Vol. 77 Thursday, No. 3 January 5, 2012

Part II

Environmental Protection Agency

40 CFR Part 63 National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air From Secondary ; Final Rules

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:35 Jan 04, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\05JAR2.SGM 05JAR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 556 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION related to emissions during periods of the telephone number for the Air and AGENCY startup, shutdown, and malfunction. Radiation Docket and Information DATES: This final action is effective on Center is (202) 566–1742. 40 CFR Part 63 January 5, 2012. The incorporation by FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For [EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0344; FRL–9610–9] reference of certain publications listed questions about this final action, contact in the rule is approved by the Director RIN 2060–AQ68 Mr. Nathan Topham, Office of Air of the Federal Register as of January 5, Quality Planning and Standards, Sector 2012. National Emissions Standards for Policies and Programs Division, U.S. ADDRESSES: Hazardous Air Pollutants From The EPA has established a Environmental Protection Agency, Secondary docket for this action under Docket ID Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0344. All telephone number: (919) 541–0483; fax AGENCY: Environmental Protection documents in the docket are listed on number: (919) 541–3207; and email Agency (EPA). the http://www.regulations.gov Web address: [email protected]. For ACTION: Final rule. site. Although listed in the index, some additional contact information, see the information is not publicly available, following SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION SUMMARY: This action finalizes the e.g., confidential business information section. residual risk and review (CBI) or other information whose conducted for the secondary lead disclosure is restricted by statute. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For smelting source category regulated Certain other material, such as specific information regarding the risk under national emission standards for copyrighted material, is not placed on assessment and exposure modeling hazardous air pollutants. These final the Internet, and will be publicly methodology, contact Dr. Michael amendments include revisions to the available only in hard copy form. Stewart, Office of Air Quality Planning emissions limits for lead compounds; Publicly available docket materials are and Standards, Health and revisions to the standards for fugitive available either electronically through Environmental Impacts Division, Air emissions; the addition of total http://www.regulations.gov, or in hard Toxics Assessment Group (C504–06), hydrocarbon and dioxin and furan copy at the EPA Docket Center, EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, emissions limits for reverberatory and West Building, Room Number 3334, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; electric furnaces; the addition of a work 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., telephone number: (919) 541–7524; fax practice standard for Washington, DC. The Public Reading number: (919) 541–0840; and email emissions; the modification and Room hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. address: [email protected]. For addition of testing and monitoring, to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time information about the applicability of recordkeeping, and reporting (EST), Monday through Friday. The this NESHAP to a particular entity, requirements; related notifications; and telephone number for the Public contact the appropriate person listed in revisions to the regulatory provisions Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and Table 1 to this preamble.


NESHAP for OECA contact a OAQPS contact b

Secondary Lead Smelting ...... Maria Malave, (202) 564–7027, Nathan Topham, (919) 541– [email protected]. 0483, [email protected]. a EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. b EPA’s Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.

Acronyms and Abbreviations. The NTTAA National Technology Transfer and based on evaluations performed by the following acronyms and abbreviations Advancement Act EPA in order to conduct our risk and are used in this document. OP Office of Policy technology review. In this action, we are ppbv parts per billion by volume CAA Clean Air Act finalizing decisions and revisions for ppbw parts per billion by weight the rule. Some of the significant CBI confidential business information ppmv parts per million by volume CDX Central Data Exchange ppmw parts per million by weight comments and our responses are CEMS continuous emission monitoring REL recommended exposure limit summarized in this preamble. A system RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act summary of the public comments on the CPMS continuous parameter monitoring RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis proposal not presented in the preamble, system RIN Regulatory Information Number and the EPA’s responses to those D/F dioxins and furans RTR Risk and Technology Review ERT Electronic Reporting Tool comments, is available in Docket ID No. SRF short rotary furnace HAP hazardous air pollutants EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0344. A tracked TEF toxic equivalency factor HQ hazard quotient changes version of the regulatory ICR information collection request TEQ toxic equivalency quotient language that incorporates the changes lbs/yr pounds per year THC total hydrocarbons TTN Technology Transfer Network in this action is available in the docket. MACT maximum achievable control Organization of This Document. The technology UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act UPL upper prediction limit following outline is provided to aid in MIR maximum individual risk locating information in the preamble. NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality WWW World Wide Web Standards I. General Information NESHAP National Emission Standards for Background Information Document. A. Does this action apply to me? Hazardous Air Pollutants On May 19, 2011 (76 FR 29032), the B. What is the affected source? ng/dscm nanograms per dry standard cubic EPA proposed revisions to the C. Where can I get a copy of this meter Secondary Lead Smelting NESHAP document?

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:35 Jan 04, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\05JAR2.SGM 05JAR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 557

D. Judicial Review TABLE 2—NESHAP AND INDUSTRIAL becomes a reconstructed source and is II. Background SOURCE CATEGORIES AFFECTED BY subject to the relevant standards for a III. Summary of the Final Rule THIS FINAL ACTION new affected source. The reconstructed A. What are the final rule amendments for source must comply with the the Secondary Lead Smelting source a b requirements for a new affected source category? NESHAP and source NAICS MACT category Code Code B. What are the effective and compliance upon initial startup of the reconstructed dates of the standards? source, or by March 5, 2012, whichever Secondary Lead is later. C. What are the requirements for Smelting ...... 331492 0205 submission of performance test data to C. Where can I get a copy of this a the EPA? North American Industry Classification document? IV. Summary of Significant Changes Since System. Proposal b Maximum Achievable Control Technology. In addition to being available in the A. Changes to the Risk Assessment Table 2 of this preamble is not docket, an electronic copy of this final Performed Under CAA Section 112(f) intended to be exhaustive, but rather action will also be available on the B. Changes to the Technology Review provides a guide for readers regarding World Wide Web through the Performed Under CAA Section 112(d)(6) entities likely to be affected by the final Technology Transfer Network (TTN). C. Other Changes Since Proposal Following signature, a copy of the final V. Summary of Significant Comments and action for the source category listed. To determine whether your facility would action will be posted on the TTN’s Responses policy and guidance page for newly A. Use of Lead Primary NAAQS as a be affected, you should examine the Measure of Acceptability of Risk for applicability criteria in the appropriate proposed and promulgated rules at the Public Health NESHAP. As defined in the source following address: http://www.epa.gov/ B. Total Enclosure Requirements category listing report published by the ttn/caaa/new.html. The TTN provides C. Work Practice Standard Requirements EPA in 1992, the Secondary Lead information and technology exchange in D. Emission Standards for Organic HAP Smelting source category is defined as various areas of air control. From Rotary Furnaces any facility at which lead-bearing Additional information is available on E. The EPA’s Risk Assessment Supporting materials (including, but not limited to the residual risk and technology review the Proposed Rule (RTR) web page at http://www.epa.gov/ F. Miscellaneous Changes to the Regulatory lead acid batteries) are recycled by smelting into elemental lead or lead ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. This Text information includes source category G. Emission Testing Methods and alloys.1 For clarification purposes, all Frequency reference to lead emissions in this descriptions and detailed emissions and H. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction preamble means ‘‘lead compounds’’ other data that were used as inputs to VI. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and (which is a hazardous air ) and the risk assessments. Economic Impacts all reference to lead production means D. Judicial Review A. What are the affected facilities? elemental lead (which is not a B. What are the air quality impacts? Under CAA section 307(b)(1), judicial C. What are the cost impacts? hazardous air pollutant) as provided review of this final action is available D. What are the economic impacts? under CAA section 112(b)(7). only by filing a petition for review in If you have any questions regarding E. What are the benefits? the United States Court of Appeals for the applicability of any aspect of this VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews the District of Columbia Circuit by NESHAP, please contact the appropriate A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory March 5, 2012. Under CAA section Planning and Review, and Executive person listed in Table 1 of this preamble 307(b)(2), the requirements established Order 13563: Improving Regulation and in the preceding FOR FURTHER by this final rule may not be challenged Regulatory Review INFORMATION CONTACT section. B. Paperwork Reduction Act separately in any civil or criminal C. Regulatory Flexibility Act B. What is the affected source? proceedings brought by the EPA to D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The final rule applies to owners and enforce the requirements. E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism operators of secondary lead smelters. Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation The affected source for this subpart is further provides that ‘‘[o]nly an and Coordination With Indian Tribal objection to a rule or procedure which Governments any of the following sources at a secondary lead smelter: Blast, was raised with reasonable specificity G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of during the period for public comment Children From Environmental Health reverberatory, rotary, and electric Risks and Safety Risks furnaces; kettles; agglomerating (including any public hearing) may be H. Executive Order 13211: Actions furnaces; dryers; process fugitive raised during judicial review.’’ This Concerning Regulations That emissions sources; buildings containing section also provides a mechanism for Significantly Affect Energy Supply, lead bearing materials; and fugitive dust us to convene a proceeding for Distribution, or Use sources. A new affected source is any reconsideration, ‘‘[i]f the person raising I. National Technology Transfer and affected source at a secondary lead an objection can demonstrate to the EPA Advancement Act that it was impracticable to raise such J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions smelting facility of which the construction or reconstruction objection within [the period for public To Address Environmental Justice in comment] or if the grounds for such Minority Populations and Low-Income commenced after May 19, 2011. If Populations components of an existing affected objection arose after the period for K. Congressional Review Act source are replaced such that the public comment (but within the time specified for judicial review) and if such I. General Information replacement meets the definition of reconstruction in 40 CFR 63.2 and the objection is of central relevance to the A. Does this action apply to me? reconstruction commenced on or after outcome of the rule.’’ Any person May 19, 2011, then the existing source seeking to make such a demonstration to Regulated Entities. Categories and us should submit a Petition for entities potentially regulated by this 1 USEPA. Documentation for Developing the Reconsideration to the Office of the action are shown in Table 2 of this Initial Source Category List—Final Report, USEPA/ Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000, preamble. OAQPS, EPA–450/3–91–030, July, 1992. Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:35 Jan 04, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\05JAR2.SGM 05JAR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 558 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, with materials, or other modifications; III. Summary of the Final Rule a copy to both the person(s) listed in the enclose systems or processes to A. What are the final rule amendments preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION eliminate emissions; collect, capture, or for the Secondary Lead Smelting source CONTACT section, and the Associate treat HAP when released from a process, category? General Counsel for the Air and stack, storage, or fugitive emissions Radiation Law Office, Office of General point; and/or are design, equipment, EPA promulgated the National Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, work practice, or operational standards. Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions: Secondary Lead 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., In the second stage of the regulatory Washington, DC 20460. Smelting on June 13, 1997 (62 FR process, we undertake two different 32216). The standards are codified at 40 II. Background analyses, as required by the CAA: CFR part 63, subpart X. The secondary Section 112 of the CAA establishes a section 112(d)(6) of the CAA calls for us lead smelting industry consists of two-stage regulatory process to address to review these technology-based facilities that recycle lead-bearing scrap emissions of hazardous air pollutants standards and to revise them ‘‘as material, typically lead acid batteries, (HAP) from stationary sources. In the necessary (taking into account into elemental lead or lead alloys. The first stage, after the EPA has identified developments in practices, processes, source category covered by this MACT categories of sources emitting one or and control )’’ no less standard currently includes 16 facilities, more of the HAP listed in CAA section frequently than every 8 years; and including one facility that is not 112(b), section 112(d) calls for us to within 8 years after promulgation of the currently operating and one facility that promulgate NESHAP for those sources. technology standards, CAA section is in the process of being constructed. ‘‘Major sources’’ are those that emit, or 112(f) calls for us to evaluate the risk to This section describes the final have the potential to emit, any single public health remaining after amendments to the secondary lead HAP at a rate of 10 tons per year (tpy) application of the technology-based smelting NESHAP.2 These revisions or more, or 25 tpy or more of any standards and to revise the standards, if include changes to the stack and combination of HAP. For major sources, necessary, to provide an ample margin fugitive HAP emission standards, these technology-based standards must of safety to protect public health or to the addition of new THC and D/F reflect the maximum degree of emission prevent, taking into consideration costs, emission limits, the addition of a work reductions of HAP achievable (after energy, safety, and other relevant practice standard to separate plastics considering cost, energy requirements, factors, an adverse environmental effect. from automotive batteries to prevent and non-air quality health and In doing so, the EPA may adopt dioxin emissions, the addition of work environmental impacts) and are standards equal to existing MACT practice standards to minimize mercury commonly referred to as maximum standards if the EPA determines that the emissions, and changes to the achievable control technology (MACT) existing standards are sufficiently requirements that apply during periods standards. protective. NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. For MACT standards, the statute 1077, 1083 (DC Cir. 2008). In addition to these changes described specifies certain minimum stringency On May 19, 2011, the EPA published below, we are making minor changes to requirements, which are referred to as a proposed rule in the Federal Register the regulatory text to correct editorial floor requirements and may not be for the Secondary Lead Smelting errors and to make plain language based on cost considerations. See CAA NESHAP, 40 CFR part 63, subpart X that revisions. We have evaluated the cost, section 112(d)(3). For new sources, the took into consideration the residual risk emissions reductions, energy MACT floor cannot be less stringent and technology review (RTR) analyses. implications and cost effectiveness of all than the emission control that is Today’s action provides the EPA’s final of the standards being promulgated in achieved in practice by the best determinations pursuant to the RTR this final rule and have determined that controlled similar source. The MACT provisions of CAA section 112 for the these measures are cost effective, standards for existing sources can be Secondary Lead Smelting source technically feasible and will provide the less stringent than floors for new category, and also promulgates first-time public with an ample margin of safety sources, but they cannot be less standards under section 112 (d)(2) from exposure to emissions from the stringent than the average emission (MACT) for certain hazardous air secondary lead smelter source category. limitation achieved by the best- pollutants emitted by secondary lead See Cost Impacts of the Revised performing 12 percent of existing smelters. Specifically, we are taking the NESHAP for the Secondary Lead sources in the category or subcategory following actions: Smelting Source Category, which is (or the best-performing five sources for • available in the docket, for information categories or subcategories with fewer Revising some requirements of the on the costs and cost effectiveness of NESHAP related to control of metal HAP than 30 sources). In developing MACT, each of the standards being promulgated emissions based on our risk assessment and we must also consider control options in this final rule. that are more stringent than the floor, technology reviews. • under CAA section 112(d)(2). We may Finalizing first-time total hydrocarbon 1. Stack and Fugitive Metal HAP establish standards more stringent than (THC) and dioxin and furan (D/F) emissions Emission Standards limits and a plastic separation work practice the floor, based on the consideration of For the reasons provided in Section standard to prevent dioxin formation. the cost of achieving the emissions • Finalizing work practice standards for IV.A of this preamble and in the support reductions, any non-air quality health mercury. documents in the docket, we have and environmental impacts, and energy • Revising the requirements in the determined that the risks associated requirements. In promulgating MACT NESHAP related to emissions during periods with emissions from this source standards, CAA section 112(d)(2) directs of startup, shutdown, and malfunction us to consider the application of (SSM). 2 Note that the EPA is reprinting portions of the measures, processes, methods, systems, • Incorporating the use of plain language language from the 1997 NESHAP here so the entire rule appears in one place, for readers’ convenience. or techniques that reduce the volume of into the rule. The EPA is not amending, reopening or otherwise or eliminate HAP emissions through • Addressing technical and editorial reconsidering these reprinted portions of the 1997 process changes, substitution of corrections in the rule. rule.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:35 Jan 04, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\05JAR2.SGM 05JAR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 559

category are unacceptable primarily due 1.0 mg/dscm for each stack at existing where dust from fabric filters, to fugitive emissions of lead. We have sources. For new sources, a lead sweepings or used fabric filters are further determined that there have been emissions limit of 0.20 mg/dscm applies processed. The facilities are also developments in practices, processes, to each individual stack at a modified or required to adopt a list of specified work and control technologies that warrant ‘‘greenfield’’ new facility. practice standards to minimize fugitive • revisions to the MACT standard (i.e., the A requirement for the facility to emissions. standards promulgated pursuant to operate sources of fugitive lead section 112(d)(2) and (3)) for this source emissions within total enclosures that 2. Organic HAP Emissions Standards category. Therefore, to satisfy the are maintained under negative pressure requirements of CAA sections 112(d)(6) and vented to a control device. These To satisfy CAA sections 112(d)(2) and and 112(f), we are revising the MACT sources of fugitive emissions include 112(d)(3), we are also revising the standard to include: the smelting furnaces, smelting furnace MACT standard to include first-time • A facility wide, flow weighted charging areas, lead taps, taps, D/F and THC emission limits (with THC average lead 3 emissions limit from molds during tapping, battery breakers, serving as a surrogate for non-dioxin stacks of 0.20 mg/dscm and an refining kettles, casting areas, dryers, organic HAP). These emission limits are individual stack lead emissions limit of material handling areas, and areas summarized in Table 3 of this preamble.


Source type D/F Emission THC Emission limit a Limit b

New and Existing Collocated Blast and Reverberatory Furnaces ...... 0.50 c 20 Existing Blast Furnaces ...... 170 c 360 New Blast Furnaces ...... 10 c 70 New and Existing Reverberatory and Electric Furnaces ...... 1.0 12

a ng/dscm on a TEQ basis, corrected to 7 percent O2. b ppmv as propane, corrected to 4 percent CO2. c Emission limit is unchanged from 1997 NESHAP.

3. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction eliminated that incorporation of the separate lead-emission standards for periods of startup and shutdown.4 The United States Court of Appeals General Provisions’ requirement that the source develop an SSM plan. We have The EPA has revised this final rule to for the District of Columbia Circuit require sources to meet a work practice vacated portions of two provisions in also eliminated or revised certain recordkeeping and reporting that related standard that requires the development the EPA’s CAA section 112 regulations of standard operating procedures governing the emissions of HAP during to the SSM exemption. The EPA has attempted to ensure that we have not designed to minimize emissions of THC periods of startup, shutdown, and for each start-up and shutdown scenario malfunction (SSM). Sierra Club v. EPA, included in the regulatory language any provisions that are inappropriate, anticipated for all units subject to THC 551 F.3d 1019 (DC Cir. 2008), cert. limits. Temperature monitoring is the unnecessary, or redundant in the denied, 130 S. Ct. 1735 (2010). metric used to determine continuous absence of the SSM exemption. Specifically, the Court vacated the SSM compliance with emission standards for exemption contained in 40 CFR In establishing the standards in this THC. This metric is inappropriate as a 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), that rule, the EPA has taken into account measure of the destruction efficiency of was part of a regulation, commonly startup and shutdown periods and, for these organic pollutants during periods referred to as the ‘‘General Provisions the reasons explained below, has of startup and shutdown. Rule’’, that the EPA promulgated under established different standards for non- The EPA is not including a standard CAA section 112. When incorporated dioxin organic HAP during those for dioxins and furans during periods of into CAA section 112(d) regulations for periods. startup and shutdown. This is because specific source categories, these two dioxins and furans will not be emitted Information on periods of startup and provisions exempted sources from the during those periods. During startup shutdown in the industry indicate that requirement to comply with the and shutdown, scrap feed materials otherwise applicable CAA section lead emissions during these periods do (including chlorinated plastics and 112(d) emission standard during periods not increase (consistent with our flame retardants) that contain the of SSM. engineering judgment that lead precursors needed for dioxin formation We have eliminated the SSM emissions would not increase during are not introduced into the smelter 5 so exemption for secondary lead smelting these periods because lead-bearing feed there are no conditions that could give facilities in this rule. Consistent with is not being smelted during these rise to dioxin and furan emissions. Sierra Club v. EPA, the EPA has periods). Furthermore, all lead-emitting The EPA determined that it is not established standards in this rule for all processes are controlled by either technically and economically feasible periods of operation. We have also control devices or work practices and for units subject to THC limits to revised Table 1 to subpart X (the these controls would not typically be perform stack testing for this pollutant General Provisions table) in several affected by startup or shutdown. during periods of startup and shutdown respects. For example, we have Therefore, the EPA is not adopting due to technical and economic

3 Throughout this preamble, all references to lead activities, there are no startup and shutdown 5 ‘‘Shutdown’’ is defined as a period ‘‘when no emissions means lead compounds as listed by standards for process fugitive emissions since lead bearing materials are being fed to the furnace Congress at section 112(b)(1) of the Act. startup and shutdown do not occur for the activities and smelting operations have ceased * * *’’. 4 Since startup and shutdown refers to the generating such emissions. Section 63.542 (definition of ‘‘shutdown’’). smelting process, and not to ancillary management

