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

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:40 May 18, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\19MYP2.SGM 19MYP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 29032 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Number EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0344, Number EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0344. All AGENCY U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, documents in the docket are listed in Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania the http://www.regulations.gov index. 40 CFR Part 63 Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. Although listed in the index, some [EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0344; FRL–9303–4] Please include a total of two copies. In information is not publicly available, addition, please mail a copy of your e.g., CBI or other information whose RIN 2060–AQ68 comments on the information collection disclosure is restricted by statute. provisions to the Office of Information National Emissions Standards for Certain other material, such as and Regulatory Affairs, Office of copyrighted material, is not placed on Hazardous Air Pollutants: Secondary Management and Budget (OMB), Attn: Lead Smelting the Internet and will be publicly Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, available only in hard copy. Publicly AGENCY: NW., Washington, DC 20503. Environmental Protection • available docket materials are available Agency (EPA). Hand Delivery: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA West (Air either electronically in http:// ACTION: Proposed rule. Docket), Room 3334, 1301 Constitution www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20004, the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, SUMMARY: EPA is proposing Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., amendments to the national emissions Attention Docket ID Number EPA–HQ– OAR–2011–0344. Such deliveries are NW., Washington, DC. The Public standards for hazardous air pollutants Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to for Secondary Lead Smelting to address only accepted during the Docket’s 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, the results of the residual risk and normal hours of operation, and special excluding legal holidays. The telephone technology review that EPA is required arrangements should be made for number for the Public Reading Room is to conduct by the Clean Air Act. These deliveries of boxed information. (202) 566–1744, and the telephone proposed amendments include revisions Instructions. Direct your comments to number for the EPA Docket Center is to the stack emissions limits for lead; Docket ID Number EPA–HQ–OAR– revisions to the fugitive dust emissions 2011–0344. EPA’s policy is that all (202) 566–1742. control requirements; the addition of comments received will be included in Public Hearing. If a public hearing is total hydrocarbons emissions limits for the public docket without change and held, it will begin at 10 a.m. on June 3, reverberatory, electric, and rotary may be made available on-line at http:// 2011 and will be held at EPA’s campus furnaces; the addition of emissions www.regulations.gov, including any in Research Triangle Park, North limits and work practice requirements personal information provided, unless Carolina, or at an alternate facility the comment includes information for dioxins and furans; and the nearby. Persons interested in presenting claimed to be confidential business modification and addition of testing and oral testimony or inquiring as to information (CBI) or other information monitoring and related notification, whether a public hearing is to be held whose disclosure is restricted by statute. recordkeeping, and reporting should contact Ms. Virginia Hunt, Office Do not submit information that you requirements. We are also proposing to consider to be CBI or otherwise of Air Quality Planning and Standards, revise provisions addressing periods of protected through http:// Sector Policies and Programs Division, startup, shutdown, and malfunction to www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The (D243–02), U.S. Environmental ensure that the rules are consistent with http://www.regulations.gov Web site is Protection Agency, Research Triangle a recent court decision. an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone DATES: Comments must be received on means EPA will not know your identity number: (919) 541–0832. or before July 5, 2011. Under the or contact information unless you FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on provide it in the body of your comment. questions about this proposed action, the information collection provisions If you send an e-mail comment directly contact Mr. Chuck French, Sector are best assured of having full effect if to EPA without going through http:// the Office of Management and Budget Policies and Programs Division (D243– www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 02), Office of Air Quality Planning and (OMB) receives a copy of your address will be automatically captured comments on or before June 20, 2011. Standards, U.S. Environmental and included as part of the comment Protection Agency, Research Triangle Public Hearing. If anyone contacts that is placed in the public docket and Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone EPA requesting to speak at a public made available on the Internet. If you (919) 541–7912; fax number: (919) 541– hearing by May 31, 2011, a public submit an electronic comment, EPA 5450; and e-mail address: hearing will be held on June 3, 2011. recommends that you include your [email protected]. For specific ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, name and other contact information in identified by Docket ID Number EPA– the body of your comment and with any information regarding the risk modeling HQ–OAR–2011–0344, by one of the disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA methodology, contact Ms. Elaine following methods: cannot read your comment due to Manning, Health and Environmental • http://www.regulations.gov: Follow technical difficulties and cannot contact Impacts Division (C539–02), Office of the on-line instructions for submitting you for clarification, EPA may not be Air Quality Planning and Standards, comments. able to consider your comment. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, • E-mail: [email protected], Electronic files should avoid the use of Research Triangle Park, North Carolina Attention Docket ID Number EPA–HQ– special characters, any form of 27711; telephone number: (919) 541– OAR–2011–0344. encryption, and be free of any defects or 5499; fax number: (919) 541–0840; and • Fax: (202) 566–9744, Attention viruses. For additional information e-mail address: Docket ID Number EPA–HQ–OAR– about EPA’s public docket, visit the EPA [email protected]. For 2011–0344. Docket Center homepage at http:// information about the applicability of • Mail: U.S. Postal Service, send www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. the NESHAP to a particular entity, comments to: EPA Docket Center, EPA Docket. EPA has established a docket contact the appropriate person listed in West (Air Docket), Attention Docket ID for this rulemaking under Docket ID Table 1 of this preamble.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:40 May 18, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19MYP2.SGM 19MYP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 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, (202) 564–7027 Chuck French, (919) 541–7912, [email protected] [email protected] 1 EPA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. 2 EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NAICS North American Industry Organization of this Document. The Classification System information in this preamble is Preamble Acronyms and Abbreviations NAS National Academy of Sciences organized as follows: Several acronyms and terms used to NATA National Air Toxics Assessment I. General Information describe industrial processes, data NEI National Emissions Inventory A. What is the statutory authority for this inventories, and risk modeling are NESHAP National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants action? included in this preamble. While this B. Does this action apply to me? may not be an exhaustive list, to ease NOAEL no observed adverse effects level NRC National Research Council C. Where can I get a copy of this document the reading of this preamble and for NTTAA National Technology Transfer and and other related information? reference purposes, the following terms Advancement Act D. What should I consider as I prepare my and acronyms are defined here: O&M operation and maintenance comments for EPA? II. Background ADAF age-dependent adjustment factors OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and AEGL acute exposure guideline levels Standards A. Overview of the Source Category and AERMOD air dispersion model used by the ODW Office of Drinking Water MACT Standards HEM–3 model OECA Office of Enforcement and B. What data collection activities were ANPRM advance notice of proposed Compliance Assurance conducted to support this action? rulemaking OHEA Office of Health and Environmental III. Analyses Performed ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Assessment A. Addressing Unregulated Emissions Disease Registry OMB Office of Management and Budget Sources BACT best available control technology PB–HAP hazardous air pollutants known to B. How did we estimate risks posed by the BLDS bag leak detection system be persistent and bio-accumulative in the source category? CAA Clean Air Act environment C. How did we consider the risk results in CBI Confidential Business Information PM particulate matter making decisions for this proposal? CEMS continuous emissions monitoring POM polycyclic organic matter D. How did we perform the technology system ppmv parts per million volume review? CFR Code of Federal Regulations RACT reasonably available control E. What other issues are we addressing in CTE central tendency exposure technology this proposal? D/F dioxins and furans RBLC RACT/BACT/LAERClearinghouse IV. Analyses Results and Proposed Decisions EJ environmental justice REL reference exposure level A. What are the results of our analyses and EPA Environmental Protection Agency RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act proposed decisions regarding ERPG Emergency Response Planning RfC reference concentration unregulated emissions sources? Guidelines RfD reference dose B. What are the results of the risk ERT Electronic Reporting Tool RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis assessments and analyses? HAP hazardous air pollutants C. What are our proposed decisions based HEM–3 Human Exposure Model, Version 3 RME reasonable maximum exposure RTR residual risk and technology review on risk acceptability and ample margin HEPA high efficiency particulate air of safety? HHRAP Human Health Risk Assessment SAB Science Advisory Board SBA Small Business Administration D. What are the results and proposed Protocols decisions based on our technology HI Hazard Index SCC Source Classification Codes review? HON hazardous organic national emissions SF3 2000 Census of Population and E. What other actions are we proposing? standards for hazardous air pollutants Housing Summary F. What is the relationship of the HQ Hazard Quotient SIP State Implementation Plan ICR information collection request SOP standard operating procedures Secondary Lead Smelting standards IRIS Integrated Risk Information System SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction proposed in today’s action and Km kilometer TEF toxic equivalency factors implementation of the lead NAAQS? LAER lowest achievable emissions rate TEQ toxic equivalency quotient G. Compliance Dates lb/yr pounds per year THC total hydrocarbons V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and MACT maximum achievable control TOSHI target organ-specific hazard index Economic Impacts technology TPY tons per year A. What are the affected sources? MACT Code Code within the NEI used to TRIM Total Risk Integrated Modeling B. What are the air quality impacts? identify processes included in a source System C. What are the cost impacts? category TTN Technology Transfer Network D. What are the economic impacts? MDL method detection level UF uncertainty factor E. What are the benefits? mg/acm milligrams per actual cubic meter μ/m3 microgram per cubic meter VI. Request for Comments mg/dscm milligrams per dry standard cubic UL upper limit VII. Submitting Data Corrections meter UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews mg/m3 milligrams per cubic meter UPL upper predictive limit A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory MIR maximum individual risk URE unit risk estimate Planning and Review and Executive MRL minimum risk level VOC volatile organic compounds Order 13563: Improving Regulation and NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality VOHAP volatile organic hazardous air Regulatory Review Standard pollutants B. Paperwork Reduction Act NAC/AEGL Committee National Advisory WESP wet electrostatic precipitator C. Regulatory Flexibility Act Committee for Acute Exposure Guideline WHO World Health Organization D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Levels for Hazardous Substances WWW worldwide Web E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:35 May 18, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19MYP2.SGM 19MYP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 29034 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation conveyance would be inconsistent with subject to certain MACT standards, and Coordination With Indian Tribal law; or (B) the application of whether those emissions standards Governments measurement methodology to a provide an ample margin of safety to G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of particular class of sources is not protect public health. If the MACT Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks practicable due to technological and standards that apply to a source H. Executive Order 13211: Actions economic limitations (CAA sections category emitting a HAP that is Concerning Regulations That 112(h)(1)–(2)). ‘‘classified as a known, probable, or Significantly Affect Energy Supply, The MACT ‘‘floor’’ is the minimum possible human carcinogen do not Distribution, or Use control level allowed for MACT reduce lifetime excess cancer risks to I. National Technology Transfer and standards promulgated under CAA the individual most exposed to Advancement Act section 112(d)(3) and may not be based emissions from a source in the category J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions on cost considerations. For new sources, or subcategory to less than one-in-one To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income the MACT floor cannot be less stringent million,’’ EPA must promulgate residual Populations than the emissions control that is risk standards for the source category (or achieved in practice by the best- subcategory) as necessary to provide an I. General Information controlled similar source. The MACT ample margin of safety to protect public A. What is the statutory authority for floors for existing sources can be less health (CAA section 112(f)(2)(A)). This this action? stringent than floors for new sources, requirement is procedural. It mandates but they cannot be less stringent than that EPA establish CAA section 112(f) Section 112 of the CAA establishes a the average emissions limitation residual risk standards if certain risk two-stage regulatory process to address achieved by the best-performing thresholds are not satisfied, but does not emissions of hazardous air pollutants 12 percent of existing sources in the determine the level of those standards. (HAP) from stationary sources. In the category or subcategory (or the best- NRDC v. EPA, 529 F. 3d at 1083. The first stage, after EPA has identified performing five sources for categories or second sentence of CAA section categories of sources emitting one or subcategories with fewer than 30 112(f)(2) sets out the substantive more of the HAP listed in CAA section sources). In developing MACT requirements for residual risk standards: 112(b), CAA section 112(d) calls for us standards, we must also consider protection of public health with an to promulgate NESHAP for those control options that are more stringent ample margin of safety based on EPA’s ‘‘ ’’ sources. Major sources are those that than the floor. We may establish interpretation of this standard in effect emit or have the potential to emit 10 standards more stringent than the floor at the time of the Clean Air Act tons per year (tpy) or more of a single based on considerations of the cost of amendments. Id. This refers to the HAP or 25 tpy or more of any achieving the emissions reductions, any Benzene NESHAP, described in the next combination of HAP. For major sources, non-air quality health and paragraph. EPA may adopt residual risk these technology-based standards must environmental impacts, and energy standards equal to existing MACT reflect the maximum degree of requirements. standards if EPA determines that the emissions reductions of HAP achievable EPA is then required to review these existing standards are sufficiently (after considering cost, energy technology-based standards and revise protective, even if (for example) excess requirements, and non-air quality health them ‘‘as necessary (taking into account cancer risks to a most exposed and environmental impacts) and are developments in practices, processes, individual are not reduced to less than commonly referred to as maximum and control technologies)’’ no less one-in-one million. Id. at 1083, (‘‘If EPA achievable control technology (MACT) frequently than every 8 years, under determines that the existing technology- standards. CAA section 112(d)(6). In conducting based standards provide an ‘ample MACT standards must require the this review, EPA is not obliged to margin of safety,’ then the Agency is maximum degree of emissions reduction completely recalculate the prior MACT free to readopt those standards during through the application of measures, determination, and, in particular, is not the residual risk rulemaking’’). Section processes, methods, systems, or obligated to recalculate the MACT 112(f)(2) of the CAA further authorizes techniques, including, but not limited floors. NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, EPA to adopt more stringent standards, to, measures that (A) reduce the volume 1084 (DC Cir., 2008). if necessary ‘‘to prevent, taking into of or eliminate pollutants through The second stage in standard-setting consideration costs, energy, safety, and process changes, substitution of focuses on reducing any remaining other relevant factors, an adverse materials or other modifications; (B) ‘‘ ’’ residual risk according to CAA section environmental effect.’’ 1 enclose systems or processes to 112(f). This provision requires, first, that As just noted, CAA section 112(f)(2) eliminate emissions; (C) capture or treat EPA prepare a Report to Congress expressly preserves our use of the two- pollutants when released from a discussing (among other things) step process for developing standards to process, stack, storage, or fugitive methods of calculating the risks posed address any residual risk and our emissions point; (D) are design, (or potentially posed) by sources after interpretation of ‘‘ample margin of equipment, work practice, or implementation of the MACT standards, safety’’ developed in the National operational standards (including the public health significance of those Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air requirements for operator training or risks, and EPA’s recommendations as to Pollutants: Benzene Emissions From certification); or (E) are a combination of legislation regarding such remaining Maleic Anhydride Plants, Ethylbenzene/ the above (CAA section 112(d)(2)(A)– risk. EPA prepared and submitted this Styrene Plants, Benzene Storage Vessels, (E)). The MACT standards may take the report (Residual Risk Report to form of design, equipment, work Congress, EPA–453/R–99–001) in March 1 ‘‘Adverse environmental effect’’ is defined in practice, or operational standards where 1999. Congress did not act in response CAA section 112(a)(7) as any significant and EPA first determines either that, (A) a to the report, thereby triggering EPA’s widespread adverse effect, which may be pollutant cannot be emitted through a obligation under CAA section 112(f)(2) reasonably anticipated to wildlife, aquatic life, or natural resources, including adverse impacts on conveyance designed and constructed to to analyze and address residual risk. populations of endangered or threatened species or emit or capture the pollutants, or that Section 112(f)(2) of the CAA requires significant degradation of environmental qualities any requirement for, or use of, such a us to determine, for source categories over broad areas.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:40 May 18, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19MYP2.SGM 19MYP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 29035

Benzene Equipment Leaks, and Coke acceptability.’’ As explained more fully science policy assumptions and By-Product Recovery Plants (Benzene in our Residual Risk Report to Congress, estimation uncertainties associated with NESHAP) (54 FR 38044, September 14, EPA does not define ‘‘rigid line[s] of the risk measures, weight of the 1989). The first step in this process is acceptability,’’ but rather considers scientific evidence for human health the determination of acceptable risk. broad objectives to be weighed with a effects, other quantified or unquantified The second step provides for an ample series of other health measures and health effects, effects due to co-location margin of safety to protect public health, factors (EPA–453/R–99–001, p. ES–11). of facilities, and co-emissions of which is the level at which the The determination of what represents an pollutants.’’ Id. standards are set (unless a more ‘‘acceptable’’ risk is based on a judgment In some cases, these health measures stringent standard is necessary to of ‘‘what risks are acceptable in the and factors taken together may provide prevent, taking into consideration costs, world in which we live’’ (Residual Risk a more realistic description of the energy, safety, and other relevant Report to Congress, p. 178, quoting the magnitude of risk in the exposed factors, an adverse environmental DC Circuit’s en banc Vinyl Chloride population than that provided by effect). decision at 824 F.2d 1165) recognizing maximum individual lifetime cancer The terms ‘‘individual most exposed,’’ that our world is not risk-free. risk alone. As explained in the Benzene ‘‘acceptable level,’’ and ‘‘ample margin of In the Benzene NESHAP, we stated NESHAP, ‘‘[e]ven though the risks safety’’ are not specifically defined in that ‘‘EPA will generally presume that if judged ‘acceptable’ by EPA in the first the CAA. However, CAA section the risk to [the maximum exposed] step of the Vinyl Chloride inquiry are 112(f)(2)(B) preserves EPA’s individual is no higher than already low, the second step of the interpretation set out in the Benzene approximately 1-in-10 thousand, that inquiry, determining an ‘ample margin NESHAP, and the court in NRDC v. EPA risk level is considered acceptable.’’ 54 of safety,’ again includes consideration concluded that EPA’s interpretation of FR 38045. We discussed the maximum of all of the health factors, and whether CAA section 112(f)(2) is a reasonable individual lifetime cancer risk as being to reduce the risks even further.’’ In the one. See NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d at 1083 ‘‘the estimated risk that a person living ample margin of safety decision process, (DC Cir. 2008), which says ‘‘[S]ubsection near a plant would have if he or she the Agency again considers all of the 112(f)(2)(B) expressly incorporates were exposed to the maximum pollutant health risks and other health EPA’s interpretation of the Clean Air concentrations for 70 years.’’ Id. We information considered in the first step. Act from the Benzene standard, explained that this measure of risk ‘‘is Beyond that information, additional complete with a citation to the Federal an estimate of the upper bound of risk factors relating to the appropriate level Register.’’ See also, A Legislative History based on conservative assumptions, of control will also be considered, of the Clean Air Act Amendments of such as continuous exposure for 24 including costs and economic impacts 1990, volume 1, p. 877 (Senate debate hours per day for 70 years.’’ Id. We of controls, technological feasibility, on Conference Report). We also notified acknowledge that maximum individual uncertainties, and any other relevant Congress in the Residual Risk Report to lifetime cancer risk ‘‘does not factors. Considering all of these factors, Congress that we intended to use the necessarily reflect the true risk, but the Agency will establish the standard Benzene NESHAP approach in making displays a conservative risk level which at a level that provides an ample margin CAA section 112(f) residual risk is an upper-bound that is unlikely to be of safety to protect the public health, as determinations (EPA–453/R–99–001, p. exceeded.’’ Id. required by CAA section 112(f) (54 FR ES–11). Understanding that there are both 38046). In the Benzene NESHAP, we stated as benefits and limitations to using B. Does this action apply to me? an overall objective: maximum individual lifetime cancer risk as a metric for determining The regulated industrial source * * * in protecting public health with an acceptability, we acknowledged in the category that is the subject of this ample margin of safety, we strive to provide 1989 Benzene NESHAP that maximum feasible protection against risks to proposal is listed in Table 2 of this health from hazardous air pollutants by (1) ‘‘consideration of maximum individual preamble. Table 2 of this preamble is protecting the greatest number of persons risk * * * must take into account the not intended to be exhaustive, but rather possible to an individual lifetime risk level strengths and weaknesses of this provides a guide for readers regarding no higher than approximately 1-in-1 million; measure of risk.’’ Id. Consequently, the the entities likely to be affected by this and (2) limiting to no higher than presumptive risk level of 100-in-1 proposed action. These standards, once approximately 1-in-10 thousand [i.e., 100-in- million (1-in-10 thousand) provides a finalized, will be directly applicable to 1 million] the estimated risk that a person benchmark for judging the acceptability affected sources. Federal, State, local, living near a facility would have if he or she of maximum individual lifetime cancer and Tribal government entities are not were exposed to the maximum pollutant risk, but does not constitute a rigid line concentrations for 70 years. affected by this proposed action. As for making that determination. defined in the source category listing ‘‘ The Agency also stated that, The EPA The Agency also explained in the report published by EPA in 1992, the also considers incidence (the number of 1989 Benzene NESHAP the following: Secondary Lead Smelting source ‘‘ persons estimated to suffer cancer or In establishing a presumption for MIR category is defined as any facility at other serious health effects as a result of [maximum individual cancer risk], which lead-bearing scrap materials exposure to a pollutant) to be an rather than a rigid line for acceptability, (including, but not limited to lead acid important measure of the health risk to the Agency intends to weigh it with a batteries) are recycled by smelting into the exposed population. Incidence series of other health measures and elemental lead or lead alloys.2 For measures the extent of health risks to factors. These include the overall clarification purposes, all references to the exposed population as a whole, by incidence of cancer or other serious lead emissions in this preamble mean providing an estimate of the occurrence health effects within the exposed ‘‘lead compounds’’ (which is a listed of cancer or other serious health effects population, the numbers of persons HAP) and all references to lead in the exposed population.’’ The Agency exposed within each individual lifetime ‘‘ went on to conclude that estimated risk range and associated incidence 2 USEPA. Documentation for Developing the incidence would be weighed along with within, typically, a 50-kilometer (km) Initial Source Category List—Final Report, USEPA/ other health risk information in judging exposure radius around facilities, the OAQPS, EPA–450/3–91–030, July, 1992.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:40 May 18, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19MYP2.SGM 19MYP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 29036 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules

production mean elemental lead (which is not a listed HAP as provided under is not a listed HAP as provided under CAA section 112(b)(7)). CAA section 112(b)(7)).

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 deliver information identified as CBI furnaces. The HAP in process emissions document and other related only to the following address: Roberto are primarily composed of metals information? Morales, OAQPS Document Control (mostly lead compounds, but also some In addition to being available in the Officer (C404–02), Office of Air Quality arsenic, cadmium, and other metals) docket, an electronic copy of this Planning and Standards, U.S. and also may include organic proposal will also be available on the Environmental Protection Agency, compounds that result from incomplete World Wide Web (WWW) through the Research Triangle Park, North Carolina combustion of coke that is charged to EPA’s Technology Transfer Network 27711, Attention Docket ID Number the smelting furnaces as a fuel or fluxing (TTN). Following signature by the EPA EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0344. agent or from fuel natural gas and/or small amounts of plastics or other Administrator, a copy of this proposed II. Background action will be posted on the TTN’s materials that get fed into the furnaces policy and guidance page for newly A. Overview of the Source Category and along with the lead bearing materials. proposed or promulgated rules at the MACT Standards Process fugitive emissions occur at following address: http://www.epa.gov/ The NESHAP (or MACT rule) for the various points during the smelting ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. The TTN Secondary Lead Smelting source process (such as during charging and provides information and technology category was promulgated on June 13, tapping of furnaces) and are composed exchange in various areas of air 1997 (62 FR 32216) and codified at 40 primarily of metal HAP. Fugitive dust pollution control. CFR part 63, subpart X. As promulgated emissions result from the entrainment of Additional information is available on in 1997, the NESHAP applies to affected HAP in ambient air due to material the residual risk and technology review sources of HAP emissions at secondary handling, vehicle traffic, wind erosion (RTR) Web page at: http://www.epa.gov/ lead smelters. The 1997 NESHAP (40 from storage piles, and other various ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. This CFR 63.542) defines ‘‘secondary lead activities. Fugitive dust emissions are information includes source category smelters’’ as ‘‘any facility at which lead- composed of metal HAP only. descriptions and detailed emissions bearing scrap material, primarily, but The MACT rule applies to process estimates and other data that were used not limited to, lead-acid batteries, is emissions from blast, reverberatory, as inputs to the risk assessments. recycled into elemental lead or lead rotary, and electric smelting furnaces, alloys by smelting.’’ The MACT rule for agglomerating furnaces, and dryers; D. What should I consider as I prepare process fugitive emissions from my comments for EPA? the Secondary Lead Smelting source category does not apply to primary lead smelting furnace charging points, Submitting CBI. Do not submit smelters, lead remelters, or lead refiners. smelting furnace lead and slag taps, information containing CBI to EPA Today, there are 14 secondary lead refining kettles, agglomerating furnace through http://www.regulations.gov or smelting facilities that are subject to the product taps, and dryer transition e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of MACT rule. No new secondary lead pieces; and fugitive dust emissions the information that you claim to be smelters have been built in the last sources such as roadways, battery CBI. For CBI information on a disk or 20 years, and we anticipate no new breaking areas, furnace charging and CD–ROM that you mail to EPA, mark secondary lead smelting facilities in the tapping areas, refining and casting areas, the outside of the disk or CD–ROMas foreseeable future, although there is one and material storage areas. For process CBI and then identify electronically facility currently in the process of sources, the NESHAP specifies within the disk or CD–ROMthe specific expanding operations. numerical emissions limits for lead information that is claimed as CBI. In Lead is used to make various compounds (as a surrogate for metal addition to one complete version of the construction, medical, industrial and HAP) for the following types of smelting comment that includes information consumer products such as batteries, furnaces: (1) Collocated reverberatory claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment glass, x-ray protection gear and various and blast furnaces (reverberatory/blast), that does not contain the information fillers. The secondary lead smelting (2) blast furnaces, and (3) reverberatory claimed as CBI must be submitted for process consists of: (1) Pre-processing of furnaces not collocated with blast inclusion in the public docket. If you lead bearing materials, (2) melting lead furnaces, rotary furnaces, and electric submit a CD–ROMor disk that does not metal and reducing lead compounds to furnaces. Lead compound emissions contain CBI, mark the outside of the lead metal in the smelting furnace, and from all smelting furnace configurations disk or CD–ROMclearly that it does not (3) refining and alloying the lead to are limited to an outlet concentration of contain CBI. Information not marked as customer specifications. 2.0 milligrams per dry standard cubic CBI will be included in the public HAP are emitted from secondary lead meter (mg/dscm) (0.00087 grains per dry docket and EPA’s electronic public smelting as process emissions, process standard cubic foot (gr/dscf)), 40 CFR docket without prior notice. Information fugitive emissions, and fugitive dust 63.543(a). Total hydrocarbon (THC) marked as CBI will not be disclosed emissions. Process emissions are the emissions (as a surrogate for organic except in accordance with procedures exhaust gases from feed dryers and from HAP) from existing and new collocated set forth in 40 CFR part 2. Send or blast, reverberatory, rotary, and electric reverberatory/blast furnace

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:40 May 18, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19MYP2.SGM 19MYP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 29037

configurations are limited to an outlet submit reports for any emissions tests arsenic, cadmium, lead) in terms of a concentration of 20 parts per million conducted in 2003 or later. We received lead emissions limit (i.e., lead is used as volume (ppmv) (expressed as propane) lead emissions test data from all 14 a surrogate for metal HAP). There is no corrected to 4 percent carbon dioxide facilities with some facilities submitting explicit standard for mercury and we (CO2) to account for dilution. THC data for multiple years. Additionally, are therefore proposing a standard emissions are limited to 360 ppmv (as EPA requested that eight facilities pursuant to section 112 (as described propane) at 4 percent CO2 from existing conduct additional emissions tests in further in section IV.A of this preamble). blast furnaces and 70 ppmv (as propane) 2010 for certain HAP from specific 3. Dioxins and Furans at 4 percent CO2 from new blast processes that were considered furnaces (40 CFR 63.543(c)). The representative of the industry. Lastly, with regard to dioxin and NESHAP does not specify emissions Pollutants tested included most HAP furan emissions, because the 1997 limits for THC emissions from metals, dioxins and furans, and certain NESHAP did not include emissions reverberatory furnaces not collocated organic HAP. The results of these tests limits, we are proposing emissions with blast furnaces, rotary furnaces, and were submitted to EPA in the fall of standards for dioxins and furans electric furnaces. 2010 and are available in the docket for pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(3). We The 1997 NESHAP requires that this action. are also proposing work practices for process fugitive emissions sources be dioxins and furans. III. Analyses Performed equipped with an enclosure hood B. How did we estimate risks posed by meeting minimum face velocity In this section we describe the the source category? requirements or be located in a total analyses performed to support the enclosure subject to general ventilation proposed decisions for the RTR for this EPA conducted a risk assessment that that maintains the building at negative source category. provided estimates of the maximum pressure (40 CFR 63.543(b)). Ventilation individual cancer risk (MIR) posed by air from the enclosure hoods and total A. Addressing Unregulated Emissions the HAP emissions from the 14 sources enclosures is required to be conveyed to Sources in the source category, the distribution a control device. Lead emissions from In the course of evaluating the of cancer risks within the exposed these control devices are limited to 2.0 Secondary Lead Smelting source populations, total cancer incidence, mg/dscm (0.00087 gr/dscf) (40 CFR category, we identified certain HAP for estimates of the maximum target organ- 63.544(c)). Lead emissions for all dryer which we failed to establish emission specific hazard index (TOSHI) for emissions vents and agglomerating standards in the original MACT. See chronic exposures to HAP with the furnace vents are limited to 2.0 mg/ National Lime v. EPA, 233 F. 3d 625, potential to cause chronic non-cancer dscm (0.00087 gr/dscf) (40 CFR 634 (DC Cir. 2000) (EPA has ‘‘clear health effects, worst-case screening 63.544(d)). The 1997 NESHAP also statutory obligation to set emissions estimates of hazard quotients (HQ) for requires the use of bag leak detection standards for each listed HAP’’). acute exposures to HAP with the systems (BLDS) for continuous Specifically, we evaluated emissions potential to cause non-cancer health monitoring of baghouses in cases where standards for three HAP (or groups of effects, and an evaluation of the a high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) HAP), described below, that are not potential for adverse environmental filter was not used in series with a specifically regulated in the existing effects. In June of 2009, the EPA’s baghouse (40 CFR 63.548(c)(9)). 1997 MACT standard, or are only Science Advisory Board (SAB) For fugitive dust sources, as defined regulated for certain emissions points. conducted a formal peer review of our in 40 CFR 63.545, the 1997 NESHAP As described below, for two of these risk assessment methodologies in its requires that the smelting process and groups of HAP (i.e., organic HAP and review of the document entitled, ‘‘Risk all control devices be operated at all dioxins and furans) we are proposing and Technology Review (RTR) 3 times according to a standard operating emissions limits pursuant to 112(d)(2) Assessment Methodologies’’. We procedures (SOP) manual developed by and 112(d)(3). For the other HAP received the final SAB report on this 4 the facility. The SOP manual is required (mercury compounds), we are proposing review in May of 2010. Where to describe, in detail, the measures used standards based on work practices appropriate, we have responded to the to control fugitive dust emissions from pursuant to 112(h). The results and key messages from this review in plant roadways, battery breaking areas, proposed decisions based on the developing the current risk assessment; furnace areas, refining and casting areas, analyses performed pursuant to CAA we will be continuing our efforts to and material storage and handling areas. section 112(d)(2), 112(d)(3), and 112(h) improve our assessments by incorporating updates based on the SAB B. What data collection activities were are presented in Section IV.A of this preamble. recommendations as they are developed conducted to support this action? and become available. The risk In June 2010, EPA issued an 1. Organic HAP assessment consisted of seven primary information collection request (ICR), EPA did not establish standards for steps, as discussed below. pursuant to CAA section 114, to six organic HAP emitted from reverberatory The docket for this rulemaking companies that own and operate the 14 furnaces not collocated with blast contains the following document, which secondary lead smelting facilities. The furnaces, rotary furnaces, and electric provides more information on the risk ICR requested available information furnaces in the 1997 NESHAP. EPA is regarding process equipment, control therefore proposing to set emissions 3 U.S. EPA, 2009. Risk and Technology Review devices, point and fugitive emissions, (RTR) Risk Assessment Methodologies: For Review limits for organic HAP emissions from by the EPA’s Science Advisory Board with Case practices used to control fugitive these furnace configurations in today’s Studies—MACT I Petroleum Refining Sources and emissions, and other aspects of facility action based on emissions data received Portland Cement Manufacturing. EPA–452/R–09– operations. The six companies in response to the ICR. 006. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. completed the surveys for their facilities 4 U.S. EPA, 2010. SAB’s Response to EPA’s RTR 2. Mercury Risk Assessment Methodologies. http:// and submitted the responses to us in the yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/ fall of 2010. In addition to the ICR The 1997 NESHAP specified 4AB3966E263D943A8525771F00668381/$File/EPA- survey, each facility was asked to emissions limits for metal HAP (e.g., SAB-10-007-unsigned.pdf.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:40 May 18, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19MYP2.SGM 19MYP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 29038 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules

assessment inputs and models: Draft various significant uncertainties. For technical document (Draft Development Residual Risk Assessment for the example, five facilities did not provide of the RTR Emissions Dataset for the Secondary Lead Smelting Source any estimates of fugitive emissions, Secondary Lead Smelting Source Category. while a few other facilities provided Category) which is available in the emissions estimates that were quite docket for this action. We are seeking 1. Establishing the Nature and comments on our emissions data and Magnitude of Actual Emissions and incomplete. Thus, we developed estimates, and the fugitive emissions Identifying the Emissions Release estimates of fugitive emissions for all estimation methodologies and any other Characteristics facilities in the source category based on a methodology described in the potential appropriate methods or data For each facility in the Secondary emissions development technical that could be used to estimate fugitive Lead Smelting source category, we document (Draft Development of the emissions from these facilities. compiled an emissions profile RTR Emissions Dataset for the 2. Establishing the Relationship (including emissions estimates, stack Secondary Lead Smelting Source parameters, and location data) based on Between Actual Emissions and MACT– Category) for this rulemaking, which is Allowable Emissions Levels the information provided by the available in the docket. In this industry in the ICR, the emissions test methodology, we began with estimates The emissions data in our data set are data, various calculations, and the NEI. provided by one facility in the ICR estimates of actual emissions on an The site-specific emissions profiles which were well-documented and annual basis for stacks and fugitives for include annual estimates of process, covered all the various fugitive the 2008–2010 timeframe. With most process fugitive, and fugitive dust emissions sources expected at these source categories, we generally find that emissions for the 2008–2010 timeframe, facilities. Using the ICR responses, other ‘‘actual’’ emissions levels are lower than as well as emissions release available information on fugitive the emissions levels that a facility is characteristics such as emissions release emissions (including scientific allowed to emit under the MACT height, temperature, velocity, and literature), and various assumptions and standards. The emissions levels allowed location coordinates. calculations, we scaled these estimates to be emitted by the MACT standards The primary risk assessment is based ‘‘ ’’ to derive site-specific fugitive emissions are referred to as the MACT-allowable on estimates of the actual emissions estimates at each of the other 13 emissions levels. This represents the (though we also analyzed allowable facilities. The estimates calculated using highest emissions level that could be emissions and the potential risks due to emitted by facilities without violating this methodology were used as inputs to allowable emissions). We received a the MACT standards. the risk assessment modeling. substantial amount of emissions test As we have discussed in prior data and other information that enabled The results of the risk assessment residual risk and technology review us to derive estimates of stack emissions modeling (which are described further rules, assessing the risks at the MACT- of certain HAP for all of the facilities. in section IV below) indicated that the allowable level is inherently reasonable However, we did not have test data for fugitive dust emissions were the largest since these risks reflect the maximum all pollutants at all emissions points. contributor to the risks due to lead level at which sources could emit while Therefore, we estimated emissions of emissions. The impacts of fugitive still complying with the MACT some pollutants from certain emissions emissions were generally considerably standards. However, we also explained points (for which we had no emissions greater than the impacts due to stack that it is reasonable to consider actual data) using test data from similar source emissions. Because of these impacts, emissions, where such data are types with similar controls. and because of the difficulties and available, in both steps of the risk With regard to fugitive emissions, uncertainties associated with estimating analysis, in accordance with the because they cannot be readily captured fugitive emissions, we decided to do Benzene NESHAP (54 FR 38044, or directly measured, fugitive emissions further analyses and review of the September 14, 1989). It is reasonable to are a more challenging emissions type to fugitive emissions estimates as a quality consider actual emissions because estimate. In 2010, as part of an assurance check on the initial fugitive sources typically seek to perform better information collection request (ICR), emissions estimates. Therefore, we than required by emissions standards to EPA asked the Secondary Lead industry consulted further with industry provide an operational cushion to to provide their best estimate of the representatives, gathered additional accommodate the variability in emissions from fugitive sources (e.g., information from the EPA’s Toxics manufacturing processes and control building openings, raw material storage Release Inventory, evaluated the ICR device performance. Facilities’ actual piles, roadways, parking areas) at their responses further, and performed emissions may also be significantly facilities and to provide a description of various other analyses, which led to the lower than MACT-allowable emissions the basis for the estimates (e.g., test data, development of an alternative set of for other reasons such as State emissions factors, mass balance fugitive emissions estimates based on a requirements, better performance of calculations, engineering judgment). For slightly different methodology. The total control devices than required by the our analysis of fugitive emissions for the fugitive estimates of lead for the MACT standards, or reduced source category, we first reviewed and industry calculated based on the production. evaluated the estimates of fugitive lead alternative approach are within For the Secondary Lead Smelting emissions that were submitted by each 10 percent of our initial estimates. We source category, we evaluated actual of the facilities in response to the 2010 did not rerun the model with the and allowable emissions for both stack ICR to determine the reliability and alternative estimates because we know emissions and fugitive dust emissions. appropriateness of those estimates as an that the overall results would be quite As described earlier in this section, the input to our risk analyses and other similar and would not change our actual emissions data for this source assessments. We concluded that there overall conclusions and decisions category were compiled based on the were significant gaps and incomplete (described later in this notice). Further ICR responses, available test data, documentation for a number of details on all the emissions data, various calculations, and the NEI. We facilities, a large amount of variability in calculations, estimates, and estimated actual emissions for all HAP estimates between the facilities, and uncertainties, are in the emissions that we identified in the dataset. The

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:40 May 18, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19MYP2.SGM 19MYP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 29039

analysis of allowable emissions was were applied to stack emissions while census library includes the elevation largely focused on lead compound leaving fugitive dust emissions at actual and controlling hill height, which are emissions, which we considered the levels since, as described above, actual also used in dispersion calculations. A most important HAP emitted from this fugitive dust emissions were assumed to third library of pollutant unit risk source category based on our screening be equal to allowable fugitive dust factors and other health benchmarks is level risk assessment and the HAP for emissions. The estimates of MACT- used to estimate health risks. These risk which we had the most data. However, allowable emissions are described factors and health benchmarks are the we also considered allowable emissions further in the technical document: Draft latest values recommended by EPA for for other HAP. Development of the RTR Emissions HAP and other toxic air pollutants. With regard to fugitive emissions, Dataset for the Secondary Lead These values are available at http:// because there are no numerical Smelting Source Category. The www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/toxsource/ emissions limits, and because all estimates of risks due to allowable summary.html and are discussed in facilities are required to implement emissions are summarized in Section more detail later in this section. identical fugitive emissions control IV.B of this preamble and described In developing the risk assessment for work-practices, we assume that the further in the draft risk report: Draft chronic exposures, we used the allowable fugitive emissions from this Residual Risk Assessment for the estimated annual average ambient air source category are equal to the actual Secondary Lead Smelting Source concentrations of each of the HAP emissions. Category. emitted by each source for which we To estimate emissions at the MACT- have emissions data in the source allowable level from stacks (e.g., 3. Conducting Dispersion Modeling, category. The air concentrations at each process, process fugitive, and building Determining Inhalation Exposures, and nearby census block centroid were used vents), we estimated the emissions that Estimating Individual and Population as a surrogate for the chronic inhalation would occur if facilities were Inhalation Risks exposure concentration for all the continuously emitting lead at the Both long-term and short-term people who reside in that census block. maximum allowed by the existing inhalation exposure concentrations and We calculated the MIR for the facilities MACT standard (i.e., 2.0 mg/dscm) from health risks from the source category as the cancer risk associated with a all vents. We then compared these addressed in this proposal were lifetime (70-year period) of exposure to estimated allowable emissions to the estimated using the Human Exposure the maximum concentration at the estimated emissions using the actual Model (Community and Sector HEM–3 centroid of inhabited census blocks. stack test data for each facility. We version 1.1.0). The HEM–3 performs Individual cancer risks were calculated realize that these estimates of allowable three of the primary risk assessment by multiplying the estimated lifetime emissions are theoretical high-end activities listed above: (1) Conducting exposure to the ambient concentration estimates as facilities must maintain dispersion modeling to estimate the of each of the HAP (in micrograms per average emissions levels at some level concentrations of HAP in ambient air, cubic meter) by its unit risk estimate below the MACT limit to ensure (2) estimating long-term and short-term (URE), which is an upper bound compliance with the standard at all inhalation exposures to individuals estimate of an individual’s probability times because of the day-to-day residing within 50 km of the modeled of contracting cancer over a lifetime of variability in emissions. Nevertheless, sources, and (3) estimating individual exposure to a concentration of 1 these high-end estimates of allowable and population-level inhalation risks microgram of the pollutant per cubic emissions were adequate for us to using the exposure estimates and meter of air. In general, for residual risk estimate the magnitude of allowable quantitative dose-response information. assessments, we use URE values from emissions and the differences between The dispersion model used by HEM– EPA’s Integrated Risk Information the estimates of actual emissions and 3 is AERMOD, which is one of EPA’s System (IRIS). For carcinogenic the MACT allowable emissions. preferred models for assessing pollutant pollutants without EPA IRIS values, we Based on this analysis, we conclude concentrations from industrial look to other reputable sources of cancer that all facilities are emitting lead at facilities.5 To perform the dispersion dose-response values, often using levels lower than allowable; however, modeling and to develop the California Environmental Protection the range of differences between actual preliminary risk estimates, HEM–3 Agency (CalEPA) URE values, where and allowable is significant. For two draws on three data libraries. The first available. In cases where new, facilities, the estimated actual emissions is a library of meteorological data, scientifically credible dose response were only moderately lower than which is used for dispersion values have been developed in a manner allowable (about 2–3 times lower). The calculations. This library includes 1 consistent with EPA guidelines and majority of other facilities have year of hourly surface and upper air have undergone a peer review process estimated actual emissions in the range observations for 130 meteorological similar to that used by EPA, we may use of 10 to 100 times lower than allowable. stations, selected to provide coverage of such dose-response values in place of, Finally, one facility, which has highly the United States and Puerto Rico. A or in addition to, other values, if advanced controls, has estimated actual second library, of United States Census appropriate. For this review, URE values emissions of about 1,500 times below Bureau census block 6 internal point and their sources (e.g., IRIS, CalEPA) the MACT allowable emissions level. locations and populations, provides the can be found in Table 2.6–1(a) in the We then developed a ratio of MACT- basis of human exposure calculations risk assessment document entitled, allowable to actual emissions for each based on the year 2000 U.S. Census. In Draft Residual Risk Assessment for the facility in the source category. After addition, for each census block, the Secondary Lead Smelting Source developing these ratios, we applied Category, which is available in the them on a facility-by-facility basis to the 5 U.S. EPA. Revision to the Guideline on Air docket for this proposed rulemaking. maximum modeled ambient lead Quality Models: Adoption of a Preferred General Incremental individual lifetime concentrations to estimate the Purpose (Flat and Complex Terrain) Dispersion cancer risks associated with emissions Model and Other Revisions (70 FR 68218, maximum ambient concentrations that November 9, 2005). from the 14 facilities in the source would occur if all stacks were emitting 6 A census block is the smallest geographic area category were estimated as the sum of at maximum allowable levels. The ratios for which census statistics are tabulated. the risks for each of the carcinogenic

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:40 May 18, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19MYP2.SGM 19MYP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 29040 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules

HAP (including those classified as values include REL, Acute Exposure categories that the maximum one-hour carcinogenic to humans, likely to be Guideline Levels (AEGL), and emissions rate from any source other carcinogenic to humans, and suggestive Emergency Response Planning than those resulting in fugitive dust evidence of carcinogenic potential 7) Guidelines (ERPG) for 1-hour exposure emissions are 10 times the average emitted by the modeled source. Cancer durations. Notably, for HAP emitted annual hourly emissions rate for that incidence and the distribution of from this source category, REL values source. We use a factor other than 10 in individual cancer risks for the were the only such dose-response some cases if we have information that population within 50 km of the sources values available. As discussed below, indicates that a different factor is were also estimated for the source we used conservative assumptions for appropriate for a particular source category as part of these assessments by emissions rates, meteorology, and category. Moreover, the factor of 10 is summing individual risks. A distance of exposure location for our acute analysis. not applied to fugitive dust sources 50 km is consistent with both the As described in the CalEPA’s Air because these emissions are minimized analysis supporting the 1989 Benzene Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk during the meteorological conditions NESHAP (54 FR 38044) and the Assessment Guidelines, Part I, The associated with the worst-case short- limitations of Gaussian dispersion Determination of Acute Reference term impacts (i.e., during low-wind, models, including AERMOD. Exposure Levels for Airborne Toxicants, stable atmospheric conditions) in these To assess the risk of non-cancer an acute REL value (http:// acute exposure screening assessments. health effects from chronic exposures, www.oehha.ca.gov/air/pdf/acuterel.pdf) In cases where all worst-case acute we summed the HQ for each of the HAP is defined as ‘‘the concentration level at HQ values from the screening step were that affects a common target organ or below which no adverse health less than or equal to 1, acute impacts system to obtain the HI for that target effects are anticipated for a specified were deemed negligible and no further organ system (or target organ-specific exposure duration.’’ REL values are analysis was performed. In the cases HI, TOSHI). The HQ is the estimated based on the most sensitive, relevant, where any worst-case acute HQ from the exposure divided by the chronic adverse health effect reported in the screening step was greater than 1, reference value, which is either the EPA medical and toxicological literature. additional site-specific data were RfC, defined as ‘‘an estimate (with REL values are designed to protect the considered to develop a more refined uncertainty spanning perhaps an order most sensitive individuals in the estimate of the potential for acute of magnitude) of a continuous population by the inclusion of margins impacts of concern. Ideally, we would inhalation exposure to the human of safety. Since margins of safety are prefer to have continuous measurements population (including sensitive incorporated to address data gaps and over time to see how the emissions vary subgroups) that is likely to be without uncertainties, exceeding the REL does by each hour over an entire year. Having an appreciable risk of deleterious effects not automatically indicate an adverse a frequency distribution of hourly during a lifetime,’’ or, in cases where an health impact. emissions rates over a year would allow RfC is not available, the Agency for To develop screening estimates of us to perform a probabilistic analysis to Toxic Substances and Disease Registry acute exposures, we first developed estimate potential threshold (ATSDR) chronic Minimal Risk Level estimates of maximum hourly emissions exceedances and their frequency of (MRL) or the CalEPA Chronic Reference rates by multiplying the average actual occurrence. Such an evaluation could Exposure Level (REL). Notably, the REL annual hourly emissions rates by a include a more complete statistical is defined as ‘‘the concentration level at factor to cover routinely variable treatment of the key parameters and or below which no adverse health emissions. We chose the factor to use elements adopted in this screening effects are anticipated for a specified based on process knowledge and analysis. However, we recognize that exposure duration.’’ engineering judgment and with having this level of data is rare, hence Worst-case screening estimates of awareness of a Texas study of short-term our use of the multiplier (i.e., factor of acute exposures and risks were also emissions variability, which showed 10) approach in our screening analysis. evaluated for each of the HAP at the that most peak emissions events, in a In the case of this source category, we point of highest off-site exposure for heavily-industrialized 4-county area had no further information on peak-to- each facility (i.e., not just the census (Harris, Galveston, Chambers, and mean emissions which could be used to block centroids) assuming that a person Brazoria Counties, Texas) were less than refine the estimates. The only was located at this spot at a time when twice the annual average hourly refinement that was made to the acute both the peak (hourly) emissions rate emissions rate. The highest peak screening assessments was to ensure and worst-case hourly dispersion emissions event was 74 times the that the estimated worst-case HQ was conditions occurred. In general, acute annual average hourly emissions rate, not calculated at a location within the HQ values were calculated using best and the 99th percentile ratio of peak facility boundaries. available, short-term dose-response hourly emissions rate to the annual values. These acute dose-response 4. Conducting Multipathway Exposure average hourly emissions rate was 9.8 and Risk Modeling This analysis is provided in Appendix 7 EPA evaluated the potential for These classifications also coincide with the 4 of the Draft Residual Risk Assessment terms ‘‘known carcinogen, probable carcinogen, and significant human health risks due to for Secondary Lead Smelting that is possible carcinogen,’’ respectively, which are the exposures via routes other than terms advocated in the EPA’s previous Guidelines available in the docket for this action. inhalation (i.e., multipathway for Carcinogen Risk Assessment, published in 1986 Considering this analysis, unless (51 FR 33992, September 24, 1986). Summing the exposures) and the potential for adverse specific process knowledge or data are risks of these individual compounds to obtain the environmental impacts in a three-step available to provide an alternate value, cumulative cancer risks is an approach that was process. In the first step, we determined recommended by the EPA’s Science Advisory Board to account for more than 99 percent of whether any facilities emitted any HAP (SAB) in their 2002 peer review of EPA’s NATA the peak hourly emissions, we generally entitled, NATA—Evaluating the National-scale Air known to be persistent and bio- apply the assumption to most source Toxics Assessment 1996 Data—an SAB Advisory, accumulative in the environment available at: http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/ sabproduct.nsf/ 8 See http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/compliance/ (PB–HAP). There are 14 PB–HAP 214C6E915BB04E14852570CA007A682C/$File/ field_ops/eer/index.html or docket to access the compounds or compound classes ecadv02001.pdf. source of these data. identified for this screening in EPA’s Air

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:40 May 18, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19MYP2.SGM 19MYP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 29041

Toxics Risk Assessment Library document for a complete discussion of freshwater lakes in the vicinity of a PB– (available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ the development and testing of the HAP source. In the fishing scenario, in fera/risk_atra_vol1.html). screening scenario, as well as for the addition to the characterization of Emissions of five PB–HAP were values of facility-level de minimis exposure and risks across the broad identified in the emissions dataset for emissions rates developed for screening population of recreational anglers, the Secondary Lead Smelting source potentially significant multipathway exposures were also calculated for three category, as follows: Lead compounds, impacts. For the purpose of developing subpopulations of recreational anglers cadmium compounds, POM, dioxin and de minimis emissions rates for our (Hispanic, Laotian, and Vietnamese furans, and mercury.9 The dataset is multipathway screening, we derived descent) who have higher rates of fish described in the emissions technical emissions levels at which the maximum consumption.10 Furthermore, in order to document (Draft Development of the human health risk could be 1-in-1 more fully characterize the modeled RTR Emissions Dataset for the million for lifetime cancer risk, or potential multipathway risks that may Secondary Lead Smelting Source exposures could potentially be above be associated with high-end Category) which is available in the the reference dose for non-cancer consumption of PB–HAP contaminated docket for this action. As described in effects, based on a conservative model food, we present results based on two that document, lead emissions estimates plant analysis described in Appendix 3 ingestion exposure scenarios: (1) A are based on multiple emission stack of the risk assessment document. reasonable maximum exposure (RME) tests conducted over multiple years, For the secondary lead smelting scenario that, for example, utilizes 90th cadmium and dioxin and furans are source category, there were exceedances percentile ingestion rates for farmers, based on emissions tests conducted in of de minimis emissions rates at recreational anglers, and the three 2010. Mercury emissions estimates are multiple facilities for multiple PB–HAP, subpopulations of recreational anglers based on test results in 2010 which and thus a multipathway analysis was (e.g., ingestion rates specific to Laotian included a large number of non-detects performed. Two facilities were chosen recreational anglers); and (2) a central and conservative assumptions about as case study analyses to assess tendency exposure (CTE) scenario that, non-detects, and the estimates for POM potential multipathway risks for for example, utilizes mean ingestion are based on reported estimates from the mercury, cadmium, POM, and dioxins rates for the groups just described. We NEI or estimates provided by the and furans. The selection criteria for provide results from both scenarios to companies in the ICR responses in 2010. modeling these two facilities included illustrate the range of potential modeled Emissions of cadmium compounds, emissions rates of PB–HAPs, proximity exposures and risks that may exist in POM, dioxin and furans and mercury to water bodies, proximity to farmland, the high-end of the complete were evaluated for potential non- average rainfall, average wind speed and distribution of potential multipathway inhalation risks and adverse direction, smelting furnace type, local risks for this source category. environmental impacts using our change in elevation, and geographic In evaluating the potential air-related recently developed screening scenario representativeness of sites throughout multipathway risks from the emissions that was developed for use with the the U.S. As a result of our selection of lead compounds, rather than Total Risk Integrated Methodology process, we believe the multipathway developing a de minimis emissions rate, (TRIM.FaTE) model. This screening risks associated with these two facilities we compared its maximum modeled scenario uses environmental media are in the upper end of the potential for 3-month average atmospheric lead outputs from the peer-reviewed multipathway risks from the source concentration at any off-site location TRIM.FaTE to estimate the maximum category. Since the modeling used in with the current primary National potential ingestion risks for any these case study assessments utilize site Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) specified emissions scenario by using a specific parameters to describe naturally for lead (promulgated in 2008), which is generic farming/fishing exposure occurring physical, chemical and set at a level of 0.15 micrograms per scenario that simulates a subsistence biological processes, we believe that the cubic meter (μg/m3) based on rolling environment. The screening scenario multimedia concentrations of PB–HAPs 3-month periods with a not-to-be- retains many of the ingestion and generated in this analysis are unbiased exceeded level for any 3-month rolling scenario inputs developed for EPA’s estimates of the true impacts. average, and which will require Human Health Risk Assessment In general, results of this assessment attainment by 2016 (73 FR 66964). Protocols (HHRAP) for hazardous waste were designed to characterize Notably, in making these comparisons, combustion facilities. In the multipathway risks associated with high we estimated maximum rolling 3-month development of the screening scenario, end consumption of PB–HAP ambient lead concentrations taking into a sensitivity analysis was conducted to predominantly from contaminated food account all of the elements of the ensure that its key design parameters sources. Thus, multipathway exposure NAAQS for lead. That is, our estimated were established such that and risk estimates were calculated for 3-month lead concentrations are environmental media concentrations two basic scenarios, both of which are were not underestimated, and to also expected to give rise to high-end 10 In both scenarios, exposure via drinking water minimize the occurrence of false exposures and risks. The farmer was not considered because it is unlikely that positives for human health endpoints. scenario involves an individual living humans would use surface waters as a drinking water source. Groundwater, which is a likely source See Appendix 3 of the risk assessment on a farm homestead in the vicinity of of drinking water, also was not included in the a PB–HAP source who consumes exposure scenarios because contamination of 9 Most of the emissions test results for mercury contaminated produce grown on the groundwater aquifers by air deposition sources was emissions for this industry were below detection farm, as well as contaminated meat and not expected to be significant. For dioxin, exposure limit. The emissions estimates used in the risk via breast milk was considered in the farming assessment are based on the assumption that all the animal products raised on the farm. The scenario as well as the recreational fishing scenario, non-detect test values were at the level of the farming scenario also accounts for but not for the three recreational fishing detection limit. Therefore, these estimated incidental ingestion of contaminated subpopulations (Hispanic, Laotian, and Vietnamese emissions for mercury are clear overestimates. We surface soil at the location of the farm descent) since subpopulation ingestion rates were conclude that the true amounts of emissions of only applicable to adult males. The breast milk mercury from this source category are much lower homestead. The recreational fisher pathway was not considered with respect to than shown in this assessment, but we are not able scenario involves an individual who mercury exposure due to a current lack of data to quantify precisely how much lower. regularly consumes fish caught in regarding this pathway.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:40 May 18, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19MYP2.SGM 19MYP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 29042 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules

calculated in a manner that is consistent averaging time, form and indicator of To identify specific groups that may with the indicator, averaging time, and the lead NAAQS, also informs whether be affected by this rulemaking, EPA form of the lead NAAQS, and those there is the potential for adverse conducted demographic analyses. These estimates are compared to the level of environmental effects. This is because analyses provide information about the the lead NAAQS (0.15 μg/m3). the secondary lead NAAQS, which has percentages of different social, The NAAQS value, a public health the same averaging time, form, and level demographic, and economic groups policy judgment, incorporated the as the primary standard, was set to within the populations subjected to Agency’s most recent health evaluation protect the public welfare which potential HAP-related cancer and non- of air effects of lead exposure for the includes among other things soils, cancer risks from the facilities in this purposes of setting a national standard. water, crops, vegetation and wildlife source category. In setting this value, the Administrator (CAA section 302(h)). Thus, ambient For the demographic analyses, we promulgated a standard that was lead concentrations above the NAAQS focus on the populations within 50 km requisite to protect public health with for lead also indicate the potential for of any facility with emissions sources an adequate margin of safety. That adverse environmental effects (73 FR subject to the MACT standard (identical standard applies everywhere, under all 67007 to 67012). For additional to the risk assessment). Based on the circumstances, regardless of an information on the multipathway emissions for the source category or the individual’s location, exposure patterns, analysis approach, see the residual risk facility, we then identified the or health circumstances. We consider documentation as referenced in Section populations that are estimated to have values below the level of the primary III.A of this preamble. EPA solicits exposures to HAP which result in: (1) NAAQS to protect against multipathway comment generally on the modeling Cancer risks of 1-in-1 million or greater; risks because, as mentioned above, the approach used herein to assess air- (2) non-cancer HI of 1 or greater; and/ primary NAAQS is set so as to protect related lead risks, and specifically on or (3) ambient lead concentrations above public health with an adequate margin the use of the lead NAAQS in this the level of the NAAQS for lead. We of safety. However, ambient air lead analytical construct. concentrations above the NAAQS are compare the percentages of particular considered to pose the potential for 5. Assessing Risks Considering demographic groups within the focused increased risk to public health. We Emissions Control Options populations to the total percentages of consider this assessment—comparing those demographic groups nationwide. modeled concentrations to the level of In addition to assessing baseline The results, including other risk the NAAQS—to be a refined analysis inhalation risks and screening for metrics, such as average risks for the given: (1) The numerous health studies, potential multipathway risks, we also exposed populations, are documented detailed risk and exposure analyses, and estimated risks considering the potential in a technical report in the docket for level of external peer and public review emissions reductions that would be the source category covered in this 11 that went into the development of the achieved by the main control options proposal. primary NAAQS for lead, combined under consideration. The expected The basis for the risk estimates used with: (2) the site-specific dispersion emissions reductions were applied to in the demographic analyses for this modeling performed in the risk the specific HAP and emissions points source category was the modeling assessment to develop ambient in the source category dataset to develop results based on actual emissions levels concentration estimates from the 14 corresponding estimates of risk obtained from the HEM–3 model secondary lead smelter facilities reductions. More information regarding described above. The risk estimates for addressed in this proposed rule. It the risks after control can be found in each census block were linked to a should be noted, however, that this the risk assessment document: Draft database of information from the 2000 comparison to the NAAQS for lead does Residual Risk Assessment for the decennial census that includes data on not account for possible population Secondary Lead Smelting Source race and ethnicity, age distributions, exposures to lead from sources other Category, which is available in the poverty status, household incomes, and than the one being modeled; for docket for this action. education level. The Census Department ® example, via consumption of water from 6. Conducting Other Risk-Related Landview database was the source of contaminated local sources or ingestion Analyses, Including Facility-Wide the data on race and ethnicity, and the of contaminated locally grown food. Assessments and Demographic Analyses data on age distributions, poverty status, Nevertheless, the Administrator judged household incomes, and education level that the primary NAAQS would protect, a. Facility-Wide Risk were obtained from the 2000 Census of with an adequate margin of safety, the To put the source category risks in Population and Housing Summary File health of children and other at-risk context, for our residual risk review, we 3 (SF3) Long Form. While race and populations against an array of adverse also examine the risks from the entire ethnicity census data are available at the health effects, most notably including ‘‘facility,’’ where the facility includes all census block level, the age and income neurological effects, particularly HAP-emitting operations within a census data are only available at the neurobehavioral and neurocognitive contiguous area and under common census block group level (which effects, in children (73 FR 67007). The control. In other words, we examine the includes an average of 26 blocks or an Administrator, in setting the standard, HAP emissions not only from the source average of 1,350 people). Where census also recognized that no evidence of a category of interest, but also emissions data are available at the block group risk-based bright line indicated a single level but not the block level, we appropriate level. Instead, a collection of HAP from all other emissions sources at the facility. In this rulemaking, for the assumed that all census blocks within of scientific evidence and other the block group have the same information was used to select the Secondary Lead Smelting source category, there are no other significant distribution of ages and incomes as the standard from a range of reasonable block group. values (73 FR 67006). HAP emissions sources present. Thus, We further note that comparing there was no need to perform a separate facility wide risk assessment. 11 Risk and Technology Review—Analysis of ambient lead concentrations to the Socio-Economic Factors for Populations Living NAAQS for lead, considering the level, b. Demographic Analysis Near Primary Lead Smelting Operations.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:40 May 18, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19MYP2.SGM 19MYP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 29043

