National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From Secondary Lead Smelting

Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.

[Federal Register: June 23, 1995 (Volume 60, Number 121)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 32587-32601]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 9 and 63
[AD-FRL-5217-2]
RIN 2060-AE04

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From
Secondary Lead Smelting

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This action promulgates national emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for new and existing secondary lead
smelters pursuant to section 112 of the Clean Air Act (the Act) as
amended in 1990. Secondary lead smelters have been identified by the
EPA as significant emitters of several chemicals identified in the Act
as hazardous air pollutants (HAP's) including but not limited to lead
compounds, arsenic compounds, and 1,3-butadiene. Chronic exposure to
arsenic and 1,3-butadiene is associated with skin, bladder, liver and
lung cancer and other developmental and reproductive effects. Exposure
to lead compounds results in adverse effects on the blood, central
nervous system and kidneys. Children are particularly sensitive and
exposure to lead compounds can also result in reduced cognitive
development and reduced growth. This rulemaking will affect secondary
lead smelters that use blast, reverberatory, rotary, or electric
smelting furnaces to recover lead metal from scrap lead, primarily from
used lead-acid automotive-type batteries. The purpose of the final rule
is to reduce HAP emissions from secondary lead smelting. This rule is
estimated to reduce emissions, including metal HAP's and organic HAP's,
by about 1,300 megagrams (1,400 tons) per year. [[Page 32588]] The
NESHAP provides protection to the public by requiring all secondary
lead smelters to meet emission standards reflecting the application of
the maximum achievable control technology (MACT). The NESHAP regulates
emissions of lead compounds and total hydrocarbons (THC's) as
surrogates for metal HAP's and organic HAP's, respectively. The EPA is
also adding secondary lead smelters that are area sources to the list
of source categories that are subject to MACT standards.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 23, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Docket. Docket No. A-92-43, containing information
considered by the EPA in development of the promulgated standards, is
available for public inspection and copying between 8:00 a.m. and 5:30
p.m., Monday through Friday except for Federal holidays, at the
following address: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Air and
Radiation Docket and Information Center (MC-6102), 401 M Street, SW,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone (202) 260-7548. The docket is located
at the above address in Room M-1500, Waterside Mall (ground floor). A
reasonable fee may be charged for copying.
Background Information Document. A background information document
(BID) for the promulgated standards may be obtained from the docket;
the U.S. EPA Library (MD-35), Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711, telephone (919) 541-2777; or from the National Technical
Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161,
telephone (703) 487-4650. Please refer to ``Secondary Lead Smelting--
Background Information for Promulgated Standards,'' (EPA-453/R-95-
008b).
The BID contains a summary of all the public comments made on the
proposed standards and the EPA's response to the comments. It also
contains a summary of the changes made to the standards since proposal.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Phil Mulrine, Metals Group,
Emission Standards Division (MD-13), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone (919)
541-5289.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Judicial Review. Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, judicial
review of a NESHAP is available only by filing a petition for review in
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit within
60 days of today's publication of this final rule. Under section
307(b)(2) of the Act, the requirements that are the subject of today's
notice may not be challenged later in civil or criminal proceedings
brought by the EPA to enforce these requirements.
The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows:

I. Background
II. Summary
A. Summary of Promulgated Standards
B. Summary of Major Changes Since Proposal
C. Summary of Environmental, Energy, Cost, and Economic Impacts
III. Public Participation
IV. Significant Public Comments and Responses
A. Adverse Health Effects Finding for Area Sources
B. Hydrogen Chloride/Chlorine Emission Standards
C. Metal Hazardous Air Pollutant Monitoring Requirements
D. Exemption from Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Boiler
and Industrial Furnace Emission Standards
V. Administrative Requirements
A. Docket
B. Executive Order 12866
C. Unfunded Mandates Act
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

I. Background

On July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576), the EPA published a list of major
and area sources for which NESHAP are to be promulgated. On December 3,
1993 (58 FR 63941), the EPA published a schedule for promulgation of
those standards. The secondary lead smelting source category is
included on the list of major sources and the EPA is required to
establish national emission standards by May 31, 1995 according to this
schedule. Major sources are those sources emitting 10 or more tons per
year of any one HAP or 25 or more tons per year of a combination of
HAP's.
This NESHAP was proposed in the Federal Register on June 9, 1994
(59 FR 29750). The same notice also announced that the EPA was
proposing to add secondary lead smelters that are area sources to the
list of source categories that will be subject to national emission
standards. Area sources are those smelters emitting less than 10 tons
per year of any single HAP and less than 25 tons per year of a
combination of HAP's. The EPA received 31 letters commenting on the
proposed rule and proposed area source listing. The EPA received no
requests for a public hearing. The EPA published a supplemental notice
announcing the availability of new data regarding the proposed
standards for hydrogen chloride/chlorine (HCl/Cl<INF>2) emissions on
April 19, 1995 (60 FR 19556). The EPA received eight comment letters in
response to the supplemental notice.

