National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From Secondary Lead Smelting, 556-591 [2011-32933]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
556
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0344; FRL–9610–9]
RIN 2060–AQ68
National Emissions Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants From
Secondary Lead Smelting
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
This action finalizes the
residual risk and technology review
conducted for the secondary lead
smelting source category regulated
under national emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants. These final
amendments include revisions to the
emissions limits for lead compounds;
revisions to the standards for fugitive
emissions; the addition of total
hydrocarbon and dioxin and furan
emissions limits for reverberatory and
electric furnaces; the addition of a work
practice standard for mercury
emissions; the modification and
addition of testing and monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements; related notifications; and
revisions to the regulatory provisions
SUMMARY:
related to emissions during periods of
startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
DATES: This final action is effective on
January 5, 2012. The incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed
in the rule is approved by the Director
of the Federal Register as of January 5,
2012.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0344. All
documents in the docket are listed on
the https://www.regulations.gov Web
site. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available,
e.g., confidential business information
(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 form.
Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through
https://www.regulations.gov, or in hard
copy at the EPA Docket Center, EPA
West Building, Room Number 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC. The Public Reading
Room hours of operation are 8:30 a.m.
to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time
(EST), Monday through Friday. The
telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and
the telephone number for the Air and
Radiation Docket and Information
Center is (202) 566–1742.
For
questions about this final action, contact
Mr. Nathan Topham, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, Sector
Policies and Programs Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711;
telephone number: (919) 541–0483; fax
number: (919) 541–3207; and email
address: topham.nathan@epa.gov. For
additional contact information, see the
following SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For
specific information regarding the risk
assessment and exposure modeling
methodology, contact Dr. Michael
Stewart, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, Health and
Environmental Impacts Division, Air
Toxics Assessment Group (C504–06),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711;
telephone number: (919) 541–7524; fax
number: (919) 541–0840; and email
address: stewart.michael@epa.gov. For
information about the applicability of
this NESHAP to a particular entity,
contact the appropriate person listed in
Table 1 to this preamble.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
TABLE 1—LIST OF EPA CONTACTS FOR THE NESHAP ADDRESSED IN THIS ACTION
NESHAP for
OECA contact a
OAQPS contact b
Secondary Lead Smelting ...........................................................................
Maria Malave, (202) 564–7027,
malave.maria@epa.gov.
Nathan Topham, (919) 541–
0483,
topham.nathan@epa.gov.
a EPA’s
b EPA’s
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance.
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Acronyms and Abbreviations. The
following acronyms and abbreviations
are used in this document.
CAA Clean Air Act
CBI confidential business information
CDX Central Data Exchange
CEMS continuous emission monitoring
system
CPMS continuous parameter monitoring
system
D/F dioxins and furans
ERT Electronic Reporting Tool
HAP hazardous air pollutants
HQ hazard quotient
ICR information collection request
lbs/yr pounds per year
MACT maximum achievable control
technology
MIR maximum individual risk
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality
Standards
NESHAP National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants
ng/dscm nanograms per dry standard cubic
meter
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:35 Jan 04, 2012
Jkt 226001
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
OP Office of Policy
ppbv parts per billion by volume
ppbw parts per billion by weight
ppmv parts per million by volume
ppmw parts per million by weight
REL recommended exposure limit
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis
RIN Regulatory Information Number
RTR Risk and Technology Review
SRF short rotary furnace
TEF toxic equivalency factor
TEQ toxic equivalency quotient
THC total hydrocarbons
TTN Technology Transfer Network
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
UPL upper prediction limit
WWW World Wide Web
based on evaluations performed by the
EPA in order to conduct our risk and
technology review. In this action, we are
finalizing decisions and revisions for
the rule. Some of the significant
comments and our responses are
summarized in this preamble. A
summary of the public comments on the
proposal not presented in the preamble,
and the EPA’s responses to those
comments, is available in Docket ID No.
EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0344. A tracked
changes version of the regulatory
language that incorporates the changes
in this action is available in the docket.
Organization of This Document. The
following outline is provided to aid in
locating information in the preamble.
Background Information Document.
On May 19, 2011 (76 FR 29032), the
EPA proposed revisions to the
Secondary Lead Smelting NESHAP
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
B. What is the affected source?
C. Where can I get a copy of this
document?
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\05JAR2.SGM
05JAR2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
D. Judicial Review
II. Background
III. Summary of the Final Rule
A. What are the final rule amendments for
the Secondary Lead Smelting source
category?
B. What are the effective and compliance
dates of the standards?
C. What are the requirements for
submission of performance test data to
the EPA?
IV. Summary of Significant Changes Since
Proposal
A. Changes to the Risk Assessment
Performed Under CAA Section 112(f)
B. Changes to the Technology Review
Performed Under CAA Section 112(d)(6)
C. Other Changes Since Proposal
V. Summary of Significant Comments and
Responses
A. Use of Lead Primary NAAQS as a
Measure of Acceptability of Risk for
Public Health
B. Total Enclosure Requirements
C. Work Practice Standard Requirements
D. Emission Standards for Organic HAP
From Rotary Furnaces
E. The EPA’s Risk Assessment Supporting
the Proposed Rule
F. Miscellaneous Changes to the Regulatory
Text
G. Emission Testing Methods and
Frequency
H. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction
VI. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and
Economic Impacts
A. What are the affected facilities?
B. What are the air quality impacts?
C. What are the cost impacts?
D. What are the economic impacts?
E. What are the benefits?
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Orders 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
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
K. Congressional Review Act
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
Regulated Entities. Categories and
entities potentially regulated by this
action are shown in Table 2 of this
preamble.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:35 Jan 04, 2012
Jkt 226001
557
TABLE 2—NESHAP AND INDUSTRIAL becomes a reconstructed source and is
SOURCE CATEGORIES AFFECTED BY subject to the relevant standards for a
new affected source. The reconstructed
THIS FINAL ACTION
NESHAP and source
category
Secondary Lead
Smelting ................
a North
American
MACT b
Code
NAICS a
Code
331492
Industry
0205
Classification
System.
b Maximum Achievable Control Technology.
Table 2 of this preamble is not
intended to be exhaustive, but rather
provides a guide for readers regarding
entities likely to be affected by the final
action for the source category listed. To
determine whether your facility would
be affected, you should examine the
applicability criteria in the appropriate
NESHAP. As defined in the source
category listing report published by the
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.1 For clarification purposes, all
reference to lead emissions in this
preamble means ‘‘lead compounds’’
(which is a hazardous air pollutant) and
all reference to lead production means
elemental lead (which is not a
hazardous air pollutant) as provided
under CAA section 112(b)(7).
If you have any questions regarding
the applicability of any aspect of this
NESHAP, please contact the appropriate
person listed in Table 1 of this preamble
in the preceding FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.
B. What is the affected source?
The final rule applies to owners and
operators of secondary lead smelters.
The affected source for this subpart is
any of the following sources at a
secondary lead smelter: Blast,
reverberatory, rotary, and electric
furnaces; refining kettles; agglomerating
furnaces; dryers; process fugitive
emissions sources; buildings containing
lead bearing materials; and fugitive dust
sources. A new affected source is any
affected source at a secondary lead
smelting facility of which the
construction or reconstruction
commenced after May 19, 2011. If
components of an existing affected
source are replaced such that the
replacement meets the definition of
reconstruction in 40 CFR 63.2 and the
reconstruction commenced on or after
May 19, 2011, then the existing source
1 USEPA. Documentation for Developing the
Initial Source Category List—Final Report, USEPA/
OAQPS, EPA–450/3–91–030, July, 1992.
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
source must comply with the
requirements for a new affected source
upon initial startup of the reconstructed
source, or by March 5, 2012, whichever
is later.
C. Where can I get a copy of this
document?
In addition to being available in the
docket, an electronic copy of this final
action will also be available on the
World Wide Web through the
Technology Transfer Network (TTN).
Following signature, a copy of the final
action will be posted on the TTN’s
policy and guidance page for newly
proposed and promulgated rules at the
following address: https://www.epa.gov/
ttn/caaa/new.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 https://www.epa.gov/
ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. This
information includes source category
descriptions and detailed emissions and
other data that were used as inputs to
the risk assessments.
D. Judicial Review
Under CAA section 307(b)(1), judicial
review of this final action is available
only by filing a petition for review in
the United States Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit by
March 5, 2012. Under CAA section
307(b)(2), the requirements established
by this final rule may not be challenged
separately in any civil or criminal
proceedings brought by the EPA to
enforce the requirements.
Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA
further provides that ‘‘[o]nly an
objection to a rule or procedure which
was raised with reasonable specificity
during the period for public comment
(including any public hearing) may be
raised during judicial review.’’ This
section also provides a mechanism for
us to convene a proceeding for
reconsideration, ‘‘[i]f the person raising
an objection can demonstrate to the EPA
that it was impracticable to raise such
objection within [the period for public
comment] or if the grounds for such
objection arose after the period for
public comment (but within the time
specified for judicial review) and if such
objection is of central relevance to the
outcome of the rule.’’ Any person
seeking to make such a demonstration to
us should submit a Petition for
Reconsideration to the Office of the
Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000,
Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania
E:\FR\FM\05JAR2.SGM
05JAR2
558
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, with
a copy to both the person(s) listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section, and the Associate
General Counsel for the Air and
Radiation Law Office, Office of General
Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460.
II. Background
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 the EPA has identified
categories of sources emitting one or
more of the HAP listed in CAA section
112(b), section 112(d) calls for us to
promulgate NESHAP for those sources.
‘‘Major sources’’ are those that emit, or
have the potential to emit, any single
HAP at a rate of 10 tons per year (tpy)
or more, or 25 tpy or more of any
combination of HAP. For major sources,
these technology-based standards must
reflect the maximum degree of emission
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.
For MACT standards, the statute
specifies certain minimum stringency
requirements, which are referred to as
floor requirements and may not be
based on cost considerations. See CAA
section 112(d)(3). For new sources, the
MACT floor cannot be less stringent
than the emission control that is
achieved in practice by the best
controlled similar source. The MACT
standards for existing sources can be
less stringent than floors for new
sources, but they cannot be less
stringent than the average emission
limitation achieved by the bestperforming 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,
we must also consider control options
that are more stringent than the floor,
under CAA section 112(d)(2). We may
establish standards more stringent than
the floor, based on the consideration of
the cost of achieving the emissions
reductions, any non-air quality health
and environmental impacts, and energy
requirements. In promulgating MACT
standards, CAA section 112(d)(2) directs
us to consider the application of
measures, processes, methods, systems,
or techniques that reduce the volume of
or eliminate HAP emissions through
process changes, substitution of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:35 Jan 04, 2012
Jkt 226001
materials, or other modifications;
enclose systems or processes to
eliminate emissions; collect, capture, or
treat HAP when released from a process,
stack, storage, or fugitive emissions
point; and/or are design, equipment,
work practice, or operational standards.
In the second stage of the regulatory
process, we undertake two different
analyses, as required by the CAA:
section 112(d)(6) of the CAA calls for us
to review these technology-based
standards and to revise them ‘‘as
necessary (taking into account
developments in practices, processes,
and control technologies)’’ no less
frequently than every 8 years; and
within 8 years after promulgation of the
technology standards, CAA section
112(f) calls for us to evaluate the risk to
public health remaining after
application of the technology-based
standards and to revise the standards, if
necessary, to provide an ample margin
of safety to protect public health or to
prevent, taking into consideration costs,
energy, safety, and other relevant
factors, an adverse environmental effect.
In doing so, the EPA may adopt
standards equal to existing MACT
standards if the EPA determines that the
existing standards are sufficiently
protective. NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d
1077, 1083 (DC Cir. 2008).
On May 19, 2011, the EPA published
a proposed rule in the Federal Register
for the Secondary Lead Smelting
NESHAP, 40 CFR part 63, subpart X that
took into consideration the residual risk
and technology review (RTR) analyses.
Today’s action provides the EPA’s final
determinations pursuant to the RTR
provisions of CAA section 112 for the
Secondary Lead Smelting source
category, and also promulgates first-time
standards under section 112 (d)(2)
(MACT) for certain hazardous air
pollutants emitted by secondary lead
smelters. Specifically, we are taking the
following actions:
• Revising some requirements of the
NESHAP related to control of metal HAP
emissions based on our risk assessment and
technology reviews.
• Finalizing first-time total hydrocarbon
(THC) and dioxin and furan (D/F) emissions
limits and a plastic separation work practice
standard to prevent dioxin formation.
• Finalizing work practice standards for
mercury.
• Revising the requirements in the
NESHAP related to emissions during periods
of startup, shutdown, and malfunction
(SSM).
• Incorporating the use of plain language
into the rule.
• Addressing technical and editorial
corrections in the rule.
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
III. Summary of the Final Rule
A. What are the final rule amendments
for the Secondary Lead Smelting source
category?
EPA promulgated the National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutant Emissions: Secondary Lead
Smelting on June 13, 1997 (62 FR
32216). The standards are codified at 40
CFR part 63, subpart X. The secondary
lead smelting industry consists of
facilities that recycle lead-bearing scrap
material, typically lead acid batteries,
into elemental lead or lead alloys. The
source category covered by this MACT
standard currently includes 16 facilities,
including one facility that is not
currently operating and one facility that
is in the process of being constructed.
This section describes the final
amendments to the secondary lead
smelting NESHAP.2 These revisions
include changes to the stack and
fugitive metal HAP emission standards,
the addition of new THC and D/F
emission limits, the addition of a work
practice standard to separate plastics
from automotive batteries to prevent
dioxin emissions, the addition of work
practice standards to minimize mercury
emissions, and changes to the
requirements that apply during periods
of startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
In addition to these changes described
below, we are making minor changes to
the regulatory text to correct editorial
errors and to make plain language
revisions. We have evaluated the cost,
emissions reductions, energy
implications and cost effectiveness of all
of the standards being promulgated in
this final rule and have determined that
these measures are cost effective,
technically feasible and will provide the
public with an ample margin of safety
from exposure to emissions from the
secondary lead smelter source category.
See Cost Impacts of the Revised
NESHAP for the Secondary Lead
Smelting Source Category, which is
available in the docket, for information
on the costs and cost effectiveness of
each of the standards being promulgated
in this final rule.
1. Stack and Fugitive Metal HAP
Emission Standards
For the reasons provided in Section
IV.A of this preamble and in the support
documents in the docket, we have
determined that the risks associated
with emissions from this source
2 Note that the EPA is reprinting portions of the
language from the 1997 NESHAP here so the entire
rule appears in one place, for readers’ convenience.
The EPA is not amending, reopening or otherwise
reconsidering these reprinted portions of the 1997
rule.
E:\FR\FM\05JAR2.SGM
05JAR2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
category are unacceptable primarily due
to fugitive emissions of lead. We have
further determined that there have been
developments in practices, processes,
and control technologies that warrant
revisions to the MACT standard (i.e., the
standards promulgated pursuant to
section 112(d)(2) and (3)) for this source
category. Therefore, to satisfy the
requirements of CAA sections 112(d)(6)
and 112(f), we are revising the MACT
standard to include:
• A facility wide, flow weighted
average lead 3 emissions limit from
stacks of 0.20 mg/dscm and an
individual stack lead emissions limit of
1.0 mg/dscm for each stack at existing
sources. For new sources, a lead
emissions limit of 0.20 mg/dscm applies
to each individual stack at a modified or
‘‘greenfield’’ new facility.
• A requirement for the facility to
operate sources of fugitive lead
emissions within total enclosures that
are maintained under negative pressure
and vented to a control device. These
sources of fugitive emissions include
the smelting furnaces, smelting furnace
charging areas, lead taps, slag taps,
molds during tapping, battery breakers,
refining kettles, casting areas, dryers,
material handling areas, and areas
559
where dust from fabric filters,
sweepings or used fabric filters are
processed. The facilities are also
required to adopt a list of specified work
practice standards to minimize fugitive
emissions.
2. Organic HAP Emissions Standards
To satisfy CAA sections 112(d)(2) and
112(d)(3), we are also revising the
MACT standard to include first-time
D/F and THC emission limits (with THC
serving as a surrogate for non-dioxin
organic HAP). These emission limits are
summarized in Table 3 of this preamble.
TABLE 3—SUMMARY OF NEW THC AND D/F EMISSION LIMITS
D/F Emission
limit a
Source type
New and Existing Collocated Blast and Reverberatory Furnaces ......................................................................
Existing Blast Furnaces .......................................................................................................................................
New Blast Furnaces ............................................................................................................................................
New and Existing Reverberatory and Electric Furnaces ....................................................................................
0.50
170
10
1.0
THC Emission
Limit b
c 20
c 360
c 70
12
a ng/dscm
on a TEQ basis, corrected to 7 percent O2.
b ppmv as propane, corrected to 4 percent CO .
2
c Emission limit is unchanged from 1997 NESHAP.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
3. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction
The United States Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit
vacated portions of two provisions in
the 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 (2010).
Specifically, the Court vacated the SSM
exemption contained in 40 CFR
63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), that
was part of a regulation, commonly
referred to as the ‘‘General Provisions
Rule’’, that the EPA promulgated under
CAA section 112. When incorporated
into CAA section 112(d) regulations for
specific source categories, these two
provisions exempted sources from the
requirement to comply with the
otherwise applicable CAA section
112(d) emission standard during periods
of SSM.
We have eliminated the SSM
exemption for secondary lead smelting
facilities in this rule. Consistent with
Sierra Club v. EPA, the EPA has
established standards in this rule for all
periods of operation. We have also
revised Table 1 to subpart X (the
General Provisions table) in several
respects. For example, we have
3 Throughout this preamble, all references to lead
emissions means lead compounds as listed by
Congress at section 112(b)(1) of the Act.
4 Since startup and shutdown refers to the
smelting process, and not to ancillary management
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:35 Jan 04, 2012
Jkt 226001
eliminated that incorporation of the
General Provisions’ requirement that the
source develop an SSM plan. We have
also eliminated or revised certain
recordkeeping and reporting that related
to the SSM exemption. The EPA has
attempted to ensure that we have not
included in the regulatory language any
provisions that are inappropriate,
unnecessary, or redundant in the
absence of the SSM exemption.
In establishing the standards in this
rule, the EPA has taken into account
startup and shutdown periods and, for
the reasons explained below, has
established different standards for nondioxin organic HAP during those
periods.
Information on periods of startup and
shutdown in the industry indicate that
lead emissions during these periods do
not increase (consistent with our
engineering judgment that lead
emissions would not increase during
these periods because lead-bearing feed
is not being smelted during these
periods). Furthermore, all lead-emitting
processes are controlled by either
control devices or work practices and
these controls would not typically be
affected by startup or shutdown.
Therefore, the EPA is not adopting
separate lead-emission standards for
periods of startup and shutdown.4
The EPA has revised this final rule to
require sources to meet a work practice
standard that requires the development
of standard operating procedures
designed to minimize emissions of THC
for each start-up and shutdown scenario
anticipated for all units subject to THC
limits. Temperature monitoring is the
metric used to determine continuous
compliance with emission standards for
THC. This metric is inappropriate as a
measure of the destruction efficiency of
these organic pollutants during periods
of startup and shutdown.
The EPA is not including a standard
for dioxins and furans during periods of
startup and shutdown. This is because
dioxins and furans will not be emitted
during those periods. During startup
and shutdown, scrap feed materials
(including chlorinated plastics and
flame retardants) that contain the
precursors needed for dioxin formation
are not introduced into the smelter 5 so
there are no conditions that could give
rise to dioxin and furan emissions.
The EPA determined that it is not
technically and economically feasible
for units subject to THC limits to
perform stack testing for this pollutant
during periods of startup and shutdown
due to technical and economic
activities, there are no startup and shutdown
standards for process fugitive emissions since
startup and shutdown do not occur for the activities
generating such emissions.
5 ‘‘Shutdown’’ is defined as a period ‘‘when no
lead bearing materials are being fed to the furnace
and smelting operations have ceased * * *’’.
Section 63.542 (definition of ‘‘shutdown’’).
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\05JAR2.SGM
05JAR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
560
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
impracticality associated with testing
secondary lead smelting furnaces during
these periods. The furnaces are heated
during periods of startup through slow
feeding of natural gas and small
amounts of coke, with no lead acid
batteries fed to the furnace during these
periods. Test crews would have to be
on-site prior to a period of startup or
shutdown occurring and may need to
break up a single test over multiple
startups or shutdowns, the length of
which could vary depending on the type
of secondary lead smelting furnace
being tested, that would happen
infrequently to gather enough data to
complete a three-run test. See also
section V.G of this preamble discussing
these standards further.
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). The 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 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 emission
limitation ‘‘achieved’’ by the best
performing 12 percent of sources in the
category. There is nothing in section 112
that directs the agency to consider
malfunctions in determining the level
‘‘achieved’’ by the best performing or
best controlled sources when setting
emission standards. Moreover, while the
EPA accounts for variability in setting
emissions standards consistent with the
section 112 case law, nothing in that
case law requires the agency to consider
malfunctions as part of that analysis.
Section 112 uses the concept of ‘‘best
controlled’’ and ‘‘best performing’’ unit
in defining the level of stringency that
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,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:35 Jan 04, 2012
Jkt 226001
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 nonmalfunctioning source. The EPA’s
approach to malfunctions is consistent
with CAA section 112 and is a
reasonable interpretation of the statute.
In section 3.2.1 of the separate response
to comment document, we respond to
comments that emissions during
malfunctions should be accounted for in
assessing risk pursuant to CAA section
112(f)(2).
In the event that a source fails to
comply with the applicable CAA section
112(d) standards as a result of a
malfunction event, the 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. The 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, the EPA recognizes that even
equipment that is properly designed and
maintained can sometimes fail and that
such failure can sometimes cause an
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
exceedance of the relevant emission
standard. (See, e.g., State
Implementation Plans: Policy Regarding
Excessive Emissions During
Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown
(September 20, 1999); Policy on Excess
Emissions During Startup, Shutdown,
Maintenance, and Malfunctions
(February 15, 1983).) The EPA is
therefore adding to the final rule an
affirmative defense to civil penalties for
exceedances of emission 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 have added 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 63.552 (see 40 CFR
22.24). The criteria ensure that the
affirmative defense is available only
where the event that causes an
exceedance of the emission 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 63.552 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 emission
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 22.27).
E:\FR\FM\05JAR2.SGM
05JAR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
The EPA is including an affirmative
defense in the final rule in an attempt
to balance a tension, inherent in many
types of air regulations, to ensure
adequate compliance while
simultaneously recognizing that despite
the most diligent of efforts, emission
limits may be exceeded under
circumstances beyond the control of the
source. The EPA must establish
emission standards that ‘‘limit the
quantity, rate, or concentration of
emissions of air pollutants on a
continuous basis’’ 42 U.S.C. 7602(k)
(defining ‘‘emission limitation and
emission standard’’). See generally
Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019, 1021
(DC Cir. 2008). Thus, the EPA is
required to ensure that section 112
emissions limitations are continuous.
The affirmative defense for malfunction
events meets this requirement by
ensuring that even where there is a
malfunction, the emission limitation is
still enforceable through injunctive
relief. While ‘‘continuous’’ limitations,
on the one hand, are required, there is
also case law indicating that in many
situations it is appropriate for the EPA
to account for the practical realities of
technology. For example, in Essex
Chemical v. Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 427,
433 (DC Cir. 1973), the DC Circuit
acknowledged that in setting standards
under CAA section 111 ‘‘variant
provisions’’ such as provisions allowing
for upsets during startup, shutdown and
equipment malfunction ‘‘appear
necessary to preserve the reasonableness
of the standards as a whole and that the
record does not support the ‘never to be
exceeded’ standard currently in force.’’
See also, Portland Cement Association
v. Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 375 (DC Cir.
1973). Though intervening case law
such as Sierra Club v. EPA and the CAA
1977 amendments undermine the
relevance of these cases today, they
support the EPA’s view that a system
that incorporates some level of
flexibility is reasonable. The affirmative
defense simply provides for a defense to
civil penalties for excess emissions that
are proven to be beyond the control of
the source. By incorporating an
affirmative defense, the EPA has
formalized its approach to upset events.
