[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 97 (Thursday, May 19, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 29032-29081]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-11220]
[[Page 29031]]
Vol. 76
Thursday,
No. 97
May 19, 2011
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 63
National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Secondary
Lead Smelting; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 76 , No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2011 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 29032]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344; FRL-9303-4]
RIN 2060-AQ68
National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants:
Secondary Lead Smelting
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing amendments to the national emissions
standards for hazardous air pollutants for Secondary Lead Smelting to
address the results of the residual risk and technology review that EPA
is required to conduct by the Clean Air Act. These proposed amendments
include revisions to the stack emissions limits for lead; revisions to
the fugitive dust emissions control requirements; the addition of total
hydrocarbons emissions limits for reverberatory, electric, and rotary
furnaces; the addition of emissions limits and work practice
requirements for dioxins and furans; and the modification and addition
of testing and monitoring and related notification, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements. We are also proposing to revise provisions
addressing periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction to ensure that
the rules are consistent with a recent court decision.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 5, 2011. Under the
Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on the information collection
provisions are best assured of having full effect if the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) receives a copy of your comments on or
before June 20, 2011.
Public Hearing. If anyone contacts EPA requesting to speak at a
public hearing by May 31, 2011, a public hearing will be held on June
3, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2011-0344, by one of the following methods:
http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
E-mail: [email protected], Attention Docket ID Number
EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344.
Fax: (202) 566-9744, Attention Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2011-0344.
Mail: U.S. Postal Service, send comments to: EPA Docket
Center, EPA West (Air Docket), Attention Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-
2011-0344, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. Please include a total of
two copies. In addition, please mail a copy of your comments on the
information collection provisions to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attn: Desk
Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503.
Hand Delivery: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA
West (Air Docket), Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington,
DC 20004, Attention Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
Instructions. Direct your comments to Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-
2011-0344. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available on-line
at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
Docket. EPA has established a docket for this rulemaking under
Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344. All documents in the docket are
listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available
docket materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, EPA West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the EPA
Docket Center is (202) 566-1742.
Public Hearing. If a public hearing is held, it will begin at 10
a.m. on June 3, 2011 and will be held at EPA's campus in Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina, or at an alternate facility nearby.
Persons interested in presenting oral testimony or inquiring as to
whether a public hearing is to be held should contact Ms. Virginia
Hunt, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and
Programs Division, (D243-02), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919)
541-0832.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this proposed
action, contact Mr. Chuck French, Sector Policies and Programs Division
(D243-02), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711, telephone (919) 541-7912; fax number: (919) 541-5450; and e-mail
address: [email protected]. For specific information regarding the
risk modeling methodology, contact Ms. Elaine Manning, Health and
Environmental Impacts Division (C539-02), Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-5499;
fax number: (919) 541-0840; and e-mail address: [email protected].
For information about the applicability of the NESHAP to a particular
entity, contact the appropriate person listed in Table 1 of this
preamble.
[[Page 29033]]
Table 1--List of EPA Contacts for the NESHAP Addressed in This Proposed
Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NESHAP for: OECA Contact \1\ OAQPS Contact \2\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Secondary Lead Smelting......... Maria Malave, Chuck French,
(202) 564-7027 (919) 541-7912,
[email protected] [email protected]. ov
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ EPA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance.
\2\ EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Preamble Acronyms and Abbreviations
Several acronyms and terms used to describe industrial processes,
data inventories, and risk modeling are included in this preamble.
While this may not be an exhaustive list, to ease the reading of this
preamble and for reference purposes, the following terms and acronyms
are defined here:
ADAF age-dependent adjustment factors
AEGL acute exposure guideline levels
AERMOD air dispersion model used by the HEM-3 model
ANPRM advance notice of proposed rulemaking
ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
BACT best available control technology
BLDS bag leak detection system
CAA Clean Air Act
CBI Confidential Business Information
CEMS continuous emissions monitoring system
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CTE central tendency exposure
D/F dioxins and furans
EJ environmental justice
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ERPG Emergency Response Planning Guidelines
ERT Electronic Reporting Tool
HAP hazardous air pollutants
HEM-3 Human Exposure Model, Version 3
HEPA high efficiency particulate air
HHRAP Human Health Risk Assessment Protocols
HI Hazard Index
HON hazardous organic national emissions standards for hazardous air
pollutants
HQ Hazard Quotient
ICR information collection request
IRIS Integrated Risk Information System
Km kilometer
LAER lowest achievable emissions rate
lb/yr pounds per year
MACT maximum achievable control technology
MACT Code Code within the NEI used to identify processes included in
a source category
MDL method detection level
mg/acm milligrams per actual cubic meter
mg/dscm milligrams per dry standard cubic meter
mg/m\3\ milligrams per cubic meter
MIR maximum individual risk
MRL minimum risk level
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standard
NAC/AEGL Committee National Advisory Committee for Acute Exposure
Guideline Levels for Hazardous Substances
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NAS National Academy of Sciences
NATA National Air Toxics Assessment
NEI National Emissions Inventory
NESHAP National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
NOAEL no observed adverse effects level
NRC National Research Council
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
O&M operation and maintenance
OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
ODW Office of Drinking Water
OECA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
OHEA Office of Health and Environmental Assessment
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PB-HAP hazardous air pollutants known to be persistent and bio-
accumulative in the environment
PM particulate matter
POM polycyclic organic matter
ppmv parts per million volume
RACT reasonably available control technology
RBLC RACT/BACT/LAERClearinghouse
REL reference exposure level
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RfC reference concentration
RfD reference dose
RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis
RME reasonable maximum exposure
RTR residual risk and technology review
SAB Science Advisory Board
SBA Small Business Administration
SCC Source Classification Codes
SF3 2000 Census of Population and Housing Summary
SIP State Implementation Plan
SOP standard operating procedures
SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction
TEF toxic equivalency factors
TEQ toxic equivalency quotient
THC total hydrocarbons
TOSHI target organ-specific hazard index
TPY tons per year
TRIM Total Risk Integrated Modeling System
TTN Technology Transfer Network
UF uncertainty factor
[mu]/m\3\ microgram per cubic meter
UL upper limit
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
UPL upper predictive limit
URE unit risk estimate
VOC volatile organic compounds
VOHAP volatile organic hazardous air pollutants
WESP wet electrostatic precipitator
WHO World Health Organization
WWW worldwide Web
Organization of this Document. The information in this preamble is
organized as follows:
I. General Information
A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
B. Does this action apply to me?
C. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
D. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
II. Background
A. Overview of the Source Category and MACT Standards
B. What data collection activities were conducted to support
this action?
III. Analyses Performed
A. Addressing Unregulated Emissions Sources
B. How did we estimate risks posed by the source category?
C. How did we consider the risk results in making decisions for
this proposal?
D. How did we perform the technology review?
E. What other issues are we addressing in this proposal?
IV. Analyses Results and Proposed Decisions
A. What are the results of our analyses and proposed decisions
regarding unregulated emissions sources?
B. What are the results of the risk assessments and analyses?
C. What are our proposed decisions based on risk acceptability
and ample margin of safety?
D. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our
technology review?
E. What other actions are we proposing?
F. What is the relationship of the Secondary Lead Smelting
standards proposed in today's action and implementation of the lead
NAAQS?
G. Compliance Dates
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts
A. What are the affected sources?
B. What are the air quality impacts?
C. What are the cost impacts?
D. What are the economic impacts?
E. What are the benefits?
VI. Request for Comments
VII. Submitting Data Corrections
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
[[Page 29034]]
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
I. General Information
A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
Section 112 of the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory process
to address emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from stationary
sources. In the first stage, after EPA has identified categories of
sources emitting one or more of the HAP listed in CAA section 112(b),
CAA section 112(d) calls for us to promulgate NESHAP for those sources.
``Major sources'' are those that emit or have the potential to emit 10
tons per year (tpy) or more of a single HAP or 25 tpy or more of any
combination of HAP. For major sources, these technology-based standards
must reflect the maximum degree of emissions reductions of HAP
achievable (after considering cost, energy requirements, and non-air
quality health and environmental impacts) and are commonly referred to
as maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards.
MACT standards must require the maximum degree of emissions
reduction through the application of measures, processes, methods,
systems, or techniques, including, but not limited to, measures that
(A) reduce the volume of or eliminate pollutants through process
changes, substitution of materials or other modifications; (B) enclose
systems or processes to eliminate emissions; (C) capture or treat
pollutants when released from a process, stack, storage, or fugitive
emissions point; (D) are design, equipment, work practice, or
operational standards (including requirements for operator training or
certification); or (E) are a combination of the above (CAA section
112(d)(2)(A)-(E)). The MACT standards may take the form of design,
equipment, work practice, or operational standards where EPA first
determines either that, (A) a pollutant cannot be emitted through a
conveyance designed and constructed to emit or capture the pollutants,
or that any requirement for, or use of, such a conveyance would be
inconsistent with law; or (B) the application of measurement
methodology to a particular class of sources is not practicable due to
technological and economic limitations (CAA sections 112(h)(1)-(2)).
The MACT ``floor'' is the minimum control level allowed for MACT
standards promulgated under CAA section 112(d)(3) and may not be based
on cost considerations. For new sources, the MACT floor cannot be less
stringent than the emissions control that is achieved in practice by
the best-controlled similar source. The MACT floors for existing
sources can be less stringent than floors for new sources, but they
cannot be less stringent than the average emissions limitation achieved
by the best-performing 12 percent of existing sources in the category
or subcategory (or the best-performing five sources for categories or
subcategories with fewer than 30 sources). In developing MACT
standards, we must also consider control options that are more
stringent than the floor. We may establish standards more stringent
than the floor based on considerations of the cost of achieving the
emissions reductions, any non-air quality health and environmental
impacts, and energy requirements.
EPA is then required to review these technology-based standards and
revise them ``as necessary (taking into account developments in
practices, processes, and control technologies)'' no less frequently
than every 8 years, under CAA section 112(d)(6). In conducting this
review, EPA is not obliged to completely recalculate the prior MACT
determination, and, in particular, is not obligated to recalculate the
MACT floors. NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1084 (DC Cir., 2008).
The second stage in standard-setting focuses on reducing any
remaining ``residual'' risk according to CAA section 112(f). This
provision requires, first, that EPA prepare a Report to Congress
discussing (among other things) methods of calculating the risks posed
(or potentially posed) by sources after implementation of the MACT
standards, the public health significance of those risks, and EPA's
recommendations as to legislation regarding such remaining risk. EPA
prepared and submitted this report (Residual Risk Report to Congress,
EPA-453/R-99-001) in March 1999. Congress did not act in response to
the report, thereby triggering EPA's obligation under CAA section
112(f)(2) to analyze and address residual risk.
Section 112(f)(2) of the CAA requires us to determine, for source
categories subject to certain MACT standards, whether those emissions
standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health.
If the MACT standards that apply to a source category emitting a HAP
that is ``classified as a known, probable, or possible human carcinogen
do not reduce lifetime excess cancer risks to the individual most
exposed to emissions from a source in the category or subcategory to
less than one-in-one million,'' EPA must promulgate residual risk
standards for the source category (or subcategory) as necessary to
provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health (CAA section
112(f)(2)(A)). This requirement is procedural. It mandates that EPA
establish CAA section 112(f) residual risk standards if certain risk
thresholds are not satisfied, but does not determine the level of those
standards. NRDC v. EPA, 529 F. 3d at 1083. The second sentence of CAA
section 112(f)(2) sets out the substantive requirements for residual
risk standards: protection of public health with an ample margin of
safety based on EPA's interpretation of this standard in effect at the
time of the Clean Air Act amendments. Id. This refers to the Benzene
NESHAP, described in the next paragraph. EPA may adopt residual risk
standards equal to existing MACT standards if EPA determines that the
existing standards are sufficiently protective, even if (for example)
excess cancer risks to a most exposed individual are not reduced to
less than one-in-one million. Id. at 1083, (``If EPA determines that
the existing technology-based standards provide an `ample margin of
safety,' then the Agency is free to readopt those standards during the
residual risk rulemaking''). Section 112(f)(2) of the CAA further
authorizes EPA to adopt more stringent standards, if necessary ``to
prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety, and other
relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``Adverse environmental effect'' is defined in CAA section
112(a)(7) as any significant and widespread adverse effect, which
may be reasonably anticipated to wildlife, aquatic life, or natural
resources, including adverse impacts on populations of endangered or
threatened species or significant degradation of environmental
qualities over broad areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As just noted, CAA section 112(f)(2) expressly preserves our use of
the two-step process for developing standards to address any residual
risk and our interpretation of ``ample margin of safety'' developed in
the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Benzene
Emissions From Maleic Anhydride Plants, Ethylbenzene/Styrene Plants,
Benzene Storage Vessels,
[[Page 29035]]
Benzene Equipment Leaks, and Coke By-Product Recovery Plants (Benzene
NESHAP) (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989). The first step in this
process is the determination of acceptable risk. The second step
provides for an ample margin of safety to protect public health, which
is the level at which the standards are set (unless a more stringent
standard is necessary to prevent, taking into consideration costs,
energy, safety, and other relevant factors, an adverse environmental
effect).
The terms ``individual most exposed,'' ``acceptable level,'' and
``ample margin of safety'' are not specifically defined in the CAA.
However, CAA section 112(f)(2)(B) preserves EPA's interpretation set
out in the Benzene NESHAP, and the court in NRDC v. EPA concluded that
EPA's interpretation of CAA section 112(f)(2) is a reasonable one. See
NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d at 1083 (DC Cir. 2008), which says ``[S]ubsection
112(f)(2)(B) expressly incorporates EPA's interpretation of the Clean
Air Act from the Benzene standard, complete with a citation to the
Federal Register.'' See also, A Legislative History of the Clean Air
Act Amendments of 1990, volume 1, p. 877 (Senate debate on Conference
Report). We also notified Congress in the Residual Risk Report to
Congress that we intended to use the Benzene NESHAP approach in making
CAA section 112(f) residual risk determinations (EPA-453/R-99-001, p.
ES-11).
In the Benzene NESHAP, we stated as an overall objective:
* * * in protecting public health with an ample margin of
safety, we strive to provide maximum feasible protection against
risks to health from hazardous air pollutants by (1) protecting the
greatest number of persons possible to an individual lifetime risk
level no higher than approximately 1-in-1 million; and (2) limiting
to no higher than approximately 1-in-10 thousand [i.e., 100-in-1
million] the estimated risk that a person living near a facility
would have if he or she were exposed to the maximum pollutant
concentrations for 70 years.
The Agency also stated that, ``The EPA also considers incidence
(the number of persons estimated to suffer cancer or other serious
health effects as a result of exposure to a pollutant) to be an
important measure of the health risk to the exposed population.
Incidence measures the extent of health risks to the exposed population
as a whole, by providing an estimate of the occurrence of cancer or
other serious health effects in the exposed population.'' The Agency
went on to conclude that ``estimated incidence would be weighed along
with other health risk information in judging acceptability.'' As
explained more fully in our Residual Risk Report to Congress, EPA does
not define ``rigid line[s] of acceptability,'' but rather considers
broad objectives to be weighed with a series of other health measures
and factors (EPA-453/R-99-001, p. ES-11). The determination of what
represents an ``acceptable'' risk is based on a judgment of ``what
risks are acceptable in the world in which we live'' (Residual Risk
Report to Congress, p. 178, quoting the DC Circuit's en banc Vinyl
Chloride decision at 824 F.2d 1165) recognizing that our world is not
risk-free.
In the Benzene NESHAP, we stated that ``EPA will generally presume
that if the risk to [the maximum exposed] individual is no higher than
approximately 1-in-10 thousand, that risk level is considered
acceptable.'' 54 FR 38045. We discussed the maximum individual lifetime
cancer risk as being ``the estimated risk that a person living near a
plant would have if he or she were exposed to the maximum pollutant
concentrations for 70 years.'' Id. We explained that this measure of
risk ``is an estimate of the upper bound of risk based on conservative
assumptions, such as continuous exposure for 24 hours per day for 70
years.'' Id. We acknowledge that maximum individual lifetime cancer
risk ``does not necessarily reflect the true risk, but displays a
conservative risk level which is an upper-bound that is unlikely to be
exceeded.'' Id.
Understanding that there are both benefits and limitations to using
maximum individual lifetime cancer risk as a metric for determining
acceptability, we acknowledged in the 1989 Benzene NESHAP that
``consideration of maximum individual risk * * * must take into account
the strengths and weaknesses of this measure of risk.'' Id.
Consequently, the presumptive risk level of 100-in-1 million (1-in-10
thousand) provides a benchmark for judging the acceptability of maximum
individual lifetime cancer risk, but does not constitute a rigid line
for making that determination.
The Agency also explained in the 1989 Benzene NESHAP the following:
``In establishing a presumption for MIR [maximum individual cancer
risk], rather than a rigid line for acceptability, the Agency intends
to weigh it with a series of other health measures and factors. These
include the overall incidence of cancer or other serious health effects
within the exposed population, the numbers of persons exposed within
each individual lifetime risk range and associated incidence within,
typically, a 50-kilometer (km) exposure radius around facilities, the
science policy assumptions and estimation uncertainties associated with
the risk measures, weight of the scientific evidence for human health
effects, other quantified or unquantified health effects, effects due
to co-location of facilities, and co-emissions of pollutants.'' Id.
In some cases, these health measures and factors taken together may
provide a more realistic description of the magnitude of risk in the
exposed population than that provided by maximum individual lifetime
cancer risk alone. As explained in the Benzene NESHAP, ``[e]ven though
the risks judged `acceptable' by EPA in the first step of the Vinyl
Chloride inquiry are already low, the second step of the inquiry,
determining an `ample margin of safety,' again includes consideration
of all of the health factors, and whether to reduce the risks even
further.'' In the ample margin of safety decision process, the Agency
again considers all of the health risks and other health information
considered in the first step. Beyond that information, additional
factors relating to the appropriate level of control will also be
considered, including costs and economic impacts of controls,
technological feasibility, uncertainties, and any other relevant
factors. Considering all of these factors, the Agency will establish
the standard at a level that provides an ample margin of safety to
protect the public health, as required by CAA section 112(f) (54 FR
38046).
B. Does this action apply to me?
The regulated industrial source category that is the subject of
this proposal is listed in Table 2 of this preamble. Table 2 of this
preamble is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide
for readers regarding the entities likely to be affected by this
proposed action. These standards, once finalized, will be directly
applicable to affected sources. Federal, State, local, and Tribal
government entities are not affected by this proposed action. As
defined in the source category listing report published by EPA in 1992,
the Secondary Lead Smelting source category is defined as any facility
at which lead-bearing scrap materials (including, but not limited to
lead acid batteries) are recycled by smelting into elemental lead or
lead alloys.\2\ For clarification purposes, all references to lead
emissions in this preamble mean ``lead compounds'' (which is a listed
HAP) and all references to lead
[[Page 29036]]
production mean elemental lead (which is not a listed HAP as provided
under CAA section 112(b)(7)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ USEPA. Documentation for Developing the Initial Source
Category List--Final Report, USEPA/OAQPS, EPA-450/3-91-030, July,
1992.
Table 2--NESHAP and Industrial Source Categories Affected by This Proposed Action
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source category NESHAP NAICS code \1\ MACT code \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Secondary Lead Smelting..................... Secondary Lead Smelting....... 331492 0205
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.
\2\ Maximum Achievable Control Technology.
C. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this proposal will also be available on the World Wide Web (WWW)
through the EPA's Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following
signature by the EPA Administrator, a copy of this proposed action will
be posted on the TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed or
promulgated rules at the following address: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. The TTN provides information and technology exchange
in various areas of air pollution control.
Additional information is available on the residual risk and
technology review (RTR) Web page at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. This information includes source category descriptions and
detailed emissions estimates and other data that were used as inputs to
the risk assessments.
D. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
Submitting CBI. Do not submit information containing CBI to EPA
through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or
all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on
a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or
CD-ROMas CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-
ROMthe specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. If
you submit a CD-ROMor disk that does not contain CBI, mark the outside
of the disk or CD-ROMclearly that it does not contain CBI. Information
not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and EPA's
electronic public docket without prior notice. Information marked as
CBI will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set
forth in 40 CFR part 2. Send or deliver information identified as CBI
only to the following address: Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document Control
Officer (C404-02), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711, Attention Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344.
II. Background
A. Overview of the Source Category and MACT Standards
The NESHAP (or MACT rule) for the Secondary Lead Smelting source
category was promulgated on June 13, 1997 (62 FR 32216) and codified at
40 CFR part 63, subpart X. As promulgated in 1997, the NESHAP applies
to affected sources of HAP emissions at secondary lead smelters. The
1997 NESHAP (40 CFR 63.542) defines ``secondary lead smelters'' as
``any facility at which lead-bearing scrap material, primarily, but not
limited to, lead-acid batteries, is recycled into elemental lead or
lead alloys by smelting.'' The MACT rule for the Secondary Lead
Smelting source category does not apply to primary lead smelters, lead
remelters, or lead refiners.
Today, there are 14 secondary lead smelting facilities that are
subject to the MACT rule. No new secondary lead smelters have been
built in the last 20 years, and we anticipate no new secondary lead
smelting facilities in the foreseeable future, although there is one
facility currently in the process of expanding operations.
Lead is used to make various construction, medical, industrial and
consumer products such as batteries, glass, x-ray protection gear and
various fillers. The secondary lead smelting process consists of: (1)
Pre-processing of lead bearing materials, (2) melting lead metal and
reducing lead compounds to lead metal in the smelting furnace, and (3)
refining and alloying the lead to customer specifications.
HAP are emitted from secondary lead smelting as process emissions,
process fugitive emissions, and fugitive dust emissions. Process
emissions are the exhaust gases from feed dryers and from blast,
reverberatory, rotary, and electric furnaces. The HAP in process
emissions are primarily composed of metals (mostly lead compounds, but
also some arsenic, cadmium, and other metals) and also may include
organic compounds that result from incomplete combustion of coke that
is charged to the smelting furnaces as a fuel or fluxing agent or from
fuel natural gas and/or small amounts of plastics or other materials
that get fed into the furnaces along with the lead bearing materials.
Process fugitive emissions occur at various points during the smelting
process (such as during charging and tapping of furnaces) and are
composed primarily of metal HAP. Fugitive dust emissions result from
the entrainment of HAP in ambient air due to material handling, vehicle
traffic, wind erosion from storage piles, and other various activities.
Fugitive dust emissions are composed of metal HAP only.
The MACT rule applies to process emissions from blast,
reverberatory, rotary, and electric smelting furnaces, agglomerating
furnaces, and dryers; process fugitive emissions from smelting furnace
charging points, smelting furnace lead and slag taps, refining kettles,
agglomerating furnace product taps, and dryer transition pieces; and
fugitive dust emissions sources such as roadways, battery breaking
areas, furnace charging and tapping areas, refining and casting areas,
and material storage areas. For process sources, the NESHAP specifies
numerical emissions limits for lead compounds (as a surrogate for metal
HAP) for the following types of smelting furnaces: (1) Collocated
reverberatory and blast furnaces (reverberatory/blast), (2) blast
furnaces, and (3) reverberatory furnaces not collocated with blast
furnaces, rotary furnaces, and electric furnaces. Lead compound
emissions from all smelting furnace configurations are limited to an
outlet concentration of 2.0 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter
(mg/dscm) (0.00087 grains per dry standard cubic foot (gr/dscf)), 40
CFR 63.543(a). Total hydrocarbon (THC) emissions (as a surrogate for
organic HAP) from existing and new collocated reverberatory/blast
furnace
[[Page 29037]]
configurations are limited to an outlet concentration of 20 parts per
million volume (ppmv) (expressed as propane) corrected to 4 percent
carbon dioxide (CO2) to account for dilution. THC emissions
are limited to 360 ppmv (as propane) at 4 percent CO2 from
existing blast furnaces and 70 ppmv (as propane) at 4 percent
CO2 from new blast furnaces (40 CFR 63.543(c)). The NESHAP
does not specify emissions limits for THC emissions from reverberatory
furnaces not collocated with blast furnaces, rotary furnaces, and
electric furnaces.
The 1997 NESHAP requires that process fugitive emissions sources be
equipped with an enclosure hood meeting minimum face velocity
requirements or be located in a total enclosure subject to general
ventilation that maintains the building at negative pressure (40 CFR
63.543(b)). Ventilation air from the enclosure hoods and total
enclosures is required to be conveyed to a control device. Lead
emissions from these control devices are limited to 2.0 mg/dscm
(0.00087 gr/dscf) (40 CFR 63.544(c)). Lead emissions for all dryer
emissions vents and agglomerating furnace vents are limited to 2.0 mg/
dscm (0.00087 gr/dscf) (40 CFR 63.544(d)). The 1997 NESHAP also
requires the use of bag leak detection systems (BLDS) for continuous
monitoring of baghouses in cases where a high efficiency particulate
air (HEPA) filter was not used in series with a baghouse (40 CFR
63.548(c)(9)).
For fugitive dust sources, as defined in 40 CFR 63.545, the 1997
NESHAP requires that the smelting process and all control devices be
operated at all times according to a standard operating procedures
(SOP) manual developed by the facility. The SOP manual is required to
describe, in detail, the measures used to control fugitive dust
emissions from plant roadways, battery breaking areas, furnace areas,
refining and casting areas, and material storage and handling areas.
B. What data collection activities were conducted to support this
action?
In June 2010, EPA issued an information collection request (ICR),
pursuant to CAA section 114, to six companies that own and operate the
14 secondary lead smelting facilities. The ICR requested available
information regarding process equipment, control devices, point and
fugitive emissions, practices used to control fugitive emissions, and
other aspects of facility operations. The six companies completed the
surveys for their facilities and submitted the responses to us in the
fall of 2010. In addition to the ICR survey, each facility was asked to
submit reports for any emissions tests conducted in 2003 or later. We
received lead emissions test data from all 14 facilities with some
facilities submitting data for multiple years. Additionally, EPA
requested that eight facilities conduct additional emissions tests in
2010 for certain HAP from specific processes that were considered
representative of the industry. Pollutants tested included most HAP
metals, dioxins and furans, and certain organic HAP. The results of
these tests were submitted to EPA in the fall of 2010 and are available
in the docket for this action.
III. Analyses Performed
In this section we describe the analyses performed to support the
proposed decisions for the RTR for this source category.
A. Addressing Unregulated Emissions Sources
In the course of evaluating the Secondary Lead Smelting source
category, we identified certain HAP for which we failed to establish
emission standards in the original MACT. See National Lime v. EPA, 233
F. 3d 625, 634 (DC Cir. 2000) (EPA has ``clear statutory obligation to
set emissions standards for each listed HAP''). Specifically, we
evaluated emissions standards for three HAP (or groups of HAP),
described below, that are not specifically regulated in the existing
1997 MACT standard, or are only regulated for certain emissions points.
As described below, for two of these groups of HAP (i.e., organic HAP
and dioxins and furans) we are proposing emissions limits pursuant to
112(d)(2) and 112(d)(3). For the other HAP (mercury compounds), we are
proposing standards based on work practices pursuant to 112(h). The
results and proposed decisions based on the analyses performed pursuant
to CAA section 112(d)(2), 112(d)(3), and 112(h) are presented in
Section IV.A of this preamble.
1. Organic HAP
EPA did not establish standards for organic HAP emitted from
reverberatory furnaces not collocated with blast furnaces, rotary
furnaces, and electric furnaces in the 1997 NESHAP. EPA is therefore
proposing to set emissions limits for organic HAP emissions from these
furnace configurations in today's action based on emissions data
received in response to the ICR.
2. Mercury
The 1997 NESHAP specified emissions limits for metal HAP (e.g.,
arsenic, cadmium, lead) in terms of a lead emissions limit (i.e., lead
is used as a surrogate for metal HAP). There is no explicit standard
for mercury and we are therefore proposing a standard pursuant to
section 112 (as described further in section IV.A of this preamble).
3. Dioxins and Furans
Lastly, with regard to dioxin and furan emissions, because the 1997
NESHAP did not include emissions limits, we are proposing emissions
standards for dioxins and furans pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(3). We
are also proposing work practices for dioxins and furans.
B. How did we estimate risks posed by the source category?
EPA conducted a risk assessment that provided estimates of the
maximum individual cancer risk (MIR) posed by the HAP emissions from
the 14 sources in the source category, the distribution of cancer risks
within the exposed populations, total cancer incidence, estimates of
the maximum target organ-specific hazard index (TOSHI) for chronic
exposures to HAP with the potential to cause chronic non-cancer health
effects, worst-case screening estimates of hazard quotients (HQ) for
acute exposures to HAP with the potential to cause non-cancer health
effects, and an evaluation of the potential for adverse environmental
effects. In June of 2009, the EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB)
conducted a formal peer review of our risk assessment methodologies in
its review of the document entitled, ``Risk and Technology Review (RTR)
Assessment Methodologies''.\3\ We received the final SAB report on this
review in May of 2010.\4\ Where appropriate, we have responded to the
key messages from this review in developing the current risk
assessment; we will be continuing our efforts to improve our
assessments by incorporating updates based on the SAB recommendations
as they are developed and become available. The risk assessment
consisted of seven primary steps, as discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ U.S. EPA, 2009. Risk and Technology Review (RTR) Risk
Assessment Methodologies: For Review by the EPA's Science Advisory
Board with Case Studies--MACT I Petroleum Refining Sources and
Portland Cement Manufacturing. EPA-452/R-09-006. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html.
\4\ U.S. EPA, 2010. SAB's Response to EPA's RTR Risk Assessment
Methodologies. http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/
4AB3966E263D943A8525771F00668381/$File/EPA-SAB-10-007-unsigned.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The docket for this rulemaking contains the following document,
which provides more information on the risk
[[Page 29038]]
assessment inputs and models: Draft Residual Risk Assessment for the
Secondary Lead Smelting Source Category.
1. Establishing the Nature and Magnitude of Actual Emissions and
Identifying the Emissions Release Characteristics
For each facility in the Secondary Lead Smelting source category,
we compiled an emissions profile (including emissions estimates, stack
parameters, and location data) based on the information provided by the
industry in the ICR, the emissions test data, various calculations, and
the NEI. The site-specific emissions profiles include annual estimates
of process, process fugitive, and fugitive dust emissions for the 2008-
2010 timeframe, as well as emissions release characteristics such as
emissions release height, temperature, velocity, and location
coordinates.
The primary risk assessment is based on estimates of the actual
emissions (though we also analyzed allowable emissions and the
potential risks due to allowable emissions). We received a substantial
amount of emissions test data and other information that enabled us to
derive estimates of stack emissions of certain HAP for all of the
facilities. However, we did not have test data for all pollutants at
all emissions points. Therefore, we estimated emissions of some
pollutants from certain emissions points (for which we had no emissions
data) using test data from similar source types with similar controls.
With regard to fugitive emissions, because they cannot be readily
captured or directly measured, fugitive emissions are a more
challenging emissions type to estimate. In 2010, as part of an
information collection request (ICR), EPA asked the Secondary Lead
industry to provide their best estimate of the emissions from fugitive
sources (e.g., building openings, raw material storage piles, roadways,
parking areas) at their facilities and to provide a description of the
basis for the estimates (e.g., test data, emissions factors, mass
balance calculations, engineering judgment). For our analysis of
fugitive emissions for the source category, we first reviewed and
evaluated the estimates of fugitive lead emissions that were submitted
by each of the facilities in response to the 2010 ICR to determine the
reliability and appropriateness of those estimates as an input to our
risk analyses and other assessments. We concluded that there were
significant gaps and incomplete documentation for a number of
facilities, a large amount of variability in estimates between the
facilities, and various significant uncertainties. For example, five
facilities did not provide any estimates of fugitive emissions, while a
few other facilities provided emissions estimates that were quite
incomplete. Thus, we developed estimates of fugitive emissions for all
facilities in the source category based on a methodology described in
the emissions development technical document (Draft Development of the
RTR Emissions Dataset for the Secondary Lead Smelting Source Category)
for this rulemaking, which is available in the docket. In this
methodology, we began with estimates provided by one facility in the
ICR which were well-documented and covered all the various fugitive
emissions sources expected at these facilities. Using the ICR
responses, other available information on fugitive emissions (including
scientific literature), and various assumptions and calculations, we
scaled these estimates to derive site-specific fugitive emissions
estimates at each of the other 13 facilities. The estimates calculated
using this methodology were used as inputs to the risk assessment
modeling.
The results of the risk assessment modeling (which are described
further in section IV below) indicated that the fugitive dust emissions
were the largest contributor to the risks due to lead emissions. The
impacts of fugitive emissions were generally considerably greater than
the impacts due to stack emissions. Because of these impacts, and
because of the difficulties and uncertainties associated with
estimating fugitive emissions, we decided to do further analyses and
review of the fugitive emissions estimates as a quality assurance check
on the initial fugitive emissions estimates. Therefore, we consulted
further with industry representatives, gathered additional information
from the EPA's Toxics Release Inventory, evaluated the ICR responses
further, and performed various other analyses, which led to the
development of an alternative set of fugitive emissions estimates based
on a slightly different methodology. The total fugitive estimates of
lead for the industry calculated based on the alternative approach are
within 10 percent of our initial estimates. We did not rerun the model
with the alternative estimates because we know that the overall results
would be quite similar and would not change our overall conclusions and
decisions (described later in this notice). Further details on all the
emissions data, calculations, estimates, and uncertainties, are in the
emissions technical document (Draft Development of the RTR Emissions
Dataset for the Secondary Lead Smelting Source Category) which is
available in the docket for this action. We are seeking comments on our
emissions data and estimates, and the fugitive emissions estimation
methodologies and any other potential appropriate methods or data that
could be used to estimate fugitive emissions from these facilities.
