Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Secondary Lead Smelting
Posted Date: 2011-05-19T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 97 (Thursday, May 19, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 29032-29081]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-11220]

[[Page 29031]]

Vol. 76

Thursday,

No. 97

May 19, 2011

Part II

Environmental Protection Agency

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

40 CFR Part 63

National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Secondary 
Lead Smelting; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 76 , No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2011 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 29032]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344; FRL-9303-4]
RIN 2060-AQ68

National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: 
Secondary Lead Smelting

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing amendments to the national emissions 
standards for hazardous air pollutants for Secondary Lead Smelting to 
address the results of the residual risk and technology review that EPA 
is required to conduct by the Clean Air Act. These proposed amendments 
include revisions to the stack emissions limits for lead; revisions to 
the fugitive dust emissions control requirements; the addition of total 
hydrocarbons emissions limits for reverberatory, electric, and rotary 
furnaces; the addition of emissions limits and work practice 
requirements for dioxins and furans; and the modification and addition 
of testing and monitoring and related notification, recordkeeping, and 
reporting requirements. We are also proposing to revise provisions 
addressing periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction to ensure that 
the rules are consistent with a recent court decision.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 5, 2011. Under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on the information collection 
provisions are best assured of having full effect if the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) receives a copy of your comments on or 
before June 20, 2011.
    Public Hearing. If anyone contacts EPA requesting to speak at a 
public hearing by May 31, 2011, a public hearing will be held on June 
3, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2011-0344, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line 
instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov, Attention Docket ID Number 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344.
     Fax: (202) 566-9744, Attention Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2011-0344.
     Mail: U.S. Postal Service, send comments to: EPA Docket 
Center, EPA West (Air Docket), Attention Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-
2011-0344, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. Please include a total of 
two copies. In addition, please mail a copy of your comments on the 
information collection provisions to the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attn: Desk 
Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 
West (Air Docket), Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, 
DC 20004, Attention Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344. Such 
deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of 
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of 
boxed information.
    Instructions. Direct your comments to Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-
2011-0344. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included 
in the public docket without change and may be made available on-line 
at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information 
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be 
confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you 
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site 
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your 
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of 
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without 
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be 
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is 
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you 
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name 
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any 
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to 
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA 
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid 
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of 
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public 
docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket. EPA has established a docket for this rulemaking under 
Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344. All documents in the docket are 
listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the 
index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., 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. Publicly available 
docket materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, 
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public 
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public 
Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the EPA 
Docket Center is (202) 566-1742.
    Public Hearing. If a public hearing is held, it will begin at 10 
a.m. on June 3, 2011 and will be held at EPA's campus in Research 
Triangle Park, North Carolina, or at an alternate facility nearby. 
Persons interested in presenting oral testimony or inquiring as to 
whether a public hearing is to be held should contact Ms. Virginia 
Hunt, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and 
Programs Division, (D243-02), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 
541-0832.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this proposed 
action, contact Mr. Chuck French, Sector Policies and Programs Division 
(D243-02), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 
27711, telephone (919) 541-7912; fax number: (919) 541-5450; and e-mail 
address: french.chuck@epa.gov. For specific information regarding the 
risk modeling methodology, contact Ms. Elaine Manning, Health and 
Environmental Impacts Division (C539-02), Office of Air Quality 
Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research 
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-5499; 
fax number: (919) 541-0840; and e-mail address: manning.elaine@epa.gov. 
For information about the applicability of the NESHAP to a particular 
entity, contact the appropriate person listed in Table 1 of this 
preamble.

[[Page 29033]]

 Table 1--List of EPA Contacts for the NESHAP Addressed in This Proposed
                                 Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           NESHAP for:             OECA Contact \1\    OAQPS Contact \2\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Secondary Lead Smelting.........  Maria Malave,       Chuck French,
                                   (202) 564-7027      (919) 541-7912,
                                  malave.maria@epa.g  french.chuck@epa.gov.                 ov
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ EPA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance.
\2\ EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Preamble Acronyms and Abbreviations

    Several acronyms and terms used to describe industrial processes, 
data inventories, and risk modeling are included in this preamble. 
While this may not be an exhaustive list, to ease the reading of this 
preamble and for reference purposes, the following terms and acronyms 
are defined here:

ADAF age-dependent adjustment factors
AEGL acute exposure guideline levels
AERMOD air dispersion model used by the HEM-3 model
ANPRM advance notice of proposed rulemaking
ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
BACT best available control technology
BLDS bag leak detection system
CAA Clean Air Act
CBI Confidential Business Information
CEMS continuous emissions monitoring system
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CTE central tendency exposure
D/F dioxins and furans
EJ environmental justice
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ERPG Emergency Response Planning Guidelines
ERT Electronic Reporting Tool
HAP hazardous air pollutants
HEM-3 Human Exposure Model, Version 3
HEPA high efficiency particulate air
HHRAP Human Health Risk Assessment Protocols
HI Hazard Index
HON hazardous organic national emissions standards for hazardous air 
pollutants
HQ Hazard Quotient
ICR information collection request
IRIS Integrated Risk Information System
Km kilometer
LAER lowest achievable emissions rate
lb/yr pounds per year
MACT maximum achievable control technology
MACT Code Code within the NEI used to identify processes included in 
a source category
MDL method detection level
mg/acm milligrams per actual cubic meter
mg/dscm milligrams per dry standard cubic meter
mg/m\3\ milligrams per cubic meter
MIR maximum individual risk
MRL minimum risk level
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standard
NAC/AEGL Committee National Advisory Committee for Acute Exposure 
Guideline Levels for Hazardous Substances
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NAS National Academy of Sciences
NATA National Air Toxics Assessment
NEI National Emissions Inventory
NESHAP National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
NOAEL no observed adverse effects level
NRC National Research Council
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
O&M operation and maintenance
OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
ODW Office of Drinking Water
OECA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
OHEA Office of Health and Environmental Assessment
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PB-HAP hazardous air pollutants known to be persistent and bio-
accumulative in the environment
PM particulate matter
POM polycyclic organic matter
ppmv parts per million volume
RACT reasonably available control technology
RBLC RACT/BACT/LAERClearinghouse
REL reference exposure level
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RfC reference concentration
RfD reference dose
RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis
RME reasonable maximum exposure
RTR residual risk and technology review
SAB Science Advisory Board
SBA Small Business Administration
SCC Source Classification Codes
SF3 2000 Census of Population and Housing Summary
SIP State Implementation Plan
SOP standard operating procedures
SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction
TEF toxic equivalency factors
TEQ toxic equivalency quotient
THC total hydrocarbons
TOSHI target organ-specific hazard index
TPY tons per year
TRIM Total Risk Integrated Modeling System
TTN Technology Transfer Network
UF uncertainty factor
[mu]/m\3\ microgram per cubic meter
UL upper limit
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
UPL upper predictive limit
URE unit risk estimate
VOC volatile organic compounds
VOHAP volatile organic hazardous air pollutants
WESP wet electrostatic precipitator
WHO World Health Organization
WWW worldwide Web

    Organization of this Document. The information in this preamble is 
organized as follows:

I. General Information
    A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
    B. Does this action apply to me?
    C. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related 
information?
    D. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
II. Background
    A. Overview of the Source Category and MACT Standards
    B. What data collection activities were conducted to support 
this action?
III. Analyses Performed
    A. Addressing Unregulated Emissions Sources
    B. How did we estimate risks posed by the source category?
    C. How did we consider the risk results in making decisions for 
this proposal?
    D. How did we perform the technology review?
    E. What other issues are we addressing in this proposal?
IV. Analyses Results and Proposed Decisions
    A. What are the results of our analyses and proposed decisions 
regarding unregulated emissions sources?
    B. What are the results of the risk assessments and analyses?
    C. What are our proposed decisions based on risk acceptability 
and ample margin of safety?
    D. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our 
technology review?
    E. What other actions are we proposing?
    F. What is the relationship of the Secondary Lead Smelting 
standards proposed in today's action and implementation of the lead 
NAAQS?
    G. Compliance Dates
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts
    A. What are the affected sources?
    B. What are the air quality impacts?
    C. What are the cost impacts?
    D. What are the economic impacts?
    E. What are the benefits?
VI. Request for Comments
VII. Submitting Data Corrections
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 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

[[Page 29034]]

    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

I. General Information

A. What is the statutory authority for this action?

    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 EPA has identified categories of 
sources emitting one or more of the HAP listed in CAA section 112(b), 
CAA section 112(d) calls for us to promulgate NESHAP for those sources. 
``Major sources'' are those that emit or have the potential to emit 10 
tons per year (tpy) or more of a single HAP or 25 tpy or more of any 
combination of HAP. For major sources, these technology-based standards 
must reflect the maximum degree of emissions 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.
    MACT standards must require the maximum degree of emissions 
reduction through the application of measures, processes, methods, 
systems, or techniques, including, but not limited to, measures that 
(A) reduce the volume of or eliminate pollutants through process 
changes, substitution of materials or other modifications; (B) enclose 
systems or processes to eliminate emissions; (C) capture or treat 
pollutants when released from a process, stack, storage, or fugitive 
emissions point; (D) are design, equipment, work practice, or 
operational standards (including requirements for operator training or 
certification); or (E) are a combination of the above (CAA section 
112(d)(2)(A)-(E)). The MACT standards may take the form of design, 
equipment, work practice, or operational standards where EPA first 
determines either that, (A) a pollutant cannot be emitted through a 
conveyance designed and constructed to emit or capture the pollutants, 
or that any requirement for, or use of, such a conveyance would be 
inconsistent with law; or (B) the application of measurement 
methodology to a particular class of sources is not practicable due to 
technological and economic limitations (CAA sections 112(h)(1)-(2)).
    The MACT ``floor'' is the minimum control level allowed for MACT 
standards promulgated under CAA section 112(d)(3) and may not be based 
on cost considerations. For new sources, the MACT floor cannot be less 
stringent than the emissions control that is achieved in practice by 
the best-controlled similar source. The MACT floors for existing 
sources can be less stringent than floors for new sources, but they 
cannot be less stringent than the average emissions limitation achieved 
by the best-performing 12 percent of existing sources in the category 
or subcategory (or the best-performing five sources for categories or 
subcategories with fewer than 30 sources). In developing MACT 
standards, we must also consider control options that are more 
stringent than the floor. We may establish standards more stringent 
than the floor based on considerations of the cost of achieving the 
emissions reductions, any non-air quality health and environmental 
impacts, and energy requirements.
    EPA is then required to review these technology-based standards and 
revise them ``as necessary (taking into account developments in 
practices, processes, and control technologies)'' no less frequently 
than every 8 years, under CAA section 112(d)(6). In conducting this 
review, 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 (DC Cir., 2008).
    The second stage in standard-setting focuses on reducing any 
remaining ``residual'' risk according to CAA section 112(f). This 
provision requires, first, that EPA prepare a Report to Congress 
discussing (among other things) methods of calculating the risks posed 
(or potentially posed) by sources after implementation of the MACT 
standards, the public health significance of those risks, and EPA's 
recommendations as to legislation regarding such remaining risk. EPA 
prepared and submitted this report (Residual Risk Report to Congress, 
EPA-453/R-99-001) in March 1999. Congress did not act in response to 
the report, thereby triggering EPA's obligation under CAA section 
112(f)(2) to analyze and address residual risk.
    Section 112(f)(2) of the CAA requires us to determine, for source 
categories subject to certain MACT standards, whether those emissions 
standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health. 
If the MACT standards that apply to a source category emitting a HAP 
that is ``classified as a known, probable, or possible human carcinogen 
do not reduce lifetime excess cancer risks to the individual most 
exposed to emissions from a source in the category or subcategory to 
less than one-in-one million,'' EPA must promulgate residual risk 
standards for the source category (or subcategory) as necessary to 
provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health (CAA section 
112(f)(2)(A)). This requirement is procedural. It mandates that EPA 
establish CAA section 112(f) residual risk standards if certain risk 
thresholds are not satisfied, but does not determine the level of those 
standards. NRDC v. EPA, 529 F. 3d at 1083. The second sentence of CAA 
section 112(f)(2) sets out the substantive requirements for residual 
risk standards: protection of public health with an ample margin of 
safety based on EPA's interpretation of this standard in effect at the 
time of the Clean Air Act amendments. Id. This refers to the Benzene 
NESHAP, described in the next paragraph. EPA may adopt residual risk 
standards equal to existing MACT standards if EPA determines that the 
existing standards are sufficiently protective, even if (for example) 
excess cancer risks to a most exposed individual are not reduced to 
less than one-in-one million. Id. at 1083, (``If EPA determines that 
the existing technology-based standards provide an `ample margin of 
safety,' then the Agency is free to readopt those standards during the 
residual risk rulemaking''). Section 112(f)(2) of the CAA further 
authorizes EPA to adopt more stringent standards, if necessary ``to 
prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety, and other 
relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ``Adverse environmental effect'' is defined in CAA section 
112(a)(7) as any significant and widespread adverse effect, which 
may be reasonably anticipated to wildlife, aquatic life, or natural 
resources, including adverse impacts on populations of endangered or 
threatened species or significant degradation of environmental 
qualities over broad areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As just noted, CAA section 112(f)(2) expressly preserves our use of 
the two-step process for developing standards to address any residual 
risk and our interpretation of ``ample margin of safety'' developed in 
the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Benzene 
Emissions From Maleic Anhydride Plants, Ethylbenzene/Styrene Plants, 
Benzene Storage Vessels,

[[Page 29035]]

Benzene Equipment Leaks, and Coke By-Product Recovery Plants (Benzene 
NESHAP) (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989). The first step in this 
process is the determination of acceptable risk. The second step 
provides for an ample margin of safety to protect public health, which 
is the level at which the standards are set (unless a more stringent 
standard is necessary to prevent, taking into consideration costs, 
energy, safety, and other relevant factors, an adverse environmental 
effect).
    The terms ``individual most exposed,'' ``acceptable level,'' and 
``ample margin of safety'' are not specifically defined in the CAA. 
However, CAA section 112(f)(2)(B) preserves EPA's interpretation set 
out in the Benzene NESHAP, and the court in NRDC v. EPA concluded that 
EPA's interpretation of CAA section 112(f)(2) is a reasonable one. See 
NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d at 1083 (DC Cir. 2008), which says ``[S]ubsection 
112(f)(2)(B) expressly incorporates EPA's interpretation of the Clean 
Air Act from the Benzene standard, complete with a citation to the 
Federal Register.'' See also, A Legislative History of the Clean Air 
Act Amendments of 1990, volume 1, p. 877 (Senate debate on Conference 
Report). We also notified Congress in the Residual Risk Report to 
Congress that we intended to use the Benzene NESHAP approach in making 
CAA section 112(f) residual risk determinations (EPA-453/R-99-001, p. 
ES-11).
    In the Benzene NESHAP, we stated as an overall objective:

    * * * in protecting public health with an ample margin of 
safety, we strive to provide maximum feasible protection against 
risks to health from hazardous air pollutants by (1) protecting the 
greatest number of persons possible to an individual lifetime risk 
level no higher than approximately 1-in-1 million; and (2) limiting 
to no higher than approximately 1-in-10 thousand [i.e., 100-in-1 
million] the estimated risk that a person living near a facility 
would have if he or she were exposed to the maximum pollutant 
concentrations for 70 years.

    The Agency also stated that, ``The EPA also considers incidence 
(the number of persons estimated to suffer cancer or other serious 
health effects as a result of exposure to a pollutant) to be an 
important measure of the health risk to the exposed population. 
Incidence measures the extent of health risks to the exposed population 
as a whole, by providing an estimate of the occurrence of cancer or 
other serious health effects in the exposed population.'' The Agency 
went on to conclude that ``estimated incidence would be weighed along 
with other health risk information in judging acceptability.'' As 
explained more fully in our Residual Risk Report to Congress, EPA does 
not define ``rigid line[s] of acceptability,'' but rather considers 
broad objectives to be weighed with a series of other health measures 
and factors (EPA-453/R-99-001, p. ES-11). The determination of what 
represents an ``acceptable'' risk is based on a judgment of ``what 
risks are acceptable in the world in which we live'' (Residual Risk 
Report to Congress, p. 178, quoting the DC Circuit's en banc Vinyl 
Chloride decision at 824 F.2d 1165) recognizing that our world is not 
risk-free.
    In the Benzene NESHAP, we stated that ``EPA will generally presume 
that if the risk to [the maximum exposed] individual is no higher than 
approximately 1-in-10 thousand, that risk level is considered 
acceptable.'' 54 FR 38045. We discussed the maximum individual lifetime 
cancer risk as being ``the estimated risk that a person living near a 
plant would have if he or she were exposed to the maximum pollutant 
concentrations for 70 years.'' Id. We explained that this measure of 
risk ``is an estimate of the upper bound of risk based on conservative 
assumptions, such as continuous exposure for 24 hours per day for 70 
years.'' Id. We acknowledge that maximum individual lifetime cancer 
risk ``does not necessarily reflect the true risk, but displays a 
conservative risk level which is an upper-bound that is unlikely to be 
exceeded.'' Id.
    Understanding that there are both benefits and limitations to using 
maximum individual lifetime cancer risk as a metric for determining 
acceptability, we acknowledged in the 1989 Benzene NESHAP that 
``consideration of maximum individual risk * * * must take into account 
the strengths and weaknesses of this measure of risk.'' Id. 
Consequently, the presumptive risk level of 100-in-1 million (1-in-10 
thousand) provides a benchmark for judging the acceptability of maximum 
individual lifetime cancer risk, but does not constitute a rigid line 
for making that determination.
    The Agency also explained in the 1989 Benzene NESHAP the following: 
``In establishing a presumption for MIR [maximum individual cancer 
risk], rather than a rigid line for acceptability, the Agency intends 
to weigh it with a series of other health measures and factors. These 
include the overall incidence of cancer or other serious health effects 
within the exposed population, the numbers of persons exposed within 
each individual lifetime risk range and associated incidence within, 
typically, a 50-kilometer (km) exposure radius around facilities, the 
science policy assumptions and estimation uncertainties associated with 
the risk measures, weight of the scientific evidence for human health 
effects, other quantified or unquantified health effects, effects due 
to co-location of facilities, and co-emissions of pollutants.'' Id.
    In some cases, these health measures and factors taken together may 
provide a more realistic description of the magnitude of risk in the 
exposed population than that provided by maximum individual lifetime 
cancer risk alone. As explained in the Benzene NESHAP, ``[e]ven though 
the risks judged `acceptable' by EPA in the first step of the Vinyl 
Chloride inquiry are already low, the second step of the inquiry, 
determining an `ample margin of safety,' again includes consideration 
of all of the health factors, and whether to reduce the risks even 
further.'' In the ample margin of safety decision process, the Agency 
again considers all of the health risks and other health information 
considered in the first step. Beyond that information, additional 
factors relating to the appropriate level of control will also be 
considered, including costs and economic impacts of controls, 
technological feasibility, uncertainties, and any other relevant 
factors. Considering all of these factors, the Agency will establish 
the standard at a level that provides an ample margin of safety to 
protect the public health, as required by CAA section 112(f) (54 FR 
38046).

B. Does this action apply to me?

    The regulated industrial source category that is the subject of 
this proposal is listed in Table 2 of this preamble. Table 2 of this 
preamble is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 
for readers regarding the entities likely to be affected by this 
proposed action. These standards, once finalized, will be directly 
applicable to affected sources. Federal, State, local, and Tribal 
government entities are not affected by this proposed action. As 
defined in the source category listing report published by EPA in 1992, 
the 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.\2\ For clarification purposes, all references to lead 
emissions in this preamble mean ``lead compounds'' (which is a listed 
HAP) and all references to lead

[[Page 29036]]

production mean elemental lead (which is not a listed HAP as provided 
under CAA section 112(b)(7)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ USEPA. Documentation for Developing the Initial Source 
Category List--Final Report, USEPA/OAQPS, EPA-450/3-91-030, July, 
1992.

                Table 2--NESHAP and Industrial Source Categories Affected by This Proposed Action
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Source category                            NESHAP               NAICS code \1\     MACT code \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Secondary Lead Smelting.....................  Secondary Lead Smelting.......            331492              0205
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.
\2\ Maximum Achievable Control Technology.

C. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related 
information?

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of 
this proposal will also be available on the World Wide Web (WWW) 
through the EPA's Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following 
signature by the EPA Administrator, a copy of this proposed action will 
be posted on the TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed or 
promulgated rules at the following address: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.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 estimates and other data that were used as inputs to 
the risk assessments.

D. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    Submitting CBI. Do not submit information containing CBI to EPA 
through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or 
all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on 
a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or 
CD-ROMas CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-
ROMthe specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one 
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as 
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information 
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. If 
you submit a CD-ROMor disk that does not contain CBI, mark the outside 
of the disk or CD-ROMclearly that it does not contain CBI. Information 
not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and EPA's 
electronic public docket without prior notice. Information marked as 
CBI will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set 
forth in 40 CFR part 2. Send or deliver information identified as CBI 
only to the following address: Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document Control 
Officer (C404-02), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 
27711, Attention Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344.

II. Background

A. Overview of the Source Category and MACT Standards

    The NESHAP (or MACT rule) for the Secondary Lead Smelting source 
category was promulgated on June 13, 1997 (62 FR 32216) and codified at 
40 CFR part 63, subpart X. As promulgated in 1997, the NESHAP applies 
to affected sources of HAP emissions at secondary lead smelters. The 
1997 NESHAP (40 CFR 63.542) defines ``secondary lead smelters'' as 
``any facility at which lead-bearing scrap material, primarily, but not 
limited to, lead-acid batteries, is recycled into elemental lead or 
lead alloys by smelting.'' The MACT rule for the Secondary Lead 
Smelting source category does not apply to primary lead smelters, lead 
remelters, or lead refiners.
    Today, there are 14 secondary lead smelting facilities that are 
subject to the MACT rule. 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.
    Lead is used to make various construction, medical, industrial and 
consumer products such as batteries, glass, x-ray protection gear and 
various fillers. The secondary lead smelting process consists of: (1) 
Pre-processing of lead bearing materials, (2) melting lead metal and 
reducing lead compounds to lead metal in the smelting furnace, and (3) 
refining and alloying the lead to customer specifications.
    HAP are emitted from secondary lead smelting as process emissions, 
process fugitive emissions, and fugitive dust emissions. Process 
emissions are the exhaust gases from feed dryers and from blast, 
reverberatory, rotary, and electric furnaces. The HAP in process 
emissions are primarily composed of metals (mostly lead compounds, but 
also some arsenic, cadmium, and other metals) and also may include 
organic compounds that result from incomplete combustion of coke that 
is charged to the smelting furnaces as a fuel or fluxing agent or from 
fuel natural gas and/or small amounts of plastics or other materials 
that get fed into the furnaces along with the lead bearing materials. 
Process fugitive emissions occur at various points during the smelting 
process (such as during charging and tapping of furnaces) and are 
composed primarily of metal HAP. Fugitive dust emissions result from 
the entrainment of HAP in ambient air due to material handling, vehicle 
traffic, wind erosion from storage piles, and other various activities. 
Fugitive dust emissions are composed of metal HAP only.
    The MACT rule applies to process emissions from blast, 
reverberatory, rotary, and electric smelting furnaces, agglomerating 
furnaces, and dryers; process fugitive emissions from smelting furnace 
charging points, smelting furnace lead and slag taps, refining kettles, 
agglomerating furnace product taps, and dryer transition pieces; and 
fugitive dust emissions sources such as roadways, battery breaking 
areas, furnace charging and tapping areas, refining and casting areas, 
and material storage areas. For process sources, the NESHAP specifies 
numerical emissions limits for lead compounds (as a surrogate for metal 
HAP) for the following types of smelting furnaces: (1) Collocated 
reverberatory and blast furnaces (reverberatory/blast), (2) blast 
furnaces, and (3) reverberatory furnaces not collocated with blast 
furnaces, rotary furnaces, and electric furnaces. Lead compound 
emissions from all smelting furnace configurations are limited to an 
outlet concentration of 2.0 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter 
(mg/dscm) (0.00087 grains per dry standard cubic foot (gr/dscf)), 40 
CFR 63.543(a). Total hydrocarbon (THC) emissions (as a surrogate for 
organic HAP) from existing and new collocated reverberatory/blast 
furnace

[[Page 29037]]

configurations are limited to an outlet concentration of 20 parts per 
million volume (ppmv) (expressed as propane) corrected to 4 percent 
carbon dioxide (CO2) to account for dilution. THC emissions 
are limited to 360 ppmv (as propane) at 4 percent CO2 from 
existing blast furnaces and 70 ppmv (as propane) at 4 percent 
CO2 from new blast furnaces (40 CFR 63.543(c)). The NESHAP 
does not specify emissions limits for THC emissions from reverberatory 
furnaces not collocated with blast furnaces, rotary furnaces, and 
electric furnaces.
    The 1997 NESHAP requires that process fugitive emissions sources be 
equipped with an enclosure hood meeting minimum face velocity 
requirements or be located in a total enclosure subject to general 
ventilation that maintains the building at negative pressure (40 CFR 
63.543(b)). Ventilation air from the enclosure hoods and total 
enclosures is required to be conveyed to a control device. Lead 
emissions from these control devices are limited to 2.0 mg/dscm 
(0.00087 gr/dscf) (40 CFR 63.544(c)). Lead emissions for all dryer 
emissions vents and agglomerating furnace vents are limited to 2.0 mg/
dscm (0.00087 gr/dscf) (40 CFR 63.544(d)). The 1997 NESHAP also 
requires the use of bag leak detection systems (BLDS) for continuous 
monitoring of baghouses in cases where a high efficiency particulate 
air (HEPA) filter was not used in series with a baghouse (40 CFR 
63.548(c)(9)).
    For fugitive dust sources, as defined in 40 CFR 63.545, the 1997 
NESHAP requires that the smelting process and all control devices be 
operated at all times according to a standard operating procedures 
(SOP) manual developed by the facility. The SOP manual is required to 
describe, in detail, the measures used to control fugitive dust 
emissions from plant roadways, battery breaking areas, furnace areas, 
refining and casting areas, and material storage and handling areas.

B. What data collection activities were conducted to support this 
action?

    In June 2010, EPA issued an information collection request (ICR), 
pursuant to CAA section 114, to six companies that own and operate the 
14 secondary lead smelting facilities. The ICR requested available 
information regarding process equipment, control devices, point and 
fugitive emissions, practices used to control fugitive emissions, and 
other aspects of facility operations. The six companies completed the 
surveys for their facilities and submitted the responses to us in the 
fall of 2010. In addition to the ICR survey, each facility was asked to 
submit reports for any emissions tests conducted in 2003 or later. We 
received lead emissions test data from all 14 facilities with some 
facilities submitting data for multiple years. Additionally, EPA 
requested that eight facilities conduct additional emissions tests in 
2010 for certain HAP from specific processes that were considered 
representative of the industry. Pollutants tested included most HAP 
metals, dioxins and furans, and certain organic HAP. The results of 
these tests were submitted to EPA in the fall of 2010 and are available 
in the docket for this action.

III. Analyses Performed

    In this section we describe the analyses performed to support the 
proposed decisions for the RTR for this source category.

A. Addressing Unregulated Emissions Sources

    In the course of evaluating the Secondary Lead Smelting source 
category, we identified certain HAP for which we failed to establish 
emission standards in the original MACT. See National Lime v. EPA, 233 
F. 3d 625, 634 (DC Cir. 2000) (EPA has ``clear statutory obligation to 
set emissions standards for each listed HAP''). Specifically, we 
evaluated emissions standards for three HAP (or groups of HAP), 
described below, that are not specifically regulated in the existing 
1997 MACT standard, or are only regulated for certain emissions points. 
As described below, for two of these groups of HAP (i.e., organic HAP 
and dioxins and furans) we are proposing emissions limits pursuant to 
112(d)(2) and 112(d)(3). For the other HAP (mercury compounds), we are 
proposing standards based on work practices pursuant to 112(h). The 
results and proposed decisions based on the analyses performed pursuant 
to CAA section 112(d)(2), 112(d)(3), and 112(h) are presented in 
Section IV.A of this preamble.
1. Organic HAP
    EPA did not establish standards for organic HAP emitted from 
reverberatory furnaces not collocated with blast furnaces, rotary 
furnaces, and electric furnaces in the 1997 NESHAP. EPA is therefore 
proposing to set emissions limits for organic HAP emissions from these 
furnace configurations in today's action based on emissions data 
received in response to the ICR.
2. Mercury
    The 1997 NESHAP specified emissions limits for metal HAP (e.g., 
arsenic, cadmium, lead) in terms of a lead emissions limit (i.e., lead 
is used as a surrogate for metal HAP). There is no explicit standard 
for mercury and we are therefore proposing a standard pursuant to 
section 112 (as described further in section IV.A of this preamble).
3. Dioxins and Furans
    Lastly, with regard to dioxin and furan emissions, because the 1997 
NESHAP did not include emissions limits, we are proposing emissions 
standards for dioxins and furans pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(3). We 
are also proposing work practices for dioxins and furans.