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:35 Jan 04, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\05JAR2.SGM 05JAR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 560 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

impracticality associated with testing and duration of various malfunctions exceedance of the relevant emission secondary lead smelting furnaces during that might occur. As such, the standard. (See, e.g., State these periods. The furnaces are heated performance of units that are Implementation Plans: Policy Regarding during periods of startup through slow malfunctioning is not ‘‘reasonably’’ Excessive Emissions During feeding of natural gas and small foreseeable. See, e.g., Sierra Club v. Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown amounts of , with no lead acid EPA, 167 F. 3d 658, 662 (DC Cir. 1999) (September 20, 1999); Policy on Excess batteries fed to the furnace during these (EPA typically has wide latitude in Emissions During Startup, Shutdown, periods. Test crews would have to be determining the extent of data-gathering Maintenance, and Malfunctions on-site prior to a period of startup or necessary to solve a problem.) We (February 15, 1983).) The EPA is shutdown occurring and may need to generally defer to an agency’s decision therefore adding to the final rule an break up a single test over multiple to proceed on the basis of imperfect affirmative defense to civil penalties for startups or shutdowns, the length of scientific information, rather than to exceedances of emission limits that are which could vary depending on the type ‘‘invest the resources to conduct the caused by malfunctions. See 40 CFR of secondary lead smelting furnace perfect study’’. See also, Weyerhaeuser 63.542 (defining ‘‘affirmative defense’’ being tested, that would happen v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1058 (DC Cir. to mean, in the context of an infrequently to gather enough data to 1978) (‘‘In the nature of things, no enforcement proceeding, a response or complete a three-run test. See also general limit, individual permit, or even defense put forward by a defendant, section V.G of this preamble discussing any upset provision can anticipate all regarding which the defendant has the these standards further. upset situations. After a certain point, burden of proof, and the merits of which Periods of startup, normal operations, the transgression of regulatory limits are independently and objectively and shutdown are all predictable and caused by ‘uncontrollable acts of third evaluated in a judicial or administrative routine aspects of a source’s operations. parties’, such as strikes, sabotage, proceeding). We also have added other However, by contrast, malfunction is operator intoxication or insanity, and a regulatory provisions to specify the defined as a ‘‘sudden, infrequent, and variety of other eventualities, must be a elements that are necessary to establish not reasonably preventable failure of air matter for the administrative exercise of this affirmative defense; the source must pollution control and monitoring case-by-case enforcement discretion, not prove by a preponderance of the equipment, process equipment or a for specification in advance by evidence that it has met all of the process to operate in a normal or usual regulation.’’). In addition, the goal of a elements set forth in 63.552 (see 40 CFR manner * * *’’ (40 CFR 63.2). The EPA best-controlled or best-performing 22.24). The criteria ensure that the has determined that CAA section 112 source is to operate in such a way as to affirmative defense is available only does not require that emissions that avoid malfunctions of the source and where the event that causes an occur during periods of malfunction be accounting for malfunctions could lead exceedance of the emission limit meets factored into development of CAA to standards that are significantly less the narrow definition of malfunction in section 112 standards. Under section stringent than levels that are achieved 40 CFR 63.2 (sudden, infrequent, not 112, emissions standards for new by a well-performing non- reasonable preventable and not caused sources must be no less stringent than malfunctioning source. The EPA’s the level ‘‘achieved’’ by the best approach to malfunctions is consistent by poor maintenance and or careless controlled similar source and for with CAA section 112 and is a operation). For example, to successfully existing sources generally must be no reasonable interpretation of the statute. assert the affirmative defense, the source less stringent than the average emission In section 3.2.1 of the separate response must prove by a preponderance of the limitation ‘‘achieved’’ by the best to comment document, we respond to evidence that excess emissions ‘‘[w]ere performing 12 percent of sources in the comments that emissions during caused by a sudden, infrequent, and category. There is nothing in section 112 malfunctions should be accounted for in unavoidable failure of that directs the agency to consider assessing risk pursuant to CAA section control and monitoring equipment, malfunctions in determining the level 112(f)(2). process equipment, or a process to ‘‘achieved’’ by the best performing or In the event that a source fails to operate in a normal or usual manner best controlled sources when setting comply with the applicable CAA section * * *.’’ The criteria also are designed to emission standards. Moreover, while the 112(d) standards as a result of a ensure that steps are taken to correct the EPA accounts for variability in setting malfunction event, the EPA would malfunction, to minimize emissions in emissions standards consistent with the determine an appropriate response accordance with 40 CFR 63.552 and to section 112 case law, nothing in that based on, among other things, the good prevent future malfunctions. For case law requires the agency to consider faith efforts of the source to minimize example, the source must prove by a malfunctions as part of that analysis. emissions during malfunction periods, preponderance of the evidence that Section 112 uses the concept of ‘‘best including preventative and corrective ‘‘[r]epairs were made as expeditiously as controlled’’ and ‘‘best performing’’ unit actions, as well as root cause analyses possible when the applicable emission in defining the level of stringency that to ascertain and rectify excess limitations were being exceeded * * *’’ section 112 performance standards must emissions. The EPA would also and that ‘‘[a]ll possible steps were taken meet. Applying the concept of ‘‘best consider whether the source’s failure to to minimize the impact of the excess controlled’’ or ‘‘best performing’’ to a comply with the CAA section 112(d) emissions on ambient air quality, the unit that is malfunctioning presents standard was, in fact, ‘‘sudden, environment and health * * *.’’ significant difficulties, as malfunctions infrequent, not reasonably preventable’’ In any judicial or administrative are sudden and unexpected events. and was not instead ‘‘caused in part by proceeding, the Administrator may Further, accounting for malfunctions poor maintenance or careless challenge the assertion of the affirmative would be difficult, if not impossible, operation.’’ 40 CFR 63.2 (definition of defense and, if the respondent has not given the myriad different types of malfunction). met its burden of proving all of the malfunctions that can occur across all Finally, the EPA recognizes that even requirements in the affirmative defense, sources in the category and given the equipment that is properly designed and appropriate penalties may be assessed difficulties associated with predicting or maintained can sometimes fail and that in accordance with CAA section 113 accounting for the frequency, degree, such failure can sometimes cause an (see also 40 CFR 22.27).

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:35 Jan 04, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\05JAR2.SGM 05JAR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 561

The EPA is including an affirmative both ensure that its emission limitations performance test data in electronic defense in the final rule in an attempt are ‘‘continuous’’ as required by 42 format, making it possible to move to an to balance a tension, inherent in many U.S.C. 7602(k) and account for electronic data submittal system that types of air regulations, to ensure unplanned upsets and thus support the would increase the ease and efficiency adequate compliance while reasonableness of the standard as a of data submittal and improve data simultaneously recognizing that despite whole. accessibility. the most diligent of efforts, emission One major advantage of submitting B. What are the effective and performance test data through the limits may be exceeded under compliance dates of the standards? circumstances beyond the control of the Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) is a source. The EPA must establish The revisions to the MACT standards standardized method to compile and emission standards that ‘‘limit the being promulgated in this action are store much of the documentation quantity, rate, or concentration of effective on January 5, 2012. For the required to be reported by this rule. emissions of air pollutants on a MACT standards being addressed in this Another advantage is that the ERT continuous basis’’ 42 U.S.C. 7602(k) action, the compliance date for the clearly states what testing information revised SSM requirements is the (defining ‘‘emission limitation and would be required. Another important effective date of the standards, January emission standard’’). See generally benefit of submitting these data to the 5, 2012. The compliance date for Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019, 1021 EPA at the time the source test is existing sources for the revised stack (DC Cir. 2008). Thus, the EPA is conducted is that it should substantially lead emission limit and the revised required to ensure that section 112 reduce the effort involved in data fugitive emission standard including the collection activities in the future. When emissions limitations are continuous. requirement to adopt work practice the EPA has performance test data in The affirmative defense for malfunction standards and install total enclosures for hand, there will likely be fewer or less events meets this requirement by specified process fugitive emission substantial data collection requests in ensuring that even where there is a sources, and for the new D/F and THC conjunction with prospective required malfunction, the emission limitation is emission limits, is 2 years from the residual risk assessments or technology still enforceable through injunctive effective date of the standard, January 6, reviews. This results in a reduced relief. While ‘‘continuous’’ limitations, 2014. New sources must comply with burden on both affected facilities (in on the one hand, are required, there is the all of the standards immediately terms of reduced labor to respond to also case law indicating that in many upon the effective date of the standard, data collection requests) and the EPA situations it is appropriate for the EPA January 5, 2012, or upon startup, (in terms of preparing and distributing to account for the practical realities of whichever is later. data collection requests and assessing technology. For example, in Essex C. What are the requirements for the results). Chemical v. Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 427, State, local, and tribal agencies can submission of performance test data to 433 (DC Cir. 1973), the DC Circuit also benefit from a more streamlined the EPA? acknowledged that in setting standards and accurate review of electronic data under CAA section 111 ‘‘variant In this action, as a step to increase the submitted to them. The ERT allows for provisions’’ such as provisions allowing ease and efficiency of data submittal an electronic review process rather than for upsets during startup, shutdown and and improve data accessibility, the EPA a manual data assessment making equipment malfunction ‘‘appear is requiring the electronic submittal of review and evaluation of the data and necessary to preserve the reasonableness select performance test data. calculations easier and more efficient. of the standards as a whole and that the Specifically, the EPA is requiring As mentioned above, data entry will record does not support the ‘never to be owners and operators of secondary lead be through an electronic emissions test exceeded’ standard currently in force.’’ smelting facilities to submit electronic report structure called the Electronic See also, Portland Cement Association copies of performance test reports Reporting Tool or ERT. The ERT will v. Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 375 (DC Cir. required under 40 CFR 63.543 to the generate an electronic report which will 1973). Though intervening case law EPA’s WebFIRE database. The WebFIRE be submitted using the Compliance and such as Sierra Club v. EPA and the CAA database was constructed to store Emissions Data Reporting Interface 1977 amendments undermine the performance test data for use in (CEDRI). The submitted report is relevance of these cases today, they developing emission factors. A transmitted through the EPA’s Central support the EPA’s view that a system description of the WebFIRE database is Data Exchange (CDX) network for that incorporates some level of available at http://cfpub.epa.gov/ storage in the WebFIRE database making flexibility is reasonable. The affirmative oarweb/index.cfm?action=.main. submittal of data very straightforward defense simply provides for a defense to The EPA must have performance test and easy. A description of the ERT can civil penalties for excess emissions that data to conduct effective reviews of be found at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ are proven to be beyond the control of CAA sections 112 and 129 standards, as chief/ert/index.html and CEDRI can be the source. By incorporating an well as for many other purposes accessed through the CDX Web site affirmative defense, the EPA has including compliance determinations, (www.epa.gov/cdx). formalized its approach to upset events. emission factor development, and The requirement to submit In a Clean Act setting, the Ninth annual emission rate determinations. In performance test data electronically to Circuit required this type of formalized conducting these required reviews, the the EPA does not create any additional approach when regulating ‘‘upsets EPA has found it ineffective and time performance testing and would apply beyond the control of the permit consuming, not only for us, but also for only to those performance tests holder.’’ Marathon Oil Co. v. EPA, 564 other regulatory agencies and for source conducted using test methods that are F.2d 1253, 1272–73 (9th Cir. 1977). But owners and operators, to locate, collect, supported by the ERT. The ERT see Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Costle, 590 and submit performance test data contains a specific electronic data entry F.2d 1011, 1057–58 (DC Cir. 1978) because of varied locations for data form for most of the commonly used (holding that an informal approach is storage and varied data storage methods. EPA reference methods. A listing of the adequate). The affirmative defense In recent years, though, stack testing pollutants and test methods supported provisions give the EPA the flexibility to firms have typically collected by the ERT is available at http://

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:35 Jan 04, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\05JAR2.SGM 05JAR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 562 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/index.html. Assessment for the Secondary Lead concentrations from a secondary lead We believe that industry will benefit Smelting Source Category. smelter could be up to about 20 times from this new electronic data submittal During the public comment period for the NAAQS for lead based on actual requirement. Having these data, the EPA the proposed rule, several parties emissions. The maximum lead will be able to develop improved submitted comments and suggested exceedances at populated census block emission factors, make fewer revisions regarding the emissions used centroids were between one and three information requests, and promulgate for the risk assessment, and also times the NAAQS. There is some better regulations. The information to be submitted other information relevant to uncertainty associated with the fugitive reported is already required for the the risk assessment (see docket ID EPA– emissions estimates that is derived from existing test methods and is necessary to HQ–OAR–2011–0344 for all public the uncertainty involved in determining evaluate the conformance to the test comments). After considering these the housekeeping and enclosure factors. method. submissions, the EPA revised its This uncertainty could have important Finally, another benefit of submitting analyses. Revised methods, model impacts on the estimated fugitive data to WebFIRE electronically is that inputs, and risk results are presented in emissions and the resulting modeled these data will greatly improve the the report: Residual Risk Assessment for ambient concentration. For example, if overall quality of the existing and new the Secondary Lead Smelting Source the level of control assumed through the emission factors by supplementing the Category, which is available in the use of full enclosure and robust pool of emissions test data for docket for this rulemaking. In addition, housekeeping were both increased from establishing emissions factors and by a discussion of the updated emissions 75 percent to 85 percent, the estimated ensuring that the factors are more information used in the final risk fugitive emissions at the RSR facility representative of current industry assessment can be found in the would be about 43 pounds (roughly operational procedures. A common memorandum titled: Development of the three times lower than those estimated complaint heard from industry and RTR Emissions Dataset for the in this rule). If the level of control regulators is that emission factors are Secondary Lead Smelting Source assumed through the use of full outdated or not representative of a Category, which can also be found in enclosure and robust housekeeping particular source category. With timely the docket for this rulemaking. were both decreased from 75 percent to receipt and incorporation of data from Considering the updated emissions 65 percent, the estimated fugitive most performance tests, the EPA will be information received during the public emissions at the RSR facility would be able to ensure that emission factors, comment period for the proposed rule, about 240 pounds (roughly two times when updated, represent the most our final risk analysis estimates that the higher than those estimated in this rule). current range of operational practices. In primary NAAQS for lead, used in this As shown in this example, changing the summary, in addition to supporting rule as a measure of acceptable risk from estimates of control efficiency achieved regulation development, control strategy air-borne lead emissions, could be with full enclosure and robust development, and other air pollution exceeded at 9 of 15 facilities based on housekeeping practices by 10 percent control activities, having an electronic actual emissions, largely due to fugitive each could impact the resulting fugitive database populated with performance dust emissions (see Table 4). At these 9 emission estimates for facilities test data will save industry, state, local, facilities, fugitive dust emissions employing that level of control by two tribal agencies, and the EPA significant account for about 94 to 99 percent of the to three times. These estimates could estimated 3-month maximum lead significantly impact the resulting risk time, money, and effort while improving 6 the quality of emission inventories and, concentrations. Our analysis also estimates since most of the impact of as a result, air quality regulations. estimates that approximately 200 people lead emissions was due to fugitive dust live in areas around three of these emissions. While there are uncertainties IV. Summary of Significant Changes facilities where 3-month maximum lead associated with estimating fugitive Since Proposal concentrations are estimated to be emissions, we conclude that the A. Changes to the Risk Assessment between one and three times above the methodology used in this rulemaking Performed Under CAA Section 112(f) lead NAAQS. Allowable stack emissions provided reasonable estimates of of lead also resulted in modeled fugitive emissions for these sources. For In the proposed rulemaking, the EPA concentrations exceeding the NAAQS, further details, see Development of the presented a number of options for with modeled lead ambient air levels as RTR Emissions Dataset for the additional controls on the Secondary high as 8 and 10 times above the Secondary Lead Smelting Source Lead Smelting source category. In that NAAQS. This analysis also estimates Category, available in docket ID EPA– notice, the EPA solicited comment on that 3-month maximum lead HQ–OAR–2011–0344, which describes the proposed options as well as on all how we developed these fugitive of the analyses and data upon which the 6 For all facilities, the percent contribution of emissions estimates and provides a fugitive and stack emissions to modeled ambient presentation of our estimates compared options were based, including the risk lead concentrations has only been estimated for the methods and results presented in the model receptor representing the site of maximum to estimates submitted via the ICR and draft document: Residual Risk lead impact. estimates reported to the TRI.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:35 Jan 04, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\05JAR2.SGM 05JAR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 563


Highest Concentra- modeled tion is X Facility name City State lead con- times the centration NAAQS (μg/m3)

Doe Run Company-Buick ...... Boss ...... MO 2.36 20 Sanders Lead Co ...... Troy ...... AL 2.16 10 Exide Corporation ...... Vernon ...... CA 1.14 8 Battery Co ...... Arecibo ...... PR 0.76 5 Gulf Coast Recycling, Inc ...... Tampa ...... FL 0.38 3 Exide Technologies–Canon Hollow Plant ...... Forest City ...... MO 0.47 3 Gopher Resource Corp ...... Eagan ...... MN 0.35 2 Frisco ...... Frisco ...... TX 0.23 2 Exide Tech/Reading Smelter ...... Reading ...... PA 0.25 2 Quemetco, Inc ...... Industry ...... CA 0.17 1 Exide Technologies ...... Muncie ...... IN 0.15 1 Exide Technologies/B R Smelter ...... Baton Rouge ...... LA 0.14 1 Revere Smelting & Refining Corp ...... Middletown ...... NY 0.10 0.7 Quemetco, Inc ...... Indianapolis ...... IN 0.07 0.5 East Penn Mfg. Co Inc/Smelter Plt ...... Lyon Station ...... PA 0.02 0.1 a Values of 1 or less in the last column indicate that modeled lead concentrations are at or below the NAAQS for lead.

We also note that there were changes estimates that the cancer MIR values cancer risks due to actual emissions are to our cancer, acute, and PB–HAP from both multipathway case study above 1 in a million also contributes to multipathway case study analyses (see analyses (i.e., in Frisco, TX and our determination of unacceptability, section 3.4 of the risk assessment Middletown, NY; see section 3.2 of the but to a lesser extent. While the document) for non-lead HAP as a result final risk assessment document) are less estimated maximum individual cancer of the updated risk assessment than 1 in a million (as compared to an risks due to actual emissions would, by performed for the final rule. With estimated multipathway MIR of 30 in a themselves, not generally lead us to a respect to our updated cancer risk million and less than 1 in a million in determination that risks are assessment, we estimate that the the Frisco, TX and Middletown, NY unacceptable, the fact that they occur maximum individual risk (MIR) of multipathway case study analyses for along with the exceedences of the lead cancer due to actual emissions is 50 in the proposed rule). Notably, the primary NAAQS adds to our concern a million predominantly due to fugitive reduction in multipathway risks about these exposures, and further dust emissions of and resulted from updated emissions supports our proposed determination as compared to the analysis at proposal information received during the public that risks are unacceptable. To provide of risk of 50 in a million but based on comment period with respect to these acceptable levels of risk with an ample a different secondary lead facility. facilities. margin of safety, we are finalizing the Moreover, approximately 700 people Taking into account all the results of requirement that secondary lead were estimated to have cancer risks the final risk assessment, and similar to smelting facilities must operate the above 10 in a million and approximately the proposed rulemaking, we conclude following fugitive dust emissions 80,000 people were estimated to have that risks to public health due to sources within total enclosures that cancer risks above 1 in a million emissions from this source category are must be maintained at negative pressure considering all facilities in this source unacceptable. Our conclusion is at all times and vented to a control category (as compared to the analysis at primarily based on risk from exposure device designed to capture lead proposal of 1,500 above 10 in a million to air-borne lead emissions but also particulate: Smelting furnaces, smelting and 128,000 above 1 in a million). In considers other risk metrics such as furnace charging areas, lead taps, slag addition, the MIR due to MACT cancer and non-cancer risks associated taps, molds during tapping, battery allowable emissions remains 200 in a with actual and allowable stack breakers, refining kettles, casting areas, million predominantly from stack emissions of non-lead HAPs, especially dryers, material handling areas emissions of arsenic. The updated arsenic and cadmium. As mentioned managing lead bearing materials, and worst-case acute hazard quotient (HQ) above, actual lead emissions resulted in areas where dust from fabric filters, value is 20 at two facilities (based on the modeled concentrations of lead above sweepings, or used fabric filters are REL for arsenic; the REL is the only the lead NAAQS at 9 of 15 facilities. processed. As further described in available acute health benchmark value Thus, we note that allowable stack Section IV.C of this preamble, based on for arsenic and all other pollutants had emissions of lead and other HAP public comments, we are not adopting HQ values less than or equal to 1), and fugitive emissions of lead must be the proposed alternative to demonstrate driven by both stack and fugitive dust reduced to assure that lead compliance by monitoring lead at or emissions of arsenic (as compared to concentrations in ambient air beyond near the property boundary based on a analysis at proposal of an acute HQ the facility fenceline are acceptable— 3-month rolling average in lieu of value of 30 based on the REL for arsenic that is, do not exceed the lead NAAQS constructing total enclosures. (See 76 FR at one facility driven by emissions from (the measure of risk acceptability for 29056.) We are finalizing the proposed stacks). Finally, the risk assessment exposure to air-borne lead in this rule). requirement for facilities to conduct supporting the final rulemaking The fact that maximum individual fugitive emission work practices as well

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:35 Jan 04, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\05JAR2.SGM 05JAR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 564 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

as to enclose fugitive emission sources. significantly lower than those facilities for blast furnaces that commence As further described in Section IV.C of that do not have enclosures. We have construction or reconstruction after May this preamble, we are also promulgating considered the public comments on this 19, 2011. a revised list of required work practices issue, and have decided to adopt the 2. Definitions based on a number of comments requirements largely as proposed. This received regarding the necessity, requirement is identical to that adopted • Definitions have been added for efficacy, and safety of the work practices to eliminate unacceptable risk for ‘‘affected source’’ and ‘‘new source’’ to which the EPA proposed. fugitive emissions pursuant to CAA clarify when the standards for new We are also finalizing the proposed section 112 (f)(2). However, as described sources would apply. requirement limiting stack lead in Section IV.C of this preamble, based • A definition of ‘‘lead-bearing emissions to 0.2 mg/dscm as a facility- on public comments, we are not material’’ has been added to the rule to wide emissions average and limiting adopting the proposed alternative to clarify requirements for material stack lead emissions from any single demonstrate compliance by monitoring handling area enclosures and work stack to 1.0 mg/dscm. lead at or near their property boundary practices for fugitive emissions. After implementation of the controls based on a 3-month rolling average in • The definition of ‘‘material storage required in this final rule, we estimate lieu of constructing total enclosures. and handling’’ has been revised to that there will be no one living at a (See 76 FR 29056.) We are finalizing the exclude transfer of raw materials in census block centroid exposed to proposed requirement for facilities to enclosed containers. ambient concentrations above the conduct fugitive emission work • The definition of ‘‘plant roadway’’ NAAQS due to these facilities and the practices as well as to enclose fugitive has been revised to exclude roadways cancer MIR due to actual emissions will emission sources. As further described inside total enclosures. • decrease from 50 in a million to 7 in a in Section IV.C of this preamble, we are The definition of ‘‘process vent’’ million. also promulgating a revised list of has been revised to specify that it includes only vents from lead B. Changes to the Technology Review required work practices based on a processing equipment and from Performed Under CAA Section 112(d)(6) number of comments received regarding the necessity, efficacy, and safety of the buildings containing lead bearing Based on the technology review under work practices which the EPA material. • CAA section 112(d)(6), the EPA proposed. Definitions for ‘‘leeward,’’ proposed to change the stack lead We are also finalizing the requirement ‘‘windward,’’ and ‘‘natural draft emission limits from 2.0 mg/dscm for limiting stack lead emissions to 0.2 mg/ opening’’ have been added to the rule to any individual stack to a facility-wide, dscm as a facility-wide emissions clarify the differential pressure and flow-weighted average emission limit of average and limiting stack lead monitoring requirements and the 0.20 mg/dscm with a limit of 1.0 mg/ emissions from any single stack to 1.0 requirement to maintain an inward flow dscm applicable to any individual stack. mg/dscm as proposed. of air through enclosure openings. The proposed limit was based on We note that although we have • The definition of ‘‘total enclosure’’ emissions data collected from industry, adopted the same standards under both was modified by specifically including which indicated that well-performing CAA sections 112(f)(2) and 112(d)(6), modified text from 40 CFR 265.1101 and baghouses currently used by much of these standards rest on independent EPA method 204 ‘‘Criteria for and the industry are capable of achieving statutory authorities and independent Verification of a Permanent or outlet lead concentrations significantly rationales. Consequently, these Temporary Total Enclosure’’ rather than lower than the limit of 2.0 mg/dscm standards remain independent and citing the reference to the requirements adopted in the 1997 MACT standard. legally severable. for a containment area. We have considered the public We also clarified the requirement for comments on this issue and are C. Other Changes Since Proposal total enclosures to be vented to a control adopting the limits as proposed. We received over 30 public comments device designed to capture lead Under CAA section 112(d)(6), we also on the proposed rule. After considering . proposed a fugitive emission standard these comments, we are making the 3. Enclosure Requirements requiring operation of the following following additional changes to the process fugitive emission sources in proposal. The rationale for these and • The proposed requirement to total enclosures that are maintained any other significant changes can be maintain an in-draft velocity of 300 feet under negative pressure at all times and found in this preamble and in the per minute at enclosure openings (see vented to a control device: Smelting comment response document available 76 FR 29072) was replaced with a furnaces, smelting furnace charging in the docket. requirement to maintain an inward flow areas, lead taps, slag taps, and molds of air through all natural draft openings. during charging, battery breakers, 1. Stack Emission Limits • The proposed requirement for a refining kettles, casting areas, dryers, • The EPA is not adopting numerical back-up power source for the agglomerating furnaces and limits for THC and D/F emissions from differential pressure monitors required agglomerating furnace product taps, rotary furnaces pending further data- for the total enclosures (see 76 FR material handling areas for any lead gathering and analysis for this furnace 29077) was eliminated, and a reporting bearing materials, and areas where dust type. requirement was added to identify from fabric filters, sweepings, or used • For units constructed after June 9, periods when the power was lost to the fabric filters are processed. This 1994, the EPA is adding a limit for THC monitoring system. proposed requirement was based on and D/F for collocated blast and • The proposed rule (see 76 FR information collected from the industry reverberatory furnaces when the 29072) has been modified to clarify that that indicated that several operating is not operating, activities required for inspection of facilities currently enclose most or all of and is amending the D/F limits for blast fabric filters and maintenance of filters their process fugitive emission sources, furnaces for units that commenced that are in need of removal and and that the ambient lead construction after June 9, 1994. We also replacement are not required to be concentrations near these facilities are added a THC and D/F new source limit conducted inside of total enclosures.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:35 Jan 04, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\05JAR2.SGM 05JAR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 565

