1 

MEMORANDUM 

To: Nathan Topham, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, OAQPS 

From: Donna Lazzari and Mike Burr ERG 

Date: December 16, 2011 

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

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

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

Smelting source category (40 CFR 63, Subpart X) on the small entities in the source category 

that were 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).1 The 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 16 facilities (15 already 

existing and one under construction) owned by eight 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), Gopher Resources, LLC 

(two facilities), The Battery Recycling Company (one facility), and Johnson Controls, Inc. (one 

facility under construction). 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. A list 

of the secondary lead smelters currently in operation or under construction in the United States 

and Puerto Rico is presented in Table 1-1 below. 

 

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 

Table 1-1. Secondary Lead Smelters in the U.S. and Puerto Rico 

FACILITY NAME PARENT COMPANY CITY STATE 

Facility 

Abbreviation 

East Penn 

Manufacturing Co., Inc. 

East Penn Manufacturing 

Co., Inc. 

Lyon Station Pennsylvania East Penn 

EnviroFocus 

Technologies, LLC Gopher Resources, LLC Tampa Florida EnviroFocus 

Gopher Resources, LLC Gopher Resources, LLC Eagan Minnesota Gopher Eagan

Quemetco, Inc., City of 

Industry, Ca 

Eco-Bat Technologies, LTD 

(Quemetco West, LLC) 

City of 

Industry 

California Quemetco CA 

Quemetco, Inc., 

Indianapolis, In 

Eco-Bat Technologies, LTD 

(Eco-Bat Indiana, LLC) Indianapolis Indiana Quemetco IN 

Revere Smelting and 

Refining Corporation 

(RSR) 

Eco-Bat Technologies, LTD 

(Eco-Bat New York, LLC) Middletown New York RSR 

Sanders Lead Company Sanders Lead Company Troy Alabama Sanders Lead

Exide Technologies, 

Baton Rouge, La Exide Technologies, Inc. Baton Rouge Louisiana 

Exide Baton 

Rouge 

Exide Technologies, 

Cannon Hollow 

Recycling Facility 

Exide Technologies, Inc. Forest City Missouri Exide Forest City 

Exide Technologies, 

Frisco, Tx 

Exide Technologies, Inc. Frisco Texas Exide Frisco 

Exide Technologies, 

Muncie, In 

Exide Technologies, Inc. Muncie Indiana Exide Muncie 

Exide Technologies –

Reading Recycling 

Exide Technologies, Inc. Reading Pennsylvania Exide Reading 

Exide Technologies, 

Vernon, Ca 

Exide Technologies, Inc. Vernon California Exide Vernon 

Buick Resource 

Recycling Facility, LLC 

The Doe Run Resources 

Corporation 

Boss Missouri Buick RRF 

The Battery Recycling 

Company 

The Battery Recycling 

Company 

Arecibo Puerto Rico TBR 

Johnson Controls 

Battery Group, Inc. 

Johnson Controls 

International Florence South Carolina JCI 

2.0 IDENTIFICATION OF SMALL ENTITIES 

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

significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities (SISNOSE) 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 

 

2

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

employees at each facility, we identified two companies in the Secondary Lead Smelting source 

category as small entities. 

Gopher Resource, LLC, which owns the Gopher Eagan and the EnviroFocus facilities in 

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. The Battery Recycling Company in Arecibo, Puerto Rico was 

also identified as a small business that employs 140 people. 

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

that two small entities constitute 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, LLC and The 

Battery Recycling Company. 

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 and The Battery Recycling facilities may be required to implement and the potential 

economic impact of those improvements on the companies. The results of this analysis are 

presented in the following sections. 

3.1 Stack Emissions

Based on the information obtained on the source category in the ICR and a risk analysis, 

the EPA evaluated a number of control scenarios 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 selected for stack 

emissions of metal HAP is typically achieved using efficient particulate collection devices. 