II. Summary

A. Summary of Promulgated Standards

The promulgated rule establishes standards to limit HAP emissions
from smelting furnaces, refining kettles, agglomerating furnaces,
dryers, and fugitive dust sources at both major source and area source
secondary lead smelters. The promulgated rule does not apply to primary
lead smelters, lead refiners, or lead remelters.
Emission standards promulgated under section 112 are to be
technology-based and are to reflect the maximum degree of reduction of
HAP emissions achievable taking into consideration the cost of
achieving the emission reduction, any nonair quality health and
environmental impacts and energy requirements. These standards are
termed MACT standards. Emission reduction may be accomplished through
application of a variety of measures, methods, or techniques. Emission
standards, however, can be no less stringent than a minimum baseline or
``floor'' for standards set out in the statute.
For new sources, the standards for a source category or subcategory
cannot be less stringent than the emission control that is achieved in
practice by the best controlled similar source. The standards for
existing sources can be less stringent than standards for new sources,
but they cannot be less stringent than the average emission limitation
achieved by the best-performing 12 percent of existing sources
(excluding certain sources described in section 112(d)(3) of the Act)
for categories and subcategories with 30 or more sources, or the bestperforming
5 sources for categories and subcategories with fewer than
30 sources. There are fewer than 30 secondary lead smelters, so the
standards for existing sources are based on the best-performing 5
sources.
Floor levels of control were determined for each of the affected
source types under consideration for regulation. Source types are
process sources, process fugitive sources, and fugitive dust sources.
For process fugitive sources and fugitive dust sources, which are
similar in character and emissions potential across all secondary lead
smelters, the entire population of secondary lead smelters are
considered in determining MACT floor levels of control. For process
sources, specifically smelting furnaces, smelters are differentiated
and divided into configurations based on the [[Page 32589]] smelting
furnace types used at individual smelters. In all but one case, floors
for existing source MACT and new source MACT are identified. In the one
case where existing source MACT is less stringent than new source MACT,
the determination was made that the establishment of standards beyond
the existing source floor was unreasonable. A complete discussion of
the selection of the MACT and basis of standards for each source type
is presented in the preamble to the proposed rule (59 FR 29760; June 9,
1994).

Process Emission Sources
Owners and operators of all smelting furnace types must limit lead
compound emissions, which is a surrogate for all metal HAP's, to no
more than 2.0 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter (mg/dscm; 0.00087
grains per dry standard cubic foot (gr/dscf)). Owners and operators
must limit THC emissions, which is a surrogate for all organic HAP's,
to varying levels depending on the smelting furnace type. No THC limits
apply to reverberatory, rotary, and electric furnaces not collocated
with blast furnaces.
Owners and operators of collocated reverberatory and blast furnaces
must comply with a THC limit of 20 parts per million by volume (ppmv)
as propane at 4 percent carbon dioxide (CO<INF>2) when both furnaces
are operating. Less stringent limits apply when the reverberatory
furnace is not operating. When the reverberatory furnace is not
operating, new blast furnaces collocated with reverberatory furnaces
must comply with a THC limit of 70 ppmv, and existing blast furnaces
must comply with a THC limit of 360 ppmv.
Owners and operators of new blast furnaces located at blastfurnace
-only smelters must comply with a THC limit of 70 ppmv. Existing
blast furnaces located at blast-furnace-only smelters must comply with
a THC limit of 360 ppmv. The THC emissions from each blast furnace
charging chute at all smelters with blast furnaces shall not exceed
0.20 kilograms per hour (kg/hr; 0.44 pounds per hour (lb/hr)).
Table 2 in the attached regulatory text summarizes the emission
limits for smelting furnace process sources.
Process Fugitive Emission Sources
Owners and operators must comply with either of two process
fugitive emission control options. Each process fugitive emission
source must be controlled either by an enclosure-type hood that is
ventilated to a control device or must be fully enclosed within a
containment building (within the meaning of 40 CFR part 265, subpart
DD) that is ventilated to a control device. Lead compound emissions, as
a surrogate for all metal HAP's, from each hood or building control
device are limited to 2.0 mg/dscm (0.00087 gr/dscf).
Refining kettle enclosure hoods must have a minimum air velocity
into all hood openings (i.e., face velocity) of 75 meters per minute
(m/min; 250 feet per minute (fpm)), and the enclosure hoods over drying
kiln transition pieces must have a minimum face velocity of 110 m/min
(350 fpm). All other process fugitive emission sources (charging
points, lead and slag taps, and agglomerating furnaces) with an
enclosure hood must have a minimum face velocity of 90 m/min (300 fpm).
If a ventilated building is used to control process fugitive sources,
then it must have a minimum air velocity into the building through all
openings of 75 m/min (250 fpm).
Table 3 in the attached regulatory text summarizes the requirements
for process fugitive emission sources.
Fugitive Dust Sources
Fugitive dust emissions must be controlled by the measures
specified in a standard operating procedures (SOP) manual. The SOP must
be developed by the owner or operator of each smelter and submitted to
the Administrator for approval. The SOP must describe the measures that
will be used to control fugitive dust emissions from plant roadways;
the battery breaking area; the furnace, refining, and casting areas;
and the materials storage and handling areas. Acceptable control
measures include either a total enclosure of the fugitive dust source
and ventilation of the enclosure to a control device, or a combination
of partial enclosures, wet suppression, and pavement cleaning. Lead
compound emissions, as a surrogate for all metal HAP's, from enclosure
control devices must be limited to 2.0 mg/dscm (0.00087 gr/dscf).
Compliance Dates
Compliance for existing sources must be achieved no later than June
23, 1997, or upon startup for new or reconstructed sources.
Compliance Test Methods
Compliance with the emission limits for lead compounds shall be
determined according to EPA Reference Method 12 (40 CFR part 60,
appendix A). Compliance with the THC emission limits shall be
determined according to EPA Reference Method 25A (40 CFR part 60,
appendix A). Concentrations of THC shall be reported in ppmv, as
propane, corrected to 4 percent CO<INF>2 to correct for dilution.
Sampling point locations shall be determined according to EPA Reference
Method 1, and stack gas conditions shall be determined, as appropriate,
according to EPA Reference Methods 2, 3, 3B, and 4 (40 CFR part 60,
appendix A).
Monitoring Requirements
The rule requires an initial lead compound emission test to
demonstrate compliance with the lead compound emission standards. All
owners and operators must also prepare SOP manuals for the systematic
inspection and maintenance of all baghouses. Each manual shall also
include provisions for the diagnosis of problems and a corrective
action plan. In addition, all baghouses are required to have bag leak
detection systems with alarms to indicate bag leaks or other causes of
increased emissions. Plans for corrective action must prescribe
procedures to be followed whenever an alarm is triggered.
Compliance with the THC emission standards (except that for blast
furnace charging) will require monitoring either afterburner or
incinerator temperature or THC concentration. Only an initial
compliance test is required for blast furnace charging.
Notification Requirements
The owner or operator will be required to comply with the
notification requirements in the General Provisions to part 63 (40 CFR
part 60, subpart A). In addition, owners and operators will be required
to submit the fugitive dust control SOP and the baghouse SOP to the
Administrator for review and approval.
Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements
Owners and operators will be required to comply with the
recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the General Provisions to
part 63 (40 CFR part 63, subpart A). In addition, the owners and
operators will be required to maintain records demonstrating that they
have implemented the requirements of the fugitive dust control SOP and
the baghouse SOP, including records of all bag leak detection system
alarms and corrective actions.