As noted above, we focused the more thorough discussion of these There is an unquantified level of analysis on those census blocks where uncertainties is included in the risk uncertainty regarding the emissions source category risk results show: (1) assessment documentation (Draft estimates for acute impacts of fugitive Estimated lifetime inhalation cancer Residual Risk Assessment for the dusts. The current set of assumptions risks above 1-in-1 million; (2) chronic Secondary Lead Smelting Category) used in deriving the worst-case acute non-cancer indices above 1; and/or (3) available in the docket for this action. impact estimate for fugitive dusts assumes the average hourly emission census blocks where estimated ambient a. Uncertainties in the Emissions level (annual emissions divided by 8760 lead concentrations were above the level Dataset of the lead NAAQS. For each of these hours per year) to occur at the default cases, we determined the relative Although the development of the RTR worst-case meteorological conditions percentage of different racial and ethnic dataset involved quality assurance/ (low winds with a stable atmosphere). It groups, different age groups, adults with quality control processes, the accuracy is acknowledged that the combination of and without a high school diploma, of emissions values will vary depending average emissions during low winds people living in households below the on the source of the data, the degree to would be an overestimate of the fugitive national median income, and people which data are incomplete or missing, dust emission rate during those low living below the poverty line within the degree to which assumptions made wind periods. Therefore, for fugitive those census blocks. to complete the datasets are accurate, dusts, the worst case meteorology may The specific census population whether and to what extent errors were not be the same as for other process categories included: made in estimating emissions values, emissions, and the level of hourly • Total population and other factors. The estimates of stack fugitive dust emissions during this • White emissions are largely based on actual alternate worst-case condition is • African American (or Black) emissions test data, and, therefore, we unknown. • Native Americans have a relatively high degree of We further note that there is • Other races and multiracial confidence in those estimates. With additional uncertainty with respect to • Hispanic or Latino regard to fugitive emissions, those emissions of mercury. As previously • People living below the poverty line estimates are largely based on noted, most of the mercury emissions • Children 18 years of age and under engineering calculations and test results for this industry were below • Adults 19 to 64 years of age application of various assumptions, and detection limit. The emissions estimates • Adults 65 years of age and over are therefore considered less certain utilized in the risk assessment are based • Adults without a high school relative to the stack emissions estimates. on the health-protective assumption that diploma. Nevertheless, we believe the fugitive all the non-detect test values were at the It should be noted that these estimates we derived for these facilities level of the detection limit. Therefore, categories overlap in some instances, and used in our analyses are reasonable these estimated emissions for mercury resulting in some populations being estimates of the actual fugitive are clear overestimates. We conclude counted in more than one category (e.g., emissions from these facilities partly that the true amounts of emissions of other races and multiracial and due to the findings that the available mercury from this source category are Hispanic). In addition, while not a ambient monitoring data (which are much lower than those provided in the specific census population category, we described in the document Draft technical documents supporting today’s also examined risks to ‘‘Minorities,’’ a Summary of the Ambient Lead proposed rule, but we are not able to classification that is defined for these Monitoring Data near Secondary Lead quantify precisely how much lower. purposes as all race population Smelting Facilities, available in the categories except white. docket) indicate that measured levels of b. Uncertainties in Dispersion Modeling The methodology and the results of lead in ambient air near these facilities Although the analysis employed the demographic analyses for this are generally similar in magnitude (e.g., EPA’s recommended regulatory source category are included in the generally within a factor of 2) to the dispersion model, AERMOD, we technical report available in the docket modeled estimates (which are shown in recognize that there is uncertainty in for this action (Risk and Technology the Draft Residual Risk Assessment for ambient concentration estimates Review—Analysis of Socio-Economic the Secondary Lead Smelting Source associated with any model, including Factors for Populations Living near Category, which is available in the AERMOD. In circumstances where we Secondary Lead Smelting Operations). docket). had to choose between various model The emissions estimates for stacks options, where possible, we selected 7. Considering Uncertainties in Risk considered in this analysis are hourly model options (e.g., rural/urban, plume Assessment emissions rates primarily extracted from depletion, chemistry) that provided an Uncertainty and the potential for bias test reports and extrapolated to an overestimate of ambient concentrations are inherent in all risk assessments, annual total based on the hours of of the HAP rather than an including those performed for the operation of each facility and may not underestimate. However, because of source category addressed in this reflect short-term fluctuations during practicality and data limitation reasons, proposal. Although uncertainty exists, the course of a year or variations from some factors (e.g., building downwash) we believe the approach that we took, year to year. The estimates of peak have the potential in some situations to which used conservative tools and hourly emissions rates from stacks for overestimate or underestimate ambient assumptions to bridge data gaps, the acute effects screening assessment impacts. Despite these uncertainties, we ensures that our decisions are health- were based on multiplication factors believe that at off-site locations and protective. A brief discussion of the applied to the hourly emissions rates census block centroids, the approach uncertainties in the emissions dataset, (the default factor of 10 was used for considered in the dispersion modeling dispersion modeling, inhalation Secondary Lead Smelting for sources analysis should generally yield exposure estimates, dose-response other than fugitive dust) which are overestimates of ambient HAP relationships, multipathway and intended to account for emissions concentrations. environmental impacts analyses, and fluctuations due to normal facility Furthermore, as noted previously, demographics analysis follows below. A operations. there is a level of uncertainty in the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:40 May 18, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19MYP2.SGM 19MYP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 29044 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules

conditions leading to worst-case could potentially be underestimated. Guidelines, pages 1–7). This is the emissions for fugitive dusts. However, Annual cancer incidence estimates from approach followed here as summarized in the absence of better information exposures to emissions from these in the next several paragraphs. A regarding actual short-term impacts sources would not be affected by complete detailed discussion of from fugitive dust sources, the uncertainty in the length of time uncertainties and variability in dose- combination of average hourly emission emissions sources operate. response relationships is given in the level and worst-case meteorology was The exposure estimates used in these residual risk documentation which is assumed to be useful for deriving analyses assume chronic exposures to available in the docket for this action. protective acute impact estimates. ambient levels of pollutants. Because Cancer URE values used in our risk most people spend the majority of their assessments are those that have been c. Uncertainties in Inhalation Exposure time indoors, actual exposures may not developed to generally provide an upper The effects of human mobility on be as high, depending on the bound estimate of risk. That is, they exposures were not included in the characteristics of the pollutants represent a ‘‘plausible upper limit to the assessment. Specifically, short-term modeled. For many of the HAP, indoor true value of a quantity’’ (although this mobility and long-term mobility levels are roughly equivalent to ambient is usually not a true statistical between census blocks in the modeling levels, but for very reactive pollutants or confidence limit).14 In some domain were not considered.12 As a larger particles, these levels are circumstances, the true risk could be as result, this simplification will likely typically lower. This factor has the low as zero; however, in other bias the assessment toward potential to result in an overstatement of circumstances the risk could be overestimating the highest exposures. In 25 to 30 percent of exposures for some greater.15 When developing an upper addition, the assessment predicted the HAP.13 bound estimate of risk and to provide chronic exposures at the centroid of In addition to the uncertainties risk values that do not underestimate each populated census block as highlighted above, there are several risk, health-protective default surrogates for the exposure factors specific to the acute exposure approaches are generally used. To err on concentrations for all people living in assessment that should be highlighted. the side of ensuring adequate health that block. Using the census block The accuracy of an acute inhalation protection, EPA typically uses the upper centroid to predict chronic exposures exposure assessment depends on the bound estimates rather than lower tends to over-predict exposures for simultaneous occurrence of bound or central tendency estimates in people in the census block who live independent factors that may vary our risk assessments, an approach that farther from the facility and under- greatly, such as hourly emissions rates, may have limitations for other uses (e.g., predict exposures for people in the meteorology, and human activity priority-setting or expected benefits census block who live closer to the patterns. In this assessment, we assume analysis). facility. Thus, using the census block that individuals remain for 1 hour at the Chronic non-cancer reference (RfC centroid to predict chronic exposures point of maximum ambient and RfD) values represent chronic may lead to a potential understatement concentration as determined by the co- exposure levels that are intended to be or overstatement of the true maximum occurrence of peak emissions and worst- health-protective levels. Specifically, impact for any one individual, but is an case meteorological conditions. These these values provide an estimate (with unbiased estimate of average risk and assumptions would tend to be worst- uncertainty spanning perhaps an order incidence. case actual exposures since it is unlikely of magnitude) of a continuous The assessments evaluate the that a person would be located at the inhalation exposure (RfC) or a daily oral projected cancer inhalation risks point of maximum exposure during the exposure (RfD) to the human population associated with pollutant exposures time of worst-case impact. over a 70-year period, which is the (including sensitive subgroups) that is assumed lifetime of an individual. In d. Uncertainties in Dose-Response likely to be without an appreciable risk reality, both the length of time that Relationships of deleterious effects during a lifetime. To derive values that are intended to be modeled emissions sources at facilities There are uncertainties inherent in actually operate (i.e., more or less than ‘‘without appreciable risk,’’ the the development of the dose-response methodology relies upon an uncertainty 70 years), and the domestic growth or values used in our risk assessments for decline of the modeled industry (i.e., the factor (UF) approach (U.S. EPA, 1993, cancer effects from chronic exposures 1994) which considers uncertainty, increase or decrease in the number or and non-cancer effects from both size of United States facilities), will variability and gaps in the available chronic and acute exposures. Some data. The UF are applied to derive influence the future risks posed by a uncertainties may be considered given source or source category. reference values that are intended to quantitatively, and others generally are protect against appreciable risk of Depending on the characteristics of the expressed in qualitative terms. We note industry, these factors will, in most deleterious effects. The UF are as a preface to this discussion a point on commonly default values,16 e.g., factors cases, result in an overestimate both in dose-response uncertainty that is individual risk levels and in the total brought out in EPA’s 2005 Cancer 14 estimated number of cancer cases. IRIS glossary (http://www.epa.gov/NCEA/iris/ Guidelines; namely, that ‘‘the primary help_gloss.htm). However, in rare cases, where a facility goal of EPA actions is protection of 15 An exception to this is the URE for benzene, maintains or increases its emissions human health; accordingly, as an which is considered to cover a range of values, each levels beyond 70 years, residents live end of which is considered to be equally plausible, Agency policy, risk assessment beyond 70 years at the same location, and which is based on maximum likelihood procedures, including default options estimates. and the residents spend most of their that are used in the absence of scientific 16 According to the NRC report, Science and days at that location, then the risks data to the contrary, should be health Judgment in Risk Assessment (NRC, 1994) ‘‘[Default] protective’’ (EPA 2005 Cancer options are generic approaches, based on general 12 Short-term mobility is movement from one scientific knowledge and policy judgment, that are microenvironment to another over the course of applied to various elements of the risk assessment hours or days. Long-term mobility is movement 13 U.S. EPA. National-Scale Air Toxics process when the correct scientific model is from one residence to another over the course of a Assessment for 1996. (EPA 453/R–01–003; January unknown or uncertain.’’ The 1983 NRC report, Risk lifetime. 2001; page 85.) Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:40 May 18, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19MYP2.SGM 19MYP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 29045

of 10 or 3, used in the absence of extrapolating from animals to humans; We also note the uncertainties compound-specific data; where data are (3) uncertainty in lowest observed associated with the health-based (i.e., available, UF may also be developed adverse effect (exposure) level to no primary) NAAQS are likely less than the using compound-specific information. observed adverse effect (exposure) level uncertainties associated with dose- When data are limited, more adjustments; and (4) uncertainty in response values developed for many of assumptions are needed and more UF accounting for an incomplete database the other HAP, particularly those HAP are used. Thus, there may be a greater on toxic effects of potential concern. for which no human health data exist. tendency to overestimate risk in the Additional adjustments are often We also note that because of the sense that further study might support applied to account for uncertainty in multipathway, multi-media impacts of development of reference values that are extrapolation from observations at one lead, the risk assessment supporting the higher (i.e., less potent) because fewer exposure duration (e.g., 4 hours) to NAAQS considered direct inhalation default assumptions are needed. derive an acute reference value at exposures and indirect air-related However, for some pollutants, it is another exposure duration (e.g., 1 hour). multipathway exposures from industrial possible that risks may be As further discussed below, there is sources like primary and secondary lead underestimated. no RfD or other comparable chronic smelting operations. It also considered While collectively termed ‘‘UF,’’ these health benchmark value for lead background lead exposures from other factors account for a number of different compounds. Thus, to address sources (like contaminated drinking quantitative considerations when using multipathway human health and water and exposure to lead-based observed animal (usually rodent) or environmental risks associated with paints). In revising the NAAQS for lead, human toxicity data in the development emissions of lead from this facility, EPA placed more weight on the of the RfC. The UF are intended to ambient lead concentrations were evidence-based framework and less account for: (1) Variation in compared to the NAAQS for lead. In weight on the results from the risk susceptibility among the members of the developing the NAAQS for lead, EPA assessment, although the risk estimates human population (i.e., inter-individual considered human health evidence were found to be roughly consistent variability); (2) uncertainty in reporting adverse health effects with and generally supportive of the extrapolating from experimental animal associated with lead exposure, as well evidence-based framework applied in data to humans (i.e., interspecies as an EPA-conducted multipathway risk the NAAQS determination (73 FR differences); (3) uncertainty in assessment that applied models to 67004). Thus, when revising the extrapolating from data obtained in a estimate human exposures to air-related NAAQS for lead to protect public health study with less-than-lifetime exposure lead and the associated risk (73 FR with an adequate margin of safety, EPA (i.e., extrapolating from sub-chronic to 66979). EPA also explicitly considered considered both the health evidence and chronic exposure); (4) uncertainty in the uncertainties associated with both the risk assessment, albeit to different extrapolating the observed data to the human health evidence and the extents. obtain an estimate of the exposure exposure and risk analyses when In addition to the uncertainties associated with no adverse effects; and developing the NAAQS for lead. For discussed above with respect to chronic, (5) uncertainty when the database is example, EPA considered uncertainties cancer, and the lead NAAQS reference incomplete or there are problems with in the relationship between ambient air values, there are also uncertainties the applicability of available studies. lead and blood lead levels (73 FR associated with acute reference values. Many of the UF used to account for 66974), as well as uncertainties between Not all acute reference values are variability and uncertainty in the blood lead levels and loss of IQ points developed for the same purpose, and development of acute reference values in children (73 FR 66981). care must be taken when interpreting are quite similar to those developed for In considering the evidence and risk the results of an acute assessment of chronic durations, but they more often analyses and their associated human health effects relative to the use individual UF values that may be uncertainties, EPA found that there is reference value or values being less than 10. UF are applied based on no evidence- or risk-based bright line exceeded. Where relevant to the chemical-specific or health effect- that indicates a single appropriate level. estimated exposures, the lack of short- specific information (e.g., simple EPA noted there is a collection of term dose-response values at different irritation effects do not vary appreciably scientific evidence and judgments and levels of severity should be factored into between human individuals, hence a other information, including the risk characterization as potential value of 3 is typically used), or based on information about the uncertainties uncertainties. the purpose for the reference value (see inherent in many relevant factors, Although every effort is made to the following paragraph). The UF which needs to be considered together identify peer-reviewed reference values applied in acute reference value in making the public health policy for cancer and non-cancer effects for all derivation include: (1) Heterogeneity judgment and in selecting a standard pollutants emitted by the sources among humans; (2) uncertainty in level from a range of reasonable values included in this assessment, some (73 FR 66998). In so doing, EPA decided hazardous air pollutants continue to the Process, defined default option as ‘‘the option that a level for the primary lead have no peer-reviewed reference values chosen on the basis of risk assessment policy that standard of 0.15 μg/m3, in combination for cancer or chronic non-cancer or appears to be the best choice in the absence of data with the specified choice of indicator, acute effects. Since exposures to these to the contrary’’ (NRC, 1983a, p. 63). Therefore, default options are not rules that bind the Agency; averaging time, and form, is requisite to pollutants cannot be included in a rather, the Agency may depart from them in protect public health, including the quantitative risk estimate, an evaluating the risks posed by a specific substance health of sensitive groups, with an understatement of risk for these when it believes this to be appropriate. In keeping adequate margin of safety (73 FR 67006). with EPA’s goal of protecting public health and the pollutants at environmental exposure environment, default assumptions are used to A thorough discussion of the health levels is possible. ensure that risk to chemicals is not underestimated evidence, risk and exposure analyses, Additionally, chronic reference values (although defaults are not intended to overtly and their associated uncertainties can be for several of the compounds included overestimate risk). See EPA, 2004, An Examination found in EPA’s final rule revising the in this assessment are currently under of EPA Risk Assessment Principles and Practices, EPA/100/B–04/001 available at: http:// lead NAAQS (73 FR 66970–66981, EPA IRIS review (e.g., cadmium and www.epa.gov/osa/pdfs/ratf-final.pdf. November 12, 2008). nickel), and revised assessments may

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:40 May 18, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19MYP2.SGM 19MYP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 29046 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules

determine that these pollutants are more rate data for the general U.S. population process, EPA sets the standard at a level or less potent than the current value. We of recreational anglers,17 we used fish that provides an ample margin of safety may re-evaluate residual risks for the consumption information for distinct ‘‘in consideration of all health final rulemaking if, as a result of these fisher subpopulations that are known to information, including the number of reviews, a dose-response metric changes have higher fish consumption rates. The persons at risk levels higher than enough to indicate that the risk data were obtained from Shilling, et al. approximately 1-in-1 million, as well as assessment supporting this notice may (2010).18 In this publication, the authors other relevant factors, including costs significantly understate or overstate provide fish consumption information and economic impacts, technological human health risk. for different ethnic groups including feasibility, and other factors relevant to Hispanics, Laotians, and Vietnamese each particular decision’’ (Id.) e. Uncertainties in the Multipathway surveyed in California’s Central Valley In past residual risk actions, EPA has and Environmental Impacts Assessment Delta based on sample sizes of 45, 33, presented and considered a number of For the secondary lead smelting and 30, respectively. We note that there human health risk metrics associated source category, two facilities were is uncertainty based on the limited with emissions from the category under chosen as case study analyses to assess sample sizes and in the extrapolation of review, including: The MIR; the potential multipathway risks for these fish consumption rates to other numbers of persons in various risk mercury, cadmium, POM, and dioxins parts of the United States. Further ranges; cancer incidence; the maximum and furans. The selection criteria for discussion of these values is provided in non-cancer hazard index (HI); and the modeling these two facilities included the risk assessment supporting maximum acute non-cancer hazard (72 emissions rates of PB–HAPs, proximity documents. We request comment on the FR 25138, May 3, 2007; 71 FR 42724, to water bodies, proximity to farmland, use of these data to support the RME July 27, 2006). In our most recent average rainfall, average wind speed and analysis. proposals (75 FR 65068, October 21, direction, smelting furnace type, local A more detailed discussion of the 2010 and 75 FR 80220, December 21, change in elevation, and geographic multipathway analysis and its 2010), EPA also presented and representativeness of sites throughout associated uncertainties is presented in considered additional measures of the U.S. However, there is uncertainty section 5.3 of the document Human health information, such as estimates of as to whether these two facilities Health Multipathway Residual Risk the risks associated with the maximum represent the highest potential for Assessment for the Secondary Lead level of emissions which might be multipathway human health risks from Smelting Source Category, which can be allowed by the current MACT standards the source category. found in the docket for the proposed (see, e.g., 75 FR 65068, October 21, 2010 Since the modeling used in these case rule. and 75 FR 80220, December 21, 2010). study assessments utilize site specific EPA also discussed and considered risk parameters to describe naturally f. Uncertainties in the Demographic estimation uncertainties. EPA is occurring physical, chemical and Analysis providing this same type of information biological processes, we believe that the Our analysis of the distribution of in support of the proposed actions multimedia concentrations of PB–HAPs risks across various demographic groups described in this Federal Register generated in this analysis are unbiased is subject to uncertainty associated with notice. estimates of the true impacts. the extrapolation of census-block group The Agency is considering all With respect to the risk estimates data (e.g., income level and education available health information to inform generated from this analysis, we present level) down to the census block level. our determinations of risk acceptability results based on two ingestion exposure and ample margin of safety under CAA scenarios: the RME and CTE scenarios. C. How did we consider the risk results section 112(f). Specifically, as explained As noted above, we believe that these in making decisions for this proposal? in the Benzene NESHAP, ‘‘the first step scenarios illustrate the range of In evaluating and developing judgment on acceptability cannot be potential modeled exposures and risks standards under section 112(f)(2), as reduced to any single factor’’ and thus that may exist in the high-end of the discussed in Section I.A of this ‘‘[t]he Administrator believes that the complete distribution of potential preamble, we apply a two-step process acceptability of risk under [previous] multipathway risks for this source to address residual risk. In the first step, section 112 is best judged on the basis category. EPA determines whether risks are of a broad set of health risk measures We further note that high-end fisher acceptable. This determination and information’’ (54 FR 38046). populations could display considerable ‘‘considers all health information, Similarly, with regard to making the variability both in terms of the degree to including risk estimation uncertainty, ample margin of safety determination, which they frequent specific water and includes a presumptive limit on as stated in the Benzene NESHAP ‘‘[in bodies or watersheds and the degree to maximum individual lifetime [cancer] the ample margin decision, the Agency which they target specific types of fish risk (MIR) 19 of approximately 1-in-10 again considers all of the health risk and (or at least sizes of fish). Both of these thousand [i.e., 100-in-1 million]’’ (54 FR other health information considered in factors can impact estimates of 38045). In the second step of the the first step. Beyond that information, exposure. If a fisher population additional factors relating to the distributes their activity across a range 17 Data for the general U.S. population of appropriate level of control will also be of water bodies and harvests a variety of recreational anglers was obtained from: EPA 2002, considered, including cost and fish species (and sizes) than the ‘‘Estimated Per Capita Fish Consumption in the economic impacts of controls, United States, Office of Water, Office of Science and distribution of exposure and risk across Technology, Washington, DC, EPA–821–C–02–003. technological feasibility, uncertainties, that population will be smaller August 2002. and any other relevant factors.’’ Id. compared with a population that 18 Shilling, et al. 2010 is available in the docket The Agency acknowledges that the focuses activity at individual water for this rulemaking. Benzene NESHAP provides flexibility bodies and tends to focus on larger fish. 19 Although defined as ‘‘maximum individual regarding what factors EPA might risk,’’ MIR refers only to cancer risk. MIR, one To estimate potential high-end metric for assessing cancer risk, is the estimated consider in making determinations and multipathway exposures and risks, in risk were an individual exposed to the maximum how these factors might be weighed for addition to utilizing fish consumption level of a pollutant for a lifetime. each source category. In responding to

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:40 May 18, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19MYP2.SGM 19MYP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 29047

comment on our policy under the and generally we have also assessed uncertainties than for the source Benzene NESHAP, EPA explained that: risks due to HAP emissions from the category or facility-wide estimates, and ‘‘The policy chosen by the entire facility at which the covered hence would compound the uncertainty Administrator permits consideration of source category is located (facility-wide in any such comparison. This is because multiple measures of health risk. Not risk estimates). We have not attempted we have not conducted a detailed only can the MIR figure be considered, to characterize the risks associated with technical review of HAP emissions data but also incidence, the presence of non- all HAP emissions impacting the for source categories and facilities that cancer health effects, and the populations living near the sources in have not previously undergone an RTR uncertainties of the risk estimates. In these categories. That is, at this time, we review or are not currently undergoing this way, the effect on the most exposed do not attempt to quantify those HAP such review. We are requesting individuals can be reviewed as well as risks that may be associated with comment on whether and how best to the impact on the general public. These emissions from other facilities that do estimate and evaluate total HAP factors can then be weighed in each not include the source categories in exposure in our assessments, and, in individual case. This approach complies question, mobile source emissions, particular, on whether and how it might with the Vinyl Chloride mandate that natural source emissions, persistent be appropriate to use information from the Administrator ascertain an environmental pollution, or EPA’s National Air Toxics Assessment acceptable level of risk to the public by atmospheric transformation in the (NATA) to support such estimates. We employing [her] expertise to assess vicinity of the sources in these are also seeking comment on how best available data. It also complies with the categories. to consider various types and scales of Congressional intent behind the CAA, The Agency understands the potential risk estimates when making our which did not exclude the use of any importance of considering an acceptability and ample margin of safety particular measure of public health risk individual’s total exposure to HAP in determinations under CAA section from the EPA’s consideration with addition to considering exposure to 112(f). Additionally, we are seeking respect to CAA section 112 regulations, HAP emissions from the source category comments and recommendations for and, thereby, implicitly permits and facility. This is particularly any other comparative measures that consideration of any and all measures of important when assessing non-cancer may be useful in the assessment of the health risk which the Administrator, in risks, where pollutant-specific exposure distribution of HAP risks across [her] judgment, believes are appropriate health reference levels (e.g., Reference potentially affected demographic to determining what will ‘protect the Concentrations (RfCs)) are based on the groups. public health’ ’’ (54 FR at 38057). assumption that thresholds exist for Thus, the level of the MIR is only one adverse health effects. For example, the D. How did we perform the technology factor to be weighed in determining Agency recognizes that, although review? acceptability of risks. The Benzene exposures attributable to emissions from Our technology review focused on the NESHAP explained that ‘‘an MIR of a source category or facility alone may identification and evaluation of approximately 1-in-10 thousand should not indicate the potential for increased developments in practices, processes, ordinarily be the upper end of the range risk of adverse non-cancer health effects and control technologies that have of acceptability. As risks increase above in a population, the exposures resulting occurred since the 1997 NESHAP was this benchmark, they become from emissions from the facility in promulgated. In cases where the presumptively less acceptable under combination with emissions from all of technology review identified such CAA section 112, and would be the other sources (e.g., other facilities) to developments, we conducted an weighed with the other health risk which an individual is exposed may be analysis of the technical feasibility of measures and information in making an sufficient to result in increased risk of applying these developments, along overall judgment on acceptability. Or, adverse non-cancer health effects. In with the estimated impacts (costs, the Agency may find, in a particular May 2010, the EPA SAB advised us emissions reductions, risk reductions, case, that a risk that includes MIR less ‘‘* * * that RTR assessments will be etc.) of applying these developments. than the presumptively acceptable level most useful to decision makers and We then made decisions on whether it is unacceptable in the light of other communities if results are presented in is necessary to propose amendments to health risk factors’’ (Id. at 38045). the broader context of aggregate and the regulation to require any of the Similarly, with regard to the ample cumulative risks, including background identified developments. margin of safety analysis, EPA stated in concentrations and contributions from the Benzene NESHAP that: ‘‘* * * EPA other sources in the area.’’ 20 Based on our analyses of the data and believes the relative weight of the many Although we are interested in placing information collected by the ICR and factors that can be considered in source category and facility-wide HAP our general understanding of the selecting an ample margin of safety can risks in the context of total HAP risks industry and other available information only be determined for each specific from all sources combined in the on potential controls for this industry, source category. This occurs mainly vicinity of each source, we are we identified several potential because technological and economic concerned about the uncertainties of developments in practices, processes, factors (along with the health-related doing so. At this point, we believe that and control technologies. For the factors) vary from source category to such estimates of total HAP risks will purpose of this exercise, we considered source category’’ (Id. at 38061). have significantly greater associated any of the following to be a EPA wishes to point out that certain ‘‘development’’: health information has not been 20 EPA’s responses to this and all other key • Any add-on control technology or considered to date in making residual recommendations of the SAB’s advisory on RTR other equipment that was not identified risk assessment methodologies (which is available risk determinations. In assessing risks to at: http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/ and considered during development of populations in the vicinity of the 4AB3966E263D943A8525771F00668381/$File/EPA- the 1997 NESHAP. facilities in each category, we present SAB-10-007-unsigned.pdf) are outlined in a memo • Any improvements in add-on estimates of risk associated with HAP to this rulemaking docket from David Guinnup control technology or other equipment entitled, EPA’s Actions in Response to the Key emissions from the source category Recommendations of the SAB Review of RTR Risk (that were identified and considered alone (source category risk estimates), Assessment Methodologies. during development of the 1997

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:40 May 18, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19MYP2.SGM 19MYP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 29048 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules

NESHAP) that could result in significant covered by the Secondary Lead factors and available data, to determine additional emissions reduction. Smelting MACT. the level of emissions control that has • Any work practice or operational Additionally, we requested been achieved by the best performing procedure that was not identified or information from facilities regarding sources under variable conditions. It is considered during development of the developments in practices, processes, or recognized in the case law that EPA may 1997 NESHAP. control technology. Finally, we consider variability in estimating the • Any process change or pollution reviewed other information sources, degree of emissions reduction achieved prevention alternative that could be such as State or local permitting agency by best-performing sources and in broadly applied to the industry and that databases and industry-supported setting MACT floors. See Mossville was not identified or considered during databases. Envt’l Action Now v. EPA, 370 F.3d development of the 1997 NESHAP. E. What other issues are we addressing 1232, 1241–42 (DC Cir 2004) (holding In addition to reviewing the practices, in this proposal? EPA may consider emissions variability processes, or control technologies that in estimating performance achieved by In addition to the analyses described were not considered at the time we best-performing sources and may set the above, we also reviewed other aspects of developed the 1997 NESHAP, we floor at a level that a best-performing the MACT standards for possible reviewed a variety of data sources in our source can expect to meet ‘‘every day revision as appropriate and necessary. and under all operating conditions’’). evaluation of whether there were Based on this review we have identified additional practices, processes, or More details on how we calculate aspects of the MACT standards that we MACT floors and how we account for controls to consider for the secondary believe need revision. lead smelting industry. Among the data variability are described in the Draft This includes proposing revisions to MACT Floor Analysis for the Secondary sources we reviewed were the NESHAP the startup, shutdown, and malfunction for various industries that were Lead Smelting Source Category which is (SSM) provisions of the MACT rule in available in the docket for this proposed promulgated after the 1997 NESHAP. order to ensure that they are consistent We reviewed the regulatory action. with a recent court decision in Sierra With regard to the evaluation of requirements and/or technical analyses Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (DC Cir. potential MACT limits for organic HAP associated with these regulatory actions 2008). In addition, we are proposing from this source category, consistent to identify any practices, processes, and other various minor changes with with the explanation presented in the control technologies considered in these regards to editorial errors and other proposal of the 1997 NESHAP (NESHAP efforts that could possibly be applied to revisions to promote the use of plain for Secondary Lead Smelting, Proposed emissions sources in the Secondary language. The analyses and proposed Rule, June 9, 1994, 59 FR 63941) for this Lead Smelting source category, as well decisions for these actions are presented source category describing the as the costs, non-air impacts, and energy in Section IV.E of this preamble. appropriateness of THC as a surrogate implications associated with the use of for organic HAP, we continue to these technologies. IV. Analyses Results and Proposed Decisions consider THC as an appropriate We also consulted EPA’s RACT/ surrogate for non-dioxin organic HAP in BACT/LAER Clearinghouse (RBLC) to This section of the preamble provides the proposed amendments to the identify potential technology advances. the results of our RTR for the Secondary NESHAP in today’s action. Based on our Control technologies, classified as RACT Lead Smelting source category and our data, there are currently only two (Reasonably Available Control proposed decisions concerning changes reverberatory furnaces not collocated Technology), BACT (Best Available to the 1997 NESHAP. with a blast furnace, one rotary furnace, Control Technology), or LAER (Lowest A. What are the results of our analyses and two reverberatory furnaces mixed Achievable Emissions Rate) apply to and proposed decisions regarding with electric furnaces (i.e., two stationary sources depending on unregulated emissions sources? reverberatory furnaces whose exhaust whether the sources are existing or new, are mixed with the exhaust of an and on the size, age, and location of the 1. Organic HAP electric furnace prior to atmospheric facility. BACT and LAER (and As discussed in Section III.A of this release) operating in this source sometimes RACT) are determined on a preamble, we evaluated emissions limits category. Based on analysis of emissions case-by-case basis, usually by State or for organic HAP for reverberatory data and furnace operating local permitting agencies. EPA furnaces not collocated with blast characteristics (as discussed further established the RBLC to provide a furnaces, rotary furnaces, and electric below), we believe it is appropriate to central database of air pollution furnaces. Section 112(d)(3)(B) of the set one THC limit that will apply to technology information (including CAA requires that the MACT standards reverberatory furnaces not collocated technologies required in source-specific for existing sources be at least as with a blast furnace and reverberatory permits) to promote the sharing of stringent as the average emissions furnaces mixed with electric furnaces, information among permitting agencies limitation achieved by the best because of generally similar (and low) and to aid in identifying future possible performing five sources (for which the potential for organic HAP emissions control technology options that might Administrator has or could reasonably from both furnace types. We are apply broadly to numerous sources obtain emissions information) in a proposing a separate THC emissions within a category or apply only on a category with fewer than 30 sources. limit for rotary furnaces. source-by-source basis. The RBLC The Secondary Lead Smelting source We received THC emissions data for contains over 5,000 air pollution control category consists of fewer than 30 one reverberatory furnace not collocated permit determinations that can help sources. Where, as here, there are less with a blast furnace and one identify appropriate technologies to than 30 sources, we base the MACT reverberatory furnace mixed with an mitigate many air pollutant emissions floor limit on the average emissions electric furnace, and one rotary furnace. streams. We searched this database to limitation achieved by those sources for Therefore, for each of these furnace determine whether it contained any which we have data. configurations, we have emissions data practices, processes, or control EPA must exercise its judgment, from at least half the units. We are technologies for the types of processes based on an evaluation of the relevant soliciting emissions data for the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:40 May 18, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19MYP2.SGM 19MYP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 29049

operating affected sources for which we better measure of the typical variability concentration limits (i.e., prorating the don’t have data. Based on the data that in performance of the unit. However, amount of total dioxins and furans we have, we conducted a MACT Floor because the 99 percent UL approach allowed to the most toxic species of analysis. resulted in a MACT floor that is more dioxin). For more information on the As discussed above, the MACT floor within the range of typical variability TEQ approach to calculating dioxin and limit is calculated based on the average we expect when calculating MACT furan emissions see the dioxin performance of the units plus an floors for various source categories and emissions guidance available at: http:// amount to account for these units’ emissions points, the emissions limit www.epa.gov/raf/hhtefguidance/. variability. To account for variability in calculated using the 99 percent UL was Because the formation of dioxins and the operation and emissions, the stack chosen as the proposed THC MACT furans is highly temperature dependent, test data were used to calculate the 99 floor for rotary furnaces in this action. and because the potential for dioxin and percent upper predictive limit (UPL) for However, we seek comments on this furan emissions varies considerably reverberatory furnaces not collocated issue. among different furnace types and with a blast furnace and reverberatory We considered beyond-the-floor configurations, EPA is proposing furnaces mixed with electric furnaces. options for THC standards for all of separate limits for each of the following For rotary furnaces, because we have these furnace configurations, as required furnace configurations: (1) only one test with two successful test by section 112(d)(2) of the Act. Reverberatory furnaces not collocated runs, we considered both the 99 percent However, we decided not to propose with blast furnaces and reverberatory UPL and the 99 percent upper limit (UL) any limits based on the beyond the floor furnaces where the exhaust gases are to account for variability in the analyses for THC because of the costs, mixed with the exhaust from electric emissions data. Our consideration of potential disadvantages of these furnaces; (2) blast furnaces; (3) variability is explained in more detail in additional controls (including increases collocated blast and reverberatory the technical document for this action: in CO2 and NOX emissions), and non-air furnaces; and (4) rotary furnaces. A Draft MACT Floor Analysis for the environmental impacts and adverse detailed analysis and documentation of Secondary Lead Smelting Source energy implications associated with use the MACT floor calculations can be Category, which is available in the of these additional controls. The found in the technical document for this docket for this action. beyond-the-floor analysis is presented action: Draft MACT Floor Analysis for The 99 percent UPL for exhaust THC in the technical documentation for this the Secondary Lead Smelting Source concentrations from existing action (Draft MACT Floor Analysis for Category. reverberatory furnaces not collocated the Secondary Lead Smelting Source Based on the emissions data and with a blast furnace and reverberatory Category). In summary, we are furnace operating temperatures reported furnaces mixed with electric furnaces is proposing that new and existing in ICR surveys, EPA is proposing a 12 ppmv (expressed as propane) reverberatory furnaces not collocated single TEQ emissions limit that will corrected to 4 percent CO2 to account with a blast furnace and reverberatory apply to reverberatory furnaces not for dilution. Consistent with CAA furnaces mixed with electric furnaces be collocated with a blast furnace and to section 112(d)(3), the MACT floor for subject to a THC concentration limit of reverberatory furnaces where the new sources cannot be less stringent 12 ppmv (expressed as propane) exhaust gases are mixed with electric than the emissions control that is corrected to 4 percent CO2. furnaces. There are seven sources of this achieved in practice by the best- Additionally, we are proposing that type in the industry. We received controlled similar source. The 99 both new and existing rotary furnaces be emissions data for two such affected percent UPL for exhaust THC subject to a THC concentration limit of sources. We are soliciting data for the concentrations from the best-performing 610 ppmv (expressed as propane) affected sources of this type for which affected source was calculated as 12 corrected to 4 percent CO2. we don’t have emissions data. The ppmv (expressed as propane) corrected We propose that compliance with all MACT floor emissions limit for this to 4 percent CO2. the proposed THC limits will be affected source was calculated based on We are also proposing a THC MACT demonstrated by annual performance the average of the two emissions tests limit for rotary furnaces. As mentioned tests, and that continuous monitoring of plus variability (based on the 99 percent previously, there is only one operating temperatures of control devices (e.g., UPL). The 99 percent UPL for exhaust rotary furnace in the U.S. We received afterburners) and/or furnaces (e.g., TEQ concentrations from the affected test data for this unit; however, it reverberatory furnaces) will be required sources is 0.20 nanograms per dry included only two successful test runs. as parametric monitoring to ensure standard cubic meter (ng/dscm) of TEQ The average of the two emissions test continuous compliance with the THC corrected to 7 percent oxygen (O2) to runs was 257 ppmv (expressed as limits. account for dilution. The 99 percent propane and adjusted to 4 percent CO2), No changes are being considered in UPL calculated for new affected sources and the highest of the two test runs was this action for the THC limits for blast is 0.10 ng/dscm corrected to 7 percent 292 ppmv (expressed as propane and and collocated blast and reverberatory O2. adjusted to 4 percent CO2). Using the 99 furnaces established in the 1997 With regard to blast furnaces, there percent UPL approach, we calculated a NESHAP. are nine sources of this type in the MACT floor of 1700 ppmv, which is 6.6 industry. We received dioxin and furan times higher than the average. By using 2. Dioxin and Furans emissions data for two affected sources. the 99 percent UL approach, we As mentioned previously, the 1997 Using the data from these two sources, calculated a MACT floor of 610 ppmv NESHAP does not include emissions we calculated that the 99 percent UPL (expressed as propane and adjusted to 4 limits for dioxins and furans. Therefore, for exhaust TEQ concentrations from percent CO2) applicable to new and pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(3), we blast furnaces is 170 ng/dscm at 7 existing affected sources, which is 2.4 are proposing to revise the 1997 percent O2. For new blast furnaces, the times higher than the average. Because NESHAP to include emission limits for 99 percent UPL is 10 ng/dscm at 7 of very limited emissions data, our dioxins and furans. The form of these percent O2. We acknowledge the large statistical analysis does not clearly proposed standards are in the form of difference between the performance of indicate whether the UPL or UL is a toxic equivalency quotient (TEQ) the two affected sources for which we