In a Clean Water Act setting, the Ninth
Circuit required this type of formalized
approach when regulating ‘‘upsets
beyond the control of the permit
holder.’’ Marathon Oil Co. v. EPA, 564
F.2d 1253, 1272–73 (9th Cir. 1977). But
see Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Costle, 590
F.2d 1011, 1057–58 (DC Cir. 1978)
(holding that an informal approach is
adequate). The affirmative defense
provisions give the EPA the flexibility to
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:35 Jan 04, 2012
Jkt 226001
both ensure that its emission limitations
are ‘‘continuous’’ as required by 42
U.S.C. 7602(k) and account for
unplanned upsets and thus support the
reasonableness of the standard as a
whole.
B. What are the effective and
compliance dates of the standards?
The revisions to the MACT standards
being promulgated in this action are
effective on January 5, 2012. For the
MACT standards being addressed in this
action, the compliance date for the
revised SSM requirements is the
effective date of the standards, January
5, 2012. The compliance date for
existing sources for the revised stack
lead emission limit and the revised
fugitive emission standard including the
requirement to adopt work practice
standards and install total enclosures for
specified process fugitive emission
sources, and for the new D/F and THC
emission limits, is 2 years from the
effective date of the standard, January 6,
2014. New sources must comply with
the all of the standards immediately
upon the effective date of the standard,
January 5, 2012, or upon startup,
whichever is later.
C. What are the requirements for
submission of performance test data to
the EPA?
In this action, as a step to increase the
ease and efficiency of data submittal
and improve data accessibility, the EPA
is requiring the electronic submittal of
select performance test data.
Specifically, the EPA is requiring
owners and operators of secondary lead
smelting facilities to submit electronic
copies of performance test reports
required under 40 CFR 63.543 to the
EPA’s WebFIRE database. The WebFIRE
database was constructed to store
performance test data for use in
developing emission factors. A
description of the WebFIRE database is
available at https://cfpub.epa.gov/
oarweb/index.cfm?action=fire.main.
The 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,
emission factor development, and
annual emission rate determinations. In
conducting these required reviews, the
EPA has found it ineffective and time
consuming, not only for us, but also for
other regulatory agencies and for 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
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
561
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.
One major advantage of submitting
performance test data through the
Electronic Reporting Tool (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
benefit of submitting these data to the
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
the 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 results in a reduced
burden on both affected facilities (in
terms of reduced labor to respond to
data collection requests) and the EPA
(in terms of preparing and distributing
data collection requests and assessing
the results).
State, local, and tribal agencies can
also benefit from a more streamlined
and accurate review of electronic data
submitted to them. The ERT allows for
an electronic review process rather than
a manual data assessment making
review and evaluation of the data and
calculations easier and more efficient.
As mentioned above, data entry will
be through an electronic emissions test
report structure called the Electronic
Reporting Tool or ERT. The ERT will
generate an electronic report which will
be submitted using the Compliance and
Emissions Data Reporting Interface
(CEDRI). The submitted report is
transmitted through the EPA’s Central
Data Exchange (CDX) network for
storage in the WebFIRE database making
submittal of data very straightforward
and easy. A description of the ERT can
be found at https://www.epa.gov/ttn/
chief/ert/ and CEDRI can be
accessed through the CDX Web site
(www.epa.gov/cdx).
The requirement to submit
performance test data electronically to
the EPA does not create any additional
performance testing and would apply
only to those performance tests
conducted using test methods that are
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 https://
E:\FR\FM\05JAR2.SGM
05JAR2
562
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/.
We believe that industry will benefit
from this new electronic data submittal
requirement. Having these data, the EPA
will be able to develop improved
emission factors, make fewer
information requests, and promulgate
better regulations. The information to be
reported is already required for the
existing test methods and is necessary to
evaluate the conformance to the test
method.
Finally, another benefit of submitting
data to WebFIRE electronically is that
these data will greatly improve the
overall quality of the existing and new
emission 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 emission factors are
outdated or not representative of a
particular source category. With timely
receipt and incorporation of data from
most performance tests, the EPA will be
able to ensure that emission 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
control activities, having an electronic
database populated with performance
test data will save industry, state, local,
tribal agencies, and the EPA significant
time, money, and effort while improving
the quality of emission inventories and,
as a result, air quality regulations.
IV. Summary of Significant Changes
Since Proposal
A. Changes to the Risk Assessment
Performed Under CAA Section 112(f)
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
In the proposed rulemaking, the EPA
presented a number of options for
additional controls on the Secondary
Lead Smelting source category. In that
notice, the EPA solicited comment on
the proposed options as well as on all
of the analyses and data upon which the
options were based, including the risk
methods and results presented in the
draft document: Residual Risk
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:35 Jan 04, 2012
Jkt 226001
Assessment for the Secondary Lead
Smelting Source Category.
During the public comment period for
the proposed rule, several parties
submitted comments and suggested
revisions regarding the emissions used
for the risk assessment, and also
submitted other information relevant to
the risk assessment (see docket ID EPA–
HQ–OAR–2011–0344 for all public
comments). After considering these
submissions, the EPA revised its
analyses. Revised methods, model
inputs, and risk results are presented in
the report: Residual Risk Assessment for
the Secondary Lead Smelting Source
Category, which is available in the
docket for this rulemaking. In addition,
a discussion of the updated emissions
information used in the final risk
assessment can be found in the
memorandum titled: Development of the
RTR Emissions Dataset for the
Secondary Lead Smelting Source
Category, which can also be found in
the docket for this rulemaking.
Considering the updated emissions
information received during the public
comment period for the proposed rule,
our final risk analysis estimates that the
primary NAAQS for lead, used in this
rule as a measure of acceptable risk from
air-borne lead emissions, could be
exceeded at 9 of 15 facilities based on
actual emissions, largely due to fugitive
dust emissions (see Table 4). At these 9
facilities, fugitive dust emissions
account for about 94 to 99 percent of the
estimated 3-month maximum lead
concentrations.6 Our analysis also
estimates that approximately 200 people
live in areas around three of these
facilities where 3-month maximum lead
concentrations are estimated to be
between one and three times above the
lead NAAQS. Allowable stack emissions
of lead also resulted in modeled
concentrations exceeding the NAAQS,
with modeled lead ambient air levels as
high as 8 and 10 times above the
NAAQS. This analysis also estimates
that 3-month maximum lead
6 For all facilities, the percent contribution of
fugitive and stack emissions to modeled ambient
lead concentrations has only been estimated for the
model receptor representing the site of maximum
lead impact.
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
concentrations from a secondary lead
smelter could be up to about 20 times
the NAAQS for lead based on actual
emissions. The maximum lead
exceedances at populated census block
centroids were between one and three
times the NAAQS. There is some
uncertainty associated with the fugitive
emissions estimates that is derived from
the uncertainty involved in determining
the housekeeping and enclosure factors.
This uncertainty could have important
impacts on the estimated fugitive
emissions and the resulting modeled
ambient concentration. For example, if
the level of control assumed through the
use of full enclosure and robust
housekeeping were both increased from
75 percent to 85 percent, the estimated
fugitive emissions at the RSR facility
would be about 43 pounds (roughly
three times lower than those estimated
in this rule). If the level of control
assumed through the use of full
enclosure and robust housekeeping
were both decreased from 75 percent to
65 percent, the estimated fugitive
emissions at the RSR facility would be
about 240 pounds (roughly two times
higher than those estimated in this rule).
As shown in this example, changing the
estimates of control efficiency achieved
with full enclosure and robust
housekeeping practices by 10 percent
each could impact the resulting fugitive
emission estimates for facilities
employing that level of control by two
to three times. These estimates could
significantly impact the resulting risk
estimates since most of the impact of
lead emissions was due to fugitive dust
emissions. While there are uncertainties
associated with estimating fugitive
emissions, we conclude that the
methodology used in this rulemaking
provided reasonable estimates of
fugitive emissions for these sources. For
further details, see Development of the
RTR Emissions Dataset for the
Secondary Lead Smelting Source
Category, available in docket ID EPA–
HQ–OAR–2011–0344, which describes
how we developed these fugitive
emissions estimates and provides a
presentation of our estimates compared
to estimates submitted via the ICR and
estimates reported to the TRI.
E:\FR\FM\05JAR2.SGM
05JAR2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
563
TABLE 4—SECONDARY LEAD SMELTING FACILITY MODELED MAXIMUM AMBIENT LEAD CONCENTRATIONS CONSIDERING
ACTUAL EMISSIONS a
[Rolling 3-month average values]
Facility name
City
Doe Run Company-Buick Mill ....................................
Sanders Lead Co .......................................................
Exide Corporation .......................................................
Battery Recycling Co ..................................................
Gulf Coast Recycling, Inc ...........................................
Exide Technologies–Canon Hollow Plant ..................
Gopher Resource Corp ..............................................
Frisco Battery Recycling .............................................
Exide Tech/Reading Smelter ......................................
Quemetco, Inc ............................................................
Exide Technologies ....................................................
Exide Technologies/B R Smelter ...............................
Revere Smelting & Refining Corp ..............................
Quemetco, Inc ............................................................
East Penn Mfg. Co Inc/Smelter Plt ............................
Boss ...........................................................................
Troy ............................................................................
Vernon .......................................................................
Arecibo .......................................................................
Tampa ........................................................................
Forest City .................................................................
Eagan .........................................................................
Frisco .........................................................................
Reading ......................................................................
Industry ......................................................................
Muncie .......................................................................
Baton Rouge ..............................................................
Middletown .................................................................
Indianapolis ................................................................
Lyon Station ...............................................................
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
a Values
State
MO
AL
CA
PR
FL
MO
MN
TX
PA
CA
IN
LA
NY
IN
PA
Highest
modeled
lead concentration
(μg/m3)
2.36
2.16
1.14
0.76
0.38
0.47
0.35
0.23
0.25
0.17
0.15
0.14
0.10
0.07
0.02
Concentration is X
times the
NAAQS
20
10
8
5
3
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
0.7
0.5
0.1
of 1 or less in the last column indicate that modeled lead concentrations are at or below the NAAQS for lead.
We also note that there were changes
to our cancer, acute, and PB–HAP
multipathway case study analyses (see
section 3.4 of the risk assessment
document) for non-lead HAP as a result
of the updated risk assessment
performed for the final rule. With
respect to our updated cancer risk
assessment, we estimate that the
maximum individual risk (MIR) of
cancer due to actual emissions is 50 in
a million predominantly due to fugitive
dust emissions of arsenic and cadmium
as compared to the analysis at proposal
of risk of 50 in a million but based on
a different secondary lead facility.
Moreover, approximately 700 people
were estimated to have cancer risks
above 10 in a million and approximately
80,000 people were estimated to have
cancer risks above 1 in a million
considering all facilities in this source
category (as compared to the analysis at
proposal of 1,500 above 10 in a million
and 128,000 above 1 in a million). In
addition, the MIR due to MACT
allowable emissions remains 200 in a
million predominantly from stack
emissions of arsenic. The updated
worst-case acute hazard quotient (HQ)
value is 20 at two facilities (based on the
REL for arsenic; the REL is the only
available acute health benchmark value
for arsenic and all other pollutants had
HQ values less than or equal to 1),
driven by both stack and fugitive dust
emissions of arsenic (as compared to
analysis at proposal of an acute HQ
value of 30 based on the REL for arsenic
at one facility driven by emissions from
stacks). Finally, the risk assessment
supporting the final rulemaking
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:35 Jan 04, 2012
Jkt 226001
estimates that the cancer MIR values
from both multipathway case study
analyses (i.e., in Frisco, TX and
Middletown, NY; see section 3.2 of the
final risk assessment document) are less
than 1 in a million (as compared to an
estimated multipathway MIR of 30 in a
million and less than 1 in a million in
the Frisco, TX and Middletown, NY
multipathway case study analyses for
the proposed rule). Notably, the
reduction in multipathway risks
resulted from updated emissions
information received during the public
comment period with respect to these
facilities.
Taking into account all the results of
the final risk assessment, and similar to
the proposed rulemaking, we conclude
that risks to public health due to
emissions from this source category are
unacceptable. Our conclusion is
primarily based on risk from exposure
to air-borne lead emissions but also
considers other risk metrics such as
cancer and non-cancer risks associated
with actual and allowable stack
emissions of non-lead HAPs, especially
arsenic and cadmium. As mentioned
above, actual lead emissions resulted in
modeled concentrations of lead above
the lead NAAQS at 9 of 15 facilities.
Thus, we note that allowable stack
emissions of lead and other HAP metals
and fugitive emissions of lead must be
reduced to assure that lead
concentrations in ambient air beyond
the facility fenceline are acceptable—
that is, do not exceed the lead NAAQS
(the measure of risk acceptability for
exposure to air-borne lead in this rule).
The fact that maximum individual
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
cancer risks due to actual emissions are
above 1 in a million also contributes to
our determination of unacceptability,
but to a lesser extent. While the
estimated maximum individual cancer
risks due to actual emissions would, by
themselves, not generally lead us to a
determination that risks are
unacceptable, the fact that they occur
along with the exceedences of the lead
primary NAAQS adds to our concern
about these exposures, and further
supports our proposed determination
that risks are unacceptable. To provide
acceptable levels of risk with an ample
margin of safety, we are finalizing the
requirement that secondary lead
smelting facilities must operate the
following fugitive dust emissions
sources within total enclosures that
must be maintained at negative pressure
at all times and vented to a control
device designed to capture lead
particulate: Smelting furnaces, smelting
furnace charging areas, lead taps, slag
taps, molds during tapping, battery
breakers, refining kettles, casting areas,
dryers, material handling areas
managing lead bearing materials, and
areas where dust from fabric filters,
sweepings, or used fabric filters are
processed. As further described in
Section IV.C of this preamble, based on
public comments, we are not adopting
the proposed alternative to demonstrate
compliance by monitoring lead at or
near the property boundary based on a
3-month rolling average in lieu of
constructing total enclosures. (See 76 FR
29056.) We are finalizing the proposed
requirement for facilities to conduct
fugitive emission work practices as well
E:\FR\FM\05JAR2.SGM
05JAR2
564
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
as to enclose fugitive emission sources.
As further described in Section IV.C of
this preamble, we are also promulgating
a revised list of required work practices
based on a number of comments
received regarding the necessity,
efficacy, and safety of the work practices
which the EPA proposed.
We are also finalizing the proposed
requirement limiting stack lead
emissions to 0.2 mg/dscm as a facilitywide emissions average and limiting
stack lead emissions from any single
stack to 1.0 mg/dscm.
After implementation of the controls
required in this final rule, we estimate
that there will be no one living at a
census block centroid exposed to
ambient concentrations above the
NAAQS due to these facilities and the
cancer MIR due to actual emissions will
decrease from 50 in a million to 7 in a
million.
B. Changes to the Technology Review
Performed Under CAA Section 112(d)(6)
Based on the technology review under
CAA section 112(d)(6), the EPA
proposed to change the stack lead
emission limits from 2.0 mg/dscm for
any individual stack to a facility-wide,
flow-weighted average emission limit of
0.20 mg/dscm with a limit of 1.0 mg/
dscm applicable to any individual stack.
The proposed limit was based on
emissions data collected from industry,
which indicated that well-performing
baghouses currently used by much of
the industry are capable of achieving
outlet lead concentrations significantly
lower than the limit of 2.0 mg/dscm
adopted in the 1997 MACT standard.
We have considered the public
comments on this issue and are
adopting the limits as proposed.
Under CAA section 112(d)(6), we also
proposed a fugitive emission standard
requiring operation of the following
process fugitive emission sources in
total enclosures that are maintained
under negative pressure at all times and
vented to a control device: Smelting
furnaces, smelting furnace charging
areas, lead taps, slag taps, and molds
during charging, battery breakers,
refining kettles, casting areas, dryers,
agglomerating furnaces and
agglomerating furnace product taps,
material handling areas for any lead
bearing materials, and areas where dust
from fabric filters, sweepings, or used
fabric filters are processed. This
proposed requirement was based on
information collected from the industry
that indicated that several operating
facilities currently enclose most or all of
their process fugitive emission sources,
and that the ambient lead
concentrations near these facilities are
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:35 Jan 04, 2012
Jkt 226001
significantly lower than those facilities
that do not have enclosures. We have
considered the public comments on this
issue, and have decided to adopt the
requirements largely as proposed. This
requirement is identical to that adopted
to eliminate unacceptable risk for
fugitive emissions pursuant to CAA
section 112 (f)(2). However, as described
in Section IV.C of this preamble, based
on public comments, we are not
adopting the proposed alternative to
demonstrate compliance by monitoring
lead at or near their property boundary
based on a 3-month rolling average in
lieu of constructing total enclosures.
(See 76 FR 29056.) We are finalizing the
proposed requirement for facilities to
conduct fugitive emission work
practices as well as to enclose fugitive
emission sources. As further described
in Section IV.C of this preamble, we are
also promulgating a revised list of
required work practices based on a
number of comments received regarding
the necessity, efficacy, and safety of the
work practices which the EPA
proposed.
We are also finalizing the requirement
limiting stack lead emissions to 0.2 mg/
dscm as a facility-wide emissions
average and limiting stack lead
emissions from any single stack to 1.0
mg/dscm as proposed.
We note that although we have
adopted the same standards under both
CAA sections 112(f)(2) and 112(d)(6),
these standards rest on independent
statutory authorities and independent
rationales. Consequently, these
standards remain independent and
legally severable.
C. Other Changes Since Proposal
We received over 30 public comments
on the proposed rule. After considering
these comments, we are making the
following additional changes to the
proposal. The rationale for these and
any other significant changes can be
found in this preamble and in the
comment response document available
in the docket.
1. Stack Emission Limits
• The EPA is not adopting numerical
limits for THC and D/F emissions from
rotary furnaces pending further datagathering and analysis for this furnace
type.
• For units constructed after June 9,
1994, the EPA is adding a limit for THC
and D/F for collocated blast and
reverberatory furnaces when the
reverberatory furnace is not operating,
and is amending the D/F limits for blast
furnaces for units that commenced
construction after June 9, 1994. We also
added a THC and D/F new source limit
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
for blast furnaces that commence
construction or reconstruction after May
19, 2011.
2. Definitions
• Definitions have been added for
‘‘affected source’’ and ‘‘new source’’ to
clarify when the standards for new
sources would apply.
• A definition of ‘‘lead-bearing
material’’ has been added to the rule to
clarify requirements for material
handling area enclosures and work
practices for fugitive emissions.
• The definition of ‘‘material storage
and handling’’ has been revised to
exclude transfer of raw materials in
enclosed containers.
• The definition of ‘‘plant roadway’’
has been revised to exclude roadways
inside total enclosures.
• The definition of ‘‘process vent’’
has been revised to specify that it
includes only vents from lead
processing equipment and from
buildings containing lead bearing
material.
• Definitions for ‘‘leeward,’’
‘‘windward,’’ and ‘‘natural draft
opening’’ have been added to the rule to
clarify the differential pressure and
monitoring requirements and the
requirement to maintain an inward flow
of air through enclosure openings.
• The definition of ‘‘total enclosure’’
was modified by specifically including
modified text from 40 CFR 265.1101 and
EPA method 204 ‘‘Criteria for and
Verification of a Permanent or
Temporary Total Enclosure’’ rather than
citing the reference to the requirements
for a hazardous waste containment area.
We also clarified the requirement for
total enclosures to be vented to a control
device designed to capture lead
particulates.
3. Enclosure Requirements
• The proposed requirement to
maintain an in-draft velocity of 300 feet
per minute at enclosure openings (see
76 FR 29072) was replaced with a
requirement to maintain an inward flow
of air through all natural draft openings.
• The proposed requirement for a
back-up power source for the
differential pressure monitors required
for the total enclosures (see 76 FR
29077) was eliminated, and a reporting
requirement was added to identify
periods when the power was lost to the
monitoring system.
• The proposed rule (see 76 FR
29072) has been modified to clarify that
activities required for inspection of
fabric filters and maintenance of filters
that are in need of removal and
replacement are not required to be
conducted inside of total enclosures.
E:\FR\FM\05JAR2.SGM
05JAR2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
• Lead ingot product handling, storm
water and wastewater treatment, intact
battery storage areas, and clean battery
casing plastic handling activities are not
subject to the total enclosure
requirement.
4. Fugitive Emission Work Practice
Requirements
• The proposed maintenance
requirements (see 76 FR 29073) have
been modified to allow emergency
repairs of ductwork or structure leaks to
occur outside of enclosures if the time
to construct a temporary enclosure
would exceed the time to make a
temporary or permanent repair. The
proposed rule has been modified to
extend the deadline for required
maintenance and repair on total
enclosures to one week after
identification of any gaps, breaks,
separations, leak points or other
possible routes for emissions of lead to
the atmosphere. The final rule also
clarifies that once an item that is not
otherwise subject to total enclosure
requirements has been cleaned, its
maintenance is no longer subject to the
enclosure requirement.
• The proposed rule has been edited
to allow for existing control devices to
treat the ventilation from temporary
enclosures constructed for maintenance
purposes if the device and its permit
account for increased airflow and
emissions for this activity.
• The roof washing proposed work
practice (see 76 FR 29073) has been
removed from the list of required
fugitive emission work practices.
• The specific proposed water
application rate of 0.48 gallons per
square yard (see 76 FR 29073) has been
removed from the road washing
requirement.
• The proposed battery storage area
inspection frequency (see 76 FR 29073)
has been changed from twice per day to
once per week to maintain consistency
with inspection frequency required
under other regulatory programs.
• The proposed requirement to
collect wash water in a container that is
not open to the atmosphere (see 76 FR
29073) has been removed.
• The proposed rule (see 76 FR
29073) has been revised to clarify that
lead-bearing dust must be collected and
transported within closed conveyor
systems or in sealed, lead-proof
containers while other lead bearing
material must be contained and covered
in a manner that prevents spillage or
dust formation.
• The proposed requirement for
cleaning after an accidental release (see
76 FR 29073) has been clarified to
include only those releases that exceed
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:35 Jan 04, 2012
Jkt 226001
565
the CERCLA reportable quantity for lead
(e.g., 10 pounds).
V. Summary of Significant Comments
and Responses
5. Testing and Monitoring Requirements
A. Use of Lead Primary NAAQS as a
Measure of Acceptability of Risk for
Public Health
Commenters from both the
environmental and industry sectors
challenged the EPA’s use of the lead
primary NAAQS as a measure of
acceptability of risk in this rule. The
EPA disagrees with these comments.
The EPA has reasonably applied the
lead primary NAAQS as a measure of
evaluating acceptability or
unacceptability of risk from exposure to
lead emissions from sources in this
category. The lead primary NAAQS
targets protection to children living near
sources, such as secondary lead
smelters, who are exposed at the level
of the standard—the population most
sensitive to the health impacts of these
emissions. Moreover, using the lead
primary NAAQS to assess acceptability
of risk does not amount to an
impermissible implementation of the
lead primary NAAQS as industry
commenters would have it. Full
responses to these comments are found
in the Response to Comment Document
for this rulemaking, available in docket
ID EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0344.
• The performance testing
requirements (see 76 FR 29074) have
been modified to allow facilities to use
EPA Method 12 or Method 29 for lead
compounds.
• A provision was added allowing for
biannual testing of lead compounds and
THC for sources that demonstrate
concentrations that are less than 50
percent of the applicable limit.
• An exemption was provided for
THC testing if a facility has installed
and is using a THC CEMS.
• The time between D/F testing (see
76 FR 29072) was changed from once
every 5 years to once every 6 years, in
anticipation that most facilities would
be on a biannual testing schedule for
lead and THC, and this schedule would
allow coordination of the two required
tests.
• The conditions for the performance
tests (see 76 FR 29072) were changed
from ‘‘under such conditions as the
Administrator specifies * * *’’ to
‘‘maximum representative operating
conditions for the process’’.
• The EPA also added a provision
stating that sources which operate a
HEPA filter or WESP system
downstream of a primary particulate
(lead) control device are not subject to
a bag leak detection system (BLDS)
requirement.
6. Other Changes
• A provision was added for sources
to develop procedures to minimize
emissions of THC limits during periods
of startup and shutdown.
• We modified the proposed plastic
separation work practice requirement
(see 76 FR 29072) to include only
plastic battery casing materials from
automotive batteries (which comprise
the vast majority of input plastics).
• The proposed recordkeeping and
reporting requirements were revised to
be consistent with the other changes
made to the rule.