B. Summary of Major Changes Made Since Proposal

Based on public comments received in response to both the initial
notice of proposal and the supplemental notice, and other data received
since proposal, the EPA has made several changes to the
[[Page 32590]] proposed rule. The BID referred to in the ADDRESSES
section of this preamble contains a complete explanation of the EPA's
reasons for making each of these changes. A summary of the major
changes is presented below.

Applicability
The applicability of the rule was clarified by adding a statement
that the rule does not apply to primary lead smelters, lead refiners,
and lead remelters.
Standards for Process Sources
The THC emission limits for blast furnaces collocated with
reverberatory furnaces were revised to account for periods when the
reverberatory furnace is not operating.
When the reverberatory furnace is not operating, these blast
furnaces will be allowed to meet the same THC limits as new and
existing blast furnaces located at blast-furnace-only smelters (70 ppmv
and 360 ppmv, respectively). The proposed standards required that
reverberatory/blast furnace facilities meet a THC emission limit of 20
ppmv at all times. The proposed HCl/Cl<INF>2 emission standards (and
associated testing and monitoring requirements) are not being
promulgated.
Standards for Process Fugitive Sources
The ventilation requirements for hoods have been modified; the
volumetric flow rate requirement for refining kettle hoods has been
withdrawn and the face velocity requirements for furnace charging and
tapping have been lowered from 110 m/min (350 fpm) to 90 m/min (300
fpm). A provision has been added that will allow owners and operators
to control process fugitive emission sources by enclosing them in a
building that is ventilated to a control device, rather than having to
comply with the enclosure hood and face velocity requirements at each
emission source.
Test Methods and Schedule
The annual lead test has been withdrawn for all sources; only an
initial lead test is now required. Velometers (anemometers) have been
added as an alternate method for determining face velocities for
process fugitive hoods and building doorways.
Monitoring Requirements
The proposed rule would have required a continuous opacity monitor
(COM) and a site-specific opacity limit for monitoring lead compound
emissions from process sources. These requirements have been withdrawn.
Rather than install and operate a COM, each owner or operator must now
prepare a baghouse SOP manual that includes an inspection and
maintenance procedure and a corrective action plan for all process,
process fugitive, and fugitive dust baghouses. Each baghouse must also
be fitted with a bag leak detection system with an alarm to monitor
baghouse performance. An alarm signal by itself is not considered to be
a violation of the lead compound emission limit. To maintain
compliance, the owner or operator must follow the inspection and
maintenance procedure and comply with the requirements of the
corrective action plan whenever an alarm is activated.
There has been no change to the organic HAP monitoring
requirements. The proposed HCl/Cl<INF>2 monitoring requirements have
been withdrawn.
Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements
The recordkeeping and reporting requirements have been revised so
they are consistent with the baghouse SOP manual in the revised
monitoring requirements. Owners and operators also will be required to
record the date and time of all bag leak detection system alarm
signals, their cause, the corrective action taken, and the timing for
such action.
The requirements for THC recordkeeping and reporting have been
clarified so that only the 3-hour averages that are not in compliance
with the allowable afterburner or incinerator temperature, or THC
concentration must be reported, rather than all 3-hour averages for the
entire reporting period. The recordkeeping and reporting requirements
associated with the HCl/Cl<INF>2 emission standards have been
withdrawn. Finally, the reporting frequency has been changed to be
consistent with the requirements under Sec. 63.10 of the General
Provisions.