2. Establishing the Relationship Between Actual Emissions and MACT-
Allowable Emissions Levels
The emissions data in our data set are estimates of actual
emissions on an annual basis for stacks and fugitives for the 2008-2010
timeframe. With most source categories, we generally find that
``actual'' emissions levels are lower than the emissions levels that a
facility is allowed to emit under the MACT standards. The emissions
levels allowed to be emitted by the MACT standards are referred to as
the ``MACT-allowable'' emissions levels. This represents the highest
emissions level that could be emitted by facilities without violating
the MACT standards.
As we have discussed in prior residual risk and technology review
rules, assessing the risks at the MACT-allowable level is inherently
reasonable since these risks reflect the maximum level at which sources
could emit while still complying with the MACT standards. However, we
also explained that it is reasonable to consider actual emissions,
where such data are available, in both steps of the risk analysis, in
accordance with the Benzene NESHAP (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989).
It is reasonable to consider actual emissions because sources typically
seek to perform better than required by emissions standards to provide
an operational cushion to accommodate the variability in manufacturing
processes and control device performance. Facilities' actual emissions
may also be significantly lower than MACT-allowable emissions for other
reasons such as State requirements, better performance of control
devices than required by the MACT standards, or reduced production.
For the Secondary Lead Smelting source category, we evaluated
actual and allowable emissions for both stack emissions and fugitive
dust emissions. As described earlier in this section, the actual
emissions data for this source category were compiled based on the ICR
responses, available test data, various calculations, and the NEI. We
estimated actual emissions for all HAP that we identified in the
dataset. The
[[Page 29039]]
analysis of allowable emissions was largely focused on lead compound
emissions, which we considered the most important HAP emitted from this
source category based on our screening level risk assessment and the
HAP for which we had the most data. However, we also considered
allowable emissions for other HAP.
With regard to fugitive emissions, because there are no numerical
emissions limits, and because all facilities are required to implement
identical fugitive emissions control work-practices, we assume that the
allowable fugitive emissions from this source category are equal to the
actual emissions.
To estimate emissions at the MACT-allowable level from stacks
(e.g., process, process fugitive, and building vents), we estimated the
emissions that would occur if facilities were continuously emitting
lead at the maximum allowed by the existing MACT standard (i.e., 2.0
mg/dscm) from all vents. We then compared these estimated allowable
emissions to the estimated emissions using the actual stack test data
for each facility. We realize that these estimates of allowable
emissions are theoretical high-end estimates as facilities must
maintain average emissions levels at some level below the MACT limit to
ensure compliance with the standard at all times because of the day-to-
day variability in emissions. Nevertheless, these high-end estimates of
allowable emissions were adequate for us to estimate the magnitude of
allowable emissions and the differences between the estimates of actual
emissions and the MACT allowable emissions.
Based on this analysis, we conclude that all facilities are
emitting lead at levels lower than allowable; however, the range of
differences between actual and allowable is significant. For two
facilities, the estimated actual emissions were only moderately lower
than allowable (about 2-3 times lower). The majority of other
facilities have estimated actual emissions in the range of 10 to 100
times lower than allowable. Finally, one facility, which has highly
advanced controls, has estimated actual emissions of about 1,500 times
below the MACT allowable emissions level.
We then developed a ratio of MACT-allowable to actual emissions for
each facility in the source category. After developing these ratios, we
applied them on a facility-by-facility basis to the maximum modeled
ambient lead concentrations to estimate the maximum ambient
concentrations that would occur if all stacks were emitting at maximum
allowable levels. The ratios were applied to stack emissions while
leaving fugitive dust emissions at actual levels since, as described
above, actual fugitive dust emissions were assumed to be equal to
allowable fugitive dust emissions. The estimates of MACT-allowable
emissions are described further in the technical document: Draft
Development of the RTR Emissions Dataset for the Secondary Lead
Smelting Source Category. The estimates of risks due to allowable
emissions are summarized in Section IV.B of this preamble and described
further in the draft risk report: Draft Residual Risk Assessment for
the Secondary Lead Smelting Source Category.
3. Conducting Dispersion Modeling, Determining Inhalation Exposures,
and Estimating Individual and Population Inhalation Risks
Both long-term and short-term inhalation exposure concentrations
and health risks from the source category addressed in this proposal
were estimated using the Human Exposure Model (Community and Sector
HEM-3 version 1.1.0). The HEM-3 performs three of the primary risk
assessment activities listed above: (1) Conducting dispersion modeling
to estimate the concentrations of HAP in ambient air, (2) estimating
long-term and short-term inhalation exposures to individuals residing
within 50 km of the modeled sources, and (3) estimating individual and
population-level inhalation risks using the exposure estimates and
quantitative dose-response information.
The dispersion model used by HEM-3 is AERMOD, which is one of EPA's
preferred models for assessing pollutant concentrations from industrial
facilities.\5\ To perform the dispersion modeling and to develop the
preliminary risk estimates, HEM-3 draws on three data libraries. The
first is a library of meteorological data, which is used for dispersion
calculations. This library includes 1 year of hourly surface and upper
air observations for 130 meteorological stations, selected to provide
coverage of the United States and Puerto Rico. A second library, of
United States Census Bureau census block \6\ internal point locations
and populations, provides the basis of human exposure calculations
based on the year 2000 U.S. Census. In addition, for each census block,
the census library includes the elevation and controlling hill height,
which are also used in dispersion calculations. A third library of
pollutant unit risk factors and other health benchmarks is used to
estimate health risks. These risk factors and health benchmarks are the
latest values recommended by EPA for HAP and other toxic air
pollutants. These values are available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/toxsource/summary.html and are discussed in more detail later in this
section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ U.S. EPA. Revision to the Guideline on Air Quality Models:
Adoption of a Preferred General Purpose (Flat and Complex Terrain)
Dispersion Model and Other Revisions (70 FR 68218, November 9,
2005).
\6\ A census block is the smallest geographic area for which
census statistics are tabulated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In developing the risk assessment for chronic exposures, we used
the estimated annual average ambient air concentrations of each of the
HAP emitted by each source for which we have emissions data in the
source category. The air concentrations at each nearby census block
centroid were used as a surrogate for the chronic inhalation exposure
concentration for all the people who reside in that census block. We
calculated the MIR for the facilities as the cancer risk associated
with a lifetime (70-year period) of exposure to the maximum
concentration at the centroid of inhabited census blocks. Individual
cancer risks were calculated by multiplying the estimated lifetime
exposure to the ambient concentration of each of the HAP (in micrograms
per cubic meter) by its unit risk estimate (URE), which is an upper
bound estimate of an individual's probability of contracting cancer
over a lifetime of exposure to a concentration of 1 microgram of the
pollutant per cubic meter of air. In general, for residual risk
assessments, we use URE values from EPA's Integrated Risk Information
System (IRIS). For carcinogenic pollutants without EPA IRIS values, we
look to other reputable sources of cancer dose-response values, often
using California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) URE values,
where available. In cases where new, scientifically credible dose
response values have been developed in a manner consistent with EPA
guidelines and have undergone a peer review process similar to that
used by EPA, we may use such dose-response values in place of, or in
addition to, other values, if appropriate. For this review, URE values
and their sources (e.g., IRIS, CalEPA) can be found in Table 2.6-1(a)
in the risk assessment document entitled, Draft Residual Risk
Assessment for the Secondary Lead Smelting Source Category, which is
available in the docket for this proposed rulemaking.
Incremental individual lifetime cancer risks associated with
emissions from the 14 facilities in the source category were estimated
as the sum of the risks for each of the carcinogenic
[[Page 29040]]
HAP (including those classified as carcinogenic to humans, likely to be
carcinogenic to humans, and suggestive evidence of carcinogenic
potential \7\) emitted by the modeled source. Cancer incidence and the
distribution of individual cancer risks for the population within 50 km
of the sources were also estimated for the source category as part of
these assessments by summing individual risks. A distance of 50 km is
consistent with both the analysis supporting the 1989 Benzene NESHAP
(54 FR 38044) and the limitations of Gaussian dispersion models,
including AERMOD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ These classifications also coincide with the terms ``known
carcinogen, probable carcinogen, and possible carcinogen,''
respectively, which are the terms advocated in the EPA's previous
Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment, published in 1986 (51 FR
33992, September 24, 1986). Summing the risks of these individual
compounds to obtain the cumulative cancer risks is an approach that
was recommended by the EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) in their
2002 peer review of EPA's NATA entitled, NATA--Evaluating the
National-scale Air Toxics Assessment 1996 Data--an SAB Advisory,
available at: http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/
214C6E915BB04E14852570CA007A682C/$File/ecadv02001.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To assess the risk of non-cancer health effects from chronic
exposures, we summed the HQ for each of the HAP that affects a common
target organ system to obtain the HI for that target organ system (or
target organ-specific HI, TOSHI). The HQ is the estimated exposure
divided by the chronic reference value, which is either the EPA RfC,
defined as ``an estimate (with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of
magnitude) of a continuous inhalation exposure to the human population
(including sensitive subgroups) that is likely to be without an
appreciable risk of deleterious effects during a lifetime,'' or, in
cases where an RfC is not available, the Agency for Toxic Substances
and Disease Registry (ATSDR) chronic Minimal Risk Level (MRL) or the
CalEPA Chronic Reference Exposure Level (REL). Notably, the REL is
defined as ``the concentration level at or below which no adverse
health effects are anticipated for a specified exposure duration.''
Worst-case screening estimates of acute exposures and risks were
also evaluated for each of the HAP at the point of highest off-site
exposure for each facility (i.e., not just the census block centroids)
assuming that a person was located at this spot at a time when both the
peak (hourly) emissions rate and worst-case hourly dispersion
conditions occurred. In general, acute HQ values were calculated using
best available, short-term dose-response values. These acute dose-
response values include REL, Acute Exposure Guideline Levels (AEGL),
and Emergency Response Planning Guidelines (ERPG) for 1-hour exposure
durations. Notably, for HAP emitted from this source category, REL
values were the only such dose-response values available. As discussed
below, we used conservative assumptions for emissions rates,
meteorology, and exposure location for our acute analysis.
As described in the CalEPA's Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk
Assessment Guidelines, Part I, The Determination of Acute Reference
Exposure Levels for Airborne Toxicants, an acute REL value (http://www.oehha.ca.gov/air/pdf/acuterel.pdf) is defined as ``the
concentration level at or below which no adverse health effects are
anticipated for a specified exposure duration.'' REL values are based
on the most sensitive, relevant, adverse health effect reported in the
medical and toxicological literature. REL values are designed to
protect the most sensitive individuals in the population by the
inclusion of margins of safety. Since margins of safety are
incorporated to address data gaps and uncertainties, exceeding the REL
does not automatically indicate an adverse health impact.
To develop screening estimates of acute exposures, we first
developed estimates of maximum hourly emissions rates by multiplying
the average actual annual hourly emissions rates by a factor to cover
routinely variable emissions. We chose the factor to use based on
process knowledge and engineering judgment and with awareness of a
Texas study of short-term emissions variability, which showed that most
peak emissions events, in a heavily-industrialized 4-county area
(Harris, Galveston, Chambers, and Brazoria Counties, Texas) were less
than twice the annual average hourly emissions rate. The highest peak
emissions event was 74 times the annual average hourly emissions rate,
and the 99th percentile ratio of peak hourly emissions rate to the
annual average hourly emissions rate was 9.\8\ This analysis is
provided in Appendix 4 of the Draft Residual Risk Assessment for
Secondary Lead Smelting that is available in the docket for this
action. Considering this analysis, unless specific process knowledge or
data are available to provide an alternate value, to account for more
than 99 percent of the peak hourly emissions, we generally apply the
assumption to most source categories that the maximum one-hour
emissions rate from any source other than those resulting in fugitive
dust emissions are 10 times the average annual hourly emissions rate
for that source. We use a factor other than 10 in some cases if we have
information that indicates that a different factor is appropriate for a
particular source category. Moreover, the factor of 10 is not applied
to fugitive dust sources because these emissions are minimized during
the meteorological conditions associated with the worst-case short-term
impacts (i.e., during low-wind, stable atmospheric conditions) in these
acute exposure screening assessments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/compliance/field_ops/eer/index.html or docket to access the source of these data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In cases where all worst-case acute HQ values from the screening
step were less than or equal to 1, acute impacts were deemed negligible
and no further analysis was performed. In the cases where any worst-
case acute HQ from the screening step was greater than 1, additional
site-specific data were considered to develop a more refined estimate
of the potential for acute impacts of concern. Ideally, we would prefer
to have continuous measurements over time to see how the emissions vary
by each hour over an entire year. Having a frequency distribution of
hourly emissions rates over a year would allow us to perform a
probabilistic analysis to estimate potential threshold exceedances and
their frequency of occurrence. Such an evaluation could include a more
complete statistical treatment of the key parameters and elements
adopted in this screening analysis. However, we recognize that having
this level of data is rare, hence our use of the multiplier (i.e.,
factor of 10) approach in our screening analysis. In the case of this
source category, we had no further information on peak-to-mean
emissions which could be used to refine the estimates. The only
refinement that was made to the acute screening assessments was to
ensure that the estimated worst-case HQ was not calculated at a
location within the facility boundaries.
4. Conducting Multipathway Exposure and Risk Modeling
EPA evaluated the potential for significant human health risks due
to exposures via routes other than inhalation (i.e., multipathway
exposures) and the potential for adverse environmental impacts in a
three-step process. In the first step, we determined whether any
facilities emitted any HAP known to be persistent and bio-accumulative
in the environment (PB-HAP). There are 14 PB-HAP compounds or compound
classes identified for this screening in EPA's Air
[[Page 29041]]
Toxics Risk Assessment Library (available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/fera/risk_atra_vol1.html).
Emissions of five PB-HAP were identified in the emissions dataset
for the Secondary Lead Smelting source category, as follows: Lead
compounds, cadmium compounds, POM, dioxin and furans, and mercury.\9\
The dataset is described in the emissions technical document (Draft
Development of the RTR Emissions Dataset for the Secondary Lead
Smelting Source Category) which is available in the docket for this
action. As described in that document, lead emissions estimates are
based on multiple emission stack tests conducted over multiple years,
cadmium and dioxin and furans are based on emissions tests conducted in
2010. Mercury emissions estimates are based on test results in 2010
which included a large number of non-detects and conservative
assumptions about non-detects, and the estimates for POM are based on
reported estimates from the NEI or estimates provided by the companies
in the ICR responses in 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Most of the emissions test results for mercury emissions for
this industry were below detection limit. The emissions estimates
used in the risk assessment are based on the assumption that all the
non-detect test values were at the level of the detection limit.
Therefore, these estimated emissions for mercury are clear
overestimates. We conclude that the true amounts of emissions of
mercury from this source category are much lower than shown in this
assessment, but we are not able to quantify precisely how much
lower.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emissions of cadmium compounds, POM, dioxin and furans and mercury
were evaluated for potential non-inhalation risks and adverse
environmental impacts using our recently developed screening scenario
that was developed for use with the Total Risk Integrated Methodology
(TRIM.FaTE) model. This screening scenario uses environmental media
outputs from the peer-reviewed TRIM.FaTE to estimate the maximum
potential ingestion risks for any specified emissions scenario by using
a generic farming/fishing exposure scenario that simulates a
subsistence environment. The screening scenario retains many of the
ingestion and scenario inputs developed for EPA's Human Health Risk
Assessment Protocols (HHRAP) for hazardous waste combustion facilities.
In the development of the screening scenario, a sensitivity analysis
was conducted to ensure that its key design parameters were established
such that environmental media concentrations were not underestimated,
and to also minimize the occurrence of false positives for human health
endpoints. See Appendix 3 of the risk assessment document for a
complete discussion of the development and testing of the screening
scenario, as well as for the values of facility-level de minimis
emissions rates developed for screening potentially significant
multipathway impacts. For the purpose of developing de minimis
emissions rates for our multipathway screening, we derived emissions
levels at which the maximum human health risk could be 1-in-1 million
for lifetime cancer risk, or exposures could potentially be above the
reference dose for non-cancer effects, based on a conservative model
plant analysis described in Appendix 3 of the risk assessment document.
For the secondary lead smelting source category, there were
exceedances of de minimis emissions rates at multiple facilities for
multiple PB-HAP, and thus a multipathway analysis was performed. Two
facilities were chosen as case study analyses to assess potential
multipathway risks for mercury, cadmium, POM, and dioxins and furans.
The selection criteria for modeling these two facilities included
emissions rates of PB-HAPs, proximity to water bodies, proximity to
farmland, average rainfall, average wind speed and direction, smelting
furnace type, local change in elevation, and geographic
representativeness of sites throughout the U.S. As a result of our
selection process, we believe the multipathway risks associated with
these two facilities are in the upper end of the potential for
multipathway risks from the source category. Since the modeling used in
these case study assessments utilize site specific parameters to
describe naturally occurring physical, chemical and biological
processes, we believe that the multimedia concentrations of PB-HAPs
generated in this analysis are unbiased estimates of the true impacts.
In general, results of this assessment were designed to
characterize multipathway risks associated with high end consumption of
PB-HAP predominantly from contaminated food sources. Thus, multipathway
exposure and risk estimates were calculated for two basic scenarios,
both of which are expected to give rise to high-end exposures and
risks. The farmer scenario involves an individual living on a farm
homestead in the vicinity of a PB-HAP source who consumes contaminated
produce grown on the farm, as well as contaminated meat and animal
products raised on the farm. The farming scenario also accounts for
incidental ingestion of contaminated surface soil at the location of
the farm homestead. The recreational fisher scenario involves an
individual who regularly consumes fish caught in freshwater lakes in
the vicinity of a PB-HAP source. In the fishing scenario, in addition
to the characterization of exposure and risks across the broad
population of recreational anglers, exposures were also calculated for
three subpopulations of recreational anglers (Hispanic, Laotian, and
Vietnamese descent) who have higher rates of fish consumption.\10\
Furthermore, in order to more fully characterize the modeled potential
multipathway risks that may be associated with high-end consumption of
PB-HAP contaminated food, we present results based on two ingestion
exposure scenarios: (1) A reasonable maximum exposure (RME) scenario
that, for example, utilizes 90th percentile ingestion rates for
farmers, recreational anglers, and the three subpopulations of
recreational anglers (e.g., ingestion rates specific to Laotian
recreational anglers); and (2) a central tendency exposure (CTE)
scenario that, for example, utilizes mean ingestion rates for the
groups just described. We provide results from both scenarios to
illustrate the range of potential modeled exposures and risks that may
exist in the high-end of the complete distribution of potential
multipathway risks for this source category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ In both scenarios, exposure via drinking water was not
considered because it is unlikely that humans would use surface
waters as a drinking water source. Groundwater, which is a likely
source of drinking water, also was not included in the exposure
scenarios because contamination of groundwater aquifers by air
deposition sources was not expected to be significant. For dioxin,
exposure via breast milk was considered in the farming scenario as
well as the recreational fishing scenario, but not for the three
recreational fishing subpopulations (Hispanic, Laotian, and
Vietnamese descent) since subpopulation ingestion rates were only
applicable to adult males. The breast milk pathway was not
considered with respect to mercury exposure due to a current lack of
data regarding this pathway.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In evaluating the potential air-related multipathway risks from the
emissions of lead compounds, rather than developing a de minimis
emissions rate, we compared its maximum modeled 3-month average
atmospheric lead concentration at any off-site location with the
current primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for lead
(promulgated in 2008), which is set at a level of 0.15 micrograms per
cubic meter ([micro]g/m\3\) based on rolling 3-month periods with a
not-to-be-exceeded level for any 3-month rolling average, and which
will require attainment by 2016 (73 FR 66964). Notably, in making these
comparisons, we estimated maximum rolling 3-month ambient lead
concentrations taking into account all of the elements of the NAAQS for
lead. That is, our estimated 3-month lead concentrations are
[[Page 29042]]
calculated in a manner that is consistent with the indicator, averaging
time, and form of the lead NAAQS, and those estimates are compared to
the level of the lead NAAQS (0.15 [micro]g/m\3\).
The NAAQS value, a public health policy judgment, incorporated the
Agency's most recent health evaluation of air effects of lead exposure
for the purposes of setting a national standard. In setting this value,
the Administrator promulgated a standard that was requisite to protect
public health with an adequate margin of safety. That standard applies
everywhere, under all circumstances, regardless of an individual's
location, exposure patterns, or health circumstances. We consider
values below the level of the primary NAAQS to protect against
multipathway risks because, as mentioned above, the primary NAAQS is
set so as to protect public health with an adequate margin of safety.
However, ambient air lead concentrations above the NAAQS are considered
to pose the potential for increased risk to public health. We consider
this assessment--comparing modeled concentrations to the level of the
NAAQS--to be a refined analysis given: (1) The numerous health studies,
detailed risk and exposure analyses, and level of external peer and
public review that went into the development of the primary NAAQS for
lead, combined with: (2) the site-specific dispersion modeling
performed in the risk assessment to develop ambient concentration
estimates from the 14 secondary lead smelter facilities addressed in
this proposed rule. It should be noted, however, that this comparison
to the NAAQS for lead does not account for possible population
exposures to lead from sources other than the one being modeled; for
example, via consumption of water from contaminated local sources or
ingestion of contaminated locally grown food. Nevertheless, the
Administrator judged that the primary NAAQS would protect, with an
adequate margin of safety, the health of children and other at-risk
populations against an array of adverse health effects, most notably
including neurological effects, particularly neurobehavioral and
neurocognitive effects, in children (73 FR 67007). The Administrator,
in setting the standard, also recognized that no evidence of a risk-
based bright line indicated a single appropriate level. Instead, a
collection of scientific evidence and other information was used to
select the standard from a range of reasonable values (73 FR 67006).
We further note that comparing ambient lead concentrations to the
NAAQS for lead, considering the level, averaging time, form and
indicator of the lead NAAQS, also informs whether there is the
potential for adverse environmental effects. This is because the
secondary lead NAAQS, which has the same averaging time, form, and
level as the primary standard, was set to protect the public welfare
which includes among other things soils, water, crops, vegetation and
wildlife (CAA section 302(h)). Thus, ambient lead concentrations above
the NAAQS for lead also indicate the potential for adverse
environmental effects (73 FR 67007 to 67012). For additional
information on the multipathway analysis approach, see the residual
risk documentation as referenced in Section III.A of this preamble. EPA
solicits comment generally on the modeling approach used herein to
assess air-related lead risks, and specifically on the use of the lead
NAAQS in this analytical construct.
5. Assessing Risks Considering Emissions Control Options
In addition to assessing baseline inhalation risks and screening
for potential multipathway risks, we also estimated risks considering
the potential emissions reductions that would be achieved by the main
control options under consideration. The expected emissions reductions
were applied to the specific HAP and emissions points in the source
category dataset to develop corresponding estimates of risk reductions.
More information regarding the risks after control can be found in the
risk assessment document: Draft Residual Risk Assessment for the
Secondary Lead Smelting Source Category, which is available in the
docket for this action.
6. Conducting Other Risk-Related Analyses, Including Facility-Wide
Assessments and Demographic Analyses
a. Facility-Wide Risk
To put the source category risks in context, for our residual risk
review, we also examine the risks from the entire ``facility,'' where
the facility includes all HAP-emitting operations within a contiguous
area and under common control. In other words, we examine the HAP
emissions not only from the source category of interest, but also
emissions of HAP from all other emissions sources at the facility. In
this rulemaking, for the Secondary Lead Smelting source category, there
are no other significant HAP emissions sources present. Thus, there was
no need to perform a separate facility wide risk assessment.
b. Demographic Analysis
To identify specific groups that may be affected by this
rulemaking, EPA conducted demographic analyses. These analyses provide
information about the percentages of different social, demographic, and
economic groups within the populations subjected to potential HAP-
related cancer and non-cancer risks from the facilities in this source
category.
For the demographic analyses, we focus on the populations within 50
km of any facility with emissions sources subject to the MACT standard
(identical to the risk assessment). Based on the emissions for the
source category or the facility, we then identified the populations
that are estimated to have exposures to HAP which result in: (1) Cancer
risks of 1-in-1 million or greater; (2) non-cancer HI of 1 or greater;
and/or (3) ambient lead concentrations above the level of the NAAQS for
lead. We compare the percentages of particular demographic groups
within the focused populations to the total percentages of those
demographic groups nationwide. The results, including other risk
metrics, such as average risks for the exposed populations, are
documented in a technical report in the docket for the source category
covered in this proposal.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Risk and Technology Review--Analysis of Socio-Economic
Factors for Populations Living Near Primary Lead Smelting
Operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The basis for the risk estimates used in the demographic analyses
for this source category was the modeling results based on actual
emissions levels obtained from the HEM-3 model described above. The
risk estimates for each census block were linked to a database of
information from the 2000 decennial census that includes data on race
and ethnicity, age distributions, poverty status, household incomes,
and education level. The Census Department Landview[supreg] database
was the source of the data on race and ethnicity, and the data on age
distributions, poverty status, household incomes, and education level
were obtained from the 2000 Census of Population and Housing Summary
File 3 (SF3) Long Form. While race and ethnicity census data are
available at the census block level, the age and income census data are
only available at the census block group level (which includes an
average of 26 blocks or an average of 1,350 people). Where census data
are available at the block group level but not the block level, we
assumed that all census blocks within the block group have the same
distribution of ages and incomes as the block group.
[[Page 29043]]
As noted above, we focused the analysis on those census blocks
where source category risk results show: (1) Estimated lifetime
inhalation cancer risks above 1-in-1 million; (2) chronic non-cancer
indices above 1; and/or (3) census blocks where estimated ambient lead
concentrations were above the level of the lead NAAQS. For each of
these cases, we determined the relative percentage of different racial
and ethnic groups, different age groups, adults with and without a high
school diploma, people living in households below the national median
income, and people living below the poverty line within those census
blocks.
The specific census population categories included:
Total population
White
African American (or Black)
Native Americans
Other races and multiracial
Hispanic or Latino
People living below the poverty line
Children 18 years of age and under
Adults 19 to 64 years of age
Adults 65 years of age and over
Adults without a high school diploma.
It should be noted that these categories overlap in some instances,
resulting in some populations being counted in more than one category
(e.g., other races and multiracial and Hispanic). In addition, while
not a specific census population category, we also examined risks to
``Minorities,'' a classification that is defined for these purposes as
all race population categories except white.
The methodology and the results of the demographic analyses for
this source category are included in the technical report available in
the docket for this action (Risk and Technology Review--Analysis of
Socio-Economic Factors for Populations Living near Secondary Lead
Smelting Operations).
7. Considering Uncertainties in Risk Assessment
Uncertainty and the potential for bias are inherent in all risk
assessments, including those performed for the source category
addressed in this proposal. Although uncertainty exists, we believe the
approach that we took, which used conservative tools and assumptions to
bridge data gaps, ensures that our decisions are health-protective. A
brief discussion of the uncertainties in the emissions dataset,
dispersion modeling, inhalation exposure estimates, dose-response
relationships, multipathway and environmental impacts analyses, and
demographics analysis follows below. A more thorough discussion of
these uncertainties is included in the risk assessment documentation
(Draft Residual Risk Assessment for the Secondary Lead Smelting
Category) available in the docket for this action.
a. Uncertainties in the Emissions Dataset
Although the development of the RTR dataset involved quality
assurance/quality control processes, the accuracy of emissions values
will vary depending on the source of the data, the degree to which data
are incomplete or missing, the degree to which assumptions made to
complete the datasets are accurate, whether and to what extent errors
were made in estimating emissions values, and other factors. The
estimates of stack emissions are largely based on actual emissions test
data, and, therefore, we have a relatively high degree of confidence in
those estimates. With regard to fugitive emissions, those estimates are
largely based on engineering calculations and application of various
assumptions, and are therefore considered less certain relative to the
stack emissions estimates. Nevertheless, we believe the fugitive
estimates we derived for these facilities and used in our analyses are
reasonable estimates of the actual fugitive emissions from these
facilities partly due to the findings that the available ambient
monitoring data (which are described in the document Draft Summary of
the Ambient Lead Monitoring Data near Secondary Lead Smelting
Facilities, available in the docket) indicate that measured levels of
lead in ambient air near these facilities are generally similar in
magnitude (e.g., generally within a factor of 2) to the modeled
estimates (which are shown in the Draft Residual Risk Assessment for
the Secondary Lead Smelting Source Category, which is available in the
docket).
The emissions estimates for stacks considered in this analysis are
hourly emissions rates primarily extracted from test reports and
extrapolated to an annual total based on the hours of operation of each
facility and may not reflect short-term fluctuations during the course
of a year or variations from year to year. The estimates of peak hourly
emissions rates from stacks for the acute effects screening assessment
were based on multiplication factors applied to the hourly emissions
rates (the default factor of 10 was used for Secondary Lead Smelting
for sources other than fugitive dust) which are intended to account for
emissions fluctuations due to normal facility operations.
There is an unquantified level of uncertainty regarding the
emissions estimates for acute impacts of fugitive dusts. The current
set of assumptions used in deriving the worst-case acute impact
estimate for fugitive dusts assumes the average hourly emission level
(annual emissions divided by 8760 hours per year) to occur at the
default worst-case meteorological conditions (low winds with a stable
atmosphere). It is acknowledged that the combination of average
emissions during low winds would be an overestimate of the fugitive
dust emission rate during those low wind periods. Therefore, for
fugitive dusts, the worst case meteorology may not be the same as for
other process emissions, and the level of hourly fugitive dust
emissions during this alternate worst-case condition is unknown.
We further note that there is additional uncertainty with respect
to emissions of mercury. As previously noted, most of the mercury
emissions test results for this industry were below detection limit.
The emissions estimates utilized in the risk assessment are based on
the health-protective assumption that all the non-detect test values
were at the level of the detection limit. Therefore, these estimated
emissions for mercury are clear overestimates. We conclude that the
true amounts of emissions of mercury from this source category are much
lower than those provided in the technical documents supporting today's
proposed rule, but we are not able to quantify precisely how much
lower.
b. Uncertainties in Dispersion Modeling
Although the analysis employed EPA's recommended regulatory
dispersion model, AERMOD, we recognize that there is uncertainty in
ambient concentration estimates associated with any model, including
AERMOD. In circumstances where we had to choose between various model
options, where possible, we selected model options (e.g., rural/urban,
plume depletion, chemistry) that provided an overestimate of ambient
concentrations of the HAP rather than an underestimate. However,
because of practicality and data limitation reasons, some factors
(e.g., building downwash) have the potential in some situations to
overestimate or underestimate ambient impacts. Despite these
uncertainties, we believe that at off-site locations and census block
centroids, the approach considered in the dispersion modeling analysis
should generally yield overestimates of ambient HAP concentrations.
Furthermore, as noted previously, there is a level of uncertainty
in the
[[Page 29044]]
conditions leading to worst-case emissions for fugitive dusts. However,
in the absence of better information regarding actual short-term
impacts from fugitive dust sources, the combination of average hourly
emission level and worst-case meteorology was assumed to be useful for
deriving protective acute impact estimates.
c. Uncertainties in Inhalation Exposure
The effects of human mobility on exposures were not included in the
assessment. Specifically, short-term mobility and long-term mobility
between census blocks in the modeling domain were not considered.\12\
As a result, this simplification will likely bias the assessment toward
overestimating the highest exposures. In addition, the assessment
predicted the chronic exposures at the centroid of each populated
census block as surrogates for the exposure concentrations for all
people living in that block. Using the census block centroid to predict
chronic exposures tends to over-predict exposures for people in the
census block who live farther from the facility and under-predict
exposures for people in the census block who live closer to the
facility. Thus, using the census block centroid to predict chronic
exposures may lead to a potential understatement or overstatement of
the true maximum impact for any one individual, but is an unbiased
estimate of average risk and incidence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Short-term mobility is movement from one microenvironment
to another over the course of hours or days. Long-term mobility is
movement from one residence to another over the course of a
lifetime.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The assessments evaluate the projected cancer inhalation risks
associated with pollutant exposures over a 70-year period, which is the
assumed lifetime of an individual. In reality, both the length of time
that modeled emissions sources at facilities actually operate (i.e.,
more or less than 70 years), and the domestic growth or decline of the
modeled industry (i.e., the increase or decrease in the number or size
of United States facilities), will influence the future risks posed by
a given source or source category. Depending on the characteristics of
the industry, these factors will, in most cases, result in an
overestimate both in individual risk levels and in the total estimated
number of cancer cases. However, in rare cases, where a facility
maintains or increases its emissions levels beyond 70 years, residents
live beyond 70 years at the same location, and the residents spend most
of their days at that location, then the risks could potentially be
underestimated. Annual cancer incidence estimates from exposures to
emissions from these sources would not be affected by uncertainty in
the length of time emissions sources operate.
The exposure estimates used in these analyses assume chronic
exposures to ambient levels of pollutants. Because most people spend
the majority of their time indoors, actual exposures may not be as
high, depending on the characteristics of the pollutants modeled. For
many of the HAP, indoor levels are roughly equivalent to ambient
levels, but for very reactive pollutants or larger particles, these
levels are typically lower. This factor has the potential to result in
an overstatement of 25 to 30 percent of exposures for some HAP.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ U.S. EPA. National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment for 1996.
