New Source Performance Standards Review for Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Plants and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Area Sources Technology Review, 11556-11597 [2023-02989]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
11556
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 36 / Thursday, February 23, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
40 CFR Parts 60 and 63
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2021–0619; FRL–8602–02–
OAR]
RIN 2060–AV43
New Source Performance Standards
Review for Lead Acid Battery
Manufacturing Plants and National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Lead Acid Battery
Manufacturing Area Sources
Technology Review
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
This action finalizes the
results of the Environmental Protection
Agency’s (EPA’s) review of the New
Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
for Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing
Plants and the technology review for the
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for
Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Area
Sources as required under the Clean Air
Act (CAA). The EPA is finalizing
revised lead emission limits for grid
casting, paste mixing, and lead
reclamation operations for both the area
source NESHAP and under a new NSPS
subpart (for lead acid battery
manufacturing facilities that begin
construction, reconstruction, or
modification after February 23, 2022). In
addition, the EPA is finalizing the
following amendments for both the area
source NESHAP and under the new
NSPS subpart: performance testing once
every 5 years to demonstrate
compliance; work practices to minimize
emissions of fugitive lead dust;
increased inspection frequency of fabric
filters; clarification of activities that are
considered to be lead reclamation
activities; electronic reporting of
performance test results and semiannual
compliance reports; and the removal of
exemptions for periods of startup,
shutdown, and malfunctions (SSM). The
EPA is also finalizing a revision to the
applicability provisions in the area
source NESHAP such that facilities
which make lead-bearing battery parts
or process input material, including but
not limited to grid casting facilities and
lead oxide manufacturing facilities, will
be subject to the area source NESHAP.
In addition, the EPA is finalizing a
requirement in the new NSPS for new
facilities to operate bag leak detection
systems for emission points controlled
by a fabric filter that do not include a
secondary fabric filter.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Feb 22, 2023
Jkt 259001
This final rule is effective on
February 23, 2023. The incorporation by
reference (IBR) of certain publications
listed in the rule is approved by the
Director of the Federal Register as of
February 23, 2023.
ADDRESSES: The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) has established
a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2021–0619. All
documents in the docket are listed on
the https://www.regulations.gov/
website. Although listed, some
information is not publicly available,
e.g., Confidential Business Information
(CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on
the internet and will be publicly
available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through
https://www.regulations.gov/, or in hard
copy at the EPA Docket Center, WJC
West Building, Room Number 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave. NW,
Washington, DC. The Public Reading
Room hours of operation are 8:30 a.m.
to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time
(EST), Monday through Friday. The
telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and
the telephone number for the EPA
Docket Center is (202) 566–1742.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
questions about this action, contact
Amanda Hansen, Sector Policies and
Programs Division (D243–02), Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711; telephone number: (919) 541–
3165; and email address:
hansen.amanda@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Preamble acronyms and
abbreviations. Throughout this
preamble the use of ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or
‘‘our’’ is intended to refer to the EPA.
We use multiple acronyms and terms in
this preamble. While this list may not be
exhaustive, to ease the reading of this
preamble and for reference purposes,
the EPA defines the following terms and
acronyms here:
DATES:
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
ANSI American National Standards
Institute
BCI Battery Council International
BSER best system of emissions reduction
CAA Clean Air Act
DCOT digital camera opacity technique
EJ Environmental Justice
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ERT Electronic Reporting Tool
FR Federal Register
GACT generally available control
technology
HAP hazardous air pollutant(s)
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
HEPA high efficiency particulate air
mm microns
mg/dscm milligrams per dry standard cubic
meters
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality
Standards
NAICS North American Industry
Classification System
NEI National Emissions Inventory
NESHAP national emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants
NSPS new source performance standards
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
OMB Office of Management and Budget
Pb lead
RACT reasonably available control
technology
SIC Standard Industrial Classification
SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction
the court the United States Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit
tpd tons per day
tpy tons per year
TR technology review
TRI Toxics Release Inventory
mg/m3 microgram per cubic meter
UPL upper prediction limit
VCS voluntary consensus standards
Background information. On February
23, 2022 (87 FR 10134), the EPA
proposed revisions to the Lead Acid
Battery Manufacturing Area Source
NESHAP based on our technology
review (TR) and proposed a new NSPS
subpart based on the best systems of
emission reduction (BSER) review. In
this action, we are finalizing decisions
and revisions for the rules. We
summarize some of the more significant
comments we timely received regarding
the proposed rules and provide our
responses in this preamble. A summary
of all other public comments on the
proposal and the EPA’s responses to
those comments is available in the New
Source Performance Standards for Lead
Acid Battery Manufacturing Plants and
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants for Lead Acid
Battery Manufacturing Area Sources
Summary of Public Comments and
Responses on Proposed Rules (hereafter
referred to as the ‘‘Comment Summary
and Response Document’’) in the docket
for this action, Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–
OAR–2021–0619. A ‘‘track changes’’
version of the regulatory language that
incorporates the changes in this action
is also available in the docket.
Organization of this document. The
information in this preamble is
organized as follows:
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
B. Where can I get a copy of this document
and other related information?
C. Judicial Review and Administrative
Reconsideration
II. Background
E:\FR\FM\23FER2.SGM
23FER2
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 36 / Thursday, February 23, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
A. What is the statutory authority for this
final action?
1. NSPS
2. NESHAP
B. How does the EPA perform the NSPS
and NESHAP reviews?
1. NSPS
2. NESHAP
C. What is the source category regulated in
this final action?
D. What changes did we propose for the
lead acid battery manufacturing source
category in our February 23, 2022,
proposal?
E. What outreach and engagement did the
EPA conduct with environmental justice
communities?
III. What actions are we finalizing and what
is our rationale for such decisions?
A. NSPS
B. NESHAP
C. What are the effective and compliance
dates of the standards?
1. NSPS
2. NESHAP
IV. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and
Economic Impacts
A. What are the affected facilities?
1. NSPS
2. NESHAP
B. What are the air quality impacts?
1. NSPS
2. NESHAP
C. What are the cost impacts?
1. NSPS
2. NESHAP
D. What are the economic impacts?
E. What are the benefits?
1. NSPS
2. NESHAP
F. What analysis of environmental justice
did we conduct?
1. NSPS
2. NESHAP
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA)
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR
Part 51
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions
To Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Feb 22, 2023
Jkt 259001
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
The source category that is the subject
of this final action is lead acid battery
manufacturing regulated under CAA
section 111 New Source Performance
Standards (NSPS) and under CAA
section 112 National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP). The North American
Industry Classification System (NAICS)
code for the lead acid battery
manufacturing industry is 335911. The
NAICS code serves as a guide for
readers outlining the type of entities
that this final action is likely to affect.
As defined in the Initial List of
Categories of Sources Under Section
112(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990 (see 57 FR 31576;
July 16, 1992) and Documentation for
Developing the Initial Source Category
List, Final Report (see EPA–450/3–91–
030, July 1992), the Lead Acid Battery
Manufacturing source category for
purposes of CAA section 112 includes
any facility engaged in producing lead
acid or lead acid storage batteries,
including, but not limited to, startinglighting-ignition batteries and industrial
storage batteries. The category includes,
but is not limited to, the following lead
acid battery manufacturing steps: lead
oxide production, grid casting, paste
mixing, and three-process operation
(plate stacking, burning, and assembly).
Lead acid battery manufacturing was
identified as a source category under
CAA section 111 in the Priorities for
New Source Performance Standards
Under the Clean Air Act Amendments
of 1977 (see EPA–450/3–78–019, April
1978), and added to the priority list in
the Revised Prioritized List of Source
Categories for NSPS Promulgation (see
EPA–450/3–79–023, March 1979).
Federal, state, local and tribal
government entities would not be
affected by this action. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of
this action to a particular entity, you
should carefully examine the
applicability criteria found in 40 CFR
part 60, subpart KKa, and 40 CFR part
63, subpart PPPPPP, or consult the
person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
preamble, your state air pollution
control agency with delegated authority
for NSPS and NESHAP, or your EPA
Regional Office.
B. Where can I get a copy of this
document and other related
information?
In addition to being available in the
docket, an electronic copy of this final
action will also be available on the
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
11557
internet. Following signature by the
EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a
copy of this final action at: https://
www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-airpollution/lead-acid-batterymanufacturing-new-sourceperformance-standards and https://
www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-airpollution/lead-acid-batterymanufacturing-area-sources-nationalemission. Following publication in the
Federal Register (FR), the EPA will post
the Federal Register version and key
technical documents at this same
website.
C. Judicial Review and Administrative
Reconsideration
Under Clean Air Act (CAA) section
307(b)(1), judicial review of this final
action is available only by filing a
petition for review in the United States
Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit (the court) by April
24, 2023. Under CAA section 307(b)(2),
the requirements established by this
final rule may not be challenged
separately in any civil or criminal
proceedings brought by the EPA to
enforce the requirements.
Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA
further provides that ‘‘[o]nly an
objection to a rule or procedure which
was raised with reasonable specificity
during the period for public comment
(including any public hearing) may be
raised during judicial review.’’ This
section also provides a mechanism for
the EPA to convene a proceeding for
reconsideration, ‘‘[i]f the person raising
an objection can demonstrate to the EPA
that it was impracticable to raise such
objection within [the period for public
comment] or if the grounds for such
objection arose after the period for
public comment, (but within the time
specified for judicial review) and if such
objection is of central relevance to the
outcome of the rule.’’ Any person
seeking to make such a demonstration to
us should submit a Petition for
Reconsideration to the Office of the
Administrator, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Room 3000, WJC
West Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.
NW, Washington, DC 20460, with a
copy to both the person(s) listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section, and the Associate
General Counsel for the Air and
Radiation Law Office, Office of General
Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460.
E:\FR\FM\23FER2.SGM
23FER2
11558
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 36 / Thursday, February 23, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
II. Background
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
A. What is the statutory authority for
this final action?
1. NSPS
The EPA’s authority for this final
NSPS rule is CAA section 111, which
governs the establishment of standards
of performance for stationary sources.
Section 111(b)(1)(A) of the CAA requires
the EPA Administrator to list categories
of stationary sources that in the
Administrator’s judgment cause or
contribute significantly to air pollution
that may reasonably be anticipated to
endanger public health or welfare. The
EPA must then issue performance
standards for new (and modified or
reconstructed) sources in each source
category pursuant to CAA section
111(b)(1)(B). These standards are
referred to as new source performance
standards, or NSPS. The EPA has the
authority to define the scope of the
source categories, determine the
pollutants for which standards should
be developed, set the emission level of
the standards, and distinguish among
classes, types, and sizes within
categories in establishing the standards.
CAA section 111(b)(1)(B) requires the
EPA to ‘‘at least every 8 years review
and, if appropriate, revise’’ NSPS.
However, the Administrator need not
review any such standard if the
‘‘Administrator determines that such
review is not appropriate in light of
readily available information on the
efficacy’’ of the standard. When
conducting a review of an existing
performance standard, the EPA has the
discretion and authority to add emission
limits for pollutants or emission sources
not currently regulated for that source
category.
In setting or revising a performance
standard, CAA section 111(a)(1)
provides that performance standards are
to reflect ‘‘the degree of emission
limitation achievable through the
application of the best system of
emission reduction which (taking into
account the cost of achieving such
reduction and any nonair quality health
and environmental impact and energy
requirements) the Administrator
determines has been adequately
demonstrated.’’ The term ‘‘standard of
performance’’ in CAA section 111(a)(1)
makes clear that the EPA is to determine
both the best system of emission
reduction (BSER) for the regulated
sources in the source category and the
degree of emission limitation achievable
through application of the BSER. The
EPA must then, under CAA section
111(b)(1)(B), promulgate standards of
performance for new sources that reflect
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Feb 22, 2023
Jkt 259001
that level of stringency. CAA section
111(h)(1) authorizes the Administrator
to promulgate ‘‘a design, equipment,
work practice, or operational standard,
or combination thereof’’ if in his or her
judgment, ‘‘it is not feasible to prescribe
or enforce a standard of performance.’’
CAA section 111(h)(2) provides the
circumstances under which prescribing
or enforcing a standard of performance
is ‘‘not feasible,’’ such as, when the
pollutant cannot be emitted through a
conveyance designed to emit or capture
the pollutant, or when there is no
practicable measurement methodology
for the particular class of sources.
CAA section 111(b)(5) precludes the
EPA from prescribing a particular
technological system that must be used
to comply with a standard of
performance. Rather, sources can select
any measure or combination of
measures that will achieve the standard.
Pursuant to the definition of new
source in CAA section 111(a)(2),
standards of performance apply to
facilities that begin construction,
reconstruction, or modification after the
date of publication of the proposed
standards in the Federal Register.
Under CAA section 111(a)(4),
‘‘modification’’ means any physical
change in, or change in the method of
operation of, a stationary source which
increases the amount of any air
pollutant emitted by such source or
which results in the emission of any air
pollutant not previously emitted.
Changes to an existing facility that do
not result in an increase in emissions
are not considered modifications. Under
the provisions in 40 CFR 60.15,
reconstruction means the replacement
of components of an existing facility
such that: (1) The fixed capital cost of
the new components exceeds 50 percent
of the fixed capital cost that would be
required to construct a comparable
entirely new facility; and (2) it is
technologically and economically
feasible to meet the applicable
standards. Pursuant to CAA section
111(b)(1)(B), the standards of
performance or revisions thereof shall
become effective upon promulgation.
2. NESHAP
The statutory authority for this
NESHAP action is provided by sections
112 and 301 of the CAA, as amended
(42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.). Section
112(d)(6) requires the EPA to review
standards promulgated under CAA
section 112(d) and revise them ‘‘as
necessary (taking into account
developments in practices, processes,
and control technologies)’’ no less often
than every 8 years following
promulgation of those standards. This is
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
referred to as a ‘‘technology review’’ and
is required for all standards established
under CAA section 112(d) including
generally available control technology
(GACT) standards that apply to area
sources.1 This action finalizes the
112(d)(6) technology review for the Lead
Acid Battery Manufacturing Area
Source NESHAP.
Several additional CAA sections are
relevant to this action as they
specifically address regulation of
hazardous air pollutant emissions from
area sources. Collectively, CAA sections
112(c)(3), (d)(5), and (k)(3) are the basis
of the Area Source Program under the
Urban Air Toxics Strategy, which
provides the framework for regulation of
area sources under CAA section 112.
Section 112(k)(3)(B) of the CAA
requires the EPA to identify at least 30
HAP that pose the greatest potential
health threat in urban areas with a
primary goal of achieving a 75 percent
reduction in cancer incidence
attributable to HAP emitted from
stationary sources. As discussed in the
Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy (64
FR 38706, 38715; July 19, 1999), the
EPA identified 30 HAP emitted from
area sources that pose the greatest
potential health threat in urban areas,
and these HAP are commonly referred
to as the ‘‘30 urban HAP.’’
Section 112(c)(3), in turn, requires the
EPA to list sufficient categories or
subcategories of area sources to ensure
that area sources representing 90
percent of the emissions of the 30 urban
HAP are subject to regulation. The EPA
implemented these requirements
through the Integrated Urban Air Toxics
Strategy by identifying and setting
standards for categories of area sources
including the lead acid battery
manufacturing source category that is
addressed in this action.
CAA section 112(d)(5) provides that
for area source categories, in lieu of
setting maximum achievable control
technology (MACT) standards (which
are generally required for major source
categories), the EPA may elect to
promulgate standards or requirements
for area sources ‘‘which provide for the
use of generally available control
technology or management practices
[GACT] by such sources to reduce
emissions of hazardous air pollutants.’’
In developing such standards, the EPA
evaluates the control technologies and
management practices that reduce HAP
emissions that are generally available
1 For categories of area sources subject to GACT
standards, CAA sections 112(d)(5) and (f)(5) provide
that the EPA is not required to conduct a residual
risk review under CAA section 112(f)(2). However,
the EPA is required to conduct periodic technology
reviews under CAA section 112(d)(6).
E:\FR\FM\23FER2.SGM
23FER2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 36 / Thursday, February 23, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
for each area source category. Consistent
with the legislative history, we can
consider costs and economic impacts in
determining what constitutes GACT.
GACT standards were set for the lead
acid battery manufacturing source
category on July 16, 2007 (72 FR 38864).
As noted above, this action finalizes the
required CAA 112(d)(6) technology
review for that source category.
B. How does the EPA perform the NSPS
and NESHAP reviews?
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
1. NSPS
As noted in section II.A, CAA section
111 requires the EPA, at least every 8
years to review and, if appropriate
revise the standards of performance
applicable to new, modified, and
reconstructed sources. If the EPA revises
the standards of performance, they must
reflect the degree of emission limitation
achievable through the application of
the BSER taking into account the cost of
achieving such reduction and any
nonair quality health and environmental
impact and energy requirements (see
CAA section 111(a)(1)).
In reviewing an NSPS to determine
whether it is ‘‘appropriate’’ to revise the
standards of performance, the EPA
evaluates the statutory factors, which
may include consideration of the
following information:
• Expected growth for the source
category, including how many new
facilities, reconstructions, and
modifications may trigger NSPS in the
future.
• Pollution control measures,
including advances in control
technologies, process operations, design
or efficiency improvements, or other
systems of emission reduction, that are
‘‘adequately demonstrated’’ in the
regulated industry.
• Available information from the
implementation and enforcement of
current requirements indicates that
emission limitations and percent
reductions beyond those required by the
current standards are achieved in
practice.
• Costs (including capital and annual
costs) associated with implementation
of the available pollution control
measures.
• The amount of emission reductions
achievable through application of such
pollution control measures.
• Any nonair quality health and
environmental impact and energy
requirements associated with those
control measures.
In evaluating whether the cost of a
particular system of emission reduction
is reasonable, the EPA considers various
costs associated with the air pollution
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Feb 22, 2023
Jkt 259001
control measure or level of control,
including capital costs and operating
costs, and the emission reductions that
the control measure or level of control
can achieve. The Agency considers
these costs in the context of the
industry’s overall capital expenditures
and revenues. The Agency also
considers cost effectiveness analysis as
a useful metric, and a means of
evaluating whether a given control
achieves emission reduction at a
reasonable cost. A cost effectiveness
analysis allows comparisons of relative
costs and outcomes (effects) of two or
more options. In general, cost
effectiveness is a measure of the
outcomes produced by resources spent.
In the context of air pollution control
options, cost effectiveness typically
refers to the annualized cost of
implementing an air pollution control
option divided by the amount of
pollutant reductions realized annually.
After the EPA evaluates the statutory
factors, the EPA compares the various
systems of emission reductions and
determines which system is ‘‘best,’’ and
therefore represents the BSER. The EPA
then establishes a standard of
performance that reflects the degree of
emission limitation achievable through
the implementation of the BSER. In
doing this analysis, the EPA can
determine whether subcategorization is
appropriate based on classes, types, and
sizes of sources, and may identify a
different BSER and establish different
performance standards for each
subcategory. The result of the analysis
and BSER determination leads to
standards of performance that apply to
facilities that begin construction,
reconstruction, or modification after the
date of publication of the proposed
standards in the Federal Register.
Because the new source performance
standards reflect the best system of
emission reduction under conditions of
proper operation and maintenance, in
doing its review, the EPA also evaluates
and determines the proper testing,
monitoring, recordkeeping and
reporting requirements needed to ensure
compliance with the emission
standards.
2. NESHAP
For the NESHAP area source GACT
standards, we perform a technology
review that primarily focuses on the
identification and evaluation of
developments in practices, processes,
and control technologies that have
occurred since the standards were
promulgated. Where we identify such
developments, we analyze their
technical feasibility, estimated costs,
energy implications, and non-air
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
11559
environmental impacts. We also
consider the emission reductions
associated with applying each
development. This analysis informs our
decision of whether it is ‘‘necessary’’ to
revise the emissions standards. In
addition, we consider the
appropriateness of applying controls to
new sources versus retrofitting existing
sources. For this exercise, we consider
any of the following to be a
‘‘development’’:
• Any add-on control technology or
other equipment that was not identified
and considered during development of
the original GACT standards;
• Any improvements in add-on
control technology or other equipment
(that were identified and considered
during development of the original
GACT standards) that could result in
additional emissions reduction;
• Any work practice or operational
procedure that was not identified or
considered during development of the
original GACT standards;
• Any process change or pollution
prevention alternative that could be
broadly applied to the industry and that
was not identified or considered during
development of the original GACT
standards; and
• Any significant changes in the cost
(including cost effectiveness) of
applying controls (including controls
the EPA considered during the
development of the original GACT
standards).
In addition to reviewing the practices,
processes, and control technologies that
were considered at the time we
originally developed the NESHAP, we
review a variety of data sources in our
investigation of potential practices,
processes, or controls to consider.
C. What is the source category regulated
in this final action?
The lead acid battery manufacturing
source category consists of facilities
engaged in producing lead acid
batteries. The EPA first promulgated
new source performance standards for
lead acid battery manufacturing on
April 16, 1982. These standards of
performance are codified in 40 CFR part
60, subpart KK, and are applicable to
sources that commence construction,
modification, or reconstruction after
January 14, 1980 (47 FR 16564). The
EPA also set GACT standards for the
lead acid battery manufacturing source
category on July 16, 2007. These
standards are codified in 40 CFR part
63, subpart PPPPPP, and are applicable
to existing and new affected facilities.
Under 40 CFR 60, subpart KK, and 40
CFR 63, subpart PPPPPP, a lead acid
battery manufacturing plant is defined
E:\FR\FM\23FER2.SGM
23FER2
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
11560
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 36 / Thursday, February 23, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
as any plant that produces a storage
battery using lead and lead compounds
for the plates and sulfuric acid for the
electrolyte. The batteries manufactured
at these facilities include starting,
lighting, and ignition batteries primarily
used in automobiles as well as
industrial and traction batteries.
Industrial batteries include those used
for uninterruptible power supplies and
other backup power applications, and
traction batteries are used to power
electric vehicles such as forklifts.
The lead acid battery manufacturing
process begins with grid casting
operations, which entails stamping or
casting lead into grids. Next, in paste
mixing operations, lead oxide powder is
mixed with water and sulfuric acid to
form a stiff paste, which is then pressed
onto the lead grids, creating plates. Lead
oxide may be produced by the battery
manufacturer, as is the case for many
larger battery manufacturing plants or
may be purchased from a supplier. The
plates are cured, stacked, and connected
into groups that form the individual
elements of a lead acid battery. This
stacking, connecting, and assembly of
the plates into battery cases is generally
performed in one operation termed the
‘‘three-process operation.’’ At some
facilities, lead reclamation may be
performed, in which relatively clean
lead scrap from these processes is
collected and remelted into blocks,
called ingots, for reuse in the process.
The NSPS applies to all lead acid
battery manufacturing plants
constructed, reconstructed, or modified
since January 14, 1980, if they produce
or have the design capacity to produce
batteries containing 5.9 megagrams (6.5
tons) or more of lead in one day. The
NSPS contains emission limits for lead
and opacity limits for grid casting, paste
mixing, three-process operations, lead
oxide manufacturing, other lead
emitting sources, and lead reclamation
at lead acid battery manufacturing
plants. The NESHAP applies to all lead
acid battery manufacturing facilities that
are area sources regardless of
production capacity. The GACT
standards include the same emissions
and opacity limits as those in the NSPS
as well as some additional monitoring
requirements.
The EPA estimates that, of the 40
existing lead acid battery manufacturing
facilities in the U.S., all are subject to
the NSPS, and 39 facilities are subject
to the NESHAP. One facility is a major
source as defined under CAA section
112 and is therefore not subject to the
area source GACT standards. In addition
to these 40 facilities, we estimate that
there are four facilities that perform one
or more processes (e.g., grid casting or
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Feb 22, 2023
Jkt 259001
lead oxide production) involved in the
production of lead acid batteries but
that do not manufacture the final
product (i.e., lead acid batteries). These
four facilities have not previously been
subject to either the NSPS or the area
source NESHAP. The EPA does not
expect any new lead acid battery
manufacturing facilities nor any
facilities that conduct a lead acid battery
manufacturing process without
producing the final lead acid battery
product to be constructed in the
foreseeable future. However, we do
expect that some existing facilities of
both types could undergo modifications
or reconstruction.
D. What changes did we propose for the
lead acid battery manufacturing source
category in our February 23, 2022,
proposal?
On February 23, 2022, the EPA
published proposed rules in the Federal
Register (87 FR 10134) for the NSPS for
Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Plants
(40 CFR part 60, subpart KKa) and the
NESHAP for Lead Acid Battery
Manufacturing Area Sources (40 CFR
part 63, subpart PPPPPP) that were
based on the BSER review for the NSPS
and the technology review for the
NESHAP. The EPA proposed revised
lead emission limits for grid casting,
paste mixing, and lead reclamation
operations for both the area source
NESHAP (for new and existing sources)
and under a new NSPS subpart (for lead
acid battery manufacturing facilities that
begin construction, reconstruction, or
modification after February 23, 2022). In
addition, the Agency proposed the
following amendments for both the area
source NESHAP (for new and existing
sources) and under the new NSPS
subpart: performance testing once every
5 years to demonstrate compliance;
work practices to minimize emissions of
fugitive lead dust; increased inspection
frequency of fabric filters; bag leak
detection systems for facilities above a
certain size (i.e., facilities with capacity
to process greater than 150 tons per day
(tpd) of lead); clarification of activities
that are considered to be lead
reclamation activities; electronic
reporting of performance test results and
semiannual compliance reports; and the
removal of exemptions for periods of
SSM. The EPA also proposed a revision
to the applicability provisions in the
area source NESHAP such that facilities
which make lead-bearing battery parts
or process input material, including but
not limited to grid casting facilities and
lead oxide manufacturing facilities, will
be subject to the area source NESHAP.
For additional information regarding the
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
proposed rule, please see the February
23, 2022, proposal (87 FR 10134).
E. What outreach and engagement did
the EPA conduct with environmental
justice communities?
As part of this rulemaking and
pursuant to multiple Executive Orders
addressing environmental justice (EJ),
the EPA engaged and consulted with the
public, including populations of people
of color and low-income populations, by
sending out listserv notifications to EJ
representatives regarding the
publication of the proposed rule and
providing the opportunity for members
of the public to speak at a public
hearing regarding the proposed rule
amendments. While no one requested to
speak at a public hearing, these
opportunities gave the EPA a chance to
hear directly from the public, especially
communities potentially impacted by
this final action. To identify pertinent
stakeholders for engaging discussions of
the rule, we used information available
to the Agency, such as lists of EJ
community representatives and
activists, and information from the EJ
analysis conducted for this rule and
summarized in section IV.F. of this
preamble.
Although most of the comments
received following the proposal were
technical in nature, some commenters
remarked on issues regarding the rule’s
effectiveness in protecting health and
welfare in EJ communities, such as the
need to close rule loopholes and the
need for the EPA to conduct health risk
assessments. Responses to several of the
technical related comments are
summarized, and responded to, in this
preamble. All other comments and the
EPA’s responses are provided in the
Comment Summary and Response
Document, available in the docket for
this action, and section III of the
preamble provides a description of how
the Agency considered these comments
in the context of regulatory
development.
III. What actions are we finalizing and
what is our rationale for such
decisions?
The EPA proposed the current review
of the lead acid battery manufacturing
NSPS (40 CFR part 60, subpart KK) and
NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart
PPPPPP) on February 23, 2022. We
proposed to create a new NSPS subpart
at 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKa, to
include the proposed revisions to the
NSPS for affected sources that are new,
modified, or reconstructed following the
date of the proposal, and we proposed
revisions to the NESHAP within 40 CFR
part 63, subpart PPPPPP. We received
E:\FR\FM\23FER2.SGM
23FER2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 36 / Thursday, February 23, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
eight comments from industry,
environmental groups, and private
individuals during the comment period.
A summary of the more significant
comments we timely received regarding
the proposed rule and our responses are
provided in this preamble. A summary
of all other public comments on the
proposal and the EPA’s responses to
those comments is available in the
Comment Summary and Response
Document in the docket for this action,
(Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2021–
0619). In this action, the EPA is
finalizing decisions and revisions
pursuant to CAA section 111(b)(1)(B)
and CAA section 112(d)(6) review for
lead acid battery manufacturing after
our considerations of all the comments
received.
A. NSPS
As mentioned above, the EPA is
finalizing revisions to the NSPS for lead
acid battery manufacturing pursuant to
the CAA section 111(b)(1)(B) review.
The EPA is promulgating the NSPS
revisions in a new subpart, 40 CFR part
60, subpart KKa. The new NSPS subpart
is applicable to affected sources
constructed, modified, or reconstructed
after February 23, 2022.
This action finalizes standards of
performance in 40 CFR part 60, subpart
KKa, for paste mixing operations, grid
casting, and lead reclamation, as well as
work practice standards to reduce
fugitive dust emissions in the lead oxide
unloading and storage area. The
standards of performance and work
practice standards finalized in 40 CFR
part 60, subpart KKa, will apply at all
times, including during periods of SSM.
The EPA is also finalizing in the new 40
CFR part 60, subpart KKa, the
requirements for electronic reporting,
monitoring, and other compliance
assurance measures such as
performance testing every 5 years,
quarterly fabric filter inspections, and
recording pressure drop or visible
emissions readings twice a day for fabric
filter systems without a secondary filter
or bag leak detection system
requirements.
The EPA notes that we are not
amending 40 CFR part 60, subpart KK,
to add electronic reporting requirements
in this action. While it is generally the
EPA’s practice to implement electronic
reporting requirements in each prior
NSPS as we conduct reviews and
promulgate each new NSPS, 40 CFR
part 60, subpart KK, does not impose
any regular, ongoing reporting
requirements. However, facilities are
expected to comply with the applicable
electronic reporting requirements that
the EPA is finalizing under the new
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Feb 22, 2023
Jkt 259001
NSPS, 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKa, and
the NESHAP.
1. Revised NSPS for Grid Casting
Facilities
The standards in 40 CFR part 60,
subpart KK, for grid casting, which were
established in 1982, are 0.4 milligrams
per dry standard cubic meters (mg/
dscm) and 0 percent opacity which were
based on what was then determined to
be the BSER of impingement scrubbers
with an estimated 90 percent lead
emissions control efficiency. Through
the BSER review conducted for the
source category, which is documented
in the memorandum Technology Review
and NSPS Review for Lead Acid Battery
Manufacturing (hereafter referred to as
the ‘‘Technology Review
Memorandum’’), available in the docket
for this action, we found that since the
promulgation of the NSPS in 1982, it
has become feasible and common for
lead acid battery manufacturing plants
to control lead emissions from grid
casting processes with fabric filters.
Through this review, we discovered that
at least 30 of the 40 facilities currently
subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart KK,
are now using fabric filters and these are
also sometimes combined with other
controls, such as high efficiency
particulate air (HEPA) filters or a
scrubber to control emissions from grid
casting. Furthermore, we did not
identify any facilities using only a wet
scrubber. Therefore, we concluded at
proposal that fabric filters are clearly
feasible and well demonstrated as an
appropriate control technology for grid
casting operations. With regard to
control efficiency of a fabric filter, for
the February 2022 proposed rule, we
assumed control efficiency would be 99
percent, which was based on estimates
presented in the background document
for the proposed rule in 1980 (45 FR
2790) and in the 1989 EPA technical
document titled Review of New Source
Performance Standards for Lead-Acid
Battery Manufacture, Preliminary Draft,
October 1989, which is available in the
docket for this rulemaking.
At proposal, to assess whether fabric
filters are the BSER for controlling lead
emissions from grid casting, we
examined the costs and emission
reductions from installing and operating
fabric filters with assumed 99 percent
control efficiency at new large facilities
(i.e., facilities with capacity to process
150 tons or more of lead per day) and
new small facilities (i.e., facilities with
capacity to process less than 150 tons of
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
11561
lead per day).2 We estimated that the
cost effectiveness of achieving a 99
percent reduction of lead through the
use of fabric filters, as compared to the
costs of maintaining the 40 CFR part 60,
subpart KK, requirement of a 90 percent
reduction of lead through the use of wet
scrubbers, would be $333,000 per ton of
lead reduced for a new large facility and
$524,000 per ton of lead reduced for a
new small facility. We found that both
of these values are within the range of
what the EPA has considered in other
rulemakings to be cost-effective for
control of lead emissions. Based on this
information, we proposed that fabric
filters (with an assumed 99 percent
control efficiency) represent the new
BSER for grid casting, and we proposed
to revise the lead emissions limit for
grid casting from 0.4 milligrams of lead
per dry standard cubic meter of process
exhaust (mg/dscm) to 0.04 mg of lead
per dscm of process exhaust to reflect
the degree of emission limitation
achievable through the application of
the proposed BSER (i.e., a fabric filter,
with assumed improved efficiency of 99
percent versus 90 percent). We also
proposed to retain the opacity standard
of 0 percent for grid casting.
The EPA received one comment
regarding this proposed BSER
determination and proposed standard of
performance. There were no comments
regarding our proposal to retain the
opacity standard of 0 percent. The
commenter (Battery Council
International [BCI]) claimed that the
EPA’s calculations of the benefits of
moving from scrubbers to fabric filters
for grid casting and for adding
secondary HEPA filters to paste mixing
operations (discussed later in this
preamble) are flawed because the EPA
incorrectly models these filters as
control devices with constant, rather
than variable, efficiency. The
commenter relates that when the
amount of lead emissions entering these
devices is low, the removal efficiency is
far lower than their nominal removal
efficiency and that only at the extreme
high end of inlet loading concentrations
is the nominal removal efficiency
obtained. Due to this factor, the
commenter states that the EPA’s
assumed removal efficiency from these
devices is unrealistically high. The
commenter also states that the removal
efficiency can fall below 90 percent
compared to the nominal removal
efficiency of 99 percent for fabric filters.
The commenter also claimed that the
EPA’s costs for a new baghouse (also
2 At proposal, we split the analysis into two size
categories that would better represent the source
category because of the range in facility size.
E:\FR\FM\23FER2.SGM
23FER2
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
11562
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 36 / Thursday, February 23, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
referred to as fabric filter system or
fabric filters in other parts of this
preamble) were underestimated and
provided both a cost analysis for a new
baghouse in which they assumed the
same 99 percent removal efficiency as
the EPA did in its analysis of cost
effectiveness but used increased
equipment costs, and another analysis
in which the commenter assumed a
removal efficiency of 95 percent along
with the increased equipment costs. The
claimed results of BCI’s analyses
showed higher costs per ton of lead
emissions removed compared with the
results of the EPA analyses.
Considering the available data at the
time of proposal, we proposed a limit of
0.04 mg/dscm, which represented the
emissions reduction thought possible
with the proposed BSER technology
(i.e., a fabric filter, assumed to achieve
an estimated 99 percent emissions
removal efficiency instead of the
estimated 90 percent efficiency of the
wet scrubber). Based on the
commenter’s suggestion that emissions
removal efficiencies are lower than what
the EPA estimated at proposal, we
obtained additional stack test data for
several facilities to determine what
emissions levels are currently achieved
by fabric filters. From this data
gathering effort, we examined stack test
data for eight facilities using fabric
filters to control emissions from grid
casting, with data for four facilities
having stacks that service only grid
casting and the other four stacks that
service multiple processes. The stack
test results show that the four facilities
with primary fabric filter systems
controlling just grid casting emissions
have emissions ranging from 0.011 mg/
dscm to 0.1 mg/dscm. More information
on the data used in our analysis is
detailed in the memorandum Revised
Emission Limits for the Lead Acid
Battery Manufacturing Final Rule-Grid
Casting and Paste Mixing Operations,
available in the docket for this action.
Using these data, we calculated the 99
percent upper prediction limit (UPL) of
0.08 mg/dscm.
The UPL value is the result of the
statistical methodology the EPA uses to
account for the variability and
uncertainty in emissions that occurs
over time and over expected varying
operating conditions. The EPA has used
the UPL to address the variability of
emission data in in other rulemakings
(e.g., setting MACT standards). The UPL
is a value, calculated from a dataset, that
identifies the average emissions level
that a source or group of sources is
meeting and would be expected to meet
a specified percent of the time that the
source is operating. That percent of time
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Feb 22, 2023
Jkt 259001
is based on the confidence level used in
the UPL equation. The 99 percent UPL
is the emissions level that the sources
would be predicted to emit below
during 99 out of 100 performance tests,
including emissions tests conducted in
the past, present and future, based on
the short-term stack test data available
for that source. For more information
about this analysis, see the Upper
Prediction Limit for Grid Casting and
Paste Mixing Operations at Lead Acid
Battery Facilities (hereafter referred to as
‘‘UPL Memorandum’’) available in the
rulemaking docket for this action.
The intent of the EPA at proposal was
to set the emissions standard at the level
that would reflect the application of the
BSER (i.e., a fabric filter). At proposal,
we assumed an improved efficiency of
the standard of performance reflected
the application of fabric filters with 99
percent efficiency to control emissions.
We used the control efficiency of 99
percent based on the analysis conducted
in the background document for the
proposed rule in 1980 (45 FR 2790) to
derive the proposed limit of 0.04 mg/
dscm. However, based on the comments
received and the results of the UPL
analysis, we are now analyzing the use
of a fabric filter that would achieve an
emissions level of 0.08 mg/dscm for our
final BSER determination.
We updated our cost analysis for a
new source to install a fabric filter
system versus a wet scrubber based on
comments received from BCI. We agree
with the cost estimates provided by the
commenter and have used those in an
updated cost effectiveness analysis. We
estimate that the updated incremental
annualized costs of using a fabric filter
system are $52,000 for a small plant and
$88,000 for a large plant.
We do not agree that a fabric filter
system would achieve only 95 percent
efficiency for grid casting emissions.
Based on the available stack test data,
the calculated UPL which accounts for
variability, and the calculations
described above, the emission limit of
0.08 mg/dscm reflects the use of fabric
filters controlling grid casting
emissions. To estimate the incremental
emissions reductions that would be
achieved, we estimated the current limit
of 0.4 mg/dscm reflects a 90 percent
reduction compared to baseline
(uncontrolled) based on the background
document for the 1980 proposed rule
(45 FR 2790) and in the 1989 EPA
technical document cited above, and
therefore we estimate that the revised
limit (of 0.08 mg/dscm) based on the
UPL would represent a 98 percent
reduction. As we described in the
proposed rule preamble, we estimate
lead emissions for a small and large
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
uncontrolled grid casting facility are 0.5
tons per year (tpy) and 1.3 tpy,
respectively. We estimate lead
emissions for a small and large baseline
grid casting facility which is complying
with 40 CFR part 60, subpart KK,
emission limit of 0.4 mg/dscm which is
based on a wet scrubber (with assumed
90 percent efficiency) would be 0.05 tpy
and 0.13 tpy, respectively. We estimate
lead emissions for a small and large
model facility that will comply with an
emission limit of 0.08 mg/dscm based
on the application of a fabric filter
(using the derived 98 percent efficiency
described above) are 0.01 tpy and 0.026
tpy, respectively. The incremental lead
reduction (from 90 percent to 98
percent) is 0.04 tpy for small facilities
and 0.104 tpy for large facilities. We
estimate that for a hypothetical new
small plant, cost effectiveness is
approximately $1.23M/ton of lead
reduced and for a hypothetical new
large plant, cost effectiveness is
$846,000/ton of lead reduced. These
cost effectiveness values are within the
range of what we have historically
accepted in the past for lead. Details
regarding our cost estimates are in the
Estimated Cost Impacts of Best System
of Emission Reduction Review of 40 CFR
Part 60, Subpart KK and 40 CFR Part 63,
Subpart PPPPPP Technology ReviewFinal Rule, hereafter referred to as ‘‘Cost
Impacts Memorandum,’’ available in the
docket for this action. We conclude that
the application of fabric filters to control
grid casting emissions is cost-effective
and has been adequately demonstrated
at existing sources. We have also
learned, there may be additional
advantages for facilities to use fabric
filters instead of wet scrubbers to
control grid casting emissions. Some
advantages of using fabric filters
include: the potential for higher
collection efficiency; less sensitivity to
gas stream fluctuations; availability in
large number of configurations, and that
collected material is recovered dry and
can be sent to a secondary lead facility
for recycling, lowering the hazardous
waste disposal costs for facilities.
Therefore, based on our analysis and the
information above, we have determined
that the BSER for grid casting operations
is fabric filter systems with an estimated
98 percent control efficiency.
Based on the UPL analysis presented
we find that the emission level that
appropriately reflects the BSER is 0.08
mg/dscm. In addition, we find that the
proposed emissions limit of 0.04 mg/
dscm (that reflected an estimated
control efficiency of 99 percent
efficiency) would go beyond the level of
emission limitation generally achievable
E:\FR\FM\23FER2.SGM
23FER2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 36 / Thursday, February 23, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
through the application of BSER. Based
on our analyses, we conclude that
additional controls beyond BSER would
be needed to meet the proposed limit of
0.04 mg/dscm. Additional controls,
such as a secondary HEPA filter, to meet
the proposed limit of 0.04 mg/dscm
were determined to not be cost-effective
at proposal. Based on the revised UPL
analysis that considers the data
available to the EPA regarding grid
casting emissions and accounts for
variability within the data, we have
determined that the final standard of
performance which reflects the BSER
(use of a fabric filter system) is a lead
emission limit of 0.08 mg/dscm. We are
also retaining the 0 percent opacity
standard from 40 CFR part 60, subpart
KK, for grid casting as proposed.
2. Revised NSPS for Lead Reclamation
Facilities
Similar to the standards for grid
casting, the standards in 40 CFR part 60,
subpart KK, for lead reclamation, which
were established in 1982, are 4.5 mg/
dscm for lead and 5 percent opacity and
were based on impingement scrubbers
with an estimated 90 percent lead
emissions control efficiency. Through
the BSER review conducted for the
source category, we found that since the
promulgation of the NSPS in 1982, it
has become feasible and common for
lead acid battery manufacturing plants
to control lead emissions from several
processes with fabric filters. Through
this review, we discovered that no lead
acid battery manufacturing facilities
currently conduct lead reclamation as
the process is defined in 40 CFR part 60,
subpart KK. However, there was
mention of lead reclamation equipment
in the operating permits for two
facilities, and that equipment is
controlled with fabric filters. In the
proposal, we estimated that fabric filters
were capable of achieving lead
emissions control efficiencies of at least
99 percent. Therefore, we concluded at
proposal that fabric filters are feasible
and an appropriate control technology
for lead reclamation. Like in the
analysis for grid casting, to assess
whether fabric filters are the BSER for
controlling lead emissions from lead
reclamation, we examined the costs and
emission reductions from installing and
operating fabric filters at large and small
facilities. In the proposal, we
determined that the cost effectiveness of
achieving a 99 percent reduction of lead
through the use of fabric filters, as
compared to the costs of achieving 90
percent reduction of lead through the
use of wet scrubbers, would be $130,000
per ton of lead reduced for a large
facility and $236,000 per ton of lead
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Feb 22, 2023
Jkt 259001
reduced for a small facility. We found
that both of these values are within the
range of what the EPA has considered
in other rulemakings to be cost-effective
for control of lead emissions. Based on
this information, we proposed that
fabric filters (with an estimated 99
percent control efficiency) represent the
new BSER for lead reclamation, and we
proposed to revise the lead emissions
limit for lead reclamation to 0.45 mg/
dscm to reflect the degree of emission
limitation achievable through the
application of the proposed BSER. We
also proposed to retain in 40 CFR part
60, subpart KKa, the opacity standard of
5 percent.
In addition, under 40 CFR part 60,
subpart KK, a lead reclamation facility
is defined as a facility that remelts lead
scrap and casts it into ingots for use in
the battery manufacturing process, and
which is not an affected secondary lead
smelting furnace under 40 CFR part 60,
subpart L. To ensure that emissions are
controlled from any lead that is recycled
or reused, without being remelted and
cast into ingots, the EPA proposed to
revise the definition of ‘‘lead
reclamation facility’’ in 40 CFR part 60,
subpart KKa, to clarify that the lead
reclamation facility subject to 40 CFR
part 60, subpart KKa, does not include
recycling of any type of finished battery
or recycling lead-bearing scrap that is
obtained from non-category sources or
from any offsite operation. Any facility
recycling these materials through a
melting process would be subject to
another NSPS (i.e., Secondary Lead
Smelting NSPS, 40 CFR part 60 subpart
L, or the recently proposed new 40 CFR
part 60, subpart La, once finalized).
For the Lead Acid Battery
Manufacturing NSPS, 40 CFR part 60,
subpart KKa, we also proposed that the
remelting of lead metal scrap is
considered part of the process where the
lead is remelted and used (e.g., grid
casting). We also proposed to clarify
that recycling of any type of finished
battery or recycling lead-bearing scrap
that is obtained from non-category
sources or from any offsite operations
are prohibited at any lead acid battery
manufacturing affected facility.
We did not receive any comments on
the proposed BSER or lead emission
limit for lead reclamation and therefore
are promulgating in 40 CFR part 60,
subpart KKa, a final standard of
performance of 0.45 mg/dscm, which
reflects the final BSER for lead
reclamation. We are also finalizing in 40
CFR part 60, subpart KKa, as proposed,
the opacity standard of 5 percent and
the requirement that a facility must use
EPA Method 9 to demonstrate
compliance with the daily and weekly
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
11563
visible emission observations for lead
reclamation as well as during the
performance tests required every 5
years.
3. Revised NSPS for Paste Mixing
Facilities
The standards in 40 CFR part 60,
subpart KK, for paste mixing, which
were established in 1982, are 1 mg/dscm
for lead and 0 percent opacity and were
based on fabric filters with an estimated
99 percent lead emissions control
efficiency. Through the current BSER
review conducted for the source
category, we found that since the
promulgation of the NSPS in 1982, high
efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters
capable of removing at least 99.97
percent of particles with a size of 0.3
microns (mm) have become readily
available. Through this review, we also
discovered that at least 16 of the 40
facilities currently subject to 40 CFR
part 60, subpart KK, are now using
fabric filters with a HEPA filter as a
secondary device to control lead
emissions from paste mixing processes.
Therefore, we concluded at proposal
that fabric filters with secondary HEPA
filters are clearly feasible and well
demonstrated as an appropriate control
technology for paste mixing operations.