A tracked changes version of the
regulatory language incorporating the
changes in this action is available in the
docket. Additionally, a summary of the
public comments that are not in the
preamble can be found in the comment
response document available in the
docket.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
B. Total Enclosure Requirements
Comment: Several commenters
supported a requirement for total
enclosures of enumerated sources of
fugitive emissions. Some of those
commenters did not support the
alternative that would have allowed
ambient monitoring in lieu of total
enclosures.
According to one commenter, ‘‘The
purpose of establishing emission
standards and control technology
regulations is to reduce, by empirically
proven technical means, the release of
hazardous air pollutants into the
atmosphere.’’ The commenter therefore
recommended that the EPA require
enclosures in all instances to limit
fugitive emissions.
According to another commenter,
‘‘The non-cancer and cancer risk
reductions associated with total
enclosures of all lead bearing processes
to reduce fugitive emissions are clearly
demonstrated for all facilities in the post
control scenario contained in the
residual risk assessment. These benefits
also have been observed based on our
experience with total enclosures that are
under negative pressure and vented to
air pollution controls. * * * The annual
geometric mean of lead measured [in
ambient air near the facility] dropped
from a high of 0.71 mg/m3 (1987) to 0.06
mg/m3 (1993) after all of the point source
E:\FR\FM\05JAR2.SGM
05JAR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
566
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
and fugitive emission controls were in
place. The benefits of requiring total
enclosures as demonstrated by the
ambient monitoring results were clearly
apparent to the Department and
surrounding community. Based on that
experience, we do not support the
alternative of allowing partial
enclosures with an air monitoring
requirement option in this rulemaking.’’
Another commenter stated ‘‘We do
not support allowing partial enclosures
with an air monitoring requirement
option, since the total enclosures have
been shown to be extremely effective in
reducing fugitive emissions of lead and
the other metal HAPs from these
sources.’’
One commenter indicated that neither
proposed alternative (total enclosure or
the ambient monitoring alternative)
complies with CAA section 112(d)(6)
but did state that ‘‘additional health risk
reductions would occur if a facility used
total enclosure.’’ This commenter also
stated that the EPA should require total
enclosures and work practice standards
beyond those included in the proposed
rule to control fugitive dust emissions of
arsenic and cadmium and achieve
reductions in cancer and non-cancer
risks from these pollutants.
Alternatively, one commenter
disagreed that total enclosure is the
most effective method to reduce
emissions. According to the commenter,
‘‘Capturing emissions from secondary
lead smelting sources at the point of
emission and controlling such
emissions through the use of baghouses
equipped with secondary HEPA
filtration systems represents a better
alternative to constructing and
maintaining total enclosures around
secondary lead smelting sources.’’
Response: As explained at 76 FR
29059 in the proposed rule and below,
the EPA is amending the NESHAP for
fugitive emissions of lead both because
these emissions pose an unacceptable
risk under CAA section 112(f) and
because it is technically appropriate and
necessary to do so pursuant to section
112(d)(6). With respect to what changes
to adopt, we agree with those
commenters who argued that total
enclosures maintained under negative
pressure are the most effective means by
which to reduce fugitive emissions.
Facilities in this source category that
implement total enclosures as a means
of controlling fugitive emissions are able
to achieve significantly lower ambient
lead concentrations near the boundaries
of their facilities, as clearly
demonstrated in the Summary of
Ambient Lead Monitoring Data Around
Secondary Lead Smelting Facilities
document available in docket ID EPA–
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:35 Jan 04, 2012
Jkt 226001
HQ–OAR–2011–0344. About half of the
existing facilities currently have such
full enclosures, and a few other facilities
are currently constructing such
enclosures. The prevalence of total
enclosures in the secondary lead
smelting source category suggests that
this measure is cost effective and it is
clearly technically feasible. There is
more certainty that fugitive emissions
are well controlled through the use of
total enclosures than would exist with
the proposed alternative to use fenceline
ambient monitoring. The work practice
standards in the final rule have been
revised from those proposed to ensure
that there are no requirements that pose
safety hazards, are unnecessary to
achieve emission reductions, or result in
duplicative burden on regulated
facilities. The work practice standards
in the final rule are already
implemented at some of the facilities.
Furthermore, we assumed at proposal
that total enclosures would be required
at all facilities regardless of which
option they chose. The facilities that do
not operate total enclosures are unlikely
to achieve fenceline ambient
concentrations at or below the lead
primary NAAQS. The monitoring data
just mentioned and the ICR responses
indicated that the facilities which have
totally enclosed their processes are
generally achieving ambient
concentrations substantially lower than
those which have not totally enclosed.
Since we based our analysis at proposal
on the assumption that all facilities
would have to construct total enclosures
and assumed that the rule would
impose those costs on all sources which
have not yet installed total enclosures,
our cost analysis has already accounted
for the cost of total enclosure. See 76 FR
at 29064 and the cost impacts memo
that supported the proposed rule
(docket ID EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0344–
0040 at page 8). The total enclosure
requirements in section 63.544 ensure
that process fugitive emissions sources
and other fugitive dust emissions
sources will not generate fugitive
emissions that escape the facility
uncontrolled. The work practice
standards for process fugitive emissions
sources and fugitive dust emissions
sources in section 63.545 ensure that
fugitive dust is not generated outside of
total enclosures and that fugitive dust
generated inside total enclosures is not
carried outside of those enclosures.
We note that one commenter’s
statements appear to pertain to process
fugitive emissions from secondary lead
smelters that are captured by enclosure
hoods and vented to a control device.
We agree that enclosure hoods near
sources of process fugitive emissions
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
(e.g., lead taps, charging hoppers, etc.)
can be an effective method to control
emissions from these sources. We also
recognize that these devices are
important to minimize exposure of
workers to lead dust. However, we note
that the enclosure hoods are not 100
percent effective at controlling these
emissions, and that process fugitives
that are amenable to control with hoods
are not the only source of fugitive
emissions from secondary lead
processes. We thus disagree that
enclosure hoods without total
enclosures represent a better alternative
for controlling all fugitive emissions.
Comment: Several commenters
objected to requiring monitoring of both
building pressure differential and the
in-draft velocity at building openings for
the total enclosures and stated that the
duplicate monitoring requirements are
redundant and unjustified. The
commenters also requested that the EPA
abandon its proposed specific minimum
velocity requirement at doorway
openings or lower the proposed
requirement of 300 feet per minute. Two
commenters stated that ‘‘A number of
the existing total enclosures in this
industry do not meet the proposed 300
feet per minute in-draft velocity
requirement, and their modification to
achieve 300 feet per minute would
require substantial expenditures.’’ One
commenter stated that much larger
volumes of air would be exhausted from
the smelter buildings and that ‘‘the
greater the volume of air exhausted, the
greater the emissions of lead. Therefore
increasing exhaust volumes above
current levels could possibly have
negative impacts.’’ The commenters
requested an exemption from
demonstration of compliance with the
in-draft requirements for access points
that are normally closed. One
commenter requested clarification of the
use of the terms ‘‘leeward’’ and
‘‘windward’’ in the context of the
differential pressure monitoring.
One commenter stated that they have
demonstrated that none of these total
enclosure monitoring requirements and
continuous monitoring systems are
necessary to reduce actual emissions of
HAP. The commenter recommended
continued compliance with the original
1997 NESHAP, which requires facilities
to demonstrate that total enclosures
were maintained under constant
negative pressure by maintaining
process enclosure hoods at the
prescribed face velocities. As an
alternative, measurements of face
velocity at doorways and windows and
pressure measurements at prescribed
intervals would provide a viable
monitoring option.
E:\FR\FM\05JAR2.SGM
05JAR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
Response: We agree with the
commenters that monitoring of both
building differential pressure and indraft velocity at building openings is
unnecessary. However, we disagree that
continuous monitoring of differential
pressure is overly prescriptive. We
believe that monitoring of building
differential pressure is the most accurate
means by which to ensure that the
building is under negative pressure at
all times. This method provides direct
measurements that the building is
indeed maintained at negative pressure.
Some commenters stated persuasively
that specifying doorway velocities could
require substantial additional in-draft,
which could cause strain to building
structures, wind chill problems for
workers, and pilot lights being
extinguished. We have therefore not
adopted the proposed requirement to
measure in-draft velocity at the
openings of the total enclosures but
have retained the continuous
differential pressure monitoring
requirement. However, we have altered
the differential pressure requirement
from 0.02 mm of mercury to 0.013 mm
of mercury to be consistent with EPA
Method 204’s criteria for verification of
a permanent or temporary total
enclosure. With regard to the comment
that increased volumes of air exhausted
through control devices would increase
overall emissions, it is unclear to us
how directing previously uncontrolled
fugitive emissions through a fabric filter
would increase the overall emissions
from a structure.
Comment: Several commenters
objected to requiring a back-up power
source for the differential pressure
monitors. According to the commenters,
during a power outage, the ‘‘negative
pressure would not be maintained and
the pressure drop monitors would
simply be measuring and documenting
this known and predictable fact * * *.
The same information could be obtained
by requiring facilities to note periods
when power has been lost to the
ventilation fans such that negative
pressure could not be maintained.’’ One
commenter recommended requiring an
uninterruptible power supply for the
control device as well as the total
enclosure monitoring system or
removing the current requirement.
Response: We agree with the
commenters’ assessment that a back-up
power source for the building
differential pressure monitors is not
needed. We also agree with the
commenters’ suggestion to include a
recordkeeping provision for power
outages that occur for the building
ventilation systems. The regulatory text
has been edited accordingly.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:35 Jan 04, 2012
Jkt 226001
Comment: Several commenters
objected to the enclosure requirement at
all areas where fabric filters are handled
or processed. One commenter stated
that ‘‘This is impractical in that all
baghouses are not and cannot be located
within enclosures. Therefore, in the
replacement of used bag filters, there
will always be a point in which the bags
must be handled in order to get them
into a closed container for transport.’’
Two commenters stated that ‘‘The first
point at which used fabric filters are
‘handled’ is upon removal from the
baghouse cell, usually on a catwalk
running along the side of the baghouse.
It is not appropriate to require all such
areas to be placed within total
enclosures. Best practices in the
industry when replacing fabric filters
are to place the used filter bags in sealed
plastic bags or other closed containers
in the cell while the filters are being
replaced, but prior to removing the used
filters to the catwalk.’’
Response: We agree that the proposed
requirement to enclose all areas where
fabric filters are handled or processed
may be impractical at times, the
enclosure of a catwalk being an
example. We also agree that fabric filters
cannot be enclosed under the
circumstances described in these
comments. We have therefore revised
the regulatory text to require used fabric
filters to be placed in sealed plastic bags
or containers before removal from the
baghouse cell.
C. Work Practice Standard
Requirements for Fugitive Emissions
Comment: Several industry
respondents expressed concern about
the proposed requirement to perform all
maintenance activities for any
equipment potentially contaminated
with lead bearing material inside an
enclosure.
Two commenters requested
clarification that once an item that is not
already subject to total enclosure
requirements has been cleaned, its
maintenance or repair is not subject to
the enclosure requirements. Both
commenters also gave an example of
circumstances where the best course of
action would be to make an immediate
repair on a leak in an elevated duct
rather than wait until a temporary
structure was constructed. One
commenter expressed concern that
inspection and maintenance of filters
that are in need of removal and
replacement would need to be
performed within a total enclosure.
Two commenters stated that 72 hours
to make repairs to any gaps or leak
points in enclosures or structures was
not feasible to implement. One
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
567
commenter suggested that the rule ‘‘be
changed to require initiation of repairs
within 24 hours of discovery and
completion of repairs as soon as
practicable. Rather than seeking and
obtaining approval for extensions from
the Administrator, the source should be
required to file and to keep a record
listing when the problem was
discovered, when the repair was
initiated and when the repair was
completed.’’ Another commenter stated
that ‘‘the presence of leak points is
irrelevant to collection as long as the
size and location of these leak points
does not change over time. Once a
facility documents that any total
enclosure criteria (for negative pressure)
are met, the presence of existing leak
points is irrelevant.’’
One commenter requested that the
EPA allow facilities to route emissions
from partial or temporary enclosures to
control devices that meet the
performance requirements stated in the
rule. According to the commenter, ‘‘This
compliance option is requested, because
as written, the provisions would require
manufacturer’s specification alone and
not allow use of an otherwise compliant
control device.’’
Response: With regard to the
comment that the proposed
maintenance practices were overly
prescriptive, we have revised the
regulatory text to require performance of
maintenance ‘‘in a manner that
minimizes emissions of fugitive dust’’
that includes several options to control
fugitive emissions. With regard to the
comment pertaining to inspection and
maintenance of fabric filters, we have
edited the regulatory text such that this
enclosure requirement does not apply to
inspection and maintenance practices
for fabric filters.
We also agree with commenters that
making prompt and timely repairs for
leaks is often more effective than first
constructing a total enclosure around
the leak. However, we believe that the
formulation to initiate repairs ‘‘as soon
as practicable’’ is too vague. We have
edited the regulatory text to require
completion of repairs to enclosures
within one week and inserted language
allowing facilities to initiate immediate
repairs of ductwork or structure leaks
without an enclosure provided that the
time necessary to construct a temporary
enclosure would exceed the time
necessary to make a temporary or
permanent repair. This change ensures
that the requirement is technically
practicable and the most cost-effective
means for fixing leaks while minimizing
the period during which the leak causes
emissions.
E:\FR\FM\05JAR2.SGM
05JAR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
568
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
We disagree with the commenter that
the presence of a leak point is irrelevant
to collection as long as the size and
location of these leak points do not
change over time. Total enclosures are
designed with openings of specific size
and location to provide appropriate
airflow into a building and to maintain
the negative pressure at all locations.
Multiple leak points at different
locations of non-uniform size would be
difficult to measure and document. It
would also be difficult to ensure that the
building negative pressure is uniform at
all locations.
We agree with the commenter that
facilities should be allowed to route
emissions from partial temporary
enclosures to existing control devices
that meet the performance specification
stated in the rule provided the control
device has the capability to
accommodate the additional air flow
and that its permit accounts for the
additional air flow and emissions. The
regulatory text has been edited
accordingly.
Comment: Several commenters
expressed concerns about the
requirement in the proposed rule for
cleaning of building rooftops. The
commenters stated that the EPA did not
provide a basis to demonstrate that roof
washing is effective or necessary. One
commenter stated that roof cleaning was
unnecessary to operate in compliance
with the current lead NAAQS, and that
current work practices are sufficient to
meet the standard. Several commenters
also stated that roof cleaning is
potentially dangerous to workers and in
some cases not possible due to the
rooftop construction and weather
conditions. Several commenters noted
that the requirement unnecessarily
applied at all times, even when natural
precipitation makes cleaning
unnecessary.
Response: We agree that the proposed
roof washing requirement may not be
feasible and may cause worker safety
hazards in some cases, and we have
therefore removed this activity from the
list of required fugitive emission work
practices.
Comment: Several commenters
opposed the specific requirement for a
mobile vacuum sweeper used for
pavement cleaning when a water flush
is used. The commenters stated that the
EPA provides no justification for the
minimum water application rate of 0.48
gallons per square yard of pavement
cleaned or evidence that equipment
currently used could achieve this rate.
The commenters suggested that this
specific requirement be replaced with a
‘‘requirement that pavement be
periodically cleaned, leaving methods,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:35 Jan 04, 2012
Jkt 226001
and minimum water application rates to
individual facilities and, as relevant,
their permitting authorities.’’ According
to the commenter, ‘‘EPA should further
exempt pavement cleaning 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.’’
Two commenters also expressed
concerns that the rule requires
pavement cleaning in the battery
breaking, furnace, refining and casting
areas when a total enclosure is not used.
According to the commenters, certain
locations within these areas are not
capable of being cleaned on a routine
basis due to safety, access, or other
reasons. The commenters give an
example of paved areas under process
equipment as being an area that is not
safe to access during operation of the
equipment. One commenter also stated
that roadway cleaning and washing of
truck tires and undercarriages are
redundant requirements with no
incremental benefit.
Response: We agree with the
commenters’ suggestion to remove the
minimum water application rate
requirement from the regulatory text.
We note that the proposal did include
an exemption for cleaning 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. That exemption remains in the
final rule. See 40 CFR 63.545(c)(2).
With regard to the comments
regarding pavement cleaning
requirements when total enclosures are
not used, we note that the final rule
requires total enclosures rather than
including them as an option.
Furthermore, it is our understanding
that in the cases where mobile sweeping
or wet washing equipment is not
feasible (e.g., underneath process
equipment), facilities can utilize hand
held vacuum equipment to clean these
areas. Therefore, we do not believe it is
appropriate to exempt these areas from
the cleaning requirements since these
areas contain fugitive lead which can be
emitted and reach human and
environmental receptors.
We disagree with the commenter that
roadway cleaning and undercarriage
washing are redundant requirements.
While truck tires may be a significant
source of lead bearing material on the
roadway, we understand that they are
not the only source. Therefore, we have
maintained both requirements in the
final rule.
Comment: One commenter
recommended modifying the
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
requirement to pave ‘‘all areas subject to
vehicle traffic’’ to ‘‘all areas subject to
routine vehicle traffic.’’ The commenter
noted that areas not subject to routine
traffic do not have the potential to
generate significant quantities of
fugitive dust and that paving these areas
would increase the amount of storm
water generated.
Response: We agree with the
commenter that there may be some
instances where paving and cleaning a
roadway is impractical. We have
included an exemption in the rule for
limited access and limited use roadways
that access remote, infrequently used
locations on the facility’s property. See
40 CFR 63.545(c)(2).
Comment: Two commenters objected
to the proposed frequency of inspection
of the unenclosed battery storage areas.
One commenter ‘‘finds this requirement
to impose an administrative burden of
minimal value.’’ According to the
commenter, ‘‘Spent lead acid batteries,
even if accidentally broken and leaking,
pose minimal potential for generation of
fugitive dust containing HAPs.
Inspection of these areas is typically
required on a weekly basis as part of the
facilities’ Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act obligations and such
frequency is sufficient to satisfy the
intent of this proposed rule as well.’’
One commenter suggests that
identifying and mitigating leaks within
72 hours will prevent generation of
fugitive lead emissions. The commenter
also states that it is unclear whether
batteries stored in partial enclosures are
exempted from the twice daily
inspection requirement and proposes
the following regulatory language
incorporating both of these issues.
You must inspect any batteries that are not
stored in a partial or total enclosure once
each day and move any broken batteries to
a partial or total enclosure within 72 hours
of detection. You must also clean residue
from broken batteries within 72 hours of
identification. Storage of batteries in trucks
and railcars consistent with Department of
Transportation requirements are specifically
exempted from these requirements.
Response: We agree with the
commenters that requiring inspection of
these areas on a twice daily basis is not
necessary. We have modified the
regulatory text to require inspection of
these areas once per week—consistent
with requirements implementing the
hazardous waste subtitle of RCRA (see
40 CFR 264.174 and 264.1101(c)(4) (and
the EPA sees no reason to deviate from
these long-standing requirements here,
given that they were adopted to be
‘‘protective of human health and the
environment’’ from management of
hazardous waste)—with removal of
E:\FR\FM\05JAR2.SGM
05JAR2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
broken batteries within 72 hours of
detection. We have also clarified that
the inspection requirement does not
apply to battery storage areas that are in
a total enclosure. We do not believe that
an exemption for storage of batteries in
trucks and railcars is necessary since the
inspection frequency was reduced to
once per week.
Comment: One commenter objected to
the requirement to collect wash water in
a container that is not open to the
atmosphere. The commenter stated that
‘‘Covering of these collection tanks is
not necessary because lead dissolved
and/or suspended in water does not
have a pathway for becoming a fugitive
emission.’’
Response: We agree with the
commenter that so long as the contents
in the container are wet, there should be
no fugitive emissions. We have removed
the requirement to collect wash water in
a sealed container.
Comment: Two commenters requested
changes to the requirement to transport
lead bearing materials in sealed leakproof containers. One commenter
proposed that containers be ‘‘covered’’
rather than ‘‘sealed leak-proof’’ and that
an exemption be made for off-road
dump trucks. The suggestion was made
because ‘‘sealed leak-proof containers
* * * cannot be attained, but covers can
be for most trucks used in such
transport * * *. no approved sealing
covers are made for the 30-ton, 6-wheel,
off-road dump trucks used at the
facility.’’ One commenter supported the
requirement for transporting lead
bearing materials within an enclosure or
in a sealed container, but suggested that
lead bearing materials with little
potential for production of fugitive lead
dust from transportation should be
excluded, including intact batteries, raw
materials with lead content that is not
considered recoverable such as iron,
caustic, coal, wood, sulfur and other
similar materials, and products from the
recycling process.
Response: We agree that the proposed
requirement for material transport
should be modified. The intent of the
proposed requirement was to prevent
fugitive lead dust formation outside of
a total enclosure. We have therefore
modified the requirement at 63.545(c)(7)
to read as follows:
‘‘You must transport all lead bearing dust
within closed conveyor systems or in sealed,
leak-proof containers, unless the transport
activities are contained within an enclosure.
All other lead bearing material must be
contained and covered for transport outside
of a total enclosure in a manner that prevents
spillage or dust formation. Intact batteries
and lead ingot product are exempt from the
requirement to be covered for transport.’’
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:35 Jan 04, 2012
Jkt 226001
The definition of lead bearing
material in the rule clarifies that lead
bearing materials must contain at least
100 ppm of lead (measured via Toxicity
Characteristic Leaching Procedure (EPA
Method 1311) lead test results <5 mg/l).
Intact batteries and lead ingot product
are excluded from this requirement.
Comment: Some commenters agreed
that the secondary lead facilities operate
a separation process at their battery
breakers to separate polypropylene
battery case material as a valuable
recyclable commodity. However, not all
spent lead acid batteries are amenable to
separation. Certain battery types such as
small sealed-lead-acid batteries and
certain industrial lead-acid batteries are
fed into the blast furnace without ever
passing through the facility’s battery
breaker. These batteries are either too
small or too large to be broken by the
automated battery breaking equipment.
One commenter requested that the EPA
estimate the cost of the systems that
would be required. Another commenter
offered that mandatory separation could
be used for facilities that are not
meeting TEQ limits as one of several
options to reduce emissions. Two
commenters stated that the current
dioxin emission levels pose no
incremental health risk presented by
background dioxin and that there is no
valid justification for imposing this
burden.
Response: Based on these comments,
we have revised the proposed plastics
separation work practice requirement to
be specific to automotive batteries,
which should be amenable to separation
based on current practices used in the
industry. We agree with the commenters
that some industrial batteries are not
easily processed in battery breakers and
that the retrofits or additional
equipment required to process such
batteries are not justified since
automotive batteries make up the vast
majority of lead acid batteries processed
at these facilities. We believe that
plastics separation from automotive
batteries is sufficient to minimize
emissions of organic HAP. We further
note that the use of battery breakers to
separate plastics from automotive
batteries is clearly a development in
practices that limits emissions of
organic HAP, including dioxin, and is
therefore an appropriate part of a
standard under CAA section 112(d)(6).
D. Emission Standards for Organic HAP
From Rotary Furnaces
Comment: We received several
comments on the proposed D/F and
THC MACT floor limits for the rotary
furnace subcategory that were based on
data (two test runs, see 76 FR at 29049)
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
569
from the slag-processing rotary furnace
at RSR’s Middletown, NY facility. One
commenter stated that rotary furnace
standards should not be based on
emissions that are not from stand-alone
rotary furnace operations. The
commenter stated that the EPA should
not derive standards for rotary furnaces
from performance of a different source
type or subcategory that includes a
furnace combination (i.e., reverberatory/
short rotary furnace). The commenter
also contends that there are insufficient
data available to establish limits for
D/F and THC from rotary furnaces. The
commenter contends that the EPA used
one source that is not representative of
or similar to true rotary furnace
operation to establish the limits for
‘‘rotary furnaces.’’ The commenter
stated that the emissions limit
established in the proposed rule is
arbitrary because it is not based on
operations of rotary furnaces using lead
bearing materials from lead acid
batteries as feedstock.
