Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344-0147
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2012-01-05T05:00Z

Memorandum

Subject:		Teleconference with the Association of Battery Recyclers (ABR)

Location:		U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, RTP, NC
	
Date:			September 16, 2011

Participants:	 	Chuck French, EPA
			Nate Topham, EPA
			Colin Boswell, EPA
            Russell Kemp, ENVIRON
			Mark DeLaquil, Baker Law
			Robert Steinwurtzel, Baker Law
			Mike Burr, ERG
			Donna Lazzari, ERG

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) met via telephone with representatives of the Association of Battery Recyclers (ABR).  The meeting was requested by ABR to discuss a letter dated June 24, 2011 in which ABR submitted a request for EPA to issue a supplemental notice of rulemaking for the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Secondary Lead Smelting.  A brief summary of the key points that were discussed is outlined below.

   * ABR provided background information describing their role as interveners in litigation for the RTR schedule developed by EPA and Sierra Club.

   * ABR stated its position that the proposed rule for secondary lead smelters has a number of substantive flaws that would make it impossible to defend.  ABR stated that their ultimate goal is for the Agency to consider a supplemental notice.

   * The main issues identified by ABR include:

            1. EPA failed to consider emissions from The Battery Recycling Company (TBR) in Arecibo, Puerto Rico when developing the proposed rule.  ABR stated their understanding that TBR was sent a limited Information Collection Request and that no stack testing was requested.  ABR contends that TBR should have received the same ICR that all other facilities received.  ABR stated that information from this facility is especially important since they are unique in the fact that they operate a rotary furnace.  ABR further stated that the ICR that was sent to TBR was not docketed, nor was the response.  Interested parties should have had an opportunity to review and comment on any data submitted by TBR in response to the limited ICR that they received.
               
            2. An explanation of how EPA determined fugitive emissions for Exide's Frisco, TX facility is not included in the docket.  ABR stated that the calculations made for the facility based on ICR data was not apparent and visible in the docket.  Additionally, a letter from Fred Ganster to Chuck French regarding Exide Frisco's dioxin emissions was not included in the docket.

            3. ABR stated that there are fundamental flaws with EPA's fugitive emission estimation methodology.  First, EPA double counted the fugitive emissions reported by Exide Frisco for one emissions point.  Second, EPA used the wrong common denominator when scaling Exide Frisco's fugitive emissions in order to estimate fugitive emissions at the other secondary lead smelters.  ABR stated that they had no specific alternative methodology to propose since they had insufficient time to develop any alternative methodology.
               
            4. ABR stated that EPA overestimated emissions of dioxins and furans from the Exide Frisco facility.  The facility submitted a stack test report showing that emissions of dioxins and furans were approximately 69 times lower than the estimates used by EPA for their multipathway risk assessment.  ABR further stated their understanding that additional testing has been submitted or will be submitted by RSR's Middletown, NY facility and Exide's Reading, PA facility.
         
      * ABR concluded the meeting by requesting that EPA inform ABR ASAP as to whether the Agency plans on granting an extension for promulgation of the final rule for secondary lead smelters.