To assess whether fabric filters with
secondary HEPA filters are the BSER for
controlling lead emissions from paste
mixing, we examined the estimated
costs and emission reductions that
would be achieved by installing and
operating HEPA filters as secondary
control devices to fabric filters at large
facilities and small facilities. We
estimated that the cost effectiveness of
secondary HEPA filters achieving an
additional 99.97 percent reduction of
lead, as compared to the costs of a
primary fabric filter system able to
maintain the current limit of 1 mg/dscm
(based on an estimated 99 percent
reduction of lead), would be $888,000
per ton of lead reduced for a large
facility and $1.68 million per ton of lead
reduced for a small facility. At proposal,
we determined that the cost
effectiveness estimate for large facilities
is within the range of what the EPA has
considered in other rulemakings to be
cost-effective for control of lead
emissions, while the estimate for small
facilities is not within this range. Based
on this information, we proposed that
fabric filters with secondary HEPA
filters with 99.97 percent control
efficiency represent the new BSER for
paste mixing at large facilities, and we
proposed to revise the lead emissions
limit for paste mixing at large facilities
to 0.1 mg/dscm to reflect the degree of
emission limitation achievable through
E:\FR\FM\23FER2.SGM
23FER2
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
11564
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 36 / Thursday, February 23, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
the application of the proposed BSER.
For small facilities we proposed to
retain in 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKa,
the standard of performance of 1 mg/
dscm based on the application of fabric
filters (with estimated 99 percent
control efficiency). We also proposed to
retain the 0 percent opacity standard
from 40 CFR part 60, subpart KK, for
paste mixing facilities in 40 CFR part
60, subpart KKa.
We received three comments
regarding the proposed revised emission
limit of 0.1 mg/dscm for large facilities
and the proposal to retain the lead
standard of 1.0 mg/dscm from 40 CFR
part 60, subpart KK, for small facilities.
We did not receive any comments on
the proposal to retain the opacity
standard of 0 percent. The three
commentors, including environmental
groups, Clarios, and BCI, asked that the
EPA reconsider allowing smaller pasting
lines to emit significantly more lead
than large pasting lines and asked that
the EPA require all pasting lines to
achieve the same stringent level of
control.
One commenter (Clarios) stated that
the EPA did not evaluate the use of
modern fabric filter materials in existing
primary filter systems when it
performed its analysis of control
technologies, and asserted that, since all
pasting lines already have primary
fabric filter systems in place, there
would essentially be no capital costs
other than the cost for higher quality
bags for both large and small existing
facilities to meet the 0.1 mg/dscm
(0.0000437 gr/dscf) limit for paste
mixing that was proposed for large
facilities. The commenter stated that
modern filtration materials used in
baghouses today, especially those
coupled with engineered membranes,
provide warranted removal efficiencies
of 99.995% of lead at 1 micron. The
commenter provided test results
reported by one filter manufacturer to
demonstrate this removal rate. The
commenter also stated that it has found
that modern primary filter substrates,
such as expanded
polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE) lined
polyester bags, achieve emission
reductions equal to or greater than that
of secondary filters, including those
designated as high efficiency particulate
air (HEPA) filters. The commenter
provided the results of 23 stack tests
performed over 21 years for its one
pasting line in the U.S., which is
controlled by a primary dust collector
using the ePTFE filters. The stack test
results show that lead emissions are
consistently below the proposed limit of
0.1 mg/dscm using this emission control
configuration. The commenter stated
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Feb 22, 2023
Jkt 259001
that secondary systems, such as HEPA,
are not needed to meet the proposed
limit and will come at a much higher
cost, but they may provide additional
benefit as a control redundancy for
facilities where multiple levels of
protection are appropriate. The
commenter provided example prices
from a vendor of different types of filter
bags, showing a range in price from
$14.60 to $29.64 per bag. The
commenter requested that the EPA
consider the cost of facilities using
primary systems alone, with modern
fabric filters, as an effective method of
controlling emissions at both small and
large facilities.
BCI stated that the proposal to
distinguish between small and large
facilities is problematic for several
reasons. First, the commenter claims,
there is insufficient guidance about how
to calculate the plant capacity to process
lead, which will lead to different
interpretations by state enforcement
agencies. The commenter adds that
there is no rationale presented as to why
the capacity of the plant, rather than the
paste mixing operation, is the driver for
varying emission limits for the paste
mixing facility. According to the
commenter, another problem is that
plants near the capacity limit would be
disincentivized to make capital
improvements or consolidate operations
if it would put them over the limit. The
commenter also states that paste mixing
sources have the highest moisture
among the facility processes and often
must be blended with other sources if
they are to be controlled by a fabric
filter. They stated that there are facilities
that use wet scrubbers to control paste
mixing that the EPA has not considered.
The commenter says that a revised limit
of 0.1 mg/dscm will also complicate
testing and require more
implementation of the rule provision
that allows for the calculation of an
equivalent standard for the total exhaust
from commonly controlled affected
facilities when two or more facilities at
the same plant (except the lead oxide
manufacturing facility) are ducted to a
common control device). The
commenter asserts that in view of these
considerations, the EPA should abandon
the two-tier approach, and if it is intent
on altering the emissions standards for
paste mixing, the EPA should have a
single standard that applies to all
facilities that reasonably reflects the
actual emissions reductions achieved
using secondary HEPA.
In reference to the proposed standard
for small facilities, the environmental
group commenters asserted that the EPA
must eliminate what they refer to as
emission control exemptions for small
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
facilities and require all facilities to add
secondary HEPA filters on the paste
mixing process. Their comment states
that the EPA’s reliance on outdated
information from the 1989 draft NSPS
review to exempt facilities from
pollution control is arbitrary and
capricious. The comment adds that,
because the EPA did not engage in new
data collection efforts for this
rulemaking, it is unclear whether the
data used to determine whether a
facility is ‘‘small’’ or ‘‘large’’ and the
following control technology examples
are outdated. The commenters remarked
that the EPA’s decision to aggregate the
‘‘small’’ and ‘‘medium’’ sized facility
categories included in the 1989 draft
NSPS review into a single ‘‘small’’
facility category for this action without
providing an explanation of the basis for
this decision is arbitrary and capricious.
The commenters also assert that, by
combining small and medium facilities
in one group, the EPA artificially
reduced the incremental cost
effectiveness of requiring this group of
facilities to adopt secondary HEPA filter
on the paste mixing process, thus
arbitrarily exempting certain medium
facilities from this requirement. The
commenter adds that due to the
harmfulness of lead at low exposure
levels, the EPA should not use cost as
the sole justification for not requiring
additional health protections.
We agree that modern filter media are
capable of achieving emissions levels
achieved by more traditional filter
media with the addition of HEPA filters.
Considering these comments, the EPA
has re-evaluated the BSER and the
emissions limit for paste mixing. As
discussed above, at proposal, we
determined that many facilities are
controlling emissions from paste mixing
using HEPA filters, which reduce
emissions much beyond the
requirements of the current standards.
However, at proposal we found that it
was not cost-effective for all facilities to
add HEPA filters, depending on their
existing emissions and emissions
controls in place. In an attempt to
distinguish which facilities could apply
this technology in a cost-effective
manner, at proposal we divided the
facilities into classes determined by the
amount of lead processed daily at the
facility. We then proposed that the use
of HEPA filters represented the BSER for
large facilities, while continuing to
determine that the application of
primary fabric filter systems represented
BSER for small facilities. We did not
propose any exemptions for small
facilities as the commenter claimed.
Based on the comments received, we
have updated our analysis and our cost
E:\FR\FM\23FER2.SGM
23FER2
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 36 / Thursday, February 23, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
estimates to reflect the use of expanded
polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE) bags in
a primary fabric filter system (i.e.,
baghouse) without the addition of a
secondary filter. Details regarding the
assumptions made in our cost estimates
are in the Cost Impacts Memorandum
available in the docket for this action.
We estimate that the incremental initial
(e.g., capital) costs for typical small
facilities (those that process less than
150 tpd of lead) to replace their current
standard polyester bags with ePTFE
bags would be $18,000 per facility and
the incremental annualized costs would
be $9,000 per facility. For a large
facility, the estimated incremental
initial costs are $60,000 per facility and
the incremental annualized costs are
estimated to be $30,000 per facility. The
estimated lead reductions are the same
as those we found for the use of a
secondary HEPA filter at proposal, at 0.1
tpy for a large source and 0.03 tpy for
a small source, and therefore cost
effectiveness for both a typical small
and large facilities is $300,000 per ton
of lead reduced. This cost effectiveness
is well within what the EPA had
historically accepted in past rules
addressing lead. As a commenter noted,
a few facilities use wet scrubbers to
control paste mixing emissions or they
mix gas streams with the paste mixing
emissions to control them with fabric
filtration. If a new facility would choose
to install a wet scrubber to control their
paste mixing operation, there are
models of wet scrubbers capable of
achieving 99.9 percent removal
efficiency, and it has been shown to be
feasible to add a secondary HEPA filter
on a primary wet scrubber. In addition,
wet scrubber technology to control paste
mixing emissions has been adequately
demonstrated to be capable of achieving
the 0.1 mg/dscm emission limit, as
discussed in section III.B.3.
As discussed above, high efficiency
filters such as ePTFE filters have been
demonstrated and are a feasible control
technology for paste mixing. In
addition, the estimated cost
effectiveness for both large and small
facilities is within the range of values
accepted previously by the EPA
addressing lead. Furthermore, we have
not identified any significant non-air
environmental impacts and energy
requirements. Therefore, the EPA has
determined that ePTFE filters (or other
effective control devices) that are
capable of meeting a limit of 0.1 mg/
dscm represent the new BSER for most
paste mixing facilities. One exception is
for very small facilities with very low
flow rates, which is described in more
detail below.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Feb 22, 2023
Jkt 259001
We used the UPL to assist in
informing the appropriate lead emission
limit for the paste mixing process based
on the updated BSER of high efficiency
bags (or other effective control devices)
that are capable of meeting a limit of 0.1
mg/dscm (with estimated 99.995%
efficiency). We calculated a 99 percent
UPL using stack test data for units with
only a fabric filter (i.e., no secondary
filter) controlling emissions from paste
mixing processes. We excluded stack
tests for fabric filters controlling
emissions from multiple processes. The
EPA’s methodology of the UPL for
establishing the limits is reasonable and
represents the average emissions
achieved by sources with consideration
of the variability in the emissions of
those sources. The resulting UPL is
0.095 mg/dscm, which is very close to
the proposed limit of 0.1 mg/dscm and
therefore provides further support that
an emissions limit of 0.1 mg/dscm is
appropriate for most facilities. Details
on the methodology used in
determining the UPL for this process are
found in the UPL Memorandum
available in the docket for this action.
Based on the limited stack test data and
taking comments into consideration, we
are promulgating in 40 CFR part 60,
subpart KKa, an emission limit of 0.1
mg/dscm for paste mixing at all
facilities (both large and small). In
consideration of the comments provided
on the proposed rule, as well as the
information provided by the
commenters and further investigation by
the EPA, we have determined that
secondary HEPA filters, although could
be used to meet the proposed emission
limit, are not necessary to meet an
emission limit of 0.1 mg/dscm for paste
mixing for all facilities (both large and
small). As required by CAA section 111,
the EPA prescribes requisite emission
limitations that apply to the affected
facilities rather than specific
technologies that must be used.
Facilities will have the option to meet
the limit in any manner they choose,
including the use of modern primary
filter media in a primary filter system or
application of a secondary filter. Given
that our analyses indicate that the
proposed emission level can be
achieved at lower costs than we
estimated at proposal for all paste
mixing facilities, we are promulgating a
requirement that paste mixing
operations, regardless of daily lead
throughput, comply with a limit of 0.1
mg/dscm.
However, in our analysis of existing
facilities (as discussed in section III.B.3
below), we found that it may be
particularly costly for very small
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
11565
facilities with very low flow rates and
already low lead emissions to comply
with the revised concentration-based
emission limit of 0.1 mg/dscm. For
example, we know of one very small
facility that, based on its most recent
stack tests, emits an estimated 4 lbs/year
(0.002 tpy) of lead from its paste mixing
operations using standard fabric filters.
However, based on the available data,
that facility had one test result (0.11 mg/
dscm) indicating it may not be able to
comply with a 0.1 mg/dscm limit
without improving the control device (a
fabric filter). In our assessment, we
assume this facility would have to
replace its current filters with high
efficiency filters in order to meet the 0.1
mg/dscm limit. We estimate annualized
costs would be approximately $9,000
and would achieve 0.0019 tpy (3.7 lbs)
of lead reductions, for a cost
effectiveness of $4.7M/ton. This is
considerably higher than cost
effectiveness values we have historically
accepted for lead. Similarly, as
discussed at proposal, the use of
secondary filters is also not costeffective for these very small facilities.
Accordingly, the EPA has determined
that the BSER for these facilities
continues to be the use of a standard
fabric filter.
Based on available information, these
very small facilities with already low
lead emissions typically have very low
flow rates, and therefore meeting a
concentration-based limit of 0.1 mg/
dscm is not cost-effective even though
their emissions rate of lead (e.g., in lbs/
hr) is quite low. Therefore, the EPA is
also promulgating an alternative, massper-time based lead emissions limit of
0.002 lbs/hr, which is the rate that the
EPA has determined is achievable from
the use of a standard fabric filter at these
types of very small facilities, for total
paste mixing operations. By total paste
mixing operations, we mean that in
order to meet this alternative limit a
facility must show compliance by
summing emissions from each stack that
emits lead from paste mixing
operations. More information on the
data used in our analysis is detailed in
the memorandum Revised Emission
Limits for the Lead Acid Battery
Manufacturing Final Rule-Grid Casting
and Paste Mixing Operations, available
in the docket for this action. This
alternative lead emission limit only
applies to devices controlling paste
mixing emissions and may not apply to
a control device with multiple gas
streams from other processes. Therefore,
lead acid battery manufacturing
facilities can demonstrate compliance
with the paste mixing standards by
E:\FR\FM\23FER2.SGM
23FER2
11566
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 36 / Thursday, February 23, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
either meeting a concentration-based
limit of 0.1 mg/dscm from all paste
mixing emissions sources at that
facility, or demonstrate that the total
lead emissions from all paste mixing
operations at that facility are less than
0.002 lbs/hr. This alternative mass-ratebased emission limit of 0.002 lb/hour
will provide additional compliance
flexibility for very small facilities with
low emissions and low flow rates to
comply with the paste mixing emissions
standards.
We anticipate that the vast majority of
facilities will choose to comply with the
0.1 mg/dscm emission limit because the
alternative limit is a paste mixing
facility-wide emission limit and would
likely be difficult to meet for stacks with
higher flow rates. We further anticipate
that only very small facilities with very
low-flow rates (and already low
emissions) will choose to comply by
demonstrating compliance with the
alternative emission limit because larger
facilities with higher flow rates would
likely need additional controls to
comply with this alternative limit. We
determined that the alternative limit of
0.002 lbs/hr is cost-effective for these
very small facilities with low flow rates.
Therefore, for very small facilities with
very low flow rates and already low
emissions we have determined that the
BSER is a standard fabric filter, and
0.002 lbs/hour is the emission level
achievable for these types of facilities
reflecting the BSER. We are also
finalizing, as proposed, the opacity limit
of 0 percent for paste mixing operations.
4. Revised NSPS for Fugitive Dust
Emissions
The standards in 40 CFR part 60,
subpart KK, do not include
requirements to reduce or minimize
fugitive lead dust emissions. These
fugitive dust emissions would include
particulate lead that becomes airborne
and is deposited to outdoor surfaces at
or near the facilities and that may
become airborne again via wind or
surface disturbance activities, such as
vehicle traffic. Through the BSER
review conducted for the source
category, we found that since the
promulgation of the NSPS in 1982, other
rules, including the NESHAPs for
primary lead smelting and secondary
lead smelting, have required new and
existing sources to minimize fugitive
dust emissions at regulated facilities
through the paving of roadways,
cleaning roadways, storing lead oxide
and other lead bearing materials in
enclosed spaces or containers, and other
measures. Through this review, we also
discovered that several facilities
currently subject to 40 CFR part 60,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Feb 22, 2023
Jkt 259001
subpart KK, have requirements to
reduce fugitive dust emissions through
similar, specific work practices in their
operating permits. Because these
fugitive lead dust emissions from the
lead acid battery manufacturing source
category emissions are not ‘‘emitted
through a conveyance designed to emit
or capture the pollutant,’’ pursuant to
CAA section 111(h), we considered
whether a work practice requirement to
develop and implement a fugitive dust
minimization plan, including certain
elements, would be appropriate for the
lead acid battery manufacturing source
category. Such elements could include
the following:
i. Clean or treat surfaces used for
vehicular material transfer activity at
least monthly;
ii. Store dust-forming material in
enclosures; and
iii. Inspect process areas daily for
accumulating lead-containing dusts and
wash and/or vacuum the surfaces
accumulating such dust with a HEPA
vacuum device/system.
We estimated at proposal that the cost
burden associated with a requirement to
develop and implement a fugitive dust
plan, including the elements described
above, would be $13,000 per facility per
year and would prevent significant
releases of fugitive dust emissions.
Based on our review of permit
requirements, the requirements of other
regulations for lead emissions, and the
estimated costs of a fugitive dust
minimization program, we proposed to
include a new requirement for lead acid
battery manufacturing facilities to
develop and implement a fugitive dust
minimization plan that included, at a
minimum, the elements listed above.
We received three comments
regarding the proposed fugitive dust
minimization work practice standard.
Environmental groups generally
supported the proposal, but they
commented that the EPA must require
the use of fenceline monitoring and
corrective action tied to that monitoring
as well as full enclosure negative
pressure requirements. We disagree that
the use of fenceline monitoring and
corrective action tied to that monitoring
is an appropriate work practice standard
for this source category. The EPA’s
response to these comments is in the
Comment Summary and Response
Document, available in the docket for
this rulemaking.
One commenter (Clarios) stated that
the EPA included several undefined
terms and concepts for its proposed
fugitive dust minimization plan that
introduce uncertainty and the potential
for misinterpretation. The commenter
recommends that the EPA adopt
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
definitions and parameters similar in
approach to those included in the
fugitive dust plan requirements for the
Secondary Lead Smelting NESHAP. The
commenter notes that such definitions
and parameters should be designed to
address the configuration of battery
manufacturing facilities, which may
have multiple process lines with
different controls and control systems.
The commenter mentions that there are
areas of the plants that are lead-free
production zones, where lead is not
used or handled, and these areas should
not be included in the scope of a
fugitive dust minimization plan. The
commenter adds that including lead-free
areas in a fugitive dust minimization
plan would add to the costs of
implementing the plan, such that costs
are likely to exceed $200,000 per plant
in the first year alone. The commenter
remarks that in plants where negative
air pressure is used as an emissions
control, the air systems are designed
and balanced to protect lead-free areas
and isolate areas where negative
pressure is used. The commenter also
cautions that adding negative pressure
or fugitive dust control in lead-free areas
may thwart the design and operation of
existing process emission control
equipment by changing air balances and
flows. The commenter suggests that
lead-free process areas (i.e., areas where
fugitive lead dust is controlled to
concentrations less than the controlled
emission limits in Table 1 of the
proposed revisions to 40 CFR part 63,
subpart PPPPPP) should be excluded
from the requirements of the fugitive
emission work practices requirements in
the NSPS and NESHAP.
BCI also commented on the EPA’s
proposed cost estimates stating that they
cannot be fully estimated because the
EPA is proposing minimum
requirements that must be reviewed and
approved by ‘‘the Administrator or
delegated authority.’’ They provided
estimates for the basic requirements and
claim that costs for developing the
fugitive dust plan would be between
$25,000 and $35,000 per facility and
estimate $250,000 per facility to
implement the plan. They also claim the
EPA’s proposal is arbitrary and
capricious because the proposal did not
estimate expected emissions reductions
that will result from the fugitive
emissions work practices it is
proposing.
We do not agree with the commenter
(BCI) that our proposal to require
fugitive dust minimization work
practices is arbitrary and capricious. For
this rule, we learned through
discussions with states, regions, and
industry that there is a potential for
E:\FR\FM\23FER2.SGM
23FER2
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 36 / Thursday, February 23, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
fugitive dust emissions from this source
category. In addition, during the
technology review it was found that
nine states have fugitive dust
minimization requirements in the
permits for 15 different lead acid battery
facilities. Furthermore, based on the
modeling screening analysis completed
and described in the proposal, in
comparing modeled concentrations at
monitor locations to ambient lead
measurements at monitors, emissions
from a subset of facilities were
underestimated. The memorandum,
Assessment of Potential Health Impacts
of Lead Emissions in Support of the
2022 Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing
Technology Review of Area Sources
Proposed Rule, available in the docket
for this action, discusses that unreported fugitive emissions and reentrainment of historical lead dust are
two factors, among others, at lead acid
battery facilities that may cause the
model to underpredict when compared
to the ambient lead measurement.
Generally, it is difficult to quantify
emissions from fugitive dust emission
sources because they are not released at
a common point, such as a stack and
therefore they cannot easily be
measured. However, for the reasons
discussed above, we have determined
work practice standards to minimize
fugitive dust emissions at lead acid
battery manufacturing facilities are
appropriate to address an important
source of lead pollution.
In consideration of the other
comments, we have reviewed the
regulatory language and agree with the
commenters (BCI and Clarios) that
further explanation should be provided
to clarify the areas that are required to
be included in the fugitive dust
minimization plan. As it was our intent
at proposal to include only the areas of
the facilities that were most likely to
have fugitive dust that would contribute
to lead emissions from the facility, we
reviewed information on the facilities,
their processes, and facility
configurations to determine the likely
areas where such fugitive dust
emissions would occur. Processes such
as grid casting, paste mixing operations,
and three-process operations (as
described above in section II.C) are
enclosed. In order to maintain
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) requirements
for ambient lead concentrations inside a
facility and worker safety, fugitive
emissions are already controlled at lead
acid battery manufacturing facilities in
these process areas. In addition, we are
finalizing in 40 CFR part 60, subpart
KKa, an opacity limit of 0 percent which
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Feb 22, 2023
Jkt 259001
minimizes fugitive emissions from the
primary processes (grid casting, paste
mixing, three-process operations and
other-lead emitting sources) as
proposed. Available information,
including information provided by
Clarios, indicates that the area at a lead
acid battery manufacturing facility with
the highest potential for fugitive lead
dust emissions is the lead oxide
unloading and storage operations area.
When lead oxide is purchased from a
third party, it is transported by truck
and conveyed by pipe directly into
storage silos. As stated in the
memorandum Estimating and
Controlling Fugitive Lead Emissions
from Industrial Sources (EPA–452/R–
96–006), on rare occasions, these pipe
connections may fail which results in a
release of lead oxide. From this review
and from discussion of the matter with
the commenter, we determined that lead
oxide loading and unloading areas
(including lead oxide storage
operations) are the areas at a facility
where such fugitive dust emissions
would most likely occur. Therefore, we
have revised the regulatory language to
specify that facilities must develop and
operate according to a fugitive dust
minimization plan that applies to lead
oxide unloading areas and the storage of
dust-forming materials containing lead.
We agree with the commenters
regarding the costs to develop and
implement a fugitive dust minimization
plan for all process areas. Thus, taking
the comments into consideration and
appropriately narrowing the areas where
fugitive dust minimization work
practices are required, we re-evaluated
the costs of developing and
implementing a fugitive dust
minimization plan in the lead oxide
unloading and storage areas only. We
estimate the initial costs to develop a
fugitive dust minimization plan are
$7,900 per facility. We estimate that the
costs to implement the fugitive dust
plan in the lead oxide unloading area
includes the purchase of a ride-on
HEPA vacuum and a portable HEPA
vacuum, as well as the labor costs for
performing the required cleaning tasks.
We estimate the total costs for new
sources to develop and implement a
fugitive dust plan for the lead oxide
unloading and storage area will be
$22,000 during the year the facility
develops the plan. Then, once the plan
has been developed, the estimated
annualized cost to implement the plan
is approximately $14,000 per facility per
year. The total costs are slightly higher
than at proposal because, based on
discussions with the commenter, we
added additional costs for managerial
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
11567
oversight of the fugitive dust
minimization plan and its
implementation. But the costs of
fugitive dust minimization work
practices are less than 1 percent of each
facility’s annual revenues and are
considered to be reasonable.
The final BSER for minimizing
fugitive dust emissions is lead dust
minimizing work practices in the lead
oxide unloading and storage area. The
work practices include cleaning or
treating surfaces traversed during
vehicular lead oxide transfer activity at
least monthly; storing dust-forming
material in enclosures; and examining
process areas daily for accumulating
lead-containing dusts and wash and/or
vacuum the surfaces accumulating such
dust with a HEPA vacuum device/
system. The work practices also include
a requirement that if an accidental leak,
spill or breakage occurs during the
unloading process, the area needs to be
washed and/or vacuumed immediately
to collect all the spilled or leaked
material. As stated above, pursuant to
CAA section 111(h), these fugitive lead
dust emissions from the lead acid
battery manufacturing source category
emissions are not ‘‘emitted through a
conveyance designed to emit or capture
the pollutant.’’ Therefore, since it is not
possible to set a numerical emission
limit, we are finalizing a work practice
standard to develop and implement a
fugitive dust minimization plan.
5. NSPS 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart KKa,
Without Startup, Shutdown, and
Malfunctions Exemptions
Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA,
551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), the EPA
has established standards in this rule
that apply at all times. We are finalizing
in 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKa, specific
requirements at 40 CFR 60.372a(a) that
override the 40 CFR part 60 general
provisions for SSM requirements. In
finalizing the standards in this rule, the
EPA has taken into account startup and
shutdown periods and, for the reasons
explained below, has not finalized
alternate standards for those periods.
The main control devices used in this
industry are fabric filters. We have
determined that these control devices
are effective in controlling emissions
during startup and shutdown events.
Prior to proposal, we discussed this
issue with industry representatives and
asked them if they expect any problems
with meeting the standards at all times,
including periods of startup and
shutdown. The lead acid battery
manufacturing industry did not identify
(and there are no data or public
comments indicating) any specific
problems with meeting the standards at
E:\FR\FM\23FER2.SGM
23FER2
11568
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 36 / Thursday, February 23, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
all times including periods of startup or
shutdown.
In addition, this final action requires
compliance with the standards at all
times including periods of malfunction.
Periods of startup, normal operations,
and shutdown are all predictable and
routine aspects of a source’s operations.
Malfunctions, in contrast, are neither
predictable nor routine. Instead, they
are, by definition, sudden, infrequent,
and not reasonably preventable failures
of emissions control, process, or
monitoring equipment. (40 CFR 60.2).
The EPA interprets CAA section 111 as
not requiring emissions that occur
during periods of malfunction to be
factored into development of CAA
section 111 standards. Nothing in CAA
section 111 or in case law requires that
the EPA consider malfunctions when
determining what standards of
performance reflect the degree of
emission limitation achievable through
‘‘the application of the best system of
emission reduction’’ that the EPA
determines is adequately demonstrated.
While the EPA accounts for variability
in setting emissions standards, nothing
in CAA section 111 requires the Agency
to consider malfunctions as part of that
analysis. The EPA is not required to
treat a malfunction in the same manner
as the type of variation in performance
that occurs during routine operations of
a source. A malfunction is a failure of
the source to perform in a ‘‘normal or
usual manner’’ and no statutory
language compels the EPA to consider
such events in setting CAA section 111
standards of performance. The EPA’s
approach to malfunctions in the
analogous circumstances (setting
‘‘achievable’’ standards under CAA
section 112) has been upheld as
reasonable by the court in U.S. Sugar
Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579, 606–610
(2016).
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
6. Testing and Monitoring Requirements
a. Performance Tests
The regulations in 40 CFR part 60,
subpart KK, only include a requirement
to conduct an initial performance test to
demonstrate compliance with the
emissions standards for each type of
equipment at lead acid battery
manufacturing plants. Through the
BSER review conducted for the source
category, we found that since the
promulgation of the NSPS in 1982, the
EPA has proposed and promulgated
periodic performance testing in other
recent rulemakings. Through this
review, we also discovered that almost
half of the 40-lead acid battery
manufacturing facilities currently
subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart KK,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Feb 22, 2023
Jkt 259001
are required by state and local agencies
to conduct periodic performance tests
on a schedule that varies from annually
to once every 5 years. Therefore, we
determined at proposal that periodic
performance testing is a development in
operational procedures that will help
ensure continued compliance with the
requirements in 40 CFR part 60, subpart
KKa. At proposal, we determined that
the incremental costs of requiring
performance tests of lead emissions on
this 5-year schedule would be
approximately $23,000 to test one stack
and an additional $5,500 for each
additional stack testing during the same
testing event. We also determined that
to minimize these costs, it would be
possible, as allowed for in some other
EPA NESHAP regulations with periodic
testing requirements, that in some
instances where a facility has more than
one stack that exhausts emissions from
similar equipment and with similar
control devices, one representative stack
could be tested to demonstrate
compliance with the similar stacks. For
this, a stack testing plan demonstrating
stack representativeness and a testing
schedule would be required for
approval by the EPA or the delegated
authority. Based on the costs and the
importance of periodic testing to ensure
continuous compliance, we proposed to
require periodic testing for each
emissions source once every 5 years,
with the ability for facilities to test
representative stacks if a stack testing
plan and schedule is approved by the
EPA or delegated authority.
We received three comments on this
proposal, which did not cause the
Agency to change course from what was
proposed. We respond fully to these
comments in the Comment Summary
and Response Document, available in
the docket for this rulemaking.
As explained in the Comment
Summary and Response Document, after
considering these comments, the
Agency is finalizing the additional
performance testing as proposed.
Facilities subject to 40 CFR part 60,
subpart KKa, will be required to test
stacks and/or representative stacks
every 5 years.
b. Fabric Filter and Scrubber
Monitoring, Reporting, and
Recordkeeping Requirements That Are
Consistent With the Requirements in 40
CFR Part 63, Subpart PPPPPP
We proposed to add monitoring,
reporting, and recordkeeping
requirements associated with the use of
fabric filters to the new NSPS, 40 CFR
part 60, subpart KKa, consistent with
the area source GACT requirements in
the Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
NESHAP at 40 CFR part 63, subpart
PPPPPP. This was proposed because
many of the lead acid battery
manufacturing facilities use fabric filter
controls, and the 1982 NSPS 40 CFR
part 60, subpart KK, does not include
compliance requirements for these
devices. We also proposed to add an
additional requirement to monitor and
record liquid flow rate across each
scrubbing system at least once every 15
minutes. The regulations in 40 CFR part
60, subpart KK, only require monitoring
and recording pressure drop across the
scrubber system every 15 minutes. We
received no comments on this issue.
Therefore, we are promulgating what
was proposed as the final compliance
assurance measures.
We expect that there would be no
costs associated with the requirement
for new, modified, and reconstructed
sources to monitor and record liquid
flow rate across each scrubbing system
at least once every 15 minutes because
this is standard monitoring equipment
in scrubbing systems.
In addition, to reduce the likelihood
of malfunctions that result in excess
lead emissions, the EPA also proposed
to increase the frequency of fabric filter
inspections and maintenance operations
to monthly for units that do not have a
secondary filter, and to retain the
requirement for semi-annual inspections
for units that do have a secondary filter.
We received one public comment from
environmental groups in support of
additional inspections and one
comment from Clarios against monthly
inspections. More details on these
comments and our responses are in the
Comment Summary and Response
Document available in the docket for
this action. After consideration of public
comments on this issue, we are
finalizing increased fabric filter
inspections to quarterly for all fabric
filter systems (both primary and
secondary). We expect that there would
be no additional costs to add fabric filter
monitoring, reporting and
recordkeeping requirements that are
consistent with the NESHAP beyond
what is discussed in section III.A.6.c for
bag leak detection requirements and
section III.B.6.b for additional fabric
filter inspections.
c. Bag Leak Detection Systems
The standards in 40 CFR part 60,
subpart KK, do not include
requirements to install or operate bag
leak detection systems. These systems
typically include an instrument that is
capable of monitoring particulate matter
loadings in the exhaust of a baghouse to
detect bag failures (e.g., tears) and an
alarm to alert an operator of the failure.
E:\FR\FM\23FER2.SGM
23FER2
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 36 / Thursday, February 23, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
These bag leak detection systems help
ensure continuous compliance and
detect problems early on so that
damaged fabric filters can be quickly
inspected and repaired as needed to
minimize or prevent the release of
noncompliant emissions. Through the
BSER review conducted for the source
category, we found that since the
promulgation of the NSPS in 1982, other
rules, including the 40 CFR part 60,
subpart Y, Coal Preparation and
Processing Plants NSPS (74 FR 51950),
and 40 CFR part 60, subparts LLLL and
MMMM, New Sewage Sludge
Incinerator Units NSPS (81 FR 26039),
have required new sources to have bag
leak detection systems for fabric filtercontrolled units. Through this review,
we also discovered that at least eight
facilities currently subject to 40 CFR
part 60, subpart KK, have bag leak
detection systems. Therefore, we
determined at proposal that the use of
bag leak detection systems is a
development in operational procedures
that will help ensure continued
compliance with the NSPS by
identifying and allowing for correction
of bag leak failures earlier than would
occur through daily visual emissions
inspections or pressure drop
monitoring. We considered whether a
requirement to install and operate a bag
leak detection system would be
appropriate for the lead acid battery
manufacturing source category. We
examined the costs of installing and
operating bag leak detection systems at
large and small facilities and estimated
that the capital costs of a system at a
new facility would be approximately
$400,000 for a large facility and
$200,000 for a small facility, with
annual costs of approximately $84,000
for a large facility and $42,000 for a
small facility. We found that the costs
for small facilities could impose
significant negative economic impacts
to those companies. Based on this
information, to help ensure continuous
compliance with the emission limits
without imposing significant economic
impacts on small facilities, we proposed
to require bag leak detection systems
only for large facilities.
We received comments from
environmental groups on this proposed
requirement. They are generally
supportive of requiring bag leak
detection systems but ask that we also
require small facilities to install bag leak
detection systems. The commenter
asserted that the EPA arbitrarily
exempted small facilities from the bag
leak detection system requirements
because an analysis of cost effectiveness
was not performed, and the EPA’s
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Feb 22, 2023
Jkt 259001
finding that bag leak detection systems
are not cost efficient for ‘‘small’’
facilities is unsupported by facts in the
record. The commenter adds that due to
the harmfulness of lead at low exposure
levels, the EPA should not use cost as
the sole justification for not requiring
additional health protections. We also
received a comment from BCI regarding
the cost estimates used in the proposal
claiming that they are outdated and
underestimated, but BCI did not provide
any data to support this claim. We
conducted additional research on the
costs of bag leak detection, and we did
not find evidence that our estimates at
proposal are outside the range of
expected values. We therefore have not
revised our estimated costs for bag leak
detection except to update the value of
inflation. We have, however, as
discussed below, reconsidered the
proposal to require bag leak detection at
only large new, modified and
reconstructed sources.
Based on consideration of comments,
we are finalizing a requirement that new
sources of all sizes under 40 CFR part
60, subpart KKa, that do not have a
secondary filter must install and operate
bag leak detection systems on
baghouses. While the cost of bag leak
detection systems can be substantial for
existing facilities, it is easier and less
expensive for a new facility to
incorporate bag leak detection in their
construction design than it is for a
facility to retrofit their current devices.
Therefore, for new sources, we consider
the cost of bag leak detection
reasonable. For modified and
reconstructed sources, we are adding
the use of bag leak detection systems as
an option and provide operating limits
and monitoring parameters as well as
recordkeeping and reporting
requirements for facilities that choose to
install bag leak detection, but we are not
requiring these systems for modified or
reconstructed facilities. As discussed in
the proposal, the costs of retrofitting an
existing facility with bag leak detection
on baghouses with no secondary filter
could be especially burdensome for
smaller facilities and could impose
significant economic impacts (greater
than 1 percent of their annual revenues)
on some of those companies. We
estimate the capital costs for a facility
with four fabric filter systems are
$281,000 and annual costs are $56,000
per year. We estimate that capital costs
for a facility with 12 fabric filter systems
are $842,000 and annual costs are
$169,000 per year. While considering
the number of fabric filter systems at
existing facilities subject to 40 CFR part
60, subpart KK, are as high as 100 fabric
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
11569
filter systems, and after further
consideration of the costs and taking
comments into consideration, we
conclude that the cost to retrofit existing
lead acid battery manufacturing sources,
both large and small facilities, with bag
leak detection would be burdensome.
Therefore, we are not requiring bag leak
detection systems for existing sources
that modify or reconstruct.
After consideration of comments on
bag leak detection, because we have
determined not to require existing
sources that may modify or reconstruct
to install bag leak detection, we have
also examined the other fabric filter
monitoring requirements. As proposed,
new, modified and reconstructed
sources under 40 CFR part 60, subpart
KKa, must follow the other fabric filter
monitoring requirements which include
pressure drop recording, visible
emission observations and inspections.
We are finalizing an increased
frequency of fabric filter inspections as
discussed in section III.A.6.b. In
addition, as an outgrowth of comments,
we are finalizing an increase in fabric
filter monitoring requirements (i.e.,
pressure drop and visible emissions
readings) from once per day to twice per
day for fabric filters without a secondary
filter. Specifically, we are promulgating
a requirement that for fabric filters
without a secondary filter, facility
operators must do one of the following
measurements daily if the results of the
most recent performance test is greater
than 50 percent of the applicable lead
emission limit: (1) record pressure drop
two times per day with a minimum of
8 hours between the recordings; or (2)
conduct visible emission observations
two times per day with a minimum of
6 hours between observations. For fabric
filters without a secondary filter that
have performance test results less than
50 percent of the applicable emissions
limit, we are maintaining the
requirement that facilities must do one
of the following: (1) record pressure
drop at least one time per day; or (2)
conduct visible emission observations at
least one time per day. We are also
retaining as proposed the requirement
for fabric filter systems with a secondary
filter to record pressure drop weekly
and conduct weekly visible emission
observations. The costs for the
additional pressure drop recording
requirement for new, modified and
reconstructed sources under the new
NSPS subpart are the same as estimates
for the NESHAP and are discussed in
section III.B.6.c.
E:\FR\FM\23FER2.SGM
23FER2
11570
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 36 / Thursday, February 23, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
7. Other Actions
a. Clarification of Lead Oxide
Manufacturing Emission Limit
We proposed to retain the lead oxide
manufacturing emission limit. However,
we received two comments asking the
EPA to address apparent issues with the
emission limit. As discussed below, we
are modifying the proposal after taking
the comments summarized here into
consideration. One commenter (Clarios)
noted that the lead oxide production
process emission limits in both the
NSPS and NESHAP are production
based, while all the other lead acid
battery production process emission
limits are concentration based. The
commenter opined that the EPA set the
production-based limit for lead oxide
production because only one
production-based data point was
available when the NSPS was developed
in 1982. The commenter suggested that
the limit be changed to a concentrationbased limit to match the format of the
other battery production process limits.
The commenter stated that this would
allow facilities more flexibility to apply
control strategies in a cost-effective
manner by being better able to plan and
coordinate their operations, especially
in multi-process facilities; simplify the
environmental management process;
and allow for better operational options.
The commenter provided summaries of
emissions testing data for three of its
facilities, which the commenter says
demonstrate that dramatically lower
emissions levels than the current
production-based emission limit are
achievable with commonly available
filter technologies. The commenter
noted that each facility for which data
were provided controls emissions by
way of a process dust collector
equipped with primary filters and a
secondary bank of filters to provide
system redundancy. The commenter
hopes that by providing this
information, the EPA can consider the
level of control that is available today
with modern lead oxide production
facilities and use this information to
evaluate an appropriate emission limit
for lead oxide production processes and
transition to a concentration-based
limit.
Another commenter (BCI) requests
that the EPA clarify that the lead oxide
production facility 5.0 mg/kg
production-based standard should be
applied only to the direct product
collector baghouses and that any other
local exhaust ventilation or building
ventilation exhausts serving lead oxide
production areas should be considered
‘‘other lead-emitting operations’’ subject
to the 1.0 mg/dscm concentration-based
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Feb 22, 2023
Jkt 259001
standards. The commenter suggests the
EPA could clarify this in the preamble
to the final rule or revise the definition
of ‘‘lead oxide manufacturing facility’’
to apply only to the direct process
baghouse exhausts. The commenter
explained that at the time of the original
promulgation of the NSPS in the 1980s,
it was typical that the only ventilation
and emission points from lead oxide
production operations was the exhaust
from the lead oxide production
baghouses. The commenter further
explained that these baghouses are
integral to the process, in that the lead
oxide captured in these baghouses is the
intended product of that operation and
are part of the production process rather
than being systems intended to reduce
indoor lead exposures and minimize
exterior emissions. The commenter adds
that as such, it was reasonable that the
performance limitation on the direct
process baghouse exhausts in lead oxide
production areas were expressed in
units of mg/kg or lb/ton. However, the
commenter notes that since the 1980’s,
it has become increasingly common for
facilities to have installed local exhaust
ventilation hooding on some material
transfer points and other sources in the
lead oxide production areas and may
also now direct room air from lead
oxide production areas to baghouses for
exhaust control. The commenter states
that these emission sources should not
be assessed with or against the 5.0 mg/
kg standard for the direct process
baghouse exhausts.
We agree with the commenter that the
lead oxide manufacturing emissions
limit was intended to apply only to the
primary emissions sources and their
emission control devices (i.e., lead
oxide production fabric filter
baghouses). In the final rule, we are
clarifying that the lead oxide
manufacturing facility limit only applies
to the primary emissions sources, and
that other sources associated with the
lead oxide production sources, such as
building ventilation, would be ‘‘other
lead emitting operations’’ subject to the
1.0 mg/dscm emission limit. We also
agree with the comment that the lead
oxide production process emissions
limit was developed as a productionbased limit because only one
production-based data point was
available when the NSPS was
developed. However, a new limit was
not proposed and the process-based
emission standard accounts for
variability with production rate and
flow rate. It is difficult to establish an
equivalent concentration-based limit,
due to the variability in process
conditions, such as production volume
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
and flow rate, that must be considered
on an individual unit basis. Therefore,
as facilities are already familiar with
how to comply with the productionbased limit, we are retaining the current
production-based limit.
b. Electronic Reporting
To increase the ease and efficiency of
data submittal and data accessibility,
the EPA is finalizing, as proposed, that
owners and operators of lead acid
battery manufacturing subject to the
new NSPS at 40 CFR part 60, subpart
KKa, submit electronic copies of
required performance test reports and
the semiannual excess emissions and
continuous monitoring system
performance and summary reports,
through the EPA’s Central Data
Exchange (CDX) using the Compliance
and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
(CEDRI). We did not receive any
comments regarding these requirements.
A description of the electronic data
submission process is provided in the
memorandum Electronic Reporting
Requirements for New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS) and
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)
Rules, available in the docket for this
action. The final rule requires that
performance test results collected using
test methods that are supported by the
EPA’s Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT)
as listed on the ERT website 3 at the time
of the test be submitted in the format
generated through the use of the ERT or
an electronic file consistent with the
xml schema on the ERT website and
that other performance test results be
submitted in portable document format
using the attachment module in the
ERT. For the semiannual excess
emissions and continuous monitoring
system performance and summary
reports, the final rule requires that
owners and operators use the
appropriate spreadsheet template to
submit information to CEDRI. The final
version of the template for these reports
will be located on the CEDRI website.4
Furthermore, the EPA is finalizing, as
proposed, provisions that allow owners
and operators the ability to seek
extensions for submitting electronic
reports for circumstances beyond the
control of the facility, i.e., for a possible
outage in CDX or CEDRI or for a force
majeure event, in the time just prior to
a report’s due date, as well as the
process to assert such a claim.
3 https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-airemissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert.
4 https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-airemissions/cedri.
E:\FR\FM\23FER2.SGM
23FER2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 36 / Thursday, February 23, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
B. NESHAP
For each issue, this section provides
a description of what we proposed and
what we are finalizing for the issue, the
EPA’s rationale for the final decisions
and amendments, and a summary of key
comments and responses. For all
comments not discussed in this
preamble, comment summaries and the
EPA’s responses can be found in the
Comment Summary and Response
Document available in the docket.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
1. Technology Review for Grid Casting
Facilities
As discussed in section III.A.1 above,
the emission limit promulgated in the
1982 NSPS was 0.4 mg/dscm and the
opacity standard finalized was 0 percent
and these standards were based on an
impingement scrubber (with an
estimated 90 percent control efficiency).
In the 2007 NESHAP final rule, the EPA
adopted that same limit (0.4 mg/dscm
based on impingent scrubbers) as the
limit for grid casting in the NESHAP,
and also adopted the 0 percent opacity
standard. Based on our technology
review, the majority of existing area
source facilities (at least 29 of the 39
facilities subject to the NESHAP) use
fabric filters. At the time of proposal, we
were missing permits for three facilities;
one in California, one in Indiana, and
one in Tennessee, and did not have
enough information for the other seven
facilities. Some facilities are also using
secondary control devices such as a wet
scrubber or HEPA filter in addition to
the primary fabric filters to achieve
further emissions control. Furthermore,
we did not identify any facilities using
only a wet scrubber. Based on our
review of permits and other
information, we assumed all existing
facilities use fabric filters to control
their grid casting emissions. Therefore,
we concluded that fabric filters are
clearly feasible and well demonstrated
as an appropriate control technology for
grid casting operations. Based on our
technology review pursuant to CAA
section 112(d)(6), we proposed a lead
emission limit of 0.04 mg/dscm that was
thought to reflect the use of a fabric
filter system with an estimated 99
percent efficiency.
We received one comment against the
proposed amendment to the grid casting
emission limit, which is summarized
above in section III.A.1. The
commenters did not comment on the
EPA’s assumption that no existing
facilities are using only a wet scrubber
to control grid casting emissions. Based
on the comment regarding fabric filter
efficiencies, we analyzed stack test data
and calculated a UPL as described in
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Feb 22, 2023
Jkt 259001
section III.A.1 above. Based on this
additional analysis, we are
promulgating a revised lead emission
limit of 0.08 mg/dscm for grid casting
which reflects the use of a fabric filter
to control emissions. Based on our
technology review and information
obtained since the proposal, we can
now state that 36 of 39 facilities
currently subject to the NESHAP use
fabric filters to control their grid casting
emissions. Although, we are missing
three permits, since we did not receive
comment on our assumption that all
existing facilities use fabric filters for
grid casting, we estimate that all
existing sources are currently using
fabric filters to control their grid casting
emissions. Therefore, there will be no
additional costs to existing sources to
comply with the revised limit. We are
retaining the 0 percent opacity standard
for grid casting as proposed.
2. Technology Review for Lead
Reclamation Facilities
We did not find any facilities
currently conducting lead reclamation
operations as they are defined in the
NESHAP during our technology review.