The commenter notes that RSR’s
Middletown, NY facility, whose test
data were used as the basis for the THC
and D/F limits, only uses their rotary
furnace to process one type of lead
bearing material, reverberatory slag, and
this furnace is not representative of the
full capabilities of rotary furnace
operation. The commenter notes that
JCI’s Florence Recycling Center plans to
utilize stand-alone rotary furnaces to
process lead paste, battery components,
and ‘‘other materials with recoverable
quantities of lead.’’ The commenter
further notes that the emissions from
RSR’s short rotary furnace (SRF) and
drying kiln are combined, and it is
unclear from information in the docket
whether testing of the SRF occurred at
a location prior to the combination of
these exhaust streams.
The commenter also stated that JCI
and RSR differ in raw materials used in
the facilities’ operations. RSR’s Title V
application for its Middletown facility
indicates that RSR may process
automotive, industrial, and specialtytype lead-acid batteries as well as lead
bearing materials received from leadacid battery manufacturing plants and
scrap metal in its reverberatory furnace.
JCI’s furnace feed is from automotive
and marine batteries and from lead
bearing materials from other JCI
facilities. The commenter contends that,
since the EPA considered no data
representative of a rotary furnace
operation such as that which will be
operated at the JCI Florence Recycling
Center, a numeric limit for this category
cannot be assigned.
One commenter also stated that the
stack test for RSR’s SRF that was used
E:\FR\FM\05JAR2.SGM
05JAR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
570
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
to develop D/F and THC emission limits
for ‘‘rotary furnaces’’ included only two
successful test runs and therefore must
be considered inadequate for setting
emission limits since 40 CFR 63.7(e)(3)
requires three test runs for compliance
demonstration purposes.
One commenter supports the
individual stack emission limits for
THC and D/F but provides comment on
the EPA’s consideration of statistical
variability for the rotary furnace
subcategory. The commenter stated that
the Upper Prediction Limit (UPL) tends
to inflate the variability because the
statistical procedure attempts to
accommodate the highest emission
measurement at the same facility and
not necessarily the variability between
facilities as the MACT floor is intended
to achieve. Additionally, the UPL is
very dependent on the number of valid
samples. The commenter contends that,
when a suitable number of samples have
been collected, the 99 percent
confidence limit (CL) represents a range
for which there is 99 percent certainty
that the interval contains the true mean.
The commenter suggests that caution be
used when determining a MACT floor
from limited test data and that the 99
percent CL is more appropriate for this
particular industry.
One commenter noted that the EPA
did not consider a secondary lead
smelting facility in Puerto Rico that
operates a stand-alone rotary furnace.
The commenter contends that even if it
were appropriate to set MACT floor
emission rates or standards for rotary
furnaces, the EPA would have to obtain
and consider data from the Puerto Rico
facility. According to the commenter,
failure to consider data from the facility
‘‘undermines the RTR Proposed Rule
and any attempt by EPA to establish
emission standards for the rotary
furnace subcategory.’’ The commenter
contends that the EPA should issue a
separate ICR for the Puerto Rico facility
and publish a supplemental notice of
proposed rulemaking that takes into
account the emission information for
this facility.
Response: The EPA agrees that rotary
furnaces fueled by natural gas could be
different from rotary furnaces operating
using different fuel types, and that
rotary furnaces processing slag could be
different types of rotary furnaces than
those processing lead acid batteries.
More basically, the EPA simply has
insufficient data on which to
promulgate organic HAP standards for
rotary furnaces. The proposed standards
for THC and D/F were based on less
than one single complete test, consisting
only of two test runs from the natural
gas fueled rotary furnace processing
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:35 Jan 04, 2012
Jkt 226001
slag. See 76 FR at 29049–29050. (A
complete test consists of three test runs.)
When calculating variability using a
limited dataset (in this case, the two test
runs) the effect of variability can be
substantial. Id. The proposed THC and
D/F standards likewise were based on
two test runs and similarly reflected
enormous statistical variability due to
the limited data. Id. at 29049/1. The
EPA does not believe that these data are
sufficient to adopt a standard even for
the rotary furnace which was tested,
much less a rotary furnace which may
be different. Accordingly, we are not
adopting standards for organic HAP
emissions from rotary furnaces at this
time and instead we intend to issue
CAA section 114 information requests to
sources operating rotary furnaces to
obtain more representative emission
data and plan to propose standards for
organic HAP in a future action.
However, we note that the lead emission
standards included in this action do
apply to rotary furnaces processing slag
or lead acid batteries.
E. The EPA’s Risk Assessment
Supporting the Proposed Rule
Comment: Two commenters stated
that the EPA’s methodology is
unreliable and incorrect. The
commenters stated that the EPA
overestimated the baseline fugitive
emissions for the Exide Frisco facility
whose (faulty) estimates then became
the basis for estimating all other
facilities’ fugitive emission rates. The
commenter stated that the EPA scaled
Exide’s reported fugitive emissions of
0.296 tpy for the blast and reverberatory
furnace fugitive emissions to 0.32 tpy
based on the assumption that fugitives
would not be on the same operating
schedule as process emissions. The
commenter contends that this scaling is
inappropriate since furnace fugitives
can only occur when the associated
process furnaces are operating. The
commenter further stated that the EPA
also double-counted the fugitives of 0.32
tpy by assigning the value to each of the
blast and reverberatory furnaces, despite
the fact that Exide reported the value as
combined emissions for both the
reverberatory and blast furnace.
Response: The commenter is correct
in both respects. The EPA has
accordingly adjusted its calculation of
the fugitive emissions from Exide’s
Frisco facility (thereby reducing the
facility’s fugitive dust emissions
estimate) and adjusted the emissions
estimates for each facility to reflect the
revised estimate of the Frisco facility.
The resulting risk results have also been
adjusted. We note that the updated
emissions estimates and risk results did
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
not substantively alter our decisions
under section 112(f). The modeling
showed 9 of 15 facilities above the lead
NAAQS, down from 12 of 14 facilities
at proposal. The maximum modeled
lead concentration in the source
category decreased from about 23 times
the NAAQS to about 16 times the
NAAQS. We still find that risks from
this source category are not acceptable
and that revisions under section
112(f)(2) are therefore required, and
further find that it is necessary under
section 112(d)(6) to revise the standards
for fugitive emissions considering the
developments in cost-effective control
technologies for their control.
Comment: Three commenters stated
that the EPA’s multipathway risk
estimates are incorrect because they
relied on incorrect dioxin and furan
emissions from Exide’s Frisco, Texas
facility. The commenters contend that a
dioxin and furan test conducted in
October 2010 at the Frisco facility
revealed an emissions rate of 6.2E–08
tons/year on a toxic equivalency
quotient (TEQ) basis, 69 times lower
than the estimate used by the EPA. One
commenter noted that the exact effect
that the difference in emissions would
have on the calculated risks is unknown
since the EPA has not placed the full
methodology behind its multipathway
risk calculations in the record. However,
the commenter noted that assuming the
relationship between emissions and risk
is approximately linear, the EPA’s
calculated risk would be approximately
69 times lower than that estimated at
proposal and less than 1 in a million.
The commenter further requested that
the EPA disclose its multipathway risk
calculation methodology and allow for
public notice-and-comment. Another
commenter stated that the EPA’s
overestimation of dioxin and furan
emissions may lead to unwarranted
public concern about the Frisco facility.
The commenter requested that the EPA
include a clarifying explanation
regarding the Frisco emissions data and
the lower multipathway risk in the final
rule as well as in the risk assessment
document.
Response: As noted in previous
responses, the final risk assessment
reflects updated emission information
received during the public comment
period for the proposed rule. We also
note that the updated dioxin/furan test
data were not made available to the
EPA, despite repeated requests, until
June 2011. With respect to the estimated
emissions of D/F, the commenter is
correct that EPA overestimated these
emissions at proposal by a factor of 69
for the reasons stated. Considering this
updated emissions information, the EPA
E:\FR\FM\05JAR2.SGM
05JAR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
estimates that multipathway risk
associated with the Exide Frisco facility
is less than 1 in a million (and so
contributes very little to the estimates of
risk posed by this source category, and
is not a driver of the determination that
risks from this source category are
unacceptable). See Residual Risk
Assessment for the Secondary Lead
Smelting Source Category, available in
the docket, at pages 32–33.
This additional information does not
warrant any reopening of the proposed
rule or comment period, however. First,
the EPA fully disclosed its
multipathway risk methodology; the
commenter’s assertions to the contrary
are simply mistaken. Thus, the risk
assessment document along with its
appendices was available in the docket
for the proposed rulemaking and
describes in detail the methodology
used in the assessment. See the Residual
Risk Assessment for the Secondary Lead
Smelting Source Category, at page 10,
available in the docket. Also see docket
ID EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0344–0037 for
a thorough discussion of the EPA’s
human health multipathway risk
assessment methodology.
Second, the new information
reinforces the tentative conclusion the
EPA reached at proposal: risks
associated with emissions of dioxin and
furans from the secondary lead source
category are not primary drivers in the
unacceptable risks from this source
category (i.e. dioxin and furan emissions
are not the reason that risks from
secondary lead smelter emissions are
unacceptable). See 76 FR at 29055/2.
The new analysis reinforces that risks
posed by dioxin and furan emissions are
acceptable, since emission levels are 69
times less than estimated at proposal
(when risks from CDD and CDFs were
already considered to be at an
acceptable level). Thus, this already
acceptable level of risk is less than
estimated and less than one in a million.
The EPA does not agree that further
comment on this issue is warranted,
since further comment would not have
a practical effect on the rule.7
Comment: One commenter stated that
the EPA inappropriately summed risks
from the inhalation and multipathway
risk assessments at the Exide Frisco
facility. The commenter noted that it is
impossible for the person with the
highest chronic inhalation cancer risk to
also be the same person with the highest
individual multipathway cancer risk
7 The comment that EPA’s standards for dioxin
and furans do not result in significant risk
reduction is misplaced given that the EPA is not
adopting any risk-based (i.e., section 112(f)(2))
standards based on the need for reduction of
emissions of dioxin and furan.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:35 Jan 04, 2012
Jkt 226001
since the two MIR values are location
dependent and are at locations that are
widely separated. The commenter
further noted that the EPA has indicated
in other contexts that when populations
are exposed via more than one pathway,
the combination of exposures across
pathways must also represent a
reasonable maximum exposure.
Response: The EPA disagrees with the
commenter. While highly unlikely (and
noted as being highly unlikely in the
risk assessment document), it is
theoretically possible for the person
with the highest chronic inhalation
cancer risk to also be the same person
with the highest individual
multipathway cancer risk. The EPA
notes that the multipathway risk
assessment does not provide a specific
location for the MIR; thus, it is possible
(although highly unlikely) that the
person with the highest inhalation MIR
is also consuming fish (at the fish
ingestion rates described in the
multipathway report) from the
theoretically contaminated lake. That
being said, however, we note that
considering updated emissions
information for this facility, updated
multipathway results indicate
multipathway risk associated with the
Exide Frisco facility are well below one
in a million. Considering these updated
results, multipathway risk would not
appreciable add to any inhalation risk
associated with this facility.
Comment: Commenter 94 stated that
the EPA improperly calculated the
inhalation cancer MIR for the Exide
Frisco facility in a vacant field to the
north of the facility within the facility’s
property line. The commenter noted
that the lifetime cancer risk of the MEI
cannot be at a location within the
facility property line.
Response: The commenter is correct
and the EPA has corrected the receptor
location resulting in a change in the
results in the final risk assessment. The
MIR for this facility is now located at a
populated census block (based on the
2001 census).
F. Miscellaneous Changes to the
Regulatory Text
Comment: Three commenters
requested that the EPA replace the term
‘‘modified source’’ with ‘‘reconstructed
source.’’ Neither the proposed rule nor
the EPA’s general Part 63 regulations
define the term ‘‘modified source.’’ The
term is defined in the CAA, but that
definition would require a source to
install maximum achievable control
technology and impose a ‘‘new source’’
requirement like CEMS on a modified
source, rather than appropriately
imposing the existing source provisions
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
571
that do not require installation of a
CEMS.
Response: The term ‘‘modified
source’’ appeared in the proposed rule
at 40 CFR 63.548(l) under the proposed
requirement to install a CEMS for
measuring lead emissions on all new or
modified sources. We agree with the
commenter that the terminology of
‘‘reconstructed’’ source would be more
appropriate for this requirement and
have changed the regulatory language
accordingly.
Comment: Three commenters
requested clarification of the term
‘‘affected source’’ as used in the
proposed rule. The proposed rule uses
the terms ‘‘new sources’’, ‘‘existing
source’’ and ‘‘modified source’’ without
clarifying whether it is referring to
secondary lead smelters generally, or to
potential emissions sources within
secondary lead smelters. There is a
seeming contradiction between the use
of the term ‘‘affected source’’ in the
proposed rule and the definition in 40
CFR Part 63, Subpart A general
provisions. One commenter also
understands that the terms ‘‘new
sources’’ and ‘‘existing sources’’, as used
in the proposed rule, are consistent with
the definitions as used in CAA § 112(a).
The commenter ‘‘understands EPA
intends to address any addition of units
to an ‘existing source’ consistent with
the provisions of the CAA’’ and
understands that the analysis as
explained in Nine Metal Fabrication
and Finishing Area Source Categories,
40 CFR Part 63 (6X) NESHAP, Questions
and Answers, April 2011 would apply
with respect to implementation of any
amendments to subpart X requirements.
The Q&A explains that the ‘‘CAA uses
the word ‘source’ to mean the entire
facility in terms of the classification of
‘new’ vs. ‘existing’ whereas for the
Subpart 6X rule, what is referred to as
the ‘affected source’ is actually one of
the processes at the facility’’.
Response: The EPA has clarified the
application of these terms in the final
rule. The definition in 40 CFR part 63,
subpart A requires each relevant
standard to define the ‘‘affected source,’’
as the collection of equipment,
activities, or both within a single
contiguous area and under common
control that is included in a CAA
section 112(c) source category or
subcategory for which a section 112(d)
standard or other relevant standard is
established pursuant to CAA section
112 unless a different definition is
warranted based on a published
justification as to why this definition
would result in significant
administrative, practical, or
implementation problems and why the
E:\FR\FM\05JAR2.SGM
05JAR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
572
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
different definition would resolve those
problems. We have adopted a definition
of ‘‘affected source’’ in this rulemaking
as any of the listed individual sources
at a secondary lead smelter. This
application of the term ‘‘affected
source’’ is the same as was used in the
1997 NESHAP for secondary lead. The
term ‘‘affected source’’ is used in the
final rule primarily in the context of
new sources. This definition is
appropriate for the secondary lead
source category because the chief source
of emissions from these facilities are the
furnaces, and as these furnaces are
replaced or reconstructed, the
replacement equipment would be
subject to the standard for a new source.
A ‘‘new source’’ has also been defined
as any affected source at a secondary
lead facility that undergoes construction
or reconstruction after May 19, 2011, the
date of the proposed CAA section
112(f)(2) and 112(d)(6) rules. A building
that is constructed for the purpose of
controlling fugitive emissions from an
existing source is not considered to be
a new source because it is effectively a
control device for fugitive emissions.
Comment: One commenter noted that
the last sentence in the current
definition of ‘‘Materials storage and
handling area’’ has been deleted in the
proposed definition. This sentence
reads: ‘‘Materials storage and handling
area does not include areas used
exclusively for storage of blast furnace
slag.’’ The commenter disagreed with
the EPA’s assessment that this is a
minor change. ‘‘EPA should provide an
explanation of what changed
circumstances justify a new rule.’’ Two
other commenters requested that the
definition be modified to exclude the
transfer of raw materials of any type in
enclosed conveyors. The commenter
stated that ‘‘as currently worded, the
enclosure requirement proposed would
apply to handling of fabric filter dust in
enclosed conveyors, containers, or in
wet slurried form, which is
unnecessary.’’ The commenter
suggested revising the definition to
include the following: ‘‘Material storage
and handling area shall not include any
closed containers or enclosed
mechanical conveyors.’’
Response: A definition of ‘‘lead
bearing material’’ has been added to the
final rule. Rather than include or
exclude any one particular material in
the definition of ‘‘materials storage and
handling area’’ based on the originating
process, this definition establishes lead
content as the criterion for determining
whether materials must be handled in
such a manner as to prevent lead dust
formation. The definition of ‘‘materials
storage and handling area’’ remains
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:35 Jan 04, 2012
Jkt 226001
essentially unchanged from the
definition in the proposed rule.
Fugitive dust formation has been
identified as the major contributor to
ambient lead concentrations near
secondary lead smelters. Piles where
lead bearing materials are stored were
identified as one of the major sources of
fugitive lead emissions. However, there
was no definition for lead-bearing
material in the proposed rule that could
be used to make a determination of
which materials needed to be handled
in a manner that prevents dust
formation. By adding a definition of
‘‘lead bearing material’’ to the rule, we
have clarified and quantified the
definition of ‘‘materials storage and
handling area.’’
The EPA is using the Toxicity
Characteristic Leaching Procedure
(TCLP), EPA Method 1311 to measure
which materials are lead-bearing, and
using the characteristic level of 5.0 mg/
l (in the extract from the test) as the
specific level for being lead-bearing. See
40 CFR 261.24. This assures that only
materials with at least 100 ppm total
lead will be considered to be ‘leadbearing’. See EPA Method 1311 section
2.2 which describes that the liquid to
solid ratio of material tested should be
20:1 (i.e. 5 mg/l in the TCLP extract is
equal to at least 100 ppm in the material
being tested). The specific definition of
lead bearing material chosen ensures
that materials that contain relatively
substantial amounts of lead (0.01
percent) are included while minimizing
additional testing burden for facilities
who must determine what does or does
not meet the definition. Testing burden
is minimized because facilities already
use the TCLP to determine whether or
not the wastes they manage are
hazardous, pursuant to subtitle C of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act. Imposing a different threshold for
defining material as ‘‘lead bearing’’
could thus impose duplicative or
conflicting requirements between
subpart X and other regulatory regimes.
Furthermore, the TCLP is a test protocol
which includes a grinding step, which
is a conservative measure of
determining whether a material could
generate fugitive emissions. See Method
1311 steps 7.1.3 and 7.2.10.
To address the concern that fabric
filter dust in enclosed conveyors,
containers or wet slurries must be
additionally handled only inside an
enclosure, we have added an exemption
from the enclosure requirement for
materials that are ‘‘lead bearing’’ but are
not expected to generate fugitive lead
dust. While these materials do contain
lead in amounts that could otherwise
meet the definition of lead bearing
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
material, they are either in a stabilized
form that will not create fugitive dust or
in a container that prevents fugitive dust
formation. These materials include: lead
ingot products, stormwater and
wastewater, intact batteries, lead bearing
material that is stored in closed
containers or enclosed mechanical
conveyors, and clean battery casing
material.
Comment: One commenter requested
a change to the definition of ‘‘plant
roadway’’ specifically to exclude
finished lead product storage areas and
roadways or traffic areas located within
enclosed buildings.
Response: We accept the commenter’s
suggestion to exclude roadways or
traffic areas located within enclosed
buildings from the definition of ‘‘plant
roadway.’’ However, we do not believe
that it is appropriate to exclude finished
lead product storage areas since these
areas may be located in close proximity
to areas that may require cleaning (e.g.,
slag storage areas).
Comment: One commenter requested
a change to the definition of process
vent. As currently drafted, it appears
overly broad and could lead to
confusion concerning the ventilation
systems that must be tested.
Response: We have made revisions to
the regulatory text to clarify that the
term ‘‘process vent’’ includes various
process vents and vents from buildings
containing lead bearing material. Vents
from office or other non-process areas
are not considered to be process vents.
Comment: Two comments were
received on the terminology used for a
lead CEMS. According to the
commenter, ‘‘Paragraph 63.548(m)
specifies that lead CEMS be ‘continuous
emission rate monitors.’ The standard is
a concentration standard, not an
emission rate standard, so the term
‘‘continuous emission rate monitor’’ is
not appropriate’’. Since flow and
concentration monitors are needed to
calculate compliance with the flow
weighted average, one commenter
recommended a requirement for flow
and concentration monitors rather than
citing a type of monitoring system that
is not applicable to the standard.
Response: We agree with the
commenter that the term continuous
emissions rate monitor is not
appropriate. We have replaced the term
‘‘continuous emissions rate monitor’’
with ‘‘continuous emissions monitoring
system.’’
Comment: Two commenters noted
that the term ‘‘accidental release’’ is not
defined in the rule. The commenters
recommended that the EPA use the
CERCLA reportable quantity threshold
of 10 pounds to define an accidental
E:\FR\FM\05JAR2.SGM
05JAR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
release of lead-containing dust. Two
commenters recommended that the
requirement to initiate cleaning within
one hour of a release be changed to
require that the facility initiate cleaning
activities within one hour after
discovery of an accidental release.
Response: We accept the commenters’
suggestion to use the CERCLA
reportable quantity threshold of 10
pounds to define an accidental release
of lead-containing dust. We also accept
the commenters’ suggestion to require
initiation of cleaning within one hour of
discovery of an accidental release.
Comment: One commenter
recommended that the definition of
‘‘maintenance activity’’ be changed from
‘‘any of the following routine
maintenance and repair activities that
generate fugitive lead dust:’’ to ‘‘any of
the following maintenance and repair
activities when they generate fugitive
lead dust:’’
Response: We do not agree with the
commenter’s proposed change to the
definition of ‘‘maintenance activity.’’ If
this definition was adopted, the facility
would be allowed to proceed with a
maintenance activity and then, if the
activity began generating dust, controls
would need to be adopted but
otherwise-controllable lead emissions
would be released to ambient air.
However, we have modified the
definition to read ‘‘any of the following
routine maintenance and repair
activities that could generate fugitive
lead dust.’’ This definition ensures that
proactive, rather than reactive, actions
would be taken for activities with the
potential to generate lead dust.
Comment: One commenter stated that
a definition of lead-bearing material
should be added and should include
such characteristics as the material
should be semi-granular, have a lead
content of greater than 10 percent, and
produce visible fugitive emissions when
handled or transported.
Response: As noted above, we have
added a definition of lead-bearing
material to the regulatory text. However,
we believe that a 10 percent lead
content is too high. We have defined
lead-bearing material in the rule as
material with lead content of 5 mg/l or
greater as measured by the TCLP
(Method 1311), which means that
materials would need to contain at least
100 ppm of lead. This is equivalent to
the toxicity characteristic level for a
hazardous waste containing lead as
defined at 40 CFR 261.24.
Comment: One commenter noted that
40 CFR 63.544(d) of the proposed rule
makes reference to the requirements in
subsections (d)(1) through (d)(4).
However, as the commenter points out,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:35 Jan 04, 2012
Jkt 226001
there are eight subsections applicable to
40 CFR 63.544(d) and subsection (d)(2)
further refers to meeting requirements
through (d)(8).
Response: The EPA agrees with the
commenter and has made the suggested
change in the regulatory text at 40 CFR
63.544(d).
Comment: One commenter noted that
proposed 40 CFR 63.543(i) requires that
sources conduct testing for process
vents, ‘‘* * * under such conditions as
the administrator specifies based on
representative performance of the
affected source for the period being
tested.’’ The commenter requested that
the EPA replace this ‘‘cumbersome’’
language with ‘‘* * * under normal
operating conditions.’’
Response: We have modified the text
to require sources to conduct testing
‘‘under maximum representative
operating conditions for the process.’’
The term maximum is included to
ensure that the testing occurs during a
time period of full production at the
facility that is representative of normal
operation. This language allows sources
to develop test conditions which
approximate the variability they can
reasonably encounter during normal
operation. Parametric monitoring
requirements, based on parameters
measured during the performance test,
would then reasonably reflect this
operating variability and afford the
source flexibility in its day-to-day
operation. Cf. Cement Kiln Recycling
Coalition v. EPA, 255 F.855, 866–67 (DC
Cir. 2001) (upholding use of such data
to set MACT standards under CAA
section 112(d)(3)).
Comment: One commenter noted that
Table 3 of the proposed rule is
improperly labeled, ‘‘table 3 to Subpart
X of Part 60—Toxic Equivalency
Factors.’’ As the commenter points out,
the table is included in 40 CFR part 63,
not 40 CFR part 60.
Response: The EPA agrees with the
commenter and has made the suggested
change to Table 3 of the proposed rule.
Comment: Two commenters pointed
out that there is a typographical error in
Equation 2 of the proposed rule at 40
CFR 63.543(c). The definition of the
term CELI includes the word lead,
though the equation is not applicable to
lead.
