic Value Unit

DIAMETER 1 FEETHEIGHT 32 FEETHORDSCHG NMOISTURETEMP 150 DEG FVELOCITY 8 FT/SEC

Contaminant

Code

Ozone Determination

(lb/day)

Annual

(ton/yr)

Upset

(ton/year)

Maintenance

(ton/year)

Cas # Contaminant Name EE/SMSS

10000 0 PART-U .0114 .2280 .0000 .0000 A .000020000 0 PM10 PART-U .0080 .1596 .0000 .0000 A .000039999 0 TOTAL PM2.5 PARTICULATE .0034 .0684 .0000 .0000 A .000050001 0 VOC-UNCLASSIFIED .0083 .1650 .0000 .0000 A .000070400 0 NITROGEN OXIDES .1506 3.0000 .0000 .0000 A .000070510 7446095 SULFUR DIOXIDE .0009 .0180 .0000 .0000 A .000090300 630080 CARBON MONOXIDE .1265 2.5200 .0000 .0000 A .0000

Profile: STACK
Account # - Report Year: RN100218643 - 2009 

FIN: OXPRCOMB2 EPN:57

FIN: OXPRCOMB2 LEAD OXIDE PROCESS COMBUSTION SOURCES 2 Plant ID:

Comments:

SCC: 10300603 COMMERCL-INSTUTNLNATURAL GAS <10MMBTU/HR

Status: A Date: Operating Schedule: 3 1 50 hrs/day days/wk wks/year

Annual Operating Hours: 5716 % Max Capacity: 100.00 Start Time: 0

Spring %: Summer %: Fall %: Winter %: 25 25 25 25

Group Type: COMBUSTN

Profile: HEATER

Characteristic Value UnitDESIGN CAPACITY 4 MMBTU/HRFIRING TYPE OT

EMISSION POINT INFORMATION

EPN: Name: 57 OXIDE PROCESS COMBUSTION

UTM Zone: UTM East (m): UTM North (m): 14 702720 3668795

Latitude: Longitude: 330820.25 964936.19

Characteristic Value Unit

DIAMETER 1 FEETHEIGHT 32 FEETHORDSCHG NMOISTURETEMP 150 DEG FVELOCITY 8 FT/SEC

Contaminant

Code

Ozone Determination

(lb/day)

Annual

(ton/yr)

Upset

(ton/year)

Maintenance

(ton/year)

Cas # Contaminant Name EE/SMSS

70510 7446095 SULFUR DIOXIDE .0009 .0180 .0000 .0000 A .000090300 630080 CARBON MONOXIDE .1265 2.5200 .0000 .0000 A .000010000 0 PART-U .0114 .2280 .0000 .0000 A .000020000 0 PM10 PART-U .0080 .1596 .0000 .0000 A .000039999 0 TOTAL PM2.5 PARTICULATE .0034 .0684 .0000 .0000 A .000050001 0 VOC-UNCLASSIFIED .0083 .1650 .0000 .0000 A .000070400 0 NITROGEN OXIDES .1506 3.0000 .0000 .0000 A .0000

Profile: STACK
Account # - Report Year: RN100218643 - 2009 

FIN: OXPRCOMB3 EPN:58

FIN: OXPRCOMB3 LEAD OXIDE PROCESS COMBUSTION SOURCES 3 Plant ID:

Comments:

SCC: 10300603 COMMERCL-INSTUTNLNATURAL GAS <10MMBTU/HR

Status: A Date: Operating Schedule: 3 1 50 hrs/day days/wk wks/year

Annual Operating Hours: 5716 % Max Capacity: 100.00 Start Time: 0

Spring %: Summer %: Fall %: Winter %: 25 25 25 25

Group Type: COMBUSTN

Profile: HEATER

Characteristic Value UnitDESIGN CAPACITY 4 MMBTU/HRFIRING TYPE OT

EMISSION POINT INFORMATION

EPN: Name: 58 OXIDE PROCESS COMBUSTION

UTM Zone: UTM East (m): UTM North (m): 14 702750.75 3668785.5

Latitude: Longitude: 330819.94 964935

Characteristic Value Unit

DIAMETER 1 FEETHEIGHT 32 FEETHORDSCHG NMOISTURETEMP 150 DEG FVELOCITY 8 FT/SEC

Contaminant

Code

Ozone Determination

(lb/day)

Annual

(ton/yr)

Upset

(ton/year)

Maintenance

(ton/year)

Cas # Contaminant Name EE/SMSS

10000 0 PART-U .0114 .2280 .0000 .0000 A .000020000 0 PM10 PART-U .0080 .1596 .0000 .0000 A .000039999 0 TOTAL PM2.5 PARTICULATE .0034 .0684 .0000 .0000 A .000050001 0 VOC-UNCLASSIFIED .0083 .1650 .0000 .0000 A .000070400 0 NITROGEN OXIDES .1506 3.0000 .0000 .0000 A .000070510 7446095 SULFUR DIOXIDE .0009 .0180 .0000 .0000 A .000090300 630080 CARBON MONOXIDE .1265 2.5200 .0000 .0000 A .0000

Profile: STACK
Account # - Report Year: RN100218643 - 2009 

FIN: RAWMATBLDG EPN:45

FIN: RAWMATBLDG RAW MATERIAL STORAGE BUILDING Plant ID:

Comments:

SCC: 30400499 SEC. LEAD NOT CLASSIFIED SEE COMMENT

Status: A Date: Operating Schedule: 24 7 52 hrs/day days/wk wks/year

Annual Operating Hours: 8760 % Max Capacity: 99.00 Start Time: 0

Spring %: Summer %: Fall %: Winter %: 25 25 25 25

Group Type: OTHER

Profile: OTHER

EMISSION POINT INFORMATION

EPN: Name: 45 STORAGE DUST COLLECTOR ST

UTM Zone: UTM East (m): UTM North (m): 14 702257.63 3668808

Latitude: Longitude: 330821 964954

Characteristic Value Unit

DIAMETER 6 FEETHEIGHT 100 FEETHORDSCHG NMOISTURETEMP 72 DEG FVELOCITY 59 FT/SEC

Contaminant

Code

Ozone Determination

(lb/day)

Annual

(ton/yr)

Upset

(ton/year)

Maintenance

(ton/year)

Cas # Contaminant Name EE/SMSS

10000 0 PART-U 7.2576 40.3200 .0000 .0000 M .000014310 7439921 LEAD-PB .2160 1.2000 .0000 .0000 M .000020000 0 PM10 PART-U 5.0803 28.2240 .0000 .0000 M .000024310 7439921 PM10 LEAD-PB .1512 .8400 .0000 .0000 M .000039999 0 TOTAL PM2.5 PARTICULATE 2.2421 12.4560 .0000 .0000 E .0000

Profile: STACK
Account # - Report Year: RN100218643 - 2009 

FIN: REACTOR 1 EPN:13

FIN: REACTOR 1 OXIDE REACTOR 1 Plant ID: OXIDE

Comments:

SCC: 30400408 SEC. LEAD BARTON PROCESS OXIDATION KETTLE

Status: A Date: Operating Schedule: 24 7 50 hrs/day days/wk wks/year

Annual Operating Hours: 2858 % Max Capacity: 99.00 Start Time: 0

Spring %: Summer %: Fall %: Winter %: 25 25 25 25

Group Type: OTHER

Profile: OTHER

Control Efficiencies:

CIN: Name: BHREACTOR1 BHREACTOR1

Abatement Code: 307 FILTERS-FABRIC(BAGHOUSE),REVERSE AIR FLOW

# of Units: Annual Operating Hours: % time offline: IM Schedule: 1 8736 0 D

CO: TSP: 0 95 0 0 PM10: VOC:

IOC: C1-C3: 00 0 0 SO2: NOX:

C4+: H2S: 00 0 NH3:

EMISSION POINT INFORMATION

EPN: Name: 13 OXIDE REACTORS #1

UTM Zone: UTM East (m): UTM North (m): 14 702718 3668793

Latitude: Longitude: 330820.19 964936.25

Characteristic Value Unit

DIAMETER 1 FEETHEIGHT 52 FEETHORDSCHG NMOISTURETEMP 243 DEG FVELOCITY 43.2 FT/SEC

Contaminant

Code

Ozone Determination

(lb/day)

Annual

(ton/yr)

Upset

(ton/year)

Maintenance

(ton/year)

Cas # Contaminant Name EE/SMSS

10000 0 PART-U .0183 .5496 .0000 .0000 M .000014310 7439921 LEAD-PB .0008 .0240 .0000 .0000 M .000020000 0 PM10 PART-U .0133 .4015 .0000 .0000 M .000039999 0 TOTAL PM2.5 PARTICULATE .0057 .1721 .0000 .0000 M .0000

Profile: STACK
Account # - Report Year: RN100218643 - 2009 

FIN: REACTOR 2 EPN:12

FIN: REACTOR 2 OXIDE REACTOR 2 Plant ID: OXIDE

Comments:

SCC: 30400408 SEC. LEAD BARTON PROCESS OXIDATION KETTLE

Status: A Date: Operating Schedule: 24 7 50 hrs/day days/wk wks/year

Annual Operating Hours: 2858 % Max Capacity: 99.00 Start Time: 0

Spring %: Summer %: Fall %: Winter %: 25 25 25 25

Group Type: OTHER

Profile: OTHER

Control Efficiencies:

CIN: Name: BHREACTOR2 BHREACTOR2

Abatement Code: 307 FILTERS-FABRIC(BAGHOUSE),REVERSE AIR FLOW

# of Units: Annual Operating Hours: % time offline: IM Schedule: 1 8736 0 D

CO: TSP: 0 95 0 0 PM10: VOC:

IOC: C1-C3: 00 0 0 SO2: NOX:

C4+: H2S: 00 0 NH3:

EMISSION POINT INFORMATION

EPN: Name: 12 OXIDE REACTORS #2

UTM Zone: UTM East (m): UTM North (m): 14 702724.75 3668786.8

Latitude: Longitude: 330820 964936

Characteristic Value Unit

DIAMETER 1 FEETHEIGHT 55 FEETHORDSCHG NMOISTURETEMP 207 DEG FVELOCITY 27.9 FT/SEC

Contaminant

Code

Ozone Determination

(lb/day)

Annual

(ton/yr)

Upset

(ton/year)

Maintenance

(ton/year)

Cas # Contaminant Name EE/SMSS

10000 0 PART-U .0072 .2160 .0000 .0000 M .000014310 7439921 LEAD-PB .0053 .1584 .0000 .0000 M .000020000 0 PM10 PART-U .0087 .2621 .0000 .0000 M .000039999 0 TOTAL PM2.5 PARTICULATE .0037 .1123 .0000 .0000 M .0000

Profile: STACK
Account # - Report Year: RN100218643 - 2009 

FIN: REACTOR 3 EPN:11

FIN: REACTOR 3 OXIDE REACTOR 3 Plant ID:

Comments:

SCC: 30400408 SEC. LEAD BARTON PROCESS OXIDATION KETTLE

Status: A Date: Operating Schedule: 24 7 50 hrs/day days/wk wks/year

Annual Operating Hours: 2858 % Max Capacity: 0 Start Time: 0

Spring %: Summer %: Fall %: Winter %: 25 25 25 25

Group Type: OTHER

Profile: OTHER

Control Efficiencies:

CIN: Name: BHREACTOR3 BHREACTOR3

Abatement Code: 307 FILTERS-FABRIC(BAGHOUSE),REVERSE AIR FLOW

# of Units: Annual Operating Hours: % time offline: IM Schedule: 1 8736 0 D

CO: TSP: 0 95 0 0 PM10: VOC:

IOC: C1-C3: 00 0 0 SO2: NOX:

C4+: H2S: 00 0 NH3:

EMISSION POINT INFORMATION

EPN: Name: 11 OXIDE REACTORS #3

UTM Zone: UTM East (m): UTM North (m): 14 702648.19 3668728.8

Latitude: Longitude: 330818.19 964939

Characteristic Value Unit

DIAMETER 1 FEETHEIGHT 55 FEETHORDSCHG NMOISTURETEMP 100 DEG FVELOCITY 39.5 FT/SEC

Contaminant

Code

Ozone Determination

(lb/day)

Annual

(ton/yr)

Upset

(ton/year)

Maintenance

(ton/year)

Cas # Contaminant Name EE/SMSS

10000 0 PART-U .0263 .7920 .0000 .0000 M .000014310 7439921 LEAD-PB .0026 .0768 .0000 .0000 M .000020000 0 PM10 PART-U .0202 .6082 .0000 .0000 M .000039999 0 TOTAL PM2.5 PARTICULATE .0087 .2606 .0000 .0000 M .0000

Profile: STACK
Account # - Report Year: RN100218643 - 2009 

FIN: REACTOR 3 EPN:9

FIN: REACTOR 3 OXIDE REACTOR 3 Plant ID:

Comments:

SCC: 30400408 SEC. LEAD BARTON PROCESS OXIDATION KETTLE

Status: A Date: Operating Schedule: 24 7 50 hrs/day days/wk wks/year

Annual Operating Hours: 2858 % Max Capacity: 0 Start Time: 0

Spring %: Summer %: Fall %: Winter %: 25 25 25 25

Group Type: OTHER

Profile: OTHER

EMISSION POINT INFORMATION

EPN: Name: 9 OXIDE REACTORS

UTM Zone: UTM East (m): UTM North (m): 14 702413.75 3668780.5

Latitude: Longitude: 330820 964948

Characteristic Value Unit

DIAMETER 1 FEETHEIGHT 40 FEETHORDSCHG NMOISTURETEMP 320 DEG FVELOCITY 5.8 FT/SEC

Contaminant

Code

Ozone Determination

(lb/day)

Annual

(ton/yr)

Upset

(ton/year)

Maintenance

(ton/year)

Cas # Contaminant Name EE/SMSS

20000 0 PM10 PART-U .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 M .0000

Profile: STACK
Account # - Report Year: RN100218643 - 2009 

FIN: REACTOR 4 EPN:16

FIN: REACTOR 4 OXIDE REACTOR 4 Plant ID: OXIDE

Comments:

SCC: 30400408 SEC. LEAD BARTON PROCESS OXIDATION KETTLE

Status: A Date: Operating Schedule: 24 7 52 hrs/day days/wk wks/year

Annual Operating Hours: 2858 % Max Capacity: 99.00 Start Time: 0

Spring %: Summer %: Fall %: Winter %: 25 25 25 25

Group Type: OTHER

Profile: OTHER

Control Efficiencies:

CIN: Name: BHREACTOR4 BHREACTOR4

Abatement Code: 307 FILTERS-FABRIC(BAGHOUSE),REVERSE AIR FLOW

# of Units: Annual Operating Hours: % time offline: IM Schedule: 1 8736 0 D

CO: TSP: 0 95 0 0 PM10: VOC:

IOC: C1-C3: 00 0 0 SO2: NOX:

C4+: H2S: 00 0 NH3:

EMISSION POINT INFORMATION

EPN: Name: 16 OXIDE REACTOR #4

UTM Zone: UTM East (m): UTM North (m): 14 702429.06 3668041

Latitude: Longitude: 330756 964948

Characteristic Value Unit

DIAMETER 0.83 FEETHEIGHT 57 FEETHORDSCHG NMOISTURETEMP 203 DEG FVELOCITY 44.2 FT/SEC

Contaminant

Code

Ozone Determination

(lb/day)