• Lead ingot product handling, storm the CERCLA reportable quantity for lead V. Summary of Significant Comments water and wastewater treatment, intact (e.g., 10 pounds). and Responses battery storage areas, and clean battery A. Use of Lead Primary NAAQS as a casing plastic handling activities are not 5. Testing and Monitoring Requirements Measure of Acceptability of Risk for subject to the total enclosure • The performance testing Public Health requirement. requirements (see 76 FR 29074) have Commenters from both the 4. Fugitive Emission Work Practice been modified to allow facilities to use environmental and industry sectors Requirements EPA Method 12 or Method 29 for lead challenged the EPA’s use of the lead • The proposed maintenance compounds. primary NAAQS as a measure of requirements (see 76 FR 29073) have • A provision was added allowing for acceptability of risk in this rule. The been modified to allow emergency biannual testing of lead compounds and EPA disagrees with these comments. repairs of ductwork or structure leaks to THC for sources that demonstrate The EPA has reasonably applied the occur outside of enclosures if the time concentrations that are less than 50 lead primary NAAQS as a measure of to construct a temporary enclosure percent of the applicable limit. evaluating acceptability or would exceed the time to make a unacceptability of risk from exposure to • An exemption was provided for temporary or permanent repair. The lead emissions from sources in this proposed rule has been modified to THC testing if a facility has installed category. The lead primary NAAQS extend the deadline for required and is using a THC CEMS. targets protection to children living near maintenance and repair on total • The time between D/F testing (see sources, such as secondary lead enclosures to one week after 76 FR 29072) was changed from once smelters, who are exposed at the level identification of any gaps, breaks, every 5 years to once every 6 years, in of the standard—the population most separations, leak points or other anticipation that most facilities would sensitive to the health impacts of these possible routes for emissions of lead to be on a biannual testing schedule for emissions. Moreover, using the lead the atmosphere. The final rule also lead and THC, and this schedule would primary NAAQS to assess acceptability clarifies that once an item that is not allow coordination of the two required of risk does not amount to an otherwise subject to total enclosure tests. impermissible implementation of the requirements has been cleaned, its lead primary NAAQS as industry • The conditions for the performance maintenance is no longer subject to the commenters would have it. Full enclosure requirement. tests (see 76 FR 29072) were changed responses to these comments are found • The proposed rule has been edited from ‘‘under such conditions as the in the Response to Comment Document to allow for existing control devices to Administrator specifies * * *’’ to for this rulemaking, available in docket treat the ventilation from temporary ‘‘maximum representative operating ID EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0344. conditions for the process’’. enclosures constructed for maintenance B. Total Enclosure Requirements purposes if the device and its permit • The EPA also added a provision Comment: Several commenters account for increased airflow and stating that sources which operate a supported a requirement for total emissions for this activity. HEPA filter or WESP system • enclosures of enumerated sources of The roof washing proposed work downstream of a primary particulate practice (see 76 FR 29073) has been fugitive emissions. Some of those (lead) control device are not subject to commenters did not support the removed from the list of required a bag leak detection system (BLDS) fugitive emission work practices. alternative that would have allowed requirement. • The specific proposed water ambient monitoring in lieu of total application rate of 0.48 gallons per 6. Other Changes enclosures. square yard (see 76 FR 29073) has been According to one commenter, ‘‘The removed from the road washing • A provision was added for sources purpose of establishing emission requirement. to develop procedures to minimize standards and control technology • The proposed battery storage area emissions of THC limits during periods regulations is to reduce, by empirically inspection frequency (see 76 FR 29073) of startup and shutdown. proven technical means, the release of hazardous air pollutants into the has been changed from twice per day to • We modified the proposed plastic atmosphere.’’ The commenter therefore once per week to maintain consistency separation work practice requirement with inspection frequency required recommended that the EPA require (see 76 FR 29072) to include only under other regulatory programs. enclosures in all instances to limit • The proposed requirement to plastic battery casing materials from fugitive emissions. collect wash water in a container that is automotive batteries (which comprise According to another commenter, not open to the atmosphere (see 76 FR the vast majority of input plastics). ‘‘The non-cancer and cancer risk 29073) has been removed. • The proposed recordkeeping and reductions associated with total • The proposed rule (see 76 FR reporting requirements were revised to enclosures of all lead bearing processes 29073) has been revised to clarify that be consistent with the other changes to reduce fugitive emissions are clearly lead-bearing dust must be collected and made to the rule. demonstrated for all facilities in the post transported within closed conveyor control scenario contained in the A tracked changes version of the systems or in sealed, lead-proof residual risk assessment. These benefits regulatory language incorporating the containers while other lead bearing also have been observed based on our material must be contained and covered changes in this action is available in the experience with total enclosures that are in a manner that prevents spillage or docket. Additionally, a summary of the under negative pressure and vented to dust formation. public comments that are not in the air pollution controls. * * * The annual • The proposed requirement for preamble can be found in the comment geometric mean of lead measured [in cleaning after an accidental release (see response document available in the ambient air near the facility] dropped 76 FR 29073) has been clarified to docket. from a high of 0.71 mg/m3 (1987) to 0.06 include only those releases that exceed mg/m3 (1993) after all of the point source

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:35 Jan 04, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\05JAR2.SGM 05JAR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 566 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

and fugitive emission controls were in HQ–OAR–2011–0344. About half of the (e.g., lead taps, charging hoppers, etc.) place. The benefits of requiring total existing facilities currently have such can be an effective method to control enclosures as demonstrated by the full enclosures, and a few other facilities emissions from these sources. We also ambient monitoring results were clearly are currently constructing such recognize that these devices are apparent to the Department and enclosures. The prevalence of total important to minimize exposure of surrounding community. Based on that enclosures in the secondary lead workers to lead dust. However, we note experience, we do not support the smelting source category suggests that that the enclosure hoods are not 100 alternative of allowing partial this measure is cost effective and it is percent effective at controlling these enclosures with an air monitoring clearly technically feasible. There is emissions, and that process fugitives requirement option in this rulemaking.’’ more certainty that fugitive emissions that are amenable to control with hoods Another commenter stated ‘‘We do are well controlled through the use of are not the only source of fugitive not support allowing partial enclosures total enclosures than would exist with emissions from secondary lead with an air monitoring requirement the proposed alternative to use fenceline processes. We thus disagree that option, since the total enclosures have ambient monitoring. The work practice enclosure hoods without total been shown to be extremely effective in standards in the final rule have been enclosures represent a better alternative reducing fugitive emissions of lead and revised from those proposed to ensure for controlling all fugitive emissions. the other metal HAPs from these that there are no requirements that pose Comment: Several commenters sources.’’ safety hazards, are unnecessary to objected to requiring monitoring of both One commenter indicated that neither achieve emission reductions, or result in building pressure differential and the proposed alternative (total enclosure or duplicative burden on regulated in-draft velocity at building openings for the ambient monitoring alternative) facilities. The work practice standards the total enclosures and stated that the complies with CAA section 112(d)(6) in the final rule are already duplicate monitoring requirements are but did state that ‘‘additional health risk implemented at some of the facilities. redundant and unjustified. The reductions would occur if a facility used Furthermore, we assumed at proposal commenters also requested that the EPA total enclosure.’’ This commenter also that total enclosures would be required abandon its proposed specific minimum stated that the EPA should require total at all facilities regardless of which velocity requirement at doorway enclosures and work practice standards option they chose. The facilities that do openings or lower the proposed beyond those included in the proposed not operate total enclosures are unlikely requirement of 300 feet per minute. Two rule to control fugitive dust emissions of to achieve fenceline ambient commenters stated that ‘‘A number of arsenic and cadmium and achieve concentrations at or below the lead the existing total enclosures in this reductions in cancer and non-cancer primary NAAQS. The monitoring data industry do not meet the proposed 300 risks from these pollutants. just mentioned and the ICR responses feet per minute in-draft velocity Alternatively, one commenter indicated that the facilities which have requirement, and their modification to disagreed that total enclosure is the totally enclosed their processes are achieve 300 feet per minute would most effective method to reduce generally achieving ambient require substantial expenditures.’’ One emissions. According to the commenter, concentrations substantially lower than commenter stated that much larger ‘‘Capturing emissions from secondary those which have not totally enclosed. volumes of air would be exhausted from lead smelting sources at the point of Since we based our analysis at proposal the smelter buildings and that ‘‘the emission and controlling such on the assumption that all facilities greater the volume of air exhausted, the emissions through the use of baghouses would have to construct total enclosures greater the emissions of lead. Therefore equipped with secondary HEPA and assumed that the rule would increasing exhaust volumes above filtration systems represents a better impose those costs on all sources which current levels could possibly have alternative to constructing and have not yet installed total enclosures, negative impacts.’’ The commenters maintaining total enclosures around our cost analysis has already accounted requested an exemption from secondary lead smelting sources.’’ for the cost of total enclosure. See 76 FR demonstration of compliance with the Response: As explained at 76 FR at 29064 and the cost impacts memo in-draft requirements for access points 29059 in the proposed rule and below, that supported the proposed rule that are normally closed. One the EPA is amending the NESHAP for (docket ID EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0344– commenter requested clarification of the fugitive emissions of lead both because 0040 at page 8). The total enclosure use of the terms ‘‘leeward’’ and these emissions pose an unacceptable requirements in section 63.544 ensure ‘‘windward’’ in the context of the risk under CAA section 112(f) and that process fugitive emissions sources differential pressure monitoring. because it is technically appropriate and and other fugitive dust emissions One commenter stated that they have necessary to do so pursuant to section sources will not generate fugitive demonstrated that none of these total 112(d)(6). With respect to what changes emissions that escape the facility enclosure monitoring requirements and to adopt, we agree with those uncontrolled. The work practice continuous monitoring systems are commenters who argued that total standards for process fugitive emissions necessary to reduce actual emissions of enclosures maintained under negative sources and fugitive dust emissions HAP. The commenter recommended pressure are the most effective means by sources in section 63.545 ensure that continued compliance with the original which to reduce fugitive emissions. fugitive dust is not generated outside of 1997 NESHAP, which requires facilities Facilities in this source category that total enclosures and that fugitive dust to demonstrate that total enclosures implement total enclosures as a means generated inside total enclosures is not were maintained under constant of controlling fugitive emissions are able carried outside of those enclosures. negative pressure by maintaining to achieve significantly lower ambient We note that one commenter’s process enclosure hoods at the lead concentrations near the boundaries statements appear to pertain to process prescribed face velocities. As an of their facilities, as clearly fugitive emissions from secondary lead alternative, measurements of face demonstrated in the Summary of smelters that are captured by enclosure velocity at doorways and windows and Ambient Lead Monitoring Data Around hoods and vented to a control device. pressure measurements at prescribed Secondary Lead Smelting Facilities We agree that enclosure hoods near intervals would provide a viable document available in docket ID EPA– sources of process fugitive emissions monitoring option.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:35 Jan 04, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\05JAR2.SGM 05JAR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 567

Response: We agree with the Comment: Several commenters commenter suggested that the rule ‘‘be commenters that monitoring of both objected to the enclosure requirement at changed to require initiation of repairs building differential pressure and in- all areas where fabric filters are handled within 24 hours of discovery and draft velocity at building openings is or processed. One commenter stated completion of repairs as soon as unnecessary. However, we disagree that that ‘‘This is impractical in that all practicable. Rather than seeking and continuous monitoring of differential baghouses are not and cannot be located obtaining approval for extensions from pressure is overly prescriptive. We within enclosures. Therefore, in the the Administrator, the source should be believe that monitoring of building replacement of used bag filters, there required to file and to keep a record differential pressure is the most accurate will always be a point in which the bags listing when the problem was means by which to ensure that the must be handled in order to get them discovered, when the repair was building is under negative pressure at into a closed container for .’’ initiated and when the repair was all times. This method provides direct Two commenters stated that ‘‘The first completed.’’ Another commenter stated measurements that the building is point at which used fabric filters are that ‘‘the presence of leak points is indeed maintained at negative pressure. ‘handled’ is upon removal from the irrelevant to collection as long as the Some commenters stated persuasively baghouse cell, usually on a catwalk size and location of these leak points that specifying doorway velocities could running along the side of the baghouse. does not change over time. Once a require substantial additional in-draft, It is not appropriate to require all such facility documents that any total which could cause strain to building areas to be placed within total enclosure criteria (for negative pressure) structures, wind chill problems for enclosures. Best practices in the are met, the presence of existing leak workers, and pilot lights being industry when replacing fabric filters points is irrelevant.’’ extinguished. We have therefore not are to place the used filter bags in sealed One commenter requested that the adopted the proposed requirement to plastic bags or other closed containers EPA allow facilities to route emissions measure in-draft velocity at the in the cell while the filters are being from partial or temporary enclosures to openings of the total enclosures but replaced, but prior to removing the used control devices that meet the have retained the continuous filters to the catwalk.’’ performance requirements stated in the differential pressure monitoring Response: We agree that the proposed rule. According to the commenter, ‘‘This requirement. However, we have altered requirement to enclose all areas where compliance option is requested, because the differential pressure requirement fabric filters are handled or processed as written, the provisions would require from 0.02 mm of mercury to 0.013 mm may be impractical at times, the manufacturer’s specification alone and of mercury to be consistent with EPA enclosure of a catwalk being an not allow use of an otherwise compliant Method 204’s criteria for verification of example. We also agree that fabric filters control device.’’ cannot be enclosed under the a permanent or temporary total Response: With regard to the enclosure. With regard to the comment circumstances described in these comment that the proposed that increased volumes of air exhausted comments. We have therefore revised maintenance practices were overly through control devices would increase the regulatory text to require used fabric prescriptive, we have revised the overall emissions, it is unclear to us filters to be placed in sealed plastic bags regulatory text to require performance of how directing previously uncontrolled or containers before removal from the maintenance ‘‘in a manner that fugitive emissions through a fabric filter baghouse cell. minimizes emissions of fugitive dust’’ would increase the overall emissions C. Work Practice Standard that includes several options to control from a structure. Requirements for Fugitive Emissions Comment: Several commenters fugitive emissions. With regard to the objected to requiring a back-up power Comment: Several industry comment pertaining to inspection and source for the differential pressure respondents expressed concern about maintenance of fabric filters, we have monitors. According to the commenters, the proposed requirement to perform all edited the regulatory text such that this during a power outage, the ‘‘negative maintenance activities for any enclosure requirement does not apply to pressure would not be maintained and equipment potentially contaminated inspection and maintenance practices the pressure drop monitors would with lead bearing material inside an for fabric filters. simply be measuring and documenting enclosure. We also agree with commenters that this known and predictable fact * * *. Two commenters requested making prompt and timely repairs for The same information could be obtained clarification that once an item that is not leaks is often more effective than first by requiring facilities to note periods already subject to total enclosure constructing a total enclosure around when power has been lost to the requirements has been cleaned, its the leak. However, we believe that the ventilation fans such that negative maintenance or repair is not subject to formulation to initiate repairs ‘‘as soon pressure could not be maintained.’’ One the enclosure requirements. Both as practicable’’ is too vague. We have commenter recommended requiring an commenters also gave an example of edited the regulatory text to require uninterruptible power supply for the circumstances where the best course of completion of repairs to enclosures control device as well as the total action would be to make an immediate within one week and inserted language enclosure monitoring system or repair on a leak in an elevated duct allowing facilities to initiate immediate removing the current requirement. rather than wait until a temporary repairs of ductwork or structure leaks Response: We agree with the structure was constructed. One without an enclosure provided that the commenters’ assessment that a back-up commenter expressed concern that time necessary to construct a temporary power source for the building inspection and maintenance of filters enclosure would exceed the time differential pressure monitors is not that are in need of removal and necessary to make a temporary or needed. We also agree with the replacement would need to be permanent repair. This change ensures commenters’ suggestion to include a performed within a total enclosure. that the requirement is technically recordkeeping provision for power Two commenters stated that 72 hours practicable and the most cost-effective outages that occur for the building to make repairs to any gaps or leak means for fixing leaks while minimizing ventilation systems. The regulatory text points in enclosures or structures was the period during which the leak causes has been edited accordingly. not feasible to implement. One emissions.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:35 Jan 04, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\05JAR2.SGM 05JAR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 568 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

We disagree with the commenter that and minimum water application rates to requirement to pave ‘‘all areas subject to the presence of a leak point is irrelevant individual facilities and, as relevant, vehicle traffic’’ to ‘‘all areas subject to to collection as long as the size and their permitting authorities.’’ According routine vehicle traffic.’’ The commenter location of these leak points do not to the commenter, ‘‘EPA should further noted that areas not subject to routine change over time. Total enclosures are exempt pavement cleaning on days traffic do not have the potential to designed with openings of specific size when natural precipitation makes generate significant quantities of and location to provide appropriate cleaning unnecessary or when sand or a fugitive dust and that paving these areas airflow into a building and to maintain similar material has been spread on would increase the amount of storm the negative pressure at all locations. plant roadways to provide traction on water generated. Multiple leak points at different ice or snow.’’ Response: We agree with the locations of non-uniform size would be Two commenters also expressed commenter that there may be some difficult to measure and document. It concerns that the rule requires instances where paving and cleaning a would also be difficult to ensure that the pavement cleaning in the battery roadway is impractical. We have building negative pressure is uniform at breaking, furnace, refining and casting included an exemption in the rule for all locations. areas when a total enclosure is not used. limited access and limited use roadways We agree with the commenter that According to the commenters, certain that access remote, infrequently used facilities should be allowed to route locations within these areas are not locations on the facility’s property. See emissions from partial temporary capable of being cleaned on a routine 40 CFR 63.545(c)(2). enclosures to existing control devices basis due to safety, access, or other Comment: Two commenters objected that meet the performance specification reasons. The commenters give an to the proposed frequency of inspection stated in the rule provided the control example of paved areas under process of the unenclosed battery storage areas. device has the capability to equipment as being an area that is not One commenter ‘‘finds this requirement accommodate the additional air flow safe to access during operation of the to impose an administrative burden of and that its permit accounts for the equipment. One commenter also stated minimal value.’’ According to the additional air flow and emissions. The that roadway cleaning and washing of commenter, ‘‘Spent lead acid batteries, regulatory text has been edited truck tires and undercarriages are even if accidentally broken and leaking, accordingly. redundant requirements with no pose minimal potential for generation of Comment: Several commenters incremental benefit. fugitive dust containing HAPs. expressed concerns about the Response: We agree with the Inspection of these areas is typically requirement in the proposed rule for commenters’ suggestion to remove the required on a weekly basis as part of the cleaning of building rooftops. The minimum water application rate facilities’ Resource Conservation and commenters stated that the EPA did not requirement from the regulatory text. Recovery Act obligations and such provide a basis to demonstrate that roof We note that the proposal did include frequency is sufficient to satisfy the washing is effective or necessary. One an exemption for cleaning on days when intent of this proposed rule as well.’’ commenter stated that roof cleaning was natural precipitation makes cleaning One commenter suggests that unnecessary to operate in compliance unnecessary or when sand or a similar identifying and mitigating leaks within with the current lead NAAQS, and that material has been spread on plant 72 hours will prevent generation of current work practices are sufficient to roadways to provide traction on ice or fugitive lead emissions. The commenter meet the standard. Several commenters snow. That exemption remains in the also states that it is unclear whether also stated that roof cleaning is final rule. See 40 CFR 63.545(c)(2). batteries stored in partial enclosures are potentially dangerous to workers and in With regard to the comments exempted from the twice daily some cases not possible due to the regarding pavement cleaning inspection requirement and proposes rooftop construction and weather requirements when total enclosures are the following regulatory language conditions. Several commenters noted not used, we note that the final rule incorporating both of these issues. that the requirement unnecessarily requires total enclosures rather than applied at all times, even when natural including them as an option. You must inspect any batteries that are not stored in a partial or total enclosure once precipitation makes cleaning Furthermore, it is our understanding each day and move any broken batteries to unnecessary. that in the cases where mobile sweeping a partial or total enclosure within 72 hours Response: We agree that the proposed or wet washing equipment is not of detection. You must also clean residue roof washing requirement may not be feasible (e.g., underneath process from broken batteries within 72 hours of feasible and may cause worker safety equipment), facilities can utilize hand identification. Storage of batteries in trucks hazards in some cases, and we have held vacuum equipment to clean these and railcars consistent with Department of therefore removed this activity from the areas. Therefore, we do not believe it is Transportation requirements are specifically exempted from these requirements. list of required fugitive emission work appropriate to exempt these areas from practices. the cleaning requirements since these Response: We agree with the Comment: Several commenters areas contain fugitive lead which can be commenters that requiring inspection of opposed the specific requirement for a emitted and reach human and these areas on a twice daily basis is not mobile vacuum sweeper used for environmental receptors. necessary. We have modified the pavement cleaning when a water flush We disagree with the commenter that regulatory text to require inspection of is used. The commenters stated that the roadway cleaning and undercarriage these areas once per week—consistent EPA provides no justification for the washing are redundant requirements. with requirements implementing the minimum water application rate of 0.48 While truck tires may be a significant hazardous waste subtitle of RCRA (see gallons per square yard of pavement source of lead bearing material on the 40 CFR 264.174 and 264.1101(c)(4) (and cleaned or evidence that equipment roadway, we understand that they are the EPA sees no reason to deviate from currently used could achieve this rate. not the only source. Therefore, we have these long-standing requirements here, The commenters suggested that this maintained both requirements in the given that they were adopted to be specific requirement be replaced with a final rule. ‘‘protective of human health and the ‘‘requirement that pavement be Comment: One commenter environment’’ from management of periodically cleaned, leaving methods, recommended modifying the hazardous waste)—with removal of