C. Summary of Environmental, Health, Cost, and Economic Impacts

The final standards will reduce total nationwide emissions of both
metal HAP's and organic HAP's from secondary lead smelters by 1,283
megagrams per year (Mg/yr) (1,411 tons/yr). These reductions include 53
Mg/yr (58 tons/yr) of metal HAP's and 1,230 Mg/yr (1,353 tons/yr) of
organic HAP's. No reductions in HCl/Cl<INF>2 emissions are expected as
a direct consequence of the final rule because of the deletion of HCl/
Cl<INF>2 emission standards since proposal. However, emissions of HCl/
Cl<INF>2 are expected to be essentially eliminated in any case because
of the elimination of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) plastic as a separator
material in batteries. The rationale for not promulgating HCl/Cl<INF>2
emission standards is explained in section IV(B) of this preamble.
These emission reductions will have a positive effect on public
health. Metal HAP emissions from secondary lead smelting include lead
compounds and arsenic compounds, among others. Populations around
secondary lead smelters can be exposed to metal HAP's through
inhalation or through ingestion of metal HAP's that have settled on the
soil in the vicinity of the smelter. Exposure to lead compounds occurs
through inhalation or ingestion, but the effects are the same
regardless of the route of exposure. Chronic exposure to lead compounds
results in adverse effects on the blood, central nervous system, blood
pressure, kidneys, and vitamin D metabolism. Children are particularly
sensitive and exposure can also result in reduced cognitive development
and reduced growth. Adverse effects on human reproduction have also
been reported. Lead compounds can be persistent in the environment and
have the potential to accumulate in food chains.
Chronic inhalation exposure to arsenic compounds is strongly
associated with lung cancer and is associated with irritation of the
skin and mucous membranes (dermatitis, conjunctivitis, pharyngitis, and
rhinitis). Chronic oral exposure has resulted in gastrointestinal
effects, anemia, peripheral nerve damage, skin lesions, and liver or
kidney damage and is linked to skin, bladder, liver, and lung cancer.
Organic HAP emissions from secondary lead smelting include 1,3-
butadiene, among other organic compounds. The effects of chronic
exposure to 1,3-butadiene include increased cardiovascular disease.
Animal studies of chronic exposure to 1,3-butadiene indicate effects on
respiratory and cardiovascular systems and the liver, as well as
developmental and reproductive effects. Animal studies have also
reported tumors from inhalation exposure to 1,3-butadiene and the EPA
has classified 1,3-butadiene as a probable human carcinogen.
In addition to the reductions in HAP air emissions achieved, the
final standards will also achieve reductions in nationwide emissions of
two criteria pollutants, carbon monoxide and particulate matter.
Compliance with the final standards will reduce emissions of
particulate matter by 135 Mg/yr (149 tons/yr) and those of carbon
monoxide by 80,000 Mg/yr (88,000 tons/yr). [[Page 32591]]
No significant adverse secondary air, water, or solid waste impacts
are anticipated from these standards. The national annual energy usage
due to the installation of the required control devices is expected to
be 5.0 million cubic meters per year (180 million cubic feet per year)
of natural gas to operate afterburners on blast furnaces and
reverberatory/blast furnace smelters. The natural gas consumption
estimated at proposal was 3.7 million cubic meters (130 million cubic
feet per year). The increase since proposal is due to a revised
analysis of the control equipment and amount of natural gas needed to
perform gas stream blending to control organic HAP emissions from
reverberatory/blast furnace smelters. No other notable energy impacts
are expected.
The implementation of this regulation is expected to result in a
national annual cost of $2.8 million. This includes an annualized cost
from installation of control devices of $1.86 million and total
monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping costs of $0.93 million. At
proposal, the estimated national costs were $2.6 million per year. The
annualized control costs were estimated to be $890,000 and the annual
costs for monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting were $1.7 million.
The annualized control costs have increased since proposal because the
cost estimate to control organic HAP emissions from reverberatory/blast
furnace smelters was revised in response to public comments. The annual
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting costs have decreased since
proposal because the HCl/Cl<INF>2 monitoring requirements have been
withdrawn and the final metal HAP monitoring requirements involve fewer
emission tests and less expensive monitoring devices than at proposal.
The economic impact analysis done at proposal showed that the
economic impacts from the proposed standard would be insignificant. The
economic impact analysis was not revised for promulgation because the
relatively small increase in costs is not expected to have any effect
on the conclusions of the economic impact analysis.

III. Public Participation

On November 17, 1992, the EPA presented the National Air Pollution
Control Techniques Advisory Committee with an overview of the EPA's
decision to regulate surrogates in place of regulating individual metal
HAP's and organic HAP's.
Prior to proposal of the standards, owners and operators of
secondary lead smelters were invited by the EPA to participate in a
meeting to discuss the results of the EPA's secondary lead smelter
testing program as well as the standards being evaluated for proposal.
This meeting was held on October 5, 1993. The comments submitted
following this meeting were incorporated into the proposed rule.
The standards were proposed and published in the Federal Register
on June 9, 1994 (59 FR 29750). The preamble to the proposed standards
discussed the availability of the BID, which described the technical
basis and the impacts of the proposed standards. Public comments were
solicited at the time of proposal.
To provide interested persons the opportunity for oral presentation
of data, views, or arguments concerning the proposed standards, the
opportunity for a public hearing was offered at proposal; however, no
requests for a hearing were received. The public comment period was
from June 9, 1994 to August 8, 1994. Thirty-one comment letters were
received. A supplemental notice was published on April 19, 1995 (60 FR
19556) and eight comment letters were received. The comments were
carefully considered by the Administrator in formulating the final
rule.