(EPA 453/R-01-003; January 2001; page 85.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the uncertainties highlighted above, there are
several factors specific to the acute exposure assessment that should
be highlighted. The accuracy of an acute inhalation exposure assessment
depends on the simultaneous occurrence of independent factors that may
vary greatly, such as hourly emissions rates, meteorology, and human
activity patterns. In this assessment, we assume that individuals
remain for 1 hour at the point of maximum ambient concentration as
determined by the co-occurrence of peak emissions and worst-case
meteorological conditions. These assumptions would tend to be worst-
case actual exposures since it is unlikely that a person would be
located at the point of maximum exposure during the time of worst-case
impact.
d. Uncertainties in Dose-Response Relationships
There are uncertainties inherent in the development of the dose-
response values used in our risk assessments for cancer effects from
chronic exposures and non-cancer effects from both chronic and acute
exposures. Some uncertainties may be considered quantitatively, and
others generally are expressed in qualitative terms. We note as a
preface to this discussion a point on dose-response uncertainty that is
brought out in EPA's 2005 Cancer Guidelines; namely, that ``the primary
goal of EPA actions is protection of human health; accordingly, as an
Agency policy, risk assessment procedures, including default options
that are used in the absence of scientific data to the contrary, should
be health protective'' (EPA 2005 Cancer Guidelines, pages 1-7). This is
the approach followed here as summarized in the next several
paragraphs. A complete detailed discussion of uncertainties and
variability in dose-response relationships is given in the residual
risk documentation which is available in the docket for this action.
Cancer URE values used in our risk assessments are those that have
been developed to generally provide an upper bound estimate of risk.
That is, they represent a ``plausible upper limit to the true value of
a quantity'' (although this is usually not a true statistical
confidence limit).\14\ In some circumstances, the true risk could be as
low as zero; however, in other circumstances the risk could be
greater.\15\ When developing an upper bound estimate of risk and to
provide risk values that do not underestimate risk, health-protective
default approaches are generally used. To err on the side of ensuring
adequate health protection, EPA typically uses the upper bound
estimates rather than lower bound or central tendency estimates in our
risk assessments, an approach that may have limitations for other uses
(e.g., priority-setting or expected benefits analysis).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ IRIS glossary (http://www.epa.gov/NCEA/iris/help_gloss.htm).
\15\ An exception to this is the URE for benzene, which is
considered to cover a range of values, each end of which is
considered to be equally plausible, and which is based on maximum
likelihood estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chronic non-cancer reference (RfC and RfD) values represent chronic
exposure levels that are intended to be health-protective levels.
Specifically, these values provide an estimate (with uncertainty
spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a continuous inhalation
exposure (RfC) or a daily oral exposure (RfD) to the human population
(including sensitive subgroups) that is likely to be without an
appreciable risk of deleterious effects during a lifetime. To derive
values that are intended to be ``without appreciable risk,'' the
methodology relies upon an uncertainty factor (UF) approach (U.S. EPA,
1993, 1994) which considers uncertainty, variability and gaps in the
available data. The UF are applied to derive reference values that are
intended to protect against appreciable risk of deleterious effects.
The UF are commonly default values,\16\ e.g., factors
[[Page 29045]]
of 10 or 3, used in the absence of compound-specific data; where data
are available, UF may also be developed using compound-specific
information. When data are limited, more assumptions are needed and
more UF are used. Thus, there may be a greater tendency to overestimate
risk in the sense that further study might support development of
reference values that are higher (i.e., less potent) because fewer
default assumptions are needed. However, for some pollutants, it is
possible that risks may be underestimated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ According to the NRC report, Science and Judgment in Risk
Assessment (NRC, 1994) ``[Default] options are generic approaches,
based on general scientific knowledge and policy judgment, that are
applied to various elements of the risk assessment process when the
correct scientific model is unknown or uncertain.'' The 1983 NRC
report, Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the
Process, defined default option as ``the option chosen on the basis
of risk assessment policy that appears to be the best choice in the
absence of data to the contrary'' (NRC, 1983a, p. 63). Therefore,
default options are not rules that bind the Agency; rather, the
Agency may depart from them in evaluating the risks posed by a
specific substance when it believes this to be appropriate. In
keeping with EPA's goal of protecting public health and the
environment, default assumptions are used to ensure that risk to
chemicals is not underestimated (although defaults are not intended
to overtly overestimate risk). See EPA, 2004, An Examination of EPA
Risk Assessment Principles and Practices, EPA/100/B-04/001 available
at: http://www.epa.gov/osa/pdfs/ratf-final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While collectively termed ``UF,'' these factors account for a
number of different quantitative considerations when using observed
animal (usually rodent) or human toxicity data in the development of
the RfC. The UF are intended to account for: (1) Variation in
susceptibility among the members of the human population (i.e., inter-
individual variability); (2) uncertainty in extrapolating from
experimental animal data to humans (i.e., interspecies differences);
(3) uncertainty in extrapolating from data obtained in a study with
less-than-lifetime exposure (i.e., extrapolating from sub-chronic to
chronic exposure); (4) uncertainty in extrapolating the observed data
to obtain an estimate of the exposure associated with no adverse
effects; and (5) uncertainty when the database is incomplete or there
are problems with the applicability of available studies. Many of the
UF used to account for variability and uncertainty in the development
of acute reference values are quite similar to those developed for
chronic durations, but they more often use individual UF values that
may be less than 10. UF are applied based on chemical-specific or
health effect-specific information (e.g., simple irritation effects do
not vary appreciably between human individuals, hence a value of 3 is
typically used), or based on the purpose for the reference value (see
the following paragraph). The UF applied in acute reference value
derivation include: (1) Heterogeneity among humans; (2) uncertainty in
extrapolating from animals to humans; (3) uncertainty in lowest
observed adverse effect (exposure) level to no observed adverse effect
(exposure) level adjustments; and (4) uncertainty in accounting for an
incomplete database on toxic effects of potential concern. Additional
adjustments are often applied to account for uncertainty in
extrapolation from observations at one exposure duration (e.g., 4
hours) to derive an acute reference value at another exposure duration
(e.g., 1 hour).
As further discussed below, there is no RfD or other comparable
chronic health benchmark value for lead compounds. Thus, to address
multipathway human health and environmental risks associated with
emissions of lead from this facility, ambient lead concentrations were
compared to the NAAQS for lead. In developing the NAAQS for lead, EPA
considered human health evidence reporting adverse health effects
associated with lead exposure, as well as an EPA-conducted multipathway
risk assessment that applied models to estimate human exposures to air-
related lead and the associated risk (73 FR 66979). EPA also explicitly
considered the uncertainties associated with both the human health
evidence and the exposure and risk analyses when developing the NAAQS
for lead. For example, EPA considered uncertainties in the relationship
between ambient air lead and blood lead levels (73 FR 66974), as well
as uncertainties between blood lead levels and loss of IQ points in
children (73 FR 66981).
In considering the evidence and risk analyses and their associated
uncertainties, EPA found that there is no evidence- or risk-based
bright line that indicates a single appropriate level. EPA noted there
is a collection of scientific evidence and judgments and other
information, including information about the uncertainties inherent in
many relevant factors, which needs to be considered together in making
the public health policy judgment and in selecting a standard level
from a range of reasonable values (73 FR 66998). In so doing, EPA
decided that a level for the primary lead standard of 0.15 [mu]g/
m3, in combination with the specified choice of indicator,
averaging time, and form, is requisite to protect public health,
including the health of sensitive groups, with an adequate margin of
safety (73 FR 67006). A thorough discussion of the health evidence,
risk and exposure analyses, and their associated uncertainties can be
found in EPA's final rule revising the lead NAAQS (73 FR 66970-66981,
November 12, 2008).
We also note the uncertainties associated with the health-based
(i.e., primary) NAAQS are likely less than the uncertainties associated
with dose-response values developed for many of the other HAP,
particularly those HAP for which no human health data exist.
We also note that because of the multipathway, multi-media impacts
of lead, the risk assessment supporting the NAAQS considered direct
inhalation exposures and indirect air-related multipathway exposures
from industrial sources like primary and secondary lead smelting
operations. It also considered background lead exposures from other
sources (like contaminated drinking water and exposure to lead-based
paints). In revising the NAAQS for lead, EPA placed more weight on the
evidence-based framework and less weight on the results from the risk
assessment, although the risk estimates were found to be roughly
consistent with and generally supportive of the evidence-based
framework applied in the NAAQS determination (73 FR 67004). Thus, when
revising the NAAQS for lead to protect public health with an adequate
margin of safety, EPA considered both the health evidence and the risk
assessment, albeit to different extents.
In addition to the uncertainties discussed above with respect to
chronic, cancer, and the lead NAAQS reference values, there are also
uncertainties associated with acute reference values. Not all acute
reference values are developed for the same purpose, and care must be
taken when interpreting the results of an acute assessment of human
health effects relative to the reference value or values being
exceeded. Where relevant to the estimated exposures, the lack of short-
term dose-response values at different levels of severity should be
factored into the risk characterization as potential uncertainties.
Although every effort is made to identify peer-reviewed reference
values for cancer and non-cancer effects for all pollutants emitted by
the sources included in this assessment, some hazardous air pollutants
continue to have no peer-reviewed reference values for cancer or
chronic non-cancer or acute effects. Since exposures to these
pollutants cannot be included in a quantitative risk estimate, an
understatement of risk for these pollutants at environmental exposure
levels is possible.
Additionally, chronic reference values for several of the compounds
included in this assessment are currently under EPA IRIS review (e.g.,
cadmium and nickel), and revised assessments may
[[Page 29046]]
determine that these pollutants are more or less potent than the
current value. We may re-evaluate residual risks for the final
rulemaking if, as a result of these reviews, a dose-response metric
changes enough to indicate that the risk assessment supporting this
notice may significantly understate or overstate human health risk.
e. Uncertainties in the Multipathway and Environmental Impacts
Assessment
For the secondary lead smelting source category, two facilities
were chosen as case study analyses to assess potential multipathway
risks for mercury, cadmium, POM, and dioxins and furans. The selection
criteria for modeling these two facilities included emissions rates of
PB-HAPs, proximity to water bodies, proximity to farmland, average
rainfall, average wind speed and direction, smelting furnace type,
local change in elevation, and geographic representativeness of sites
throughout the U.S. However, there is uncertainty as to whether these
two facilities represent the highest potential for multipathway human
health risks from the source category.
Since the modeling used in these case study assessments utilize
site specific parameters to describe naturally occurring physical,
chemical and biological processes, we believe that the multimedia
concentrations of PB-HAPs generated in this analysis are unbiased
estimates of the true impacts.
With respect to the risk estimates generated from this analysis, we
present results based on two ingestion exposure scenarios: the RME and
CTE scenarios. As noted above, we believe that these scenarios
illustrate the range of potential modeled exposures and risks that may
exist in the high-end of the complete distribution of potential
multipathway risks for this source category.
We further note that high-end fisher populations could display
considerable variability both in terms of the degree to which they
frequent specific water bodies or watersheds and the degree to which
they target specific types of fish (or at least sizes of fish). Both of
these factors can impact estimates of exposure. If a fisher population
distributes their activity across a range of water bodies and harvests
a variety of fish species (and sizes) than the distribution of exposure
and risk across that population will be smaller compared with a
population that focuses activity at individual water bodies and tends
to focus on larger fish.
To estimate potential high-end multipathway exposures and risks, in
addition to utilizing fish consumption rate data for the general U.S.
population of recreational anglers,\17\ we used fish consumption
information for distinct fisher subpopulations that are known to have
higher fish consumption rates. The data were obtained from Shilling, et
al. (2010).\18\ In this publication, the authors provide fish
consumption information for different ethnic groups including
Hispanics, Laotians, and Vietnamese surveyed in California's Central
Valley Delta based on sample sizes of 45, 33, and 30, respectively. We
note that there is uncertainty based on the limited sample sizes and in
the extrapolation of these fish consumption rates to other parts of the
United States. Further discussion of these values is provided in the
risk assessment supporting documents. We request comment on the use of
these data to support the RME analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Data for the general U.S. population of recreational
anglers was obtained from: EPA 2002, ``Estimated Per Capita Fish
Consumption in the United States, Office of Water, Office of Science
and Technology, Washington, DC, EPA-821-C-02-003. August 2002.
\18\ Shilling, et al. 2010 is available in the docket for this
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A more detailed discussion of the multipathway analysis and its
associated uncertainties is presented in section 5.3 of the document
Human Health Multipathway Residual Risk Assessment for the Secondary
Lead Smelting Source Category, which can be found in the docket for the
proposed rule.
f. Uncertainties in the Demographic Analysis
Our analysis of the distribution of risks across various
demographic groups is subject to uncertainty associated with the
extrapolation of census-block group data (e.g., income level and
education level) down to the census block level.
C. How did we consider the risk results in making decisions for this
proposal?
In evaluating and developing standards under section 112(f)(2), as
discussed in Section I.A of this preamble, we apply a two-step process
to address residual risk. In the first step, EPA determines whether
risks are acceptable. This determination ``considers all health
information, including risk estimation uncertainty, and includes a
presumptive limit on maximum individual lifetime [cancer] risk (MIR)
\19\ of approximately 1-in-10 thousand [i.e., 100-in-1 million]'' (54
FR 38045). In the second step of the process, EPA sets the standard at
a level that provides an ample margin of safety ``in consideration of
all health information, including the number of persons at risk levels
higher than approximately 1-in-1 million, as well as other relevant
factors, including costs and economic impacts, technological
feasibility, and other factors relevant to each particular decision''
(Id.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Although defined as ``maximum individual risk,'' MIR refers
only to cancer risk. MIR, one metric for assessing cancer risk, is
the estimated risk were an individual exposed to the maximum level
of a pollutant for a lifetime.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In past residual risk actions, EPA has presented and considered a
number of human health risk metrics associated with emissions from the
category under review, including: The MIR; the numbers of persons in
various risk ranges; cancer incidence; the maximum non-cancer hazard
index (HI); and the maximum acute non-cancer hazard (72 FR 25138, May
3, 2007; 71 FR 42724, July 27, 2006). In our most recent proposals (75
FR 65068, October 21, 2010 and 75 FR 80220, December 21, 2010), EPA
also presented and considered additional measures of health
information, such as estimates of the risks associated with the maximum
level of emissions which might be allowed by the current MACT standards
(see, e.g., 75 FR 65068, October 21, 2010 and 75 FR 80220, December 21,
2010). EPA also discussed and considered risk estimation uncertainties.
EPA is providing this same type of information in support of the
proposed actions described in this Federal Register notice.
The Agency is considering all available health information to
inform our determinations of risk acceptability and ample margin of
safety under CAA section 112(f). Specifically, as explained in the
Benzene NESHAP, ``the first step judgment on acceptability cannot be
reduced to any single factor'' and thus ``[t]he Administrator believes
that the acceptability of risk under [previous] section 112 is best
judged on the basis of a broad set of health risk measures and
information'' (54 FR 38046). Similarly, with regard to making the ample
margin of safety determination, as stated in the Benzene NESHAP ``[in
the ample margin decision, the Agency again considers all of the health
risk and other health information considered in the first step. Beyond
that information, additional factors relating to the appropriate level
of control will also be considered, including cost and economic impacts
of controls, technological feasibility, uncertainties, and any other
relevant factors.'' Id.
The Agency acknowledges that the Benzene NESHAP provides
flexibility regarding what factors EPA might consider in making
determinations and how these factors might be weighed for each source
category. In responding to
[[Page 29047]]
comment on our policy under the Benzene NESHAP, EPA explained that:
``The policy chosen by the Administrator permits consideration of
multiple measures of health risk. Not only can the MIR figure be
considered, but also incidence, the presence of non-cancer health
effects, and the uncertainties of the risk estimates. In this way, the
effect on the most exposed individuals can be reviewed as well as the
impact on the general public. These factors can then be weighed in each
individual case. This approach complies with the Vinyl Chloride mandate
that the Administrator ascertain an acceptable level of risk to the
public by employing [her] expertise to assess available data. It also
complies with the Congressional intent behind the CAA, which did not
exclude the use of any particular measure of public health risk from
the EPA's consideration with respect to CAA section 112 regulations,
and, thereby, implicitly permits consideration of any and all measures
of health risk which the Administrator, in [her] judgment, believes are
appropriate to determining what will `protect the public health' '' (54
FR at 38057).
Thus, the level of the MIR is only one factor to be weighed in
determining acceptability of risks. The Benzene NESHAP explained that
``an MIR of approximately 1-in-10 thousand should ordinarily be the
upper end of the range of acceptability. As risks increase above this
benchmark, they become presumptively less acceptable under CAA section
112, and would be weighed with the other health risk measures and
information in making an overall judgment on acceptability. Or, the
Agency may find, in a particular case, that a risk that includes MIR
less than the presumptively acceptable level is unacceptable in the
light of other health risk factors'' (Id. at 38045). Similarly, with
regard to the ample margin of safety analysis, EPA stated in the
Benzene NESHAP that: ``* * * EPA believes the relative weight of the
many factors that can be considered in selecting an ample margin of
safety can only be determined for each specific source category. This
occurs mainly because technological and economic factors (along with
the health-related factors) vary from source category to source
category'' (Id. at 38061).
EPA wishes to point out that certain health information has not
been considered to date in making residual risk determinations. In
assessing risks to populations in the vicinity of the facilities in
each category, we present estimates of risk associated with HAP
emissions from the source category alone (source category risk
estimates), and generally we have also assessed risks due to HAP
emissions from the entire facility at which the covered source category
is located (facility-wide risk estimates). We have not attempted to
characterize the risks associated with all HAP emissions impacting the
populations living near the sources in these categories. That is, at
this time, we do not attempt to quantify those HAP risks that may be
associated with emissions from other facilities that do not include the
source categories in question, mobile source emissions, natural source
emissions, persistent environmental pollution, or atmospheric
transformation in the vicinity of the sources in these categories.
The Agency understands the potential importance of considering an
individual's total exposure to HAP in addition to considering exposure
to HAP emissions from the source category and facility. This is
particularly important when assessing non-cancer risks, where
pollutant-specific exposure health reference levels (e.g., Reference
Concentrations (RfCs)) are based on the assumption that thresholds
exist for adverse health effects. For example, the Agency recognizes
that, although exposures attributable to emissions from a source
category or facility alone may not indicate the potential for increased
risk of adverse non-cancer health effects in a population, the
exposures resulting from emissions from the facility in combination
with emissions from all of the other sources (e.g., other facilities)
to which an individual is exposed may be sufficient to result in
increased risk of adverse non-cancer health effects. In May 2010, the
EPA SAB advised us ``* * * that RTR assessments will be most useful to
decision makers and communities if results are presented in the broader
context of aggregate and cumulative risks, including background
concentrations and contributions from other sources in the area.'' \20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ EPA's responses to this and all other key recommendations
of the SAB's advisory on RTR risk assessment methodologies (which is
available at: http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/
4AB3966E263D943A8525771F00668381/$File/EPA-SAB-10-007-unsigned.pdf)
are outlined in a memo to this rulemaking docket from David Guinnup
entitled, EPA's Actions in Response to the Key Recommendations of
the SAB Review of RTR Risk Assessment Methodologies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although we are interested in placing source category and facility-
wide HAP risks in the context of total HAP risks from all sources
combined in the vicinity of each source, we are concerned about the
uncertainties of doing so. At this point, we believe that such
estimates of total HAP risks will have significantly greater associated
uncertainties than for the source category or facility-wide estimates,
and hence would compound the uncertainty in any such comparison. This
is because we have not conducted a detailed technical review of HAP
emissions data for source categories and facilities that have not
previously undergone an RTR review or are not currently undergoing such
review. We are requesting comment on whether and how best to estimate
and evaluate total HAP exposure in our assessments, and, in particular,
on whether and how it might be appropriate to use information from
EPA's National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) to support such estimates.
We are also seeking comment on how best to consider various types and
scales of risk estimates when making our acceptability and ample margin
of safety determinations under CAA section 112(f). Additionally, we are
seeking comments and recommendations for any other comparative measures
that may be useful in the assessment of the distribution of HAP risks
across potentially affected demographic groups.
D. How did we perform the technology review?
Our technology review focused on the identification and evaluation
of developments in practices, processes, and control technologies that
have occurred since the 1997 NESHAP was promulgated. In cases where the
technology review identified such developments, we conducted an
analysis of the technical feasibility of applying these developments,
along with the estimated impacts (costs, emissions reductions, risk
reductions, etc.) of applying these developments. We then made
decisions on whether it is necessary to propose amendments to the
regulation to require any of the identified developments.
Based on our analyses of the data and information collected by the
ICR and our general understanding of the industry and other available
information on potential controls for this industry, we identified
several potential developments in practices, processes, and control
technologies. For the purpose of this exercise, we considered any of
the following to be a ``development'':
Any add-on control technology or other equipment that was
not identified and considered during development of the 1997 NESHAP.
Any improvements in add-on control technology or other
equipment (that were identified and considered during development of
the 1997
[[Page 29048]]
NESHAP) that could result in significant additional emissions
reduction.
Any work practice or operational procedure that was not
identified or considered during development of the 1997 NESHAP.
Any process change or pollution prevention alternative
that could be broadly applied to the industry and that was not
identified or considered during development of the 1997 NESHAP.
In addition to reviewing the practices, processes, or control
technologies that were not considered at the time we developed the 1997
NESHAP, we reviewed a variety of data sources in our evaluation of
whether there were additional practices, processes, or controls to
consider for the secondary lead smelting industry. Among the data
sources we reviewed were the NESHAP for various industries that were
promulgated after the 1997 NESHAP. We reviewed the regulatory
requirements and/or technical analyses associated with these regulatory
actions to identify any practices, processes, and control technologies
considered in these efforts that could possibly be applied to emissions
sources in the Secondary Lead Smelting source category, as well as the
costs, non-air impacts, and energy implications associated with the use
of these technologies.
We also consulted EPA's RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse (RBLC) to
identify potential technology advances. Control technologies,
classified as RACT (Reasonably Available Control Technology), BACT
(Best Available Control Technology), or LAER (Lowest Achievable
Emissions Rate) apply to stationary sources depending on whether the
sources are existing or new, and on the size, age, and location of the
facility. BACT and LAER (and sometimes RACT) are determined on a case-
by-case basis, usually by State or local permitting agencies. EPA
established the RBLC to provide a central database of air pollution
technology information (including technologies required in source-
specific permits) to promote the sharing of information among
permitting agencies and to aid in identifying future possible control
technology options that might apply broadly to numerous sources within
a category or apply only on a source-by-source basis. The RBLC contains
over 5,000 air pollution control permit determinations that can help
identify appropriate technologies to mitigate many air pollutant
emissions streams. We searched this database to determine whether it
contained any practices, processes, or control technologies for the
types of processes covered by the Secondary Lead Smelting MACT.
Additionally, we requested information from facilities regarding
developments in practices, processes, or control technology. Finally,
we reviewed other information sources, such as State or local
permitting agency databases and industry-supported databases.
E. What other issues are we addressing in this proposal?
In addition to the analyses described above, we also reviewed other
aspects of the MACT standards for possible revision as appropriate and
necessary. Based on this review we have identified aspects of the MACT
standards that we believe need revision.
This includes proposing revisions to the startup, shutdown, and
malfunction (SSM) provisions of the MACT rule in order to ensure that
they are consistent with a recent court decision in Sierra Club v. EPA,
551 F.3d 1019 (DC Cir. 2008). In addition, we are proposing other
various minor changes with regards to editorial errors and other
revisions to promote the use of plain language. The analyses and
proposed decisions for these actions are presented in Section IV.E of
this preamble.
IV. Analyses Results and Proposed Decisions
This section of the preamble provides the results of our RTR for
the Secondary Lead Smelting source category and our proposed decisions
concerning changes to the 1997 NESHAP.
A. What are the results of our analyses and proposed decisions
regarding unregulated emissions sources?
1. Organic HAP
As discussed in Section III.A of this preamble, we evaluated
emissions limits for organic HAP for reverberatory furnaces not
collocated with blast furnaces, rotary furnaces, and electric furnaces.
Section 112(d)(3)(B) of the CAA requires that the MACT standards for
existing sources be at least as stringent as the average emissions
limitation achieved by the best performing five sources (for which the
Administrator has or could reasonably obtain emissions information) in
a category with fewer than 30 sources. The Secondary Lead Smelting
source category consists of fewer than 30 sources. Where, as here,
there are less than 30 sources, we base the MACT floor limit on the
average emissions limitation achieved by those sources for which we
have data.
EPA must exercise its judgment, based on an evaluation of the
relevant factors and available data, to determine the level of
emissions control that has been achieved by the best performing sources
under variable conditions. It is recognized in the case law that EPA
may consider variability in estimating the degree of emissions
reduction achieved by best-performing sources and in setting MACT
floors. See Mossville Envt'l Action Now v. EPA, 370 F.3d 1232, 1241-42
(DC Cir 2004) (holding EPA may consider emissions variability in
estimating performance achieved by best-performing sources and may set
the floor at a level that a best-performing source can expect to meet
``every day and under all operating conditions''). More details on how
we calculate MACT floors and how we account for variability are
described in the Draft MACT Floor Analysis for the Secondary Lead
Smelting Source Category which is available in the docket for this
proposed action.
With regard to the evaluation of potential MACT limits for organic
HAP from this source category, consistent with the explanation
presented in the proposal of the 1997 NESHAP (NESHAP for Secondary Lead
Smelting, Proposed Rule, June 9, 1994, 59 FR 63941) for this source
category describing the appropriateness of THC as a surrogate for
organic HAP, we continue to consider THC as an appropriate surrogate
for non-dioxin organic HAP in the proposed amendments to the NESHAP in
today's action. Based on our data, there are currently only two
reverberatory furnaces not collocated with a blast furnace, one rotary
furnace, and two reverberatory furnaces mixed with electric furnaces
(i.e., two reverberatory furnaces whose exhaust are mixed with the
exhaust of an electric furnace prior to atmospheric release) operating
in this source category. Based on analysis of emissions data and
furnace operating characteristics (as discussed further below), we
believe it is appropriate to set one THC limit that will apply to
reverberatory furnaces not collocated with a blast furnace and
reverberatory furnaces mixed with electric furnaces, because of
generally similar (and low) potential for organic HAP emissions from
both furnace types. We are proposing a separate THC emissions limit for
rotary furnaces.
We received THC emissions data for one reverberatory furnace not
collocated with a blast furnace and one reverberatory furnace mixed
with an electric furnace, and one rotary furnace. Therefore, for each
of these furnace configurations, we have emissions data from at least
half the units. We are soliciting emissions data for the
[[Page 29049]]
operating affected sources for which we don't have data. Based on the
data that we have, we conducted a MACT Floor analysis.
As discussed above, the MACT floor limit is calculated based on the
average performance of the units plus an amount to account for these
units' variability. To account for variability in the operation and
emissions, the stack test data were used to calculate the 99 percent
upper predictive limit (UPL) for reverberatory furnaces not collocated
with a blast furnace and reverberatory furnaces mixed with electric
furnaces. For rotary furnaces, because we have only one test with two
successful test runs, we considered both the 99 percent UPL and the 99
percent upper limit (UL) to account for variability in the emissions
data. Our consideration of variability is explained in more detail in
the technical document for this action: Draft MACT Floor Analysis for
the Secondary Lead Smelting Source Category, which is available in the
docket for this action.
The 99 percent UPL for exhaust THC concentrations from existing
reverberatory furnaces not collocated with a blast furnace and
reverberatory furnaces mixed with electric furnaces is 12 ppmv
(expressed as propane) corrected to 4 percent CO2 to account
for dilution. Consistent with CAA section 112(d)(3), the MACT floor for
new sources cannot be less stringent than the emissions control that is
achieved in practice by the best-controlled similar source. The 99
percent UPL for exhaust THC concentrations from the best-performing
affected source was calculated as 12 ppmv (expressed as propane)
corrected to 4 percent CO2.
We are also proposing a THC MACT limit for rotary furnaces. As
mentioned previously, there is only one operating rotary furnace in the
U.S. We received test data for this unit; however, it included only two
successful test runs. The average of the two emissions test runs was
257 ppmv (expressed as propane and adjusted to 4 percent
CO2), and the highest of the two test runs was 292 ppmv
(expressed as propane and adjusted to 4 percent CO2). Using
the 99 percent UPL approach, we calculated a MACT floor of 1700 ppmv,
which is 6.6 times higher than the average. By using the 99 percent UL
approach, we calculated a MACT floor of 610 ppmv (expressed as propane
and adjusted to 4 percent CO2) applicable to new and
existing affected sources, which is 2.4 times higher than the average.
Because of very limited emissions data, our statistical analysis does
not clearly indicate whether the UPL or UL is a better measure of the
typical variability in performance of the unit. However, because the 99
percent UL approach resulted in a MACT floor that is more within the
range of typical variability we expect when calculating MACT floors for
various source categories and emissions points, the emissions limit
calculated using the 99 percent UL was chosen as the proposed THC MACT
floor for rotary furnaces in this action. However, we seek comments on
this issue.
We considered beyond-the-floor options for THC standards for all of
these furnace configurations, as required by section 112(d)(2) of the
Act. However, we decided not to propose any limits based on the beyond
the floor analyses for THC because of the costs, potential
disadvantages of these additional controls (including increases in
CO2 and NOX emissions), and non-air environmental
impacts and adverse energy implications associated with use of these
additional controls. The beyond-the-floor analysis is presented in the
technical documentation for this action (Draft MACT Floor Analysis for
the Secondary Lead Smelting Source Category). In summary, we are
proposing that new and existing reverberatory furnaces not collocated
with a blast furnace and reverberatory furnaces mixed with electric
furnaces be subject to a THC concentration limit of 12 ppmv (expressed
as propane) corrected to 4 percent CO2. Additionally, we are
proposing that both new and existing rotary furnaces be subject to a
THC concentration limit of 610 ppmv (expressed as propane) corrected to
4 percent CO2.
We propose that compliance with all the proposed THC limits will be
demonstrated by annual performance tests, and that continuous
monitoring of temperatures of control devices (e.g., afterburners) and/
or furnaces (e.g., reverberatory furnaces) will be required as
parametric monitoring to ensure continuous compliance with the THC
limits.
No changes are being considered in this action for the THC limits
for blast and collocated blast and reverberatory furnaces established
in the 1997 NESHAP.
2. Dioxin and Furans
As mentioned previously, the 1997 NESHAP does not include emissions
limits for dioxins and furans. Therefore, pursuant to CAA section
112(d)(3), we are proposing to revise the 1997 NESHAP to include
emission limits for dioxins and furans. The form of these proposed
standards are in the form of toxic equivalency quotient (TEQ)
concentration limits (i.e., prorating the amount of total dioxins and
furans allowed to the most toxic species of dioxin). For more
information on the TEQ approach to calculating dioxin and furan
emissions see the dioxin emissions guidance available at: http://www.epa.gov/raf/hhtefguidance/.
Because the formation of dioxins and furans is highly temperature
dependent, and because the potential for dioxin and furan emissions
varies considerably among different furnace types and configurations,
EPA is proposing separate limits for each of the following furnace
configurations: (1) Reverberatory furnaces not collocated with blast
furnaces and reverberatory furnaces where the exhaust gases are mixed
with the exhaust from electric furnaces; (2) blast furnaces; (3)
collocated blast and reverberatory furnaces; and (4) rotary furnaces. A
detailed analysis and documentation of the MACT floor calculations can
be found in the technical document for this action: Draft MACT Floor
Analysis for the Secondary Lead Smelting Source Category.
Based on the emissions data and furnace operating temperatures
reported in ICR surveys, EPA is proposing a single TEQ emissions limit
that will apply to reverberatory furnaces not collocated with a blast
furnace and to reverberatory furnaces where the exhaust gases are mixed
with electric furnaces. There are seven sources of this type in the
industry. We received emissions data for two such affected sources. We
are soliciting data for the affected sources of this type for which we
don't have emissions data. The MACT floor emissions limit for this
affected source was calculated based on the average of the two
emissions tests plus variability (based on the 99 percent UPL). The 99
percent UPL for exhaust TEQ concentrations from the affected sources is
0.20 nanograms per dry standard cubic meter (ng/dscm) of TEQ corrected
to 7 percent oxygen (O2) to account for dilution. The 99
percent UPL calculated for new affected sources is 0.10 ng/dscm
corrected to 7 percent O2.
With regard to blast furnaces, there are nine sources of this type
in the industry. We received dioxin and furan emissions data for two
affected sources. Using the data from these two sources, we calculated
that the 99 percent UPL for exhaust TEQ concentrations from blast
furnaces is 170 ng/dscm at 7 percent O2. For new blast
furnaces, the 99 percent UPL is 10 ng/dscm at 7 percent O2.
We acknowledge the large difference between the performance of the two
affected sources for which we
[[Page 29050]]
have data but have not identified a technical basis for the difference.
We are soliciting information that may explain these differences and
other comments on this topic, including comments regarding the
calculation of MACT floor limits for these sources. Additionally, we
are soliciting data for the seven affected sources of this type for
which we don't have emissions test data.
There are five collocated blast and reverberatory furnaces in the
industry. We received emissions test data for one of the affected
sources. The calculated 99 percent UPL is 0.5 ng/dscm at 7 percent
O2 and would apply to both new and existing collocated blast
and reverberatory furnaces. We are soliciting data for the remaining
four affected sources for which we don't have emissions data.
As previously noted, there is only one rotary furnace currently in
operation and we received emissions data for this source. Similar to
THC emissions, we have only two emissions test runs for this unit. For
the same reasons explained above for THC, we developed a MACT floor
limit of 1.0 ng/dscm of TEQ corrected to 7 percent O2 based
on the 99 percent UL, as opposed to the UPL. Thus, an emissions limit
based on the MACT floor for existing and new rotary furnaces would be
1.0 ng/dscm of TEQ corrected to 7 percent O2.