B. How did we estimate risks posed by the source category?

    EPA conducted a risk assessment that provided estimates of the 
maximum individual cancer risk (MIR) posed by the HAP emissions from 
the 14 sources in the source category, the distribution of cancer risks 
within the exposed populations, total cancer incidence, estimates of 
the maximum target organ-specific hazard index (TOSHI) for chronic 
exposures to HAP with the potential to cause chronic non-cancer health 
effects, worst-case screening estimates of hazard quotients (HQ) for 
acute exposures to HAP with the potential to cause non-cancer health 
effects, and an evaluation of the potential for adverse environmental 
effects. In June of 2009, the EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) 
conducted a formal peer review of our risk assessment methodologies in 
its review of the document entitled, ``Risk and Technology Review (RTR) 
Assessment Methodologies''.\3\ We received the final SAB report on this 
review in May of 2010.\4\ Where appropriate, we have responded to the 
key messages from this review in developing the current risk 
assessment; we will be continuing our efforts to improve our 
assessments by incorporating updates based on the SAB recommendations 
as they are developed and become available. The risk assessment 
consisted of seven primary steps, as discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ U.S. EPA, 2009. Risk and Technology Review (RTR) Risk 
Assessment Methodologies: For Review by the EPA's Science Advisory 
Board with Case Studies--MACT I Petroleum Refining Sources and 
Portland Cement Manufacturing. EPA-452/R-09-006. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html.
    \4\ U.S. EPA, 2010. SAB's Response to EPA's RTR Risk Assessment 
Methodologies. http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/
4AB3966E263D943A8525771F00668381/$File/EPA-SAB-10-007-unsigned.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The docket for this rulemaking contains the following document, 
which provides more information on the risk

[[Page 29038]]

assessment inputs and models: Draft Residual Risk Assessment for the 
Secondary Lead Smelting Source Category.
1. Establishing the Nature and Magnitude of Actual Emissions and 
Identifying the Emissions Release Characteristics
    For each facility in the Secondary Lead Smelting source category, 
we compiled an emissions profile (including emissions estimates, stack 
parameters, and location data) based on the information provided by the 
industry in the ICR, the emissions test data, various calculations, and 
the NEI. The site-specific emissions profiles include annual estimates 
of process, process fugitive, and fugitive dust emissions for the 2008-
2010 timeframe, as well as emissions release characteristics such as 
emissions release height, temperature, velocity, and location 
coordinates.
    The primary risk assessment is based on estimates of the actual 
emissions (though we also analyzed allowable emissions and the 
potential risks due to allowable emissions). We received a substantial 
amount of emissions test data and other information that enabled us to 
derive estimates of stack emissions of certain HAP for all of the 
facilities. However, we did not have test data for all pollutants at 
all emissions points. Therefore, we estimated emissions of some 
pollutants from certain emissions points (for which we had no emissions 
data) using test data from similar source types with similar controls.
    With regard to fugitive emissions, because they cannot be readily 
captured or directly measured, fugitive emissions are a more 
challenging emissions type to estimate. In 2010, as part of an 
information collection request (ICR), EPA asked the Secondary Lead 
industry to provide their best estimate of the emissions from fugitive 
sources (e.g., building openings, raw material storage piles, roadways, 
parking areas) at their facilities and to provide a description of the 
basis for the estimates (e.g., test data, emissions factors, mass 
balance calculations, engineering judgment). For our analysis of 
fugitive emissions for the source category, we first reviewed and 
evaluated the estimates of fugitive lead emissions that were submitted 
by each of the facilities in response to the 2010 ICR to determine the 
reliability and appropriateness of those estimates as an input to our 
risk analyses and other assessments. We concluded that there were 
significant gaps and incomplete documentation for a number of 
facilities, a large amount of variability in estimates between the 
facilities, and various significant uncertainties. For example, five 
facilities did not provide any estimates of fugitive emissions, while a 
few other facilities provided emissions estimates that were quite 
incomplete. Thus, we developed estimates of fugitive emissions for all 
facilities in the source category based on a methodology described in 
the emissions development technical document (Draft Development of the 
RTR Emissions Dataset for the Secondary Lead Smelting Source Category) 
for this rulemaking, which is available in the docket. In this 
methodology, we began with estimates provided by one facility in the 
ICR which were well-documented and covered all the various fugitive 
emissions sources expected at these facilities. Using the ICR 
responses, other available information on fugitive emissions (including 
scientific literature), and various assumptions and calculations, we 
scaled these estimates to derive site-specific fugitive emissions 
estimates at each of the other 13 facilities. The estimates calculated 
using this methodology were used as inputs to the risk assessment 
modeling.
    The results of the risk assessment modeling (which are described 
further in section IV below) indicated that the fugitive dust emissions 
were the largest contributor to the risks due to lead emissions. The 
impacts of fugitive emissions were generally considerably greater than 
the impacts due to stack emissions. Because of these impacts, and 
because of the difficulties and uncertainties associated with 
estimating fugitive emissions, we decided to do further analyses and 
review of the fugitive emissions estimates as a quality assurance check 
on the initial fugitive emissions estimates. Therefore, we consulted 
further with industry representatives, gathered additional information 
from the EPA's Toxics Release Inventory, evaluated the ICR responses 
further, and performed various other analyses, which led to the 
development of an alternative set of fugitive emissions estimates based 
on a slightly different methodology. The total fugitive estimates of 
lead for the industry calculated based on the alternative approach are 
within 10 percent of our initial estimates. We did not rerun the model 
with the alternative estimates because we know that the overall results 
would be quite similar and would not change our overall conclusions and 
decisions (described later in this notice). Further details on all the 
emissions data, calculations, estimates, and uncertainties, are in the 
emissions technical document (Draft Development of the RTR Emissions 
Dataset for the Secondary Lead Smelting Source Category) which is 
available in the docket for this action. We are seeking comments on our 
emissions data and estimates, and the fugitive emissions estimation 
methodologies and any other potential appropriate methods or data that 
could be used to estimate fugitive emissions from these facilities.
2. Establishing the Relationship Between Actual Emissions and MACT-
Allowable Emissions Levels
    The emissions data in our data set are estimates of actual 
emissions on an annual basis for stacks and fugitives for the 2008-2010 
timeframe. With most source categories, we generally find that 
``actual'' emissions levels are lower than the emissions levels that a 
facility is allowed to emit under the MACT standards. The emissions 
levels allowed to be emitted by the MACT standards are referred to as 
the ``MACT-allowable'' emissions levels. This represents the highest 
emissions level that could be emitted by facilities without violating 
the MACT standards.
    As we have discussed in prior residual risk and technology review 
rules, assessing the risks at the MACT-allowable level is inherently 
reasonable since these risks reflect the maximum level at which sources 
could emit while still complying with the MACT standards. However, 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 (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989). 
It is reasonable to consider actual emissions because sources typically 
seek to perform better than required by emissions standards to provide 
an operational cushion to accommodate the variability in manufacturing 
processes and control device performance. Facilities' actual emissions 
may also be significantly lower than MACT-allowable emissions for other 
reasons such as State requirements, better performance of control 
devices than required by the MACT standards, or reduced production.
    For the Secondary Lead Smelting source category, we evaluated 
actual and allowable emissions for both stack emissions and fugitive 
dust emissions. As described earlier in this section, the actual 
emissions data for this source category were compiled based on the ICR 
responses, available test data, various calculations, and the NEI. We 
estimated actual emissions for all HAP that we identified in the 
dataset. The

[[Page 29039]]

analysis of allowable emissions was largely focused on lead compound 
emissions, which we considered the most important HAP emitted from this 
source category based on our screening level risk assessment and the 
HAP for which we had the most data. However, we also considered 
allowable emissions for other HAP.
    With regard to fugitive emissions, because there are no numerical 
emissions limits, and because all facilities are required to implement 
identical fugitive emissions control work-practices, we assume that the 
allowable fugitive emissions from this source category are equal to the 
actual emissions.
    To estimate emissions at the MACT-allowable level from stacks 
(e.g., process, process fugitive, and building vents), we estimated the 
emissions that would occur if facilities were continuously emitting 
lead at the maximum allowed by the existing MACT standard (i.e., 2.0 
mg/dscm) from all vents. We then compared these estimated allowable 
emissions to the estimated emissions using the actual stack test data 
for each facility. We realize that these estimates of allowable 
emissions are theoretical high-end estimates as facilities must 
maintain average emissions levels at some level below the MACT limit to 
ensure compliance with the standard at all times because of the day-to-
day variability in emissions. Nevertheless, these high-end estimates of 
allowable emissions were adequate for us to estimate the magnitude of 
allowable emissions and the differences between the estimates of actual 
emissions and the MACT allowable emissions.
    Based on this analysis, we conclude that all facilities are 
emitting lead at levels lower than allowable; however, the range of 
differences between actual and allowable is significant. For two 
facilities, the estimated actual emissions were only moderately lower 
than allowable (about 2-3 times lower). The majority of other 
facilities have estimated actual emissions in the range of 10 to 100 
times lower than allowable. Finally, one facility, which has highly 
advanced controls, has estimated actual emissions of about 1,500 times 
below the MACT allowable emissions level.
    We then developed a ratio of MACT-allowable to actual emissions for 
each facility in the source category. After developing these ratios, we 
applied them on a facility-by-facility basis to the maximum modeled 
ambient lead concentrations to estimate the maximum ambient 
concentrations that would occur if all stacks were emitting at maximum 
allowable levels. The ratios were applied to stack emissions while 
leaving fugitive dust emissions at actual levels since, as described 
above, actual fugitive dust emissions were assumed to be equal to 
allowable fugitive dust emissions. The estimates of MACT-allowable 
emissions are described further in the technical document: Draft 
Development of the RTR Emissions Dataset for the Secondary Lead 
Smelting Source Category. The estimates of risks due to allowable 
emissions are summarized in Section IV.B of this preamble and described 
further in the draft risk report: Draft Residual Risk Assessment for 
the Secondary Lead Smelting Source Category.
3. Conducting Dispersion Modeling, Determining Inhalation Exposures, 
and Estimating Individual and Population Inhalation Risks
    Both long-term and short-term inhalation exposure concentrations 
and health risks from the source category addressed in this proposal 
were estimated using the Human Exposure Model (Community and Sector 
HEM-3 version 1.1.0). The HEM-3 performs three of the primary risk 
assessment activities listed above: (1) Conducting dispersion modeling 
to estimate the concentrations of HAP in ambient air, (2) estimating 
long-term and short-term inhalation exposures to individuals residing 
within 50 km of the modeled sources, and (3) estimating individual and 
population-level inhalation risks using the exposure estimates and 
quantitative dose-response information.
    The dispersion model used by HEM-3 is AERMOD, which is one of EPA's 
preferred models for assessing pollutant concentrations from industrial 
facilities.\5\ To perform the dispersion modeling and to develop the 
preliminary risk estimates, HEM-3 draws on three data libraries. The 
first is a library of meteorological data, which is used for dispersion 
calculations. This library includes 1 year of hourly surface and upper 
air observations for 130 meteorological stations, selected to provide 
coverage of the United States and Puerto Rico. A second library, of 
United States Census Bureau census block \6\ internal point locations 
and populations, provides the basis of human exposure calculations 
based on the year 2000 U.S. Census. In addition, for each census block, 
the census library includes the elevation and controlling hill height, 
which are also used in dispersion calculations. A third library of 
pollutant unit risk factors and other health benchmarks is used to 
estimate health risks. These risk factors and health benchmarks are the 
latest values recommended by EPA for HAP and other toxic air 
pollutants. These values are available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/toxsource/summary.html and are discussed in more detail later in this 
section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ U.S. EPA. Revision to the Guideline on Air Quality Models: 
Adoption of a Preferred General Purpose (Flat and Complex Terrain) 
Dispersion Model and Other Revisions (70 FR 68218, November 9, 
2005).
    \6\ A census block is the smallest geographic area for which 
census statistics are tabulated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In developing the risk assessment for chronic exposures, we used 
the estimated annual average ambient air concentrations of each of the 
HAP emitted by each source for which we have emissions data in the 
source category. The air concentrations at each nearby census block 
centroid were used as a surrogate for the chronic inhalation exposure 
concentration for all the people who reside in that census block. We 
calculated the MIR for the facilities as the cancer risk associated 
with a lifetime (70-year period) of exposure to the maximum 
concentration at the centroid of inhabited census blocks. Individual 
cancer risks were calculated by multiplying the estimated lifetime 
exposure to the ambient concentration of each of the HAP (in micrograms 
per cubic meter) by its unit risk estimate (URE), which is an upper 
bound estimate of an individual's probability of contracting cancer 
over a lifetime of exposure to a concentration of 1 microgram of the 
pollutant per cubic meter of air. In general, for residual risk 
assessments, we use URE values from EPA's Integrated Risk Information 
System (IRIS). For carcinogenic pollutants without EPA IRIS values, we 
look to other reputable sources of cancer dose-response values, often 
using California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) URE values, 
where available. In cases where new, scientifically credible dose 
response values have been developed in a manner consistent with EPA 
guidelines and have undergone a peer review process similar to that 
used by EPA, we may use such dose-response values in place of, or in 
addition to, other values, if appropriate. For this review, URE values 
and their sources (e.g., IRIS, CalEPA) can be found in Table 2.6-1(a) 
in the risk assessment document entitled, Draft Residual Risk 
Assessment for the Secondary Lead Smelting Source Category, which is 
available in the docket for this proposed rulemaking.
    Incremental individual lifetime cancer risks associated with 
emissions from the 14 facilities in the source category were estimated 
as the sum of the risks for each of the carcinogenic

[[Page 29040]]

HAP (including those classified as carcinogenic to humans, likely to be 
carcinogenic to humans, and suggestive evidence of carcinogenic 
potential \7\) emitted by the modeled source. Cancer incidence and the 
distribution of individual cancer risks for the population within 50 km 
of the sources were also estimated for the source category as part of 
these assessments by summing individual risks. A distance of 50 km is 
consistent with both the analysis supporting the 1989 Benzene NESHAP 
(54 FR 38044) and the limitations of Gaussian dispersion models, 
including AERMOD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ These classifications also coincide with the terms ``known 
carcinogen, probable carcinogen, and possible carcinogen,'' 
respectively, which are the terms advocated in the EPA's previous 
Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment, published in 1986 (51 FR 
33992, September 24, 1986). Summing the risks of these individual 
compounds to obtain the cumulative cancer risks is an approach that 
was recommended by the EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) in their 
2002 peer review of EPA's NATA entitled, NATA--Evaluating the 
National-scale Air Toxics Assessment 1996 Data--an SAB Advisory, 
available at: http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/
214C6E915BB04E14852570CA007A682C/$File/ecadv02001.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To assess the risk of non-cancer health effects from chronic 
exposures, we summed the HQ for each of the HAP that affects a common 
target organ system to obtain the HI for that target organ system (or 
target organ-specific HI, TOSHI). The HQ is the estimated exposure 
divided by the chronic reference value, which is either the EPA RfC, 
defined as ``an estimate (with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of 
magnitude) of a continuous inhalation exposure to the human population 
(including sensitive subgroups) that is likely to be without an 
appreciable risk of deleterious effects during a lifetime,'' or, in 
cases where an RfC is not available, the Agency for Toxic Substances 
and Disease Registry (ATSDR) chronic Minimal Risk Level (MRL) or the 
CalEPA Chronic Reference Exposure Level (REL). Notably, the REL is 
defined as ``the concentration level at or below which no adverse 
health effects are anticipated for a specified exposure duration.''
    Worst-case screening estimates of acute exposures and risks were 
also evaluated for each of the HAP at the point of highest off-site 
exposure for each facility (i.e., not just the census block centroids) 
assuming that a person was located at this spot at a time when both the 
peak (hourly) emissions rate and worst-case hourly dispersion 
conditions occurred. In general, acute HQ values were calculated using 
best available, short-term dose-response values. These acute dose-
response values include REL, Acute Exposure Guideline Levels (AEGL), 
and Emergency Response Planning Guidelines (ERPG) for 1-hour exposure 
durations. Notably, for HAP emitted from this source category, REL 
values were the only such dose-response values available. As discussed 
below, we used conservative assumptions for emissions rates, 
meteorology, and exposure location for our acute analysis.
    As described in the CalEPA's Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk 
Assessment Guidelines, Part I, The Determination of Acute Reference 
Exposure Levels for Airborne Toxicants, an acute REL value (http://www.oehha.ca.gov/air/pdf/acuterel.pdf) is defined as ``the 
concentration level at or below which no adverse health effects are 
anticipated for a specified exposure duration.'' REL values are based 
on the most sensitive, relevant, adverse health effect reported in the 
medical and toxicological literature. REL values are designed to 
protect the most sensitive individuals in the population by the 
inclusion of margins of safety. Since margins of safety are 
incorporated to address data gaps and uncertainties, exceeding the REL 
does not automatically indicate an adverse health impact.
    To develop screening estimates of acute exposures, we first 
developed estimates of maximum hourly emissions rates by multiplying 
the average actual annual hourly emissions rates by a factor to cover 
routinely variable emissions. We chose the factor to use based on 
process knowledge and engineering judgment and with awareness of a 
Texas study of short-term emissions variability, which showed that most 
peak emissions events, in a heavily-industrialized 4-county area 
(Harris, Galveston, Chambers, and Brazoria Counties, Texas) were less 
than twice the annual average hourly emissions rate. The highest peak 
emissions event was 74 times the annual average hourly emissions rate, 
and the 99th percentile ratio of peak hourly emissions rate to the 
annual average hourly emissions rate was 9.\8\ This analysis is 
provided in Appendix 4 of the Draft Residual Risk Assessment for 
Secondary Lead Smelting that is available in the docket for this 
action. Considering this analysis, unless specific process knowledge or 
data are available to provide an alternate value, to account for more 
than 99 percent of the peak hourly emissions, we generally apply the 
assumption to most source categories that the maximum one-hour 
emissions rate from any source other than those resulting in fugitive 
dust emissions are 10 times the average annual hourly emissions rate 
for that source. We use a factor other than 10 in some cases if we have 
information that indicates that a different factor is appropriate for a 
particular source category. Moreover, the factor of 10 is not applied 
to fugitive dust sources because these emissions are minimized during 
the meteorological conditions associated with the worst-case short-term 
impacts (i.e., during low-wind, stable atmospheric conditions) in these 
acute exposure screening assessments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/compliance/field_ops/eer/index.html or docket to access the source of these data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In cases where all worst-case acute HQ values from the screening 
step were less than or equal to 1, acute impacts were deemed negligible 
and no further analysis was performed. In the cases where any worst-
case acute HQ from the screening step was greater than 1, additional 
site-specific data were considered to develop a more refined estimate 
of the potential for acute impacts of concern. Ideally, we would prefer 
to have continuous measurements over time to see how the emissions vary 
by each hour over an entire year. Having a frequency distribution of 
hourly emissions rates over a year would allow us to perform a 
probabilistic analysis to estimate potential threshold exceedances and 
their frequency of occurrence. Such an evaluation could include a more 
complete statistical treatment of the key parameters and elements 
adopted in this screening analysis. However, we recognize that having 
this level of data is rare, hence our use of the multiplier (i.e., 
factor of 10) approach in our screening analysis. In the case of this 
source category, we had no further information on peak-to-mean 
emissions which could be used to refine the estimates. The only 
refinement that was made to the acute screening assessments was to 
ensure that the estimated worst-case HQ was not calculated at a 
location within the facility boundaries.
4. Conducting Multipathway Exposure and Risk Modeling
    EPA evaluated the potential for significant human health risks due 
to exposures via routes other than inhalation (i.e., multipathway 
exposures) and the potential for adverse environmental impacts in a 
three-step process. In the first step, we determined whether any 
facilities emitted any HAP known to be persistent and bio-accumulative 
in the environment (PB-HAP). There are 14 PB-HAP compounds or compound 
classes identified for this screening in EPA's Air

[[Page 29041]]

Toxics Risk Assessment Library (available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/fera/risk_atra_vol1.html).
    Emissions of five PB-HAP were identified in the emissions dataset 
for the Secondary Lead Smelting source category, as follows: Lead 
compounds, cadmium compounds, POM, dioxin and furans, and mercury.\9\ 
The dataset is described in the emissions technical document (Draft 
Development of the RTR Emissions Dataset for the Secondary Lead 
Smelting Source Category) which is available in the docket for this 
action. As described in that document, lead emissions estimates are 
based on multiple emission stack tests conducted over multiple years, 
cadmium and dioxin and furans are based on emissions tests conducted in 
2010. Mercury emissions estimates are based on test results in 2010 
which included a large number of non-detects and conservative 
assumptions about non-detects, and the estimates for POM are based on 
reported estimates from the NEI or estimates provided by the companies 
in the ICR responses in 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Most of the emissions test results for mercury emissions for 
this industry were below detection limit. The emissions estimates 
used in the risk assessment are based on the assumption that all the 
non-detect test values were at the level of the detection limit. 
Therefore, these estimated emissions for mercury are clear 
overestimates. We conclude that the true amounts of emissions of 
mercury from this source category are much lower than shown in this 
assessment, but we are not able to quantify precisely how much 
lower.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Emissions of cadmium compounds, POM, dioxin and furans and mercury 
were evaluated for potential non-inhalation risks and adverse 
environmental impacts using our recently developed screening scenario 
that was developed for use with the Total Risk Integrated Methodology 
(TRIM.FaTE) model. This screening scenario uses environmental media 
outputs from the peer-reviewed TRIM.FaTE to estimate the maximum 
potential ingestion risks for any specified emissions scenario by using 
a generic farming/fishing exposure scenario that simulates a 
subsistence environment. The screening scenario retains many of the 
ingestion and scenario inputs developed for EPA's Human Health Risk 
Assessment Protocols (HHRAP) for hazardous waste combustion facilities. 
In the development of the screening scenario, a sensitivity analysis 
was conducted to ensure that its key design parameters were established 
such that environmental media concentrations were not underestimated, 
and to also minimize the occurrence of false positives for human health 
endpoints. See Appendix 3 of the risk assessment document for a 
complete discussion of the development and testing of the screening 
scenario, as well as for the values of facility-level de minimis 
emissions rates developed for screening potentially significant 
multipathway impacts. For the purpose of developing de minimis 
emissions rates for our multipathway screening, we derived emissions 
levels at which the maximum human health risk could be 1-in-1 million 
for lifetime cancer risk, or exposures could potentially be above the 
reference dose for non-cancer effects, based on a conservative model 
plant analysis described in Appendix 3 of the risk assessment document.
    For the secondary lead smelting source category, there were 
exceedances of de minimis emissions rates at multiple facilities for 
multiple PB-HAP, and thus a multipathway analysis was performed. Two 
facilities were chosen as case study analyses to assess potential 
multipathway risks for mercury, cadmium, POM, and dioxins and furans. 
The selection criteria for modeling these two facilities included 
emissions rates of PB-HAPs, proximity to water bodies, proximity to 
farmland, average rainfall, average wind speed and direction, smelting 
furnace type, local change in elevation, and geographic 
representativeness of sites throughout the U.S. As a result of our 
selection process, we believe the multipathway risks associated with 
these two facilities are in the upper end of the potential for 
multipathway risks from the source category. Since the modeling used in 
these case study assessments utilize site specific parameters to 
describe naturally occurring physical, chemical and biological 
processes, we believe that the multimedia concentrations of PB-HAPs 
generated in this analysis are unbiased estimates of the true impacts.
    In general, results of this assessment were designed to 
characterize multipathway risks associated with high end consumption of 
PB-HAP predominantly from contaminated food sources. Thus, multipathway 
exposure and risk estimates were calculated for two basic scenarios, 
both of which are expected to give rise to high-end exposures and 
risks. The farmer scenario involves an individual living on a farm 
homestead in the vicinity of a PB-HAP source who consumes contaminated 
produce grown on the farm, as well as contaminated meat and animal 
products raised on the farm. The farming scenario also accounts for 
incidental ingestion of contaminated surface soil at the location of 
the farm homestead. The recreational fisher scenario involves an 
individual who regularly consumes fish caught in freshwater lakes in 
the vicinity of a PB-HAP source. In the fishing scenario, in addition 
to the characterization of exposure and risks across the broad 
population of recreational anglers, exposures were also calculated for 
three subpopulations of recreational anglers (Hispanic, Laotian, and 
Vietnamese descent) who have higher rates of fish consumption.\10\ 
Furthermore, in order to more fully characterize the modeled potential 
multipathway risks that may be associated with high-end consumption of 
PB-HAP contaminated food, we present results based on two ingestion 
exposure scenarios: (1) A reasonable maximum exposure (RME) scenario 
that, for example, utilizes 90th percentile ingestion rates for 
farmers, recreational anglers, and the three subpopulations of 
recreational anglers (e.g., ingestion rates specific to Laotian 
recreational anglers); and (2) a central tendency exposure (CTE) 
scenario that, for example, utilizes mean ingestion rates for the 
groups just described. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ In both scenarios, exposure via drinking water was not 
considered because it is unlikely that humans would use surface 
waters as a drinking water source. Groundwater, which is a likely 
source of drinking water, also was not included in the exposure 
scenarios because contamination of groundwater aquifers by air 
deposition sources was not expected to be significant. For dioxin, 
exposure via breast milk was considered in the farming scenario as 
well as the recreational fishing scenario, but not for the three 
recreational fishing subpopulations (Hispanic, Laotian, and 
Vietnamese descent) since subpopulation ingestion rates were only 
applicable to adult males. The breast milk pathway was not 
considered with respect to mercury exposure due to a current lack of 
data regarding this pathway.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In evaluating the potential air-related multipathway risks from the 
emissions of lead compounds, rather than developing a de minimis 
emissions rate, we compared its maximum modeled 3-month average 
atmospheric lead concentration at any off-site location with the 
current primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for lead 
(promulgated in 2008), which is set at a level of 0.15 micrograms per 
cubic meter ([micro]g/m\3\) based on rolling 3-month periods with a 
not-to-be-exceeded level for any 3-month rolling average, and which 
will require attainment by 2016 (73 FR 66964). Notably, in making these 
comparisons, we estimated maximum rolling 3-month ambient lead 
concentrations taking into account all of the elements of the NAAQS for 
lead. That is, our estimated 3-month lead concentrations are

[[Page 29042]]

calculated in a manner that is consistent with the indicator, averaging 
time, and form of the lead NAAQS, and those estimates are compared to 
the level of the lead NAAQS (0.15 [micro]g/m\3\).
    The NAAQS value, a public health policy judgment, incorporated the 
Agency's most recent health evaluation of air effects of lead exposure 
for the purposes of setting a national standard. In setting this value, 
the Administrator promulgated a standard that was requisite to protect 
public health with an adequate margin of safety. That standard applies 
everywhere, under all circumstances, regardless of an individual's 
location, exposure patterns, or health circumstances. We consider 
values below the level of the primary NAAQS to protect against 
multipathway risks because, as mentioned above, the primary NAAQS is 
set so as to protect public health with an adequate margin of safety. 
However, ambient air lead concentrations above the NAAQS are considered 
to pose the potential for increased risk to public health. We consider 
this assessment--comparing modeled concentrations to the level of the 
NAAQS--to be a refined analysis given: (1) The numerous health studies, 
detailed risk and exposure analyses, and level of external peer and 
public review that went into the development of the primary NAAQS for 
lead, combined with: (2) the site-specific dispersion modeling 
performed in the risk assessment to develop ambient concentration 
estimates from the 14 secondary lead smelter facilities addressed in 
this proposed rule. It should be noted, however, that this comparison 
to the NAAQS for lead does not account for possible population 
exposures to lead from sources other than the one being modeled; for 
example, via consumption of water from contaminated local sources or 
ingestion of contaminated locally grown food. Nevertheless, the 
Administrator judged that the primary NAAQS would 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 (73 FR 67007). The Administrator, 
in setting the standard, also recognized that no evidence of a risk-
based bright line indicated a single appropriate level. Instead, a 
collection of scientific evidence and other information was used to 
select the standard from a range of reasonable values (73 FR 67006).
    We further note that comparing ambient lead concentrations to the 
NAAQS for lead, considering the level, averaging time, form and 
indicator of the lead NAAQS, also informs whether there is the 
potential for adverse environmental effects. This is because the 
secondary lead NAAQS, which has the same averaging time, form, and 
level as the primary standard, was set to protect the public welfare 
which includes among other things soils, water, crops, vegetation and 
wildlife (CAA section 302(h)). Thus, ambient lead concentrations above 
the NAAQS for lead also indicate the potential for adverse 
environmental effects (73 FR 67007 to 67012). For additional 
information on the multipathway analysis approach, see the residual 
risk documentation as referenced in Section III.A of this preamble. EPA 
solicits comment generally on the modeling approach used herein to 
assess air-related lead risks, and specifically on the use of the lead 
NAAQS in this analytical construct.
5. Assessing Risks Considering Emissions Control Options
    In addition to assessing baseline inhalation risks and screening 
for potential multipathway risks, we also estimated risks considering 
the potential emissions reductions that would be achieved by the main 
control options under consideration. The expected emissions reductions 
were applied to the specific HAP and emissions points in the source 
category dataset to develop corresponding estimates of risk reductions. 
More information regarding the risks after control can be found in the 
risk assessment document: Draft Residual Risk Assessment for the 
Secondary Lead Smelting Source Category, which is available in the 
docket for this action.
6. Conducting Other Risk-Related Analyses, Including Facility-Wide 
Assessments and Demographic Analyses
a. Facility-Wide Risk
    To put the source category risks in context, for our residual risk 
review, we also examine the risks from the entire ``facility,'' where 
the facility includes all HAP-emitting operations within a contiguous 
area and under common control. In other words, we examine the HAP 
emissions not only from the source category of interest, but also 
emissions of HAP from all other emissions sources at the facility. In 
this rulemaking, for the Secondary Lead Smelting source category, there 
are no other significant HAP emissions sources present. Thus, there was 
no need to perform a separate facility wide risk assessment.
    b. Demographic Analysis
    To identify specific groups that may be affected by this 
rulemaking, EPA conducted demographic analyses. These analyses provide 
information about the percentages of different social, demographic, and 
economic groups within the populations subjected to potential HAP-
related cancer and non-cancer risks from the facilities in this source 
category.
    For the demographic analyses, we focus on the populations within 50 
km of any facility with emissions sources subject to the MACT standard 
(identical to the risk assessment). Based on the emissions for the 
source category or the facility, we then identified the populations 
that are estimated to have exposures to HAP which result in: (1) Cancer 
risks of 1-in-1 million or greater; (2) non-cancer HI of 1 or greater; 
and/or (3) ambient lead concentrations above the level of the NAAQS for 
lead. We compare the percentages of particular demographic groups 
within the focused populations to the total percentages of those 
demographic groups nationwide. The results, including other risk 
metrics, such as average risks for the exposed populations, are 
documented in a technical report in the docket for the source category 
covered in this proposal.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Risk and Technology Review--Analysis of Socio-Economic 
Factors for Populations Living Near Primary Lead Smelting 
Operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The basis for the risk estimates used in the demographic analyses 
for this source category was the modeling results based on actual 
emissions levels obtained from the HEM-3 model described above. The 
risk estimates for each census block were linked to a database of 
information from the 2000 decennial census that includes data on race 
and ethnicity, age distributions, poverty status, household incomes, 
and education level. The Census Department Landview[supreg] database 
was the source of the data on race and ethnicity, and the data on age 
distributions, poverty status, household incomes, and education level 
were obtained from the 2000 Census of Population and Housing Summary 
File 3 (SF3) Long Form. While race and ethnicity census data are 
available at the census block level, the age and income census data are 
only available at the census block group level (which includes an 
average of 26 blocks or an average of 1,350 people). Where census data 
are available at the block group level but not the block level, we 
assumed that all census blocks within the block group have the same 
distribution of ages and incomes as the block group.