Annual

(ton/yr)

Upset

(ton/year)

Maintenance

(ton/year)

Cas # Contaminant Name EE/SMSS

10000 0 PART-U .0177 .5328 .0000 .0000 M .000014310 7439921 LEAD-PB .0013 .0384 .0000 .0000 M .000020000 0 PM10 PART-U .0133 .3998 .0000 .0000 M .000039999 0 TOTAL PM2.5 PARTICULATE .0057 .1714 .0000 .0000 M .0000

Profile: STACK
Account # - Report Year: RN100218643 - 2009 

FIN: REACTOR 5 EPN:24

FIN: REACTOR 5 OXIDE REACTOR 5 Plant ID: OXIDE

Comments:

SCC: 30400408 SEC. LEAD BARTON PROCESS OXIDATION KETTLE

Status: A Date: Operating Schedule: 24 7 50 hrs/day days/wk wks/year

Annual Operating Hours: 2858 % Max Capacity: 99.00 Start Time: 0

Spring %: Summer %: Fall %: Winter %: 25 25 25 25

Group Type: OTHER

Profile: OTHER

Control Efficiencies:

CIN: Name: BHREACTOR5 BHREACTOR5

Abatement Code: 307 FILTERS-FABRIC(BAGHOUSE),REVERSE AIR FLOW

# of Units: Annual Operating Hours: % time offline: IM Schedule: 1 8736 0 D

CO: TSP: 0 95 0 0 PM10: VOC:

IOC: C1-C3: 00 0 0 SO2: NOX:

C4+: H2S: 00 0 NH3:

EMISSION POINT INFORMATION

EPN: Name: 24 OXIDE REACTOR #5

UTM Zone: UTM East (m): UTM North (m): 14 702824 3667988

Latitude: Longitude: 330754 964932.81

Characteristic Value Unit

DIAMETER 1.23 FEETHEIGHT 54 FEETHORDSCHG NMOISTURETEMP 190 DEG FVELOCITY 37.7 FT/SEC

Contaminant

Code

Ozone Determination

(lb/day)

Annual

(ton/yr)

Upset

(ton/year)

Maintenance

(ton/year)

Cas # Contaminant Name EE/SMSS

10000 0 PART-U .0135 .4056 .0000 .0000 M .000014310 7439921 LEAD-PB .0006 .0192 .0000 .0000 M .000020000 0 PM10 PART-U .0099 .2974 .0000 .0000 M .000039999 0 TOTAL PM2.5 PARTICULATE .0042 .1274 .0000 .0000 M .0000

Profile: STACK
Account # - Report Year: RN100218643 - 2009 

FIN: REACTOR 6 EPN:25

FIN: REACTOR 6 OXIDE REACTOR 6 Plant ID: OXIDE

Comments:

SCC: 30400408 SEC. LEAD BARTON PROCESS OXIDATION KETTLE

Status: A Date: Operating Schedule: 24 7 50 hrs/day days/wk wks/year

Annual Operating Hours: 2858 % Max Capacity: 99.00 Start Time: 0

Spring %: Summer %: Fall %: Winter %: 25 25 25 25

Group Type: OTHER

Profile: OTHER

Control Efficiencies:

CIN: Name: BHREACTOR6 BHREACTOR6

Abatement Code: 307 FILTERS-FABRIC(BAGHOUSE),REVERSE AIR FLOW

# of Units: Annual Operating Hours: % time offline: IM Schedule: 1 8736 0 D

CO: TSP: 0 95 0 0 PM10: VOC:

IOC: C1-C3: 00 0 0 SO2: NOX:

C4+: H2S: 00 0 NH3:

EMISSION POINT INFORMATION

EPN: Name: 25 OXIDE REACTOR #6

UTM Zone: UTM East (m): UTM North (m): 14 702106 3668341

Latitude: Longitude: 330805.94 965000.25

Characteristic Value Unit

DIAMETER 1.23 FEETHEIGHT 54 FEETHORDSCHG NMOISTURETEMP 169 DEG FVELOCITY 31 FT/SEC

Contaminant

Code

Ozone Determination

(lb/day)

Annual

(ton/yr)

Upset

(ton/year)

Maintenance

(ton/year)

Cas # Contaminant Name EE/SMSS

10000 0 PART-U .0128 .3840 .0000 .0000 M .000014310 7439921 LEAD-PB .0007 .0216 .0000 .0000 M .000020000 0 PM10 PART-U .0094 .2839 .0000 .0000 M .000039999 0 TOTAL PM2.5 PARTICULATE .0040 .1217 .0000 .0000 M .0000

Profile: STACK
Account # - Report Year: RN100218643 - 2009 

FIN: REAGTSILO1 EPN:49

FIN: REAGTSILO1 REAGENT SILO#1 BAGHOUSE STACK Plant ID:

Comments:

SCC: 30400499 SEC. LEAD NOT CLASSIFIED SEE COMMENT

Status: A Date: Operating Schedule: 24 7 52 hrs/day days/wk wks/year

Annual Operating Hours: 1040 % Max Capacity: 100.00 Start Time: 0

Spring %: Summer %: Fall %: Winter %: 25 25 25 25

Group Type: OTHER

Profile: OTHER

Control Efficiencies:

CIN: Name: REAGENT1BH REAGENT1BH

Abatement Code: 300 FILTERS-FABRIC (BAGHOUSE)

# of Units: Annual Operating Hours: % time offline: IM Schedule: 1 00

CO: TSP: 00 0 0 PM10: VOC:

IOC: C1-C3: 00 0 0 SO2: NOX:

C4+: H2S: 00 0 NH3:

EMISSION POINT INFORMATION

EPN: Name: 49 REAGENT SILO #1 BAGHOUSE

UTM Zone: UTM East (m): UTM North (m): 14 702235.56 3668639

Latitude: Longitude: 330815.53 964955

Characteristic Value Unit

DIAMETER 3 FEETHEIGHT 47 FEETHORDSCHG NMOISTURETEMP 68 DEG FVELOCITY 0.06 FT/SEC

Contaminant

Code

Ozone Determination

(lb/day)

Annual

(ton/yr)

Upset

(ton/year)

Maintenance

(ton/year)

Cas # Contaminant Name EE/SMSS

10000 0 PART-U .1689 .9257 .0000 .0000 V .000020000 0 PM10 PART-U .1183 .6480 .0000 .0000 V .000039999 0 TOTAL PM2.5 PARTICULATE .0507 .2777 .0000 .0000 E .0000

Profile: STACK
Account # - Report Year: RN100218643 - 2009 

FIN: REAGTSILO2 EPN:50

FIN: REAGTSILO2 REAGENT SILO #2 BAGHOUSE Plant ID:

Comments:

SCC: 30400499 SEC. LEAD NOT CLASSIFIED SEE COMMENT

Status: A Date: Operating Schedule: 24 7 52 hrs/day days/wk wks/year

Annual Operating Hours: 1040 % Max Capacity: 100.00 Start Time: 0

Spring %: Summer %: Fall %: Winter %: 25 25 25 25

Group Type: OTHER

Profile: OTHER

Control Efficiencies:

CIN: Name: REAGENT2BH REAGENT2BH

Abatement Code: 300 FILTERS-FABRIC (BAGHOUSE)

# of Units: Annual Operating Hours: % time offline: IM Schedule: 1 00

CO: TSP: 00 0 0 PM10: VOC:

IOC: C1-C3: 00 0 0 SO2: NOX:

C4+: H2S: 00 0 NH3:

EMISSION POINT INFORMATION

EPN: Name: 50 REAGENT SILO #2 BAGHOUSE

UTM Zone: UTM East (m): UTM North (m): 14 702235.31 3668634.3

Latitude: Longitude: 330815.38 964955

Characteristic Value Unit

DIAMETER 3 FEETHEIGHT 47 FEETHORDSCHG NMOISTURETEMP 68 DEG FVELOCITY 0.06 FT/SEC

Contaminant

Code

Ozone Determination

(lb/day)