IV. Significant Comments and Responses

The EPA received comment letters on the proposed standards from
owners and operators of secondary lead smelters and industry trade
associations, States, equipment vendors, and environmental groups. A
detailed discussion of all the comments and the EPA's responses can be
found in the promulgation BID, which is referenced in the ADDRESSES
section of this preamble. The summary of comments and responses in the
BID serves as the basis for the revisions that have been made to the
standards between proposal and promulgation. Most of the comment
letters contained multiple comments.
Significant comments and new information were received on four
topics since proposal: the area source finding, the standards for
process sources (especially those proposed for HCl/Cl<INF>2 emissions),
the monitoring requirements for metal HAP's, and the exemption from the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) boiler and industrial
furnace (BIF) emission standards. These comments and the EPA's
responses are summarized in this preamble.
A. Adverse Health Effects Finding for Area Sources

Six commenters agreed with the EPA's finding that smelters that are
area sources (i.e., those with emissions of less than 10 tons per year
of any one HAP or 25 tons per year of a combination of HAP's) should be
listed as sources subject to section 112 standards and should be
subject to the same regulations as smelters that are major sources.
Seven commenters disagreed with the EPA's decision to regulate area
sources; three of the seven argued that the risks are insufficient to
warrant regulation under MACT standards. After considering all comments
on the subject, the EPA continues to believe that area sources should
be regulated under MACT standards and is, therefore, maintaining its
decision to regulate secondary lead smelters that are area sources
under this final action.
The decision to list area source smelters to regulate them under
the same standards as major source smelters is based on the cancer
risks from secondary lead smelter emissions and noncancer health risks
posed by lead compound emissions. The estimated annual cancer incidence
is 0.1 cases for all seven smelters predicted to be area sources. This
cancer incidence is due primarily to exposure to 1,3-butadiene and
arsenic. The maximum exposed individual has a cancer risk of 1 in 1,000
and 560,000 individuals are estimated to be exposed to a risk greater
than 1 in 1 million.
Section 112(c)(3) of the Act does not offer a ``bright line'' test
for the EPA to use in making an area source finding. Instead, the EPA
believes that it has discretion to consider a range of health effects
endpoints and exposure criteria in making the requisite finding of a
threat of adverse effects to health or the environment. In making area
source listing determinations, the EPA strives to provide maximum
feasible protection against risks to health from HAP's by: (1)
Protecting the greatest number of persons possible to an individual
lifetime cancer risk level of no higher than approximately 1 in 1
million and (2) limiting to no more than 1 in 10,000 the estimated
cancer risk to the hypothetical maximum exposed individual. The
estimated cancer risks presented by area source smelters are consistent
with those supporting similar EPA decisions to regulate other
categories of area sources and with the EPA's strategy to implement
section 112 (57 FR 31576, July 16, 1992).
Exposure to lead compounds is also a concern. It is estimated that
250 individuals in the vicinity of area source smelters are exposed to
ambient lead levels above the national ambient air quality standard
(NAAQS) for lead of 1.5 micrograms per cubic meter (<greek-m>g/
m<SUP>3). [[Page 32592]] Emissions that result in ambient lead
concentrations below the NAAQS are also troubling. Ambient lead levels,
particularly in urban areas, may already represent a substantial
portion of the lead NAAQS (56 FR 7167, February 21, 1991; 52 FR 16994,
May 6, 1987) (existing substantial ambient concentrations of lead
justify lowering permissible air emissions for lead from boilers and
industrial furnaces burning hazardous waste). Estimates indicate that
300 individuals may be exposed to ambient lead levels above 1.0
<greek-m>g/m<SUP>3 (two-thirds the current NAAQS) and 1500 individuals
may be exposed to levels above 0.5 <greek-m>g/m<SUP>3 (one-third the
current NAAQS) due to the area source smelters. Finally, recent
scientific information suggests that lead blood levels in children
lower than previously thought may cause adverse health effects (56 FR
7167, February 21, 1991; 56 FR 26469, June 7, 1991) (establishing
standards for lead in drinking water).
Lead is also persistent in the environment and individuals,
particularly children, can be exposed through pathways other than
inhalation. The sites of two former smelters have required Federal
cleanup action under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act, also known as ``Superfund.'' Both
sites were contaminated by lead deposition onto surrounding soil.
Deposition at these sites was caused by the same types of air emission
sources that will be regulated by this rule.
In short, the EPA finds that secondary lead smelter area sources
pose potential adverse human health and environmental threats that
justify listing under section 112(c)(3). The Agency further finds that
MACT standards are the most appropriate for these sources.
The EPA considers the cost impacts of the final rule, including the
regulation of area source smelters by MACT standards, to be reasonable.
The pollutants being regulated are especially toxic, warranting
heightened control. (cf. S. Rept. 228, 101st Cong., 1st sess., 173.)
The overall cost-effectiveness of the rule will be about $1,400 per Mg
($1,300 per ton) of HAP reduced. The EPA's decision to regulate both
major and area sources by the same standards also eliminates the
potential for adverse effects on competition within the industry.
Finally, the EPA believes that regulating all smelters under the
same regulations is consistent with the Agency's responsibilities for
achieving environmental justice under Executive Order (E.O.) No. 12898.
Historically, some secondary lead smelters have had adverse impacts on
communities that are disproportionately represented by minority and
lower income populations. Some area source smelters are currently
located in communities that are disproportionately represented by
minority and lower income populations. Therefore, the EPA believes that
regulating all smelters under MACT standards addresses the objectives
of E.O. 12898.