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:40 May 18, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19MYP2.SGM 19MYP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 29050 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules

have data but have not identified a furnace MACT limits. However, we note operating blast furnaces. This option technical basis for the difference. We are that the dioxin concentrations emitted would include operating the currently soliciting information that may explain from these sources was in the range of installed afterburners at high these differences and other comments the better performing of the two blast temperatures and with sufficient on this topic, including comments furnaces that were used in the residence time to destroy dioxins, or regarding the calculation of MACT floor calculations of the MACT Floor. installation of new or additional limits for these sources. Additionally, Nevertheless, we are seeking comments afterburner capacity with this we are soliciting data for the seven as to whether it would be appropriate to capability. Based on the current level of affected sources of this type for which establish a MACT limit based upon the performance identified in the ICR we don’t have emissions test data. data from the one better performing surveys, we believe that this option There are five collocated blast and blast furnace or if it would be would require four facilities to install reverberatory furnaces in the industry. appropriate to use the data from the afterburner capacity at their facility in We received emissions test data for one mixed sources to determine a MACT order to operate the units at these of the affected sources. The calculated limit for Blast furnaces. A MACT limit conditions. The estimated total capital 99 percent UPL is 0.5 ng/dscm at 7 based upon the data from the one better cost for the additional controls is percent O2 and would apply to both performing blast furnace (using the 3 $5.9 million, with a total annualized new and existing collocated blast and test results and applying the 99 percent cost of $2.9 million. We estimate that reverberatory furnaces. We are soliciting UPL) would be 10 ng/dscm. We are TEQ emissions would be reduced by data for the remaining four affected seeking comments on whether this roughly 28 grams per year (and organic sources for which we don’t have limit, or some other limit, would be HAP emissions by 200 tons per year) emissions data. appropriate for Blast Furnaces. resulting in a total estimated cost As previously noted, there is only one The key conditions typically effectiveness of $103,600 per gram of rotary furnace currently in operation associated with determining the extent dioxin TEQ and $14,500 per ton organic and we received emissions data for this of dioxin and furan formation are HAP (see: Draft MACT Floor Analysis source. Similar to THC emissions, we combustion efficiency, complex organic for the Secondary Lead Smelting Source have only two emissions test runs for fuels, particulate concentration in the Category for more details). this unit. For the same reasons flue gas, time in a critical temperature In light of the costs of these additional explained above for THC, we developed window of approximately 250 to 450 controls and since these controls would a MACT floor limit of 1.0 ng/dscm of degrees C, and the amount of chlorine have some disadvantages, including TEQ corrected to 7 percent O2 based on present. Increased chlorine causing increases in CO2 and NOX the 99 percent UL, as opposed to the concentrations in the furnace feed can (oxides of nitrogen) emissions and UPL. Thus, an emissions limit based on increase the dioxin formation. The blast increased fuel use, and given the the MACT floor for existing and new furnaces tested have higher emissions of uncertainties regarding how effective rotary furnaces would be 1.0 ng/dscm of dioxins and furans than other furnace these controls would be, we are not TEQ corrected to 7 percent O2. types. We believe this is because these proposing more stringent numerical We then considered beyond-the-floor furnaces are designed to operate at emissions limits based on this beyond- options to further reduce emissions of lower temperatures, and these operating the-floor analysis. Nevertheless, we are dioxins and furans, especially from blast temperatures can lead to dioxin seeking data and information on dioxin furnaces since blast furnaces have formation. Controls for dioxins and and furan emissions from blast furnaces higher emissions compared to the other furans once they have formed include a and the costs and feasibility of furnace types. The options considered, high temperature oxidation with quick additional controls and emissions included an option based on setting a quenching of the off-gases, or activated reductions, including the beyond-the- MACT limit for existing sources based carbon injection followed by fabric floor options described above. on the performance of the best filtration. Fabric filtration alone has also Based on all the analyses described performing source (i.e., based upon the been demonstrated to provide above, under CAA section 112(d)(3), we test data used to calculate the MACT significant control of dioxins and are proposing to revise the 1997 floor for new sources) such that the furans, and because improvements are NESHAP for this source category to MACT limit for existing sources would expected in the performance of fabric include the following emissions limits be the same as the MACT limit for new filters as a result of standards being for dioxins and furans: sources (i.e., 10 ng/dscm). However, proposed for lead in today’s action, it is • since we are uncertain about the anticipated that some additional For reverberatory furnaces not collocated performance of the other blast furnaces with blast furnaces and reverberatory reduction in dioxin emissions may furnaces where the exhaust gases are mixed and whether it would be feasible for occur as a co-benefit of the proposed with electric furnaces, we are proposing them to meet a limit of 10 ng/dscm and lower limits for lead. Nevertheless, we emissions limits of 0.20 ng/dscm at 7 percent what the costs would be, we are not are seeking data and information on O2 and 0.1 ng/dscm at 7 percent O2 for proposing MACT limits for existing dioxin emissions from blast furnaces, existing and new affected sources, blast furnaces based on this one set of possible control options, factors that respectively. • data in today’s action. We do have data affect dioxin formation and other related For blast furnaces, we are proposing for two other blast furnaces that are not information to inform the development emissions limits of 170 ng/dscm at 7 percent controlled with reverberatory furnaces, O2 and 10 ng/dscm at 7 percent O2 for of appropriate standards for dioxin and existing and new sources, respectively. but because of the configuration of the furan emissions from these sources. • For collocated blast and reverberatory stacks (blast furnace off-gas is mixed As described below, we are also furnaces, we are proposing an emissions with reverberatory furnace off-gas), we proposing a work practice standard to limit of 0.5 ng/dscm at 7 percent O2 for both were unable to determine the amount of prevent plastics (which are complex new and existing sources. dioxin that originated from the blast organics and may contain chlorine) from • For rotary furnaces, we are proposing an furnace alone compared to the dioxin entering furnaces as a beyond-the-floor emissions limit of 1.0 ng/dscm at 7 percent that was due to the reverberatory option. We also considered an option O2 for both new and existing sources. furnace. Therefore, these data were not that involves installation of additional Compliance with the TEQ limits will used in the calculation of the blast afterburner capacity at the facilities be demonstrated through an initial

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:40 May 18, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19MYP2.SGM 19MYP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 29051

compliance test followed by a information on appropriate Development, U.S. EPA. February 18, compliance test at least once every recordkeeping and reporting 2005, available at: http://www.epa.gov/ 5 years. The TEQ emissions will be requirements for these proposed work ttn/atw/utility/utiltoxpg.html). calculated using the toxic equivalency practices. Therefore, we are proposing that facilities must have continuous factors (TEF) outlined by the World 3. Mercury Emissions Health Organization (WHO) in 2005 operation of a BLDS with a detection (available at Web site: http:// Based on the emissions test data level of 1.0 mg/dscm for PM to ensure www.epa.gov/raf/hhtefguidance/). received under the ICR, we considered their baghouses are working properly as Additionally, we are proposing that proposing an emissions limit for a work practice to limit mercury facilities must establish limits for the mercury under CAA section 112(d)(3). emissions. This is the same requirement furnace exhaust temperature or However, after careful review of the data proposed for lead emissions monitoring afterburner operating temperature from the ICR, we have decided not to in this rulemaking under CAA sections during the initial performance test. propose a numerical limit for mercury. 112(f)(2) and 112(d)(6), and will These temperatures must be maintained We found that the measured stack therefore pose no additional burden to and monitored continuously between concentrations of mercury were the industry. Further, the proposed compliance tests to ensure that the consistently below the detection levels stack standards for lead will also controls are working properly to limit of the EPA test methods (52 out of 76 adequately control mercury such that no dioxin and furan emissions. total test runs for mercury contained further standard is necessary. The data below the detection limit, or standard would be implemented In addition to the emissions limits 68 percent of the entire data set). continuously for all metals by the BLDS described above, we are proposing that Consequently, EPA considers it measurement. each facility must operate a process to impracticable to reliably measure Nevertheless, we also investigated the separate plastic battery casing material mercury emissions from these units. feasibility of additional work practices prior to introducing feed into a blast We instead considered work practice to determine if there were other cost- furnace. Separation of plastic materials standards under 112(h) for mercury effective pollution prevention measures prior to the furnace will limit the emissions from this category. The that could be applied to this industry to organic component in the feed material, difficulties with accurate measurements further minimize mercury emissions minimizing the formation of organic at the levels encountered from such as source separation approaches. HAP, including dioxins and furans. It is secondary lead smelters makes a Based on available information, our understanding that all facilities measured standard technologically analyses, and discussion with industry, currently have a plastics separation impracticable, and possibly we understand that the vast majority of process (that they implement on a economically impracticable as well input materials have very low mercury voluntary basis) so this proposed (there appears to be no reliable way to content (e.g., lead acid batteries). requirement results in very minimal measure compliance at such low levels However, we also understand that other additional costs to the industry, if any. even with the most carefully conducted types of scrap such as industrial We are proposing this as a requirement tests). Given the factors described above, batteries, various construction materials, (i.e., propose to convert this from a we conclude it is appropriate to and other scrap materials are voluntary activity to a regulatory consider work practice standards under occasionally processed in these furnaces requirement) to ensure that facilities 112(h) for mercury rather than materials. To ensure that mercury- continue to implement the separation numerical emissions limits under bearing materials are not included in process to help minimize formation of Section 112(d)(3). such scrap, we considered proposing dioxins and furans. Moreover, we Therefore, we considered establishing that facilities inspect their input scrap considered proposing a minimum work practice standards under CAA materials daily to ensure that mercury- percent of plastics separation section 112(h) to minimize the potential bearing materials are not fed to the requirement (such as ensuring that a for mercury emissions. Based on furnaces. However, we are not aware of minimum of 95 percent of total plastics information submitted under the ICR, any identifiable or recoverable sources are separated from the scrap materials all facilities have baghouses to control of mercury in the scrap fed to secondary before being fed to furnaces). However, lead and other particulate matter (PM) lead smelters and we are also concerned we did not have sufficient data to emissions. These control devices are that such work practices could be determine an appropriate specific very effective at controlling non-volatile infeasible. Therefore, we are not percent. Nevertheless, we are seeking HAP metals (e.g., a well performing proposing such a standard in today’s data and comments regarding the baghouse captures more than 99 percent action. However, we are soliciting percent separation that can be achieved of lead emissions). These devices do not comments on the appropriateness and by the available processes and the capture mercury as efficiently as the feasibility of implementing such a work potential to establish such a minimum non-volatile metals. However, available practice standard for mercury. We are percent separation requirement. data from other industries (such as coal- also interested in information regarding Moreover, we are seeking information fired power plants) indicate that any other pollution prevention practices and comments on the various types of baghouses do provide some level of for mercury that may be feasible or plastics separation processes and mercury control. For example, appropriate for this source category. equipment used, and the relative emissions data from coal-fired power feasibility and effectiveness of those plants suggest that baghouses can B. What are the results of the risk processes and equipment. We are also capture approximately 50 to 90 percent assessments and analyses? seeking comments and information on of mercury emissions depending on the As described above, for the Secondary potential methods to improve overall speciation of the mercury compounds Lead Smelting source category, we plastics separation, or methods to and other factors. (Reference: ‘‘Control of conducted an inhalation risk assessment improve separation of certain types of Mercury Emissions from Coal Fired for all HAP emitted. We also conducted plastics that may have higher potential Electric Utility Boilers: An Update.’’ multipathway analyses for cadmium, for dioxin formation (e.g., chlorinated National Risk Management Research dioxins and furans, mercury, and POM, plastics). Finally, we are seeking Laboratory, Office of Research and as well as air-related multipathway

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:40 May 18, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19MYP2.SGM 19MYP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 29052 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules

analyses for lead. With respect to lead, III.B of this preamble, which is available of risks in the exposed population we used the recently promulgated lead in the docket for this action. The (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989)—in NAAQS to evaluate the potential for air- Agency considered the available health developing the proposed CAA section related multipathway and information—the MIR; the numbers of 112(f)(2) standards for the Secondary environmental effects. Furthermore, we persons in various risk ranges; cancer Lead source category. conducted a demographic analysis of incidence; the maximum non-cancer 1. Inhalation Risk Assessment Results population risks. Details of the risk hazard index (HI); the maximum acute assessments and additional analyses can non-cancer hazard; the extent of non- Table 3 of this preamble provides an be found in the residual risk cancer risks; the potential for adverse overall summary of the results of the documentation referenced in Section environmental effects; and distribution inhalation risk assessment.

TABLE 3—SECONDARY LEAD SMELTING INHALATION RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS

Maximum individual cancer risk Estimated Estimated Maximum chronic (in 1 million) 1 non-cancer TOSHI 2 Maximum population annual screening Based on at increased cancer Based on Based on acute allowable risk of incidence actual allowable non-cancer Based on actual emissions level cancer ≥1- (cases per emissions emissions emissions HQ 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 value of 1 at nine facilities.21 These than 1 using human health reference cancer risk assessment indicate that, exceedances are mainly due to fugitive values, we believe that it is unlikely that based on estimates of current actual emissions at most of these nine adverse environmental effects would emissions, the maximum individual facilities. However, stack emissions, occur at the actual HAP concentrations lifetime cancer risk (MIR) could be up while generally not the principle driver estimated in our human health risk to 50-in-1 million, with fugitive dust of maximum acute HQ values greater assessment. than 1, contribute about 90 percent of emissions of arsenic, and to a lesser 2. Multipathway Risk Assessments and the risk at the facility which has the extent fugitive dust emissions of Results cadmium (see below), driving these maximum acute HQ screening value of risks. The total estimated cancer 30. We note that the California REL is As noted above, in evaluating the potential for multipathway effects from incidence from this source category the only acute value available, and we emissions of lead, we compared based on actual emission levels is 0.02 request comments on the use of this modeled maximum 3-month rolling excess cancer cases per year or one case value as well as comments on the existence of other peer reviewed values average lead concentrations (based on in every 50 years, with emissions of estimates of actual emissions) with the arsenic and cadmium contributing that may be used to inform acute risks. In summary, the analysis indicates lead NAAQS. Results of this analysis 73 percent and 15 percent respectively, that arsenic and cadmium emissions indicate that, if current emission levels to this cancer incidence. In addition, we pose risks to public health due to continue, the lead NAAQS could be note that approximately 1,500 people inhalation exposures resulting from exceeded at 12 of the 14 facilities and are estimated to have cancer risks both fugitive and stack emissions (see that nine facilities could have ambient greater than 10-in-1 million, and above). Lead and dioxin and furan levels that are at least 2–3 times above approximately 128,000 people are emissions also pose risks to public the NAAQS, largely due to actual estimated to have risks greater than health, but these HAP are assessed fugitive dust emissions. Moreover, 1-in-1 million. When considering the separately as part of multipathway available ambient monitoring data for risks associated with MACT-allowable assessments described below. Based on lead confirms that ambient air emissions, the MIR could be up to our risk assessment, no other HAP were concentrations of lead are well above 200-in-1 million. identified as contributing significant the lead NAAQS near seven of these The maximum modeled chronic non- risks. facilities. As described in the technical cancer TOSHI value is 0.6 based on With respect to the potential for document Draft Summary of Ambient actual emissions, driven primarily by adverse environmental effects from non Lead Monitoring Data near Secondary fugitive dust emissions of arsenic. When PB–HAP, we note that that there is a Lead Smelting Facilities, which is considering MACT allowable emissions, lack of information about specific available the docket, the measured the maximum chronic non-cancer adverse environmental effects occurring ambient levels (for 3-month maximum TOSHI value could be up to 3. at a given concentration of HAP for this rolling concentrations) for year 2010 source category. However, given that all range from 1.00 to 0.26 μg/m3 for the Based on using the acute REL to chronic non-cancer HQ values seven facilities, and for year 2008, the assess possible acute non-cancer effects considering actual emissions are less measured values were up to 2.49 μg/m3. due to emissions of arsenic, our When considering actual stack screening analysis estimates that the 21 Individual facility acute HQ values for all emissions only (i.e., in the theoretical maximum acute HQ value for a facility facilities can be found in Appendix 5, Table 3, of absence of fugitive dust emissions), we in this source category could be up to the risk assessment document that is included in estimate that one facility would be 30. Moreover, this analysis estimates the docket for this proposed rulemaking. Acute HQ values exceeding a value of 1 were as follows: 2, about 3 times above the NAAQS. that acute HQ values could exceed a 2, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 20 and 30. Moreover, we estimate that the risks

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:40 May 18, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19MYP2.SGM 19MYP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 29053

associated with MACT-allowable stack limit, as described in Sections IV.A and studies, using both exposure scenarios, emissions would be significantly higher. IV.B of this preamble), we estimated we did not estimate chronic HQ values For example, we estimate that based on that mercury emissions could be above greater than 1 for dioxin, mercury (even MACT-allowable emissions from stacks the de minimis emissions rates using the conservative emission alone (not including fugitive dust described above (see Section III.B of this assumptions just mentioned above) or emissions), the ambient lead preamble). cadmium. Detailed methods and results concentrations could be about 10 times As a result of this conservative of the multipathway analysis are above the NAAQS at two facilities. screening analysis, we performed two presented in the document Human Considering the results presented detailed case study multipathway Health Multipathway Residual Risk above, fugitive dust emissions, and to a analyses for these four PB–HAP in areas Assessment for the Secondary Lead lesser extent emissions from stacks, near the Frisco Recycling (Frisco, TX) Smelting Source Category, which can be resulted in modeled lead concentrations and Revere Smelting & Refining found in the docket for the proposed above the NAAQS. We also note when (Middletown, NY) facilities.24 rule. considering all emissions (i.e., stack and Moreover, as previously mentioned With respect to the potential for fugitive dust emissions), our analysis above (section III.B.4), in order to more adverse environmental effects from the indicates that maximum off-site fully characterize the potential non-lead PB–HAP included in the case 3-month rolling average lead multipathway risks associated with high study multipathway assessments concentrations could be up to 20 times end consumption of PB–HAP described above (i.e., multipathway the lead NAAQS near one facility’s contaminated food, we present results assessment for cadmium, dioxins and 22 fenceline. based on RME and CTE scenarios. The furans, POM, and mercury), similar to To evaluate the potential for adverse RME scenario utilizes 90th percentile non PB–HAP, there is a lack of environmental effects from lead, we ingestion rates for farmers, recreational information about specific adverse compared modeled maximum 3-month anglers, and for three subpopulations of environmental effects occurring at a rolling average lead ambient air recreational anglers) who have higher given concentration for these pollutants. concentrations with the current rates of fish consumption (Hispanic, However, given that the multipathway secondary lead NAAQS, which is Laotian, and Vietnamese descent), while assessments for these pollutants identical to the primary, public health- the CTE scenario utilizes mean estimated that all chronic non-cancer based standard (see Section III.B.3 of ingestion rates for each of these groups. HQ values are less than 1 using human this preamble). Thus, our analyses We provide results from both scenarios health reference values, we believe that discussed above also indicate the to illustrate the range of potential it is unlikely that adverse environmental potential for adverse environmental modeled exposures and risks that may effects would occur at the PB–HAP effects from emissions of lead. exist in the high-end of the complete As noted above (section III.B.4), based concentrations estimated in the distribution of potential multipathway multipathway assessment. on a multipathway screening analysis risks for this source category. for emissions of non-lead PB–HAP from Considering the RME scenario, results 3. Facility-Wide Risk Assessment this source category, emissions of of this analysis estimate the MIR for Results cadmium, dioxins and furans, and POM dioxin to be 30 in a million (based on were all above the de minimis emissions For this source category, there are no Laotian anglers near the Frisco, TX other significant HAP emissions sources rates that suggest the potential for non- facility). Using the CTE scenario, the negligible (i.e., greater than 1-in-1 present. All significant HAP sources maximum individual cancer risk from have been included in the source million cancer risk or greater than a dioxins is estimated to be 6 in a million noncancer hazard quotient of 1) risk of category risk analysis. Therefore, we (also for Laotian anglers near the Frisco, conclude that the facility-wide risk is adverse health effects from TX facility). We note that, for the entire 23 essentially the same as the source multipathway exposures. With regard distribution of recreational anglers, the to mercury, emissions are quite low for category risk and that no separate individual risk estimates for the CTE facility-wide analysis is necessary. this category. In fact, most emissions and RME scenarios ranged from 3 to 7 tests for mercury for this source category in a million. Considering both exposure 4. Demographic Risk Analysis Results were below MDL. Nevertheless, using scenarios, the MIR for POM was less conservative worst-case assumptions To identify specific groups that may than 1 in a million. With respect to be affected by this rulemaking, EPA (e.g., assuming all non-detects for chronic noncancer risk, in both case mercury were equal to the detection conducted demographic analyses. These analyses provide information about the 24 24 As previously noted above, the reasons that 22 Secondary lead smelting modeled ambient lead EPA selected these two facilities for analysis are demographic makeup of populations concentrations for all facilities can be found in described in detail in section 2.5.1 of the document with: (1) Estimated cancer risks at or Table 3.2–3 of the risk assessment document that Human Health Multipathway Residual Risk above 1-in-1 million; and (2) estimated is included in the docket for this proposed Assessment for the Secondary Lead Smelting ambient air lead concentrations above rulemaking. Facilities with modeled ambient lead Source Category, which can be found in the docket concentrations exceeding the NAAQS did so by 23, for the proposed rule. The selection criteria for the NAAQS for lead. Results are 19, 10, 6, 5, 4, 4, 3, 3, 1.5, 1.4 and 1.3 fold. modeling these two facilities included emissions summarized in Table 4 of this preamble 23 For facilities in this source category: Cadmium, rates of PB–HAPs, proximity to water bodies, and are based on modeling using BaP, dioxins and furans, and mercury estimated proximity to farmland, average rainfall, average estimated actual emissions levels for the emission rates were up to about 8, 24, 23,000, and wind speed and direction, smelting furnace type, 4 times above their respective de minimis emissions local change in elevation, and geographic populations living within 50 km of any rates. representativeness of sites throughout the U.S. secondary lead smelting facility.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:40 May 18, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19MYP2.SGM 19MYP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 29054 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 4—SECONDARY LEAD SMELTING DEMOGRAPHIC RISK ANALYSIS RESULTS

Population Population with ambient with cancer air lead Population Nationwide risk greater concentrations than 1-in-1 exceeding million 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 estimates that about 6 percent of this C. What are our proposed decisions indicate that there are approximately population can be classified as a based on risk acceptability and ample 128,000 people exposed to a cancer risk minority (listed as ‘‘all Other Races’’ in margin of safety? greater than 1-in-1 million. For the table). Moreover, all minority or 1. Risk Acceptability informational purposes, it can further be below the poverty level populations determined that about 42 percent of this considered in the demographics As noted in Section III.C of this preamble, we weigh all health risk population can be classified as a analysis for lead are below the factors in our risk acceptability minority (listed as ‘‘all Other Races’’ in corresponding national percentages for determination, including cancer risks to the table), which is above the national these groups. percentage of 25 percent. More the individual most exposed, risk specifically, this analysis estimates a Moreover, given the extent to which estimation uncertainty, and other health greater percentage of this population is lead may impact children’s health, we information, including population risks ‘‘Hispanic’’ (56 percent) and ‘‘Other and further note that our demographic and risks for non-cancer health effects. Multiracial’’ (34 percent) when analysis doesn’t indicate the presence of The following sections discuss our compared to the corresponding national a higher percentage of children than one decisions on risk acceptability based on percentages (14 percent and 12 percent, would normally expect around facilities three analyses: (1) Comparison of respectively). We also note that in the in this source category. The national modeled ambient lead concentrations cancer demographics analysis there is a percentage of people who are children with the lead NAAQS, (2) the inhalation larger percentage of individuals ‘‘Below 18 years and younger is 27 percent; the risk assessment, and (3) the Poverty Level’’ (22 percent) when percentage of people who are children multipathway risk assessment. compared to the national percentage (13 18 years or younger living near a. Comparison of Modeled Ambient percent). In contrast, this analysis secondary lead smelting facilities who Lead Concentrations With the Lead estimates the percentage of those are estimated to be exposed to lead NAAQS classified as ‘‘African American’’ (7 concentrations above the lead NAAQS With regard to lead emissions, percent) and ‘‘Native American’’ (0.8 is 26 percent (see Risk and Technology because ambient air lead concentrations percent) to be below corresponding Review—Analysis of Socio-Economic resulting from current emissions from national percentages (12 and 0.9 Factors for Populations Living Near nine facilities were estimated to be well percent, respectively). Secondary Lead Smelting Facilities in above the lead NAAQS, the risks With respect to lead, the risk analysis the docket for this proposed associated with lead emissions from this estimates that 500 people are living in rulemaking). source category are judged to be areas around this source category with unacceptable. Based on our modeling modeled ambient air lead analysis, we estimate that ambient air concentrations above the NAAQS for lead concentrations near the facility lead. The lead demographics analysis boundary resulting from actual

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:40 May 18, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19MYP2.SGM 19MYP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 29055

emissions from one of these facilities Nevertheless, we seek comments concentrations about 10 times above the could be as high as 20 times above the regarding this conclusion. NAAQS for two facilities. Because the lead NAAQS, due primarily to fugitive controls for stack emissions of arsenic c. Multipathway Risk Assessment dust emissions. Additionally, are the same as those for lead, and approximately 500 individuals could be Based on our multipathway risk because the relationship between exposed to three-month-rolling average assessment, we estimate that the MIR for emissions and the MIR and ambient air lead concentrations in excess of the cancer using a reasonable maximum or lead concentrations is predominantly NAAQS due to emissions from this a central tendency exposure scenario linear, we estimated that the current source category. Moreover, we estimate (see above) could be up to 30-in-1 stack lead concentration limit would that the risks would be significantly million and 6-in-1 million respectively, need to be reduced by approximately an higher based on MACT-allowable due to actual emissions of dioxins and order of magnitude to ensure acceptable emissions of lead from this source furans. Because the MIR is less than the risk from MACT-allowable emissions of category. Exposure to levels this much 100-in-1 million threshold, we conclude lead and arsenic from this source in excess of a primary NAAQS raises that the risks due to actual dioxin and category. Therefore, we considered obvious issues of adequacy of protection furan emissions are acceptable. Because lowering the existing lead concentration afforded by the current MACT standard. emissions of other HAP (i.e., cadmium limit by an order of magnitude (i.e., Among other things, the lead NAAQS and POM) analyzed in the from 2.0 mg/dscm to 0.2 mg/dscm) for was set to ‘‘provide increased protection multipathway risk assessments did not all stacks. We also considered different for children and other at-risk result in MIRs above 1-in-1 million, we forms of a revised lead emissions limit populations against an array of adverse also conclude that the risks due to that would achieve similar reductions in health effects, most notably including emissions of these HAP are acceptable. MACT-allowable emissions. However, neurological effects in children, d. Summary of Conclusions based on a combination of data analysis, evaluation of each facility’s processes, including neurocognitive and In summary, we conclude that, based neurobehavioral effects’’ (73 FR 67007). and communication with the industry, on our lead NAAQS analysis, the risks we have determined that a EPA is thus proposing that these due to lead emissions under the MACT ambient lead levels need to be reduced concentration-based limit continues to standard for this source category are be the most appropriate form for this to provide protection to public health unacceptable. Based on the inhalation with an ample margin of safety. source category. risk assessment, we conclude that We also evaluated an approach that b. Inhalation Risk Assessment cancer risks associated with MACT- would implement a facility-wide, flow- allowable emissions from this source Based on the inhalation risk weighted average lead concentration category are unacceptable, primarily limit of 0.20 mg/dscm with a maximum assessment, we estimate that the cancer due to arsenic emissions from stacks, risks to the individual most exposed concentration limit of 1.0 mg/dscm for and to a lesser extent cadmium any individual stack. For the 0.2 mg/ could be as high as 50-in-1 million due emissions. The cancer risks associated dscm flow-weighted average limit, to actual emissions and as high as 200- with actual emissions from this source facilities would assign a weighting in-1 million due to MACT-allowable category were determined to be factor to the measured lead emissions, mainly due to arsenic stack acceptable, but will be investigated concentrations of each stack based on emissions and, to a lesser extent, further in the ample margin of safety the exhaust flow rates of each control cadmium emissions. We estimate that analysis because the risks are greater device. The sum of all the flow- the incidence of cancer based on actual than 1-in-1 million, primarily due to weighted concentrations at each stack emissions is 0.02 excess cancer cases fugitive emissions of arsenic and within a facility would then be per year, or one case every 50 years. cadmium. calculated and compared to the Based on these results, we conclude that We will also evaluate the arsenic proposed limit to demonstrate the cancer risks due to MACT-allowable emissions further under the ample compliance. A limit in this form would emissions from this source category are margin of safety because of the potential ensure that the risks associated with unacceptable. The cancer risks due to for acute non-cancer risks. Lastly, the MACT-allowable stack emissions of lead actual emissions are below 100-in-1 risks from emissions of all HAP and arsenic from this source category million and population risks are considered in the multipathway are acceptable, and that the rule relatively low. Therefore, cancer risks assessment are acceptable. Nevertheless, provides an ample margin of safety, due to actual emissions are considered as described in section 2 below, we while providing flexibility to the acceptable. evaluate the HAP further under the facilities in determining the most With respect to potential acute non- ample margin of safety analysis. efficient approach to achieve the cancer health risks, we estimate that, 2. Proposed Controls and Analysis of necessary reductions. Proposing a based on our screening analysis, the the Resulting Risk maximum concentration limit of 1.0 mg/ worst-case HQ value could be up to 30 dscm for any individual stack will also (based on the REL) at one facility, due a. Allowable Stack Emissions ensure that stack emissions of lead from primarily to arsenic emissions. In order to ensure that the risks any one stack in this source category Additionally, we estimated that nine associated with MACT-allowable stack will not result in exceedances of the facilities had potential worst-case HQs emissions from this source category are lead NAAQS. Furthermore, our analysis greater than 1 in our screening analysis, acceptable, the MIR, resulting primarily of available control technologies, also due primarily to arsenic emissions. from allowable stack emissions of presented in Section IV.D of this These results suggest that arsenic arsenic, would need to be reduced by at preamble, confirms that this is a emissions have the potential to cause least a factor of 2 (i.e., from 200-in-1 technologically feasible standard. acute non-cancer health effects. million to 100-in-1 million or lower). For these reasons, under the authority However, the worst-case nature of our Also, based on our analyses, MACT of CAA section 112(f)(2), we are acute screening assessment suggests that allowable emissions of lead from stacks proposing a facility-wide, flow-weighted the potential for these effects carries a alone (not including fugitive dust average lead concentration limit of 0.20 relatively low probability of occurrence. emissions) could result in ambient lead mg/dscm to cover all stacks in this