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:35 Jan 04, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\05JAR2.SGM 05JAR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 569

broken batteries within 72 hours of The definition of lead bearing from the slag-processing rotary furnace detection. We have also clarified that material in the rule clarifies that lead at RSR’s Middletown, NY facility. One the inspection requirement does not bearing materials must contain at least commenter stated that rotary furnace apply to battery storage areas that are in 100 ppm of lead (measured via Toxicity standards should not be based on a total enclosure. We do not believe that Characteristic Procedure (EPA emissions that are not from stand-alone an exemption for storage of batteries in Method 1311) lead test results <5 mg/l). rotary furnace operations. The trucks and railcars is necessary since the Intact batteries and lead ingot product commenter stated that the EPA should inspection frequency was reduced to are excluded from this requirement. not derive standards for rotary furnaces once per week. Comment: Some commenters agreed from performance of a different source Comment: One commenter objected to that the secondary lead facilities operate type or subcategory that includes a the requirement to collect wash water in a separation process at their battery furnace combination (i.e., reverberatory/ a container that is not open to the breakers to separate polypropylene short rotary furnace). The commenter atmosphere. The commenter stated that battery case material as a valuable also contends that there are insufficient ‘‘Covering of these collection tanks is recyclable commodity. However, not all data available to establish limits for not necessary because lead dissolved spent lead acid batteries are amenable to D/F and THC from rotary furnaces. The and/or suspended in water does not separation. Certain battery types such as commenter contends that the EPA used have a pathway for becoming a fugitive small sealed-lead-acid batteries and one source that is not representative of emission.’’ certain industrial lead-acid batteries are or similar to true rotary furnace Response: We agree with the fed into the without ever operation to establish the limits for commenter that so long as the contents passing through the facility’s battery ‘‘rotary furnaces.’’ The commenter in the container are wet, there should be breaker. These batteries are either too stated that the emissions limit no fugitive emissions. We have removed small or too large to be broken by the established in the proposed rule is the requirement to collect wash water in automated battery breaking equipment. arbitrary because it is not based on a sealed container. One commenter requested that the EPA operations of rotary furnaces using lead Comment: Two commenters requested estimate the cost of the systems that bearing materials from lead acid changes to the requirement to transport would be required. Another commenter batteries as feedstock. lead bearing materials in sealed leak- offered that mandatory separation could The commenter notes that RSR’s proof containers. One commenter be used for facilities that are not Middletown, NY facility, whose test proposed that containers be ‘‘covered’’ meeting TEQ limits as one of several data were used as the basis for the THC rather than ‘‘sealed leak-proof’’ and that options to reduce emissions. Two and D/F limits, only uses their rotary an exemption be made for off-road commenters stated that the current furnace to process one type of lead dump trucks. The suggestion was made dioxin emission levels pose no bearing material, reverberatory slag, and because ‘‘sealed leak-proof containers incremental health risk presented by this furnace is not representative of the * * * cannot be attained, but covers can background dioxin and that there is no full capabilities of rotary furnace be for most trucks used in such valid justification for imposing this operation. The commenter notes that transport * * *. no approved sealing burden. JCI’s Florence Recycling Center plans to covers are made for the 30-ton, 6-wheel, Response: Based on these comments, utilize stand-alone rotary furnaces to off-road dump trucks used at the we have revised the proposed plastics process lead paste, battery components, facility.’’ One commenter supported the separation work practice requirement to and ‘‘other materials with recoverable requirement for transporting lead be specific to automotive batteries, quantities of lead.’’ The commenter bearing materials within an enclosure or which should be amenable to separation further notes that the emissions from in a sealed container, but suggested that based on current practices used in the RSR’s short rotary furnace (SRF) and lead bearing materials with little industry. We agree with the commenters drying are combined, and it is potential for production of fugitive lead that some industrial batteries are not unclear from information in the docket dust from transportation should be easily processed in battery breakers and whether testing of the SRF occurred at excluded, including intact batteries, raw that the retrofits or additional a location prior to the combination of materials with lead content that is not equipment required to process such these exhaust streams. The commenter also stated that JCI considered recoverable such as , batteries are not justified since and RSR differ in raw materials used in caustic, , wood, and other automotive batteries make up the vast the facilities’ operations. RSR’s Title V similar materials, and products from the majority of lead acid batteries processed application for its Middletown facility recycling process. at these facilities. We believe that Response: We agree that the proposed plastics separation from automotive indicates that RSR may process automotive, industrial, and specialty- requirement for material transport batteries is sufficient to minimize type lead-acid batteries as well as lead should be modified. The intent of the emissions of organic HAP. We further bearing materials received from lead- proposed requirement was to prevent note that the use of battery breakers to acid battery manufacturing plants and fugitive lead dust formation outside of separate plastics from automotive scrap metal in its reverberatory furnace. a total enclosure. We have therefore batteries is clearly a development in JCI’s furnace feed is from automotive modified the requirement at 63.545(c)(7) practices that limits emissions of and marine batteries and from lead to read as follows: organic HAP, including dioxin, and is therefore an appropriate part of a bearing materials from other JCI ‘‘You must transport all lead bearing dust standard under CAA section 112(d)(6). facilities. The commenter contends that, within closed conveyor systems or in sealed, since the EPA considered no data leak-proof containers, unless the transport D. Emission Standards for Organic HAP representative of a rotary furnace activities are contained within an enclosure. From Rotary Furnaces All other lead bearing material must be operation such as that which will be contained and covered for transport outside Comment: We received several operated at the JCI Florence Recycling of a total enclosure in a manner that prevents comments on the proposed D/F and Center, a numeric limit for this category spillage or dust formation. Intact batteries THC MACT floor limits for the rotary cannot be assigned. and lead ingot product are exempt from the furnace subcategory that were based on One commenter also stated that the requirement to be covered for transport.’’ data (two test runs, see 76 FR at 29049) stack test for RSR’s SRF that was used

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:35 Jan 04, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\05JAR2.SGM 05JAR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 570 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

to develop D/F and THC emission limits slag. See 76 FR at 29049–29050. (A not substantively alter our decisions for ‘‘rotary furnaces’’ included only two complete test consists of three test runs.) under section 112(f). The modeling successful test runs and therefore must When calculating variability using a showed 9 of 15 facilities above the lead be considered inadequate for setting limited dataset (in this case, the two test NAAQS, down from 12 of 14 facilities emission limits since 40 CFR 63.7(e)(3) runs) the effect of variability can be at proposal. The maximum modeled requires three test runs for compliance substantial. Id. The proposed THC and lead concentration in the source demonstration purposes. D/F standards likewise were based on category decreased from about 23 times One commenter supports the two test runs and similarly reflected the NAAQS to about 16 times the individual stack emission limits for enormous statistical variability due to NAAQS. We still find that risks from THC and D/F but provides comment on the limited data. Id. at 29049/1. The this source category are not acceptable the EPA’s consideration of statistical EPA does not believe that these data are and that revisions under section variability for the rotary furnace sufficient to adopt a standard even for 112(f)(2) are therefore required, and subcategory. The commenter stated that the rotary furnace which was tested, further find that it is necessary under the Upper Prediction Limit (UPL) tends much less a rotary furnace which may section 112(d)(6) to revise the standards to inflate the variability because the be different. Accordingly, we are not for fugitive emissions considering the statistical procedure attempts to adopting standards for organic HAP developments in cost-effective control accommodate the highest emission emissions from rotary furnaces at this technologies for their control. measurement at the same facility and time and instead we intend to issue Comment: Three commenters stated not necessarily the variability between CAA section 114 information requests to that the EPA’s multipathway risk facilities as the MACT floor is intended sources operating rotary furnaces to estimates are incorrect because they to achieve. Additionally, the UPL is obtain more representative emission relied on incorrect dioxin and furan very dependent on the number of valid data and plan to propose standards for emissions from Exide’s Frisco, Texas samples. The commenter contends that, organic HAP in a future action. facility. The commenters contend that a when a suitable number of samples have However, we note that the lead emission dioxin and furan test conducted in been collected, the 99 percent standards included in this action do October 2010 at the Frisco facility confidence limit (CL) represents a range apply to rotary furnaces processing slag revealed an emissions rate of 6.2E–08 for which there is 99 percent certainty or lead acid batteries. tons/year on a toxic equivalency that the interval contains the true mean. quotient (TEQ) basis, 69 times lower The commenter suggests that caution be E. The EPA’s Risk Assessment than the estimate used by the EPA. One used when determining a MACT floor Supporting the Proposed Rule commenter noted that the exact effect from limited test data and that the 99 Comment: Two commenters stated that the difference in emissions would percent CL is more appropriate for this that the EPA’s methodology is have on the calculated risks is unknown particular industry. unreliable and incorrect. The since the EPA has not placed the full One commenter noted that the EPA commenters stated that the EPA methodology behind its multipathway did not consider a secondary lead overestimated the baseline fugitive risk calculations in the record. However, smelting facility in Puerto Rico that emissions for the Exide Frisco facility the commenter noted that assuming the operates a stand-alone rotary furnace. whose (faulty) estimates then became relationship between emissions and risk The commenter contends that even if it the basis for estimating all other is approximately linear, the EPA’s were appropriate to set MACT floor facilities’ fugitive emission rates. The calculated risk would be approximately emission rates or standards for rotary commenter stated that the EPA scaled 69 times lower than that estimated at furnaces, the EPA would have to obtain Exide’s reported fugitive emissions of proposal and less than 1 in a million. and consider data from the Puerto Rico 0.296 tpy for the blast and reverberatory The commenter further requested that facility. According to the commenter, furnace fugitive emissions to 0.32 tpy the EPA disclose its multipathway risk failure to consider data from the facility based on the assumption that fugitives calculation methodology and allow for ‘‘undermines the RTR Proposed Rule would not be on the same operating public notice-and-comment. Another and any attempt by EPA to establish schedule as process emissions. The commenter stated that the EPA’s emission standards for the rotary commenter contends that this scaling is overestimation of dioxin and furan furnace subcategory.’’ The commenter inappropriate since furnace fugitives emissions may lead to unwarranted contends that the EPA should issue a can only occur when the associated public concern about the Frisco facility. separate ICR for the Puerto Rico facility process furnaces are operating. The The commenter requested that the EPA and publish a supplemental notice of commenter further stated that the EPA include a clarifying explanation proposed rulemaking that takes into also double-counted the fugitives of 0.32 regarding the Frisco emissions data and account the emission information for tpy by assigning the value to each of the the lower multipathway risk in the final this facility. blast and reverberatory furnaces, despite rule as well as in the risk assessment Response: The EPA agrees that rotary the fact that Exide reported the value as document. furnaces fueled by natural gas could be combined emissions for both the Response: As noted in previous different from rotary furnaces operating reverberatory and blast furnace. responses, the final risk assessment using different fuel types, and that Response: The commenter is correct reflects updated emission information rotary furnaces processing slag could be in both respects. The EPA has received during the public comment different types of rotary furnaces than accordingly adjusted its calculation of period for the proposed rule. We also those processing lead acid batteries. the fugitive emissions from Exide’s note that the updated dioxin/furan test More basically, the EPA simply has Frisco facility (thereby reducing the data were not made available to the insufficient data on which to facility’s fugitive dust emissions EPA, despite repeated requests, until promulgate organic HAP standards for estimate) and adjusted the emissions June 2011. With respect to the estimated rotary furnaces. The proposed standards estimates for each facility to reflect the emissions of D/F, the commenter is for THC and D/F were based on less revised estimate of the Frisco facility. correct that EPA overestimated these than one single complete test, consisting The resulting risk results have also been emissions at proposal by a factor of 69 only of two test runs from the natural adjusted. We note that the updated for the reasons stated. Considering this gas fueled rotary furnace processing emissions estimates and risk results did updated emissions information, the EPA

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:35 Jan 04, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\05JAR2.SGM 05JAR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 571

estimates that multipathway risk since the two MIR values are location that do not require installation of a associated with the Exide Frisco facility dependent and are at locations that are CEMS. is less than 1 in a million (and so widely separated. The commenter Response: The term ‘‘modified contributes very little to the estimates of further noted that the EPA has indicated source’’ appeared in the proposed rule risk posed by this source category, and in other contexts that when populations at 40 CFR 63.548(l) under the proposed is not a driver of the determination that are exposed via more than one pathway, requirement to install a CEMS for risks from this source category are the combination of exposures across measuring lead emissions on all new or unacceptable). See Residual Risk pathways must also represent a modified sources. We agree with the Assessment for the Secondary Lead reasonable maximum exposure. commenter that the terminology of Smelting Source Category, available in Response: The EPA disagrees with the ‘‘reconstructed’’ source would be more the docket, at pages 32–33. commenter. While highly unlikely (and appropriate for this requirement and This additional information does not noted as being highly unlikely in the have changed the regulatory language warrant any reopening of the proposed risk assessment document), it is accordingly. rule or comment period, however. First, theoretically possible for the person Comment: Three commenters the EPA fully disclosed its with the highest chronic inhalation requested clarification of the term multipathway risk methodology; the cancer risk to also be the same person ‘‘affected source’’ as used in the commenter’s assertions to the contrary with the highest individual proposed rule. The proposed rule uses are simply mistaken. Thus, the risk multipathway cancer risk. The EPA the terms ‘‘new sources’’, ‘‘existing assessment document along with its notes that the multipathway risk source’’ and ‘‘modified source’’ without appendices was available in the docket assessment does not provide a specific clarifying whether it is referring to for the proposed rulemaking and location for the MIR; thus, it is possible secondary lead smelters generally, or to describes in detail the methodology (although highly unlikely) that the potential emissions sources within used in the assessment. See the Residual person with the highest inhalation MIR secondary lead smelters. There is a Risk Assessment for the Secondary Lead is also consuming fish (at the fish seeming contradiction between the use Smelting Source Category, at page 10, ingestion rates described in the of the term ‘‘affected source’’ in the available in the docket. Also see docket multipathway report) from the proposed rule and the definition in 40 ID EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0344–0037 for theoretically contaminated lake. That CFR Part 63, Subpart A general a thorough discussion of the EPA’s being said, however, we note that provisions. One commenter also human health multipathway risk considering updated emissions understands that the terms ‘‘new assessment methodology. information for this facility, updated sources’’ and ‘‘existing sources’’, as used Second, the new information multipathway results indicate in the proposed rule, are consistent with reinforces the tentative conclusion the multipathway risk associated with the the definitions as used in CAA § 112(a). EPA reached at proposal: risks Exide Frisco facility are well below one The commenter ‘‘understands EPA associated with emissions of dioxin and in a million. Considering these updated intends to address any addition of units furans from the secondary lead source results, multipathway risk would not to an ‘existing source’ consistent with category are not primary drivers in the appreciable add to any inhalation risk the provisions of the CAA’’ and unacceptable risks from this source associated with this facility. understands that the analysis as category (i.e. dioxin and furan emissions Comment: Commenter 94 stated that explained in Nine Metal Fabrication are not the reason that risks from the EPA improperly calculated the and Finishing Area Source Categories, secondary lead smelter emissions are inhalation cancer MIR for the Exide 40 CFR Part 63 (6X) NESHAP, Questions unacceptable). See 76 FR at 29055/2. Frisco facility in a vacant field to the and Answers, April 2011 would apply The new analysis reinforces that risks north of the facility within the facility’s with respect to implementation of any posed by dioxin and furan emissions are property line. The commenter noted amendments to subpart X requirements. acceptable, since emission levels are 69 that the lifetime cancer risk of the MEI The Q&A explains that the ‘‘CAA uses times less than estimated at proposal cannot be at a location within the the word ‘source’ to mean the entire (when risks from CDD and CDFs were facility property line. facility in terms of the classification of already considered to be at an Response: The commenter is correct ‘new’ vs. ‘existing’ whereas for the acceptable level). Thus, this already and the EPA has corrected the receptor Subpart 6X rule, what is referred to as acceptable level of risk is less than location resulting in a change in the the ‘affected source’ is actually one of estimated and less than one in a million. results in the final risk assessment. The the processes at the facility’’. The EPA does not agree that further MIR for this facility is now located at a Response: The EPA has clarified the comment on this issue is warranted, populated census block (based on the application of these terms in the final since further comment would not have 2001 census). rule. The definition in 40 CFR part 63, a practical effect on the rule.7 subpart A requires each relevant Comment: One commenter stated that F. Miscellaneous Changes to the standard to define the ‘‘affected source,’’ the EPA inappropriately summed risks Regulatory Text as the collection of equipment, from the inhalation and multipathway Comment: Three commenters activities, or both within a single risk assessments at the Exide Frisco requested that the EPA replace the term contiguous area and under common facility. The commenter noted that it is ‘‘modified source’’ with ‘‘reconstructed control that is included in a CAA impossible for the person with the source.’’ Neither the proposed rule nor section 112(c) source category or highest chronic inhalation cancer risk to the EPA’s general Part 63 regulations subcategory for which a section 112(d) also be the same person with the highest define the term ‘‘modified source.’’ The standard or other relevant standard is individual multipathway cancer risk term is defined in the CAA, but that established pursuant to CAA section definition would require a source to 112 unless a different definition is 7 The comment that EPA’s standards for dioxin install maximum achievable control warranted based on a published and furans do not result in significant risk technology and impose a ‘‘new source’’ justification as to why this definition reduction is misplaced given that the EPA is not adopting any risk-based (i.e., section 112(f)(2)) requirement like CEMS on a modified would result in significant standards based on the need for reduction of source, rather than appropriately administrative, practical, or emissions of dioxin and furan. imposing the existing source provisions implementation problems and why the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:35 Jan 04, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\05JAR2.SGM 05JAR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 572 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

different definition would resolve those essentially unchanged from the material, they are either in a stabilized problems. We have adopted a definition definition in the proposed rule. form that will not create fugitive dust or of ‘‘affected source’’ in this rulemaking Fugitive dust formation has been in a container that prevents fugitive dust as any of the listed individual sources identified as the major contributor to formation. These materials include: lead at a secondary lead smelter. This ambient lead concentrations near ingot products, stormwater and application of the term ‘‘affected secondary lead smelters. Piles where wastewater, intact batteries, lead bearing source’’ is the same as was used in the lead bearing materials are stored were material that is stored in closed 1997 NESHAP for secondary lead. The identified as one of the major sources of containers or enclosed mechanical term ‘‘affected source’’ is used in the fugitive lead emissions. However, there conveyors, and clean battery casing final rule primarily in the context of was no definition for lead-bearing material. new sources. This definition is material in the proposed rule that could Comment: One commenter requested appropriate for the secondary lead be used to make a determination of a change to the definition of ‘‘plant source category because the chief source which materials needed to be handled roadway’’ specifically to exclude of emissions from these facilities are the in a manner that prevents dust finished lead product storage areas and furnaces, and as these furnaces are formation. By adding a definition of roadways or traffic areas located within replaced or reconstructed, the ‘‘lead bearing material’’ to the rule, we enclosed buildings. replacement equipment would be have clarified and quantified the Response: We accept the commenter’s subject to the standard for a new source. definition of ‘‘materials storage and suggestion to exclude roadways or A ‘‘new source’’ has also been defined handling area.’’ traffic areas located within enclosed as any affected source at a secondary The EPA is using the Toxicity buildings from the definition of ‘‘plant lead facility that undergoes construction Characteristic Leaching Procedure roadway.’’ However, we do not believe or reconstruction after May 19, 2011, the (TCLP), EPA Method 1311 to measure that it is appropriate to exclude finished date of the proposed CAA section which materials are lead-bearing, and lead product storage areas since these 112(f)(2) and 112(d)(6) rules. A building using the characteristic level of 5.0 mg/ areas may be located in close proximity that is constructed for the purpose of l (in the extract from the test) as the to areas that may require cleaning (e.g., controlling fugitive emissions from an specific level for being lead-bearing. See slag storage areas). existing source is not considered to be 40 CFR 261.24. This assures that only Comment: One commenter requested a new source because it is effectively a materials with at least 100 ppm total a change to the definition of process control device for fugitive emissions. lead will be considered to be ‘lead- vent. As currently drafted, it appears Comment: One commenter noted that bearing’. See EPA Method 1311 section overly broad and could lead to the last sentence in the current 2.2 which describes that the liquid to confusion concerning the ventilation definition of ‘‘Materials storage and solid ratio of material tested should be systems that must be tested. handling area’’ has been deleted in the 20:1 (i.e. 5 mg/l in the TCLP extract is Response: We have made revisions to proposed definition. This sentence equal to at least 100 ppm in the material the regulatory text to clarify that the reads: ‘‘Materials storage and handling being tested). The specific definition of term ‘‘process vent’’ includes various area does not include areas used lead bearing material chosen ensures process vents and vents from buildings exclusively for storage of blast furnace that materials that contain relatively containing lead bearing material. Vents slag.’’ The commenter disagreed with substantial amounts of lead (0.01 from office or other non-process areas the EPA’s assessment that this is a percent) are included while minimizing are not considered to be process vents. minor change. ‘‘EPA should provide an additional testing burden for facilities Comment: Two comments were explanation of what changed who must determine what does or does received on the terminology used for a circumstances justify a new rule.’’ Two not meet the definition. Testing burden lead CEMS. According to the other commenters requested that the is minimized because facilities already commenter, ‘‘Paragraph 63.548(m) definition be modified to exclude the use the TCLP to determine whether or specifies that lead CEMS be ‘continuous transfer of raw materials of any type in not the wastes they manage are emission rate monitors.’ The standard is enclosed conveyors. The commenter hazardous, pursuant to subtitle C of the a concentration standard, not an stated that ‘‘as currently worded, the Resource Conservation and Recovery emission rate standard, so the term enclosure requirement proposed would Act. Imposing a different threshold for ‘‘continuous emission rate monitor’’ is apply to handling of fabric filter dust in defining material as ‘‘lead bearing’’ not appropriate’’. Since flow and enclosed conveyors, containers, or in could thus impose duplicative or concentration monitors are needed to wet slurried form, which is conflicting requirements between calculate compliance with the flow unnecessary.’’ The commenter subpart X and other regulatory regimes. weighted average, one commenter suggested revising the definition to Furthermore, the TCLP is a test protocol recommended a requirement for flow include the following: ‘‘Material storage which includes a grinding step, which and concentration monitors rather than and handling area shall not include any is a conservative measure of citing a type of monitoring system that closed containers or enclosed determining whether a material could is not applicable to the standard. mechanical conveyors.’’ generate fugitive emissions. See Method Response: We agree with the Response: A definition of ‘‘lead 1311 steps 7.1.3 and 7.2.10. commenter that the term continuous bearing material’’ has been added to the To address the concern that fabric emissions rate monitor is not final rule. Rather than include or filter dust in enclosed conveyors, appropriate. We have replaced the term exclude any one particular material in containers or wet slurries must be ‘‘continuous emissions rate monitor’’ the definition of ‘‘materials storage and additionally handled only inside an with ‘‘continuous emissions monitoring handling area’’ based on the originating enclosure, we have added an exemption system.’’ process, this definition establishes lead from the enclosure requirement for Comment: Two commenters noted content as the criterion for determining materials that are ‘‘lead bearing’’ but are that the term ‘‘accidental release’’ is not whether materials must be handled in not expected to generate fugitive lead defined in the rule. The commenters such a manner as to prevent lead dust dust. While these materials do contain recommended that the EPA use the formation. The definition of ‘‘materials lead in amounts that could otherwise CERCLA reportable quantity threshold storage and handling area’’ remains meet the definition of lead bearing of 10 pounds to define an accidental