We then considered beyond-the-floor options to further reduce
emissions of dioxins and furans, especially from blast furnaces since
blast furnaces have higher emissions compared to the other furnace
types. The options considered, included an option based on setting a
MACT limit for existing sources based on the performance of the best
performing source (i.e., based upon the test data used to calculate the
MACT floor for new sources) such that the MACT limit for existing
sources would be the same as the MACT limit for new sources (i.e., 10
ng/dscm). However, since we are uncertain about the performance of the
other blast furnaces and whether it would be feasible for them to meet
a limit of 10 ng/dscm and what the costs would be, we are not proposing
MACT limits for existing blast furnaces based on this one set of data
in today's action. We do have data for two other blast furnaces that
are not controlled with reverberatory furnaces, but because of the
configuration of the stacks (blast furnace off-gas is mixed with
reverberatory furnace off-gas), we were unable to determine the amount
of dioxin that originated from the blast furnace alone compared to the
dioxin that was due to the reverberatory furnace. Therefore, these data
were not used in the calculation of the blast furnace MACT limits.
However, we note that the dioxin concentrations emitted from these
sources was in the range of the better performing of the two blast
furnaces that were used in the calculations of the MACT Floor.
Nevertheless, we are seeking comments as to whether it would be
appropriate to establish a MACT limit based upon the data from the one
better performing blast furnace or if it would be appropriate to use
the data from the mixed sources to determine a MACT limit for Blast
furnaces. A MACT limit based upon the data from the one better
performing blast furnace (using the 3 test results and applying the 99
percent UPL) would be 10 ng/dscm. We are seeking comments on whether
this limit, or some other limit, would be appropriate for Blast
Furnaces.
The key conditions typically associated with determining the extent
of dioxin and furan formation are combustion efficiency, complex
organic fuels, particulate concentration in the flue gas, time in a
critical temperature window of approximately 250 to 450 degrees C, and
the amount of chlorine present. Increased chlorine concentrations in
the furnace feed can increase the dioxin formation. The blast furnaces
tested have higher emissions of dioxins and furans than other furnace
types. We believe this is because these furnaces are designed to
operate at lower temperatures, and these operating temperatures can
lead to dioxin formation. Controls for dioxins and furans once they
have formed include a high temperature oxidation with quick quenching
of the off-gases, or activated carbon injection followed by fabric
filtration. Fabric filtration alone has also been demonstrated to
provide significant control of dioxins and furans, and because
improvements are expected in the performance of fabric filters as a
result of standards being proposed for lead in today's action, it is
anticipated that some additional reduction in dioxin emissions may
occur as a co-benefit of the proposed lower limits for lead.
Nevertheless, we are seeking data and information on dioxin emissions
from blast furnaces, possible control options, factors that affect
dioxin formation and other related information to inform the
development of appropriate standards for dioxin and furan emissions
from these sources.
As described below, we are also proposing a work practice standard
to prevent plastics (which are complex organics and may contain
chlorine) from entering furnaces as a beyond-the-floor option. We also
considered an option that involves installation of additional
afterburner capacity at the facilities operating blast furnaces. This
option would include operating the currently installed afterburners at
high temperatures and with sufficient residence time to destroy
dioxins, or installation of new or additional afterburner capacity with
this capability. Based on the current level of performance identified
in the ICR surveys, we believe that this option would require four
facilities to install afterburner capacity at their facility in order
to operate the units at these conditions. The estimated total capital
cost for the additional controls is $5.9 million, with a total
annualized cost of $2.9 million. We estimate that TEQ emissions would
be reduced by roughly 28 grams per year (and organic HAP emissions by
200 tons per year) resulting in a total estimated cost effectiveness of
$103,600 per gram of dioxin TEQ and $14,500 per ton organic HAP (see:
Draft MACT Floor Analysis for the Secondary Lead Smelting Source
Category for more details).
In light of the costs of these additional controls and since these
controls would have some disadvantages, including causing increases in
CO2 and NOX (oxides of nitrogen) emissions and
increased fuel use, and given the uncertainties regarding how effective
these controls would be, we are not proposing more stringent numerical
emissions limits based on this beyond-the-floor analysis. Nevertheless,
we are seeking data and information on dioxin and furan emissions from
blast furnaces and the costs and feasibility of additional controls and
emissions reductions, including the beyond-the-floor options described
above.
Based on all the analyses described above, under CAA section
112(d)(3), we are proposing to revise the 1997 NESHAP for this source
category to include the following emissions limits for dioxins and
furans:
For reverberatory furnaces not collocated with blast
furnaces and reverberatory furnaces where the exhaust gases are
mixed with electric furnaces, we are proposing emissions limits of
0.20 ng/dscm at 7 percent O2 and 0.1 ng/dscm at 7 percent
O2 for existing and new affected sources, respectively.
For blast furnaces, we are proposing emissions limits
of 170 ng/dscm at 7 percent O2 and 10 ng/dscm at 7
percent O2 for existing and new sources, respectively.
For collocated blast and reverberatory furnaces, we are
proposing an emissions limit of 0.5 ng/dscm at 7 percent
O2 for both new and existing sources.
For rotary furnaces, we are proposing an emissions
limit of 1.0 ng/dscm at 7 percent O2 for both new and
existing sources.
Compliance with the TEQ limits will be demonstrated through an
initial
[[Page 29051]]
compliance test followed by a compliance test at least once every 5
years. The TEQ emissions will be calculated using the toxic equivalency
factors (TEF) outlined by the World Health Organization (WHO) in 2005
(available at Web site: http://www.epa.gov/raf/hhtefguidance/).
Additionally, we are proposing that facilities must establish limits
for the furnace exhaust temperature or afterburner operating
temperature during the initial performance test. These temperatures
must be maintained and monitored continuously between compliance tests
to ensure that the controls are working properly to limit dioxin and
furan emissions.
In addition to the emissions limits described above, we are
proposing that each facility must operate a process to separate plastic
battery casing material prior to introducing feed into a blast furnace.
Separation of plastic materials prior to the furnace will limit the
organic component in the feed material, minimizing the formation of
organic HAP, including dioxins and furans. It is our understanding that
all facilities currently have a plastics separation process (that they
implement on a voluntary basis) so this proposed requirement results in
very minimal additional costs to the industry, if any. We are proposing
this as a requirement (i.e., propose to convert this from a voluntary
activity to a regulatory requirement) to ensure that facilities
continue to implement the separation process to help minimize formation
of dioxins and furans. Moreover, we considered proposing a minimum
percent of plastics separation requirement (such as ensuring that a
minimum of 95 percent of total plastics are separated from the scrap
materials before being fed to furnaces). However, we did not have
sufficient data to determine an appropriate specific percent.
Nevertheless, we are seeking data and comments regarding the percent
separation that can be achieved by the available processes and the
potential to establish such a minimum percent separation requirement.
Moreover, we are seeking information and comments on the various types
of plastics separation processes and equipment used, and the relative
feasibility and effectiveness of those processes and equipment. We are
also seeking comments and information on potential methods to improve
overall plastics separation, or methods to improve separation of
certain types of plastics that may have higher potential for dioxin
formation (e.g., chlorinated plastics). Finally, we are seeking
information on appropriate recordkeeping and reporting requirements for
these proposed work practices.
3. Mercury Emissions
Based on the emissions test data received under the ICR, we
considered proposing an emissions limit for mercury under CAA section
112(d)(3). However, after careful review of the data from the ICR, we
have decided not to propose a numerical limit for mercury. We found
that the measured stack concentrations of mercury were consistently
below the detection levels of the EPA test methods (52 out of 76 total
test runs for mercury contained data below the detection limit, or 68
percent of the entire data set). Consequently, EPA considers it
impracticable to reliably measure mercury emissions from these units.
We instead considered work practice standards under 112(h) for
mercury emissions from this category. The difficulties with accurate
measurements at the levels encountered from secondary lead smelters
makes a measured standard technologically impracticable, and possibly
economically impracticable as well (there appears to be no reliable way
to measure compliance at such low levels even with the most carefully
conducted tests). Given the factors described above, we conclude it is
appropriate to consider work practice standards under 112(h) for
mercury rather than numerical emissions limits under Section 112(d)(3).
Therefore, we considered establishing work practice standards under
CAA section 112(h) to minimize the potential for mercury emissions.
Based on information submitted under the ICR, all facilities have
baghouses to control lead and other particulate matter (PM) emissions.
These control devices are very effective at controlling non-volatile
HAP metals (e.g., a well performing baghouse captures more than 99
percent of lead emissions). These devices do not capture mercury as
efficiently as the non-volatile metals. However, available data from
other industries (such as coal-fired power plants) indicate that
baghouses do provide some level of mercury control. For example,
emissions data from coal-fired power plants suggest that baghouses can
capture approximately 50 to 90 percent of mercury emissions depending
on the speciation of the mercury compounds and other factors.
(Reference: ``Control of Mercury Emissions from Coal Fired Electric
Utility Boilers: An Update.'' National Risk Management Research
Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, U.S. EPA. February 18,
2005, available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/utility/utiltoxpg.html).
Therefore, we are proposing that facilities must have continuous
operation of a BLDS with a detection level of 1.0 mg/dscm for PM to
ensure their baghouses are working properly as a work practice to limit
mercury emissions. This is the same requirement proposed for lead
emissions monitoring in this rulemaking under CAA sections 112(f)(2)
and 112(d)(6), and will therefore pose no additional burden to the
industry. Further, the proposed stack standards for lead will also
adequately control mercury such that no further standard is necessary.
The standard would be implemented continuously for all metals by the
BLDS measurement.
Nevertheless, we also investigated the feasibility of additional
work practices to determine if there were other cost-effective
pollution prevention measures that could be applied to this industry to
further minimize mercury emissions such as source separation
approaches. Based on available information, analyses, and discussion
with industry, we understand that the vast majority of input materials
have very low mercury content (e.g., lead acid batteries). However, we
also understand that other types of scrap such as industrial batteries,
various construction materials, and other scrap materials are
occasionally processed in these furnaces materials. To ensure that
mercury-bearing materials are not included in such scrap, we considered
proposing that facilities inspect their input scrap materials daily to
ensure that mercury-bearing materials are not fed to the furnaces.
However, we are not aware of any identifiable or recoverable sources of
mercury in the scrap fed to secondary lead smelters and we are also
concerned that such work practices could be infeasible. Therefore, we
are not proposing such a standard in today's action. However, we are
soliciting comments on the appropriateness and feasibility of
implementing such a work practice standard for mercury. We are also
interested in information regarding any other pollution prevention
practices for mercury that may be feasible or appropriate for this
source category.
B. What are the results of the risk assessments and analyses?
As described above, for the Secondary Lead Smelting source
category, we conducted an inhalation risk assessment for all HAP
emitted. We also conducted multipathway analyses for cadmium, dioxins
and furans, mercury, and POM, as well as air-related multipathway
[[Page 29052]]
analyses for lead. With respect to lead, we used the recently
promulgated lead NAAQS to evaluate the potential for air-related
multipathway and environmental effects. Furthermore, we conducted a
demographic analysis of population risks. Details of the risk
assessments and additional analyses can be found in the residual risk
documentation referenced in Section III.B of this preamble, which is
available in the docket for this action. The Agency considered the
available health information--the MIR; the numbers of persons in
various risk ranges; cancer incidence; the maximum non-cancer hazard
index (HI); the maximum acute non-cancer hazard; the extent of non-
cancer risks; the potential for adverse environmental effects; and
distribution of risks in the exposed population (54 FR 38044, September
14, 1989)--in developing the proposed CAA section 112(f)(2) standards
for the Secondary Lead source category.
1. Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
Table 3 of this preamble provides an overall summary of the results
of the inhalation risk assessment.
Table 3--Secondary Lead Smelting Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum individual cancer risk (in 1 Maximum chronic non-
million) \1\ Estimated Estimated cancer TOSHI \2\ Maximum
------------------------------------------- population annual ---------------------------- screening
Based on at increased cancer Based on Based on acute non-
Based on actual emissions allowable risk of incidence actual allowable cancer HQ
level emissions cancer >=1- (cases per emissions emissions \3\
level in-1 million year) level level
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
50.......................... 200 128,000 0.02 0.6 3 30
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Estimated maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk due to HAP emissions from the source category.
\2\ Maximum TOSHI. The target organ with the highest TOSHI for the Secondary Lead Smelting source category is
the kidney.
\3\ The maximum HQ acute value of 30, driven by emissions of arsenic, is based on the only available acute dose-
response value available for arsenic, which is the REL. See Section III.B of this preamble for explanation of
acute dose-response values.
The results of the chronic inhalation cancer risk assessment
indicate that, based on estimates of current actual emissions, the
maximum individual lifetime cancer risk (MIR) could be up to 50-in-1
million, with fugitive dust emissions of arsenic, and to a lesser
extent fugitive dust emissions of cadmium (see below), driving these
risks. The total estimated cancer incidence from this source category
based on actual emission levels is 0.02 excess cancer cases per year or
one case in every 50 years, with emissions of arsenic and cadmium
contributing 73 percent and 15 percent respectively, to this cancer
incidence. In addition, we note that approximately 1,500 people are
estimated to have cancer risks greater than 10-in-1 million, and
approximately 128,000 people are estimated to have risks greater than
1-in-1 million. When considering the risks associated with MACT-
allowable emissions, the MIR could be up to 200-in-1 million.
The maximum modeled chronic non-cancer TOSHI value is 0.6 based on
actual emissions, driven primarily by fugitive dust emissions of
arsenic. When considering MACT allowable emissions, the maximum chronic
non-cancer TOSHI value could be up to 3.
Based on using the acute REL to assess possible acute non-cancer
effects due to emissions of arsenic, our screening analysis estimates
that the maximum acute HQ value for a facility in this source category
could be up to 30. Moreover, this analysis estimates that acute HQ
values could exceed a value of 1 at nine facilities.\21\ These
exceedances are mainly due to fugitive emissions at most of these nine
facilities. However, stack emissions, while generally not the principle
driver of maximum acute HQ values greater than 1, contribute about 90
percent of the risk at the facility which has the maximum acute HQ
screening value of 30. We note that the California REL is the only
acute value available, and we request comments on the use of this value
as well as comments on the existence of other peer reviewed values that
may be used to inform acute risks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Individual facility acute HQ values for all facilities can
be found in Appendix 5, Table 3, of the risk assessment document
that is included in the docket for this proposed rulemaking. Acute
HQ values exceeding a value of 1 were as follows: 2, 2, 2, 3, 4, 5,
6, 20 and 30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In summary, the analysis indicates that arsenic and cadmium
emissions pose risks to public health due to inhalation exposures
resulting from both fugitive and stack emissions (see above). Lead and
dioxin and furan emissions also pose risks to public health, but these
HAP are assessed separately as part of multipathway assessments
described below. Based on our risk assessment, no other HAP were
identified as contributing significant risks.
With respect to the potential for adverse environmental effects
from non PB-HAP, we note that that there is a lack of information about
specific adverse environmental effects occurring at a given
concentration of HAP for this source category. However, given that all
chronic non-cancer HQ values considering actual emissions are less than
1 using human health reference values, we believe that it is unlikely
that adverse environmental effects would occur at the actual HAP
concentrations estimated in our human health risk assessment.
2. Multipathway Risk Assessments and Results
As noted above, in evaluating the potential for multipathway
effects from emissions of lead, we compared modeled maximum 3-month
rolling average lead concentrations (based on estimates of actual
emissions) with the lead NAAQS. Results of this analysis indicate that,
if current emission levels continue, the lead NAAQS could be exceeded
at 12 of the 14 facilities and that nine facilities could have ambient
levels that are at least 2-3 times above the NAAQS, largely due to
actual fugitive dust emissions. Moreover, available ambient monitoring
data for lead confirms that ambient air concentrations of lead are well
above the lead NAAQS near seven of these facilities. As described in
the technical document Draft Summary of Ambient Lead Monitoring Data
near Secondary Lead Smelting Facilities, which is available the docket,
the measured ambient levels (for 3-month maximum rolling
concentrations) for year 2010 range from 1.00 to 0.26 [mu]g/
m3 for the seven facilities, and for year 2008, the measured
values were up to 2.49 [mu]g/m3.
When considering actual stack emissions only (i.e., in the
theoretical absence of fugitive dust emissions), we estimate that one
facility would be about 3 times above the NAAQS. Moreover, we estimate
that the risks
[[Page 29053]]
associated with MACT-allowable stack emissions would be significantly
higher. For example, we estimate that based on MACT-allowable emissions
from stacks alone (not including fugitive dust emissions), the ambient
lead concentrations could be about 10 times above the NAAQS at two
facilities.
Considering the results presented above, fugitive dust emissions,
and to a lesser extent emissions from stacks, resulted in modeled lead
concentrations above the NAAQS. We also note when considering all
emissions (i.e., stack and fugitive dust emissions), our analysis
indicates that maximum off-site 3-month rolling average lead
concentrations could be up to 20 times the lead NAAQS near one
facility's fenceline.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Secondary lead smelting modeled ambient lead concentrations
for all facilities can be found in Table 3.2-3 of the risk
assessment document that is included in the docket for this proposed
rulemaking. Facilities with modeled ambient lead concentrations
exceeding the NAAQS did so by 23, 19, 10, 6, 5, 4, 4, 3, 3, 1.5, 1.4
and 1.3 fold.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To evaluate the potential for adverse environmental effects from
lead, we compared modeled maximum 3-month rolling average lead ambient
air concentrations with the current secondary lead NAAQS, which is
identical to the primary, public health-based standard (see Section
III.B.3 of this preamble). Thus, our analyses discussed above also
indicate the potential for adverse environmental effects from emissions
of lead.
As noted above (section III.B.4), based on a multipathway screening
analysis for emissions of non-lead PB-HAP from this source category,
emissions of cadmium, dioxins and furans, and POM were all above the de
minimis emissions rates that suggest the potential for non-negligible
(i.e., greater than 1-in-1 million cancer risk or greater than a
noncancer hazard quotient of 1) risk of adverse health effects from
multipathway exposures.\23\ With regard to mercury, emissions are quite
low for this category. In fact, most emissions tests for mercury for
this source category were below MDL. Nevertheless, using conservative
worst-case assumptions (e.g., assuming all non-detects for mercury were
equal to the detection limit, as described in Sections IV.A and IV.B of
this preamble), we estimated that mercury emissions could be above the
de minimis emissions rates described above (see Section III.B of this
preamble).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ For facilities in this source category: Cadmium, BaP,
dioxins and furans, and mercury estimated emission rates were up to
about 8, 24, 23,000, and 4 times above their respective de minimis
emissions rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a result of this conservative screening analysis, we performed
two detailed case study multipathway analyses for these four PB-HAP in
areas near the Frisco Recycling (Frisco, TX) and Revere Smelting &
Refining (Middletown, NY) facilities.\24\ Moreover, as previously
mentioned above (section III.B.4), in order to more fully characterize
the potential multipathway risks associated with high end consumption
of PB-HAP contaminated food, we present results based on RME and CTE
scenarios. The RME scenario utilizes 90th percentile ingestion rates
for farmers, recreational anglers, and for three subpopulations of
recreational anglers) who have higher rates of fish consumption
(Hispanic, Laotian, and Vietnamese descent), while the CTE scenario
utilizes mean ingestion rates for each of these groups. We provide
results from both scenarios to illustrate the range of potential
modeled exposures and risks that may exist in the high-end of the
complete distribution of potential multipathway risks for this source
category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ 24 As previously noted above, the reasons that EPA selected
these two facilities for analysis are described in detail in section
2.5.1 of the document Human Health Multipathway Residual Risk
Assessment for the Secondary Lead Smelting Source Category, which
can be found in the docket for the proposed rule. The selection
criteria for modeling these two facilities included emissions rates
of PB-HAPs, proximity to water bodies, proximity to farmland,
average rainfall, average wind speed and direction, smelting furnace
type, local change in elevation, and geographic representativeness
of sites throughout the U.S.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Considering the RME scenario, results of this analysis estimate the
MIR for dioxin to be 30 in a million (based on Laotian anglers near the
Frisco, TX facility). Using the CTE scenario, the maximum individual
cancer risk from dioxins is estimated to be 6 in a million (also for
Laotian anglers near the Frisco, TX facility). We note that, for the
entire distribution of recreational anglers, the individual risk
estimates for the CTE and RME scenarios ranged from 3 to 7 in a
million. Considering both exposure scenarios, the MIR for POM was less
than 1 in a million. With respect to chronic noncancer risk, in both
case studies, using both exposure scenarios, we did not estimate
chronic HQ values greater than 1 for dioxin, mercury (even using the
conservative emission assumptions just mentioned above) or cadmium.
Detailed methods and results of the multipathway analysis are presented
in the document Human Health Multipathway Residual Risk Assessment for
the Secondary Lead Smelting Source Category, which can be found in the
docket for the proposed rule.
With respect to the potential for adverse environmental effects
from the non-lead PB-HAP included in the case study multipathway
assessments described above (i.e., multipathway assessment for cadmium,
dioxins and furans, POM, and mercury), similar to non PB-HAP, there is
a lack of information about specific adverse environmental effects
occurring at a given concentration for these pollutants. However, given
that the multipathway assessments for these pollutants estimated that
all chronic non-cancer HQ values are less than 1 using human health
reference values, we believe that it is unlikely that adverse
environmental effects would occur at the PB-HAP concentrations
estimated in the multipathway assessment.
3. Facility-Wide Risk Assessment Results
For this source category, there are no other significant HAP
emissions sources present. All significant HAP sources have been
included in the source category risk analysis. Therefore, we conclude
that the facility-wide risk is essentially the same as the source
category risk and that no separate facility-wide analysis is necessary.
4. Demographic Risk Analysis Results
To identify specific groups that may be affected by this
rulemaking, EPA conducted demographic analyses. These analyses provide
information about the demographic makeup of populations with: (1)
Estimated cancer risks at or above 1-in-1 million; and (2) estimated
ambient air lead concentrations above the NAAQS for lead. Results are
summarized in Table 4 of this preamble and are based on modeling using
estimated actual emissions levels for the populations living within 50
km of any secondary lead smelting facility.
[[Page 29054]]
Table 4--Secondary Lead Smelting Demographic Risk Analysis Results
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Population with
Population with ambient air
cancer risk lead
Population Nationwide greater than 1- concentrations
in-1 million exceeding the
NAAQS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total population.......................................... 285,000,000 128,000 500
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Race by percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White..................................................... 75 58 94
All Other Races........................................... 25 42 6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Race by percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White..................................................... 75 58 94
African American.......................................... 12 7 2
Native American........................................... 0.9 0.8 0.6
Other and Multiracial..................................... 12 34 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ethnicity by percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hispanic.................................................. 14 56 5
Non-Hispanic.............................................. 86 44 95
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Income by percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below poverty level....................................... 13 22 10
Above poverty level....................................... 87 78 90
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Children
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Children, Ages 0-18....................................... 27 32 26
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Results of the cancer risk assessment indicate that there are
approximately 128,000 people exposed to a cancer risk greater than 1-
in-1 million. For informational purposes, it can further be determined
that about 42 percent of this population can be classified as a
minority (listed as ``all Other Races'' in the table), which is above
the national percentage of 25 percent. More specifically, this analysis
estimates a greater percentage of this population is ``Hispanic'' (56
percent) and ``Other and Multiracial'' (34 percent) when compared to
the corresponding national percentages (14 percent and 12 percent,
respectively). We also note that in the cancer demographics analysis
there is a larger percentage of individuals ``Below Poverty Level'' (22
percent) when compared to the national percentage (13 percent). In
contrast, this analysis estimates the percentage of those classified as
``African American'' (7 percent) and ``Native American'' (0.8 percent)
to be below corresponding national percentages (12 and 0.9 percent,
respectively).
With respect to lead, the risk analysis estimates that 500 people
are living in areas around this source category with modeled ambient
air lead concentrations above the NAAQS for lead. The lead demographics
analysis estimates that about 6 percent of this population can be
classified as a minority (listed as ``all Other Races'' in the table).
Moreover, all minority or below the poverty level populations
considered in the demographics analysis for lead are below the
corresponding national percentages for these groups.
Moreover, given the extent to which lead may impact children's
health, we further note that our demographic analysis doesn't indicate
the presence of a higher percentage of children than one would normally
expect around facilities in this source category. The national
percentage of people who are children 18 years and younger is 27
percent; the percentage of people who are children 18 years or younger
living near secondary lead smelting facilities who are estimated to be
exposed to lead concentrations above the lead NAAQS is 26 percent (see
Risk and Technology Review--Analysis of Socio-Economic Factors for
Populations Living Near Secondary Lead Smelting Facilities in the
docket for this proposed rulemaking).
C. What are our proposed decisions based on risk acceptability and
ample margin of safety?
1. Risk Acceptability
As noted in Section III.C of this preamble, we weigh all health
risk factors in our risk acceptability determination, including cancer
risks to the individual most exposed, risk estimation uncertainty, and
other health information, including population risks and risks for non-
cancer health effects. The following sections discuss our decisions on
risk acceptability based on three analyses: (1) Comparison of modeled
ambient lead concentrations with the lead NAAQS, (2) the inhalation
risk assessment, and (3) the multipathway risk assessment.
a. Comparison of Modeled Ambient Lead Concentrations With the Lead
NAAQS
With regard to lead emissions, because ambient air lead
concentrations resulting from current emissions from nine facilities
were estimated to be well above the lead NAAQS, the risks associated
with lead emissions from this source category are judged to be
unacceptable. Based on our modeling analysis, we estimate that ambient
air lead concentrations near the facility boundary resulting from
actual
[[Page 29055]]
emissions from one of these facilities could be as high as 20 times
above the lead NAAQS, due primarily to fugitive dust emissions.
Additionally, approximately 500 individuals could be exposed to three-
month-rolling average lead concentrations in excess of the NAAQS due to
emissions from this source category. Moreover, we estimate that the
risks would be significantly higher based on MACT-allowable emissions
of lead from this source category. Exposure to levels this much in
excess of a primary NAAQS raises obvious issues of adequacy of
protection afforded by the current MACT standard. Among other things,
the lead NAAQS was set to ``provide increased protection for children
and other at-risk populations against an array of adverse health
effects, most notably including neurological effects in children,
including neurocognitive and neurobehavioral effects'' (73 FR 67007).
EPA is thus proposing that these ambient lead levels need to be reduced
to provide protection to public health with an ample margin of safety.
b. Inhalation Risk Assessment
Based on the inhalation risk assessment, we estimate that the
cancer risks to the individual most exposed could be as high as 50-in-1
million due to actual emissions and as high as 200-in-1 million due to
MACT-allowable emissions, mainly due to arsenic stack emissions and, to
a lesser extent, cadmium emissions. We estimate that the incidence of
cancer based on actual emissions is 0.02 excess cancer cases per year,
or one case every 50 years. Based on these results, we conclude that
the cancer risks due to MACT-allowable emissions from this source
category are unacceptable. The cancer risks due to actual emissions are
below 100-in-1 million and population risks are relatively low.
Therefore, cancer risks due to actual emissions are considered
acceptable.
With respect to potential acute non-cancer health risks, we
estimate that, based on our screening analysis, the worst-case HQ value
could be up to 30 (based on the REL) at one facility, due primarily to
arsenic emissions. Additionally, we estimated that nine facilities had
potential worst-case HQs greater than 1 in our screening analysis, also
due primarily to arsenic emissions. These results suggest that arsenic
emissions have the potential to cause acute non-cancer health effects.
However, the worst-case nature of our acute screening assessment
suggests that the potential for these effects carries a relatively low
probability of occurrence. Nevertheless, we seek comments regarding
this conclusion.
c. Multipathway Risk Assessment
Based on our multipathway risk assessment, we estimate that the MIR
for cancer using a reasonable maximum or a central tendency exposure
scenario (see above) could be up to 30-in-1 million and 6-in-1 million
respectively, due to actual emissions of dioxins and furans. Because
the MIR is less than the 100-in-1 million threshold, we conclude that
the risks due to actual dioxin and furan emissions are acceptable.
Because emissions of other HAP (i.e., cadmium and POM) analyzed in the
multipathway risk assessments did not result in MIRs above 1-in-1
million, we also conclude that the risks due to emissions of these HAP
are acceptable.
d. Summary of Conclusions
In summary, we conclude that, based on our lead NAAQS analysis, the
risks due to lead emissions under the MACT standard for this source
category are unacceptable. Based on the inhalation risk assessment, we
conclude that cancer risks associated with MACT-allowable emissions
from this source category are unacceptable, primarily due to arsenic
emissions from stacks, and to a lesser extent cadmium emissions. The
cancer risks associated with actual emissions from this source category
were determined to be acceptable, but will be investigated further in
the ample margin of safety analysis because the risks are greater than
1-in-1 million, primarily due to fugitive emissions of arsenic and
cadmium.
We will also evaluate the arsenic emissions further under the ample
margin of safety because of the potential for acute non-cancer risks.
Lastly, the risks from emissions of all HAP considered in the
multipathway assessment are acceptable. Nevertheless, as described in
section 2 below, we evaluate the HAP further under the ample margin of
safety analysis.
2. Proposed Controls and Analysis of the Resulting Risk
a. Allowable Stack Emissions
In order to ensure that the risks associated with MACT-allowable
stack emissions from this source category are acceptable, the MIR,
resulting primarily from allowable stack emissions of arsenic, would
need to be reduced by at least a factor of 2 (i.e., from 200-in-1
million to 100-in-1 million or lower). Also, based on our analyses,
MACT allowable emissions of lead from stacks alone (not including
fugitive dust emissions) could result in ambient lead concentrations
about 10 times above the NAAQS for two facilities. Because the controls
for stack emissions of arsenic are the same as those for lead, and
because the relationship between emissions and the MIR and ambient air
lead concentrations is predominantly linear, we estimated that the
current stack lead concentration limit would need to be reduced by
approximately an order of magnitude to ensure acceptable risk from
MACT-allowable emissions of lead and arsenic from this source category.
Therefore, we considered lowering the existing lead concentration limit
by an order of magnitude (i.e., from 2.0 mg/dscm to 0.2 mg/dscm) for
all stacks. We also considered different forms of a revised lead
emissions limit that would achieve similar reductions in MACT-allowable
emissions. However, based on a combination of data analysis, evaluation
of each facility's processes, and communication with the industry, we
have determined that a concentration-based limit continues to be the
most appropriate form for this source category.
We also evaluated an approach that would implement a facility-wide,
flow-weighted average lead concentration limit of 0.20 mg/dscm with a
maximum concentration limit of 1.0 mg/dscm for any individual stack.
For the 0.2 mg/dscm flow-weighted average limit, facilities would
assign a weighting factor to the measured lead concentrations of each
stack based on the exhaust flow rates of each control device. The sum
of all the flow-weighted concentrations at each stack within a facility
would then be calculated and compared to the proposed limit to
demonstrate compliance. A limit in this form would ensure that the
risks associated with MACT-allowable stack emissions of lead and
arsenic from this source category are acceptable, and that the rule
provides an ample margin of safety, while providing flexibility to the
facilities in determining the most efficient approach to achieve the
necessary reductions. Proposing a maximum concentration limit of 1.0
mg/dscm for any individual stack will also ensure that stack emissions
of lead from any one stack in this source category will not result in
exceedances of the lead NAAQS. Furthermore, our analysis of available
control technologies, presented in Section IV.D of this preamble,
confirms that this is a technologically feasible standard.
For these reasons, under the authority of CAA section 112(f)(2), we
are proposing a facility-wide, flow-weighted average lead concentration
limit of 0.20 mg/dscm to cover all stacks in this
[[Page 29056]]
source category. We are also proposing a maximum lead concentration
limit of 1.0 mg/dscm to apply to any individual stack at existing
facilities. For new sources, we are proposing that a limit of 0.20 mg/
dscm applies to all individual stacks at the facility. As in the
existing MACT standard, compliance for existing sources will be
demonstrated by annual stack testing and installation and operation of
BLDSs for both new and existing sources.
We are also proposing that new affected sources would be required
to demonstrate compliance using a lead continuous emissions monitoring
systems (CEMS).\25\ However, since the Agency has not finalized the
performance specification for the use of these instruments, we are
deferring the effective date of the requirement to install, calibrate,
maintain and operate lead CEMS until these actions can be completed.
The lead CEMS installation deadline will be established through future
rulemaking, along with other pertinent requirements. In the event
operations commence at a new affected source prior to promulgation of
the performance specification, compliance would be demonstrated through
annual stack testing and installation of a BLDS until promulgation of
the lead CEMS performance specification. With regard to existing
sources, we considered the possibility of proposing CEMs as the method
to demonstrate compliance with the MACT limits. However, since the
Agency has not yet finalized the performance specification for this
method and since the costs could be high for applying this technology
to multiple stacks, we are not proposing a requirement for CEMs for
existing sources. However, we are allowing the option of a CEMS in lieu
of annual stack tests for lead for existing sources in this industry
when the technology is available and the EPA has established
performance specifications. We are seeking comments and information on
the feasibility of applying this technology for monitoring lead
emissions from these sources and the potential to require CEMs on
existing sources in this source category. Nevertheless, depending on
comments received and other factors we may consider requiring CEMs for
existing sources in the future, if appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ We do not believe that use of a lead CEM to meet the flow-
weighted average of 0.2 mg/dscm poses issues of feasibility, even
though our present data for the source data comes from stack tests
rather than continuous measurements. This is because so many sources
are achieving levels considerably less than 0.2 mg/dscm in their
performance tests. (See ``Summary of the Technology Review for
Secondary Lead Smelters'', which is available in the docket.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Fugitive Dust Emissions
As described in Section IV.C.1 of this preamble, we have determined
that fugitive dust emissions must be reduced such that ambient lead
concentrations near the facility boundaries are below the lead NAAQS
(i.e., 0.15 mg/dscm). Based on our review of information submitted in
the ICR, we have identified a combination of specific fugitive control
measures that are generally able to achieve lead concentrations near
the boundaries of facilities that are below the lead NAAQS (see Draft
Technology Review for the Secondary Lead Smelting Source Category).