[[Page 29043]]

    As noted above, we focused the analysis on those census blocks 
where source category risk results show: (1) Estimated lifetime 
inhalation cancer risks above 1-in-1 million; (2) chronic non-cancer 
indices above 1; and/or (3) census blocks where estimated ambient lead 
concentrations were above the level of the lead NAAQS. For each of 
these cases, we determined the relative percentage of different racial 
and ethnic groups, different age groups, adults with and without a high 
school diploma, people living in households below the national median 
income, and people living below the poverty line within those census 
blocks.
    The specific census population categories included:
     Total population
     White
     African American (or Black)
     Native Americans
     Other races and multiracial
     Hispanic or Latino
     People living below the poverty line
     Children 18 years of age and under
     Adults 19 to 64 years of age
     Adults 65 years of age and over
     Adults without a high school diploma.
    It should be noted that these categories overlap in some instances, 
resulting in some populations being counted in more than one category 
(e.g., other races and multiracial and Hispanic). In addition, while 
not a specific census population category, we also examined risks to 
``Minorities,'' a classification that is defined for these purposes as 
all race population categories except white.
    The methodology and the results of the demographic analyses for 
this source category are included in the technical report available in 
the docket for this action (Risk and Technology Review--Analysis of 
Socio-Economic Factors for Populations Living near Secondary Lead 
Smelting Operations).
7. Considering Uncertainties in Risk Assessment
    Uncertainty and the potential for bias are inherent in all risk 
assessments, including those performed for the source category 
addressed in this proposal. Although uncertainty exists, we believe the 
approach that we took, which used conservative tools and assumptions to 
bridge data gaps, ensures that our decisions are health-protective. A 
brief discussion of the uncertainties in the emissions dataset, 
dispersion modeling, inhalation exposure estimates, dose-response 
relationships, multipathway and environmental impacts analyses, and 
demographics analysis follows below. A more thorough discussion of 
these uncertainties is included in the risk assessment documentation 
(Draft Residual Risk Assessment for the Secondary Lead Smelting 
Category) available in the docket for this action.
a. Uncertainties in the Emissions Dataset
    Although the development of the RTR dataset involved quality 
assurance/quality control processes, the accuracy of emissions values 
will vary depending on the source of the data, the degree to which data 
are incomplete or missing, the degree to which assumptions made to 
complete the datasets are accurate, whether and to what extent errors 
were made in estimating emissions values, and other factors. The 
estimates of stack emissions are largely based on actual emissions test 
data, and, therefore, we have a relatively high degree of confidence in 
those estimates. With regard to fugitive emissions, those estimates are 
largely based on engineering calculations and application of various 
assumptions, and are therefore considered less certain relative to the 
stack emissions estimates. Nevertheless, we believe the fugitive 
estimates we derived for these facilities and used in our analyses are 
reasonable estimates of the actual fugitive emissions from these 
facilities partly due to the findings that the available ambient 
monitoring data (which are described in the document Draft Summary of 
the Ambient Lead Monitoring Data near Secondary Lead Smelting 
Facilities, available in the docket) indicate that measured levels of 
lead in ambient air near these facilities are generally similar in 
magnitude (e.g., generally within a factor of 2) to the modeled 
estimates (which are shown in the Draft Residual Risk Assessment for 
the Secondary Lead Smelting Source Category, which is available in the 
docket).
    The emissions estimates for stacks considered in this analysis are 
hourly emissions rates primarily extracted from test reports and 
extrapolated to an annual total based on the hours of operation of each 
facility and may not reflect short-term fluctuations during the course 
of a year or variations from year to year. The estimates of peak hourly 
emissions rates from stacks for the acute effects screening assessment 
were based on multiplication factors applied to the hourly emissions 
rates (the default factor of 10 was used for Secondary Lead Smelting 
for sources other than fugitive dust) which are intended to account for 
emissions fluctuations due to normal facility operations.
    There is an unquantified level of uncertainty regarding the 
emissions estimates for acute impacts of fugitive dusts. The current 
set of assumptions used in deriving the worst-case acute impact 
estimate for fugitive dusts assumes the average hourly emission level 
(annual emissions divided by 8760 hours per year) to occur at the 
default worst-case meteorological conditions (low winds with a stable 
atmosphere). It is acknowledged that the combination of average 
emissions during low winds would be an overestimate of the fugitive 
dust emission rate during those low wind periods. Therefore, for 
fugitive dusts, the worst case meteorology may not be the same as for 
other process emissions, and the level of hourly fugitive dust 
emissions during this alternate worst-case condition is unknown.
    We further note that there is additional uncertainty with respect 
to emissions of mercury. As previously noted, most of the mercury 
emissions test results for this industry were below detection limit. 
The emissions estimates utilized in the risk assessment are based on 
the health-protective assumption that all the non-detect test values 
were at the level of the detection limit. Therefore, these estimated 
emissions for mercury are clear overestimates. We conclude that the 
true amounts of emissions of mercury from this source category are much 
lower than those provided in the technical documents supporting today's 
proposed rule, but we are not able to quantify precisely how much 
lower.
b. Uncertainties in Dispersion Modeling
    Although the analysis employed EPA's recommended regulatory 
dispersion model, AERMOD, we recognize that there is uncertainty in 
ambient concentration estimates associated with any model, including 
AERMOD. In circumstances where we had to choose between various model 
options, where possible, we selected model options (e.g., rural/urban, 
plume depletion, chemistry) that provided an overestimate of ambient 
concentrations of the HAP rather than an underestimate. However, 
because of practicality and data limitation reasons, some factors 
(e.g., building downwash) have the potential in some situations to 
overestimate or underestimate ambient impacts. Despite these 
uncertainties, we believe that at off-site locations and census block 
centroids, the approach considered in the dispersion modeling analysis 
should generally yield overestimates of ambient HAP concentrations.
    Furthermore, as noted previously, there is a level of uncertainty 
in the

[[Page 29044]]

conditions leading to worst-case emissions for fugitive dusts. However, 
in the absence of better information regarding actual short-term 
impacts from fugitive dust sources, the combination of average hourly 
emission level and worst-case meteorology was assumed to be useful for 
deriving protective acute impact estimates.
c. Uncertainties in Inhalation Exposure
    The effects of human mobility on exposures were not included in the 
assessment. Specifically, short-term mobility and long-term mobility 
between census blocks in the modeling domain were not considered.\12\ 
As a result, this simplification will likely bias the assessment toward 
overestimating the highest exposures. In addition, the assessment 
predicted the chronic exposures at the centroid of each populated 
census block as surrogates for the exposure concentrations for all 
people living in that block. Using the census block centroid to predict 
chronic exposures tends to over-predict exposures for people in the 
census block who live farther from the facility and under-predict 
exposures for people in the census block who live closer to the 
facility. Thus, using the census block centroid to predict chronic 
exposures may lead to a potential understatement or overstatement of 
the true maximum impact for any one individual, but is an unbiased 
estimate of average risk and incidence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Short-term mobility is movement from one microenvironment 
to another over the course of hours or days. Long-term mobility is 
movement from one residence to another over the course of a 
lifetime.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The assessments evaluate the projected cancer inhalation risks 
associated with pollutant exposures over a 70-year period, which is the 
assumed lifetime of an individual. In reality, both the length of time 
that modeled emissions sources at facilities actually operate (i.e., 
more or less than 70 years), and the domestic growth or decline of the 
modeled industry (i.e., the increase or decrease in the number or size 
of United States facilities), will influence the future risks posed by 
a given source or source category. Depending on the characteristics of 
the industry, these factors will, in most cases, result in an 
overestimate both in individual risk levels and in the total estimated 
number of cancer cases. However, in rare cases, where a facility 
maintains or increases its emissions levels beyond 70 years, residents 
live beyond 70 years at the same location, and the residents spend most 
of their days at that location, then the risks could potentially be 
underestimated. Annual cancer incidence estimates from exposures to 
emissions from these sources would not be affected by uncertainty in 
the length of time emissions sources operate.
    The exposure estimates used in these analyses assume chronic 
exposures to ambient levels of pollutants. Because most people spend 
the majority of their time indoors, actual exposures may not be as 
high, depending on the characteristics of the pollutants modeled. For 
many of the HAP, indoor levels are roughly equivalent to ambient 
levels, but for very reactive pollutants or larger particles, these 
levels are typically lower. This factor has the potential to result in 
an overstatement of 25 to 30 percent of exposures for some HAP.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ U.S. EPA. National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment for 1996. 
(EPA 453/R-01-003; January 2001; page 85.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the uncertainties highlighted above, there are 
several factors specific to the acute exposure assessment that should 
be highlighted. The accuracy of an acute inhalation exposure assessment 
depends on the simultaneous occurrence of independent factors that may 
vary greatly, such as hourly emissions rates, meteorology, and human 
activity patterns. In this assessment, we assume that individuals 
remain for 1 hour at the point of maximum ambient concentration as 
determined by the co-occurrence of peak emissions and worst-case 
meteorological conditions. These assumptions would tend to be worst-
case actual exposures since it is unlikely that a person would be 
located at the point of maximum exposure during the time of worst-case 
impact.
d. Uncertainties in Dose-Response Relationships
    There are uncertainties inherent in the development of the dose-
response values used in our risk assessments for cancer effects from 
chronic exposures and non-cancer effects from both chronic and acute 
exposures. Some uncertainties may be considered quantitatively, and 
others generally are expressed in qualitative terms. We note as a 
preface to this discussion a point on dose-response uncertainty that is 
brought out in EPA's 2005 Cancer Guidelines; namely, that ``the primary 
goal of EPA actions is protection of human health; accordingly, as an 
Agency policy, risk assessment procedures, including default options 
that are used in the absence of scientific data to the contrary, should 
be health protective'' (EPA 2005 Cancer Guidelines, pages 1-7). This is 
the approach followed here as summarized in the next several 
paragraphs. A complete detailed discussion of uncertainties and 
variability in dose-response relationships is given in the residual 
risk documentation which is available in the docket for this action.
    Cancer URE values used in our risk assessments are those that have 
been developed to generally provide an upper bound estimate of risk. 
That is, they represent a ``plausible upper limit to the true value of 
a quantity'' (although this is usually not a true statistical 
confidence limit).\14\ In some circumstances, the true risk could be as 
low as zero; however, in other circumstances the risk could be 
greater.\15\ When developing an upper bound estimate of risk and to 
provide risk values that do not underestimate risk, health-protective 
default approaches are generally used. To err on the side of ensuring 
adequate health protection, EPA typically uses the upper bound 
estimates rather than lower bound or central tendency estimates in our 
risk assessments, an approach that may have limitations for other uses 
(e.g., priority-setting or expected benefits analysis).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ IRIS glossary (http://www.epa.gov/NCEA/iris/help_gloss.htm).
    \15\ An exception to this is the URE for benzene, which is 
considered to cover a range of values, each end of which is 
considered to be equally plausible, and which is based on maximum 
likelihood estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Chronic non-cancer reference (RfC and RfD) values represent chronic 
exposure levels that are intended to be health-protective levels. 
Specifically, these values provide an estimate (with uncertainty 
spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a continuous inhalation 
exposure (RfC) or a daily oral exposure (RfD) to the human population 
(including sensitive subgroups) that is likely to be without an 
appreciable risk of deleterious effects during a lifetime. To derive 
values that are intended to be ``without appreciable risk,'' the 
methodology relies upon an uncertainty factor (UF) approach (U.S. EPA, 
1993, 1994) which considers uncertainty, variability and gaps in the 
available data. The UF are applied to derive reference values that are 
intended to protect against appreciable risk of deleterious effects. 
The UF are commonly default values,\16\ e.g., factors

[[Page 29045]]

of 10 or 3, used in the absence of compound-specific data; where data 
are available, UF may also be developed using compound-specific 
information. When data are limited, more assumptions are needed and 
more UF are used. Thus, there may be a greater tendency to overestimate 
risk in the sense that further study might support development of 
reference values that are higher (i.e., less potent) because fewer 
default assumptions are needed. However, for some pollutants, it is 
possible that risks may be underestimated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ According to the NRC report, Science and Judgment in Risk 
Assessment (NRC, 1994) ``[Default] options are generic approaches, 
based on general scientific knowledge and policy judgment, that are 
applied to various elements of the risk assessment process when the 
correct scientific model is unknown or uncertain.'' The 1983 NRC 
report, Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the 
Process, defined default option as ``the option chosen on the basis 
of risk assessment policy that appears to be the best choice in the 
absence of data to the contrary'' (NRC, 1983a, p. 63). Therefore, 
default options are not rules that bind the Agency; rather, the 
Agency may depart from them in evaluating the risks posed by a 
specific substance when it believes this to be appropriate. In 
keeping with EPA's goal of protecting public health and the 
environment, default assumptions are used to ensure that risk to 
chemicals is not underestimated (although defaults are not intended 
to overtly overestimate risk). See EPA, 2004, An Examination of EPA 
Risk Assessment Principles and Practices, EPA/100/B-04/001 available 
at: http://www.epa.gov/osa/pdfs/ratf-final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While collectively termed ``UF,'' these factors account for a 
number of different quantitative considerations when using observed 
animal (usually rodent) or human toxicity data in the development of 
the RfC. The UF are intended to account for: (1) Variation in 
susceptibility among the members of the human population (i.e., inter-
individual variability); (2) uncertainty in extrapolating from 
experimental animal data to humans (i.e., interspecies differences); 
(3) uncertainty in extrapolating from data obtained in a study with 
less-than-lifetime exposure (i.e., extrapolating from sub-chronic to 
chronic exposure); (4) uncertainty in extrapolating the observed data 
to obtain an estimate of the exposure associated with no adverse 
effects; and (5) uncertainty when the database is incomplete or there 
are problems with the applicability of available studies. Many of the 
UF used to account for variability and uncertainty in the development 
of acute reference values are quite similar to those developed for 
chronic durations, but they more often use individual UF values that 
may be less than 10. UF are applied based on chemical-specific or 
health effect-specific information (e.g., simple irritation effects do 
not vary appreciably between human individuals, hence a value of 3 is 
typically used), or based on the purpose for the reference value (see 
the following paragraph). The UF applied in acute reference value 
derivation include: (1) Heterogeneity among humans; (2) uncertainty in 
extrapolating from animals to humans; (3) uncertainty in lowest 
observed adverse effect (exposure) level to no observed adverse effect 
(exposure) level adjustments; and (4) uncertainty in accounting for an 
incomplete database on toxic effects of potential concern. Additional 
adjustments are often applied to account for uncertainty in 
extrapolation from observations at one exposure duration (e.g., 4 
hours) to derive an acute reference value at another exposure duration 
(e.g., 1 hour).
    As further discussed below, there is no RfD or other comparable 
chronic health benchmark value for lead compounds. Thus, to address 
multipathway human health and environmental risks associated with 
emissions of lead from this facility, ambient lead concentrations were 
compared to the NAAQS for lead. In developing the NAAQS for lead, EPA 
considered human health evidence reporting adverse health effects 
associated with lead exposure, as well as an EPA-conducted multipathway 
risk assessment that applied models to estimate human exposures to air-
related lead and the associated risk (73 FR 66979). EPA also explicitly 
considered the uncertainties associated with both the human health 
evidence and the exposure and risk analyses when developing the NAAQS 
for lead. For example, EPA considered uncertainties in the relationship 
between ambient air lead and blood lead levels (73 FR 66974), as well 
as uncertainties between blood lead levels and loss of IQ points in 
children (73 FR 66981).
    In considering the evidence and risk analyses and their associated 
uncertainties, EPA found that there is no evidence- or risk-based 
bright line that indicates a single appropriate level. EPA noted there 
is a collection of scientific evidence and judgments and other 
information, including information about the uncertainties inherent in 
many relevant factors, which needs to be considered together in making 
the public health policy judgment and in selecting a standard level 
from a range of reasonable values (73 FR 66998). In so doing, EPA 
decided that a level for the primary lead standard of 0.15 [mu]g/
m3, in combination with the specified choice of indicator, 
averaging time, and form, is requisite to protect public health, 
including the health of sensitive groups, with an adequate margin of 
safety (73 FR 67006). A thorough discussion of the health evidence, 
risk and exposure analyses, and their associated uncertainties can be 
found in EPA's final rule revising the lead NAAQS (73 FR 66970-66981, 
November 12, 2008).
    We also note the uncertainties associated with the health-based 
(i.e., primary) NAAQS are likely less than the uncertainties associated 
with dose-response values developed for many of the other HAP, 
particularly those HAP for which no human health data exist.
    We also note that because of the multipathway, multi-media impacts 
of lead, the risk assessment supporting the NAAQS considered direct 
inhalation exposures and indirect air-related multipathway exposures 
from industrial sources like primary and secondary lead smelting 
operations. It also considered background lead exposures from other 
sources (like contaminated drinking water and exposure to lead-based 
paints). In revising the NAAQS for lead, EPA placed more weight on the 
evidence-based framework and less weight on the results from the risk 
assessment, although the risk estimates were found to be roughly 
consistent with and generally supportive of the evidence-based 
framework applied in the NAAQS determination (73 FR 67004). Thus, when 
revising the NAAQS for lead to protect public health with an adequate 
margin of safety, EPA considered both the health evidence and the risk 
assessment, albeit to different extents.
    In addition to the uncertainties discussed above with respect to 
chronic, cancer, and the lead NAAQS reference values, there are also 
uncertainties associated with acute reference values. Not all acute 
reference values are developed for the same purpose, and care must be 
taken when interpreting the results of an acute assessment of human 
health effects relative to the reference value or values being 
exceeded. Where relevant to the estimated exposures, the lack of short-
term dose-response values at different levels of severity should be 
factored into the risk characterization as potential uncertainties.
    Although every effort is made to identify peer-reviewed reference 
values for cancer and non-cancer effects for all pollutants emitted by 
the sources included in this assessment, some hazardous air pollutants 
continue to have no peer-reviewed reference values for cancer or 
chronic non-cancer or acute effects. Since exposures to these 
pollutants cannot be included in a quantitative risk estimate, an 
understatement of risk for these pollutants at environmental exposure 
levels is possible.
    Additionally, chronic reference values for several of the compounds 
included in this assessment are currently under EPA IRIS review (e.g., 
cadmium and nickel), and revised assessments may

[[Page 29046]]

determine that these pollutants are more or less potent than the 
current value. We may re-evaluate residual risks for the final 
rulemaking if, as a result of these reviews, a dose-response metric 
changes enough to indicate that the risk assessment supporting this 
notice may significantly understate or overstate human health risk.
e. Uncertainties in the Multipathway and Environmental Impacts 
Assessment
    For the secondary lead smelting source category, two facilities 
were chosen as case study analyses to assess potential multipathway 
risks for mercury, cadmium, POM, and dioxins and furans. The selection 
criteria for modeling these two facilities included emissions rates of 
PB-HAPs, proximity to water bodies, proximity to farmland, average 
rainfall, average wind speed and direction, smelting furnace type, 
local change in elevation, and geographic representativeness of sites 
throughout the U.S. However, there is uncertainty as to whether these 
two facilities represent the highest potential for multipathway human 
health risks from the source category.
    Since the modeling used in these case study assessments utilize 
site specific parameters to describe naturally occurring physical, 
chemical and biological processes, we believe that the multimedia 
concentrations of PB-HAPs generated in this analysis are unbiased 
estimates of the true impacts.
    With respect to the risk estimates generated from this analysis, we 
present results based on two ingestion exposure scenarios: the RME and 
CTE scenarios. As noted above, we believe that these scenarios 
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.
    We further note that high-end fisher populations could display 
considerable variability both in terms of the degree to which they 
frequent specific water bodies or watersheds and the degree to which 
they target specific types of fish (or at least sizes of fish). Both of 
these factors can impact estimates of exposure. If a fisher population 
distributes their activity across a range of water bodies and harvests 
a variety of fish species (and sizes) than the distribution of exposure 
and risk across that population will be smaller compared with a 
population that focuses activity at individual water bodies and tends 
to focus on larger fish.
    To estimate potential high-end multipathway exposures and risks, in 
addition to utilizing fish consumption rate data for the general U.S. 
population of recreational anglers,\17\ we used fish consumption 
information for distinct fisher subpopulations that are known to have 
higher fish consumption rates. The data were obtained from Shilling, et 
al. (2010).\18\ In this publication, the authors provide fish 
consumption information for different ethnic groups including 
Hispanics, Laotians, and Vietnamese surveyed in California's Central 
Valley Delta based on sample sizes of 45, 33, and 30, respectively. We 
note that there is uncertainty based on the limited sample sizes and in 
the extrapolation of these fish consumption rates to other parts of the 
United States. Further discussion of these values is provided in the 
risk assessment supporting documents. We request comment on the use of 
these data to support the RME analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Data for the general U.S. population of recreational 
anglers was obtained from: EPA 2002, ``Estimated Per Capita Fish 
Consumption in the United States, Office of Water, Office of Science 
and Technology, Washington, DC, EPA-821-C-02-003. August 2002.
    \18\ Shilling, et al. 2010 is available in the docket for this 
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A more detailed discussion of the multipathway analysis and its 
associated uncertainties is presented in section 5.3 of the document 
Human Health Multipathway Residual Risk Assessment for the Secondary 
Lead Smelting Source Category, which can be found in the docket for the 
proposed rule.
f. Uncertainties in the Demographic Analysis
    Our analysis of the distribution of risks across various 
demographic groups is subject to uncertainty associated with the 
extrapolation of census-block group data (e.g., income level and 
education level) down to the census block level.

C. How did we consider the risk results in making decisions for this 
proposal?

    In evaluating and developing standards under section 112(f)(2), as 
discussed in Section I.A of this preamble, we apply a two-step process 
to address residual risk. In the first step, EPA determines whether 
risks are acceptable. This determination ``considers all health 
information, including risk estimation uncertainty, and includes a 
presumptive limit on maximum individual lifetime [cancer] risk (MIR) 
\19\ of approximately 1-in-10 thousand [i.e., 100-in-1 million]'' (54 
FR 38045). In the second step of the process, EPA sets the standard at 
a level that provides an ample margin of safety ``in consideration of 
all health information, including the number of persons at risk levels 
higher than approximately 1-in-1 million, as well as other relevant 
factors, including costs and economic impacts, technological 
feasibility, and other factors relevant to each particular decision'' 
(Id.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Although defined as ``maximum individual risk,'' MIR refers 
only to cancer risk. MIR, one metric for assessing cancer risk, is 
the estimated risk were an individual exposed to the maximum level 
of a pollutant for a lifetime.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In past residual risk actions, EPA has presented and considered a 
number of human health risk metrics associated with emissions from the 
category under review, including: The MIR; the numbers of persons in 
various risk ranges; cancer incidence; the maximum non-cancer hazard 
index (HI); and the maximum acute non-cancer hazard (72 FR 25138, May 
3, 2007; 71 FR 42724, July 27, 2006). In our most recent proposals (75 
FR 65068, October 21, 2010 and 75 FR 80220, December 21, 2010), EPA 
also presented and considered additional measures of health 
information, such as estimates of the risks associated with the maximum 
level of emissions which might be allowed by the current MACT standards 
(see, e.g., 75 FR 65068, October 21, 2010 and 75 FR 80220, December 21, 
2010). EPA also discussed and considered risk estimation uncertainties. 
EPA is providing this same type of information in support of the 
proposed actions described in this Federal Register notice.
    The Agency is considering all available health information to 
inform our determinations of risk acceptability and ample margin of 
safety under CAA section 112(f). Specifically, as explained in the 
Benzene NESHAP, ``the first step judgment on acceptability cannot be 
reduced to any single factor'' and thus ``[t]he Administrator believes 
that the acceptability of risk under [previous] section 112 is best 
judged on the basis of a broad set of health risk measures and 
information'' (54 FR 38046). Similarly, with regard to making the ample 
margin of safety determination, as stated in the Benzene NESHAP ``[in 
the ample margin decision, the Agency again considers all of the health 
risk and other health information considered in the first step. Beyond 
that information, additional factors relating to the appropriate level 
of control will also be considered, including cost and economic impacts 
of controls, technological feasibility, uncertainties, and any other 
relevant factors.'' Id.
    The Agency acknowledges that the Benzene NESHAP provides 
flexibility regarding what factors EPA might consider in making 
determinations and how these factors might be weighed for each source 
category. In responding to

[[Page 29047]]

comment on our policy under the Benzene NESHAP, EPA explained that: 
``The policy chosen by the Administrator permits consideration of 
multiple measures of health risk. Not only can the MIR figure be 
considered, but also incidence, the presence of non-cancer health 
effects, and the uncertainties of the risk estimates. In this way, the 
effect on the most exposed individuals can be reviewed as well as the 
impact on the general public. These factors can then be weighed in each 
individual case. This approach complies with the Vinyl Chloride mandate 
that the Administrator ascertain an acceptable level of risk to the 
public by employing [her] expertise to assess available data. It also 
complies with the Congressional intent behind the CAA, which did not 
exclude the use of any particular measure of public health risk from 
the EPA's consideration with respect to CAA section 112 regulations, 
and, thereby, implicitly permits consideration of any and all measures 
of health risk which the Administrator, in [her] judgment, believes are 
appropriate to determining what will `protect the public health' '' (54 
FR at 38057).
    Thus, the level of the MIR is only one factor to be weighed in 
determining acceptability of risks. The Benzene NESHAP explained that 
``an MIR of approximately 1-in-10 thousand should ordinarily be the 
upper end of the range of acceptability. As risks increase above this 
benchmark, they become presumptively less acceptable under CAA section 
112, and would be weighed with the other health risk measures and 
information in making an overall judgment on acceptability. Or, the 
Agency may find, in a particular case, that a risk that includes MIR 
less than the presumptively acceptable level is unacceptable in the 
light of other health risk factors'' (Id. at 38045). Similarly, with 
regard to the ample margin of safety analysis, EPA stated in the 
Benzene NESHAP that: ``* * * EPA believes the relative weight of the 
many factors that can be considered in selecting an ample margin of 
safety can only be determined for each specific source category. This 
occurs mainly because technological and economic factors (along with 
the health-related factors) vary from source category to source 
category'' (Id. at 38061).
    EPA wishes to point out that certain health information has not 
been considered to date in making residual risk determinations. In 
assessing risks to populations in the vicinity of the facilities in 
each category, we present estimates of risk associated with HAP 
emissions from the source category alone (source category risk 
estimates), and generally we have also assessed risks due to HAP 
emissions from the entire facility at which the covered source category 
is located (facility-wide risk estimates). We have not attempted to 
characterize the risks associated with all HAP emissions impacting the 
populations living near the sources in these categories. That is, at 
this time, we do not attempt to quantify those HAP risks that may be 
associated with emissions from other facilities that do not include the 
source categories in question, mobile source emissions, natural source 
emissions, persistent environmental pollution, or atmospheric 
transformation in the vicinity of the sources in these categories.
    The Agency understands the potential importance of considering an 
individual's total exposure to HAP in addition to considering exposure 
to HAP emissions from the source category and facility. This is 
particularly important when assessing non-cancer risks, where 
pollutant-specific exposure health reference levels (e.g., Reference 
Concentrations (RfCs)) are based on the assumption that thresholds 
exist for adverse health effects. For example, the Agency recognizes 
that, although exposures attributable to emissions from a source 
category or facility alone may not indicate the potential for increased 
risk of adverse non-cancer health effects in a population, the 
exposures resulting from emissions from the facility in combination 
with emissions from all of the other sources (e.g., other facilities) 
to which an individual is exposed may be sufficient to result in 
increased risk of adverse non-cancer health effects. In May 2010, the 
EPA SAB advised us ``* * * that RTR assessments will be most useful to 
decision makers and communities if results are presented in the broader 
context of aggregate and cumulative risks, including background 
concentrations and contributions from other sources in the area.'' \20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ EPA's responses to this and all other key recommendations 
of the SAB's advisory on RTR risk assessment methodologies (which is 
available at: http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/
4AB3966E263D943A8525771F00668381/$File/EPA-SAB-10-007-unsigned.pdf) 
are outlined in a memo to this rulemaking docket from David Guinnup 
entitled, EPA's Actions in Response to the Key Recommendations of 
the SAB Review of RTR Risk Assessment Methodologies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although we are interested in placing source category and facility-
wide HAP risks in the context of total HAP risks from all sources 
combined in the vicinity of each source, we are concerned about the 
uncertainties of doing so. At this point, we believe that such 
estimates of total HAP risks will have significantly greater associated 
uncertainties than for the source category or facility-wide estimates, 
and hence would compound the uncertainty in any such comparison. This 
is because we have not conducted a detailed technical review of HAP 
emissions data for source categories and facilities that have not 
previously undergone an RTR review or are not currently undergoing such 
review. We are requesting comment on whether and how best to estimate 
and evaluate total HAP exposure in our assessments, and, in particular, 
on whether and how it might be appropriate to use information from 
EPA's National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) to support such estimates. 
We are also seeking comment on how best to consider various types and 
scales of risk estimates when making our acceptability and ample margin 
of safety determinations under CAA section 112(f). Additionally, we are 
seeking comments and recommendations for any other comparative measures 
that may be useful in the assessment of the distribution of HAP risks 
across potentially affected demographic groups.

D. How did we perform the technology review?

    Our technology review focused on the identification and evaluation 
of developments in practices, processes, and control technologies that 
have occurred since the 1997 NESHAP was promulgated. In cases where the 
technology review identified such developments, we conducted an 
analysis of the technical feasibility of applying these developments, 
along with the estimated impacts (costs, emissions reductions, risk 
reductions, etc.) of applying these developments. We then made 
decisions on whether it is necessary to propose amendments to the 
regulation to require any of the identified developments.
    Based on our analyses of the data and information collected by the 
ICR and our general understanding of the industry and other available 
information on potential controls for this industry, we identified 
several potential developments in practices, processes, and control 
technologies. For the purpose of this exercise, we considered any of 
the following to be a ``development'':
     Any add-on control technology or other equipment that was 
not identified and considered during development of the 1997 NESHAP.
     Any improvements in add-on control technology or other 
equipment (that were identified and considered during development of 
the 1997

[[Page 29048]]

NESHAP) that could result in significant additional emissions 
reduction.
     Any work practice or operational procedure that was not 
identified or considered during development of the 1997 NESHAP.
     Any process change or pollution prevention alternative 
that could be broadly applied to the industry and that was not 
identified or considered during development of the 1997 NESHAP.
    In addition to reviewing the practices, processes, or control 
technologies that were not considered at the time we developed the 1997 
NESHAP, we reviewed a variety of data sources in our evaluation of 
whether there were additional practices, processes, or controls to 
consider for the secondary lead smelting industry. Among the data 
sources we reviewed were the NESHAP for various industries that were 
promulgated after the 1997 NESHAP. We reviewed the regulatory 
requirements and/or technical analyses associated with these regulatory 
actions to identify any practices, processes, and control technologies 
considered in these efforts that could possibly be applied to emissions 
sources in the Secondary Lead Smelting source category, as well as the 
costs, non-air impacts, and energy implications associated with the use 
of these technologies.
    We also consulted EPA's RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse (RBLC) to 
identify potential technology advances. Control technologies, 
classified as RACT (Reasonably Available Control Technology), BACT 
(Best Available Control Technology), or LAER (Lowest Achievable 
Emissions Rate) apply to stationary sources depending on whether the 
sources are existing or new, and on the size, age, and location of the 
facility. BACT and LAER (and sometimes RACT) are determined on a case-
by-case basis, usually by State or local permitting agencies. EPA 
established the RBLC to provide a central database of air pollution 
technology information (including technologies required in source-
specific permits) to promote the sharing of information among 
permitting agencies and to aid in identifying future possible control 
technology options that might apply broadly to numerous sources within 
a category or apply only on a source-by-source basis. The RBLC contains 
over 5,000 air pollution control permit determinations that can help 
identify appropriate technologies to mitigate many air pollutant 
emissions streams. We searched this database to determine whether it 
contained any practices, processes, or control technologies for the 
types of processes covered by the Secondary Lead Smelting MACT.
    Additionally, we requested information from facilities regarding 
developments in practices, processes, or control technology. Finally, 
we reviewed other information sources, such as State or local 
permitting agency databases and industry-supported databases.