B. Hydrogen Chloride/Chlorine Emission Standards

The proposed rule contained emission standards and monitoring
requirements to control HCl and Cl<INF>2 emissions from all furnace
types. Hydrogen chloride and Cl<INF>2 are formed from the combustion of
PVC plastic separators that are found in some used lead-acid batteries.
The only significant source of HCl/Cl<INF>2 emissions is from feedstock
materials containing PVC. At proposal, the EPA believed that many used
lead-acid batteries contained PVC separators. Based on the results of
tests at several smelters, the EPA predicted at proposal that the
addition of soda ash or limestone fluxing agents to the feed material
could achieve the same level of HCl/Cl<INF>2 control as an acid gas
scrubber, but at a much lower cost. The proposed emission standards and
monitoring requirements and the estimated cost impacts were based on
the use of fluxing agents.
Several comments were received stating that the feasibility of
fluxing as a control may be overstated and scrubbers may be necessary
in many cases. Several commenters also asserted that the proposed HCl/
Cl<INF>2 emission standards are not needed because PVC is no longer
used as a separator material. Information obtained by the EPA since
proposal confirms that PVC is no longer used as a separator material
and the proportion of spent batteries with PVC is expected to decline
as these batteries are removed from service and recycled (Docket Item
IV-D-34). In 1990, about 1 percent of scrap batteries processed at lead
smelters contained PVC separators. In 1994, less than 0.1 percent of
scrap batteries contain PVC. The EPA predicts that by the time existing
smelters must demonstrate compliance with these standards in 1997,
batteries containing PVC will only be present in the scrap battery
inventory in trace amounts, resulting, at most, in only trivial amounts
of HCl or Cl<INF>2 air emissions.
Data provided to the EPA since proposal also indicates that the EPA
may have overstated the feasibility of fluxing as a control option. At
the blast furnace tested by the EPA, powdered fluxing agents were mixed
with flue dust in a briquetting machine and the briquettes were then
charged to the furnace. This smelter is the only facility handling flux
and flue dust in this manner. After proposal, the operators of a blastfurnace
-only smelter that recycled agglomerated flue dust sponsored an
HCl testing program in which additional flux was added to the furnace
separately in the form of crushed limestone. The test results obtained
show that additional fluxing in this manner achieved no incremental
reduction in HCl emissions. A reevaluation of the fluxing issue
suggests that flux material must be mixed with the flue dust, for
example through briquetting, to achieve effective HCl/Cl<INF>2 control.
Mixing powdered flux and the flue dust is necessary to achieve a close
physical association to promote the chemical reactions that prevent HCl
and Cl<INF>2 emissions.
If HCl/Cl<INF>2 control were still required by the rule, those
smelters that do not currently operate a scrubber or combine flue dust
with flux before charging them to the furnace would need to install and
operate a scrubber or reconfigure the flue dust handling and flux
delivery system. The cost impacts of the proposed HCl/Cl<INF>2 emission
standards, therefore, would be substantially greater than those
estimated at proposal. However, as noted above, the EPA predicts that
secondary lead smelters will no longer be sources of HCl or Cl<INF>2
emissions when the rule takes effect. For that reason, the EPA is
withdrawing the proposed HCl/Cl<INF>2 emission standards and associated
monitoring requirements.
Six commenters agreed with the EPA's decision to withdraw the HCl/
Cl<INF>2 emission standards and associated monitoring requirements for
this rule. Two commenters disagreed with EPA's decision to withdraw the
HCl/Cl<INF>2 emission standards. One argued that lead-contaminated
personal protective equipment (PPE) that is disposed of in the smelting
furnaces could be a source of PVC in addition to battery separators.
The other commenter argued for temporary HCl/Cl<INF>2 emission
standards for a minimum of 3 to 5 years to confirm that HCl/Cl<INF>2
emissions have been reduced.
Data provided by a smelter operator indicate that less than one ton
per year of lead-contaminated PPE is disposed of in the smelting
furnace of a large smelter. Only a fraction of PPE is PVC and only a
fraction of PVC is chlorine (Docket Item IV-D-47). Therefore, the
potential HCl/Cl<INF>2 emissions attributed to PPE disposal is minimal.
A worse case estimate of HCl/Cl<INF>2 emissions due to PPE disposal
indicates maximum [[Page 32593]] emissions on the order of a few
hundred pounds per year.
In regard to the issuance of temporary standards, pending
confirmation that HCl/Cl<INF>2 emissions have been reduced, the EPA
acknowledges that such an action would be prudent if the predicted
decline in PVC was uncertain. However, the EPA is reasonably confident
that the predicted decline in PVC separators in secondary lead smelter
feedstock will continue and PVC will be present in only trace
quantities by the 1997 effective date of this rule. Therefore, it is
EPA's judgement that a temporary HCl/Cl<INF>2 emission standard is
unnecessary.
After considering all comments, the EPA believes the HCl/Cl<INF>2
emission standards and associated monitoring requirements should be
deleted from the rule.