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:35 Jan 04, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\05JAR2.SGM 05JAR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 573

release of lead-containing dust. Two there are eight subsections applicable to commenter contends that the East Penn commenters recommended that the 40 CFR 63.544(d) and subsection (d)(2) facility currently conducts biannual requirement to initiate cleaning within further refers to meeting requirements testing for lead and still maintains one hour of a release be changed to through (d)(8). compliance with the lead NAAQS and require that the facility initiate cleaning Response: The EPA agrees with the applicable subpart X emission activities within one hour after commenter and has made the suggested standards. The commenter further discovery of an accidental release. change in the regulatory text at 40 CFR argued that the EPA has not Response: We accept the commenters’ 63.544(d). demonstrated any environmental suggestion to use the CERCLA Comment: One commenter noted that benefits associated with annual testing reportable quantity threshold of 10 proposed 40 CFR 63.543(i) requires that versus biannual testing for well pounds to define an accidental release sources conduct testing for process controlled facilities. The commenter of lead-containing dust. We also accept vents, ‘‘* * * under such conditions as contends that the East Penn facility has the commenters’ suggestion to require the administrator specifies based on made strategic decisions to invest initiation of cleaning within one hour of representative performance of the capital resources to reduce lead discovery of an accidental release. affected source for the period being emissions and that the removal of the Comment: One commenter tested.’’ The commenter requested that biannual testing exemption would recommended that the definition of the EPA replace this ‘‘cumbersome’’ unnecessarily increase the annual ‘‘maintenance activity’’ be changed from language with ‘‘* * * under normal operating costs of the facility. ‘‘any of the following routine operating conditions.’’ Response: We agree with the maintenance and repair activities that Response: We have modified the text commenter that a biannual testing generate fugitive lead dust:’’ to ‘‘any of to require sources to conduct testing exemption for well performing facilities the following maintenance and repair ‘‘under maximum representative can be retained in this NESHAP. We activities when they generate fugitive operating conditions for the process.’’ have added an exemption for any stacks lead dust:’’ The term maximum is included to that report a lead concentration of 0.1 Response: We do not agree with the ensure that the testing occurs during a mg/dscm or lower allowing biannual commenter’s proposed change to the time period of full production at the testing. The concept of decreased testing definition of ‘‘maintenance activity.’’ If facility that is representative of normal frequency for well-performing sources this definition was adopted, the facility operation. This language allows sources was discussed in the proposal as a part would be allowed to proceed with a to develop test conditions which of the fenceline monitoring approach maintenance activity and then, if the approximate the variability they can (see 76 FR at 29057). activity began generating dust, controls reasonably encounter during normal Comment: Two commenters disagreed would need to be adopted but operation. Parametric monitoring with the annual testing requirement for otherwise-controllable lead emissions requirements, based on parameters total hydrocarbons (THC). One would be released to ambient air. measured during the performance test, commenter stated that since the risk However, we have modified the would then reasonably reflect this assessment did not identify significant definition to read ‘‘any of the following operating variability and afford the risks drivers among the organic HAP routine maintenance and repair source flexibility in its day-to-day represented by THC, the THC testing activities that could generate fugitive operation. Cf. Cement Kiln Recycling should be conducted concurrently with lead dust.’’ This definition ensures that Coalition v. EPA, 255 F.855, 866–67 (DC the dioxin and furan tests every 5 years proactive, rather than reactive, actions Cir. 2001) (upholding use of such data with continuous compliance would be taken for activities with the to set MACT standards under CAA demonstrated via afterburner potential to generate lead dust. section 112(d)(3)). temperature monitoring. Another Comment: One commenter stated that Comment: One commenter noted that commenter stated that requiring annual a definition of lead-bearing material Table 3 of the proposed rule is THC tests is redundant and unnecessary should be added and should include improperly labeled, ‘‘table 3 to Subpart if a CEMS is installed and operated per such characteristics as the material X of Part 60—Toxic Equivalency 40 CFR 63.543(k). should be semi-granular, have a lead Factors.’’ As the commenter points out, Response: We disagree with the content of greater than 10 percent, and the table is included in 40 CFR part 63, commenter that THC testing should be produce visible fugitive emissions when not 40 CFR part 60. conducted on the same schedule as handled or transported. Response: The EPA agrees with the dioxins and furans. Testing for THC is Response: As noted above, we have commenter and has made the suggested substantially less expensive than testing added a definition of lead-bearing change to Table 3 of the proposed rule. for dioxins and furans and we do not material to the regulatory text. However, Comment: Two commenters pointed believe annual THC testing presents an we believe that a 10 percent lead out that there is a typographical error in unnecessary burden. However, we have content is too high. We have defined Equation 2 of the proposed rule at 40 added an exemption allowing biannual lead-bearing material in the rule as CFR 63.543(c). The definition of the testing of THC for any stack that reports material with lead content of 5 mg/l or term CELI includes the word lead, concentrations that are less than half of greater as measured by the TCLP though the equation is not applicable to the applicable emissions limit. Annual (Method 1311), which means that lead. stack testing is obviously not required if materials would need to contain at least Response: The EPA agrees with the a THC CEMS is used. 100 ppm of lead. This is equivalent to commenter and has adjusted the Comment: Three commenters stated the toxicity characteristic level for a definition of the term CELI in Equation that the EPA should allow facilities to hazardous waste containing lead as 2 of 40 CFR 63.543(c) accordingly. use EPA Method 12 for lead compounds defined at 40 CFR 261.24. to calculate compliance with the Comment: One commenter noted that G. Emission Testing Methods and process vent limitations in order to be 40 CFR 63.544(d) of the proposed rule Frequency consistent with testing requirements makes reference to the requirements in Comment: Two commenters stated that exist in many facility permits. subsections (d)(1) through (d)(4). their support for biannual testing for Response: We agree that facilities However, as the commenter points out, well performing facilities. One should be given the option of using EPA

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:35 Jan 04, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\05JAR2.SGM 05JAR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 574 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

Method 12. The regulatory text has been which compliance with the THC gas and small amounts of coke with no edited accordingly. standard has been demonstrated during lead acid batteries fed to the furnace. It Comment: Three commenters stated startup of a furnace. The blast furnace is impossible for furnace exhaust to be that the BLDS exemption for baghouses must be heated for up to 12 maintained within the window equipped with HEPA filters should be hours before raw materials can be prescribed by 40 CFR 63.548(h)(4) retained. One commenter stated that to charged. The reverberatory furnace cold during periods of startup and shutdown. install BLDS’s on HEPA filtered stacks startups occur over an extended period However, the inability to maintain this is excessive and unwarranted. The also. There is no introduction of temperature in secondary lead smelter commenter also believes that annual feedstock during the warm-up process furnace exhaust does not indicate high stack testing for sources equipped with and, therefore, no emissions of process- emissions of THC during these periods. HEPA filtration is not necessary. related THC emissions. Emissions In fact, the emissions are likely minimal Another commenter argued that the cost during this time period will consist because there are no plastics being fed associated with using BLDS is not entirely of combustion products to the furnace and minimal fuel use commensurate with their limited ability. associated with the fuels natural gas and (mostly natural gas). Temperature is The commenter stated that BLDS’s are coke. The afterburner or post thus not the appropriate measure of inherently reactive whereas baghouses combustion system are equipped with continuous compliance during these equipped with HEPA filtration actually rudimentary burners that provide periods and we are unaware of another prevent emissions in the event of a bag supplementary heat but rely on the metric that can be used to determine failure. Further, the commenter argued excess heat contained within the continuous compliance with a that HEPA secondary collection combined furnace exhaust gases during numerical standard for these furnaces pressure differential is an effective production operations to achieve an during startup and shutdown. In terms method to monitor baghouse afterburner temperature that assures the of staff scheduling, test crews would performance. The commenter contends efficient combustion of the process off- have to be on-site and ready to begin that the BLDS requirement will pose an gases. The afterburner supplementary THC testing at the beginning of a period unnecessary and redundant burden on burners are not sufficient to maintain of startup or shutdown, have multiple facilities that proactively chose to install the required temperature during furnace test crews on site for startup or HEPA filtration systems and that the startup and shutdown sequences. The shutdown periods lasting longer than proposed revisions are a disincentive for proposed revisions to subpart X should 12 hours, and be prepared to stop and facilities to install HEPA filters. Finally, include definitions of startup and restart measurements to coincide with the commenter stated that the proposed shutdown for collocated blast and process trips that can occur during BLDS requirement and the elimination reverberatory furnaces that clearly startup and shutdown of secondary lead of the BLDS exemption for HEPA filters define when alternative THC standards smelting furnaces. Since startups and are arbitrary and not supported by test would apply and how compliance with shutdowns of these furnaces are not data. an alternative standard is monitored. necessarily scheduled long in advance, Response: We agree with the Response: The EPA has revised this scheduling such testing to coincide with commenters that baghouses equipped final rule to require sources to meet a the beginning of startup or shutdown with HEPA filters do not need bag leak work practice standard that requires the periods would require having testing detection systems as well. The development of standard operating crews on-site nearly full time. These measurement of pressure drop across a procedures designed to minimize staff resource issues would dramatically HEPA filter provides the indicia of emissions of THC for each start-up and increase the cost of testing during superior performance for determining shutdown scenario anticipated for all startup and shutdown periods. continuous compliance. However, we units subject to THC emission limits. For these technical and economic disagree that sources should be exempt We considered whether temperature reasons, we have determined that from annual stack testing based solely (the metric used to determine conducting manual test methods during on the use of a HEPA filter. The continuous compliance for the THC these secondary lead furnace startup or emission standard includes calculation standard in this rule) or performance shutdown periods for THC to be of a facility-wide emission average and testing and enforcement of numeric impracticable within the meaning of testing the process vents subject to that emission limits would be practicable CAA section 112(h)(2)(B). As a result, limit is needed to determine during periods of startup and shutdown. we have established a separate work compliance. Monitoring pressure drop The EPA determined that there are a practice standard for emissions of THC across HEPA filters is a means for number of significant technical during periods of startup and shutdown. determining continuous compliance, challenges associated with emissions This work practice standard requires the similar to a bag leak detection system in measurements of THC emissions during development of standard operating baghouses without HEPA filters. In both periods of startup and shutdown for this procedures designed to minimize cases, periodic stack tests are necessary industry. These challenges make emissions of THC for each start-up and to ensure that lead emissions are below establishing and complying with shutdown scenario anticipated for all the applicable emission standard. numerical emissions limits units subject to THC limits. However, we note that we have impracticable. This startup and shutdown work included a biannual testing exemption There are multiple factors informing practice applies only to the THC for stacks that report lead this decision. Temperature is obviously emission limits. We have no reason to concentrations less than 0.1 mg/dscm. an inappropriate measure to determine provide startup or shutdown provisions continuous compliances for these for emissions of lead from any source H. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction furnaces during periods of startup and because the fabric filters used to control Comment: One commenter expressed shutdown when the furnaces are being particulate and lead emissions are not concerns related to the total heated during startup (or cooled during less effective during startup or hydrocarbon (THC) standard during shutdown) from ambient to the steady shutdown periods (nor would we expect start-up periods. According to the state operating temperature. The sources to have any difficulty meeting commenter, it will be impossible to furnaces are heated during periods of the lead standard since lead-bearing meet the minimum temperature at startup through slow feeding of natural feed is not charged during either startup

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:35 Jan 04, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\05JAR2.SGM 05JAR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 575

or shutdown conditions). Additionally, will cut lead and arsenic emissions by estimate methods used for this analysis the metrics for determining continuous an estimated 68 percent from current and is available in the docket. compliance with these standards are actual emission levels based on the ICR The majority of the capital costs appropriate for periods of startup and data collected for this rulemaking. The estimated for compliance with this shutdown. Therefore, we have final rule will result in estimated annual action are for purchasing new established the separate work practice lead emissions reductions of 7.2 tpy enclosures and the associated control standard only for THC for periods of from process and process fugitive devices that would be required for these startup and shutdown. sources and annual lead emissions enclosures. For each facility, we During these periods, we do not reductions of 6.4 tpy from fugitive dust estimated the square footage of new believe dioxins and furans can form sources from 2009 baseline emissions enclosures required based on the size of because there are no chlorinated plastics (for a total annual reduction of 13.6 tons enclosures currently in place compared or flame-retardants being fed as these per year). The expected annual to facilities that we considered to be materials are only introduced as reduction in total metal HAP 8 is 8.2 tpy totally enclosed with a similar impurities with the lead feed material. from process and process fugitive production capacity. We further Therefore, we have not included a sources and the expected annual assumed that the facilities that required standard for dioxins and furans during reduction is 7.2 tpy from fugitive dust a substantial degree of new enclosure periods of startup and shutdown sources (total annual metal HAP would re-configure their facilities, because these pollutants are not reductions are estimated at 15.4 tons). particularly the storage areas, to reduce emitted. We estimate that these controls will also the footprint of areas subject to total Periods of startup, normal operations, reduce emissions of particulate matter enclosure requirements. and shutdown are all predictable and (PM) (combined total of fine and coarse Based on our analysis of the facility routine aspects of a source’s operations. PM) by 135 tpy. configurations, seven facilities were However, by contrast, malfunction is Based on the emissions data available considered already to be totally defined as a ‘‘sudden, infrequent, and to the EPA, we believe that all facilities enclosed. Two facilities are currently not reasonably preventable failure of air will be able to comply with the final installing enclosure structures and pollution control and monitoring emissions limits for THC and D/F equipment that we anticipate will meet equipment, process equipment or a without additional controls. However, the requirements. Consequently, the process to operate in a normal or usual we expect that emissions reductions capital costs do not include estimates manner * * *’’ (40 CFR 63.2). The EPA will occur due to increased for these nine facilities. We estimate has determined that malfunctions temperatures of afterburners and from that the remaining six facilities will should not be viewed as a distinct improved work practices. Nevertheless, require new building installations, operating mode and, therefore, any it is difficult to estimate accurate thereby incurring capital costs. For the emissions that occur at such times do reductions from these actions and, one facility currently under not need to be factored into therefore, we are not providing construction, we estimated one development of CAA section 112(d) quantified estimates of reductions for additional baghouse would be required. Typical enclosure costs were standards, which, once promulgated, THC and D/F. estimated using information and apply at all times. C. What are the cost impacts? algorithms from the Permanent Total VI. Summary of Cost, Environmental, As a result of this final rule, certain Enclosures chapter in the EPA Air and Economic Impacts secondary lead smelting facilities are Pollution Control Cost Manual. New baghouse costs were estimated using a A. What are the affected facilities? expected to incur capital costs for the following types of control measures: model based primarily on the cost We anticipate that the 15 secondary replacement of existing baghouses with information for recent baghouse lead smelting facilities currently or new, higher-performing baghouses, installations submitted by facilities in recently operating in the continental replacement of bags in existing the ICR survey. The total capital cost United States and Puerto Rico as well as baghouses with better-performing estimate for the enclosures, the one facility currently under materials, construction of new ductwork system, and control devices at construction in South Carolina will be enclosures for processes not currently the seven facilities is approximately $38 affected by this final rule. enclosed, modification of partially million, at an annualized cost of $6.4 million in 2009 dollars (an average of B. What are the air quality impacts? enclosed structures to meet the requirements of total enclosure, and about $1 million per facility). The EPA estimated the emissions We also estimated annual costs for the installation of fabric filters on reductions that are expected to result required work practices in this action. enclosures. from these final amendments to the The capital costs for each facility were Based on the ICR survey information, 1997 NESHAP compared to the 2009 estimated based on the number and we estimated that additional costs baseline emissions estimates calculated types of upgrades we estimate that would be required to implement the based on ICR data. The ICR data and facility will require. Each facility was work practices at 12 of the 16 facilities. RTR emissions memo are available in evaluated for its ability to meet the final The total annual costs to implement the the docket to this action. A detailed limits for lead emissions, THC fugitive emissions work practices are documentation of the analysis can be emissions, D/F emissions, and fugitive approximately $3 million per year. For compliance with the stack lead found in the document in the docket dust emissions. The memorandum concentration limit, we compared each titled: Cost Impacts of the Revised titled: Cost Impacts of the Revised stack emission point’s lead NESHAP for the Secondary Lead NESHAP for the Secondary Lead concentration (reported to the EPA Smelting Source Category. Smelting Source Category includes a Emissions of lead and arsenic from under the ICR) to the requirement of 1.0 complete description of the cost secondary lead smelters have declined mg/dscm of lead for any one stack. If the over the last 15 years as a result of 8 Total metal HAP consists of , arsenic, reported concentration exceeded 0.5 federal rules, state rules and on the beryllium, cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese, mg/dscm (one half the standard), we industry’s own initiative. The final rule and selenium. assumed that the facility would either

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:35 Jan 04, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\05JAR2.SGM 05JAR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 576 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

upgrade the baghouse with new bags least as well as the average baghouse additional energy use as part of our and additional maintenance or identified in our data set. These analysis of whether the standards are completely replace the baghouse, analyses indicate that nine baghouses warranted under CAA section 112(d)(6). depending on the age of the baghouse would need to be replaced, and two See Cost Impacts of the Revised (as explained further below). This cost baghouses would require additional NESHAP for the Secondary Lead estimate presents an upper-end estimate maintenance. To estimate costs, we used Smelting Source Category, available in of the cost impacts of the final rule that a model based primarily on the cost docket ID EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0344, at assumes facilities will strive to operate information submitted in the ICR for page 7.) well below the standard to ensure recent baghouse installations in this The capital cost estimated for process variability does not cause industry. We assumed an increase in additional differential pressure monitors emission rates approaching the maintenance cost based on more for total enclosures is $106,000. The maximum level allowed by the frequent bag changes (from once every cost for all additional monitoring and standard. If the baghouse was less than 5 years to once every 2 years). The total recordkeeping requirements, including 10 years old and the lead concentration capital cost for nine new baghouses at in the outlet was not appreciably over five facilities is estimated to be the baghouse monitoring, is estimated at one half the standard (i.e., 0.5 mg/ approximately $11.5 million, and total $791,000. dscm), we assumed that the baghouse annual costs were estimated to be The total annualized costs for the would require maintenance and bag approximately $2.7 million. final rule are estimated at $13.4 million replacement. If the baghouse was more New limits are being promulgated for (2009 dollars). Table 5 of this preamble than 10 years old and the lead THC and D/F emissions from provides a summary of the estimated concentration was appreciably over the reverberatory and electric furnaces. We costs and emissions reductions standard, we assumed the baghouse anticipate all operating affected units associated with the final amendments to would be replaced. We then compared will be able to meet the limits without the Secondary Lead Smelting NESHAP each facility’s emissions with the flow- installing additional controls; however, presented in today’s action. More detail weighted, facility-wide concentration we have estimated additional costs of on the estimated costs of today’s final limit of 0.20 mg/dscm using the $260,000 per year for facilities to rule can be found in Cost Impacts of the assumption that baghouses needing increase the temperature of their revised NESHAP for the Secondary Lead replacement based on the 1.0 mg/dscm existing afterburners to ensure Smelting Source Category, available in individual stack limit would be continuous compliance with the the docket ID EPA–HQ–OAR–2011– replaced with units that performed at standards. (We also considered this 0344.


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

Revised stack lead emissions limit ... 11.5 2.7 8.2 of metal HAP a (7.2 of which is $0.33 MM per ton, ($170 per lead). pound). Total enclosure of fugitive emissions 38 6.4 5.2 of metal HAP a (4.6 of which is $1.0 MM per ton, ($500 per pound). sources. lead). Fugitive control work practices ...... 0 3.0 2.0 of metal HAP a (1.8 of which is $1.5 MM per ton, ($750 per pound). lead). THC and D/F concentration limits ..... 0 0.3 29.6 b ...... $0.01 MM per ton. Additional testing and monitoring ...... 0.3 0.79 N/A ...... N/A. a Metal HAP consisting of antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese, nickel, and selenium. b Based on total organic HAP reductions as a co-benefit of compliance with standards for dioxins and furans.

