Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0056-0005
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2004-10-14T04:00Z

Results
of
Section
610
Review
of
the
Standards
for
the
Secondary
Lead
Smelting
Industry
Background
On
June
23,
1995
(
60
FR
32287),
EPA
promulgated
standards
to
control
hazardous
air
pollutant
(
HAP)
emissions
from
secondary
lead
smelting
facilities
under
the
authority
of
section
112
of
the
Clean
Air
Act.
These
standards
are
codified
in
the
Code
of
Federal
Regulations
at
40
CFR
Part
63,
Subpart
X.
During
the
development
of
these
standards,
EPA
considered
the
potential
impacts
they
would
have
on
small
businesses
and
therefore
established
standards
that
would
achieve
emissions
reductions
while
minimizing
impacts
on
small
businesses.
The
Agency
has
reviewed
these
standards
as
required
under
5USC
610.
This
review
was
announced
in
the
Regulatory
Agenda
on
June
18,
2004
(
69
FR
38183).
In
addition,
the
Agency
solicited
comments
on
five
factors
that
are
addressed
below.

1.
Continued
need
for
the
rule.

Under
section
610
of
the
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
(
RFA),
the
Agency
must
consider
the
continued
need
for
the
rule.
The
Agency
finds
that
there
is
a
continued
need
for
this
rule
because
it
is
mandated
under
the
Clean
Air
Act
to
protect
public
health
by
reducing
metal
and
organic
HAP
emissions.
The
NESHAP
for
secondary
lead
smelters
is
estimated
to
reduce
HAP
emissions
by
1,300
megagrams
per
year.

The
Agency
is
currently
conducting
a
review
of
the
NESHAP
as
required
by
section
112(
d)(
6)
of
the
Clean
Air
Act.
This
section
requires
that
the
Agency
assess
if
changes
to
the
NESHAP
are
necessary
based
on
technology
improvements
since
the
NESHAP
development
no
less
often
than
every
8
years.
The
Agency
is
also
conducting
an
assessment
of
the
residual
risk
to
human
health
that
remains
after
the
application
of
NESHAP
controls,
as
required
under
section
112(
f)
of
the
Clean
Air
Act.
While
the
Agency
finds
that
revisions
to
the
NESHAP
are
not
necessary
as
it
relates
to
this
RFA
review,
the
Agency
will
assess
the
need
for
changes
under
the
authority
of
these
two
statutory
requirements.

2.
Nature
of
complaints
or
comments
received
concerning
the
rule.

No
public
comments
were
received
during
the
review
period
for
the
secondary
lead
smelting
NESHAP.

3.
Complexity
of
the
rule.

The
Agency
must
also
consider
the
complexity
of
the
rule.
The
NESHAP
established
emissions
limits
for
process
and
process
fugitive
emission
sources,
work
practices
for
fugitive
dust
emission
sources,
and
monitoring
and
recordkeeping
requirements.
The
Agency
does
not
believe
that
the
NESHAP
requirements
are
overly
complex.
The
emission
limits
and
work
practices
specified
in
the
rule
are
straightforward
(
e.
g.,
the
rule
does
not
contain
emissions
averaging
provisions)
and
the
emission
sources
are
well
defined.
The
Agency
believes
that
the
compliance
and
monitoring
requirements
of
the
rule
are
the
minimum
necessary
to
document
continuous
compliance
with
the
emission
limits.
For
the
purpose
of
the
RFA
review,
the
Agency
finds
that
revisions
to
the
NESHAP
based
on
rule
complexity
are
not
necessary.

4.
The
extent
to
which
the
rule
overlaps,
duplicates,
or
conflicts
with
other
Federal,
State,
or
local
government
rules.

The
Agency
must
also
consider
the
extent
to
which
the
rule
overlaps,
duplicates,
or
conflicts
with
other
Federal,
State,
or
local
government
rules.
Presently,
the
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act
(
RCRA)
covers
storage
of
all
lead­
bearing
materials
before
they
are
processed
by
smelting
because
they
are
hazardous
wastes.
Air
emissions
from
smelting
hazardous
wastes
(
including
spent
batteries,
which
were
held
to
be
solid
and
hazardous
wastes
by
the
Eleventh
Circuit
in
Ilco
v.
EPA)
could
have
been
regulated
under
RCRA.
However,
the
Agency
chose
to
exempt
such
emissions
from
regulation
under
RCRA
since
the
NESHAP
provides
substantial
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment
from
air
emissions
from
secondary
lead
smelters.
Integration
of
the
two
statutes,
required
by
RCRA
section
1006,
is
best
served
by
continuing
the
RCRA
exemption
because
RCRA
regulation
of
such
air
emissions
would
be
largely
or
completely
duplicative
of
the
MACT
standards.
The
Agency
is
not
aware
of
any
instance
where
the
NESHAP
conflicts
with
state
or
local
requirements.

5.
The
degree
to
which
technology,
economic
conditions,
or
other
factors
have
changed
in
the
area
of
the
rule.

Finally,
the
Agency
must
consider
the
degree
to
which
technology,
economic
conditions,
or
other
factors
have
changed
in
the
area
of
the
rule.
The
Agency
is
not
aware
of
any
pollution
prevention
technologies
or
process
changes
that
would
inherently
reduce
emissions
from
secondary
lead
smelting.
Although
the
Agency
finds
that
no
revisions
to
the
NESHAP
are
necessary
for
the
purpose
of
this
RFA
review,
the
Agency
will
continue
to
assess
advances
in
technology
as
part
of
the
review
of
the
NESHAP
that
is
required
by
section
112(
d)(
6)
of
the
Clean
Air
Act.

Conclusion
The
NESHAP
has
been
effective
in
reducing
HAP
emissions
from
the
secondary
lead
smelting
industry.
Although
there
is
some
labor
burden
for
small
businesses
imposed
by
certain
monitoring
and
recordkeeping
requirements
within
the
rule,
these
requirements
are
necessary
to
ensure
ongoing
compliance
with
the
rule,
and
do
not
pose
significant
economic
cost
on
the
industry.
Based
on
these
factors,
and
the
fact
that
no
comments
were
received
as
a
result
of
the
section
610
review
of
the
rule,
the
Agency
finds
that
revisions
to
the
NESHAP
for
the
purpose
of
the
RFA
review
are
not
necessary.