E. What other issues are we addressing in this proposal?

    In addition to the analyses described above, we also reviewed other 
aspects of the MACT standards for possible revision as appropriate and 
necessary. Based on this review we have identified aspects of the MACT 
standards that we believe need revision.
    This includes proposing revisions to the startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction (SSM) provisions of the MACT rule in order to ensure that 
they are consistent with a recent court decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 
551 F.3d 1019 (DC Cir. 2008). In addition, we are proposing other 
various minor changes with regards to editorial errors and other 
revisions to promote the use of plain language. The analyses and 
proposed decisions for these actions are presented in Section IV.E of 
this preamble.

IV. Analyses Results and Proposed Decisions

    This section of the preamble provides the results of our RTR for 
the Secondary Lead Smelting source category and our proposed decisions 
concerning changes to the 1997 NESHAP.

A. What are the results of our analyses and proposed decisions 
regarding unregulated emissions sources?

1. Organic HAP
    As discussed in Section III.A of this preamble, we evaluated 
emissions limits for organic HAP for reverberatory furnaces not 
collocated with blast furnaces, rotary furnaces, and electric furnaces. 
Section 112(d)(3)(B) of the CAA requires that the MACT standards for 
existing sources be at least as stringent as the average emissions 
limitation achieved by the best performing five sources (for which the 
Administrator has or could reasonably obtain emissions information) in 
a category with fewer than 30 sources. The Secondary Lead Smelting 
source category consists of fewer than 30 sources. Where, as here, 
there are less than 30 sources, we base the MACT floor limit on the 
average emissions limitation achieved by those sources for which we 
have data.
    EPA must exercise its judgment, based on an evaluation of the 
relevant factors and available data, to determine the level of 
emissions control that has been achieved by the best performing sources 
under variable conditions. It is recognized in the case law that EPA 
may consider variability in estimating the degree of emissions 
reduction achieved by best-performing sources and in setting MACT 
floors. See Mossville Envt'l Action Now v. EPA, 370 F.3d 1232, 1241-42 
(DC Cir 2004) (holding EPA may consider emissions variability in 
estimating performance achieved by best-performing sources and may set 
the floor at a level that a best-performing source can expect to meet 
``every day and under all operating conditions''). More details on how 
we calculate MACT floors and how we account for variability are 
described in the Draft MACT Floor Analysis for the Secondary Lead 
Smelting Source Category which is available in the docket for this 
proposed action.
    With regard to the evaluation of potential MACT limits for organic 
HAP from this source category, consistent with the explanation 
presented in the proposal of the 1997 NESHAP (NESHAP for Secondary Lead 
Smelting, Proposed Rule, June 9, 1994, 59 FR 63941) for this source 
category describing the appropriateness of THC as a surrogate for 
organic HAP, we continue to consider THC as an appropriate surrogate 
for non-dioxin organic HAP in the proposed amendments to the NESHAP in 
today's action. Based on our data, there are currently only two 
reverberatory furnaces not collocated with a blast furnace, one rotary 
furnace, and two reverberatory furnaces mixed with electric furnaces 
(i.e., two reverberatory furnaces whose exhaust are mixed with the 
exhaust of an electric furnace prior to atmospheric release) operating 
in this source category. Based on analysis of emissions data and 
furnace operating characteristics (as discussed further below), we 
believe it is appropriate to set one THC limit that will apply to 
reverberatory furnaces not collocated with a blast furnace and 
reverberatory furnaces mixed with electric furnaces, because of 
generally similar (and low) potential for organic HAP emissions from 
both furnace types. We are proposing a separate THC emissions limit for 
rotary furnaces.
    We received THC emissions data for one reverberatory furnace not 
collocated with a blast furnace and one reverberatory furnace mixed 
with an electric furnace, and one rotary furnace. Therefore, for each 
of these furnace configurations, we have emissions data from at least 
half the units. We are soliciting emissions data for the

[[Page 29049]]

operating affected sources for which we don't have data. Based on the 
data that we have, we conducted a MACT Floor analysis.
    As discussed above, the MACT floor limit is calculated based on the 
average performance of the units plus an amount to account for these 
units' variability. To account for variability in the operation and 
emissions, the stack test data were used to calculate the 99 percent 
upper predictive limit (UPL) for reverberatory furnaces not collocated 
with a blast furnace and reverberatory furnaces mixed with electric 
furnaces. For rotary furnaces, because we have only one test with two 
successful test runs, we considered both the 99 percent UPL and the 99 
percent upper limit (UL) to account for variability in the emissions 
data. Our consideration of variability is explained in more detail in 
the technical document for this action: Draft MACT Floor Analysis for 
the Secondary Lead Smelting Source Category, which is available in the 
docket for this action.
    The 99 percent UPL for exhaust THC concentrations from existing 
reverberatory furnaces not collocated with a blast furnace and 
reverberatory furnaces mixed with electric furnaces is 12 ppmv 
(expressed as propane) corrected to 4 percent CO2 to account 
for dilution. Consistent with CAA section 112(d)(3), the MACT floor for 
new sources cannot be less stringent than the emissions control that is 
achieved in practice by the best-controlled similar source. The 99 
percent UPL for exhaust THC concentrations from the best-performing 
affected source was calculated as 12 ppmv (expressed as propane) 
corrected to 4 percent CO2.
    We are also proposing a THC MACT limit for rotary furnaces. As 
mentioned previously, there is only one operating rotary furnace in the 
U.S. We received test data for this unit; however, it included only two 
successful test runs. The average of the two emissions test runs was 
257 ppmv (expressed as propane and adjusted to 4 percent 
CO2), and the highest of the two test runs was 292 ppmv 
(expressed as propane and adjusted to 4 percent CO2). Using 
the 99 percent UPL approach, we calculated a MACT floor of 1700 ppmv, 
which is 6.6 times higher than the average. By using the 99 percent UL 
approach, we calculated a MACT floor of 610 ppmv (expressed as propane 
and adjusted to 4 percent CO2) applicable to new and 
existing affected sources, which is 2.4 times higher than the average. 
Because of very limited emissions data, our statistical analysis does 
not clearly indicate whether the UPL or UL is a better measure of the 
typical variability in performance of the unit. However, because the 99 
percent UL approach resulted in a MACT floor that is more within the 
range of typical variability we expect when calculating MACT floors for 
various source categories and emissions points, the emissions limit 
calculated using the 99 percent UL was chosen as the proposed THC MACT 
floor for rotary furnaces in this action. However, we seek comments on 
this issue.
    We considered beyond-the-floor options for THC standards for all of 
these furnace configurations, as required by section 112(d)(2) of the 
Act. However, we decided not to propose any limits based on the beyond 
the floor analyses for THC because of the costs, potential 
disadvantages of these additional controls (including increases in 
CO2 and NOX emissions), and non-air environmental 
impacts and adverse energy implications associated with use of these 
additional controls. The beyond-the-floor analysis is presented in the 
technical documentation for this action (Draft MACT Floor Analysis for 
the Secondary Lead Smelting Source Category). In summary, we are 
proposing that new and existing reverberatory furnaces not collocated 
with a blast furnace and reverberatory furnaces mixed with electric 
furnaces be subject to a THC concentration limit of 12 ppmv (expressed 
as propane) corrected to 4 percent CO2. Additionally, we are 
proposing that both new and existing rotary furnaces be subject to a 
THC concentration limit of 610 ppmv (expressed as propane) corrected to 
4 percent CO2.
    We propose that compliance with all the proposed THC limits will be 
demonstrated by annual performance tests, and that continuous 
monitoring of temperatures of control devices (e.g., afterburners) and/
or furnaces (e.g., reverberatory furnaces) will be required as 
parametric monitoring to ensure continuous compliance with the THC 
limits.
    No changes are being considered in this action for the THC limits 
for blast and collocated blast and reverberatory furnaces established 
in the 1997 NESHAP.
2. Dioxin and Furans
    As mentioned previously, the 1997 NESHAP does not include emissions 
limits for dioxins and furans. Therefore, pursuant to CAA section 
112(d)(3), we are proposing to revise the 1997 NESHAP to include 
emission limits for dioxins and furans. The form of these proposed 
standards are in the form of toxic equivalency quotient (TEQ) 
concentration limits (i.e., prorating the amount of total dioxins and 
furans allowed to the most toxic species of dioxin). For more 
information on the TEQ approach to calculating dioxin and furan 
emissions see the dioxin emissions guidance available at: http://www.epa.gov/raf/hhtefguidance/.
    Because the formation of dioxins and furans is highly temperature 
dependent, and because the potential for dioxin and furan emissions 
varies considerably among different furnace types and configurations, 
EPA is proposing separate limits for each of the following furnace 
configurations: (1) Reverberatory furnaces not collocated with blast 
furnaces and reverberatory furnaces where the exhaust gases are mixed 
with the exhaust from electric furnaces; (2) blast furnaces; (3) 
collocated blast and reverberatory furnaces; and (4) rotary furnaces. A 
detailed analysis and documentation of the MACT floor calculations can 
be found in the technical document for this action: Draft MACT Floor 
Analysis for the Secondary Lead Smelting Source Category.
    Based on the emissions data and furnace operating temperatures 
reported in ICR surveys, EPA is proposing a single TEQ emissions limit 
that will apply to reverberatory furnaces not collocated with a blast 
furnace and to reverberatory furnaces where the exhaust gases are mixed 
with electric furnaces. There are seven sources of this type in the 
industry. We received emissions data for two such affected sources. We 
are soliciting data for the affected sources of this type for which we 
don't have emissions data. The MACT floor emissions limit for this 
affected source was calculated based on the average of the two 
emissions tests plus variability (based on the 99 percent UPL). The 99 
percent UPL for exhaust TEQ concentrations from the affected sources is 
0.20 nanograms per dry standard cubic meter (ng/dscm) of TEQ corrected 
to 7 percent oxygen (O2) to account for dilution. The 99 
percent UPL calculated for new affected sources is 0.10 ng/dscm 
corrected to 7 percent O2.
    With regard to blast furnaces, there are nine sources of this type 
in the industry. We received dioxin and furan emissions data for two 
affected sources. Using the data from these two sources, we calculated 
that the 99 percent UPL for exhaust TEQ concentrations from blast 
furnaces is 170 ng/dscm at 7 percent O2. For new blast 
furnaces, the 99 percent UPL is 10 ng/dscm at 7 percent O2. 
We acknowledge the large difference between the performance of the two 
affected sources for which we

[[Page 29050]]

have data but have not identified a technical basis for the difference. 
We are soliciting information that may explain these differences and 
other comments on this topic, including comments regarding the 
calculation of MACT floor limits for these sources. Additionally, we 
are soliciting data for the seven affected sources of this type for 
which we don't have emissions test data.
    There are five collocated blast and reverberatory furnaces in the 
industry. We received emissions test data for one of the affected 
sources. The calculated 99 percent UPL is 0.5 ng/dscm at 7 percent 
O2 and would apply to both new and existing collocated blast 
and reverberatory furnaces. We are soliciting data for the remaining 
four affected sources for which we don't have emissions data.
    As previously noted, there is only one rotary furnace currently in 
operation and we received emissions data for this source. Similar to 
THC emissions, we have only two emissions test runs for this unit. For 
the same reasons explained above for THC, we developed a MACT floor 
limit of 1.0 ng/dscm of TEQ corrected to 7 percent O2 based 
on the 99 percent UL, as opposed to the UPL. Thus, an emissions limit 
based on the MACT floor for existing and new rotary furnaces would be 
1.0 ng/dscm of TEQ corrected to 7 percent O2.
    We then considered beyond-the-floor options to further reduce 
emissions of dioxins and furans, especially from blast furnaces since 
blast furnaces have higher emissions compared to the other furnace 
types. The options considered, included an option based on setting a 
MACT limit for existing sources based on the performance of the best 
performing source (i.e., based upon the test data used to calculate the 
MACT floor for new sources) such that the MACT limit for existing 
sources would be the same as the MACT limit for new sources (i.e., 10 
ng/dscm). However, since we are uncertain about the performance of the 
other blast furnaces and whether it would be feasible for them to meet 
a limit of 10 ng/dscm and what the costs would be, we are not proposing 
MACT limits for existing blast furnaces based on this one set of data 
in today's action. We do have data for two other blast furnaces that 
are not controlled with reverberatory furnaces, but because of the 
configuration of the stacks (blast furnace off-gas is mixed with 
reverberatory furnace off-gas), we were unable to determine the amount 
of dioxin that originated from the blast furnace alone compared to the 
dioxin that was due to the reverberatory furnace. Therefore, these data 
were not used in the calculation of the blast furnace MACT limits. 
However, we note that the dioxin concentrations emitted from these 
sources was in the range of the better performing of the two blast 
furnaces that were used in the calculations of the MACT Floor. 
Nevertheless, we are seeking comments as to whether it would be 
appropriate to establish a MACT limit based upon the data from the one 
better performing blast furnace or if it would be appropriate to use 
the data from the mixed sources to determine a MACT limit for Blast 
furnaces. A MACT limit based upon the data from the one better 
performing blast furnace (using the 3 test results and applying the 99 
percent UPL) would be 10 ng/dscm. We are seeking comments on whether 
this limit, or some other limit, would be appropriate for Blast 
Furnaces.
    The key conditions typically associated with determining the extent 
of dioxin and furan formation are combustion efficiency, complex 
organic fuels, particulate concentration in the flue gas, time in a 
critical temperature window of approximately 250 to 450 degrees C, and 
the amount of chlorine present. Increased chlorine concentrations in 
the furnace feed can increase the dioxin formation. The blast furnaces 
tested have higher emissions of dioxins and furans than other furnace 
types. We believe this is because these furnaces are designed to 
operate at lower temperatures, and these operating temperatures can 
lead to dioxin formation. Controls for dioxins and furans once they 
have formed include a high temperature oxidation with quick quenching 
of the off-gases, or activated carbon injection followed by fabric 
filtration. Fabric filtration alone has also been demonstrated to 
provide significant control of dioxins and furans, and because 
improvements are expected in the performance of fabric filters as a 
result of standards being proposed for lead in today's action, it is 
anticipated that some additional reduction in dioxin emissions may 
occur as a co-benefit of the proposed lower limits for lead. 
Nevertheless, we are seeking data and information on dioxin emissions 
from blast furnaces, possible control options, factors that affect 
dioxin formation and other related information to inform the 
development of appropriate standards for dioxin and furan emissions 
from these sources.
    As described below, we are also proposing a work practice standard 
to prevent plastics (which are complex organics and may contain 
chlorine) from entering furnaces as a beyond-the-floor option. We also 
considered an option that involves installation of additional 
afterburner capacity at the facilities operating blast furnaces. This 
option would include operating the currently installed afterburners at 
high temperatures and with sufficient residence time to destroy 
dioxins, or installation of new or additional afterburner capacity with 
this capability. Based on the current level of performance identified 
in the ICR surveys, we believe that this option would require four 
facilities to install afterburner capacity at their facility in order 
to operate the units at these conditions. The estimated total capital 
cost for the additional controls is $5.9 million, with a total 
annualized cost of $2.9 million. We estimate that TEQ emissions would 
be reduced by roughly 28 grams per year (and organic HAP emissions by 
200 tons per year) resulting in a total estimated cost effectiveness of 
$103,600 per gram of dioxin TEQ and $14,500 per ton organic HAP (see: 
Draft MACT Floor Analysis for the Secondary Lead Smelting Source 
Category for more details).
    In light of the costs of these additional controls and since these 
controls would have some disadvantages, including causing increases in 
CO2 and NOX (oxides of nitrogen) emissions and 
increased fuel use, and given the uncertainties regarding how effective 
these controls would be, we are not proposing more stringent numerical 
emissions limits based on this beyond-the-floor analysis. Nevertheless, 
we are seeking data and information on dioxin and furan emissions from 
blast furnaces and the costs and feasibility of additional controls and 
emissions reductions, including the beyond-the-floor options described 
above.
    Based on all the analyses described above, under CAA section 
112(d)(3), we are proposing to revise the 1997 NESHAP for this source 
category to include the following emissions limits for dioxins and 
furans:

     For reverberatory furnaces not collocated with blast 
furnaces and reverberatory furnaces where the exhaust gases are 
mixed with electric furnaces, we are proposing emissions limits of 
0.20 ng/dscm at 7 percent O2 and 0.1 ng/dscm at 7 percent 
O2 for existing and new affected sources, respectively.
     For blast furnaces, we are proposing emissions limits 
of 170 ng/dscm at 7 percent O2 and 10 ng/dscm at 7 
percent O2 for existing and new sources, respectively.
     For collocated blast and reverberatory furnaces, we are 
proposing an emissions limit of 0.5 ng/dscm at 7 percent 
O2 for both new and existing sources.
     For rotary furnaces, we are proposing an emissions 
limit of 1.0 ng/dscm at 7 percent O2 for both new and 
existing sources.

    Compliance with the TEQ limits will be demonstrated through an 
initial

[[Page 29051]]

compliance test followed by a compliance test at least once every 5 
years. The TEQ emissions will be calculated using the toxic equivalency 
factors (TEF) outlined by the World Health Organization (WHO) in 2005 
(available at Web site: http://www.epa.gov/raf/hhtefguidance/). 
Additionally, we are proposing that facilities must establish limits 
for the furnace exhaust temperature or afterburner operating 
temperature during the initial performance test. These temperatures 
must be maintained and monitored continuously between compliance tests 
to ensure that the controls are working properly to limit dioxin and 
furan emissions.
    In addition to the emissions limits described above, we are 
proposing that each facility must operate a process to separate plastic 
battery casing material prior to introducing feed into a blast furnace. 
Separation of plastic materials prior to the furnace will limit the 
organic component in the feed material, minimizing the formation of 
organic HAP, including dioxins and furans. It is our understanding that 
all facilities currently have a plastics separation process (that they 
implement on a voluntary basis) so this proposed requirement results in 
very minimal additional costs to the industry, if any. We are proposing 
this as a requirement (i.e., propose to convert this from a voluntary 
activity to a regulatory requirement) to ensure that facilities 
continue to implement the separation process to help minimize formation 
of dioxins and furans. Moreover, we considered proposing a minimum 
percent of plastics separation requirement (such as ensuring that a 
minimum of 95 percent of total plastics are separated from the scrap 
materials before being fed to furnaces). However, we did not have 
sufficient data to determine an appropriate specific percent. 
Nevertheless, we are seeking data and comments regarding the percent 
separation that can be achieved by the available processes and the 
potential to establish such a minimum percent separation requirement. 
Moreover, we are seeking information and comments on the various types 
of plastics separation processes and equipment used, and the relative 
feasibility and effectiveness of those processes and equipment. We are 
also seeking comments and information on potential methods to improve 
overall plastics separation, or methods to improve separation of 
certain types of plastics that may have higher potential for dioxin 
formation (e.g., chlorinated plastics). Finally, we are seeking 
information on appropriate recordkeeping and reporting requirements for 
these proposed work practices.
3. Mercury Emissions
    Based on the emissions test data received under the ICR, we 
considered proposing an emissions limit for mercury under CAA section 
112(d)(3). However, after careful review of the data from the ICR, we 
have decided not to propose a numerical limit for mercury. We found 
that the measured stack concentrations of mercury were consistently 
below the detection levels of the EPA test methods (52 out of 76 total 
test runs for mercury contained data below the detection limit, or 68 
percent of the entire data set). Consequently, EPA considers it 
impracticable to reliably measure mercury emissions from these units.
    We instead considered work practice standards under 112(h) for 
mercury emissions from this category. The difficulties with accurate 
measurements at the levels encountered from secondary lead smelters 
makes a measured standard technologically impracticable, and possibly 
economically impracticable as well (there appears to be no reliable way 
to measure compliance at such low levels even with the most carefully 
conducted tests). Given the factors described above, we conclude it is 
appropriate to consider work practice standards under 112(h) for 
mercury rather than numerical emissions limits under Section 112(d)(3).
    Therefore, we considered establishing work practice standards under 
CAA section 112(h) to minimize the potential for mercury emissions. 
Based on information submitted under the ICR, all facilities have 
baghouses to control lead and other particulate matter (PM) emissions. 
These control devices are very effective at controlling non-volatile 
HAP metals (e.g., a well performing baghouse captures more than 99 
percent of lead emissions). These devices do not capture mercury as 
efficiently as the non-volatile metals. However, available data from 
other industries (such as coal-fired power plants) indicate that 
baghouses do provide some level of mercury control. For example, 
emissions data from coal-fired power plants suggest that baghouses can 
capture approximately 50 to 90 percent of mercury emissions depending 
on the speciation of the mercury compounds and other factors. 
(Reference: ``Control of Mercury Emissions from Coal Fired Electric 
Utility Boilers: An Update.'' National Risk Management Research 
Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, U.S. EPA. February 18, 
2005, available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/utility/utiltoxpg.html).
    Therefore, we are proposing that facilities must have continuous 
operation of a BLDS with a detection level of 1.0 mg/dscm for PM to 
ensure their baghouses are working properly as a work practice to limit 
mercury emissions. This is the same requirement proposed for lead 
emissions monitoring in this rulemaking under CAA sections 112(f)(2) 
and 112(d)(6), and will therefore pose no additional burden to the 
industry. Further, the proposed stack standards for lead will also 
adequately control mercury such that no further standard is necessary. 
The standard would be implemented continuously for all metals by the 
BLDS measurement.
    Nevertheless, we also investigated the feasibility of additional 
work practices to determine if there were other cost-effective 
pollution prevention measures that could be applied to this industry to 
further minimize mercury emissions such as source separation 
approaches. Based on available information, analyses, and discussion 
with industry, we understand that the vast majority of input materials 
have very low mercury content (e.g., lead acid batteries). However, we 
also understand that other types of scrap such as industrial batteries, 
various construction materials, and other scrap materials are 
occasionally processed in these furnaces materials. To ensure that 
mercury-bearing materials are not included in such scrap, we considered 
proposing that facilities inspect their input scrap materials daily to 
ensure that mercury-bearing materials are not fed to the furnaces. 
However, we are not aware of any identifiable or recoverable sources of 
mercury in the scrap fed to secondary lead smelters and we are also 
concerned that such work practices could be infeasible. Therefore, we 
are not proposing such a standard in today's action. However, we are 
soliciting comments on the appropriateness and feasibility of 
implementing such a work practice standard for mercury. We are also 
interested in information regarding any other pollution prevention 
practices for mercury that may be feasible or appropriate for this 
source category.

B. What are the results of the risk assessments and analyses?

    As described above, for the Secondary Lead Smelting source 
category, we conducted an inhalation risk assessment for all HAP 
emitted. We also conducted multipathway analyses for cadmium, dioxins 
and furans, mercury, and POM, as well as air-related multipathway

[[Page 29052]]

analyses for lead. With respect to lead, we used the recently 
promulgated lead NAAQS to evaluate the potential for air-related 
multipathway and environmental effects. Furthermore, we conducted a 
demographic analysis of population risks. Details of the risk 
assessments and additional analyses can be found in the residual risk 
documentation referenced in Section III.B of this preamble, which is 
available in the docket for this action. The Agency considered the 
available health information--the MIR; the numbers of persons in 
various risk ranges; cancer incidence; the maximum non-cancer hazard 
index (HI); the maximum acute non-cancer hazard; the extent of non-
cancer risks; the potential for adverse environmental effects; and 
distribution of risks in the exposed population (54 FR 38044, September 
14, 1989)--in developing the proposed CAA section 112(f)(2) standards 
for the Secondary Lead source category.
1. Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
    Table 3 of this preamble provides an overall summary of the results 
of the inhalation risk assessment.

                       Table 3--Secondary Lead Smelting Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Maximum individual cancer risk  (in 1                                   Maximum chronic  non-
               million) \1\                   Estimated     Estimated        cancer TOSHI \2\          Maximum
-------------------------------------------  population      annual    ----------------------------   screening
                                Based on    at increased     cancer       Based on      Based on     acute  non-
  Based on actual emissions     allowable      risk of      incidence      actual       allowable     cancer HQ
            level               emissions    cancer >=1-   (cases per     emissions     emissions        \3\
                                  level     in-1 million      year)         level         level
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
50..........................          200       128,000          0.02           0.6             3            30
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Estimated maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk due to HAP emissions from the source category.
\2\ Maximum TOSHI. The target organ with the highest TOSHI for the Secondary Lead Smelting source category is
  the kidney.
\3\ The maximum HQ acute value of 30, driven by emissions of arsenic, is based on the only available acute dose-
  response value available for arsenic, which is the REL. See Section III.B of this preamble for explanation of
  acute dose-response values.

    The results of the chronic inhalation cancer risk assessment 
indicate that, based on estimates of current actual emissions, the 
maximum individual lifetime cancer risk (MIR) could be up to 50-in-1 
million, with fugitive dust emissions of arsenic, and to a lesser 
extent fugitive dust emissions of cadmium (see below), driving these 
risks. The total estimated cancer incidence from this source category 
based on actual emission levels is 0.02 excess cancer cases per year or 
one case in every 50 years, with emissions of arsenic and cadmium 
contributing 73 percent and 15 percent respectively, to this cancer 
incidence. In addition, we note that approximately 1,500 people are 
estimated to have cancer risks greater than 10-in-1 million, and 
approximately 128,000 people are estimated to have risks greater than 
1-in-1 million. When considering the risks associated with MACT-
allowable emissions, the MIR could be up to 200-in-1 million.
    The maximum modeled chronic non-cancer TOSHI value is 0.6 based on 
actual emissions, driven primarily by fugitive dust emissions of 
arsenic. When considering MACT allowable emissions, the maximum chronic 
non-cancer TOSHI value could be up to 3.
    Based on using the acute REL to assess possible acute non-cancer 
effects due to emissions of arsenic, our screening analysis estimates 
that the maximum acute HQ value for a facility in this source category 
could be up to 30. Moreover, this analysis estimates that acute HQ 
values could exceed a value of 1 at nine facilities.\21\ These 
exceedances are mainly due to fugitive emissions at most of these nine 
facilities. However, stack emissions, while generally not the principle 
driver of maximum acute HQ values greater than 1, contribute about 90 
percent of the risk at the facility which has the maximum acute HQ 
screening value of 30. We note that the California REL is the only 
acute value available, and we request comments on the use of this value 
as well as comments on the existence of other peer reviewed values that 
may be used to inform acute risks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Individual facility acute HQ values for all facilities can 
be found in Appendix 5, Table 3, of the risk assessment document 
that is included in the docket for this proposed rulemaking. Acute 
HQ values exceeding a value of 1 were as follows: 2, 2, 2, 3, 4, 5, 
6, 20 and 30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In summary, the analysis indicates that arsenic and cadmium 
emissions pose risks to public health due to inhalation exposures 
resulting from both fugitive and stack emissions (see above). Lead and 
dioxin and furan emissions also pose risks to public health, but these 
HAP are assessed separately as part of multipathway assessments 
described below. Based on our risk assessment, no other HAP were 
identified as contributing significant risks.
    With respect to the potential for adverse environmental effects 
from non PB-HAP, we note that 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.
2. Multipathway Risk Assessments and Results
    As noted above, in evaluating the potential for multipathway 
effects from emissions of lead, we compared modeled maximum 3-month 
rolling average lead concentrations (based on estimates of actual 
emissions) with the lead NAAQS. Results of this analysis indicate that, 
if current emission levels continue, the lead NAAQS could be exceeded 
at 12 of the 14 facilities and that nine facilities could have ambient 
levels that are at least 2-3 times above the NAAQS, largely due to 
actual fugitive dust emissions. Moreover, available ambient monitoring 
data for lead confirms that ambient air concentrations of lead are well 
above the lead NAAQS near seven of these facilities. As described in 
the technical document Draft Summary of Ambient Lead Monitoring Data 
near Secondary Lead Smelting Facilities, which is available the docket, 
the measured ambient levels (for 3-month maximum rolling 
concentrations) for year 2010 range from 1.00 to 0.26 [mu]g/
m3 for the seven facilities, and for year 2008, the measured 
values were up to 2.49 [mu]g/m3.
    When considering actual stack emissions only (i.e., in the 
theoretical absence of fugitive dust emissions), we estimate that one 
facility would be about 3 times above the NAAQS. Moreover, we estimate 
that the risks

[[Page 29053]]

associated with MACT-allowable stack emissions would be significantly 
higher. For example, we estimate that based on MACT-allowable emissions 
from stacks alone (not including fugitive dust emissions), the ambient 
lead concentrations could be about 10 times above the NAAQS at two 
facilities.
    Considering the results presented above, fugitive dust emissions, 
and to a lesser extent emissions from stacks, resulted in modeled lead 
concentrations above the NAAQS. We also note when considering all 
emissions (i.e., stack and fugitive dust emissions), our analysis 
indicates that maximum off-site 3-month rolling average lead 
concentrations could be up to 20 times the lead NAAQS near one 
facility's fenceline.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Secondary lead smelting modeled ambient lead concentrations 
for all facilities can be found in Table 3.2-3 of the risk 
assessment document that is included in the docket for this proposed 
rulemaking. Facilities with modeled ambient lead concentrations 
exceeding the NAAQS did so by 23, 19, 10, 6, 5, 4, 4, 3, 3, 1.5, 1.4 
and 1.3 fold.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To evaluate the potential for adverse environmental effects from 
lead, we compared modeled maximum 3-month rolling average lead ambient 
air concentrations with the current secondary lead NAAQS, which is 
identical to the primary, public health-based standard (see Section 
III.B.3 of this preamble). Thus, our analyses discussed above also 
indicate the potential for adverse environmental effects from emissions 
of lead.
    As noted above (section III.B.4), based on a multipathway screening 
analysis for emissions of non-lead PB-HAP from this source category, 
emissions of cadmium, dioxins and furans, and POM were all above the de 
minimis emissions rates that suggest the potential for non-negligible 
(i.e., greater than 1-in-1 million cancer risk or greater than a 
noncancer hazard quotient of 1) risk of adverse health effects from 
multipathway exposures.\23\ With regard to mercury, emissions are quite 
low for this category. In fact, most emissions tests for mercury for 
this source category were below MDL. Nevertheless, using conservative 
worst-case assumptions (e.g., assuming all non-detects for mercury were 
equal to the detection limit, as described in Sections IV.A and IV.B of 
this preamble), we estimated that mercury emissions could be above the 
de minimis emissions rates described above (see Section III.B of this 
preamble).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ For facilities in this source category: Cadmium, BaP, 
dioxins and furans, and mercury estimated emission rates were up to 
about 8, 24, 23,000, and 4 times above their respective de minimis 
emissions rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a result of this conservative screening analysis, we performed 
two detailed case study multipathway analyses for these four PB-HAP in 
areas near the Frisco Recycling (Frisco, TX) and Revere Smelting & 
Refining (Middletown, NY) facilities.\24\ Moreover, as previously 
mentioned above (section III.B.4), 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 RME and 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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 24 As previously noted above, the reasons that EPA selected 
these two facilities for analysis are described in detail in section 
2.5.1 of the document Human Health Multipathway Residual Risk 
Assessment for the Secondary Lead Smelting Source Category, which 
can be found in the docket for the proposed rule. The selection 
criteria for modeling these two facilities included emissions rates 
of PB-HAPs, proximity to water bodies, proximity to farmland, 
average rainfall, average wind speed and direction, smelting furnace 
type, local change in elevation, and geographic representativeness 
of sites throughout the U.S.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Considering the RME scenario, results of this analysis estimate the 
MIR for dioxin to be 30 in a million (based on Laotian anglers near the 
Frisco, TX facility). Using the CTE scenario, the maximum individual 
cancer risk from dioxins is estimated to be 6 in a million (also for 
Laotian anglers near the Frisco, TX facility). We note that, for the 
entire distribution of recreational anglers, the individual risk 
estimates for the CTE and RME scenarios ranged from 3 to 7 in a 
million. Considering both exposure scenarios, the MIR for POM was less 
than 1 in a million. With respect to chronic noncancer risk, in both 
case studies, using both exposure scenarios, we did not estimate 
chronic HQ values greater than 1 for dioxin, mercury (even using the 
conservative emission assumptions just mentioned above) or cadmium. 
Detailed methods and results of the multipathway analysis are presented 
in the document Human Health Multipathway Residual Risk Assessment for 
the Secondary Lead Smelting Source Category, which can be found in the 
docket for the proposed rule.
    With respect to the potential for adverse environmental effects 
from the non-lead PB-HAP included in the case study multipathway 
assessments described above (i.e., multipathway assessment for cadmium, 
dioxins and furans, POM, and mercury), similar to non PB-HAP, there is 
a lack of information about specific adverse environmental effects 
occurring at a given concentration for these pollutants. However, given 
that the multipathway assessments for these pollutants estimated that 
all chronic non-cancer HQ values are less than 1 using human health 
reference values, we believe that it is unlikely that adverse 
environmental effects would occur at the PB-HAP concentrations 
estimated in the multipathway assessment.
3. Facility-Wide Risk Assessment Results
    For this source category, there are no other significant HAP 
emissions sources present. All significant HAP sources have been 
included in the source category risk analysis. Therefore, we conclude 
that the facility-wide risk is essentially the same as the source 
category risk and that no separate facility-wide analysis is necessary.
4. Demographic Risk Analysis Results
    To identify specific groups that may be affected by this 
rulemaking, EPA conducted demographic analyses. These analyses provide 
information about the demographic makeup of populations with: (1) 
Estimated cancer risks at or above 1-in-1 million; and (2) estimated 
ambient air lead concentrations above the NAAQS for lead. Results are 
summarized in Table 4 of this preamble and are based on modeling using 
estimated actual emissions levels for the populations living within 50 
km of any secondary lead smelting facility.