The EPA notes that the cost emissions are also cost effective, based this sector are generally inelastic to effectiveness of the controls for stack largely on the fact that much of the price changes as shown in the Economic emissions of metal HAP are within the industry has implemented some or all of Impact Analysis at page 4. Thus, if range of values the agency has the measures required in this final rule. producers could pass through the entire determined to be reasonable in other The cost effectiveness for THC and D/ cost of the rule to consumers, we would section 112 rules. Indeed, EPA F is presented as a point of information. expect prices to increase by no more determined that a value of $175 per Since those standards are MACT floor than one percent, with no change in pound of metal HAP removed was standards adopted pursuant to sections output. Conversely, if producers could reasonable when determining standards 112(d)(3), considerations of cost and not pass through any of the cost by for the iron and foundry source cost-effectiveness played no part in increasing the price, we would expect category, an area source standard EPA’s consideration. output to decline by less than one reflecting the less rigorous Generally D. What are the economic impacts? percent. Available Control Technology under section 112(d)(5). See 73 FR at 249. We performed an economic impact Hence, the overall economic impact of Thus, EPA regards the cost effectiveness analysis for secondary lead consumers this proposed rule should be low on of the standards for metal HAP here as and producers nationally. Most most of the affected industry and its reasonable, for purposes of the secondary lead producers will incur consumers. For more information, standards adopted pursuant to sections annual compliance costs of much less please refer to the Economic Impact 112(f)(2) (ample margin of safety than 1 percent of their sales, but one Analysis for this rulemaking that is in determination) and 112(d)(6). The firm will incur costs of greater than 1 docket ID EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0344. measures required to control fugitive percent. Both demand and supply in

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:35 Jan 04, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\05JAR2.SGM 05JAR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 577

E. What are the benefits? reductions were calculated based on have been documented in the docket for The estimated reductions in lead total PM reductions. Reducing exposure this action. to PM is associated with significant emissions that will be achieved by this 2.5 B. Paperwork Reduction Act final rule will provide significant human health benefits, including The information collection benefits to public health. For example, avoiding mortality and respiratory requirements in this rule have been the EPA’s 2008 Regulatory Impact morbidity. Researchers have associated submitted for approval to the Office of Analysis (RIA) that was completed for PM2.5 exposure with adverse health Management and Budget (OMB) under the lead NAAQS (which is available in effects in numerous toxicological, the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. the docket for this action and also on clinical and epidemiological studies 11 3501 et seq. The Information Collection the EPA’s Web site) 9 described (U.S. EPA, 2009). When adequate data Request (ICR) document prepared by the monetized benefits calculated for that and resources are available and an RIA EPA has been assigned EPA ICR number action associated with reduced exposure is required, the EPA generally quantifies 1686.09. The information collection to lead. several health effects associated with requirements are not enforceable until As noted in that RIA, there were also exposure to PM2.5 (e.g., U.S. EPA, several other lead-related health effects 2010) 12. These health effects include OMB approves them. The information for which the EPA was unable to premature mortality for adults and requirements are based on notification, quantify a monetized benefit— infants, cardiovascular morbidities such recordkeeping, and reporting particularly among adults. These as heart attacks, hospital admissions, requirements in the NESHAP General potential impacts included and respiratory morbidities such as Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), hypertension, non-fatal strokes, asthma attacks, acute and chronic which are mandatory for all operators reproductive effects and premature bronchitis, hospital and emergency subject to national emissions standards. mortality, among others. department visits, work loss days, These recordkeeping and reporting When viewed in this context, the restricted activity days, and respiratory requirements are specifically authorized reductions in concentrations of ambient symptoms. Although the EPA has not by CAA section 114 (42 U.S.C. 7414). lead that will be achieved with this RTR quantified certain outcomes including All information submitted to the EPA for secondary lead smelters are expected adverse effects on birth weight, pre-term pursuant to the recordkeeping and to provide important benefits to both births, pulmonary function and other reporting requirements for which a children and adults. The EPA did not cardiovascular and respiratory effects, claim of confidentiality is made is quantify these benefits because this rule the scientific literature suggests that safeguarded according to agency policies set forth in 40 CFR part 2, did not trigger the requirement for exposure to PM2.5 is also associated with conducting an RIA under Executive subpart B. these impacts (U.S. EPA, 2009). We are promulgating new paperwork Order 12866, in addition to resource Finally, the final rule will provide and data limitations for this rule. requirements to the Secondary Lead human health benefits through However, as noted at proposal, this rule Smelting source category in the form of reductions in arsenic and cadmium should result in areas attaining the lead stack testing for THC and D/F as emissions, as well as reductions in NAAQS where the secondary lead described in 40 CFR 63.543(h)–(k). In emissions of organic HAP (including smelting source dominates the areas’ conjunction with setting THC limits for dioxins and furans). ambient lead concentrations. See 76 FR reverberatory and electric furnaces, additional monitoring and at 29063–64. Although these standards VII. Statutory and Executive Order recordkeeping is required for furnace are not adopted to implement the lead Reviews outlet temperature on these units. We NAAQS, and rest on legal and policy believe temperature monitors currently justifications that are unrelated to the A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory exist in these locations and that the requirements for adopting, revising, and Planning and Review, and Executive facilities will not incur a capital cost implementing a NAAQS (e.g., CAA Order 13563: Improving Regulation and due to this requirement (and received sections 112(d)(2), (3), 6 and CAA Regulatory Review no comments to indicate otherwise). section 112(f)(2) as opposed to CAA Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR Additionally, increased monitoring is sections 107–110), nonetheless these 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is a required for demonstrating negative rules will aid in the attainment of the ‘‘significant regulatory action.’’ This 10 pressure in all total enclosures. To lead NAAQS. action is a significant regulatory action provide the public with an estimate of In addition to the benefits likely to be because it raises novel legal and policy the relative magnitude of the burden achieved for lead reductions, we also issues. Accordingly, the EPA submitted associated with an assertion of the estimate that this final RTR rule will this action to the Office of Management affirmative defense position adopted by achieve about 39 to 63 tons of and Budget (OMB) for review under a source, the EPA has provided reductions in PM emissions as a co- 2.5 Executive Order 12866 and Executive administrative adjustments to this ICR benefit of the HAP reductions annually. Order 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, to show what the notification, See Development of the RTR Emissions 2011), and any changes made in recordkeeping and reporting Dataset for the Secondary Lead response to OMB recommendations requirements associated with the Smelting Source Category at section 8.3, assertion of the affirmative defense which is available in the docket for 11 might entail. The EPA’s estimate for the information on how the PM emission U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. 2.5 EPA). 2009. Integrated Science Assessment for required notification, reports and Particulate Matter (Final Report). EPA–600–R–08– records for any individual incident, 9 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/ 139F. National Center for Environmental finalpbriach5.pdf. Assessment—RTP Division. . $3,141 and is based on the time and same types of controls on these sources (or may rely 12 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. effort required of a source to review on the controls in these rules as part of a control EPA). 2010. Regulatory Impact Analysis for the relevant data, interview plant strategy). EPA cannot, of course, pre-judge the SIP Proposed Federal Transport Rule. Office of Air process. What is clear is that this rule should Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle employees, and document the events contribute significantly to attainment of the lead Park, NC. . caused an exceedance of an emissions

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:35 Jan 04, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\05JAR2.SGM 05JAR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 578 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

limit. The estimate also includes time to a total labor cost of $52,000 per year. action will not have a significant produce and retain the record and Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). economic impact on those companies reports for submission to the EPA. The An agency may not conduct or (see: Small Business Analysis for the EPA provides this illustrative estimate sponsor, and a person is not required to Secondary Lead Smelting Source of this burden because these costs are respond to, a collection of information Category). All other affected parent only incurred if there has been a unless it displays a currently valid OMB companies are not small businesses violation and a source chooses to take control number. The OMB control according to the SBA small business advantage of the affirmative defense. numbers for the EPA’s regulations in 40 size standard for the affected NAICS Given the variety of circumstances CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When code (NAICS 331419). under which malfunctions could occur, these ICRs are approved by OMB, the Although this final rule will not have as well as differences among sources’ agency will publish a technical a significant economic impact on a operation and maintenance practices, amendment to 40 CFR part 9 in the substantial number of small entities, the we cannot reliably predict the severity Federal Register to display the OMB EPA nonetheless has tried to reduce the and frequency of malfunction-related control numbers for the approved impact of this rule on small entities. To excess emissions events for a particular information collection requirements reduce the impacts, we are source. It is important to note that the contained in the final rules. promulgating stack limits for lead that allow sources to meet a standard based EPA has no basis currently for C. Regulatory Flexibility Act estimating the number of malfunctions on aggregated emissions that are based The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) on a weighted average approach (with for which an affirmative defense to generally requires an agency to prepare each stack required to achieve a penalties might be asserted. Current a regulatory flexibility analysis of any specified minimum level of control) and historical records would be an rule subject to notice and comment have been established at the least inappropriate basis, as source owners or rulemaking requirements under the stringent levels that we estimate will operators previously operated their Administrative Procedure Act or any still result in acceptable risks to public facilities in recognition that they were other statute unless the agency certifies health with an ample margin of safety. exempt from the requirement to comply that the rule will not have a significant Moreover, the compliance testing with emissions standards during economic impact on a substantial requirements were established in a way malfunctions. Of the number of excess number of small entities. Small entities that minimizes the costs for testing and emissions events reported by source include small businesses, small reporting while still providing the operators, only a small number would organizations, and small governmental agency the necessary information be expected to result from a malfunction jurisdictions. needed to ensure continuous (based on the definition above), and For purposes of assessing the impacts compliance with the standards. For only a subset of excess emissions caused of this final rule on small entities, small more information, please refer to Small by malfunctions would result in the entity is defined as: (1) A small business Business Analysis for the Secondary source choosing to assert the affirmative as defined by the Small Business Lead Smelting Source Category, which defense. Thus we believe the number of Administration’s (SBA) regulations at 13 is available in docket ID EPA–HQ– instances in which source operators CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental OAR–2011–0344. might be expected to assert the jurisdiction that is a government of a affirmative defense will be extremely city, county, town, school district or D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act small. For this reason, we estimate no special district with a population of less This action does not contain a federal more than 2 or 3 such occurrences for than 50,000; and (3) a small mandate under the provisions of Title II all sources subject to subpart X over the organization that is any not-for-profit of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 3-year period covered by this ICR. We enterprise that is independently owned of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538 for expect to gather information on such and operated and is not dominant in its state, local, or tribal governments or the events in the future and will revise this field. private sector. The action would not estimate as better information becomes For this source category, which has result in expenditures of $100 million or available. We estimate 16 regulated the NAICS code 331419 (i.e., Secondary more for state, local, and tribal entities are currently subject to subpart Smelting and Refining of Nonferrous governments, in aggregate, or the private X and will be subject to all standards. Metal (except and aluminum)), sector in any 1 year. The action imposes The annual monitoring, reporting, and the SBA small business size standard is no enforceable duties on any state, local recordkeeping burden for this collection 750 employees according to the SBA or tribal governments or the private (averaged over the first 3 years after the small business standards definitions. sector. Thus, this action is not subject to effective date of the standards) for these We have estimated the cost impacts and the requirements of sections 202 or 205 amendments to subpart X (Secondary have determined that the impacts do not of the UMRA. Lead Smelting) is estimated to be constitute a significant economic impact This action is also not subject to the $790,000 per year. This includes 1,600 on a substantial number of small entities requirements of section 203 of UMRA labor hours per year at a total labor cost (see: Small Business Analysis for the because it contains no regulatory of $347,000 per year, and total non-labor Secondary Lead Smelting Source requirements that might significantly or capital and operation and maintenance Category, which is available in the uniquely affect small governments (O&M) costs of $440,000 per year. This docket for this action). because it contains no requirements that estimate includes performance tests, After considering the economic apply to such governments nor does it notifications, reporting, and impacts of today’s final rule on small impose obligations upon them. recordkeeping associated with the new entities, I certify that this action will not requirements for front-end process vents have a significant economic impact on E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism and back-end process operations. The a substantial number of small entities. This action does not have federalism total burden for the federal government Two of the eight parent companies implications. It will not have substantial (averaged over the first 3 years after the affected are considered a small entity direct effects on the states, on the effective date of the standard) is per the definition provided in this relationship between the national estimated to be 1,150 hours per year at section. However, we estimate that this government and the states, or on the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:35 Jan 04, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\05JAR2.SGM 05JAR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 579

distribution of power and V.A of this preamble and the Residual J. Executive Order 12898: Federal responsibilities among the various Risk Assessment for the Secondary Lead Actions To Address Environmental levels of government, as specified in Smelting Source Category, which is Justice in Minority Populations and Executive Order 13132. These final available in the docket for this action, Low-Income Populations rules primarily affect private industry, for discussions of post-control risks. Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, and do not impose significant economic February 16, 1994) establishes federal costs on state or local governments. H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That executive policy on environmental Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not justice. Its main provision directs apply to this action. Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use federal agencies, to the greatest extent F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation practicable and permitted by law, to and Coordination With Indian Tribal This action is not a ‘‘significant make environmental justice part of their Governments energy action’’ as defined in Executive mission by identifying and addressing, Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, This action does not have tribal as appropriate, disproportionately high 2001)), because it is not likely to have and adverse human health or implications, as specified in Executive a significant adverse energy effect on the Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, environmental effects of their programs, supply, distribution, or use of energy. policies, and activities on minority 2000). It will not have substantial direct This action will not create any new effect on tribal governments, on the populations and low-income requirements for sources in the energy populations in the United States. relationship between the federal supply, distribution, or use sectors. government and Indian tribes, or on the The EPA has determined that this Further, we have concluded that these final rule will not have distribution of power and final rules are not likely to have any responsibilities between the federal disproportionately high and adverse adverse energy effects (and indeed, human health or environmental effects government and Indian tribes, as rejected certain types of control options, specified in Executive Order 13175. on minority or low-income populations such as standards based on use of wet because it increases the level of Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not electrostatic precipitators, in part apply to this action. environmental protection for all affected because of adverse energy implications). populations without having any G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of I. National Technology Transfer and disproportionately high and adverse Children From Environmental Health Advancement Act human health or environmental effects Risks and Safety Risks on any population, including any This action is not subject to Executive Section 12(d) of the National minority or low-income population. Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, Technology Transfer and Advancement To examine the potential for any 1997) because it is not economically Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104– environmental justice issues that might significant as defined in Executive 113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs be associated with each source category, Order 12866. However, the agency does the EPA to use voluntary consensus we evaluated the distributions of HAP believe there is a disproportionate risk standards (VCS) in its regulatory related cancer and non-cancer risks to children due to current emissions of activities, unless to do so would be across different social, demographic, lead from this source category. Children inconsistent with applicable law or and economic groups within the living near secondary lead smelters are otherwise impractical. VCS are populations living near the facilities the subpopulation most susceptible to technical standards (e.g., materials where these source categories are effects of air-borne lead, as explained in specifications, test methods, sampling located. The development of detail in Section V.A above. The procedures, and business practices) that demographic analyses to inform the primary NAAQS for lead targets are developed or adopted by VCS consideration of environmental justice protection to this population, and is a bodies. NTTAA directs the EPA to issues in EPA rulemakings is evolving. reasonable measure for evaluating provide Congress, through OMB, In the case of Secondary Lead acceptability of risk here, again as explanations when the agency decides Smelting, we focused on populations explained in Section V.A. Modeled not to use available and applicable VCS. within 50 km of the 15 facilities in this ambient air lead concentrations, based This action involves technical source category with emissions sources on actual emission levels, from about 9 standards. The EPA requires use of subject to the MACT standard. More of the 15 facilities in this source ASME PTC 19.10–1981, ‘‘Flue and specifically, for these populations we category are in excess of the NAAQS for Analyses’’ for its manual evaluated exposures to HAP that could lead. Also, the results of the methods of measuring the or result in cancer risks of 1-in-1 million demographic analysis indicate that of dioxide content of the exhaust or greater, or population exposures to the 84,000 people exposed to a cancer gas. These parts of ASME PTC 19.10– ambient air lead concentrations above risk greater than 1-in-1 million, the age 1981 are acceptable alternatives to EPA the level of the NAAQS for lead. We 0 to 17 demographic percentage (of 30 Method 3B. This standard is available compared the percentages of particular percent) is 3 percentage points higher from the American Society of demographic groups within the focused than the corresponding national Mechanical Engineers (ASME), Three populations to the total percentages of percentage for this demographic group Park Avenue, New York, NY 10016– those demographic groups nationwide. (of 27 percent). This suggests that 5990. The results of this analysis are children may be at a slightly Under 40 CFR 63.7(f) and 40 CFR documented in the technical report: disproportionate risk of exposure to 63.8(f) of subpart A of the General Risk and Technology Review—Final cancer risks from this source category. Provisions, a source may apply to the Analysis of Socio-Economic Factors for However, the control measures EPA for permission to use alternative Populations Living Near Secondary promulgated in this notice will result in test methods or alternative monitoring Lead Smelting Facilities which can be lead concentration levels at or below the requirements in place of any required found in the docket for this rulemaking. lead NAAQS at all facilities, thereby testing methods, performance The actions in today’s final rule will mitigating the risk of future adverse specifications, or procedures in the final significantly decrease the risks due to health effects to children. See Section rule. HAP emissions from this source

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:35 Jan 04, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\05JAR2.SGM 05JAR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 580 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

category for all demographic groups and 63.541 Applicability. defendant, regarding which the mitigate any disproportionate risks due 63.542 Definitions. defendant has the burden of proof, and to those emissions. 63.543 What are my standards for process the merits of which are independently vents? and objectively evaluated in a judicial K. Congressional Review Act 63.544 What are my total enclosure or administrative proceeding. The Congressional Review Act, 5 standards? 63.545 What are my standards for fugitive Agglomerating furnace means a U.S.C. 801, et seq., as added by the dust sources? furnace used to melt into a solid mass Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 63.546 Compliance dates. flue dust that is collected from a Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 63.547 Test methods. baghouse. that, before a rule may take effect, the 63.548 Monitoring requirements. Bag leak detection system means an agency promulgating the rule must 63.549 Notification requirements. instrument that is capable of monitoring 63.550 Recordkeeping and reporting submit a rule report, which includes a particulate matter (dust) loadings in the copy of the rule, to each House of the requirements. 63.551 Implementation and enforcement. exhaust of a baghouse in order to detect Congress and to the Comptroller General bag failures. A bag leak detection system of the United States. The EPA will 63.552 Affirmative defense to civil penalties for exceedance of emissions includes, but is not limited to, an submit a report containing this final rule limit during malfunction. instrument that operates on and other required information to the Table 1 to Subpart X of Part 63—General triboelectric, light scattering, United States Senate, the United States Provisions Applicability to Subpart X transmittance or other effect to monitor House of Representatives, and the Table 2 to Subpart X of Part 63—Emissions relative particulate matter loadings. Comptroller General of the United Limits for Secondary Lead Smelting Battery breaking area means the plant Furnaces States prior to publication of the final location at which lead-acid batteries are rule in the Federal Register. A major Table 3 to Subpart X of Part 63—Toxic broken, crushed, or disassembled and rule cannot take effect until 60 days Equivalency Factors separated into components. after it is published in the Federal Subpart X—National Emission Blast furnace means a smelting Register. This action is not a ‘‘major Standards For Hazardous Air furnace consisting of a vertical cylinder rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The Pollutants From Secondary Lead atop a crucible, into which lead-bearing final rules will be effective on January Smelting charge materials are introduced at the 5, 2012. top of the furnace and combustion air is List of Subjects for 40 CFR Part 63 § 63.541 Applicability. introduced through at the (a) You are subject to this subpart if Environmental protection, bottom of the cylinder, and that uses you own or operate any of the following Administrative practice and procedures, coke as a fuel source and that is affected sources at a secondary lead Air pollution control, Hazardous operated at such a temperature in the smelter: Blast, reverberatory, rotary, and substances, Incorporation by reference, combustion zone (greater than 980 electric furnaces; refining kettles; Intergovernmental relations, Reporting Celsius) that lead compounds are agglomerating furnaces; dryers; process and recordkeeping requirements. chemically reduced to elemental lead fugitive emissions sources; buildings metal. Dated: December 16, 2011. containing lead bearing materials; and Blast furnace charging location means Lisa P. Jackson, fugitive dust sources. The provisions of the physical opening through which raw Administrator. this subpart do not apply to primary materials are introduced into a blast For the reasons stated in the lead processors, lead refiners, or lead furnace. preamble, part 63 of title 40, chapter I, remelters. Collocated blast furnace and of the Code of Federal Regulations is (b) Table 1 to this subpart specifies reverberatory furnace means operation amended as follows: the provisions of subpart A of this part at the same location of a blast furnace that apply to owners and operators of and a reverberatory furnace where the PART 63—[AMENDED] secondary lead smelters subject to this vent streams of the furnaces are mixed subpart. before cooling, with the volumetric flow ■ 1. The authority citation for part 63 (c) If you are subject to the provisions continues to read as follows: rate discharged from the blast furnace of this subpart, you are also subject to being equal to or less than that Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq. title V permitting requirements under 40 discharged from the reverberatory ■ 2. Section 63.14 is amended by CFR parts 70 or 71, as applicable. furnace. (d) Emissions standards in this revising paragraph (p)(2) to read as Dryer means a chamber that is heated subpart apply at all times. follows: and that is used to remove moisture § 63.14 Incorporations by reference. § 63.542 Definitions. from lead-bearing materials before they are charged to a smelting furnace. * * * * * Terms used in this subpart are (p) * * * defined in the Clean Air Act, in subpart Dryer transition equipment means the (2) Office Of Air Quality Planning A of this part, or in this section as junction between a dryer and the charge And Standards (OAQPS), Fabric Filter follows: hopper or conveyor, or the junction Bag Leak Detection Guidance, EPA–454/ Affected source means any of the between the dryer and the smelting R–98–015, September 1997, IBR following sources at a secondary lead furnace feed chute or hopper located at approved for §§ 63.548(e)(4), smelter: Blast, reverberatory, rotary, and the ends of the dryer. 63.7525(j)(2), and 63.11224(f)(2). electric furnaces; refining kettles; Electric furnace means a smelting furnace consisting of a vessel into which * * * * * agglomerating furnaces; dryers; process reverberatory furnace slag is introduced ■ fugitive emissions sources; buildings 3. Revise subpart X to read as follows: containing lead bearing materials; and and that uses electrical energy to heat Subpart X—National Emission Standards fugitive dust sources. the reverberatory furnace slag to such a for Hazardous Air Pollutants From Affirmative defense means, in the temperature (greater than 980 Celsius) Secondary Lead Smelting context of an enforcement proceeding, a that lead compounds are reduced to Sec. response or defense put forward by a elemental lead metal.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:35 Jan 04, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\05JAR2.SGM 05JAR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 581