Annual

(ton/yr)

Upset

(ton/year)

Maintenance

(ton/year)

Cas # Contaminant Name EE/SMSS

10000 0 PART-U .1689 .9257 .0000 .0000 V .000020000 0 PM10 PART-U .1183 .6480 .0000 .0000 V .000039999 0 TOTAL PM2.5 PARTICULATE .0507 .2777 .0000 .0000 E .0000

Profile: STACK
Account # - Report Year: RN100218643 - 2009 

FIN: REFCASTFUG EPN:36

FIN: REFCASTFUG REFINING/CASTING FUGITIVES Plant ID:

Comments:

SCC: 30400414 SEC. LEAD FUGITIVE EMISSIONKETTLE REFINING

Status: A Date: Operating Schedule: 24 7 52 hrs/day days/wk wks/year

Annual Operating Hours: 8736 % Max Capacity: 99.00 Start Time: 0

Spring %: Summer %: Fall %: Winter %: 25 25 25 25

Group Type: OTHER

Profile: OTHER

EMISSION POINT INFORMATION

EPN: Name: 36 REFINING-CASTING FUGITIVE

UTM Zone: UTM East (m): UTM North (m): 14 702116.81 3668096.3

Latitude: Longitude: 330758 965000

Characteristic Value Unit

DEGREES 0 DEGREESHEIGHT 30 FEETLENGTH 200 FEETOFNORTHWIDTH 50 FEET

Contaminant

Code

Ozone Determination

(lb/day)

Annual

(ton/yr)

Upset

(ton/year)

Maintenance

(ton/year)

Cas # Contaminant Name EE/SMSS

10000 0 PART-U .0589 .3236 .0000 .0000 A .000014020 7440360 ANTIMONY-SB .0000 .0001 .0000 .0000 A .000014110 7440439 CADMIUM-CD .0001 .0004 .0000 .0000 A .000014310 7439921 LEAD-PB .0261 .1433 .0000 .0000 A .000020000 0 PM10 PART-U .0412 .2266 .0000 .0000 A .000024020 7440360 PM10 ANTIMONY-SB .0000 .0001 .0000 .0000 A .000024110 7440439 PM10 CADMIUM-CD .0000 .0002 .0000 .0000 A .000024310 7439921 PM10 LEAD-PB .0183 .1003 .0000 .0000 A .000039999 0 TOTAL PM2.5 PARTICULATE .0170 .0935 .0000 .0000 E .0000

Profile: FUGITIVE
Account # - Report Year: RN100218643 - 2009 

FIN: REVERB EPN:38

FIN: REVERB REVERBATORY FURNACE Plant ID:

Comments:

SCC: 30400402 SEC. LEAD SMELTING FURNACE REVERBERATORY

Status: A Date: Operating Schedule: 24 7 50 hrs/day days/wk wks/year

Annual Operating Hours: 8160 % Max Capacity: 20.00 Start Time: 0

Spring %: Summer %: Fall %: Winter %: 25 25 25 25

Group Type: COMBUSTN

Profile: FURNACE

Characteristic Value UnitDESIGN CAPACITY 20 MMBTU/HRFIRING TYPE FR

Control Efficiencies:

CIN: Name: REVERBH REVERBH

Abatement Code: 301 FILTERS-FABRIC(BAGHOUSE),MECHANICAL SHAKING

# of Units: Annual Operating Hours: % time offline: IM Schedule: 1 00

CO: TSP: 0 95 0 0 PM10: VOC:

IOC: C1-C3: 00 0 0 SO2: NOX:

C4+: H2S: 00 0 NH3:

Control Efficiencies:

CIN: Name: SO2SCRUBER SO2SCRUBER

Abatement Code: 600 SULFER DIOXIDE REMOVAL

# of Units: Annual Operating Hours: % time offline: IM Schedule: 1 00

CO: TSP: 0 90 0 0 PM10: VOC:

IOC: C1-C3: 0 85 0 0 SO2: NOX:

C4+: H2S: 00 0 NH3:
Account # - Report Year: RN100218643 - 2009 

EMISSION POINT INFORMATION

EPN: Name: 38 OFF-GAS SCRUBBER

UTM Zone: UTM East (m): UTM North (m): 14 702662.38 3668046

Latitude: Longitude: 330756 964939

Characteristic Value Unit

DIAMETER 4.5 FEETHEIGHT 162 FEETHORDSCHG NMOISTURETEMP 95 DEG FVELOCITY 64.4 FT/SEC

Contaminant

Code

Ozone Determination

(lb/day)

Annual

(ton/yr)

Upset

(ton/year)

Maintenance

(ton/year)

Cas # Contaminant Name EE/SMSS

10000 0 PART-U 8.8772 51.1652 .0000 .0000 M .000014020 7440360 ANTIMONY-SB .0073 .0419 .0000 .0000 M .000014030 7440382 ARSENIC - AS .0041 .0235 .0000 .0000 M .000014110 7440439 CADMIUM-CD .0183 .1056 .0000 .0000 M .000014310 7439921 LEAD-PB .1154 .6654 .0000 .0000 M .000014590 7782492 SELENIUM-SE .0070 .0402 .0000 .0000 M .000014601 0 SILICA OXIDE .0727 .4190 .0000 .0000 M .000020000 0 PM10 PART-U 6.2140 35.8156 .0000 .0000 M .000024020 7440360 PM10 ANTIMONY-SB .0051 .0293 .0000 .0000 M .000024030 7440382 PM10 ARSENIC - AS .0028 .0164 .0000 .0000 M .000024110 7440439 PM10 CADMIUM-CD .0128 .0739 .0000 .0000 M .000024310 7439921 PM10 LEAD-PB .0808 .4658 .0000 .0000 M .000024595 0 PM10 SELENIUM & COMPOUND .0049 .0282 .0000 .0000 M .000024601 0 PM10 SILICA OXIDE .0509 .2933 .0000 .0000 M .000039999 0 TOTAL PM2.5 PARTICULATE 2.7306 15.7382 .0000 .0000 E .000050001 0 VOC-UNCLASSIFIED .9692 5.5860 .0000 .0000 M .000052420 71-43-2 BENZENE .1855 1.0690 .0000 .0000 M .000052450 100414 ETHYL BENZENE .0157 .0903 .0000 .0000 M .000052490 108883 TOLUENE .1594 .9185 .0000 .0000 M .000052512 108383 META-XYLENE .0614 .3538 .0000 .0000 M .000052514 95476 ORTHO-XYLENE .0261 .1506 .0000 .0000 M .000052516 106423 PARA-XYLENE .0614 .3538 .0000 .0000 M .000054065 78933 METHYL ETHYL KETONE .0261 .1506 .0000 .0000 M .000054070 108101 METHYL ISOBUTYL KETONE .0522 .3011 .0000 .0000 M .000056600 110543 HEXANE .0104 .0602 .0000 .0000 M .000070200 7647010 HYDROGEN CHLORIDE .5700 3.2851 .0000 .0000 M .0000

Profile: STACK
Account # - Report Year: RN100218643 - 2009 

EMISSION POINT INFORMATION

Contaminant

Code

Ozone Determination

(lb/day)

Annual

(ton/yr)

Upset

(ton/year)

Maintenance

(ton/year)

Cas # Contaminant Name EE/SMSS

70400 0 NITROGEN OXIDES 29.6904 171.1260 .0000 .0000 M .000070510 7446095 SULFUR DIOXIDE 418.7475 2,413.5305 .0000 .0000 M .000070516 SULFURIC ACID (VAPOR) 5.6124 32.3480 .0000 .0000 M .000090300 630080 CARBON MONOXIDE 415.5488 2,395.0938 .0000 .0000 M .0000
Account # - Report Year: RN100218643 - 2009 

FIN: REVERBFUG EPN:35

FIN: REVERBFUG REVERB. FURNACE SMELTING FUGITIVES Plant ID: G.N.B.F.P.

