1 

MEMORANDUM 

To: Chuck French, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, OAQPS 

From: Donna Lazzari, Mike Burr, and Danny Greene, ERG 

Date: April 2011 

Subject: Draft Small Business Evaluation for the Secondary Lead Smelting Source 

Category 

This memorandum describes the expected economic impact of the proposed revisions to 

the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for the Secondary 

Lead Smelting source category (40 CFR 63, Subpart X) on a small entity in the source category 

that was identified based on a screening level analysis as recommended in the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 

(RFA/SBREFA).1The organization of this memo is as follows: 

1.0 Background on the Source Category 

2.0 Identification of Small Entities 

3.0 Estimated Cost Impact of Proposed Revisions 

4.0 Conclusion and Decisions 

1.0 BACKGROUND ON THE SOURCE CATEGORY 

The Secondary Lead Smelting source category consists of 14 facilities owned by six legal 

entities. These legal entities include: Exide Technologies Corporation (six facilities), Revere 

Smelting and Refining Corporation (three facilities), Doe Run Resources Corporation (one 

facility), East Penn Manufacturing Company, Inc. (one facility), Sanders Lead Company (one 

facility), and Gopher Resources, LLC (two facilities). A section 114 information collection 

request (ICR) was sent to the industry in June of 2010 requesting available information on 

process equipment, control devices, stack and fugitive emissions, and other aspects of the 

operations. Information obtained in the surveys was used to perform a risk and technology 

review (RTR) for the source category. Based on the preliminary assessment of the information 

submitted in the ICR, we expect revisions to existing NESHAP for this source category. 

 

1

Final Guidance for EPA Rulewriters: Regulatory Flexibility Act as amended by the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act, November 2006. http://www.epa.gov/sbrefa/documents/rfaguidance11-00-06.pdf 
2 

2.0 IDENTIFICATION OF SMALL ENTITIES 

EPA is required by RFA/SBREFA to determine whether a proposed rule will have a 

significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the corresponding 

source category. The Small Business Administration’s (SBA) threshold for qualification as a 

small entity for North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 331419, which 

applies to the Secondary Smelting and Refining of Nonferrous Metal (except copper and 

aluminum) source category, is a maximum of 750 employees.

2

 Using this threshold, we 

examined information submitted by the industry in the ICR to determine whether any small 

parent entities exist in this source category. Based on survey responses regarding the number of 

employees at each facility, we identified one company in the Secondary Lead Smelting source 

category as a small entity. 

Gopher Resource, LLC, which owns the Gopher Resource facility in Eagan, MN (hereby 

referred to as Gopher Eagan) and the EnviroFocus Technologies facility in Tampa, FL (hereby 

referred to as EnviroFocus), claimed a combined total of 315 employees for all of their 

operations, potentially qualifying them as a small entity. We contacted Gopher Resources and 

confirmed that they employ a total of 359 employees across their entire operation and are 

therefore considered a small entity according to the SBA guidelines. No additional small entities 

were identified in this source category. 

Because there are only six legal parent entities in this source category, we determined 

that one small entity constitutes a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, as required by 

RFA/SBREFA, we analyzed whether the revisions under consideration for proposal in the 

Secondary Lead Smelting NESHAP will significantly impact Gopher Resources. 

3.0 ESTIMATED COST IMPACT OF PROPOSED REVISIONS 

According to SBREFA guidance, we used one to three percent of annualized the cost to 

revenue ratio as a threshold for what constitutes a significant economic impact. Our estimated 

costs and revenue information are both for 2009. Based on revisions to the NESHAP under 

consideration for this source category, we believe that certain facilities will need to make 

improvements in controls of two major sources: stack and fugitive emissions. We analyzed 

potential improvements in control of both stack and fugitive emissions sources that the Gopher 

Resources facilities may be required to implement and the potential economic impact of those 

improvements on the company. The results of this analysis are presented in the following 

sections. 

 

2

http://www.sba.gov/content/table-small-business-size-standards
3 

3.1 Stack Emissions

Based on the information obtained on the source category in the ICR and a preliminary 

risk analysis, EPA has evaluated a number of control scenarios that may be proposed to reduce 

the health risks associated with stack emissions from the Secondary Lead Smelting source 

category. These control scenarios potentially reduce stack emissions of the following pollutants: 

metal hazardous air pollutants (HAP), organic HAP, and dioxins and furans (D/F). The control 

option under consideration for stack emissions of metal HAP is more efficient particulate 

collection devices. This may include upgrading existing control devices (e.g., fabric filters) or 

installing newer, more efficient control devices. Additional controls being considered for D/F 

and organic HAP emissions include increasing the temperature at which afterburners are 

operated and requiring facilities that operate blast and reverberatory furnaces to combine the 

hotter reverberatory furnace stream with the cooler blast furnace stream prior to entry into a 

control device. 