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:40 May 18, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19MYP2.SGM 19MYP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 29056 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules

source category. We are also proposing consider requiring CEMs for existing (9) Areas where dust from fabric a maximum lead concentration limit of sources in the future, if appropriate. filters, sweepings or used fabric filters 1.0 mg/dscm to apply to any individual are handled or processed. b. Fugitive Dust Emissions stack at existing facilities. For new The ventilation air from the total sources, we are proposing that a limit of As described in Section IV.C.1 of this enclosures must be conveyed to a 0.20 mg/dscm applies to all individual preamble, we have determined that control device. We are also proposing stacks at the facility. As in the existing fugitive dust emissions must be reduced that the emissions from the enclosure MACT standard, compliance for existing such that ambient lead concentrations control devices will be subject to the sources will be demonstrated by annual near the facility boundaries are below proposed stack lead emissions limits stack testing and installation and the lead NAAQS (i.e., 0.15 mg/dscm). described in this section. operation of BLDSs for both new and Based on our review of information In addition, we are proposing that existing sources. submitted in the ICR, we have identified facilities must implement the following fugitive control work practices: We are also proposing that new a combination of specific fugitive control measures that are generally able Pavement cleaning and vehicle washing; affected sources would be required to cleaning of building rooftops on a demonstrate compliance using a lead to achieve lead concentrations near the boundaries of facilities that are below regular schedule (e.g., at least once per continuous emissions monitoring the lead NAAQS (see Draft Technology month); cleaning of all affected areas systems (CEMS).25 However, since the Review for the Secondary Lead Smelting after accidental releases; inspection of Agency has not finalized the Source Category). These controls the battery storage areas for broken performance specification for the use of include total enclosure of process batteries; performance of maintenance these instruments, we are deferring the fugitive emissions sources and material activities inside enclosures; and effective date of the requirement to storage and handling areas and transport of lead bearing material in install, calibrate, maintain and operate implementation of a list of prescribed closed systems. Additionally, each lead CEMS until these actions can be work practices to further limit the facility will be required to prepare, and completed. The lead CEMS installation formation of fugitive dust in other areas at all times operate according to, a SOP deadline will be established through of the facilities. Examples of these manual that describes in detail how the future rulemaking, along with other prescribed work practices include: additional work practices will be pertinent requirements. In the event Pavement of all grounds on the facility implemented. We acknowledge that there may be operations commence at a new affected or sufficient groundcover to prevent other control measures and alternative source prior to promulgation of the wind-blown dust, monthly cleaning of approaches that we have not identified performance specification, compliance building rooftops, timely cleaning of would be demonstrated through annual that are effective in reducing fugitive any accidental releases, inspection of dust emissions at other facilities. stack testing and installation of a BLDS battery storage areas outside of until promulgation of the lead CEMS Therefore, as an alternative to the enclosures for broken batteries, and requirement for full enclosure, we are performance specification. With regard performance of maintenance on to existing sources, we considered the proposing under CAA section 112(f)(2) equipment that may be contaminated that facilities may choose to implement possibility of proposing CEMs as the with lead inside total enclosures. Our method to demonstrate compliance with the work practices, maintain partial analysis indicates that these controls are enclosures and enclosure hoods as the the MACT limits. However, since the necessary to ensure that three-month Agency has not yet finalized the 1997 NESHAP requires, prepare an SOP rolling average lead concentrations near as described above and establish an performance specification for this the boundaries at all facilities in this method and since the costs could be ambient air monitoring network to source category do not exceed the lead ensure that lead concentrations in air high for applying this technology to NAAQS. Furthermore, our analysis of multiple stacks, we are not proposing a near the facility boundaries remain at or available control technologies in Section μ 3 requirement for CEMs for existing below 0.15 g/m based on 3-month IV.D of this preamble confirms that this rolling averages (the level and averaging sources. However, we are allowing the is a technologically feasible standard for option of a CEMS in lieu of annual stack time of the lead NAAQS). The this source category. monitoring plan must include a tests for lead for existing sources in this For the reasons described above, we minimum of two monitoring sites that industry when the technology is are proposing under CAA section are placed in locations that are most available and the EPA has established 112(f)(2) that each facility must totally likely to capture measurements of the performance specifications. We are enclose the following emissions sources maximum concentrations at or near the seeking comments and information on and operate the total enclosure under facility boundaries. For example, at least the feasibility of applying this negative pressure: one monitor must be placed in the technology for monitoring lead (1) Smelting furnaces; predominant downwind direction from emissions from these sources and the (2) Smelting furnace charging areas; main emissions sources based on potential to require CEMs on existing historical weather patterns in the area. sources in this source category. (3) Lead taps, slag taps, and molds during tapping; This alternative regulatory requirement Nevertheless, depending on comments based on partial enclosures, work (4) Battery breakers; received and other factors we may practices plus monitoring lead (5) Refining kettles, casting areas; concentrations in air would provide 25 We do not believe that use of a lead CEM to (6) Dryers; flexibility to facilities in determining meet the flow-weighted average of 0.2 mg/dscm (7) Agglomerating furnaces and poses issues of feasibility, even though our present the within-facility sources that should data for the source data comes from stack tests agglomerating furnace product taps; be enclosed and vented to a control rather than continuous measurements. This is (8) Material handling areas for any device that are most effective for because so many sources are achieving levels lead bearing materials (drosses, slag, reducing fugitive emissions at their considerably less than 0.2 mg/dscm in their performance tests. (See ‘‘Summary of the other raw materials), excluding areas facilities. These proposed requirements Technology Review for Secondary Lead Smelters’’, where unbroken lead acid batteries and will ensure that the risks associated which is available in the docket.) finished lead products are stored; and with fugitive lead emissions from this

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:40 May 18, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19MYP2.SGM 19MYP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 29057

source category are acceptable. programs that may be required at some acute HQ value will be reduced from Nevertheless, we are seeking comments of the facilities in this source category. potentially as high as 30 to less than or equal to 5. Based on these metrics, the on this proposed alternative c. Risks Considering Proposed Control actions proposed above under CAA requirement, including whether two Options monitors would be sufficient or if more section 112(f)(2) ensure acceptable risks monitors may be warranted. We conducted an assessment to from actual and MACT-allowable stack estimate the risks based on a post- If this alternative approach is chosen emissions of all HAP for this source control scenario reflecting the proposed category. by the facility, the work practices and requirements for stack and fugitive SOP along with the lead concentration emissions described above. (Details are 3. Ample Margin of Safety in air monitoring would be established provided in the Draft Risk Assessment Under the ample margin of safety as the enforceable requirements to report which is available in the docket analysis, we evaluate the cost and address fugitive emissions under the for this action). Based on that modeling feasibility of available control NESHAP. For both new and existing assessment, we estimated that the technologies and other measures facilities, compliance with the lead ambient lead concentrations would be at (including the controls, measures and concentration in air monitoring or below the lead NAAQS for all costs reviewed under the technology component would be demonstrated facilities once this rule is fully review) that could be applied in this based on rolling 3-month average implemented, except for possibly one source category to further reduce the concentrations as measured by the lead facility in California. Our modeling risks due to emissions of HAP identified compliance monitoring devices, analysis indicated that this one facility in our risk assessment. We estimate that consistent with the averaging time of the in California may still be above the lead the actions proposed under CAA section lead NAAQS (see documentation for NAAQS after controls. Therefore, we 112(f)(2), as described above, will EPA’s Lead NAAQS, available at: gathered additional information and did reduce the MIR associated with arsenic http://www.epa.gov/ttnnaaqs/ further evaluation of this facility. Based and cadmium from 200-in-1 to 10-in-1 standards/pb). We are proposing that on communications with the company, million for MACT-allowable emissions approval by EPA is required for each it is our understanding that the facility and from 50-in-1 to 10-in-1 million for source electing to comply by means of is currently constructing an additional actual emissions. The cancer incidence this alternative approach that includes a enclosure of certain equipment (e.g., will be reduced from 0.02 to 0.01 and monitoring network plus work practices baghouse row, abatement equipment, the maximum acute HQ value will be rather than compliance based on full and slurry tanks) that we had not reduced from potentially up to 30 to less enclosure plus work practices. Thus, the included in our post-control scenario. than or equal to 5. Although these risks proposed alternative requires Moreover, it is our understanding that are considered acceptable based on the development of a monitoring plan for the company has recently implemented, 100-in-1 million threshold established approval by the Administrator that or is currently implementing, other in the Benzene NESHAP, the MIR includes the minimum sampling and measures (e.g., repaired asphalt and remains greater than 1-in-1 million, due analysis methods and compliance additional cleaning of road surfaces) primarily to fugitive emissions of demonstration criteria. Under this that will significantly reduce their arsenic and cadmium. Also, the alternative, facilities would also be fugitive emissions further as part of maximum acute non-cancer HQ could required to provide a work practice SOP their efforts to comply with a California be up to 5. Our ample margin of safety manual to the Administrator.26 State regulation (reference: based on analysis is provided below. We have As part of this alternative, we are also verbal communications during meeting performed these analyses for emissions proposing a provision that would allow with Exide Corporation on February 23, sources of the following five groups of for reduced monitoring if the facility 2011, in RTP, NC; and a phone HAP for which standards were proposed demonstrates ambient lead conversation on April 25, 2011). The in today’s action: (1) Arsenic and concentrations less than 50 percent of California regulation has a compliance cadmium, (2) lead compounds, (3) the ambient lead concentration limit for deadline of late 2011 and requires that dioxins and furans, (4) organic HAP, three consecutive years at each monitor. ambient concentrations of lead near this and (5) mercury compounds. The results μ 3 We propose that a revised monitoring facility remain at or below 0.15 g/m of these analyses are presented in the plan may be submitted (for review and per 3-month rolling averages. Therefore, following sections. we conclude that this facility will possible approval by the Administrator) a. Arsenic and Cadmium Emissions to reduce the sampling and analysis achieve levels at or below the NAAQS. Because the estimated MIR of 10-in-1 frequency if all of the 3-month rolling In summary, we are proposing that million remaining after implementation average concentrations at each monitor the MACT standard, with the changes of our proposed revisions to the MACT are less than 50 percent of the limit of we are proposing under the CAA section standard is driven primarily by fugitive 0.15 μg/m3 over a 3-year period. The 112(f)(2) residual risk review, will emissions of arsenic and cadmium, we monitoring requirements discussed reduce risks from fugitive lead performed an ample margin of safety above were designed to allow for emissions to an acceptable level. Our analysis indicates that the MIR analysis on these emissions. Based on flexibility, prevention of redundant for cancer due to inhalation exposure our research and analyses, we have not requirements, and also to provide associated with actual emissions from identified any feasible control options consistency with current monitoring this source category would be reduced beyond what we are requiring in our from 50-in-1 million to 10-in-1 million proposed standards for fugitive 26 The proposed lead concentration in air alternative appears to be an ‘‘emissions standard’’, as a result of the actions proposed under emissions sources described above, and as required by section 112 (f)(2), since it ‘‘limits the 112(f)(2), while the MIR from MACT- are therefore not proposing additional quantity, rate, or concentration’’ of lead—to the allowable emissions would be reduced fugitive controls based on our ample level of the NAAQS at a location of maximum from 200-in-1 million to 10-in-1 million. margin of safety analysis. Nevertheless, exposure—albeit compliance with the standard is measured by means of ambient monitoring. CAA The cancer incidence rate will be we are soliciting comments and section 302 (k). Nonetheless, EPA solicits comment reduced from 0.02 to 0.01. Furthermore, information regarding additional on this issue. the maximum worst-case screening fugitive control measures, work

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:40 May 18, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19MYP2.SGM 19MYP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 29058 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules

practices that may be available and their any one stack to no more than 1.0 mg/ install additional afterburner capacity or feasibility in further reducing fugitive dscm, and requiring facilities to either install new afterburners at their facility emissions of metal HAP, or additional fully enclose their facility and in order to operate the units at these monitoring that may be warranted to implement comprehensive fugitive work conditions. The estimated total capital ensure adequate control of fugitive practices or implement comprehensive cost for the additional controls is $5.9 emissions. fugitive work practices and lead air million, with a total annualized cost of We also conducted additional monitoring, we conclude that the actual $2.9 million. Based on an estimated analyses to determine whether and MACT-allowable lead emissions control efficiency of 98 percent, TEQ reductions in stack emissions of arsenic from this source category would be emissions would be reduced by an and cadmium emissions beyond those reduced to the point that they would not estimated 28 grams per year and organic required by our proposed standards are result in off-site concentrations above HAP emissions by 200 tons per year (see appropriate and necessary to provide an the NAAQS. Moreover, we have not Draft Cost Impacts of the Revised ample margin of safety. We identified identified any further feasible and cost- NESHAP for the Secondary Lead one control technology that could effective controls. See Section IV.C.2.a Smelting Source Category for a detailed achieve reductions beyond those that of this preamble explaining that adding analysis). However, this option would will occur due to the actions we are a wet electrostatic precipitator as result in increases of NOX and CO2 proposing under CAA section 112(f)(2), supplementary HAP metal control emissions. Considering the costs which are described above. The device would be excessively costly and not associated with this option, the is a wet electrostatic precipitator cost-effective. Moreover, as described potential for increased emissions of (WESP) that provides an estimated lead above, we have not identified other NOX and CO2, and the fact that risks control efficiency of greater than 99 measures (beyond those proposed associated with emissions of dioxins percent on the outlet of the baghouse. above) to further reduce fugitive and furans are clearly less than 100-in- The combination of the baghouses with emissions. Thus, we are proposing that 1 million, we are not proposing this the WESP achieves greater than 99.99 revisions to the MACT standard that we option as part of our ample margin of percent control efficiency (see: Wet are proposing under CAA section safety analysis. We also considered Electrostatic Precipitator (WESP) 112(f)(2), as described above, will various beyond the floor options for Control for Meeting Metals Emissions provide an ample margin of safety with establishing MACT limits for dioxins Standards). This technology is currently regard to emissions of lead from this and furans under the Section 112(d)(3) used at one facility in California. source category. review (as described in section IV.A.2), However, this control configuration is but we are not proposing any of those c. Dioxin and Furan Emissions quite expensive. We estimated that options in this action for the reasons installing a WESP at the other 13 With regard to dioxin and furan described in that section. facilities would result in total capital emissions, as outlined in Section IV.A costs to the industry of $400 million and of this preamble, we are proposing d. Organic HAP Emissions a total annualized cost of $55 million. various emissions limits under CAA With regard to organic HAP (other We estimate that the cost-effectiveness section 112(d)(3). Results of the than dioxins and furans), we estimate would be about $4.0 million per ton of multipathway risk assessment indicate that actual emissions do not result in a reductions in metal HAP emissions that the cancer MIR associated with cancer risk above 1-in-1 million at any (mainly lead compounds). A detailed dioxin and furan emissions is 30-in-1 facilities in this source category. Given analysis of the costs associated with the million, less than the acceptability that actual emissions from blast WESP unit can be found in the technical threshold of 100-in-1 million. However, furnaces do not result in a cancer risk document for this action available in the because the MIR is greater than 1-in-1 above 1-in-1 million in this source docket (see Draft Cost Impacts of the million, we are required to investigate category, and that the actual THC Revised NESHAP for the Secondary whether reductions in emissions of emissions modeled from blast furnaces Lead Smelting Source Category). Stack dioxins and furans beyond that required were at levels close to the allowable emissions of arsenic and cadmium do in the limits we are proposing under emissions, we conclude that the cancer not appreciably contribute to the 10-in- CAA section 112(d)(3) are needed to risk associated with actual and 1 million cancer risks remaining after provide an ample margin of safety to the allowable emissions of organic HAP implementation of the proposed public. from all other furnace types are not revisions. Moreover, we conclude that We identified one option to reduce likely to be greater than 1-in-1 million the likelihood of significant noncancer emissions of dioxins and furans beyond since the THC limit for blast furnaces is effects due to arsenic emissions (after that required by the limits proposed in considerably higher than for other the proposed controls described above today’s action. This option is the furnace types. The one exception is for are in place) is very low because the installation of additional afterburner rotary furnaces, for which we are maximum acute noncancer HQ (which capacity at the facilities operating blast proposing a THC limit (i.e., 610 ppmv) could be as high as 5) is based on a very furnaces. We evaluated this option in today’s action that is higher than the conservative analysis using some worst because of the higher potential of limit in the 1997 NESHAP for blast case assumptions. Furthermore, the formation of dioxins and furans in the furnaces (i.e., 360 ppmv). Based on our costs for these additional controls are blast furnace exhaust due to its risk assessment, we estimate that the high. Therefore, we are not proposing a relatively cooler exit temperature. This highest possible MIR due to allowable requirement for the installation of a option would include operating the organic HAP emissions from the one WESP under this ample margin of safety currently installed afterburners at a rotary furnace in operation today would analysis. temperature of 1600 °F with a residence be 2-in-1 million (given the proposed time of 2.5 seconds, or installation of emissions limits in today’s action). This b. Lead Emissions new or additional afterburner capacity is based on the conservative assumption With regard to emissions of lead, by with this capability. Based on the that this rotary furnace will lowering the facility-wide emissions current level of performance identified continuously emit THC at exactly 610 limit to a flow-weighted average of 0.20 in the ICR surveys, we believe that this ppmv, which is a highly unlikely mg/dscm, limiting the emissions from option would require four facilities to scenario. Additionally, emissions of

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:40 May 18, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19MYP2.SGM 19MYP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 29059

organic HAP from this source category regarding these analyses can be found in facilities would be required to replace do not appreciably contribute to any the following technical document for one of their large old baghouses with a chronic-non cancer risk. For these this action which is available in the newer, more efficient baghouse in order reasons, we are proposing that the docket: Draft Technology Review for the to comply. We estimate that this would MACT standards for organic HAP, as Secondary Lead Smelting Source result in about 5.9 tons of reductions of proposed in today’s action, provide an Category. metal HAP emissions. We estimate that ample margin of safety. the total capital costs would be about 1. Fabric Filter Improvements $7.6 million with annualized costs of e. Mercury Emissions The improvements in fabric filter $1.7 million and cost-effectiveness of Lastly, with regard to mercury control technology are reflected in the $0.3 million per ton of metal HAP (or emissions from this source category, our emissions test data collected under the $150 per pound of metal HAP). As a co- risk assessment indicates that, even ICR. The emissions limit for lead under benefit to implementation of this based on our highly conservative the 1997 NESHAP is a concentration- revised standard, we estimate estimates of mercury emissions (see based limit of 2.0 mg/dscm applicable to reductions of 56 tons of PM at a cost- Section III.B.7 of this preamble for all stacks whether they are classified as effectiveness of $30,000 per ton of PM. further discussion on the conservative process, process fugitives, or building or We do not anticipate additional energy nature of our mercury emissions enclosure ventilation systems. Based on use associated with this revised limit, as estimates), emissions of mercury did not our analysis of survey responses and only replacement baghouses, as opposed appreciably contribute to risk based on test data collected under the ICR, this to new units, are anticipated. both the inhalation and multipathway industry primarily uses fabric filters to Furthermore, we do not anticipate any risk analyses. Given that the work control emissions of lead and other adverse non-air environmental impacts practice standard proposed in today’s metal HAP, and the vast majority of associated with the implementation of action for mercury is based on actual sources affected by the current lead this revised limit.27 performance of the industry, we are limit are achieving lead concentrations For the reasons described above, proposing that these standards provide at control device outlets that are far under the authority of CAA section an ample margin of safety with regards below the current limit (see: Draft 112(d)(6), we are proposing a facility- to risk from mercury emissions from Technology Review for the Secondary wide, flow-weighted average lead this source category. Lead Smelting Source Category). Several concentration limit of 0.20 mg/dscm to facilities have also installed HEPA D. What are the results and proposed cover all stacks. Additionally, because filters downstream of their fabric filters decisions based on our technology 89 of the 93 stacks identified in the ICR that have an estimated 99.97 percent review? that are controlled using a baghouse are add-on control efficiency for particles achieving lead concentrations below 1.0 Based on our technology review, we with an aerodynamic diameter of 0.3 mg/dscm, we conclude that this level of determined that there have been microns. More than 95 percent of all emissions is technologically feasible advances in emissions control measures sources reported lead concentrations and demonstrated, therefore we are also since the Secondary Lead Smelting (coming out of the stacks after the proposing a maximum lead NESHAP was originally promulgated in control devices) that are less than half concentration limit of 1.0 mg/dscm to 1997. Since promulgation, we estimate of the current limit, with several sources apply to any individual stack at existing that industry-wide metal HAP emissions achieving lead concentrations that are facilities. For new sources, we are (including lead) from process and two to three orders of magnitude lower proposing that the 0.20 mg/dscm limit process fugitive sources have been than the current limit. Based on the applies to all individual stacks at the reduced by approximately 80 percent. available data, the average lead outlet facility. Consistent with the standards As a result, and due to other factors, concentration of all affected sources in proposed under CAA section 112(f)(2) actual lead emissions from process and this source category is 0.16 mg/dscm, in today’s action, compliance for process fugitive sources at most with a median of 0.04 mg/dscm. Based existing sources will be demonstrated secondary lead smelting facilities are on these data, we believe that either by annual stack testing and significantly lower than are allowed developments in practices, processes, installation and operation of BLDS or by under the 1997 NESHAP. and control technologies warrant use of a lead CEMS once performance Based on our technology review, we revisions to the 1997 NESHAP to reflect specifications have been promulgated. believe that the reductions in metal emissions levels achieved in practice. New affected sources would be required HAP emissions since promulgation of Our analysis of emissions data provided to demonstrate compliance using a lead the 1997 NESHAP are mainly directly in the ICR indicates that stacks CEMS, pending promulgation of the related to improvements in two areas: equipped with a well-performing fabric lead CEMS performance specifications. (1) Improvements in fabric filter control filter can achieve exhaust lead Any new affected sources commencing technology (e.g., improved bag concentrations of less than 0.20 mg/ operations prior to promulgation of the materials, replacement of older dscm (see: Draft Technology Review for performance specifications may baghouses) and (2) total enclosure of the Secondary Lead Smelting Source demonstrate compliance through annual process fugitive emissions sources and Category). In fact, of the 93 stacks stack testing and operation of a BLDS raw material storage and handling areas identified in the ICR that are controlled until the CEMS performance and improvements in emissions controls using a baghouse, 74 reported average specifications are promulgated. and work practices for fugitive dust lead concentrations of less than 0.20 We believe that these proposed emissions sources. Additional mg/dscm. Based on these data, we revisions, identical to those proposed reductions have been achieved due to considered the costs and feasibility of under CAA section 112(f)(2), are cost- the use of a WESP at one facility and revising the emissions limit down to effective revisions that reflect the level also HEPA filters in some cases. The 0.20 mg/dscm as a facility-wide, flow- results of our analyses and our proposed weighted average, identical to the limit 27 As explained in section C above, we conclude decisions for these areas under CAA proposed under CAA section 112(f)(2) that requiring an additional wet electrostatic precipitator as a form of supplementary metal section 112(d)(6) are presented in the in today’s action. We estimate that if we control at all facilities would be excessively costly following sections. Additional details proposed such a limit, two of the 14 and not cost effective.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:40 May 18, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19MYP2.SGM 19MYP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 29060 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules

of control achievable in practice by a of PM at a cost effectiveness of $100,000 Additionally, we are proposing under well performing fabric filter. per ton of PM. We do anticipate CAA section 112(d)(6) that each facility approximately 23 million kilowatt hours must implement the following fugitive 2. Total Enclosure of Process Fugitive (KWH) of additional energy use control work practices: pavement Sources and Raw Material Storage and associated with the operation of cleaning and vehicle washing; cleaning Handling Areas and Work Practices for of building rooftops on a regular (e.g., at Fugitive Dust Sources additional baghouses controlling the building ventilation systems. However, least once per month) schedule; Facilities have achieved some of their we do not anticipate any adverse non- cleaning of all affected areas after reductions since 1997 through total air environmental impacts associated accidental releases; inspection of the enclosure of process fugitive emissions with the implementation of these battery storage areas for broken sources and material storage and potential controls. Additionally, for ten batteries; performance of maintenance handling areas. Based on responses to facilities to implement the additional activities inside enclosures; and the ICR survey, the process fugitive fugitive control work practices transport of lead bearing material in emissions sources regulated under the mentioned above, we estimate no closed systems. 1997 NESHAP are totally enclosed and capital cost and a total annualized cost For both new and existing facilities, vented to a control device at seven of of about $3.0 million (about $0.2 million compliance with the total enclosure and the 14 existing facilities. Additionally, per facility). These work practices work practice requirements described an eighth facility has a current project would achieve an estimated 4.2 tons above would require construction of to install total enclosures and associated reduction of metal HAP (mainly lead, total enclosures (where they do not control devices for their process fugitive arsenic, and cadmium). Additionally, as already exist) capable of being operated emissions sources. This level of a co-benefit, these work practices would under negative pressure and venting of enclosure is well beyond the achieve an estimated 46 tons reduction the enclosure exhaust to a control requirements of the 1997 NESHAP that of PM at a cost-effectiveness of $100,000 device. Additionally, each facility provides facilities the option of using per ton of PM. The total cost would be required to prepare, and at all negative pressure hoods to capture effectiveness of implementing total times operate according to, a SOP process fugitive emissions and route enclosures with negative pressure manual that describes in detail how the them to a control device. The other six ventilation as well as additional fugitive additional work practices will be facilities have some degree of enclosure, emissions control work practices is implemented. We believe this standard, but the extent of enclosure among these estimated at $1.0 million per ton of identical to that proposed under CAA six facilities varies considerably. With metal HAP (or $500 per pound of metal section 112(f)(2), is a cost-effective regard to material storage and handling HAP). Because the primary HAP control option that reflects the level of areas, the ICR surveys indicate that all reduced are lead compounds, arsenic, fugitive control achieved in practice by of the facilities with process fugitive and cadmium, and given the co-benefit several facilities in this source category. emissions sources in total enclosures PM reductions, we believe that these have enclosed the storage areas for all 3. Alternative Compliance Option for costs and cost-effectiveness values are lead-bearing materials such as processed Fugitive Dust Emissions Under CAA reasonable. raw materials and slag. Section 112(d)(6) The information and data collected Therefore, for the reasons described Similar to the previous discussion under the ICR also indicate that at least above, we are proposing under CAA regarding the fugitive emissions limits four facilities conduct work practices section 112(d)(6) that each facility must proposed in under CAA section beyond those required in the 1997 totally enclose the following emissions 112(f)(2), we acknowledge that there NESHAP to further limit the formation sources and operate the total enclosure may be other control measures that we of fugitive dust from material handling under negative pressure: have not identified that are effective in operations and re-entrainment of lead (1) Smelting furnaces. reducing fugitive dust emissions at dust deposited within the facility fence (2) Smelting furnace charging areas. other facilities. Therefore, as an line. Examples of these work practices (3) Lead taps, slag taps, and molds alternative to the requirements for full include: pavement of all grounds on the during tapping. enclosure, we are proposing under CAA facility, monthly cleaning of building (4) Battery breakers. section 112(d)(6) that facilities may rooftops, timely cleaning of any (5) Refining kettles, casting areas. choose to implement comprehensive accidental releases, inspection of battery (6) Dryers. fugitive control work practices, storage areas outside of enclosures for (7) Agglomerating furnaces and maintain the partial enclosures and broken batteries, and performance of agglomerating furnace product taps. enclosure hoods required in the 1997 maintenance on equipment that may be (8) Material handling areas for any NESHAP, plus establish an air contaminated with lead inside total lead bearing materials (drosses, slag, monitoring network, similar to that enclosures. other raw materials), excluding areas required in the lead NAAQS, to ensure We estimate that for the six facilities where unbroken lead acid batteries and that fugitive emissions are minimized to implement total enclosures with finished lead products are stored. and that lead concentrations in air near negative pressure ventilation to their (9) Areas where dust from fabric the facility boundaries remain at or process fugitive emissions sources, the filters, sweepings or used fabric filters below 0.15 μg/m3 based on 3-month total capital cost would be about $40 are handled or processed. rolling averages. This compliance million (about $6.7 million per facility) The ventilation air from the total alternative is identical to that proposed with total annualized costs of about $6.4 enclosures must be conveyed to a under CAA section 112(f)(2). The million (or about $1.1 million per control device. We are also proposing implementation of this proposed facility). These controls would achieve that the emissions from the enclosure alternative is thus identical and is an estimated 5.3 tons reduction of metal control devices be subject to the presented in Section IV.C of this HAP (mainly lead compounds, but also proposed stack lead emissions limits preamble. arsenic, and cadmium). Additionally, as proposed in Section IV.D.1 of this For facilities that choose the a co-benefit, these controls would preamble and also previously under alternative compliance option for achieve an estimated 58 tons reduction CAA section 112(f)(2). fugitive dust emissions and do not