These controls include total enclosure of process fugitive emissions
sources and material storage and handling areas and implementation of a
list of prescribed work practices to further limit the formation of
fugitive dust in other areas of the facilities. Examples of these
prescribed work practices include: Pavement of all grounds on the
facility or sufficient groundcover to prevent wind-blown dust, monthly
cleaning of building rooftops, timely cleaning of any accidental
releases, inspection of battery storage areas outside of enclosures for
broken batteries, and performance of maintenance on equipment that may
be contaminated with lead inside total enclosures. Our analysis
indicates that these controls are necessary to ensure that three-month
rolling average lead concentrations near the boundaries at all
facilities in this source category do not exceed the lead NAAQS.
Furthermore, our analysis of available control technologies in Section
IV.D of this preamble confirms that this is a technologically feasible
standard for this source category.
For the reasons described above, we are proposing under CAA section
112(f)(2) that each facility must totally enclose the following
emissions sources and operate the total enclosure under negative
pressure:
(1) Smelting furnaces;
(2) Smelting furnace charging areas;
(3) Lead taps, slag taps, and molds during tapping;
(4) Battery breakers;
(5) Refining kettles, casting areas;
(6) Dryers;
(7) Agglomerating furnaces and agglomerating furnace product taps;
(8) Material handling areas for any lead bearing materials
(drosses, slag, other raw materials), excluding areas where unbroken
lead acid batteries and finished lead products are stored; and
(9) Areas where dust from fabric filters, sweepings or used fabric
filters are handled or processed.
The ventilation air from the total enclosures must be conveyed to a
control device. We are also proposing that the emissions from the
enclosure control devices will be subject to the proposed stack lead
emissions limits described in this section.
In addition, we are proposing that facilities must implement the
following fugitive control work practices: Pavement cleaning and
vehicle washing; cleaning of building rooftops on a regular schedule
(e.g., at least once per month); cleaning of all affected areas after
accidental releases; inspection of the battery storage areas for broken
batteries; performance of maintenance activities inside enclosures; and
transport of lead bearing material in closed systems. Additionally,
each facility will be required to prepare, and at all times operate
according to, a SOP manual that describes in detail how the additional
work practices will be implemented.
We acknowledge that there may be other control measures and
alternative approaches that we have not identified that are effective
in reducing fugitive dust emissions at other facilities. Therefore, as
an alternative to the requirement for full enclosure, we are proposing
under CAA section 112(f)(2) that facilities may choose to implement the
work practices, maintain partial enclosures and enclosure hoods as the
1997 NESHAP requires, prepare an SOP as described above and establish
an ambient air monitoring network to ensure that lead concentrations in
air near the facility boundaries remain at or below 0.15 [mu]g/m\3\
based on 3-month rolling averages (the level and averaging time of the
lead NAAQS). The monitoring plan must include a minimum of two
monitoring sites that are placed in locations that are most likely to
capture measurements of the maximum concentrations at or near the
facility boundaries. For example, at least one monitor must be placed
in the predominant downwind direction from main emissions sources based
on historical weather patterns in the area. This alternative regulatory
requirement based on partial enclosures, work practices plus monitoring
lead concentrations in air would provide flexibility to facilities in
determining the within-facility sources that should be enclosed and
vented to a control device that are most effective for reducing
fugitive emissions at their facilities. These proposed requirements
will ensure that the risks associated with fugitive lead emissions from
this
[[Page 29057]]
source category are acceptable. Nevertheless, we are seeking comments
on this proposed alternative requirement, including whether two
monitors would be sufficient or if more monitors may be warranted.
If this alternative approach is chosen by the facility, the work
practices and SOP along with the lead concentration in air monitoring
would be established as the enforceable requirements to address
fugitive emissions under the NESHAP. For both new and existing
facilities, compliance with the lead concentration in air monitoring
component would be demonstrated based on rolling 3-month average
concentrations as measured by the lead compliance monitoring devices,
consistent with the averaging time of the lead NAAQS (see documentation
for EPA's Lead NAAQS, available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttnnaaqs/standards/pb). We are proposing that approval by EPA is required for
each source electing to comply by means of this alternative approach
that includes a monitoring network plus work practices rather than
compliance based on full enclosure plus work practices. Thus, the
proposed alternative requires development of a monitoring plan for
approval by the Administrator that includes the minimum sampling and
analysis methods and compliance demonstration criteria. Under this
alternative, facilities would also be required to provide a work
practice SOP manual to the Administrator.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ The proposed lead concentration in air alternative appears
to be an ``emissions standard'', as required by section 112 (f)(2),
since it ``limits the quantity, rate, or concentration'' of lead--to
the level of the NAAQS at a location of maximum exposure--albeit
compliance with the standard is measured by means of ambient
monitoring. CAA section 302 (k). Nonetheless, EPA solicits comment
on this issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As part of this alternative, we are also proposing a provision that
would allow for reduced monitoring if the facility demonstrates ambient
lead concentrations less than 50 percent of the ambient lead
concentration limit for three consecutive years at each monitor. We
propose that a revised monitoring plan may be submitted (for review and
possible approval by the Administrator) to reduce the sampling and
analysis frequency if all of the 3-month rolling average concentrations
at each monitor are less than 50 percent of the limit of 0.15 [mu]g/
m\3\ over a 3-year period. The monitoring requirements discussed above
were designed to allow for flexibility, prevention of redundant
requirements, and also to provide consistency with current monitoring
programs that may be required at some of the facilities in this source
category.
c. Risks Considering Proposed Control Options
We conducted an assessment to estimate the risks based on a post-
control scenario reflecting the proposed requirements for stack and
fugitive emissions described above. (Details are provided in the Draft
Risk Assessment report which is available in the docket for this
action). Based on that modeling assessment, we estimated that the
ambient lead concentrations would be at or below the lead NAAQS for all
facilities once this rule is fully implemented, except for possibly one
facility in California. Our modeling analysis indicated that this one
facility in California may still be above the lead NAAQS after
controls. Therefore, we gathered additional information and did further
evaluation of this facility. Based on communications with the company,
it is our understanding that the facility is currently constructing an
additional enclosure of certain equipment (e.g., baghouse row,
abatement equipment, and slurry tanks) that we had not included in our
post-control scenario. Moreover, it is our understanding that the
company has recently implemented, or is currently implementing, other
measures (e.g., repaired asphalt and additional cleaning of road
surfaces) that will significantly reduce their fugitive emissions
further as part of their efforts to comply with a California State
regulation (reference: based on verbal communications during meeting
with Exide Corporation on February 23, 2011, in RTP, NC; and a phone
conversation on April 25, 2011). The California regulation has a
compliance deadline of late 2011 and requires that ambient
concentrations of lead near this facility remain at or below 0.15
[mu]g/m\3\ per 3-month rolling averages. Therefore, we conclude that
this facility will achieve levels at or below the NAAQS.
In summary, we are proposing that the MACT standard, with the
changes we are proposing under the CAA section 112(f)(2) residual risk
review, will reduce risks from fugitive lead emissions to an acceptable
level.
Our analysis indicates that the MIR for cancer due to inhalation
exposure associated with actual emissions from this source category
would be reduced from 50-in-1 million to 10-in-1 million as a result of
the actions proposed under 112(f)(2), while the MIR from MACT-allowable
emissions would be reduced from 200-in-1 million to 10-in-1 million.
The cancer incidence rate will be reduced from 0.02 to 0.01.
Furthermore, the maximum worst-case screening acute HQ value will be
reduced from potentially as high as 30 to less than or equal to 5.
Based on these metrics, the actions proposed above under CAA section
112(f)(2) ensure acceptable risks from actual and MACT-allowable stack
emissions of all HAP for this source category.
3. Ample Margin of Safety
Under the ample margin of safety analysis, we evaluate the cost and
feasibility of available control technologies and other measures
(including the controls, measures and costs reviewed under the
technology review) that could be applied in this source category to
further reduce the risks due to emissions of HAP identified in our risk
assessment. We estimate that the actions proposed under CAA section
112(f)(2), as described above, will reduce the MIR associated with
arsenic and cadmium from 200-in-1 to 10-in-1 million for MACT-allowable
emissions and from 50-in-1 to 10-in-1 million for actual emissions. The
cancer incidence will be reduced from 0.02 to 0.01 and the maximum
acute HQ value will be reduced from potentially up to 30 to less than
or equal to 5. Although these risks are considered acceptable based on
the 100-in-1 million threshold established in the Benzene NESHAP, the
MIR remains greater than 1-in-1 million, due primarily to fugitive
emissions of arsenic and cadmium. Also, the maximum acute non-cancer HQ
could be up to 5. Our ample margin of safety analysis is provided
below. We have performed these analyses for emissions sources of the
following five groups of HAP for which standards were proposed in
today's action: (1) Arsenic and cadmium, (2) lead compounds, (3)
dioxins and furans, (4) organic HAP, and (5) mercury compounds. The
results of these analyses are presented in the following sections.
a. Arsenic and Cadmium Emissions
Because the estimated MIR of 10-in-1 million remaining after
implementation of our proposed revisions to the MACT standard is driven
primarily by fugitive emissions of arsenic and cadmium, we performed an
ample margin of safety analysis on these emissions. Based on our
research and analyses, we have not identified any feasible control
options beyond what we are requiring in our proposed standards for
fugitive emissions sources described above, and are therefore not
proposing additional fugitive controls based on our ample margin of
safety analysis. Nevertheless, we are soliciting comments and
information regarding additional fugitive control measures, work
[[Page 29058]]
practices that may be available and their feasibility in further
reducing fugitive emissions of metal HAP, or additional monitoring that
may be warranted to ensure adequate control of fugitive emissions.
We also conducted additional analyses to determine whether
reductions in stack emissions of arsenic and cadmium emissions beyond
those required by our proposed standards are appropriate and necessary
to provide an ample margin of safety. We identified one control
technology that could achieve reductions beyond those that will occur
due to the actions we are proposing under CAA section 112(f)(2), which
are described above. The device is a wet electrostatic precipitator
(WESP) that provides an estimated lead control efficiency of greater
than 99 percent on the outlet of the baghouse. The combination of the
baghouses with the WESP achieves greater than 99.99 percent control
efficiency (see: Wet Electrostatic Precipitator (WESP) Control for
Meeting Metals Emissions Standards). This technology is currently used
at one facility in California. However, this control configuration is
quite expensive. We estimated that installing a WESP at the other 13
facilities would result in total capital costs to the industry of $400
million and a total annualized cost of $55 million. We estimate that
the cost-effectiveness would be about $4.0 million per ton of
reductions in metal HAP emissions (mainly lead compounds). A detailed
analysis of the costs associated with the WESP unit can be found in the
technical document for this action available in the docket (see Draft
Cost Impacts of the Revised NESHAP for the Secondary Lead Smelting
Source Category). Stack emissions of arsenic and cadmium do not
appreciably contribute to the 10-in-1 million cancer risks remaining
after implementation of the proposed revisions. Moreover, we conclude
that the likelihood of significant noncancer effects due to arsenic
emissions (after the proposed controls described above are in place) is
very low because the maximum acute noncancer HQ (which could be as high
as 5) is based on a very conservative analysis using some worst case
assumptions. Furthermore, the costs for these additional controls are
high. Therefore, we are not proposing a requirement for the
installation of a WESP under this ample margin of safety analysis.
b. Lead Emissions
With regard to emissions of lead, by lowering the facility-wide
emissions limit to a flow-weighted average of 0.20 mg/dscm, limiting
the emissions from any one stack to no more than 1.0 mg/dscm, and
requiring facilities to either fully enclose their facility and
implement comprehensive fugitive work practices or implement
comprehensive fugitive work practices and lead air monitoring, we
conclude that the actual and MACT-allowable lead emissions from this
source category would be reduced to the point that they would not
result in off-site concentrations above the NAAQS. Moreover, we have
not identified any further feasible and cost-effective controls. See
Section IV.C.2.a of this preamble explaining that adding a wet
electrostatic precipitator as supplementary HAP metal control would be
excessively costly and not cost-effective. Moreover, as described
above, we have not identified other measures (beyond those proposed
above) to further reduce fugitive emissions. Thus, we are proposing
that revisions to the MACT standard that we are proposing under CAA
section 112(f)(2), as described above, will provide an ample margin of
safety with regard to emissions of lead from this source category.
c. Dioxin and Furan Emissions
With regard to dioxin and furan emissions, as outlined in Section
IV.A of this preamble, we are proposing various emissions limits under
CAA section 112(d)(3). Results of the multipathway risk assessment
indicate that the cancer MIR associated with dioxin and furan emissions
is 30-in-1 million, less than the acceptability threshold of 100-in-1
million. However, because the MIR is greater than 1-in-1 million, we
are required to investigate whether reductions in emissions of dioxins
and furans beyond that required in the limits we are proposing under
CAA section 112(d)(3) are needed to provide an ample margin of safety
to the public.
We identified one option to reduce emissions of dioxins and furans
beyond that required by the limits proposed in today's action. This
option is the installation of additional afterburner capacity at the
facilities operating blast furnaces. We evaluated this option because
of the higher potential of formation of dioxins and furans in the blast
furnace exhaust due to its relatively cooler exit temperature. This
option would include operating the currently installed afterburners at
a temperature of 1600 [deg]F with a residence time of 2.5 seconds, or
installation of new or additional afterburner capacity with this
capability. Based on the current level of performance identified in the
ICR surveys, we believe that this option would require four facilities
to install additional afterburner capacity or install new afterburners
at their facility in order to operate the units at these conditions.
The estimated total capital cost for the additional controls is $5.9
million, with a total annualized cost of $2.9 million. Based on an
estimated control efficiency of 98 percent, TEQ emissions would be
reduced by an estimated 28 grams per year and organic HAP emissions by
200 tons per year (see Draft Cost Impacts of the Revised NESHAP for the
Secondary Lead Smelting Source Category for a detailed analysis).
However, this option would result in increases of NOX and
CO2 emissions. Considering the costs associated with this
option, the potential for increased emissions of NOX and
CO2, and the fact that risks associated with emissions of
dioxins and furans are clearly less than 100-in-1 million, we are not
proposing this option as part of our ample margin of safety analysis.
We also considered various beyond the floor options for establishing
MACT limits for dioxins and furans under the Section 112(d)(3) review
(as described in section IV.A.2), but we are not proposing any of those
options in this action for the reasons described in that section.
d. Organic HAP Emissions
With regard to organic HAP (other than dioxins and furans), we
estimate that actual emissions do not result in a cancer risk above 1-
in-1 million at any facilities in this source category. Given that
actual emissions from blast furnaces do not result in a cancer risk
above 1-in-1 million in this source category, and that the actual THC
emissions modeled from blast furnaces were at levels close to the
allowable emissions, we conclude that the cancer risk associated with
actual and allowable emissions of organic HAP from all other furnace
types are not likely to be greater than 1-in-1 million since the THC
limit for blast furnaces is considerably higher than for other furnace
types. The one exception is for rotary furnaces, for which we are
proposing a THC limit (i.e., 610 ppmv) in today's action that is higher
than the limit in the 1997 NESHAP for blast furnaces (i.e., 360 ppmv).
Based on our risk assessment, we estimate that the highest possible MIR
due to allowable organic HAP emissions from the one rotary furnace in
operation today would be 2-in-1 million (given the proposed emissions
limits in today's action). This is based on the conservative assumption
that this rotary furnace will continuously emit THC at exactly 610
ppmv, which is a highly unlikely scenario. Additionally, emissions of
[[Page 29059]]
organic HAP from this source category do not appreciably contribute to
any chronic-non cancer risk. For these reasons, we are proposing that
the MACT standards for organic HAP, as proposed in today's action,
provide an ample margin of safety.
e. Mercury Emissions
Lastly, with regard to mercury emissions from this source category,
our risk assessment indicates that, even based on our highly
conservative estimates of mercury emissions (see Section III.B.7 of
this preamble for further discussion on the conservative nature of our
mercury emissions estimates), emissions of mercury did not appreciably
contribute to risk based on both the inhalation and multipathway risk
analyses. Given that the work practice standard proposed in today's
action for mercury is based on actual performance of the industry, we
are proposing that these standards provide an ample margin of safety
with regards to risk from mercury emissions from this source category.
D. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our technology
review?
Based on our technology review, we determined that there have been
advances in emissions control measures since the Secondary Lead
Smelting NESHAP was originally promulgated in 1997. Since promulgation,
we estimate that industry-wide metal HAP emissions (including lead)
from process and process fugitive sources have been reduced by
approximately 80 percent. As a result, and due to other factors, actual
lead emissions from process and process fugitive sources at most
secondary lead smelting facilities are significantly lower than are
allowed under the 1997 NESHAP.
Based on our technology review, we believe that the reductions in
metal HAP emissions since promulgation of the 1997 NESHAP are mainly
directly related to improvements in two areas: (1) Improvements in
fabric filter control technology (e.g., improved bag materials,
replacement of older baghouses) and (2) total enclosure of process
fugitive emissions sources and raw material storage and handling areas
and improvements in emissions controls and work practices for fugitive
dust emissions sources. Additional reductions have been achieved due to
the use of a WESP at one facility and also HEPA filters in some cases.
The results of our analyses and our proposed decisions for these areas
under CAA section 112(d)(6) are presented in the following sections.
Additional details regarding these analyses can be found in the
following technical document for this action which is available in the
docket: Draft Technology Review for the Secondary Lead Smelting Source
Category.
1. Fabric Filter Improvements
The improvements in fabric filter control technology are reflected
in the emissions test data collected under the ICR. The emissions limit
for lead under the 1997 NESHAP is a concentration-based limit of 2.0
mg/dscm applicable to all stacks whether they are classified as
process, process fugitives, or building or enclosure ventilation
systems. Based on our analysis of survey responses and test data
collected under the ICR, this industry primarily uses fabric filters to
control emissions of lead and other metal HAP, and the vast majority of
sources affected by the current lead limit are achieving lead
concentrations at control device outlets that are far below the current
limit (see: Draft Technology Review for the Secondary Lead Smelting
Source Category). Several facilities have also installed HEPA filters
downstream of their fabric filters that have an estimated 99.97 percent
add-on control efficiency for particles with an aerodynamic diameter of
0.3 microns. More than 95 percent of all sources reported lead
concentrations (coming out of the stacks after the control devices)
that are less than half of the current limit, with several sources
achieving lead concentrations that are two to three orders of magnitude
lower than the current limit. Based on the available data, the average
lead outlet concentration of all affected sources in this source
category is 0.16 mg/dscm, with a median of 0.04 mg/dscm. Based on these
data, we believe that developments in practices, processes, and control
technologies warrant revisions to the 1997 NESHAP to reflect emissions
levels achieved in practice. Our analysis of emissions data provided in
the ICR indicates that stacks equipped with a well-performing fabric
filter can achieve exhaust lead concentrations of less than 0.20 mg/
dscm (see: Draft Technology Review for the Secondary Lead Smelting
Source Category). In fact, of the 93 stacks identified in the ICR that
are controlled using a baghouse, 74 reported average lead
concentrations of less than 0.20 mg/dscm. Based on these data, we
considered the costs and feasibility of revising the emissions limit
down to 0.20 mg/dscm as a facility-wide, flow-weighted average,
identical to the limit proposed under CAA section 112(f)(2) in today's
action. We estimate that if we proposed such a limit, two of the 14
facilities would be required to replace one of their large old
baghouses with a newer, more efficient baghouse in order to comply. We
estimate that this would result in about 5.9 tons of reductions of
metal HAP emissions. We estimate that the total capital costs would be
about $7.6 million with annualized costs of $1.7 million and cost-
effectiveness of $0.3 million per ton of metal HAP (or $150 per pound
of metal HAP). As a co-benefit to implementation of this revised
standard, we estimate reductions of 56 tons of PM at a cost-
effectiveness of $30,000 per ton of PM. We do not anticipate additional
energy use associated with this revised limit, as only replacement
baghouses, as opposed to new units, are anticipated. Furthermore, we do
not anticipate any adverse non-air environmental impacts associated
with the implementation of this revised limit.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ As explained in section C above, we conclude that requiring
an additional wet electrostatic precipitator as a form of
supplementary metal control at all facilities would be excessively
costly and not cost effective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the reasons described above, under the authority of CAA section
112(d)(6), we are proposing a facility-wide, flow-weighted average lead
concentration limit of 0.20 mg/dscm to cover all stacks. Additionally,
because 89 of the 93 stacks identified in the ICR that are controlled
using a baghouse are achieving lead concentrations below 1.0 mg/dscm,
we conclude that this level of emissions is technologically feasible
and demonstrated, therefore we are also proposing a maximum lead
concentration limit of 1.0 mg/dscm to apply to any individual stack at
existing facilities. For new sources, we are proposing that the 0.20
mg/dscm limit applies to all individual stacks at the facility.
Consistent with the standards proposed under CAA section 112(f)(2) in
today's action, compliance for existing sources will be demonstrated
either by annual stack testing and installation and operation of BLDS
or by use of a lead CEMS once performance specifications have been
promulgated. New affected sources would be required to demonstrate
compliance using a lead CEMS, pending promulgation of the lead CEMS
performance specifications. Any new affected sources commencing
operations prior to promulgation of the performance specifications may
demonstrate compliance through annual stack testing and operation of a
BLDS until the CEMS performance specifications are promulgated.
We believe that these proposed revisions, identical to those
proposed under CAA section 112(f)(2), are cost-effective revisions that
reflect the level
[[Page 29060]]
of control achievable in practice by a well performing fabric filter.
2. Total Enclosure of Process Fugitive Sources and Raw Material Storage
and Handling Areas and Work Practices for Fugitive Dust Sources
Facilities have achieved some of their reductions since 1997
through total enclosure of process fugitive emissions sources and
material storage and handling areas. Based on responses to the ICR
survey, the process fugitive emissions sources regulated under the 1997
NESHAP are totally enclosed and vented to a control device at seven of
the 14 existing facilities. Additionally, an eighth facility has a
current project to install total enclosures and associated control
devices for their process fugitive emissions sources. This level of
enclosure is well beyond the requirements of the 1997 NESHAP that
provides facilities the option of using negative pressure hoods to
capture process fugitive emissions and route them to a control device.
The other six facilities have some degree of enclosure, but the extent
of enclosure among these six facilities varies considerably. With
regard to material storage and handling areas, the ICR surveys indicate
that all of the facilities with process fugitive emissions sources in
total enclosures have enclosed the storage areas for all lead-bearing
materials such as processed raw materials and slag.
The information and data collected under the ICR also indicate that
at least four facilities conduct work practices beyond those required
in the 1997 NESHAP to further limit the formation of fugitive dust from
material handling operations and re-entrainment of lead dust deposited
within the facility fence line. Examples of these work practices
include: pavement of all grounds on the facility, monthly cleaning of
building rooftops, timely cleaning of any accidental releases,
inspection of battery storage areas outside of enclosures for broken
batteries, and performance of maintenance on equipment that may be
contaminated with lead inside total enclosures.
We estimate that for the six facilities to implement total
enclosures with negative pressure ventilation to their process fugitive
emissions sources, the total capital cost would be about $40 million
(about $6.7 million per facility) with total annualized costs of about
$6.4 million (or about $1.1 million per facility). These controls would
achieve an estimated 5.3 tons reduction of metal HAP (mainly lead
compounds, but also arsenic, and cadmium). Additionally, as a co-
benefit, these controls would achieve an estimated 58 tons reduction of
PM at a cost effectiveness of $100,000 per ton of PM. We do anticipate
approximately 23 million kilowatt hours (KWH) of additional energy use
associated with the operation of additional baghouses controlling the
building ventilation systems. However, we do not anticipate any adverse
non-air environmental impacts associated with the implementation of
these potential controls. Additionally, for ten facilities to implement
the additional fugitive control work practices mentioned above, we
estimate no capital cost and a total annualized cost of about $3.0
million (about $0.2 million per facility). These work practices would
achieve an estimated 4.2 tons reduction of metal HAP (mainly lead,
arsenic, and cadmium). Additionally, as a co-benefit, these work
practices would achieve an estimated 46 tons reduction of PM at a cost-
effectiveness of $100,000 per ton of PM. The total cost effectiveness
of implementing total enclosures with negative pressure ventilation as
well as additional fugitive emissions control work practices is
estimated at $1.0 million per ton of metal HAP (or $500 per pound of
metal HAP). Because the primary HAP reduced are lead compounds,
arsenic, and cadmium, and given the co-benefit PM reductions, we
believe that these costs and cost-effectiveness values are reasonable.
Therefore, for the reasons described above, we are proposing under
CAA section 112(d)(6) that each facility must totally enclose the
following emissions sources and operate the total enclosure under
negative pressure:
(1) Smelting furnaces.
(2) Smelting furnace charging areas.
(3) Lead taps, slag taps, and molds during tapping.
(4) Battery breakers.
(5) Refining kettles, casting areas.
(6) Dryers.
(7) Agglomerating furnaces and agglomerating furnace product taps.
(8) Material handling areas for any lead bearing materials
(drosses, slag, other raw materials), excluding areas where unbroken
lead acid batteries and finished lead products are stored.
(9) Areas where dust from fabric filters, sweepings or used fabric
filters are handled or processed.
The ventilation air from the total enclosures must be conveyed to a
control device. We are also proposing that the emissions from the
enclosure control devices be subject to the proposed stack lead
emissions limits proposed in Section IV.D.1 of this preamble and also
previously under CAA section 112(f)(2).
Additionally, we are proposing under CAA section 112(d)(6) that
each facility must implement the following fugitive control work
practices: pavement cleaning and vehicle washing; cleaning of building
rooftops on a regular (e.g., at least once per month) schedule;
cleaning of all affected areas after accidental releases; inspection of
the battery storage areas for broken batteries; performance of
maintenance activities inside enclosures; and transport of lead bearing
material in closed systems.
For both new and existing facilities, compliance with the total
enclosure and work practice requirements described above would require
construction of total enclosures (where they do not already exist)
capable of being operated under negative pressure and venting of the
enclosure exhaust to a control device. Additionally, each facility
would be required to prepare, and at all times operate according to, a
SOP manual that describes in detail how the additional work practices
will be implemented. We believe this standard, identical to that
proposed under CAA section 112(f)(2), is a cost-effective control
option that reflects the level of fugitive control achieved in practice
by several facilities in this source category.
3. Alternative Compliance Option for Fugitive Dust Emissions Under CAA
Section 112(d)(6)
Similar to the previous discussion regarding the fugitive emissions
limits proposed in under CAA section 112(f)(2), we acknowledge that
there may be other control measures that we have not identified that
are effective in reducing fugitive dust emissions at other facilities.
Therefore, as an alternative to the requirements for full enclosure, we
are proposing under CAA section 112(d)(6) that facilities may choose to
implement comprehensive fugitive control work practices, maintain the
partial enclosures and enclosure hoods required in the 1997 NESHAP,
plus establish an air monitoring network, similar to that required in
the lead NAAQS, to ensure that fugitive emissions are minimized and
that lead concentrations in air near the facility boundaries remain at
or below 0.15 [mu]g/m3 based on 3-month rolling averages. This
compliance alternative is identical to that proposed under CAA section
112(f)(2). The implementation of this proposed alternative is thus
identical and is presented in Section IV.C of this preamble.
For facilities that choose the alternative compliance option for
fugitive dust emissions and do not
[[Page 29061]]
install total enclosures, we are proposing to keep the requirements for
enclosure hoods and partial enclosures specified in the 1997 NESHAP in
order to ensure a level of containment for process fugitive emissions.
We are seeking comment on other control measures that should be
prescribed for facilities that choose the alternative compliance
option.
E. What other actions are we proposing?
1. Startup, Shutdown, Malfunction
The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit vacated portions of two provisions in EPA's CAA section 112
regulations governing the emissions of HAP during periods of startup,
shutdown, and malfunction (SSM). Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (DC
Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 1735 (U.S. 2010). Specifically,
the Court vacated the SSM exemption contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and
40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), that are part of a regulation, commonly referred to
as the ``General Provisions Rule,'' that EPA promulgated under CAA
section 112. When incorporated into CAA section 112(d) regulations for
specific source categories, these two provisions exempt sources from
the requirement to comply with the otherwise applicable CAA section
112(d) emissions standard during periods of SSM.
We are proposing the elimination of the SSM exemption in this rule.
Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, EPA is proposing standards in this
rule that apply at all times. We are also proposing several revisions
to Table 1 to subpart X of part 63 (the General Provisions
Applicability table). For example, we are proposing to eliminate the
incorporation of the General Provisions' requirement that the source
develop an SSM plan. We also are proposing to eliminate or revise
certain recordkeeping and reporting that related to the SSM exemption.
EPA has attempted to ensure that we have not included in the proposed
regulatory language any provisions that are inappropriate, unnecessary,
or redundant in the absence of the SSM exemption. We are specifically
seeking comment on whether there are any such provisions that we have
inadvertently incorporated or overlooked.
In proposing the standards in this rule, EPA has taken into account
startup and shutdown periods and, for the reasons explained below, has
not proposed different standards for those periods.
Information on periods of startup and shutdown received from the
industry in the ICR indicate that emissions during these periods do not
increase. Control devices such as afterburners for organics and dioxin
control and baghouses for lead and metal HAP particulate control are
started up before the process units, and are operational during the
shutdown phase of a process. Therefore, no increase in emissions is
expected during these periods. Enclosures and work practices for
fugitive emissions will be in place at all times. Therefore, separate
standards for periods of startup and shutdown are not being proposed.
Periods of startup, normal operations, and shutdown are all
predictable and routine aspects of a source's operations. However, by
contrast, malfunction is defined as a ``sudden, infrequent, and not
reasonably preventable failure of air pollution control and monitoring
equipment, process equipment or a process to operate in a normal or
usual manner * * *'' (40 CFR 63.2). EPA has determined that CAA section
112 does not require that emissions that occur during periods of
malfunction be factored into development of CAA section 112 standards.
Under CAA section 112, emissions standards for new sources must be no
less stringent than the level ``achieved'' by the best controlled
similar source and for existing sources generally must be no less
stringent than the average emissions limitation ``achieved'' by the
best performing 12 percent of sources in the category. There is nothing
in CAA section 112 that directs the Agency to consider malfunctions in
determining the level ``achieved'' by the best performing or best
controlled sources when setting emissions standards. Moreover, while
EPA accounts for variability in setting emissions standards consistent
with the CAA section 112 case law, nothing in that case law requires
the Agency to consider malfunctions as part of that analysis. Section
112 of the CAA uses the concept of ``best controlled'' and ``best
performing'' unit in defining the level of stringency that CAA section
112 performance standards must meet. Applying the concept of ``best
controlled'' or ``best performing'' to a unit that is malfunctioning
presents significant difficulties, as malfunctions are sudden and
unexpected events.
Further, accounting for malfunctions would be difficult, if not
impossible, given the myriad different types of malfunctions that can
occur across all sources in the category and given the difficulties
associated with predicting or accounting for the frequency, degree, and
duration of various malfunctions that might occur. As such, the
performance of units that are malfunctioning is not ``reasonably''
foreseeable. See, e.g., Sierra Club v. EPA, 167 F.3d 658, 662 (DC Cir.
1999) (EPA typically has wide latitude in determining the extent of
data-gathering necessary to solve a problem. We generally defer to an
agency's decision to proceed on the basis of imperfect scientific
information, rather than to ``invest the resources to conduct the
perfect study.''). See also, Weyerhaeuser v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011,
1058 (DC Cir. 1978) (``In the nature of things, no general limit,
individual permit, or even any upset provision can anticipate all upset
situations. After a certain point, the transgression of regulatory
limits caused by `uncontrollable acts of third parties,' such as
strikes, sabotage, operator intoxication or insanity, and a variety of
other eventualities, must be a matter for the administrative exercise
of case-by-case enforcement discretion, not for specification in
advance by regulation''). In addition, the goal of a best controlled or
best performing source is to operate in such a way as to avoid
malfunctions of the source and accounting for malfunctions could lead
to standards that are significantly less stringent than levels that are
achieved by a well-performing non-malfunctioning source. EPA's approach
to malfunctions is consistent with CAA section 112 and is a reasonable
interpretation of the statute.
In the event that a source fails to comply with the applicable CAA
section 112(d) standards as a result of a malfunction event, EPA would
determine an appropriate response based on, among other things, the
good faith efforts of the source to minimize emissions during
malfunction periods, including preventative and corrective actions, as
well as root cause analyses to ascertain and rectify excess emissions.
EPA would also consider whether the source's failure to comply with the
CAA section 112(d) standard was, in fact, ``sudden, infrequent, not
reasonably preventable'' and was not instead ``caused in part by poor
maintenance or careless operation'' 40 CFR 63.2 (definition of
malfunction).