Fugitive dust source means a construction or reconstruction of which Rotary furnace (also known as a rotary stationary source of hazardous air is commenced after May 19, 2011. A reverberatory furnace) means a furnace pollutant emissions at a secondary lead building that is constructed for the consisting of a -lined chamber smelter that is not associated with a purpose of controlling fugitive that rotates about a horizontal axis and specific process or process fugitive vent emissions from an existing source is not that uses one or more flames to heat the or stack. Fugitive dust sources include, considered to be a new source. walls of the furnace and lead-bearing but are not limited to, roadways, storage Partial enclosure means a structure scrap to such a temperature (greater piles, lead bearing material handling comprised of walls or partitions on at than 980 Celsius) that lead compounds transfer points, lead bearing material least three sides or three-quarters of the are chemically reduced to elemental transport areas, lead bearing material perimeter surrounding stored materials lead metal. storage areas, other lead bearing or process equipment to prevent the Secondary lead smelter means any material process areas, and buildings. entrainment of particulate matter into facility at which lead-bearing scrap Furnace and refining/casting area the air. material, primarily, but not limited to, means any area of a secondary lead Pavement cleaning means the use of lead-acid batteries, is recycled into smelter in which: vacuum equipment, water sprays, or a elemental lead or lead alloys by (1) Smelting furnaces are located; combination thereof to remove dust or smelting. (2) Refining operations occur; or other accumulated material from the Shutdown means the period when no (3) Casting operations occur. paved areas of a secondary lead smelter. lead bearing materials are being fed to Lead means an alloy in which Plant roadway means any area of a the furnace and smelting operations the predominant component is lead. secondary lead smelter outside of a total have ceased during which the furnace is Lead bearing material means material enclosure that is subject to vehicle cooled from steady-state operating with a lead content equal to or greater traffic, including traffic by forklifts, temperature to ambient temperature. than 5 mg/l as measured by EPA front-end loaders, or vehicles carrying Smelting means the chemical Method 1311 (Under Method 1311, only whole batteries or cast lead ingots. reduction of lead compounds to materials with at least 100 ppm lead Excluded from this definition are elemental lead or lead alloys through will be considered to be lead bearing). employee and visitor parking areas, processing in high-temperature (greater Leeward wall means the furthest provided they are not subject to traffic than 980 Celsius) furnaces including, exterior wall of a total enclosure that is by vehicles carrying lead-bearing but not limited to, blast furnaces, opposite the windward wall. materials. reverberatory furnaces, rotary furnaces, Maintenance activity means any of and electric furnaces. the following routine maintenance and Pressurized dryer breaching seal repair activities that could generate means a seal system connecting the Startup means the period when no led fugitive lead dust: dryer transition pieces which is bearing materials have been fed to the (1) Replacement or repair of maintained at a higher pressure than the furnace and smelting operations have refractory, or any internal or external inside of the dryer. not yet commenced during which the part of equipment used to process, Process fugitive emissions source furnace is heated from ambient handle or control lead-containing means a source of hazardous air temperature to steady-state operating materials. pollutant emissions at a secondary lead temperature. (2) Replacement of any duct section smelter that is associated with lead Total enclosure means a containment used to convey lead-containing exhaust. smelting or refining, but is not the building that is completely enclosed (3) Metal cutting or welding that primary exhaust stream from a smelting with a floor, walls, and a roof to prevent penetrates the metal structure of any furnace, and is not a fugitive dust exposure to the elements and to assure equipment, and its associated source. Process fugitive emissions containment of lead bearing material components, used to process lead- sources include, but are not limited to, with limited openings to allow access containing material such that lead dust smelting furnace charging points, and egress for people and vehicles. The within the internal structure or its smelting furnace lead and slag taps, total enclosure must provide an components can become fugitive lead refining kettles, agglomerating furnaces, effective barrier against fugitive dust dust. and drying kiln transition pieces. emissions such that the direction of air (4) Resurfacing, repair or removal of Process vent means furnace vents, flow through any openings is inward ground, pavement, concrete, or asphalt. dryer vents, agglomeration furnace and the enclosure is maintained under Materials storage and handling area vents, vents from battery breakers, vents constant negative pressure. means any area of a secondary lead from buildings containing lead bearing Vehicle wash means a device for smelter in which lead-bearing materials material, and any ventilation system removing dust and other accumulated (including, but not limited to, broken controlling lead emissions. material from the wheels, body, and battery components, reverberatory Refining kettle means an open-top underside of a vehicle to prevent the furnace slag, flue dust, and ) are vessel that is constructed of or inadvertent transfer of lead stored or handled between process steps steel and is indirectly heated from contaminated material to another area of including, but not limited to, areas in below and contains molten lead for the a secondary lead smelter or to public which materials are stored in open purpose of refining and alloying the roadways. piles, bins, or tubs, and areas in which lead. Included are pot furnaces, Wet suppression means the use of material is prepared for charging to a receiving kettles, and holding kettles. water, water combined with a chemical smelting furnace. Reverberatory furnace means a surfactant, or a chemical binding agent Natural draft opening means any refractory-lined furnace that uses one or to prevent the entrainment of dust into permanent opening in an enclosure that more flames to heat the walls and roof the air from fugitive dust sources. remains open during operation of the of the furnace and lead-bearing scrap to Windward wall means the exterior facility and is not connected to a duct such a temperature (greater than 980 wall of a total enclosure that is most in which a fan is installed. Celsius) that lead compounds are impacted by the wind in its most New source means any affected source chemically reduced to elemental lead prevailing direction determined by a at a secondary lead smelting facility the metal. wind rose using available data from the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:35 Jan 04, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\05JAR2.SGM 05JAR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 582 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

closest representative meteorological process vent gas at or below 0.20 process vent (no later than 12 calendar station. milligrams of lead per dry standard months following the previous cubic meter (0.000087 grains of lead per compliance test), unless you install and § 63.543 What are my standards for dry standard cubic foot). operate a CEMS meeting the process vents? (c) You must meet the applicable requirements of § 63.8. (a) For existing sources, you must emissions limits for total hydrocarbons (2) If an annual compliance test maintain the concentration of lead and dioxins and furans from furnace demonstrates that a process vent compounds in any process vent gas at sources specified in Table 2 of this emitted lead compounds at 0.10 or below 1.0 milligrams of lead per dry subpart. There are no standards for milligram of lead per dry standard cubic standard cubic meter (0.00043 grains of dioxins and furans during periods of meter or less during the time of the lead per dry standard cubic foot). You startup and shutdown. annual compliance test, you may submit must maintain the flow-weighted (d) If you combine furnace emissions a written request to the Administrator average concentration of lead from multiple types of furnaces and applying for an extension of up to 24 compounds in vent gases from a these furnaces do not meet the calendar months from the previous secondary lead smelting facility at or definition of collocated blast and compliance test to conduct the next below 0.20 milligrams of lead per dry reverberatory furnaces, you must compliance test for lead compounds. standard cubic meter (0.000087 grains of calculate your emissions limit for the (h) Following the initial performance lead per dry standard cubic foot). combined furnace stream using or compliance test to demonstrate (1) You must demonstrate compliance Equation 2 of this section. compliance with the total hydrocarbons with the flow weighted average emissions limits in paragraphs (c) and emissions limit on a 12-month rolling (f) of this section, you must conduct an average basis, calculated monthly using annual performance test for total the most recent test data available. hydrocarbons emissions from each (2) Until 12 monthly weighted average process vent that has established limits emissions rates have been accumulated, for total hydrocarbons (no later than 12 calculate only the monthly average calendar months following the previous weighted emissions rate. compliance test), unless you install and (3) You must use Equation 1 of this operate a CEMS meeting the section to calculate the flow-weighted Where: requirements of § 63.8. If an annual average concentration of lead CEL = Flow-weighted average emissions limit compliance test demonstrates that a (concentration) of combined furnace compounds from process vents: process vent emitted total hydrocarbons vents. at less than 50 percent of the allowable n = Number of furnace vents. limit during the time of the annual Fi = Flow rate from furnace vent i in dry standard cubic feet per minute. compliance test, you may submit a CEli = Emissions limit (concentration) of written request to the Administrator pollutant in furnace vent i as specified applying for an extension of up to 24 in Table 2 of this subpart. calendar months from the previous (e) If you combine furnace emissions compliance test to conduct the next with the furnace charging process compliance test for total hydrocarbons. fugitive emissions and discharge them (i) Following the initial performance Where: to the atmosphere through a common or compliance test to demonstrate compliance with the dioxins and furans CFWA = Flow-weighted average concentration emissions point, you must demonstrate of all process vents. compliance with the applicable total emissions limits specified in paragraph n = Number of process vents. hydrocarbons concentration limit (c) of this section, you must conduct a Fi = Flow rate from process vent i in dry specified in paragraph (c) of this section performance test for dioxins and furans standard cubic feet per minute, as at a location downstream from the point emissions from each process vent that measured during the most recent at which the two emissions streams are has established limits for dioxins and compliance test. furans at least once every 6 years C = Concentration of lead in process vent i, combined. i (f) If you do not combine the furnace following the previous compliance test. as measured during the most recent (j) You must conduct the performance compliance test. charging process fugitive emissions with the furnace process emissions, and tests specified in paragraphs (g) through (4) Each month, you must use the discharge such emissions to the (i) of this section under maximum concentration of lead and flow rate atmosphere through separate emissions representative operating conditions for obtained during the most recent points, you must maintain the total the process. During the performance compliance test performed prior to or hydrocarbons concentration in the test, you may operate the control device during that month to perform the exhaust gas at or below 20 parts per at maximum or minimum representative calculation using Equation 1 of this million by volume, expressed as operating conditions for monitored section. propane and corrected to 4 percent control device parameters, whichever (5) If a continuous emissions . results in lower emission reduction. monitoring system (CEMS) is used to (g) Following the initial performance Upon request, you must make available measure the concentration of lead in a or compliance test to demonstrate to the Administrator such records as vent, the monthly average lead compliance with the lead emissions may be necessary to determine the concentration and monthly average flow limits specified in paragraph (a) or (b) conditions of performance tests. rate must be used rather than the most of this section, you must conduct (k) At all times, you must operate and recent compliance test data. performance tests according to the maintain any affected source, including (b) For new sources that begin schedule in paragraph (g)(1) or (2) of associated air pollution control construction or reconstruction after May this section. equipment and monitoring equipment, 19, 2011 you must maintain the (1) Conduct an annual performance in a manner consistent with safety and concentration of lead compounds in any test for lead compounds from each good air pollution control practices for

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:35 Jan 04, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\05JAR2.SGM 05JAR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 ER05JA12.000 ER05JA12.001 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 583

minimizing emissions. Determination of battery storage areas, areas where lead wet wash or a vacuum equipped with a whether such operation and bearing material is stored in closed filter rated by the manufacturer to maintenance procedures are being used containers or enclosed mechanical achieve 99.97 percent capture efficiency will be based on information available conveyors, and areas where clean for 0.3 micron particles in a manner that to the Administrator that may include, battery casing material is handled. does not generate fugitive lead dust. but is not limited to, monitoring results, (c) You must construct and operate (2) Plant roadways and paved areas. review of operation and maintenance total enclosures for the sources listed in You must pave all areas subject to procedures, review of operation and paragraph (a) of this section as specified vehicle traffic and you must clean the maintenance records, and inspection of in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this pavement twice per day, except on days the source. section. The total enclosure must be free when natural precipitation makes (l) If you own or operate a unit subject of significant cracks, gaps, corrosion or cleaning unnecessary or when sand or a to emission limits in Table 2 of this other deterioration that could cause lead similar material has been spread on subpart, you must minimize the unit’s bearing material to be released from the plant roadways to provide traction on startup and shutdown periods following primary barrier. Measures must be in ice or snow. Limited access and limited the manufacturer’s recommended place to prevent the tracking of lead use roadways such as unpaved roads to procedures, if available. You must bearing material out of the unit by remote locations on the property may be develop and follow standard operating personnel or by equipment used in exempt from this requirement if they are procedures designed to minimize handling the material. An area must be used infrequently (no more than one emissions of total hydrocarbon for each designated to decontaminate equipment round trip per day). startup or shutdown scenario and any rinsate must be collected and (3) Accidental releases. You must anticipated. You must submit a signed properly managed. initiate cleaning of all affected areas statement in the Notification of (1) You must ventilate the total within one hour after detection of any Compliance Status report that indicates enclosure continuously to ensure accidental release of lead dust that that you conducted startups and negative pressure values of at least 0.013 exceeds 10 pounds (the Comprehensive shutdowns according to the mm of mercury (0.007 inches of water). Environmental Response, manufacturer’s recommended (2) You must maintain an inward flow Compensation, and Liability Act procedures, if available, and the of air through all natural draft openings. (CERCLA) reportable quantity for lead at standard operating procedures designed (d) You must inspect enclosures and 40 CFR 302.4). to minimize emissions of total facility structures that contain any lead- (4) Battery storage areas. You must hydrocarbons. bearing materials at least once per inspect any batteries that are not stored (m) In addition to complying with the month. You must repair any gaps, in a total enclosure once each week and applicable emissions limits for dioxins breaks, separations, leak points or other move any broken batteries to an and furans listed in Table 2 to this possible routes for emissions of lead to enclosure within 72 hours of subpart, you must operate a process to the atmosphere within one week of identification. You must clean residue separate plastic battery casing materials identification unless you obtain from broken batteries within 72 hours of from all automotive batteries prior to approval for an extension from the identification. introducing feed into a furnace. Administrator before the repair period is (5) Materials storage and handling exceeded. areas. You must wash each vehicle at § 63.544 What are my total enclosure each exit of the material storage and standards? § 63.545 What are my standards for handling areas. The vehicle wash must (a) You must operate the process fugitive dust sources? include washing of tires, undercarriage fugitive emissions sources and fugitive (a) You must prepare, and at all times and exterior surface of the vehicle dust sources listed in paragraphs (a)(1) operate according to, a standard followed by vehicle inspection. through (9) of this section in a total operating procedures manual that (6) Equipment maintenance. You enclosure that is maintained at negative describes in detail the measures that must perform all maintenance activities pressure at all times and vented to a will be put in place and implemented to that could generate lead dust in a control device designed to capture lead control the fugitive dust emissions from manner that minimizes emissions of particulate. The total enclosure must the sources listed in paragraphs (a)(1) fugitive dust. This must include one or meet the requirements specified in through (7) of this section. more of the following: paragraph (c) of this section. (1) Plant roadways. (i) Performing maintenance inside a (1) Smelting furnaces. (2) Plant buildings. total permanent enclosure maintained at (2) Smelting furnace charging areas. (3) Accidental releases. negative pressure. (3) Lead taps, slag taps, and molds (4) Battery storage area. (ii) Performing maintenance inside a during tapping. (5) Equipment maintenance. temporary enclosure and use a vacuum (4) Battery breakers. (6) Material storage areas. system either equipped with a filter (5) Refining kettles, casting areas. (7) Material handling areas. rated by the manufacturer to achieve a (6) Dryers. (b) You must submit the standard capture efficiency of 99.97 percent for (7) Agglomerating furnaces and operating procedures manual to the 0.3 micron particles or routed to an agglomerating furnace product taps. Administrator or delegated authority for existing control device permitted for (8) Material handling areas for any review and approval when initially this activity. lead bearing materials except those developed and any time changes are (iii) Performing maintenance inside a listed in paragraph (b) of this section. made. partial enclosure and use of wet (9) Areas where dust from fabric (c) The controls specified in the suppression sufficient to prevent dust filters, sweepings or used fabric filters standard operating procedures manual formation. are processed. must at a minimum include the (iv) Decontamination of equipment (b) Total enclosures are not required requirements specified in paragraphs prior to removal from an enclosure. in the following areas: lead ingot (c)(1) through (7) of this section. (v) Immediate repair of ductwork or product handling areas, stormwater and (1) Cleaning. Where a cleaning structure leaks without an enclosure if wastewater treatment areas, intact practice is specified, you must clean by the time to construct a temporary

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:35 Jan 04, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\05JAR2.SGM 05JAR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 584 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

enclosure would exceed the time to paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) of this (1) If the measured percent carbon make a temporary or permanent repair, section to determine compliance with dioxide is greater than 0.4 percent in or if construction of an enclosure would the emissions standards for lead each compliance test, you must cause a higher level of emissions than compounds specified in § 63.543(a) and determine the correction factor using if an enclosure were not constructed. (b). Equation 2 of this section. (vi) Activities required for inspection (1) EPA Method 1 at 40 CFR part 60, of fabric filters and maintenance of appendix A–1 to select the sampling filters that are in need of removal and port location and the number of traverse replacement are not required to be points. conducted inside of total enclosures. (2) EPA Method 2 at 40 CFR part 60, Used fabric filters must be placed in appendix A–1 or EPA Method 5D at 40 Where: sealed plastic bags or containers prior to CFR part 60, appendix A–3, section 8.3 F = Correction factor (no units). removal from a baghouse. for positive pressure fabric filters, to CO2 = Percent carbon dioxide measured (7) Material transport. You must measure volumetric flow rate. using EPA Method 3A or 3B at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–2, where the collect and transport all lead bearing (3) EPA Method 3, 3A, or 3B at 40 dust (i.e. lead bearing material which is measured carbon dioxide is greater than CFR part 60, appendix A–2 to determine 0.4 percent. a dust) within closed conveyor systems the dry molecular weight of the stack or in sealed, leak-proof containers gas. (2) If the measured percent carbon unless the collection and transport (4) EPA Method 4 at 40 CFR part 60, dioxide is equal to or less than 0.4 activities are contained within a total appendix A–3 to determine moisture percent, you must use a correction enclosure. All other lead bearing content of the stack gas. factor (F) of 10. material must be contained and covered (3) You must determine the corrected for transport outside of a total enclosure (5) EPA Method 12 or Method 29 at total hydrocarbons concentration by in a manner that prevents spillage or 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8 to multiplying the measured total dust formation. Intact batteries and lead determine compliance with the lead hydrocarbons concentration by the ingot product are exempt from the compound emissions standards. The correction factor (F) determined for each requirement to be covered for transport. minimum sample volume must be 2.0 (d) Your standard operating dry standard cubic meters (70 dry compliance test. procedures manual must specify that standard cubic feet) for each run. You (d) You must use the following test records be maintained of all pavement must perform three test runs and you methods in appendix A of part 60 listed cleaning, vehicle washing, and battery must determine compliance using the in paragraphs (d)(1) through (5) of this storage inspection activities performed average of the three runs. section, as specified, to determine to control fugitive dust emissions. (b) You must use the following test compliance with the emissions (e) You must pave all grounds on the methods in appendix A of part 60 listed standards for dioxins and furans facility or plant groundcover sufficient in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this specified in § 63.543(c). to prevent wind-blown dust. You may section, as specified, to determine (1) EPA Method 1 at 40 CFR part 60, use dust suppressants on unpaved areas compliance with the emissions appendix A–1 to select the sampling that will not support a groundcover standards for total hydrocarbons port location and the number of traverse (e.g., roadway shoulders, steep slopes, specified in § 63.543(c) through (f). points. limited access and limited use (1) EPA Method 1 at 40 CFR part 60, (2) EPA Method 2 at 40 CFR part 60, roadways). appendix A–1 to select the sampling appendix A–1 or EPA Method 5D at 40 (f) As provided in § 63.6(g), as an port location and number of traverse CFR part 60, appendix A–3, section 8.3 alternative to the requirements specified points. for positive pressure fabric filters to in this section, you can demonstrate to (2) The Single Point Integrated measure volumetric flow rate. the Administrator (or delegated State, Sampling and Analytical Procedure of (3) EPA Method 3A or 3B at 40 CFR local, or Tribal authority) that an Method 3B to measure the carbon part 60, appendix A–2 to determine the alternative measure(s) is equivalent or dioxide content of the stack gases when oxygen and carbon dioxide better than a practice(s) described in using either EPA Method 3A or 3B at 40 concentrations of the stack gas. this section. CFR part 60, appendix A–2. (4) EPA Method 4 at 40 CFR part 60, § 63.546 Compliance dates. (3) EPA Method 4 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–3 to measure moisture appendix A–3 to determine moisture (a) For affected sources that content of the stack gases. content of the stack gas. commenced construction or (4) EPA Method 25A at 40 CFR part (5) EPA Method 23 at 40 CFR part 60, reconstruction on or before May 19, 60, appendix A–7 to measure total appendix A–7 to determine the dioxins 2011, you must demonstrate compliance and furans concentration. with the requirements of this subpart no hydrocarbons emissions. The minimum sampling time must be 1 hour for each (e) You must determine the dioxins later than January 6, 2014. and furans toxic equivalency by (b) For affected sources that run. You must perform a minimum of following the procedures in paragraphs commenced construction or three test runs. You must calculate a 1- (e)(1) through (3) of this section. reconstruction after May 19, 2011, you hour average total hydrocarbons must demonstrate compliance with the concentration for each run and use the (1) Measure the concentration of each requirements of this subpart by January average of the three 1-hour averages to dioxins and furans congener shown in 5, 2012 or upon startup of operations, determine compliance. Table 3 of this subpart using EPA whichever is later. (c) You must correct the measured Method 23 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix total hydrocarbons concentrations to 4 A–7. You must correct the concentration § 63.547 Test methods. percent carbon dioxide as specified in of dioxins and furans in terms of toxic (a) You must use the test methods paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this equivalency to 7 percent O2 using from appendix A of part 60 as listed in section. Equation 3 of this section.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:35 Jan 04, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\05JAR2.SGM 05JAR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 ER05JA12.002 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 585

Where: (5) Monthly check of bag cleaning (5) The initial adjustment of the Cadj = Dioxins and furans concentration mechanisms for proper functioning system must, at a minimum, consist of adjusted to 7 percent oxygen. through visual inspection or equivalent establishing the baseline output by Cmeas = Dioxins and furans concentration means. adjusting the sensitivity (range) and the measured in nanograms per dry standard (6) Monthly check of bag tension on averaging period of the device, and cubic meter. reverse air and shaker-type baghouses. establishing the alarm set points and the (20.9–7) = 20.9 percent oxygen—7 percent Such checks are not required for shaker- alarm delay time. oxygen (defined oxygen correction type baghouses using self-tensioning basis). (6) Following initial adjustment, you 20.9 = Oxygen concentration in air, percent. (spring loaded) devices. must not adjust the sensitivity or range, (7) Quarterly confirmation of the %O2 = Oxygen concentration measured on a averaging period, alarm set points, or dry basis, percent. physical integrity of the baghouse alarm delay time, except as detailed in through visual inspection of the the approved standard operating (2) For each dioxins and furans baghouse interior for air leaks. procedures manual required under congener measured as specified in (8) Quarterly inspection of fans for paragraph (a) of this section. You cannot paragraph (e)(1) of this section, multiply wear, material buildup, and corrosion increase the sensitivity by more than the congener concentration by its through visual inspection, vibration 100 percent or decrease the sensitivity corresponding toxic equivalency factor detectors, or equivalent means. by more than 50 percent over a 365 day specified in Table 3 to this subpart. (9) Except as provided in paragraphs period unless such adjustment follows a (3) Sum the values calculated as (g) and (h) of this section, continuous complete baghouse inspection that specified in paragraph (e)(2) of this operation of a bag leak detection system, demonstrates that the baghouse is in section to obtain the total concentration unless a system meeting the good operating condition. of dioxins and furans emitted in terms requirements of paragraph (m) of this (7) For negative pressure, induced air of toxic equivalency. section for a continuous emissions baghouses, and positive pressure monitoring system is installed for § 63.548 Monitoring requirements. baghouses that are discharged to the monitoring the concentration of lead. atmosphere through a stack, you must (a) You must prepare, and at all times (d) The procedures you specify in the install the bag leak detector downstream operate according to, a standard standard operating procedures manual of the baghouse and upstream of any operating procedures manual that for baghouse maintenance must include, wet acid gas scrubber. describes in detail procedures for at a minimum, a preventative (8) Where multiple detectors are inspection, maintenance, and bag leak maintenance schedule that is consistent required, the system’s instrumentation detection and corrective action plans for with the baghouse manufacturer’s and alarm may be shared among all baghouses (fabric filters or cartridge instructions for routine and long-term detectors. filters) that are used to control process maintenance. (f) You must include in the standard vents, process fugitive, or fugitive dust (e) The bag leak detection system operating procedures manual required emissions from any source subject to the required by paragraph (c)(9) of this by paragraph (a) of this section a lead emissions standards in §§ 63.543, section, must meet the specification and corrective action plan that specifies the 63.544, and 63.545, including those requirements of paragraphs (e)(1) procedures to be followed in the case of used to control emissions from building through (8) of this section. a bag leak detection system alarm. The ventilation. (1) The bag leak detection system must be certified by the manufacturer to corrective action plan must include, at (b) You must submit the standard a minimum, the procedures that you operating procedures manual for be capable of detecting particulate matter emissions at concentrations of will use to determine and record the baghouses required by paragraph (a) of time and cause of the alarm as well as this section to the Administrator or 1.0 milligram per actual cubic meter (0.00044 grains per actual cubic foot) or the corrective actions taken to minimize delegated authority for review and emissions as specified in paragraphs approval. less. (2) The bag leak detection system (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this section. (c) The procedures that you specify in sensor must provide output of relative (1) The procedures used to determine the standard operating procedures particulate matter loadings. the cause of the alarm must be initiated manual for inspections and routine (3) The bag leak detection system within 30 minutes of the alarm. maintenance must, at a minimum, must be equipped with an alarm system (2) The cause of the alarm must be include the requirements of paragraphs that will alarm when an increase in alleviated by taking the necessary (c)(1) through (9) of this section. relative particulate loadings is detected corrective action(s) that may include, (1) Daily monitoring of pressure drop over a preset level. but not be limited to, those listed in across each baghouse cell. (4) You must install and operate the paragraphs (f)(2)(i) through (vi) of this (2) Weekly confirmation that dust is bag leak detection system in a manner section. being removed from hoppers through consistent with the guidance provided (i) Inspecting the baghouse for air visual inspection, or equivalent means in ‘‘Office of Air quality Planning and leaks, torn or broken filter elements, or of ensuring the proper functioning of Standards (OAQPS) Fabric Filter Bag any other malfunction that may cause removal mechanisms. Leak Detection Guidance’’ EPA–454/R– an increase in emissions. (3) Daily check of compressed air 98–015, September 1997 (incorporated (ii) Sealing off defective bags or filter supply for pulse-jet baghouses. by reference, see § 63.14) and the media. (4) An appropriate methodology for manufacturer’s written specifications (iii) Replacing defective bags or filter monitoring cleaning cycles to ensure and recommendations for installation, media, or otherwise repairing the proper operation. operation, and adjustment of the system. control device.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:35 Jan 04, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\05JAR2.SGM 05JAR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 ER05JA12.003 586 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