In the NESHAP, lead reclamation
facilities are defined as facilities that
remelt lead and reform it into ingots,
and as discussed above in section
III.A.2, we identified two facilities with
lead reclamation equipment in their
permit, and that equipment is controlled
by fabric filters. Although, it is unclear
from the permit if the two facilities are
using this equipment to remelt lead and
form it into ingots as the definition in
the NESHAP specifies. We concluded in
the technology review that fabric filters
represented a development in
technology since the 2007 NESHAP and
therefore, we proposed to revise the lead
emission limit of 4.5 mg/dscm (which
was developed in 1980 based on a
scrubber with estimated 90 percent
efficiency and adopted by the NESHAP
in 2007) to 0.45 mg/dscm (based on
application of fabric filters) for lead
reclamation operations at lead acid
battery manufacturing facilities. We also
proposed to retain the 5 percent opacity
standard. The EPA received no
comments on the proposed emission
limit or opacity standard for lead
reclamation process in this rulemaking.
For these reasons, the EPA is
promulgating a revised lead emission
limit of 0.45 mg/dscm for the lead
reclamation process in the NESHAP. We
are also retaining the opacity standard
of 5 percent and we retain that a facility
must use EPA Method 9 to demonstrate
compliance with the daily and weekly
visible emission observations as well as
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
11571
during the performance tests required
every 5 years as proposed.
As discussed above in section
III.A.7.a, we are also finalizing, as
proposed, to revise the definition of lead
reclamation facility to clarify that the
lead reclamation facility does not
include recycling of any type of finished
battery or recycling lead-bearing scrap
that is obtained from non-category
sources or from any offsite operations,
and these activities are prohibited. We
are also finalizing, as proposed, to
clarify that lead reclamation facilities
also do not include the remelting of lead
metal scrap (such as unused grids or
scraps from creating grids) from on-site
lead acid battery manufacturing
processes and that any such remelting is
considered part of the process where the
lead is remelted and used (i.e., grid
casting).
3. Technology Review for Paste Mixing
Facilities
During the technology review, we
identified 15 paste mixing facilities
subject to the NESHAP (38 percent of
the total) that currently have secondary
filters to achieve much higher control
efficiency on their paste mixing
operations. As discussed in section
III.A.3 above, the results of the cost
analyses at proposal for existing large
facilities indicated that the estimated
cost effectiveness of adding a secondary
HEPA filter on the paste mixing process
was within the range of what the EPA
has considered to be a cost-effective
level of control for lead emissions, but
it was not cost-effective for existing
small facilities to add secondary HEPA
filters to their paste mixing processes.
Therefore, we proposed that large
sources would need to comply with a
revised paste mixing emission limit of
0.1 mg/dscm, and we proposed to retain
the standard of 1 mg/dscm for small
sources.
Based on the comments we received
after proposal regarding the use of high
efficiency filters, as discussed in section
III.A.3 above, we have conducted
further analysis for existing facilities,
and we agree with the commenter that
ePTFE (high efficiency) filters can be
used to achieve the revised paste mixing
emission limit of 0.1 mg/dscm. We
estimate that 24 (out of 39 existing
facilities that have paste mixing
operations) can comply with the
proposed 0.1 mg/dscm emission limit
because they already use secondary
HEPA filters or have stack tests/permit
limits that indicate they could comply
with the emission limit of 0.1 mg/dscm.
Further, as the available information
shows that paste mixing operations are
already controlled by fabric filters at
E:\FR\FM\23FER2.SGM
23FER2
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
11572
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 36 / Thursday, February 23, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
most facilities, it is possible that instead
of adding HEPA filters, most facilities
could switch from traditional filter
materials to more modern higher
efficiency filter materials and achieve
the same emissions levels as those
achieved by a secondary filter at a lower
cost. However, as a commenter noted, as
discussed in section III.A.3, some
facilities use wet scrubbers to control
paste mixing emissions. We are aware of
five existing facilities that use wet
scrubbers to control their paste mixing
operations. Three of these facilities
currently have secondary HEPA filters
following their scrubbers. Based on the
data available to the EPA at the time of
this rulemaking, four of the five
facilities using scrubbers to control
paste mixing operations can comply
with the revised emission limit of 0.1
mg/dscm. One of these five facilities has
three wet scrubbers to control paste
mixing. Based on stack test data we
obtained from the state agency, we
estimate that this facility might need to
add a secondary HEPA filter on one of
these devices, which will result in
slightly higher costs for this one facility.
We conservatively estimate that the
remaining 14 facilities will need to
upgrade their bags to comply with the
revised emission limit. The incremental
initial costs to replace current bags at
these facilities with the high efficiency
PTFE bags ranges from $6,000 to
$36,000 per facility, and the incremental
annualized costs range from $3,000 to
$18,000 per facility per year. We
estimate that a typical large facility
would have annual costs of about
$30,000 per year and achieve about 0.1
tpy reduction of lead emissions with
estimated cost effectiveness of $300,000
per ton and that a typical small facility
would have annual costs of about
$18,000 per year and achieve about 0.03
tpy reduction of lead emissions, with
estimated cost effectiveness of $300,000
per ton, which is well within the range
of cost effectiveness that the EPA has
historically accepted. Therefore, we
conclude that for most facilities, this
limit of 0.1 mg/dscm is cost-effective.
However, based on available
information, for at least one very small
facility with already very low paste
mixing emissions, replacing current
bags with ePTFE bags would not be
cost-effective. We estimate that to meet
the 0.1 mg/dscm lead emission limit, its
initial costs would be $18,000 and its
incremental annualized costs would be
$9,000, and would achieve a 0.002 tpy
lead reduction with estimated cost
effectiveness of $4.7M/ton. This
estimated cost effectiveness (for a very
small facility with very low emissions)
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Feb 22, 2023
Jkt 259001
of $4.7M/ton is higher than what the
EPA has historically accepted as costeffective. Therefore, because we
estimate it is cost-effective for all other
existing facilities except for one, in
order to ensure that emission reductions
can be achieved in a cost-effective
manner for the source category, we are
also promulgating an alternative lead
emission limit of 0.002 lb/hour as
described in section III.A.3. This
alternative emission limit of 0.002 lbs/
hr is more stringent than the 0.1 mg/
dscm for most facilities, and is
significantly more stringent than the
proposed emission limit of 1 mg/dscm
for very small facilities with very low
flow rates and will ensure emissions are
limited to low levels in the future. With
the alternative lead limit, we estimate
that one of 14 facilities noted above
would be able to comply with the
alternative limit with no additional
control costs. Therefore, we estimate
that with the revised limit of 0.1 mg/
dscm along with the option to comply
with the alternative limit (0.002 lbs/hr)
that 13 existing facilities could be
affected by these rule requirements and
that total estimated costs to the source
category are estimated to be $384,000 in
incremental initial costs and $96,000
incremental annual costs. We estimate a
total lead reduction for the source
category of 0.64 tpy. More details on the
costs are available in the Costs Impacts
Memorandum, in the docket for this
rulemaking.
Based on this analysis, for new and
existing sources under the NESHAP, we
are promulgating the revised emission
limit of 0.1 mg/dscm, which we
conclude reflects developments in
technology under section 112(d)(6) for
most facilities and the alternative lead
emission limit of 0.002 lbs/hr, which we
conclude reflects developments under
section 112(d)(6) for very small facilities
with fabric filter systems with very low
flow rates, applicable to all facilities
regardless of production capacity. We
are also retaining the opacity limit of 0
percent but are promulgating an option
to use EPA Method 22 to demonstrate
compliance with the daily and/or
weekly visible emissions as discussed
above in section III.A.6.c.
4. Technology Review for Fugitive Dust
Emissions
The same requirements proposed for
40 CFR part 60, subpart KKa, as
described in section III.A.4 above, were
proposed as amendments to the
NESHAP. During the technology review,
we discovered that several facilities
currently subject to the NESHAP
already had requirements to reduce
fugitive dust emissions through similar
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
work practices in their operating
permits including in the lead oxide
unloading and storage areas. Other
rules, including the NESHAPs for
primary lead smelting and secondary
lead smelting, have required new and
existing sources to minimize fugitive
dust emissions at the facilities, such as
through the paving of roadways,
cleaning roadways, storing lead bearing
materials in enclosed spaces or
containers, and other measures.
As discussed under section III.A.4, we
received three comments regarding the
proposed fugitive dust minimization
work practices. In consideration of these
comments and after additional research,
described in section III.A.4 above, under
the NESHAP, we are finalizing the same
requirements as discussed in section
III.A.4 above for 40 CFR part 60, subpart
KKa. As a change to the proposal, we
are promulgating a requirement that
existing sources must develop and
implement a fugitive dust minimization
plan for the lead oxide unloading and
storage area, which represents GACT.
Based on the comments, we revised our
cost estimates and estimate that the cost
burden will be mostly labor to develop
and implement the dust plan, and that
most facilities would already own the
equipment necessary, such as a HEPA
vacuum, to carry out these work
practices. Total estimated costs range
from $0 (for facilities that already have
a fugitive dust plan and are
implementing it) to $22,000 per facility
per year. As discussed under section
III.A.4, we have not quantified emission
reductions as a result of implementing
the work practices. It is difficult to
quantify fugitive dust emissions since
they are not released through a point,
such as a stack, and cannot easily be
measured. Therefore, for the reason
discussed in section III.A.4, we have
determined these costs are reasonable
and are finalizing work practices to
minimize fugitive dust in the lead oxide
unloading and storage areas. The costs
are discussed in more detail in the Cost
Impacts Memorandum, available in the
docket for this rulemaking.
5. Expanded Facility Applicability
The original definition of the lead
acid battery manufacturing source
category stated that lead acid battery
manufacturing facilities include any
facility engaged in producing lead acid
batteries and explained that the category
includes, but is not limited to, facilities
engaged in the manufacturing steps of
lead oxide production, grid casting,
paste mixing, and three-process
operations (plate stacking, burning, and
assembly). The EPA is aware of some
facilities that conduct one or more of
E:\FR\FM\23FER2.SGM
23FER2
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 36 / Thursday, February 23, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
these lead acid battery manufacturing
processes but do not produce the final
product of a battery. Thus, these
facilities were not previously
considered to be in the lead acid battery
source category, and those processes
were not subject to the lead acid battery
NESHAP. To ensure these processes that
are producing certain battery parts or
input materials (such as grids or lead
oxide) are regulated to the same extent
as those that are located at facilities
where the final battery products are
produced, the EPA proposed to revise
the applicability provisions in the
NESHAP such that facilities that process
lead to manufacture battery parts or
input material would be subject to the
NESHAP even if they do not produce
batteries. Information from the
technology review indicates that lead
emissions from the processes at such
facilities are controlled and can meet
the emissions limits in the Lead Acid
Battery Manufacturing Area Source
NESHAP. However, the facilities would
also need to comply with the
compliance assurance measures and
work practices of the proposed
NESHAP, including the proposed
fugitive dust mitigation plan
requirements, improved monitoring of
emission points with fabric filters,
performance testing, reporting, and
recordkeeping. We estimated the costs
for compliance testing would be $23,000
to $34,000 per facility once every 5
years; and annual costs for the fugitive
dust work practices would be $0 to
$13,000 per facility.
We received two comments on this
proposed action. Hammond Group, a
lead oxide manufacturer, and BCI
commented that the EPA did not
consider that some of these facilities
could be subject to other NESHAP. BCI
also commented that this amendment
would bring in ‘‘de minimus’’ sources
such as those that manufacturer cable
and wires not necessarily used for lead
acid batteries. A summary of these
comments and the Agency’s response is
found in the Comment Summary and
Response Document, available in the
docket for this action.
The EPA’s intent with the proposed
applicability amendment was to ensure
that facilities involved in the primary
lead acid battery manufacturing
processes (grid casting, paste mixing,
lead oxide manufacturing and threeprocess operations) but that do not make
the end-product of a lead acid battery
are subject to Federal regulations that
limit their lead emissions. After
consideration of the comments, we are
finalizing the applicability provisions
such that battery component facilities
that are involved in the primary
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Feb 22, 2023
Jkt 259001
processes (grid casting, paste mixing,
lead oxide manufacturing and threeprocess operations) and manufacturing
battery parts or input material (i.e., grids
and lead oxide) used in the
manufacturing of lead acid batteries will
be subject to the NESHAP. However, we
are also finalizing a provision that if a
facility is already subject to another
NESHAP that controls relevant lead
emissions, it is exempt from complying
with the Lead Acid Battery
Manufacturing Area Source NESHAP,
40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPPPP.
After proposal, we became aware that
the existing Clarios facilities in
Florence, Kentucky and West Union,
South Carolina do not make battery
grids or any lead-bearing battery parts.
These facilities are involved in making
the plastic battery cases. Therefore, we
have removed them from our facilities
list. There are four facilities that we are
aware of (and included in the proposal
analysis) that will become subject to 40
CFR part 63, subpart PPPPPP, due to
this applicability expansion: a battery
grid producing facility, Clarios in Red
Oak, Iowa; and three lead oxide
manufacturers, Doe Run Fabricated
Metals in Vancouver, Washington; and
Powerlab, Inc. in Terrell, Texas, and
Savanna, Illinois. The estimated costs
for these facilities to comply with the
Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Area
Source NESHAP range between $23,000
and $47,000 per facility once every 5
years for performance testing, and
between $20,000 and $24,000 per year
for all other requirements above what
these facilities are already doing to
comply with their state regulations.
6. Testing and Monitoring Requirements
a. Performance Tests
We proposed a requirement to
conduct performance testing at least
once every 5 years for all existing and
new area sources. To reduce some of the
cost burden, the EPA proposed to allow
facilities that have two or more
processes and stacks that are very
similar, and have the same type of
control devices, to test just one stack as
representative of the others as approved
by the delegated authority. We proposed
that the NESHAP would include the
same testing requirements that the EPA
proposed under the new NSPS, as
discussed above in section III.A.6.a. As
explained in the proposed rule, the EPA
has been adding requirements to
NESHAP when other amendments are
being made to the rules to include
periodic performance tests to help
ensure continuous compliance.
As explained in section III.A.6.a., we
received comments on testing from
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
11573
three stakeholders. More details
regarding these comments, and the
EPA’s responses are provided in the
Comment Summary and Response
Document, available in the docket for
this rulemaking.
We are promulgating the performance
testing requirements as proposed. Costs
for existing facilities are estimated to
range from $23,000 to $181,000 per
facility every 5 years, depending on the
total number of stacks to be tested. We
conclude performance testing costs are
reasonable and necessary to ensure the
emission standards in 40 CFR part 63,
subpart PPPPPP, are continuously met
and enforceable.
b. Improved Monitoring of Emission
Points Controlled by Fabric Filters and
Scrubbers
The 2007 area source NESHAP
required facilities to conduct
semiannual inspections and
maintenance for emission points
controlled by a fabric filter to ensure
proper performance of the fabric filter.
In addition, pressure drop or visible
emission observations had to be
conducted for the fabric filter daily (or
weekly if the fabric filter has a
secondary HEPA filter) to ensure the
fabric filter was functioning properly.
To reduce the likelihood of
malfunctions that result in excess lead
emissions, the EPA proposed to increase
the frequency of fabric filter inspections
and maintenance operations to monthly
for units that do not have a secondary
filter and retain the requirement for
semi-annual inspections for units that
do have a secondary filter. After
consideration of the public comments,
summarized in the Comment Summary
and Response Document available in the
docket for this action, we are finalizing
quarterly inspections for all fabric filter
systems (both primary and secondary).
The estimated costs for the additional
inspections range from $0 (for facilities
already doing at least quarterly
inspections) to $6,300 per facility per
year which we have determined is
reasonable.
As discussed above in section
III.A.6.b., standard monitoring of
scrubbing systems includes measuring
liquid flow rate across the scrubbing
system. We proposed to add a
requirement to measure and record the
liquid flow rate across each scrubbing
system (that is not followed by a fabric
filter) at least once every 15 minutes in
the NESHAP, in addition to monitoring
pressure drop across each scrubbing
system.
We received no comments on this
issue, and therefore we are finalizing a
requirement to measure and record the
E:\FR\FM\23FER2.SGM
23FER2
11574
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 36 / Thursday, February 23, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
liquid flow rate across each scrubbing
system that is not followed by a fabric
filter at least once every 15 minutes.
Based on our review, we only identified
three facilities that have a scrubber
system that is not followed by a fabric
filter, and at least one of these facilities
already has this requirement in their
permit. We expect the other two
facilities likely already have the
capability to measure liquid flow rate
since it is a standard requirement to
ensure a scrubbing system is operating
properly. Therefore, we estimate these
facilities will not have any capital costs
to comply with this requirement but
may have a small unquantified increase
in annual costs due to recordkeeping
requirements.
c. Bag Leak Detection Systems
As discussed above in section
III.A.6.c, the EPA found several lead
acid battery manufacturing facilities that
have bag leak detection systems during
the technology review, and we proposed
the use of bag leak detection systems for
new and existing large lead acid battery
manufacturing facilities as a
development in operational procedures
that would assure compliance with the
area source NESHAP by identifying and
correcting fabric filter failures. Taking
the comments we received into
consideration as well as the substantial
costs to the industry for this
requirement, we are not requiring
existing facilities to install and operate
bag leak detection systems. However,
we are promulgating bag leak detection
as an option and are finalizing operating
limits and monitoring parameters for
bag leak detection systems if they are
used at a facility. The same operating
limits and monitoring parameters that
were proposed are being finalized. The
rationale for this decision is the same as
described above in section III.A.6.c.
Considering comments received on
the proposed provisions for fabric filter
monitoring and inspections, and to
reduce the likelihood of malfunctions
that result in excess lead emissions, we
are also finalizing an increase in fabric
filter monitoring requirements (i.e.,
pressure drop and visible emissions
readings) from once per day to twice per
day for fabric filters without a secondary
filter. Specifically, we are promulgating
a requirement that for fabric filters
without a secondary filter, facility
operators must do one of the following
measurements daily if the results of the
most recent performance test is greater
than 50 percent of the applicable lead
emission limit: (1) record pressure drop
two times per day with a minimum of
8 hours between the recordings; or (2)
conduct visible emission observations
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Feb 22, 2023
Jkt 259001
two times per day with a minimum of
6 hours between observations. For fabric
filters without a secondary filter that
have performance test results less than
50 percent of the applicable emissions
limit, we are retaining the requirement
that facilities must do one of the
following: (1) record pressure drop at
least one time per day; or (2) conduct
visible emission observations at least
one time per day. We are also retaining
as proposed the requirement for fabric
filter systems with a secondary filter to
record pressure drop weekly or conduct
weekly visible emission observations.
The estimated cost of the additional
recording varies depending on whether
or not a facility has the capability for
automated data recordings or if they do
manual recordings. The estimated cost
ranges from approximately $8,000 to
$80,000 per year per facility for manual
data recording, and an estimated $200 to
update software for automated data
recording. For smaller facilities with
multiple fabric filter baghouses that may
record the pressure drop reading by
hand, this requirement could be
burdensome in addition to the other
new requirements in the amended rules.
To offset the potential additional costs
for additional visible emission
recordings, we are also promulgating an
amendment to the method for
conducting visible emission
observations for fabric filters. The 2007
NESHAP required that EPA Method 9 be
used for the daily and/or weekly visible
emission observations. EPA Method 9 is
a test that quantifies opacity, while EPA
Method 22 is a qualitative test to
determine the absence of visual
emissions (i.e., 0 percent opacity). We
are revising the regulations to allow for
the use of EPA Method 22 as an
alternative to EPA Method 9 for the
daily and weekly visible emission
observations of the processes with 0
percent opacity standards. We are
retaining the opacity standards in the
rule of 0 percent for grid casting, paste
mixing, three-process operations, lead
oxide manufacturing and other lead
emitting operations and we are retaining
the opacity standard of 5 percent for
lead reclamation. Because we have
retained the opacity standards of 0
percent for the applicable processes in
the final rule, EPA Method 22, in the
case of lead acid battery manufacturing
processes, will be sufficient to
demonstrate compliance with the 0
percent opacity standard during the
daily/weekly visible emissions
observations. EPA Method 9 must still
be used for daily and/or weekly visible
emission observations for the lead
reclamation process if a facility
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
conducts these operations, and EPA
Method 9 must still be used to
determine compliance with the opacity
standards in the rule during
performance tests.
We estimate that there are 19 facilities
that may be required to record pressure
drop twice a day or record observations
of visible emissions twice a day. For
facilities that record pressure drop daily
to comply with the NESHAP, we
estimate that the total cost to the
industry for one additional pressure
drop recording is approximately
$71,000 per year with facility costs
ranging from $0 to $12,100 per year,
which we conclude is reasonable. The
costs and assumptions are discussed in
more detail in the Cost Impacts
Memorandum available in the docket.
For facilities that conduct visible
emission observations daily to comply
with the NESHAP, we have estimated
costs for one additional observation and
recording of each fabric filter system
with no secondary filter or bag leak
detection system. We estimate that
providing EPA Method 22 as an option
for the daily and/or weekly visible
emission observations, as discussed
above, will be a cost savings for
facilities. It is estimated that the net
costs for an additional visible emission
observation and recording using EPA
Method 22 are $95,300 for the entire
industry and an average net cost of
$2,400 per year per facility, which we
conclude is reasonable. The costs and
assumptions are discussed in more
detail in the Cost Impacts Memorandum
available in the docket.
7. Other Actions
a. Lead Oxide Manufacturing Emission
Limit
As discussed above in section
III.A.7.a, we proposed to retain the lead
oxide manufacturing emission limit.
Based on public comments (described
above) we are finalizing a clarification
that this emission limit applies to the
primary emissions sources and their
emission control devices (i.e., lead
oxide production fabric filter
baghouses), and that other sources
associated with the lead oxide
production source, such as building
ventilation, would be ‘‘other leademitting operations’’ subject to the 1.0
mg/dscm emission limit.
b. Electronic Reporting Requirements
The EPA is finalizing, as proposed,
that owners and operators of lead acid
battery manufacturing facilities subject
to the NESHAP at 40 CFR part 63,
subpart PPPPPP, submit electronic
copies of required performance test
E:\FR\FM\23FER2.SGM
23FER2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 36 / Thursday, February 23, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
reports and the semiannual excess
emissions and continuous monitoring
system performance and summary
reports, through the EPA’s CDX using
the CEDRI. A description of the
electronic data submission process is
provided in the memorandum
Electronic Reporting Requirements for
New Source Performance Standards
(NSPS) and National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP) Rules, available in the docket
for this action. The final rule requires
that performance test results collected
using test methods that are supported by
the EPA’s Electronic Reporting Tool
(ERT) is listed on the ERT website 5 at
the time of the test be submitted in the
format generated through the use of the
ERT or an electronic file consistent with
the xml schema on the ERT website and
other performance test results be
submitted in portable document format
(PDF) using the attachment module in
the ERT. For semiannual excess
emissions and continuous monitoring
system performance and summary
reports, the final rule requires that
owners and operators use the
appropriate spreadsheet template to
submit information to CEDRI. The final
version of the template for these reports
will be located on the CEDRI website.6
8. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction
Requirement
We have eliminated the SSM
exemption in this rule. Consistent with
Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C.
Cir. 2008), the EPA has established
standards in this rule that apply at all
times. We have also revised Table 3 (the
General Provisions Applicability Table)
in several respects as is explained in
more detail below. For example, we
have eliminated the incorporation of the
General Provisions’ requirement that the
source develops an SSM plan. We have
also eliminated and revised certain
recordkeeping and reporting that is
related to the SSM exemption as
described in detail in the proposed rule
and summarized again here.
In establishing the standards in this
rule, the EPA has taken into account
startup and shutdown periods and, for
the reasons explained below, has not
established alternate standards for those
periods.
We discussed this issue with industry
representatives and asked them if they
expect any problems with the removal
of the SSM exemptions. The lead acid
battery manufacturing industry did not
5 https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-airemissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert.
6 https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-airemissions/cedri.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Feb 22, 2023
Jkt 259001
identify (and there are no data
indicating) any specific problems with
removing the SSM provisions. The main
control devices used in this industry are
fabric filters. We expect that these
control devices are effective in
controlling emissions during startup
and shutdown events.
Periods of startup, normal operations,
and shutdown are all predictable and
routine aspects of a source’s operations.
Malfunctions, in contrast, are neither
predictable nor routine. Instead, they
are by definition, sudden, infrequent,
and not reasonably preventable failures
of emissions control, process, or
monitoring equipment. (40 CFR 63.2)
(Definition of malfunction). The EPA
interprets CAA section 112 as not
requiring emissions that occur during
periods of malfunction to be factored
into development of CAA section 112
standards. This reading has been upheld
as reasonable by the court in U.S. Sugar
Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579, 606–610
(2016).
As noted in the proposal for the
amendments to the Lead Acid Battery
Manufacturing Area Source NESHAP,
under this decision, the court vacated
two provisions that exempted sources
from the requirement to comply with
otherwise applicable CAA section
112(d) emission standards during
periods of SSM. We proposed and are
finalizing revisions to the NESHAP at 40
CFR 63.11421 through 63.11427 that
remove the SSM exemption under the
Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Area
Source NESHAP and any references to
SSM-related requirements.
C. What are the effective and
compliance dates of the standards?
1. NSPS
Pursuant to CAA section 111(b)(1)(B),
the effective date of the final rule
requirements in 40 CFR part 60, subpart
KKa, will be the promulgation date.
Affected sources that commence
construction, or reconstruction, or
modification after February 23, 2022,
must comply with all requirements of
40 CFR part 60, subpart KKa, no later
than the effective date of the final rule
or upon startup, whichever is later.
2. NESHAP
Pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(10)
the effective date of the final rule
requirements in 40 CFR part 63, subpart
PPPPPP, is the promulgation date.
For existing affected lead acid battery
manufacturing facilities (i.e., facilities
that commenced construction or
reconstruction on or before February 23,
2022), there are specific compliance
dates for each amended standard, as
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
11575
specified below. For the removal of the
SSM exemptions, we are finalizing that
facilities must comply by the effective
date of the final rule. For the following
final revisions, we are promulgating a
compliance date of no later than 180
days after the effective date of the final
rule: Clarifications to the definition of
lead reclamation; requirements for
electronic reporting of performance test
results and semiannual excess
emissions and continuous monitoring
system performance and summary
reports; increased fabric filter inspection
frequency; additional pressure drop
recording; revisions to the applicability
provisions to include battery production
processes at facilities that do not
produce the final end product (i.e.,
batteries); and bag leak detection
provisions.
For the removal of the SSM
exemptions, we proposed a compliance
date of no later than 180 days after the
effective date of the final rule, including
for the proposed changes to the
NESHAP being made to ensure that the
regulations are consistent with the
decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d
1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008) in which the court
vacated portions of two provisions in
the EPA’s CAA section 112 regulations
governing the emissions of hazardous
air pollutants during periods of SSM.
Specifically, the court vacated the SSM
exemption contained in 40 CFR
63.6(f)(1) and (h)(1). The EPA removed
these SSM exemptions from the CFR in
March 2021 to reflect the court’s
decision (86 FR 13819). In this action,
we are changing the cross-reference to
those General Provisions for the
applicability of these two requirements
from a ‘‘yes’’ to ‘‘no’’ and adding rulespecific language at 40 CFR
63.11423(a)(3) to ensure the rule applies
as all times, and 40 CFR 63.11423(a)(3)
will be effective upon promulgation of
this action. In addition, we do not
expect additional time is necessary
generally for facilities to comply with
changes to SSM provisions because we
have concluded that the sources can
meet the otherwise applicable standards
that are in effect at all times, as
described in section III.B.7. We are
therefore finalizing that facilities must
comply with this requirement no later
than the effective date of this final rule,
with the exception of recordkeeping
provisions. For recordkeeping under the
SSM provisions, we are finalizing that
facilities must comply with this
requirement 90 days after the effective
date of the final rule. Recordkeeping
provisions associated with malfunction
events (40 CFR 63.11424(a)(7)(ii) and
(iii)) shall be effective no later than 90
E:\FR\FM\23FER2.SGM
23FER2
11576
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 36 / Thursday, February 23, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
days after the effective date of this
action. The EPA is requiring additional
information under 40 CFR 63.11424 for
recordkeeping of malfunction events, so
the additional time is necessary to
permit sources to read and understand
the new requirements and adjust record
keeping systems to comply. Reporting
provisions are in accordance with the
reporting requirements during normal
operations and the semi-annual report
of excess emissions.
For the following final revisions, we
are finalizing a compliance date of 3
years after the publication date of the
final rule: Revised emission limits for
paste mixing, grid casting, and lead
reclamation; requirements to develop
and follow a fugitive dust mitigation
plan; and requirements that
performance testing be conducted at
least once every 5 years.
After the effective date of the final
rule and until the applicable
compliance date of the amended
standards, affected existing lead acid
battery manufacturing facilities must
comply with either the current
requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart
PPPPPP, or the amended standards.
For existing affected lead acid battery
component manufacturing facilities that
become subject to 40 CFR part 63,
subpart PPPPPP, the compliance date
for all applicable requirements is 3 years
after the publication date of the final
rule. Newly affected lead acid battery
manufacturing facilities and newly
affected lead acid battery component
manufacturing facilities (i.e., facilities
that commence construction or
reconstruction after February 23, 2022)
must comply with all requirements of
40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPPPP,
including the final amendments, by the
effective date of the final rule, or upon
startup, whichever is later.
IV. Summary of Cost, Environmental,
and Economic Impacts
A. What are the affected facilities?
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
1. NSPS
The EPA has found through the BSER
review for this source category that
there are 40 existing lead acid battery
manufacturing facilities subject to the
NSPS for Lead-Acid Battery
Manufacturing Plants at 40 CFR part 60,
subpart KK. We are not currently aware
of any planned or potential new lead
acid battery manufacturing facilities, but
it is possible that some existing facilities
could be modified or reconstructed in
the future. At this time, and over the
next 3 years, the EPA anticipates that no
facilities will become subject to the new
NSPS for Lead Acid Battery
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Feb 22, 2023
Jkt 259001
Manufacturing Plant at 40 CFR part 60,
subpart KKa.
2. NESHAP
Through the technology review for the
source category, the EPA found that
there are 39 existing facilities subject to
the NESHAP for Lead Acid Battery
Manufacturing Area Sources at 40 CFR
part 63, subpart PPPPPP. These facilities
will be affected by the amendments to
the NESHAP and four additional
facilities will become subject to the
NESHAP upon promulgation of the
amendments.
B. What are the air quality impacts?
1. NSPS
We are not expecting any new
facilities to be built in the foreseeable
future, but if any new facilities are built
or any existing facility is modified or
reconstructed in the future, the
requirements in the new NSPS, 40 CFR
part 60, subpart KKa, would achieve an
estimated 0.03 tpy to 0.1 tpy reduction
of allowable lead emissions for each
new facility from the source category
compared to that of the current NSPS 40
CFR part 60, subpart KK. We are also
promulgating additional compliance
assurance measures and work practices
to minimize fugitive dust emissions,
which will reduce the likelihood of
excess emissions of lead. The reductions
of lead from these compliance assurance
measures are unquantified.
2. NESHAP
The revised lead emission standard
for paste mixing operations will achieve
an estimated 0.6 tpy reduction of lead
emissions. The revised lead emission
standards for grid casting and lead
reclamation facilities are not expected to
result in additional lead emission
reductions, as it is estimated that all
facilities in the source category are
already meeting the revised emissions
limits. However, the new standards will
reduce the allowable emissions from
those sources and ensure that the
emissions remain controlled and
minimized moving forward. In addition,
the Agency is finalizing work practices
to minimize fugitive lead dust emissions
and expects these will achieve some
unquantified lead emission reductions.
We are also finalizing several
compliance assurance requirements
which will help ensure continuous
compliance with the NESHAP and help
prevent noncompliant emissions of
lead. The final amendments also
include removal of the SSM
exemptions. While we are unable to
quantify the emissions that occur during
periods of SSM or the specific emissions
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
reductions that would occur due to this
action, eliminating the SSM exemption
has the potential to reduce emissions by
requiring facilities to meet the
applicable standard during SSM
periods.
C. What are the cost impacts?
1. NSPS
The costs for a new, reconstructed, or
modified affected facility to comply
with the final regulatory requirements
discussed above are described in detail
in section III.A and are summarized
below. As mentioned previously in this
action, we do not expect any brand-new
affected facilities in the foreseeable
future. However, we do expect that
some existing facilities could undergo
modifications or reconstruction, and
these facilities would incur the costs
summarized below.
Revised Emission Limit for Grid
Casting: Estimated incremental capital
costs for a new, reconstructed, or
modified source to install and operate a
fabric filter (BSER) compared to an
impingement scrubber (baseline) on grid
casting operations are $230,500, with
estimated incremental annual costs of
$52,000 for a small facility, and are
$374,000, with estimated incremental
annual costs of $88,000 for a large
facility.
Revised Emission Limit for Lead
Reclamation: Estimated incremental
capital costs for a new, reconstructed, or
modified source to install and operate a
fabric filter (BSER) compared to an
impingement scrubber (baseline) on
lead reclamation operations are $17,000
for both small and large facilities, with
estimated incremental annual costs of
$8,500 for small facilities and $13,000
for large facilities.
Revised Emission Limit for Paste
Mixing Operations: Estimated
incremental capital costs for a new,
reconstructed, or modified source to
meet the revised emission limit through
the use of higher efficiency bags (BSER)
or inclusion of secondary filters (BSER)
in the facility design compared to only
including traditional primary fabric
filters (baseline) are $18,000, with
estimated incremental annual costs of
$9,000 for a small facility, and are
$60,000 capital, with estimated
incremental annual costs of $30,000 for
a large facility.
Work Practices to Minimize Fugitive
Lead Dust: Estimated incremental costs
for a new, reconstructed, or modified
source to develop and implement a
fugitive dust minimization plan (BSER)
compared to no fugitive dust
minimization requirements (baseline) is
$7,900 in initial costs to develop the
E:\FR\FM\23FER2.SGM
23FER2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 36 / Thursday, February 23, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
plan, with estimated annual costs to
implement the plan of approximately
$14,000 per facility.
Bag Leak Detection Requirements:
Estimated incremental capital costs for
a new facility to install and operate bag
leak detection systems on emissions
control systems that do not have
secondary filters (BSER) compared to no
bag leak detection requirements
(baseline) are $802,000, with estimated
incremental annual costs of $161,000
per facility.
Performance Testing Requirements:
Estimated incremental costs for a new,
reconstructed, or modified source to
meet the revised testing frequency of
once every 5 years (BSER) compared to
only once for initial compliance
(baseline) are $23,000 for the first stack
and $5,500 for each additional stack
tested at a facility during the same
testing event. The costs per facility are
estimated to be $0 to $181,000 once
every 5 years, or an annual average cost
of $0 to $36,000, depending on number
of stacks and the current frequency of
testing.
Fabric Filter Inspection Requirements:
Estimated incremental costs for a new,
reconstructed, or modified source to
meet the revised fabric filter inspection
frequency of once per quarter (BSER)
compared to once every 6 months
(baseline) are $6,300 annually per
facility.
The total estimated incremental
capital costs per new facility are
approximately $898,000 for a small
facility and $973,000 for a large facility,
with estimated incremental annual costs
of $251,000 per small facility and
$300,000 per large facility. The total
estimated incremental capital costs per
modified or reconstructed facility
(which would not have bag leak
detection requirements) are
approximately $96,000 for a small
facility and $171,000 for a large facility,
with estimated incremental annual costs
of $90,000 per small facility and
$140,000 per large facility.
2. NESHAP
The estimated costs for an affected
source to comply with the amended
NESHAP are the same as the costs
described above (in section IV.C.1) for
modified or reconstructed facilities
under the NSPS, 40 CFR part 60,
subpart KKa. Costs for performance
testing are estimated to be $0 to
$180,000 per facility once every 5 years
depending on number of stacks (equates
to an average annual cost of about $0 to
$36,000 per facility). Total costs for all
other amendments for the entire source
category (43 facilities) are an estimated
$740,000 capital costs and annual costs
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Feb 22, 2023
Jkt 259001
of $570,000 (equates to an average cost
per facility of $17,000 capital and
$13,000 annualized). More detailed
information on cost impacts on existing
sources is available in the Cost Impacts
Memorandum available in the docket
for this action.
D. What are the economic impacts?
The EPA conducted economic impact
analyses for these final rules, as detailed
in the memorandum Economic Impact
and Small Business Analysis for the
Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing NSPS
Review and NESHAP Area Source
Technology Review: Final Report, which
is available in the docket for this action.
The economic impacts of the final rules
are calculated as the percentage of total
annualized costs incurred by affected
ultimate parent owners to their
revenues. This ratio provides a measure
of the direct economic impact to
ultimate parent owners of facilities
while presuming no impact on
consumers. We estimate that none of the
ultimate parent owners affected by these
final rules will incur total annualized
costs of 0.7 percent or greater of their
revenues. Thus, these economic impacts
are low for affected companies and the
industries impacted by these final rules,
and there will not be substantial
impacts on the markets for affected
products. The costs of the final rules are
not expected to result in a significant
market impact, regardless of whether
they are passed on to the purchaser or
absorbed by the firms.
E. What are the benefits?
1. NSPS
The new standards for grid casting,
lead reclamation and paste mixing will
reduce the allowable emissions of lead
from new, reconstructed, or modified
sources and ensure emissions remain
controlled and minimized moving
forward.
2. NESHAP
As described above, the final
amendments are expected to result in a
reduction of lead emissions of 0.6 tpy
for the industry. We are also finalizing
several compliance assurance
requirements which help prevent
noncompliant emissions of lead, and the
final amendments also revise the
standards such that they apply at all
times, which includes SSM periods. In
addition, the final requirements to
submit reports and test results
electronically will improve monitoring,
compliance, and implementation of the
rule. While we did not perform a
quantitative analysis of the health
impacts expected due to the final rule
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
11577
amendments, we qualitatively
characterize the health impacts in the
memorandum Economic Impact and
Small Business Analysis for the Lead
Acid Battery Manufacturing NSPS
Review and NESHAP Area Source
Technology Review: Final Report, which
is available in the docket for this action.
F. What analysis of environmental
justice did we conduct?
Consistent with the EPA’s
commitment to integrating EJ in the
Agency’s actions, and following the
directives set forth in multiple
Executive orders, the Agency has
conducted an analysis of the
demographic groups living near existing
facilities in the lead acid battery
manufacturing source category. For the
new NSPS, we are not aware of any
future new, modified, or reconstructed
facilities that will be become subject to
the NSPS in the foreseeable future. For
the NESHAP, we anticipate a total of 43
facilities to be affected by this rule. For
the demographic proximity analysis, we
analyzed populations living near
existing facilities to serve as a proxy of
potential populations living near future
facilities that may be impacted by the
NSPS. We have also updated the
analysis conducted at proposal by
including one additional existing
facility. The results of this addition do
not change the findings that some
communities around existing sources
are above the national average in the
demographic categories of Hispanic/
Latino, linguistically isolated, and 25
years of age and over without a high
school diploma. Executive Order 12898
directs the EPA to identify the
populations of concern who are most
likely to experience unequal burdens
from environmental harms; specifically,
minority populations (i.e., people of
color), low-income populations, and
indigenous peoples (59 FR 7629;
February 16, 1994). Additionally,
Executive Order 13985 is intended to
advance racial equity and support
underserved communities through
Federal government actions (86 FR
7009; January 20, 2021). The EPA
defines EJ as ‘‘the fair treatment and
meaningful involvement of all people
regardless of race, color, national origin,
or income with respect to the
development, implementation, and
enforcement of environmental laws,
regulations, and policies.’’ The EPA
further defines the term fair treatment to
mean that ‘‘no group of people should
bear a disproportionate burden of
environmental harms and risks,
including those resulting from the
negative environmental consequences of
industrial, governmental, and
E:\FR\FM\23FER2.SGM
23FER2
11578
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 36 / Thursday, February 23, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
commercial operations or programs and
policies.’’ In recognizing that people of
color and low-income populations often
bear an unequal burden of
environmental harms and risks, the EPA
continues to consider ways of protecting
them from adverse public health and
environmental effects of air pollution.
This action finalizes the NSPS for
new, modified, and reconstructed
sources that commence construction
after February 23, 2022, and the
NESHAP for existing and new sources.
Since the locations of the construction
of any new lead acid battery
manufacturing facilities are not known,
and it is not known which of the
existing facilities will be modified or
reconstructed in the future, the
demographic analysis was conducted
for existing facilities as a
characterization of the demographics in
areas where these facilities are located.
The demographic analysis includes an
assessment of individual demographic
groups of the populations living within
5 km and within 50 km of the facilities.
We then compared the data from the
analysis to the national average for each
of the demographic groups.
1. NSPS
For the NSPS, we have updated the
analysis presented in the proposed
rulemaking to include one additional
existing source. However, the
conclusions presented at proposal and
in this final rule remain the same. For
the NESHAP, we have updated the
analysis presented in the proposed
rulemaking to include this additional
existing facility and three other facilities
that will become subject to the NESHAP
upon promulgation of the amendments
to the rule.
The results of the demographics
analysis for the NSPS (see Table 1)
indicate that for populations within 5
km of the 40 existing facilities, the
percent of the population that is
Hispanic/Latino is above the national
average (43 percent versus 19 percent)
and the percent of people living in
linguistic isolation is above the national
average (9 percent versus 5 percent).
The category average for these
populations is primarily driven by five
facilities with Hispanic/Latino
populations within 5 km that were at
least 3 times the national average. The
percent of the population over 25
without a high school diploma is above
the national average (19 percent versus
12 percent). While on average across all
40 facilities, the African American
population living within 5 km is below
the national average (10 percent versus
12 percent), four facilities did have
African American populations within 5
km that were at least three times the
national average.
The results of the demographic
analysis (see Table 1) indicate that for
populations within 50 km of the 40
existing facilities, the average
percentages for most demographic
groups are closer to the national
averages. However, the average percent
of the population that is Hispanic/
Latino (25 percent) and in linguistic
isolation (7 percent) are still above the
national averages (19 percent and 5
percent, respectively). In addition, the
average percent of the population
within 50 km of the facilities that is
Other/Multiracial is above the national
average (11 percent versus 8 percent).
The percent of the population over 25
without a high school diploma is above
the national average (14 percent versus
12 percent).
TABLE 1—PROXIMITY DEMOGRAPHIC ASSESSMENT RESULTS FOR LEAD ACID BATTERY MANUFACTURING NSPS FACILITIES
Demographic group
Population
within 50 km
of 40 existing
facilities
Nationwide
Total Population ...........................................................................................................................
328,016,242
Population
within 5 km
of 40 existing
facilities
47,911,142
2,245,359
Race and Ethnicity by Percent
White ............................................................................................................................................
African American .........................................................................................................................
Native American ..........................................................................................................................
Hispanic or Latino (includes white and nonwhite) .......................................................................
Other and Multiracial ...................................................................................................................
60
12
0.7
19
8
52
12
0.3
25
11
37
10
0.2
43
9
Income by Percent
Below Poverty Level ....................................................................................................................
Above Poverty Level ....................................................................................................................
13
87
12
88
14
86
Education by Percent
Over 25 and without a High School Diploma ..............................................................................
Over 25 and with a High School Diploma ...................................................................................
12
88
14
86
19
81
Linguistically Isolated by Percent
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Linguistically Isolated ...................................................................................................................
5
7
9
Notes:
• The nationwide population count and all demographic percentages are based on the Census’ 2015–2019 American Community Survey 5year block group averages and include Puerto Rico. Demographic percentages based on different averages may differ. The total population
counts within 5 km and 50 km of all facilities are based on the 2010 Decennial Census block populations.
• To avoid double counting, the ‘‘Hispanic or Latino’’ category is treated as a distinct demographic category for these analyses. A person is
identified as one of five racial/ethnic categories above: White, African American, Native American, Other and Multiracial, or Hispanic/Latino. A
person who identifies as Hispanic or Latino is counted as Hispanic/Latino for this analysis, regardless of what race this person may have also
identified as in the Census.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Feb 22, 2023
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\23FER2.SGM
23FER2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 36 / Thursday, February 23, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
The EPA expects that the Lead Acid
Battery Manufacturing NSPS and
NESHAP will ensure compliance via
their requirements for performance
testing, inspections, monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting and by
complying with the standards at all
times (including periods of SSM). The
rule will also increase data transparency
through electronic reporting. Therefore,
effects of emissions on populations in
proximity to any future affected sources,
including in communities potentially
overburdened by pollution, which are
often people of color, low-income and
indigenous communities, will be
minimized at future new, modified, and
reconstructed facilities through
implementation of controls, work
practices, and compliance assurance
measures discussed in section III.A of
this preamble to meet the NSPS.
The methodology and the results of
the demographic analysis are presented
in a technical report, Analysis of
Demographic Factors for Populations
Living Near Lead Acid Battery
Manufacturing Facilities, available in
the docket for this action (Docket ID No.
EPA–HQ–OAR–2021–0619).
2. NESHAP
For the NESHAP, we updated the
analysis conducted at proposal by
analyzing four additional facilities that
will be subject to the rule (from 39 to
43 facilities total). The results of the
demographics analysis for the NESHAP
(see Table 2) indicate that for
populations within 5 km of the 43
facilities subject to the NESHAP, the
percent of the population that is
Hispanic/Latino is above the national
average (43 percent versus 19 percent)
and the percent of people living in
linguistic isolation is above the national
average (9 percent versus 5 percent).
The category average for these
populations is primarily driven by five
facilities that had percent Hispanic/
Latino populations within 5 km that
were at least 3 times the national
average. The percent of the population
over 25 years of age without a high
school diploma is above the national
average (18 percent versus 12 percent).
Although the category average
population within 5 km was below the
national average for African American
populations (10 percent versus 12
percent), four facilities did have African
American populations within 5 km that
were at least 3 times the national
average.
The results of the demographic
analysis (see Table 2) indicate that for
populations within 50 km of the 43
facilities subject to the NESHAP, the
category average percentages for most
demographic groups are closer to the
national averages. However, the average
percent of the population that is
Hispanic/Latino (25 percent) and in
linguistic isolation (7 percent) are still
above the national averages (19 percent
and 5 percent, respectively). In addition,
11579
the average percent of the population
within 50 km of the facilities that is
Other/Multiracial is above the national
average (11 percent versus 8 percent).
The percent of the population over 25
without a high school diploma is above
the national average (14 percent versus
12 percent).