Response: The EPA agrees with the
commenter and has adjusted the
definition of the term CELI in Equation
2 of 40 CFR 63.543(c) accordingly.
G. Emission Testing Methods and
Frequency
Comment: Two commenters stated
their support for biannual testing for
well performing facilities. One
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
573
commenter contends that the East Penn
facility currently conducts biannual
testing for lead and still maintains
compliance with the lead NAAQS and
applicable subpart X emission
standards. The commenter further
argued that the EPA has not
demonstrated any environmental
benefits associated with annual testing
versus biannual testing for well
controlled facilities. The commenter
contends that the East Penn facility has
made strategic decisions to invest
capital resources to reduce lead
emissions and that the removal of the
biannual testing exemption would
unnecessarily increase the annual
operating costs of the facility.
Response: We agree with the
commenter that a biannual testing
exemption for well performing facilities
can be retained in this NESHAP. We
have added an exemption for any stacks
that report a lead concentration of 0.1
mg/dscm or lower allowing biannual
testing. The concept of decreased testing
frequency for well-performing sources
was discussed in the proposal as a part
of the fenceline monitoring approach
(see 76 FR at 29057).
Comment: Two commenters disagreed
with the annual testing requirement for
total hydrocarbons (THC). One
commenter stated that since the risk
assessment did not identify significant
risks drivers among the organic HAP
represented by THC, the THC testing
should be conducted concurrently with
the dioxin and furan tests every 5 years
with continuous compliance
demonstrated via afterburner
temperature monitoring. Another
commenter stated that requiring annual
THC tests is redundant and unnecessary
if a CEMS is installed and operated per
40 CFR 63.543(k).
Response: We disagree with the
commenter that THC testing should be
conducted on the same schedule as
dioxins and furans. Testing for THC is
substantially less expensive than testing
for dioxins and furans and we do not
believe annual THC testing presents an
unnecessary burden. However, we have
added an exemption allowing biannual
testing of THC for any stack that reports
concentrations that are less than half of
the applicable emissions limit. Annual
stack testing is obviously not required if
a THC CEMS is used.
Comment: Three commenters stated
that the EPA should allow facilities to
use EPA Method 12 for lead compounds
to calculate compliance with the
process vent limitations in order to be
consistent with testing requirements
that exist in many facility permits.
Response: We agree that facilities
should be given the option of using EPA
E:\FR\FM\05JAR2.SGM
05JAR2
574
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Method 12. The regulatory text has been
edited accordingly.
Comment: Three commenters stated
that the BLDS exemption for baghouses
equipped with HEPA filters should be
retained. One commenter stated that to
install BLDS’s on HEPA filtered stacks
is excessive and unwarranted. The
commenter also believes that annual
stack testing for sources equipped with
HEPA filtration is not necessary.
Another commenter argued that the cost
associated with using BLDS is not
commensurate with their limited ability.
The commenter stated that BLDS’s are
inherently reactive whereas baghouses
equipped with HEPA filtration actually
prevent emissions in the event of a bag
failure. Further, the commenter argued
that HEPA secondary collection
pressure differential is an effective
method to monitor baghouse
performance. The commenter contends
that the BLDS requirement will pose an
unnecessary and redundant burden on
facilities that proactively chose to install
HEPA filtration systems and that the
proposed revisions are a disincentive for
facilities to install HEPA filters. Finally,
the commenter stated that the proposed
BLDS requirement and the elimination
of the BLDS exemption for HEPA filters
are arbitrary and not supported by test
data.
Response: We agree with the
commenters that baghouses equipped
with HEPA filters do not need bag leak
detection systems as well. The
measurement of pressure drop across a
HEPA filter provides the indicia of
superior performance for determining
continuous compliance. However, we
disagree that sources should be exempt
from annual stack testing based solely
on the use of a HEPA filter. The
emission standard includes calculation
of a facility-wide emission average and
testing the process vents subject to that
limit is needed to determine
compliance. Monitoring pressure drop
across HEPA filters is a means for
determining continuous compliance,
similar to a bag leak detection system in
baghouses without HEPA filters. In both
cases, periodic stack tests are necessary
to ensure that lead emissions are below
the applicable emission standard.
However, we note that we have
included a biannual testing exemption
for stacks that report lead
concentrations less than 0.1 mg/dscm.
H. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction
Comment: One commenter expressed
concerns related to the total
hydrocarbon (THC) standard during
start-up periods. According to the
commenter, it will be impossible to
meet the minimum temperature at
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:35 Jan 04, 2012
Jkt 226001
which compliance with the THC
standard has been demonstrated during
startup of a furnace. The blast furnace
crucible must be heated for up to 12
hours before raw materials can be
charged. The reverberatory furnace cold
startups occur over an extended period
also. There is no introduction of
feedstock during the warm-up process
and, therefore, no emissions of processrelated THC emissions. Emissions
during this time period will consist
entirely of combustion products
associated with the fuels natural gas and
foundry coke. The afterburner or post
combustion system are equipped with
rudimentary burners that provide
supplementary heat but rely on the
excess heat contained within the
combined furnace exhaust gases during
production operations to achieve an
afterburner temperature that assures the
efficient combustion of the process offgases. The afterburner supplementary
burners are not sufficient to maintain
the required temperature during furnace
startup and shutdown sequences. The
proposed revisions to subpart X should
include definitions of startup and
shutdown for collocated blast and
reverberatory furnaces that clearly
define when alternative THC standards
would apply and how compliance with
an alternative standard is monitored.
Response: The EPA has revised this
final rule to require sources to meet a
work practice standard that requires the
development of standard operating
procedures designed to minimize
emissions of THC for each start-up and
shutdown scenario anticipated for all
units subject to THC emission limits.
We considered whether temperature
(the metric used to determine
continuous compliance for the THC
standard in this rule) or performance
testing and enforcement of numeric
emission limits would be practicable
during periods of startup and shutdown.
The EPA determined that there are a
number of significant technical
challenges associated with emissions
measurements of THC emissions during
periods of startup and shutdown for this
industry. These challenges make
establishing and complying with
numerical emissions limits
impracticable.
There are multiple factors informing
this decision. Temperature is obviously
an inappropriate measure to determine
continuous compliances for these
furnaces during periods of startup and
shutdown when the furnaces are being
heated during startup (or cooled during
shutdown) from ambient to the steady
state operating temperature. The
furnaces are heated during periods of
startup through slow feeding of natural
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
gas and small amounts of coke with no
lead acid batteries fed to the furnace. It
is impossible for furnace exhaust to be
maintained within the window
prescribed by 40 CFR 63.548(h)(4)
during periods of startup and shutdown.
However, the inability to maintain this
temperature in secondary lead smelter
furnace exhaust does not indicate high
emissions of THC during these periods.
In fact, the emissions are likely minimal
because there are no plastics being fed
to the furnace and minimal fuel use
(mostly natural gas). Temperature is
thus not the appropriate measure of
continuous compliance during these
periods and we are unaware of another
metric that can be used to determine
continuous compliance with a
numerical standard for these furnaces
during startup and shutdown. In terms
of staff scheduling, test crews would
have to be on-site and ready to begin
THC testing at the beginning of a period
of startup or shutdown, have multiple
test crews on site for startup or
shutdown periods lasting longer than
12 hours, and be prepared to stop and
restart measurements to coincide with
process trips that can occur during
startup and shutdown of secondary lead
smelting furnaces. Since startups and
shutdowns of these furnaces are not
necessarily scheduled long in advance,
scheduling such testing to coincide with
the beginning of startup or shutdown
periods would require having testing
crews on-site nearly full time. These
staff resource issues would dramatically
increase the cost of testing during
startup and shutdown periods.
For these technical and economic
reasons, we have determined that
conducting manual test methods during
these secondary lead furnace startup or
shutdown periods for THC to be
impracticable within the meaning of
CAA section 112(h)(2)(B). As a result,
we have established a separate work
practice standard for emissions of THC
during periods of startup and shutdown.
This work practice standard requires the
development of standard operating
procedures designed to minimize
emissions of THC for each start-up and
shutdown scenario anticipated for all
units subject to THC limits.
This startup and shutdown work
practice applies only to the THC
emission limits. We have no reason to
provide startup or shutdown provisions
for emissions of lead from any source
because the fabric filters used to control
particulate and lead emissions are not
less effective during startup or
shutdown periods (nor would we expect
sources to have any difficulty meeting
the lead standard since lead-bearing
feed is not charged during either startup
E:\FR\FM\05JAR2.SGM
05JAR2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
or shutdown conditions). Additionally,
the metrics for determining continuous
compliance with these standards are
appropriate for periods of startup and
shutdown. Therefore, we have
established the separate work practice
standard only for THC for periods of
startup and shutdown.
During these periods, we do not
believe dioxins and furans can form
because there are no chlorinated plastics
or flame-retardants being fed as these
materials are only introduced as
impurities with the lead feed material.
Therefore, we have not included a
standard for dioxins and furans during
periods of startup and shutdown
because these pollutants are not
emitted.
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). The EPA
has determined that malfunctions
should not be viewed as a distinct
operating mode and, therefore, any
emissions that occur at such times do
not need to be factored into
development of CAA section 112(d)
standards, which, once promulgated,
apply at all times.
VI. Summary of Cost, Environmental,
and Economic Impacts
A. What are the affected facilities?
We anticipate that the 15 secondary
lead smelting facilities currently or
recently operating in the continental
United States and Puerto Rico as well as
one facility currently under
construction in South Carolina will be
affected by this final rule.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
B. What are the air quality impacts?
The EPA estimated the emissions
reductions that are expected to result
from these final amendments to the
1997 NESHAP compared to the 2009
baseline emissions estimates calculated
based on ICR data. The ICR data and
RTR emissions memo are available in
the docket to this action. A detailed
documentation of the analysis can be
found in the document in the docket
titled: 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 final rule
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:35 Jan 04, 2012
Jkt 226001
will cut lead and arsenic emissions by
an estimated 68 percent from current
actual emission levels based on the ICR
data collected for this rulemaking. The
final rule will result in estimated annual
lead emissions reductions of 7.2 tpy
from process and process fugitive
sources and annual lead emissions
reductions of 6.4 tpy from fugitive dust
sources from 2009 baseline emissions
(for a total annual reduction of 13.6 tons
per year). The expected annual
reduction in total metal HAP 8 is 8.2 tpy
from process and process fugitive
sources and the expected annual
reduction is 7.2 tpy from fugitive dust
sources (total annual metal HAP
reductions are estimated at 15.4 tons).
We estimate that these controls will also
reduce emissions of particulate matter
(PM) (combined total of fine and coarse
PM) by 135 tpy.
Based on the emissions data available
to the EPA, we believe that all facilities
will be able to comply with the final
emissions limits for THC and D/F
without additional controls. However,
we expect that emissions reductions
will occur due to increased
temperatures of afterburners and from
improved work practices. Nevertheless,
it is difficult to estimate accurate
reductions from these actions and,
therefore, we are not providing
quantified estimates of reductions for
THC and D/F.
C. What are the cost impacts?
As a result of this final rule, certain
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 fabric filters on
enclosures.
The capital costs for each facility were
estimated based on the number and
types of upgrades we estimate that
facility will require. Each facility was
evaluated for its ability to meet the final
limits for lead emissions, THC
emissions, D/F emissions, and fugitive
dust emissions. The memorandum
titled: Cost Impacts of the Revised
NESHAP for the Secondary Lead
Smelting Source Category includes a
complete description of the cost
8 Total metal HAP consists of antimony, arsenic,
beryllium, cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese,
nickel and selenium.
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
575
estimate methods used for this analysis
and is available in the docket.
The majority of the capital costs
estimated for compliance with this
action are for purchasing new
enclosures and the associated control
devices that would be required for these
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 facilities,
particularly the storage areas, to reduce
the footprint of areas subject to total
enclosure requirements.
Based on our analysis of the facility
configurations, seven facilities were
considered already to be totally
enclosed. Two facilities are currently
installing enclosure structures and
equipment that we anticipate will meet
the requirements. Consequently, the
capital costs do not include estimates
for these nine facilities. We estimate
that the remaining six facilities will
require new building installations,
thereby incurring capital costs. For the
one facility currently under
construction, we estimated one
additional baghouse would be required.
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
installations submitted by facilities in
the ICR survey. The total capital cost
estimate for the enclosures, the
ductwork system, and control devices at
the seven facilities is approximately $38
million, at an annualized cost of $6.4
million in 2009 dollars (an average of
about $1 million per facility).
We also estimated annual costs for the
required work practices in this action.
Based on the ICR survey information,
we estimated that additional costs
would be required to implement the
work practices at 12 of the 16 facilities.
The total annual costs to implement the
fugitive emissions work practices are
approximately $3 million per year.
For compliance with the stack lead
concentration limit, we compared each
stack emission point’s lead
concentration (reported to the EPA
under the ICR) to the requirement of 1.0
mg/dscm of lead for any one stack. If the
reported concentration exceeded 0.5
mg/dscm (one half the standard), we
assumed that the facility would either
E:\FR\FM\05JAR2.SGM
05JAR2
576
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
upgrade the baghouse with new bags
and additional maintenance or
completely replace the baghouse,
depending on the age of the baghouse
(as explained further below). This cost
estimate presents an upper-end estimate
of the cost impacts of the final rule that
assumes facilities will strive to operate
well below the standard to ensure
process variability does not cause
emission rates approaching the
maximum level allowed by the
standard. If the baghouse was less than
10 years old and the lead concentration
in the outlet was not appreciably over
one half the standard (i.e., 0.5 mg/
dscm), we assumed that the baghouse
would require maintenance and bag
replacement. If the baghouse was more
than 10 years old and the lead
concentration was appreciably over the
standard, we assumed the baghouse
would be replaced. We then compared
each facility’s emissions with the flowweighted, 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. These
analyses indicate that nine baghouses
would need to be replaced, and two
baghouses would require additional
maintenance. 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 nine new baghouses at
five facilities is estimated to be
approximately $11.5 million, and total
annual costs were estimated to be
approximately $2.7 million.
New limits are being promulgated for
THC and D/F emissions from
reverberatory and electric furnaces. We
anticipate all operating affected units
will be able to meet the 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
standards. (We also considered this
additional energy use as part of our
analysis of whether the standards are
warranted under CAA section 112(d)(6).
See Cost Impacts of the Revised
NESHAP for the Secondary Lead
Smelting Source Category, available in
docket ID EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0344, at
page 7.)
The capital cost estimated for
additional differential pressure monitors
for total enclosures is $106,000. The
cost for all additional monitoring and
recordkeeping requirements, including
the baghouse monitoring, is estimated at
$791,000.
The total annualized costs for the
final rule are estimated at $13.4 million
(2009 dollars). Table 5 of this preamble
provides a summary of the estimated
costs and emissions reductions
associated with the final amendments to
the Secondary Lead Smelting NESHAP
presented in today’s action. More detail
on the estimated costs of today’s final
rule can be found in Cost Impacts of the
revised NESHAP for the Secondary Lead
Smelting Source Category, available in
the docket ID EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–
0344.
TABLE 5—ESTIMATED COSTS AND REDUCTIONS FOR THE PROMULGATED STANDARDS IN THIS ACTION
Estimated
capital cost
($MM)
Estimated
annual cost
($MM)
Revised stack lead emissions limit ...
11.5
2.7
Total enclosure of fugitive emissions
sources.
Fugitive control work practices .........
38
6.4
0
3.0
THC and D/F concentration limits .....
Additional testing and monitoring ......
0
0.3
0.3
0.79
Final amendment
a Metal
Total HAP emissions reductions
(tons per year)
Cost effectiveness in $ per ton total
HAP reduction
($ per pound)
8.2 of metal HAP a (7.2 of which is
lead).
5.2 of metal HAP a (4.6 of which is
lead).
2.0 of metal HAP a (1.8 of which is
lead).
29.6 b .................................................
N/A ....................................................
$0.33 MM per ton, ($170 per
pound).
$1.0 MM per ton, ($500 per pound).
$1.5 MM per ton, ($750 per pound).
$0.01 MM per ton.
N/A.
HAP consisting of antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese, nickel, and selenium.
on total organic HAP reductions as a co-benefit of compliance with standards for dioxins and furans.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
b Based
The EPA notes that the cost
effectiveness of the controls for stack
emissions of metal HAP are within the
range of values the agency has
determined to be reasonable in other
section 112 rules. Indeed, EPA
determined that a value of $175 per
pound of metal HAP removed was
reasonable when determining standards
for the iron and steel foundry source
category, an area source standard
reflecting the less rigorous Generally
Available Control Technology under
section 112(d)(5). See 73 FR at 249.
Thus, EPA regards the cost effectiveness
of the standards for metal HAP here as
reasonable, for purposes of the
standards adopted pursuant to sections
112(f)(2) (ample margin of safety
determination) and 112(d)(6). The
measures required to control fugitive
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:35 Jan 04, 2012
Jkt 226001
emissions are also cost effective, based
largely on the fact that much of the
industry has implemented some or all of
the measures required in this final rule.
The cost effectiveness for THC and D/
F is presented as a point of information.
Since those standards are MACT floor
standards adopted pursuant to sections
112(d)(3), considerations of cost and
cost-effectiveness played no part in
EPA’s consideration.
D. What are the economic impacts?
We performed an economic impact
analysis for secondary lead consumers
and producers nationally. Most
secondary lead producers will incur
annual compliance costs of much less
than 1 percent of their sales, but one
firm will incur costs of greater than 1
percent. Both demand and supply in
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
this sector are generally inelastic to
price changes as shown in the Economic
Impact Analysis at page 4. Thus, if
producers could pass through the entire
cost of the rule to consumers, we would
expect prices to increase by no more
than one percent, with no change in
output. Conversely, if producers could
not pass through any of the cost by
increasing the price, we would expect
output to decline by less than one
percent.
Hence, the overall economic impact of
this proposed rule should be low on
most of the affected industry and its
consumers. For more information,
please refer to the Economic Impact
Analysis for this rulemaking that is in
docket ID EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0344.
E:\FR\FM\05JAR2.SGM
05JAR2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
E. What are the benefits?
The estimated reductions in lead
emissions that will be achieved by this
final rule will provide significant
benefits to public health. For example,
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) 9 described
monetized benefits calculated for that
action associated with reduced exposure
to lead.
As noted in that RIA, there were also
several other lead-related health effects
for which the EPA was unable to
quantify a monetized benefit—
particularly among adults. These
potential impacts included
hypertension, non-fatal strokes,
reproductive effects and premature
mortality, among others.
When viewed in this context, the
reductions in concentrations of ambient
lead that will be achieved with this RTR
for secondary lead smelters are expected
to provide important benefits to both
children and adults. The EPA did not
quantify these benefits because this rule
did not trigger the requirement for
conducting an RIA under Executive
Order 12866, in addition to resource
and data limitations for this rule.
However, as noted at proposal, this rule
should result in areas attaining the lead
NAAQS where the secondary lead
smelting source dominates the areas’
ambient lead concentrations. See 76 FR
at 29063–64. Although these standards
are not adopted to implement the lead
NAAQS, and rest on legal and policy
justifications that are unrelated to the
requirements for adopting, revising, and
implementing a NAAQS (e.g., CAA
sections 112(d)(2), (3), 6 and CAA
section 112(f)(2) as opposed to CAA
sections 107–110), nonetheless these
rules will aid in the attainment of the
lead NAAQS.10
In addition to the benefits likely to be
achieved for lead reductions, we also
estimate that this final RTR rule will
achieve about 39 to 63 tons of
reductions in PM2.5 emissions as a cobenefit of the HAP reductions annually.
See Development of the RTR Emissions
Dataset for the Secondary Lead
Smelting Source Category at section 8.3,
which is available in the docket for
information on how the PM2.5 emission
9 https://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/
finalpbriach5.pdf.
10 It is possible that SIPs may require some of the
same types of controls on these sources (or may rely
on the controls in these rules as part of a control
strategy). EPA cannot, of course, pre-judge the SIP
process. What is clear is that this rule should
contribute significantly to attainment of the lead
NAAQS.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:35 Jan 04, 2012
Jkt 226001
reductions were calculated based on
total PM reductions. Reducing exposure
to PM2.5 is associated with significant
human health benefits, including
avoiding mortality and respiratory
morbidity. Researchers have associated
PM2.5 exposure with adverse health
effects in numerous toxicological,
clinical and epidemiological studies
(U.S. EPA, 2009).11 When adequate data
and resources are available and an RIA
is required, the EPA generally quantifies
several health effects associated with
exposure to PM2.5 (e.g., U.S. EPA,
2010) 12. These health effects include
premature mortality for adults and
infants, cardiovascular morbidities such
as heart attacks, hospital admissions,
and respiratory morbidities such as
asthma attacks, acute and chronic
bronchitis, hospital and emergency
department visits, work loss days,
restricted activity days, and respiratory
symptoms. Although the EPA has not
quantified certain outcomes including
adverse effects on birth weight, pre-term
births, pulmonary function and other
cardiovascular and respiratory effects,
the scientific literature suggests that
exposure to PM2.5 is also associated with
these impacts (U.S. EPA, 2009).
Finally, the final rule will provide
human health benefits through
reductions in arsenic and cadmium
emissions, as well as reductions in
emissions of organic HAP (including
dioxins and furans).
VII. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
A. Executive Orders 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.’’ This
action is a significant regulatory action
because it raises novel legal and policy
issues. Accordingly, the EPA submitted
this action to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for review under
Executive Order 12866 and Executive
Order 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011), and any changes made in
response to OMB recommendations
11 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S.
EPA). 2009. Integrated Science Assessment for
Particulate Matter (Final Report). EPA–600–R–08–
139F. National Center for Environmental
Assessment—RTP Division. <https://cfpub.epa.gov/
ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=216546>.
12 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S.
EPA). 2010. Regulatory Impact Analysis for the
Proposed Federal Transport Rule. Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle
Park, NC. <https://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/
RIAs/proposaltrria_final.pdf>.
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
577
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 the
EPA has been assigned EPA ICR number
1686.09. 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 the 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 promulgating new paperwork
requirements to the Secondary Lead
Smelting source category in the form of
stack testing for THC and D/F as
described in 40 CFR 63.543(h)–(k). In
conjunction with setting THC limits for
reverberatory and electric 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 (and received
no comments to indicate otherwise).
Additionally, increased monitoring is
required for demonstrating negative
pressure in all total enclosures. 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, the 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. The 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
E:\FR\FM\05JAR2.SGM
05JAR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
578
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
limit. The estimate also includes time to
produce and retain the record and
reports for submission to the EPA. The
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 the
EPA has no basis currently for
estimating the number of malfunctions
for which an affirmative defense to
penalties might be asserted. 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 assert 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 information on such
events in the future and will revise this
estimate as better information becomes
available. We estimate 16 regulated
entities are currently subject to subpart
X and will be subject to all 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
$790,000 per year. This includes 1,600
labor hours per year at a total labor cost
of $347,000 per year, and total non-labor
capital and operation and maintenance
(O&M) costs of $440,000 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 1,150 hours per year at
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:35 Jan 04, 2012
Jkt 226001
a total labor cost of $52,000 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 the 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.
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 final 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 action).
After considering the economic
impacts of today’s final rule on small
entities, I certify that this action will not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
Two of the eight parent companies
affected are considered a small entity
per the definition provided in this
section. However, we estimate that this
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
action will not have a significant
economic impact on those companies
(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 final rule will not have
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities, the
EPA nonetheless has tried to reduce the
impact of this rule on small entities. To
reduce the impacts, we are
promulgating stack limits for lead that
allow sources to meet a standard based
on aggregated emissions that are based
on a weighted average approach (with
each stack required to achieve a
specified minimum level of control) and
have been established at the least
stringent levels that we estimate will
still result in acceptable risks to public
health with an ample margin of safety.
Moreover, the 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 standards. For
more information, please refer to Small
Business Analysis for the Secondary
Lead Smelting Source Category, which
is available in docket ID EPA–HQ–
OAR–2011–0344.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
This action 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 action 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 action imposes
no enforceable duties on any state, local
or tribal governments or the private
sector. Thus, this action is not subject to
the requirements of sections 202 or 205
of the UMRA.
This action 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 action 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
E:\FR\FM\05JAR2.SGM
05JAR2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132. These final
rules primarily affect private industry,
and do not impose significant economic
costs on state or local governments.
Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not
apply to this action.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
This action does not have tribal
implications, as specified in Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000). It will not have substantial direct
effect on tribal governments, on the
relationship between the federal
government and Indian tribes, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities between the federal
government and Indian tribes, as
specified in Executive Order 13175.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not
apply to this action.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
This action 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. Children
living near secondary lead smelters are
the subpopulation most susceptible to
effects of air-borne lead, as explained in
detail in Section V.A above. The
primary NAAQS for lead targets
protection to this population, and is a
reasonable measure for evaluating
acceptability of risk here, again as
explained in Section V.A. Modeled
ambient air lead concentrations, based
on actual emission levels, from about 9
of the 15 facilities in this source
category are in excess of the NAAQS for
lead. Also, the results of the
demographic analysis indicate that of
the 84,000 people exposed to a cancer
risk greater than 1-in-1 million, the age
0 to 17 demographic percentage (of 30
percent) is 3 percentage points higher
than the corresponding national
percentage for this demographic group
(of 27 percent). This suggests that
children may be at a slightly
disproportionate risk of exposure to
cancer risks from this source category.
However, the control measures
promulgated in this notice will result in
lead concentration levels at or below the
lead NAAQS at all facilities, thereby
mitigating the risk of future adverse
health effects to children. See Section
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:35 Jan 04, 2012
Jkt 226001
V.A of this preamble and the Residual
Risk Assessment for the Secondary Lead
Smelting Source Category, which is
available in the docket for this action,
for discussions of post-control risks.
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 in Executive
Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22,
2001)), because it is not likely to have
a significant adverse energy effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy.
This action will not create any new
requirements for sources in the energy
supply, distribution, or use sectors.
Further, we have concluded that these
final rules are not likely to have any
adverse energy effects (and indeed,
rejected certain types of control options,
such as standards based on use of wet
electrostatic precipitators, in part
because of adverse energy implications).
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, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs
the 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, and business practices) that
are developed or adopted by VCS
bodies. NTTAA directs the EPA to
provide Congress, through OMB,
explanations when the agency decides
not to use available and applicable VCS.
This action involves technical
standards. The EPA requires use of
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.
Under 40 CFR 63.7(f) and 40 CFR
63.8(f) of subpart A of the General
Provisions, a source may apply to the
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 final
rule.
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
579
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.
The EPA has determined that this
final rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects
on minority or low-income populations
because it increases the level of
environmental protection for all affected
populations without having any
disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects
on any population, including any
minority or low-income population.
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 development of
demographic analyses to inform the
consideration of environmental justice
issues in EPA rulemakings is evolving.
In the case of Secondary Lead
Smelting, we focused on populations
within 50 km of the 15 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
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 the technical report:
Risk and Technology Review—Final
Analysis of Socio-Economic Factors for
Populations Living Near Secondary
Lead Smelting Facilities which can be
found in the docket for this rulemaking.
The actions in today’s final rule will
significantly decrease the risks due to
HAP emissions from this source
E:\FR\FM\05JAR2.SGM
05JAR2
580
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
category for all demographic groups and
mitigate any disproportionate risks due
to those emissions.
K. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801, et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that, before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report, which includes a
copy of the rule, to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. The EPA will
submit a report containing this final rule
and other required information to the
United States Senate, the United States
House of Representatives, and the
Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication of the final
rule in the Federal Register. A major
rule cannot take effect until 60 days
after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ‘‘major
rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The
final rules will be effective on January
5, 2012.
List of Subjects for 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedures,
Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
63.541 Applicability.
63.542 Definitions.
63.543 What are my standards for process
vents?
63.544 What are my total 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 to civil
penalties 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 63—Toxic
Equivalency Factors
Subpart X—National Emission
Standards For Hazardous Air
Pollutants From Secondary Lead
Smelting
§ 63.541
Applicability.
2. Section 63.14 is amended by
revising paragraph (p)(2) to read as
follows:
(a) You are subject to this subpart if
you own or operate any of the following
affected sources at a secondary lead
smelter: Blast, reverberatory, rotary, and
electric furnaces; refining kettles;
agglomerating furnaces; dryers; process
fugitive emissions sources; buildings
containing lead bearing materials; and
fugitive dust sources. The provisions of
this subpart do not apply to primary
lead processors, 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.
§ 63.14
§ 63.542
Dated: December 16, 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
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.
■
Incorporations by reference.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
*
*
*
*
*
(p) * * *
(2) Office Of Air Quality Planning
And Standards (OAQPS), Fabric Filter
Bag Leak Detection Guidance, EPA–454/
R–98–015, September 1997, IBR
approved for §§ 63.548(e)(4),
63.7525(j)(2), and 63.11224(f)(2).
*
*
*
*
*
■ 3. Revise subpart X to read as follows:
Subpart X—National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants From
Secondary Lead Smelting
Sec.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:35 Jan 04, 2012
Jkt 226001
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:
Affected source means any of the
following sources at a secondary lead
smelter: Blast, reverberatory, rotary, and
electric furnaces; refining kettles;
agglomerating furnaces; dryers; process
fugitive emissions sources; buildings
containing lead bearing materials; and
fugitive dust sources.
Affirmative defense means, in the
context of an enforcement proceeding, a
response or defense put forward by a
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
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
Celsius) 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 Celsius)
that lead compounds are reduced to
elemental lead metal.
E:\FR\FM\05JAR2.SGM
05JAR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
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, lead bearing material handling
transfer points, lead bearing material
transport areas, lead bearing material
storage areas, other lead bearing
material process areas, and buildings.
Furnace and refining/casting area
means any area of a secondary lead
smelter in which:
(1) Smelting furnaces are located;
(2) Refining operations occur; or
(3) Casting operations occur.
Lead alloy means an alloy in which
the predominant component is lead.
Lead bearing material means material
with a lead content equal to or greater
than 5 mg/l as measured by EPA
Method 1311 (Under Method 1311, only
materials with at least 100 ppm lead
will be considered to be lead bearing).
Leeward wall means the furthest
exterior wall of a total enclosure that is
opposite the windward wall.
Maintenance activity means any of
the following routine maintenance and
repair activities that could generate
fugitive lead dust:
(1) Replacement or repair of
refractory, 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 leadcontaining 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 open
piles, bins, or tubs, and areas in which
material is prepared for charging to a
smelting furnace.
Natural draft opening means any
permanent opening in an enclosure that
remains open during operation of the
facility and is not connected to a duct
in which a fan is installed.
New source means any affected source
at a secondary lead smelting facility the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:35 Jan 04, 2012
Jkt 226001
construction or reconstruction of which
is commenced after May 19, 2011. A
building that is constructed for the
purpose of controlling fugitive
emissions from an existing source is not
considered to be a new source.
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 outside of a total
enclosure 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 emissions
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, vents
from buildings containing lead bearing
material, 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
Celsius) that lead compounds are
chemically reduced to elemental lead
metal.
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
581
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 Celsius) 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.
Shutdown means the period when no
lead bearing materials are being fed to
the furnace and smelting operations
have ceased during which the furnace is
cooled from steady-state operating
temperature to ambient temperature.
Smelting means the chemical
reduction of lead compounds to
elemental lead or lead alloys through
processing in high-temperature (greater
than 980 Celsius) furnaces including,
but not limited to, blast furnaces,
reverberatory furnaces, rotary furnaces,
and electric furnaces.
Startup means the period when no led
bearing materials have been fed to the
furnace and smelting operations have
not yet commenced during which the
furnace is heated from ambient
temperature to steady-state operating
temperature.
Total enclosure means a containment
building that is completely enclosed
with a floor, walls, and a roof to prevent
exposure to the elements and to assure
containment of lead bearing material
with limited openings to allow access
and egress for people and vehicles. The
total enclosure must provide an
effective barrier against fugitive dust
emissions such that the direction of air
flow through any openings is inward
and the enclosure is maintained under
constant negative pressure.
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.
Windward wall means the exterior
wall of a total enclosure that is most
impacted by the wind in its most
prevailing direction determined by a
wind rose using available data from the
E:\FR\FM\05JAR2.SGM
05JAR2
closest representative meteorological
station.
§ 63.543 What are my standards for
process vents?
(a) For existing sources, 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 smelting 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 using
the most recent test data available.
(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:
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
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.
(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 using Equation 1 of this
section.
(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
rate must be used rather than the most
recent compliance test data.
(b) For new sources that begin
construction or reconstruction after May
19, 2011 you must maintain the
concentration of lead compounds in any
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:35 Jan 04, 2012
Jkt 226001
process vent gas at or below 0.20
milligrams of lead per dry standard
cubic meter (0.000087 grains of lead per
dry standard cubic foot).
(c) You must meet the applicable
emissions limits for total hydrocarbons
and dioxins and furans from furnace
sources specified in Table 2 of this
subpart. There are no standards for
dioxins and furans during periods of
startup and shutdown.
(d) 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 of this section.
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
pollutant in furnace vent i as specified
in Table 2 of this subpart.
(e) 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 (c) of this section
at a location downstream from the point
at which the two emissions streams are
combined.
(f) 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 and corrected to 4 percent
carbon dioxide.
(g) Following the initial performance
or compliance test to demonstrate
compliance with the lead emissions
limits specified in paragraph (a) or (b)
of this section, you must conduct
performance tests according to the
schedule in paragraph (g)(1) or (2) of
this section.
(1) Conduct an annual performance
test for lead compounds from each
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
process vent (no later than 12 calendar
months following the previous
compliance test), unless you install and
operate a CEMS meeting the
requirements of § 63.8.
(2) If an annual compliance test
demonstrates that a process vent
emitted lead compounds at 0.10
milligram of lead per dry standard cubic
meter or less during the time of the
annual compliance test, you may submit
a written request to the Administrator
applying for an extension of up to 24
calendar months from the previous
compliance test to conduct the next
compliance test for lead compounds.
(h) Following the initial performance
or compliance test to demonstrate
compliance with the total hydrocarbons
emissions limits in paragraphs (c) and
(f) of this section, you must conduct an
annual performance test for total
hydrocarbons emissions from each
process vent that has established limits
for total hydrocarbons (no later than 12
calendar months following the previous
compliance test), unless you install and
operate a CEMS meeting the
requirements of § 63.8. If an annual
compliance test demonstrates that a
process vent emitted total hydrocarbons
at less than 50 percent of the allowable
limit during the time of the annual
compliance test, you may submit a
written request to the Administrator
applying for an extension of up to 24
calendar months from the previous
compliance test to conduct the next
compliance test for total hydrocarbons.
(i) Following the initial performance
or compliance test to demonstrate
compliance with the dioxins and furans
emissions limits specified in paragraph
(c) of this section, you must conduct a
performance test for dioxins and furans
emissions from each process vent that
has established limits for dioxins and
furans at least once every 6 years
following the previous compliance test.
(j) You must conduct the performance
tests specified in paragraphs (g) through
(i) of this section under maximum
representative operating conditions for
the process. During the performance
test, you may operate the control device
at maximum or minimum representative
operating conditions for monitored
control device parameters, whichever
results in lower emission reduction.
Upon request, you must make available
to the Administrator such records as
may be necessary to determine the
conditions of performance tests.
(k) 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
E:\FR\FM\05JAR2.SGM
05JAR2
ER05JA12.001</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
ER05JA12.000</GPH>
582
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
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.
(l) If you own or operate a unit subject
to emission limits in Table 2 of this
subpart, you must minimize the unit’s
startup and shutdown periods following
the manufacturer’s recommended
procedures, if available. You must
develop and follow standard operating
procedures designed to minimize
emissions of total hydrocarbon for each
startup or shutdown scenario
anticipated. You must submit a signed
statement in the Notification of
Compliance Status report that indicates
that you conducted startups and
shutdowns according to the
manufacturer’s recommended
procedures, if available, and the
standard operating procedures designed
to minimize emissions of total
hydrocarbons.
(m) 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
from all automotive batteries prior to
introducing feed into a furnace.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
§ 63.544 What are my total enclosure
standards?
(a) You must operate the process
fugitive emissions sources and fugitive
dust sources listed in paragraphs (a)(1)
through (9) of this section in a total
enclosure that is maintained at negative
pressure at all times and vented to a
control device designed to capture lead
particulate. The total enclosure must
meet the requirements specified in
paragraph (c) 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 except those
listed in paragraph (b) of this section.
(9) Areas where dust from fabric
filters, sweepings or used fabric filters
are processed.
(b) Total enclosures are not required
in the following areas: lead ingot
product handling areas, stormwater and
wastewater treatment areas, intact
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:35 Jan 04, 2012
Jkt 226001
battery storage areas, areas where lead
bearing material is stored in closed
containers or enclosed mechanical
conveyors, and areas where clean
battery casing material is handled.
(c) You must construct and operate
total enclosures for the sources listed in
paragraph (a) of this section as specified
in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this
section. The total enclosure must be free
of significant cracks, gaps, corrosion or
other deterioration that could cause lead
bearing material to be released from the
primary barrier. Measures must be in
place to prevent the tracking of lead
bearing material out of the unit by
personnel or by equipment used in
handling the material. An area must be
designated to decontaminate equipment
and any rinsate must be collected and
properly managed.
(1) You must ventilate the total
enclosure continuously to ensure
negative pressure values of at least 0.013
mm of mercury (0.007 inches of water).
(2) You must maintain an inward flow
of air through all natural draft openings.
(d) You must inspect enclosures and
facility structures that contain any leadbearing materials at least once per
month. You must repair any gaps,
breaks, separations, leak points or other
possible routes for emissions of lead to
the atmosphere within one week of
identification unless you obtain
approval for an extension from the
Administrator before the repair period is
exceeded.
§ 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 (7) of this section.
(1) Plant roadways.
(2) Plant buildings.
(3) Accidental releases.
(4) Battery storage area.
(5) Equipment maintenance.
(6) Material storage areas.
(7) Material handling areas.
(b) You must submit the standard
operating procedures manual to the
Administrator or delegated authority for
review and approval when initially
developed and any time changes are
made.
(c) The controls specified in the
standard operating procedures manual
must at a minimum include the
requirements specified in paragraphs
(c)(1) through (7) of this section.
(1) Cleaning. Where a cleaning
practice is specified, you must clean by
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
583
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. Limited access and limited
use roadways such as unpaved roads to
remote locations on the property may be
exempt from this requirement if they are
used infrequently (no more than one
round trip per day).
(3) Accidental releases. You must
initiate cleaning of all affected areas
within one hour after detection of any
accidental release of lead dust that
exceeds 10 pounds (the Comprehensive
Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA) reportable quantity for lead at
40 CFR 302.4).
(4) Battery storage areas. You must
inspect any batteries that are not stored
in a total enclosure once each week and
move any broken batteries to an
enclosure within 72 hours of
identification. You must clean residue
from broken batteries within 72 hours of
identification.
(5) 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.
(6) Equipment maintenance. You
must perform all maintenance activities
that could generate lead dust in a
manner that minimizes emissions of
fugitive dust. This must include one or
more of the following:
(i) Performing maintenance inside a
total permanent enclosure maintained at
negative pressure.
(ii) Performing maintenance inside a
temporary enclosure and use a vacuum
system either equipped with a filter
rated by the manufacturer to achieve a
capture efficiency of 99.97 percent for
0.3 micron particles or routed to an
existing control device permitted for
this activity.
(iii) Performing maintenance inside a
partial enclosure and use of wet
suppression sufficient to prevent dust
formation.
(iv) Decontamination of equipment
prior to removal from an enclosure.
(v) Immediate repair of ductwork or
structure leaks without an enclosure if
the time to construct a temporary
E:\FR\FM\05JAR2.SGM
05JAR2
584
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
§ 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 January 6, 2014.
(b) For affected sources that
commenced construction or
reconstruction after May 19, 2011, you
must demonstrate compliance with the
requirements of this subpart by January
5, 2012 or upon startup of operations,
whichever is later.
§ 63.547
Test methods.
(a) You must use the test methods
from appendix A of part 60 as listed in
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:35 Jan 04, 2012
Jkt 226001
paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) of this
section to determine compliance with
the emissions standards for lead
compounds specified in § 63.543(a) and
(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 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 12 or 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 (4) of this
section, as specified, to determine
compliance with the emissions
standards for total hydrocarbons
specified in § 63.543(c) through (f).
(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 1hour 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 (3) of this
section.
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
(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.
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 (5) of this
section, as specified, to determine
compliance with the emissions
standards for dioxins and furans
specified in § 63.543(c).
(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 (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.
E:\FR\FM\05JAR2.SGM
05JAR2
ER05JA12.002</GPH>
enclosure would exceed the time to
make a temporary or permanent repair,
or if construction of an enclosure would
cause a higher level of emissions than
if an enclosure were not constructed.
(vi) Activities required for inspection
of fabric filters and maintenance of
filters that are in need of removal and
replacement are not required to be
conducted inside of total enclosures.
Used fabric filters must be placed in
sealed plastic bags or containers prior to
removal from a baghouse.
(7) Material transport. You must
collect and transport all lead bearing
dust (i.e. lead bearing material which is
a dust) within closed conveyor systems
or in sealed, leak-proof containers
unless the collection and transport
activities are contained within a total
enclosure. All other lead bearing
material must be contained and covered
for transport outside of a total enclosure
in a manner that prevents spillage or
dust formation. Intact batteries and lead
ingot product are exempt from the
requirement to be covered for transport.
(d) Your standard operating
procedures manual must specify that
records be maintained of all pavement
cleaning, vehicle washing, 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,
limited access and limited use
roadways).
(f) As provided in § 63.6(g), as an
alternative to the requirements specified
in 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
this section.
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.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
§ 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 §§ 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 (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.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:35 Jan 04, 2012
Jkt 226001
(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 shakertype 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) Except as provided in paragraphs
(g) and (h) of this section, continuous
operation of a bag leak detection system,
unless a system meeting the
requirements of paragraph (m) of this
section for a continuous emissions
monitoring system is installed for
monitoring the concentration of lead.
(d) The procedures you specify 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 (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.
(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, see § 63.14) and the
manufacturer’s written specifications
and recommendations for installation,
operation, and adjustment of the system.
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
585
(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 (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.
E:\FR\FM\05JAR2.SGM
05JAR2
ER05JA12.003</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
586
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
(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) Baghouses equipped with high
efficiency particulate air (or HEPA)
filters as a secondary filter used to
control emissions from any source
subject to the lead emission standards in
§ 65.543(a) or (b), are exempt from the
requirement to be equipped with a bag
leak detection system. You must
monitor and record the pressure drop
across each HEPA filter system daily. If
the pressure drop is outside the limit(s)
specified by the filter manufacturer, you
must take appropriate corrective
measures, which may include but not be
limited to those given in paragraphs
(g)(1) through (4) of this section.
(1) Inspecting the filter and filter
housing for air leaks and torn or broken
filters.
(2) Replacing defective filter media, or
otherwise repairing the control device.
(3) Sealing off a defective control
device by routing air to other control
devices
(4) Shutting down the process
producing the particulate emissions.
(h) Baghouses followed by a wet
electrostatic precipitator used as a
secondary control device for any source
subject to the lead emission standards in
§ 63.543(a) or (b), are exempt from the
requirement to be equipped with a bag
leak detection system.
(i) If you use a wet scrubber to control
particulate matter and metal hazardous
air pollutant emissions from a process
vent 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
§ 63.543(a) or (b). 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.
(j) You must comply with the
requirements specified in paragraphs
(j)(1) through (4) of this section to
demonstrate continuous compliance
with the total hydrocarbons and dioxins
and furans emissions standards. During
periods of startup and shutdown, the
requirements of paragraph (j)(4) of this
section do not apply. Instead, you must
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:35 Jan 04, 2012
Jkt 226001
demonstrate compliance with the
standard for total hydrocarbon by
meeting the requirements of § 63.543(l).
(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 § 63.8.
(2) Prior to or in conjunction with the
initial performance or compliance test
to determine compliance with
§ 63.543(c), you must conduct a
performance evaluation for the
temperature monitoring device
according to § 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
(j)(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 (j)(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
°Celsius (50 °Fahrenheit) below the
average established in paragraph (j)(3) of
this section.
(k) You must install, operate, and
maintain a digital differential pressure
monitoring system to continuously
monitor each total enclosure as
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
described in paragraphs (k)(1) through
(5) 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
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
millimeters mercury (0.005 to 0.11
inches of water) with a minimum
accuracy of plus or minus 0.001
millimeters of 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.
(l) Except as provided in paragraphs
(l)(2) or (3) of this section, all new or
reconstructed sources subject to the
requirements under § 63.543 must
install, calibrate, maintain, and operate
a CEMS for measuring lead emissions.
In addition to the General Provisions
requirements for CEMS in § 63.8(c) that
are referenced in Table 1 to this subpart,
you must comply with the requirements
for CEMS specified in paragraph (m) of
this section.
(1) Sources subject to the emissions
limits for lead compounds under
§ 63.543(b) must install a CEMS for
measuring lead emissions within 180
days of promulgation by the EPA of
performance specifications for lead
CEMS.
(2) Prior to 180 days after the EPA
promulgates performance specifications
E:\FR\FM\05JAR2.SGM
05JAR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
for CEMS used to measure lead
concentrations, you must use the
procedure described in § 63.543(g)(1) to
determine compliance.
(3) Vents from control devices that
serve only to control emissions from
buildings containing lead bearing
materials are exempt from the
requirement to install a CEMS for
measuring lead emissions.
(m) If a CEMS is used to measure lead
emissions, you must install a
continuous emissions 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
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
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 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 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) If you have a CEMS to measure
lead emissions, you must calculate the
average lead concentration and flow rate
monthly to determine compliance with
§ 63.543(a).
(6) When the continuous emissions
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.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:35 Jan 04, 2012
Jkt 226001
(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.
§ 63.549
Notification requirements.
(a) You must comply with all of the
notification requirements of § 63.9.
Electronic notifications are encouraged
if suitable for the specific case (e.g., by
electronic media such as Excel
spreadsheet, on CD or hard copy), and
when required by this subpart.
(b) You must submit the fugitive dust
control standard operating procedures
manual required under § 63.545(a) and
the standard operating procedures
manual for baghouses required under
§ 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 January 7,
2013. For sources that commenced
construction or reconstruction after
January 5, 2012, you must submit this
notification no later than 180 days
before startup of the constructed or
reconstructed secondary lead smelter,
but no sooner than January 5, 2012. For
an affected source that has received a
construction permit from the
Administrator or delegated authority on
or before January 5, 2012, you must
submit this notification no later than
January 7, 2014.
§ 63.550 Recordkeeping and reporting
requirements.
(a) You must comply with all of the
recordkeeping and reporting
requirements specified in § 63.10 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
§ 63.10(b)(1). However, electronic
recordkeeping and reporting if suitable
for the specific case (e.g., by electronic
media such as Excel spreadsheet, on CD
or hard copy), and when required by
this subpart.
(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 § 63.10(b)(1).
(b) The standard operating procedures
manuals required in §§ 63.545(a) and
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 (13) of this
section.
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
587
(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
§ 63.548(c) as part of the practices
described in the standard operating
procedures manual for baghouses
required under § 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
§ 63.548(i).
(5) Electronic records of the output
from the continuous temperature
monitor required in § 63.548(j)(1), and
an identification of periods when the 3hour average temperature fell below the
minimum established under
§ 63.548(j)(4), and an explanation of the
corrective actions taken.
(6) Electronic records of the
continuous pressure monitors for total
enclosures required in § 63.548(k), and
an identification of periods when the
pressure was not maintained as required
in § 63.544(c)(1).
(7) Records of any time periods power
was lost to the continuous pressure
monitors for total enclosures required in
§ 63.548(k) and records of loss of power
to the air handling system maintaining
negative pressure on total enclosures.
(8) Records of the inspections of
facility enclosures required in
§ 63.544(d).
(9) Records of all cleaning and
inspections required as part of the
practices described in the standard
operating procedures manual required
under § 63.545(a) for the control of
fugitive dust emissions.
(10) Electronic records of the output
of any CEMS installed to monitor lead
emissions meeting the requirements of
§ 63.548(m).
(11) Records of the occurrence and
duration of each malfunction of
operation (i.e., process equipment) or
the air pollution control equipment and
monitoring equipment.