[[Page 29054]]

                       Table 4--Secondary Lead Smelting Demographic Risk Analysis Results
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                Population  with
                                                                              Population  with    ambient  air
                                                                                cancer  risk          lead
                        Population                             Nationwide     greater  than 1-   concentrations
                                                                                in-1  million    exceeding  the
                                                                                                      NAAQS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total population..........................................       285,000,000           128,000               500
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Race by percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White.....................................................                75                58                94
All Other Races...........................................                25                42                 6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Race by percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White.....................................................                75                58                94
African American..........................................                12                 7                 2
Native American...........................................               0.9               0.8               0.6
Other and Multiracial.....................................                12                34                 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Ethnicity by percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hispanic..................................................                14                56                 5
Non-Hispanic..............................................                86                44                95
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Income by percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below poverty level.......................................                13                22                10
Above poverty level.......................................                87                78                90
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Children
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Children, Ages 0-18.......................................                27                32                26
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Results of the cancer risk assessment indicate that there are 
approximately 128,000 people exposed to a cancer risk greater than 1-
in-1 million. For informational purposes, it can further be determined 
that about 42 percent of this population can be classified as a 
minority (listed as ``all Other Races'' in the table), which is above 
the national percentage of 25 percent. More specifically, this analysis 
estimates a greater percentage of this population is ``Hispanic'' (56 
percent) and ``Other and Multiracial'' (34 percent) when compared to 
the corresponding national percentages (14 percent and 12 percent, 
respectively). We also note that in the cancer demographics analysis 
there is a larger percentage of individuals ``Below Poverty Level'' (22 
percent) when compared to the national percentage (13 percent). In 
contrast, this analysis estimates the percentage of those classified as 
``African American'' (7 percent) and ``Native American'' (0.8 percent) 
to be below corresponding national percentages (12 and 0.9 percent, 
respectively).
    With respect to lead, the risk analysis estimates that 500 people 
are living in areas around this source category with modeled ambient 
air lead concentrations above the NAAQS for lead. The lead demographics 
analysis estimates that about 6 percent of this population can be 
classified as a minority (listed as ``all Other Races'' in the table). 
Moreover, all minority or below the poverty level populations 
considered in the demographics analysis for lead are below the 
corresponding national percentages for these groups.
    Moreover, given the extent to which lead may impact children's 
health, we further note that our demographic analysis doesn't indicate 
the presence of a higher percentage of children than one would normally 
expect around facilities in this source category. The national 
percentage of people who are children 18 years and younger is 27 
percent; the percentage of people who are children 18 years or younger 
living near secondary lead smelting facilities who are estimated to be 
exposed to lead concentrations above the lead NAAQS is 26 percent (see 
Risk and Technology Review--Analysis of Socio-Economic Factors for 
Populations Living Near Secondary Lead Smelting Facilities in the 
docket for this proposed rulemaking).

C. What are our proposed decisions based on risk acceptability and 
ample margin of safety?

1. Risk Acceptability
    As noted in Section III.C of this preamble, we weigh all health 
risk factors in our risk acceptability determination, including cancer 
risks to the individual most exposed, risk estimation uncertainty, and 
other health information, including population risks and risks for non-
cancer health effects. The following sections discuss our decisions on 
risk acceptability based on three analyses: (1) Comparison of modeled 
ambient lead concentrations with the lead NAAQS, (2) the inhalation 
risk assessment, and (3) the multipathway risk assessment.
a. Comparison of Modeled Ambient Lead Concentrations With the Lead 
NAAQS
    With regard to lead emissions, because ambient air lead 
concentrations resulting from current emissions from nine facilities 
were estimated to be well above the lead NAAQS, the risks associated 
with lead emissions from this source category are judged to be 
unacceptable. Based on our modeling analysis, we estimate that ambient 
air lead concentrations near the facility boundary resulting from 
actual

[[Page 29055]]

emissions from one of these facilities could be as high as 20 times 
above the lead NAAQS, due primarily to fugitive dust emissions. 
Additionally, approximately 500 individuals could be exposed to three-
month-rolling average lead concentrations in excess of the NAAQS due to 
emissions from this source category. Moreover, we estimate that the 
risks would be significantly higher based on MACT-allowable emissions 
of lead from this source category. Exposure to levels this much in 
excess of a primary NAAQS raises obvious issues of adequacy of 
protection afforded by the current MACT standard. Among other things, 
the lead NAAQS was set to ``provide increased protection for children 
and other at-risk populations against an array of adverse health 
effects, most notably including neurological effects in children, 
including neurocognitive and neurobehavioral effects'' (73 FR 67007). 
EPA is thus proposing that these ambient lead levels need to be reduced 
to provide protection to public health with an ample margin of safety.
b. Inhalation Risk Assessment
    Based on the inhalation risk assessment, we estimate that the 
cancer risks to the individual most exposed could be as high as 50-in-1 
million due to actual emissions and as high as 200-in-1 million due to 
MACT-allowable emissions, mainly due to arsenic stack emissions and, to 
a lesser extent, cadmium emissions. We estimate that the incidence of 
cancer based on actual emissions is 0.02 excess cancer cases per year, 
or one case every 50 years. Based on these results, we conclude that 
the cancer risks due to MACT-allowable emissions from this source 
category are unacceptable. The cancer risks due to actual emissions are 
below 100-in-1 million and population risks are relatively low. 
Therefore, cancer risks due to actual emissions are considered 
acceptable.
    With respect to potential acute non-cancer health risks, we 
estimate that, based on our screening analysis, the worst-case HQ value 
could be up to 30 (based on the REL) at one facility, due primarily to 
arsenic emissions. Additionally, we estimated that nine facilities had 
potential worst-case HQs greater than 1 in our screening analysis, also 
due primarily to arsenic emissions. These results suggest that arsenic 
emissions have the potential to cause acute non-cancer health effects. 
However, the worst-case nature of our acute screening assessment 
suggests that the potential for these effects carries a relatively low 
probability of occurrence. Nevertheless, we seek comments regarding 
this conclusion.
c. Multipathway Risk Assessment
    Based on our multipathway risk assessment, we estimate that the MIR 
for cancer using a reasonable maximum or a central tendency exposure 
scenario (see above) could be up to 30-in-1 million and 6-in-1 million 
respectively, due to actual emissions of dioxins and furans. Because 
the MIR is less than the 100-in-1 million threshold, we conclude that 
the risks due to actual dioxin and furan emissions are acceptable. 
Because emissions of other HAP (i.e., cadmium and POM) analyzed in the 
multipathway risk assessments did not result in MIRs above 1-in-1 
million, we also conclude that the risks due to emissions of these HAP 
are acceptable.
d. Summary of Conclusions
    In summary, we conclude that, based on our lead NAAQS analysis, the 
risks due to lead emissions under the MACT standard for this source 
category are unacceptable. Based on the inhalation risk assessment, we 
conclude that cancer risks associated with MACT-allowable emissions 
from this source category are unacceptable, primarily due to arsenic 
emissions from stacks, and to a lesser extent cadmium emissions. The 
cancer risks associated with actual emissions from this source category 
were determined to be acceptable, but will be investigated further in 
the ample margin of safety analysis because the risks are greater than 
1-in-1 million, primarily due to fugitive emissions of arsenic and 
cadmium.
    We will also evaluate the arsenic emissions further under the ample 
margin of safety because of the potential for acute non-cancer risks. 
Lastly, the risks from emissions of all HAP considered in the 
multipathway assessment are acceptable. Nevertheless, as described in 
section 2 below, we evaluate the HAP further under the ample margin of 
safety analysis.
2. Proposed Controls and Analysis of the Resulting Risk
a. Allowable Stack Emissions
    In order to ensure that the risks associated with MACT-allowable 
stack emissions from this source category are acceptable, the MIR, 
resulting primarily from allowable stack emissions of arsenic, would 
need to be reduced by at least a factor of 2 (i.e., from 200-in-1 
million to 100-in-1 million or lower). Also, based on our analyses, 
MACT allowable emissions of lead from stacks alone (not including 
fugitive dust emissions) could result in ambient lead concentrations 
about 10 times above the NAAQS for two facilities. Because the controls 
for stack emissions of arsenic are the same as those for lead, and 
because the relationship between emissions and the MIR and ambient air 
lead concentrations is predominantly linear, we estimated that the 
current stack lead concentration limit would need to be reduced by 
approximately an order of magnitude to ensure acceptable risk from 
MACT-allowable emissions of lead and arsenic from this source category. 
Therefore, we considered lowering the existing lead concentration limit 
by an order of magnitude (i.e., from 2.0 mg/dscm to 0.2 mg/dscm) for 
all stacks. We also considered different forms of a revised lead 
emissions limit that would achieve similar reductions in MACT-allowable 
emissions. However, based on a combination of data analysis, evaluation 
of each facility's processes, and communication with the industry, we 
have determined that a concentration-based limit continues to be the 
most appropriate form for this source category.
    We also evaluated an approach that would implement a facility-wide, 
flow-weighted average lead concentration limit of 0.20 mg/dscm with a 
maximum concentration limit of 1.0 mg/dscm for any individual stack. 
For the 0.2 mg/dscm flow-weighted average limit, facilities would 
assign a weighting factor to the measured lead concentrations of each 
stack based on the exhaust flow rates of each control device. The sum 
of all the flow-weighted concentrations at each stack within a facility 
would then be calculated and compared to the proposed limit to 
demonstrate compliance. A limit in this form would ensure that the 
risks associated with MACT-allowable stack emissions of lead and 
arsenic from this source category are acceptable, and that the rule 
provides an ample margin of safety, while providing flexibility to the 
facilities in determining the most efficient approach to achieve the 
necessary reductions. Proposing a maximum concentration limit of 1.0 
mg/dscm for any individual stack will also ensure that stack emissions 
of lead from any one stack in this source category will not result in 
exceedances of the lead NAAQS. Furthermore, our analysis of available 
control technologies, presented in Section IV.D of this preamble, 
confirms that this is a technologically feasible standard.
    For these reasons, under the authority of CAA section 112(f)(2), we 
are proposing a facility-wide, flow-weighted average lead concentration 
limit of 0.20 mg/dscm to cover all stacks in this

[[Page 29056]]

source category. We are also proposing a maximum lead concentration 
limit of 1.0 mg/dscm to apply to any individual stack at existing 
facilities. For new sources, we are proposing that a limit of 0.20 mg/
dscm applies to all individual stacks at the facility. As in the 
existing MACT standard, compliance for existing sources will be 
demonstrated by annual stack testing and installation and operation of 
BLDSs for both new and existing sources.
    We are also proposing that new affected sources would be required 
to demonstrate compliance using a lead continuous emissions monitoring 
systems (CEMS).\25\ However, since the Agency has not finalized the 
performance specification for the use of these instruments, we are 
deferring the effective date of the requirement to install, calibrate, 
maintain and operate lead CEMS until these actions can be completed. 
The lead CEMS installation deadline will be established through future 
rulemaking, along with other pertinent requirements. In the event 
operations commence at a new affected source prior to promulgation of 
the performance specification, compliance would be demonstrated through 
annual stack testing and installation of a BLDS until promulgation of 
the lead CEMS performance specification. With regard to existing 
sources, we considered the possibility of proposing CEMs as the method 
to demonstrate compliance with the MACT limits. However, since the 
Agency has not yet finalized the performance specification for this 
method and since the costs could be high for applying this technology 
to multiple stacks, we are not proposing a requirement for CEMs for 
existing sources. However, we are allowing the option of a CEMS in lieu 
of annual stack tests for lead for existing sources in this industry 
when the technology is available and the EPA has established 
performance specifications. We are seeking comments and information on 
the feasibility of applying this technology for monitoring lead 
emissions from these sources and the potential to require CEMs on 
existing sources in this source category. Nevertheless, depending on 
comments received and other factors we may consider requiring CEMs for 
existing sources in the future, if appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ We do not believe that use of a lead CEM to meet the flow-
weighted average of 0.2 mg/dscm poses issues of feasibility, even 
though our present data for the source data comes from stack tests 
rather than continuous measurements. This is because so many sources 
are achieving levels considerably less than 0.2 mg/dscm in their 
performance tests. (See ``Summary of the Technology Review for 
Secondary Lead Smelters'', which is available in the docket.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Fugitive Dust Emissions
    As described in Section IV.C.1 of this preamble, we have determined 
that fugitive dust emissions must be reduced such that ambient lead 
concentrations near the facility boundaries are below the lead NAAQS 
(i.e., 0.15 mg/dscm). Based on our review of information submitted in 
the ICR, we have identified a combination of specific fugitive control 
measures that are generally able to achieve lead concentrations near 
the boundaries of facilities that are below the lead NAAQS (see Draft 
Technology Review for the Secondary Lead Smelting Source Category). 
These controls include total enclosure of process fugitive emissions 
sources and material storage and handling areas and implementation of a 
list of prescribed work practices to further limit the formation of 
fugitive dust in other areas of the facilities. Examples of these 
prescribed work practices include: Pavement of all grounds on the 
facility or sufficient groundcover to prevent wind-blown dust, monthly 
cleaning of building rooftops, timely cleaning of any accidental 
releases, inspection of battery storage areas outside of enclosures for 
broken batteries, and performance of maintenance on equipment that may 
be contaminated with lead inside total enclosures. Our analysis 
indicates that these controls are necessary to ensure that three-month 
rolling average lead concentrations near the boundaries at all 
facilities in this source category do not exceed the lead NAAQS. 
Furthermore, our analysis of available control technologies in Section 
IV.D of this preamble confirms that this is a technologically feasible 
standard for this source category.
    For the reasons described above, we are proposing under CAA section 
112(f)(2) that each facility must totally enclose the following 
emissions sources and operate the total enclosure under negative 
pressure:
    (1) Smelting furnaces;
    (2) Smelting furnace charging areas;
    (3) Lead taps, slag taps, and molds during tapping;
    (4) Battery breakers;
    (5) Refining kettles, casting areas;
    (6) Dryers;
    (7) Agglomerating furnaces and agglomerating furnace product taps;
    (8) Material handling areas for any lead bearing materials 
(drosses, slag, other raw materials), excluding areas where unbroken 
lead acid batteries and finished lead products are stored; and
    (9) Areas where dust from fabric filters, sweepings or used fabric 
filters are handled or processed.
    The ventilation air from the total enclosures must be conveyed to a 
control device. We are also proposing that the emissions from the 
enclosure control devices will be subject to the proposed stack lead 
emissions limits described in this section.
    In addition, we are proposing that facilities must implement the 
following fugitive control work practices: Pavement cleaning and 
vehicle washing; cleaning of building rooftops on a regular schedule 
(e.g., at least once per month); cleaning of all affected areas after 
accidental releases; inspection of the battery storage areas for broken 
batteries; performance of maintenance activities inside enclosures; and 
transport of lead bearing material in closed systems. Additionally, 
each facility will be required to prepare, and at all times operate 
according to, a SOP manual that describes in detail how the additional 
work practices will be implemented.
    We acknowledge that there may be other control measures and 
alternative approaches that we have not identified that are effective 
in reducing fugitive dust emissions at other facilities. Therefore, as 
an alternative to the requirement for full enclosure, we are proposing 
under CAA section 112(f)(2) that facilities may choose to implement the 
work practices, maintain partial enclosures and enclosure hoods as the 
1997 NESHAP requires, prepare an SOP as described above and establish 
an ambient air monitoring network to ensure that lead concentrations in 
air near the facility boundaries remain at or below 0.15 [mu]g/m\3\ 
based on 3-month rolling averages (the level and averaging time of the 
lead NAAQS). The monitoring plan must include a minimum of two 
monitoring sites that are placed in locations that are most likely to 
capture measurements of the maximum concentrations at or near the 
facility boundaries. For example, at least one monitor must be placed 
in the predominant downwind direction from main emissions sources based 
on historical weather patterns in the area. This alternative regulatory 
requirement based on partial enclosures, work practices plus monitoring 
lead concentrations in air would provide flexibility to facilities in 
determining the within-facility sources that should be enclosed and 
vented to a control device that are most effective for reducing 
fugitive emissions at their facilities. These proposed requirements 
will ensure that the risks associated with fugitive lead emissions from 
this

[[Page 29057]]

source category are acceptable. Nevertheless, we are seeking comments 
on this proposed alternative requirement, including whether two 
monitors would be sufficient or if more monitors may be warranted.
    If this alternative approach is chosen by the facility, the work 
practices and SOP along with the lead concentration in air monitoring 
would be established as the enforceable requirements to address 
fugitive emissions under the NESHAP. For both new and existing 
facilities, compliance with the lead concentration in air monitoring 
component would be demonstrated based on rolling 3-month average 
concentrations as measured by the lead compliance monitoring devices, 
consistent with the averaging time of the lead NAAQS (see documentation 
for EPA's Lead NAAQS, available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttnnaaqs/standards/pb). We are proposing that approval by EPA is required for 
each source electing to comply by means of this alternative approach 
that includes a monitoring network plus work practices rather than 
compliance based on full enclosure plus work practices. Thus, the 
proposed alternative requires development of a monitoring plan for 
approval by the Administrator that includes the minimum sampling and 
analysis methods and compliance demonstration criteria. Under this 
alternative, facilities would also be required to provide a work 
practice SOP manual to the Administrator.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ The proposed lead concentration in air alternative appears 
to be an ``emissions standard'', as required by section 112 (f)(2), 
since it ``limits the quantity, rate, or concentration'' of lead--to 
the level of the NAAQS at a location of maximum exposure--albeit 
compliance with the standard is measured by means of ambient 
monitoring. CAA section 302 (k). Nonetheless, EPA solicits comment 
on this issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As part of this alternative, we are also proposing a provision that 
would allow for reduced monitoring if the facility demonstrates ambient 
lead concentrations less than 50 percent of the ambient lead 
concentration limit for three consecutive years at each monitor. We 
propose that a revised monitoring plan may be submitted (for review and 
possible approval by the Administrator) to reduce the sampling and 
analysis frequency if all of the 3-month rolling average concentrations 
at each monitor are less than 50 percent of the limit of 0.15 [mu]g/
m\3\ over a 3-year period. The monitoring requirements discussed above 
were designed to allow for flexibility, prevention of redundant 
requirements, and also to provide consistency with current monitoring 
programs that may be required at some of the facilities in this source 
category.
c. Risks Considering Proposed Control Options
    We conducted an assessment to estimate the risks based on a post-
control scenario reflecting the proposed requirements for stack and 
fugitive emissions described above. (Details are provided in the Draft 
Risk Assessment report which is available in the docket for this 
action). Based on that modeling assessment, we estimated that the 
ambient lead concentrations would be at or below the lead NAAQS for all 
facilities once this rule is fully implemented, except for possibly one 
facility in California. Our modeling analysis indicated that this one 
facility in California may still be above the lead NAAQS after 
controls. Therefore, we gathered additional information and did further 
evaluation of this facility. Based on communications with the company, 
it is our understanding that the facility is currently constructing an 
additional enclosure of certain equipment (e.g., baghouse row, 
abatement equipment, and slurry tanks) that we had not included in our 
post-control scenario. Moreover, it is our understanding that the 
company has recently implemented, or is currently implementing, other 
measures (e.g., repaired asphalt and additional cleaning of road 
surfaces) that will significantly reduce their fugitive emissions 
further as part of their efforts to comply with a California State 
regulation (reference: based on verbal communications during meeting 
with Exide Corporation on February 23, 2011, in RTP, NC; and a phone 
conversation on April 25, 2011). The California regulation has a 
compliance deadline of late 2011 and requires that ambient 
concentrations of lead near this facility remain at or below 0.15 
[mu]g/m\3\ per 3-month rolling averages. Therefore, we conclude that 
this facility will achieve levels at or below the NAAQS.
    In summary, we are proposing that the MACT standard, with the 
changes we are proposing under the CAA section 112(f)(2) residual risk 
review, will reduce risks from fugitive lead emissions to an acceptable 
level.
    Our analysis indicates that the MIR for cancer due to inhalation 
exposure associated with actual emissions from this source category 
would be reduced from 50-in-1 million to 10-in-1 million as a result of 
the actions proposed under 112(f)(2), while the MIR from MACT-allowable 
emissions would be reduced from 200-in-1 million to 10-in-1 million. 
The cancer incidence rate will be reduced from 0.02 to 0.01. 
Furthermore, the maximum worst-case screening acute HQ value will be 
reduced from potentially as high as 30 to less than or equal to 5. 
Based on these metrics, the actions proposed above under CAA section 
112(f)(2) ensure acceptable risks from actual and MACT-allowable stack 
emissions of all HAP for this source category.
3. Ample Margin of Safety
    Under the ample margin of safety analysis, we evaluate the cost and 
feasibility of available control technologies and other measures 
(including the controls, measures and costs reviewed under the 
technology review) that could be applied in this source category to 
further reduce the risks due to emissions of HAP identified in our risk 
assessment. We estimate that the actions proposed under CAA section 
112(f)(2), as described above, will reduce the MIR associated with 
arsenic and cadmium from 200-in-1 to 10-in-1 million for MACT-allowable 
emissions and from 50-in-1 to 10-in-1 million for actual emissions. The 
cancer incidence will be reduced from 0.02 to 0.01 and the maximum 
acute HQ value will be reduced from potentially up to 30 to less than 
or equal to 5. Although these risks are considered acceptable based on 
the 100-in-1 million threshold established in the Benzene NESHAP, the 
MIR remains greater than 1-in-1 million, due primarily to fugitive 
emissions of arsenic and cadmium. Also, the maximum acute non-cancer HQ 
could be up to 5. Our ample margin of safety analysis is provided 
below. We have performed these analyses for emissions sources of the 
following five groups of HAP for which standards were proposed in 
today's action: (1) Arsenic and cadmium, (2) lead compounds, (3) 
dioxins and furans, (4) organic HAP, and (5) mercury compounds. The 
results of these analyses are presented in the following sections.
a. Arsenic and Cadmium Emissions
    Because the estimated MIR of 10-in-1 million remaining after 
implementation of our proposed revisions to the MACT standard is driven 
primarily by fugitive emissions of arsenic and cadmium, we performed an 
ample margin of safety analysis on these emissions. Based on our 
research and analyses, we have not identified any feasible control 
options beyond what we are requiring in our proposed standards for 
fugitive emissions sources described above, and are therefore not 
proposing additional fugitive controls based on our ample margin of 
safety analysis. Nevertheless, we are soliciting comments and 
information regarding additional fugitive control measures, work

[[Page 29058]]

practices that may be available and their feasibility in further 
reducing fugitive emissions of metal HAP, or additional monitoring that 
may be warranted to ensure adequate control of fugitive emissions.
    We also conducted additional analyses to determine whether 
reductions in stack emissions of arsenic and cadmium emissions beyond 
those required by our proposed standards are appropriate and necessary 
to provide an ample margin of safety. We identified one control 
technology that could achieve reductions beyond those that will occur 
due to the actions we are proposing under CAA section 112(f)(2), which 
are described above. The device is a wet electrostatic precipitator 
(WESP) that provides an estimated lead control efficiency of greater 
than 99 percent on the outlet of the baghouse. The combination of the 
baghouses with the WESP achieves greater than 99.99 percent control 
efficiency (see: Wet Electrostatic Precipitator (WESP) Control for 
Meeting Metals Emissions Standards). This technology is currently used 
at one facility in California. However, this control configuration is 
quite expensive. We estimated that installing a WESP at the other 13 
facilities would result in total capital costs to the industry of $400 
million and a total annualized cost of $55 million. We estimate that 
the cost-effectiveness would be about $4.0 million per ton of 
reductions in metal HAP emissions (mainly lead compounds). A detailed 
analysis of the costs associated with the WESP unit can be found in the 
technical document for this action available in the docket (see Draft 
Cost Impacts of the Revised NESHAP for the Secondary Lead Smelting 
Source Category). Stack emissions of arsenic and cadmium do not 
appreciably contribute to the 10-in-1 million cancer risks remaining 
after implementation of the proposed revisions. Moreover, we conclude 
that the likelihood of significant noncancer effects due to arsenic 
emissions (after the proposed controls described above are in place) is 
very low because the maximum acute noncancer HQ (which could be as high 
as 5) is based on a very conservative analysis using some worst case 
assumptions. Furthermore, the costs for these additional controls are 
high. Therefore, we are not proposing a requirement for the 
installation of a WESP under this ample margin of safety analysis.
b. Lead Emissions
    With regard to emissions of lead, by lowering the facility-wide 
emissions limit to a flow-weighted average of 0.20 mg/dscm, limiting 
the emissions from any one stack to no more than 1.0 mg/dscm, and 
requiring facilities to either fully enclose their facility and 
implement comprehensive fugitive work practices or implement 
comprehensive fugitive work practices and lead air monitoring, we 
conclude that the actual and MACT-allowable lead emissions from this 
source category would be reduced to the point that they would not 
result in off-site concentrations above the NAAQS. Moreover, we have 
not identified any further feasible and cost-effective controls. See 
Section IV.C.2.a of this preamble explaining that adding a wet 
electrostatic precipitator as supplementary HAP metal control would be 
excessively costly and not cost-effective. Moreover, as described 
above, we have not identified other measures (beyond those proposed 
above) to further reduce fugitive emissions. Thus, we are proposing 
that revisions to the MACT standard that we are proposing under CAA 
section 112(f)(2), as described above, will provide an ample margin of 
safety with regard to emissions of lead from this source category.
c. Dioxin and Furan Emissions
    With regard to dioxin and furan emissions, as outlined in Section 
IV.A of this preamble, we are proposing various emissions limits under 
CAA section 112(d)(3). Results of the multipathway risk assessment 
indicate that the cancer MIR associated with dioxin and furan emissions 
is 30-in-1 million, less than the acceptability threshold of 100-in-1 
million. However, because the MIR is greater than 1-in-1 million, we 
are required to investigate whether reductions in emissions of dioxins 
and furans beyond that required in the limits we are proposing under 
CAA section 112(d)(3) are needed to provide an ample margin of safety 
to the public.
    We identified one option to reduce emissions of dioxins and furans 
beyond that required by the limits proposed in today's action. This 
option is the installation of additional afterburner capacity at the 
facilities operating blast furnaces. We evaluated this option because 
of the higher potential of formation of dioxins and furans in the blast 
furnace exhaust due to its relatively cooler exit temperature. This 
option would include operating the currently installed afterburners at 
a temperature of 1600 [deg]F with a residence time of 2.5 seconds, or 
installation of new or additional afterburner capacity with this 
capability. Based on the current level of performance identified in the 
ICR surveys, we believe that this option would require four facilities 
to install additional afterburner capacity or install new afterburners 
at their facility in order to operate the units at these conditions. 
The estimated total capital cost for the additional controls is $5.9 
million, with a total annualized cost of $2.9 million. Based on an 
estimated control efficiency of 98 percent, TEQ emissions would be 
reduced by an estimated 28 grams per year and organic HAP emissions by 
200 tons per year (see Draft Cost Impacts of the Revised NESHAP for the 
Secondary Lead Smelting Source Category for a detailed analysis). 
However, this option would result in increases of NOX and 
CO2 emissions. Considering the costs associated with this 
option, the potential for increased emissions of NOX and 
CO2, and the fact that risks associated with emissions of 
dioxins and furans are clearly less than 100-in-1 million, we are not 
proposing this option as part of our ample margin of safety analysis. 
We also considered various beyond the floor options for establishing 
MACT limits for dioxins and furans under the Section 112(d)(3) review 
(as described in section IV.A.2), but we are not proposing any of those 
options in this action for the reasons described in that section.
d. Organic HAP Emissions
    With regard to organic HAP (other than dioxins and furans), we 
estimate that actual emissions do not result in a cancer risk above 1-
in-1 million at any facilities in this source category. Given that 
actual emissions from blast furnaces do not result in a cancer risk 
above 1-in-1 million in this source category, and that the actual THC 
emissions modeled from blast furnaces were at levels close to the 
allowable emissions, we conclude that the cancer risk associated with 
actual and allowable emissions of organic HAP from all other furnace 
types are not likely to be greater than 1-in-1 million since the THC 
limit for blast furnaces is considerably higher than for other furnace 
types. The one exception is for rotary furnaces, for which we are 
proposing a THC limit (i.e., 610 ppmv) in today's action that is higher 
than the limit in the 1997 NESHAP for blast furnaces (i.e., 360 ppmv). 
Based on our risk assessment, we estimate that the highest possible MIR 
due to allowable organic HAP emissions from the one rotary furnace in 
operation today would be 2-in-1 million (given the proposed emissions 
limits in today's action). This is based on the conservative assumption 
that this rotary furnace will continuously emit THC at exactly 610 
ppmv, which is a highly unlikely scenario. Additionally, emissions of

[[Page 29059]]

organic HAP from this source category do not appreciably contribute to 
any chronic-non cancer risk. For these reasons, we are proposing that 
the MACT standards for organic HAP, as proposed in today's action, 
provide an ample margin of safety.
e. Mercury Emissions
    Lastly, with regard to mercury emissions from this source category, 
our risk assessment indicates that, even based on our highly 
conservative estimates of mercury emissions (see Section III.B.7 of 
this preamble for further discussion on the conservative nature of our 
mercury emissions estimates), emissions of mercury did not appreciably 
contribute to risk based on both the inhalation and multipathway risk 
analyses. Given that the work practice standard proposed in today's 
action for mercury is based on actual performance of the industry, we 
are proposing that these standards provide an ample margin of safety 
with regards to risk from mercury emissions from this source category.

D. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our technology 
review?

    Based on our technology review, we determined that there have been 
advances in emissions control measures since the Secondary Lead 
Smelting NESHAP was originally promulgated in 1997. Since promulgation, 
we estimate that industry-wide metal HAP emissions (including lead) 
from process and process fugitive sources have been reduced by 
approximately 80 percent. As a result, and due to other factors, actual 
lead emissions from process and process fugitive sources at most 
secondary lead smelting facilities are significantly lower than are 
allowed under the 1997 NESHAP.
    Based on our technology review, we believe that the reductions in 
metal HAP emissions since promulgation of the 1997 NESHAP are mainly 
directly related to improvements in two areas: (1) Improvements in 
fabric filter control technology (e.g., improved bag materials, 
replacement of older baghouses) and (2) total enclosure of process 
fugitive emissions sources and raw material storage and handling areas 
and improvements in emissions controls and work practices for fugitive 
dust emissions sources. Additional reductions have been achieved due to 
the use of a WESP at one facility and also HEPA filters in some cases. 
The results of our analyses and our proposed decisions for these areas 
under CAA section 112(d)(6) are presented in the following sections. 
Additional details regarding these analyses can be found in the 
following technical document for this action which is available in the 
docket: Draft Technology Review for the Secondary Lead Smelting Source 
Category.
1. Fabric Filter Improvements
    The improvements in fabric filter control technology are reflected 
in the emissions test data collected under the ICR. The emissions limit 
for lead under the 1997 NESHAP is a concentration-based limit of 2.0 
mg/dscm applicable to all stacks whether they are classified as 
process, process fugitives, or building or enclosure ventilation 
systems. Based on our analysis of survey responses and test data 
collected under the ICR, this industry primarily uses fabric filters to 
control emissions of lead and other metal HAP, and the vast majority of 
sources affected by the current lead limit are achieving lead 
concentrations at control device outlets that are far below the current 
limit (see: Draft Technology Review for the Secondary Lead Smelting 
Source Category). Several facilities have also installed HEPA filters 
downstream of their fabric filters that have an estimated 99.97 percent 
add-on control efficiency for particles with an aerodynamic diameter of 
0.3 microns. More than 95 percent of all sources reported lead 
concentrations (coming out of the stacks after the control devices) 
that are less than half of the current limit, with several sources 
achieving lead concentrations that are two to three orders of magnitude 
lower than the current limit. Based on the available data, the average 
lead outlet concentration of all affected sources in this source 
category is 0.16 mg/dscm, with a median of 0.04 mg/dscm. Based on these 
data, we believe that developments in practices, processes, and control 
technologies warrant revisions to the 1997 NESHAP to reflect emissions 
levels achieved in practice. Our analysis of emissions data provided in 
the ICR indicates that stacks equipped with a well-performing fabric 
filter can achieve exhaust lead concentrations of less than 0.20 mg/
dscm (see: Draft Technology Review for the Secondary Lead Smelting 
Source Category). In fact, of the 93 stacks identified in the ICR that 
are controlled using a baghouse, 74 reported average lead 
concentrations of less than 0.20 mg/dscm. Based on these data, we 
considered the costs and feasibility of revising the emissions limit 
down to 0.20 mg/dscm as a facility-wide, flow-weighted average, 
identical to the limit proposed under CAA section 112(f)(2) in today's 
action. We estimate that if we proposed such a limit, two of the 14 
facilities would be required to replace one of their large old 
baghouses with a newer, more efficient baghouse in order to comply. We 
estimate that this would result in about 5.9 tons of reductions of 
metal HAP emissions. We estimate that the total capital costs would be 
about $7.6 million with annualized costs of $1.7 million and cost-
effectiveness of $0.3 million per ton of metal HAP (or $150 per pound 
of metal HAP). As a co-benefit to implementation of this revised 
standard, we estimate reductions of 56 tons of PM at a cost-
effectiveness of $30,000 per ton of PM. We do not anticipate additional 
energy use associated with this revised limit, as only replacement 
baghouses, as opposed to new units, are anticipated. Furthermore, we do 
not anticipate any adverse non-air environmental impacts associated 
with the implementation of this revised limit.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ As explained in section C above, we conclude that requiring 
an additional wet electrostatic precipitator as a form of 
supplementary metal control at all facilities would be excessively 
costly and not cost effective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the reasons described above, under the authority of CAA section 
112(d)(6), we are proposing a facility-wide, flow-weighted average lead 
concentration limit of 0.20 mg/dscm to cover all stacks. Additionally, 
because 89 of the 93 stacks identified in the ICR that are controlled 
using a baghouse are achieving lead concentrations below 1.0 mg/dscm, 
we conclude that this level of emissions is technologically feasible 
and demonstrated, therefore we are also proposing a maximum lead 
concentration limit of 1.0 mg/dscm to apply to any individual stack at 
existing facilities. For new sources, we are proposing that the 0.20 
mg/dscm limit applies to all individual stacks at the facility. 
Consistent with the standards proposed under CAA section 112(f)(2) in 
today's action, compliance for existing sources will be demonstrated 
either by annual stack testing and installation and operation of BLDS 
or by use of a lead CEMS once performance specifications have been 
promulgated. New affected sources would be required to demonstrate 
compliance using a lead CEMS, pending promulgation of the lead CEMS 
performance specifications. Any new affected sources commencing 
operations prior to promulgation of the performance specifications may 
demonstrate compliance through annual stack testing and operation of a 
BLDS until the CEMS performance specifications are promulgated.
    We believe that these proposed revisions, identical to those 
proposed under CAA section 112(f)(2), are cost-effective revisions that 
reflect the level

[[Page 29060]]

of control achievable in practice by a well performing fabric filter.
2. Total Enclosure of Process Fugitive Sources and Raw Material Storage 
and Handling Areas and Work Practices for Fugitive Dust Sources
    Facilities have achieved some of their reductions since 1997 
through total enclosure of process fugitive emissions sources and 
material storage and handling areas. Based on responses to the ICR 
survey, the process fugitive emissions sources regulated under the 1997 
NESHAP are totally enclosed and vented to a control device at seven of 
the 14 existing facilities. Additionally, an eighth facility has a 
current project to install total enclosures and associated control 
devices for their process fugitive emissions sources. This level of 
enclosure is well beyond the requirements of the 1997 NESHAP that 
provides facilities the option of using negative pressure hoods to 
capture process fugitive emissions and route them to a control device. 
The other six facilities have some degree of enclosure, but the extent 
of enclosure among these six facilities varies considerably. With 
regard to material storage and handling areas, the ICR surveys indicate 
that all of the facilities with process fugitive emissions sources in 
total enclosures have enclosed the storage areas for all lead-bearing 
materials such as processed raw materials and slag.
    The information and data collected under the ICR also indicate that 
at least four facilities conduct work practices beyond those required 
in the 1997 NESHAP to further limit the formation of fugitive dust from 
material handling operations and re-entrainment of lead dust deposited 
within the facility fence line. Examples of these work practices 
include: pavement of all grounds on the facility, monthly cleaning of 
building rooftops, timely cleaning of any accidental releases, 
inspection of battery storage areas outside of enclosures for broken 
batteries, and performance of maintenance on equipment that may be 
contaminated with lead inside total enclosures.
    We estimate that for the six facilities to implement total 
enclosures with negative pressure ventilation to their process fugitive 
emissions sources, the total capital cost would be about $40 million 
(about $6.7 million per facility) with total annualized costs of about 
$6.4 million (or about $1.1 million per facility). These controls would 
achieve an estimated 5.3 tons reduction of metal HAP (mainly lead 
compounds, but also arsenic, and cadmium). Additionally, as a co-
benefit, these controls would achieve an estimated 58 tons reduction of 
PM at a cost effectiveness of $100,000 per ton of PM. We do anticipate 
approximately 23 million kilowatt hours (KWH) of additional energy use 
associated with the operation of additional baghouses controlling the 
building ventilation systems. However, we do not anticipate any adverse 
non-air environmental impacts associated with the implementation of 
these potential controls. Additionally, for ten facilities to implement 
the additional fugitive control work practices mentioned above, we 
estimate no capital cost and a total annualized cost of about $3.0 
million (about $0.2 million per facility). These work practices would 
achieve an estimated 4.2 tons reduction of metal HAP (mainly lead, 
arsenic, and cadmium). Additionally, as a co-benefit, these work 
practices would achieve an estimated 46 tons reduction of PM at a cost-
effectiveness of $100,000 per ton of PM. The total cost effectiveness 
of implementing total enclosures with negative pressure ventilation as 
well as additional fugitive emissions control work practices is 
estimated at $1.0 million per ton of metal HAP (or $500 per pound of 
metal HAP). Because the primary HAP reduced are lead compounds, 
arsenic, and cadmium, and given the co-benefit PM reductions, we 
believe that these costs and cost-effectiveness values are reasonable.
    Therefore, for the reasons described above, we are proposing under 
CAA section 112(d)(6) that each facility must totally enclose the 
following emissions sources and operate the total enclosure under 
negative pressure:
    (1) Smelting furnaces.
    (2) Smelting furnace charging areas.
    (3) Lead taps, slag taps, and molds during tapping.
    (4) Battery breakers.
    (5) Refining kettles, casting areas.
    (6) Dryers.
    (7) Agglomerating furnaces and agglomerating furnace product taps.
    (8) Material handling areas for any lead bearing materials 
(drosses, slag, other raw materials), excluding areas where unbroken 
lead acid batteries and finished lead products are stored.
    (9) Areas where dust from fabric filters, sweepings or used fabric 
filters are handled or processed.
    The ventilation air from the total enclosures must be conveyed to a 
control device. We are also proposing that the emissions from the 
enclosure control devices be subject to the proposed stack lead 
emissions limits proposed in Section IV.D.1 of this preamble and also 
previously under CAA section 112(f)(2).
    Additionally, we are proposing under CAA section 112(d)(6) that 
each facility must implement the following fugitive control work 
practices: pavement cleaning and vehicle washing; cleaning of building 
rooftops on a regular (e.g., at least once per month) schedule; 
cleaning of all affected areas after accidental releases; inspection of 
the battery storage areas for broken batteries; performance of 
maintenance activities inside enclosures; and transport of lead bearing 
material in closed systems.
    For both new and existing facilities, compliance with the total 
enclosure and work practice requirements described above would require 
construction of total enclosures (where they do not already exist) 
capable of being operated under negative pressure and venting of the 
enclosure exhaust to a control device. Additionally, each facility 
would be required to prepare, and at all times operate according to, a 
SOP manual that describes in detail how the additional work practices 
will be implemented. We believe this standard, identical to that 
proposed under CAA section 112(f)(2), is a cost-effective control 
option that reflects the level of fugitive control achieved in practice 
by several facilities in this source category.
3. Alternative Compliance Option for Fugitive Dust Emissions Under CAA 
Section 112(d)(6)
    Similar to the previous discussion regarding the fugitive emissions 
limits proposed in under CAA section 112(f)(2), we acknowledge that 
there may be other control measures that we have not identified that 
are effective in reducing fugitive dust emissions at other facilities. 
Therefore, as an alternative to the requirements for full enclosure, we 
are proposing under CAA section 112(d)(6) that facilities may choose to 
implement comprehensive fugitive control work practices, maintain the 
partial enclosures and enclosure hoods required in the 1997 NESHAP, 
plus establish an air monitoring network, similar to that required in 
the lead NAAQS, to ensure that fugitive emissions are minimized and 
that lead concentrations in air near the facility boundaries remain at 
or below 0.15 [mu]g/m3 based on 3-month rolling averages. This 
compliance alternative is identical to that proposed under CAA section 
112(f)(2). The implementation of this proposed alternative is thus 
identical and is presented in Section IV.C of this preamble.
    For facilities that choose the alternative compliance option for 
fugitive dust emissions and do not

[[Page 29061]]

install total enclosures, we are proposing to keep the requirements for 
enclosure hoods and partial enclosures specified in the 1997 NESHAP in 
order to ensure a level of containment for process fugitive emissions. 
We are seeking comment on other control measures that should be 
prescribed for facilities that choose the alternative compliance 
option.

E. What other actions are we proposing?

1. Startup, Shutdown, Malfunction
    The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 
Circuit vacated portions of two provisions in 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 (DC 
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 are part of a regulation, commonly referred to 
as the ``General Provisions Rule,'' that EPA promulgated under CAA 
section 112. When incorporated into CAA section 112(d) regulations for 
specific source categories, these two provisions exempt sources from 
the requirement to comply with the otherwise applicable CAA section 
112(d) emissions standard during periods of SSM.
    We are proposing the elimination of the SSM exemption in this rule. 
Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, EPA is proposing standards in this 
rule that apply at all times. We are also proposing several revisions 
to Table 1 to subpart X of part 63 (the General Provisions 
Applicability table). For example, we are proposing to eliminate the 
incorporation of the General Provisions' requirement that the source 
develop an SSM plan. We also are proposing to eliminate or revise 
certain recordkeeping and reporting that related to the SSM exemption. 
EPA has attempted to ensure that we have not included in the proposed 
regulatory language any provisions that are inappropriate, unnecessary, 
or redundant in the absence of the SSM exemption. We are specifically 
seeking comment on whether there are any such provisions that we have 
inadvertently incorporated or overlooked.
    In proposing the standards in this rule, EPA has taken into account 
startup and shutdown periods and, for the reasons explained below, has 
not proposed different standards for those periods.
    Information on periods of startup and shutdown received from the 
industry in the ICR indicate that emissions during these periods do not 
increase. Control devices such as afterburners for organics and dioxin 
control and baghouses for lead and metal HAP particulate control are 
started up before the process units, and are operational during the 
shutdown phase of a process. Therefore, no increase in emissions is 
expected during these periods. Enclosures and work practices for 
fugitive emissions will be in place at all times. Therefore, separate 
standards for periods of startup and shutdown are not being proposed.
    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). EPA has determined that CAA section 
112 does not require that emissions that occur during periods of 
malfunction be factored into development of CAA section 112 standards. 
Under CAA 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 emissions limitation ``achieved'' by the 
best performing 12 percent of sources in the category. There is nothing 
in CAA section 112 that directs the Agency to consider malfunctions in 
determining the level ``achieved'' by the best performing or best 
controlled sources when setting emissions standards. Moreover, while 
EPA accounts for variability in setting emissions standards consistent 
with the CAA section 112 case law, nothing in that case law requires 
the Agency to consider malfunctions as part of that analysis. Section 
112 of the CAA uses the concept of ``best controlled'' and ``best 
performing'' unit in defining the level of stringency that CAA section 
112 performance standards must meet. Applying the concept of ``best 
controlled'' or ``best performing'' to a unit that is malfunctioning 
presents significant difficulties, as malfunctions are sudden and 
unexpected events.
    Further, accounting for malfunctions would be difficult, if not 
impossible, given the myriad different types of malfunctions that can 
occur across all sources in the category and given the difficulties 
associated with predicting or accounting for the frequency, degree, and 
duration of various malfunctions that might occur. As such, the 
performance of units that are malfunctioning is not ``reasonably'' 
foreseeable. See, e.g., Sierra Club v. EPA, 167 F.3d 658, 662 (DC 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 (DC 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 non-malfunctioning source. EPA's approach 
to malfunctions is consistent with CAA section 112 and is a reasonable 
interpretation of the statute.
    In the event that a source fails to comply with the applicable CAA 
section 112(d) standards as a result of a malfunction event, 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. 
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, 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 emissions standard. (See, 
e.g., State Implementation Plans: Policy Regarding Excessive Emissions 
During Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown (Sept. 20, 1999); Policy on 
Excess Emissions During Startup, Shutdown, Maintenance, and 
Malfunctions (Feb. 15, 1983)). EPA is therefore proposing to add to the 
final rule an affirmative defense to civil penalties for

[[Page 29062]]

exceedances of emissions limits that are caused by malfunctions. See 40 
CFR 63.542 (defining ``affirmative defense'' to mean, in the context of 
an enforcement proceeding, a response or defense put forward by a 
defendant, regarding which the defendant has the burden of proof, and 
the merits of which are independently and objectively evaluated in a 
judicial or administrative proceeding). We also are proposing 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 40 CFR 63.552 (40 CFR 22.24). The criteria ensure that the 
affirmative defense is available only where the event that causes an 
exceedance of the emissions 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 63.543(j) 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 emissions 
limitations were being exceeded * * *'' and that ``[a]ll possible steps 
were taken to minimize the impact of the excess emissions on ambient 
air quality, the environment and human health * * *.'' In any judicial 
or administrative proceeding, the Administrator may challenge the 
assertion of the affirmative defense and, if the respondent has not met 
its burden of proving all of the requirements in the affirmative 
defense, appropriate penalties may be assessed in accordance with CAA 
section 113 (see also 40 CFR 22.77).
    Specifically, we are proposing the following changes to the rule.
    Added general duty requirements in 40 CFR 63.543(j) to replace 
General Provision requirements that reference vacated SSM provisions.
    Added replacement language that eliminates the reference to SSM 
exemptions applicable to performance tests in 40 CFR 63.543(i).
    Added paragraphs in 40 CFR 63.550(d) requiring the reporting of 
malfunctions as part of the affirmative defense provisions.
    Added paragraphs in 40 CFR 63.550(c) requiring the keeping of 
certain records during malfunctions as part of the affirmative defense 
provisions.
    Revised Table 1 to subpart X of part 63 to reflect changes in the 
applicability of the General Provisions to this subpart resulting from 
a court vacatur of certain SSM requirements in the General Provisions.
2. Electronic Reporting
    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, emissions factor development, and 
annual emissions rate determinations. In conducting these required 
reviews, EPA has found it ineffective and time consuming, not only for 
us, but also for regulatory agencies and 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.
    Through this proposal EPA is presenting a step to increase the ease 
and efficiency of data submittal and improve data accessibility. 
Specifically, EPA is proposing that owners and operators of Secondary 
Lead Smelting facilities submit electronic copies of required 
performance test reports to EPA's WebFIRE database. The WebFIRE 
database was constructed to store performance test data for use in 
developing emissions factors. A description of the WebFIRE database is 
available at http://cfpub.epa.gov/oarweb/index.cfm?action=fire.main.
    As proposed above, data entry would be through an electronic 
emissions test report structure called the Electronic Reporting Tool. 
The ERT would be able to transmit the electronic report through EPA's 
Central Data Exchange 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/ert_tool.html.
    The proposal to submit performance test data electronically to EPA 
would apply only to those performance tests conducted using test 
methods that will be supported by the ERT. The ERT contains a specific 
electronic data entry form for most of the commonly used EPA reference 
methods. A listing of the pollutants and test methods supported by the 
ERT is available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ert_tool.html. We 
believe that industry would benefit from this proposed approach to 
electronic data submittal. Having these data, EPA would be able to 
develop improved emissions factors, make fewer information requests, 
and promulgate better regulations.
    One major advantage of the proposed submittal of 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 proposed benefit of submitting these 
data to 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 EPA has performance test data in hand, there will 
likely be fewer or less substantial data collection requests in 
conjunction with prospective required residual risk assessments or 
technology reviews. This would result in a reduced burden on both 
affected facilities (in terms of reduced manpower to respond to data 
collection requests) and EPA (in terms of preparing and distributing 
data collection requests and assessing the results).
    State, local, and Tribal agencies could also benefit from more 
streamlined and accurate review of electronic data submitted to them. 
The ERT would allow for an electronic review process rather than a 
manual data assessment making review and evaluation of the source 
provided data and calculations easier and more efficient. Finally, 
another benefit of the proposed data submittal to WebFIRE 
electronically is that these data would greatly improve the overall 
quality of existing and new emissions 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 emissions factors are outdated or not representative 
of a particular source category. With timely receipt and incorporation 
of data from most performance tests, EPA would be able to ensure that 
emissions 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

[[Page 29063]]

control activities, having an electronic database populated with 
performance test data would save industry, state, local, Tribal 
agencies, and EPA significant time, money, and effort while also 
improving the quality of emissions inventories and, as a result, air 
quality regulations.
    Records must be maintained in a form suitable and readily available 
for expeditious review, according to 63.10(b)(1). Electronic 
recordkeeping and reporting is available for many records, and is the 
form considered most suitable for expeditious review if available. 
Electronic recordkeeping and reporting is encouraged in this proposal 
and some records and reports are required to be kept in electronic 
format. Records required to be maintained electronically include the 
output of continuous monitors and the output of the bag leak detection 
systems. Additionally, standard operating procedures for the bag leak 
detection system and fugitive emissions control are required to be 
submitted to the Administrator for approval in electronic format.
3. Other Changes
    The following lists additional minor changes to the NESHAP we are 
proposing. This list includes proposed rule changes that address 
editorial corrections and plain language revisions:

     Revise the definition for collocated blast and 
reverberatory furnaces to apply to systems ``where the vent streams 
of the furnaces are mixed before cooling''. This proposed revision 
clarifies the intent of the original definition which was to 
establish the conditions under which a reverberatory furnace stream 
would control the emissions of a blast furnace stream.
     Add a definition for ``maintenance activity.'' This 
definition is necessary for the proposed work practice requirement 
concerning fugitive emissions during maintenance activities that 
could generate lead dust.
     Delete definitions no longer referenced in the proposed 
NESHAP.
     Eliminate the exemption for areas used exclusively for 
the storage of blast furnace slag from the raw materials storage 
area definition.
     Change the title of 40 CFR 63.543 (``Standards for 
process sources'') to ``What are my standards for atmospheric 
vents?''. This change is being made to better reflect the 
description of the proposed standards in this section.
     Change the title of 40 CFR 63.544 (``Standards for 
process fugitive sources'') to ``What are my process enclosure 
standards?'' to better reflect the description of the proposed 
requirements for enclosure of sources of process fugitive emissions.
     Eliminate the provision in 40 CFR 63.544(f) allowing up 
to 24 months to conduct a compliance test for lead if the previous 
test was less than 1.0 mg/dscm. We do not believe a reduced testing 
frequency is appropriate considering the proposed changes to the 
existing standard, and the proposed requirement to calculate a flow-
weighted average on an annual basis.
     Add a requirement to conduct a performance test for THC 
on the same schedule as the stack test for lead. The 1997 NESHAP 
requires an initial test for THC, but does not require periodic 
testing. We are proposing that a performance test for total 
hydrocarbon be conducted on the same schedule as the stack test for 
lead. This proposed requirement will ensure any changes in operation 
that could affect the organic HAP content of the furnace vents are 
monitored on a routine basis.
     Consolidate the requirements for atmospheric vents to 
be conveyed to a control device into one section of the rule (40 CFR 
63.543(f)).
     Clarify the requirements for plant roadway cleaning in 
40 CFR 63.545 to specify equipment requirements for the mobile 
vacuum sweeper.
     Clarify the requirement to wash vehicles at the exit of 
a material storage area by specifying that the wash must include 
washing of tires, undercarriage and exterior surface of the vehicle 
followed by an inspection.
     Accompanying edits are being proposed for the standard 
operating procedures for baghouses in 40 CFR 63.548 and for control 
of fugitive emissions in 40 CFR 63.545 to reflect the proposed 
changes described for baghouses, enclosures and work practices for 
control of fugitive emissions.
     Update the monitoring requirements for building 
differential pressure to reflect the requirements for the pressure 
monitor to have the capability of detecting 0.01 mm Hg and to 
continuously record pressure readings.
     Update the recordkeeping and reporting sections to 
reflect the new monitoring requirements and monitoring options 
described above.
     Update the compliance dates to include the anticipated 
dates the proposed requirements will become effective.
     Added the requirement in 40 CFR 63.548(l) for new or 
modified sources to install a CEMS for measuring lead emissions when 
performance specifications for lead CEMS are promulgated.
     Included provisions for existing sources to use a CEMS 
instead of operating a BLDS and performing annual stack tests.

F. What is the relationship of the Secondary Lead Smelting standards 
proposed in today's action and implementation of the lead NAAQS?

    Although EPA's obligation to conduct technology reviews and risk 
analyses for the secondary lead smelting source category is independent 
of the process of developing, revising, and implementing the National 
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for lead, EPA is interested in 
harmonizing these separate regulatory processes to the extent possible. 
EPA revised the primary NAAQS for lead in 2008. See 73 FR 66,964 (Nov. 
12, 2008); see also Coalition of Battery Recyclers v. EPA, 604 F. 3d 
613 (DC Cir. 2010) (upholding those standards). EPA designated 16 areas 
as non-attainment for the lead NAAQS, effective December 21, 2010, 75 
FR 71,033 (November 22, 2010). EPA intends to complete designations for 
remaining areas of the country for the lead NAAQS in October, 2011, 
effective December 31, 2011. States have 18 months following a 
nonattainment designation for lead to submit a State Implementation 
Plan (SIP) demonstrating how the area will timely attain the NAAQS. See 
CAA section 191(a). Accordingly, attainment SIPs for lead will be due 
by July 2012 for areas designated in 2010 and July 2013 for areas 
designated in 2011. States are required to attain the standard as 
expeditiously as practicable, but no later than 5 years following a 
nonattainment designation (i.e., Dec. 31, 2015 or 2016, respectively). 
As part of the attainment demonstration, SIPs may consider regulatory 
controls which have been adopted as of the date the SIP is submitted 
and will achieve timely reductions for attaining the standard.
    The standards proposed in this rule would likely harmonize with 
this implementation schedule both procedurally and substantively. 
Pursuant to consent decree, EPA is obligated to promulgate the final 
NESHAP rule by December 31, 2011. Assuming EPA adopts the proposed 
standards and the rule is published in the Federal Register in early 
2012, the standards would become effective in early 2012, with a 
compliance date of March 2014 (assuming a two year compliance date is 
necessary to allow sufficient time for the controls to be adopted). 
This schedule should allow for states to take any controls required 
under the NESHAP rule into consideration for attainment planning 
purposes.
    As described above, EPA is proposing standards either predicated on 
individual sources emitting lead at levels that would result in ambient 
concentrations less than the primary lead NAAQS (the proposed stack 
standards), or (in the case of the alternative to enclosure standards 
for lead) actually demonstrating that source emissions do not exceed 
the primary lead NAAQS at a point of maximum projected concentration. 
EPA anticipates that, at least in areas where nonattainment is 
attributable to single sources that are subject to this rule, if the 
proposed controls are sufficient to attain the NAAQS by the attainment

[[Page 29064]]

deadline, then adoption of additional controls in the SIP for the area 
would not be necessary.
    EPA solicits comments on the interplay between implementation of 
the primary lead NAAQS and the proposed standards in today's action and 
steps EPA might permissibly take to harmonize the two regulatory 
processes.

G. Compliance Dates

    We are proposing that facilities must comply with all the 
requirements in this action (which are being proposed under CAA 
sections 112(d)(2), 112(d)(3), 112(d)(6), 112(f)(2), and 112(h) for all 
affected sources), no later than two years after the effective date of 
this rule. Under section 63.6(i)(4)(ii), ``the owner or operator 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 rule 
further specifies a written application for such a request. Here, EPA 
is already fully aware of the steps needed for each source to comply 
with the proposed standards and to reasonably estimate the amount of 
time it will take each source to do so. We believe that the two year 
extension would be warranted in all cases for sources needing to 
upgrade current practice. This includes the time needed to: Construct 
required enclosures and install associated control devices for fugitive 
sources; purchase, install and test replacement bags, or if the 
facility decides to replace an existing baghouse or add a new baghouse 
in series with an existing baghouse, seek bids, select a vendor, 
install and test the new equipment; prepare and submit the required 
monitoring plan to monitor lead concentrations in air; and, purchase, 
install and conduct quality assurance and quality control measures on 
compliance monitoring equipment (see Estimated Time Needed to Achieve 
Compliance with The Proposed Revisions to the MACT standard for 
Secondary Lead Smelters, which is available in the docket for this 
proposed action). EPA believes it reasonable to interpret section 
63.6(i)(4)(ii) to allow this plenary finding, rather than utilizing a 
facility-by-facility application process, when the facts are already 
known and a category-wide adjudication is therefore possible. In 
addition, utilizing this process allows for public comment on the issue 
which would not be possible if a case-by-case application process with 
a 90-day window for completion were used.

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts

A. What are the affected sources?

    We anticipate that the 14 secondary lead smelting facilities 
currently operating in the United States will be affected by these 
proposed amendments. No new facilities are expected to be constructed 
in the foreseeable future; however, one facility is currently 
undergoing an expansion.