Based on the information submitted in the ICR, the Gopher Eagan, MN facility is among 

the best five facilities in terms of stack emissions of metal HAP. Therefore, we do not anticipate 

that this facility will be required to further control stack emissions of metal HAP. While the 

stack emissions at Gopher Eagan were not tested for organic HAP and D/F, an analysis of ICR 

emissions data for similar furnace and afterburner configurations at other facilities indicates that 

Gopher Eagan will likely not be required to implement additional controls for stack emissions of 

organic HAP and D/F. However, based on emissions data received in the ICR, we believe that 

the EnviroFocus Technologies facility in Tampa may be required to implement additional 

controls for stack emissions of metal HAP, organic HAP, and D/F. Such controls may include 

upgrading their existing fabric filters and/or installing new fabric filters for control of metal HAP 

emissions and increasing the capacity of their afterburner to achieve higher destruction efficiency 

of organic HAP and D/F. 

After further investigation, we discovered that Gopher Resources had submitted a facility 

upgrade and production increase permit for the EnviroFocus Technologies facility that had 

recently been approved by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Several large 

projects were authorized in this permit, including: installation of a new reverberatory furnace; 

installation of new baghouses with additional airflow capacity to control particulate matter (PM) 

and metal HAP from the dryer, furnaces, and refining kettles; complete enclosure of all processes 

under negative pressure; and a capacity increase to the particulate collection device for the 

existing enclosures to accommodate the new expected enclosure ventilation. These projects are 

expected to be completed within the next two years. 

We believe that the new control devices and enclosures being installed by Gopher 

Resources at the EnviroFocus Technologies facility will ensure that they are within compliance 
4 

with any of the anticipated revisions to the stack emissions limits for metal HAP, organic HAP, 

and D/F that under consideration for proposal in the revised NESHAP for this source category. 

Therefore, further controls for stack emissions beyond what is included in the aforementioned 

permit for the EnviroFocus Technologies facility are not expected to be required at either of the 

facilities owned by Gopher Resources, LLC. 

3.2 Fugitive Emissions

Similar to stack emissions, EPA is considering a number of control scenarios to reduce 

the emissions associated with fugitive sources in this source category. These control scenarios 

are focused on reducing fugitive emissions of metal HAP, which are of significant concern for 

this industry. Specific fugitive controls being considered by EPA include requiring complete 

enclosure of all lead-bearing processes and operating the enclosure under negative pressure with 

ventilation to a control device, ambient monitoring of lead concentrations at or near the fenceline of facilities, and requiring additional work practices designed to limit the formation of 

fugitive dust. 

Based on fugitive control information submitted by the Gopher Eagan facility in the ICR, 

this facility currently contains all lead-bearing processes in total enclosures under negative 

pressure that are vented to a control device. Therefore, additional capital costs associated with 

construction of enclosures for their process are not expected. This facility may be required to 

implement additional fugitive control work practices beyond what was described in their ICR 

response. We do not anticipate that the facility will incur capital costs associated with the 

implementation of these additional work practices. However, we estimated an annualized cost of 

$300,000 for performance of the additional work practices. We estimate the annualized cost for 

additional testing, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting considering the first three years after 

the proposed revisions are implemented is $73,000. Additionally, we estimated that ambient 

lead monitoring, if required, would result in an annualized cost of approximately $21,000. 

Based on the projects listed in the previously discussed permit for the EnviroFocus 

facility, we do not anticipate requiring construction of additional enclosures for fugitive dust 

control. We believe that completion of the projects mentioned in their permit application will 

result in the EnviroFocus facility having their entire process under a total enclosure with negative 

pressure that is vented to a control device. However, the EnviroFocus facility may be required to 

implement additional fugitive control work practices beyond what was described in their ICR 

response. We do not anticipate that the facility will incur significant capital costs associated with 

these additional work practice practices. We do, however, estimate an annualized cost of 

$300,000 associated with the performance of these additional work practices. We estimate the 

annualized cost for additional testing, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting considering the 

first three years after the proposed revisions are implemented is $73,000. If the ambient 
5 

monitoring option was selected, the additional costs would be approximately $21,000. A 

description of the cost basis for these estimates is included in the cost impacts memorandum for 

this source category.

3

4.0 CONCLUSION AND DECISIONS 

Based on the analyses presented in this memorandum, we estimate the total maximum 

annualized cost to Gopher Resources, LLC, resulting from additional requirements associated 

with proposed revisions under consideration for the Secondary Lead Smelting NESHAP, will be 

no more than $790,000. We compared this amount with the annual revenue for Gopher 

Resources (obtained through discussion with the company) and concluded that it represents less 

than one percent of their annual revenue. Consequently, the proposed revisions under 

consideration for Secondary Lead Smelting NESHAP are not anticipated to have a significant 

impact on a substantial number of small entities. 

 

3 ERG. Draft Cost Impacts of the Revised NESHAP for the Secondary Lead Smelting Source Category, April 2011.