The EPA expects that the Lead Acid
Battery Manufacturing Area Source
NESHAP will result in HAP emissions
reductions at 14 of the 43 facilities. We
examined the demographics within 5
km and 50 km of these 14 facilities to
determine if differences exist from the
larger universe of 43 facilities subject to
the NESHAP (see Table 2). In contrast
to the broader set of NESHAP facilities,
the population within 5 km and 50 km
of the 14 facilities for which we expect
emissions reductions, is above the
national average for the percent African
American population (20 and 22 percent
versus 12 percent). This higher average
percent African American population is
largely driven by the populations
surrounding three facilities, which
range from 2 to 8 times the national
average. The other 11 facilities are
below the national average for the
African American population. Also, the
average percent Hispanic/Latino (13 and
21 percent versus 19 percent) and the
average percent Linguistic Isolation (3
and 4 percent versus 5 percent)
demographic category are near or below
the national average for these 14
facilities.
TABLE 2—PROXIMITY DEMOGRAPHIC ASSESSMENT RESULTS FOR LEAD ACID BATTERY MANUFACTURING AREA SOURCE
NESHAP FACILITIES
All existing NESHAP
facilities
(43 facilities)
Demographic group
NESHAP facilities for
which emissions
reductions are expected
(14 facilities)
Nationwide
Population
within 5 km
Total Population ...................................................................
328,016,242
Population
within 50 km
49,508,055
2,293,170
Population
within 50 km
12,320,826
Population
within 5 km
420,432
Race and Ethnicity by Percent
White ....................................................................................
African American ..................................................................
Native American ...................................................................
Hispanic or Latino (includes white and nonwhite) ...............
Other and Multiracial ............................................................
60
12
0.7
19
8
52
12
0.3
25
11
38
10
0.3
43
9
51
20
0.4
21
8
57
22
0.4
13
8
14
86
15
85
13
87
11
89
Income by Percent
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Below Poverty Level ............................................................
Above Poverty Level ............................................................
13
87
12
88
14
86
Education by Percent
Over 25 and without a High School Diploma ......................
Over 25 and with a High School Diploma ...........................
12
88
14
86
18
82
Linguistically Isolated by Percent
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Feb 22, 2023
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\23FER2.SGM
23FER2
11580
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 36 / Thursday, February 23, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 2—PROXIMITY DEMOGRAPHIC ASSESSMENT RESULTS FOR LEAD ACID BATTERY MANUFACTURING AREA SOURCE
NESHAP FACILITIES—Continued
All existing NESHAP
facilities
(43 facilities)
Demographic group
NESHAP facilities for
which emissions
reductions are expected
(14 facilities)
Nationwide
Population
within 5 km
Linguistically Isolated ...........................................................
5
Population
within 50 km
7
9
Population
within 50 km
4
Population
within 5 km
3
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Notes:
• The nationwide population count and all demographic percentages are based on the Census’ 2015–2019 American Community Survey 5year block group averages and include Puerto Rico. Demographic percentages based on different averages may differ. The total population
counts within 5 km and 50 km of all facilities are based on the 2010 Decennial Census block populations.
• To avoid double counting, the ‘‘Hispanic or Latino’’ category is treated as a distinct demographic category for these analyses. A person is
identified as one of five racial/ethnic categories above: White, African American, Native American, Other and Multiracial, or Hispanic/Latino. A
person who identifies as Hispanic or Latino is counted as Hispanic/Latino for this analysis, regardless of what race this person may have also
identified as in the Census.
The methodology and the results of
the demographic analysis are presented
in a technical report, Analysis of
Demographic Factors for Populations
Living Near Lead Acid Battery
Manufacturing Facilities, available in
the docket for this action (Docket ID No.
EPA–HQ–OAR–2021–0619).
As explained in the proposal
preamble (87 FR 10140), current
ambient air quality monitoring data and
modeling analyses indicate that ambient
lead concentrations near the existing
lead acid battery manufacturing
facilities are all below the NAAQS for
lead. The CAA identifies two types of
NAAQS: primary and secondary
standards. Primary standards provide
public health protection, including
protecting the health of ‘‘sensitive’’
populations such as asthmatics,
children, and the elderly. Secondary
standards provide public welfare
protection including protection against
decreased visibility and damage to
animals, crops, vegetation, and
buildings. With ambient concentrations
below the NAAQS prior to the
finalization of these standards, we
conclude that the emissions from lead
acid battery manufacturing area source
facilities are not likely to pose
significant risks or impacts to human
health in the baseline prior to these
regulations. The review and update of
the NSPS and NESHAP in this action
will further reduce lead exposures and
HAP emissions to provide additional
protection to human health and the
environment. The EPA expects that the
Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing NSPS
and NESHAP will reduce future lead
emissions due to the more stringent
standards finalized for the grid casting,
paste mixing, and lead reclamation
processes. We expect lead emission
reductions of 0.64 tpy from paste mixing
facilities at existing lead acid battery
manufacturing plants as discussed in
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Feb 22, 2023
Jkt 259001
sections III.A.3 and III.B.3. We also
expect to provide additional protection
to human health and the environment
by finalizing compliance assurance
measures such as requirements for
performance testing, inspections,
monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting and by requiring compliance
with the standards at all times
(including periods of SSM), and by
expanding the applicability provisions
to certain battery component facilities.
The rules will also increase data
transparency through electronic
reporting. Therefore, the level of HAP
emissions to which populations in
proximity to the affected sources are
exposed will be reduced by the
NESHAP requirements being finalized
in this action and will be minimized at
any future new, modified, or
reconstructed source under the NSPS.
V. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Additional information about these
statutes and Executive orders can be
found at https://www.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders.
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review
This action is not a significant
regulatory action and was, therefore, not
submitted to OMB for review.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
The information collection activities
in the final rule have been submitted for
approval to OMB under the PRA. The
Information Collection Request (ICR)
documents that the EPA prepared have
been assigned EPA ICR number 2739.01
and OMB control number 2060–NEW
for 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKa, and
EPA ICR number 2256.07 and OMB
control number 2060–0598 for the
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
NESHAP. You can find a copy of the
ICRs in the docket for this rule, and they
are briefly summarized here. The ICRs
are specific to information collection
associated with the lead acid battery
manufacturing source category, through
the new 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKa,
and amendments to 40 CFR part 63,
subpart PPPPPP. We are finalizing
changes to the testing, recordkeeping
and reporting requirements associated
with 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPPPP,
in the form of requiring performance
tests every 5 years and including the
requirement for electronic submittal of
reports. In addition, the number of
facilities subject to the standards
changed. The number of respondents
was revised from 41 to 43 for the
NESHAP based on our review of
operating permits and consultation with
industry representatives and state/local
agencies. We are finalizing
recordkeeping and reporting
requirements associated with the new
NSPS, 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKa,
including notifications of construction/
reconstruction, initial startup, conduct
of performance tests, and physical or
operational changes; reports of opacity
results, performance test results and
semiannual reports if excess emissions
occur or continuous emissions
monitoring systems are used; and
keeping records of performance test
results and pressure drop monitoring.
Respondents/affected entities: The
respondents to the recordkeeping and
reporting requirements are owners or
operators of lead acid battery
manufacturing sources subject to 40
CFR part 60, subpart KKa, and 40 CFR
part 63, subpart PPPPPP.
Respondent’s obligation to respond:
Mandatory (40 CFR part 60, subpart
KKa, and 40 CFR part 63, subpart
PPPPPP).
Estimated number of respondents: 43
facilities for 40 CFR part 63, subpart
E:\FR\FM\23FER2.SGM
23FER2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 36 / Thursday, February 23, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
PPPPPP, and 0 facilities for 40 CFR part
60, subpart KKa.
Frequency of response: The frequency
of responses varies depending on the
burden item. Responses include
onetime review of rule amendments,
reports of performance tests, and
semiannual excess emissions and
continuous monitoring system
performance reports.
Total estimated burden: The annual
recordkeeping and reporting burden for
responding facilities to comply with all
of the requirements in the new NSPS, 40
CFR part 60, subpart KKa, and the
NESHAP, averaged over the 3 years of
this ICR, is estimated to be 2,490 hours
(per year). The average annual burden to
the Agency over the 3 years after the
amendments are final is estimated to be
60 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
Total estimated cost: The annual
recordkeeping and reporting cost for
responding facilities to comply with all
of the requirements in the new NSPS
and the NESHAP, averaged over the 3
years of this ICR, is estimated to be
$168,000 (rounded, per year). There are
no estimated capital and operation and
maintenance costs. The total average
annual Agency cost over the first 3 years
after the amendments are final is
estimated to be $3,070.
An agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number. The OMB control
numbers for the EPA’s regulations in 40
CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When
OMB approves this ICR, the Agency will
announce that approval in the Federal
Register and publish a technical
amendment to 40 CFR part 9 to display
the OMB control number for the
approved information collection
activities in this final rule.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
I certify that this action will not have
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the RFA. The small entities
subject to the requirements of this
action are small businesses that own
lead acid battery manufacturing
facilities or facilities that do not make
lead acid batteries but have a lead acid
battery grid casting process or a lead
oxide production process. The Agency
has determined that there are nine small
businesses subject to the requirements
of this action, and that eight of these
small businesses are estimated to
experience impacts of less than 1
percent of their revenues. The Agency
estimates that one small business may
experience an impact of approximately
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Feb 22, 2023
Jkt 259001
1.6 percent of their annual revenues
once every 5 years mainly due to the
compliance testing requirements, with
this one small business representing
approximately 11 percent of the total
number of affected small entities. The
other 4 of the 5 years, we estimate the
costs would be less than 1 percent of
annual revenues for this one small
business. Details of this analysis are
presented in Economic Impact and
Small Business Analysis for the Lead
Acid Battery Manufacturing NSPS
Review and NESHAP Area Source
Technology Review: Final Report, which
is available in the docket for this action.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA)
This action does not contain an
unfunded mandate of $100 million or
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C.
1531–1538, and does not significantly or
uniquely affect small governments. This
action imposes no enforceable duty on
any state, local, or tribal governments or
the private sector.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism
implications. It will not have substantial
direct effects on the states, on the
relationship between the National
Government and the states, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
This action does not have tribal
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13175. No tribal facilities are
known to be engaged in the industries
that would be affected by this action nor
are there any adverse health or
environmental effects from this action.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not
apply to this action.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
This action is not subject to Executive
Order 13045 because it is not
economically significant as defined in
Executive Order 12866, and because the
EPA does not believe the environmental
health or safety risks addressed by this
action present a disproportionate risk to
children. The EPA’s assessment of the
potential impacts to human health from
emissions at existing sources were
discussed at proposal (87 FR 10140).
The newly required work practices to
minimize fugitive dust containing lead
and the revised emission limits
described in sections III.A.4 and III.B.4
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
11581
will reduce actual and/or allowable lead
emissions, thereby reducing potential
exposure to children, including the
unborn.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
This action is not subject to Executive
Order 13211, because it is not a
significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR
Part 51
This rulemaking involves technical
standards. Therefore, the EPA
conducted searches through the
Enhanced NSSN Database managed by
the American National Standards
Institute (ANSI) to determine if there are
voluntary consensus standards (VCS)
that are relevant to this action. The
Agency also contacted VCS
organizations and accessed and
searched their databases. Searches were
conducted for the EPA Methods 9, 12,
22, and 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix
A. No applicable VCS were identified
for EPA Methods 12, 22, and 29 for lead.
During the search, if the title or
abstract (if provided) of the VCS
described technical sampling and
analytical procedures similar to the
EPA’s reference method, the EPA
considered it as a potential equivalent
method. All potential standards were
reviewed to determine the practicality
of the VCS for this rule. This review
requires significant method validation
data which meets the requirements of
the EPA Method 301 for accepting
alternative methods or scientific,
engineering and policy equivalence to
procedures in the EPA reference
methods. The EPA may reconsider
determinations of impracticality when
additional information is available for
particular VCS.
One VCS was identified as an
acceptable alternative to an EPA test
method for the purposes of this rule;
ASTM D7520–16, ‘‘Standard Test
Method for Determining the Opacity of
a Plume in the Outdoor Ambient
Atmosphere’’. ASTM D7520–16 is a test
method describing the procedures to
determine the opacity of a plume using
digital imagery and associated hardware
and software. The opacity of a plume is
determined by the application of a
Digital Camera Opacity Technique
(DCOT) that consists of a Digital Still
Camera, Analysis Software, and the
Output Function’s content to obtain and
interpret digital images to determine
and report plume opacity. ASTM
E:\FR\FM\23FER2.SGM
23FER2
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
11582
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 36 / Thursday, February 23, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
D7520–16 is an acceptable alternative to
EPA Method 9 with the following
conditions:
1. During the DCOT certification
procedure outlined in section 9.2 of
ASTM D7520–16, you or the DCOT
vendor must present the plumes in front
of various backgrounds of color and
contrast representing conditions
anticipated during field use such as blue
sky, trees, and mixed backgrounds
(clouds and/or a sparse tree stand).
2. You must also have standard
operating procedures in place including
daily or other frequency quality checks
to ensure the equipment is within
manufacturing specifications as
outlined in section 8.1 of ASTM D7520–
16.
3. You must follow the record keeping
procedures outlined in 40 CFR
63.10(b)(1) for the DCOT certification,
compliance report, data sheets, and all
raw unaltered JPEGs used for opacity
and certification determination.
4. You or the DCOT vendor must have
a minimum of four independent
technology users apply the software to
determine the visible opacity of the 300
certification plumes. For each set of 25
plumes, the user may not exceed 15
percent opacity of anyone reading and
the average error must not exceed 7.5
percent opacity.
5. This approval does not provide or
imply a certification or validation of any
vendor’s hardware or software. The
onus to maintain and verify the
certification and/or training of the
DCOT camera, software and operator in
accordance with ASTM D7520–16 and
the VCS memorandum is on the facility,
DCOT operator, and DCOT vendor.
The search identified one other VCS
that was a potentially acceptable
alternative to an EPA test method for the
purposes of this rule. However, after
reviewing the standards, the EPA
determined that the candidate VCS
ASTM D4358–94 (1999), ‘‘Standard Test
Method for Lead and Chromium in Air
Particulate Filter Samples of Lead
Chromate Type Pigment Dusts by
Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy,’’ is
not an acceptable alternative to EPA
Method 12 due to lack of equivalency,
documentation, validation data, and
other important technical and policy
considerations. Additional information
for the VCS search and determinations
can be found in the memorandum
Voluntary Consensus Standard Results
for Review of Standards of Performance
for Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing
Plants and National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Lead
Acid Battery, which is available in the
docket for this action.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Feb 22, 2023
Jkt 259001
The ASTM standards (methods) are
reasonably available for purchase
individually through ASTM,
International (see 40 CFR 60.17 and
63.14) and through the American
National Standards Institute (ANSI)
Webstore, https://webstore.ansi.org.
Telephone (212) 642–4980 for customer
service.
We are also incorporating by reference
the EPA guidance document ‘‘Fabric
Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance’’
(EPA–454/R–98–015). This document
provides guidance on fabric filter and
monitoring systems including monitor
selection, installation, set up,
adjustment, and operation. The
guidance also discusses factors that may
affect monitor performance as well as
quality assurance procedures.
The EPA guidance document ‘‘Fabric
Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance’’
(EPA–454/R–98–015) is reasonably
available at https://www3.epa.gov/
ttnemc01/cem/tribo.pdf or by contacting
the National Technical Information
Service (NTIS) at 1–800–553–6847.
Under 40 CFR 63.7(f) and 68.3(f), a
source may apply to the EPA to use
alternative test methods or alternative
monitoring requirements in place of any
required testing methods, performance
specifications, or procedures in the final
rule or any amendments.
that the emissions from lead acid battery
area source facilities are not likely to
pose significant risks or impacts to
human health if facilities are complying
with the NESHAP (see 87 FR 10134 at
10140).
The EPA anticipates that this action is
likely to reduce the existing potential
disproportionate and adverse effects on
people of color, low-income populations
and/or indigenous peoples. The
documentation for this decision is
contained in section IV.F of this
preamble. As discussed in section IV.F
of this preamble, the demographic
analysis indicates that the following
groups are above the national average
within 5 km of the 43 existing facilities:
Hispanics/Latino, people living below
the poverty level, 25 years old or greater
without a high school diploma, and
people living in linguistic isolation.
Populations within 5 km of the 14
facilities that the EPA expects that the
Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing
NESHAP will result in HAP emissions
reductions are above the national
average for African Americans and
people living below the poverty level.
This action further reduces lead and
other criteria and HAP emissions to
provide additional protection to human
health and the environment.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629;
February 16, 1994) directs Federal
agencies, to the greatest extent
practicable and permitted by law, to
make EJ part of their mission by
identifying and addressing, as
appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or
environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority
populations (people of color and/or
indigenous peoples) and low-income
populations.
The EPA anticipates that the human
health and environmental conditions
that exist prior to this action have the
potential to result in disproportionate
and adverse human health or
environmental effects on people of
color, low-income populations, and/or
indigenous peoples. However, as we
explained in the proposed rule
preamble, based on analyses of
emissions and available ambient
monitoring data (as described in section
IV.A of the proposal preamble (87 FR
10140)), ambient lead concentrations
near the facilities are all below the
NAAQS for lead prior to these
regulations. Therefore, we concluded
K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
This action is subject to the CRA, and
the EPA will submit a rule report for
this action to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. Neither the NSPS
nor the NESHAP amended by this
action constitute a ‘‘major rule’’ as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 60 and
63
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedures,
Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
Michael S. Regan,
Administrator.
For the reasons cited in the preamble,
title 40, chapter I, parts 60 and 63 of the
Code of Federal Regulations are
amended as follows:
PART 60—STANDARDS OF
PERFORMANCE FOR NEW
STATIONARY SOURCES
1. The authority citation for part 60
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4701 et seq.
E:\FR\FM\23FER2.SGM
23FER2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 36 / Thursday, February 23, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
60.374a Test methods and procedures.
60.375a Recordkeeping and reporting
requirements.
Subpart A—General Provisions
2. Section 60.17 is amended by:
a. Redesignating paragraphs (h)(196)
through (212) as paragraphs (h)(197)
through (213);
■ b. Adding new paragraph (h)(196);
and
■ c. Revising paragraph (j)(1).
The addition and revision read as
follows:
■
■
§ 60.17
§ 60.370a Applicability and designation of
affected facility.
Incorporations by reference.
*
*
*
*
*
(h) * * *
(196) ASTM D7520–16, Standard Test
Method for Determining the Opacity of
a Plume in the Outdoor Ambient
Atmosphere, approved April 1, 2016;
IBR approved for § 60.374a(d).
*
*
*
*
*
(j) * * *
(1) EPA–454/R–98–015, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards
(OAQPS), Fabric Filter Bag Leak
Detection Guidance, September 1997,
https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.
cgi?Dockey=2000D5T6.PDF; IBR
approved for §§ 60.373a(b); 60.2145(r);
60.2710(r); 60.4905(b); 60.5225(b).
*
*
*
*
*
■ 3. The heading for subpart KK is
revised to read as follows:
Subpart KK—Standards of
Performance for Lead-Acid Battery
Manufacturing Plants for Which
Construction, Reconstruction, or
Modification Commenced After
January 14, 1980, and On or Before
February 23, 2022
4. Section 60.370 is amended by
revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:
■
§ 60.370 Applicability and designation of
affected facility.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) Any facility under paragraph (b) of
this section the construction or
modification of which is commenced
after January 14, 1980, and on or before
February 23, 2022, is subject to the
requirements of this subpart.
■ 5. Subpart KKa is added to read as
follows:
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Subpart KKa—Standards of
Performance for Lead Acid Battery
Manufacturing Plants for Which
Construction, Modification or
Reconstruction Commenced After
February 23, 2022
Sec.
60.370a Applicability and designation of
affected facility.
60.371a Definitions.
60.372a Standards for lead.
60.373a Monitoring of emissions and
operations.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Feb 22, 2023
Jkt 259001
(a) The provisions of this subpart are
applicable to the affected facilities listed
in paragraph (b) of this section at any
lead acid battery manufacturing plant
that produces or has the design capacity
to produce in one day (24 hours)
batteries containing an amount of lead
equal to or greater than 5.9 Mg (6.5
tons).
(b) The provisions of this subpart are
applicable to the following affected
facilities used in the manufacture of
lead acid storage batteries:
(1) Grid casting facility.
(2) Paste mixing facility.
(3) Three-process operation facility.
(4) Lead oxide manufacturing facility.
(5) Lead reclamation facility.
(6) Other lead-emitting operations.
(c) Any facility under paragraph (b) of
this section for which the construction,
modification, or reconstruction is
commenced after February 23, 2022, is
subject to the requirements of this
subpart.
§ 60.371a
Definitions.
As used in this subpart, the
definitions in paragraphs (a) through (i)
of this section apply. All terms not
defined in this subpart have the
meaning given them in the Act and in
subpart A of this part.
(a) Bag leak detection system means a
system that is capable of continuously
monitoring particulate matter (dust)
loadings in the exhaust of a fabric filter
(baghouse) in order to detect bag leaks
and other upset conditions. A bag leak
detection system includes, but is not
limited to, an instrument that operates
on triboelectric, light scattering, light
transmittance, or other effect to
continuously monitor relative
particulate matter loadings.
(b) Lead acid battery manufacturing
plant means any plant that produces a
storage battery using lead and lead
compounds for the plates and sulfuric
acid for the electrolyte.
(c) Grid casting facility means the
facility which includes all lead melting
pots that remelt scrap from onsite lead
acid battery manufacturing processes,
and machines used for casting the grid
used in lead acid batteries.
(d) Lead oxide manufacturing facility
means a facility that produces lead
oxide from lead for use in lead acid
battery manufacturing, including lead
oxide production and product recovery
operations. Local exhaust ventilation or
building ventilation exhausts serving
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
11583
lead oxide production areas are not part
of the lead oxide manufacturing facility.
(e) Lead reclamation facility means
the facility that casts remelted lead
scrap generated by onsite lead acid
battery manufacturing processes into
lead ingots for use in the battery
manufacturing process, and which is
not a furnace affected under subpart L
of this part. Lead scrap remelting
processes that are used directly (not cast
into an ingot first) in a grid casting
facility or a three-process operation
facility are parts of those facilities and
are not part of a lead reclamation
facility.
(f) Other lead-emitting operation
means any lead acid battery
manufacturing plant operation from
which lead emissions are collected and
ducted to the atmosphere and which is
not part of a grid casting, lead oxide
manufacturing, lead reclamation, paste
mixing, or three-process operation
facility, or a furnace affected under
subpart L of this part. These operations
also include local exhaust ventilation or
building ventilation exhausts serving
lead oxide production areas.
(g) Paste mixing facility means the
facility including lead oxide storage,
conveying, weighing, metering, and
charging operations; paste blending,
handling, and cooling operations; and
plate pasting, takeoff, cooling, and
drying operations.
(h) Three-process operation facility
means the facility including those
processes involved with plate stacking,
burning or strap casting, and assembly
of elements into the battery case.
(i) Total enclosure means a
containment building that is completely
enclosed with a floor, walls, and a roof
to prevent exposure to the elements and
that has limited openings to allow
access and egress for people and
vehicles.
§ 60.372a
Standards for lead.
(a) On and after the date on which the
performance test required to be
conducted by § 60.8 is completed, no
owner or operator subject to the
provisions of this subpart may cause the
emissions listed in paragraphs (a)(1)
through (8) of this section to be
discharged into the atmosphere. The
emission limitations and opacity
limitations listed in paragraphs (a)(1)
through (8) of this section apply at all
times, including periods of startup,
shutdown and malfunction. As
provided in § 60.11(f), this paragraph (a)
supersedes the exemptions for periods
of startup, shutdown, and malfunction
in the general provisions in subpart A
of this part. You must also comply with
E:\FR\FM\23FER2.SGM
23FER2
11584
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 36 / Thursday, February 23, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
the requirements in paragraphs (b) and
(c) of this section.
(1) From any grid casting facility, any
gases that contain lead in excess of 0.08
milligram of lead per dry standard cubic
meter of exhaust (0.000035 gr/dscf).
(2) From any paste mixing facility,
any gases that contain in excess of 0.10
milligram of lead per dry standard cubic
meter of exhaust (0.0000437 gr/dscf) or
emit no more than 0.9 gram of lead per
hour (0.002 lbs/hr) total from all paste
mixing sources. If a facility is complying
with the 0.9 gram of lead per hour, you
must sum the emission rate from all the
paste mixing sources.
(3) From any three-process operation
facility, any gases that contain in excess
of 1.00 milligram of lead per dry
standard cubic meter of exhaust
(0.000437 gr/dscf).
(4) From any lead oxide
manufacturing facility, any gases that
contain in excess of 5.0 milligrams of
lead per kilogram of lead feed (0.010 lb/
ton).
(5) From any lead reclamation facility,
any gases that contain in excess of 0.45
milligrams of lead per dry standard
cubic meter of exhaust (0.000197 gr/
dscf).
(6) From any other lead-emitting
operation, any gases that contain in
excess of 1.00 milligram of lead per dry
standard cubic meter of exhaust
(0.000437 gr/dscf).
(7) From any affected facility other
than a lead reclamation facility, any
gases with greater than 0 percent
opacity (measured according to EPA
Method 9 of appendix A to this part and
rounded to the nearest whole percentage
or measured according to EPA Method
22 of appendix A to this part).
(8) From any lead reclamation facility,
any gases with greater than 5 percent
opacity (measured according to EPA
Method 9 of appendix A to this part and
rounded to the nearest whole
percentage).
(b) When two or more facilities at the
same plant (except the lead oxide
manufacturing facility) are ducted to a
common control device, an equivalent
standard for the total exhaust from the
commonly controlled facilities must be
determined using equation 1 to this
paragraph (b) as follows:
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Where:
Se = is the equivalent standard for the total
exhaust stream, mg/dscm (gr/dscf).
Sa = is the actual standard for each exhaust
stream ducted to the control device, mg/
dscm (gr/dscf).
N = is the total number of exhaust streams
ducted to the control device.
Qsda = is the dry standard volumetric flow
rate of the effluent gas stream from each
facility ducted to the control device,
dscm/hr (dscf/hr).
QsdT = is the total dry standard volumetric
flow rate of all effluent gas streams
ducted to the control device, dscm/hr
(dscf/hr).
(c) The owner or operator must
prepare, and at all times operate
according to, a fugitive dust mitigation
plan that describes in detail the
measures that will be put in place and
implemented to control fugitive dust
emissions in the lead oxide unloading
and storage areas. You must prepare a
fugitive dust mitigation plan according
to the requirements in paragraphs (c)(1)
and (2) of this section.
(1) The owner or operator must
submit the fugitive dust mitigation plan
to the Administrator or delegated
authority for review and approval when
initially developed and any time
changes are made.
(2) The fugitive dust mitigation plan
must at a minimum include the
requirements specified in paragraphs
(c)(2)(i) through (iv) of this section.
(i) Lead oxide unloading and storage
areas. Surfaces used for vehicular
material transfer activity must be
cleaned at least once per month, by wet
wash or a vacuum equipped with a filter
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Feb 22, 2023
Jkt 259001
rated by the manufacturer to achieve
99.97 percent capture efficiency for 0.3
micron particles in a manner that does
not generate fugitive lead dust, except
when sand or a similar material has
been spread on the area to provide
traction on ice or snow.
(ii) Spills in lead oxide unloading and
storage areas. For any leak or spill that
occurs during the unloading and storage
process, complete washing or
vacuuming the area to remove all
spilled or leaked lead bearing material
within 2 hours of the leak or spill
occurrence.
(iii) Materials storage. Dust forming
materials (that contain lead or lead
compounds) must be stored in sealed,
leak-proof containers or in a total
enclosure.
(iv) Records. The fugitive dust
mitigation plan must specify that
records be maintained of all cleaning
performed under paragraph (c)(2)(i) and
(ii) of this section.
§ 60.373a Monitoring of emissions and
operations.
(a) The owner or operator of any lead
acid battery manufacturing facility
subject to the provisions of this subpart
and controlled by a scrubbing system(s)
must install, calibrate, maintain, and
operate a monitoring device(s) that
measures and records the liquid flow
rate and pressure drop across the
scrubbing system(s) at least once every
15 minutes. The monitoring device must
have an accuracy of ±5 percent over its
operating range. The operating liquid
flow rate must be maintained within
±10 percent of the average liquid
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
flowrate during the most recent
performance test. If a liquid flow rate or
pressure drop is observed outside of the
normal operational ranges as
determined during the most recent
performance test, you must record the
incident and take immediate corrective
actions. You must also record the
corrective actions taken. You must
submit an excess emissions and
monitoring systems performance report
and summary report required under
§ 60.375a(c).
(b) Emissions points controlled by a
fabric filter without a secondary filter
must meet the requirements of
paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section
and either paragraph (b)(3) or (4) of this
section. New lead acid battery plants
with emission points controlled by a
fabric filter without a secondary filter
must meet the requirements of
paragraph (b)(5) of this section. Fabric
filters equipped with a high efficiency
particulate air (HEPA) filter or other
secondary filter must comply with the
requirements specified in paragraphs
(b)(1) and (6) of this section.
(1) You must perform quarterly
inspections and maintenance to ensure
proper performance of each fabric filter.
This includes inspection of structural
and filter integrity.
(2) If it is not possible for you to take
the corrective actions specified in
paragraph (b)(3)(iii) or (iv) of this
section for a process or fabric filter
control device, you must keep at least
one replacement fabric filter onsite at all
times for that process or fabric filter
control device. The characteristics of the
E:\FR\FM\23FER2.SGM
23FER2
ER23FE23.000</GPH>
Equation 1 to paragraph (b):
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 36 / Thursday, February 23, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
replacement filters must be the same as
the current fabric filters in use or have
characteristics that would achieve equal
or greater emission reductions.
(3) Install, maintain, and operate a
pressure drop monitoring device to
measure the differential pressure drop
across the fabric filter during all times
when the process is operating. The
pressure drop must be recorded at least
twice per day (at least 8 hours apart) if
the results of the most recent
performance test indicate that emissions
from the facility are greater than 50
percent of the applicable lead emissions
limit in § 60.372a(a)(1) through (6). The
pressure drop must be recorded at least
once per day if the results of the most
recent performance test indicate that
emissions are less than or equal to 50
percent of the applicable lead emissions
limit in § 60.372a(a)(1) through (6). If a
pressure drop is observed outside of the
normal operational ranges as specified
by the manufacturer, you must record
the incident and take immediate
corrective actions. You must submit an
excess emissions and continuous
monitoring system performance report
and summary report required under
§ 60.375a(c). You must also record the
corrective actions taken and verify
pressure drop is within normal
operational range. These corrective
actions may include but not be limited
to those provided in paragraphs (b)(3)(i)
through (iv) of this section.
(i) Inspecting the filter and filter
housing for air leaks and torn or broken
filters.
(ii) Replacing defective filter media,
or otherwise repairing the control
device.
(iii) Sealing off a defective control
device by routing air to other control
devices.
(iv) Shutting down the process
producing the lead emissions.
(4) Conduct a visible emissions
observation using EPA Method 9 (6
minutes) or EPA Method 22 (5 minutes)
of appendix A to this part while the
process is in operation to verify that no
visible emissions are occurring at the
discharge point to the atmosphere from
any emissions source subject to the
requirements of § 60.372a(a) or (b). The
visible emissions observation must be
conducted at least twice daily (at least
6 hours apart) if the results of the most
recent performance test indicate that
emissions are greater than 50 percent of
the applicable lead emissions limit in
§ 60.372a(a)(1) through (6). The visible
emissions observation must be
conducted at least once per day if the
results of the most recent performance
test indicate that emissions are less than
or equal to 50 percent of the applicable
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Feb 22, 2023
Jkt 259001
lead emissions limit in § 60.372a(a)(1)
through (6). If visible emissions are
detected, you must record the incident
and submit this information in an
excess emissions and continuous
monitoring system performance report
and summary report required under
§ 60.375a(c) and take immediate
corrective action. You must also record
the corrective actions taken. These
corrective actions may include, but are
not limited to, those provided in
paragraphs (b)(3)(i) through (iv) of this
section.
(5) If the lead acid battery
manufacturing plant was constructed
after February 23, 2022, and have
emissions points controlled by a fabric
filter, you must install and operate a bag
leak detection system that meets the
specifications and requirements in
paragraphs (b)(5)(i) through (ix) of this
section. For any other affected facility
listed in § 60.370a(b) that was
constructed, modified, or reconstructed
after February 23, 2022, that operates a
bag leak detection system, the bag leak
detection system must meet the
specifications and requirements in
paragraphs (b)(5)(i) through (ix) of this
section. Emission points controlled by a
fabric filter that is equipped with, and
monitored with, a bag leak detection
system meeting the specifications and
requirements in paragraphs (b)(5)(i)
through (ix) of this section may have the
inspections required in paragraph (b)(1)
of this section performed semiannually.
(i) The bag leak detection system must
be certified by the manufacturer to be
capable of detecting particulate matter
as lead emissions at concentrations at or
below the values in § 60.372a(a), as
applicable to the process for which the
fabric filter is used to control emissions.
Where the fabric filter is used as a
control device for more than one
process, the lowest applicable value in
§ 60.372a(a) must be used.
(ii) The bag leak detection system
sensor must provide output of relative
particulate matter loadings.
(iii) The bag leak detection system
must be equipped with an alarm system
that will alarm when an increase in
relative particulate loadings is detected
over a preset level.
(iv) You must install and operate the
bag leak detection system in a manner
consistent with the guidance provided
in ‘‘Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards (OAQPS) Fabric Filter Bag
Leak Detection Guidance’’ (EPA–454/R–
98–015) (incorporated by reference, see
§ 60.17) and the manufacturer’s written
specifications and recommendations for
installation, operation, and adjustment
of the system.
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
11585
(v) The initial adjustment of the
system must, at a minimum, consist of
establishing the baseline output by
adjusting the sensitivity (range) and the
averaging period of the device and
establishing the alarm set points and the
alarm delay time.
(vi) Following initial adjustment, you
must not adjust the sensitivity or range,
averaging period, alarm set points, or
alarm delay time, except as detailed in
the approved standard operating
procedures manual required under
paragraph (b)(2)(ix) of this section. You
cannot increase the sensitivity by more
than 100 percent or decrease the
sensitivity by more than 50 percent over
a 365-day period unless such
adjustment follows a complete fabric
filter inspection that demonstrates that
the fabric filter is in good operating
condition.
(vii) For negative pressure, induced
air baghouses, and positive pressure
baghouses that are discharged to the
atmosphere through a stack, you must
install the bag leak detector downstream
of the fabric filter.
(viii) Where multiple detectors are
required, the system’s instrumentation
and alarm may be shared among
detectors.
(ix) You must develop a standard
operating procedures manual for the bag
leak detection system that includes
procedures for making system
adjustments and a corrective action
plan, which specifies the procedures to
be followed in the case of a bag leak
detection system alarm. The corrective
action plan must include, at a
minimum, the procedures that you will
use to determine and record the time
and cause of the alarm as well as the
corrective actions taken to minimize
emissions as specified in paragraphs
(b)(5)(ix)(A) and (B) of this section.
(A) The procedures used to determine
the cause of the alarm must be initiated
within 30 minutes of the alarm.
(B) The cause of the alarm must be
alleviated by taking the necessary
corrective action(s) that may include,
but not be limited to, those listed in
paragraphs (b)(5)(ix)(B)(1) through (6) of
this section.
(1) Inspecting the baghouse for air
leaks, torn or broken filter elements, or
any other malfunction that may cause
an increase in emissions.
(2) Sealing off defective bags or filter
media.
(3) Replacing defective bags or filter
media, or otherwise repairing the
control device.
(4) Sealing off defective baghouse
compartment.
E:\FR\FM\23FER2.SGM
23FER2
11586
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 36 / Thursday, February 23, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
(5) Cleaning the bag leak detection
system probe, or otherwise repairing the
bag leak detection system.
(6) Shutting down the process
producing the lead emissions.
(6) Emissions points controlled by a
fabric filter equipped with a secondary
filter, such as a HEPA filter, are exempt
from the requirement in paragraph (b)(5)
of this section to be equipped with a bag
leak detection system. You must meet
the requirements specified in paragraph
(b)(6)(i) of this section and either
paragraph (b)(6)(ii) or (iii) of this
section.
(i) If it is not possible for you to take
the corrective actions specified in
paragraph (b)(3)(iii) or (iv) of this
section for a process or fabric filter
control device, you must keep at least
one replacement primary fabric filter
and one replacement secondary filter
onsite at all times for that process or
fabric filter control device. The
characteristics of the replacement filters
must be the same as the current fabric
filters in use or have characteristics that
would achieve equal or greater emission
reductions.
(ii) You must perform the pressure
drop monitoring requirements in
paragraph (b)(3) of this section. You
may perform these requirements once
per week rather than once or twice
daily.
(iii) You must perform the visible
emissions observation requirements in
paragraph (b)(4) of this section. You
may perform these requirements once
per week rather than once or twice
daily.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
§ 60.374a
Test methods and procedures.
(a) In conducting the performance
tests required in § 60.8, the owner or
operator must use as reference methods
and procedures the test methods in
appendix A to this part or other
methods and procedures as specified in
this section, except as provided in
§ 60.8(b).
(b) After the initial performance test
required in § 60.8(a), you must conduct
subsequent performance tests to
demonstrate compliance with the lead
and opacity standards in § 60.372a.
Performance testing must be conducted
for each affected source subject to lead
and opacity standards in § 60.372a, that
has not had a performance test within
the last 5 years, except as described in
paragraph (c) of this section. Thereafter,
subsequent performance tests for each
affected source must be completed no
less frequently than every 5 years from
the date the emissions source was last
tested.
(c) In lieu of conducting subsequent
performance tests for each affected
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Feb 22, 2023
Jkt 259001
source, you may elect to group similar
affected sources together and conduct
subsequent performance tests on one
representative affected source within
each group of similar affected sources.
The determination of whether affected
sources are similar must meet the
criteria in paragraph (c)(1) of this
section. If you decide to test
representative affected sources, you
must prepare and submit a testing plan
as described in paragraph (c)(3) of this
section.
(1) If you elect to test representative
affected sources, the affected sources
that are grouped together must be of the
same process type (e.g., grid casting,
paste mixing, three-process operations)
and also have the same type of air
pollution control device (e.g., fabric
filters). You cannot group affected
sources from different process types or
with different air pollution control
device types together for the purposes of
this section.
(2) The results of the performance test
conducted for the affected source
selected as representative of a group of
similar affected sources will represent
the results for each affected source
within the group. In the performance
test report, all affected sources in the
group will need to be listed.
(3) If you plan to conduct subsequent
performance tests on representative
emission units, you must submit a test
plan. This test plan must be submitted
to the Administrator or delegated
authority for review and approval no
later than 90 days prior to the first
scheduled performance test. The test
plan must contain the information
specified in paragraphs (c)(3)(i) through
(iii) of this section.
(i) A list of all emission units. This
list must clearly identify all emission
units that have been grouped together as
similar emission units. Within each
group of emission units, you must
identify the emission unit that will be
the representative unit for that group
and subject to performance testing.
(ii) A list of the process type and type
of air pollution control device on each
emission unit.
(iii) The date of last test for each
emission unit and a schedule indicating
when you will conduct performance
tests for each emission unit within the
representative groups.
(4) If you conduct subsequent
performance tests on representative
emission units, the unit with the oldest
test must be tested first, and each
subsequent performance test must be
performed for a different unit until all
units in the group have been tested. The
order of testing for each subsequent test
must proceed such that the unit in the
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
group with the least recent performance
test is the next unit to be tested.
(5) You may not conduct performance
tests during periods of malfunction. You
must record the process information
that is necessary to document operating
conditions during the test and include
in such record an explanation to
support that such conditions represent
normal operation. You must make
available to the Administrator in the test
report, records as may be necessary to
determine the conditions of
performance tests.
(d) The owner or operator must
determine compliance with the lead and
opacity standards in § 60.372a, as
follows:
(1) EPA Method 12 or EPA Method 29
of appendix A to this part must be used
to determine the lead concentration
(CPb) and the volumetric flow rate
(Qsda) of the effluent gas. The sampling
time and sample volume for each run
must be at least 60 minutes and 0.85
dscm (30 dscf).
(2) EPA Method 9 of appendix A to
this part and the procedures in § 60.11
must be used to determine opacity
during the performance test. For EPA
Method 9, the opacity numbers must be
rounded off to the nearest whole
percentage. ASTM D7520–16
(incorporated by reference, see § 60.17)
is an acceptable alternative to EPA
Method 9 with the specified conditions
in paragraphs (d)(2)(i) through (v) of this
section.
(i) During the digital camera opacity
technique (DCOT) certification
procedure outlined in Section 9.2 of
ASTM D7520–16, you or the DCOT
vendor must present the plumes in front
of various backgrounds of color and
contrast representing conditions
anticipated during field use such as blue
sky, trees, and mixed backgrounds
(clouds and/or a sparse tree stand).
(ii) You must also have standard
operating procedures in place including
daily or other frequency quality checks
to ensure the equipment is within
manufacturing specifications as
outlined in Section 8.1 of ASTM
D7520–16.
(iii) You must follow the record
keeping procedures outlined in
§ 63.10(b)(1) for the DCOT certification,
compliance report, data sheets, and all
raw unaltered JPEGs used for opacity
and certification determination.
(iv) You or the DCOT vendor must
have a minimum of four (4)
independent technology users apply the
software to determine the visible
opacity of the 300 certification plumes.
For each set of 25 plumes, the user may
not exceed 15 percent opacity of any
E:\FR\FM\23FER2.SGM
23FER2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 36 / Thursday, February 23, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
one reading and the average error must
not exceed 7.5 percent opacity.
(v) This approval does not provide or
imply a certification or validation of any
vendor’s hardware or software. The
onus to maintain and verify the
certification and/or training of the
DCOT camera, software and operator in
accordance with ASTM D7520–16 and
this letter is on the facility, DCOT
operator, and DCOT vendor.
(3) When different operations in a
three-process operation facility are
ducted to separate control devices, the
Equation 1 to paragraph (d)(3):
C
11587
lead emission concentration (C) from
the facility must be determined using
equation 1 to this paragraph (d)(3) as
follows:
= L~=i(CaQsda)
L~=l Qsda
n = total number of control devices to which
separate operations in the facility are
ducted.
Where:
C = concentration of lead emissions for the
entire facility, mg/dscm (gr/dscf).
Ca = concentration of lead emissions from
facility ‘‘a,’’ mg/dscm (gr/dscf).
Qsda = volumetric flow rate of effluent gas
from facility ‘‘a,’’ dscm/hr (dscf/hr).
(4) The owner or operator of lead
oxide manufacturing facility must
determine compliance with the lead
standard in § 60.372a(a)(5) as follows:
(i) The emission rate (E) from lead
oxide manufacturing facility must be
computed for each run using equation 2
to this paragraph (d)(4)(i) as follows:
Equation 2 to paragraph (d)( 4)(i):
Qsdi = volumetric flow rate of effluent gas
from emission point ‘‘i,’’ dscm/hr (dscf/
hr).
M = number of emission points in the
affected facility.
P = lead feed rate to the facility, kg/hr (ton/
hr).
Where:
E = emission rate of lead, mg/kg (lb/ton) of
lead charged.
CPbi = concentration of lead from emission
point ‘‘i,’’ mg/dscm (gr/dscf).
K = conversion factor, 1.0 mg/mg (7000 gr/
lb).
(ii) The average lead feed rate (P) must
be determined for each run using
equation 3 to this paragraph (d)(4)(ii) as
follows:
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
§ 60.375a Recordkeeping and reporting
requirements.
(a) The owner or operator must keep
the records specified in paragraphs
(a)(1) through (7) of this section and
maintain them in a format readily
available for review onsite for a period
of 5 years.
(1) Records of pressure drop values
and liquid flow rate from the monitoring
required in § 60.373a(a) for scrubbing
systems.
(2) Records of fabric filter inspections
and maintenance activities required in
§ 60.373a(b)(1).
(3) Records required under
§ 60.373a(b)(3) or (b)(6)(ii) of fabric filter
pressure drop, pressure drop observed
outside of normal operating ranges as
specified by the manufacturer, and
corrective actions taken.
(4) Records of the required opacity
measurements in § 60.373a(b)(4) or
(b)(6)(iii).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Feb 22, 2023
Jkt 259001
(5) If a bag leak detection system is
used under § 60.373a(b)(5), for a period
of 5 years, keep the records specified in
paragraphs (a)(5)(i) through (iii) of this
section.
(i) Electronic records of the bag leak
detection system output.
(ii) An identification of the date and
time of all bag leak detection system
alarms, the time that procedures to
determine the cause of the alarm were
initiated, the cause of the alarm, an
explanation of the corrective actions
taken, and the date and time the cause
of the alarm was corrected.
(iii) All records of inspections and
maintenance activities required under
§ 60.373a(b)(5).
(6) Records of all cleaning required as
part of the practices described in the
fugitive dust mitigation plan required
under § 60.372a(c) for the control of
fugitive dust emissions.
(7) You must keep the records of
failures to meet an applicable standard
in this part as specified in paragraphs
(a)(7)(i) through (iii) of this section.
(i) In the event that an affected unit
fails to meet an applicable standard in
this part, record the number of failures.
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
For each failure record the date, time,
the cause and duration of each failure.
(ii) For each failure to meet an
applicable standard in this part, record
and retain a list of the affected sources
or equipment, an estimate of the
quantity of each regulated pollutant
emitted over any emission limit and a
description of the method used to
estimate the emissions.
(iii) Record actions taken to minimize
emissions and any corrective actions
taken to return the affected unit to its
normal or usual manner of operation.
(b) Beginning on April 24, 2023,
within 60 days after the date of
completing each performance test or
demonstration of compliance required
by this subpart, you must submit the
results of the performance test following
the procedures specified in paragraphs
(b)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) Data collected using test methods
supported by the EPA’s Electronic
Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the
EPA’s ERT website (https://
www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-airemissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert)
at the time of the test. Submit the results
of the performance test to the EPA via
E:\FR\FM\23FER2.SGM
23FER2
ER23FE23.001</GPH> ER23FE23.002</GPH>
Where:
N = number of lead ingots charged.
W = average mass of the lead ingots, kg (ton).
Q = duration of run, hr.
ER23FE23.003</GPH>
Equation 3 to paragraph (d)( 4)(ii):
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
11588
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 36 / Thursday, February 23, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
the Compliance and Emissions Data
Reporting Interface (CEDRI), which can
be accessed through the EPA’s Central
Data Exchange (CDX) (https://
cdx.epa.gov/). The data must be
submitted in a file format generated
using the EPA’s ERT. Alternatively, you
may submit an electronic file consistent
with the extensible markup language
(XML) schema listed on the EPA’s ERT
website.