(12) Records of actions taken during
periods of malfunction to minimize
emissions in accordance with
§ 63.543(k), including corrective actions
to restore malfunctioning process and
air pollution control and monitoring
equipment to its normal or usual
manner of operation.
E:\FR\FM\05JAR2.SGM
05JAR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
588
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
(13) Records of any periods of startup
or shutdown of a furnace and actions
taken to minimize emissions during that
period in accordance with § 63.543(l).
(d) You must comply with all of the
reporting requirements specified in
§ 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
§ 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 § 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 § 63.10, you must include in the
reports required under paragraph (d) of
this section the information specified in
paragraphs (e)(1) through (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 § 63.543(a),
except during the first year when the
concentration is calculated using the
method described in § 63.543(a)(2).
(2) Records of the concentration of
total hydrocarbon and dioxins and
furans in each process vent that has
established limits for total hydrocarbon
and dioxins and furans as required in
§ 63.543(c).
(3) Records of all periods when
monitoring using a CEMS for lead or
total hydrocarbon was not in
compliance with applicable limits.
(4) Records of all alarms from the bag
leak detection system specified in
§ 63.548.
(5) A description of the procedures
taken following each bag leak detection
system alarm pursuant to § 63.548(f)(1)
and (2).
(6) A summary of the records
maintained as part of the practices
described in the standard operating
procedures manual for baghouses
required under § 63.548(a), including an
explanation of the periods when the
procedures were not followed and the
corrective actions taken.
(7) 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 § 63.548(i), and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:35 Jan 04, 2012
Jkt 226001
an explanation of the corrective actions
taken.
(8) Records of the temperature
monitor output, in 3-hour block
averages, for those periods when the
temperature monitored pursuant to
§ 63.548(j) fell below the level
established in § 63.548(j)(4).
(9) Certification that the plastic
separation process for battery breakers
required in § 63.543(m) was operated at
all times the battery breaker was in
service.
(10) Records of periods when the
pressure was not maintained as required
in § 63.544(c) or power was lost to the
continuous pressure monitoring system
as required in § 63.548(k).
(11) 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 during a malfunction of an
affected source to minimize emissions
in accordance with § 63.543(k),
including actions taken to correct a
malfunction.
(12) 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 § 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 § 63.545(a).
(13) Records of any periods of startup
or shutdown of a furnace including an
explanation of the periods when the
procedures required in § 63.543(l) were
not followed and the corrective actions
taken.
(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
§ 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
https://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ert_
tool.html/). Only data collected using
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
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 § 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 paragraph (e)(14)(i) and (ii) of this
section must be sent to the
Administrator at the appropriate
address listed in § 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
paragraph (e)(14)(i) and (ii) of this
section in paper format.
§ 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 (4) of this section.
E:\FR\FM\05JAR2.SGM
05JAR2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
(1) Approval of alternatives to the
requirements in §§ 63.541, 63.543
through 63.544, § 63.545, and § 63.546.
(2) Approval of major alternatives to
test methods under § 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and
(f), as defined in § 63.90, and as required
in this subpart.
(3) Approval of major alternatives to
monitoring under § 63.8(f), as defined in
§ 63.90, and as required in this subpart.
(4) Approval of major alternatives to
recordkeeping and reporting under
§ 63.10(f), as defined in § 63.90, and as
required in this subpart.
§ 63.552 Affirmative defense to civil
penalties 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 § 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
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
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Reference
Applies to subpart X
63.1 ...................................................................................
63.2 ...................................................................................
63.3 ...................................................................................
63.4 ...................................................................................
63.5 ...................................................................................
63.6(a), (b), (c) .................................................................
63.6(d) ..............................................................................
63.6(e)(1)(i) .......................................................................
63.6(e)(1)(ii) ......................................................................
63.6(e)(1)(iii) .....................................................................
63.6(e)(2) ..........................................................................
63.6(e)(3) ..........................................................................
63.6(f)(1) ...........................................................................
63.6(g) ..............................................................................
63.6(h) ..............................................................................
63.6(i) ...............................................................................
63.6(j) ...............................................................................
63.7(a)–(d) ........................................................................
63.7(e)(1) ..........................................................................
63.7(e)(2)–(e)(4) ...............................................................
63.7(f), (g), (h) ..................................................................
63.8(a)–(b) ........................................................................
63.8(c)(1)(i) .......................................................................
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
No. ......................................
No. ......................................
No.
Yes.
No. ......................................
No.
No.
Yes.
No. ......................................
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
No. ......................................
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
No. ......................................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:35 Jan 04, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
589
Comment
Section reserved.
See 63.543(k) for general duty requirement.
Section reserved.
No opacity limits in rule.
See 63.543(j).
See 63.543(k) for general duty requirement.
E:\FR\FM\05JAR2.SGM
05JAR2
590
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 1 TO SUBPART X OF PART 63—GENERAL PROVISIONS APPLICABILITY TO SUBPART X—Continued
Reference
Applies to subpart X
63.8(c)(1)(ii) ......................................................................
63.8(c)(1)(iii) .....................................................................
63.8(c)(2)–(d)(2) ...............................................................
63.8(d)(3) ..........................................................................
Yes.
No. ......................................
Yes.
Yes, except for last sentence.
Yes.
Yes.
63.8(e)–(g) ........................................................................
63.9(a), (b), (c), (e), (g), (h)(1)through (3), (h)(5) and (6),
(i) and (j).
63.9(f) ...............................................................................
63.9(h)(4) ..........................................................................
63.10 (a) ...........................................................................
63.10 (b)(1) .......................................................................
63.10(b)(2)(i) .....................................................................
63.10(b)(2)(ii) ....................................................................
Comment
No.
No. ......................................
Yes.
Yes.
No.
No. ......................................
63.10(b)(2)(iii) ...................................................................
63.10(b)(2)(iv)–(b)(2)(v) ....................................................
63.10(b)(2)(vi)–(b)(2)(xiv) .................................................
63.(10)(b)(3) .....................................................................
63.10(c)(1)–(9) ..................................................................
63.10(c)(10)–(11) ..............................................................
63.10(c)(12)–(c)(14) .........................................................
63.10(c)(15) ......................................................................
63.10(d)(1)–(4) .................................................................
63.10(d)(5) ........................................................................
63.10(e)–(f) .......................................................................
63.11 .................................................................................
Yes.
No.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
No. ......................................
Yes.
No.
Yes.
No. ......................................
Yes.
No. ......................................
63.12 to 63.15 ..................................................................
Reserved.
See 63.550 for recordkeeping of occurrence and duration of malfunctions and recordkeeping of actions
taken during malfunction.
Yes.
See 63.550 for recordkeeping of malfunctions.
See 63.550(e)(11) for reporting of malfunctions.
Flares will not be used to comply with the emission limits.
TABLE 2 TO SUBPART X OF PART 63—EMISSIONS LIMITS FOR SECONDARY LEAD SMELTING FURNACES
You must meet the following emissions limits . . . a
Dioxin and furan (dioxins and
furans) nanograms/dscm
expressed as TEQ corrected to
7 percent O2
For vents from these processes . . .
Total hydrocarbon ppm by volume
expressed as propane corrected to
4 percent carbon dioxide
Collocated blast and reverberatory furnaces (new and existing) ...........
Collocated blast and reverberatory furnaces when the reverberatory
furnace is not operating for units that comments construction or reconstruction before June 9, 1994.
Collocated blast and reverberatory furnaces when the reverberatory
furnace is not operating for units that commence construction or reconstruction after June 9, 1994.
Blast furnaces that commence construction or reconstruction before
June 9, 1994.
Blast furnaces that commence construction or reconstruction after
June 9, 1994.
Blast furnaces that commence construction or reconstruction after May
19, 2011.
Reverberatory and electric furnaces that commence construction or reconstruction before May 19, 2011.
Reverberatory and electric furnaces that commence construction or reconstruction after May 19, 2011.
20 ppmv .........................................
360 ppmv .......................................
0.50 ng/dscm.
170 ng/dscm.
70 ppmv .........................................
170 ng/dscm.
360 ppmv .......................................
170 ng/dscm.
70 ppmv .........................................
170 ng/dscm.
70 ppmv .........................................
10 ng/dscm.
12 ppmv .........................................
0.20 ng/dscm.
12 ppmv .........................................
0.10 ng/dscm.
a There
are no standards for dioxins and furans during periods of startup and shutdown.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
TABLE 3 TO SUBPART X OF PART 63—TOXIC EQUIVALENCY FACTORS
Toxic equivalency factor
Dioxin/furan congener
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin ............................................................................................................................................
1,2,3,7,8-pentachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin ........................................................................................................................................
1,2,3,4,7,8-hexachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin ......................................................................................................................................
1,2,3,7,8,9-hexachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin ......................................................................................................................................
1,2,3,6,7,8-hexachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin ......................................................................................................................................
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-heptachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin ..................................................................................................................................
octachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin .........................................................................................................................................................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:35 Jan 04, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\05JAR2.SGM
05JAR2
1
0.5
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.01
0.001
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
591
TABLE 3 TO SUBPART X OF PART 63—TOXIC EQUIVALENCY FACTORS—Continued
Toxic equivalency factor
Dioxin/furan congener
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorinated dibenzofuran ..................................................................................................................................................
2,3,4,7,8-pentachlorinated dibenzofuran .............................................................................................................................................
1,2,3,7,8-pentachlorinated dibenzofuran .............................................................................................................................................
1,2,3,4,7,8-hexachlorinated dibenzofuran ...........................................................................................................................................
1,2,3,6,7,8-hexachlorinated dibenzofuran ...........................................................................................................................................
1,2,3,7,8,9-hexachlorinated dibenzofuran ...........................................................................................................................................
[FR Doc. 2011–32933 Filed 1–4–12; 8:45 am]
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:35 Jan 04, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
E:\FR\FM\05JAR2.SGM
05JAR2
0.1
0.05
0.5
0.1
0.1
0.1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 3 (Thursday, January 5, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 556-591]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-32933]
[[Page 555]]
Vol. 77
Thursday,
No. 3
January 5, 2012
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 63
National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From
Secondary Lead Smelting; Final Rules
Federal Register / Vol. 77 , No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 2012 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 556]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344; FRL-9610-9]
RIN 2060-AQ68
National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From
Secondary Lead Smelting
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action finalizes the residual risk and technology review
conducted for the secondary lead smelting source category regulated
under national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants. These
final amendments include revisions to the emissions limits for lead
compounds; revisions to the standards for fugitive emissions; the
addition of total hydrocarbon and dioxin and furan emissions limits for
reverberatory and electric furnaces; the addition of a work practice
standard for mercury emissions; the modification and addition of
testing and monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements;
related notifications; and revisions to the regulatory provisions
related to emissions during periods of startup, shutdown, and
malfunction.
DATES: This final action is effective on January 5, 2012. The
incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the rule
is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of January 5,
2012.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344. All documents in the docket are
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
confidential business information (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 form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically through https://www.regulations.gov, or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, EPA West
Building, Room Number 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC.
The Public Reading Room hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
Eastern Standard Time (EST), Monday through Friday. The telephone
number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone
number for the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center is (202)
566-1742.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this final action,
contact Mr. Nathan Topham, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number:
(919) 541-0483; fax number: (919) 541-3207; and email address:
topham.nathan@epa.gov. For additional contact information, see the
following SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For specific information regarding the risk
assessment and exposure modeling methodology, contact Dr. Michael
Stewart, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Health and
Environmental Impacts Division, Air Toxics Assessment Group (C504-06),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711;
telephone number: (919) 541-7524; fax number: (919) 541-0840; and email
address: stewart.michael@epa.gov. For information about the
applicability of this NESHAP to a particular entity, contact the
appropriate person listed in Table 1 to this preamble.
Table 1--List of EPA Contacts for the NESHAP Addressed in This Action
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NESHAP for OECA contact \a\ OAQPS contact \b\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Secondary Lead Smelting..... Maria Malave, (202) 564-7027, Nathan Topham, (919) 541-0483,
malave.maria@epa.gov. topham.nathan@epa.gov.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance.
\b\ EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
Acronyms and Abbreviations. The following acronyms and
abbreviations are used in this document.
CAA Clean Air Act
CBI confidential business information
CDX Central Data Exchange
CEMS continuous emission monitoring system
CPMS continuous parameter monitoring system
D/F dioxins and furans
ERT Electronic Reporting Tool
HAP hazardous air pollutants
HQ hazard quotient
ICR information collection request
lbs/yr pounds per year
MACT maximum achievable control technology
MIR maximum individual risk
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NESHAP National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
ng/dscm nanograms per dry standard cubic meter
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OP Office of Policy
ppbv parts per billion by volume
ppbw parts per billion by weight
ppmv parts per million by volume
ppmw parts per million by weight
REL recommended exposure limit
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis
RIN Regulatory Information Number
RTR Risk and Technology Review
SRF short rotary furnace
TEF toxic equivalency factor
TEQ toxic equivalency quotient
THC total hydrocarbons
TTN Technology Transfer Network
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
UPL upper prediction limit
WWW World Wide Web
Background Information Document. On May 19, 2011 (76 FR 29032), the
EPA proposed revisions to the Secondary Lead Smelting NESHAP based on
evaluations performed by the EPA in order to conduct our risk and
technology review. In this action, we are finalizing decisions and
revisions for the rule. Some of the significant comments and our
responses are summarized in this preamble. A summary of the public
comments on the proposal not presented in the preamble, and the EPA's
responses to those comments, is available in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2011-0344. A tracked changes version of the regulatory language that
incorporates the changes in this action is available in the docket.
Organization of This Document. The following outline is provided to
aid in locating information in the preamble.
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
B. What is the affected source?
C. Where can I get a copy of this document?
[[Page 557]]
D. Judicial Review
II. Background
III. Summary of the Final Rule
A. What are the final rule amendments for the Secondary Lead
Smelting source category?
B. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards?
C. What are the requirements for submission of performance test
data to the EPA?
IV. Summary of Significant Changes Since Proposal
A. Changes to the Risk Assessment Performed Under CAA Section
112(f)
B. Changes to the Technology Review Performed Under CAA Section
112(d)(6)
C. Other Changes Since Proposal
V. Summary of Significant Comments and Responses
A. Use of Lead Primary NAAQS as a Measure of Acceptability of
Risk for Public Health
B. Total Enclosure Requirements
C. Work Practice Standard Requirements
D. Emission Standards for Organic HAP From Rotary Furnaces
E. The EPA's Risk Assessment Supporting the Proposed Rule
F. Miscellaneous Changes to the Regulatory Text
G. Emission Testing Methods and Frequency
H. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction
VI. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts
A. What are the affected facilities?
B. What are the air quality impacts?
C. What are the cost impacts?
D. What are the economic impacts?
E. What are the benefits?
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Orders 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
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
K. Congressional Review Act
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
Regulated Entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated
by this action are shown in Table 2 of this preamble.
Table 2--NESHAP and Industrial Source Categories Affected by This Final
Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NAICS \a\ MACT \b\
NESHAP and source category Code Code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Secondary Lead Smelting........................... 331492 0205
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ North American Industry Classification System.
\b\ Maximum Achievable Control Technology.
Table 2 of this preamble is not intended to be exhaustive, but
rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be
affected by the final action for the source category listed. To
determine whether your facility would be affected, you should examine
the applicability criteria in the appropriate NESHAP. As defined in the
source category listing report published by the 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.\1\ For clarification purposes, all reference to lead emissions
in this preamble means ``lead compounds'' (which is a hazardous air
pollutant) and all reference to lead production means elemental lead
(which is not a hazardous air pollutant) as provided under CAA section
112(b)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ USEPA. Documentation for Developing the Initial Source
Category List--Final Report, USEPA/OAQPS, EPA-450/3-91-030, July,
1992.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have any questions regarding the applicability of any aspect
of this NESHAP, please contact the appropriate person listed in Table 1
of this preamble in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
B. What is the affected source?
The final rule applies to owners and operators of secondary lead
smelters. The affected source for this subpart is any of the following
sources at a secondary lead smelter: Blast, reverberatory, rotary, and
electric furnaces; refining kettles; agglomerating furnaces; dryers;
process fugitive emissions sources; buildings containing lead bearing
materials; and fugitive dust sources. A new affected source is any
affected source at a secondary lead smelting facility of which the
construction or reconstruction commenced after May 19, 2011. If
components of an existing affected source are replaced such that the
replacement meets the definition of reconstruction in 40 CFR 63.2 and
the reconstruction commenced on or after May 19, 2011, then the
existing source becomes a reconstructed source and is subject to the
relevant standards for a new affected source. The reconstructed source
must comply with the requirements for a new affected source upon
initial startup of the reconstructed source, or by March 5, 2012,
whichever is later.
C. Where can I get a copy of this document?
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this final action will also be available on the World Wide Web through
the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, a copy of
the final action will be posted on the TTN's policy and guidance page
for newly proposed and promulgated rules at the following address:
https://www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/new.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 https://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. This information includes source category descriptions and
detailed emissions and other data that were used as inputs to the risk
assessments.
D. Judicial Review
Under CAA section 307(b)(1), judicial review of this final action
is available only by filing a petition for review in the United States
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by March 5, 2012.
Under CAA section 307(b)(2), the requirements established by this final
rule may not be challenged separately in any civil or criminal
proceedings brought by the EPA to enforce the requirements.
Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that ``[o]nly an
objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable
specificity during the period for public comment (including any public
hearing) may be raised during judicial review.'' This section also
provides a mechanism for us to convene a proceeding for
reconsideration, ``[i]f the person raising an objection can demonstrate
to the EPA that it was impracticable to raise such objection within
[the period for public comment] or if the grounds for such objection
arose after the period for public comment (but within the time
specified for judicial review) and if such objection is of central
relevance to the outcome of the rule.'' Any person seeking to make such
a demonstration to us should submit a Petition for Reconsideration to
the Office of the Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000, Ariel Rios
Building, 1200 Pennsylvania
[[Page 558]]
Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the person(s)
listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, and
the Associate General Counsel for the Air and Radiation Law Office,
Office of General Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460.
II. Background
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 the EPA has identified categories of
sources emitting one or more of the HAP listed in CAA section 112(b),
section 112(d) calls for us to promulgate NESHAP for those sources.
``Major sources'' are those that emit, or have the potential to emit,
any single HAP at a rate of 10 tons per year (tpy) or more, or 25 tpy
or more of any combination of HAP. For major sources, these technology-
based standards must reflect the maximum degree of emission 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.
For MACT standards, the statute specifies certain minimum
stringency requirements, which are referred to as floor requirements
and may not be based on cost considerations. See CAA section 112(d)(3).
For new sources, the MACT floor cannot be less stringent than the
emission control that is achieved in practice by the best controlled
similar source. The MACT standards for existing sources can be less
stringent than floors for new sources, but they cannot be less
stringent than the average emission 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, we must
also consider control options that are more stringent than the floor,
under CAA section 112(d)(2). We may establish standards more stringent
than the floor, based on the consideration of the cost of achieving the
emissions reductions, any non-air quality health and environmental
impacts, and energy requirements. In promulgating MACT standards, CAA
section 112(d)(2) directs us to consider the application of measures,
processes, methods, systems, or techniques that reduce the volume of or
eliminate HAP emissions through process changes, substitution of
materials, or other modifications; enclose systems or processes to
eliminate emissions; collect, capture, or treat HAP when released from
a process, stack, storage, or fugitive emissions point; and/or are
design, equipment, work practice, or operational standards.
In the second stage of the regulatory process, we undertake two
different analyses, as required by the CAA: section 112(d)(6) of the
CAA calls for us to review these technology-based standards and to
revise them ``as necessary (taking into account developments in
practices, processes, and control technologies)'' no less frequently
than every 8 years; and within 8 years after promulgation of the
technology standards, CAA section 112(f) calls for us to evaluate the
risk to public health remaining after application of the technology-
based standards and to revise the standards, if necessary, to provide
an ample margin of safety to protect public health or to prevent,
taking into consideration costs, energy, safety, and other relevant
factors, an adverse environmental effect. In doing so, the EPA may
adopt standards equal to existing MACT standards if the EPA determines
that the existing standards are sufficiently protective. NRDC v. EPA,
529 F.3d 1077, 1083 (DC Cir. 2008).
On May 19, 2011, the EPA published a proposed rule in the Federal
Register for the Secondary Lead Smelting NESHAP, 40 CFR part 63,
subpart X that took into consideration the residual risk and technology
review (RTR) analyses. Today's action provides the EPA's final
determinations pursuant to the RTR provisions of CAA section 112 for
the Secondary Lead Smelting source category, and also promulgates
first-time standards under section 112 (d)(2) (MACT) for certain
hazardous air pollutants emitted by secondary lead smelters.
Specifically, we are taking the following actions:
Revising some requirements of the NESHAP related to
control of metal HAP emissions based on our risk assessment and
technology reviews.
Finalizing first-time total hydrocarbon (THC) and
dioxin and furan (D/F) emissions limits and a plastic separation
work practice standard to prevent dioxin formation.
Finalizing work practice standards for mercury.
Revising the requirements in the NESHAP related to
emissions during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction
(SSM).
Incorporating the use of plain language into the rule.
Addressing technical and editorial corrections in the
rule.
III. Summary of the Final Rule
A. What are the final rule amendments for the Secondary Lead Smelting
source category?
EPA promulgated the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutant Emissions: Secondary Lead Smelting on June 13, 1997 (62 FR
32216). The standards are codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart X. The
secondary lead smelting industry consists of facilities that recycle
lead-bearing scrap material, typically lead acid batteries, into
elemental lead or lead alloys. The source category covered by this MACT
standard currently includes 16 facilities, including one facility that
is not currently operating and one facility that is in the process of
being constructed.
This section describes the final amendments to the secondary lead
smelting NESHAP.\2\ These revisions include changes to the stack and
fugitive metal HAP emission standards, the addition of new THC and D/F
emission limits, the addition of a work practice standard to separate
plastics from automotive batteries to prevent dioxin emissions, the
addition of work practice standards to minimize mercury emissions, and
changes to the requirements that apply during periods of startup,
shutdown, and malfunction. In addition to these changes described
below, we are making minor changes to the regulatory text to correct
editorial errors and to make plain language revisions. We have
evaluated the cost, emissions reductions, energy implications and cost
effectiveness of all of the standards being promulgated in this final
rule and have determined that these measures are cost effective,
technically feasible and will provide the public with an ample margin
of safety from exposure to emissions from the secondary lead smelter
source category. See Cost Impacts of the Revised NESHAP for the
Secondary Lead Smelting Source Category, which is available in the
docket, for information on the costs and cost effectiveness of each of
the standards being promulgated in this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Note that the EPA is reprinting portions of the language
from the 1997 NESHAP here so the entire rule appears in one place,
for readers' convenience. The EPA is not amending, reopening or
otherwise reconsidering these reprinted portions of the 1997 rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Stack and Fugitive Metal HAP Emission Standards
For the reasons provided in Section IV.A of this preamble and in
the support documents in the docket, we have determined that the risks
associated with emissions from this source
[[Page 559]]
category are unacceptable primarily due to fugitive emissions of lead.
We have further determined that there have been developments in
practices, processes, and control technologies that warrant revisions
to the MACT standard (i.e., the standards promulgated pursuant to
section 112(d)(2) and (3)) for this source category. Therefore, to
satisfy the requirements of CAA sections 112(d)(6) and 112(f), we are
revising the MACT standard to include:
A facility wide, flow weighted average lead \3\ emissions
limit from stacks of 0.20 mg/dscm and an individual stack lead
emissions limit of 1.0 mg/dscm for each stack at existing sources. For
new sources, a lead emissions limit of 0.20 mg/dscm applies to each
individual stack at a modified or ``greenfield'' new facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Throughout this preamble, all references to lead emissions
means lead compounds as listed by Congress at section 112(b)(1) of
the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A requirement for the facility to operate sources of
fugitive lead emissions within total enclosures that are maintained
under negative pressure and vented to a control device. These sources
of fugitive emissions include the smelting furnaces, smelting furnace
charging areas, lead taps, slag taps, molds during tapping, battery
breakers, refining kettles, casting areas, dryers, material handling
areas, and areas where dust from fabric filters, sweepings or used
fabric filters are processed. The facilities are also required to adopt
a list of specified work practice standards to minimize fugitive
emissions.