Comments:

SCC: 30400402 SEC. LEAD SMELTING FURNACE REVERBERATORY

Status: A Date: Operating Schedule: 24 7 52 hrs/day days/wk wks/year

Annual Operating Hours: 8160 % Max Capacity: 44.00 Start Time: 0

Spring %: Summer %: Fall %: Winter %: 25 25 25 25

Group Type: OTHER

Profile: OTHER

EMISSION POINT INFORMATION

EPN: Name: 35 REVERB. FURNACE FUGITIVES

UTM Zone: UTM East (m): UTM North (m): 14 702673.56 3668755

Latitude: Longitude: 330819 964938

Characteristic Value Unit

DEGREES 0 DEGREESHEIGHT 30 FEETLENGTH 150 FEETOFNORTH EWIDTH 100 FEET

Contaminant

Code

Ozone Determination

(lb/day)

Annual

(ton/yr)

Upset

(ton/year)

Maintenance

(ton/year)

Cas # Contaminant Name EE/SMSS

10000 0 PART-U 4.2016 24.7152 .0000 .0000 M .000014020 7440360 ANTIMONY-SB .0103 .0608 .0000 .0000 M .000014030 7440382 ARSENIC - AS .0052 .0304 .0000 .0000 M .000014110 7440439 CADMIUM-CD .0207 .1216 .0000 .0000 M .000014310 7439921 LEAD-PB .2067 1.2160 .0000 .0000 M .000020000 0 PM10 PART-U 2.9411 17.3006 .0000 .0000 M .000024020 7440360 PM10 ANTIMONY-SB .0072 .0426 .0000 .0000 M .000024030 7440382 PM10 ARSENIC - AS .0036 .0213 .0000 .0000 M .000024110 7440439 PM10 CADMIUM-CD .0145 .0851 .0000 .0000 M .000024310 7439921 PM10 LEAD-PB .1447 .8512 .0000 .0000 M .000039999 0 TOTAL PM2.5 PARTICULATE 1.3333 7.8432 .0000 .0000 E .0000

Profile: FUGITIVE
Account # - Report Year: RN100218643 - 2009 

FIN: REVERBPFS EPN:35

FIN: REVERBPFS REVERBERATORY FURNACE PROCESS FUGITIVE SOURCES Plant ID:

Comments:

SCC: 30400402 SEC. LEAD SMELTING FURNACE REVERBERATORY

Status: A Date: Operating Schedule: 24 7 52 hrs/day days/wk wks/year

Annual Operating Hours: 8160 % Max Capacity: 95.00 Start Time: 0

Spring %: Summer %: Fall %: Winter %: 25 25 25 25

Group Type: OTHER

Profile: OTHER

EMISSION POINT INFORMATION

EPN: Name: 35 REVERB. FURNACE FUGITIVES

UTM Zone: UTM East (m): UTM North (m): 14 702673.56 3668755

Latitude: Longitude: 330819 964938

Characteristic Value Unit

DEGREES 0 DEGREESHEIGHT 30 FEETLENGTH 150 FEETOFNORTH EWIDTH 100 FEET

Contaminant

Code

Ozone Determination

(lb/day)

Annual

(ton/yr)

Upset

(ton/year)

Maintenance

(ton/year)

Cas # Contaminant Name EE/SMSS

20000 0 PM10 PART-U .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 E .0000

Profile: FUGITIVE
Account # - Report Year: RN100218643 - 2009 

FIN: RMSBFUG47 EPN:47

FIN: RMSBFUG47 RAW MATERIAL STORAGE BUILDING FUGITIVES Plant ID:

Comments:

SCC: 30400499 SEC. LEAD NOT CLASSIFIED SEE COMMENT

Status: A Date: Operating Schedule: 24 7 49 hrs/day days/wk wks/year

Annual Operating Hours: 8760 % Max Capacity: 99.00 Start Time: 0

Spring %: Summer %: Fall %: Winter %: 25 25 25 25

Group Type: OTHER

Profile: OTHER

EMISSION POINT INFORMATION

EPN: Name: 47 RMS BLDG FUGS

UTM Zone: UTM East (m): UTM North (m): 14 702622.38 3668723

Latitude: Longitude: 330818 964940

Characteristic Value Unit

DEGREES 0 DEGREESHEIGHT 10 FEETLENGTH 200 FEETOFNORTHWIDTH 100 FEET

Contaminant

Code

Ozone Determination

(lb/day)

Annual

(ton/yr)

Upset

(ton/year)

Maintenance

(ton/year)

Cas # Contaminant Name EE/SMSS

14310 7439921 LEAD-PB .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 S .000020000 0 PM10 PART-U .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 S .000039999 0 TOTAL PM2.5 PARTICULATE .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 S .0000

Profile: FUGITIVE
Account # - Report Year: RN100218643 - 2009 

FIN: SHREDDER EPN:45

FIN: SHREDDER FEED SHREDDER Plant ID:

Comments:

SCC: 30400411 SEC. LEAD SCRAP PRETREATMNTSCRAP CRUSHING

Status: A Date: Operating Schedule: 24 7 52 hrs/day days/wk wks/year

Annual Operating Hours: 3900 % Max Capacity: 95.00 Start Time: 0

Spring %: Summer %: Fall %: Winter %: 25 25 25 25

Group Type: OTHER

Profile: OTHER

EMISSION POINT INFORMATION

EPN: Name: 45 STORAGE DUST COLLECTOR ST

UTM Zone: UTM East (m): UTM North (m): 14 702257.63 3668808

Latitude: Longitude: 330821 964954

Characteristic Value Unit

DIAMETER 6 FEETHEIGHT 100 FEETHORDSCHG NMOISTURETEMP 72 DEG FVELOCITY 59 FT/SEC

Contaminant

Code

Ozone Determination

(lb/day)

Annual

(ton/yr)

Upset

(ton/year)

Maintenance

(ton/year)

Cas # Contaminant Name EE/SMSS

20000 0 PM10 PART-U .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 E .0000

Profile: STACK
Account # - Report Year: RN100218643 - 2009 

FIN: SLAGCRUSH EPN:39

FIN: SLAGCRUSH LOADING FACILITY Plant ID:

Comments:

SCC: 30400409 SEC. LEAD CASTING

Status: A Date: Operating Schedule: 8 5 49 hrs/day days/wk wks/year

Annual Operating Hours: 1040 % Max Capacity: 99.00 Start Time: 0

Spring %: Summer %: Fall %: Winter %: 25 25 25 25

Group Type: OTHER

Profile: OTHER

Control Efficiencies:

CIN: Name: SLAGTRETBH SLAGTRETBH

Abatement Code: 300 FILTERS-FABRIC (BAGHOUSE)

# of Units: Annual Operating Hours: % time offline: IM Schedule: 1 00

CO: TSP: 0 95 0 0 PM10: VOC:

IOC: C1-C3: 00 0 0 SO2: NOX:

C4+: H2S: 00 0 NH3:

EMISSION POINT INFORMATION

EPN: Name: 39 SLAG FIXATION STACK

UTM Zone: UTM East (m): UTM North (m): 14 702183.06 3668652.3

Latitude: Longitude: 330816 964957

Characteristic Value Unit

DIAMETER 3.3 FEETHEIGHT 16 FEETHORDSCHG NMOISTURETEMP 100 DEG FVELOCITY 27 FT/SEC

Contaminant

Code

Ozone Determination

(lb/day)

Annual

(ton/yr)

Upset

(ton/year)