(2) Data collected using test methods
that are not supported by the EPA’s ERT
as listed on the EPA’s ERT website at
the time of the test. The results of the
performance test must be included as an
attachment in the ERT or an alternate
electronic file consistent with the XML
schema listed on the EPA’s ERT
website. Submit the ERT generated
package or alternative file to the EPA via
CEDRI.
(3) Data collected containing
confidential business information (CBI).
(i) The EPA will make all the
information submitted through CEDRI
available to the public without further
notice to you. Do not use CEDRI to
submit information you claim as CBI.
Although we do not expect persons to
assert a claim of CBI, if you wish to
assert a CBI claim for some of the
information submitted under paragraph
(b)(1) or (2) of this section, you must
submit a complete file, including
information claimed to be CBI, to the
EPA.
(ii) The file must be generated using
the EPA’s ERT or an alternate electronic
file consistent with the XML schema
listed on the EPA’s ERT website.
(iii) Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI.
Information not marked as CBI may be
authorized for public release without
prior notice. Information marked as CBI
will not be disclosed except in
accordance with procedures set forth in
40 CFR part 2.
(iv) The preferred method for CBI
submittal is for it to be transmitted
electronically using email attachments,
File Transfer Protocol (FTP), or other
online file sharing services. Electronic
submissions must be transmitted
directly to the OAQPS CBI Office at the
email address oaqpscbi@epa.gov, and as
described in this paragraph (b)(3),
should include clear CBI markings and
be flagged to the attention of the Group
Leader, Measurement Policy Group. If
assistance is needed with submitting
large electronic files that exceed the file
size limit for email attachments, and if
you do not have your own file sharing
service, please email oaqpscbi@epa.gov
to request a file transfer link.
(v) If you cannot transmit the file
electronically, you may send CBI
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Feb 22, 2023
Jkt 259001
information through the postal service
to the following address: OAQPS
Document Control Officer (C404–02),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711, Attention: Lead Acid Battery
Sector Lead and Group Leader,
Measurement Policy Group. The mailed
CBI material should be double wrapped
and clearly marked. Any CBI markings
should not show through the outer
wrapping.
(vi) All CBI claims must be asserted
at the time of submission. Anything
submitted using CEDRI cannot later be
claimed CBI. Furthermore, under CAA
section 114(c), emissions data is not
entitled to confidential treatment, and
the EPA is required to make emissions
data available to the public. Thus,
emissions data will not be protected as
CBI and will be made publicly available.
(vii) You must submit the same file
submitted to the CBI office with the CBI
omitted to the EPA via the EPA’s CDX
as described in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2)
of this section.
(c) You must submit a report of excess
emissions and monitoring systems
performance report and summary report
according to § 60.7(c) and (d) to the
Administrator semiannually. Report the
number of failures to meet an applicable
standard in this part. For each instance,
report the date, time, cause, and
duration of each failure. For each
failure, the report must include a list of
the affected sources or equipment, an
estimate of the quantity of each
regulated pollutant emitted over any
emission limit, and a description of the
method used to estimate the emissions.
You must use the appropriate
spreadsheet template on the CEDRI
website (https://www.epa.gov/
electronic-reporting-air-emissions/cedri)
for this subpart. The date report
templates become available will be
listed on the CEDRI website. The report
must be submitted by the deadline
specified in this subpart, regardless of
the method in which the report is
submitted. Submit all reports to the EPA
via CEDRI, which can be accessed
through the EPA’s CDX (https://
cdx.epa.gov/). The EPA will make all
the information submitted through
CEDRI available to the public without
further notice to you. As stated in
paragraph (b)(3) of this section, do not
use CEDRI to submit information you
claim as CBI. Anything submitted using
CEDRI cannot later be claimed CBI. If
you claim CBI, submit the report
following description in paragraph
(b)(3) of this section. The same file with
the CBI omitted must be submitted to
CEDRI as described in this section.
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
(d) If you are required to
electronically submit a report through
CEDRI in the EPA’s CDX, you may
assert a claim of EPA system outage for
failure to timely comply with that
reporting requirement. To assert a claim
of EPA system outage, you must meet
the requirements outlined in paragraphs
(d)(1) through (7) of this section.
(1) You must have been or will be
precluded from accessing CEDRI and
submitting a required report within the
time prescribed due to an outage of
either the EPA’s CEDRI or CDX systems.
(2) The outage must have occurred
within the period of time beginning five
business days prior to the date that the
submission is due.
(3) The outage may be planned or
unplanned.
(4) You must submit notification to
the Administrator in writing as soon as
possible following the date you first
knew, or through due diligence should
have known, that the event may cause
or has caused a delay in reporting.
(5) You must provide to the
Administrator a written description
identifying:
(i) The date(s) and time(s) when CDX
or CEDRI was accessed and the system
was unavailable;
(ii) A rationale for attributing the
delay in reporting beyond the regulatory
deadline to EPA system outage;
(iii) A description of measures taken
or to be taken to minimize the delay in
reporting; and
(iv) The date by which you propose to
report, or if you have already met the
reporting requirement at the time of the
notification, the date you reported.
(6) The decision to accept the claim
of EPA system outage and allow an
extension to the reporting deadline is
solely within the discretion of the
Administrator.
(7) In any circumstance, the report
must be submitted electronically as
soon as possible after the outage is
resolved.
(e) If you are required to electronically
submit a report through CEDRI in the
EPA’s CDX, you may assert a claim of
force majeure for failure to timely
comply with that reporting requirement.
To assert a claim of force majeure, you
must meet the requirements outlined in
paragraphs (e)(1) through (5) of this
section.
(1) You may submit a claim if a force
majeure event is about to occur, occurs,
or has occurred or there are lingering
effects from such an event within the
period of time beginning five business
days prior to the date the submission is
due. For the purposes of this section, a
force majeure event is defined as an
event that will be or has been caused by
E:\FR\FM\23FER2.SGM
23FER2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 36 / Thursday, February 23, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
circumstances beyond the control of the
affected facility, its contractors, or any
entity controlled by the affected facility
that prevents you from complying with
the requirement to submit a report
electronically within the time period
prescribed. Examples of such events are
acts of nature (e.g., hurricanes,
earthquakes, or floods), acts of war or
terrorism, or equipment failure or safety
hazard beyond the control of the
affected facility (e.g., large scale power
outage).
(2) You must submit notification to
the Administrator in writing as soon as
possible following the date you first
knew, or through due diligence should
have known, that the event may cause
or has caused a delay in reporting.
(3) You must provide to the
Administrator:
(i) A written description of the force
majeure event;
(ii) A rationale for attributing the
delay in reporting beyond the regulatory
deadline to the force majeure event;
(iii) A description of measures taken
or to be taken to minimize the delay in
reporting; and
(iv) The date by which you propose to
report, or if you have already met the
reporting requirement at the time of the
notification, the date you reported.
(4) The decision to accept the claim
of force majeure and allow an extension
to the reporting deadline is solely
within the discretion of the
Administrator.
(5) In any circumstance, the reporting
must occur as soon as possible after the
force majeure event occurs.
(f) Any records required to be
maintained by this subpart that are
submitted electronically via the EPA’s
CEDRI may be maintained in electronic
format. This ability to maintain
electronic copies does not affect the
requirement for facilities to make
records, data, and reports available
upon request to a delegated air agency
or the EPA as part of an on-site
compliance evaluation.
PART 63—NATIONAL EMISSION
STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR
POLLUTANTS FOR SOURCE
CATEGORIES
6. The authority citation for part 63
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Subpart A—General Provisions
7. Section 63.14 is amended by:
a. Revising paragraph (h)(109);
b. Removing and reserving paragraph
(h)(110);
■ c. Removing and reserving paragraph
(n)(3); and
■
■
■
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Feb 22, 2023
Jkt 259001
■
d. Revising paragraph (n)(4).
The revisions read as follows:
§ 63.14
Incorporations by reference.
*
*
*
*
*
(h) * * *
(109) ASTM D7520–16, Standard Test
Method for Determining the Opacity of
a Plume in the Outdoor Ambient
Atmosphere, approved April 1, 2016;
IBR approved for §§ 63.1625(b); table 3
to subpart LLLLL; 63.7823(c) through
(e), 63.7833(g); 63.11423(c).
*
*
*
*
*
(n) * * *
(4) EPA–454/R–98–015, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards
(OAQPS), Fabric Filter Bag Leak
Detection Guidance, September 1997,
https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.
cgi?Dockey=2000D5T6.PDF; IBR
approved for §§ 63.548(e); 63.864(e);
63.7525(j); 63.8450(e); 63.8600(e);
63.9632(a); 63.9804(f); 63.11224(f);
63.11423(e).
*
*
*
*
*
Subpart PPPPP—National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
for Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing
Area Sources
8. Section 63.11421 is revised and
republished to read as follows:
■
§ 63.11421
Am I subject to this subpart?
(a) You are subject to this subpart if
you own or operate a lead acid battery
manufacturing plant or a lead acid
battery component manufacturing plant
that is an area source of hazardous air
pollutants (HAP) emissions.
(b) This subpart applies to each new
or existing affected source. The affected
source is each plant that is either a lead
acid battery manufacturing plant or a
lead acid battery component
manufacturing plant. For each lead acid
battery manufacturing plant, the
affected source includes all grid casting
facilities, paste mixing facilities, threeprocess operation facilities, lead oxide
manufacturing facilities, lead
reclamation facilities, and any other
lead-emitting operation that is
associated with the lead acid battery
manufacturing plant. For each lead acid
battery component manufacturing plant,
the affected source includes all grid
casting facilities, paste mixing facilities,
three-process operation facilities, and
lead oxide manufacturing facilities.
(1) A lead acid battery manufacturing
plant affected source is existing if you
commenced construction or
reconstruction of the affected source on
or before April 4, 2007.
(2) A lead acid battery manufacturing
plant affected source is new if you
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
11589
commenced construction or
reconstruction of the affected source
after April 4, 2007.
(3) A lead acid battery component
manufacturing plant affected source is
existing if you commenced construction
or reconstruction of the affected source
on or before February 23, 2022.
(4) A lead acid battery component
manufacturing plant affected source is
new if you commenced construction or
reconstruction of the affected source
after February 23, 2022.
(c) This subpart does not apply to
research and development facilities, as
defined in section 112(c)(7) of the Clean
Air Act (CAA).
(d) You are exempt from the
obligation to obtain a permit under 40
CFR part 70 or 71, provided you are not
otherwise required by law to obtain a
permit under 40 CFR 70.3(a) or 71.3(a).
Notwithstanding the previous sentence,
you must continue to comply with the
provisions of this subpart.
(e) For lead acid battery component
manufacturing plants, you are exempt
from the requirements of §§ 63.11422
through 63.11427 if the conditions of
paragraphs (e)(1) through (3) of this
section are met.
(1) The grid casting facility, paste
mixing facility, three-process operation
facility, or lead oxide manufacturing
facility is subject to another subpart
under this part.
(2) You control lead emissions from
the grid casting facility, paste mixing
facility, three-process operation facility,
or lead oxide manufacturing facility in
compliance with the standards specified
in the applicable subpart.
(3) The other applicable subpart
under this part does not exempt the grid
casting facility, paste mixing facility,
three-process operation facility, or lead
oxide manufacturing facility from the
emission limitations or work practice
requirements of that subpart. This
means you comply with all applicable
emissions limitations and work practice
standards under the other subpart (e.g.,
you install and operate the required air
pollution controls or have implemented
the required work practice to reduce
lead emissions to levels specified by the
applicable subpart).
■ 9. Section 63.11422 is revised to read
as follows:
§ 63.11422
dates?
What are my compliance
(a) If you own or operate a lead acid
battery manufacturing plant existing
affected source, you must achieve
compliance with the applicable
provisions in this subpart by no later
than July 16, 2008, except as specified
E:\FR\FM\23FER2.SGM
23FER2
11590
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 36 / Thursday, February 23, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
in paragraphs (e) through (h) of this
section.
(b) If you start up a new lead acid
battery manufacturing plant affected
source on or before July 16, 2007, you
must achieve compliance with the
applicable provisions in this subpart not
later than July 16, 2007, except as
specified in paragraphs (e) through (h)
of this section.
(c) If you start up a new lead acid
battery manufacturing plant affected
source after July 16, 2007, but on or
before February 23, 2022, you must
achieve compliance with the applicable
provisions in this subpart upon startup
of your affected source, except as
specified in paragraphs (e) through (h)
this section.
(d) If you start up a new lead acid
battery manufacturing plant or lead acid
battery component manufacturing plant
affected source after February 23, 2022,
you must achieve compliance with the
applicable provisions in this subpart not
later than February 23, 2023, or upon
initial startup of your affected source,
whichever is later.
(e) Until February 23, 2026, lead acid
battery manufacturing plant affected
sources that commenced construction or
reconstruction on or before February 23,
2023, must meet all the standards for
lead and opacity in 40 CFR 60.372 and
the requirements of § 63.11423(a)(1).
(f) Lead acid battery manufacturing
plant affected sources that commenced
construction or reconstruction on or
before February 23, 2023, must comply
with the requirements in
§ 63.11423(a)(2) by February 23, 2026.
All affected sources that commence
construction or reconstruction after
February 23, 2023, must comply with
the requirements in § 63.11423(a)(2) by
initial startup or February 23, 2023,
whichever is later.
(g) Lead acid battery manufacturing
plant affected sources that commenced
construction or reconstruction on or
before February 23, 2023, must comply
with the requirements of
§ 63.11423(a)(3) by August 22, 2023. All
affected sources that commence
construction or reconstruction after
February 23, 2023, must comply with
the requirements of § 63.11423(a)(3) by
initial startup or February 23, 2023,
whichever is later.
(h) After February 23, 2023, lead acid
battery manufacturing plant affected
sources must comply with the startup,
shutdown, and malfunction
requirements specified in table 3 to this
subpart except that you must comply
with the recordkeeping requirements
that table 3 refers to in § 63.11424(a)(5)
by May 24, 2023.
(i) If you own or operate a lead acid
battery component manufacturing plant
existing affected source, you must
achieve compliance with the applicable
provisions in this subpart by no later
than February 23, 2026.
■ 10. Section 63.11423 is revised and
republished read as follows:
§ 63.11423 What are the standards and
compliance requirements for new and
existing sources?
(a) You must meet all the standards
for lead and opacity as specified in
paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this
section.
(1) Until the compliance date
specified in § 63.11422(e), lead acid
battery manufacturing plant affected
sources must comply with paragraph
(a)(1)(i) or (ii) of this section.
(i) You meet all the standards for lead
and opacity in 40 CFR 60.372 and the
requirements of paragraphs (a)(4) and
(5), (b), and (c)(1) through (3) of this
section.
(ii) You comply with paragraph (a)(2)
of this section.
(2) Beginning no later than the
applicable compliance date specified in
§ 63.11422(f) or (i), you must meet each
emission limit in table 1 to this subpart
and each opacity standard in table 2 to
this subpart that applies to you; you
must meet the requirements of
paragraphs (a)(4) and (5), (c), and (d) of
this section; and you must also comply
with the recordkeeping and electronic
reporting requirements in
§ 63.11424(a)(6) and (7) and (b).
(3) Beginning no later than the
applicable compliance date specified in
§ 63.11422(g) or (i), you must comply
with the monitoring requirements in
paragraph (e) of this section, the
recordkeeping and electronic reporting
requirements in § 63.11424(a)(1)
through (5) and (c) through (f), and the
definition of lead reclamation in
§ 63.11426.
(4) At all times, you must operate and
maintain any affected source, including
associated air pollution control
equipment and monitoring equipment,
in a manner consistent with safety and
good air pollution control practices for
minimizing emissions. The general duty
to minimize emissions does not require
you to make any further efforts to
reduce emissions if levels required by
the applicable standard in this part have
been achieved. Determination of
whether a source is operating in
compliance with operation and
maintenance requirements will be based
on information available to the
Administrator which may include, but
is not limited to, monitoring results,
review of operation and maintenance
procedures, review of operation and
maintenance records, and inspection of
the source.
(5) When two or more facilities at the
same plant (except the lead oxide
manufacturing facility) are ducted to a
common control device, an equivalent
standard for the total exhaust from the
commonly controlled facilities must be
determined using equation 1 to this
paragraph (a)(5) as follows:
N
Where:
Se = is the equivalent standard for the total
exhaust stream, mg/dscm (gr/dscf).
Sa = is the actual standard for each exhaust
stream ducted to the control device, mg/
dscm (gr/dscf).
N = is the total number of exhaust streams
ducted to the control device.
Qsda = is the dry standard volumetric flow
rate of the effluent gas stream from each
facility ducted to the control device,
dscm/hr (dscf/hr).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Feb 22, 2023
Jkt 259001
Se=
L
a=1
QsdT = is the total dry standard volumetric
flow rate of all effluent gas streams
ducted to the control device, dscm/hr
(dscf/hr).
(b) As specified in paragraph (a) of
this section, you must meet the
monitoring requirements in paragraphs
(b)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) For any emissions point controlled
by a scrubbing system, you must meet
the requirements in 40 CFR 60.373.
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Sa (QQsda)
sdr
(2) For any emissions point controlled
by a fabric filter, you must meet the
requirements of paragraph (b)(2)(i) of
this section and either paragraph
(b)(2)(ii) or (iii) of this section. Fabric
filters equipped with a high efficiency
particulate air (HEPA) filter or other
secondary filter are allowed to monitor
less frequently, as specified in
paragraph (b)(2)(iv) of this section.
E:\FR\FM\23FER2.SGM
23FER2
ER23FE23.004</GPH>
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Equation 1 to paragraph (a)(S):
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 36 / Thursday, February 23, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
actions. You must also record the
corrective actions taken. You must
submit a monitoring system
performance report in accordance with
§ 63.10(e)(3).
(B) If you are conducting visible
emissions observations in accordance
with paragraph (b)(2)(iii) of this section,
you must conduct such observations at
least once per week and record the
results in accordance with paragraph
(b)(2)(iii) of this section. If visible
emissions are detected, you must record
the incident and conduct an opacity
measurement in accordance with 40
CFR 60.374(b)(3). You must record the
results of each opacity measurement. If
the measurement exceeds the applicable
opacity standard in 40 CFR 60.372(a)(7)
or (8), you must submit this information
in an excess emissions report required
under § 63.10(e)(3).
(c) As specified in paragraph (a) of
this section, you must meet the
performance testing requirements in
paragraphs (c)(1) through (6) of this
section.
(1) Existing sources are not required
to conduct an initial performance test if
a prior performance test was conducted
using the same methods specified in
this section and either no process
changes have been made since the test,
or you can demonstrate that the results
of the performance test, with or without
adjustments, reliably demonstrate
compliance with this subpart despite
process changes.
(2) Sources without a prior
performance test, as described in
paragraph (c)(1) of this section, must
conduct an initial performance test
using the methods specified in
paragraphs (c)(2)(i) through (iv) of this
section.
(i) EPA Method 12 or EPA Method 29
of appendix A to 40 CFR part 60 must
be used to determine the lead
concentration (CPb) and the volumetric
flow rate (Qsda) of the effluent gas. The
sampling time and the sample volume
for each run must be at least 60 minutes
and 0.85 dscm (30 dscf).
(ii) EPA Method 9 of appendix A to
40 CFR part 60 and the procedures in
§ 63.6(h) must be used to determine
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Equation 2 to paragraph (c)(2)(iii):
Where:
C = concentration of lead emissions for the
entire facility, mg/dscm (gr/dscf).
Ca = concentration of lead emissions from
facility ‘‘a,’’ mg/dscm (gr/dscf).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Feb 22, 2023
Jkt 259001
C = L~=1(CaQsda)
L~=l Qsda
Qsda = volumetric flow rate of effluent gas
from facility ‘‘a,’’ dscm/hr (dscf/hr).
n = total number of control devices to which
separate operations in the facility are
ducted.
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
opacity. The opacity numbers must be
rounded off to the nearest whole
percentage. Or, as an alternative to
Method 9, you may use ASTM D7520–
16 (incorporated by reference, see
§ 63.14) with the caveats in paragraphs
(c)(4)(ii)(A) through (E) of this section.
(A) During the digital camera opacity
technique (DCOT) certification
procedure outlined in Section 9.2 of
ASTM D7520–16, you or the DCOT
vendor must present the plumes in front
of various backgrounds of color and
contrast representing conditions
anticipated during field use such as blue
sky, trees, and mixed backgrounds
(clouds and/or a sparse tree stand).
(B) You must also have standard
operating procedures in place including
daily or other frequency quality checks
to ensure the equipment is within
manufacturing specifications as
outlined in Section 8.1 of ASTM
D7520–16.
(C) You must follow the
recordkeeping procedures outlined in
§ 63.10(b)(1) for the DCOT certification,
compliance report, data sheets, and all
raw unaltered JPEGs used for opacity
and certification determination.
(D) You or the DCOT vendor must
have a minimum of four (4)
independent technology users apply the
software to determine the visible
opacity of the 300 certification plumes.
For each set of 25 plumes, the user may
not exceed 15 percent opacity of any
one reading and the average error must
not exceed 7.5 percent opacity.
(E) This approval does not provide or
imply a certification or validation of any
vendor’s hardware or software. The
onus to maintain and verify the
certification and/or training of the
DCOT camera, software, and operator in
accordance with ASTM D7520–16 and
this letter is on the facility, DCOT
operator, and DCOT vendor.
(iii) When different operations in a
three-process operation facility are
ducted to separate control devices, the
lead emission concentration (C) from
the facility must be determined using
equation 2 to this paragraph (c)(2)(iii) as
follows:
(iv) For a lead oxide manufacturing
facility, the lead emission rate must be
determined as specified in paragraphs
(c)(2)(iv)(A) and (B) of this section.
(A) The emission rate (E) from lead
oxide manufacturing facility must be
E:\FR\FM\23FER2.SGM
23FER2
ER23FE23.005</GPH>
(i) You must perform semiannual
inspections and maintenance to ensure
proper performance of each fabric filter.
This includes inspection of structural
and filter integrity. You must record the
results of these inspections.
(ii) You must install, maintain, and
operate a pressure drop monitoring
device to measure the differential
pressure drop across the fabric filter
during all times when the process is
operating. The pressure drop must be
recorded at least once per day. If a
pressure drop is observed outside of the
normal operational ranges as specified
by the manufacturer, you must record
the incident and take immediate
corrective actions. You must also record
the corrective actions taken. You must
submit a monitoring system
performance report in accordance with
§ 63.10(e)(3).
(iii) You must conduct a visible
emissions observation at least once per
day while the process is in operation to
verify that no visible emissions are
occurring at the discharge point to the
atmosphere from any emissions source
subject to the requirements of paragraph
(a) of this section. If visible emissions
are detected, you must record the
incident and conduct an opacity
measurement in accordance with 40
CFR 60.374(b)(3). You must record the
results of each opacity measurement. If
the measurement exceeds the applicable
opacity standard in 40 CFR 60.372(a)(7)
or (8), you must submit this information
in an excess emissions report required
under § 63.10(e)(3).
(iv) Fabric filters equipped with a
HEPA filter or other secondary filter are
allowed to monitor less frequently, as
specified in paragraph (b)(2)(iv)(A) or
(B) of this section.
(A) If you are using a pressure drop
monitoring device to measure the
differential pressure drop across the
fabric filter in accordance with
paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section, you
must record the pressure drop at least
once per week. If a pressure drop is
observed outside of the normal
operational ranges as specified by the
manufacturer, you must record the
incident and take immediate corrective
11591
11592
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 36 / Thursday, February 23, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
computed for each run using equation 3
to this paragraph (c)(2)(iv)(A) as follows:
Equation 3 to paragraph (c)(2)(iv)(A):
Where:
E = emission rate of lead, mg/kg (lb/ton) of
lead charged.
CPbi = concentration of lead from emission
point ‘‘i,’’ mg/dscm (gr/dscf).
Qsdi = volumetric flow rate of effluent gas
from emission point ‘‘i,’’ dscm/hr (dscf/
hr).
M = number of emission points in the
affected facility.
P = lead feed rate to the facility, kg/hr (ton/
hr).
K = conversion factor, 1.0 mg/mg (7000 gr/
lb).
(B) The average lead feed rate (P) must
be determined for each run using
equation 4 to this paragraph (c)(2)(iv)(B)
as follows:
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Where:
N = number of lead ingots charged.
W = average mass of the lead ingots, kg (ton).
Q = duration of run, hr.
(3) In conducting the initial
performance tests required in § 63.7,
you must use as reference methods and
procedures the test methods in
appendix A to 40 CFR part 60 or other
methods and procedures as specified in
this section, except as provided in
§ 63.7(f).
(4) After the initial performance test
described in paragraphs (c)(1) through
(3) of this section, you must conduct
subsequent performance tests every 5
years to demonstrate compliance with
each applicable emissions limitations
and opacity standards. Within three
years of February 23, 2023, performance
testing must be conducted for each
affected source subject to an applicable
emissions limitation in tables 1 and 2 to
this subpart that has not had a
performance test within the last 5 years,
except as described in paragraph (c)(6)
of this section. Thereafter, subsequent
performance tests for each affected
source must be completed no less
frequently than every 5 years from the
date the emissions source was last
tested.
(5) In lieu of conducting subsequent
performance tests for each affected
source, you may elect to group similar
affected sources together and conduct
subsequent performance tests on one
representative affected source within
each group of similar affected sources.
The determination of whether affected
sources are similar must meet the
criteria in paragraph (c)(5)(i) of this
section. If you decide to test
representative affected sources, you
must prepare and submit a testing plan
as described in paragraph (c)(5)(iii) of
this section.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Feb 22, 2023
Jkt 259001
(i) If you elect to test representative
affected sources, the affected sources
that are grouped together must be of the
same process type (e.g., grid casting,
paste mixing, three-process operations)
and also have the same type of air
pollution control device (e.g., fabric
filters). You cannot group affected
sources from different process types or
with different air pollution control
device types together for the purposes of
this section.
(ii) The results of the performance test
conducted for the affected source
selected as representative of a group of
similar affected sources will represent
the results for each affected source
within the group. In the performance
test report, all affected sources in the
group will need to be listed.
(iii) If you plan to conduct subsequent
performance tests on representative
emission units, you must submit a test
plan. This test plan must be submitted
to the Administrator or delegated
authority for review and approval no
later than 90 days prior to the first
scheduled performance test. The test
plan must contain the information
specified in paragraphs (c)(5)(iii)(A)
through (C) of this section.
(A) A list of all emission units. This
list must clearly identify all emission
units that have been grouped together as
similar emission units. Within each
group of emission units, you must
identify the emission unit that will be
the representative unit for that group
and subject to performance testing.
(B) A list of the process type and type
of air pollution control device on each
emission unit.
(C) A date of last test for each
emission unit and a schedule indicating
when you will conduct performance
tests for each emission unit within the
representative groups.
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
(iv) If you conduct subsequent
performance tests on representative
emission units, the unit with the oldest
test must be tested first, and each
subsequent performance test must be
performed for a different unit until all
units in the group have been tested. The
order of testing for each subsequent test
must proceed such that the unit in the
group with the least recent performance
test is the next unit to be tested.
(6) You may not conduct performance
tests during periods of malfunction. You
must record the process information
that is necessary to document operating
conditions during the test and include
in such record an explanation to
support that such conditions represent
normal operation. You must make
available to the Administrator in the test
report, records as may be necessary to
determine the conditions of
performance tests.
(d) Beginning no later than the
applicable compliance date specified in
§ 63.11422(f) or (i), you must prepare
and, at all times, operate according to a
fugitive dust mitigation plan that
describes in detail the measures that
will be put in place and implemented to
control fugitive dust emissions in the
lead oxide unloading and storage areas.
You must prepare a fugitive dust
mitigation plan according to the
requirements in paragraphs (d)(1) and
(2) of this section.
(1) You must submit the fugitive dust
mitigation plan to the Administrator or
delegated authority for review and
approval when initially developed and
any time changes are made.
(2) The fugitive dust mitigation plan
must at a minimum include the
requirements specified in paragraphs
(d)(2)(i) through (iv) of this section.
(i) Cleaning lead oxide unloading and
storage areas. Surfaces traversed during
vehicular material transfer activity in
E:\FR\FM\23FER2.SGM
23FER2
ER23FE23.006</GPH> ER23FE23.007</GPH>
Equation 4 to paragraph (c)(2)(iv)(B):
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 36 / Thursday, February 23, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
lead oxide unloading and storage areas
must be cleaned at least once per
month, by wet wash or a vacuum
equipped with a filter rated by the
manufacturer to achieve 99.97 percent
capture efficiency for 0.3 micron
particles in a manner that does not
generate fugitive lead dust, except when
sand or a similar material has been
spread on the area to provide traction on
ice or snow.
(ii) Spills in lead oxide unloading and
storage areas. For any leak or spill that
occurs during the unloading and storage
process, complete washing or
vacuuming the area to remove all
spilled or leaked lead bearing material
within 2 hours of the leak or spill
occurrence.
(iii) Materials storage. Dust forming
materials (that contain lead or lead
compounds) must be stored in sealed,
leak-proof containers or in a total
enclosure.
(iv) Records. The fugitive dust
mitigation plan must specify that
records be maintained of all cleaning
performed under paragraph (d)(2)(i) and
(ii) of this section.
(e) Beginning no later than the
applicable compliance date specified in
§ 63.11422(g) or (i), you must meet the
monitoring requirements in paragraphs
(e)(1) through (5) of this section.
(1) For any emissions point controlled
by a scrubbing system, you must install,
calibrate, maintain, and operate a
monitoring device(s) that measures and
records the liquid flow rate and pressure
drop across the scrubbing system(s) at
least once every 15 minutes. The
monitoring device must have an
accuracy of ±5 percent over its operating
range. The operating liquid flow rate
must be maintained within ±10 percent
of the average liquid flow rate during
the most recent performance test. If a
liquid flow rate or pressure drop is
observed outside of the normal
operational ranges as you must record
the incident and take immediate
corrective actions. You must also record
the corrective actions taken. You must
submit an excess emissions and
continuous monitoring system
performance report and summary report
required under § 63.11424(c).
(2) Emissions points controlled by a
fabric filter without a secondary filter
must meet the requirements of
paragraphs (e)(2)(i) and (ii) of this
section and either paragraph (e)(2)(iii) or
(iv) of this section.
(i) You must perform quarterly
inspections and maintenance to ensure
proper performance of each fabric filter.
This includes inspection of structural
and filter integrity.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Feb 22, 2023
Jkt 259001
(ii) If it is not possible for you to take
the corrective actions specified in
paragraph (e)(2)(iii)(C) or (D) of this
section for a process or fabric filter
control device, you must keep at least
one replacement fabric filter onsite at all
times for that process or fabric filter
control device. The characteristics of the
replacement filters must be the same as
the current fabric filters in use or have
characteristics that would achieve equal
or greater emission reductions.
(iii) Install, maintain, and operate a
pressure drop monitoring device to
measure the differential pressure drop
across the fabric filter during all times
when the process is operating. The
pressure drop must be recorded at least
twice per day (at least 8 hours apart) if
the results of the most recent
performance test indicate that emissions
are greater than 50 percent of the lead
emissions limit in table 1 to this
subpart. The pressure drop must be
recorded at least once per day if the
results of the most recent performance
test indicate that emissions are less than
or equal to 50 percent of the lead
emissions limit in table 1. If a pressure
drop is observed outside of the normal
operational ranges, you must record the
incident and take immediate corrective
actions. You must submit an excess
emissions and continuous monitoring
system performance report and
summary report required under
§ 63.11424(c). You must also record the
corrective actions taken and verify
pressure drop is within normal
operational range. These corrective
actions may include but are not limited
to those provided in paragraphs
(e)(2)(iii)(A) through (D) of this section.
(A) Inspecting the filter and filter
housing for air leaks and torn or broken
filters.
(B) Replacing defective filter media,
or otherwise repairing the control
device.
(C) Sealing off a defective control
device by routing air to other control
devices.
(D) Shutting down the process
producing the lead emissions.
(iv) Conduct a visible emissions
observation using EPA Method 9 or EPA
Method 22 of appendix A to 40 CFR part
60 while the process is in operation to
verify that no visible emissions are
occurring at the discharge point to the
atmosphere from any emissions source
subject to the requirements of paragraph
(a) of this section. The visible emissions
observation must be conducted at least
twice daily (at least 6 hours apart) if the
results of the most recent performance
test indicate that emissions are greater
than 50 percent of the lead emissions
limit in table 1 to this subpart. The
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
11593
visible emissions observation must be
conducted at least once per day if the
results of the most recent performance
test indicate that emissions are less than
or equal to 50 percent of the lead
emissions limit in table 1. If visible
emissions are detected, you must record
the incident and submit this
information in an excess emissions and
continuous monitoring system
performance report and summary report
required under § 63.11424(c) and take
immediate corrective action. You must
also record the corrective actions taken.
These corrective actions may include
but are not limited to those provided in
paragraphs (e)(2)(iii)(A) through (D) of
this section.
(3) Emissions points controlled by a
fabric filter equipped with a secondary
filter, such as a HEPA filter, must meet
the requirements of paragraphs (e)(3)(i)
and (ii) of this section and either
paragraph (e)(3)(iii) or (iv) of this
section.
(i) You must perform the inspections
required in paragraph (e)(2)(i) of this
section quarterly.
(ii) If it is not possible for you to take
the corrective actions specified in
paragraph (e)(2)(iii)(C) or (D) of this
section for a process or fabric filter
control device, you must keep at least
one replacement primary fabric filter
and one replacement secondary filter
onsite at all times for that process or
fabric filter control device. The
characteristics of the replacement filters
must be the same as the current fabric
filters in use or have characteristics that
would achieve equal or greater emission
reductions.
(iii) You must perform the pressure
drop monitoring requirements in
paragraph (e)(2)(iii) of this section. You
may perform these requirements once
weekly rather than once or twice daily.
(iv) You must perform the visible
emissions observation requirements in
paragraph (e)(2)(iv) of this section. You
may perform these requirements weekly
rather than once or twice daily.
(4) Beginning no later than the
applicable compliance date specified in
§ 63.11422(g) or (i), if you operate a bag
leak detection system, that system must
meet the specifications and
requirements in paragraphs (e)(4)(i)
through (ix) of this section. Emission
points controlled by a fabric filter
equipped that are monitored with a bag
leak detection system meeting the
specifications and requirements in
paragraphs (e)(4)(i) through (ix) of this
section may have the inspections
required in paragraph (e)(2)(i) of this
section performed semiannually.
(i) The bag leak detection system must
be certified by the manufacturer to be
E:\FR\FM\23FER2.SGM
23FER2
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
11594
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 36 / Thursday, February 23, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
capable of detecting particulate matter
as lead emissions at concentrations at or
below the values in table 1 to this
subpart, as applicable to the process for
which the fabric filter is used to control
emissions. Where the fabric filter is
used as a control device for more than
one process, the lowest applicable value
in table 1 must be used.
(ii) The bag leak detection system
sensor must provide output of relative
particulate matter loadings.
(iii) The bag leak detection system
must be equipped with an alarm system
that will alarm when an increase in
relative particulate loadings is detected
over a preset level.
(iv) You must install and operate the
bag leak detection system in a manner
consistent with the guidance provided
in ‘‘Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards (OAQPS) Fabric Filter Bag
Leak Detection Guidance’’ (EPA–454/R–
98–015) (incorporated by reference, see
§ 63.14) and the manufacturer’s written
specifications and recommendations for
installation, operation, and adjustment
of the system.
(v) The initial adjustment of the
system must, at a minimum, consist of
establishing the baseline output by
adjusting the sensitivity (range) and the
averaging period of the device and
establishing the alarm set points and the
alarm delay time.
(vi) Following initial adjustment, you
must not adjust the sensitivity or range,
averaging period, alarm set points, or
alarm delay time, except as detailed in
the approved standard operating
procedures manual required under
paragraph (e)(4)(ix) of this section. You
cannot increase the sensitivity by more
than 100 percent or decrease the
sensitivity by more than 50 percent over
a 365-day period unless such
adjustment follows a complete fabric
filter inspection that demonstrates that
the fabric filter is in good operating
condition.
(vii) For negative pressure, induced
air baghouses, and positive pressure
baghouses that are discharged to the
atmosphere through a stack, you must
install the bag leak detector downstream
of the fabric filter.
(viii) Where multiple detectors are
required, the system’s instrumentation
and alarm may be shared among
detectors.
(ix) You must develop a standard
operating procedures manual for the bag
leak detection system that includes
procedures for making system
adjustments and a corrective action
plan, which specifies the procedures to
be followed in the case of a bag leak
detection system alarm. The corrective
action plan must include, at a
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Feb 22, 2023
Jkt 259001
minimum, the procedures that you will
use to determine and record the time
and cause of the alarm as well as the
corrective actions taken to minimize
emissions as specified in paragraphs
(e)(4)(ix)(A) and (B) of this section.
(A) The procedures used to determine
the cause of the alarm must be initiated
within 30 minutes of the alarm.
(B) The cause of the alarm must be
alleviated by taking the necessary
corrective action(s) that may include,
but not be limited to, those listed in
paragraphs (e)(4)(ix)(B)(1) through (6) of
this section.
(1) Inspecting the baghouse for air
leaks, torn or broken filter elements, or
any other malfunction that may cause
an increase in emissions.
(2) Sealing off defective bags or filter
media.
(3) Replacing defective bags or filter
media, or otherwise repairing the
control device.
(4) Sealing off defective baghouse
compartment.
(5) Cleaning the bag leak detection
system probe, or otherwise repairing the
bag leak detection system.
(6) Shutting down the process
producing the lead emissions.
(5) For continuous monitoring subject
to the requirements of § 63.8(d)(2) to
develop and implement a continuous
monitoring system quality control
program, you must keep these written
procedures on record for the life of the
affected source or until the affected
source is no longer subject to the
provisions of this part, to be made
available for inspection, upon request,
by the Administrator. If the performance
evaluation plan is revised, you must
keep previous (i.e., superseded) versions
of the performance evaluation plan on
record to be made available for
inspection, upon request, by the
Administrator, for a period of 5 years
after each revision to the plan. The
program of corrective action should be
included in the plan required under
§ 63.8(d)(2).
■ 11. Section 63.11424 is added to read
as follows:
§ 63.11424 What are the recordkeeping
and reporting requirements for this
subpart?
(a) You must keep the records
specified in this section according to the
applicable compliance date in
§ 63.11422(f) and (g) or (i) and maintain
them in a format readily available for
review onsite for a period of 5 years.
(1) Records of pressure drop values
and the liquid flow rate from the
monitoring required in § 63.11423(e)(1)
for scrubbing systems.
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
(2) Records of fabric filter inspections
and maintenance activities required in
§ 63.11423(e)(2)(i) or (e)(3)(i).
(3) Records required under
§ 63.11423(e)(2)(iii) or (e)(3)(iii) of fabric
filter pressure drop, pressure drop
observed outside of normal operating
ranges as specified by the manufacturer,
and corrective actions taken.
(4) Records of the required visible
emissions observations in
§ 63.11423(e)(2)(iv) or (e)(3)(iv).
(5) You must keep the records of
failures to meet an applicable standard
in this part as specified in paragraphs
(a)(5)(i) through (iii) of this section.
(i) In the event that an affected unit
fails to meet an applicable standard in
this part, record the number of failures.
For each failure record the date, time,
cause, and duration of each failure.
(ii) For each failure to meet an
applicable standard in this part, record
and retain a list of the affected sources
or equipment, an estimate of the
quantity of each regulated pollutant
emitted over any emission limit and a
description of the method used to
estimate the emissions.
(iii) Record actions taken to minimize
emissions and any corrective actions
taken to return the affected unit to its
normal or usual manner of operation.
(6) If a bag leak detection system is
used under § 63.11423(e)(4), for a period
of 5 years keep the records, specified in
paragraphs (a)(6)(i) through (iii) of this
section.
(i) Electronic records of the bag leak
detection system output.
(ii) An identification of the date and
time of all bag leak detection system
alarms, the time that procedures to
determine the cause of the alarm were
initiated, the cause of the alarm, an
explanation of the corrective actions
taken, and the date and time the cause
of the alarm was corrected.
(iii) All records of inspections and
maintenance activities required under
§ 63.11423(e)(4).
(7) Records of all cleaning required as
part of the practices described in the
fugitive dust mitigation plan required
under § 63.11423(d)(2)(iii) for the
control of fugitive dust emissions.
(b) Beginning on April 24, 2023,
within 60 days after the date of
completing each performance test or
demonstration of compliance required
by this subpart, you must submit the
results of the performance test following
the procedures specified in § 63.9(k) and
paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this
section.
(1) Data collected using test methods
supported by the EPA’s Electronic
Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the
EPA’s ERT website (https://
E:\FR\FM\23FER2.SGM
23FER2
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 36 / Thursday, February 23, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-airemissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert)
at the time of the test. Submit the results
of the performance test to the EPA via
the Compliance and Emissions Data
Reporting Interface (CEDRI), which can
be accessed through the EPA’s Central
Data Exchange (CDX) (https://
cdx.epa.gov/). The data must be
submitted in a file format generated
using the EPA’s ERT. Alternatively, you
may submit an electronic file consistent
with the extensible markup language
(XML) schema listed on the EPA’s ERT
website.
(2) Data collected using test methods
that are not supported by the EPA’s ERT
as listed on the EPA’s ERT website at
the time of the test. The results of the
performance test must be included as an
attachment in the ERT or an alternate
electronic file consistent with the XML
schema listed on the EPA’s ERT
website. Submit the ERT generated
package or alternative file to the EPA via
CEDRI. If a performance test consists
only of opacity measurements, reporting
using the ERT and CEDRI is not
required.
(3) Data collected containing
confidential business information (CBI).
All CBI claims must be asserted at the
time of submission. Do not use CEDRI
to submit information you claim as CBI.
Anything submitted using CEDRI cannot
later be claimed CBI. Although we do
not expect persons to assert a claim of
CBI, if you wish to assert a CBI claim
for some of the information submitted
under paragraph (b)(1) or (2) of this
section, you must submit a complete
file, including information claimed to be
CBI, to the EPA. The file must be
generated using the EPA’s ERT or an
alternate electronic file consistent with
the XML schema listed on the EPA’s
ERT website. The preferred method to
submit CBI is for it to be transmitted
electronically using email attachments,
File Transfer Protocol (FTP), or other
online file sharing services (e.g.,
Dropbox, OneDrive, Google Drive).
Electronic submissions must be
transmitted directly to the OAQPS CBI
Office at the email address oaqpscbi@
epa.gov, and as described in this
paragraph (b)(3), should include clear
CBI markings and note the docket ID. If
assistance is needed with submitting
large electronic files that exceed the file
size limit for email attachments, and if
you do not have your own file sharing
service, please email oaqpscbi@epa.gov
to request a file transfer link. If sending
CBI information through the postal
service, submit the file on a compact
disc, flash drive, or other commonly
used electronic storage medium and
clearly mark the medium as CBI. Mail
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Feb 22, 2023
Jkt 259001
the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/
OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention:
Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Sector
Lead, MD C404–02, 4930 Old Page Rd.,
Durham, NC 27703. The same file with
the CBI omitted must be submitted to
the EPA via the EPA’s CDX as described
in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this
section. Under CAA section 114(c),
emissions data is not entitled to
confidential treatment, and the EPA is
required to make emissions data
available to the public. Thus, emissions
data will not be protected as CBI and
will be made publicly available.
(c) Beginning on February 23, 2024, or
once the report template for this subpart
has been available on the CEDRI website
for one year, whichever date is later,
you must submit a report of excess
emissions and monitoring systems
performance report and summary report
according to §§ 63.9(k) and 63.10(e)(3)
to the Administrator semiannually.
Report the number of failures to meet an
applicable standard in this part. For
each instance, report the date, time,
cause, and duration of each failure. For
each failure, the report must include a
list of the affected sources or equipment,
an estimate of the quantity of each
regulated pollutant emitted over any
emission limit, and a description of the
method used to estimate the emissions.
You must use the appropriate electronic
report template on the CEDRI website
(https://www.epa.gov/electronicreporting-air-emissions/cedri) or an
alternate electronic file consistent with
the XML schema listed on the CEDRI
website for this subpart. The date report
templates become available will be
listed on the CEDRI website. Unless the
Administrator or delegated state agency
or other authority has approved a
different schedule for submission of
reports, the report must be submitted by
the deadline specified in this subpart,
regardless of the method in which the
report is submitted. Submit all reports
to the EPA via CEDRI, which can be
accessed through the EPA’s CDX
(https://cdx.epa.gov/). The EPA will
make all the information submitted
through CEDRI available to the public
without further notice to you. Do not
use CEDRI to submit information you
claim as CBI. Anything submitted using
CEDRI cannot later be claimed CBI. The
report must be submitted by the
deadline specified in this subpart,
regardless of the method in which the
report is submitted. Although we do not
expect persons to assert a claim of CBI,
if you wish to assert a CBI claim, follow
the requirements specified in paragraph
(b)(3) of this section. The same file with
the CBI omitted must be submitted to
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
11595
the EPA via the EPA’s CDX as described
earlier in this paragraph (c).
(d) Any records required to be
maintained by this subpart that are
submitted electronically via the EPA’s
CEDRI may be maintained in electronic
format. This ability to maintain
electronic copies does not affect the
requirement for facilities to make
records, data, and reports available
upon request to a delegated air agency
or the EPA as part of an on-site
compliance evaluation.
■ 12. Section 63.11425 is amended by
revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
§ 63.11425 What General Provisions apply
to this subpart?
(a) The provisions in subpart A of this
part, that are applicable to this subpart
are specified in table 3 to this subpart.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 13. Section 63.11426 is revised to read
as follows:
§ 63.11426
subpart?
What definitions apply to this
The terms used in this subpart are
defined in the CAA, in § 63.2 for terms
used in the applicable provisions of
subpart A of this part, and in this
section as follows:
Bag leak detection system means a
system that is capable of continuously
monitoring particulate matter (dust)
loadings in the exhaust of a fabric filter
(baghouse) in order to detect bag leaks
and other upset conditions. A bag leak
detection system includes, but is not
limited to, an instrument that operates
on triboelectric, light scattering, light
transmittance, or other effect to
continuously monitor relative
particulate matter loadings.
Grid casting facility means a facility
which includes all lead melting pots,
pots that remelt scrap from onsite lead
acid battery manufacturing processes,
and machines used for casting the grid
used in lead acid batteries.
Lead acid battery component
manufacturing plant means any plant
that does not produce a final lead acid
battery product but at which one or
more of the following processes is
conducted to develop a product for use
in lead acid batteries: grid casting, paste
mixing, three-process operations, and
lead oxide manufacturing.