B. What are the air quality impacts?

    EPA estimated the emissions reductions that are expected to result 
from the proposed amendments to the 1997 NESHAP compared to the 2009 
baseline emissions estimates. A detailed documentation of the analysis 
can be found in:
Draft 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 current proposal would 
cut lead and arsenic emissions by 63 percent from their current levels, 
for a total reduction of more than 95% over that last 15 years. Under 
the proposed emissions limit for lead, we estimated that the lead 
emissions reductions would be 9,400 lb/yr from process and process 
fugitive sources and 17,200 lb/yr from fugitive dust sources. The 
expected reduction in total metal HAP is 11,800 lb/yr from process and 
process fugitive sources and 19,000 lb/yr from fugitive dust sources. 
We estimate that these controls will also reduce emissions of PM by 
319,000 lb/yr.
    Based on the emissions data available to the EPA, we believe that 
all facilities will be able to comply with the proposed emissions 
limits for THC and dioxins and furans without additional controls. 
However, we expect that some emissions reductions will occur due to 
increased temperatures of afterburners and from improved work 
practices. Nevertheless, it is quite difficult to estimate accurate 
reductions from these actions, and therefore, we are not providing 
estimates of reductions for THC and dioxin and furans.

C. What are the cost impacts?

    Under the proposed amendments, 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 BLDS on 
baghouses that are not currently equipped with these systems.
    The capital costs for each facility were estimated based on the 
number and types of upgrades required. Each facility was evaluated for 
its ability to meet the proposed limits for lead emissions, THC 
emissions, dioxin and furan emissions, and proposed fugitive dust 
emissions requirements. The memorandum 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 the 
amendments proposed in this action are for purchasing new enclosures 
and the associated control devices that would be required for these 
enclosures. Although the proposed amendments would provide the 
alternative option to install monitors at or near the property boundary 
to demonstrate compliance with the enclosure requirements, we assumed 
that each facility would need to install enclosures for each of the 
processes described in proposed 40 CFR 63.544 if the facility did not 
already have the required 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 facility, particularly the storage 
areas, to reduce their footprint.
    Based on our analysis of the facility configurations, seven 
facilities were considered to be totally enclosed. Another facility is 
currently installing enclosure structures and equipment that we 
anticipate will meet the proposed requirements. Consequently, capital 
costs were not estimated for these eight facilities. The remaining six 
facilities will require new building installations, thereby incurring 
capital costs.
    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

[[Page 29065]]

installations submitted by facilities in the ICR survey. The total 
capital cost estimate for the enclosures, the ductwork system, and 
control devices at the six facilities is approximately $40 million, at 
an annualized cost of $6.6 million in 2009 dollars (an average of about 
$1.1 million per facility).
    We also estimated annual costs for the work practices proposed in 
this action. Based on the ICR survey information, we estimated that 
additional costs would be required to implement the work practices at 
10 of the 14 existing facilities. The total annual costs to implement 
the proposed fugitive emissions work practices are approximately $3 
million per year.
    For compliance with the stack lead concentration limit, we compared 
each stack emissions point's lead concentration (reported under the 
ICR) to the proposed requirement of 1.0 mg/dscm of lead for any one 
stack. If the reported concentration was over 1.0 mg/dscm, we assumed 
that the corresponding facility would either upgrade the baghouse with 
new bags and additional maintenance or completely replace the baghouse, 
depending on the age of the unit. If the baghouse was less than 10 
years old and the lead concentration in the outlet was not appreciably 
over the proposed standard, we assumed that the baghouse could be 
upgraded for minimal capital. If the baghouse was more than 10 years 
old and the lead concentration was appreciably over the proposed 
standard, we assumed the baghouse would be replaced. We then compared 
each facility's emissions with the proposed flow-weighted, facility-
wide 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. We estimated that 
three baghouses would need to be replaced based on these analyses. 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 three new baghouses at two facilities is 
estimated to be approximately $7.6 million, and total annual costs were 
estimated to be approximately $1.7 million.
    New limits for THC are being proposed for reverberatory, electric, 
and rotary furnaces. Dioxin and furan limits are being proposed for all 
furnaces. We anticipate all operating affected units will be able to 
meet the proposed 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 proposed standards.
    The estimated costs for the proposed change to the monitoring 
requirements for baghouses, including installation of seven new BLDS 
for existing baghouses, is $230,000 of capital cost and $84,000 total 
annualized cost. The capital cost estimated for additional differential 
pressure monitors for total enclosures is $97,000. The cost for all 
additional monitoring and recordkeeping requirements, including the 
baghouse monitoring proposed, is estimated at $1,016,000.
    The total annualized costs for the proposed rule are estimated at 
$12.6 million (2009 dollars). Table 5 provides a summary of the 
estimated costs and emissions reductions associated with the proposed 
amendments to the Secondary Lead Smelting NESHAP presented in today's 
action.

                Table 5--Estimated Costs and Reductions for the Proposed Standards in This Action
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Estimated    Estimated    Total HAP emissions   Cost effectiveness in $ per
        Proposed amendment           capital    annual cost    reductions  (tons      ton total HAP  reduction
                                   cost  ($MM)      ($MM)          per year)            (and in $ per pound)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revised stack lead emissions               7.6          1.7  5.9 (of metal HAP)..  $0.3 MM per ton.
 limit.                                                                            ($150 per pound).
Total enclosure of fugitive                 40          6.6  5.5 (of metal HAP)..  $1.2 MM per ton.
 emissions sources.                                                                ($600 per pound).
Fugitive control work practices..            0          3.0  4.0 (of metal HAP)..  $0.8 MM per ton.
                                                                                   ($400 per pound).
THC and D/F concentration limits.            0          0.3  \1\ 30.0............  $0.01 MM per ton.
Additional testing and monitoring          0.3          1.0  N/A.................  N/A.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Based on total organic HAP.

D. What are the economic impacts?

    We performed an economic impact analysis for secondary lead 
consumers and producers nationally using the annual compliance costs 
estimated for this proposed rule. The impacts to producers affected by 
this proposed rule are annualized costs of less than 0.9 percent of 
their revenues using the most current year available for revenue data. 
Prices and output for secondary lead should increase by no more than 
the impact on cost to revenues for producers, thus secondary lead 
prices should increase by less than 0.9 percent. Hence, the overall 
economic impact of this proposed rule should be low on the affected 
industry and its consumers. For more information, please refer to the 
Economic Impact Analysis for this proposed rulemaking that is available 
in the public docket.

E. What are the benefits?

    The estimated reductions in lead emissions to meet the 2008 NAAQS 
standards that will be achieved by this proposed rule would provide 
benefits to public health, although we have not made a detailed 
quantitative assessment of them. 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 Web site) populations aged less than age 7 would receive 
significant benefits from reductions in lead exposure (in the form of 
averted IQ loss among children less than 7 years of age).
    As noted in that RIA, there were also several other lead-related 
health effects that EPA was unable to quantify--particularly among 
adults. These potential impacts included hypertension, non-fatal 
strokes,

[[Page 29066]]

reproductive effects and premature mortality, among others.
    When viewed in this context, the reductions in concentrations of 
ambient lead that would be achieved with this proposed RTR for 
secondary lead smelters are expected to provide significant benefits to 
both children and adult populations, but these benefits cannot be 
quantified due to resource and data limitations.
    In addition to the benefits likely to be achieved for lead 
reductions, we also estimate that this proposed RTR rule will achieve 
about 48 to 76 tons reductions in PM 2.5 emissions as a co-benefit of 
the HAP reductions. These PM 2.5 reductions would result in an average 
of about $8.6 to $13.6 million in benefits per year. Finally, the 
proposed rule will provide human health benefits through reductions in 
arsenic and cadmium emissions. We estimate that cancer cases from these 
emissions would be reduced from 0.02 per year to 0.01 per year.

VI. Request for Comments

    We are soliciting comments on all aspects of this proposed action. 
In addition to general comments on this proposed action, we are also 
interested in any additional data that may help to reduce the 
uncertainties inherent in the risk assessments and other analyses. We 
are specifically interested in receiving corrections to the site-
specific emissions profiles used for risk modeling. Such data should 
include supporting documentation in sufficient detail to allow 
characterization of the quality and representativeness of the data or 
information. Section VII of this preamble provides more information on 
submitting data.

VII. Submitting Data Corrections

    The site-specific emissions profiles used in the source category 
risk and demographic analyses are available for download on the RTR Web 
page at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. The data files 
include detailed information for each HAP emissions release point for 
the facility included in the source category.
    If you believe that the data are not representative or are 
inaccurate, please identify the data in question, provide your reason 
for concern, and provide any ``improved'' data that you have, if 
available. When you submit data, we request that you provide 
documentation of the basis for the revised values to support your 
suggested changes. To submit comments on the data downloaded from the 
RTR Web page, complete the following steps:
    1. Within this downloaded file, enter suggested revisions to the 
data fields appropriate for that information. The data fields that may 
be revised include the following:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Data element                          Definition
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Control Measure...................  Are control measures in place? (yes
                                     or no)
Control Measure Comment...........  Select control measure from list
                                     provided, and briefly describe the
                                     control measure.
Delete............................  Indicate here if the facility or
                                     record should be deleted.
Delete Comment....................  Describes the reason for deletion.
Emissions Calculation Method Code   Code description of the method used
 for Revised Emissions.              to derive emissions. For example,
                                     CEM, material balance, stack test,
                                     etc.
Emissions Process Group...........  Enter the general type of emissions
                                     process associated with the
                                     specified emissions point.
Fugitive Angle....................  Enter release angle (clockwise from
                                     true North); orientation of the y-
                                     dimension relative to true North,
                                     measured positive for clockwise
                                     starting at 0 degrees (maximum 89
                                     degrees).
Fugitive Length...................  Enter dimension of the source in the
                                     east-west (x-) direction, commonly
                                     referred to as length (ft).
Fugitive Width....................  Enter dimension of the source in the
                                     north-south (y-) direction,
                                     commonly referred to as width (ft).
Malfunction Emissions.............  Enter total annual emissions due to
                                     malfunctions (tpy).
Malfunction Emissions Max Hourly..  Enter maximum hourly malfunction
                                     emissions here (lb/hr).
North American Datum..............  Enter datum for latitude/longitude
                                     coordinates (NAD27 or NAD83); if
                                     left blank, NAD83 is assumed.
Process Comment...................  Enter general comments about process
                                     sources of emissions.
REVISED Address...................  Enter revised physical street
                                     address for MACT facility here.
REVISED City......................  Enter revised city name here.
REVISED County Name...............  Enter revised county name here.
REVISED Emissions Release Point     Enter revised Emissions Release
 Type.                               Point Type here.
REVISED End Date..................  Enter revised End Date here.
REVISED Exit Gas Flow Rate........  Enter revised Exit Gas Flowrate here
                                     (ft\3\/sec).
REVISED Exit Gas Temperature......  Enter revised Exit Gas Temperature
                                     here (F).
REVISED Exit Gas Velocity.........  Enter revised Exit Gas Velocity here
                                     (ft/sec).
REVISED Facility Category Code....  Enter revised Facility Category Code
                                     here, which indicates whether
                                     facility is a major or area source.
REVISED Facility Name.............  Enter revised Facility Name here.
REVISED Facility Registry           Enter revised Facility Registry
 Identifier.                         Identifier here, which is an ID
                                     assigned by the EPA Facility
                                     Registry System.
REVISED HAP Emissions Performance   Enter revised HAP Emissions
 Level Code.                         Performance Level here.
REVISED Latitude..................  Enter revised Latitude here (decimal
                                     degrees).
REVISED Longitude.................  Enter revised Longitude here
                                     (decimal degrees).
REVISED MACT Code.................  Enter revised MACT Code here.
REVISED Pollutant Code............  Enter revised Pollutant Code here.
REVISED Routine Emissions.........  Enter revised routine emissions
                                     value here (tpy).
REVISED SCC Code..................  Enter revised SCC Code here.
REVISED Stack Diameter............  Enter revised Stack Diameter here
                                     (ft).
REVISED Stack Height..............  Enter revised Stack Height here
                                     (ft).
REVISED Start Date................  Enter revised Start Date here.
REVISED State.....................  Enter revised State here.
REVISED Tribal Code...............  Enter revised Tribal Code here.
REVISED Zip Code..................  Enter revised Zip Code here.

[[Page 29067]]

 
Shutdown Emissions................  Enter total annual emissions due to
                                     shutdown events (tpy).
Shutdown Emissions Max Hourly.....  Enter maximum hourly shutdown
                                     emissions here (lb/hr).
Stack Comment.....................  Enter general comments about
                                     emissions release points.
Startup Emissions.................  Enter total annual emissions due to
                                     startup events (tpy).
Startup Emissions Max Hourly......  Enter maximum hourly startup
                                     emissions here (lb/hr).
Year Closed.......................  Enter date facility stopped
                                     operations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Fill in the commenter information fields for each suggested 
revision (i.e., commenter name, commenter organization, commenter e-
mail address, commenter phone number, and revision comments).
    3. Gather documentation for any suggested emissions revisions 
(e.g., performance test reports, material balance calculations).
    4. Send the entire downloaded file with suggested revisions in 
Microsoft[supreg] Access format and all accompanying documentation to 
Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344 (through one of the methods 
described in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble). To expedite 
review of the revisions, it would also be helpful if you submitted a 
copy of your revisions to the EPA directly at RTR@epa.gov in addition 
to submitting them to the docket.
    5. If you are providing comments on a facility, you need only 
submit one file for that facility, which should contain all suggested 
changes for all sources at that facility. We request that all data 
revision comments be submitted in the form of updated Microsoft[supreg] 
Access files, which are provided on the RTR Web Page at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html.

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 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 because it raises novel legal 
and policy issues. Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to the Office 
of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Executive Orders 12866 
and 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 EPA has been 
assigned EPA ICR number 1856.07. 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 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 proposing new paperwork requirements to the Secondary Lead 
Smelting source category in the form of increased frequency for stack 
testing as described in 40 CFR 63.540(f)-(h). More specifically, we are 
proposing the elimination of the provisions allowing reduced stack 
testing for lead and the addition of annual stack testing for THC and 
stack testing every 5 years for dioxins and furans. In conjunction with 
setting THC limits for reverberatory, electric, and rotary 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. Additionally, increased 
monitoring is required for demonstrating negative pressure in all total 
enclosures if this compliance option is selected. If the lead 
concentration in air limit is chosen, additional monitoring and 
recordkeeping will be required. Bag leak detection monitors will be 
required for HEPA filtration systems where no BLDS are currently 
installed. We estimate a total of seven new BLDS will be required as a 
result of this proposed rule at an estimated capital cost of $230,000.
    For this proposed rule, EPA is adding affirmative defense to the 
estimate of burden in the ICR. 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, 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. 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 EPA. EPA provides this illustrative estimate of this 
burden because these costs are only incurred if there has been a 
violation and a source chooses to take advantage of the affirmative 
defense.
    Given the variety of circumstances under which malfunctions could 
occur, as well as differences among sources' operation and maintenance 
practices, we cannot reliably predict the severity and frequency of 
malfunction-related excess emissions events for a particular source. It 
is important to note that EPA has no basis currently for estimating the 
number of malfunctions that would qualify for an affirmative defense. 
Current historical records would be an inappropriate basis, as source 
owners or operators previously operated their facilities in recognition 
that they were exempt from the requirement to comply with emissions 
standards during malfunctions. Of the number of excess emissions events 
reported by source operators, only a small number would be expected to 
result from a malfunction (based on the definition above), and only a 
subset of excess emissions caused by malfunctions would result in the 
source choosing to assert the affirmative defense. Thus we believe the 
number of instances in which source operators might be expected to 
avail themselves of the affirmative defense will be extremely small. 
For this reason, we estimate no more than 2 or 3 such occurrences for 
all sources subject to subpart X over the 3-year period covered by this 
ICR. We expect to gather

[[Page 29068]]

information on such events in the future and will revise this estimate 
as better information becomes available. We estimate 14 regulated 
entities are currently subject to subpart X and will be subject to all 
proposed standards. The annual monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping 
burden for this collection (averaged over the first 3 years after the 
effective date of the standards) for these amendments to subpart X 
(Secondary Lead Smelting) is estimated to be $1.01 million per year. 
This includes 4,200 labor hours per year at a total labor cost of 
$330,000 per year, and total non-labor capital and operation and 
maintenance (O&M) costs of $690,000 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 1,300 hours per year at a total labor 
cost of $67,000 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 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.
    To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy 
of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for 
minimizing respondent burden, EPA has established a public docket for 
this rule, which includes this ICR, under Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OAR-
2011-0344. Submit any comments related to the ICR to EPA and OMB. See 
the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this notice for where to 
submit comments to EPA. Send comments to OMB at the Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 
725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for 
EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR 
between 30 and 60 days after May 19, 2011, a comment to OMB is best 
assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by June 20, 2011. 
The final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the 
information collection requirements contained in this proposal.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency 
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative 
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the 
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, 
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of this proposed 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 proposed rule). After considering the 
economic impacts of today's proposed rule on small entities, I certify 
that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. One of the six parent companies 
affected is considered a small entity per the definition provided in 
this section. However, we estimate that this proposed action will not 
have a significant economic impact on that company. The impact of this 
proposed action on this company will be an annualized compliance cost 
of less than one percent of its revenues. (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 proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities, EPA nonetheless has tried to 
reduce the impact of this rule on small entities. To reduce the 
impacts, we are proposing an alternative option to enclosure standards 
to address fugitive emissions in order to allow companies flexibility 
on how best to minimize fugitive emissions at their facilities most 
efficiently. Moreover, we are proposing stack limits that are based on 
a weighted average approach (as described in Sections V.C and V.D of 
this preamble) and have been established at the least stringent levels 
that we estimate will still result in acceptable risks to public 
health. Thus, the proposed stack limits are based on the least costly 
approach that will still provide an ample margin of safety for human 
health and the environment. In addition, the proposed 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 
proposed standards. For more information, please refer to the small 
business analysis that is in the docket. We continue to be interested 
in the potential impacts of the proposed rule on small entities and 
welcome comments on issues related to such impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This proposed rule 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 proposed rule would not result in expenditures 
of $100 million or more for State, local, and Tribal governments, in 
aggregate, or the private sector in any 1 year. The proposed rule 
imposes no enforceable duties on any State, local or Tribal governments 
or the private sector. Thus, this proposed rule is not subject to the 
requirements of sections 202 or 205 of the UMRA.
    This proposed rule 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 proposed rule 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

[[Page 29069]]

Executive Order 13132. None of the facilities subject to this action 
are owned or operated by State governments, and, because no new 
requirements are being promulgated, nothing in this proposed rule will 
supersede State regulations. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply 
to this proposed rule.
    In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA 
policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local 
governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule 
from State and local officials.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    This proposed rule does not have Tribal implications, as specified 
in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Thus, 
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
    EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed 
action from Tribal officials.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997) because it is not economically significant as 
defined in Executive Order 12866. However, the Agency does believe 
there is a disproportionate risk to children due to current emissions 
of lead from this source category. Modeled ambient air lead 
concentrations from about 10 of the 14 facilities in this source 
category are in excess of the NAAQS for lead, which was set to 
``provide increased protection for children and other at-risk 
populations against an array of adverse health effects, most notably 
including neurological effects in children, including neurocognitive 
and neurobehavioral effects'' (73 FR 67007). However, the control 
measures proposed in this notice will result in lead concentration 
levels at or below the lead NAAQS at all facilities, thereby mitigating 
the risk of adverse health effects to children.
    The public is invited to submit comments or identify peer-reviewed 
studies and data that assess effects of early life exposure to lead, 
arsenic, or cadmium.

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 under 
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 
28355, May 22, 2001), because it is not likely to have significant 
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. This 
action will not create any new requirements and therefore no additional 
costs for sources in the energy supply, distribution, or use sectors.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note), 
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its 
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with 
applicable law or otherwise impractical. VCS are technical standards 
(e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, 
business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary 
consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, 
through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available 
and applicable VCS.
    This proposed rulemaking involves technical standards. EPA proposes 
to use 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 and ASTM D6420-99 (2004) as an acceptable 
alternative to EPA Method 18. EPA has also decided to use EPA Methods 
1, 2, 3, 3A, 3B, 4, 5D, 23, a Procedure in Subpart X to measure doorway 
in-draft, and a method for measuring lead in ambient air (i.e., 40 CFR 
Part 50 Appendix G). Although the Agency has identified 16 VCS as being 
potentially applicable to these methods cited in this rule, we have 
decided not to use these standards in this proposed rulemaking. The use 
of these VCS would have been impractical because they do not meet the 
objectives of the standards cited in this rule. The search and review 
results are in the docket for this proposed rule.
    EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of this proposed rulemaking 
and, specifically, invites the public to identify potentially-
applicable voluntary consensus standards and to explain why such 
standards should be used in this regulation.
    Under section 63.7(f) and section 63.8(f) of Subpart A of the 
General Provisions, a source may apply to 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 proposed rule. J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and 
Low-Income Populations.
    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes 
Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision 
directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and 
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission 
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high 
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, 
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income 
populations in the United States.
    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 methods used to conduct demographic analyses for this 
rule are described in Section III.B of this preamble. The development 
of demographic analyses to inform the consideration of environmental 
justice issues in EPA rulemakings is an evolving science. EPA offers 
the demographic analyses in today's proposed rulemaking as examples of 
how such analyses might be developed to inform such consideration, and 
invites public comment on the approaches used and the interpretations 
made from the results, with the hope that this will support the 
refinement and improve utility of such analyses.
    In the case of Secondary Lead Smelting, we focused on populations 
within 50 km of the 14 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

[[Page 29070]]

ambient air lead concentrations above the level of the NAAQS for lead. 
We compared the percentages of particular demographic groups within the 
focused populations to the total percentages of those demographic 
groups nationwide. The results of this analysis are documented in 
Section IV of this preamble (see Table 4 of this preamble), as well as 
in a technical report located in the docket for this proposed 
rulemaking.
    As described in Section IV of this preamble, with regard to cancer 
risks, there are some potential disproportionate impacts to some 
minority populations due to emissions of arsenic and cadmium from this 
source category. However, with regard to lead, the analysis does not 
indicate significant disproportionate impacts. Nevertheless, the 
proposed actions in today's notice will significantly decrease the 
risks due to HAP emissions from this source category and mitigate any 
disproportionate risks due to those emissions.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Lead, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: April 29, 2011.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, part 63 of title 40, 
chapter I, of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be 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
Sec.
63.541 Applicability.
63.542 Definitions.
63.543 What are my standards for process vents?
63.544 What are my process enclosure standards?
63.545 What are my standards for fugitive dust sources?
63.546 Compliance dates.
63.547 Test methods.
63.548 Monitoring requirements.
63.549 Notification requirements.
63.550 Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
63.551 Implementation and enforcement.
63.552 Affirmative Defense for Exceedance of Emissions Limit During 
Malfunction.
Table 1 to Subpart X of Part 63--General Provisions Applicability to 
Subpart X
Table 2 to Subpart X of Part 63--Emissions Limits for Secondary Lead 
Smelting Furnaces
Table 3 to Subpart X of Part 60--Toxic Equivalency Factors

Subpart X--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 
From Secondary Lead Smelting

Sec.  63.541  Applicability.

    (a) You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate any of 
the following equipment or processes at a secondary lead smelter: 
Blast, reverberatory, rotary, and electric furnaces; refining kettles; 
agglomerating furnaces; dryers; process fugitive emissions sources; and 
fugitive dust sources. The provisions of this subpart do not apply to 
primary lead smelters, 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.

Sec.  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:
    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 lead-acid 
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 [deg]C) that lead compounds are 
chemically reduced to elemental lead metal.
    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 [deg]C) that lead compounds are reduced 
to elemental lead metal.
    Enclosure hood means a hood that covers a process fugitive emission 
source on the top and on all sides, with openings only for access to 
introduce or remove materials to or from the source and through which 
an induced flow of air is ventilated.
    Fugitive dust source means a stationary source of hazardous air 
pollutant emissions at a secondary lead smelter that is not associated 
with a specific process or process fugitive vent or stack. Fugitive 
dust sources include, but are not limited to, roadways, storage piles, 
materials handling transfer points, materials transport areas, storage 
areas, process areas, and buildings.
    Furnace and refining/casting area means any area of a secondary 
lead smelter in which:
    (1) Smelting furnaces are located; or
    (2) Refining operations occur; or
    (3) Casting operations occur.
    Lead alloy means an alloy in which the predominant component is 
lead.
    Maintenance activity means any of the following routine maintenance 
and repair activities that generate fugitive lead dust:

[[Page 29071]]

    (1) Replacement or repair of refractory, filter bags, 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-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 piles, bins, 
or tubs, and areas in which material is prepared for charging to a 
smelting furnace.
    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 that is 
subject to vehicle traffic, including traffic by forklifts, front-end 
loaders, or vehicles carrying whole batteries or cast lead ingots. 
Excluded from this definition are employee and visitor parking areas, 
provided they are not subject to traffic by vehicles carrying lead-
bearing materials.
    Pressurized dryer breaching seal means a seal system connecting the 
dryer transition pieces which is maintained at a higher pressure than 
the inside of the dryer.
    Process fugitive emissions source means a source of hazardous air 
pollutant emissions at a secondary lead smelter that is associated with 
lead smelting or refining, but is not the primary exhaust stream from a 
smelting furnace, and is not a fugitive dust source. Process fugitive 
sources include, but are not limited to, smelting furnace charging 
points, smelting furnace lead and slag taps, refining kettles, 
agglomerating furnaces, and drying kiln transition pieces.
    Process vent means furnace vents, dryer vents, agglomeration 
furnace vents, vents from battery breakers, building vents, 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 [deg]C) that lead 
compounds are chemically reduced to elemental lead metal.
    Rotary furnace (also known as a rotary reverberatory furnace) means 
a furnace consisting of a refractory-lined chamber that rotates about a 
horizontal axis and that uses one or more flames to heat the walls of 
the furnace and lead-bearing scrap to such a temperature (greater than 
980 [deg]C) that lead compounds are chemically reduced to elemental 
lead metal.
    Secondary lead smelter means any facility at which lead-bearing 
scrap material, primarily, but not limited to, lead-acid batteries, is 
recycled into elemental lead or lead alloys by smelting.
    Smelting means the chemical reduction of lead compounds to 
elemental lead or lead alloys through processing in high-temperature 
(greater than 980 [deg]C) furnaces including, but not limited to, blast 
furnaces, reverberatory furnaces, rotary furnaces, and electric 
furnaces.
    Total enclosure means a roofed and walled structure with limited 
openings to allow access and egress for people and vehicles that meets 
the requirements of Sec.  265.1101(a)(1), (a)(2)(i), and (c)(1)(i).
    Vehicle wash means a device for removing dust and other accumulated 
material from the wheels, body, and underside of a vehicle to prevent 
the inadvertent transfer of lead contaminated material to another area 
of a secondary lead smelter or to public roadways.
    Wet suppression means the use of water, water combined with a 
chemical surfactant, or a chemical binding agent to prevent the 
entrainment of dust into the air from fugitive dust sources.

Sec.  63.543  What are my standards for process vents?

    (a) 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 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.
    (2) Until 12 monthly weighted average emissions rates have been 
accumulated, calculate only the monthly average weighted emissions 
rate.
    (3) You must use Equation 1 of this section to calculate the flow-
weighted average concentration of lead compounds from process vents:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19MY11.000

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.

[[Page 29072]]

    (4) Each month, you must use the concentration of lead and flow 
rate obtained during the most recent compliance test performed prior to 
or during that month to perform the calculation.
    (5) If a continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS) is used to 
measure the concentration of lead in a vent, the monthly average lead 
concentration and monthly average flow must be used rather than the 
most recent compliance test data.
    (b) You must meet the applicable emissions limits for total 
hydrocarbons and dioxins and furans from furnace sources specified in 
Table 2 of this subpart.
    (c) 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.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19MY11.001

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 lead in furnace 
vent i as specified in Table 2 of this subpart.

    (d) 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 (b) of this section at a location downstream from the point 
at which the two emissions streams are combined.
    (e) 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.
    (f) Following the initial performance or compliance test to 
demonstrate compliance with the lead emissions limits specified in 
paragraph (a) of this section, you must conduct an annual performance 
test for lead compounds from each process vent (no later than 12 
calendar months following the previous compliance test), unless you 
install and operate a CEMS and continuous emissions rate monitoring 
system meeting the requirements of Sec.  63.548(m).
    (g) Following the initial performance or compliance test to 
demonstrate compliance with the total hydrocarbons emissions limits in 
paragraphs (b) and (e) of this section, you must conduct an annual 
performance test for total hydrocarbons emissions from each process 
vent (no later than 12 calendar months following the previous 
compliance test).
    (h) Following the initial performance or compliance test to 
demonstrate compliance with the dioxins and furans emissions limits 
specified in paragraph (b) of this section, you must conduct a 
performance test for dioxins and furans emissions at least once every 5 
years following the previous compliance test.
    (i) You must conduct the performance tests specified in paragraphs 
(f) through (h) of this section under such conditions as the 
Administrator specifies based on representative performance of the 
affected source for the period being tested. Upon request, you must 
make available to the Administrator such records as may be necessary to 
determine the conditions of performance tests.
    (j) 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.
    (k) 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 prior to 
introducing feed into a blast furnace.

Sec.  63.544  What are my process enclosure standards?