Finally, EPA recognizes that even equipment that is properly
designed and maintained can sometimes fail and that such failure can
sometimes cause an exceedance of the relevant emissions standard. (See,
e.g., State Implementation Plans: Policy Regarding Excessive Emissions
During Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown (Sept. 20, 1999); Policy on
Excess Emissions During Startup, Shutdown, Maintenance, and
Malfunctions (Feb. 15, 1983)). EPA is therefore proposing to add to the
final rule an affirmative defense to civil penalties for
[[Page 29062]]
exceedances of emissions limits that are caused by malfunctions. See 40
CFR 63.542 (defining ``affirmative defense'' to mean, in the context of
an enforcement proceeding, a response or defense put forward by a
defendant, regarding which the defendant has the burden of proof, and
the merits of which are independently and objectively evaluated in a
judicial or administrative proceeding). We also are proposing other
regulatory provisions to specify the elements that are necessary to
establish this affirmative defense; the source must prove by a
preponderance of the evidence that it has met all of the elements set
forth in 40 CFR 63.552 (40 CFR 22.24). The criteria ensure that the
affirmative defense is available only where the event that causes an
exceedance of the emissions limit meets the narrow definition of
malfunction in 40 CFR 63.2 (sudden, infrequent, not reasonable
preventable and not caused by poor maintenance and or careless
operation). For example, to successfully assert the affirmative
defense, the source must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that
excess emissions ``[w]ere caused by a sudden, infrequent, and
unavoidable failure of air pollution control and monitoring equipment,
process equipment, or a process to operate in a normal or usual manner
* * *'' The criteria also are designed to ensure that steps are taken
to correct the malfunction, to minimize emissions in accordance with 40
CFR 63.543(j) and to prevent future malfunctions. For example, the
source must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that ``[r]epairs
were made as expeditiously as possible when the applicable emissions
limitations were being exceeded * * *'' and that ``[a]ll possible steps
were taken to minimize the impact of the excess emissions on ambient
air quality, the environment and human health * * *.'' In any judicial
or administrative proceeding, the Administrator may challenge the
assertion of the affirmative defense and, if the respondent has not met
its burden of proving all of the requirements in the affirmative
defense, appropriate penalties may be assessed in accordance with CAA
section 113 (see also 40 CFR 22.77).
Specifically, we are proposing the following changes to the rule.
Added general duty requirements in 40 CFR 63.543(j) to replace
General Provision requirements that reference vacated SSM provisions.
Added replacement language that eliminates the reference to SSM
exemptions applicable to performance tests in 40 CFR 63.543(i).
Added paragraphs in 40 CFR 63.550(d) requiring the reporting of
malfunctions as part of the affirmative defense provisions.
Added paragraphs in 40 CFR 63.550(c) requiring the keeping of
certain records during malfunctions as part of the affirmative defense
provisions.
Revised Table 1 to subpart X of part 63 to reflect changes in the
applicability of the General Provisions to this subpart resulting from
a court vacatur of certain SSM requirements in the General Provisions.
2. Electronic Reporting
EPA must have performance test data to conduct effective reviews of
CAA sections 112 and 129 standards, as well as for many other purposes
including compliance determinations, emissions factor development, and
annual emissions rate determinations. In conducting these required
reviews, EPA has found it ineffective and time consuming, not only for
us, but also for regulatory agencies and source owners and operators,
to locate, collect, and submit performance test data because of varied
locations for data storage and varied data storage methods. In recent
years, though, stack testing firms have typically collected performance
test data in electronic format, making it possible to move to an
electronic data submittal system that would increase the ease and
efficiency of data submittal and improve data accessibility.
Through this proposal EPA is presenting a step to increase the ease
and efficiency of data submittal and improve data accessibility.
Specifically, EPA is proposing that owners and operators of Secondary
Lead Smelting facilities submit electronic copies of required
performance test reports to EPA's WebFIRE database. The WebFIRE
database was constructed to store performance test data for use in
developing emissions factors. A description of the WebFIRE database is
available at http://cfpub.epa.gov/oarweb/index.cfm?action=fire.main.
As proposed above, data entry would be through an electronic
emissions test report structure called the Electronic Reporting Tool.
The ERT would be able to transmit the electronic report through EPA's
Central Data Exchange network for storage in the WebFIRE database
making submittal of data very straightforward and easy. A description
of the ERT can be found at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ert_tool.html.
The proposal to submit performance test data electronically to EPA
would apply only to those performance tests conducted using test
methods that will be supported by the ERT. The ERT contains a specific
electronic data entry form for most of the commonly used EPA reference
methods. A listing of the pollutants and test methods supported by the
ERT is available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ert_tool.html. We
believe that industry would benefit from this proposed approach to
electronic data submittal. Having these data, EPA would be able to
develop improved emissions factors, make fewer information requests,
and promulgate better regulations.
One major advantage of the proposed submittal of performance test
data through the ERT is a standardized method to compile and store much
of the documentation required to be reported by this rule. Another
advantage is that the ERT clearly states what testing information would
be required. Another important proposed benefit of submitting these
data to EPA at the time the source test is conducted is that it should
substantially reduce the effort involved in data collection activities
in the future. When EPA has performance test data in hand, there will
likely be fewer or less substantial data collection requests in
conjunction with prospective required residual risk assessments or
technology reviews. This would result in a reduced burden on both
affected facilities (in terms of reduced manpower to respond to data
collection requests) and EPA (in terms of preparing and distributing
data collection requests and assessing the results).
State, local, and Tribal agencies could also benefit from more
streamlined and accurate review of electronic data submitted to them.
The ERT would allow for an electronic review process rather than a
manual data assessment making review and evaluation of the source
provided data and calculations easier and more efficient. Finally,
another benefit of the proposed data submittal to WebFIRE
electronically is that these data would greatly improve the overall
quality of existing and new emissions factors by supplementing the pool
of emissions test data for establishing emissions factors and by
ensuring that the factors are more representative of current industry
operational procedures. A common complaint heard from industry and
regulators is that emissions factors are outdated or not representative
of a particular source category. With timely receipt and incorporation
of data from most performance tests, EPA would be able to ensure that
emissions factors, when updated, represent the most current range of
operational practices. In summary, in addition to supporting regulation
development, control strategy development, and other air pollution
[[Page 29063]]
control activities, having an electronic database populated with
performance test data would save industry, state, local, Tribal
agencies, and EPA significant time, money, and effort while also
improving the quality of emissions inventories and, as a result, air
quality regulations.
Records must be maintained in a form suitable and readily available
for expeditious review, according to 63.10(b)(1). Electronic
recordkeeping and reporting is available for many records, and is the
form considered most suitable for expeditious review if available.
Electronic recordkeeping and reporting is encouraged in this proposal
and some records and reports are required to be kept in electronic
format. Records required to be maintained electronically include the
output of continuous monitors and the output of the bag leak detection
systems. Additionally, standard operating procedures for the bag leak
detection system and fugitive emissions control are required to be
submitted to the Administrator for approval in electronic format.
3. Other Changes
The following lists additional minor changes to the NESHAP we are
proposing. This list includes proposed rule changes that address
editorial corrections and plain language revisions:
Revise the definition for collocated blast and
reverberatory furnaces to apply to systems ``where the vent streams
of the furnaces are mixed before cooling''. This proposed revision
clarifies the intent of the original definition which was to
establish the conditions under which a reverberatory furnace stream
would control the emissions of a blast furnace stream.
Add a definition for ``maintenance activity.'' This
definition is necessary for the proposed work practice requirement
concerning fugitive emissions during maintenance activities that
could generate lead dust.
Delete definitions no longer referenced in the proposed
NESHAP.
Eliminate the exemption for areas used exclusively for
the storage of blast furnace slag from the raw materials storage
area definition.
Change the title of 40 CFR 63.543 (``Standards for
process sources'') to ``What are my standards for atmospheric
vents?''. This change is being made to better reflect the
description of the proposed standards in this section.
Change the title of 40 CFR 63.544 (``Standards for
process fugitive sources'') to ``What are my process enclosure
standards?'' to better reflect the description of the proposed
requirements for enclosure of sources of process fugitive emissions.
Eliminate the provision in 40 CFR 63.544(f) allowing up
to 24 months to conduct a compliance test for lead if the previous
test was less than 1.0 mg/dscm. We do not believe a reduced testing
frequency is appropriate considering the proposed changes to the
existing standard, and the proposed requirement to calculate a flow-
weighted average on an annual basis.
Add a requirement to conduct a performance test for THC
on the same schedule as the stack test for lead. The 1997 NESHAP
requires an initial test for THC, but does not require periodic
testing. We are proposing that a performance test for total
hydrocarbon be conducted on the same schedule as the stack test for
lead. This proposed requirement will ensure any changes in operation
that could affect the organic HAP content of the furnace vents are
monitored on a routine basis.
Consolidate the requirements for atmospheric vents to
be conveyed to a control device into one section of the rule (40 CFR
63.543(f)).
Clarify the requirements for plant roadway cleaning in
40 CFR 63.545 to specify equipment requirements for the mobile
vacuum sweeper.
Clarify the requirement to wash vehicles at the exit of
a material storage area by specifying that the wash must include
washing of tires, undercarriage and exterior surface of the vehicle
followed by an inspection.
Accompanying edits are being proposed for the standard
operating procedures for baghouses in 40 CFR 63.548 and for control
of fugitive emissions in 40 CFR 63.545 to reflect the proposed
changes described for baghouses, enclosures and work practices for
control of fugitive emissions.
Update the monitoring requirements for building
differential pressure to reflect the requirements for the pressure
monitor to have the capability of detecting 0.01 mm Hg and to
continuously record pressure readings.
Update the recordkeeping and reporting sections to
reflect the new monitoring requirements and monitoring options
described above.
Update the compliance dates to include the anticipated
dates the proposed requirements will become effective.
Added the requirement in 40 CFR 63.548(l) for new or
modified sources to install a CEMS for measuring lead emissions when
performance specifications for lead CEMS are promulgated.
Included provisions for existing sources to use a CEMS
instead of operating a BLDS and performing annual stack tests.
F. What is the relationship of the Secondary Lead Smelting standards
proposed in today's action and implementation of the lead NAAQS?
Although EPA's obligation to conduct technology reviews and risk
analyses for the secondary lead smelting source category is independent
of the process of developing, revising, and implementing the National
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for lead, EPA is interested in
harmonizing these separate regulatory processes to the extent possible.
EPA revised the primary NAAQS for lead in 2008. See 73 FR 66,964 (Nov.
12, 2008); see also Coalition of Battery Recyclers v. EPA, 604 F. 3d
613 (DC Cir. 2010) (upholding those standards). EPA designated 16 areas
as non-attainment for the lead NAAQS, effective December 21, 2010, 75
FR 71,033 (November 22, 2010). EPA intends to complete designations for
remaining areas of the country for the lead NAAQS in October, 2011,
effective December 31, 2011. States have 18 months following a
nonattainment designation for lead to submit a State Implementation
Plan (SIP) demonstrating how the area will timely attain the NAAQS. See
CAA section 191(a). Accordingly, attainment SIPs for lead will be due
by July 2012 for areas designated in 2010 and July 2013 for areas
designated in 2011. States are required to attain the standard as
expeditiously as practicable, but no later than 5 years following a
nonattainment designation (i.e., Dec. 31, 2015 or 2016, respectively).
As part of the attainment demonstration, SIPs may consider regulatory
controls which have been adopted as of the date the SIP is submitted
and will achieve timely reductions for attaining the standard.
The standards proposed in this rule would likely harmonize with
this implementation schedule both procedurally and substantively.
Pursuant to consent decree, EPA is obligated to promulgate the final
NESHAP rule by December 31, 2011. Assuming EPA adopts the proposed
standards and the rule is published in the Federal Register in early
2012, the standards would become effective in early 2012, with a
compliance date of March 2014 (assuming a two year compliance date is
necessary to allow sufficient time for the controls to be adopted).
This schedule should allow for states to take any controls required
under the NESHAP rule into consideration for attainment planning
purposes.
As described above, EPA is proposing standards either predicated on
individual sources emitting lead at levels that would result in ambient
concentrations less than the primary lead NAAQS (the proposed stack
standards), or (in the case of the alternative to enclosure standards
for lead) actually demonstrating that source emissions do not exceed
the primary lead NAAQS at a point of maximum projected concentration.
EPA anticipates that, at least in areas where nonattainment is
attributable to single sources that are subject to this rule, if the
proposed controls are sufficient to attain the NAAQS by the attainment
[[Page 29064]]
deadline, then adoption of additional controls in the SIP for the area
would not be necessary.
EPA solicits comments on the interplay between implementation of
the primary lead NAAQS and the proposed standards in today's action and
steps EPA might permissibly take to harmonize the two regulatory
processes.
G. Compliance Dates
We are proposing that facilities must comply with all the
requirements in this action (which are being proposed under CAA
sections 112(d)(2), 112(d)(3), 112(d)(6), 112(f)(2), and 112(h) for all
affected sources), no later than two years after the effective date of
this rule. Under section 63.6(i)(4)(ii), ``the owner or operator of an
existing source unable to comply with a relevant standard established *
* * pursuant to section 112(f) * * * may request that the Administrator
grant an extension allowing the source up to 2 years after the
standard's effective date to comply with the standard.'' The rule
further specifies a written application for such a request. Here, EPA
is already fully aware of the steps needed for each source to comply
with the proposed standards and to reasonably estimate the amount of
time it will take each source to do so. We believe that the two year
extension would be warranted in all cases for sources needing to
upgrade current practice. This includes the time needed to: Construct
required enclosures and install associated control devices for fugitive
sources; purchase, install and test replacement bags, or if the
facility decides to replace an existing baghouse or add a new baghouse
in series with an existing baghouse, seek bids, select a vendor,
install and test the new equipment; prepare and submit the required
monitoring plan to monitor lead concentrations in air; and, purchase,
install and conduct quality assurance and quality control measures on
compliance monitoring equipment (see Estimated Time Needed to Achieve
Compliance with The Proposed Revisions to the MACT standard for
Secondary Lead Smelters, which is available in the docket for this
proposed action). EPA believes it reasonable to interpret section
63.6(i)(4)(ii) to allow this plenary finding, rather than utilizing a
facility-by-facility application process, when the facts are already
known and a category-wide adjudication is therefore possible. In
addition, utilizing this process allows for public comment on the issue
which would not be possible if a case-by-case application process with
a 90-day window for completion were used.
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts
A. What are the affected sources?
We anticipate that the 14 secondary lead smelting facilities
currently operating in the United States will be affected by these
proposed amendments. No new facilities are expected to be constructed
in the foreseeable future; however, one facility is currently
undergoing an expansion.
B. What are the air quality impacts?
EPA estimated the emissions reductions that are expected to result
from the proposed amendments to the 1997 NESHAP compared to the 2009
baseline emissions estimates. A detailed documentation of the analysis
can be found in:
Draft Cost Impacts of the Revised NESHAP for the Secondary Lead
Smelting Source Category
Emissions of lead and arsenic from secondary lead smelters have
declined over the last 15 years as a result of Federal rules, state
rules and on the industry's own initiative. The current proposal would
cut lead and arsenic emissions by 63 percent from their current levels,
for a total reduction of more than 95% over that last 15 years. Under
the proposed emissions limit for lead, we estimated that the lead
emissions reductions would be 9,400 lb/yr from process and process
fugitive sources and 17,200 lb/yr from fugitive dust sources. The
expected reduction in total metal HAP is 11,800 lb/yr from process and
process fugitive sources and 19,000 lb/yr from fugitive dust sources.
We estimate that these controls will also reduce emissions of PM by
319,000 lb/yr.
Based on the emissions data available to the EPA, we believe that
all facilities will be able to comply with the proposed emissions
limits for THC and dioxins and furans without additional controls.
However, we expect that some emissions reductions will occur due to
increased temperatures of afterburners and from improved work
practices. Nevertheless, it is quite difficult to estimate accurate
reductions from these actions, and therefore, we are not providing
estimates of reductions for THC and dioxin and furans.
C. What are the cost impacts?
Under the proposed amendments, secondary lead smelting facilities
are expected to incur capital costs for the following types of control
measures: Replacement of existing baghouses with new, higher-performing
baghouses, replacement of bags in existing baghouses with better-
performing materials, construction of new enclosures for processes not
currently enclosed, modification of partially-enclosed structures to
meet the requirements of total enclosure, and installation of BLDS on
baghouses that are not currently equipped with these systems.
The capital costs for each facility were estimated based on the
number and types of upgrades required. Each facility was evaluated for
its ability to meet the proposed limits for lead emissions, THC
emissions, dioxin and furan emissions, and proposed fugitive dust
emissions requirements. The memorandum Cost Impacts of the Revised
NESHAP for the Secondary Lead Smelting Source Category includes a
complete description of the cost estimate methods used for this
analysis and is available in the docket.
The majority of the capital costs estimated for compliance with the
amendments proposed in this action are for purchasing new enclosures
and the associated control devices that would be required for these
enclosures. Although the proposed amendments would provide the
alternative option to install monitors at or near the property boundary
to demonstrate compliance with the enclosure requirements, we assumed
that each facility would need to install enclosures for each of the
processes described in proposed 40 CFR 63.544 if the facility did not
already have the required enclosures. For each facility, we estimated
the square footage of new enclosures required based on the size of
enclosures currently in place compared to facilities that we considered
to be totally enclosed with a similar production capacity. We further
assumed that the facilities that required a substantial degree of new
enclosure would re-configure their facility, particularly the storage
areas, to reduce their footprint.
Based on our analysis of the facility configurations, seven
facilities were considered to be totally enclosed. Another facility is
currently installing enclosure structures and equipment that we
anticipate will meet the proposed requirements. Consequently, capital
costs were not estimated for these eight facilities. The remaining six
facilities will require new building installations, thereby incurring
capital costs.
Typical enclosure costs were estimated using information and
algorithms from the Permanent Total Enclosures chapter in the EPA Air
Pollution Control Cost Manual. New baghouse costs were estimated using
a model based primarily on the cost information for recent baghouse
[[Page 29065]]
installations submitted by facilities in the ICR survey. The total
capital cost estimate for the enclosures, the ductwork system, and
control devices at the six facilities is approximately $40 million, at
an annualized cost of $6.6 million in 2009 dollars (an average of about
$1.1 million per facility).
We also estimated annual costs for the work practices proposed in
this action. Based on the ICR survey information, we estimated that
additional costs would be required to implement the work practices at
10 of the 14 existing facilities. The total annual costs to implement
the proposed fugitive emissions work practices are approximately $3
million per year.
For compliance with the stack lead concentration limit, we compared
each stack emissions point's lead concentration (reported under the
ICR) to the proposed requirement of 1.0 mg/dscm of lead for any one
stack. If the reported concentration was over 1.0 mg/dscm, we assumed
that the corresponding facility would either upgrade the baghouse with
new bags and additional maintenance or completely replace the baghouse,
depending on the age of the unit. If the baghouse was less than 10
years old and the lead concentration in the outlet was not appreciably
over the proposed standard, we assumed that the baghouse could be
upgraded for minimal capital. If the baghouse was more than 10 years
old and the lead concentration was appreciably over the proposed
standard, we assumed the baghouse would be replaced. We then compared
each facility's emissions with the proposed flow-weighted, facility-
wide concentration limit of 0.20 mg/dscm using the assumption that
baghouses needing replacement based on the 1.0 mg/dscm individual stack
limit would be replaced with units that performed at least as well as
the average baghouse identified in our data set. We estimated that
three baghouses would need to be replaced based on these analyses. To
estimate costs, we used a model based primarily on the cost information
submitted in the ICR for recent baghouse installations in this
industry. We assumed an increase in maintenance cost based on more
frequent bag changes (from once every 5 years to once every 2 years).
The total capital cost for three new baghouses at two facilities is
estimated to be approximately $7.6 million, and total annual costs were
estimated to be approximately $1.7 million.
New limits for THC are being proposed for reverberatory, electric,
and rotary furnaces. Dioxin and furan limits are being proposed for all
furnaces. We anticipate all operating affected units will be able to
meet the proposed limits without installing additional controls,
however, we have estimated additional costs of $260,000 per year for
facilities to increase the temperature of their existing afterburners
to ensure continuous compliance with the proposed standards.
The estimated costs for the proposed change to the monitoring
requirements for baghouses, including installation of seven new BLDS
for existing baghouses, is $230,000 of capital cost and $84,000 total
annualized cost. The capital cost estimated for additional differential
pressure monitors for total enclosures is $97,000. The cost for all
additional monitoring and recordkeeping requirements, including the
baghouse monitoring proposed, is estimated at $1,016,000.
The total annualized costs for the proposed rule are estimated at
$12.6 million (2009 dollars). Table 5 provides a summary of the
estimated costs and emissions reductions associated with the proposed
amendments to the Secondary Lead Smelting NESHAP presented in today's
action.
Table 5--Estimated Costs and Reductions for the Proposed Standards in This Action
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated Estimated Total HAP emissions Cost effectiveness in $ per
Proposed amendment capital annual cost reductions (tons ton total HAP reduction
cost ($MM) ($MM) per year) (and in $ per pound)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revised stack lead emissions 7.6 1.7 5.9 (of metal HAP).. $0.3 MM per ton.
limit. ($150 per pound).
Total enclosure of fugitive 40 6.6 5.5 (of metal HAP).. $1.2 MM per ton.
emissions sources. ($600 per pound).
Fugitive control work practices.. 0 3.0 4.0 (of metal HAP).. $0.8 MM per ton.
($400 per pound).
THC and D/F concentration limits. 0 0.3 \1\ 30.0............ $0.01 MM per ton.
Additional testing and monitoring 0.3 1.0 N/A................. N/A.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Based on total organic HAP.
D. What are the economic impacts?
We performed an economic impact analysis for secondary lead
consumers and producers nationally using the annual compliance costs
estimated for this proposed rule. The impacts to producers affected by
this proposed rule are annualized costs of less than 0.9 percent of
their revenues using the most current year available for revenue data.
Prices and output for secondary lead should increase by no more than
the impact on cost to revenues for producers, thus secondary lead
prices should increase by less than 0.9 percent. Hence, the overall
economic impact of this proposed rule should be low on the affected
industry and its consumers. For more information, please refer to the
Economic Impact Analysis for this proposed rulemaking that is available
in the public docket.
E. What are the benefits?
The estimated reductions in lead emissions to meet the 2008 NAAQS
standards that will be achieved by this proposed rule would provide
benefits to public health, although we have not made a detailed
quantitative assessment of them. For example, as described in the EPA's
2008 Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) that was completed for the lead
NAAQS (which is available in the docket for this action and also on the
EPA's Web site) populations aged less than age 7 would receive
significant benefits from reductions in lead exposure (in the form of
averted IQ loss among children less than 7 years of age).
As noted in that RIA, there were also several other lead-related
health effects that EPA was unable to quantify--particularly among
adults. These potential impacts included hypertension, non-fatal
strokes,
[[Page 29066]]
reproductive effects and premature mortality, among others.
When viewed in this context, the reductions in concentrations of
ambient lead that would be achieved with this proposed RTR for
secondary lead smelters are expected to provide significant benefits to
both children and adult populations, but these benefits cannot be
quantified due to resource and data limitations.
In addition to the benefits likely to be achieved for lead
reductions, we also estimate that this proposed RTR rule will achieve
about 48 to 76 tons reductions in PM 2.5 emissions as a co-benefit of
the HAP reductions. These PM 2.5 reductions would result in an average
of about $8.6 to $13.6 million in benefits per year. Finally, the
proposed rule will provide human health benefits through reductions in
arsenic and cadmium emissions. We estimate that cancer cases from these
emissions would be reduced from 0.02 per year to 0.01 per year.
VI. Request for Comments
We are soliciting comments on all aspects of this proposed action.
In addition to general comments on this proposed action, we are also
interested in any additional data that may help to reduce the
uncertainties inherent in the risk assessments and other analyses. We
are specifically interested in receiving corrections to the site-
specific emissions profiles used for risk modeling. Such data should
include supporting documentation in sufficient detail to allow
characterization of the quality and representativeness of the data or
information. Section VII of this preamble provides more information on
submitting data.
VII. Submitting Data Corrections
The site-specific emissions profiles used in the source category
risk and demographic analyses are available for download on the RTR Web
page at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. The data files
include detailed information for each HAP emissions release point for
the facility included in the source category.
If you believe that the data are not representative or are
inaccurate, please identify the data in question, provide your reason
for concern, and provide any ``improved'' data that you have, if
available. When you submit data, we request that you provide
documentation of the basis for the revised values to support your
suggested changes. To submit comments on the data downloaded from the
RTR Web page, complete the following steps:
1. Within this downloaded file, enter suggested revisions to the
data fields appropriate for that information. The data fields that may
be revised include the following:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Data element Definition
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Control Measure................... Are control measures in place? (yes
or no)
Control Measure Comment........... Select control measure from list
provided, and briefly describe the
control measure.
Delete............................ Indicate here if the facility or
record should be deleted.
Delete Comment.................... Describes the reason for deletion.
Emissions Calculation Method Code Code description of the method used
for Revised Emissions. to derive emissions. For example,
CEM, material balance, stack test,
etc.
Emissions Process Group........... Enter the general type of emissions
process associated with the
specified emissions point.
Fugitive Angle.................... Enter release angle (clockwise from
true North); orientation of the y-
dimension relative to true North,
measured positive for clockwise
starting at 0 degrees (maximum 89
degrees).
Fugitive Length................... Enter dimension of the source in the
east-west (x-) direction, commonly
referred to as length (ft).
Fugitive Width.................... Enter dimension of the source in the
north-south (y-) direction,
commonly referred to as width (ft).
Malfunction Emissions............. Enter total annual emissions due to
malfunctions (tpy).
Malfunction Emissions Max Hourly.. Enter maximum hourly malfunction
emissions here (lb/hr).
North American Datum.............. Enter datum for latitude/longitude
coordinates (NAD27 or NAD83); if
left blank, NAD83 is assumed.
Process Comment................... Enter general comments about process
sources of emissions.
REVISED Address................... Enter revised physical street
address for MACT facility here.
REVISED City...................... Enter revised city name here.
REVISED County Name............... Enter revised county name here.
REVISED Emissions Release Point Enter revised Emissions Release
Type. Point Type here.
REVISED End Date.................. Enter revised End Date here.
REVISED Exit Gas Flow Rate........ Enter revised Exit Gas Flowrate here
(ft\3\/sec).
REVISED Exit Gas Temperature...... Enter revised Exit Gas Temperature
here (F).
REVISED Exit Gas Velocity......... Enter revised Exit Gas Velocity here
(ft/sec).
REVISED Facility Category Code.... Enter revised Facility Category Code
here, which indicates whether
facility is a major or area source.
REVISED Facility Name............. Enter revised Facility Name here.
REVISED Facility Registry Enter revised Facility Registry
Identifier. Identifier here, which is an ID
assigned by the EPA Facility
Registry System.
REVISED HAP Emissions Performance Enter revised HAP Emissions
Level Code. Performance Level here.
REVISED Latitude.................. Enter revised Latitude here (decimal
degrees).
REVISED Longitude................. Enter revised Longitude here
(decimal degrees).
REVISED MACT Code................. Enter revised MACT Code here.
REVISED Pollutant Code............ Enter revised Pollutant Code here.
REVISED Routine Emissions......... Enter revised routine emissions
value here (tpy).
REVISED SCC Code.................. Enter revised SCC Code here.
REVISED Stack Diameter............ Enter revised Stack Diameter here
(ft).
REVISED Stack Height.............. Enter revised Stack Height here
(ft).
REVISED Start Date................ Enter revised Start Date here.
REVISED State..................... Enter revised State here.
REVISED Tribal Code............... Enter revised Tribal Code here.
REVISED Zip Code.................. Enter revised Zip Code here.
[[Page 29067]]
Shutdown Emissions................ Enter total annual emissions due to
shutdown events (tpy).
Shutdown Emissions Max Hourly..... Enter maximum hourly shutdown
emissions here (lb/hr).
Stack Comment..................... Enter general comments about
emissions release points.
Startup Emissions................. Enter total annual emissions due to
startup events (tpy).
Startup Emissions Max Hourly...... Enter maximum hourly startup
emissions here (lb/hr).
Year Closed....................... Enter date facility stopped
operations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Fill in the commenter information fields for each suggested
revision (i.e., commenter name, commenter organization, commenter e-
mail address, commenter phone number, and revision comments).
3. Gather documentation for any suggested emissions revisions
(e.g., performance test reports, material balance calculations).
4. Send the entire downloaded file with suggested revisions in
Microsoft[supreg] Access format and all accompanying documentation to
Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344 (through one of the methods
described in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble). To expedite
review of the revisions, it would also be helpful if you submitted a
copy of your revisions to the EPA directly at [email protected] in addition
to submitting them to the docket.
5. If you are providing comments on a facility, you need only
submit one file for that facility, which should contain all suggested
changes for all sources at that facility. We request that all data
revision comments be submitted in the form of updated Microsoft[supreg]
Access files, which are provided on the RTR Web Page at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html.
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is a significant regulatory action because it raises novel legal
and policy issues. Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Executive Orders 12866
and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011) and any changes made in
response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket for
this action.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements in this rule have been
submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The
Information Collection Request (ICR) document prepared by EPA has been
assigned EPA ICR number 1856.07. The information collection
requirements are not enforceable until OMB approves them. The
information requirements are based on notification, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements in the NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part
63, subpart A), which are mandatory for all operators subject to
national emissions standards. These recordkeeping and reporting
requirements are specifically authorized by CAA section 114 (42 U.S.C.
7414). All information submitted to EPA pursuant to the recordkeeping
and reporting requirements for which a claim of confidentiality is made
is safeguarded according to Agency policies set forth in 40 CFR part 2,
subpart B.
We are proposing new paperwork requirements to the Secondary Lead
Smelting source category in the form of increased frequency for stack
testing as described in 40 CFR 63.540(f)-(h). More specifically, we are
proposing the elimination of the provisions allowing reduced stack
testing for lead and the addition of annual stack testing for THC and
stack testing every 5 years for dioxins and furans. In conjunction with
setting THC limits for reverberatory, electric, and rotary furnaces,
additional monitoring and recordkeeping is required for furnace outlet
temperature on these units. We believe temperature monitors currently
exist in these locations and that the facilities will not incur a
capital cost due to this requirement. Additionally, increased
monitoring is required for demonstrating negative pressure in all total
enclosures if this compliance option is selected. If the lead
concentration in air limit is chosen, additional monitoring and
recordkeeping will be required. Bag leak detection monitors will be
required for HEPA filtration systems where no BLDS are currently
installed. We estimate a total of seven new BLDS will be required as a
result of this proposed rule at an estimated capital cost of $230,000.
For this proposed rule, EPA is adding affirmative defense to the
estimate of burden in the ICR. To provide the public with an estimate
of the relative magnitude of the burden associated with an assertion of
the affirmative defense position adopted by a source, EPA has provided
administrative adjustments to this ICR to show what the notification,
recordkeeping and reporting requirements associated with the assertion
of the affirmative defense might entail. EPA's estimate for the
required notification, reports and records for any individual incident,
including the root cause analysis, totals $3,141 and is based on the
time and effort required of a source to review relevant data, interview
plant employees, and document the events surrounding a malfunction that
has caused an exceedance of an emissions limit. The estimate also
includes time to produce and retain the record and reports for
submission to EPA. EPA provides this illustrative estimate of this
burden because these costs are only incurred if there has been a
violation and a source chooses to take advantage of the affirmative
defense.
Given the variety of circumstances under which malfunctions could
occur, as well as differences among sources' operation and maintenance
practices, we cannot reliably predict the severity and frequency of
malfunction-related excess emissions events for a particular source. It
is important to note that EPA has no basis currently for estimating the
number of malfunctions that would qualify for an affirmative defense.
Current historical records would be an inappropriate basis, as source
owners or operators previously operated their facilities in recognition
that they were exempt from the requirement to comply with emissions
standards during malfunctions. Of the number of excess emissions events
reported by source operators, only a small number would be expected to
result from a malfunction (based on the definition above), and only a
subset of excess emissions caused by malfunctions would result in the
source choosing to assert the affirmative defense. Thus we believe the
number of instances in which source operators might be expected to
avail themselves of the affirmative defense will be extremely small.
For this reason, we estimate no more than 2 or 3 such occurrences for
all sources subject to subpart X over the 3-year period covered by this
ICR. We expect to gather
[[Page 29068]]
information on such events in the future and will revise this estimate
as better information becomes available. We estimate 14 regulated
entities are currently subject to subpart X and will be subject to all
proposed standards. The annual monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping
burden for this collection (averaged over the first 3 years after the
effective date of the standards) for these amendments to subpart X
(Secondary Lead Smelting) is estimated to be $1.01 million per year.
This includes 4,200 labor hours per year at a total labor cost of
$330,000 per year, and total non-labor capital and operation and
maintenance (O&M) costs of $690,000 per year. This estimate includes
performance tests, notifications, reporting, and recordkeeping
associated with the new requirements for front-end process vents and
back-end process operations. The total burden for the Federal
government (averaged over the first 3 years after the effective date of
the standard) is estimated to be 1,300 hours per year at a total labor
cost of $67,000 per year. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When these ICRs are
approved by OMB, the Agency will publish a technical amendment to 40
CFR part 9 in the Federal Register to display the OMB control numbers
for the approved information collection requirements contained in the
final rules.
To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy
of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for
minimizing respondent burden, EPA has established a public docket for
this rule, which includes this ICR, under Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OAR-
2011-0344. Submit any comments related to the ICR to EPA and OMB. See
the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this notice for where to
submit comments to EPA. Send comments to OMB at the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget,
725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for
EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR
between 30 and 60 days after May 19, 2011, a comment to OMB is best
assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by June 20, 2011.