C. Metal Hazardous Air Pollutant Monitoring Requirements

The proposed rule would have required each smelter to install and
operate a COM and establish a site-specific opacity limit during the
initial lead compound compliance test for process sources. Exceeding
this opacity limit would have constituted a violation of the lead
compound emission standard. For process fugitive and fugitive dust
sources, the proposed rule required an annual lead test and a baghouse
inspection and maintenance plan.
The EPA received many comments that presented technical arguments
against the proposed metal HAP monitoring requirements. Several
commenters argued that there is a poor correlation among lead,
particulate matter, and opacity at low grain loadings. Therefore, the
argument goes, opacity cannot be used as a reliable surrogate to
indicate compliance with a numerical lead emission limit. Other
commenters recommended that other technologies are more reliable,
accurate, and cost effective than COM's for detecting broken bags in
baghouses, particularly bag leak detection systems using triboelectric
or light scattering effects.
Based on these comments and additional information collected from
monitoring equipment vendors since proposal, the EPA has revised the
metal HAP monitoring requirements. The final monitoring provisions
require an SOP for baghouse inspection and maintenance that includes a
bag leak detection system with an alarm and a corrective action plan
for responding to alarms. The same monitoring requirements will apply
to all metal HAP emission sources that are controlled by baghouses
(i.e., process, process fugitive, and fugitive dust sources).
The bag leak detection system must be fully operational prior to
the initial lead compliance test. However, the detection system will
not be used to monitor compliance with the numerical lead emission
limit; it will be used to monitor baghouse performance and operating
conditions to indicate baghouse failures.
The EPA agrees that COM's cannot be used to monitor compliance with
a numerical lead compound emission limit applicable to secondary lead
smelting. Instead, the EPA has determined that compliance can be
demonstrated and ensured through well-specified operation and
maintenance procedures as delineated in this final rule.

D. Exemption From Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Boiler and
Industrial Furnace Emission Standards

The EPA proposed to continue the exemption (40 CFR 266.100(c)) for
RCRA regulation of air emissions from secondary lead smelters burning
hazardous wastes solely for metal recovery. All commenters agreed that
this is an appropriate approach. As the EPA stated at proposal, this
exemption is temporary and permanent resolution can be made at the time
of the section 112(f) residual risk determination.

V. Administrative Requirements

A. Docket

The docket is an organized and complete file of all the information
considered by the EPA in the development of this rulemaking. The docket
is a dynamic file, since material is added throughout the rulemaking
development. The docket system is intended to allow members of the
public and affected industries to readily identify and locate documents
so that they can effectively participate in the rulemaking process.
Along with the BID's and preambles to the proposed and promulgated
standards, the contents of the docket will serve as the official record
in case of judicial review (section 307(d)(7)(A) of the Act).

B. Executive Order 12866

The Agency must determine whether a regulatory action is
``significant'' and therefore subject to OMB review and the
requirements of the E.O. 12866, (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). The
Executive Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as one that
is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of
recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
The EPA has submitted this action to OMB for review. Changes made
in response to OMB suggestions or recommendations have been documented
in Docket A-92-43 (see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble).

C. Unfunded Mandates Act

Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (``Unfunded
Mandates Act'') requires that the Agency prepare a budgetary impact
statement before promulgating a rule that includes a Federal mandate
that may result in expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments,
in aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
1 year. Section 203 requires the Agency to establish a plan for
obtaining input from and informing, educating, and advising any small
governments that may be significantly or uniquely affected by the rule.
Under section 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Act, the Agency must
identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives
before promulgating a rule for which a budgetary impact statement must
be prepared. The Agency must select from those alternatives the least
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that
achieves the objectives of the rule, unless the Agency explains why
this alternative is not selected or the selection of this alternative
is inconsistent with law.
Because this final rule is estimated to result in the expenditure
by State, local, and tribal governments or the private sector of
significantly less than $100 million in any 1 year, the Agency has not
prepared a budgetary impact statement or specifically addressed the
selection of the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome
alternative. Because small governments will not be significantly or
uniquely affected by this rule, the Agency is not
[[Page 32594]] required to develop a plan with regard to small
governments.

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

Information collection requirements associated with this regulation
(those included in 40 CFR part 63, subpart A and subpart X) have been
approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq., and have been assigned OMB control number 2060-0296. An
Information Collection Request (ICR) document has been prepared by the
EPA (ICR No. 1686.02) to reflect the revised information requirements
of the final rule and has been submitted to OMB for review. A copy may
be obtained from Sandy Farmer, Information Policy Branch, 401 M Street,
SW. (2136), Washington, DC 20460, or by calling (202) 260-2740.
The annual industry recordkeeping and reporting burden and costs
averaged over the first 3 years for secondary lead smelters are 11,300
hours and $452,000 per year. This collection of information is
estimated to have an annual government recordkeeping and reporting
burden averaging 1,600 hours over the first 3 years. These burden
estimates include time for reviewing instructions, searching existing
data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing
and reviewing the collection of information.
Send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspects of
this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this
burden to Chief, Information Policy Branch (EPA 2136); U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC
20460; and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office
of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503, marked ``Attention:
Desk Officer for the EPA.''