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:40 May 18, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19MYP2.SGM 19MYP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 29061

install total enclosures, we are these periods do not increase. Control foreseeable. See, e.g., Sierra Club v. proposing to keep the requirements for devices such as afterburners for organics EPA, 167 F.3d 658, 662 (DC Cir. 1999) enclosure hoods and partial enclosures and dioxin control and baghouses for (EPA typically has wide latitude in specified in the 1997 NESHAP in order lead and metal HAP particulate control determining the extent of data-gathering to ensure a level of containment for are started up before the process units, necessary to solve a problem. We process fugitive emissions. We are and are operational during the generally defer to an agency’s decision seeking comment on other control shutdown phase of a process. Therefore, to proceed on the basis of imperfect measures that should be prescribed for no increase in emissions is expected scientific information, rather than to facilities that choose the alternative during these periods. Enclosures and ‘‘invest the resources to conduct the compliance option. work practices for fugitive emissions perfect study.’’). See also, Weyerhaeuser will be in place at all times. Therefore, v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1058 (DC Cir. E. What other actions are we proposing? separate standards for periods of startup 1978) (‘‘In the nature of things, no 1. Startup, Shutdown, Malfunction and shutdown are not being proposed. general limit, individual permit, or even Periods of startup, normal operations, any upset provision can anticipate all The United States Court of Appeals and shutdown are all predictable and upset situations. After a certain point, for the District of Columbia Circuit routine aspects of a source’s operations. the transgression of regulatory limits vacated portions of two provisions in However, by contrast, malfunction is caused by ‘uncontrollable acts of third EPA’s CAA section 112 regulations defined as a ‘‘sudden, infrequent, and parties,’ such as strikes, sabotage, governing the emissions of HAP during not reasonably preventable failure of air operator intoxication or insanity, and a periods of startup, shutdown, and pollution control and monitoring variety of other eventualities, must be a malfunction (SSM). Sierra Club v. EPA, equipment, process equipment or a matter for the administrative exercise of 551 F.3d 1019 (DC Cir. 2008), cert. process to operate in a normal or usual case-by-case enforcement discretion, not denied, 130 S. Ct. 1735 (U.S. 2010). manner * * *’’ (40 CFR 63.2). EPA has for specification in advance by Specifically, the Court vacated the SSM determined that CAA section 112 does regulation’’). In addition, the goal of a exemption contained in 40 CFR not require that emissions that occur best controlled or best performing 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), that are during periods of malfunction be source is to operate in such a way as to part of a regulation, commonly referred factored into development of CAA avoid malfunctions of the source and to as the ‘‘General Provisions Rule,’’ that section 112 standards. Under CAA accounting for malfunctions could lead EPA promulgated under CAA section section 112, emissions standards for to standards that are significantly less 112. When incorporated into CAA new sources must be no less stringent stringent than levels that are achieved section 112(d) regulations for specific than the level ‘‘achieved’’ by the best by a well-performing non- source categories, these two provisions controlled similar source and for malfunctioning source. EPA’s approach exempt sources from the requirement to existing sources generally must be no to malfunctions is consistent with CAA comply with the otherwise applicable less stringent than the average emissions section 112 and is a reasonable CAA section 112(d) emissions standard limitation ‘‘achieved’’ by the best interpretation of the statute. during periods of SSM. performing 12 percent of sources in the In the event that a source fails to We are proposing the elimination of category. There is nothing in CAA comply with the applicable CAA section the SSM exemption in this rule. section 112 that directs the Agency to 112(d) standards as a result of a Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, EPA consider malfunctions in determining malfunction event, EPA would is proposing standards in this rule that the level ‘‘achieved’’ by the best determine an appropriate response apply at all times. We are also proposing performing or best controlled sources based on, among other things, the good several revisions to Table 1 to subpart when setting emissions standards. faith efforts of the source to minimize X of part 63 (the General Provisions Moreover, while EPA accounts for emissions during malfunction periods, Applicability table). For example, we variability in setting emissions including preventative and corrective are proposing to eliminate the standards consistent with the CAA actions, as well as root cause analyses incorporation of the General Provisions’ section 112 case law, nothing in that to ascertain and rectify excess requirement that the source develop an case law requires the Agency to emissions. EPA would also consider SSM plan. We also are proposing to consider malfunctions as part of that whether the source’s failure to comply eliminate or revise certain analysis. Section 112 of the CAA uses with the CAA section 112(d) standard recordkeeping and reporting that related the concept of ‘‘best controlled’’ and was, in fact, ‘‘sudden, infrequent, not to the SSM exemption. EPA has ‘‘best performing’’ unit in defining the reasonably preventable’’ and was not attempted to ensure that we have not level of stringency that CAA section 112 instead ‘‘caused in part by poor included in the proposed regulatory performance standards must meet. maintenance or careless operation’’ 40 language any provisions that are Applying the concept of ‘‘best CFR 63.2 (definition of malfunction). inappropriate, unnecessary, or controlled’’ or ‘‘best performing’’ to a Finally, EPA recognizes that even redundant in the absence of the SSM unit that is malfunctioning presents equipment that is properly designed and exemption. We are specifically seeking significant difficulties, as malfunctions maintained can sometimes fail and that comment on whether there are any such are sudden and unexpected events. such failure can sometimes cause an provisions that we have inadvertently Further, accounting for malfunctions exceedance of the relevant emissions incorporated or overlooked. would be difficult, if not impossible, standard. (See, e.g., State In proposing the standards in this given the myriad different types of Implementation Plans: Policy Regarding rule, EPA has taken into account startup malfunctions that can occur across all Excessive Emissions During and shutdown periods and, for the sources in the category and given the Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown reasons explained below, has not difficulties associated with predicting or (Sept. 20, 1999); Policy on Excess proposed different standards for those accounting for the frequency, degree, Emissions During Startup, Shutdown, periods. and duration of various malfunctions Maintenance, and Malfunctions (Feb. Information on periods of startup and that might occur. As such, the 15, 1983)). EPA is therefore proposing to shutdown received from the industry in performance of units that are add to the final rule an affirmative the ICR indicate that emissions during malfunctioning is not ‘‘reasonably’’ defense to civil penalties for

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:40 May 18, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19MYP2.SGM 19MYP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 29062 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules

exceedances of emissions limits that are malfunctions as part of the affirmative form for most of the commonly used caused by malfunctions. See 40 CFR defense provisions. EPA reference methods. A listing of the 63.542 (defining ‘‘affirmative defense’’ to Added paragraphs in 40 CFR pollutants and test methods supported mean, in the context of an enforcement 63.550(c) requiring the keeping of by the ERT is available at http:// proceeding, a response or defense put certain records during malfunctions as www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ert_tool.html. forward by a defendant, regarding part of the affirmative defense We believe that industry would benefit which the defendant has the burden of provisions. from this proposed approach to proof, and the merits of which are Revised Table 1 to subpart X of part electronic data submittal. Having these independently and objectively 63 to reflect changes in the applicability data, EPA would be able to develop evaluated in a judicial or administrative of the General Provisions to this subpart improved emissions factors, make fewer proceeding). We also are proposing resulting from a court vacatur of certain information requests, and promulgate other regulatory provisions to specify SSM requirements in the General better regulations. the elements that are necessary to Provisions. One major advantage of the proposed establish this affirmative defense; the 2. Electronic Reporting submittal of performance test data source must prove by a preponderance through the ERT is a standardized of the evidence that it has met all of the EPA must have performance test data method to compile and store much of elements set forth in 40 CFR 63.552 (40 to conduct effective reviews of CAA the documentation required to be CFR 22.24). The criteria ensure that the sections 112 and 129 standards, as well reported by this rule. Another advantage affirmative defense is available only as for many other purposes including is that the ERT clearly states what where the event that causes an compliance determinations, emissions testing information would be required. exceedance of the emissions limit meets factor development, and annual Another important proposed benefit of the narrow definition of malfunction in emissions rate determinations. In submitting these data to EPA at the time 40 CFR 63.2 (sudden, infrequent, not conducting these required reviews, EPA the source test is conducted is that it reasonable preventable and not caused has found it ineffective and time should substantially reduce the effort by poor maintenance and or careless consuming, not only for us, but also for involved in data collection activities in operation). For example, to successfully regulatory agencies and source owners the future. When EPA has performance assert the affirmative defense, the source and operators, to locate, collect, and test data in hand, there will likely be must prove by a preponderance of the submit performance test data because of fewer or less substantial data collection evidence that excess emissions ‘‘[w]ere varied locations for data storage and requests in conjunction with caused by a sudden, infrequent, and varied data storage methods. In recent prospective required residual risk unavoidable failure of air pollution years, though, stack testing firms have assessments or technology reviews. This control and monitoring equipment, typically collected performance test data would result in a reduced burden on process equipment, or a process to in electronic format, making it possible both affected facilities (in terms of operate in a normal or usual manner to move to an electronic data submittal reduced manpower to respond to data ***’’ The criteria also are designed to system that would increase the ease and collection requests) and EPA (in terms ensure that steps are taken to correct the efficiency of data submittal and improve of preparing and distributing data malfunction, to minimize emissions in data accessibility. collection requests and assessing the accordance with 40 CFR 63.543(j) and to Through this proposal EPA is results). prevent future malfunctions. For presenting a step to increase the ease State, local, and Tribal agencies could example, the source must prove by a and efficiency of data submittal and also benefit from more streamlined and preponderance of the evidence that improve data accessibility. Specifically, accurate review of electronic data ‘‘[r]epairs were made as expeditiously as EPA is proposing that owners and submitted to them. The ERT would possible when the applicable emissions operators of Secondary Lead Smelting allow for an electronic review process limitations were being exceeded * * *’’ facilities submit electronic copies of rather than a manual data assessment and that ‘‘[a]ll possible steps were taken required performance test reports to making review and evaluation of the to minimize the impact of the excess EPA’s WebFIRE database. The WebFIRE source provided data and calculations emissions on ambient air quality, the database was constructed to store easier and more efficient. Finally, environment and human health * * *.’’ performance test data for use in another benefit of the proposed data In any judicial or administrative developing emissions factors. A submittal to WebFIRE electronically is proceeding, the Administrator may description of the WebFIRE database is that these data would greatly improve challenge the assertion of the affirmative available at http://cfpub.epa.gov/ the overall quality of existing and new defense and, if the respondent has not oarweb/index.cfm?action=fire.main. emissions factors by supplementing the met its burden of proving all of the As proposed above, data entry would pool of emissions test data for requirements in the affirmative defense, be through an electronic emissions test establishing emissions factors and by appropriate penalties may be assessed report structure called the Electronic ensuring that the factors are more in accordance with CAA section 113 Reporting Tool. The ERT would be able representative of current industry (see also 40 CFR 22.77). to transmit the electronic report through operational procedures. A common Specifically, we are proposing the EPA’s Central Data Exchange network complaint heard from industry and following changes to the rule. for storage in the WebFIRE database regulators is that emissions factors are Added general duty requirements in making submittal of data very outdated or not representative of a 40 CFR 63.543(j) to replace General straightforward and easy. A description particular source category. With timely Provision requirements that reference of the ERT can be found at http:// receipt and incorporation of data from vacated SSM provisions. www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ert_tool.html. most performance tests, EPA would be Added replacement language that The proposal to submit performance able to ensure that emissions factors, eliminates the reference to SSM test data electronically to EPA would when updated, represent the most exemptions applicable to performance apply only to those performance tests current range of operational practices. In tests in 40 CFR 63.543(i). conducted using test methods that will summary, in addition to supporting Added paragraphs in 40 CFR be supported by the ERT. The ERT regulation development, control strategy 63.550(d) requiring the reporting of contains a specific electronic data entry development, and other air pollution

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:40 May 18, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19MYP2.SGM 19MYP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 29063

control activities, having an electronic conduct a compliance test for lead if the extent possible. EPA revised the database populated with performance previous test was less than 1.0 mg/dscm. We primary NAAQS for lead in 2008. See test data would save industry, state, do not believe a reduced testing frequency is 73 FR 66,964 (Nov. 12, 2008); see also local, Tribal agencies, and EPA appropriate considering the proposed Coalition of Battery Recyclers v. EPA, changes to the existing standard, and the significant time, money, and effort proposed requirement to calculate a flow- 604 F. 3d 613 (DC Cir. 2010) (upholding while also improving the quality of weighted average on an annual basis. those standards). EPA designated 16 emissions inventories and, as a result, • Add a requirement to conduct a areas as non-attainment for the lead air quality regulations. performance test for THC on the same NAAQS, effective December 21, 2010, Records must be maintained in a form schedule as the stack test for lead. The 1997 75 FR 71,033 (November 22, 2010). EPA suitable and readily available for NESHAP requires an initial test for THC, but intends to complete designations for expeditious review, according to does not require periodic testing. We are remaining areas of the country for the 63.10(b)(1). Electronic recordkeeping proposing that a performance test for total lead NAAQS in October, 2011, effective hydrocarbon be conducted on the same December 31, 2011. States have 18 and reporting is available for many schedule as the stack test for lead. This records, and is the form considered proposed requirement will ensure any months following a nonattainment most suitable for expeditious review if changes in operation that could affect the designation for lead to submit a State available. Electronic recordkeeping and organic HAP content of the furnace vents are Implementation Plan (SIP) reporting is encouraged in this proposal monitored on a routine basis. demonstrating how the area will timely and some records and reports are • Consolidate the requirements for attain the NAAQS. See CAA section required to be kept in electronic format. atmospheric vents to be conveyed to a 191(a). Accordingly, attainment SIPs for Records required to be maintained control device into one section of the rule lead will be due by July 2012 for areas (40 CFR 63.543(f)). electronically include the output of • designated in 2010 and July 2013 for Clarify the requirements for plant areas designated in 2011. States are continuous monitors and the output of roadway cleaning in 40 CFR 63.545 to specify the bag leak detection systems. equipment requirements for the mobile required to attain the standard as Additionally, standard operating vacuum sweeper. expeditiously as practicable, but no later procedures for the bag leak detection • Clarify the requirement to wash vehicles than 5 years following a nonattainment system and fugitive emissions control at the exit of a material storage area by designation (i.e., Dec. 31, 2015 or 2016, are required to be submitted to the specifying that the wash must include respectively). As part of the attainment Administrator for approval in electronic washing of tires, undercarriage and exterior demonstration, SIPs may consider format. surface of the vehicle followed by an regulatory controls which have been inspection. • adopted as of the date the SIP is 3. Other Changes Accompanying edits are being proposed submitted and will achieve timely for the standard operating procedures for The following lists additional minor baghouses in 40 CFR 63.548 and for control reductions for attaining the standard. changes to the NESHAP we are of fugitive emissions in 40 CFR 63.545 to The standards proposed in this rule proposing. This list includes proposed reflect the proposed changes described for would likely harmonize with this rule changes that address editorial baghouses, enclosures and work practices for implementation schedule both corrections and plain language control of fugitive emissions. procedurally and substantively. revisions: • Update the monitoring requirements for Pursuant to consent decree, EPA is building differential pressure to reflect the • obligated to promulgate the final Revise the definition for collocated blast requirements for the pressure monitor to and reverberatory furnaces to apply to NESHAP rule by December 31, 2011. have the capability of detecting 0.01 mm Hg Assuming EPA adopts the proposed systems ‘‘where the vent streams of the and to continuously record pressure furnaces are mixed before cooling’’. This readings. standards and the rule is published in proposed revision clarifies the intent of the • Update the recordkeeping and reporting the Federal Register in early 2012, the original definition which was to establish the sections to reflect the new monitoring standards would become effective in conditions under which a reverberatory requirements and monitoring options early 2012, with a compliance date of furnace stream would control the emissions described above. March 2014 (assuming a two year of a blast furnace stream. • Update the compliance dates to include compliance date is necessary to allow • Add a definition for ‘‘maintenance the anticipated dates the proposed sufficient time for the controls to be activity.’’ This definition is necessary for the requirements will become effective. proposed work practice requirement • adopted). This schedule should allow Added the requirement in 40 CFR for states to take any controls required concerning fugitive emissions during 63.548(l) for new or modified sources to maintenance activities that could generate install a CEMS for measuring lead emissions under the NESHAP rule into lead dust. consideration for attainment planning • when performance specifications for lead Delete definitions no longer referenced CEMS are promulgated. purposes. in the proposed NESHAP. • As described above, EPA is proposing • Included provisions for existing sources Eliminate the exemption for areas used to use a CEMS instead of operating a BLDS standards either predicated on exclusively for the storage of blast furnace and performing annual stack tests. individual sources emitting lead at slag from the raw materials storage area levels that would result in ambient definition. F. What is the relationship of the • Change the title of 40 CFR 63.543 concentrations less than the primary Secondary Lead Smelting standards lead NAAQS (the proposed stack (‘‘Standards for process sources’’) to ‘‘What proposed in today’s action and are my standards for atmospheric vents?’’. standards), or (in the case of the This change is being made to better reflect implementation of the lead NAAQS? alternative to enclosure standards for the description of the proposed standards in Although EPA’s obligation to conduct lead) actually demonstrating that source this section. technology reviews and risk analyses for emissions do not exceed the primary • Change the title of 40 CFR 63.544 the secondary lead smelting source lead NAAQS at a point of maximum (‘‘Standards for process fugitive sources’’) to category is independent of the process projected concentration. EPA ‘‘ ’’ What are my process enclosure standards? of developing, revising, and to better reflect the description of the anticipates that, at least in areas where proposed requirements for enclosure of implementing the National Ambient Air nonattainment is attributable to single sources of process fugitive emissions. Quality Standard (NAAQS) for lead, sources that are subject to this rule, if • Eliminate the provision in 40 CFR EPA is interested in harmonizing these the proposed controls are sufficient to 63.544(f) allowing up to 24 months to separate regulatory processes to the attain the NAAQS by the attainment

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:40 May 18, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19MYP2.SGM 19MYP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 29064 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules

deadline, then adoption of additional V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, baghouses with better-performing controls in the SIP for the area would and Economic Impacts materials, construction of new not be necessary. enclosures for processes not currently A. What are the affected sources? EPA solicits comments on the enclosed, modification of partially- interplay between implementation of We anticipate that the 14 secondary enclosed structures to meet the the primary lead NAAQS and the lead smelting facilities currently requirements of total enclosure, and proposed standards in today’s action operating in the United States will be installation of BLDS on baghouses that and steps EPA might permissibly take to affected by these proposed amendments. are not currently equipped with these harmonize the two regulatory processes. No new facilities are expected to be systems. constructed in the foreseeable future; The capital costs for each facility were G. Compliance Dates however, one facility is currently estimated based on the number and We are proposing that facilities must undergoing an expansion. types of upgrades required. Each facility comply with all the requirements in this was evaluated for its ability to meet the B. What are the air quality impacts? action (which are being proposed under proposed limits for lead emissions, THC CAA sections 112(d)(2), 112(d)(3), EPA estimated the emissions emissions, dioxin and furan emissions, 112(d)(6), 112(f)(2), and 112(h) for all reductions that are expected to result and proposed fugitive dust emissions affected sources), no later than two from the proposed amendments to the requirements. The memorandum Cost years after the effective date of this rule. 1997 NESHAP compared to the 2009 Impacts of the Revised NESHAP for the Under section 63.6(i)(4)(ii), ‘‘the owner baseline emissions estimates. A detailed Secondary Lead Smelting Source or operator of an existing source unable documentation of the analysis can be Category includes a complete to comply with a relevant standard found in: description of the cost estimate methods established * * * pursuant to section used for this analysis and is available in 112(f) * * * may request that the Draft Cost Impacts of the Revised NESHAP for the Secondary Lead the docket. Administrator grant an extension The majority of the capital costs Smelting Source Category allowing the source up to 2 years after estimated for compliance with the the standard’s effective date to comply Emissions of lead and arsenic from amendments proposed in this action are with the standard.’’ The rule further secondary lead smelters have declined for purchasing new enclosures and the specifies a written application for such over the last 15 years as a result of associated control devices that would be a request. Here, EPA is already fully Federal rules, state rules and on the required for these enclosures. Although aware of the steps needed for each industry’s own initiative. The current the proposed amendments would source to comply with the proposed proposal would cut lead and arsenic provide the alternative option to install standards and to reasonably estimate the emissions by 63 percent from their monitors at or near the property amount of time it will take each source current levels, for a total reduction of boundary to demonstrate compliance to do so. We believe that the two year more than 95% over that last 15 years. with the enclosure requirements, we extension would be warranted in all Under the proposed emissions limit for assumed that each facility would need cases for sources needing to upgrade lead, we estimated that the lead to install enclosures for each of the current practice. This includes the time emissions reductions would be 9,400 lb/ processes described in proposed 40 CFR needed to: Construct required yr from process and process fugitive 63.544 if the facility did not already enclosures and install associated control sources and 17,200 lb/yr from fugitive have the required enclosures. For each devices for fugitive sources; purchase, dust sources. The expected reduction in facility, we estimated the square footage install and test replacement bags, or if total metal HAP is 11,800 lb/yr from of new enclosures required based on the the facility decides to replace an process and process fugitive sources and size of enclosures currently in place existing baghouse or add a new 19,000 lb/yr from fugitive dust sources. compared to facilities that we baghouse in series with an existing We estimate that these controls will also considered to be totally enclosed with a baghouse, seek bids, select a vendor, reduce emissions of PM by 319,000 lb/ similar production capacity. We further install and test the new equipment; yr. assumed that the facilities that required prepare and submit the required Based on the emissions data available a substantial degree of new enclosure monitoring plan to monitor lead to the EPA, we believe that all facilities would re-configure their facility, concentrations in air; and, purchase, will be able to comply with the particularly the storage areas, to reduce install and conduct quality assurance proposed emissions limits for THC and their footprint. and quality control measures on dioxins and furans without additional Based on our analysis of the facility compliance monitoring equipment (see controls. However, we expect that some configurations, seven facilities were Estimated Time Needed to Achieve emissions reductions will occur due to considered to be totally enclosed. Compliance with The Proposed increased temperatures of afterburners Another facility is currently installing Revisions to the MACT standard for and from improved work practices. enclosure structures and equipment that Secondary Lead Smelters, which is Nevertheless, it is quite difficult to we anticipate will meet the proposed available in the docket for this proposed estimate accurate reductions from these requirements. Consequently, capital action). EPA believes it reasonable to actions, and therefore, we are not costs were not estimated for these eight interpret section 63.6(i)(4)(ii) to allow providing estimates of reductions for facilities. The remaining six facilities this plenary finding, rather than THC and dioxin and furans. will require new building installations, utilizing a facility-by-facility application thereby incurring capital costs. process, when the facts are already C. What are the cost impacts? Typical enclosure costs were known and a category-wide Under the proposed amendments, estimated using information and adjudication is therefore possible. In secondary lead smelting facilities are algorithms from the Permanent Total addition, utilizing this process allows expected to incur capital costs for the Enclosures chapter in the EPA Air for public comment on the issue which following types of control measures: Pollution Control Cost Manual. New would not be possible if a case-by-case Replacement of existing baghouses with baghouse costs were estimated using a application process with a 90-day new, higher-performing baghouses, model based primarily on the cost window for completion were used. replacement of bags in existing information for recent baghouse

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:40 May 18, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19MYP2.SGM 19MYP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 29065

installations submitted by facilities in standard, we assumed that the baghouse rotary furnaces. Dioxin and furan limits the ICR survey. The total capital cost could be upgraded for minimal capital. are being proposed for all furnaces. We estimate for the enclosures, the If the baghouse was more than 10 years anticipate all operating affected units ductwork system, and control devices at old and the lead concentration was will be able to meet the proposed limits the six facilities is approximately $40 appreciably over the proposed standard, without installing additional controls, million, at an annualized cost of $6.6 we assumed the baghouse would be however, we have estimated additional million in 2009 dollars (an average of replaced. We then compared each costs of $260,000 per year for facilities about $1.1 million per facility). facility’s emissions with the proposed to increase the temperature of their We also estimated annual costs for the flow-weighted, facility-wide existing afterburners to ensure work practices proposed in this action. concentration limit of 0.20 mg/dscm continuous compliance with the Based on the ICR survey information, using the assumption that baghouses proposed standards. we estimated that additional costs needing replacement based on the 1.0 The estimated costs for the proposed would be required to implement the mg/dscm individual stack limit would change to the monitoring requirements work practices at 10 of the 14 existing be replaced with units that performed at facilities. The total annual costs to least as well as the average baghouse for baghouses, including installation of implement the proposed fugitive identified in our data set. We estimated seven new BLDS for existing baghouses, emissions work practices are that three baghouses would need to be is $230,000 of capital cost and $84,000 approximately $3 million per year. replaced based on these analyses. To total annualized cost. The capital cost For compliance with the stack lead estimate costs, we used a model based estimated for additional differential concentration limit, we compared each primarily on the cost information pressure monitors for total enclosures is stack emissions point’s lead submitted in the ICR for recent $97,000. The cost for all additional concentration (reported under the ICR) baghouse installations in this industry. monitoring and recordkeeping to the proposed requirement of 1.0 mg/ requirements, including the baghouse dscm of lead for any one stack. If the We assumed an increase in maintenance cost based on more frequent bag changes monitoring proposed, is estimated at reported concentration was over 1.0 mg/ $1,016,000. dscm, we assumed that the (from once every 5 years to once every corresponding facility would either 2 years). The total capital cost for three The total annualized costs for the upgrade the baghouse with new bags new baghouses at two facilities is proposed rule are estimated at $12.6 and additional maintenance or estimated to be approximately $7.6 million (2009 dollars). Table 5 provides completely replace the baghouse, million, and total annual costs were a summary of the estimated costs and depending on the age of the unit. If the estimated to be approximately $1.7 emissions reductions associated with baghouse was less than 10 years old and million. the proposed amendments to the the lead concentration in the outlet was New limits for THC are being Secondary Lead Smelting NESHAP not appreciably over the proposed proposed for reverberatory, electric, and presented in today’s action.

TABLE 5—ESTIMATED COSTS AND REDUCTIONS FOR THE PROPOSED STANDARDS IN THIS ACTION

Cost effectiveness in $ per ton total Estimated Estimated Total HAP emissions reductions HAP Proposed amendment capital cost annual cost (tons per year) reduction ($MM) ($MM) (and in $ per pound)

Revised stack lead emissions limit ...... 7.6 1.7 5.9 (of metal HAP) ...... $0.3 MM per ton. ($150 per pound). Total enclosure of fugitive emissions sources 40 6.6 5.5 (of metal HAP) ...... $1.2 MM per ton. ($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? Hence, the overall economic impact of the EPA’s 2008 Regulatory Impact this proposed rule should be low on the Analysis (RIA) that was completed for We performed an economic impact affected industry and its consumers. For the lead NAAQS (which is available in analysis for secondary lead consumers more information, please refer to the the docket for this action and also on and producers nationally using the Economic Impact Analysis for this the EPA’s Web site) populations aged annual compliance costs estimated for proposed rulemaking that is available in less than age 7 would receive significant this proposed rule. The impacts to the public docket. benefits from reductions in lead producers affected by this proposed rule exposure (in the form of averted IQ loss are annualized costs of less than 0.9 E. What are the benefits? among children less than 7 years of age). percent of their revenues using the most The estimated reductions in lead current year available for revenue data. emissions to meet the 2008 NAAQS As noted in that RIA, there were also Prices and output for secondary lead standards that will be achieved by this several other lead-related health effects should increase by no more than the proposed rule would provide benefits to that EPA was unable to quantify— impact on cost to revenues for public health, although we have not particularly among adults. These producers, thus secondary lead prices made a detailed quantitative assessment potential impacts included should increase by less than 0.9 percent. of them. For example, as described in hypertension, non-fatal strokes,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:40 May 18, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19MYP2.SGM 19MYP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 29066 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules

reproductive effects and premature would be reduced from 0.02 per year to demographic analyses are available for mortality, among others. 0.01 per year. download on the RTR Web page at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/ When viewed in this context, the VI. Request for Comments reductions in concentrations of ambient rtrpg.html. The data files include We are soliciting comments on all lead that would be achieved with this detailed information for each HAP aspects of this proposed action. In proposed RTR for secondary lead emissions release point for the facility addition to general comments on this smelters are expected to provide included in the source category. proposed action, we are also interested significant benefits to both children and If you believe that the data are not in any additional data that may help to adult populations, but these benefits representative or are inaccurate, please reduce the uncertainties inherent in the cannot be quantified due to resource identify the data in question, provide risk assessments and other analyses. We and data limitations. your reason for concern, and provide are specifically interested in receiving any ‘‘improved’’ data that you have, if In addition to the benefits likely to be corrections to the site-specific emissions available. When you submit data, we achieved for lead reductions, we also profiles used for risk modeling. Such request that you provide documentation estimate that this proposed RTR rule data should include supporting of the basis for the revised values to will achieve about 48 to 76 tons documentation in sufficient detail to support your suggested changes. To reductions in PM 2.5 emissions as a co- allow characterization of the quality and submit comments on the data benefit of the HAP reductions. These representativeness of the data or downloaded from the RTR Web page, PM 2.5 reductions would result in an information. Section VII of this complete the following steps: average of about $8.6 to $13.6 million in preamble provides more information on benefits per year. Finally, the proposed submitting data. 1. Within this downloaded file, enter rule will provide human health benefits suggested revisions to the data fields through reductions in arsenic and VII. Submitting Data Corrections appropriate for that information. The cadmium emissions. We estimate that The site-specific emissions profiles data fields that may be revised include cancer cases from these emissions used in the source category risk and 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 for Revised Emis- Code description of the method used to derive emissions. For example, CEM, mate- sions. rial 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 rel- ative to true North, measured positive for clockwise starting at 0 degrees (max- imum 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 Type ...... Enter revised Emissions Release Point Type here. REVISED End Date ...... Enter revised End Date here. REVISED Exit Gas Flow Rate ...... Enter revised Exit Gas Flowrate here (ft3/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 Identifier ...... Enter revised Facility Registry Identifier here, which is an ID assigned by the EPA Facility Registry System. REVISED HAP Emissions Performance Level Code ...... Enter revised HAP Emissions 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.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:40 May 18, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19MYP2.SGM 19MYP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 29067

Data element Definition

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 Request (ICR) document prepared by with an assertion of the affirmative fields for each suggested revision EPA has been assigned EPA ICR number defense position adopted by a source, (i.e., commenter name, commenter 1856.07. The information collection EPA has provided administrative organization, commenter e-mail address, requirements are not enforceable until adjustments to this ICR to show what commenter phone number, and revision OMB approves them. The information the notification, recordkeeping and comments). requirements are based on notification, reporting requirements associated with 3. Gather documentation for any recordkeeping, and reporting the assertion of the affirmative defense suggested emissions revisions (e.g., requirements in the NESHAP General might entail. EPA’s estimate for the performance test reports, material Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), required notification, reports and balance calculations). which are mandatory for all operators records for any individual incident, 4. Send the entire downloaded file subject to national emissions standards. including the root cause analysis, totals with suggested revisions in Microsoft® These recordkeeping and reporting $3,141 and is based on the time and Access format and all accompanying requirements are specifically authorized effort required of a source to review documentation to Docket ID Number by CAA section 114 (42 U.S.C. 7414). relevant data, interview plant EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0344 (through one All information submitted to EPA employees, and document the events of the methods described in the pursuant to the recordkeeping and surrounding a malfunction that has ADDRESSES section of this preamble). To reporting requirements for which a caused an exceedance of an emissions expedite review of the revisions, it claim of confidentiality is made is limit. The estimate also includes time to would also be helpful if you submitted safeguarded according to Agency produce and retain the record and a copy of your revisions to the EPA policies set forth in 40 CFR part 2, reports for submission to EPA. EPA directly at [email protected] in addition to subpart B. provides this illustrative estimate of this submitting them to the docket. We are proposing new paperwork burden because these costs are only 5. If you are providing comments on requirements to the Secondary Lead incurred if there has been a violation a facility, you need only submit one file Smelting source category in the form of and a source chooses to take advantage for that facility, which should contain increased frequency for stack testing as of the affirmative defense. all suggested changes for all sources at described in 40 CFR 63.540(f)–(h). More Given the variety of circumstances that facility. We request that all data specifically, we are proposing the under which malfunctions could occur, revision comments be submitted in the elimination of the provisions allowing as well as differences among sources’ form of updated Microsoft® Access files, reduced stack testing for lead and the operation and maintenance practices, which are provided on the RTR Web addition of annual stack testing for THC we cannot reliably predict the severity Page at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/ and stack testing every 5 years for and frequency of malfunction-related rrisk/rtrpg.html. dioxins and furans. In conjunction with excess emissions events for a particular VIII. Statutory and Executive Order setting THC limits for reverberatory, source. It is important to note that EPA Reviews electric, and rotary furnaces, additional has no basis currently for estimating the monitoring and recordkeeping is number of malfunctions that would A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory required for furnace outlet temperature qualify for an affirmative defense. Planning and Review and Executive on these units. We believe temperature Current historical records would be an Order 13563: Improving Regulation and monitors currently exist in these inappropriate basis, as source owners or Regulatory Review locations and that the facilities will not operators previously operated their Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR incur a capital cost due to this facilities in recognition that they were 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is a requirement. Additionally, increased exempt from the requirement to comply significant regulatory action because it monitoring is required for with emissions standards during raises novel legal and policy issues. demonstrating negative pressure in all malfunctions. Of the number of excess Accordingly, EPA submitted this action total enclosures if this compliance emissions events reported by source to the Office of Management and Budget option is selected. If the lead operators, only a small number would (OMB) for review under Executive concentration in air limit is chosen, be expected to result from a malfunction Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, additional monitoring and (based on the definition above), and January 21, 2011) and any changes made recordkeeping will be required. Bag leak only a subset of excess emissions caused in response to OMB recommendations detection monitors will be required for by malfunctions would result in the have been documented in the docket for HEPA filtration systems where no BLDS source choosing to assert the affirmative this action. are currently installed. We estimate a defense. Thus we believe the number of total of seven new BLDS will be instances in which source operators B. Paperwork Reduction Act required as a result of this proposed rule might be expected to avail themselves of The information collection at an estimated capital cost of $230,000. the affirmative defense will be requirements in this rule have been For this proposed rule, EPA is adding extremely small. For this reason, we submitted for approval to the Office of affirmative defense to the estimate of estimate no more than 2 or 3 such Management and Budget (OMB) under burden in the ICR. To provide the occurrences for all sources subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. public with an estimate of the relative subpart X over the 3-year period 3501 et seq. The Information Collection magnitude of the burden associated covered by this ICR. We expect to gather