The final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the
information collection requirements contained in this proposal.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of this proposed rule on
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as
defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13
CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government
of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is
any not-for-profit enterprise that is independently owned and operated
and is not dominant in its field. For this source category, which has
the NAICS code 331419 (i.e., Secondary Smelting and Refining of
Nonferrous Metal (except copper and aluminum)), the SBA small business
size standard is 750 employees according to the SBA small business
standards definitions. We have estimated the cost impacts and have
determined that the impacts do not constitute a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities (see: Small Business
Analysis for the Secondary Lead Smelting Source Category, which is
available in the docket for this proposed rule). After considering the
economic impacts of today's proposed rule on small entities, I certify
that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. One of the six parent companies
affected is considered a small entity per the definition provided in
this section. However, we estimate that this proposed action will not
have a significant economic impact on that company. The impact of this
proposed action on this company will be an annualized compliance cost
of less than one percent of its revenues. (See: Small Business Analysis
for the Secondary Lead Smelting Source Category). All other affected
parent companies are not small businesses according to the SBA small
business size standard for the affected NAICS code (NAICS 331419).
Although this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities, EPA nonetheless has tried to
reduce the impact of this rule on small entities. To reduce the
impacts, we are proposing an alternative option to enclosure standards
to address fugitive emissions in order to allow companies flexibility
on how best to minimize fugitive emissions at their facilities most
efficiently. Moreover, we are proposing stack limits that are based on
a weighted average approach (as described in Sections V.C and V.D of
this preamble) and have been established at the least stringent levels
that we estimate will still result in acceptable risks to public
health. Thus, the proposed stack limits are based on the least costly
approach that will still provide an ample margin of safety for human
health and the environment. In addition, the proposed compliance
testing requirements were established in a way that minimizes the costs
for testing and reporting while still providing the Agency the
necessary information needed to ensure continuous compliance with the
proposed standards. For more information, please refer to the small
business analysis that is in the docket. We continue to be interested
in the potential impacts of the proposed rule on small entities and
welcome comments on issues related to such impacts.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
This proposed rule does not contain a Federal mandate under the
provisions of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538 for State, local, or Tribal governments or
the private sector. The proposed rule would not result in expenditures
of $100 million or more for State, local, and Tribal governments, in
aggregate, or the private sector in any 1 year. The proposed rule
imposes no enforceable duties on any State, local or Tribal governments
or the private sector. Thus, this proposed rule is not subject to the
requirements of sections 202 or 205 of the UMRA.
This proposed rule is also not subject to the requirements of
section 203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that
might significantly or uniquely affect small governments because it
contains no requirements that apply to such governments nor does it
impose obligations upon them.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in
[[Page 29069]]
Executive Order 13132. None of the facilities subject to this action
are owned or operated by State governments, and, because no new
requirements are being promulgated, nothing in this proposed rule will
supersede State regulations. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply
to this proposed rule.
In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA
policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local
governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule
from State and local officials.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
This proposed rule does not have Tribal implications, as specified
in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed
action from Tribal officials.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997) because it is not economically significant as
defined in Executive Order 12866. However, the Agency does believe
there is a disproportionate risk to children due to current emissions
of lead from this source category. Modeled ambient air lead
concentrations from about 10 of the 14 facilities in this source
category are in excess of the NAAQS for lead, which was set to
``provide increased protection for children and other at-risk
populations against an array of adverse health effects, most notably
including neurological effects in children, including neurocognitive
and neurobehavioral effects'' (73 FR 67007). However, the control
measures proposed in this notice will result in lead concentration
levels at or below the lead NAAQS at all facilities, thereby mitigating
the risk of adverse health effects to children.
The public is invited to submit comments or identify peer-reviewed
studies and data that assess effects of early life exposure to lead,
arsenic, or cadmium.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
This action is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined under
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001), because it is not likely to have significant
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. This
action will not create any new requirements and therefore no additional
costs for sources in the energy supply, distribution, or use sectors.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note),
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. VCS are technical standards
(e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures,
business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary
consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress,
through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available
and applicable VCS.
This proposed rulemaking involves technical standards. EPA proposes
to use ASME PTC 19.10-1981, ``Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,'' for its
manual methods of measuring the oxygen or carbon dioxide content of the
exhaust gas. These parts of ASME PTC 19.10-1981 are acceptable
alternatives to EPA Method 3B. This standard is available from the
American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), Three Park Avenue, New
York, NY 10016-5990 and ASTM D6420-99 (2004) as an acceptable
alternative to EPA Method 18. EPA has also decided to use EPA Methods
1, 2, 3, 3A, 3B, 4, 5D, 23, a Procedure in Subpart X to measure doorway
in-draft, and a method for measuring lead in ambient air (i.e., 40 CFR
Part 50 Appendix G). Although the Agency has identified 16 VCS as being
potentially applicable to these methods cited in this rule, we have
decided not to use these standards in this proposed rulemaking. The use
of these VCS would have been impractical because they do not meet the
objectives of the standards cited in this rule. The search and review
results are in the docket for this proposed rule.
EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of this proposed rulemaking
and, specifically, invites the public to identify potentially-
applicable voluntary consensus standards and to explain why such
standards should be used in this regulation.
Under section 63.7(f) and section 63.8(f) of Subpart A of the
General Provisions, a source may apply to EPA for permission to use
alternative test methods or alternative monitoring requirements in
place of any required testing methods, performance specifications, or
procedures in the proposed rule. J. Executive Order 12898: Federal
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations.
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes
Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
To examine the potential for any environmental justice issues that
might be associated with each source category, we evaluated the
distributions of HAP-related cancer and non-cancer risks across
different social, demographic, and economic groups within the
populations living near the facilities where these source categories
are located. The methods used to conduct demographic analyses for this
rule are described in Section III.B of this preamble. The development
of demographic analyses to inform the consideration of environmental
justice issues in EPA rulemakings is an evolving science. EPA offers
the demographic analyses in today's proposed rulemaking as examples of
how such analyses might be developed to inform such consideration, and
invites public comment on the approaches used and the interpretations
made from the results, with the hope that this will support the
refinement and improve utility of such analyses.
In the case of Secondary Lead Smelting, we focused on populations
within 50 km of the 14 facilities in this source category with
emissions sources subject to the MACT standard. More specifically, for
these populations we evaluated exposures to HAP that could result in
cancer risks of 1-in-1 million or greater, or population exposures to
[[Page 29070]]
ambient air lead concentrations above the level of the NAAQS for lead.
We compared the percentages of particular demographic groups within the
focused populations to the total percentages of those demographic
groups nationwide. The results of this analysis are documented in
Section IV of this preamble (see Table 4 of this preamble), as well as
in a technical report located in the docket for this proposed
rulemaking.
As described in Section IV of this preamble, with regard to cancer
risks, there are some potential disproportionate impacts to some
minority populations due to emissions of arsenic and cadmium from this
source category. However, with regard to lead, the analysis does not
indicate significant disproportionate impacts. Nevertheless, the
proposed actions in today's notice will significantly decrease the
risks due to HAP emissions from this source category and mitigate any
disproportionate risks due to those emissions.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Lead, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: April 29, 2011.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, part 63 of title 40,
chapter I, of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended
as follows:
PART 63--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
2. Part 63 is amended by revising subpart X to read as follows:
Subpart X--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
From Secondary Lead Smelting
Sec.
63.541 Applicability.
63.542 Definitions.
63.543 What are my standards for process vents?
63.544 What are my process enclosure standards?
63.545 What are my standards for fugitive dust sources?
63.546 Compliance dates.
63.547 Test methods.
63.548 Monitoring requirements.
63.549 Notification requirements.
63.550 Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
63.551 Implementation and enforcement.
63.552 Affirmative Defense for Exceedance of Emissions Limit During
Malfunction.
Table 1 to Subpart X of Part 63--General Provisions Applicability to
Subpart X
Table 2 to Subpart X of Part 63--Emissions Limits for Secondary Lead
Smelting Furnaces
Table 3 to Subpart X of Part 60--Toxic Equivalency Factors
Subpart X--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
From Secondary Lead Smelting
Sec. 63.541 Applicability.
(a) You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate any of
the following equipment or processes at a secondary lead smelter:
Blast, reverberatory, rotary, and electric furnaces; refining kettles;
agglomerating furnaces; dryers; process fugitive emissions sources; and
fugitive dust sources. The provisions of this subpart do not apply to
primary lead smelters, lead refiners, or lead remelters.
(b) Table 1 to this subpart specifies the provisions of subpart A
of this part that apply to owners and operators of secondary lead
smelters subject to this subpart.
(c) If you are subject to the provisions of this subpart, you are
also subject to title V permitting requirements under 40 CFR parts 70
or 71, as applicable.
(d) Emissions standards in this subpart apply at all times.
Sec. 63.542 Definitions.
Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act, in
subpart A of this part, or in this section as follows:
Affirmative defense means, in the context of an enforcement
proceeding, a response or defense put forward by a defendant, regarding
which the defendant has the burden of proof, and the merits of which
are independently and objectively evaluated in a judicial or
administrative proceeding.
Agglomerating furnace means a furnace used to melt into a solid
mass flue dust that is collected from a baghouse.
Bag leak detection system means an instrument that is capable of
monitoring particulate matter (dust) loadings in the exhaust of a
baghouse in order to detect bag failures. A bag leak detection system
includes, but is not limited to, an instrument that operates on
triboelectric, light scattering, transmittance or other effect to
monitor relative particulate matter loadings.
Battery breaking area means the plant location at which lead-acid
batteries are broken, crushed, or disassembled and separated into
components.
Blast furnace means a smelting furnace consisting of a vertical
cylinder atop a crucible, into which lead-bearing charge materials are
introduced at the top of the furnace and combustion air is introduced
through tuyeres at the bottom of the cylinder, and that uses coke as a
fuel source and that is operated at such a temperature in the
combustion zone (greater than 980 [deg]C) that lead compounds are
chemically reduced to elemental lead metal.
Blast furnace charging location means the physical opening through
which raw materials are introduced into a blast furnace.
Collocated blast furnace and reverberatory furnace means operation
at the same location of a blast furnace and a reverberatory furnace
where the vent streams of the furnaces are mixed before cooling, with
the volumetric flow rate discharged from the blast furnace being equal
to or less than that discharged from the reverberatory furnace.
Dryer means a chamber that is heated and that is used to remove
moisture from lead-bearing materials before they are charged to a
smelting furnace.
Dryer transition equipment means the junction between a dryer and
the charge hopper or conveyor, or the junction between the dryer and
the smelting furnace feed chute or hopper located at the ends of the
dryer.
Electric furnace means a smelting furnace consisting of a vessel
into which reverberatory furnace slag is introduced and that uses
electrical energy to heat the reverberatory furnace slag to such a
temperature (greater than 980 [deg]C) that lead compounds are reduced
to elemental lead metal.
Enclosure hood means a hood that covers a process fugitive emission
source on the top and on all sides, with openings only for access to
introduce or remove materials to or from the source and through which
an induced flow of air is ventilated.
Fugitive dust source means a stationary source of hazardous air
pollutant emissions at a secondary lead smelter that is not associated
with a specific process or process fugitive vent or stack. Fugitive
dust sources include, but are not limited to, roadways, storage piles,
materials handling transfer points, materials transport areas, storage
areas, process areas, and buildings.
Furnace and refining/casting area means any area of a secondary
lead smelter in which:
(1) Smelting furnaces are located; or
(2) Refining operations occur; or
(3) Casting operations occur.
Lead alloy means an alloy in which the predominant component is
lead.
Maintenance activity means any of the following routine maintenance
and repair activities that generate fugitive lead dust:
[[Page 29071]]
(1) Replacement or repair of refractory, filter bags, or any
internal or external part of equipment used to process, handle or
control lead-containing materials.
(2) Replacement of any duct section used to convey lead-containing
exhaust.
(3) Metal cutting or welding that penetrates the metal structure of
any equipment, and its associated components, used to process lead-
containing material such that lead dust within the internal structure
or its components can become fugitive lead dust.
(4) Resurfacing, repair or removal of ground, pavement, concrete,
or asphalt.
Materials storage and handling area means any area of a secondary
lead smelter in which lead-bearing materials (including, but not
limited to, broken battery components, reverberatory furnace slag, flue
dust, and dross) are stored or handled between process steps including,
but not limited to, areas in which materials are stored in piles, bins,
or tubs, and areas in which material is prepared for charging to a
smelting furnace.
Partial enclosure means a structure comprised of walls or
partitions on at least three sides or three-quarters of the perimeter
surrounding stored materials or process equipment to prevent the
entrainment of particulate matter into the air.
Pavement cleaning means the use of vacuum equipment, water sprays,
or a combination thereof to remove dust or other accumulated material
from the paved areas of a secondary lead smelter.
Plant roadway means any area of a secondary lead smelter that is
subject to vehicle traffic, including traffic by forklifts, front-end
loaders, or vehicles carrying whole batteries or cast lead ingots.
Excluded from this definition are employee and visitor parking areas,
provided they are not subject to traffic by vehicles carrying lead-
bearing materials.
Pressurized dryer breaching seal means a seal system connecting the
dryer transition pieces which is maintained at a higher pressure than
the inside of the dryer.
Process fugitive emissions source means a source of hazardous air
pollutant emissions at a secondary lead smelter that is associated with
lead smelting or refining, but is not the primary exhaust stream from a
smelting furnace, and is not a fugitive dust source. Process fugitive
sources include, but are not limited to, smelting furnace charging
points, smelting furnace lead and slag taps, refining kettles,
agglomerating furnaces, and drying kiln transition pieces.
Process vent means furnace vents, dryer vents, agglomeration
furnace vents, vents from battery breakers, building vents, and any
ventilation system controlling lead emissions.
Refining kettle means an open-top vessel that is constructed of
cast iron or steel and is indirectly heated from below and contains
molten lead for the purpose of refining and alloying the lead. Included
are pot furnaces, receiving kettles, and holding kettles.
Reverberatory furnace means a refractory-lined furnace that uses
one or more flames to heat the walls and roof of the furnace and lead-
bearing scrap to such a temperature (greater than 980 [deg]C) that lead
compounds are chemically reduced to elemental lead metal.
Rotary furnace (also known as a rotary reverberatory furnace) means
a furnace consisting of a refractory-lined chamber that rotates about a
horizontal axis and that uses one or more flames to heat the walls of
the furnace and lead-bearing scrap to such a temperature (greater than
980 [deg]C) that lead compounds are chemically reduced to elemental
lead metal.
Secondary lead smelter means any facility at which lead-bearing
scrap material, primarily, but not limited to, lead-acid batteries, is
recycled into elemental lead or lead alloys by smelting.
Smelting means the chemical reduction of lead compounds to
elemental lead or lead alloys through processing in high-temperature
(greater than 980 [deg]C) furnaces including, but not limited to, blast
furnaces, reverberatory furnaces, rotary furnaces, and electric
furnaces.
Total enclosure means a roofed and walled structure with limited
openings to allow access and egress for people and vehicles that meets
the requirements of Sec. 265.1101(a)(1), (a)(2)(i), and (c)(1)(i).
Vehicle wash means a device for removing dust and other accumulated
material from the wheels, body, and underside of a vehicle to prevent
the inadvertent transfer of lead contaminated material to another area
of a secondary lead smelter or to public roadways.
Wet suppression means the use of water, water combined with a
chemical surfactant, or a chemical binding agent to prevent the
entrainment of dust into the air from fugitive dust sources.
Sec. 63.543 What are my standards for process vents?
(a) You must maintain the concentration of lead compounds in any
process vent gas at or below 1.0 milligrams of lead per dry standard
cubic meter (0.00043 grains of lead per dry standard cubic foot). You
must maintain the flow-weighted average concentration of lead compounds
in vent gases from a secondary lead facility at or below 0.20
milligrams of lead per dry standard cubic meter (0.000087 grains of
lead per dry standard cubic foot).
(1) You must demonstrate compliance with the flow weighted average
emissions limit on a 12-month rolling average basis, calculated
monthly.
(2) Until 12 monthly weighted average emissions rates have been
accumulated, calculate only the monthly average weighted emissions
rate.
(3) You must use Equation 1 of this section to calculate the flow-
weighted average concentration of lead compounds from process vents:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19MY11.000
Where:
CFWA = Flow-weighted average concentration of all process
vents.
n = Number of process vents.
Fi = Flow rate from process vent i in dry standard cubic feet per
minute, as measured during the most recent compliance test.
Ci = Concentration of lead in process vent i, as measured during the
most recent compliance test.
[[Page 29072]]
(4) Each month, you must use the concentration of lead and flow
rate obtained during the most recent compliance test performed prior to
or during that month to perform the calculation.
(5) If a continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS) is used to
measure the concentration of lead in a vent, the monthly average lead
concentration and monthly average flow must be used rather than the
most recent compliance test data.
(b) You must meet the applicable emissions limits for total
hydrocarbons and dioxins and furans from furnace sources specified in
Table 2 of this subpart.
(c) If you combine furnace emissions from multiple types of
furnaces and these furnaces do not meet the definition of collocated
blast and reverberatory furnaces, you must calculate your emissions
limit for the combined furnace stream using Equation 2.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19MY11.001
Where:
CEL = Flow-weighted average emissions limit
(concentration) of combined furnace vents.
n = Number of furnace vents.
Fi = Flow rate from furnace vent i in dry standard cubic
feet per minute.
CELi = Emissions limit (concentration) of lead in furnace
vent i as specified in Table 2 of this subpart.
(d) If you combine furnace emissions with the furnace charging
process fugitive emissions and discharge them to the atmosphere through
a common emissions point, you must demonstrate compliance with the
applicable total hydrocarbons concentration limit specified in
paragraph (b) of this section at a location downstream from the point
at which the two emissions streams are combined.
(e) If you do not combine the furnace charging process fugitive
emissions with the furnace process emissions, and discharge such
emissions to the atmosphere through separate emissions points, you must
maintain the total hydrocarbons concentration in the exhaust gas at or
below 20 parts per million by volume, expressed as propane.
(f) Following the initial performance or compliance test to
demonstrate compliance with the lead emissions limits specified in
paragraph (a) of this section, you must conduct an annual performance
test for lead compounds from each process vent (no later than 12
calendar months following the previous compliance test), unless you
install and operate a CEMS and continuous emissions rate monitoring
system meeting the requirements of Sec. 63.548(m).
(g) Following the initial performance or compliance test to
demonstrate compliance with the total hydrocarbons emissions limits in
paragraphs (b) and (e) of this section, you must conduct an annual
performance test for total hydrocarbons emissions from each process
vent (no later than 12 calendar months following the previous
compliance test).
(h) Following the initial performance or compliance test to
demonstrate compliance with the dioxins and furans emissions limits
specified in paragraph (b) of this section, you must conduct a
performance test for dioxins and furans emissions at least once every 5
years following the previous compliance test.
(i) You must conduct the performance tests specified in paragraphs
(f) through (h) of this section under such conditions as the
Administrator specifies based on representative performance of the
affected source for the period being tested. Upon request, you must
make available to the Administrator such records as may be necessary to
determine the conditions of performance tests.
(j) At all times, you must operate and maintain any affected
source, including associated air pollution control equipment and
monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with safety and good air
pollution control practices for minimizing emissions. Determination of
whether such operation and maintenance procedures are being used will
be based on information available to the Administrator that may
include, but is not limited to, monitoring results, review of operation
and maintenance procedures, review of operation and maintenance
records, and inspection of the source.
(k) In addition to complying with the applicable emissions limits
for dioxins and furans listed in Table 2 to this subpart, you must
operate a process to separate plastic battery casing materials prior to
introducing feed into a blast furnace.
Sec. 63.544 What are my process enclosure standards?
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, you must
locate the fugitive emissions sources listed in paragraphs (a)(1)
through (a)(9) of this section in a total enclosure that is maintained
at negative pressure at all times. The total enclosure must meet the
requirements specified in paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this section.
(1) Smelting furnaces.
(2) Smelting furnace charging areas.
(3) Lead taps, slag taps, and molds during tapping.
(4) Battery breakers.
(5) Refining kettles, casting areas.
(6) Dryers.
(7) Agglomerating furnaces and agglomerating furnace product taps.
(8) Material handling areas for any lead bearing materials
(drosses, slag, other raw materials), excluding areas where unbroken
lead acid batteries and finished lead products are stored.
(9) Areas where dust from fabric filters, sweepings or used fabric
filters are handled or processed.
(b) You must construct and operate total enclosures for the sources
listed in paragraph (a) of this section as specified in paragraphs
(b)(1) and (b)(2) of this section.
(1) You must ventilate the total enclosure continuously to ensure
negative pressure values of at least 0.02 mm of mercury (0.011 inches
of water).
(2) You must maintain the in-draft velocity of the total enclosure
at greater than or equal to 300 feet per minute at any opening
including, but not limited to, vents, windows, passages, doorways, bay
doors and roll-ups doors.
(c) You must inspect enclosures and facility structures that
contain any lead-bearing materials at least once per month. You must
repair any gaps, breaks, separations, leak points or other
[[Page 29073]]
possible routes for emissions of lead to the atmosphere within 72 hours
of identification unless you obtain approval for an extension from the
Administrator before the repair period is exceeded.
(d) As an alternative to the requirements specified in paragraphs
(a) through (c) of this section, you can elect to demonstrate
compliance by meeting the requirements of (d)(1) through (d)(4) of this
section.
(1) You must install compliance monitors on or near the plant
property boundary, at locations approved by the Administrator, to
demonstrate that the lead concentration in air is at all times
maintained below a 3-month rolling average value of 0.15 [micro]g/m\3\
at each monitor. This must include at least two such monitors and at
least one of these monitors must be in a location that is expected to
have the highest air concentrations at or near the facility boundary
based on ambient dispersion modeling or other methods approved by the
Administrator.
(2) You must control the process fugitive emission sources listed
in paragraphs (d)(2)(i) through (d)(2)(vi) of this section in
accordance with the equipment and operational standards presented in
paragraphs (d)(3) through (d)(8) of this section.
(i) Smelting furnace and dryer charging hoppers, chutes, and skip
hoists.
(ii) Smelting furnace lead taps, and molds during tapping.
(iii) Smelting furnace slag taps, and molds during tapping.
(iv) Refining kettles.
(v) Dryer transition pieces.
(vi) Agglomerating furnace product taps.
(3) Process fugitive emission sources must be equipped with an
enclosure hood meeting the requirements of (d)(3)(i), (d)(3)(ii), or
(d)(3)(iii) of this section.
(i) All process fugitive enclosure hoods except those specified for
refining kettles and dryer transition pieces must be ventilated to
maintain a face velocity of at least 90 meters per minute (300 feet per
minute) at all hood openings.
(ii) Process fugitive enclosure hoods required for refining kettles
must be ventilated to maintain a face velocity of at least 75 meters
per minute (250 feet per minute).
(iii) Process fugitive enclosure hoods required over dryer
transition pieces must be ventilated to maintain a face velocity of at
least 110 meters per minute (350 feet per minute).
(iv) Ventilation air from all enclosure hoods must be conveyed to a
control device meeting the applicable requirements of Sec. 63.543.
(4) As an alternative to paragraph (d)(3)(iii) of this section, you
may elect to control the process fugitive emissions from dryer
transition pieces by installing and operating pressurized dryer
breaching seals at each transition piece.
(5) For the battery breaking area, partial enclosure of storage
piles, wet suppression applied to storage piles with sufficient
frequency and quantity to prevent the formation of dust, and pavement
cleaning twice per day.
(6) For the furnace area, partial enclosure and pavement cleaning
twice per day.
(7) For the refining and casting area, partial enclosure and
pavement cleaning twice per day.
(8) For the materials storage and handling area, partial enclosure
of storage piles, wet suppression applied to storage piles with
sufficient frequency and quantity to prevent the formation of dust.
Sec. 63.545 What are my standards for fugitive dust sources?
(a) You must prepare, and at all times operate according to, a
standard operating procedures manual that describes in detail the
measures that will be put in place and implemented to control the
fugitive dust emissions from the sources listed in paragraphs (a)(1)
through (a)(8) of this section.
(1) Plant roadways.
(2) Plant buildings.
(3) Plant building exteriors.
(4) Accidental releases.
(5) Battery storage area.
(6) Equipment maintenance areas.
(7) Material storage areas.
(8) Material handling areas.
(b) You must submit the standard operating procedures manual to the
Administrator or delegated authority for review and approval.
(c) The controls specified in the standard operating procedures
manual must at a minimum include the requirements specified in
paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(8) of this section, unless you satisfy
the requirements specified in paragraph (f) of this section.
(1) Cleaning. Where a cleaning practice is specified, you must
clean by wet wash or a vacuum equipped with a filter rated by the
manufacturer to achieve 99.97 percent capture efficiency for 0.3 micron
particles in a manner that does not generate fugitive lead dust.
(2) Plant roadways and paved areas. You must pave all areas subject
to vehicle traffic and you must clean the pavement twice per day,
except on days when natural precipitation makes cleaning unnecessary or
when sand or a similar material has been spread on plant roadways to
provide traction on ice or snow. If you use a mobile vacuum sweeper for
pavement cleaning, the sweeper must meet the requirements specified in
paragraphs (c)(2)(i) or (c)(2)(ii) of this section.
(i) If the vacuum sweeper uses water flushing followed by sweeping,
the water flush must use a minimum application of 0.48 gallons of water
per square yard of pavement cleaned.
(ii) The vacuum sweeper must be equipped with a filter rated by the
manufacturer to achieve a capture efficiency of 99.97 for 0.3 micron
particles.
(3) Plant building exterior. For all buildings that house areas
associated with storage, handling, or processing of lead bearing
materials, you must perform a monthly cleaning of building rooftops on
structures that are less than 45 feet in height and quarterly cleaning
of buildings that are greater than 45 feet in height.
(4) Accidental releases. You must initiate cleaning of all affected
areas within one hour after any accidental release of lead dust.
(5) Battery storage areas. You must inspect any unenclosed battery
storage areas twice each day and immediately move any broken batteries
identified to an enclosure. You must clean residue from broken
batteries within one hour of identification.
(6) Materials storage and handling areas. You must wash each
vehicle at each exit of the material storage and handling areas. The
vehicle wash must include washing of tires, undercarriage and exterior
surface of the vehicle followed by vehicle inspection. You must collect
all wash water and store the wash water in a container that is not open
to the atmosphere if the wash water is not immediately sent to
treatment.
(7) Equipment maintenance. You must perform all maintenance
activities for any equipment potentially contaminated with lead bearing
material or lead dust inside an enclosure maintained at negative
pressure. You must conduct any maintenance activity that cannot be
conducted in a negative pressure enclosure due to physical constraints
or safety issues inside a partial or temporary enclosure and use wet
suppression and/or a vacuum system equipped with a filter rated by the
manufacturer to achieve a capture efficiency of 99.97 percent for 0.3
micron particles.
(8) Material transport. You must transport all lead bearing
materials including, but not limited to, furnace
[[Page 29074]]
charging material, baghouse dust, slag and any material generated from
cleaning activities, capable of generating any amount of fugitive lead
dust within closed conveyor systems or in sealed, leak-proof containers
unless the transport activities are contained within an enclosure.
(d) Your standard operating procedures manual must specify that
records be maintained of all pavement cleaning, vehicle washing, wet
suppression, exterior building cleaning, and battery storage inspection
activities performed to control fugitive dust emissions.
(e) You must pave all grounds on the facility or plant groundcover
sufficient to prevent wind-blown dust. You may use dust suppressants on
unpaved areas that will not support a groundcover (e.g., roadway
shoulders, steep slopes).
(f) As an alternative to the requirements specified in paragraphs
(c)(1) through (c)(8) of this section, you can demonstrate to the
Administrator (or delegated State, local, or Tribal authority) that an
alternative measure(s) is equivalent or better than a practice(s)
described in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(8) of this section.
Sec. 63.546 Compliance dates.
(a) For affected sources that commenced construction or
reconstruction on or before May 19, 2011, you must demonstrate
compliance with the requirements of this subpart no later than [DATE
TWO YEARS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE
FEDERAL REGISTER].
(b) For affected sources that commenced construction or
reconstruction after May 19, 2011, you must demonstrate compliance with
the requirements of this subpart by [DATE TWO YEARS AFTER THE DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] or upon startup
of operations, whichever is later.
Sec. 63.547 Test methods.
(a) You must use the test methods from appendix A of part 60 as
listed in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(5) of this section to determine
compliance with the emissions standards for lead compounds specified in
Sec. 63.543(a).
(1) EPA Method 1 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-1 to select the
sampling port location and the number of traverse points.
(2) EPA Method 2 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-1 or EPA Method 5D
at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-3, section 8.3 for positive pressure
fabric filters, to measure volumetric flow rate.
(3) EPA Method 3, 3A, or 3B at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-2 to
determine the dry molecular weight of the stack gas.
(4) EPA Method 4 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-3 to determine
moisture content of the stack gas.
(5) EPA Method 29 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8 to determine
compliance with the lead compound emissions standards. The minimum
sample volume must be 2.0 dry standard cubic meters (70 dry standard
cubic feet) for each run. You must perform three test runs and you must
determine compliance using the average of the three runs.
(b) You must use the following test methods in appendix A of part
60 listed in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(4) of this section, as
specified, to determine compliance with the emissions standards for
total hydrocarbons specified in Sec. 63.543(b) and (e).
(1) EPA Method 1 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-1 to select the
sampling port location and number of traverse points.
(2) The Single Point Integrated Sampling and Analytical Procedure
of Method 3B to measure the carbon dioxide content of the stack gases
when using either EPA Method 3A or 3B at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-2.
(3) EPA Method 4 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-3 to measure
moisture content of the stack gases.
(4) EPA Method 25A at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7 to measure total
hydrocarbons emissions. The minimum sampling time must be 1 hour for
each run. You must perform a minimum of three test runs. You must
calculate a 1-hour average total hydrocarbons concentration for each
run and use the average of the three 1-hour averages to determine
compliance.
(c) You must correct the measured total hydrocarbons concentrations
to 4 percent carbon dioxide as specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through
(c)(3) of this section.
(1) If the measured percent carbon dioxide is greater than 0.4
percent in each compliance test, you must determine the correction
factor using Equation (2) of this section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19MY11.002
Where:
F = Correction factor (no units).
CO2 = Percent carbon dioxide measured using EPA Method 3A
or 3B at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-2, where the measured carbon
dioxide is greater than 0.4 percent.
(2) If the measured percent carbon dioxide is equal to or less than
0.4 percent, you must use a correction factor (F) of 10.
(3) You must determine the corrected total hydrocarbons
concentration by multiplying the measured total hydrocarbons
concentration by the correction factor (F) determined for each
compliance test.
(d) You must use the following test methods in appendix A of part
60 listed in paragraphs (d)(1) through (d)(5) of this section, as
specified, to determine compliance with the emissions standards for
dioxins and furans specified in Sec. 63.543(b).
(1) EPA Method 1 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-1 to select the
sampling port location and the number of traverse points.
(2) EPA Method 2 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-1 or EPA Method 5D
at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-3, section 8.3 for positive pressure
fabric filters to measure volumetric flow rate.
(3) EPA Method 3A or 3B at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-2 to
determine the oxygen and carbon dioxide concentrations of the stack
gas.
(4) EPA Method 4 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-3 to determine
moisture content of the stack gas.
(5) EPA Method 23 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7 to determine the
dioxins and furans concentration.
(e) You must determine the dioxins and furans toxic equivalency by
following the procedures in paragraphs (e)(1) through (e)(3) of this
section.
(1) Measure the concentration of each dioxins and furans congener
shown in Table 3 of this subpart using EPA Method 23 at 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A-7. You must correct the concentration of dioxins and furans
in terms of toxic equivalency to 7 percent O2 using Equation (3) of
this section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19MY11.003
[[Page 29075]]
Where:
Cadj = Dioxins and furans concentration adjusted to 7
percent oxygen.
Cmeas = Dioxins and furans concentration measured in
nanograms per dry standard cubic meter.
(20.9 - 7) = 20.9 percent oxygen - 7 percent oxygen (defined oxygen
correction basis).
20.9 = Oxygen concentration in air, percent.
%O2 = Oxygen concentration measured on a dry basis,
percent.
(2) For each dioxins and furans congener measured as specified in
paragraph (e)(1) of this section, multiply the congener concentration
by its corresponding toxic equivalency factor specified in Table 3 to
this subpart.
(3) Sum the values calculated as specified in paragraph (e)(2) of
this section to obtain the total concentration of dioxins and furans
emitted in terms of toxic equivalency.
(f) You must determine compliance with the doorway in-draft
requirement for enclosed buildings in Sec. 63.544(b) using the
procedures specified in paragraphs (f)(1) through (f)(3) of this
section.
(1) You must use a propeller anemometer or equivalent device
meeting the requirements of paragraphs (f)(1)(i) through (f)(1)(iii) of
this section.
(i) The propeller of the anemometer must be made of a material of
uniform density and must be properly balanced to optimize performance.
(ii) The measurement range of the anemometer must extend to at
least 300 meters per minute (1,000 feet per minute).
(iii) A known relationship must exist between the anemometer signal
output and air velocity, and the anemometer must be equipped with a
suitable readout system.
(2) You must determine the doorway in-draft by placing the
anemometer in the plane of the doorway opening near its center.
(3) You must demonstrate the doorway in-draft for each doorway that
is open during normal operation with all other doorways remaining in
the position they are in during normal operation.
(g) If you comply with the requirements specified in Sec.
63.544(d)(1), you must use the EPA method at 40 CFR part 50, appendix G
to measure the concentration of lead in air.