Lead acid battery manufacturing
plant means any plant that produces a
storage battery using lead and lead
compounds for the plates and sulfuric
acid for the electrolyte.
Lead oxide manufacturing facility
means a facility that produces lead
oxide from lead for use in lead acid
batteries, including lead oxide
production and product recovery
E:\FR\FM\23FER2.SGM
23FER2
11596
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 36 / Thursday, February 23, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
operations. Local exhaust ventilation or
building ventilation exhausts serving
lead oxide production areas are not part
of the lead oxide manufacturing facility.
Lead reclamation facility means a
facility that casts remelted lead scrap
generated by onsite lead acid battery
manufacturing processes into lead
ingots for use in the battery
manufacturing process, and which is
not a furnace affected under subpart X
of this part. Lead scrap remelting
processes that are used directly (not cast
into an ingot first) in a grid casting
facility or a three-process operations
facility are parts of those facilities and
are not part of a lead reclamation
facility.
Other lead-emitting operation means
any operation at a plant involved in the
manufacture of lead acid batteries from
which lead emissions are collected and
ducted to the atmosphere and which is
not part of a grid casting, lead oxide
manufacturing, lead reclamation, paste
mixing, or three-process operation
facility, or a furnace affected under
§ 63.11427 Who implements and enforces
this subpart?
*
*
*
*
*
(b) In delegating implementation and
enforcement authority of this subpart to
a State, local, or tribal agency under
subpart E of this part, the approval
authorities contained in paragraphs
(b)(1) through (5) of this section are
retained by the Administrator of the
U.S. EPA and are not transferred to the
State, local, or tribal agency.
*
*
*
*
*
(5) Approval of an alternative to any
electronic reporting to the EPA required
by this subpart.
15. Table 1 to subpart PPPPPP of part
63 is revised to read as follows:
■
Table 1 to Subpart PPPPPP of Part 63—
Emission Limits
As stated in § 63.11423(a)(2), you
must comply with the emission limits in
the following table:
For . . .
You must . . .
1. Each new or existing grid casting facility ........
Emit no more than 0.08 milligram of lead per dry standard cubic meter of exhaust (0.000035
gr/dscf).
Emit no more than 0.1 milligram of lead per dry standard cubic meter of exhaust (0.0000437
gr/dscf); or emit no more than 0.9 gram of lead per hour (0.002 lbs/hr) total from all paste
mixing operations.
Emit no more than 1.0 milligram of lead per dry standard cubic meter of exhaust (0.000437 gr/
dscf).
Emit no more than 5.0 milligram of lead per kilogram of lead feed (0.010 lb/ton).
2. Each new or existing paste mixing facility ......
3. Each new or existing three-process operation
facility.
4. Each new or existing lead oxide manufacturing facility.
5. Each new or existing lead reclamation facility
6. Each new or existing other lead-emitting operation.
16. Table 2 to subpart PPPPPP of part
63 is added to read as follows:
■
Emit no more than 0.45 milligram of lead per dry standard cubic meter of exhaust (0.000197
gr/dscf).
Emit no more than 1.0 milligram of lead per dry standard cubic meter of exhaust (0.000437 gr/
dscf).
Table 2 to Subpart PPPPPP of Part 63—
Opacity Standards
As stated in § 63.11423(a)(2), you
must comply with the opacity standards
in the following table:
For . . .
Any gases emitted must not exceed . . .
1. Each new or existing facility other than a lead
reclamation facility.
0 percent opacity (measured according to EPA Method 9 of appendix A to 40 CFR part 60
and rounded to the nearest whole percentage or measured according to EPA Method 22 of
appendix A to 40 CFR part 60).
5 percent opacity (measured according to EPA Method 9 and rounded to the nearest whole
percentage).
2. Each new or existing lead reclamation facility
17. Table 3 to subpart PPPPPP of part
63 is added to read as follows:
■
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
subpart X of this part. These operations
also include local exhaust ventilation or
building ventilation exhausts serving
lead oxide production areas.
Paste mixing facility means a facility
including lead oxide storage, conveying,
weighing, metering, and charging
operations; paste blending, handling,
and cooling operations; and plate
pasting, takeoff, cooling, and drying
operations.
Three-process operation facility
means a facility including those
processes involved with plate stacking,
burning or strap casting, and assembly
of elements into the battery case.
Total enclosure means a containment
building that is completely enclosed
with a floor, walls, and a roof to prevent
exposure to the elements and that has
limited openings to allow access and
egress for people and vehicles.
■ 14. Section 63.11427 is amended by
revising paragraph (b) introductory text
and adding paragraph (b)(5) to read as
follows:
Table 3 to Subpart PPPPPP of Part 63—
Applicability of General Provisions to
This Subpart
NESHAP General Provisions (subpart A
of this part) as shown in the following
table.
As required in § 63.11425, you must
comply with the requirements of the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Feb 22, 2023
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\23FER2.SGM
23FER2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 36 / Thursday, February 23, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
Subject
Applies to this
subpart?
Applicability ............................................
Definitions ..............................................
Units and Abbreviations ........................
Prohibited Activities and Circumvention
Preconstruction Review and Notification
Requirements.
Compliance with Standards and Maintenance Requirements.
General Duty to Minimize Emissions ....
Yes .....................
Yes .....................
............................
Yes .....................
No .......................
Requirement to correct malfunctions as
soon as possible.
Enforceability of requirements independent of other regulations.
SSM Plans .............................................
No .......................
Compliance Except During SSM ...........
Methods for determining compliance ....
Use of an alternative nonopacity emission standard.
SSM Exemption .....................................
Compliance with opacity/visible emission standards, compliance extensions and exemptions.
Performance Testing Requirements ......
No .......................
Yes .....................
Yes .....................
Conditions for conducting performance
tests.
Monitoring Requirements ......................
No .......................
General duty to minimize emissions
and CMS operation.
Requirement to develop SSM Plan for
CMS.
Written procedures for CMS ..................
Notification Requirements .....................
Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements.
No .......................
Recordkeeping of occurrence and duration of startups and shutdowns.
Recordkeeping of failures to meet a
standard.
Actions taken to minimize emissions
during SSM.
Use of SSM Plan ...................................
................................................................
No .......................
Control Device Requirements ...............
State Authorities and Delegations .........
Addresses ..............................................
Incorporations by Reference .................
Availability of Information and Confidentiality.
Performance Track Provisions ..............
Reserved ...............................................
No .......................
Yes .....................
Yes .....................
Yes .....................
Yes .....................
Citation
63.1
63.2
63.3
63.4
63.5
.........................................................
.........................................................
.........................................................
.........................................................
.........................................................
63.6(a) through (d) .................................
63.6(e)(1)(i) .............................................
63.6(e)(1)(ii) ............................................
63.6(e)(1)(iii) ...........................................
63.6(e)(3) ................................................
63.6(f)(1) .................................................
63.6(f)(2) and (3) ....................................
63.6(g) ....................................................
63.6(h)(1) ................................................
63.6(h)(2) through (9), (i) through (j) ......
63.7(a) through (d), (e)(2) and (3), (f)
through (h).
63.7(e)(1) ................................................
63.8(a), (b), (c)(1)(ii), (d)(1) and (2), (e)
through (g).
63.8(c)(1)(i) .............................................
63.8(c)(1)(iii) ...........................................
63.8(d)(3) ................................................
63.9 .........................................................
63.10(a), (b)(1), (b)(2)(iii), (b)(2)(vi)
through (ix), (b)(3), (c)(1) through
(14), (d)(1) through (4), (e), (f).
63.10(b)(2)(i) ...........................................
63.10(b)(2)(ii) ..........................................
63.10(b)(2)(iv) and (v) ............................
63.10(c)(15) ............................................
63.10(d)(5) ..............................................
63.11
63.12
63.13
63.14
63.15
.......................................................
.......................................................
.......................................................
.......................................................
.......................................................
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
63.16 .......................................................
63.1(a)(5), (a)(7) through (9), (b)(2),
(c)(3), (d), 63.6(b)(6), (c)(3) and (4),
(d), (e)(2), (e)(3)(ii), (h)(3), (h)(5)(iv),
63.8(a)(3), 63.9(b)(3), (h)(4),
63.10(c)(2) through (4), (c)(9).
Explanation
Yes .....................
No .......................
Section 63.11423(a)(3) specifies general duty requirements.
Yes .....................
No .......................
This subpart does not require a startup,
shutdown, and malfunction plan.
No .......................
Yes .....................
Yes .....................
Requirements for performance test conditions are found in § 63.11423(c)(7).
Yes .....................
Section 63.11423(a)(3) specifies general duty requirements.
No .......................
No .......................
Yes .....................
Yes .....................
No .......................
Section 63.11424(a)(5) specifies these
requirements.
No .......................
No .......................
No .......................
This subpart does not require a startup,
shutdown, and malfunction plan. See
§ 63.11424(c) for excess emissions
reporting requirements.
This subpart does not require flares.
Yes .....................
No .......................
[FR Doc. 2023–02989 Filed 2–22–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Feb 22, 2023
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
11597
E:\FR\FM\23FER2.SGM
23FER2
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 36 (Thursday, February 23, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11556-11597]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-02989]
[[Page 11555]]
Vol. 88
Thursday,
No. 36
February 23, 2023
Part III
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Parts 60 and 63
New Source Performance Standards Review for Lead Acid Battery
Manufacturing Plants and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Area Sources Technology
Review; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 36 / Thursday, February 23, 2023 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 11556]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 60 and 63
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0619; FRL-8602-02-OAR]
RIN 2060-AV43
New Source Performance Standards Review for Lead Acid Battery
Manufacturing Plants and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Area Sources Technology
Review
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action finalizes the results of the Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA's) review of the New Source Performance
Standards (NSPS) for Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Plants and the
technology review for the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) for Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Area Sources as
required under the Clean Air Act (CAA). The EPA is finalizing revised
lead emission limits for grid casting, paste mixing, and lead
reclamation operations for both the area source NESHAP and under a new
NSPS subpart (for lead acid battery manufacturing facilities that begin
construction, reconstruction, or modification after February 23, 2022).
In addition, the EPA is finalizing the following amendments for both
the area source NESHAP and under the new NSPS subpart: performance
testing once every 5 years to demonstrate compliance; work practices to
minimize emissions of fugitive lead dust; increased inspection
frequency of fabric filters; clarification of activities that are
considered to be lead reclamation activities; electronic reporting of
performance test results and semiannual compliance reports; and the
removal of exemptions for periods of startup, shutdown, and
malfunctions (SSM). The EPA is also finalizing a revision to the
applicability provisions in the area source NESHAP such that facilities
which make lead-bearing battery parts or process input material,
including but not limited to grid casting facilities and lead oxide
manufacturing facilities, will be subject to the area source NESHAP. In
addition, the EPA is finalizing a requirement in the new NSPS for new
facilities to operate bag leak detection systems for emission points
controlled by a fabric filter that do not include a secondary fabric
filter.
DATES: This final rule is effective on February 23, 2023. The
incorporation by reference (IBR) of certain publications listed in the
rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of February
23, 2023.
ADDRESSES: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has
established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2021-0619. All documents in the docket are listed on the https://www.regulations.gov/ website. Although listed, some information is not
publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI) or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
through https://www.regulations.gov/, or in hard copy at the EPA Docket
Center, WJC West Building, Room Number 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW,
Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room hours of operation are 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST), Monday through Friday.
The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and
the telephone number for the EPA Docket Center is (202) 566-1742.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this action,
contact Amanda Hansen, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-02),
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711;
telephone number: (919) 541-3165; and email address:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. Throughout this preamble the
use of ``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our'' is intended to refer to the EPA. We
use multiple acronyms and terms in this preamble. While this list may
not be exhaustive, to ease the reading of this preamble and for
reference purposes, the EPA defines the following terms and acronyms
here:
ANSI American National Standards Institute
BCI Battery Council International
BSER best system of emissions reduction
CAA Clean Air Act
DCOT digital camera opacity technique
EJ Environmental Justice
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ERT Electronic Reporting Tool
FR Federal Register
GACT generally available control technology
HAP hazardous air pollutant(s)
HEPA high efficiency particulate air
[micro]m microns
mg/dscm milligrams per dry standard cubic meters
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NEI National Emissions Inventory
NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
NSPS new source performance standards
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OMB Office of Management and Budget
Pb lead
RACT reasonably available control technology
SIC Standard Industrial Classification
SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction
the court the United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit
tpd tons per day
tpy tons per year
TR technology review
TRI Toxics Release Inventory
[micro]g/m3 microgram per cubic meter
UPL upper prediction limit
VCS voluntary consensus standards
Background information. On February 23, 2022 (87 FR 10134), the EPA
proposed revisions to the Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Area Source
NESHAP based on our technology review (TR) and proposed a new NSPS
subpart based on the best systems of emission reduction (BSER) review.
In this action, we are finalizing decisions and revisions for the
rules. We summarize some of the more significant comments we timely
received regarding the proposed rules and provide our responses in this
preamble. A summary of all other public comments on the proposal and
the EPA's responses to those comments is available in the New Source
Performance Standards for Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Plants and
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Lead Acid
Battery Manufacturing Area Sources Summary of Public Comments and
Responses on Proposed Rules (hereafter referred to as the ``Comment
Summary and Response Document'') in the docket for this action, Docket
ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0619. A ``track changes'' version of the
regulatory language that incorporates the changes in this action is
also available in the docket.
Organization of this document. The information in this preamble is
organized as follows:
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration
II. Background
[[Page 11557]]
A. What is the statutory authority for this final action?
1. NSPS
2. NESHAP
B. How does the EPA perform the NSPS and NESHAP reviews?
1. NSPS
2. NESHAP
C. What is the source category regulated in this final action?
D. What changes did we propose for the lead acid battery
manufacturing source category in our February 23, 2022, proposal?
E. What outreach and engagement did the EPA conduct with
environmental justice communities?
III. What actions are we finalizing and what is our rationale for
such decisions?
A. NSPS
B. NESHAP
C. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards?
1. NSPS
2. NESHAP
IV. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts
A. What are the affected facilities?
1. NSPS
2. NESHAP
B. What are the air quality impacts?
1. NSPS
2. NESHAP
C. What are the cost impacts?
1. NSPS
2. NESHAP
D. What are the economic impacts?
E. What are the benefits?
1. NSPS
2. NESHAP
F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?
1. NSPS
2. NESHAP
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and
1 CFR Part 51
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
The source category that is the subject of this final action is
lead acid battery manufacturing regulated under CAA section 111 New
Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and under CAA section 112 National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP). The North
American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for the lead acid
battery manufacturing industry is 335911. The NAICS code serves as a
guide for readers outlining the type of entities that this final action
is likely to affect. As defined in the Initial List of Categories of
Sources Under Section 112(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
(see 57 FR 31576; July 16, 1992) and Documentation for Developing the
Initial Source Category List, Final Report (see EPA-450/3-91-030, July
1992), the Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing source category for purposes
of CAA section 112 includes any facility engaged in producing lead acid
or lead acid storage batteries, including, but not limited to,
starting-lighting-ignition batteries and industrial storage batteries.
The category includes, but is not limited to, the following lead acid
battery manufacturing steps: lead oxide production, grid casting, paste
mixing, and three-process operation (plate stacking, burning, and
assembly). Lead acid battery manufacturing was identified as a source
category under CAA section 111 in the Priorities for New Source
Performance Standards Under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 (see
EPA-450/3-78-019, April 1978), and added to the priority list in the
Revised Prioritized List of Source Categories for NSPS Promulgation
(see EPA-450/3-79-023, March 1979). Federal, state, local and tribal
government entities would not be affected by this action. If you have
any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a
particular entity, you should carefully examine the applicability
criteria found in 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKa, and 40 CFR part 63,
subpart PPPPPP, or consult the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble, your state air pollution
control agency with delegated authority for NSPS and NESHAP, or your
EPA Regional Office.
B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this final action will also be available on the internet. Following
signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this
final action at: https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/lead-acid-battery-manufacturing-new-source-performance-standards and
https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/lead-acid-battery-manufacturing-area-sources-national-emission. Following publication in
the Federal Register (FR), the EPA will post the Federal Register
version and key technical documents at this same website.
C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration
Under Clean Air Act (CAA) section 307(b)(1), judicial review of
this final action is available only by filing a petition for review in
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
(the court) by April 24, 2023. Under CAA section 307(b)(2), the
requirements established by this final rule may not be challenged
separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to
enforce the requirements.
Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that ``[o]nly an
objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable
specificity during the period for public comment (including any public
hearing) may be raised during judicial review.'' This section also
provides a mechanism for the EPA to convene a proceeding for
reconsideration, ``[i]f the person raising an objection can demonstrate
to the EPA that it was impracticable to raise such objection within
[the period for public comment] or if the grounds for such objection
arose after the period for public comment, (but within the time
specified for judicial review) and if such objection is of central
relevance to the outcome of the rule.'' Any person seeking to make such
a demonstration to us should submit a Petition for Reconsideration to
the Office of the Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Room 3000, WJC West Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460, with a copy to both the person(s) listed in the preceding FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, and the Associate General Counsel
for the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General Counsel (Mail
Code 2344A), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460.
[[Page 11558]]
II. Background
A. What is the statutory authority for this final action?
1. NSPS
The EPA's authority for this final NSPS rule is CAA section 111,
which governs the establishment of standards of performance for
stationary sources. Section 111(b)(1)(A) of the CAA requires the EPA
Administrator to list categories of stationary sources that in the
Administrator's judgment cause or contribute significantly to air
pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health
or welfare. The EPA must then issue performance standards for new (and
modified or reconstructed) sources in each source category pursuant to
CAA section 111(b)(1)(B). These standards are referred to as new source
performance standards, or NSPS. The EPA has the authority to define the
scope of the source categories, determine the pollutants for which
standards should be developed, set the emission level of the standards,
and distinguish among classes, types, and sizes within categories in
establishing the standards.
CAA section 111(b)(1)(B) requires the EPA to ``at least every 8
years review and, if appropriate, revise'' NSPS. However, the
Administrator need not review any such standard if the ``Administrator
determines that such review is not appropriate in light of readily
available information on the efficacy'' of the standard. When
conducting a review of an existing performance standard, the EPA has
the discretion and authority to add emission limits for pollutants or
emission sources not currently regulated for that source category.
In setting or revising a performance standard, CAA section
111(a)(1) provides that performance standards are to reflect ``the
degree of emission limitation achievable through the application of the
best system of emission reduction which (taking into account the cost
of achieving such reduction and any nonair quality health and
environmental impact and energy requirements) the Administrator
determines has been adequately demonstrated.'' The term ``standard of
performance'' in CAA section 111(a)(1) makes clear that the EPA is to
determine both the best system of emission reduction (BSER) for the
regulated sources in the source category and the degree of emission
limitation achievable through application of the BSER. The EPA must
then, under CAA section 111(b)(1)(B), promulgate standards of
performance for new sources that reflect that level of stringency. CAA
section 111(h)(1) authorizes the Administrator to promulgate ``a
design, equipment, work practice, or operational standard, or
combination thereof'' if in his or her judgment, ``it is not feasible
to prescribe or enforce a standard of performance.'' CAA section
111(h)(2) provides the circumstances under which prescribing or
enforcing a standard of performance is ``not feasible,'' such as, when
the pollutant cannot be emitted through a conveyance designed to emit
or capture the pollutant, or when there is no practicable measurement
methodology for the particular class of sources.
CAA section 111(b)(5) precludes the EPA from prescribing a
particular technological system that must be used to comply with a
standard of performance. Rather, sources can select any measure or
combination of measures that will achieve the standard.
Pursuant to the definition of new source in CAA section 111(a)(2),
standards of performance apply to facilities that begin construction,
reconstruction, or modification after the date of publication of the
proposed standards in the Federal Register. Under CAA section
111(a)(4), ``modification'' means any physical change in, or change in
the method of operation of, a stationary source which increases the
amount of any air pollutant emitted by such source or which results in
the emission of any air pollutant not previously emitted. Changes to an
existing facility that do not result in an increase in emissions are
not considered modifications. Under the provisions in 40 CFR 60.15,
reconstruction means the replacement of components of an existing
facility such that: (1) The fixed capital cost of the new components
exceeds 50 percent of the fixed capital cost that would be required to
construct a comparable entirely new facility; and (2) it is
technologically and economically feasible to meet the applicable
standards. Pursuant to CAA section 111(b)(1)(B), the standards of
performance or revisions thereof shall become effective upon
promulgation.
2. NESHAP
The statutory authority for this NESHAP action is provided by
sections 112 and 301 of the CAA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.).
Section 112(d)(6) requires the EPA to review standards promulgated
under CAA section 112(d) and revise them ``as necessary (taking into
account developments in practices, processes, and control
technologies)'' no less often than every 8 years following promulgation
of those standards. This is referred to as a ``technology review'' and
is required for all standards established under CAA section 112(d)
including generally available control technology (GACT) standards that
apply to area sources.\1\ This action finalizes the 112(d)(6)
technology review for the Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Area Source
NESHAP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For categories of area sources subject to GACT standards,
CAA sections 112(d)(5) and (f)(5) provide that the EPA is not
required to conduct a residual risk review under CAA section
112(f)(2). However, the EPA is required to conduct periodic
technology reviews under CAA section 112(d)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several additional CAA sections are relevant to this action as they
specifically address regulation of hazardous air pollutant emissions
from area sources. Collectively, CAA sections 112(c)(3), (d)(5), and
(k)(3) are the basis of the Area Source Program under the Urban Air
Toxics Strategy, which provides the framework for regulation of area
sources under CAA section 112.
Section 112(k)(3)(B) of the CAA requires the EPA to identify at
least 30 HAP that pose the greatest potential health threat in urban
areas with a primary goal of achieving a 75 percent reduction in cancer
incidence attributable to HAP emitted from stationary sources. As
discussed in the Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy (64 FR 38706,
38715; July 19, 1999), the EPA identified 30 HAP emitted from area
sources that pose the greatest potential health threat in urban areas,
and these HAP are commonly referred to as the ``30 urban HAP.''
Section 112(c)(3), in turn, requires the EPA to list sufficient
categories or subcategories of area sources to ensure that area sources
representing 90 percent of the emissions of the 30 urban HAP are
subject to regulation. The EPA implemented these requirements through
the Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy by identifying and setting
standards for categories of area sources including the lead acid
battery manufacturing source category that is addressed in this action.
CAA section 112(d)(5) provides that for area source categories, in
lieu of setting maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards
(which are generally required for major source categories), the EPA may
elect to promulgate standards or requirements for area sources ``which
provide for the use of generally available control technology or
management practices [GACT] by such sources to reduce emissions of
hazardous air pollutants.'' In developing such standards, the EPA
evaluates the control technologies and management practices that reduce
HAP emissions that are generally available
[[Page 11559]]
for each area source category. Consistent with the legislative history,
we can consider costs and economic impacts in determining what
constitutes GACT.
GACT standards were set for the lead acid battery manufacturing
source category on July 16, 2007 (72 FR 38864). As noted above, this
action finalizes the required CAA 112(d)(6) technology review for that
source category.
B. How does the EPA perform the NSPS and NESHAP reviews?
1. NSPS
As noted in section II.A, CAA section 111 requires the EPA, at
least every 8 years to review and, if appropriate revise the standards
of performance applicable to new, modified, and reconstructed sources.
If the EPA revises the standards of performance, they must reflect the
degree of emission limitation achievable through the application of the
BSER taking into account the cost of achieving such reduction and any
nonair quality health and environmental impact and energy requirements
(see CAA section 111(a)(1)).
In reviewing an NSPS to determine whether it is ``appropriate'' to
revise the standards of performance, the EPA evaluates the statutory
factors, which may include consideration of the following information:
Expected growth for the source category, including how
many new facilities, reconstructions, and modifications may trigger
NSPS in the future.
Pollution control measures, including advances in control
technologies, process operations, design or efficiency improvements, or
other systems of emission reduction, that are ``adequately
demonstrated'' in the regulated industry.
Available information from the implementation and
enforcement of current requirements indicates that emission limitations
and percent reductions beyond those required by the current standards
are achieved in practice.
Costs (including capital and annual costs) associated with
implementation of the available pollution control measures.
The amount of emission reductions achievable through
application of such pollution control measures.
Any nonair quality health and environmental impact and
energy requirements associated with those control measures.
In evaluating whether the cost of a particular system of emission
reduction is reasonable, the EPA considers various costs associated
with the air pollution control measure or level of control, including
capital costs and operating costs, and the emission reductions that the
control measure or level of control can achieve. The Agency considers
these costs in the context of the industry's overall capital
expenditures and revenues. The Agency also considers cost effectiveness
analysis as a useful metric, and a means of evaluating whether a given
control achieves emission reduction at a reasonable cost. A cost
effectiveness analysis allows comparisons of relative costs and
outcomes (effects) of two or more options. In general, cost
effectiveness is a measure of the outcomes produced by resources spent.
In the context of air pollution control options, cost effectiveness
typically refers to the annualized cost of implementing an air
pollution control option divided by the amount of pollutant reductions
realized annually.
After the EPA evaluates the statutory factors, the EPA compares the
various systems of emission reductions and determines which system is
``best,'' and therefore represents the BSER. The EPA then establishes a
standard of performance that reflects the degree of emission limitation
achievable through the implementation of the BSER. In doing this
analysis, the EPA can determine whether subcategorization is
appropriate based on classes, types, and sizes of sources, and may
identify a different BSER and establish different performance standards
for each subcategory. The result of the analysis and BSER determination
leads to standards of performance that apply to facilities that begin
construction, reconstruction, or modification after the date of
publication of the proposed standards in the Federal Register. Because
the new source performance standards reflect the best system of
emission reduction under conditions of proper operation and
maintenance, in doing its review, the EPA also evaluates and determines
the proper testing, monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting
requirements needed to ensure compliance with the emission standards.
2. NESHAP
For the NESHAP area source GACT standards, we perform a technology
review that primarily focuses on the identification and evaluation of
developments in practices, processes, and control technologies that
have occurred since the standards were promulgated. Where we identify
such developments, we analyze their technical feasibility, estimated
costs, energy implications, and non-air environmental impacts. We also
consider the emission reductions associated with applying each
development. This analysis informs our decision of whether it is
``necessary'' to revise the emissions standards. In addition, we
consider the appropriateness of applying controls to new sources versus
retrofitting existing sources. For this exercise, we consider any of
the following to be a ``development'':
Any add-on control technology or other equipment that was
not identified and considered during development of the original GACT
standards;
Any improvements in add-on control technology or other
equipment (that were identified and considered during development of
the original GACT standards) that could result in additional emissions
reduction;
Any work practice or operational procedure that was not
identified or considered during development of the original GACT
standards;
Any process change or pollution prevention alternative
that could be broadly applied to the industry and that was not
identified or considered during development of the original GACT
standards; and
Any significant changes in the cost (including cost
effectiveness) of applying controls (including controls the EPA
considered during the development of the original GACT standards).
In addition to reviewing the practices, processes, and control
technologies that were considered at the time we originally developed
the NESHAP, we review a variety of data sources in our investigation of
potential practices, processes, or controls to consider.
C. What is the source category regulated in this final action?
The lead acid battery manufacturing source category consists of
facilities engaged in producing lead acid batteries. The EPA first
promulgated new source performance standards for lead acid battery
manufacturing on April 16, 1982. These standards of performance are
codified in 40 CFR part 60, subpart KK, and are applicable to sources
that commence construction, modification, or reconstruction after
January 14, 1980 (47 FR 16564). The EPA also set GACT standards for the
lead acid battery manufacturing source category on July 16, 2007. These
standards are codified in 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPPPP, and are
applicable to existing and new affected facilities.
Under 40 CFR 60, subpart KK, and 40 CFR 63, subpart PPPPPP, a lead
acid battery manufacturing plant is defined
[[Page 11560]]
as any plant that produces a storage battery using lead and lead
compounds for the plates and sulfuric acid for the electrolyte. The
batteries manufactured at these facilities include starting, lighting,
and ignition batteries primarily used in automobiles as well as
industrial and traction batteries. Industrial batteries include those
used for uninterruptible power supplies and other backup power
applications, and traction batteries are used to power electric
vehicles such as forklifts.
The lead acid battery manufacturing process begins with grid
casting operations, which entails stamping or casting lead into grids.
Next, in paste mixing operations, lead oxide powder is mixed with water
and sulfuric acid to form a stiff paste, which is then pressed onto the
lead grids, creating plates. Lead oxide may be produced by the battery
manufacturer, as is the case for many larger battery manufacturing
plants or may be purchased from a supplier. The plates are cured,
stacked, and connected into groups that form the individual elements of
a lead acid battery. This stacking, connecting, and assembly of the
plates into battery cases is generally performed in one operation
termed the ``three-process operation.'' At some facilities, lead
reclamation may be performed, in which relatively clean lead scrap from
these processes is collected and remelted into blocks, called ingots,
for reuse in the process.
The NSPS applies to all lead acid battery manufacturing plants
constructed, reconstructed, or modified since January 14, 1980, if they
produce or have the design capacity to produce batteries containing 5.9
megagrams (6.5 tons) or more of lead in one day. The NSPS contains
emission limits for lead and opacity limits for grid casting, paste
mixing, three-process operations, lead oxide manufacturing, other lead
emitting sources, and lead reclamation at lead acid battery
manufacturing plants. The NESHAP applies to all lead acid battery
manufacturing facilities that are area sources regardless of production
capacity. The GACT standards include the same emissions and opacity
limits as those in the NSPS as well as some additional monitoring
requirements.
The EPA estimates that, of the 40 existing lead acid battery
manufacturing facilities in the U.S., all are subject to the NSPS, and
39 facilities are subject to the NESHAP. One facility is a major source
as defined under CAA section 112 and is therefore not subject to the
area source GACT standards. In addition to these 40 facilities, we
estimate that there are four facilities that perform one or more
processes (e.g., grid casting or lead oxide production) involved in the
production of lead acid batteries but that do not manufacture the final
product (i.e., lead acid batteries). These four facilities have not
previously been subject to either the NSPS or the area source NESHAP.
The EPA does not expect any new lead acid battery manufacturing
facilities nor any facilities that conduct a lead acid battery
manufacturing process without producing the final lead acid battery
product to be constructed in the foreseeable future. However, we do
expect that some existing facilities of both types could undergo
modifications or reconstruction.
D. What changes did we propose for the lead acid battery manufacturing
source category in our February 23, 2022, proposal?
On February 23, 2022, the EPA published proposed rules in the
Federal Register (87 FR 10134) for the NSPS for Lead Acid Battery
Manufacturing Plants (40 CFR part 60, subpart KKa) and the NESHAP for
Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Area Sources (40 CFR part 63, subpart
PPPPPP) that were based on the BSER review for the NSPS and the
technology review for the NESHAP. The EPA proposed revised lead
emission limits for grid casting, paste mixing, and lead reclamation
operations for both the area source NESHAP (for new and existing
sources) and under a new NSPS subpart (for lead acid battery
manufacturing facilities that begin construction, reconstruction, or
modification after February 23, 2022). In addition, the Agency proposed
the following amendments for both the area source NESHAP (for new and
existing sources) and under the new NSPS subpart: performance testing
once every 5 years to demonstrate compliance; work practices to
minimize emissions of fugitive lead dust; increased inspection
frequency of fabric filters; bag leak detection systems for facilities
above a certain size (i.e., facilities with capacity to process greater
than 150 tons per day (tpd) of lead); clarification of activities that
are considered to be lead reclamation activities; electronic reporting
of performance test results and semiannual compliance reports; and the
removal of exemptions for periods of SSM. The EPA also proposed a
revision to the applicability provisions in the area source NESHAP such
that facilities which make lead-bearing battery parts or process input
material, including but not limited to grid casting facilities and lead
oxide manufacturing facilities, will be subject to the area source
NESHAP. For additional information regarding the proposed rule, please
see the February 23, 2022, proposal (87 FR 10134).
E. What outreach and engagement did the EPA conduct with environmental
justice communities?
As part of this rulemaking and pursuant to multiple Executive
Orders addressing environmental justice (EJ), the EPA engaged and
consulted with the public, including populations of people of color and
low-income populations, by sending out listserv notifications to EJ
representatives regarding the publication of the proposed rule and
providing the opportunity for members of the public to speak at a
public hearing regarding the proposed rule amendments. While no one
requested to speak at a public hearing, these opportunities gave the
EPA a chance to hear directly from the public, especially communities
potentially impacted by this final action. To identify pertinent
stakeholders for engaging discussions of the rule, we used information
available to the Agency, such as lists of EJ community representatives
and activists, and information from the EJ analysis conducted for this
rule and summarized in section IV.F. of this preamble.
Although most of the comments received following the proposal were
technical in nature, some commenters remarked on issues regarding the
rule's effectiveness in protecting health and welfare in EJ
communities, such as the need to close rule loopholes and the need for
the EPA to conduct health risk assessments. Responses to several of the
technical related comments are summarized, and responded to, in this
preamble. All other comments and the EPA's responses are provided in
the Comment Summary and Response Document, available in the docket for
this action, and section III of the preamble provides a description of
how the Agency considered these comments in the context of regulatory
development.
III. What actions are we finalizing and what is our rationale for such
decisions?
The EPA proposed the current review of the lead acid battery
manufacturing NSPS (40 CFR part 60, subpart KK) and NESHAP (40 CFR part
63, subpart PPPPPP) on February 23, 2022. We proposed to create a new
NSPS subpart at 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKa, to include the proposed
revisions to the NSPS for affected sources that are new, modified, or
reconstructed following the date of the proposal, and we proposed
revisions to the NESHAP within 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPPPP. We
received
[[Page 11561]]
eight comments from industry, environmental groups, and private
individuals during the comment period. A summary of the more
significant comments we timely received regarding the proposed rule and
our responses are provided in this preamble. A summary of all other
public comments on the proposal and the EPA's responses to those
comments is available in the Comment Summary and Response Document in
the docket for this action, (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0619). In
this action, the EPA is finalizing decisions and revisions pursuant to
CAA section 111(b)(1)(B) and CAA section 112(d)(6) review for lead acid
battery manufacturing after our considerations of all the comments
received.
A. NSPS
As mentioned above, the EPA is finalizing revisions to the NSPS for
lead acid battery manufacturing pursuant to the CAA section
111(b)(1)(B) review. The EPA is promulgating the NSPS revisions in a
new subpart, 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKa. The new NSPS subpart is
applicable to affected sources constructed, modified, or reconstructed
after February 23, 2022.
This action finalizes standards of performance in 40 CFR part 60,
subpart KKa, for paste mixing operations, grid casting, and lead
reclamation, as well as work practice standards to reduce fugitive dust
emissions in the lead oxide unloading and storage area. The standards
of performance and work practice standards finalized in 40 CFR part 60,
subpart KKa, will apply at all times, including during periods of SSM.
The EPA is also finalizing in the new 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKa, the
requirements for electronic reporting, monitoring, and other compliance
assurance measures such as performance testing every 5 years, quarterly
fabric filter inspections, and recording pressure drop or visible
emissions readings twice a day for fabric filter systems without a
secondary filter or bag leak detection system requirements.
The EPA notes that we are not amending 40 CFR part 60, subpart KK,
to add electronic reporting requirements in this action. While it is
generally the EPA's practice to implement electronic reporting
requirements in each prior NSPS as we conduct reviews and promulgate
each new NSPS, 40 CFR part 60, subpart KK, does not impose any regular,
ongoing reporting requirements. However, facilities are expected to
comply with the applicable electronic reporting requirements that the
EPA is finalizing under the new NSPS, 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKa, and
the NESHAP.
1. Revised NSPS for Grid Casting Facilities
The standards in 40 CFR part 60, subpart KK, for grid casting,
which were established in 1982, are 0.4 milligrams per dry standard
cubic meters (mg/dscm) and 0 percent opacity which were based on what
was then determined to be the BSER of impingement scrubbers with an
estimated 90 percent lead emissions control efficiency. Through the
BSER review conducted for the source category, which is documented in
the memorandum Technology Review and NSPS Review for Lead Acid Battery
Manufacturing (hereafter referred to as the ``Technology Review
Memorandum''), available in the docket for this action, we found that
since the promulgation of the NSPS in 1982, it has become feasible and
common for lead acid battery manufacturing plants to control lead
emissions from grid casting processes with fabric filters. Through this
review, we discovered that at least 30 of the 40 facilities currently
subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart KK, are now using fabric filters and
these are also sometimes combined with other controls, such as high
efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters or a scrubber to control
emissions from grid casting. Furthermore, we did not identify any
facilities using only a wet scrubber. Therefore, we concluded at
proposal that fabric filters are clearly feasible and well demonstrated
as an appropriate control technology for grid casting operations. With
regard to control efficiency of a fabric filter, for the February 2022
proposed rule, we assumed control efficiency would be 99 percent, which
was based on estimates presented in the background document for the
proposed rule in 1980 (45 FR 2790) and in the 1989 EPA technical
document titled Review of New Source Performance Standards for Lead-
Acid Battery Manufacture, Preliminary Draft, October 1989, which is
available in the docket for this rulemaking.
At proposal, to assess whether fabric filters are the BSER for
controlling lead emissions from grid casting, we examined the costs and
emission reductions from installing and operating fabric filters with
assumed 99 percent control efficiency at new large facilities (i.e.,
facilities with capacity to process 150 tons or more of lead per day)
and new small facilities (i.e., facilities with capacity to process
less than 150 tons of lead per day).\2\ We estimated that the cost
effectiveness of achieving a 99 percent reduction of lead through the
use of fabric filters, as compared to the costs of maintaining the 40
CFR part 60, subpart KK, requirement of a 90 percent reduction of lead
through the use of wet scrubbers, would be $333,000 per ton of lead
reduced for a new large facility and $524,000 per ton of lead reduced
for a new small facility. We found that both of these values are within
the range of what the EPA has considered in other rulemakings to be
cost-effective for control of lead emissions. Based on this
information, we proposed that fabric filters (with an assumed 99
percent control efficiency) represent the new BSER for grid casting,
and we proposed to revise the lead emissions limit for grid casting
from 0.4 milligrams of lead per dry standard cubic meter of process
exhaust (mg/dscm) to 0.04 mg of lead per dscm of process exhaust to
reflect the degree of emission limitation achievable through the
application of the proposed BSER (i.e., a fabric filter, with assumed
improved efficiency of 99 percent versus 90 percent). We also proposed
to retain the opacity standard of 0 percent for grid casting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ At proposal, we split the analysis into two size categories
that would better represent the source category because of the range
in facility size.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA received one comment regarding this proposed BSER
determination and proposed standard of performance. There were no
comments regarding our proposal to retain the opacity standard of 0
percent. The commenter (Battery Council International [BCI]) claimed
that the EPA's calculations of the benefits of moving from scrubbers to
fabric filters for grid casting and for adding secondary HEPA filters
to paste mixing operations (discussed later in this preamble) are
flawed because the EPA incorrectly models these filters as control
devices with constant, rather than variable, efficiency. The commenter
relates that when the amount of lead emissions entering these devices
is low, the removal efficiency is far lower than their nominal removal
efficiency and that only at the extreme high end of inlet loading
concentrations is the nominal removal efficiency obtained. Due to this
factor, the commenter states that the EPA's assumed removal efficiency
from these devices is unrealistically high. The commenter also states
that the removal efficiency can fall below 90 percent compared to the
nominal removal efficiency of 99 percent for fabric filters.
The commenter also claimed that the EPA's costs for a new baghouse
(also
[[Page 11562]]
referred to as fabric filter system or fabric filters in other parts of
this preamble) were underestimated and provided both a cost analysis
for a new baghouse in which they assumed the same 99 percent removal
efficiency as the EPA did in its analysis of cost effectiveness but
used increased equipment costs, and another analysis in which the
commenter assumed a removal efficiency of 95 percent along with the
increased equipment costs. The claimed results of BCI's analyses showed
higher costs per ton of lead emissions removed compared with the
results of the EPA analyses.
Considering the available data at the time of proposal, we proposed
a limit of 0.04 mg/dscm, which represented the emissions reduction
thought possible with the proposed BSER technology (i.e., a fabric
filter, assumed to achieve an estimated 99 percent emissions removal
efficiency instead of the estimated 90 percent efficiency of the wet
scrubber). Based on the commenter's suggestion that emissions removal
efficiencies are lower than what the EPA estimated at proposal, we
obtained additional stack test data for several facilities to determine
what emissions levels are currently achieved by fabric filters. From
this data gathering effort, we examined stack test data for eight
facilities using fabric filters to control emissions from grid casting,
with data for four facilities having stacks that service only grid
casting and the other four stacks that service multiple processes. The
stack test results show that the four facilities with primary fabric
filter systems controlling just grid casting emissions have emissions
ranging from 0.011 mg/dscm to 0.1 mg/dscm. More information on the data
used in our analysis is detailed in the memorandum Revised Emission
Limits for the Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Final Rule-Grid Casting
and Paste Mixing Operations, available in the docket for this action.
Using these data, we calculated the 99 percent upper prediction limit
(UPL) of 0.08 mg/dscm.
The UPL value is the result of the statistical methodology the EPA
uses to account for the variability and uncertainty in emissions that
occurs over time and over expected varying operating conditions. The
EPA has used the UPL to address the variability of emission data in in
other rulemakings (e.g., setting MACT standards). The UPL is a value,
calculated from a dataset, that identifies the average emissions level
that a source or group of sources is meeting and would be expected to
meet a specified percent of the time that the source is operating. That
percent of time is based on the confidence level used in the UPL
equation. The 99 percent UPL is the emissions level that the sources
would be predicted to emit below during 99 out of 100 performance
tests, including emissions tests conducted in the past, present and
future, based on the short-term stack test data available for that
source. For more information about this analysis, see the Upper
Prediction Limit for Grid Casting and Paste Mixing Operations at Lead
Acid Battery Facilities (hereafter referred to as ``UPL Memorandum'')
available in the rulemaking docket for this action.
The intent of the EPA at proposal was to set the emissions standard
at the level that would reflect the application of the BSER (i.e., a
fabric filter). At proposal, we assumed an improved efficiency of the
standard of performance reflected the application of fabric filters
with 99 percent efficiency to control emissions. We used the control
efficiency of 99 percent based on the analysis conducted in the
background document for the proposed rule in 1980 (45 FR 2790) to
derive the proposed limit of 0.04 mg/dscm. However, based on the
comments received and the results of the UPL analysis, we are now
analyzing the use of a fabric filter that would achieve an emissions
level of 0.08 mg/dscm for our final BSER determination.
We updated our cost analysis for a new source to install a fabric
filter system versus a wet scrubber based on comments received from
BCI. We agree with the cost estimates provided by the commenter and
have used those in an updated cost effectiveness analysis. We estimate
that the updated incremental annualized costs of using a fabric filter
system are $52,000 for a small plant and $88,000 for a large plant.
We do not agree that a fabric filter system would achieve only 95
percent efficiency for grid casting emissions. Based on the available
stack test data, the calculated UPL which accounts for variability, and
the calculations described above, the emission limit of 0.08 mg/dscm
reflects the use of fabric filters controlling grid casting emissions.
To estimate the incremental emissions reductions that would be
achieved, we estimated the current limit of 0.4 mg/dscm reflects a 90
percent reduction compared to baseline (uncontrolled) based on the
background document for the 1980 proposed rule (45 FR 2790) and in the
1989 EPA technical document cited above, and therefore we estimate that
the revised limit (of 0.08 mg/dscm) based on the UPL would represent a
98 percent reduction. As we described in the proposed rule preamble, we
estimate lead emissions for a small and large uncontrolled grid casting
facility are 0.5 tons per year (tpy) and 1.3 tpy, respectively. We
estimate lead emissions for a small and large baseline grid casting
facility which is complying with 40 CFR part 60, subpart KK, emission
limit of 0.4 mg/dscm which is based on a wet scrubber (with assumed 90
percent efficiency) would be 0.05 tpy and 0.13 tpy, respectively. We
estimate lead emissions for a small and large model facility that will
comply with an emission limit of 0.08 mg/dscm based on the application
of a fabric filter (using the derived 98 percent efficiency described
above) are 0.01 tpy and 0.026 tpy, respectively. The incremental lead
reduction (from 90 percent to 98 percent) is 0.04 tpy for small
facilities and 0.104 tpy for large facilities. We estimate that for a
hypothetical new small plant, cost effectiveness is approximately
$1.23M/ton of lead reduced and for a hypothetical new large plant, cost
effectiveness is $846,000/ton of lead reduced. These cost effectiveness
values are within the range of what we have historically accepted in
the past for lead. Details regarding our cost estimates are in the
Estimated Cost Impacts of Best System of Emission Reduction Review of
40 CFR Part 60, Subpart KK and 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart PPPPPP
Technology Review-Final Rule, hereafter referred to as ``Cost Impacts
Memorandum,'' available in the docket for this action. We conclude that
the application of fabric filters to control grid casting emissions is
cost-effective and has been adequately demonstrated at existing
sources. We have also learned, there may be additional advantages for
facilities to use fabric filters instead of wet scrubbers to control
grid casting emissions. Some advantages of using fabric filters
include: the potential for higher collection efficiency; less
sensitivity to gas stream fluctuations; availability in large number of
configurations, and that collected material is recovered dry and can be
sent to a secondary lead facility for recycling, lowering the hazardous
waste disposal costs for facilities. Therefore, based on our analysis
and the information above, we have determined that the BSER for grid
casting operations is fabric filter systems with an estimated 98
percent control efficiency.
Based on the UPL analysis presented we find that the emission level
that appropriately reflects the BSER is 0.08 mg/dscm. In addition, we
find that the proposed emissions limit of 0.04 mg/dscm (that reflected
an estimated control efficiency of 99 percent efficiency) would go
beyond the level of emission limitation generally achievable
[[Page 11563]]
through the application of BSER. Based on our analyses, we conclude
that additional controls beyond BSER would be needed to meet the
proposed limit of 0.04 mg/dscm. Additional controls, such as a
secondary HEPA filter, to meet the proposed limit of 0.04 mg/dscm were
determined to not be cost-effective at proposal. Based on the revised
UPL analysis that considers the data available to the EPA regarding
grid casting emissions and accounts for variability within the data, we
have determined that the final standard of performance which reflects
the BSER (use of a fabric filter system) is a lead emission limit of
0.08 mg/dscm. We are also retaining the 0 percent opacity standard from
40 CFR part 60, subpart KK, for grid casting as proposed.
2. Revised NSPS for Lead Reclamation Facilities
Similar to the standards for grid casting, the standards in 40 CFR
part 60, subpart KK, for lead reclamation, which were established in
1982, are 4.5 mg/dscm for lead and 5 percent opacity and were based on
impingement scrubbers with an estimated 90 percent lead emissions
control efficiency. Through the BSER review conducted for the source
category, we found that since the promulgation of the NSPS in 1982, it
has become feasible and common for lead acid battery manufacturing
plants to control lead emissions from several processes with fabric
filters. Through this review, we discovered that no lead acid battery
manufacturing facilities currently conduct lead reclamation as the
process is defined in 40 CFR part 60, subpart KK. However, there was
mention of lead reclamation equipment in the operating permits for two
facilities, and that equipment is controlled with fabric filters. In
the proposal, we estimated that fabric filters were capable of
achieving lead emissions control efficiencies of at least 99 percent.