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:40 May 18, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19MYP2.SGM 19MYP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 29068 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules

information on such events in the future C. Regulatory Flexibility Act impact of this rule on small entities. To and will revise this estimate as better The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) reduce the impacts, we are proposing an information becomes available. We generally requires an agency to prepare alternative option to enclosure estimate 14 regulated entities are a regulatory flexibility analysis of any standards to address fugitive emissions currently subject to subpart X and will rule subject to notice and comment in order to allow companies flexibility be subject to all proposed standards. rulemaking requirements under the on how best to minimize fugitive The annual monitoring, reporting, and Administrative Procedure Act or any emissions at their facilities most recordkeeping burden for this collection other statute unless the agency certifies efficiently. Moreover, we are proposing (averaged over the first 3 years after the that the rule will not have a significant stack limits that are based on a weighted effective date of the standards) for these economic impact on a substantial average approach (as described in amendments to subpart X (Secondary number of small entities. Small entities Sections V.C and V.D of this preamble) Lead Smelting) is estimated to be $1.01 include small businesses, small and have been established at the least million per year. This includes 4,200 organizations, and small governmental stringent levels that we estimate will labor hours per year at a total labor cost jurisdictions. still result in acceptable risks to public of $330,000 per year, and total non-labor For purposes of assessing the impacts health. Thus, the proposed stack limits capital and operation and maintenance of this proposed rule on small entities, are based on the least costly approach (O&M) costs of $690,000 per year. This small entity is defined as: (1) A small that will still provide an ample margin estimate includes performance tests, business as defined by the Small of safety for human health and the notifications, reporting, and Business Administration’s (SBA) environment. In addition, the proposed recordkeeping associated with the new regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a compliance testing requirements were requirements for front-end process vents small governmental jurisdiction that is a established in a way that minimizes the and back-end process operations. The government of a city, county, town, costs for testing and reporting while still total burden for the Federal government school district or special district with a providing the Agency the necessary (averaged over the first 3 years after the population of less than 50,000; and (3) information needed to ensure effective date of the standard) is a small organization that is any not-for- continuous compliance with the proposed standards. For more estimated to be 1,300 hours per year at profit enterprise that is independently information, please refer to the small a total labor cost of $67,000 per year. owned and operated and is not business analysis that is in the docket. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). dominant in its field. For this source We continue to be interested in the An agency may not conduct or category, which has the NAICS code potential impacts of the proposed rule sponsor, and a person is not required to 331419 (i.e., Secondary Smelting and on small entities and welcome respond to, a collection of information Refining of Nonferrous Metal (except comments on issues related to such unless it displays a currently valid OMB copper and aluminum)), the SBA small impacts. control number. The OMB control business size standard is 750 employees numbers for EPA’s regulations in 40 according to the SBA small business D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When standards definitions. We have This proposed rule does not contain these ICRs are approved by OMB, the estimated the cost impacts and have a Federal mandate under the provisions Agency will publish a technical determined that the impacts do not of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates amendment to 40 CFR part 9 in the constitute a significant economic impact Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. Federal Register to display the OMB on a substantial number of small entities 1531–1538 for State, local, or Tribal control numbers for the approved (see: Small Business Analysis for the governments or the private sector. The information collection requirements Secondary Lead Smelting Source proposed rule would not result in contained in the final rules. Category, which is available in the expenditures of $100 million or more To comment on the Agency’s need for docket for this proposed rule). After for State, local, and Tribal governments, this information, the accuracy of the considering the economic impacts of in aggregate, or the private sector in any provided burden estimates, and any today’s proposed rule on small entities, 1 year. The proposed rule imposes no suggested methods for minimizing I certify that this action will not have a enforceable duties on any State, local or respondent burden, EPA has established significant economic impact on a Tribal governments or the private sector. a public docket for this rule, which substantial number of small entities. Thus, this proposed rule is not subject includes this ICR, under Docket ID One of the six parent companies to the requirements of sections 202 or number EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0344. affected is considered a small entity per 205 of the UMRA. Submit any comments related to the ICR the definition provided in this section. This proposed rule is also not subject to EPA and OMB. See the ADDRESSES However, we estimate that this to the requirements of section 203 of section at the beginning of this notice proposed action will not have a UMRA because it contains no regulatory for where to submit comments to EPA. significant economic impact on that requirements that might significantly or Send comments to OMB at the Office of company. The impact of this proposed uniquely affect small governments Information and Regulatory Affairs, action on this company will be an because it contains no requirements that Office of Management and Budget, 725 annualized compliance cost of less than apply to such governments nor does it 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC one percent of its revenues. (See: Small impose obligations upon them. 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Business Analysis for the Secondary Since OMB is required to make a Lead Smelting Source Category). All E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism decision concerning the ICR between 30 other affected parent companies are not This proposed rule does not have and 60 days after May 19, 2011, a small businesses according to the SBA federalism implications. It will not have comment to OMB is best assured of small business size standard for the substantial direct effects on the States, having its full effect if OMB receives it affected NAICS code (NAICS 331419). on the relationship between the national by June 20, 2011. The final rule will Although this proposed rule will not government and the States, or on the respond to any OMB or public have a significant economic impact on distribution of power and comments on the information collection a substantial number of small entities, responsibilities among the various requirements contained in this proposal. EPA nonetheless has tried to reduce the levels of government, as specified in

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:40 May 18, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19MYP2.SGM 19MYP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 29069

Executive Order 13132. None of the H. Executive Order 13211: Actions EPA welcomes comments on this facilities subject to this action are Concerning Regulations That aspect of this proposed rulemaking and, owned or operated by State Significantly Affect Energy Supply, specifically, invites the public to governments, and, because no new Distribution, or Use identify potentially-applicable requirements are being promulgated, This action is not a ‘‘significant energy voluntary consensus standards and to nothing in this proposed rule will action’’ as defined under Executive explain why such standards should be supersede State regulations. Thus, Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning used in this regulation. Under section 63.7(f) and section Executive Order 13132 does not apply Regulations That Significantly Affect 63.8(f) of Subpart A of the General to this proposed rule. Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 Provisions, a source may apply to EPA FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it is In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, for permission to use alternative test not likely to have significant adverse and consistent with EPA policy to methods or alternative monitoring promote communications between EPA effect on the supply, distribution, or use requirements in place of any required and State and local governments, EPA of energy. This action will not create testing methods, performance specifically solicits comment on this any new requirements and therefore no specifications, or procedures in the additional costs for sources in the proposed rule from State and local proposed rule. J. Executive Order 12898: energy supply, distribution, or use officials. Federal Actions to Address sectors. Environmental Justice in Minority F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation I. National Technology Transfer and Populations and Low-Income and Coordination With Indian Tribal Advancement Act Populations. Governments Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, Section 12(d) of the National February 16, 1994) establishes Federal This proposed rule does not have Technology Transfer and Advancement executive policy on environmental Tribal implications, as specified in Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law justice. Its main provision directs Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 104–113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note), directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent November 9, 2000). Thus, Executive EPA to use voluntary consensus practicable and permitted by law, to Order 13175 does not apply to this standards (VCS) in its regulatory make environmental justice part of their action. activities unless to do so would be mission by identifying and addressing, inconsistent with applicable law or EPA specifically solicits additional as appropriate, disproportionately high otherwise impractical. VCS are and adverse human health or comment on this proposed action from technical standards (e.g., materials Tribal officials. environmental effects of their programs, specifications, test methods, sampling policies, and activities on minority G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of procedures, business practices) that are populations and low-income Children From Environmental Health developed or adopted by voluntary populations in the United States. Risks and Safety Risks consensus standards bodies. NTTAA To examine the potential for any directs EPA to provide Congress, environmental justice issues that might This proposed rule is not subject to through OMB, explanations when the be associated with each source category, Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, Agency decides not to use available and we evaluated the distributions of HAP- April 23, 1997) because it is not applicable VCS. related cancer and non-cancer risks economically significant as defined in This proposed rulemaking involves across different social, demographic, Executive Order 12866. However, the technical standards. EPA proposes to and economic groups within the Agency does believe there is a use ASME PTC 19.10–1981, ‘‘Flue and populations living near the facilities disproportionate risk to children due to Exhaust Gas Analyses,’’ for its manual where these source categories are current emissions of lead from this methods of measuring the oxygen or located. The methods used to conduct source category. Modeled ambient air carbon dioxide content of the exhaust demographic analyses for this rule are lead concentrations from about 10 of the gas. These parts of ASME PTC 19.10– described in Section III.B of this 14 facilities in this source category are 1981 are acceptable alternatives to EPA preamble. The development of Method 3B. This standard is available in excess of the NAAQS for lead, which demographic analyses to inform the from the American Society of was set to ‘‘provide increased protection consideration of environmental justice Mechanical Engineers (ASME), Three issues in EPA rulemakings is an for children and other at-risk Park Avenue, New York, NY 10016– evolving science. EPA offers the populations against an array of adverse 5990 and ASTM D6420–99 (2004) as an demographic analyses in today’s health effects, most notably including acceptable alternative to EPA Method proposed rulemaking as examples of neurological effects in children, 18. EPA has also decided to use EPA how such analyses might be developed including neurocognitive and Methods 1, 2, 3, 3A, 3B, 4, 5D, 23, a to inform such consideration, and neurobehavioral effects’’ (73 FR 67007). Procedure in Subpart X to measure invites public comment on the However, the control measures doorway in-draft, and a method for approaches used and the interpretations proposed in this notice will result in measuring lead in ambient air (i.e., 40 made from the results, with the hope lead concentration levels at or below the CFR Part 50 Appendix G). Although the that this will support the refinement lead NAAQS at all facilities, thereby Agency has identified 16 VCS as being and improve utility of such analyses. mitigating the risk of adverse health potentially applicable to these methods In the case of Secondary Lead effects to children. cited in this rule, we have decided not Smelting, we focused on populations The public is invited to submit to use these standards in this proposed within 50 km of the 14 facilities in this comments or identify peer-reviewed rulemaking. The use of these VCS source category with emissions sources studies and data that assess effects of would have been impractical because subject to the MACT standard. More early life exposure to lead, arsenic, or they do not meet the objectives of the specifically, for these populations we standards cited in this rule. The search evaluated exposures to HAP that could cadmium. and review results are in the docket for result in cancer risks of 1-in-1 million this proposed rule. or greater, or population exposures to

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:40 May 18, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19MYP2.SGM 19MYP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 29070 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules

ambient air lead concentrations above Table 1 to Subpart X of Part 63—General top of the furnace and combustion air is the level of the NAAQS for lead. We Provisions Applicability to Subpart X introduced through tuyeres at the compared the percentages of particular Table 2 to Subpart X of Part 63—Emissions bottom of the cylinder, and that uses demographic groups within the focused Limits for Secondary Lead Smelting coke as a fuel source and that is Furnaces populations to the total percentages of operated at such a temperature in the Table 3 to Subpart X of Part 60—Toxic ° those demographic groups nationwide. Equivalency Factors combustion zone (greater than 980 C) The results of this analysis are that lead compounds are chemically documented in Section IV of this Subpart X—National Emission reduced to elemental lead metal. preamble (see Table 4 of this preamble), Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants Blast furnace charging location means as well as in a technical report located From Secondary Lead Smelting the physical opening through which raw in the docket for this proposed materials are introduced into a blast rulemaking. § 63.541 Applicability. furnace. As described in Section IV of this (a) You are subject to this subpart if Collocated blast furnace and preamble, with regard to cancer risks, you own or operate any of the following reverberatory furnace means operation there are some potential equipment or processes at a secondary at the same location of a blast furnace disproportionate impacts to some lead smelter: Blast, reverberatory, rotary, and a reverberatory furnace where the minority populations due to emissions and electric furnaces; refining kettles; vent streams of the furnaces are mixed of arsenic and cadmium from this agglomerating furnaces; dryers; process before cooling, with the volumetric flow source category. However, with regard fugitive emissions sources; and fugitive rate discharged from the blast furnace to lead, the analysis does not indicate dust sources. The provisions of this being equal to or less than that significant disproportionate impacts. subpart do not apply to primary lead discharged from the reverberatory Nevertheless, the proposed actions in smelters, lead refiners, or lead remelters. furnace. today’s notice will significantly (b) Table 1 to this subpart specifies Dryer means a chamber that is heated decrease the risks due to HAP emissions the provisions of subpart A of this part and that is used to remove moisture from this source category and mitigate that apply to owners and operators of from lead-bearing materials before they any disproportionate risks due to those secondary lead smelters subject to this are charged to a smelting furnace. emissions. subpart. Dryer transition equipment means the (c) If you are subject to the provisions junction between a dryer and the charge List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 of this subpart, you are also subject to hopper or conveyor, or the junction Environmental protection, Air title V permitting requirements under 40 between the dryer and the smelting pollution control, Incorporation by CFR parts 70 or 71, as applicable. furnace feed chute or hopper located at reference, Lead, Reporting and (d) Emissions standards in this the ends of the dryer. recordkeeping requirements. subpart apply at all times. Electric furnace means a smelting Dated: April 29, 2011. furnace consisting of a vessel into which § 63.542 Definitions. reverberatory furnace slag is introduced Lisa P. Jackson, Terms used in this subpart are and that uses electrical energy to heat Administrator. defined in the Clean Air Act, in subpart the reverberatory furnace slag to such a For the reasons stated in the A of this part, or in this section as temperature (greater than 980 °C) that preamble, part 63 of title 40, chapter I, follows: lead compounds are reduced to of the Code of Federal Regulations is Affirmative defense means, in the elemental lead metal. proposed to be amended as follows: context of an enforcement proceeding, a Enclosure hood means a hood that response or defense put forward by a covers a process fugitive emission PART 63—[AMENDED] defendant, regarding which the source on the top and on all sides, with defendant has the burden of proof, and 1. The authority citation for part 63 openings only for access to introduce or the merits of which are independently continues to read as follows: remove materials to or from the source and objectively evaluated in a judicial and through which an induced flow of Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq. or administrative proceeding. air is ventilated. 2. Part 63 is amended by revising Agglomerating furnace means a Fugitive dust source means a subpart X to read as follows: furnace used to melt into a solid mass stationary source of hazardous air flue dust that is collected from a Subpart X—National Emission Standards pollutant emissions at a secondary lead for Hazardous Air Pollutants From baghouse. smelter that is not associated with a Secondary Lead Smelting Bag leak detection system means an specific process or process fugitive vent instrument that is capable of monitoring or stack. Fugitive dust sources include, Sec. particulate matter (dust) loadings in the 63.541 Applicability. but are not limited to, roadways, storage 63.542 Definitions. exhaust of a baghouse in order to detect piles, materials handling transfer points, 63.543 What are my standards for process bag failures. A bag leak detection system materials transport areas, storage areas, vents? includes, but is not limited to, an process areas, and buildings. 63.544 What are my process enclosure instrument that operates on Furnace and refining/casting area standards? triboelectric, light scattering, means any area of a secondary lead 63.545 What are my standards for fugitive transmittance or other effect to monitor smelter in which: dust sources? relative particulate matter loadings. (1) Smelting furnaces are located; or 63.546 Compliance dates. Battery breaking area means the plant (2) Refining operations occur; or 63.547 Test methods. location at which lead-acid batteries are (3) Casting operations occur. 63.548 Monitoring requirements. broken, crushed, or disassembled and Lead alloy means an alloy in which 63.549 Notification requirements. 63.550 Recordkeeping and reporting separated into components. the predominant component is lead. requirements. Blast furnace means a smelting Maintenance activity means any of 63.551 Implementation and enforcement. furnace consisting of a vertical cylinder the following routine maintenance and 63.552 Affirmative Defense for Exceedance atop a crucible, into which lead-bearing repair activities that generate fugitive of Emissions Limit During Malfunction. charge materials are introduced at the lead dust:

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:40 May 18, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19MYP2.SGM 19MYP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 29071

(1) Replacement or repair of dryer transition pieces which is elemental lead or lead alloys through refractory, filter bags, or any internal or maintained at a higher pressure than the processing in high-temperature (greater external part of equipment used to inside of the dryer. than 980 °C) furnaces including, but not process, handle or control lead- Process fugitive emissions source limited to, blast furnaces, reverberatory containing materials. means a source of hazardous air furnaces, rotary furnaces, and electric (2) Replacement of any duct section pollutant emissions at a secondary lead furnaces. used to convey lead-containing exhaust. smelter that is associated with lead Total enclosure means a roofed and (3) Metal cutting or welding that smelting or refining, but is not the walled structure with limited openings penetrates the metal structure of any primary exhaust stream from a smelting to allow access and egress for people equipment, and its associated furnace, and is not a fugitive dust and vehicles that meets the components, used to process lead- source. Process fugitive sources include, requirements of § 265.1101(a)(1), containing material such that lead dust but are not limited to, smelting furnace (a)(2)(i), and (c)(1)(i). within the internal structure or its charging points, smelting furnace lead Vehicle wash means a device for components can become fugitive lead and slag taps, refining kettles, removing dust and other accumulated dust. agglomerating furnaces, and drying kiln material from the wheels, body, and (4) Resurfacing, repair or removal of transition pieces. underside of a vehicle to prevent the ground, pavement, concrete, or asphalt. Process vent means furnace vents, inadvertent transfer of lead Materials storage and handling area dryer vents, agglomeration furnace contaminated material to another area of means any area of a secondary lead vents, vents from battery breakers, a secondary lead smelter or to public smelter in which lead-bearing materials building vents, and any ventilation roadways. (including, but not limited to, broken system controlling lead emissions. Wet suppression means the use of battery components, reverberatory Refining kettle means an open-top water, water combined with a chemical furnace slag, flue dust, and dross) are vessel that is constructed of cast iron or surfactant, or a chemical binding agent stored or handled between process steps steel and is indirectly heated from to prevent the entrainment of dust into including, but not limited to, areas in below and contains molten lead for the the air from fugitive dust sources. which materials are stored in piles, bins, purpose of refining and alloying the or tubs, and areas in which material is lead. Included are pot furnaces, § 63.543 What are my standards for prepared for charging to a smelting receiving kettles, and holding kettles. process vents? furnace. Reverberatory furnace means a (a) You must maintain the Partial enclosure means a structure refractory-lined furnace that uses one or concentration of lead compounds in any comprised of walls or partitions on at more flames to heat the walls and roof process vent gas at or below 1.0 least three sides or three-quarters of the of the furnace and lead-bearing scrap to milligrams of lead per dry standard perimeter surrounding stored materials such a temperature (greater than 980 °C) cubic meter (0.00043 grains of lead per or process equipment to prevent the that lead compounds are chemically dry standard cubic foot). You must entrainment of particulate matter into reduced to elemental lead metal. maintain the flow-weighted average the air. Rotary furnace (also known as a rotary concentration of lead compounds in Pavement cleaning means the use of reverberatory furnace) means a furnace vent gases from a secondary lead facility vacuum equipment, water sprays, or a consisting of a refractory-lined chamber at or below 0.20 milligrams of lead per combination thereof to remove dust or that rotates about a horizontal axis and dry standard cubic meter (0.000087 other accumulated material from the that uses one or more flames to heat the grains of lead per dry standard cubic paved areas of a secondary lead smelter. walls of the furnace and lead-bearing foot). Plant roadway means any area of a scrap to such a temperature (greater (1) You must demonstrate compliance secondary lead smelter that is subject to than 980 °C) that lead compounds are with the flow weighted average vehicle traffic, including traffic by chemically reduced to elemental lead emissions limit on a 12-month rolling forklifts, front-end loaders, or vehicles metal. average basis, calculated monthly. carrying whole batteries or cast lead Secondary lead smelter means any (2) Until 12 monthly weighted average ingots. Excluded from this definition are facility at which lead-bearing scrap emissions rates have been accumulated, employee and visitor parking areas, material, primarily, but not limited to, calculate only the monthly average provided they are not subject to traffic lead-acid batteries, is recycled into weighted emissions rate. by vehicles carrying lead-bearing elemental lead or lead alloys by (3) You must use Equation 1 of this materials. smelting. section to calculate the flow-weighted Pressurized dryer breaching seal Smelting means the chemical average concentration of lead means a seal system connecting the reduction of lead compounds to compounds from process vents:

Where: Fi = Flow rate from process vent i in dry Ci = Concentration of lead in process vent i,

CFWA = Flow-weighted average concentration standard cubic feet per minute, as as measured during the most recent of all process vents. measured during the most recent compliance test. n = Number of process vents. compliance test.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:40 May 18, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19MYP2.SGM 19MYP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP19MY11.000 29072 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules

(4) Each month, you must use the vent, the monthly average lead (c) If you combine furnace emissions concentration of lead and flow rate concentration and monthly average flow from multiple types of furnaces and obtained during the most recent must be used rather than the most these furnaces do not meet the compliance test performed prior to or recent compliance test data. definition of collocated blast and during that month to perform the (b) You must meet the applicable reverberatory furnaces, you must calculation. emissions limits for total hydrocarbons calculate your emissions limit for the (5) If a continuous emissions and dioxins and furans from furnace combined furnace stream using monitoring system (CEMS) is used to sources specified in Table 2 of this Equation 2. measure the concentration of lead in a subpart.

Where: annual performance test for total § 63.544 What are my process enclosure CEL = Flow-weighted average emissions limit hydrocarbons emissions from each standards? (concentration) of combined furnace process vent (no later than 12 calendar (a) Except as provided in paragraph vents. months following the previous (d) of this section, you must locate the n = Number of furnace vents. compliance test). fugitive emissions sources listed in Fi = Flow rate from furnace vent i in dry standard cubic feet per minute. (h) Following the initial performance paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(9) of this CELi = Emissions limit (concentration) of lead or compliance test to demonstrate section in a total enclosure that is in furnace vent i as specified in Table 2 compliance with the dioxins and furans maintained at negative pressure at all of this subpart. emissions limits specified in paragraph times. The total enclosure must meet the (d) If you combine furnace emissions (b) of this section, you must conduct a requirements specified in paragraphs with the furnace charging process performance test for dioxins and furans (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this section. fugitive emissions and discharge them emissions at least once every 5 years (1) Smelting furnaces. to the atmosphere through a common following the previous compliance test. (2) Smelting furnace charging areas. (3) Lead taps, slag taps, and molds emissions point, you must demonstrate (i) You must conduct the performance during tapping. compliance with the applicable total tests specified in paragraphs (f) through (4) Battery breakers. hydrocarbons concentration limit (h) of this section under such conditions (5) Refining kettles, casting areas. specified in paragraph (b) of this section as the Administrator specifies based on (6) Dryers. at a location downstream from the point representative performance of the (7) Agglomerating furnaces and at which the two emissions streams are affected source for the period being agglomerating furnace product taps. combined. tested. Upon request, you must make (8) Material handling areas for any (e) If you do not combine the furnace available to the Administrator such lead bearing materials (drosses, slag, charging process fugitive emissions with records as may be necessary to other raw materials), excluding areas the furnace process emissions, and determine the conditions of where unbroken lead acid batteries and discharge such emissions to the performance tests. atmosphere through separate emissions finished lead products are stored. (j) At all times, you must operate and points, you must maintain the total (9) Areas where dust from fabric hydrocarbons concentration in the maintain any affected source, including filters, sweepings or used fabric filters exhaust gas at or below 20 parts per associated air pollution control are handled or processed. million by volume, expressed as equipment and monitoring equipment, (b) You must construct and operate propane. in a manner consistent with safety and total enclosures for the sources listed in (f) Following the initial performance good air pollution control practices for paragraph (a) of this section as specified or compliance test to demonstrate minimizing emissions. Determination of in paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this compliance with the lead emissions whether such operation and section. limits specified in paragraph (a) of this maintenance procedures are being used (1) You must ventilate the total section, you must conduct an annual will be based on information available enclosure continuously to ensure performance test for lead compounds to the Administrator that may include, negative pressure values of at least 0.02 from each process vent (no later than 12 but is not limited to, monitoring results, mm of mercury (0.011 inches of water). calendar months following the previous review of operation and maintenance (2) You must maintain the in-draft compliance test), unless you install and procedures, review of operation and velocity of the total enclosure at greater operate a CEMS and continuous maintenance records, and inspection of than or equal to 300 feet per minute at emissions rate monitoring system the source. any opening including, but not limited meeting the requirements of (k) In addition to complying with the to, vents, windows, passages, doorways, § 63.548(m). applicable emissions limits for dioxins bay doors and roll-ups doors. (g) Following the initial performance and furans listed in Table 2 to this (c) You must inspect enclosures and or compliance test to demonstrate subpart, you must operate a process to facility structures that contain any lead- compliance with the total hydrocarbons separate plastic battery casing materials bearing materials at least once per emissions limits in paragraphs (b) and prior to introducing feed into a blast month. You must repair any gaps, (e) of this section, you must conduct an furnace. breaks, separations, leak points or other

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:40 May 18, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19MYP2.SGM 19MYP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP19MY11.001 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 29073

possible routes for emissions of lead to device meeting the applicable cleaning unnecessary or when sand or a the atmosphere within 72 hours of requirements of § 63.543. similar material has been spread on identification unless you obtain (4) As an alternative to paragraph plant roadways to provide traction on approval for an extension from the (d)(3)(iii) of this section, you may elect ice or snow. If you use a mobile vacuum Administrator before the repair period is to control the process fugitive emissions sweeper for pavement cleaning, the exceeded. from dryer transition pieces by sweeper must meet the requirements (d) As an alternative to the installing and operating pressurized specified in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) or requirements specified in paragraphs (a) dryer breaching seals at each transition (c)(2)(ii) of this section. through (c) of this section, you can elect piece. (i) If the vacuum sweeper uses water to demonstrate compliance by meeting (5) For the battery breaking area, flushing followed by sweeping, the the requirements of (d)(1) through (d)(4) partial enclosure of storage piles, wet water flush must use a minimum of this section. suppression applied to storage piles application of 0.48 gallons of water per (1) You must install compliance with sufficient frequency and quantity square yard of pavement cleaned. monitors on or near the plant property to prevent the formation of dust, and (ii) The vacuum sweeper must be boundary, at locations approved by the pavement cleaning twice per day. equipped with a filter rated by the Administrator, to demonstrate that the (6) For the furnace area, partial manufacturer to achieve a capture lead concentration in air is at all times enclosure and pavement cleaning twice efficiency of 99.97 for 0.3 micron maintained below a 3-month rolling per day. particles. average value of 0.15 μg/m3 at each (7) For the refining and casting area, (3) Plant building exterior. For all monitor. This must include at least two partial enclosure and pavement cleaning buildings that house areas associated such monitors and at least one of these twice per day. with storage, handling, or processing of monitors must be in a location that is (8) For the materials storage and lead bearing materials, you must expected to have the highest air handling area, partial enclosure of perform a monthly cleaning of building concentrations at or near the facility storage piles, wet suppression applied rooftops on structures that are less than boundary based on ambient dispersion to storage piles with sufficient 45 feet in height and quarterly cleaning modeling or other methods approved by frequency and quantity to prevent the of buildings that are greater than 45 feet the Administrator. formation of dust. in height. (4) Accidental releases. You must (2) You must control the process § 63.545 What are my standards for initiate cleaning of all affected areas fugitive emission sources listed in fugitive dust sources? within one hour after any accidental paragraphs (d)(2)(i) through (d)(2)(vi) of (a) You must prepare, and at all times release of lead dust. this section in accordance with the operate according to, a standard (5) Battery storage areas. You must equipment and operational standards operating procedures manual that inspect any unenclosed battery storage presented in paragraphs (d)(3) through describes in detail the measures that areas twice each day and immediately (d)(8) of this section. will be put in place and implemented to move any broken batteries identified to (i) Smelting furnace and dryer control the fugitive dust emissions from an enclosure. You must clean residue charging hoppers, chutes, and skip the sources listed in paragraphs (a)(1) from broken batteries within one hour of hoists. through (a)(8) of this section. identification. (ii) Smelting furnace lead taps, and (1) Plant roadways. (6) Materials storage and handling molds during tapping. (2) Plant buildings. areas. You must wash each vehicle at (iii) Smelting furnace slag taps, and (3) Plant building exteriors. each exit of the material storage and molds during tapping. (4) Accidental releases. handling areas. The vehicle wash must (iv) Refining kettles. (5) Battery storage area. include washing of tires, undercarriage (v) Dryer transition pieces. (6) Equipment maintenance areas. and exterior surface of the vehicle (vi) Agglomerating furnace product (7) Material storage areas. followed by vehicle inspection. You taps. (8) Material handling areas. must collect all wash water and store (3) Process fugitive emission sources (b) You must submit the standard the wash water in a container that is not must be equipped with an enclosure operating procedures manual to the open to the atmosphere if the wash hood meeting the requirements of Administrator or delegated authority for water is not immediately sent to (d)(3)(i), (d)(3)(ii), or (d)(3)(iii) of this review and approval. treatment. section. (c) The controls specified in the (7) Equipment maintenance. You (i) All process fugitive enclosure standard operating procedures manual must perform all maintenance activities hoods except those specified for refining must at a minimum include the for any equipment potentially kettles and dryer transition pieces must requirements specified in paragraphs contaminated with lead bearing material be ventilated to maintain a face velocity (c)(1) through (c)(8) of this section, or lead dust inside an enclosure of at least 90 meters per minute (300 feet unless you satisfy the requirements maintained at negative pressure. You per minute) at all hood openings. specified in paragraph (f) of this section. must conduct any maintenance activity (ii) Process fugitive enclosure hoods (1) Cleaning. Where a cleaning that cannot be conducted in a negative required for refining kettles must be practice is specified, you must clean by pressure enclosure due to physical ventilated to maintain a face velocity of wet wash or a vacuum equipped with a constraints or safety issues inside a at least 75 meters per minute (250 feet filter rated by the manufacturer to partial or temporary enclosure and use per minute). achieve 99.97 percent capture efficiency wet suppression and/or a vacuum (iii) Process fugitive enclosure hoods for 0.3 micron particles in a manner that system equipped with a filter rated by required over dryer transition pieces does not generate fugitive lead dust. the manufacturer to achieve a capture must be ventilated to maintain a face (2) Plant roadways and paved areas. efficiency of 99.97 percent for 0.3 velocity of at least 110 meters per You must pave all areas subject to micron particles. minute (350 feet per minute). vehicle traffic and you must clean the (8) Material transport. You must (iv) Ventilation air from all enclosure pavement twice per day, except on days transport all lead bearing materials hoods must be conveyed to a control when natural precipitation makes including, but not limited to, furnace

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:40 May 18, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19MYP2.SGM 19MYP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 29074 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules

charging material, baghouse dust, slag (2) EPA Method 2 at 40 CFR part 60, and any material generated from appendix A–1 or EPA Method 5D at 40 cleaning activities, capable of generating CFR part 60, appendix A–3, section 8.3 any amount of fugitive lead dust within for positive pressure fabric filters, to closed conveyor systems or in sealed, measure volumetric flow rate. Where: leak-proof containers unless the (3) EPA Method 3, 3A, or 3B at 40 F = Correction factor (no units). transport activities are contained within CFR part 60, appendix A–2 to determine CO2 = Percent carbon dioxide measured an enclosure. the dry molecular weight of the stack using EPA Method 3A or 3B at 40 CFR (d) Your standard operating gas. part 60, appendix A–2, where the procedures manual must specify that (4) EPA Method 4 at 40 CFR part 60, measured carbon dioxide is greater than records be maintained of all pavement appendix A–3 to determine moisture 0.4 percent. cleaning, vehicle washing, wet content of the stack gas. (2) If the measured percent carbon suppression, exterior building cleaning, (5) EPA Method 29 at 40 CFR part 60, dioxide is equal to or less than 0.4 and battery storage inspection activities appendix A–8 to determine compliance percent, you must use a correction performed to control fugitive dust with the lead compound emissions factor (F) of 10. emissions. standards. The minimum sample (e) You must pave all grounds on the volume must be 2.0 dry standard cubic (3) You must determine the corrected facility or plant groundcover sufficient meters (70 dry standard cubic feet) for total hydrocarbons concentration by to prevent wind-blown dust. You may each run. You must perform three test multiplying the measured total use dust suppressants on unpaved areas runs and you must determine hydrocarbons concentration by the that will not support a groundcover compliance using the average of the correction factor (F) determined for each (e.g., roadway shoulders, steep slopes). three runs. compliance test. (f) As an alternative to the (b) You must use the following test (d) You must use the following test requirements specified in paragraphs methods in appendix A of part 60 listed methods in appendix A of part 60 listed (c)(1) through (c)(8) of this section, you in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(4) of in paragraphs (d)(1) through (d)(5) of can demonstrate to the Administrator this section, as specified, to determine this section, as specified, to determine (or delegated State, local, or Tribal compliance with the emissions compliance with the emissions authority) that an alternative measure(s) standards for total hydrocarbons standards for dioxins and furans is equivalent or better than a practice(s) specified in § 63.543(b) and (e). specified in § 63.543(b). described in paragraphs (c)(1) through (1) EPA Method 1 at 40 CFR part 60, (1) EPA Method 1 at 40 CFR part 60, (c)(8) of this section. appendix A–1 to select the sampling appendix A–1 to select the sampling § 63.546 Compliance dates. port location and number of traverse port location and the number of traverse (a) For affected sources that points. points. (2) The Single Point Integrated commenced construction or (2) EPA Method 2 at 40 CFR part 60, Sampling and Analytical Procedure of reconstruction on or before May 19, appendix A–1 or EPA Method 5D at 40 Method 3B to measure the carbon 2011, you must demonstrate compliance CFR part 60, appendix A–3, section 8.3 dioxide content of the stack gases when with the requirements of this subpart no for positive pressure fabric filters to using either EPA Method 3A or 3B at 40 later than [DATE TWO YEARS AFTER measure volumetric flow rate. THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE CFR part 60, appendix A–2. (3) EPA Method 4 at 40 CFR part 60, (3) EPA Method 3A or 3B at 40 CFR FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL appendix A–3 to measure moisture part 60, appendix A–2 to determine the REGISTER]. content of the stack gases. oxygen and carbon dioxide (b) For affected sources that concentrations of the stack gas. commenced construction or (4) EPA Method 25A at 40 CFR part reconstruction after May 19, 2011, you 60, appendix A–7 to measure total (4) EPA Method 4 at 40 CFR part 60, must demonstrate compliance with the hydrocarbons emissions. The minimum appendix A–3 to determine moisture requirements of this subpart by [DATE sampling time must be content of the stack gas. TWO YEARS AFTER THE DATE OF 1 hour for each run. You must perform (5) EPA Method 23 at 40 CFR part 60, PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN a minimum of three test runs. You must appendix A–7 to determine the dioxins THE FEDERAL REGISTER] or upon calculate a 1-hour average total and furans concentration. startup of operations, whichever is later. hydrocarbons concentration for each run and use the average of the three 1- (e) You must determine the dioxins § 63.547 Test methods. hour averages to determine compliance. and furans toxic equivalency by (a) You must use the test methods (c) You must correct the measured following the procedures in paragraphs from appendix A of part 60 as listed in total hydrocarbons concentrations to 4 (e)(1) through (e)(3) of this section. paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(5) of this percent carbon dioxide as specified in (1) Measure the concentration of each section to determine compliance with paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(3) of this dioxins and furans congener shown in the emissions standards for lead section. Table 3 of this subpart using EPA compounds specified in § 63.543(a). (1) If the measured percent carbon Method 23 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix (1) EPA Method 1 at 40 CFR part 60, dioxide is greater than 0.4 percent in A–7. You must correct the concentration appendix A–1 to select the sampling each compliance test, you must of dioxins and furans in terms of toxic port location and the number of traverse determine the correction factor using equivalency to 7 percent O2 using points. Equation (2) of this section. Equation (3) of this section.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:40 May 18, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\19MYP2.SGM 19MYP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP19MY11.002 EP19MY11.003 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 29075