    (a) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, you must 
locate the fugitive emissions sources listed in paragraphs (a)(1) 
through (a)(9) of this section in a total enclosure that is maintained 
at negative pressure at all times. The total enclosure must meet the 
requirements specified in paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this section.
    (1) Smelting furnaces.
    (2) Smelting furnace charging areas.
    (3) Lead taps, slag taps, and molds during tapping.
    (4) Battery breakers.
    (5) Refining kettles, casting areas.
    (6) Dryers.
    (7) Agglomerating furnaces and agglomerating furnace product taps.
    (8) Material handling areas for any lead bearing materials 
(drosses, slag, other raw materials), excluding areas where unbroken 
lead acid batteries and finished lead products are stored.
    (9) Areas where dust from fabric filters, sweepings or used fabric 
filters are handled or processed.
    (b) You must construct and operate total enclosures for the sources 
listed in paragraph (a) of this section as specified in paragraphs 
(b)(1) and (b)(2) of this section.
    (1) You must ventilate the total enclosure continuously to ensure 
negative pressure values of at least 0.02 mm of mercury (0.011 inches 
of water).
    (2) You must maintain the in-draft velocity of the total enclosure 
at greater than or equal to 300 feet per minute at any opening 
including, but not limited to, vents, windows, passages, doorways, bay 
doors and roll-ups doors.
    (c) 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

[[Page 29073]]

possible routes for emissions of lead to the atmosphere within 72 hours 
of identification unless you obtain approval for an extension from the 
Administrator before the repair period is exceeded.
    (d) As an alternative to the requirements specified in paragraphs 
(a) through (c) of this section, you can elect to demonstrate 
compliance by meeting the requirements of (d)(1) through (d)(4) of this 
section.
    (1) You must install compliance monitors on or near the plant 
property boundary, at locations approved by the Administrator, to 
demonstrate that the lead concentration in air is at all times 
maintained below a 3-month rolling average value of 0.15 [micro]g/m\3\ 
at each monitor. This must include at least two such monitors and at 
least one of these monitors must be in a location that is expected to 
have the highest air concentrations at or near the facility boundary 
based on ambient dispersion modeling or other methods approved by the 
Administrator.
    (2) You must control the process fugitive emission sources listed 
in paragraphs (d)(2)(i) through (d)(2)(vi) of this section in 
accordance with the equipment and operational standards presented in 
paragraphs (d)(3) through (d)(8) of this section.
    (i) Smelting furnace and dryer charging hoppers, chutes, and skip 
hoists.
    (ii) Smelting furnace lead taps, and molds during tapping.
    (iii) Smelting furnace slag taps, and molds during tapping.
    (iv) Refining kettles.
    (v) Dryer transition pieces.
    (vi) Agglomerating furnace product taps.
    (3) Process fugitive emission sources must be equipped with an 
enclosure hood meeting the requirements of (d)(3)(i), (d)(3)(ii), or 
(d)(3)(iii) of this section.
    (i) All process fugitive enclosure hoods except those specified for 
refining kettles and dryer transition pieces must be ventilated to 
maintain a face velocity of at least 90 meters per minute (300 feet per 
minute) at all hood openings.
    (ii) Process fugitive enclosure hoods required for refining kettles 
must be ventilated to maintain a face velocity of at least 75 meters 
per minute (250 feet per minute).
    (iii) Process fugitive enclosure hoods required over dryer 
transition pieces must be ventilated to maintain a face velocity of at 
least 110 meters per minute (350 feet per minute).
    (iv) Ventilation air from all enclosure hoods must be conveyed to a 
control device meeting the applicable requirements of Sec.  63.543.
    (4) As an alternative to paragraph (d)(3)(iii) of this section, you 
may elect to control the process fugitive emissions from dryer 
transition pieces by installing and operating pressurized dryer 
breaching seals at each transition piece.
    (5) For the battery breaking area, partial enclosure of storage 
piles, wet suppression applied to storage piles with sufficient 
frequency and quantity to prevent the formation of dust, and pavement 
cleaning twice per day.
    (6) For the furnace area, partial enclosure and pavement cleaning 
twice per day.
    (7) For the refining and casting area, partial enclosure and 
pavement cleaning twice per day.
    (8) For the materials storage and handling area, partial enclosure 
of storage piles, wet suppression applied to storage piles with 
sufficient frequency and quantity to prevent the formation of dust.

Sec.  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)(8) of this section.
    (1) Plant roadways.
    (2) Plant buildings.
    (3) Plant building exteriors.
    (4) Accidental releases.
    (5) Battery storage area.
    (6) Equipment maintenance areas.
    (7) Material storage areas.
    (8) Material handling areas.
    (b) You must submit the standard operating procedures manual to the 
Administrator or delegated authority for review and approval.
    (c) The controls specified in the standard operating procedures 
manual must at a minimum include the requirements specified in 
paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(8) of this section, unless you satisfy 
the requirements specified in paragraph (f) 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. If you use a mobile vacuum sweeper for 
pavement cleaning, the sweeper must meet the requirements specified in 
paragraphs (c)(2)(i) or (c)(2)(ii) of this section.
    (i) If the vacuum sweeper uses water flushing followed by sweeping, 
the water flush must use a minimum application of 0.48 gallons of water 
per square yard of pavement cleaned.
    (ii) The vacuum sweeper must be equipped with a filter rated by the 
manufacturer to achieve a capture efficiency of 99.97 for 0.3 micron 
particles.
    (3) Plant building exterior. For all buildings that house areas 
associated with storage, handling, or processing of lead bearing 
materials, you must perform a monthly cleaning of building rooftops on 
structures that are less than 45 feet in height and quarterly cleaning 
of buildings that are greater than 45 feet in height.
    (4) Accidental releases. You must initiate cleaning of all affected 
areas within one hour after any accidental release of lead dust.
    (5) Battery storage areas. You must inspect any unenclosed battery 
storage areas twice each day and immediately move any broken batteries 
identified to an enclosure. You must clean residue from broken 
batteries within one hour of identification.
    (6) 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. You must collect 
all wash water and store the wash water in a container that is not open 
to the atmosphere if the wash water is not immediately sent to 
treatment.
    (7) Equipment maintenance. You must perform all maintenance 
activities for any equipment potentially contaminated with lead bearing 
material or lead dust inside an enclosure maintained at negative 
pressure. You must conduct any maintenance activity that cannot be 
conducted in a negative pressure enclosure due to physical constraints 
or safety issues inside a partial or temporary enclosure and use wet 
suppression and/or a vacuum system equipped with a filter rated by the 
manufacturer to achieve a capture efficiency of 99.97 percent for 0.3 
micron particles.
    (8) Material transport. You must transport all lead bearing 
materials including, but not limited to, furnace

[[Page 29074]]

charging material, baghouse dust, slag and any material generated from 
cleaning activities, capable of generating any amount of fugitive lead 
dust within closed conveyor systems or in sealed, leak-proof containers 
unless the transport activities are contained within an enclosure.
    (d) Your standard operating procedures manual must specify that 
records be maintained of all pavement cleaning, vehicle washing, wet 
suppression, exterior building cleaning, 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).
    (f) As an alternative to the requirements specified in paragraphs 
(c)(1) through (c)(8) of 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 paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(8) of this section.

Sec.  63.546  Compliance dates.

    (a) For affected sources that commenced construction or 
reconstruction on or before May 19, 2011, you must demonstrate 
compliance with the requirements of this subpart no later than [DATE 
TWO YEARS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE 
FEDERAL REGISTER].
    (b) For affected sources that commenced construction or 
reconstruction after May 19, 2011, you must demonstrate compliance with 
the requirements of this subpart by [DATE TWO YEARS AFTER THE DATE OF 
PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] or upon startup 
of operations, whichever is later.

Sec.  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 
Sec.  63.543(a).
    (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 29 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8 to determine 
compliance with the lead compound emissions standards. The minimum 
sample volume must be 2.0 dry standard cubic meters (70 dry standard 
cubic feet) for each run. You must perform three test runs and you must 
determine compliance using the average of the three runs.
    (b) You must use the following test methods in appendix A of part 
60 listed in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(4) of this section, as 
specified, to determine compliance with the emissions standards for 
total hydrocarbons specified in Sec.  63.543(b) and (e).
    (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.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19MY11.002

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 Sec.  63.543(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 3A or 3B at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-2 to 
determine the oxygen and carbon dioxide concentrations of the stack 
gas.
    (4) EPA Method 4 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-3 to determine 
moisture content of the stack gas.
    (5) EPA Method 23 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7 to determine the 
dioxins and furans concentration.
    (e) You must determine the dioxins and furans toxic equivalency by 
following the procedures in paragraphs (e)(1) through (e)(3) of this 
section.
    (1) Measure the concentration of each dioxins and furans congener 
shown in Table 3 of this 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.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19MY11.003

[[Page 29075]]

Where:

Cadj = Dioxins and furans concentration adjusted to 7 
percent oxygen.
Cmeas = Dioxins and furans concentration measured in 
nanograms per dry standard cubic meter.
(20.9 - 7) = 20.9 percent oxygen - 7 percent oxygen (defined oxygen 
correction basis).
20.9 = Oxygen concentration in air, percent.
%O2 = Oxygen concentration measured on a dry basis, 
percent.

    (2) For each dioxins and furans congener measured as specified in 
paragraph (e)(1) of this section, multiply the congener concentration 
by its corresponding toxic equivalency factor specified in Table 3 to 
this subpart.
    (3) Sum the values calculated as specified in paragraph (e)(2) of 
this section to obtain the total concentration of dioxins and furans 
emitted in terms of toxic equivalency.
    (f) You must determine compliance with the doorway in-draft 
requirement for enclosed buildings in Sec.  63.544(b) using the 
procedures specified in paragraphs (f)(1) through (f)(3) of this 
section.
    (1) You must use a propeller anemometer or equivalent device 
meeting the requirements of paragraphs (f)(1)(i) through (f)(1)(iii) of 
this section.
    (i) The propeller of the anemometer must be made of a material of 
uniform density and must be properly balanced to optimize performance.
    (ii) The measurement range of the anemometer must extend to at 
least 300 meters per minute (1,000 feet per minute).
    (iii) A known relationship must exist between the anemometer signal 
output and air velocity, and the anemometer must be equipped with a 
suitable readout system.
    (2) You must determine the doorway in-draft by placing the 
anemometer in the plane of the doorway opening near its center.
    (3) You must demonstrate the doorway in-draft for each doorway that 
is open during normal operation with all other doorways remaining in 
the position they are in during normal operation.
    (g) If you comply with the requirements specified in Sec.  
63.544(d)(1), you must use the EPA method at 40 CFR part 50, appendix G 
to measure the concentration of lead in air.
    (h) If you comply with the requirements specified in Sec.  
63.544(d)(2) and (d)(3) for enclosure hoods, you must determine 
compliance with the face velocity requirements by using the test 
methods in paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this section.
    (1) Calculate face velocity using the procedures in paragraphs 
(h)(1)(i) through (h)(1)(iv) of this section.
    (i) Method 1 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-1 must be used to select 
the sampling port location in the duct leading from the process 
fugitive enclosure hood to the control device.
    (ii) Method 2 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-1 must be used to 
measure the volumetric flow rate in the duct from the process fugitive 
enclosure hood to the control device.
    (iii) The face area of the hood must be determined from measurement 
of the hood. If the hood has access doors, then the face area must be 
determined with the access doors in the position they are in during 
normal operating conditions.
    (iv) Face velocity must be determined by dividing the volumetric 
flow rate as determined in paragraph (h)(1)(ii) of this section by the 
total face area for the hood determined in paragraph (h)(2)(iii) of 
this section.
    (2) The face velocity may be measured directly using the procedures 
in paragraphs (h)(2)(i) through (h)(2)(v) of this section.
    (i) A propeller anemometer or equivalent device must be used to 
measure hood face velocity.
    (ii) The propeller of the anemometer must be made of a material of 
uniform density and must be properly balanced to optimize performance.
    (iii) The measurement range of the anemometer must extend to at 
least 300 meters per minute (1,000 feet per minute).
    (iv) A known relationship must exist between the anemometer signal 
output and air velocity, and the anemometer must be equipped with a 
suitable readout system.
    (v) Hood face velocity must be determined for each hood open during 
normal operation by placing the anemometer in the plane of the hood 
opening. Access doors must be positioned consistent with normal 
operation.

Sec.  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 Sec. Sec.  63.543, 63.544, and 63.545, including those 
used to control emissions from building ventilation.
    (b) You must submit the standard operating procedures manual for 
baghouses required by paragraph (a) of this section to the 
Administrator or delegated authority for review and approval.
    (c) The procedures that you specify in the standard operating 
procedures manual for inspections and routine maintenance must, at a 
minimum, include the requirements of paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(9) 
of this section.
    (1) Daily monitoring of pressure drop across each baghouse cell.
    (2) Weekly confirmation that dust is being removed from hoppers 
through visual inspection, or equivalent means of ensuring the proper 
functioning of removal mechanisms.
    (3) Daily check of compressed air supply for pulse-jet baghouses.
    (4) An appropriate methodology for monitoring cleaning cycles to 
ensure proper operation.
    (5) Monthly check of bag cleaning mechanisms for proper functioning 
through visual inspection or equivalent means.
    (6) Monthly check of bag tension on reverse air and shaker-type 
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) Continuous operation of a bag leak detection system, unless a 
system meeting the requirements of paragraph (m) of this section, for a 
CEMS and continuous emissions rate monitoring system is installed for 
monitoring the concentration of lead.
    (d) The procedures you specified 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.

[[Page 29076]]

    (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) 
and the manufacturer's written specifications and recommendations for 
installation, operation, and adjustment of the system.
    (5) The initial adjustment of the system must, at a minimum, 
consist of establishing the baseline output by adjusting the 
sensitivity (range) and the averaging period of the device, and 
establishing the alarm set points and the alarm delay time.
    (6) Following initial adjustment, you must not adjust the 
sensitivity or range, averaging period, alarm set points, or alarm 
delay time, except as detailed in the approved standard operating 
procedures manual required under paragraph (a) of this section. You 
cannot increase the sensitivity by more than 100 percent or decrease 
the sensitivity by more than 50 percent over a 365 day period unless 
such adjustment follows a complete baghouse inspection that 
demonstrates that the baghouse is in good operating condition.
    (7) For negative pressure, induced air baghouses, and positive 
pressure baghouses that are discharged to the atmosphere through a 
stack, you must install the bag leak detector downstream of the 
baghouse and upstream of any wet acid gas scrubber.
    (8) Where multiple detectors are required, the system's 
instrumentation and alarm may be shared among detectors.
    (f) You must include in the standard operating procedures manual 
required by paragraph (a) of this section a corrective action plan that 
specifies the procedures to be followed in the case of a bag leak 
detection system alarm. The corrective action plan must include, at a 
minimum, the procedures that you will use to determine and record the 
time and cause of the alarm as well as the corrective actions taken to 
minimize emissions as specified in paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this 
section.
    (1) The procedures used to determine the cause of the alarm must be 
initiated within 30 minutes of the alarm.
    (2) The cause of the alarm must be alleviated by taking the 
necessary corrective action(s) that may include, but not be limited to, 
those listed in paragraphs (f)(2)(i) through (f)(2)(vi) of this 
section.
    (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) If you use a wet scrubber to control particulate matter and 
metal hazardous air pollutant emissions from an affected source to 
demonstrate continuous compliance with the emissions standards, you 
must monitor and record the pressure drop and water flow rate of the 
wet scrubber during the initial performance or compliance test 
conducted to demonstrate compliance with the lead emissions limit under 
Sec.  63.543(a). 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.
    (h) You must comply with the requirements specified in paragraphs 
(h)(1) through (h)(5) of this section to demonstrate continuous 
compliance with the total hydrocarbons and dioxins and furans emissions 
standards.
    (1) Continuous temperature monitoring. You must install, calibrate, 
maintain, and continuously operate a device to monitor and record the 
temperature of the afterburner or furnace exhaust streams consistent 
with the requirements for continuous monitoring systems in subpart A of 
this part.
    (2) Prior to or in conjunction with the initial performance or 
compliance test to determine compliance with Sec.  63.543(b), you must 
conduct a performance evaluation for the temperature monitoring device 
according to Sec.  63.8(e). The definitions, installation 
specifications, test procedures, and data reduction procedures for 
determining calibration drift, relative accuracy, and reporting 
described in Performance Specification 2, 40 CFR part 60, appendix B, 
sections 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10 must be used to conduct the 
evaluation. The temperature monitoring device must meet the following 
performance and equipment specifications:
    (i) The recorder response range must include zero and 1.5 times the 
average temperature identified in paragraph (h)(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 
(h)(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 thermocouple-potentiometer system 
or an alternate reference, subject to the approval of the 
Administrator.
    (3) You must monitor and record the temperature of the afterburner 
or the furnace exhaust streams every 15 minutes during the initial 
performance or compliance test for total hydrocarbons and dioxins and 
furans and determine an arithmetic average for the recorded temperature 
measurements.
    (4) To demonstrate continuous compliance with the standards for 
total hydrocarbons and dioxins and furans, you must maintain an 
afterburner or exhaust temperature such that the average temperature in 
any 3-hour period does not fall more than 28 [deg]C (50 [deg]F) below 
the average established in paragraph (h)(3) of this section.
    (i) You must install, operate, and maintain a digital differential 
pressure monitoring system to continuously monitor each total enclosure 
as described in paragraphs (i)(1) through (i)(6) 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 digital 
differential pressure monitoring system at the leeward wall of each 
total

[[Page 29077]]

enclosure that has a total ground surface area of less than 10,000 
square feet.
    (3) The digital differential pressure monitoring systems must be 
certified by the manufacturer to be capable of measuring and displaying 
negative pressure in the range of 0.01 to 0.2 mm mercury (0.005 to 0.11 
inches of water) with a minimum accuracy of plus or minus 0.001 mm 
mercury (0.0005 inches of water).
    (4) You must equip each digital differential pressure monitoring 
system with a continuous recorder.
    (5) You must calibrate each digital differential pressure 
monitoring system in accordance with manufacturer's specifications at 
least once every 12 calendar months or more frequently if recommended 
by the manufacturer.
    (6) You must equip the digital differential pressure monitoring 
system with a backup, uninterruptible power supply to ensure continuous 
operation of the monitoring system during a power outage.
    (j) You must monitor the doorway in-draft velocity at each building 
opening once per day to demonstrate continuous compliance with the in-
draft requirements in Sec.  63.544(b)(2).
    (k) If you comply with the requirements specified in Sec.  
63.544(d), you must comply with the requirements specified in 
paragraphs (k)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) You must install, operate and maintain a continuous monitoring 
system for the measurement of lead compound concentrations in air as 
specified in paragraphs (k)(1)(i) through (k)(1)(v) of this section.
    (i) You must operate a minimum of two compliance monitors 
sufficient in location and frequency of sample collection to detect 
expected maximum concentrations of lead compounds in air due to 
emissions from the affected source(s) in accordance with a written plan 
as described in paragraph (k)(1)(ii) of this section and approved by 
the Administrator. The plan must include descriptions of the sampling 
and analytical methods used. The plan may take into consideration 
existing monitoring being conducted under a State monitoring plan in 
accordance with 40 CFR part 58. At least one 24-hour sample must be 
collected from each monitor every 6 days except during periods or 
seasons exempted by the Administrator.
    (ii) You must submit a written plan describing and explaining the 
basis for the design and adequacy of the compliance monitoring network, 
the sampling, analytical, and quality assurance procedures, and any 
other related procedures, and the justification for any seasonal, 
background, or other data adjustments within 45 days after the 
effective date of this subpart.
    (iii) The Administrator at any time may require changes in, or 
expansion of, the monitoring program, including additional sampling 
and, more frequent sampling, revisions to the analytical protocols and 
network design.
    (iv) If all rolling 3-month average concentrations of lead in air 
measured by the compliance monitoring system are less than 50 percent 
of the lead concentration limits specified in Sec.  63.544(d)(1) for 3 
consecutive years, you may submit a proposed revised plan to reduce the 
monitoring sampling and analysis frequency to the Administrator for 
review. If approved by the Administrator, you may adjust your 
monitoring accordingly.
    (v) For any subsequent period, if any rolling 3-month average lead 
concentration in air measured at any monitor in the monitoring system 
exceeds 50 percent of the concentration limits specified in Sec.  
63.544(d)(1), you must resume monitoring pursuant to paragraph 
(k)(1)(i) of this section at all monitors until another 3 consecutive 
years of lead concentration measurements is demonstrated to be less 
than 50 percent of the lead concentration limits specified in Sec.  
63.544(d)(1).
    (2) You must monitor the enclosure hood face velocity at each hood 
once per week to demonstrate continuous compliance with the in-draft 
requirements in Sec.  63.544(d)(3).
    (3) If you use pressurized dryer breaching seals in order to comply 
with the requirements of Sec.  63.544(d)(4), you must equip each seal 
with an alarm that will ``sound'' or ``go off'' if the pressurized 
dryer breaching seal malfunctions.
    (l) All new or modified sources subject to the requirements under 
Sec.  63.543 must install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a CEMS for 
measuring lead emissions and a continuous emissions rate monitoring 
system subject to Performance Specification 6 of appendix B to part 60 
of this chapter. You must comply with the requirements for CEMS and 
continuous emissions rate monitoring system specified in paragraph (m) 
of this section.
    (1) Sources subject to the emissions limits for lead compounds 
under Sec.  63.543(a) must install a CEMS for measuring lead emissions 
within 180 days of promulgation of performance specifications for lead 
CEMS.
    (2) Prior to promulgation of performance specifications for CEMS 
used to measure lead concentrations, you must use the procedure 
described in Sec.  63.543(a)(1) through (a)(4) to determine compliance.
    (m) If a CEMS is used to measure lead emissions, you must install a 
continuous emissions rate 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 rate 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 rate monitoring system must be 
equipped with a data acquisition and recording system that is capable 
of recording values over the entire range specified in paragraph (m)(1) 
of this section.
    (3) You must perform an initial relative accuracy test of the 
continuous emissions rate 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 rate 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) You must calculate the average lead concentration and flow rate 
monthly to determine compliance with Sec.  63.543(a).
    (6) When the continuous emissions rate monitoring system is unable 
to provide quality assured data, the following apply:
    (i) When data are not available for periods of up to 48 hours, the 
highest recorded hourly emissions rate from the previous 24 hours must 
be used.
    (ii) When data are not available for 48 or more hours, the maximum 
daily emissions rate based on the previous 30 days must be used.

Sec.  63.549  Notification requirements.

    (a) You must comply with all of the notification requirements of 
Sec.  63.9 of

[[Page 29078]]

subpart A, General Provisions. Electronic notifications are encouraged 
when possible.
    (b) You must submit the fugitive dust control standard operating 
procedures manual required under Sec.  63.545(a) and the standard 
operating procedures manual for baghouses required under Sec.  
63.548(a) to the Administrator or delegated authority along with a 
notification that the smelter is seeking review and approval of these 
plans and procedures. You must submit this notification no later than 
[DATE ONE YEAR AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL 
REGISTER]. For sources that commenced construction or reconstruction 
after [INSERT THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL 
REGISTER], you must submit this notification no later than 180 days 
before startup of the constructed or reconstructed secondary lead 
smelter, but no sooner than [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN 
THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. For an affected source that has received a 
construction permit from the Administrator or delegated authority on or 
before [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL 
REGISTER], you must submit this notification no later than [DATE ONE 
YEAR AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

Sec.  63.550  Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

    (a) You must comply with all of the recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements specified in Sec.  63.10 of the General Provisions that 
are referenced in Table 1 to this subpart.
    (1) Records must be maintained in a form suitable and readily 
available for expeditious review, according to Sec.  63.10(b)(1). 
However, electronic recordkeeping and reporting is encouraged, and 
required for some records and reports.
    (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 Sec.  63.10(b)(1).
    (b) The standard operating procedures manuals required in Sec.  
63.545(a) and Sec.  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)(15) of this 
section.
    (1) Electronic records of the bag leak detection system output.
    (2) An identification of the date and time of all bag leak 
detection system alarms, the time that procedures to determine the 
cause of the alarm were initiated, the cause of the alarm, an 
explanation of the corrective actions taken, and the date and time the 
cause of the alarm was corrected.
    (3) All records of inspections and maintenance activities required 
under Sec.  63.548(c) as part of the practices described in the 
standard operating procedures manual for baghouses required under Sec.  
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 Sec.  63.548(g).
    (5) Electronic records of the output from the continuous 
temperature monitor required in Sec.  63.548(h)(1), and an 
identification of periods when the 3-hour average temperature fell 
below the minimum established under Sec.  63.548(h)(3), and an 
explanation of the corrective actions taken.
    (6) Electronic records of the continuous pressure monitors for 
total enclosures required in Sec.  63.548(i), and an identification of 
periods when the pressure was not maintained as required in Sec.  
63.544(b)(1).
    (7) Records of the daily measurements of doorway in-draft velocity 
required in Sec.  63.548(j), and an identification of the periods when 
the velocity was not maintained as required in Sec.  63.544(b)(2).
    (8) Records of the inspections of facility enclosures required in 
Sec.  63.544(c).
    (9) Records of all cleaning and inspections required as part of the 
practices described in the standard operating procedures manual 
required under Sec.  63.545(a) for the control of fugitive dust 
emissions.
    (10) Records of the compliance monitoring required in Sec.  
63.548(k)(1), if applicable.
    (11) Records of the face velocity measurements required in Sec.  
63.548(k)(2), if applicable, and an identification of periods when the 
face velocity was not maintained as required in Sec.  63.544(d)(2) and 
(d)(3).
    (12) Records of the dryer breaching seal alarms required in Sec.  
63.548(k)(3).
    (13) Electronic records of the output of any CEMS installed to 
monitor lead emissions meeting the requirements of Sec.  63.548(m).
    (14) Records of the occurrence and duration of each malfunction of 
operation (i.e., process equipment) or the air pollution control 
equipment and monitoring equipment.
    (15) Records of actions taken during periods of malfunction to 
minimize emissions in accordance with Sec.  63.543(j), including 
corrective actions to restore malfunctioning process and air pollution 
control and monitoring equipment to its normal or usual manner of 
operation.
    (d) You must comply with all of the reporting requirements 
specified in Sec.  63.10 of the General Provisions that are referenced 
in Table 1 to this subpart.
    (1) You must submit reports no less frequent than specified under 
Sec.  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 Sec.  
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 Sec.  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 Sec.  
63.543(a).
    (2) Records of all alarms from the bag leak detection system 
specified in Sec.  63.548.
    (3) A description of the procedures taken following each bag leak 
detection system alarm pursuant to Sec.  63.548(f)(1) and (2).
    (4) A summary of the records maintained as part of the practices 
described in the standard operating procedures manual for baghouses 
required under Sec.  63.548(a), including an explanation of the periods 
when the procedures were not followed and the corrective actions taken.
    (5) 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 Sec.  63.548(g), and an 
explanation of the corrective actions taken.
    (6) Records of the temperature monitor output, in 3-hour block 
averages, for those periods when the temperature monitored pursuant to 
Sec.  63.548(h) fell below the level established in Sec.  63.548(h)(4).
    (7) Certification that the plastic separation process for battery 
breakers required in Sec.  63.543(k) was operated at all times the 
battery breaker was in service.

[[Page 29079]]

    (8) Records of periods when the pressure was not maintained as 
required in Sec.  63.544(b)(1), or the in-draft velocity was not 
maintained as required in Sec.  63.544(b)(2).
    (9) 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 
by an owner or operator during a malfunction of an affected source to 
minimize emissions in accordance with Sec.  63.543(j), including 
actions taken to correct a malfunction.
    (10) 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 Sec.  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 Sec.  
63.545(a).
    (11) If you comply with the requirements in Sec.  63.544(d)(1), you 
must provide records of all results of air monitoring required in Sec.  
63.548(k)(1).
    (12) Records of periods when the enclosure hood face velocity was 
not maintained as required in Sec.  63.544(d)(3).
    (13) Records of the dryer seal breaching alarms required in Sec.  
63.548(k)(3).
    (14) You must submit records pursuant to paragraphs (e)(14)(i) 
through (iii) of this section.
    (i) As of January 1, 2012 and within 60 days after the date of 
completing each performance test, as defined in Sec.  63.2 and as 
required in this subpart, you must submit performance test data, except 
opacity data, electronically to EPA's Central Data Exchange by using 
the Electronic Reporting Tool (see http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ert_tool.html/). Only data collected using test methods compatible 
with the Electronic Reporting Tool are subject to this requirement to 
be submitted electronically into EPA's WebFIRE database.
    (ii) Within 60 days after the date of completing each CEMS 
performance evaluation test, as defined in Sec.  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 paragraphs (e)(14)(i) and (ii) of this section must be 
sent to the Administrator at the appropriate address listed in Sec.  
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 paragraphs 
(e)(14)(i) and (ii) of this section in paper format.

Sec.  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 Sec. Sec.  
63.541, 63.543 through 63.544, Sec.  63.545, and Sec.  63.546.
    (2) Approval of major alternatives to test methods for under Sec.  
63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f), as defined in Sec.  63.90, and as required in 
this subpart.
    (3) Approval of major alternatives to monitoring under Sec.  
63.8(f), as defined in Sec.  63.90, and as required in this subpart.
    (4) Approval of major alternatives to recordkeeping and reporting 
under Sec.  63.10(f), as defined in Sec.  63.90, and as required in 
this subpart.

Sec.  63.552  Affirmative defense for exceedance of emissions limit 
during malfunction.

    In response to an action to enforce the standards set forth in this 
subpart, you may assert an affirmative defense to a claim for civil 
penalties for exceedances of such standards that are caused by 
malfunction, as defined at Sec.  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 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 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

[[Page 29080]]

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 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Applies to
           Reference                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(j) 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.               .....................
Sec.   63.7(a)-(d)............  Yes.               .....................
Sec.   63.7(e)(1).............  No...............  See 63.543(i).
Sec.   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(j) for
                                                    general duty
                                                    requirement.
63.8(c)(1)(ii)................  Yes.               .....................
63.8(c)(1)(iii)...............  No.                .....................
63.8(c)(2)-(d)(2).............  Yes.               .....................
63.8(d)(3)....................  Yes, except for    .....................
                                 last sentence
63.8(e)-(g)...................  Yes.               .....................
63.9(a), (b), (c), (e), (g),    Yes.               .....................
 (h)(1) through (3), (h)(5)
 and (6), (i) and (j).
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(c)(7) 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.               .....................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 29081]]

             Table 2 to Subpart X of Part 63--Emissions Limits for Secondary Lead Smelting Furnaces
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        You must meet the following emissions limits
                                           ---------------------------------------------------------------------
      For vents from these processes         Total hydrocarbon ppm by volume     Dioxin and furan (dioxins and
                                            expressed as propane corrected to   furans) nanograms/dscm expressed
                                                 4 percent carbon dioxide       as TEQ corrected to 7 percent O2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Collocated blast and reverberatory furnace  20 ppmv                            0.50 ng/dscm.
Collocated blast and reverberatory furnace  360 ppmv                           170 ng/dscm.
 when the Reverberatory furnace is not
 operating.
Collocated blast and reverberatory furnace  20 ppmv                            0.50 ng/dscm.
 that commence construction after June 9,
 1994.
Collocated blast and reverberatory furnace  20 ppmv                            0.50 ng/dscm.
 that commence construction after [INSERT
 DATE 24 MONTHS AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE
 FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].
Blast furnace.............................  360 ppmv                           170 ng/dscm.
Blast furnaces that commence construction   70 ppmv                            10 ng/dscm.
 or reconstruction after June 9, 1994.
Reverberatory and electric furnace........  12 ppmv                            0.20 ng/dscm.
Reverberatory and electric furnace that     12 ppmv                            0.10 ng/dscm.
 commence construction or reconstruction
 after [INSERT DATE 24 MONTHS AFTER
 PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE
 FEDERAL REGISTER].
Rotary furnaces...........................  610 ppmv                           1.0 ng/dscm.
Rotary Furnaces that commence construction  610 ppmv                           1.0 ng/dscm.
 or reconstruction after [INSERT DATE 24
 MONTHS AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL
 RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

       Table 3 to Subpart X of Part 60--Toxic Equivalency Factors
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Toxic
                   Dioxin/Furan congener                     equivalency
                                                               factor
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin.................         1
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2011-11220 Filed 5-18-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P