Therefore, we concluded at proposal that fabric filters are feasible
and an appropriate control technology for lead reclamation. Like in the
analysis for grid casting, to assess whether fabric filters are the
BSER for controlling lead emissions from lead reclamation, we examined
the costs and emission reductions from installing and operating fabric
filters at large and small facilities. In the proposal, we determined
that the cost effectiveness of achieving a 99 percent reduction of lead
through the use of fabric filters, as compared to the costs of
achieving 90 percent reduction of lead through the use of wet
scrubbers, would be $130,000 per ton of lead reduced for a large
facility and $236,000 per ton of lead reduced for a small facility. We
found that both of these values are within the range of what the EPA
has considered in other rulemakings to be cost-effective for control of
lead emissions. Based on this information, we proposed that fabric
filters (with an estimated 99 percent control efficiency) represent the
new BSER for lead reclamation, and we proposed to revise the lead
emissions limit for lead reclamation to 0.45 mg/dscm to reflect the
degree of emission limitation achievable through the application of the
proposed BSER. We also proposed to retain in 40 CFR part 60, subpart
KKa, the opacity standard of 5 percent.
In addition, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart KK, a lead reclamation
facility is defined as a facility that remelts lead scrap and casts it
into ingots for use in the battery manufacturing process, and which is
not an affected secondary lead smelting furnace under 40 CFR part 60,
subpart L. To ensure that emissions are controlled from any lead that
is recycled or reused, without being remelted and cast into ingots, the
EPA proposed to revise the definition of ``lead reclamation facility''
in 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKa, to clarify that the lead reclamation
facility subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKa, does not include
recycling of any type of finished battery or recycling lead-bearing
scrap that is obtained from non-category sources or from any offsite
operation. Any facility recycling these materials through a melting
process would be subject to another NSPS (i.e., Secondary Lead Smelting
NSPS, 40 CFR part 60 subpart L, or the recently proposed new 40 CFR
part 60, subpart La, once finalized).
For the Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing NSPS, 40 CFR part 60,
subpart KKa, we also proposed that the remelting of lead metal scrap is
considered part of the process where the lead is remelted and used
(e.g., grid casting). We also proposed to clarify that recycling of any
type of finished battery or recycling lead-bearing scrap that is
obtained from non-category sources or from any offsite operations are
prohibited at any lead acid battery manufacturing affected facility.
We did not receive any comments on the proposed BSER or lead
emission limit for lead reclamation and therefore are promulgating in
40 CFR part 60, subpart KKa, a final standard of performance of 0.45
mg/dscm, which reflects the final BSER for lead reclamation. We are
also finalizing in 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKa, as proposed, the
opacity standard of 5 percent and the requirement that a facility must
use EPA Method 9 to demonstrate compliance with the daily and weekly
visible emission observations for lead reclamation as well as during
the performance tests required every 5 years.
3. Revised NSPS for Paste Mixing Facilities
The standards in 40 CFR part 60, subpart KK, for paste mixing,
which were established in 1982, are 1 mg/dscm for lead and 0 percent
opacity and were based on fabric filters with an estimated 99 percent
lead emissions control efficiency. Through the current BSER review
conducted for the source category, we found that since the promulgation
of the NSPS in 1982, high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters
capable of removing at least 99.97 percent of particles with a size of
0.3 microns ([micro]m) have become readily available. Through this
review, we also discovered that at least 16 of the 40 facilities
currently subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart KK, are now using fabric
filters with a HEPA filter as a secondary device to control lead
emissions from paste mixing processes. Therefore, we concluded at
proposal that fabric filters with secondary HEPA filters are clearly
feasible and well demonstrated as an appropriate control technology for
paste mixing operations. To assess whether fabric filters with
secondary HEPA filters are the BSER for controlling lead emissions from
paste mixing, we examined the estimated costs and emission reductions
that would be achieved by installing and operating HEPA filters as
secondary control devices to fabric filters at large facilities and
small facilities. We estimated that the cost effectiveness of secondary
HEPA filters achieving an additional 99.97 percent reduction of lead,
as compared to the costs of a primary fabric filter system able to
maintain the current limit of 1 mg/dscm (based on an estimated 99
percent reduction of lead), would be $888,000 per ton of lead reduced
for a large facility and $1.68 million per ton of lead reduced for a
small facility. At proposal, we determined that the cost effectiveness
estimate for large facilities is within the range of what the EPA has
considered in other rulemakings to be cost-effective for control of
lead emissions, while the estimate for small facilities is not within
this range. Based on this information, we proposed that fabric filters
with secondary HEPA filters with 99.97 percent control efficiency
represent the new BSER for paste mixing at large facilities, and we
proposed to revise the lead emissions limit for paste mixing at large
facilities to 0.1 mg/dscm to reflect the degree of emission limitation
achievable through
[[Page 11564]]
the application of the proposed BSER. For small facilities we proposed
to retain in 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKa, the standard of performance
of 1 mg/dscm based on the application of fabric filters (with estimated
99 percent control efficiency). We also proposed to retain the 0
percent opacity standard from 40 CFR part 60, subpart KK, for paste
mixing facilities in 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKa.
We received three comments regarding the proposed revised emission
limit of 0.1 mg/dscm for large facilities and the proposal to retain
the lead standard of 1.0 mg/dscm from 40 CFR part 60, subpart KK, for
small facilities. We did not receive any comments on the proposal to
retain the opacity standard of 0 percent. The three commentors,
including environmental groups, Clarios, and BCI, asked that the EPA
reconsider allowing smaller pasting lines to emit significantly more
lead than large pasting lines and asked that the EPA require all
pasting lines to achieve the same stringent level of control.
One commenter (Clarios) stated that the EPA did not evaluate the
use of modern fabric filter materials in existing primary filter
systems when it performed its analysis of control technologies, and
asserted that, since all pasting lines already have primary fabric
filter systems in place, there would essentially be no capital costs
other than the cost for higher quality bags for both large and small
existing facilities to meet the 0.1 mg/dscm (0.0000437 gr/dscf) limit
for paste mixing that was proposed for large facilities. The commenter
stated that modern filtration materials used in baghouses today,
especially those coupled with engineered membranes, provide warranted
removal efficiencies of 99.995% of lead at 1 micron. The commenter
provided test results reported by one filter manufacturer to
demonstrate this removal rate. The commenter also stated that it has
found that modern primary filter substrates, such as expanded
polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE) lined polyester bags, achieve emission
reductions equal to or greater than that of secondary filters,
including those designated as high efficiency particulate air (HEPA)
filters. The commenter provided the results of 23 stack tests performed
over 21 years for its one pasting line in the U.S., which is controlled
by a primary dust collector using the ePTFE filters. The stack test
results show that lead emissions are consistently below the proposed
limit of 0.1 mg/dscm using this emission control configuration. The
commenter stated that secondary systems, such as HEPA, are not needed
to meet the proposed limit and will come at a much higher cost, but
they may provide additional benefit as a control redundancy for
facilities where multiple levels of protection are appropriate. The
commenter provided example prices from a vendor of different types of
filter bags, showing a range in price from $14.60 to $29.64 per bag.
The commenter requested that the EPA consider the cost of facilities
using primary systems alone, with modern fabric filters, as an
effective method of controlling emissions at both small and large
facilities.
BCI stated that the proposal to distinguish between small and large
facilities is problematic for several reasons. First, the commenter
claims, there is insufficient guidance about how to calculate the plant
capacity to process lead, which will lead to different interpretations
by state enforcement agencies. The commenter adds that there is no
rationale presented as to why the capacity of the plant, rather than
the paste mixing operation, is the driver for varying emission limits
for the paste mixing facility. According to the commenter, another
problem is that plants near the capacity limit would be disincentivized
to make capital improvements or consolidate operations if it would put
them over the limit. The commenter also states that paste mixing
sources have the highest moisture among the facility processes and
often must be blended with other sources if they are to be controlled
by a fabric filter. They stated that there are facilities that use wet
scrubbers to control paste mixing that the EPA has not considered. The
commenter says that a revised limit of 0.1 mg/dscm will also complicate
testing and require more implementation of the rule provision that
allows for the calculation of an equivalent standard for the total
exhaust from commonly controlled affected facilities when two or more
facilities at the same plant (except the lead oxide manufacturing
facility) are ducted to a common control device). The commenter asserts
that in view of these considerations, the EPA should abandon the two-
tier approach, and if it is intent on altering the emissions standards
for paste mixing, the EPA should have a single standard that applies to
all facilities that reasonably reflects the actual emissions reductions
achieved using secondary HEPA.
In reference to the proposed standard for small facilities, the
environmental group commenters asserted that the EPA must eliminate
what they refer to as emission control exemptions for small facilities
and require all facilities to add secondary HEPA filters on the paste
mixing process. Their comment states that the EPA's reliance on
outdated information from the 1989 draft NSPS review to exempt
facilities from pollution control is arbitrary and capricious. The
comment adds that, because the EPA did not engage in new data
collection efforts for this rulemaking, it is unclear whether the data
used to determine whether a facility is ``small'' or ``large'' and the
following control technology examples are outdated. The commenters
remarked that the EPA's decision to aggregate the ``small'' and
``medium'' sized facility categories included in the 1989 draft NSPS
review into a single ``small'' facility category for this action
without providing an explanation of the basis for this decision is
arbitrary and capricious. The commenters also assert that, by combining
small and medium facilities in one group, the EPA artificially reduced
the incremental cost effectiveness of requiring this group of
facilities to adopt secondary HEPA filter on the paste mixing process,
thus arbitrarily exempting certain medium facilities from this
requirement. The commenter adds that due to the harmfulness of lead at
low exposure levels, the EPA should not use cost as the sole
justification for not requiring additional health protections.
We agree that modern filter media are capable of achieving
emissions levels achieved by more traditional filter media with the
addition of HEPA filters. Considering these comments, the EPA has re-
evaluated the BSER and the emissions limit for paste mixing. As
discussed above, at proposal, we determined that many facilities are
controlling emissions from paste mixing using HEPA filters, which
reduce emissions much beyond the requirements of the current standards.
However, at proposal we found that it was not cost-effective for all
facilities to add HEPA filters, depending on their existing emissions
and emissions controls in place. In an attempt to distinguish which
facilities could apply this technology in a cost-effective manner, at
proposal we divided the facilities into classes determined by the
amount of lead processed daily at the facility. We then proposed that
the use of HEPA filters represented the BSER for large facilities,
while continuing to determine that the application of primary fabric
filter systems represented BSER for small facilities. We did not
propose any exemptions for small facilities as the commenter claimed.
Based on the comments received, we have updated our analysis and
our cost
[[Page 11565]]
estimates to reflect the use of expanded polytetrafluoroethylene
(ePTFE) bags in a primary fabric filter system (i.e., baghouse) without
the addition of a secondary filter. Details regarding the assumptions
made in our cost estimates are in the Cost Impacts Memorandum available
in the docket for this action. We estimate that the incremental initial
(e.g., capital) costs for typical small facilities (those that process
less than 150 tpd of lead) to replace their current standard polyester
bags with ePTFE bags would be $18,000 per facility and the incremental
annualized costs would be $9,000 per facility. For a large facility,
the estimated incremental initial costs are $60,000 per facility and
the incremental annualized costs are estimated to be $30,000 per
facility. The estimated lead reductions are the same as those we found
for the use of a secondary HEPA filter at proposal, at 0.1 tpy for a
large source and 0.03 tpy for a small source, and therefore cost
effectiveness for both a typical small and large facilities is $300,000
per ton of lead reduced. This cost effectiveness is well within what
the EPA had historically accepted in past rules addressing lead. As a
commenter noted, a few facilities use wet scrubbers to control paste
mixing emissions or they mix gas streams with the paste mixing
emissions to control them with fabric filtration. If a new facility
would choose to install a wet scrubber to control their paste mixing
operation, there are models of wet scrubbers capable of achieving 99.9
percent removal efficiency, and it has been shown to be feasible to add
a secondary HEPA filter on a primary wet scrubber. In addition, wet
scrubber technology to control paste mixing emissions has been
adequately demonstrated to be capable of achieving the 0.1 mg/dscm
emission limit, as discussed in section III.B.3.
As discussed above, high efficiency filters such as ePTFE filters
have been demonstrated and are a feasible control technology for paste
mixing. In addition, the estimated cost effectiveness for both large
and small facilities is within the range of values accepted previously
by the EPA addressing lead. Furthermore, we have not identified any
significant non-air environmental impacts and energy requirements.
Therefore, the EPA has determined that ePTFE filters (or other
effective control devices) that are capable of meeting a limit of 0.1
mg/dscm represent the new BSER for most paste mixing facilities. One
exception is for very small facilities with very low flow rates, which
is described in more detail below.
We used the UPL to assist in informing the appropriate lead
emission limit for the paste mixing process based on the updated BSER
of high efficiency bags (or other effective control devices) that are
capable of meeting a limit of 0.1 mg/dscm (with estimated 99.995%
efficiency). We calculated a 99 percent UPL using stack test data for
units with only a fabric filter (i.e., no secondary filter) controlling
emissions from paste mixing processes. We excluded stack tests for
fabric filters controlling emissions from multiple processes. The EPA's
methodology of the UPL for establishing the limits is reasonable and
represents the average emissions achieved by sources with consideration
of the variability in the emissions of those sources. The resulting UPL
is 0.095 mg/dscm, which is very close to the proposed limit of 0.1 mg/
dscm and therefore provides further support that an emissions limit of
0.1 mg/dscm is appropriate for most facilities. Details on the
methodology used in determining the UPL for this process are found in
the UPL Memorandum available in the docket for this action. Based on
the limited stack test data and taking comments into consideration, we
are promulgating in 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKa, an emission limit of
0.1 mg/dscm for paste mixing at all facilities (both large and small).
In consideration of the comments provided on the proposed rule, as well
as the information provided by the commenters and further investigation
by the EPA, we have determined that secondary HEPA filters, although
could be used to meet the proposed emission limit, are not necessary to
meet an emission limit of 0.1 mg/dscm for paste mixing for all
facilities (both large and small). As required by CAA section 111, the
EPA prescribes requisite emission limitations that apply to the
affected facilities rather than specific technologies that must be
used. Facilities will have the option to meet the limit in any manner
they choose, including the use of modern primary filter media in a
primary filter system or application of a secondary filter. Given that
our analyses indicate that the proposed emission level can be achieved
at lower costs than we estimated at proposal for all paste mixing
facilities, we are promulgating a requirement that paste mixing
operations, regardless of daily lead throughput, comply with a limit of
0.1 mg/dscm.
However, in our analysis of existing facilities (as discussed in
section III.B.3 below), we found that it may be particularly costly for
very small facilities with very low flow rates and already low lead
emissions to comply with the revised concentration-based emission limit
of 0.1 mg/dscm. For example, we know of one very small facility that,
based on its most recent stack tests, emits an estimated 4 lbs/year
(0.002 tpy) of lead from its paste mixing operations using standard
fabric filters. However, based on the available data, that facility had
one test result (0.11 mg/dscm) indicating it may not be able to comply
with a 0.1 mg/dscm limit without improving the control device (a fabric
filter). In our assessment, we assume this facility would have to
replace its current filters with high efficiency filters in order to
meet the 0.1 mg/dscm limit. We estimate annualized costs would be
approximately $9,000 and would achieve 0.0019 tpy (3.7 lbs) of lead
reductions, for a cost effectiveness of $4.7M/ton. This is considerably
higher than cost effectiveness values we have historically accepted for
lead. Similarly, as discussed at proposal, the use of secondary filters
is also not cost-effective for these very small facilities.
Accordingly, the EPA has determined that the BSER for these facilities
continues to be the use of a standard fabric filter.
Based on available information, these very small facilities with
already low lead emissions typically have very low flow rates, and
therefore meeting a concentration-based limit of 0.1 mg/dscm is not
cost-effective even though their emissions rate of lead (e.g., in lbs/
hr) is quite low. Therefore, the EPA is also promulgating an
alternative, mass-per-time based lead emissions limit of 0.002 lbs/hr,
which is the rate that the EPA has determined is achievable from the
use of a standard fabric filter at these types of very small
facilities, for total paste mixing operations. By total paste mixing
operations, we mean that in order to meet this alternative limit a
facility must show compliance by summing emissions from each stack that
emits lead from paste mixing operations. More information on the data
used in our analysis is detailed in the memorandum Revised Emission
Limits for the Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Final Rule-Grid Casting
and Paste Mixing Operations, available in the docket for this action.
This alternative lead emission limit only applies to devices
controlling paste mixing emissions and may not apply to a control
device with multiple gas streams from other processes. Therefore, lead
acid battery manufacturing facilities can demonstrate compliance with
the paste mixing standards by
[[Page 11566]]
either meeting a concentration-based limit of 0.1 mg/dscm from all
paste mixing emissions sources at that facility, or demonstrate that
the total lead emissions from all paste mixing operations at that
facility are less than 0.002 lbs/hr. This alternative mass-rate-based
emission limit of 0.002 lb/hour will provide additional compliance
flexibility for very small facilities with low emissions and low flow
rates to comply with the paste mixing emissions standards.
We anticipate that the vast majority of facilities will choose to
comply with the 0.1 mg/dscm emission limit because the alternative
limit is a paste mixing facility-wide emission limit and would likely
be difficult to meet for stacks with higher flow rates. We further
anticipate that only very small facilities with very low-flow rates
(and already low emissions) will choose to comply by demonstrating
compliance with the alternative emission limit because larger
facilities with higher flow rates would likely need additional controls
to comply with this alternative limit. We determined that the
alternative limit of 0.002 lbs/hr is cost-effective for these very
small facilities with low flow rates. Therefore, for very small
facilities with very low flow rates and already low emissions we have
determined that the BSER is a standard fabric filter, and 0.002 lbs/
hour is the emission level achievable for these types of facilities
reflecting the BSER. We are also finalizing, as proposed, the opacity
limit of 0 percent for paste mixing operations.
4. Revised NSPS for Fugitive Dust Emissions
The standards in 40 CFR part 60, subpart KK, do not include
requirements to reduce or minimize fugitive lead dust emissions. These
fugitive dust emissions would include particulate lead that becomes
airborne and is deposited to outdoor surfaces at or near the facilities
and that may become airborne again via wind or surface disturbance
activities, such as vehicle traffic. Through the BSER review conducted
for the source category, we found that since the promulgation of the
NSPS in 1982, other rules, including the NESHAPs for primary lead
smelting and secondary lead smelting, have required new and existing
sources to minimize fugitive dust emissions at regulated facilities
through the paving of roadways, cleaning roadways, storing lead oxide
and other lead bearing materials in enclosed spaces or containers, and
other measures. Through this review, we also discovered that several
facilities currently subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart KK, have
requirements to reduce fugitive dust emissions through similar,
specific work practices in their operating permits. Because these
fugitive lead dust emissions from the lead acid battery manufacturing
source category emissions are not ``emitted through a conveyance
designed to emit or capture the pollutant,'' pursuant to CAA section
111(h), we considered whether a work practice requirement to develop
and implement a fugitive dust minimization plan, including certain
elements, would be appropriate for the lead acid battery manufacturing
source category. Such elements could include the following:
i. Clean or treat surfaces used for vehicular material transfer
activity at least monthly;
ii. Store dust-forming material in enclosures; and
iii. Inspect process areas daily for accumulating lead-containing
dusts and wash and/or vacuum the surfaces accumulating such dust with a
HEPA vacuum device/system.
We estimated at proposal that the cost burden associated with a
requirement to develop and implement a fugitive dust plan, including
the elements described above, would be $13,000 per facility per year
and would prevent significant releases of fugitive dust emissions.
Based on our review of permit requirements, the requirements of other
regulations for lead emissions, and the estimated costs of a fugitive
dust minimization program, we proposed to include a new requirement for
lead acid battery manufacturing facilities to develop and implement a
fugitive dust minimization plan that included, at a minimum, the
elements listed above.
We received three comments regarding the proposed fugitive dust
minimization work practice standard. Environmental groups generally
supported the proposal, but they commented that the EPA must require
the use of fenceline monitoring and corrective action tied to that
monitoring as well as full enclosure negative pressure requirements. We
disagree that the use of fenceline monitoring and corrective action
tied to that monitoring is an appropriate work practice standard for
this source category. The EPA's response to these comments is in the
Comment Summary and Response Document, available in the docket for this
rulemaking.
One commenter (Clarios) stated that the EPA included several
undefined terms and concepts for its proposed fugitive dust
minimization plan that introduce uncertainty and the potential for
misinterpretation. The commenter recommends that the EPA adopt
definitions and parameters similar in approach to those included in the
fugitive dust plan requirements for the Secondary Lead Smelting NESHAP.
The commenter notes that such definitions and parameters should be
designed to address the configuration of battery manufacturing
facilities, which may have multiple process lines with different
controls and control systems. The commenter mentions that there are
areas of the plants that are lead-free production zones, where lead is
not used or handled, and these areas should not be included in the
scope of a fugitive dust minimization plan. The commenter adds that
including lead-free areas in a fugitive dust minimization plan would
add to the costs of implementing the plan, such that costs are likely
to exceed $200,000 per plant in the first year alone. The commenter
remarks that in plants where negative air pressure is used as an
emissions control, the air systems are designed and balanced to protect
lead-free areas and isolate areas where negative pressure is used. The
commenter also cautions that adding negative pressure or fugitive dust
control in lead-free areas may thwart the design and operation of
existing process emission control equipment by changing air balances
and flows. The commenter suggests that lead-free process areas (i.e.,
areas where fugitive lead dust is controlled to concentrations less
than the controlled emission limits in Table 1 of the proposed
revisions to 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPPPP) should be excluded from
the requirements of the fugitive emission work practices requirements
in the NSPS and NESHAP.
BCI also commented on the EPA's proposed cost estimates stating
that they cannot be fully estimated because the EPA is proposing
minimum requirements that must be reviewed and approved by ``the
Administrator or delegated authority.'' They provided estimates for the
basic requirements and claim that costs for developing the fugitive
dust plan would be between $25,000 and $35,000 per facility and
estimate $250,000 per facility to implement the plan. They also claim
the EPA's proposal is arbitrary and capricious because the proposal did
not estimate expected emissions reductions that will result from the
fugitive emissions work practices it is proposing.
We do not agree with the commenter (BCI) that our proposal to
require fugitive dust minimization work practices is arbitrary and
capricious. For this rule, we learned through discussions with states,
regions, and industry that there is a potential for
[[Page 11567]]
fugitive dust emissions from this source category. In addition, during
the technology review it was found that nine states have fugitive dust
minimization requirements in the permits for 15 different lead acid
battery facilities. Furthermore, based on the modeling screening
analysis completed and described in the proposal, in comparing modeled
concentrations at monitor locations to ambient lead measurements at
monitors, emissions from a subset of facilities were underestimated.
The memorandum, Assessment of Potential Health Impacts of Lead
Emissions in Support of the 2022 Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing
Technology Review of Area Sources Proposed Rule, available in the
docket for this action, discusses that un-reported fugitive emissions
and re-entrainment of historical lead dust are two factors, among
others, at lead acid battery facilities that may cause the model to
underpredict when compared to the ambient lead measurement. Generally,
it is difficult to quantify emissions from fugitive dust emission
sources because they are not released at a common point, such as a
stack and therefore they cannot easily be measured. However, for the
reasons discussed above, we have determined work practice standards to
minimize fugitive dust emissions at lead acid battery manufacturing
facilities are appropriate to address an important source of lead
pollution.
In consideration of the other comments, we have reviewed the
regulatory language and agree with the commenters (BCI and Clarios)
that further explanation should be provided to clarify the areas that
are required to be included in the fugitive dust minimization plan. As
it was our intent at proposal to include only the areas of the
facilities that were most likely to have fugitive dust that would
contribute to lead emissions from the facility, we reviewed information
on the facilities, their processes, and facility configurations to
determine the likely areas where such fugitive dust emissions would
occur. Processes such as grid casting, paste mixing operations, and
three-process operations (as described above in section II.C) are
enclosed. In order to maintain Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) requirements for ambient lead concentrations
inside a facility and worker safety, fugitive emissions are already
controlled at lead acid battery manufacturing facilities in these
process areas. In addition, we are finalizing in 40 CFR part 60,
subpart KKa, an opacity limit of 0 percent which minimizes fugitive
emissions from the primary processes (grid casting, paste mixing,
three-process operations and other-lead emitting sources) as proposed.
Available information, including information provided by Clarios,
indicates that the area at a lead acid battery manufacturing facility
with the highest potential for fugitive lead dust emissions is the lead
oxide unloading and storage operations area. When lead oxide is
purchased from a third party, it is transported by truck and conveyed
by pipe directly into storage silos. As stated in the memorandum
Estimating and Controlling Fugitive Lead Emissions from Industrial
Sources (EPA-452/R-96-006), on rare occasions, these pipe connections
may fail which results in a release of lead oxide. From this review and
from discussion of the matter with the commenter, we determined that
lead oxide loading and unloading areas (including lead oxide storage
operations) are the areas at a facility where such fugitive dust
emissions would most likely occur. Therefore, we have revised the
regulatory language to specify that facilities must develop and operate
according to a fugitive dust minimization plan that applies to lead
oxide unloading areas and the storage of dust-forming materials
containing lead.
We agree with the commenters regarding the costs to develop and
implement a fugitive dust minimization plan for all process areas.
Thus, taking the comments into consideration and appropriately
narrowing the areas where fugitive dust minimization work practices are
required, we re-evaluated the costs of developing and implementing a
fugitive dust minimization plan in the lead oxide unloading and storage
areas only. We estimate the initial costs to develop a fugitive dust
minimization plan are $7,900 per facility. We estimate that the costs
to implement the fugitive dust plan in the lead oxide unloading area
includes the purchase of a ride-on HEPA vacuum and a portable HEPA
vacuum, as well as the labor costs for performing the required cleaning
tasks. We estimate the total costs for new sources to develop and
implement a fugitive dust plan for the lead oxide unloading and storage
area will be $22,000 during the year the facility develops the plan.
Then, once the plan has been developed, the estimated annualized cost
to implement the plan is approximately $14,000 per facility per year.
The total costs are slightly higher than at proposal because, based on
discussions with the commenter, we added additional costs for
managerial oversight of the fugitive dust minimization plan and its
implementation. But the costs of fugitive dust minimization work
practices are less than 1 percent of each facility's annual revenues
and are considered to be reasonable.
The final BSER for minimizing fugitive dust emissions is lead dust
minimizing work practices in the lead oxide unloading and storage area.
The work practices include cleaning or treating surfaces traversed
during vehicular lead oxide transfer activity at least monthly; storing
dust-forming material in enclosures; and examining process areas daily
for accumulating lead-containing dusts and wash and/or vacuum the
surfaces accumulating such dust with a HEPA vacuum device/system. The
work practices also include a requirement that if an accidental leak,
spill or breakage occurs during the unloading process, the area needs
to be washed and/or vacuumed immediately to collect all the spilled or
leaked material. As stated above, pursuant to CAA section 111(h), these
fugitive lead dust emissions from the lead acid battery manufacturing
source category emissions are not ``emitted through a conveyance
designed to emit or capture the pollutant.'' Therefore, since it is not
possible to set a numerical emission limit, we are finalizing a work
practice standard to develop and implement a fugitive dust minimization
plan.
5. NSPS 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart KKa, Without Startup, Shutdown, and
Malfunctions Exemptions
Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008),
the EPA has established standards in this rule that apply at all times.
We are finalizing in 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKa, specific requirements
at 40 CFR 60.372a(a) that override the 40 CFR part 60 general
provisions for SSM requirements. In finalizing the standards in this
rule, the EPA has taken into account startup and shutdown periods and,
for the reasons explained below, has not finalized alternate standards
for those periods. The main control devices used in this industry are
fabric filters. We have determined that these control devices are
effective in controlling emissions during startup and shutdown events.
Prior to proposal, we discussed this issue with industry
representatives and asked them if they expect any problems with meeting
the standards at all times, including periods of startup and shutdown.
The lead acid battery manufacturing industry did not identify (and
there are no data or public comments indicating) any specific problems
with meeting the standards at
[[Page 11568]]
all times including periods of startup or shutdown.
In addition, this final action requires compliance with the
standards at all times including periods of malfunction. Periods of
startup, normal operations, and shutdown are all predictable and
routine aspects of a source's operations. Malfunctions, in contrast,
are neither predictable nor routine. Instead, they are, by definition,
sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably preventable failures of
emissions control, process, or monitoring equipment. (40 CFR 60.2). The
EPA interprets CAA section 111 as not requiring emissions that occur
during periods of malfunction to be factored into development of CAA
section 111 standards. Nothing in CAA section 111 or in case law
requires that the EPA consider malfunctions when determining what
standards of performance reflect the degree of emission limitation
achievable through ``the application of the best system of emission
reduction'' that the EPA determines is adequately demonstrated. While
the EPA accounts for variability in setting emissions standards,
nothing in CAA section 111 requires the Agency to consider malfunctions
as part of that analysis. The EPA is not required to treat a
malfunction in the same manner as the type of variation in performance
that occurs during routine operations of a source. A malfunction is a
failure of the source to perform in a ``normal or usual manner'' and no
statutory language compels the EPA to consider such events in setting
CAA section 111 standards of performance. The EPA's approach to
malfunctions in the analogous circumstances (setting ``achievable''
standards under CAA section 112) has been upheld as reasonable by the
court in U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579, 606-610 (2016).
6. Testing and Monitoring Requirements
a. Performance Tests
The regulations in 40 CFR part 60, subpart KK, only include a
requirement to conduct an initial performance test to demonstrate
compliance with the emissions standards for each type of equipment at
lead acid battery manufacturing plants. Through the BSER review
conducted for the source category, we found that since the promulgation
of the NSPS in 1982, the EPA has proposed and promulgated periodic
performance testing in other recent rulemakings. Through this review,
we also discovered that almost half of the 40-lead acid battery
manufacturing facilities currently subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart
KK, are required by state and local agencies to conduct periodic
performance tests on a schedule that varies from annually to once every
5 years. Therefore, we determined at proposal that periodic performance
testing is a development in operational procedures that will help
ensure continued compliance with the requirements in 40 CFR part 60,
subpart KKa. At proposal, we determined that the incremental costs of
requiring performance tests of lead emissions on this 5-year schedule
would be approximately $23,000 to test one stack and an additional
$5,500 for each additional stack testing during the same testing event.
We also determined that to minimize these costs, it would be possible,
as allowed for in some other EPA NESHAP regulations with periodic
testing requirements, that in some instances where a facility has more
than one stack that exhausts emissions from similar equipment and with
similar control devices, one representative stack could be tested to
demonstrate compliance with the similar stacks. For this, a stack
testing plan demonstrating stack representativeness and a testing
schedule would be required for approval by the EPA or the delegated
authority. Based on the costs and the importance of periodic testing to
ensure continuous compliance, we proposed to require periodic testing
for each emissions source once every 5 years, with the ability for
facilities to test representative stacks if a stack testing plan and
schedule is approved by the EPA or delegated authority.
We received three comments on this proposal, which did not cause
the Agency to change course from what was proposed. We respond fully to
these comments in the Comment Summary and Response Document, available
in the docket for this rulemaking.
As explained in the Comment Summary and Response Document, after
considering these comments, the Agency is finalizing the additional
performance testing as proposed. Facilities subject to 40 CFR part 60,
subpart KKa, will be required to test stacks and/or representative
stacks every 5 years.
b. Fabric Filter and Scrubber Monitoring, Reporting, and Recordkeeping
Requirements That Are Consistent With the Requirements in 40 CFR Part
63, Subpart PPPPPP
We proposed to add monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping
requirements associated with the use of fabric filters to the new NSPS,
40 CFR part 60, subpart KKa, consistent with the area source GACT
requirements in the Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing NESHAP at 40 CFR
part 63, subpart PPPPPP. This was proposed because many of the lead
acid battery manufacturing facilities use fabric filter controls, and
the 1982 NSPS 40 CFR part 60, subpart KK, does not include compliance
requirements for these devices. We also proposed to add an additional
requirement to monitor and record liquid flow rate across each
scrubbing system at least once every 15 minutes. The regulations in 40
CFR part 60, subpart KK, only require monitoring and recording pressure
drop across the scrubber system every 15 minutes. We received no
comments on this issue. Therefore, we are promulgating what was
proposed as the final compliance assurance measures.
We expect that there would be no costs associated with the
requirement for new, modified, and reconstructed sources to monitor and
record liquid flow rate across each scrubbing system at least once
every 15 minutes because this is standard monitoring equipment in
scrubbing systems.
In addition, to reduce the likelihood of malfunctions that result
in excess lead emissions, the EPA also proposed to increase the
frequency of fabric filter inspections and maintenance operations to
monthly for units that do not have a secondary filter, and to retain
the requirement for semi-annual inspections for units that do have a
secondary filter. We received one public comment from environmental
groups in support of additional inspections and one comment from
Clarios against monthly inspections. More details on these comments and
our responses are in the Comment Summary and Response Document
available in the docket for this action. After consideration of public
comments on this issue, we are finalizing increased fabric filter
inspections to quarterly for all fabric filter systems (both primary
and secondary). We expect that there would be no additional costs to
add fabric filter monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping requirements
that are consistent with the NESHAP beyond what is discussed in section
III.A.6.c for bag leak detection requirements and section III.B.6.b for
additional fabric filter inspections.
c. Bag Leak Detection Systems
The standards in 40 CFR part 60, subpart KK, do not include
requirements to install or operate bag leak detection systems. These
systems typically include an instrument that is capable of monitoring
particulate matter loadings in the exhaust of a baghouse to detect bag
failures (e.g., tears) and an alarm to alert an operator of the
failure.
[[Page 11569]]
These bag leak detection systems help ensure continuous compliance and
detect problems early on so that damaged fabric filters can be quickly
inspected and repaired as needed to minimize or prevent the release of
noncompliant emissions. Through the BSER review conducted for the
source category, we found that since the promulgation of the NSPS in
1982, other rules, including the 40 CFR part 60, subpart Y, Coal
Preparation and Processing Plants NSPS (74 FR 51950), and 40 CFR part
60, subparts LLLL and MMMM, New Sewage Sludge Incinerator Units NSPS
(81 FR 26039), have required new sources to have bag leak detection
systems for fabric filter-controlled units. Through this review, we
also discovered that at least eight facilities currently subject to 40
CFR part 60, subpart KK, have bag leak detection systems. Therefore, we
determined at proposal that the use of bag leak detection systems is a
development in operational procedures that will help ensure continued
compliance with the NSPS by identifying and allowing for correction of
bag leak failures earlier than would occur through daily visual
emissions inspections or pressure drop monitoring. We considered
whether a requirement to install and operate a bag leak detection
system would be appropriate for the lead acid battery manufacturing
source category. We examined the costs of installing and operating bag
leak detection systems at large and small facilities and estimated that
the capital costs of a system at a new facility would be approximately
$400,000 for a large facility and $200,000 for a small facility, with
annual costs of approximately $84,000 for a large facility and $42,000
for a small facility. We found that the costs for small facilities
could impose significant negative economic impacts to those companies.
Based on this information, to help ensure continuous compliance with
the emission limits without imposing significant economic impacts on
small facilities, we proposed to require bag leak detection systems
only for large facilities.
We received comments from environmental groups on this proposed
requirement. They are generally supportive of requiring bag leak
detection systems but ask that we also require small facilities to
install bag leak detection systems. The commenter asserted that the EPA
arbitrarily exempted small facilities from the bag leak detection
system requirements because an analysis of cost effectiveness was not
performed, and the EPA's finding that bag leak detection systems are
not cost efficient for ``small'' facilities is unsupported by facts in
the record. The commenter adds that due to the harmfulness of lead at
low exposure levels, the EPA should not use cost as the sole
justification for not requiring additional health protections. We also
received a comment from BCI regarding the cost estimates used in the
proposal claiming that they are outdated and underestimated, but BCI
did not provide any data to support this claim. We conducted additional
research on the costs of bag leak detection, and we did not find
evidence that our estimates at proposal are outside the range of
expected values. We therefore have not revised our estimated costs for
bag leak detection except to update the value of inflation. We have,
however, as discussed below, reconsidered the proposal to require bag
leak detection at only large new, modified and reconstructed sources.
Based on consideration of comments, we are finalizing a requirement
that new sources of all sizes under 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKa, that
do not have a secondary filter must install and operate bag leak
detection systems on baghouses. While the cost of bag leak detection
systems can be substantial for existing facilities, it is easier and
less expensive for a new facility to incorporate bag leak detection in
their construction design than it is for a facility to retrofit their
current devices. Therefore, for new sources, we consider the cost of
bag leak detection reasonable. For modified and reconstructed sources,
we are adding the use of bag leak detection systems as an option and
provide operating limits and monitoring parameters as well as
recordkeeping and reporting requirements for facilities that choose to
install bag leak detection, but we are not requiring these systems for
modified or reconstructed facilities. As discussed in the proposal, the
costs of retrofitting an existing facility with bag leak detection on
baghouses with no secondary filter could be especially burdensome for
smaller facilities and could impose significant economic impacts
(greater than 1 percent of their annual revenues) on some of those
companies. We estimate the capital costs for a facility with four
fabric filter systems are $281,000 and annual costs are $56,000 per
year. We estimate that capital costs for a facility with 12 fabric
filter systems are $842,000 and annual costs are $169,000 per year.
While considering the number of fabric filter systems at existing
facilities subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart KK, are as high as 100
fabric filter systems, and after further consideration of the costs and
taking comments into consideration, we conclude that the cost to
retrofit existing lead acid battery manufacturing sources, both large
and small facilities, with bag leak detection would be burdensome.
Therefore, we are not requiring bag leak detection systems for existing
sources that modify or reconstruct.
After consideration of comments on bag leak detection, because we
have determined not to require existing sources that may modify or
reconstruct to install bag leak detection, we have also examined the
other fabric filter monitoring requirements. As proposed, new, modified
and reconstructed sources under 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKa, must
follow the other fabric filter monitoring requirements which include
pressure drop recording, visible emission observations and inspections.
We are finalizing an increased frequency of fabric filter inspections
as discussed in section III.A.6.b. In addition, as an outgrowth of
comments, we are finalizing an increase in fabric filter monitoring
requirements (i.e., pressure drop and visible emissions readings) from
once per day to twice per day for fabric filters without a secondary
filter. Specifically, we are promulgating a requirement that for fabric
filters without a secondary filter, facility operators must do one of
the following measurements daily if the results of the most recent
performance test is greater than 50 percent of the applicable lead
emission limit: (1) record pressure drop two times per day with a
minimum of 8 hours between the recordings; or (2) conduct visible
emission observations two times per day with a minimum of 6 hours
between observations. For fabric filters without a secondary filter
that have performance test results less than 50 percent of the
applicable emissions limit, we are maintaining the requirement that
facilities must do one of the following: (1) record pressure drop at
least one time per day; or (2) conduct visible emission observations at
least one time per day. We are also retaining as proposed the
requirement for fabric filter systems with a secondary filter to record
pressure drop weekly and conduct weekly visible emission observations.
The costs for the additional pressure drop recording requirement for
new, modified and reconstructed sources under the new NSPS subpart are
the same as estimates for the NESHAP and are discussed in section
III.B.6.c.
[[Page 11570]]
7. Other Actions
a. Clarification of Lead Oxide Manufacturing Emission Limit
We proposed to retain the lead oxide manufacturing emission limit.
However, we received two comments asking the EPA to address apparent
issues with the emission limit. As discussed below, we are modifying
the proposal after taking the comments summarized here into
consideration. One commenter (Clarios) noted that the lead oxide
production process emission limits in both the NSPS and NESHAP are
production based, while all the other lead acid battery production
process emission limits are concentration based. The commenter opined
that the EPA set the production-based limit for lead oxide production
because only one production-based data point was available when the
NSPS was developed in 1982. The commenter suggested that the limit be
changed to a concentration-based limit to match the format of the other
battery production process limits. The commenter stated that this would
allow facilities more flexibility to apply control strategies in a
cost-effective manner by being better able to plan and coordinate their
operations, especially in multi-process facilities; simplify the
environmental management process; and allow for better operational
options. The commenter provided summaries of emissions testing data for
three of its facilities, which the commenter says demonstrate that
dramatically lower emissions levels than the current production-based
emission limit are achievable with commonly available filter
technologies. The commenter noted that each facility for which data
were provided controls emissions by way of a process dust collector
equipped with primary filters and a secondary bank of filters to
provide system redundancy. The commenter hopes that by providing this
information, the EPA can consider the level of control that is
available today with modern lead oxide production facilities and use
this information to evaluate an appropriate emission limit for lead
oxide production processes and transition to a concentration-based
limit.
Another commenter (BCI) requests that the EPA clarify that the lead
oxide production facility 5.0 mg/kg production-based standard should be
applied only to the direct product collector baghouses and that any
other local exhaust ventilation or building ventilation exhausts
serving lead oxide production areas should be considered ``other lead-
emitting operations'' subject to the 1.0 mg/dscm concentration-based
standards. The commenter suggests the EPA could clarify this in the
preamble to the final rule or revise the definition of ``lead oxide
manufacturing facility'' to apply only to the direct process baghouse
exhausts. The commenter explained that at the time of the original
promulgation of the NSPS in the 1980s, it was typical that the only
ventilation and emission points from lead oxide production operations
was the exhaust from the lead oxide production baghouses. The commenter
further explained that these baghouses are integral to the process, in
that the lead oxide captured in these baghouses is the intended product
of that operation and are part of the production process rather than
being systems intended to reduce indoor lead exposures and minimize
exterior emissions. The commenter adds that as such, it was reasonable
that the performance limitation on the direct process baghouse exhausts
in lead oxide production areas were expressed in units of mg/kg or lb/
ton. However, the commenter notes that since the 1980's, it has become
increasingly common for facilities to have installed local exhaust
ventilation hooding on some material transfer points and other sources
in the lead oxide production areas and may also now direct room air
from lead oxide production areas to baghouses for exhaust control. The
commenter states that these emission sources should not be assessed
with or against the 5.0 mg/kg standard for the direct process baghouse
exhausts.
We agree with the commenter that the lead oxide manufacturing
emissions limit was intended to apply only to the primary emissions
sources and their emission control devices (i.e., lead oxide production
fabric filter baghouses). In the final rule, we are clarifying that the
lead oxide manufacturing facility limit only applies to the primary
emissions sources, and that other sources associated with the lead
oxide production sources, such as building ventilation, would be
``other lead emitting operations'' subject to the 1.0 mg/dscm emission
limit. We also agree with the comment that the lead oxide production
process emissions limit was developed as a production-based limit
because only one production-based data point was available when the
NSPS was developed. However, a new limit was not proposed and the
process-based emission standard accounts for variability with
production rate and flow rate. It is difficult to establish an
equivalent concentration-based limit, due to the variability in process
conditions, such as production volume and flow rate, that must be
considered on an individual unit basis. Therefore, as facilities are
already familiar with how to comply with the production-based limit, we
are retaining the current production-based limit.
b. Electronic Reporting
To increase the ease and efficiency of data submittal and data
accessibility, the EPA is finalizing, as proposed, that owners and
operators of lead acid battery manufacturing subject to the new NSPS at
40 CFR part 60, subpart KKa, submit electronic copies of required
performance test reports and the semiannual excess emissions and
continuous monitoring system performance and summary reports, through
the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) using the Compliance and
Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). We did not receive any
comments regarding these requirements. A description of the electronic
data submission process is provided in the memorandum Electronic
Reporting Requirements for New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)
Rules, available in the docket for this action. The final rule requires
that performance test results collected using test methods that are
supported by the EPA's Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the
ERT website \3\ at the time of the test be submitted in the format
generated through the use of the ERT or an electronic file consistent
with the xml schema on the ERT website and that other performance test
results be submitted in portable document format using the attachment
module in the ERT. For the semiannual excess emissions and continuous
monitoring system performance and summary reports, the final rule
requires that owners and operators use the appropriate spreadsheet
template to submit information to CEDRI. The final version of the
template for these reports will be located on the CEDRI website.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert.
\4\ https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/cedri.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, the EPA is finalizing, as proposed, provisions that
allow owners and operators the ability to seek extensions for
submitting electronic reports for circumstances beyond the control of
the facility, i.e., for a possible outage in CDX or CEDRI or for a
force majeure event, in the time just prior to a report's due date, as
well as the process to assert such a claim.
[[Page 11571]]
B. NESHAP
For each issue, this section provides a description of what we
proposed and what we are finalizing for the issue, the EPA's rationale
for the final decisions and amendments, and a summary of key comments
and responses. For all comments not discussed in this preamble, comment
summaries and the EPA's responses can be found in the Comment Summary
and Response Document available in the docket.
1. Technology Review for Grid Casting Facilities
As discussed in section III.A.1 above, the emission limit
promulgated in the 1982 NSPS was 0.4 mg/dscm and the opacity standard
finalized was 0 percent and these standards were based on an
impingement scrubber (with an estimated 90 percent control efficiency).
In the 2007 NESHAP final rule, the EPA adopted that same limit (0.4 mg/
dscm based on impingent scrubbers) as the limit for grid casting in the
NESHAP, and also adopted the 0 percent opacity standard. Based on our
technology review, the majority of existing area source facilities (at
least 29 of the 39 facilities subject to the NESHAP) use fabric
filters. At the time of proposal, we were missing permits for three
facilities; one in California, one in Indiana, and one in Tennessee,
and did not have enough information for the other seven facilities.
Some facilities are also using secondary control devices such as a wet
scrubber or HEPA filter in addition to the primary fabric filters to
achieve further emissions control. Furthermore, we did not identify any
facilities using only a wet scrubber. Based on our review of permits
and other information, we assumed all existing facilities use fabric
filters to control their grid casting emissions. Therefore, we
concluded that fabric filters are clearly feasible and well
demonstrated as an appropriate control technology for grid casting
operations. Based on our technology review pursuant to CAA section
112(d)(6), we proposed a lead emission limit of 0.04 mg/dscm that was
thought to reflect the use of a fabric filter system with an estimated
99 percent efficiency.