Where: (1) Calculate face velocity using the (b) You must submit the standard Cadj = Dioxins and furans concentration procedures in paragraphs (h)(1)(i) operating procedures manual for adjusted to 7 percent oxygen. through (h)(1)(iv) of this section. baghouses required by paragraph (a) of Cmeas = Dioxins and furans concentration (i) Method 1 at 40 CFR part 60, this section to the Administrator or measured in nanograms per dry standard appendix A–1 must be used to select the delegated authority for review and cubic meter. sampling port location in the duct approval. (20.9 ¥ 7) = 20.9 percent oxygen ¥ 7 percent oxygen (defined oxygen correction leading from the process fugitive (c) The procedures that you specify in basis). enclosure hood to the control device. the standard operating procedures 20.9 = Oxygen concentration in air, percent. (ii) Method 2 at 40 CFR part 60, manual for inspections and routine %O2 = Oxygen concentration measured on a appendix A–1 must be used to measure maintenance must, at a minimum, dry basis, percent. the volumetric flow rate in the duct include the requirements of paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(9) of this section. (2) For each dioxins and furans from the process fugitive enclosure congener measured as specified in hood to the control device. (1) Daily monitoring of pressure drop paragraph (e)(1) of this section, multiply (iii) The face area of the hood must be across each baghouse cell. the congener concentration by its determined from measurement of the (2) Weekly confirmation that dust is corresponding toxic equivalency factor hood. If the hood has access doors, then being removed from hoppers through specified in Table 3 to this subpart. the face area must be determined with visual inspection, or equivalent means of ensuring the proper functioning of (3) Sum the values calculated as the access doors in the position they are removal mechanisms. specified in paragraph (e)(2) of this in during normal operating conditions. (3) Daily check of compressed air section to obtain the total concentration (iv) Face velocity must be determined supply for pulse-jet baghouses. of dioxins and furans emitted in terms by dividing the volumetric flow rate as (4) An appropriate methodology for of toxic equivalency. determined in paragraph (h)(1)(ii) of this section by the total face area for the monitoring cleaning cycles to ensure (f) You must determine compliance hood determined in paragraph (h)(2)(iii) proper operation. with the doorway in-draft requirement of this section. (5) Monthly check of bag cleaning for enclosed buildings in § 63.544(b) mechanisms for proper functioning using the procedures specified in (2) The face velocity may be measured through visual inspection or equivalent paragraphs (f)(1) through (f)(3) of this directly using the procedures in means. section. paragraphs (h)(2)(i) through (h)(2)(v) of this section. (6) Monthly check of bag tension on (1) You must use a propeller (i) A propeller anemometer or reverse air and shaker-type baghouses. anemometer or equivalent device equivalent device must be used to Such checks are not required for shaker- meeting the requirements of paragraphs measure hood face velocity. type baghouses using self-tensioning (f)(1)(i) through (f)(1)(iii) of this section. (ii) The propeller of the anemometer (spring loaded) devices. (i) The propeller of the anemometer must be made of a material of uniform (7) Quarterly confirmation of the must be made of a material of uniform density and must be properly balanced physical integrity of the baghouse density and must be properly balanced to optimize performance. through visual inspection of the to optimize performance. (iii) The measurement range of the baghouse interior for air leaks. (ii) The measurement range of the anemometer must extend to at least 300 (8) Quarterly inspection of fans for anemometer must extend to at least 300 meters per minute (1,000 feet per wear, material buildup, and corrosion meters per minute (1,000 feet per minute). through visual inspection, vibration minute). (iv) A known relationship must exist detectors, or equivalent means. (iii) A known relationship must exist between the anemometer signal output (9) Continuous operation of a bag leak between the anemometer signal output and air velocity, and the anemometer detection system, unless a system and air velocity, and the anemometer must be equipped with a suitable meeting the requirements of paragraph must be equipped with a suitable readout system. (m) of this section, for a CEMS and readout system. (v) Hood face velocity must be continuous emissions rate monitoring (2) You must determine the doorway determined for each hood open during system is installed for monitoring the in-draft by placing the anemometer in normal operation by placing the concentration of lead. the plane of the doorway opening near anemometer in the plane of the hood (d) The procedures you specified in its center. opening. Access doors must be the standard operating procedures (3) You must demonstrate the positioned consistent with normal manual for baghouse maintenance must doorway in-draft for each doorway that operation. include, at a minimum, a preventative is open during normal operation with maintenance schedule that is consistent all other doorways remaining in the § 63.548 Monitoring requirements. with the baghouse manufacturer’s position they are in during normal (a) You must prepare, and at all times instructions for routine and long-term operation. operate according to, a standard maintenance. (g) If you comply with the operating procedures manual that (e) The bag leak detection system requirements specified in § 63.544(d)(1), describes in detail procedures for required by paragraph (c)(9) of this you must use the EPA method at 40 CFR inspection, maintenance, and bag leak section, must meet the specification and part 50, appendix G to measure the detection and corrective action plans for requirements of paragraphs (e)(1) concentration of lead in air. all baghouses (fabric filters or cartridge through (e)(8) of this section. (h) If you comply with the filters) that are used to control process (1) The bag leak detection system requirements specified in § 63.544(d)(2) vents, process fugitive, or fugitive dust must be certified by the manufacturer to and (d)(3) for enclosure hoods, you must emissions from any source subject to the be capable of detecting particulate determine compliance with the face lead emissions standards in §§ 63.543, matter emissions at concentrations of velocity requirements by using the test 63.544, and 63.545, including those 1.0 milligram per actual cubic meter methods in paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) of used to control emissions from building (0.00044 grains per actual cubic foot) or this section. ventilation. less.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:40 May 18, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19MYP2.SGM 19MYP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 29076 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules

(2) The bag leak detection system corrective action(s) that may include, conduct the evaluation. The sensor must provide output of relative but not be limited to, those listed in temperature monitoring device must particulate matter loadings. paragraphs (f)(2)(i) through (f)(2)(vi) of meet the following performance and (3) The bag leak detection system this section. equipment specifications: must be equipped with an alarm system (i) Inspecting the baghouse for air (i) The recorder response range must that will alarm when an increase in leaks, torn or broken filter elements, or include zero and 1.5 times the average relative particulate loadings is detected any other malfunction that may cause temperature identified in paragraph over a preset level. an increase in emissions. (h)(3) of this section. (4) You must install and operate the (ii) Sealing off defective bags or filter (ii) The monitoring system calibration bag leak detection system in a manner media. drift must not exceed 2 percent of 1.5 consistent with the guidance provided (iii) Replacing defective bags or filter times the average temperature identified in ‘‘Office of Air Quality Planning and media, or otherwise repairing the in paragraph (h)(3) of this section. Standards (OAQPS) Fabric Filter Bag control device. (iii) The monitoring system relative Leak Detection Guidance’’ EPA–454/R– (iv) Sealing off a defective baghouse accuracy must not exceed 20 percent. 98–015, September 1997 (incorporated compartment. (iv) The reference method must be a by reference) and the manufacturer’s (v) Cleaning the bag leak detection National Institute of Standards and written specifications and system probe, or otherwise repairing the Technology calibrated reference recommendations for installation, bag leak detection system. thermocouple-potentiometer system or operation, and adjustment of the system. (vi) Shutting down the process an alternate reference, subject to the (5) The initial adjustment of the producing the particulate emissions. approval of the Administrator. system must, at a minimum, consist of (g) If you use a wet scrubber to control (3) You must monitor and record the establishing the baseline output by particulate matter and metal hazardous temperature of the afterburner or the adjusting the sensitivity (range) and the air pollutant emissions from an affected furnace exhaust streams every 15 averaging period of the device, and source to demonstrate continuous minutes during the initial performance establishing the alarm set points and the compliance with the emissions or compliance test for total alarm delay time. standards, you must monitor and record hydrocarbons and dioxins and furans (6) Following initial adjustment, you the pressure drop and water flow rate of and determine an arithmetic average for must not adjust the sensitivity or range, the wet scrubber during the initial the recorded temperature averaging period, alarm set points, or performance or compliance test measurements. alarm delay time, except as detailed in conducted to demonstrate compliance (4) To demonstrate continuous the approved standard operating with the lead emissions limit under compliance with the standards for total procedures manual required under § 63.543(a). Thereafter, you must hydrocarbons and dioxins and furans, paragraph (a) of this section. You cannot monitor and record the pressure drop you must maintain an afterburner or increase the sensitivity by more than and water flow rate values at least once exhaust temperature such that the 100 percent or decrease the sensitivity every hour and you must maintain the average temperature in any 3-hour by more than 50 percent over a 365 day pressure drop and water flow rate at period does not fall more than 28 °C period unless such adjustment follows a levels no lower than 30 percent below (50 °F) below the average established in complete baghouse inspection that the pressure drop and water flow rate paragraph (h)(3) of this section. demonstrates that the baghouse is in measured during the initial performance (i) You must install, operate, and good operating condition. or compliance test. maintain a digital differential pressure (7) For negative pressure, induced air (h) You must comply with the monitoring system to continuously baghouses, and positive pressure requirements specified in paragraphs monitor each total enclosure as baghouses that are discharged to the (h)(1) through (h)(5) of this section to described in paragraphs (i)(1) through atmosphere through a stack, you must demonstrate continuous compliance (i)(6) of this section. install the bag leak detector downstream with the total hydrocarbons and dioxins (1) You must install and maintain a of the baghouse and upstream of any and furans emissions standards. minimum of one building digital wet acid gas scrubber. (1) Continuous temperature differential pressure monitoring system (8) Where multiple detectors are monitoring. You must install, calibrate, at each of the following three walls in required, the system’s instrumentation maintain, and continuously operate a each total enclosure that has a total and alarm may be shared among device to monitor and record the ground surface area of 10,000 square detectors. temperature of the afterburner or feet or more: (f) You must include in the standard furnace exhaust streams consistent with (i) The leeward wall. operating procedures manual required the requirements for continuous (ii) The windward wall. by paragraph (a) of this section a monitoring systems in subpart A of this (iii) An exterior wall that connects the corrective action plan that specifies the part. leeward and windward wall at a procedures to be followed in the case of (2) Prior to or in conjunction with the location defined by the intersection of a a bag leak detection system alarm. The initial performance or compliance test perpendicular line between a point on corrective action plan must include, at to determine compliance with the connecting wall and a point on its a minimum, the procedures that you § 63.543(b), you must conduct a furthest opposite exterior wall, and will use to determine and record the performance evaluation for the intersecting within plus or minus ten time and cause of the alarm as well as temperature monitoring device meters of the midpoint of a straight line the corrective actions taken to minimize according to § 63.8(e). The definitions, between the two other monitors emissions as specified in paragraphs installation specifications, test specified. The midpoint monitor must (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this section. procedures, and data reduction not be located on the same wall as either (1) The procedures used to determine procedures for determining calibration of the other two monitors. the cause of the alarm must be initiated drift, relative accuracy, and reporting (2) You must install and maintain a within 30 minutes of the alarm. described in Performance Specification minimum of one building digital (2) The cause of the alarm must be 2, 40 CFR part 60, appendix B, sections differential pressure monitoring system alleviated by taking the necessary 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10 must be used to at the leeward wall of each total

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:40 May 18, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19MYP2.SGM 19MYP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 29077

enclosure that has a total ground surface for any seasonal, background, or other you must use the procedure described area of less than 10,000 square feet. data adjustments within 45 days after in § 63.543(a)(1) through (a)(4) to (3) The digital differential pressure the effective date of this subpart. determine compliance. monitoring systems must be certified by (iii) The Administrator at any time (m) If a CEMS is used to measure lead the manufacturer to be capable of may require changes in, or expansion of, emissions, you must install a measuring and displaying negative the monitoring program, including continuous emissions rate monitoring pressure in the range of 0.01 to 0.2 mm additional sampling and, more frequent system with a sensor in a location that mercury (0.005 to 0.11 inches of water) sampling, revisions to the analytical provides representative measurement of with a minimum accuracy of plus or protocols and network design. the exhaust gas flow rate at the sampling minus 0.001 mm mercury (0.0005 (iv) If all rolling 3-month average location of the CEMS used to measure inches of water). concentrations of lead in air measured lead emissions, taking into account the (4) You must equip each digital by the compliance monitoring system manufacturer’s recommendations. The differential pressure monitoring system are less than 50 percent of the lead flow rate sensor is that portion of the with a continuous recorder. concentration limits specified in system that senses the volumetric flow (5) You must calibrate each digital § 63.544(d)(1) for 3 consecutive years, rate and generates an output differential pressure monitoring system you may submit a proposed revised plan proportional to that flow rate. in accordance with manufacturer’s to reduce the monitoring sampling and (1) The continuous emissions rate specifications at least once every 12 analysis frequency to the Administrator monitoring system must be designed to calendar months or more frequently if for review. If approved by the measure the exhaust gas flow rate over recommended by the manufacturer. Administrator, you may adjust your a range that extends from a value of at (6) You must equip the digital monitoring accordingly. least 20 percent less than the lowest differential pressure monitoring system (v) For any subsequent period, if any expected exhaust flow rate to a value of with a backup, uninterruptible power rolling 3-month average lead at least 20 percent greater than the supply to ensure continuous operation concentration in air measured at any highest expected exhaust gas flow rate. of the monitoring system during a monitor in the monitoring system (2) The continuous emissions rate power outage. exceeds 50 percent of the concentration monitoring system must be equipped (j) You must monitor the doorway in- limits specified in § 63.544(d)(1), you with a data acquisition and recording draft velocity at each building opening must resume monitoring pursuant to system that is capable of recording once per day to demonstrate continuous paragraph (k)(1)(i) of this section at all values over the entire range specified in compliance with the in-draft monitors until another 3 consecutive paragraph (m)(1) of this section. requirements in § 63.544(b)(2). years of lead concentration (3) You must perform an initial (k) If you comply with the measurements is demonstrated to be relative accuracy test of the continuous requirements specified in § 63.544(d), less than 50 percent of the lead emissions rate monitoring system in you must comply with the requirements concentration limits specified in accordance with the applicable specified in paragraphs (k)(1) through § 63.544(d)(1). Performance Specification in appendix (3) of this section. (2) You must monitor the enclosure B to part 60 of this chapter. (1) You must install, operate and hood face velocity at each hood once (4) You must operate the continuous maintain a continuous monitoring per week to demonstrate continuous emissions rate monitoring system and system for the measurement of lead compliance with the in-draft record data during all periods of compound concentrations in air as requirements in § 63.544(d)(3). operation of the affected facility specified in paragraphs (k)(1)(i) through (3) If you use pressurized dryer including periods of startup, shutdown, (k)(1)(v) of this section. breaching seals in order to comply with and malfunction, except for periods of (i) You must operate a minimum of the requirements of § 63.544(d)(4), you monitoring system malfunctions, repairs two compliance monitors sufficient in must equip each seal with an alarm that associated with monitoring system location and frequency of sample will ‘‘sound’’ or ‘‘go off’’ if the malfunctions, and required monitoring collection to detect expected maximum pressurized dryer breaching seal system quality assurance or quality concentrations of lead compounds in air malfunctions. control activities including, as due to emissions from the affected (l) All new or modified sources applicable, calibration checks and source(s) in accordance with a written subject to the requirements under required zero and span adjustments. plan as described in paragraph (k)(1)(ii) § 63.543 must install, calibrate, (5) You must calculate the average of this section and approved by the maintain, and operate a CEMS for lead concentration and flow rate Administrator. The plan must include measuring lead emissions and a monthly to determine compliance with descriptions of the sampling and continuous emissions rate monitoring § 63.543(a). analytical methods used. The plan may system subject to Performance (6) When the continuous emissions take into consideration existing Specification 6 of appendix B to part 60 rate monitoring system is unable to monitoring being conducted under a of this chapter. You must comply with provide quality assured data, the State monitoring plan in accordance the requirements for CEMS and following apply: with 40 CFR part 58. At least one 24- continuous emissions rate monitoring (i) When data are not available for hour sample must be collected from system specified in paragraph (m) of periods of up to 48 hours, the highest each monitor every 6 days except during this section. recorded hourly emissions rate from the periods or seasons exempted by the (1) Sources subject to the emissions previous 24 hours must be used. Administrator. limits for lead compounds under (ii) When data are not available for 48 (ii) You must submit a written plan § 63.543(a) must install a CEMS for or more hours, the maximum daily describing and explaining the basis for measuring lead emissions within 180 emissions rate based on the previous 30 the design and adequacy of the days of promulgation of performance days must be used. compliance monitoring network, the specifications for lead CEMS. sampling, analytical, and quality (2) Prior to promulgation of § 63.549 Notification requirements. assurance procedures, and any other performance specifications for CEMS (a) You must comply with all of the related procedures, and the justification used to measure lead concentrations, notification requirements of § 63.9 of

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:40 May 18, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19MYP2.SGM 19MYP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 29078 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules

subpart A, General Provisions. (1) Electronic records of the bag leak the air pollution control equipment and Electronic notifications are encouraged detection system output. monitoring equipment. when possible. (2) An identification of the date and (15) Records of actions taken during (b) You must submit the fugitive dust time of all bag leak detection system periods of malfunction to minimize control standard operating procedures alarms, the time that procedures to emissions in accordance with manual required under § 63.545(a) and determine the cause of the alarm were § 63.543(j), including corrective actions the standard operating procedures initiated, the cause of the alarm, an to restore malfunctioning process and manual for baghouses required under explanation of the corrective actions air pollution control and monitoring § 63.548(a) to the Administrator or taken, and the date and time the cause equipment to its normal or usual delegated authority along with a of the alarm was corrected. manner of operation. notification that the smelter is seeking (3) All records of inspections and (d) You must comply with all of the review and approval of these plans and maintenance activities required under reporting requirements specified in procedures. You must submit this § 63.548(c) as part of the practices § 63.10 of the General Provisions that notification no later than [DATE ONE described in the standard operating are referenced in Table 1 to this subpart. YEAR AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE procedures manual for baghouses (1) You must submit reports no less FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL required under § 63.548(a). frequent than specified under REGISTER]. For sources that (4) Electronic records of the pressure § 63.10(e)(3) of the General Provisions. commenced construction or drop and water flow rate values for wet (2) Once a source reports a violation reconstruction after [INSERT THE DATE scrubbers used to control metal of the standard or excess emissions, you OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL hazardous air pollutant emissions from must follow the reporting format RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], process fugitive sources as required in required under § 63.10(e)(3) until a you must submit this notification no § 63.548(g). request to reduce reporting frequency is later than 180 days before startup of the (5) Electronic records of the output approved by the Administrator. (e) In addition to the information constructed or reconstructed secondary from the continuous temperature required under the applicable sections lead smelter, but no sooner than [DATE monitor required in § 63.548(h)(1), and of § 63.10, you must include in the OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL an identification of periods when the reports required under paragraph (d) of RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. 3-hour average temperature fell below this section the information specified in For an affected source that has received the minimum established under paragraphs (e)(1) through (e)(14) of this a construction permit from the § 63.548(h)(3), and an explanation of the section. Administrator or delegated authority on corrective actions taken. (1) Records of the concentration of or before [INSERT DATE OF (6) Electronic records of the lead in each process vent, and records PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN continuous pressure monitors for total of the rolling 12-month flow-weighted THE FEDERAL REGISTER], you must enclosures required in § 63.548(i), and average concentration of lead submit this notification no later than an identification of periods when the compounds in vent gases calculated [DATE ONE YEAR AFTER pressure was not maintained as required monthly as required in § 63.543(a). PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN in § 63.544(b)(1). (2) Records of all alarms from the bag THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. (7) Records of the daily measurements leak detection system specified in of doorway in-draft velocity required in § 63.548. § 63.550 Recordkeeping and reporting § 63.548(j), and an identification of the requirements. (3) A description of the procedures periods when the velocity was not taken following each bag leak detection (a) You must comply with all of the maintained as required in § 63.544(b)(2). system alarm pursuant to § 63.548(f)(1) recordkeeping and reporting (8) Records of the inspections of and (2). requirements specified in § 63.10 of the facility enclosures required in (4) A summary of the records General Provisions that are referenced § 63.544(c). maintained as part of the practices in Table 1 to this subpart. (9) Records of all cleaning and described in the standard operating (1) Records must be maintained in a inspections required as part of the procedures manual for baghouses form suitable and readily available for practices described in the standard required under § 63.548(a), including an expeditious review, according to operating procedures manual required explanation of the periods when the § 63.10(b)(1). However, electronic under § 63.545(a) for the control of procedures were not followed and the recordkeeping and reporting is fugitive dust emissions. corrective actions taken. encouraged, and required for some (10) Records of the compliance (5) An identification of the periods records and reports. monitoring required in § 63.548(k)(1), if when the pressure drop and water flow (2) Records must be kept on site for applicable. rate of wet scrubbers used to control at least 2 years after the date of (11) Records of the face velocity process fugitive sources dropped below occurrence, measurement, maintenance, measurements required in the levels established in § 63.548(g), and corrective action, report, or record, § 63.548(k)(2), if applicable, and an an explanation of the corrective actions according to § 63.10(b)(1). identification of periods when the face taken. (b) The standard operating procedures velocity was not maintained as required (6) Records of the temperature manuals required in § 63.545(a) and in § 63.544(d)(2) and (d)(3). monitor output, in 3-hour block § 63.548(a) must be submitted to the (12) Records of the dryer breaching averages, for those periods when the Administrator in electronic format for seal alarms required in § 63.548(k)(3). temperature monitored pursuant to review and approval of the initial (13) Electronic records of the output § 63.548(h) fell below the level submittal and whenever an update is of any CEMS installed to monitor lead established in § 63.548(h)(4). made to the procedure. emissions meeting the requirements of (7) Certification that the plastic (c) You must maintain for a period of § 63.548(m). separation process for battery breakers 5 years, records of the information listed (14) Records of the occurrence and required in § 63.543(k) was operated at in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(15) of duration of each malfunction of all times the battery breaker was in this section. operation (i.e., process equipment) or service.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:40 May 18, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19MYP2.SGM 19MYP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 29079

(8) Records of periods when the data collected using test methods may assert an affirmative defense to a pressure was not maintained as required compatible with the Electronic claim for civil penalties for exceedances in § 63.544(b)(1), or the in-draft velocity Reporting Tool are subject to this of such standards that are caused by was not maintained as required in requirement to be submitted malfunction, as defined at § 63.2. § 63.544(b)(2). electronically into EPA’s WebFIRE Appropriate penalties may be assessed, (9) If a malfunction occurred during database. however, if you fail to meet your burden the reporting period, the report must (iii) All reports required by this of proving all of the requirements in the include the number, duration, and a subpart not subject to the requirements affirmative defense. The affirmative brief description for each type of in paragraphs (e)(14)(i) and (ii) of this defense shall not be available for claims malfunction that occurred during the section must be sent to the for injunctive relief. reporting period and caused or may Administrator at the appropriate (a) Affirmative defense. To establish have caused any applicable emissions address listed in § 63.13. The the affirmative defense in any action to limitation to be exceeded. The report Administrator or the delegated authority enforce such a limit, you must timely must also include a description of may request a report in any form meet the notification requirements in actions taken by an owner or operator suitable for the specific case (e.g., by paragraph (b) of this section, and must during a malfunction of an affected electronic media such as Excel prove by a preponderance of evidence source to minimize emissions in spreadsheet, on CD or hard copy). The that: accordance with § 63.543(j), including Administrator retains the right to (1) The excess emissions: actions taken to correct a malfunction. require submittal of reports subject to (i) Were caused by a sudden, (10) A summary of the fugitive dust paragraphs (e)(14)(i) and (ii) of this infrequent, and unavoidable failure of control measures performed during the section in paper format. air pollution control and monitoring required reporting period, including an equipment, process equipment, or a explanation of the periods when the § 63.551 Implementation and enforcement. process to operate in a normal or usual procedures outlined in the standard (a) This subpart can be implemented manner. operating procedures manual pursuant and enforced by the U.S. EPA, or a (ii) Could not have been prevented to § 63.545(a) were not followed and the delegated authority such as the through careful planning, proper design corrective actions taken. The reports applicable State, local, or Tribal agency. or better operation and maintenance must not contain copies of the daily If the U.S. EPA Administrator has practices. records required to demonstrate delegated authority to a State, local, or (iii) Did not stem from any activity or compliance with the requirements of the Tribal agency, then that agency, in event that could have been foreseen and standard operating procedures manuals addition to the U.S. EPA, has the avoided, or planned for. required under § 63.545(a). authority to implement and enforce this (iv) Were not part of a recurring (11) If you comply with the subpart. Contact the applicable U.S. pattern indicative of inadequate design, requirements in § 63.544(d)(1), you must EPA Regional Office to find out if this operation, or maintenance. provide records of all results of air subpart is delegated to a State, local, or (2) Repairs were made as monitoring required in § 63.548(k)(1). Tribal agency. expeditiously as possible when the (12) Records of periods when the (b) In delegating implementation and applicable emissions limitations were enclosure hood face velocity was not enforcement authority of this subpart to being exceeded. Off-shift and overtime maintained as required in § 63.544(d)(3). a State, local, or Tribal agency under labor were used, to the extent (13) Records of the dryer seal subpart E of this part, the authorities practicable to make these repairs. breaching alarms required in contained in paragraph (c) of this (3) The frequency, amount and § 63.548(k)(3). section are retained by the duration of the excess emissions (14) You must submit records Administrator of U.S. EPA and cannot (including any bypass) were minimized pursuant to paragraphs (e)(14)(i) be transferred to the State, local, or to the maximum extent practicable through (iii) of this section. Tribal agency. during periods of such emissions. (i) As of January 1, 2012 and within (c) The authorities that cannot be (4) If the excess emissions resulted 60 days after the date of completing delegated to State, local, or Tribal from a bypass of control equipment or each performance test, as defined in agencies are as specified in paragraphs a process, then the bypass was § 63.2 and as required in this subpart, (c)(1) through (c)(4) of this section. unavoidable to prevent loss of life, you must submit performance test data, (1) Approval of alternatives to the personal injury, or severe property except opacity data, electronically to requirements in §§ 63.541, 63.543 damage. EPA’s Central Data Exchange by using through 63.544, § 63.545, and § 63.546. (5) All possible steps were taken to the Electronic Reporting Tool (see (2) Approval of major alternatives to minimize the impact of the excess http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ emissions on ambient air quality, the _ test methods for under § 63.7(e)(2)(ii) ert tool.html/). Only data collected and (f), as defined in § 63.90, and as environment and human health. using test methods compatible with the required in this subpart. (6) All emissions monitoring and Electronic Reporting Tool are subject to (3) Approval of major alternatives to control systems were kept in operation this requirement to be submitted monitoring under § 63.8(f), as defined in if at all possible, consistent with safety electronically into EPA’s WebFIRE § 63.90, and as required in this subpart. and good air pollution control practices. database. (4) Approval of major alternatives to (7) All of the actions in response to (ii) Within 60 days after the date of recordkeeping and reporting under the excess emissions were documented completing each CEMS performance § 63.10(f), as defined in § 63.90, and as by properly signed, contemporaneous evaluation test, as defined in § 63.2 and required in this subpart. operating logs. required by this subpart, you must (8) At all times, the affected source submit the relative accuracy test audit § 63.552 Affirmative defense for was operated in a manner consistent data electronically into EPA’s Central exceedance of emissions limit during with good practices for minimizing Data Exchange by using the Electronic malfunction. emissions. Reporting Tool as mentioned in In response to an action to enforce the (9) A written root cause analysis has paragraph (e)(14)(i) of this section. Only standards set forth in this subpart, you been prepared, the purpose of which is

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:40 May 18, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19MYP2.SGM 19MYP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 29080 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules

to determine, correct, and eliminate the telephone or facsimile transmission as that it has met the requirements set forth primary causes of the malfunction and soon as possible, but no later than two in paragraph (a) of this section. The the excess emissions resulting from the business days after the initial owner or operator may seek an malfunction event at issue. The analysis occurrence of the malfunction, it wishes extension of this deadline for up to 30 shall also specify, using best monitoring to avail itself of an affirmative defense additional days by submitting a written methods and engineering judgment, the to civil penalties for that malfunction. request to the Administrator before the amount of excess emissions that were The owner or operator seeking to assert expiration of the 45 day period. Until a the result of the malfunction. an affirmative defense, shall also submit request for an extension has been (b) Notification. The owner or a written report to the Administrator approved by the Administrator, the operator of the affected source within 45 days of the initial occurrence owner or operator is subject to the experiencing an exceedance of its of the exceedance of the standard in this requirement to submit such report emissions limit(s) during a malfunction, subpart to demonstrate, with all within 45 days of the initial occurrence shall notify the Administrator by necessary supporting documentation, of the exceedance.

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART X OF PART 63—GENERAL PROVISIONS APPLICABILITY TO SUBPART X

Reference Applies to 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. § 63.7(a)–(d) ...... Yes. § 63.7(e)(1) ...... No ...... See 63.543(i). § 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), (h)(1) Yes. 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 malfunc- tions 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.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:35 May 18, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19MYP2.SGM 19MYP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 29081

TABLE 2 TO SUBPART X OF PART 63—EMISSIONS LIMITS FOR SECONDARY LEAD SMELTING FURNACES

You must meet the following emissions limits

Total hydrocarbon Dioxin and furan For vents from these processes ppm by volume (dioxins and expressed as pro- furans) pane corrected to nanograms/dscm 4 percent carbon expressed as TEQ dioxide corrected to 7 percent O2

Collocated blast and reverberatory furnace ...... 20 ppmv 0.50 ng/dscm. Collocated blast and reverberatory furnace when the Reverberatory furnace is not operating ...... 360 ppmv 170 ng/dscm. Collocated blast and reverberatory furnace that commence construction after June 9, 1994 ...... 20 ppmv 0.50 ng/dscm. Collocated blast and reverberatory furnace that commence construction after [INSERT DATE 24 20 ppmv 0.50 ng/dscm. MONTHS AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. Blast furnace ...... 360 ppmv 170 ng/dscm. Blast furnaces that commence construction or reconstruction after June 9, 1994 ...... 70 ppmv 10 ng/dscm. Reverberatory and electric furnace ...... 12 ppmv 0.20 ng/dscm. Reverberatory and electric furnace that commence construction or reconstruction after [INSERT DATE 12 ppmv 0.10 ng/dscm. 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 or reconstruction after [INSERT DATE 24 MONTHS 610 ppmv 1.0 ng/dscm. 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

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:35 May 18, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\19MYP2.SGM 19MYP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2