Maintenance

(ton/year)

Cas # Contaminant Name EE/SMSS

10000 0 PART-U .6265 4.8154 .0000 .0000 E .000014010 7429905 ALUMINUM - AL .0006 .0053 .0000 .0000 E .000014310 7439921 LEAD-PB .0017 .0161 .0000 .0000 E .000020000 0 PM10 PART-U .4402 3.3858 .0000 .0000 E .000039999 0 TOTAL PM2.5 PARTICULATE .1886 1.4511 .0000 .0000 E .0000

Profile: STACK
Account # - Report Year: RN100218643 - 2009 

FIN: SLAGHNDFUG EPN:52

FIN: SLAGHNDFUG SLAG HANDLING FUGITIVES Plant ID:

Comments:

SCC: 30488801 FUGITIVE EMISSIONNOT CLASSIFIED SEE COMMENT

Status: A Date: Operating Schedule: 24 7 52 hrs/day days/wk wks/year

Annual Operating Hours: 1040 % Max Capacity: 94.00 Start Time: 0

Spring %: Summer %: Fall %: Winter %: 25 25 25 25

Group Type: OTHER

Profile: OTHER

EMISSION POINT INFORMATION

EPN: Name: 52 SLAG HANDLING FUGITIVES

UTM Zone: UTM East (m): UTM North (m): 14 702634 3668793

Latitude: Longitude: 330820.25 964939.5

Characteristic Value Unit

DEGREES 0 DEGREESHEIGHT 30 FEETLENGTH 110 FEETOFNORTH EWIDTH 55 FEET

Contaminant

Code

Ozone Determination

(lb/day)

Annual

(ton/yr)

Upset

(ton/year)

Maintenance

(ton/year)

Cas # Contaminant Name EE/SMSS

10000 0 PART-U .0362 .2127 .0000 .0000 S .000014020 7440360 ANTIMONY-SB .0011 .0063 .0000 .0000 S .000014030 7440382 ARSENIC - AS .0005 .0032 .0000 .0000 S .000014110 7440439 CADMIUM-CD .0022 .0127 .0000 .0000 S .000014310 7439921 LEAD-PB .0070 .0413 .0000 .0000 S .000020000 0 PM10 PART-U .0253 .1489 .0000 .0000 S .000024020 7440360 PM10 ANTIMONY-SB .0008 .0044 .0000 .0000 S .000024030 7440382 PM10 ARSENIC - AS .0004 .0022 .0000 .0000 S .000024110 7440439 PM10 CADMIUM-CD .0015 .0089 .0000 .0000 S .000024310 7439921 PM10 LEAD-PB .0049 .0289 .0000 .0000 S .000039999 0 TOTAL PM2.5 PARTICULATE .0141 .0829 .0000 .0000 E .0000

Profile: FUGITIVE
Account # - Report Year: RN100218643 - 2009 

FIN: SLCOMB EPN:54

FIN: SLCOMB SOFT LEAD GAS COMBUSTION Plant ID:

Comments:

SCC: 10300603 COMMERCL-INSTUTNLNATURAL GAS <10MMBTU/HR

Status: A Date: Operating Schedule: 24 7 52 hrs/day days/wk wks/year

Annual Operating Hours: 8160 % Max Capacity: 100.00 Start Time: 0

Spring %: Summer %: Fall %: Winter %: 25 25 25 25

Group Type: COMBUSTN

Profile: HEATER

Characteristic Value UnitDESIGN CAPACITY 5 MMBTU/HRFIRING TYPE OT

EMISSION POINT INFORMATION

EPN: Name: 54 SOFT LEAD KETTLE HEATING

UTM Zone: UTM East (m): UTM North (m): 14 702673 3668724.3

Latitude: Longitude: 330818 964938.06

Characteristic Value Unit

DIAMETER 3 FEETHEIGHT 40 FEETHORDSCHG NMOISTURETEMP 200 DEG FVELOCITY 0.01 FT/SEC

Contaminant

Code

Ozone Determination

(lb/day)

Annual

(ton/yr)

Upset

(ton/year)

Maintenance

(ton/year)

Cas # Contaminant Name EE/SMSS

10000 0 PART-U .0192 .1140 .0000 .0000 A .000020000 0 PM10 PART-U .0134 .0798 .0000 .0000 A .000039999 0 TOTAL PM2.5 PARTICULATE .0057 .0342 .0000 .0000 A .000050001 0 VOC-UNCLASSIFIED .0139 .0825 .0000 .0000 A .000070400 0 NITROGEN OXIDES .2520 1.5000 .0000 .0000 A .000070510 7446095 SULFUR DIOXIDE .0015 .0090 .0000 .0000 A .000090300 630080 CARBON MONOXIDE .2117 1.2600 .0000 .0000 A .0000

Profile: STACK
Account # - Report Year: RN100218643 - 2009 

FIN: SMELTCLEAN EPN:23

FIN: SMELTCLEAN SMELTER CENTRAL VACUUM Plant ID:

Comments:

SCC: 30400413 SEC. LEAD FUGITIVE EMISSIONSMELTING FURNACE

Status: A Date: Operating Schedule: 24 7 52 hrs/day days/wk wks/year

Annual Operating Hours: 8160 % Max Capacity: 99.00 Start Time: 0

Spring %: Summer %: Fall %: Winter %: 25 25 25 25

Group Type: OTHER

Profile: OTHER

Control Efficiencies:

CIN: Name: SMELTVACBH SMELTVACBH

Abatement Code: 301 FILTERS-FABRIC(BAGHOUSE),MECHANICAL SHAKING

# of Units: Annual Operating Hours: % time offline: IM Schedule: 1 00

CO: TSP: 0 95 0 0 PM10: VOC:

IOC: C1-C3: 00 0 0 SO2: NOX:

C4+: H2S: 00 0 NH3:

EMISSION POINT INFORMATION

EPN: Name: 23 SMELTER VAC. STACK

UTM Zone: UTM East (m): UTM North (m): 14 702520.63 3668628.5

Latitude: Longitude: 330815 964944

Characteristic Value Unit

DIAMETER 0.5 FEETHEIGHT 20 FEETHORDSCHG NMOISTURETEMP 81 DEG FVELOCITY 65 FT/SEC

Contaminant

Code

Ozone Determination

(lb/day)

Annual

(ton/yr)

Upset

(ton/year)

Maintenance

(ton/year)

Cas # Contaminant Name EE/SMSS

10000 0 PART-U .2832 1.5734 .0000 .0000 O .000014310 7439921 LEAD-PB .0019 .0106 .0000 .0000 O .000020000 0 PM10 PART-U .1983 1.1014 .0000 .0000 O .000024310 7439921 PM10 LEAD-PB .0013 .0074 .0000 .0000 O .000039999 0 TOTAL PM2.5 PARTICULATE .0855 .4752 .0000 .0000 O .0000

Profile: STACK
Account # - Report Year: RN100218643 - 2009 

FIN: SODBICSILO EPN:51

FIN: SODBICSILO SODIUM BICARBONATE STORAGE SILO FILTER VENT Plant ID:

Comments:

SCC: 30400499 SEC. LEAD NOT CLASSIFIED SEE COMMENT

Status: A Date: Operating Schedule: 24 7 52 hrs/day days/wk wks/year

Annual Operating Hours: 8160 % Max Capacity: 100.00 Start Time: 0

Spring %: Summer %: Fall %: Winter %: 25 25 25 25

Group Type: OTHER

Profile: OTHER

Control Efficiencies:

CIN: Name: SODBICRBFF SODBICRBFF

Abatement Code: 17 FABRIC FILTER-MEDIUM TEMPERATURE

# of Units: Annual Operating Hours: % time offline: IM Schedule: 1 00

CO: TSP: 00 0 0 PM10: VOC:

IOC: C1-C3: 00 0 0 SO2: NOX:

C4+: H2S: 00 0 NH3:

EMISSION POINT INFORMATION

EPN: Name: 51 SODIUM BICARB STRG VENT

UTM Zone: UTM East (m): UTM North (m): 14 702647.69 3668754.5

Latitude: Longitude: 330819 964939

Characteristic Value Unit

DIAMETER 3.28 FEETHEIGHT 70 FEETHORDSCHG NMOISTURETEMP 96 DEG FVELOCITY 0.01 FT/SEC

Contaminant

Code

Ozone Determination

(lb/day)

Annual

(ton/yr)

Upset

(ton/year)

Maintenance

(ton/year)

Cas # Contaminant Name EE/SMSS

10000 0 PART-U .7509 4.1143 .0000 .0000 S .000020000 0 PM10 PART-U .5256 2.8800 .0000 .0000 S .000039999 0 TOTAL PM2.5 PARTICULATE .2253 1.2343 .0000 .0000 S .0000

Profile: STACK
Account # - Report Year: RN100218643 - 2009 

FIN: SOXIDEHM EPN:17

FIN: SOXIDEHM SOUTH OXIDE HAMMERMILL Plant ID:

Comments:

SCC: 30400411 SEC. LEAD SCRAP PRETREATMNTSCRAP CRUSHING

Status: A Date: Operating Schedule: 24 7 52 hrs/day days/wk wks/year

Annual Operating Hours: 4900 % Max Capacity: 99.00 Start Time: 0

Spring %: Summer %: Fall %: Winter %: 25 25 25 25

Group Type: OTHER

Profile: OTHER

Control Efficiencies:

CIN: Name: BHSOXIDEHM BHSOXIDEHM

Abatement Code: 307 FILTERS-FABRIC(BAGHOUSE),REVERSE AIR FLOW

# of Units: Annual Operating Hours: % time offline: IM Schedule: 1 00

CO: TSP: 0 95 0 0 PM10: VOC:

IOC: C1-C3: 00 0 0 SO2: NOX:

C4+: H2S: 00 0 NH3:

EMISSION POINT INFORMATION

EPN: Name: 17 SOUTH MILL STACK

UTM Zone: UTM East (m): UTM North (m): 14 702345.63 3668316.8

Latitude: Longitude: 330805 964951

Characteristic Value Unit

DIAMETER 1 FEETHEIGHT 55 FEETHORDSCHG NMOISTURETEMP 113 DEG FVELOCITY 46 FT/SEC

Contaminant

Code

Ozone Determination

(lb/day)

Annual

(ton/yr)

Upset

(ton/year)

Maintenance

(ton/year)

Cas # Contaminant Name EE/SMSS

10000 0 PART-U .0151 .9072 .0000 .0000 O .000014310 7439921 LEAD-PB .0002 .0120 .0000 .0000 E .000020000 0 PM10 PART-U .0107 .6434 .0000 .0000 E .000039999 0 TOTAL PM2.5 PARTICULATE .0046 .2758 .0000 .0000 E .0000

Profile: STACK
Account # - Report Year: RN100218643 - 2009 

FIN: SUPPVENT EPN:37

FIN: SUPPVENT SUPPLEMENTAL VENTILATION SYSTEM Plant ID:

Comments:

SCC: 30400499 SEC. LEAD NOT CLASSIFIED SEE COMMENT

Status: A Date: Operating Schedule: 24 7 52 hrs/day days/wk wks/year

Annual Operating Hours: 8376 % Max Capacity: 99.00 Start Time: 0

Spring %: Summer %: Fall %: Winter %: 25 25 25 25

Group Type: OTHER

Profile: OTHER

Control Efficiencies:

CIN: Name: SUPVENTBH SUPVENTBH

Abatement Code: 300 FILTERS-FABRIC (BAGHOUSE)

# of Units: Annual Operating Hours: % time offline: IM Schedule: 1 00

CO: TSP: 0 95 0 0 PM10: VOC:

IOC: C1-C3: 00 0 0 SO2: NOX:

C4+: H2S: 00 0 NH3:
Account # - Report Year: RN100218643 - 2009 

EMISSION POINT INFORMATION

EPN: Name: 37 SUPPL. VENT BAGHSE. STACK

UTM Zone: UTM East (m): UTM North (m): 14 702156.56 3668682.5

Latitude: Longitude: 330817 964958

Characteristic Value Unit

DIAMETER 5.5 FEETHEIGHT 75 FEETHORDSCHG NMOISTURETEMP 100 DEG FVELOCITY 64 FT/SEC

Contaminant

Code

Ozone Determination

(lb/day)

Annual

(ton/yr)

Upset

(ton/year)

Maintenance

(ton/year)

Cas # Contaminant Name EE/SMSS

10000 0 PART-U 20.8587 119.5342 .0000 .0000 M .000014020 7440360 ANTIMONY-SB .0009 .0050 .0000 .0000 M .000014030 7440382 ARSENIC - AS .0009 .0049 .0000 .0000 M .000014110 7440439 CADMIUM-CD .0042 .0239 .0000 .0000 M .000014310 7439921 LEAD-PB .0419 .2400 .0000 .0000 M .000020000 0 PM10 PART-U 14.6011 83.6739 .0000 .0000 M .000024020 7440360 PM10 ANTIMONY-SB .0006 .0035 .0000 .0000 M .000024030 7440382 PM10 ARSENIC - AS .0006 .0034 .0000 .0000 M .000024110 7440439 PM10 CADMIUM-CD .0029 .0167 .0000 .0000 M .000024310 7439921 PM10 LEAD-PB .0293 .1680 .0000 .0000 M .000039999 0 TOTAL PM2.5 PARTICULATE 6.2719 35.9424 .0000 .0000 E .000050001 0 VOC-UNCLASSIFIED 22.1817 127.1158 .0000 .0000 M .000052420 71-43-2 BENZENE .0549 .3144 .0000 .0000 M .000052450 100414 ETHYL BENZENE .0289 .1656 .0000 .0000 M .000052480 100425 STYRENE .1215 .6960 .0000 .0000 M .000052490 108883 TOLUENE .2860 1.6392 .0000 .0000 M .000052512 108383 META-XYLENE .0563 .3228 .0000 .0000 M .000052514 95476 ORTHO-XYLENE .0376 .2153 .0000 .0000 M .000052516 106423 PARA-XYLENE .0563 .3228 .0000 .0000 M .000054065 78933 METHYL ETHYL KETONE .0289 .1656 .0000 .0000 M .000054070 108101 METHYL ISOBUTYL KETONE .0376 .2153 .0000 .0000 M .000055150 106990 1,3- BUTADIENE .1068 .6120 .0000 .0000 M .000056600 110543 HEXANE .0376 .2153 .0000 .0000 M .000070200 7647010 HYDROGEN CHLORIDE .4607 2.6400 .0000 .0000 M .000070400 0 NITROGEN OXIDES 1.0470 6.0000 .0000 .0000 M .000070510 7446095 SULFUR DIOXIDE 34.3416 196.8000 .0000 .0000 M .0000

Profile: STACK
Account # - Report Year: RN100218643 - 2009 

EMISSION POINT INFORMATION

Contaminant

Code

Ozone Determination

(lb/day)

Annual

(ton/yr)

Upset

(ton/year)

Maintenance

(ton/year)

Cas # Contaminant Name EE/SMSS

70516 SULFURIC ACID (VAPOR) 5.4863 31.4400 .0000 .0000 M .000090300 630080 CARBON MONOXIDE 14.2392 81.6000 .0000 .0000 M .0000
Account # - Report Year: RN100218643 - 2009 

FIN: TRAFFIC41 EPN:41

FIN: TRAFFIC41 FUGITIVES FROM WEST YARD Plant ID:

Comments:

SCC: 30400499 SEC. LEAD NOT CLASSIFIED SEE COMMENT

Status: A Date: Operating Schedule: 24 7 52 hrs/day days/wk wks/year

Annual Operating Hours: 8160 % Max Capacity: 99.00 Start Time: 0

Spring %: Summer %: Fall %: Winter %: 25 25 25 25

Group Type: OTHER

Profile: OTHER

EMISSION POINT INFORMATION

EPN: Name: 41 TRAFFIC WEST FUGITIVE

UTM Zone: UTM East (m): UTM North (m): 14 702596.44 3668722.5

Latitude: Longitude: 330818 964941

Characteristic Value Unit

DEGREES 0 DEGREESHEIGHT 3 FEETLENGTH 200 FEETOFNORTHWIDTH 20 FEET

Contaminant

Code

Ozone Determination

(lb/day)

Annual

(ton/yr)

Upset

(ton/year)

Maintenance

(ton/year)

Cas # Contaminant Name EE/SMSS

10000 0 PART-U .1072 .5873 .0000 .0000 A .000014310 7439921 LEAD-PB .1072 .5873 .0000 .0000 A .000020000 0 PM10 PART-U .0536 .2936 .0000 .0000 A .000024310 7439921 PM10 LEAD-PB .0536 .2936 .0000 .0000 A .000039999 0 TOTAL PM2.5 PARTICULATE .0643 .3524 .0000 .0000 E .0000

Profile: FUGITIVE
Account # - Report Year: RN100218643 - 2009 

FIN: TRAFFIC42 EPN:42

FIN: TRAFFIC42 TRAFFIC FUGITIVES FROM SOUTH DRIVEWAY Plant ID:

Comments:

SCC: 30400499 SEC. LEAD NOT CLASSIFIED SEE COMMENT

Status: A Date: Operating Schedule: 24 7 52 hrs/day days/wk wks/year

Annual Operating Hours: 8160 % Max Capacity: 99.00 Start Time: 0

Spring %: Summer %: Fall %: Winter %: 25 25 25 25

Group Type: OTHER

Profile: OTHER

EMISSION POINT INFORMATION

EPN: Name: 42 TRAFFIC SOUTH FUGITIVE

UTM Zone: UTM East (m): UTM North (m): 14 702168.63 3668097.3

Latitude: Longitude: 330758 964958

Characteristic Value Unit

DEGREES 0 DEGREESHEIGHT 3 FEETLENGTH 200 FEETOFNORTHWIDTH 20 FEET

Contaminant

Code

Ozone Determination

(lb/day)

Annual

(ton/yr)

Upset

(ton/year)

Maintenance

(ton/year)

Cas # Contaminant Name EE/SMSS

10000 0 PART-U .1072 .5873 .0000 .0000 A .000014310 7439921 LEAD-PB .1072 .5873 .0000 .0000 A .000020000 0 PM10 PART-U .0536 .2936 .0000 .0000 A .000024310 7439921 PM10 LEAD-PB .0536 .2936 .0000 .0000 A .000039999 0 TOTAL PM2.5 PARTICULATE .0643 .3524 .0000 .0000 E .0000

Profile: FUGITIVE
Account # - Report Year: RN100218643 - 2009 

FIN: TRAFFIC43 EPN:43

FIN: TRAFFIC43 TRAFFIC FUGITIVES FROM EAST DRIVEWAY Plant ID:

Comments:

SCC: 30400499 SEC. LEAD NOT CLASSIFIED SEE COMMENT

Status: A Date: Operating Schedule: 24 7 52 hrs/day days/wk wks/year

Annual Operating Hours: 8160 % Max Capacity: 99.00 Start Time: 0

Spring %: Summer %: Fall %: Winter %: 25 25 25 25

Group Type: OTHER

Profile: OTHER

EMISSION POINT INFORMATION

EPN: Name: 43 TRAFFIC EAST FUGITIVE

UTM Zone: UTM East (m): UTM North (m): 14 702751.31 3668756.5

Latitude: Longitude: 330819 964935

Characteristic Value Unit

DEGREES 0 DEGREESHEIGHT 3 FEETLENGTH 200 FEETOFNORTHWIDTH 20 FEET

Contaminant

Code

Ozone Determination

(lb/day)

Annual

(ton/yr)

Upset

(ton/year)

Maintenance

(ton/year)

Cas # Contaminant Name EE/SMSS

10000 0 PART-U .1072 .5873 .0000 .0000 A .000014310 7439921 LEAD-PB .1072 .5873 .0000 .0000 A .000020000 0 PM10 PART-U .0536 .2936 .0000 .0000 A .000024310 7439921 PM10 LEAD-PB .0536 .2936 .0000 .0000 A .000039999 0 TOTAL PM2.5 PARTICULATE .0643 .3524 .0000 .0000 E .0000

Profile: FUGITIVE
Account # - Report Year: RN100218643 - 2009 

FIN: TRUCKLOAD1 EPN:27

FIN: TRUCKLOAD1 WEST TRUCK LOADING FUGITIVES Plant ID:

Comments:

SCC: 30400499 SEC. LEAD NOT CLASSIFIED SEE COMMENT

Status: A Date: Operating Schedule: 24 7 52 hrs/day days/wk wks/year

Annual Operating Hours: 1560 % Max Capacity: 99.00 Start Time: 0

Spring %: Summer %: Fall %: Winter %: 25 25 25 25

Group Type: LOADING

Profile: TANK TRUCK

EMISSION POINT INFORMATION

EPN: Name: 27 LOADING FUGITIVES

UTM Zone: UTM East (m): UTM North (m): 14 702738 3668774

Latitude: Longitude: 330819.56 964935.5

Characteristic Value Unit

DEGREES 0 DEGREESHEIGHT 15 FEETLENGTH 3 FEETOFNORTH EWIDTH 3 FEET

Contaminant

Code

Ozone Determination

(lb/day)

Annual

(ton/yr)

Upset

(ton/year)

Maintenance

(ton/year)

Cas # Contaminant Name EE/SMSS

14315 1317368 LEAD OXIDE .0001 .0013 .0000 .0000 A .000020000 0 PM10 PART-U .0000 .0006 .0000 .0000 A .000039999 0 TOTAL PM2.5 PARTICULATE .0000 .0002 .0000 .0000 A .0000

Profile: FUGITIVE
Account # - Report Year: RN100218643 - 2009 

FIN: TRUCKLOAD2 EPN:28

FIN: TRUCKLOAD2 EAST TRUCK LOADING FUGITIVES Plant ID:

Comments:

SCC: 30400499 SEC. LEAD NOT CLASSIFIED SEE COMMENT

Status: A Date: Operating Schedule: 24 7 52 hrs/day days/wk wks/year

Annual Operating Hours: 1560 % Max Capacity: 99.00 Start Time: 0

Spring %: Summer %: Fall %: Winter %: 25 25 25 25

Group Type: LOADING

Profile: TANK TRUCK

EMISSION POINT INFORMATION

EPN: Name: 28 LOADING STACK

UTM Zone: UTM East (m): UTM North (m): 14 702776.81 3668779

Latitude: Longitude: 330819.72 964934

Characteristic Value Unit

LENGTH 3 FEETOFNORTH EWIDTH 3 FEETDEGREES 0 DEGREESHEIGHT 15 FEET

Contaminant

Code

Ozone Determination

(lb/day)

Annual

(ton/yr)

Upset

(ton/year)

Maintenance

(ton/year)

Cas # Contaminant Name EE/SMSS

14315 1317368 LEAD OXIDE .0002 .0052 .0000 .0000 A .000020000 0 PM10 PART-U .0001 .0024 .0000 .0000 A .000039999 0 TOTAL PM2.5 PARTICULATE .0000 .0008 .0000 .0000 A .0000

Profile: FUGITIVE