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (or RFA, Public Law 96-354,
September 19, 1980) requires Federal agencies to give special
consideration to the impact of regulation on small businesses. The RFA
specifies that a regulatory flexibility analysis must be prepared if a
screening analysis indicates a regulation will have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. For this
industry, a small entity is defined as one with 500 or fewer employees.
A ``substantial number'' of small entities is generally considered to
be more than 20 percent of the small entities in the affected industry.
Regulatory impacts are considered significant if:
(1) Annual compliance costs increase total costs of production by
more than 5 percent;
(2) Annual compliance costs as a percent of sales are at least 20
percent higher for small entities;
(3) Capital cost of compliance represents a significant portion of
capital available to small entities; or
(4) The requirements of the regulation are likely to result in
closures of small entities.
The results of the economic assessment performed at proposal served
as the regulatory flexibility analysis and indicated that the rule will
have an economic impact on small business entities. The assessment has
not been updated because the impacts on the small entities have not
increased since proposal. However, adverse economic impacts have been
minimized to the greatest extent possible in this rulemaking, and those
that remain are unavoidable. All of the small entities that are
currently operating and that are impacted are major sources of HAP's
for which the EPA is required to adopt MACT standards. Consequently,
the economic impacts cannot be minimized by promulgating less stringent
standards based on generally achievable control technology (GACT). The
final standards are based on MACT floor controls, and in no instance
did the EPA establish standards based on controls more stringent than
the floor. The EPA was also able to identify alternatives to add-on
controls (e.g., work practice controls) in the MACT floors that offered
equivalent levels of control. The EPA has minimized the impacts
associated with monitoring by adopting a surrogate pollutant approach
and by allowing for alternative monitoring strategies when available.
The impacts on all entities have been reduced since proposal by
withdrawing the HCl/Cl<INF>2 emission standards and by revising the
metal HAP monitoring requirements. Finally, the EPA has minimized the
impacts associated with recordkeeping and reporting by promulgating
only the minimum requirements needed to document continuous compliance
with the emission limits.
List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 9

Environmental protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 63

Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by
reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Secondary lead
smelters.

Dated: May 31, 1995.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, of
the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 9--[AMENDED]

The authority citation for part 9 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 135 et seq., 136-136y; 15 U.S.C. 2001, 2003,
2005, 2006, 2601-2671; 21 U.S.C. 331j, 346a, 348; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq., 1311, 1313d, 1314, 1321, 1326, 1330, 1344, 1345
(d) and (e), 1361; E.O. 11735, 38 FR 21243, 3 CFR, 1971-1975 Comp.
p. 973; 42 U.S.C. 241, 242b, 243, 246, 300f, 300g, 300g-1, 300g-2,
300g-3, 300g-4, 300g-5, 300g-6, 300j-1, 300j-2, 300j-3, 300j-4,
300j-9, 1857 et seq., 6901-6992k, 7401-7671q, 7542, 9601-9657,
11023, 11048.

2. Section 9.1 is amended by adding a new entry to the table under
the indicated heading to read as follows:

Sec. 9.1 OMB approvals under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

* * * *

40 CFR citation OMB control No.

Applies to
63.1......................... Yes.
63.2......................... Yes.
63.3......................... Yes.
63.4......................... Yes.
63.5......................... Yes.
63.6 (a), (b), (c), (e), (f), Yes.
(g), (i) and (j).
63.7......................... Yes.
63.8......................... Yes.
63.9 (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), Yes.
(g), (h)(1-3), (h)(5-6), and
(j).
emission limits in subpart
X.
63.10........................ Yes.
comply with the emission
limits.
63.12 to 63.15............... Yes.
Lead
compounds
(milligrams
configuration standard hydrocarbons
cubic
meter)
reverberatory/ million by
blast (when volume \1\.
both furnaces
operating).
(when 2.0 360 parts per Sec. 63.543 (a), (c)(1).
reverberatory million by
furnace not volume \1\
operating). (existing).
70 parts per Sec. 63.543 (a), (c)(2).
million by
volume \1\
(new) \2\.
million by
volume \1\
(existing).
70 parts per Sec. 63.543(e).
million by
volume \1\
(new) \2\.
0.20 kilograms Sec. 63.543(g).
per hour \3\.
rotary, and
electric.
reconstruction after June 9, 1994.
standard is determined.
Table 3.--Summary of Standards for Process Fugitive Sources
Control
device lead
compound Enclosed
emission hood or
limit doorway
per dry velocity
standard (meters/
cubic minute)
meter)
Control Option I:
Smelting furnace and dryer charging hoppers, 2.0 \1\ 90 Sec. 63.544(b)
chutes, and skip hoists.
Smelting furnace lead taps and molds......... 2.0 \1\ 90 Sec. 63.544(b)
Smelting furnace slag taps and molds......... 2.0 \1\ 90 Sec. 63.544(b)
Refining kettles............................. 2.0 \1\ 75 Sec. 63.544(b)
Dryer transition pieces...................... 2.0 \1\ 110 Sec. 63.544(b)
Agglomerating furnace process vents and 2.0 \1\ 90 Sec. 63.544(b)
product taps.
Control Option II:
Enclosed building ventilated to a control 2.0 \2\ 75 Sec. 63.544(c)
device.
Applicable to Both Control Options:
Dryer and agglomerating furnace emission 2.0 ........... Sec. 63.544(d)
vents.
in an enclosed building ventilated to a control device.

Notices For
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From Secondary Lead Smelting

Local Navigation