2. Organic HAP Emissions Standards
To satisfy CAA sections 112(d)(2) and 112(d)(3), we are also
revising the MACT standard to include first-time D/F and THC emission
limits (with THC serving as a surrogate for non-dioxin organic HAP).
These emission limits are summarized in Table 3 of this preamble.
Table 3--Summary of New THC and D/F Emission Limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
D/F Emission THC Emission
Source type limit \a\ Limit \b\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
New and Existing Collocated Blast and 0.50 \c\ 20
Reverberatory Furnaces...............
Existing Blast Furnaces............... 170 \c\ 360
New Blast Furnaces.................... 10 \c\ 70
New and Existing Reverberatory and 1.0 12
Electric Furnaces....................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ ng/dscm on a TEQ basis, corrected to 7 percent O2.
\b\ ppmv as propane, corrected to 4 percent CO2.
\c\ Emission limit is unchanged from 1997 NESHAP.
3. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction
The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit vacated portions of two provisions in the 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 (2010). Specifically, the
Court vacated the SSM exemption contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40
CFR 63.6(h)(1), that was part of a regulation, commonly referred to as
the ``General Provisions Rule'', that the EPA promulgated under CAA
section 112. When incorporated into CAA section 112(d) regulations for
specific source categories, these two provisions exempted sources from
the requirement to comply with the otherwise applicable CAA section
112(d) emission standard during periods of SSM.
We have eliminated the SSM exemption for secondary lead smelting
facilities in this rule. Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, the EPA
has established standards in this rule for all periods of operation. We
have also revised Table 1 to subpart X (the General Provisions table)
in several respects. For example, we have eliminated that incorporation
of the General Provisions' requirement that the source develop an SSM
plan. We have also eliminated or revised certain recordkeeping and
reporting that related to the SSM exemption. The EPA has attempted to
ensure that we have not included in the regulatory language any
provisions that are inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant in the
absence of the SSM exemption.
In establishing the standards in this rule, the EPA has taken into
account startup and shutdown periods and, for the reasons explained
below, has established different standards for non-dioxin organic HAP
during those periods.
Information on periods of startup and shutdown in the industry
indicate that lead emissions during these periods do not increase
(consistent with our engineering judgment that lead emissions would not
increase during these periods because lead-bearing feed is not being
smelted during these periods). Furthermore, all lead-emitting processes
are controlled by either control devices or work practices and these
controls would not typically be affected by startup or shutdown.
Therefore, the EPA is not adopting separate lead-emission standards for
periods of startup and shutdown.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Since startup and shutdown refers to the smelting process,
and not to ancillary management activities, there are no startup and
shutdown standards for process fugitive emissions since startup and
shutdown do not occur for the activities generating such emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA has revised this final rule to require sources to meet a
work practice standard that requires the development of standard
operating procedures designed to minimize emissions of THC for each
start-up and shutdown scenario anticipated for all units subject to THC
limits. Temperature monitoring is the metric used to determine
continuous compliance with emission standards for THC. This metric is
inappropriate as a measure of the destruction efficiency of these
organic pollutants during periods of startup and shutdown.
The EPA is not including a standard for dioxins and furans during
periods of startup and shutdown. This is because dioxins and furans
will not be emitted during those periods. During startup and shutdown,
scrap feed materials (including chlorinated plastics and flame
retardants) that contain the precursors needed for dioxin formation are
not introduced into the smelter \5\ so there are no conditions that
could give rise to dioxin and furan emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ ``Shutdown'' is defined as a period ``when no lead bearing
materials are being fed to the furnace and smelting operations have
ceased * * *''. Section 63.542 (definition of ``shutdown'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA determined that it is not technically and economically
feasible for units subject to THC limits to perform stack testing for
this pollutant during periods of startup and shutdown due to technical
and economic
[[Page 560]]
impracticality associated with testing secondary lead smelting furnaces
during these periods. The furnaces are heated during periods of startup
through slow feeding of natural gas and small amounts of coke, with no
lead acid batteries fed to the furnace during these periods. Test crews
would have to be on-site prior to a period of startup or shutdown
occurring and may need to break up a single test over multiple startups
or shutdowns, the length of which could vary depending on the type of
secondary lead smelting furnace being tested, that would happen
infrequently to gather enough data to complete a three-run test. See
also section V.G of this preamble discussing these standards further.
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). The 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 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 emission limitation ``achieved'' by the best
performing 12 percent of sources in the category. There is nothing in
section 112 that directs the agency to consider malfunctions in
determining the level ``achieved'' by the best performing or best
controlled sources when setting emission standards. Moreover, while the
EPA accounts for variability in setting emissions standards consistent
with the section 112 case law, nothing in that case law requires the
agency to consider malfunctions as part of that analysis. Section 112
uses the concept of ``best controlled'' and ``best performing'' unit in
defining the level of stringency that 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. The EPA's
approach to malfunctions is consistent with CAA section 112 and is a
reasonable interpretation of the statute. In section 3.2.1 of the
separate response to comment document, we respond to comments that
emissions during malfunctions should be accounted for in assessing risk
pursuant to CAA section 112(f)(2).
In the event that a source fails to comply with the applicable CAA
section 112(d) standards as a result of a malfunction event, the 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.
The 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, the 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 emission standard. (See,
e.g., State Implementation Plans: Policy Regarding Excessive Emissions
During Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown (September 20, 1999); Policy
on Excess Emissions During Startup, Shutdown, Maintenance, and
Malfunctions (February 15, 1983).) The EPA is therefore adding to the
final rule an affirmative defense to civil penalties for exceedances of
emission 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 have added 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 63.552 (see 40 CFR 22.24). The criteria ensure that the
affirmative defense is available only where the event that causes an
exceedance of the emission 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 63.552 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 emission
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 22.27).
[[Page 561]]
The EPA is including an affirmative defense in the final rule in an
attempt to balance a tension, inherent in many types of air
regulations, to ensure adequate compliance while simultaneously
recognizing that despite the most diligent of efforts, emission limits
may be exceeded under circumstances beyond the control of the source.
The EPA must establish emission standards that ``limit the quantity,
rate, or concentration of emissions of air pollutants on a continuous
basis'' 42 U.S.C. 7602(k) (defining ``emission limitation and emission
standard''). See generally Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019, 1021 (DC
Cir. 2008). Thus, the EPA is required to ensure that section 112
emissions limitations are continuous. The affirmative defense for
malfunction events meets this requirement by ensuring that even where
there is a malfunction, the emission limitation is still enforceable
through injunctive relief. While ``continuous'' limitations, on the one
hand, are required, there is also case law indicating that in many
situations it is appropriate for the EPA to account for the practical
realities of technology. For example, in Essex Chemical v. Ruckelshaus,
486 F.2d 427, 433 (DC Cir. 1973), the DC Circuit acknowledged that in
setting standards under CAA section 111 ``variant provisions'' such as
provisions allowing for upsets during startup, shutdown and equipment
malfunction ``appear necessary to preserve the reasonableness of the
standards as a whole and that the record does not support the `never to
be exceeded' standard currently in force.'' See also, Portland Cement
Association v. Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 375 (DC Cir. 1973). Though
intervening case law such as Sierra Club v. EPA and the CAA 1977
amendments undermine the relevance of these cases today, they support
the EPA's view that a system that incorporates some level of
flexibility is reasonable. The affirmative defense simply provides for
a defense to civil penalties for excess emissions that are proven to be
beyond the control of the source. By incorporating an affirmative
defense, the EPA has formalized its approach to upset events. In a
Clean Water Act setting, the Ninth Circuit required this type of
formalized approach when regulating ``upsets beyond the control of the
permit holder.'' Marathon Oil Co. v. EPA, 564 F.2d 1253, 1272-73 (9th
Cir. 1977). But see Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1057-58
(DC Cir. 1978) (holding that an informal approach is adequate). The
affirmative defense provisions give the EPA the flexibility to both
ensure that its emission limitations are ``continuous'' as required by
42 U.S.C. 7602(k) and account for unplanned upsets and thus support the
reasonableness of the standard as a whole.
B. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards?
The revisions to the MACT standards being promulgated in this
action are effective on January 5, 2012. For the MACT standards being
addressed in this action, the compliance date for the revised SSM
requirements is the effective date of the standards, January 5, 2012.
The compliance date for existing sources for the revised stack lead
emission limit and the revised fugitive emission standard including the
requirement to adopt work practice standards and install total
enclosures for specified process fugitive emission sources, and for the
new D/F and THC emission limits, is 2 years from the effective date of
the standard, January 6, 2014. New sources must comply with the all of
the standards immediately upon the effective date of the standard,
January 5, 2012, or upon startup, whichever is later.
C. What are the requirements for submission of performance test data to
the EPA?
In this action, as a step to increase the ease and efficiency of
data submittal and improve data accessibility, the EPA is requiring the
electronic submittal of select performance test data. Specifically, the
EPA is requiring owners and operators of secondary lead smelting
facilities to submit electronic copies of performance test reports
required under 40 CFR 63.543 to the EPA's WebFIRE database. The WebFIRE
database was constructed to store performance test data for use in
developing emission factors. A description of the WebFIRE database is
available at https://cfpub.epa.gov/oarweb/index.cfm?action=fire.main.
The 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, emission factor
development, and annual emission rate determinations. In conducting
these required reviews, the EPA has found it ineffective and time
consuming, not only for us, but also for other regulatory agencies and
for 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.
One major advantage of submitting performance test data through the
Electronic Reporting Tool (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 benefit of submitting
these data to the 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 the 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 results in a reduced burden on
both affected facilities (in terms of reduced labor to respond to data
collection requests) and the EPA (in terms of preparing and
distributing data collection requests and assessing the results).
State, local, and tribal agencies can also benefit from a more
streamlined and accurate review of electronic data submitted to them.
The ERT allows for an electronic review process rather than a manual
data assessment making review and evaluation of the data and
calculations easier and more efficient.
As mentioned above, data entry will be through an electronic
emissions test report structure called the Electronic Reporting Tool or
ERT. The ERT will generate an electronic report which will be submitted
using the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI).
The submitted report is transmitted through the EPA's Central Data
Exchange (CDX) network for storage in the WebFIRE database making
submittal of data very straightforward and easy. A description of the
ERT can be found at https://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ and
CEDRI can be accessed through the CDX Web site (www.epa.gov/cdx).
The requirement to submit performance test data electronically to
the EPA does not create any additional performance testing and would
apply only to those performance tests conducted using test methods that
are 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 https://
[[Page 562]]
www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/. We believe that industry will
benefit from this new electronic data submittal requirement. Having
these data, the EPA will be able to develop improved emission factors,
make fewer information requests, and promulgate better regulations. The
information to be reported is already required for the existing test
methods and is necessary to evaluate the conformance to the test
method.
Finally, another benefit of submitting data to WebFIRE
electronically is that these data will greatly improve the overall
quality of the existing and new emission 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 emission factors are outdated or not representative
of a particular source category. With timely receipt and incorporation
of data from most performance tests, the EPA will be able to ensure
that emission 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 control activities, having an electronic database populated
with performance test data will save industry, state, local, tribal
agencies, and the EPA significant time, money, and effort while
improving the quality of emission inventories and, as a result, air
quality regulations.
IV. Summary of Significant Changes Since Proposal
A. Changes to the Risk Assessment Performed Under CAA Section 112(f)
In the proposed rulemaking, the EPA presented a number of options
for additional controls on the Secondary Lead Smelting source category.
In that notice, the EPA solicited comment on the proposed options as
well as on all of the analyses and data upon which the options were
based, including the risk methods and results presented in the draft
document: Residual Risk Assessment for the Secondary Lead Smelting
Source Category.
During the public comment period for the proposed rule, several
parties submitted comments and suggested revisions regarding the
emissions used for the risk assessment, and also submitted other
information relevant to the risk assessment (see docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-
2011-0344 for all public comments). After considering these
submissions, the EPA revised its analyses. Revised methods, model
inputs, and risk results are presented in the report: Residual Risk
Assessment for the Secondary Lead Smelting Source Category, which is
available in the docket for this rulemaking. In addition, a discussion
of the updated emissions information used in the final risk assessment
can be found in the memorandum titled: Development of the RTR Emissions
Dataset for the Secondary Lead Smelting Source Category, which can also
be found in the docket for this rulemaking.
Considering the updated emissions information received during the
public comment period for the proposed rule, our final risk analysis
estimates that the primary NAAQS for lead, used in this rule as a
measure of acceptable risk from air-borne lead emissions, could be
exceeded at 9 of 15 facilities based on actual emissions, largely due
to fugitive dust emissions (see Table 4). At these 9 facilities,
fugitive dust emissions account for about 94 to 99 percent of the
estimated 3-month maximum lead concentrations.\6\ Our analysis also
estimates that approximately 200 people live in areas around three of
these facilities where 3-month maximum lead concentrations are
estimated to be between one and three times above the lead NAAQS.
Allowable stack emissions of lead also resulted in modeled
concentrations exceeding the NAAQS, with modeled lead ambient air
levels as high as 8 and 10 times above the NAAQS. This analysis also
estimates that 3-month maximum lead concentrations from a secondary
lead smelter could be up to about 20 times the NAAQS for lead based on
actual emissions. The maximum lead exceedances at populated census
block centroids were between one and three times the NAAQS. There is
some uncertainty associated with the fugitive emissions estimates that
is derived from the uncertainty involved in determining the
housekeeping and enclosure factors. This uncertainty could have
important impacts on the estimated fugitive emissions and the resulting
modeled ambient concentration. For example, if the level of control
assumed through the use of full enclosure and robust housekeeping were
both increased from 75 percent to 85 percent, the estimated fugitive
emissions at the RSR facility would be about 43 pounds (roughly three
times lower than those estimated in this rule). If the level of control
assumed through the use of full enclosure and robust housekeeping were
both decreased from 75 percent to 65 percent, the estimated fugitive
emissions at the RSR facility would be about 240 pounds (roughly two
times higher than those estimated in this rule). As shown in this
example, changing the estimates of control efficiency achieved with
full enclosure and robust housekeeping practices by 10 percent each
could impact the resulting fugitive emission estimates for facilities
employing that level of control by two to three times. These estimates
could significantly impact the resulting risk estimates since most of
the impact of lead emissions was due to fugitive dust emissions. While
there are uncertainties associated with estimating fugitive emissions,
we conclude that the methodology used in this rulemaking provided
reasonable estimates of fugitive emissions for these sources. For
further details, see Development of the RTR Emissions Dataset for the
Secondary Lead Smelting Source Category, available in docket ID EPA-HQ-
OAR-2011-0344, which describes how we developed these fugitive
emissions estimates and provides a presentation of our estimates
compared to estimates submitted via the ICR and estimates reported to
the TRI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ For all facilities, the percent contribution of fugitive and
stack emissions to modeled ambient lead concentrations has only been
estimated for the model receptor representing the site of maximum
lead impact.
[[Page 563]]
Table 4--Secondary Lead Smelting Facility Modeled Maximum Ambient Lead Concentrations Considering Actual
Emissions a
[Rolling 3-month average values]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highest
modeled lead Concentration
Facility name City State concentration is X times
([mu]g/m\3\) the NAAQS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doe Run Company-Buick Mill........... Boss.................... MO 2.36 20
Sanders Lead Co...................... Troy.................... AL 2.16 10
Exide Corporation.................... Vernon.................. CA 1.14 8
Battery Recycling Co................. Arecibo................. PR 0.76 5
Gulf Coast Recycling, Inc............ Tampa................... FL 0.38 3
Exide Technologies-Canon Hollow Plant Forest City............. MO 0.47 3
Gopher Resource Corp................. Eagan................... MN 0.35 2
Frisco Battery Recycling............. Frisco.................. TX 0.23 2
Exide Tech/Reading Smelter........... Reading................. PA 0.25 2
Quemetco, Inc........................ Industry................ CA 0.17 1
Exide Technologies................... Muncie.................. IN 0.15 1
Exide Technologies/B R Smelter....... Baton Rouge............. LA 0.14 1
Revere Smelting & Refining Corp...... Middletown.............. NY 0.10 0.7
Quemetco, Inc........................ Indianapolis............ IN 0.07 0.5
East Penn Mfg. Co Inc/Smelter Plt.... Lyon Station............ PA 0.02 0.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Values of 1 or less in the last column indicate that modeled lead concentrations are at or below the NAAQS
for lead.
We also note that there were changes to our cancer, acute, and PB-
HAP multipathway case study analyses (see section 3.4 of the risk
assessment document) for non-lead HAP as a result of the updated risk
assessment performed for the final rule. With respect to our updated
cancer risk assessment, we estimate that the maximum individual risk
(MIR) of cancer due to actual emissions is 50 in a million
predominantly due to fugitive dust emissions of arsenic and cadmium as
compared to the analysis at proposal of risk of 50 in a million but
based on a different secondary lead facility. Moreover, approximately
700 people were estimated to have cancer risks above 10 in a million
and approximately 80,000 people were estimated to have cancer risks
above 1 in a million considering all facilities in this source category
(as compared to the analysis at proposal of 1,500 above 10 in a million
and 128,000 above 1 in a million). In addition, the MIR due to MACT
allowable emissions remains 200 in a million predominantly from stack
emissions of arsenic. The updated worst-case acute hazard quotient (HQ)
value is 20 at two facilities (based on the REL for arsenic; the REL is
the only available acute health benchmark value for arsenic and all
other pollutants had HQ values less than or equal to 1), driven by both
stack and fugitive dust emissions of arsenic (as compared to analysis
at proposal of an acute HQ value of 30 based on the REL for arsenic at
one facility driven by emissions from stacks). Finally, the risk
assessment supporting the final rulemaking estimates that the cancer
MIR values from both multipathway case study analyses (i.e., in Frisco,
TX and Middletown, NY; see section 3.2 of the final risk assessment
document) are less than 1 in a million (as compared to an estimated
multipathway MIR of 30 in a million and less than 1 in a million in the
Frisco, TX and Middletown, NY multipathway case study analyses for the
proposed rule). Notably, the reduction in multipathway risks resulted
from updated emissions information received during the public comment
period with respect to these facilities.
Taking into account all the results of the final risk assessment,
and similar to the proposed rulemaking, we conclude that risks to
public health due to emissions from this source category are
unacceptable. Our conclusion is primarily based on risk from exposure
to air-borne lead emissions but also considers other risk metrics such
as cancer and non-cancer risks associated with actual and allowable
stack emissions of non-lead HAPs, especially arsenic and cadmium. As
mentioned above, actual lead emissions resulted in modeled
concentrations of lead above the lead NAAQS at 9 of 15 facilities.
Thus, we note that allowable stack emissions of lead and other HAP
metals and fugitive emissions of lead must be reduced to assure that
lead concentrations in ambient air beyond the facility fenceline are
acceptable--that is, do not exceed the lead NAAQS (the measure of risk
acceptability for exposure to air-borne lead in this rule). The fact
that maximum individual cancer risks due to actual emissions are above
1 in a million also contributes to our determination of
unacceptability, but to a lesser extent. While the estimated maximum
individual cancer risks due to actual emissions would, by themselves,
not generally lead us to a determination that risks are unacceptable,
the fact that they occur along with the exceedences of the lead primary
NAAQS adds to our concern about these exposures, and further supports
our proposed determination that risks are unacceptable. To provide
acceptable levels of risk with an ample margin of safety, we are
finalizing the requirement that secondary lead smelting facilities must
operate the following fugitive dust emissions sources within total
enclosures that must be maintained at negative pressure at all times
and vented to a control device designed to capture lead particulate:
Smelting furnaces, smelting furnace charging areas, lead taps, slag
taps, molds during tapping, battery breakers, refining kettles, casting
areas, dryers, material handling areas managing lead bearing materials,
and areas where dust from fabric filters, sweepings, or used fabric
filters are processed. As further described in Section IV.C of this
preamble, based on public comments, we are not adopting the proposed
alternative to demonstrate compliance by monitoring lead at or near the
property boundary based on a 3-month rolling average in lieu of
constructing total enclosures. (See 76 FR 29056.) We are finalizing the
proposed requirement for facilities to conduct fugitive emission work
practices as well
[[Page 564]]
as to enclose fugitive emission sources. As further described in
Section IV.C of this preamble, we are also promulgating a revised list
of required work practices based on a number of comments received
regarding the necessity, efficacy, and safety of the work practices
which the EPA proposed.
We are also finalizing the proposed requirement limiting stack lead
emissions to 0.2 mg/dscm as a facility-wide emissions average and
limiting stack lead emissions from any single stack to 1.0 mg/dscm.
After implementation of the controls required in this final rule,
we estimate that there will be no one living at a census block centroid
exposed to ambient concentrations above the NAAQS due to these
facilities and the cancer MIR due to actual emissions will decrease
from 50 in a million to 7 in a million.
B. Changes to the Technology Review Performed Under CAA Section
112(d)(6)
Based on the technology review under CAA section 112(d)(6), the EPA
proposed to change the stack lead emission limits from 2.0 mg/dscm for
any individual stack to a facility-wide, flow-weighted average emission
limit of 0.20 mg/dscm with a limit of 1.0 mg/dscm applicable to any
individual stack. The proposed limit was based on emissions data
collected from industry, which indicated that well-performing baghouses
currently used by much of the industry are capable of achieving outlet
lead concentrations significantly lower than the limit of 2.0 mg/dscm
adopted in the 1997 MACT standard. We have considered the public
comments on this issue and are adopting the limits as proposed.
Under CAA section 112(d)(6), we also proposed a fugitive emission
standard requiring operation of the following process fugitive emission
sources in total enclosures that are maintained under negative pressure
at all times and vented to a control device: Smelting furnaces,
smelting furnace charging areas, lead taps, slag taps, and molds during
charging, battery breakers, refining kettles, casting areas, dryers,
agglomerating furnaces and agglomerating furnace product taps, material
handling areas for any lead bearing materials, and areas where dust
from fabric filters, sweepings, or used fabric filters are processed.
This proposed requirement was based on information collected from the
industry that indicated that several operating facilities currently
enclose most or all of their process fugitive emission sources, and
that the ambient lead concentrations near these facilities are
significantly lower than those facilities that do not have enclosures.
We have considered the public comments on this issue, and have decided
to adopt the requirements largely as proposed. This requirement is
identical to that adopted to eliminate unacceptable risk for fugitive
emissions pursuant to CAA section 112 (f)(2). However, as described in
Section IV.C of this preamble, based on public comments, we are not
adopting the proposed alternative to demonstrate compliance by
monitoring lead at or near their property boundary based on a 3-month
rolling average in lieu of constructing total enclosures. (See 76 FR
29056.) We are finalizing the proposed requirement for facilities to
conduct fugitive emission work practices as well as to enclose fugitive
emission sources. As further described in Section IV.C of this
preamble, we are also promulgating a revised list of required work
practices based on a number of comments received regarding the
necessity, efficacy, and safety of the work practices which the EPA
proposed.
We are also finalizing the requirement limiting stack lead
emissions to 0.2 mg/dscm as a facility-wide emissions average and
limiting stack lead emissions from any single stack to 1.0 mg/dscm as
proposed.
We note that although we have adopted the same standards under both
CAA sections 112(f)(2) and 112(d)(6), these standards rest on
independent statutory authorities and independent rationales.
Consequently, these standards remain independent and legally severable.
C. Other Changes Since Proposal
We received over 30 public comments on the proposed rule. After
considering these comments, we are making the following additional
changes to the proposal. The rationale for these and any other
significant changes can be found in this preamble and in the comment
response document available in the docket.
1. Stack Emission Limits
The EPA is not adopting numerical limits for THC and D/F
emissions from rotary furnaces pending further data-gathering and
analysis for this furnace type.
For units constructed after June 9, 1994, the EPA is
adding a limit for THC and D/F for collocated blast and reverberatory
furnaces when the reverberatory furnace is not operating, and is
amending the D/F limits for blast furnaces for units that commenced
construction after June 9, 1994. We also added a THC and D/F new source
limit for blast furnaces that commence construction or reconstruction
after May 19, 2011.
2. Definitions
Definitions have been added for ``affected source'' and
``new source'' to clarify when the standards for new sources would
apply.
A definition of ``lead-bearing material'' has been added
to the rule to clarify requirements for material handling area
enclosures and work practices for fugitive emissions.
The definition of ``material storage and handling'' has
been revised to exclude transfer of raw materi