(iv) Sealing off a defective baghouse demonstrate compliance with the described in paragraphs (k)(1) through compartment. standard for total hydrocarbon by (5) of this section. (v) Cleaning the bag leak detection meeting the requirements of § 63.543(l). (1) You must install and maintain a system probe, or otherwise repairing the (1) Continuous temperature minimum of one building digital bag leak detection system. monitoring. You must install, calibrate, differential pressure monitoring system (vi) Shutting down the process maintain, and continuously operate a at each of the following three walls in producing the particulate emissions. device to monitor and record the each total enclosure that has a total (g) Baghouses equipped with high temperature of the afterburner or ground surface area of 10,000 square efficiency particulate air (or HEPA) furnace exhaust streams consistent with feet or more: filters as a secondary filter used to the requirements for continuous (i) The leeward wall. control emissions from any source monitoring systems in § 63.8. (ii) The windward wall. subject to the lead emission standards in (2) Prior to or in conjunction with the (iii) An exterior wall that connects the § 65.543(a) or (b), are exempt from the initial performance or compliance test leeward and windward wall at a requirement to be equipped with a bag to determine compliance with location defined by the intersection of a leak detection system. You must § 63.543(c), you must conduct a perpendicular line between a point on monitor and record the pressure drop performance evaluation for the the connecting wall and a point on its across each HEPA filter system daily. If temperature monitoring device furthest opposite exterior wall, and the pressure drop is outside the limit(s) according to § 63.8(e). The definitions, intersecting within plus or minus ten specified by the filter manufacturer, you installation specifications, test meters of the midpoint of a straight line must take appropriate corrective procedures, and data reduction between the two other monitors measures, which may include but not be procedures for determining calibration specified. The midpoint monitor must limited to those given in paragraphs drift, relative accuracy, and reporting not be located on the same wall as either (g)(1) through (4) of this section. described in Performance Specification of the other two monitors. (1) Inspecting the filter and filter 2, 40 CFR part 60, appendix B, sections (2) You must install and maintain a housing for air leaks and torn or broken 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10 must be used to minimum of one building digital filters. conduct the evaluation. The differential pressure monitoring system (2) Replacing defective filter media, or temperature monitoring device must at the leeward wall of each total otherwise repairing the control device. meet the following performance and enclosure that has a total ground surface (3) Sealing off a defective control equipment specifications: area of less than 10,000 square feet. device by routing air to other control (3) The digital differential pressure (i) The recorder response range must devices monitoring systems must be certified by include zero and 1.5 times the average (4) Shutting down the process the manufacturer to be capable of temperature identified in paragraph producing the particulate emissions. measuring and displaying negative (j)(3) of this section. (h) Baghouses followed by a wet pressure in the range of 0.01 to 0.2 electrostatic precipitator used as a (ii) The monitoring system calibration millimeters mercury (0.005 to 0.11 secondary control device for any source drift must not exceed 2 percent of 1.5 inches of water) with a minimum subject to the lead emission standards in times the average temperature identified accuracy of plus or minus 0.001 § 63.543(a) or (b), are exempt from the in paragraph (j)(3) of this section. millimeters of mercury (0.0005 inches of requirement to be equipped with a bag (iii) The monitoring system relative water). leak detection system. accuracy must not exceed 20 percent. (4) You must equip each digital (i) If you use a wet scrubber to control (iv) The reference method must be a differential pressure monitoring system particulate matter and metal hazardous National Institute of Standards and with a continuous recorder. air pollutant emissions from a process Technology calibrated reference (5) You must calibrate each digital vent to demonstrate continuous thermocouple-potentiometer system or differential pressure monitoring system compliance with the emissions an alternate reference, subject to the in accordance with manufacturer’s standards, you must monitor and record approval of the Administrator. specifications at least once every 12 the pressure drop and water flow rate of (3) You must monitor and record the calendar months or more frequently if the wet scrubber during the initial temperature of the afterburner or the recommended by the manufacturer. performance or compliance test furnace exhaust streams every 15 (l) Except as provided in paragraphs conducted to demonstrate compliance minutes during the initial performance (l)(2) or (3) of this section, all new or with the lead emissions limit under or compliance test for total reconstructed sources subject to the § 63.543(a) or (b). Thereafter, you must hydrocarbons and dioxins and furans requirements under § 63.543 must monitor and record the pressure drop and determine an arithmetic average for install, calibrate, maintain, and operate and water flow rate values at least once the recorded temperature a CEMS for measuring lead emissions. every hour and you must maintain the measurements. In addition to the General Provisions pressure drop and water flow rate at (4) To demonstrate continuous requirements for CEMS in § 63.8(c) that levels no lower than 30 percent below compliance with the standards for total are referenced in Table 1 to this subpart, the pressure drop and water flow rate hydrocarbons and dioxins and furans, you must comply with the requirements measured during the initial performance you must maintain an afterburner or for CEMS specified in paragraph (m) of or compliance test. exhaust temperature such that the this section. (j) You must comply with the average temperature in any 3-hour (1) Sources subject to the emissions requirements specified in paragraphs period does not fall more than 28 limits for lead compounds under (j)(1) through (4) of this section to °Celsius (50 °Fahrenheit) below the § 63.543(b) must install a CEMS for demonstrate continuous compliance average established in paragraph (j)(3) of measuring lead emissions within 180 with the total hydrocarbons and dioxins this section. days of promulgation by the EPA of and furans emissions standards. During (k) You must install, operate, and performance specifications for lead periods of startup and shutdown, the maintain a digital differential pressure CEMS. requirements of paragraph (j)(4) of this monitoring system to continuously (2) Prior to 180 days after the EPA section do not apply. Instead, you must monitor each total enclosure as promulgates performance specifications

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:35 Jan 04, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\05JAR2.SGM 05JAR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 587

for CEMS used to measure lead (ii) When data are not available for 48 (1) Electronic records of the bag leak concentrations, you must use the or more hours, the maximum daily detection system output. procedure described in § 63.543(g)(1) to emissions rate based on the previous 30 (2) An identification of the date and determine compliance. days must be used. time of all bag leak detection system (3) Vents from control devices that alarms, the time that procedures to serve only to control emissions from § 63.549 Notification requirements. determine the cause of the alarm were buildings containing lead bearing (a) You must comply with all of the initiated, the cause of the alarm, an materials are exempt from the notification requirements of § 63.9. explanation of the corrective actions requirement to install a CEMS for Electronic notifications are encouraged taken, and the date and time the cause measuring lead emissions. if suitable for the specific case (e.g., by of the alarm was corrected. (m) If a CEMS is used to measure lead electronic media such as Excel (3) All records of inspections and emissions, you must install a spreadsheet, on CD or hard copy), and maintenance activities required under continuous emissions monitoring when required by this subpart. § 63.548(c) as part of the practices system with a sensor in a location that (b) You must submit the fugitive dust described in the standard operating provides representative measurement of control standard operating procedures procedures manual for baghouses the exhaust gas flow rate at the sampling manual required under § 63.545(a) and required under § 63.548(a). location of the CEMS used to measure the standard operating procedures (4) Electronic records of the pressure lead emissions, taking into account the manual for baghouses required under drop and water flow rate values for wet manufacturer’s recommendations. The § 63.548(a) to the Administrator or scrubbers used to control metal flow rate sensor is that portion of the delegated authority along with a hazardous air pollutant emissions from system that senses the volumetric flow notification that the smelter is seeking process fugitive sources as required in rate and generates an output review and approval of these plans and § 63.548(i). proportional to that flow rate. procedures. You must submit this (5) Electronic records of the output (1) The continuous emissions notification no later than January 7, from the continuous temperature monitoring system must be designed to 2013. For sources that commenced monitor required in § 63.548(j)(1), and measure the exhaust gas flow rate over construction or reconstruction after an identification of periods when the 3- a range that extends from a value of at January 5, 2012, you must submit this hour average temperature fell below the least 20 percent less than the lowest notification no later than 180 days minimum established under expected exhaust flow rate to a value of before startup of the constructed or § 63.548(j)(4), and an explanation of the at least 20 percent greater than the reconstructed secondary lead smelter, corrective actions taken. highest expected exhaust gas flow rate. but no sooner than January 5, 2012. For (6) Electronic records of the (2) The continuous emissions an affected source that has received a continuous pressure monitors for total monitoring system must be equipped construction permit from the enclosures required in § 63.548(k), and with a data acquisition and recording Administrator or delegated authority on an identification of periods when the system that is capable of recording or before January 5, 2012, you must pressure was not maintained as required values over the entire range specified in submit this notification no later than in § 63.544(c)(1). paragraph (m)(1) of this section. January 7, 2014. (3) You must perform an initial (7) Records of any time periods power relative accuracy test of the continuous § 63.550 Recordkeeping and reporting was lost to the continuous pressure emissions monitoring system in requirements. monitors for total enclosures required in accordance with the applicable (a) You must comply with all of the § 63.548(k) and records of loss of power Performance Specification in appendix recordkeeping and reporting to the air handling system maintaining B to part 60 of this chapter. requirements specified in § 63.10 that negative pressure on total enclosures. (4) You must operate the continuous are referenced in Table 1 to this subpart. (8) Records of the inspections of emissions monitoring system and record (1) Records must be maintained in a facility enclosures required in data during all periods of operation of form suitable and readily available for § 63.544(d). the affected facility including periods of expeditious review, according to (9) Records of all cleaning and startup, shutdown, and malfunction, § 63.10(b)(1). However, electronic inspections required as part of the except for periods of monitoring system recordkeeping and reporting if suitable practices described in the standard malfunctions, repairs associated with for the specific case (e.g., by electronic operating procedures manual required monitoring system malfunctions, and media such as Excel spreadsheet, on CD under § 63.545(a) for the control of required monitoring system quality or hard copy), and when required by fugitive dust emissions. assurance or quality control activities this subpart. (10) Electronic records of the output including, as applicable, calibration (2) Records must be kept on site for of any CEMS installed to monitor lead checks and required zero and span at least 2 years after the date of emissions meeting the requirements of adjustments. occurrence, measurement, maintenance, § 63.548(m). (5) If you have a CEMS to measure corrective action, report, or record, (11) Records of the occurrence and lead emissions, you must calculate the according to § 63.10(b)(1). duration of each malfunction of average lead concentration and flow rate (b) The standard operating procedures operation (i.e., process equipment) or monthly to determine compliance with manuals required in §§ 63.545(a) and the air pollution control equipment and § 63.543(a). 63.548(a) must be submitted to the monitoring equipment. (6) When the continuous emissions Administrator in electronic format for (12) Records of actions taken during monitoring system is unable to provide review and approval of the initial periods of malfunction to minimize quality assured data, the following submittal and whenever an update is emissions in accordance with apply: made to the procedure. § 63.543(k), including corrective actions (i) When data are not available for (c) You must maintain for a period of to restore malfunctioning process and periods of up to 48 hours, the highest 5 years, records of the information listed air pollution control and monitoring recorded hourly emissions rate from the in paragraphs (c)(1) through (13) of this equipment to its normal or usual previous 24 hours must be used. section. manner of operation.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:35 Jan 04, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\05JAR2.SGM 05JAR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 588 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

(13) Records of any periods of startup an explanation of the corrective actions test methods compatible with the or shutdown of a furnace and actions taken. Electronic Reporting Tool are subject to taken to minimize emissions during that (8) Records of the temperature this requirement to be submitted period in accordance with § 63.543(l). monitor output, in 3-hour block electronically into EPA’s WebFIRE (d) You must comply with all of the averages, for those periods when the database. reporting requirements specified in temperature monitored pursuant to (ii) Within 60 days after the date of § 63.10 of the General Provisions that § 63.548(j) fell below the level completing each CEMS performance are referenced in Table 1 to this subpart. established in § 63.548(j)(4). evaluation test, as defined in § 63.2 and (1) You must submit reports no less (9) Certification that the plastic required by this subpart, you must frequent than specified under separation process for battery breakers submit the relative accuracy test audit § 63.10(e)(3) of the General Provisions. required in § 63.543(m) was operated at data electronically into EPA’s Central (2) Once a source reports a violation all times the battery breaker was in Data Exchange by using the Electronic of the standard or excess emissions, you service. Reporting Tool as mentioned in must follow the reporting format (10) Records of periods when the paragraph (e)(14)(i) of this section. Only required under § 63.10(e)(3) until a pressure was not maintained as required data collected using test methods request to reduce reporting frequency is in § 63.544(c) or power was lost to the compatible with the Electronic approved by the Administrator. continuous pressure monitoring system Reporting Tool are subject to this as required in § 63.548(k). (e) In addition to the information requirement to be submitted (11) If a malfunction occurred during required under the applicable sections electronically into EPA’s WebFIRE the reporting period, the report must of § 63.10, you must include in the database. include the number, duration, and a reports required under paragraph (d) of brief description for each type of (iii) All reports required by this this section the information specified in malfunction that occurred during the subpart not subject to the requirements paragraphs (e)(1) through (14) of this reporting period and caused or may in paragraph (e)(14)(i) and (ii) of this section. have caused any applicable emissions section must be sent to the (1) Records of the concentration of limitation to be exceeded. The report Administrator at the appropriate lead in each process vent, and records must also include a description of address listed in § 63.13. The of the rolling 12-month flow-weighted actions taken during a malfunction of an Administrator or the delegated authority average concentration of lead affected source to minimize emissions may request a report in any form compounds in vent gases calculated in accordance with § 63.543(k), suitable for the specific case (e.g., by monthly as required in § 63.543(a), including actions taken to correct a electronic media such as Excel except during the first year when the malfunction. spreadsheet, on CD or hard copy). The concentration is calculated using the (12) A summary of the fugitive dust Administrator retains the right to method described in § 63.543(a)(2). control measures performed during the require submittal of reports subject to (2) Records of the concentration of required reporting period, including an paragraph (e)(14)(i) and (ii) of this total hydrocarbon and dioxins and explanation of the periods when the section in paper format. furans in each process vent that has procedures outlined in the standard § 63.551 Implementation and enforcement. established limits for total hydrocarbon operating procedures manual pursuant and dioxins and furans as required in to § 63.545(a) were not followed and the (a) This subpart can be implemented § 63.543(c). corrective actions taken. The reports and enforced by the U.S. EPA, or a (3) Records of all periods when must not contain copies of the daily delegated authority such as the monitoring using a CEMS for lead or records required to demonstrate applicable State, local, or tribal agency. total hydrocarbon was not in compliance with the requirements of the If the U.S. EPA Administrator has compliance with applicable limits. standard operating procedures manuals delegated authority to a State, local, or (4) Records of all alarms from the bag required under § 63.545(a). tribal agency, then that agency, in leak detection system specified in (13) Records of any periods of startup addition to the U.S. EPA, has the § 63.548. or shutdown of a furnace including an authority to implement and enforce this (5) A description of the procedures explanation of the periods when the subpart. Contact the applicable U.S. taken following each bag leak detection procedures required in § 63.543(l) were EPA Regional Office to find out if this system alarm pursuant to § 63.548(f)(1) not followed and the corrective actions subpart is delegated to a State, local, or and (2). taken. tribal agency. (6) A summary of the records (14) You must submit records (b) In delegating implementation and maintained as part of the practices pursuant to paragraphs (e)(14)(i) enforcement authority of this subpart to described in the standard operating through (iii) of this section. a State, local, or tribal agency under procedures manual for baghouses (i) As of January 1, 2012 and within subpart E of this part, the authorities required under § 63.548(a), including an 60 days after the date of completing contained in paragraph (c) of this explanation of the periods when the each performance test, as defined in section are retained by the procedures were not followed and the § 63.2 and as required in this subpart, Administrator of U.S. EPA and cannot corrective actions taken. you must submit performance test data, be transferred to the State, local, or (7) An identification of the periods except opacity data, electronically to tribal agency. when the pressure drop and water flow EPA’s Central Data Exchange by using (c) The authorities that cannot be rate of wet scrubbers used to control the Electronic Reporting Tool (see delegated to State, local, or tribal process fugitive sources dropped below http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ert_ agencies are as specified in paragraphs the levels established in § 63.548(i), and tool.html/). Only data collected using (c)(1) through (4) of this section.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:35 Jan 04, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\05JAR2.SGM 05JAR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 589

(1) Approval of alternatives to the (ii) Could not have been prevented (9) A written root cause analysis has requirements in §§ 63.541, 63.543 through careful planning, proper design been prepared, the purpose of which is through 63.544, § 63.545, and § 63.546. or better operation and maintenance to determine, correct, and eliminate the (2) Approval of major alternatives to practices. primary causes of the malfunction and test methods under § 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (iii) Did not stem from any activity or the excess emissions resulting from the (f), as defined in § 63.90, and as required event that could have been foreseen and malfunction event at issue. The analysis in this subpart. avoided, or planned for. shall also specify, using best monitoring (3) Approval of major alternatives to (iv) Were not part of a recurring methods and engineering judgment, the monitoring under § 63.8(f), as defined in pattern indicative of inadequate design, § 63.90, and as required in this subpart. amount of excess emissions that were operation, or maintenance. the result of the malfunction. (4) Approval of major alternatives to (2) Repairs were made as recordkeeping and reporting under expeditiously as possible when the (b) Notification. The owner or § 63.10(f), as defined in § 63.90, and as applicable emissions limitations were operator of the affected source required in this subpart. being exceeded. Off-shift and overtime experiencing an exceedance of its § 63.552 Affirmative defense to civil labor were used, to the extent emissions limit(s) during a malfunction, penalties for exceedance of emissions limit practicable to make these repairs. shall notify the Administrator by during malfunction. (3) The frequency, amount and telephone or facsimile transmission as In response to an action to enforce the duration of the excess emissions soon as possible, but no later than two standards set forth in this subpart, you (including any bypass) were minimized business days after the initial may assert an affirmative defense to a to the maximum extent practicable occurrence of the malfunction, it wishes claim for civil penalties for exceedances during periods of such emissions. to avail itself of an affirmative defense of such standards that are caused by (4) If the excess emissions resulted to civil penalties for that malfunction. malfunction, as defined at § 63.2. from a bypass of control equipment or The owner or operator seeking to assert Appropriate penalties may be assessed, a process, then the bypass was an affirmative defense, shall also submit however, if you fail to meet your burden unavoidable to prevent loss of life, a written report to the Administrator of proving all of the requirements in the personal injury, or severe property within 45 days of the initial occurrence affirmative defense. The affirmative damage. of the exceedance of the standard in this (5) All possible steps were taken to defense shall not be available for claims subpart to demonstrate, with all minimize the impact of the excess for injunctive relief. necessary supporting documentation, (a) Affirmative defense. To establish emissions on ambient air quality, the that it has met the requirements set forth the affirmative defense in any action to environment and human health. in paragraph (a) of this section. The enforce such a limit, you must timely (6) All emissions monitoring and owner or operator may seek an meet the notification requirements in control systems were kept in operation paragraph (b) of this section, and must if at all possible, consistent with safety extension of this deadline for up to 30 prove by a preponderance of evidence and good air pollution control practices. additional days by submitting a written that: (7) All of the actions in response to request to the Administrator before the (1) The excess emissions: the excess emissions were documented expiration of the 45-day period. Until a (i) Were caused by a sudden, by properly signed, contemporaneous request for an extension has been infrequent, and unavoidable failure of operating logs. approved by the Administrator, the air pollution control and monitoring (8) At all times, the affected source owner or operator is subject to the equipment, process equipment, or a was operated in a manner consistent requirement to submit such report process to operate in a normal or usual with good practices for minimizing within 45 days of the initial occurrence manner. emissions. of the exceedance.


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(k) 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(j). 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(k) for general duty requirement.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:35 Jan 04, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\05JAR2.SGM 05JAR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 590 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations


Reference Applies to subpart X Comment

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 sen- tence. 63.8(e)–(g) ...... Yes. 63.9(a), (b), (c), (e), (g), (h)(1)through (3), (h)(5) and (6), Yes. (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 dura- tion of malfunctions and recordkeeping of actions taken during malfunction. 63.10(b)(2)(iii) ...... Yes. 63.10(b)(2)(iv)–(b)(2)(v) ...... No. 63.10(b)(2)(vi)–(b)(2)(xiv) ...... Yes. 63.(10)(b)(3) ...... Yes. 63.10(c)(1)–(9) ...... Yes. 63.10(c)(10)–(11) ...... No...... See 63.550 for recordkeeping of malfunctions. 63.10(c)(12)–(c)(14) ...... Yes. 63.10(c)(15) ...... No. 63.10(d)(1)–(4) ...... Yes. 63.10(d)(5) ...... No...... See 63.550(e)(11) for reporting of malfunctions. 63.10(e)–(f) ...... Yes. 63.11 ...... No...... Flares will not be used to comply with the emission lim- its. 63.12 to 63.15 ...... Yes.


You must meet the following emissions limits . . . a

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

Collocated blast and reverberatory furnaces (new and existing) ...... 20 ppmv ...... 0.50 ng/dscm. Collocated blast and reverberatory furnaces when the reverberatory 360 ppmv ...... 170 ng/dscm. furnace is not operating for units that comments construction or re- construction before June 9, 1994. Collocated blast and reverberatory furnaces when the reverberatory 70 ppmv ...... 170 ng/dscm. furnace is not operating for units that commence construction or re- construction after June 9, 1994. Blast furnaces that commence construction or reconstruction before 360 ppmv ...... 170 ng/dscm. June 9, 1994. Blast furnaces that commence construction or reconstruction after 70 ppmv ...... 170 ng/dscm. June 9, 1994. Blast furnaces that commence construction or reconstruction after May 70 ppmv ...... 10 ng/dscm. 19, 2011. Reverberatory and electric furnaces that commence construction or re- 12 ppmv ...... 0.20 ng/dscm. construction before May 19, 2011. Reverberatory and electric furnaces that commence construction or re- 12 ppmv ...... 0.10 ng/dscm. construction after May 19, 2011. a There are no standards for dioxins and furans during periods of startup and shutdown.


Toxic equiva- Dioxin/furan congener lency 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

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:35 Jan 04, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\05JAR2.SGM 05JAR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 591


Toxic equiva- Dioxin/furan congener lency factor

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. 2011–32933 Filed 1–4–12; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:35 Jan 04, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\05JAR2.SGM 05JAR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2