(h) If you comply with the requirements specified in Sec.
63.544(d)(2) and (d)(3) for enclosure hoods, you must determine
compliance with the face velocity requirements by using the test
methods in paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this section.
(1) Calculate face velocity using the procedures in paragraphs
(h)(1)(i) through (h)(1)(iv) of this section.
(i) Method 1 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-1 must be used to select
the sampling port location in the duct leading from the process
fugitive enclosure hood to the control device.
(ii) Method 2 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-1 must be used to
measure the volumetric flow rate in the duct from the process fugitive
enclosure hood to the control device.
(iii) The face area of the hood must be determined from measurement
of the hood. If the hood has access doors, then the face area must be
determined with the access doors in the position they are in during
normal operating conditions.
(iv) Face velocity must be determined by dividing the volumetric
flow rate as determined in paragraph (h)(1)(ii) of this section by the
total face area for the hood determined in paragraph (h)(2)(iii) of
this section.
(2) The face velocity may be measured directly using the procedures
in paragraphs (h)(2)(i) through (h)(2)(v) of this section.
(i) A propeller anemometer or equivalent device must be used to
measure hood face velocity.
(ii) The propeller of the anemometer must be made of a material of
uniform density and must be properly balanced to optimize performance.
(iii) The measurement range of the anemometer must extend to at
least 300 meters per minute (1,000 feet per minute).
(iv) A known relationship must exist between the anemometer signal
output and air velocity, and the anemometer must be equipped with a
suitable readout system.
(v) Hood face velocity must be determined for each hood open during
normal operation by placing the anemometer in the plane of the hood
opening. Access doors must be positioned consistent with normal
operation.
Sec. 63.548 Monitoring requirements.
(a) You must prepare, and at all times operate according to, a
standard operating procedures manual that describes in detail
procedures for inspection, maintenance, and bag leak detection and
corrective action plans for all baghouses (fabric filters or cartridge
filters) that are used to control process vents, process fugitive, or
fugitive dust emissions from any source subject to the lead emissions
standards in Sec. Sec. 63.543, 63.544, and 63.545, including those
used to control emissions from building ventilation.
(b) You must submit the standard operating procedures manual for
baghouses required by paragraph (a) of this section to the
Administrator or delegated authority for review and approval.
(c) The procedures that you specify in the standard operating
procedures manual for inspections and routine maintenance must, at a
minimum, include the requirements of paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(9)
of this section.
(1) Daily monitoring of pressure drop across each baghouse cell.
(2) Weekly confirmation that dust is being removed from hoppers
through visual inspection, or equivalent means of ensuring the proper
functioning of removal mechanisms.
(3) Daily check of compressed air supply for pulse-jet baghouses.
(4) An appropriate methodology for monitoring cleaning cycles to
ensure proper operation.
(5) Monthly check of bag cleaning mechanisms for proper functioning
through visual inspection or equivalent means.
(6) Monthly check of bag tension on reverse air and shaker-type
baghouses. Such checks are not required for shaker-type baghouses using
self-tensioning (spring loaded) devices.
(7) Quarterly confirmation of the physical integrity of the
baghouse through visual inspection of the baghouse interior for air
leaks.
(8) Quarterly inspection of fans for wear, material buildup, and
corrosion through visual inspection, vibration detectors, or equivalent
means.
(9) Continuous operation of a bag leak detection system, unless a
system meeting the requirements of paragraph (m) of this section, for a
CEMS and continuous emissions rate monitoring system is installed for
monitoring the concentration of lead.
(d) The procedures you specified in the standard operating
procedures manual for baghouse maintenance must include, at a minimum,
a preventative maintenance schedule that is consistent with the
baghouse manufacturer's instructions for routine and long-term
maintenance.
(e) The bag leak detection system required by paragraph (c)(9) of
this section, must meet the specification and requirements of
paragraphs (e)(1) through (e)(8) of this section.
(1) The bag leak detection system must be certified by the
manufacturer to be capable of detecting particulate matter emissions at
concentrations of 1.0 milligram per actual cubic meter (0.00044 grains
per actual cubic foot) or less.
[[Page 29076]]
(2) The bag leak detection system sensor must provide output of
relative particulate matter loadings.
(3) The bag leak detection system must be equipped with an alarm
system that will alarm when an increase in relative particulate
loadings is detected over a preset level.
(4) You must install and operate the bag leak detection system in a
manner consistent with the guidance provided in ``Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards (OAQPS) Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection
Guidance'' EPA-454/R-98-015, September 1997 (incorporated by reference)
and the manufacturer's written specifications and recommendations for
installation, operation, and adjustment of the system.
(5) The initial adjustment of the system must, at a minimum,
consist of establishing the baseline output by adjusting the
sensitivity (range) and the averaging period of the device, and
establishing the alarm set points and the alarm delay time.
(6) Following initial adjustment, you must not adjust the
sensitivity or range, averaging period, alarm set points, or alarm
delay time, except as detailed in the approved standard operating
procedures manual required under paragraph (a) of this section. You
cannot increase the sensitivity by more than 100 percent or decrease
the sensitivity by more than 50 percent over a 365 day period unless
such adjustment follows a complete baghouse inspection that
demonstrates that the baghouse is in good operating condition.
(7) For negative pressure, induced air baghouses, and positive
pressure baghouses that are discharged to the atmosphere through a
stack, you must install the bag leak detector downstream of the
baghouse and upstream of any wet acid gas scrubber.
(8) Where multiple detectors are required, the system's
instrumentation and alarm may be shared among detectors.
(f) You must include in the standard operating procedures manual
required by paragraph (a) of this section a corrective action plan that
specifies the procedures to be followed in the case of a bag leak
detection system alarm. The corrective action plan must include, at a
minimum, the procedures that you will use to determine and record the
time and cause of the alarm as well as the corrective actions taken to
minimize emissions as specified in paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this
section.
(1) The procedures used to determine the cause of the alarm must be
initiated within 30 minutes of the alarm.
(2) The cause of the alarm must be alleviated by taking the
necessary corrective action(s) that may include, but not be limited to,
those listed in paragraphs (f)(2)(i) through (f)(2)(vi) of this
section.
(i) Inspecting the baghouse for air leaks, torn or broken filter
elements, or any other malfunction that may cause an increase in
emissions.
(ii) Sealing off defective bags or filter media.
(iii) Replacing defective bags or filter media, or otherwise
repairing the control device.
(iv) Sealing off a defective baghouse compartment.
(v) Cleaning the bag leak detection system probe, or otherwise
repairing the bag leak detection system.
(vi) Shutting down the process producing the particulate emissions.
(g) If you use a wet scrubber to control particulate matter and
metal hazardous air pollutant emissions from an affected source to
demonstrate continuous compliance with the emissions standards, you
must monitor and record the pressure drop and water flow rate of the
wet scrubber during the initial performance or compliance test
conducted to demonstrate compliance with the lead emissions limit under
Sec. 63.543(a). Thereafter, you must monitor and record the pressure
drop and water flow rate values at least once every hour and you must
maintain the pressure drop and water flow rate at levels no lower than
30 percent below the pressure drop and water flow rate measured during
the initial performance or compliance test.
(h) You must comply with the requirements specified in paragraphs
(h)(1) through (h)(5) of this section to demonstrate continuous
compliance with the total hydrocarbons and dioxins and furans emissions
standards.
(1) Continuous temperature monitoring. You must install, calibrate,
maintain, and continuously operate a device to monitor and record the
temperature of the afterburner or furnace exhaust streams consistent
with the requirements for continuous monitoring systems in subpart A of
this part.
(2) Prior to or in conjunction with the initial performance or
compliance test to determine compliance with Sec. 63.543(b), you must
conduct a performance evaluation for the temperature monitoring device
according to Sec. 63.8(e). The definitions, installation
specifications, test procedures, and data reduction procedures for
determining calibration drift, relative accuracy, and reporting
described in Performance Specification 2, 40 CFR part 60, appendix B,
sections 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10 must be used to conduct the
evaluation. The temperature monitoring device must meet the following
performance and equipment specifications:
(i) The recorder response range must include zero and 1.5 times the
average temperature identified in paragraph (h)(3) of this section.
(ii) The monitoring system calibration drift must not exceed 2
percent of 1.5 times the average temperature identified in paragraph
(h)(3) of this section.
(iii) The monitoring system relative accuracy must not exceed 20
percent.
(iv) The reference method must be a National Institute of Standards
and Technology calibrated reference thermocouple-potentiometer system
or an alternate reference, subject to the approval of the
Administrator.
(3) You must monitor and record the temperature of the afterburner
or the furnace exhaust streams every 15 minutes during the initial
performance or compliance test for total hydrocarbons and dioxins and
furans and determine an arithmetic average for the recorded temperature
measurements.
(4) To demonstrate continuous compliance with the standards for
total hydrocarbons and dioxins and furans, you must maintain an
afterburner or exhaust temperature such that the average temperature in
any 3-hour period does not fall more than 28 [deg]C (50 [deg]F) below
the average established in paragraph (h)(3) of this section.
(i) You must install, operate, and maintain a digital differential
pressure monitoring system to continuously monitor each total enclosure
as described in paragraphs (i)(1) through (i)(6) of this section.
(1) You must install and maintain a minimum of one building digital
differential pressure monitoring system at each of the following three
walls in each total enclosure that has a total ground surface area of
10,000 square feet or more:
(i) The leeward wall.
(ii) The windward wall.
(iii) An exterior wall that connects the leeward and windward wall
at a location defined by the intersection of a perpendicular line
between a point on the connecting wall and a point on its furthest
opposite exterior wall, and intersecting within plus or minus ten
meters of the midpoint of a straight line between the two other
monitors specified. The midpoint monitor must not be located on the
same wall as either of the other two monitors.
(2) You must install and maintain a minimum of one building digital
differential pressure monitoring system at the leeward wall of each
total
[[Page 29077]]
enclosure that has a total ground surface area of less than 10,000
square feet.
(3) The digital differential pressure monitoring systems must be
certified by the manufacturer to be capable of measuring and displaying
negative pressure in the range of 0.01 to 0.2 mm mercury (0.005 to 0.11
inches of water) with a minimum accuracy of plus or minus 0.001 mm
mercury (0.0005 inches of water).
(4) You must equip each digital differential pressure monitoring
system with a continuous recorder.
(5) You must calibrate each digital differential pressure
monitoring system in accordance with manufacturer's specifications at
least once every 12 calendar months or more frequently if recommended
by the manufacturer.
(6) You must equip the digital differential pressure monitoring
system with a backup, uninterruptible power supply to ensure continuous
operation of the monitoring system during a power outage.
(j) You must monitor the doorway in-draft velocity at each building
opening once per day to demonstrate continuous compliance with the in-
draft requirements in Sec. 63.544(b)(2).
(k) If you comply with the requirements specified in Sec.
63.544(d), you must comply with the requirements specified in
paragraphs (k)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) You must install, operate and maintain a continuous monitoring
system for the measurement of lead compound concentrations in air as
specified in paragraphs (k)(1)(i) through (k)(1)(v) of this section.
(i) You must operate a minimum of two compliance monitors
sufficient in location and frequency of sample collection to detect
expected maximum concentrations of lead compounds in air due to
emissions from the affected source(s) in accordance with a written plan
as described in paragraph (k)(1)(ii) of this section and approved by
the Administrator. The plan must include descriptions of the sampling
and analytical methods used. The plan may take into consideration
existing monitoring being conducted under a State monitoring plan in
accordance with 40 CFR part 58. At least one 24-hour sample must be
collected from each monitor every 6 days except during periods or
seasons exempted by the Administrator.
(ii) You must submit a written plan describing and explaining the
basis for the design and adequacy of the compliance monitoring network,
the sampling, analytical, and quality assurance procedures, and any
other related procedures, and the justification for any seasonal,
background, or other data adjustments within 45 days after the
effective date of this subpart.
(iii) The Administrator at any time may require changes in, or
expansion of, the monitoring program, including additional sampling
and, more frequent sampling, revisions to the analytical protocols and
network design.
(iv) If all rolling 3-month average concentrations of lead in air
measured by the compliance monitoring system are less than 50 percent
of the lead concentration limits specified in Sec. 63.544(d)(1) for 3
consecutive years, you may submit a proposed revised plan to reduce the
monitoring sampling and analysis frequency to the Administrator for
review. If approved by the Administrator, you may adjust your
monitoring accordingly.
(v) For any subsequent period, if any rolling 3-month average lead
concentration in air measured at any monitor in the monitoring system
exceeds 50 percent of the concentration limits specified in Sec.
63.544(d)(1), you must resume monitoring pursuant to paragraph
(k)(1)(i) of this section at all monitors until another 3 consecutive
years of lead concentration measurements is demonstrated to be less
than 50 percent of the lead concentration limits specified in Sec.
63.544(d)(1).
(2) You must monitor the enclosure hood face velocity at each hood
once per week to demonstrate continuous compliance with the in-draft
requirements in Sec. 63.544(d)(3).
(3) If you use pressurized dryer breaching seals in order to comply
with the requirements of Sec. 63.544(d)(4), you must equip each seal
with an alarm that will ``sound'' or ``go off'' if the pressurized
dryer breaching seal malfunctions.
(l) All new or modified sources subject to the requirements under
Sec. 63.543 must install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a CEMS for
measuring lead emissions and a continuous emissions rate monitoring
system subject to Performance Specification 6 of appendix B to part 60
of this chapter. You must comply with the requirements for CEMS and
continuous emissions rate monitoring system specified in paragraph (m)
of this section.
(1) Sources subject to the emissions limits for lead compounds
under Sec. 63.543(a) must install a CEMS for measuring lead emissions
within 180 days of promulgation of performance specifications for lead
CEMS.
(2) Prior to promulgation of performance specifications for CEMS
used to measure lead concentrations, you must use the procedure
described in Sec. 63.543(a)(1) through (a)(4) to determine compliance.
(m) If a CEMS is used to measure lead emissions, you must install a
continuous emissions rate monitoring system with a sensor in a location
that provides representative measurement of the exhaust gas flow rate
at the sampling location of the CEMS used to measure lead emissions,
taking into account the manufacturer's recommendations. The flow rate
sensor is that portion of the system that senses the volumetric flow
rate and generates an output proportional to that flow rate.
(1) The continuous emissions rate monitoring system must be
designed to measure the exhaust gas flow rate over a range that extends
from a value of at least 20 percent less than the lowest expected
exhaust flow rate to a value of at least 20 percent greater than the
highest expected exhaust gas flow rate.
(2) The continuous emissions rate monitoring system must be
equipped with a data acquisition and recording system that is capable
of recording values over the entire range specified in paragraph (m)(1)
of this section.
(3) You must perform an initial relative accuracy test of the
continuous emissions rate monitoring system in accordance with the
applicable Performance Specification in appendix B to part 60 of this
chapter.
(4) You must operate the continuous emissions rate monitoring
system and record data during all periods of operation of the affected
facility including periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction,
except for periods of monitoring system malfunctions, repairs
associated with monitoring system malfunctions, and required monitoring
system quality assurance or quality control activities including, as
applicable, calibration checks and required zero and span adjustments.
(5) You must calculate the average lead concentration and flow rate
monthly to determine compliance with Sec. 63.543(a).
(6) When the continuous emissions rate monitoring system is unable
to provide quality assured data, the following apply:
(i) When data are not available for periods of up to 48 hours, the
highest recorded hourly emissions rate from the previous 24 hours must
be used.
(ii) When data are not available for 48 or more hours, the maximum
daily emissions rate based on the previous 30 days must be used.
Sec. 63.549 Notification requirements.
(a) You must comply with all of the notification requirements of
Sec. 63.9 of
[[Page 29078]]
subpart A, General Provisions. Electronic notifications are encouraged
when possible.
(b) You must submit the fugitive dust control standard operating
procedures manual required under Sec. 63.545(a) and the standard
operating procedures manual for baghouses required under Sec.
63.548(a) to the Administrator or delegated authority along with a
notification that the smelter is seeking review and approval of these
plans and procedures. You must submit this notification no later than
[DATE ONE YEAR AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER]. For sources that commenced construction or reconstruction
after [INSERT THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER], you must submit this notification no later than 180 days
before startup of the constructed or reconstructed secondary lead
smelter, but no sooner than [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN
THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. For an affected source that has received a
construction permit from the Administrator or delegated authority on or
before [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER], you must submit this notification no later than [DATE ONE
YEAR AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].
Sec. 63.550 Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
(a) You must comply with all of the recordkeeping and reporting
requirements specified in Sec. 63.10 of the General Provisions that
are referenced in Table 1 to this subpart.
(1) Records must be maintained in a form suitable and readily
available for expeditious review, according to Sec. 63.10(b)(1).
However, electronic recordkeeping and reporting is encouraged, and
required for some records and reports.
(2) Records must be kept on site for at least 2 years after the
date of occurrence, measurement, maintenance, corrective action,
report, or record, according to Sec. 63.10(b)(1).
(b) The standard operating procedures manuals required in Sec.
63.545(a) and Sec. 63.548(a) must be submitted to the Administrator in
electronic format for review and approval of the initial submittal and
whenever an update is made to the procedure.
(c) You must maintain for a period of 5 years, records of the
information listed in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(15) of this
section.
(1) Electronic records of the bag leak detection system output.
(2) An identification of the date and time of all bag leak
detection system alarms, the time that procedures to determine the
cause of the alarm were initiated, the cause of the alarm, an
explanation of the corrective actions taken, and the date and time the
cause of the alarm was corrected.
(3) All records of inspections and maintenance activities required
under Sec. 63.548(c) as part of the practices described in the
standard operating procedures manual for baghouses required under Sec.
63.548(a).
(4) Electronic records of the pressure drop and water flow rate
values for wet scrubbers used to control metal hazardous air pollutant
emissions from process fugitive sources as required in Sec. 63.548(g).
(5) Electronic records of the output from the continuous
temperature monitor required in Sec. 63.548(h)(1), and an
identification of periods when the 3-hour average temperature fell
below the minimum established under Sec. 63.548(h)(3), and an
explanation of the corrective actions taken.
(6) Electronic records of the continuous pressure monitors for
total enclosures required in Sec. 63.548(i), and an identification of
periods when the pressure was not maintained as required in Sec.
63.544(b)(1).
(7) Records of the daily measurements of doorway in-draft velocity
required in Sec. 63.548(j), and an identification of the periods when
the velocity was not maintained as required in Sec. 63.544(b)(2).
(8) Records of the inspections of facility enclosures required in
Sec. 63.544(c).
(9) Records of all cleaning and inspections required as part of the
practices described in the standard operating procedures manual
required under Sec. 63.545(a) for the control of fugitive dust
emissions.
(10) Records of the compliance monitoring required in Sec.
63.548(k)(1), if applicable.
(11) Records of the face velocity measurements required in Sec.
63.548(k)(2), if applicable, and an identification of periods when the
face velocity was not maintained as required in Sec. 63.544(d)(2) and
(d)(3).
(12) Records of the dryer breaching seal alarms required in Sec.
63.548(k)(3).
(13) Electronic records of the output of any CEMS installed to
monitor lead emissions meeting the requirements of Sec. 63.548(m).
(14) Records of the occurrence and duration of each malfunction of
operation (i.e., process equipment) or the air pollution control
equipment and monitoring equipment.
(15) Records of actions taken during periods of malfunction to
minimize emissions in accordance with Sec. 63.543(j), including
corrective actions to restore malfunctioning process and air pollution
control and monitoring equipment to its normal or usual manner of
operation.
(d) You must comply with all of the reporting requirements
specified in Sec. 63.10 of the General Provisions that are referenced
in Table 1 to this subpart.
(1) You must submit reports no less frequent than specified under
Sec. 63.10(e)(3) of the General Provisions.
(2) Once a source reports a violation of the standard or excess
emissions, you must follow the reporting format required under Sec.
63.10(e)(3) until a request to reduce reporting frequency is approved
by the Administrator.
(e) In addition to the information required under the applicable
sections of Sec. 63.10, you must include in the reports required under
paragraph (d) of this section the information specified in paragraphs
(e)(1) through (e)(14) of this section.
(1) Records of the concentration of lead in each process vent, and
records of the rolling 12-month flow-weighted average concentration of
lead compounds in vent gases calculated monthly as required in Sec.
63.543(a).
(2) Records of all alarms from the bag leak detection system
specified in Sec. 63.548.
(3) A description of the procedures taken following each bag leak
detection system alarm pursuant to Sec. 63.548(f)(1) and (2).
(4) A summary of the records maintained as part of the practices
described in the standard operating procedures manual for baghouses
required under Sec. 63.548(a), including an explanation of the periods
when the procedures were not followed and the corrective actions taken.
(5) An identification of the periods when the pressure drop and
water flow rate of wet scrubbers used to control process fugitive
sources dropped below the levels established in Sec. 63.548(g), and an
explanation of the corrective actions taken.
(6) Records of the temperature monitor output, in 3-hour block
averages, for those periods when the temperature monitored pursuant to
Sec. 63.548(h) fell below the level established in Sec. 63.548(h)(4).
(7) Certification that the plastic separation process for battery
breakers required in Sec. 63.543(k) was operated at all times the
battery breaker was in service.
[[Page 29079]]
(8) Records of periods when the pressure was not maintained as
required in Sec. 63.544(b)(1), or the in-draft velocity was not
maintained as required in Sec. 63.544(b)(2).
(9) If a malfunction occurred during the reporting period, the
report must include the number, duration, and a brief description for
each type of malfunction that occurred during the reporting period and
caused or may have caused any applicable emissions limitation to be
exceeded. The report must also include a description of actions taken
by an owner or operator during a malfunction of an affected source to
minimize emissions in accordance with Sec. 63.543(j), including
actions taken to correct a malfunction.
(10) A summary of the fugitive dust control measures performed
during the required reporting period, including an explanation of the
periods when the procedures outlined in the standard operating
procedures manual pursuant to Sec. 63.545(a) were not followed and the
corrective actions taken. The reports must not contain copies of the
daily records required to demonstrate compliance with the requirements
of the standard operating procedures manuals required under Sec.
63.545(a).
(11) If you comply with the requirements in Sec. 63.544(d)(1), you
must provide records of all results of air monitoring required in Sec.
63.548(k)(1).
(12) Records of periods when the enclosure hood face velocity was
not maintained as required in Sec. 63.544(d)(3).
(13) Records of the dryer seal breaching alarms required in Sec.
63.548(k)(3).
(14) You must submit records pursuant to paragraphs (e)(14)(i)
through (iii) of this section.
(i) As of January 1, 2012 and within 60 days after the date of
completing each performance test, as defined in Sec. 63.2 and as
required in this subpart, you must submit performance test data, except
opacity data, electronically to EPA's Central Data Exchange by using
the Electronic Reporting Tool (see http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ert_tool.html/). Only data collected using test methods compatible
with the Electronic Reporting Tool are subject to this requirement to
be submitted electronically into EPA's WebFIRE database.
(ii) Within 60 days after the date of completing each CEMS
performance evaluation test, as defined in Sec. 63.2 and required by
this subpart, you must submit the relative accuracy test audit data
electronically into EPA's Central Data Exchange by using the Electronic
Reporting Tool as mentioned in paragraph (e)(14)(i) of this section.
Only data collected using test methods compatible with the Electronic
Reporting Tool are subject to this requirement to be submitted
electronically into EPA's WebFIRE database.
(iii) All reports required by this subpart not subject to the
requirements in paragraphs (e)(14)(i) and (ii) of this section must be
sent to the Administrator at the appropriate address listed in Sec.
63.13. The Administrator or the delegated authority may request a
report in any form suitable for the specific case (e.g., by electronic
media such as Excel spreadsheet, on CD or hard copy). The Administrator
retains the right to require submittal of reports subject to paragraphs
(e)(14)(i) and (ii) of this section in paper format.
Sec. 63.551 Implementation and enforcement.
(a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by the U.S. EPA,
or a delegated authority such as the applicable State, local, or Tribal
agency. If the U.S. EPA Administrator has delegated authority to a
State, local, or Tribal agency, then that agency, in addition to the
U.S. EPA, has the authority to implement and enforce this subpart.
Contact the applicable U.S. EPA Regional Office to find out if this
subpart is delegated to a State, local, or Tribal agency.
(b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this
subpart to a State, local, or Tribal agency under subpart E of this
part, the authorities contained in paragraph (c) of this section are
retained by the Administrator of U.S. EPA and cannot be transferred to
the State, local, or Tribal agency.
(c) The authorities that cannot be delegated to State, local, or
Tribal agencies are as specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(4) of
this section.
(1) Approval of alternatives to the requirements in Sec. Sec.
63.541, 63.543 through 63.544, Sec. 63.545, and Sec. 63.546.
(2) Approval of major alternatives to test methods for under Sec.
63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f), as defined in Sec. 63.90, and as required in
this subpart.
(3) Approval of major alternatives to monitoring under Sec.
63.8(f), as defined in Sec. 63.90, and as required in this subpart.
(4) Approval of major alternatives to recordkeeping and reporting
under Sec. 63.10(f), as defined in Sec. 63.90, and as required in
this subpart.
Sec. 63.552 Affirmative defense for exceedance of emissions limit
during malfunction.
In response to an action to enforce the standards set forth in this
subpart, you may assert an affirmative defense to a claim for civil
penalties for exceedances of such standards that are caused by
malfunction, as defined at Sec. 63.2. Appropriate penalties may be
assessed, however, if you fail to meet your burden of proving all of
the requirements in the affirmative defense. The affirmative defense
shall not be available for claims for injunctive relief.
(a) Affirmative defense. To establish the affirmative defense in
any action to enforce such a limit, you must timely meet the
notification requirements in paragraph (b) of this section, and must
prove by a preponderance of evidence that:
(1) The excess emissions:
(i) Were caused by a sudden, infrequent, and unavoidable failure of
air pollution control and monitoring equipment, process equipment, or a
process to operate in a normal or usual manner.
(ii) Could not have been prevented through careful planning, proper
design or better operation and maintenance practices.
(iii) Did not stem from any activity or event that could have been
foreseen and avoided, or planned for.
(iv) Were not part of a recurring pattern indicative of inadequate
design, operation, or maintenance.
(2) Repairs were made as expeditiously as possible when the
applicable emissions limitations were being exceeded. Off-shift and
overtime labor were used, to the extent practicable to make these
repairs.
(3) The frequency, amount and duration of the excess emissions
(including any bypass) were minimized to the maximum extent practicable
during periods of such emissions.
(4) If the excess emissions resulted from a bypass of control
equipment or a process, then the bypass was unavoidable to prevent loss
of life, personal injury, or severe property damage.
(5) All possible steps were taken to minimize the impact of the
excess emissions on ambient air quality, the environment and human
health.
(6) All emissions monitoring and control systems were kept in
operation if at all possible, consistent with safety and good air
pollution control practices.
(7) All of the actions in response to the excess emissions were
documented by properly signed, contemporaneous operating logs.
(8) At all times, the affected source was operated in a manner
consistent with good practices for minimizing emissions.
(9) A written root cause analysis has been prepared, the purpose of
which is
[[Page 29080]]
to determine, correct, and eliminate the primary causes of the
malfunction and the excess emissions resulting from the malfunction
event at issue. The analysis shall also specify, using best monitoring
methods and engineering judgment, the amount of excess emissions that
were the result of the malfunction.
(b) Notification. The owner or operator of the affected source
experiencing an exceedance of its emissions limit(s) during a
malfunction, shall notify the Administrator by telephone or facsimile
transmission as soon as possible, but no later than two business days
after the initial occurrence of the malfunction, it wishes to avail
itself of an affirmative defense to civil penalties for that
malfunction. The owner or operator seeking to assert an affirmative
defense, shall also submit a written report to the Administrator within
45 days of the initial occurrence of the exceedance of the standard in
this subpart to demonstrate, with all necessary supporting
documentation, that it has met the requirements set forth in paragraph
(a) of this section. The owner or operator may seek an extension of
this deadline for up to 30 additional days by submitting a written
request to the Administrator before the expiration of the 45 day
period. Until a request for an extension has been approved by the
Administrator, the owner or operator is subject to the requirement to
submit such report within 45 days of the initial occurrence of the
exceedance.
Table 1 to Subpart X of Part 63--General Provisions Applicability to
Subpart X
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applies to
Reference subpart X Comment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.1.......................... Yes. .....................
63.2.......................... Yes. .....................
63.3.......................... Yes. .....................
63.4.......................... Yes. .....................
63.5.......................... Yes. .....................
63.6(a), (b), (c)............. Yes. .....................
63.6(d)....................... No............... Section reserved.
63.6(e)(1)(i)................. No............... See 63.543(j) for
general duty
requirement.
63.6(e)(1)(ii)................ No. .....................
63.6(e)(1)(iii)............... Yes. .....................
63.6(e)(2).................... No............... Section reserved.
63.6(e)(3).................... No. .....................
63.6(f)(1).................... No. .....................
63.6(g)....................... Yes. .....................
63.6(h)....................... No............... No opacity limits in
rule.
63.6(i)....................... Yes. .....................
63.6(j)....................... Yes. .....................
Sec. 63.7(a)-(d)............ Yes. .....................
Sec. 63.7(e)(1)............. No............... See 63.543(i).
Sec. 63.7(e)(2)-(e)(4)...... Yes. .....................
63.7(f), (g), (h)............. Yes. .....................
63.8(a)-(b)................... Yes. .....................
63.8(c)(1)(i)................. No............... See 63.543(j) for
general duty
requirement.
63.8(c)(1)(ii)................ Yes. .....................
63.8(c)(1)(iii)............... No. .....................
63.8(c)(2)-(d)(2)............. Yes. .....................
63.8(d)(3).................... Yes, except for .....................
last sentence
63.8(e)-(g)................... Yes. .....................
63.9(a), (b), (c), (e), (g), Yes. .....................
(h)(1) through (3), (h)(5)
and (6), (i) and (j).
63.9(f)....................... No. .....................
63.9(h)(4).................... No............... Reserved.
63.10 (a)..................... Yes. .....................
63.10 (b)(1).................. Yes. .....................
63.10(b)(2)(i)................ No. .....................
63.10(b)(2)(ii)............... No............... See 63.550 for
recordkeeping of
occurrence and
duration of
malfunctions and
recordkeeping of
actions taken during
malfunction.
63.10(b)(2)(iii).............. Yes. .....................
63.10(b)(2)(iv)-(b)(2)(v)..... No. .....................
63.10(b)(2)(vi)-(b)(2)(xiv)... Yes. .....................
63.(10)(b)(3)................. Yes. .....................
63.10(c)(1)-(9)............... Yes. .....................
63.10(c)(10)-(11)............. No............... See 63.550 for
recordkeeping of
malfunctions.
63.10(c)(12)-(c)(14).......... Yes. .....................
63.10(c)(15).................. No. .....................
63.10(d)(1)-(4)............... Yes. .....................
63.10(d)(5)................... No............... See 63.550(c)(7) for
reporting of
malfunctions.
63.10(e)-((f)................. Yes. .....................
63.11......................... No............... Flares will not be
used to comply with
the emission limits.
63.12 to 63.15................ Yes. .....................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 29081]]
Table 2 to Subpart X of Part 63--Emissions Limits for Secondary Lead Smelting Furnaces
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You must meet the following emissions limits
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For vents from these processes Total hydrocarbon ppm by volume Dioxin and furan (dioxins and
expressed as propane corrected to furans) nanograms/dscm expressed
4 percent carbon dioxide as TEQ corrected to 7 percent O2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Collocated blast and reverberatory furnace 20 ppmv 0.50 ng/dscm.
Collocated blast and reverberatory furnace 360 ppmv 170 ng/dscm.
when the Reverberatory furnace is not
operating.
Collocated blast and reverberatory furnace 20 ppmv 0.50 ng/dscm.
that commence construction after June 9,
1994.
Collocated blast and reverberatory furnace 20 ppmv 0.50 ng/dscm.
that commence construction after [INSERT
DATE 24 MONTHS AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE
FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].
Blast furnace............................. 360 ppmv 170 ng/dscm.
Blast furnaces that commence construction 70 ppmv 10 ng/dscm.
or reconstruction after June 9, 1994.
Reverberatory and electric furnace........ 12 ppmv 0.20 ng/dscm.
Reverberatory and electric furnace that 12 ppmv 0.10 ng/dscm.
commence construction or reconstruction
after [INSERT DATE 24 MONTHS AFTER
PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE
FEDERAL REGISTER].
Rotary furnaces........................... 610 ppmv 1.0 ng/dscm.
Rotary Furnaces that commence construction 610 ppmv 1.0 ng/dscm.
or reconstruction after [INSERT DATE 24
MONTHS AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL
RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3 to Subpart X of Part 60--Toxic Equivalency Factors
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Toxic
Dioxin/Furan congener equivalency
factor
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin................. 1
1,2,3,7,8-pentachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin............... 0.5
1,2,3,4,7,8-hexachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin.............. 0.1
1,2,3,7,8,9-hexachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin.............. 0.1
1,2,3,6,7,8-hexachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin.............. 0.1
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-heptachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin........... 0.01
octachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin.......................... 0.001
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorinated dibenzofuran..................... 0.1
2,3,4,7,8-pentachlorinated dibenzofuran................... 0.05
1,2,3,7,8-pentachlorinated dibenzofuran................... 0.5
1,2,3,4,7,8-hexachlorinated dibenzofuran.................. 0.1
1,2,3,6,7,8-hexachlorinated dibenzofuran.................. 0.1
1,2,3,7,8,9-hexachlorinated dibenzofuran.................. 0.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2011-11220 Filed 5-18-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P