Measures to achieve the emissions limit may include upgrading existing control devices (e.g., 

fabric filters) or installing newer, more efficient control devices. Additional controls that could 

be used to achieve compliance with the emissions limits for D/F and organic HAP include 

increasing the temperature at which afterburners are operated and for facilities that operate blast 
4 

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 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. Based on emissions data received in the ICR, we believe that the 

EnviroFocus facility 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 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 facility will ensure that they are within compliance with the 

revisions to the stack emissions limits for metal HAP, organic HAP, and D/F that are required for 

the revised NESHAP for this source category. Therefore, further controls for stack emissions 

beyond what is included in the aforementioned permit for the EnviroFocus facility are not 

expected to be required at either of the facilities owned by Gopher Resources, LLC. 

The Battery Recycling Company’s facility in Arecibo, Puerto Rico currently has one 

stack through which all emissions are directed. Stack test data submitted by the facility indicates 

that the facility’s lead emissions are below the newly promulgated lead emission standard, and 

thus no additional control will be required. The facility operates rotary furnaces that process lead 

scrap materials. The revised NESHAP does not include a limit for D/F and THC for rotary 

furnaces. No cost impact to the facility is anticipated as a result of these organic emissions. 
5 

3.2 Fugitive Emissions

Similar to stack emissions, EPA considered a number of control scenarios to reduce the 

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

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

industry. Specific fugitive controls required by the final rule include complete enclosure of all 

lead-bearing processes and operating the enclosure under negative pressure with ventilation to a 

control device, 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 processes 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 

$250,000 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 $52,000. 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 $250,000 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 $52,000. 

We do anticipate that TBR will incur an estimated annualized cost of $412,000 for 

construction and operation of enclosures and the associated control device. The facility may also 

be required to implement additional fugitive control work practices beyond what was described 

in their limited 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 $250,000 associated with the performance of these additional work practices. 
6 

We estimate the annualized cost for additional testing, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting 

considering the first three years after the proposed revisions are implemented is $38,000. 

A description of the methodology used to derive 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 $604,000. 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. The total cost impact for The Battery Recycling 

Company is anticipated to be $690,000. Based on information received from the company on the 

annual revenue, this cost impact is between one and three percent of the company’s annual 

revenue. 

A matrix was developed for this analysis of the secondary lead smelting source category 

based on guidelines in the Final Guidance for EPA Rulewriters noted above to determine if 

changes to the NESHAP will result in a significant economic impact on small businesses. 

Because the number of entities in the source category is small, a matrix was developed that 

considered an impact to a significant number of small entities based on a discrete number of 

facilities and the production capacity of the small businesses rather than a percentage of small 

entities. The matrix is included as Table 4-1 below. 

Table 4-1: Secondary Lead Smelting Source Category SISNOSE Certification Decision 

Process 

Economic Impact 

Number of Small 

Entities Subject to the 

Rule and Experiencing 

Given Economic Impact 

Percent of Small 

Business Capacity of 

Entities Subject to 

the Rule that are 

Experiencing Given 

Economic Impact 

Certification Category 

Less than 1% of Total 

Revenue 

Any Number Any Percent Presumed No SISNOSE 

Between 1% and 3% 

of Total Revenue 

One or Less 

Impacted facilities 

have less than 20% of 

the capacity of all 

small businesses 

Presumed No SISNOSE 

2 or More 

Impacted facilities 

have more than 20% 

Uncertain – No 

Presumption, Proceed with 

 

3 ERG. Cost Impacts of the Revised NESHAP for the Secondary Lead Smelting Source Category, December 16, 

2011. 
7 

of the capacity of all 

small businesses 

Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis 

3% or Greater of 

Total Revenue 

One or more Any Capacity 

Uncertain – No 

Presumption, Proceed with 

Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis 

 

An evaluation of the two small entities (three facilities) as compared to the matrix in 

Table 4-1 is presented in Table 4-2 below. 

Table 4-2: Small Entity Impact Summary 

Facility 

Total Annual 

Economic Impact 

Impact Range

<1%, 1-3%, >3% 

of Annual 

Revenue 

Percent of Total 

Small Business 

Capacity 

SISNOSE 

Determination 

Gopher Eagan $317,000

<1% >20% Presumed no 

EnviroFocus $317,000 impact 

TBR $716,000 1-3% <20% Presumed no 

impact 

Based upon the SISNOSE decision matrix established for this industry and the impacts 

presented in Table 4-2 above, we conclude that the revisions to the Secondary Lead NESHAP 

are not anticipated to have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.