We received one comment against the proposed amendment to the grid
casting emission limit, which is summarized above in section III.A.1.
The commenters did not comment on the EPA's assumption that no existing
facilities are using only a wet scrubber to control grid casting
emissions. Based on the comment regarding fabric filter efficiencies,
we analyzed stack test data and calculated a UPL as described in
section III.A.1 above. Based on this additional analysis, we are
promulgating a revised lead emission limit of 0.08 mg/dscm for grid
casting which reflects the use of a fabric filter to control emissions.
Based on our technology review and information obtained since the
proposal, we can now state that 36 of 39 facilities currently subject
to the NESHAP use fabric filters to control their grid casting
emissions. Although, we are missing three permits, since we did not
receive comment on our assumption that all existing facilities use
fabric filters for grid casting, we estimate that all existing sources
are currently using fabric filters to control their grid casting
emissions. Therefore, there will be no additional costs to existing
sources to comply with the revised limit. We are retaining the 0
percent opacity standard for grid casting as proposed.
2. Technology Review for Lead Reclamation Facilities
We did not find any facilities currently conducting lead
reclamation operations as they are defined in the NESHAP during our
technology review. In the NESHAP, lead reclamation facilities are
defined as facilities that remelt lead and reform it into ingots, and
as discussed above in section III.A.2, we identified two facilities
with lead reclamation equipment in their permit, and that equipment is
controlled by fabric filters. Although, it is unclear from the permit
if the two facilities are using this equipment to remelt lead and form
it into ingots as the definition in the NESHAP specifies. We concluded
in the technology review that fabric filters represented a development
in technology since the 2007 NESHAP and therefore, we proposed to
revise the lead emission limit of 4.5 mg/dscm (which was developed in
1980 based on a scrubber with estimated 90 percent efficiency and
adopted by the NESHAP in 2007) to 0.45 mg/dscm (based on application of
fabric filters) for lead reclamation operations at lead acid battery
manufacturing facilities. We also proposed to retain the 5 percent
opacity standard. The EPA received no comments on the proposed emission
limit or opacity standard for lead reclamation process in this
rulemaking. For these reasons, the EPA is promulgating a revised lead
emission limit of 0.45 mg/dscm for the lead reclamation process in the
NESHAP. We are also retaining the opacity standard of 5 percent and we
retain that a facility must use EPA Method 9 to demonstrate compliance
with the daily and weekly visible emission observations as well as
during the performance tests required every 5 years as proposed.
As discussed above in section III.A.7.a, we are also finalizing, as
proposed, to revise the definition of lead reclamation facility to
clarify that the lead reclamation facility does not include recycling
of any type of finished battery or recycling lead-bearing scrap that is
obtained from non-category sources or from any offsite operations, and
these activities are prohibited. We are also finalizing, as proposed,
to clarify that lead reclamation facilities also do not include the
remelting of lead metal scrap (such as unused grids or scraps from
creating grids) from on-site lead acid battery manufacturing processes
and that any such remelting is considered part of the process where the
lead is remelted and used (i.e., grid casting).
3. Technology Review for Paste Mixing Facilities
During the technology review, we identified 15 paste mixing
facilities subject to the NESHAP (38 percent of the total) that
currently have secondary filters to achieve much higher control
efficiency on their paste mixing operations. As discussed in section
III.A.3 above, the results of the cost analyses at proposal for
existing large facilities indicated that the estimated cost
effectiveness of adding a secondary HEPA filter on the paste mixing
process was within the range of what the EPA has considered to be a
cost-effective level of control for lead emissions, but it was not
cost-effective for existing small facilities to add secondary HEPA
filters to their paste mixing processes. Therefore, we proposed that
large sources would need to comply with a revised paste mixing emission
limit of 0.1 mg/dscm, and we proposed to retain the standard of 1 mg/
dscm for small sources.
Based on the comments we received after proposal regarding the use
of high efficiency filters, as discussed in section III.A.3 above, we
have conducted further analysis for existing facilities, and we agree
with the commenter that ePTFE (high efficiency) filters can be used to
achieve the revised paste mixing emission limit of 0.1 mg/dscm. We
estimate that 24 (out of 39 existing facilities that have paste mixing
operations) can comply with the proposed 0.1 mg/dscm emission limit
because they already use secondary HEPA filters or have stack tests/
permit limits that indicate they could comply with the emission limit
of 0.1 mg/dscm. Further, as the available information shows that paste
mixing operations are already controlled by fabric filters at
[[Page 11572]]
most facilities, it is possible that instead of adding HEPA filters,
most facilities could switch from traditional filter materials to more
modern higher efficiency filter materials and achieve the same
emissions levels as those achieved by a secondary filter at a lower
cost. However, as a commenter noted, as discussed in section III.A.3,
some facilities use wet scrubbers to control paste mixing emissions. We
are aware of five existing facilities that use wet scrubbers to control
their paste mixing operations. Three of these facilities currently have
secondary HEPA filters following their scrubbers. Based on the data
available to the EPA at the time of this rulemaking, four of the five
facilities using scrubbers to control paste mixing operations can
comply with the revised emission limit of 0.1 mg/dscm. One of these
five facilities has three wet scrubbers to control paste mixing. Based
on stack test data we obtained from the state agency, we estimate that
this facility might need to add a secondary HEPA filter on one of these
devices, which will result in slightly higher costs for this one
facility. We conservatively estimate that the remaining 14 facilities
will need to upgrade their bags to comply with the revised emission
limit. The incremental initial costs to replace current bags at these
facilities with the high efficiency PTFE bags ranges from $6,000 to
$36,000 per facility, and the incremental annualized costs range from
$3,000 to $18,000 per facility per year. We estimate that a typical
large facility would have annual costs of about $30,000 per year and
achieve about 0.1 tpy reduction of lead emissions with estimated cost
effectiveness of $300,000 per ton and that a typical small facility
would have annual costs of about $18,000 per year and achieve about
0.03 tpy reduction of lead emissions, with estimated cost effectiveness
of $300,000 per ton, which is well within the range of cost
effectiveness that the EPA has historically accepted. Therefore, we
conclude that for most facilities, this limit of 0.1 mg/dscm is cost-
effective.
However, based on available information, for at least one very
small facility with already very low paste mixing emissions, replacing
current bags with ePTFE bags would not be cost-effective. We estimate
that to meet the 0.1 mg/dscm lead emission limit, its initial costs
would be $18,000 and its incremental annualized costs would be $9,000,
and would achieve a 0.002 tpy lead reduction with estimated cost
effectiveness of $4.7M/ton. This estimated cost effectiveness (for a
very small facility with very low emissions) of $4.7M/ton is higher
than what the EPA has historically accepted as cost-effective.
Therefore, because we estimate it is cost-effective for all other
existing facilities except for one, in order to ensure that emission
reductions can be achieved in a cost-effective manner for the source
category, we are also promulgating an alternative lead emission limit
of 0.002 lb/hour as described in section III.A.3. This alternative
emission limit of 0.002 lbs/hr is more stringent than the 0.1 mg/dscm
for most facilities, and is significantly more stringent than the
proposed emission limit of 1 mg/dscm for very small facilities with
very low flow rates and will ensure emissions are limited to low levels
in the future. With the alternative lead limit, we estimate that one of
14 facilities noted above would be able to comply with the alternative
limit with no additional control costs. Therefore, we estimate that
with the revised limit of 0.1 mg/dscm along with the option to comply
with the alternative limit (0.002 lbs/hr) that 13 existing facilities
could be affected by these rule requirements and that total estimated
costs to the source category are estimated to be $384,000 in
incremental initial costs and $96,000 incremental annual costs. We
estimate a total lead reduction for the source category of 0.64 tpy.
More details on the costs are available in the Costs Impacts
Memorandum, in the docket for this rulemaking.
Based on this analysis, for new and existing sources under the
NESHAP, we are promulgating the revised emission limit of 0.1 mg/dscm,
which we conclude reflects developments in technology under section
112(d)(6) for most facilities and the alternative lead emission limit
of 0.002 lbs/hr, which we conclude reflects developments under section
112(d)(6) for very small facilities with fabric filter systems with
very low flow rates, applicable to all facilities regardless of
production capacity. We are also retaining the opacity limit of 0
percent but are promulgating an option to use EPA Method 22 to
demonstrate compliance with the daily and/or weekly visible emissions
as discussed above in section III.A.6.c.
4. Technology Review for Fugitive Dust Emissions
The same requirements proposed for 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKa, as
described in section III.A.4 above, were proposed as amendments to the
NESHAP. During the technology review, we discovered that several
facilities currently subject to the NESHAP already had requirements to
reduce fugitive dust emissions through similar work practices in their
operating permits including in the lead oxide unloading and storage
areas. Other rules, including the NESHAPs for primary lead smelting and
secondary lead smelting, have required new and existing sources to
minimize fugitive dust emissions at the facilities, such as through the
paving of roadways, cleaning roadways, storing lead bearing materials
in enclosed spaces or containers, and other measures.
As discussed under section III.A.4, we received three comments
regarding the proposed fugitive dust minimization work practices. In
consideration of these comments and after additional research,
described in section III.A.4 above, under the NESHAP, we are finalizing
the same requirements as discussed in section III.A.4 above for 40 CFR
part 60, subpart KKa. As a change to the proposal, we are promulgating
a requirement that existing sources must develop and implement a
fugitive dust minimization plan for the lead oxide unloading and
storage area, which represents GACT. Based on the comments, we revised
our cost estimates and estimate that the cost burden will be mostly
labor to develop and implement the dust plan, and that most facilities
would already own the equipment necessary, such as a HEPA vacuum, to
carry out these work practices. Total estimated costs range from $0
(for facilities that already have a fugitive dust plan and are
implementing it) to $22,000 per facility per year. As discussed under
section III.A.4, we have not quantified emission reductions as a result
of implementing the work practices. It is difficult to quantify
fugitive dust emissions since they are not released through a point,
such as a stack, and cannot easily be measured. Therefore, for the
reason discussed in section III.A.4, we have determined these costs are
reasonable and are finalizing work practices to minimize fugitive dust
in the lead oxide unloading and storage areas. The costs are discussed
in more detail in the Cost Impacts Memorandum, available in the docket
for this rulemaking.
5. Expanded Facility Applicability
The original definition of the lead acid battery manufacturing
source category stated that lead acid battery manufacturing facilities
include any facility engaged in producing lead acid batteries and
explained that the category includes, but is not limited to, facilities
engaged in the manufacturing steps of lead oxide production, grid
casting, paste mixing, and three-process operations (plate stacking,
burning, and assembly). The EPA is aware of some facilities that
conduct one or more of
[[Page 11573]]
these lead acid battery manufacturing processes but do not produce the
final product of a battery. Thus, these facilities were not previously
considered to be in the lead acid battery source category, and those
processes were not subject to the lead acid battery NESHAP. To ensure
these processes that are producing certain battery parts or input
materials (such as grids or lead oxide) are regulated to the same
extent as those that are located at facilities where the final battery
products are produced, the EPA proposed to revise the applicability
provisions in the NESHAP such that facilities that process lead to
manufacture battery parts or input material would be subject to the
NESHAP even if they do not produce batteries. Information from the
technology review indicates that lead emissions from the processes at
such facilities are controlled and can meet the emissions limits in the
Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Area Source NESHAP. However, the
facilities would also need to comply with the compliance assurance
measures and work practices of the proposed NESHAP, including the
proposed fugitive dust mitigation plan requirements, improved
monitoring of emission points with fabric filters, performance testing,
reporting, and recordkeeping. We estimated the costs for compliance
testing would be $23,000 to $34,000 per facility once every 5 years;
and annual costs for the fugitive dust work practices would be $0 to
$13,000 per facility.
We received two comments on this proposed action. Hammond Group, a
lead oxide manufacturer, and BCI commented that the EPA did not
consider that some of these facilities could be subject to other
NESHAP. BCI also commented that this amendment would bring in ``de
minimus'' sources such as those that manufacturer cable and wires not
necessarily used for lead acid batteries. A summary of these comments
and the Agency's response is found in the Comment Summary and Response
Document, available in the docket for this action.
The EPA's intent with the proposed applicability amendment was to
ensure that facilities involved in the primary lead acid battery
manufacturing processes (grid casting, paste mixing, lead oxide
manufacturing and three-process operations) but that do not make the
end-product of a lead acid battery are subject to Federal regulations
that limit their lead emissions. After consideration of the comments,
we are finalizing the applicability provisions such that battery
component facilities that are involved in the primary processes (grid
casting, paste mixing, lead oxide manufacturing and three-process
operations) and manufacturing battery parts or input material (i.e.,
grids and lead oxide) used in the manufacturing of lead acid batteries
will be subject to the NESHAP. However, we are also finalizing a
provision that if a facility is already subject to another NESHAP that
controls relevant lead emissions, it is exempt from complying with the
Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Area Source NESHAP, 40 CFR part 63,
subpart PPPPPP.
After proposal, we became aware that the existing Clarios
facilities in Florence, Kentucky and West Union, South Carolina do not
make battery grids or any lead-bearing battery parts. These facilities
are involved in making the plastic battery cases. Therefore, we have
removed them from our facilities list. There are four facilities that
we are aware of (and included in the proposal analysis) that will
become subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPPPP, due to this
applicability expansion: a battery grid producing facility, Clarios in
Red Oak, Iowa; and three lead oxide manufacturers, Doe Run Fabricated
Metals in Vancouver, Washington; and Powerlab, Inc. in Terrell, Texas,
and Savanna, Illinois. The estimated costs for these facilities to
comply with the Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Area Source NESHAP
range between $23,000 and $47,000 per facility once every 5 years for
performance testing, and between $20,000 and $24,000 per year for all
other requirements above what these facilities are already doing to
comply with their state regulations.
6. Testing and Monitoring Requirements
a. Performance Tests
We proposed a requirement to conduct performance testing at least
once every 5 years for all existing and new area sources. To reduce
some of the cost burden, the EPA proposed to allow facilities that have
two or more processes and stacks that are very similar, and have the
same type of control devices, to test just one stack as representative
of the others as approved by the delegated authority. We proposed that
the NESHAP would include the same testing requirements that the EPA
proposed under the new NSPS, as discussed above in section III.A.6.a.
As explained in the proposed rule, the EPA has been adding requirements
to NESHAP when other amendments are being made to the rules to include
periodic performance tests to help ensure continuous compliance.
As explained in section III.A.6.a., we received comments on testing
from three stakeholders. More details regarding these comments, and the
EPA's responses are provided in the Comment Summary and Response
Document, available in the docket for this rulemaking.
We are promulgating the performance testing requirements as
proposed. Costs for existing facilities are estimated to range from
$23,000 to $181,000 per facility every 5 years, depending on the total
number of stacks to be tested. We conclude performance testing costs
are reasonable and necessary to ensure the emission standards in 40 CFR
part 63, subpart PPPPPP, are continuously met and enforceable.
b. Improved Monitoring of Emission Points Controlled by Fabric Filters
and Scrubbers
The 2007 area source NESHAP required facilities to conduct
semiannual inspections and maintenance for emission points controlled
by a fabric filter to ensure proper performance of the fabric filter.
In addition, pressure drop or visible emission observations had to be
conducted for the fabric filter daily (or weekly if the fabric filter
has a secondary HEPA filter) to ensure the fabric filter was
functioning properly. To reduce the likelihood of malfunctions that
result in excess lead emissions, the EPA proposed to increase the
frequency of fabric filter inspections and maintenance operations to
monthly for units that do not have a secondary filter and retain the
requirement for semi-annual inspections for units that do have a
secondary filter. After consideration of the public comments,
summarized in the Comment Summary and Response Document available in
the docket for this action, we are finalizing quarterly inspections for
all fabric filter systems (both primary and secondary). The estimated
costs for the additional inspections range from $0 (for facilities
already doing at least quarterly inspections) to $6,300 per facility
per year which we have determined is reasonable.
As discussed above in section III.A.6.b., standard monitoring of
scrubbing systems includes measuring liquid flow rate across the
scrubbing system. We proposed to add a requirement to measure and
record the liquid flow rate across each scrubbing system (that is not
followed by a fabric filter) at least once every 15 minutes in the
NESHAP, in addition to monitoring pressure drop across each scrubbing
system.
We received no comments on this issue, and therefore we are
finalizing a requirement to measure and record the
[[Page 11574]]
liquid flow rate across each scrubbing system that is not followed by a
fabric filter at least once every 15 minutes. Based on our review, we
only identified three facilities that have a scrubber system that is
not followed by a fabric filter, and at least one of these facilities
already has this requirement in their permit. We expect the other two
facilities likely already have the capability to measure liquid flow
rate since it is a standard requirement to ensure a scrubbing system is
operating properly. Therefore, we estimate these facilities will not
have any capital costs to comply with this requirement but may have a
small unquantified increase in annual costs due to recordkeeping
requirements.
c. Bag Leak Detection Systems
As discussed above in section III.A.6.c, the EPA found several lead
acid battery manufacturing facilities that have bag leak detection
systems during the technology review, and we proposed the use of bag
leak detection systems for new and existing large lead acid battery
manufacturing facilities as a development in operational procedures
that would assure compliance with the area source NESHAP by identifying
and correcting fabric filter failures. Taking the comments we received
into consideration as well as the substantial costs to the industry for
this requirement, we are not requiring existing facilities to install
and operate bag leak detection systems. However, we are promulgating
bag leak detection as an option and are finalizing operating limits and
monitoring parameters for bag leak detection systems if they are used
at a facility. The same operating limits and monitoring parameters that
were proposed are being finalized. The rationale for this decision is
the same as described above in section III.A.6.c.
Considering comments received on the proposed provisions for fabric
filter monitoring and inspections, and to reduce the likelihood of
malfunctions that result in excess lead emissions, we are also
finalizing an increase in fabric filter monitoring requirements (i.e.,
pressure drop and visible emissions readings) from once per day to
twice per day for fabric filters without a secondary filter.
Specifically, we are promulgating a requirement that for fabric filters
without a secondary filter, facility operators must do one of the
following measurements daily if the results of the most recent
performance test is greater than 50 percent of the applicable lead
emission limit: (1) record pressure drop two times per day with a
minimum of 8 hours between the recordings; or (2) conduct visible
emission observations two times per day with a minimum of 6 hours
between observations. For fabric filters without a secondary filter
that have performance test results less than 50 percent of the
applicable emissions limit, we are retaining the requirement that
facilities must do one of the following: (1) record pressure drop at
least one time per day; or (2) conduct visible emission observations at
least one time per day. We are also retaining as proposed the
requirement for fabric filter systems with a secondary filter to record
pressure drop weekly or conduct weekly visible emission observations.
The estimated cost of the additional recording varies depending on
whether or not a facility has the capability for automated data
recordings or if they do manual recordings. The estimated cost ranges
from approximately $8,000 to $80,000 per year per facility for manual
data recording, and an estimated $200 to update software for automated
data recording. For smaller facilities with multiple fabric filter
baghouses that may record the pressure drop reading by hand, this
requirement could be burdensome in addition to the other new
requirements in the amended rules. To offset the potential additional
costs for additional visible emission recordings, we are also
promulgating an amendment to the method for conducting visible emission
observations for fabric filters. The 2007 NESHAP required that EPA
Method 9 be used for the daily and/or weekly visible emission
observations. EPA Method 9 is a test that quantifies opacity, while EPA
Method 22 is a qualitative test to determine the absence of visual
emissions (i.e., 0 percent opacity). We are revising the regulations to
allow for the use of EPA Method 22 as an alternative to EPA Method 9
for the daily and weekly visible emission observations of the processes
with 0 percent opacity standards. We are retaining the opacity
standards in the rule of 0 percent for grid casting, paste mixing,
three-process operations, lead oxide manufacturing and other lead
emitting operations and we are retaining the opacity standard of 5
percent for lead reclamation. Because we have retained the opacity
standards of 0 percent for the applicable processes in the final rule,
EPA Method 22, in the case of lead acid battery manufacturing
processes, will be sufficient to demonstrate compliance with the 0
percent opacity standard during the daily/weekly visible emissions
observations. EPA Method 9 must still be used for daily and/or weekly
visible emission observations for the lead reclamation process if a
facility conducts these operations, and EPA Method 9 must still be used
to determine compliance with the opacity standards in the rule during
performance tests.
We estimate that there are 19 facilities that may be required to
record pressure drop twice a day or record observations of visible
emissions twice a day. For facilities that record pressure drop daily
to comply with the NESHAP, we estimate that the total cost to the
industry for one additional pressure drop recording is approximately
$71,000 per year with facility costs ranging from $0 to $12,100 per
year, which we conclude is reasonable. The costs and assumptions are
discussed in more detail in the Cost Impacts Memorandum available in
the docket.
For facilities that conduct visible emission observations daily to
comply with the NESHAP, we have estimated costs for one additional
observation and recording of each fabric filter system with no
secondary filter or bag leak detection system. We estimate that
providing EPA Method 22 as an option for the daily and/or weekly
visible emission observations, as discussed above, will be a cost
savings for facilities. It is estimated that the net costs for an
additional visible emission observation and recording using EPA Method
22 are $95,300 for the entire industry and an average net cost of
$2,400 per year per facility, which we conclude is reasonable. The
costs and assumptions are discussed in more detail in the Cost Impacts
Memorandum available in the docket.
7. Other Actions
a. Lead Oxide Manufacturing Emission Limit
As discussed above in section III.A.7.a, we proposed to retain the
lead oxide manufacturing emission limit. Based on public comments
(described above) we are finalizing a clarification that this emission
limit applies to the primary emissions sources and their emission
control devices (i.e., lead oxide production fabric filter baghouses),
and that other sources associated with the lead oxide production
source, such as building ventilation, would be ``other lead-emitting
operations'' subject to the 1.0 mg/dscm emission limit.
b. Electronic Reporting Requirements
The EPA is finalizing, as proposed, that owners and operators of
lead acid battery manufacturing facilities subject to the NESHAP at 40
CFR part 63, subpart PPPPPP, submit electronic copies of required
performance test
[[Page 11575]]
reports and the semiannual excess emissions and continuous monitoring
system performance and summary reports, through the EPA's CDX using the
CEDRI. A description of the electronic data submission process is
provided in the memorandum Electronic Reporting Requirements for New
Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Rules, available in the docket for
this action. The final rule requires that performance test results
collected using test methods that are supported by the EPA's Electronic
Reporting Tool (ERT) is listed on the ERT website \5\ at the time of
the test be submitted in the format generated through the use of the
ERT or an electronic file consistent with the xml schema on the ERT
website and other performance test results be submitted in portable
document format (PDF) using the attachment module in the ERT. For
semiannual excess emissions and continuous monitoring system
performance and summary reports, the final rule requires that owners
and operators use the appropriate spreadsheet template to submit
information to CEDRI. The final version of the template for these
reports will be located on the CEDRI website.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert.
\6\ https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/cedri.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Requirement
We have eliminated the SSM exemption in this rule. Consistent with
Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), the EPA has
established standards in this rule that apply at all times. We have
also revised Table 3 (the General Provisions Applicability Table) in
several respects as is explained in more detail below. For example, we
have eliminated the incorporation of the General Provisions'
requirement that the source develops an SSM plan. We have also
eliminated and revised certain recordkeeping and reporting that is
related to the SSM exemption as described in detail in the proposed
rule and summarized again here.
In establishing the standards in this rule, the EPA has taken into
account startup and shutdown periods and, for the reasons explained
below, has not established alternate standards for those periods.
We discussed this issue with industry representatives and asked
them if they expect any problems with the removal of the SSM
exemptions. The lead acid battery manufacturing industry did not
identify (and there are no data indicating) any specific problems with
removing the SSM provisions. The main control devices used in this
industry are fabric filters. We expect that these control devices are
effective in controlling emissions during startup and shutdown events.
Periods of startup, normal operations, and shutdown are all
predictable and routine aspects of a source's operations. Malfunctions,
in contrast, are neither predictable nor routine. Instead, they are by
definition, sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably preventable failures
of emissions control, process, or monitoring equipment. (40 CFR 63.2)
(Definition of malfunction). The EPA interprets CAA section 112 as not
requiring emissions that occur during periods of malfunction to be
factored into development of CAA section 112 standards. This reading
has been upheld as reasonable by the court in U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA,
830 F.3d 579, 606-610 (2016).
As noted in the proposal for the amendments to the Lead Acid
Battery Manufacturing Area Source NESHAP, under this decision, the
court vacated two provisions that exempted sources from the requirement
to comply with otherwise applicable CAA section 112(d) emission
standards during periods of SSM. We proposed and are finalizing
revisions to the NESHAP at 40 CFR 63.11421 through 63.11427 that remove
the SSM exemption under the Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Area Source
NESHAP and any references to SSM-related requirements.
C. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards?
1. NSPS
Pursuant to CAA section 111(b)(1)(B), the effective date of the
final rule requirements in 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKa, will be the
promulgation date. Affected sources that commence construction, or
reconstruction, or modification after February 23, 2022, must comply
with all requirements of 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKa, no later than the
effective date of the final rule or upon startup, whichever is later.
2. NESHAP
Pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(10) the effective date of the final
rule requirements in 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPPPP, is the
promulgation date.
For existing affected lead acid battery manufacturing facilities
(i.e., facilities that commenced construction or reconstruction on or
before February 23, 2022), there are specific compliance dates for each
amended standard, as specified below. For the removal of the SSM
exemptions, we are finalizing that facilities must comply by the
effective date of the final rule. For the following final revisions, we
are promulgating a compliance date of no later than 180 days after the
effective date of the final rule: Clarifications to the definition of
lead reclamation; requirements for electronic reporting of performance
test results and semiannual excess emissions and continuous monitoring
system performance and summary reports; increased fabric filter
inspection frequency; additional pressure drop recording; revisions to
the applicability provisions to include battery production processes at
facilities that do not produce the final end product (i.e., batteries);
and bag leak detection provisions.
For the removal of the SSM exemptions, we proposed a compliance
date of no later than 180 days after the effective date of the final
rule, including for the proposed changes to the NESHAP being made to
ensure that the regulations are consistent with the decision in Sierra
Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008) in which the court vacated
portions of two provisions in the EPA's CAA section 112 regulations
governing the emissions of hazardous air pollutants during periods of
SSM. Specifically, the court vacated the SSM exemption contained in 40
CFR 63.6(f)(1) and (h)(1). The EPA removed these SSM exemptions from
the CFR in March 2021 to reflect the court's decision (86 FR 13819). In
this action, we are changing the cross-reference to those General
Provisions for the applicability of these two requirements from a
``yes'' to ``no'' and adding rule-specific language at 40 CFR
63.11423(a)(3) to ensure the rule applies as all times, and 40 CFR
63.11423(a)(3) will be effective upon promulgation of this action. In
addition, we do not expect additional time is necessary generally for
facilities to comply with changes to SSM provisions because we have
concluded that the sources can meet the otherwise applicable standards
that are in effect at all times, as described in section III.B.7. We
are therefore finalizing that facilities must comply with this
requirement no later than the effective date of this final rule, with
the exception of recordkeeping provisions. For recordkeeping under the
SSM provisions, we are finalizing that facilities must comply with this
requirement 90 days after the effective date of the final rule.
Recordkeeping provisions associated with malfunction events (40 CFR
63.11424(a)(7)(ii) and (iii)) shall be effective no later than 90
[[Page 11576]]
days after the effective date of this action. The EPA is requiring
additional information under 40 CFR 63.11424 for recordkeeping of
malfunction events, so the additional time is necessary to permit
sources to read and understand the new requirements and adjust record
keeping systems to comply. Reporting provisions are in accordance with
the reporting requirements during normal operations and the semi-annual
report of excess emissions.
For the following final revisions, we are finalizing a compliance
date of 3 years after the publication date of the final rule: Revised
emission limits for paste mixing, grid casting, and lead reclamation;
requirements to develop and follow a fugitive dust mitigation plan; and
requirements that performance testing be conducted at least once every
5 years.
After the effective date of the final rule and until the applicable
compliance date of the amended standards, affected existing lead acid
battery manufacturing facilities must comply with either the current
requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPPPP, or the amended
standards.
For existing affected lead acid battery component manufacturing
facilities that become subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPPPP, the
compliance date for all applicable requirements is 3 years after the
publication date of the final rule. Newly affected lead acid battery
manufacturing facilities and newly affected lead acid battery component
manufacturing facilities (i.e., facilities that commence construction
or reconstruction after February 23, 2022) must comply with all
requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPPPP, including the final
amendments, by the effective date of the final rule, or upon startup,
whichever is later.
IV. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts
A. What are the affected facilities?
1. NSPS
The EPA has found through the BSER review for this source category
that there are 40 existing lead acid battery manufacturing facilities
subject to the NSPS for Lead-Acid Battery Manufacturing Plants at 40
CFR part 60, subpart KK. We are not currently aware of any planned or
potential new lead acid battery manufacturing facilities, but it is
possible that some existing facilities could be modified or
reconstructed in the future. At this time, and over the next 3 years,
the EPA anticipates that no facilities will become subject to the new
NSPS for Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Plant at 40 CFR part 60,
subpart KKa.
2. NESHAP
Through the technology review for the source category, the EPA
found that there are 39 existing facilities subject to the NESHAP for
Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Area Sources at 40 CFR part 63, subpart
PPPPPP. These facilities will be affected by the amendments to the
NESHAP and four additional facilities will become subject to the NESHAP
upon promulgation of the amendments.
B. What are the air quality impacts?
1. NSPS
We are not expecting any new facilities to be built in the
foreseeable future, but if any new facilities are built or any existing
facility is modified or reconstructed in the future, the requirements
in the new NSPS, 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKa, would achieve an
estimated 0.03 tpy to 0.1 tpy reduction of allowable lead emissions for
each new facility from the source category compared to that of the
current NSPS 40 CFR part 60, subpart KK. We are also promulgating
additional compliance assurance measures and work practices to minimize
fugitive dust emissions, which will reduce the likelihood of excess
emissions of lead. The reductions of lead from these compliance
assurance measures are unquantified.
2. NESHAP
The revised lead emission standard for paste mixing operations will
achieve an estimated 0.6 tpy reduction of lead emissions. The revised
lead emission standards for grid casting and lead reclamation
facilities are not expected to result in additional lead emission
reductions, as it is estimated that all facilities in the source
category are already meeting the revised emissions limits. However, the
new standards will reduce the allowable emissions from those sources
and ensure that the emissions remain controlled and minimized moving
forward. In addition, the Agency is finalizing work practices to
minimize fugitive lead dust emissions and expects these will achieve
some unquantified lead emission reductions. We are also finalizing
several compliance assurance requirements which will help ensure
continuous compliance with the NESHAP and help prevent noncompliant
emissions of lead. The final amendments also include removal of the SSM
exemptions. While we are unable to quantify the emissions that occur
during periods of SSM or the specific emissions reductions that would
occur due to this action, eliminating the SSM exemption has the
potential to reduce emissions by requiring facilities to meet the
applicable standard during SSM periods.
C. What are the cost impacts?
1. NSPS
The costs for a new, reconstructed, or modified affected facility
to comply with the final regulatory requirements discussed above are
described in detail in section III.A and are summarized below. As
mentioned previously in this action, we do not expect any brand-new
affected facilities in the foreseeable future. However, we do expect
that some existing facilities could undergo modifications or
reconstruction, and these facilities would incur the costs summarized
below.
Revised Emission Limit for Grid Casting: Estimated incremental
capital costs for a new, reconstructed, or modified source to install
and operate a fabric filter (BSER) compared to an impingement scrubber
(baseline) on grid casting operations are $230,500, with estimated
incremental annual costs of $52,000 for a small facility, and are
$374,000, with estimated incremental annual costs of $88,000 for a
large facility.
Revised Emission Limit for Lead Reclamation: Estimated incremental
capital costs for a new, reconstructed, or modified source to install
and operate a fabric filter (BSER) compared to an impingement scrubber
(baseline) on lead reclamation operations are $17,000 for both small
and large facilities, with estimated incremental annual costs of $8,500
for small facilities and $13,000 for large facilities.
Revised Emission Limit for Paste Mixing Operations: Estimated
incremental capital costs for a new, reconstructed, or modified source
to meet the revised emission limit through the use of higher efficiency
bags (BSER) or inclusion of secondary filters (BSER) in the facility
design compared to only including traditional primary fabric filters
(baseline) are $18,000, with estimated incremental annual costs of
$9,000 for a small facility, and are $60,000 capital, with estimated
incremental annual costs of $30,000 for a large facility.
Work Practices to Minimize Fugitive Lead Dust: Estimated
incremental costs for a new, reconstructed, or modified source to
develop and implement a fugitive dust minimization plan (BSER) compared
to no fugitive dust minimization requirements (baseline) is $7,900 in
initial costs to develop the
[[Page 11577]]
plan, with estimated annual costs to implement the plan of
approximately $14,000 per facility.
Bag Leak Detection Requirements: Estimated incremental capital
costs for a new facility to install and operate bag leak detection
systems on emissions control systems that do not have secondary filters
(BSER) compared to no bag leak detection requirements (baseline) are
$802,000, with estimated incremental annual costs of $161,000 per
facility.
Performance Testing Requirements: Estimated incremental costs for a
new, reconstructed, or modified source to meet the revised testing
frequency of once every 5 years (BSER) compared to only once for
initial compliance (baseline) are $23,000 for the first stack and
$5,500 for each additional stack tested at a facility during the same
testing event. The costs per facility are estimated to be $0 to
$181,000 once every 5 years, or an annual average cost of $0 to
$36,000, depending on number of stacks and the current frequency of
testing.
Fabric Filter Inspection Requirements: Estimated incremental costs
for a new, reconstructed, or modified source to meet the revised fabric
filter inspection frequency of once per quarter (BSER) compared to once
every 6 months (baseline) are $6,300 annually per facility.
The total estimated incremental capital costs per new facility are
approximately $898,000 for a small facility and $973,000 for a large
facility, with estimated incremental annual costs of $251,000 per small
facility and $300,000 per large facility. The total estimated
incremental capital costs per modified or reconstructed facility (which
would not have bag leak detection requirements) are approximately
$96,000 for a small facility and $171,000 for a large facility, with
estimated incremental annual costs of $90,000 per small facility and
$140,000 per large facility.
2. NESHAP
The estimated costs for an affected source to comply with the
amended NESHAP are the same as the costs described above (in section
IV.C.1) for modified or reconstructed facilities under the NSPS, 40 CFR
part 60, subpart KKa. Costs for performance testing are estimated to be
$0 to $180,000 per facility once every 5 years depending on number of
stacks (equates to an average annual cost of about $0 to $36,000 per
facility). Total costs for all other amendments for the entire source
category (43 facilities) are an estimated $740,000 capital costs and
annual costs of $570,000 (equates to an average cost per facility of
$17,000 capital and $13,000 annualized). More detailed information on
cost impacts on existing sources is available in the Cost Impacts
Memorandum available in the docket for this action.
D. What are the economic impacts?
The EPA conducted economic impact analyses for these final rules,
as detailed in the memorandum Economic Impact and Small Business
Analysis for the Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing NSPS Review and NESHAP
Area Source Technology Review: Final Report, which is available in the
docket for this action. The economic impacts of the final rules are
calculated as the percentage of total annualized costs incurred by
affected ultimate parent owners to their revenues. This ratio provides
a measure of the direct economic impact to ultimate parent owners of
facilities while presuming no impact on consumers. We estimate that
none of the ultimate parent owners affected by these final rules will
incur total annualized costs of 0.7 percent or greater of their
revenues. Thus, these economic impacts are low for affected companies
and the industries impacted by these final rules, and there will not be
substantial impacts on the markets for affected products. The costs of
the final rules are not expected to result in a significant market
impact, regardless of whether they are passed on to the purchaser or
absorbed by the firms.
E. What are the benefits?
1. NSPS
The new standards for grid casting, lead reclamation and paste
mixing will reduce the allowable emissions of lead from new,
reconstructed, or modified sources and ensure emissions remain
controlled and minimized moving forward.
2. NESHAP
As described above, the final amendments are expected to result in
a reduction of lead emissions of 0.6 tpy for the industry. We are also
finalizing several compliance assurance requirements which help prevent
noncompliant emissions of lead, and the final amendments also revise
the standards such that they apply at all times, which includes SSM
periods. In addition, the final requirements to submit reports and test
results electronically will improve monitoring, compliance, and
implementation of the rule. While we did not perform a quantitative
analysis of the health impacts expected due to the final rule
amendments, we qualitatively characterize the health impacts in the
memorandum Economic Impact and Small Business Analysis for the Lead
Acid Battery Manufacturing NSPS Review and NESHAP Area Source
Technology Review: Final Report, which is available in the docket for
this action.
F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?
Consistent with the EPA's commitment to integrating EJ in the
Agency's actions, and following the directives set forth in multiple
Executive orders, the Agency has conducted an analysis of the
demographic groups living near existing facilities in the lead acid
battery manufacturing source category. For the new NSPS, we are not
aware of any future new, modified, or reconstructed facilities that
will be become subject to the NSPS in the foreseeable future. For the
NESHAP, we anticipate a total of 43 facilities to be affected by this
rule. For the demographic proximity analysis, we analyzed populations
living near existing facilities to serve as a proxy of potential
populations living near future facilities that may be impacted by the
NSPS. We have also updated the analysis conducted at proposal by
including one additional existing facility. The results of this
addition do not change the findings that some communities around
existing sources are above the national average in the demographic
categories of Hispanic/Latino, linguistically isolated, and 25 years of
age and over without a high school diploma. Executive Order 12898
directs the EPA to identify the populations of concern who are most
likely to experience unequal burdens from environmental harms;
specifically, minority populations (i.e., people of color), low-income
populations, and indigenous peoples (59 FR 7629; February 16, 1994).
Additionally, Executive Order 13985 is intended to advance racial
equity and support underserved communities through Federal government
actions (86 FR 7009; January 20, 2021). The EPA defines EJ as ``the
fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of
race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the
development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws,
regulations, and policies.'' The EPA further defines the term fair
treatment to mean that ``no group of people should bear a
disproportionate burden of environmental harms and risks, including
those resulting from the negative environmental consequences of
industrial, governmental, and
[[Page 11578]]
commercial operations or programs and policies.'' In recognizing that
people of color and low-income populations often bear an unequal burden
of environmental harms and risks, the EPA continues to consider ways of
protecting them from adverse public health and environmental effects of
air pollution.
This action finalizes the NSPS for new, modified, and reconstructed
sources that commence construction after February 23, 2022, and the
NESHAP for existing and new sources. Since the locations of the
construction of any new lead acid battery manufacturing facilities are
not known, and it is not known which of the existing facilities will be
modified or reconstructed in the future, the demographic analysis was
conducted for existing facilities as a characterization of the
demographics in areas where these facilities are located. The
demographic analysis includes an assessment of individual demographic
groups of the populations living within 5 km and within 50 km of the
facilities. We then compared the data from the analysis to the national
average for each of the demographic groups.
1. NSPS
For the NSPS, we have updated the analysis presented in the
proposed rulemaking to include one additional existing source. However,
the conclusions presented at proposal and in this final rule remain the
same. For the NESHAP, we have updated the analysis presented in the
proposed rulemaking to include this additional existing facility and
three other facilities that will become subject to the NESHAP upon
promulgation of the amendments to the rule.
The results of the demographics analysis for the NSPS (see Table 1)
indicate that for populations within 5 km of the 40 existing
facilities, the percent of the population that is Hispanic/Latino is
above the national average (43 percent versus 19 percent) and the
percent of people living in linguistic isolation is above the national
average (9 percent versus 5 percent). The category average for these
populations is primarily driven by five facilities with Hispanic/Latino
populations within 5 km that were at least 3 times the national
average. The percent of the population over 25 without a high school
diploma is above the national average (19 percent versus 12 percent).
While on average across all 40 facilities, the African American
population living within 5 km is below the national average (10 percent
versus 12 percent), four facilities did have African American
populations within 5 km that were at least three times the national
average.
The results of the demographic analysis (see Table 1) indicate that
for populations within 50 km of the 40 existing facilities, the average
percentages for most demographic groups are closer to the national
averages. However, the average percent of the population that is
Hispanic/Latino (25 percent) and in linguistic isolation (7 percent)
are still above the national averages (19 percent and 5 percent,
respectively). In addition, the average percent of the population
within 50 km of the facilities that is Other/Multiracial is above the
national average (11 percent versus 8 percent). The percent of the
population over 25 without a high school diploma is above the national
average (14 percent versus 12 percent).
Table 1--Proximity Demographic Assessment Results for Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing NSPS Facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Population Population
within 50 km within 5 km
Demographic group Nationwide of 40 existing of 40 existing
facilities facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Population................................................ 328,016,242 47,911,142 2,245,359
-----------------------------------------------
Race and Ethnicity by Percent
-----------------------------------------------
White........................................................... 60 52 37
African American................................................ 12 12 10
Native American................................................. 0.7 0.3 0.2
Hispanic or Latino (includes white and nonwhite)................ 19 25 43
Other and Multiracial........................................... 8 11 9
-----------------------------------------------
Income by Percent
-----------------------------------------------
Below Poverty Level............................................. 13 12 14
Above Poverty Level............................................. 87 88 86
-----------------------------------------------
Education by Percent
-----------------------------------------------
Over 25 and without a High School Diploma....................... 12 14 19
Over 25 and with a High School Diploma.......................... 88 86 81
-----------------------------------------------
Linguistically Isolated by Percent
-----------------------------------------------
Linguistically Isolated......................................... 5 7 9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
The nationwide population count and all demographic percentages are based on the Census' 2015-2019
American Community Survey 5-year block group averages and include Puerto Rico. Demographic percentages based
on different averages may differ. The total population counts within 5 km and 50 km of all facilities are
based on the 2010 Decennial Census block populations.
To avoid double counting, the ``Hispanic or Latino'' category is treated as a distinct demographic
category for these analyses. A person is identified as one of five racial/ethnic categories above: White,
African American, Native American, Other and Multiracial, or Hispanic/Latino. A person who identifies as
Hispanic or Latino is counted as Hispanic/Latino for this analysis, regardless of what race this person may
have also identified as in the Census.
[[Page 11579]]
The EPA expects that the Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing NSPS and
NESHAP will ensure compliance via their requirements for performance
testing, inspections, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting and by
complying with the standards at all times (including periods of SSM).
The rule will also increase data transparency through electronic
reporting. Therefore, effects of emissions on populations in proximity
to any future affected sources, including in communities potentially
overburdened by pollution, which are often people of color, low-income
and indigenous communities, will be minimized at future new, modified,
and reconstructed facilities through implementation of controls, work
practices, and compliance assurance measures discussed in section III.A
of this preamble to meet the NSPS.
The methodology and the results of the demographic analysis are
presented in a technical report, Analysis of Demographic Factors for
Populations Living Near Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Facilities,
available in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-
0619).
2. NESHAP
For the NESHAP, we updated the analysis conducted at proposal by
analyzing four additional facilities that will be subject to the rule
(from 39 to 43 facilities total). The results of the demographics
analysis for the NESHAP (see Table 2) indicate that for populations
within 5 km of the 43 facilities subject to the NESHAP, the percent of
the population that is Hispanic/Latino is above the national average
(43 percent versus 19 percent) and the percent of people living in
linguistic isolation is above the national average (9 percent versus 5
percent). The category average for these populations is primarily
driven by five facilities that had percent Hispanic/Latino populations
within 5 km that were at least 3 times the national average. The
percent of the population over 25 years of age without a high school
diploma is above the national average (18 percent versus 12 percent).
Although the category average population within 5 km was below the
national average for African American populations (10 percent versus 12
percent), four facilities did have African American populations within
5 km that were at least 3 times the national average.
The results of the demographic analysis (see Table 2) indicate that
for populations within 50 km of the 43 facilities subject to the
NESHAP, the category average percentages for most demographic groups
are closer to the national averages. However, the average percent of
the population that is Hispanic/Latino (25 percent) and in linguistic
isolation (7 percent) are still above the national averages (19 percent
and 5 percent, respectively). In addition, the average percent of the
population within 50 km of the facilities that is Other/Multiracial is
above the national average (11 percent versus 8 percent). The percent
of the population over 25 without a high school diploma is above the
national average (14 percent versus 12 percent).
The EPA expects that the Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Area
Source NESHAP will result in HAP emissions reductions at 14 of the 43
facilities. We examined the demographics within 5 km and 50 km of these
14 facilities to determine if differences exist from the larger
universe of 43 facilities subject to the NESHAP (see Table 2). In
contrast to the broader set of NESHAP facilities, the population within
5 km and 50 km of the 14 facilities for which we expect emissions
reductions, is above the national average for the percent African
American population (20 and 22 percent versus 12 percent). This higher
average percent African American population is largely driven by the
populations surrounding three facilities, which range from 2 to 8 times
the national average. The other 11 facilities are below the national
average for the African American population. Also, the average percent
Hispanic/Latino (13 and 21 percent versus 19 percent) and the average
percent Linguistic Isolation (3 and 4 percent versus 5 percent)
demographic category are near or below the national average for these
14 facilities.
Table 2--Proximity Demographic Assessment Results for Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Area Source NESHAP
Facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All existing NESHAP facilities NESHAP facilities for which
(43 facilities) emissions reductions are
-------------------------------- expected (14 facilities)
Demographic group Nationwide -------------------------------
Population Population Population Population
within 5 km within 50 km within 50 km within 5 km
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Population................ 328,016,242 49,508,055 2,293,170 12,320,826 420,432
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Race and Ethnicity by Percent
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White........................... 60 52 38 51 57
African American................ 12 12 10 20 22
Native American................. 0.7 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4
Hispanic or Latino (includes 19 25 43 21 13
white and nonwhite)............
Other and Multiracial........... 8 11 9 8 8
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Income by Percent
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below Poverty Level............. 13 12 14 14 15
Above Poverty Level............. 87 88 86 86 85
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Education by Percent
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over 25 and without a High 12 14 18 13 11
School Diploma.................
Over 25 and with a High School 88 86 82 87 89
Diploma........................
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linguistically Isolated by Percent
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 11580]]
Linguistically Isolated......... 5 7 9 4 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
The nationwide population count and all demographic percentages are based on the Census' 2015-2019
American Community Survey 5-year block group averages and include Puerto Rico. Demographic percentages based
on different averages may differ. The total population counts within 5 km and 50 km of all facilities are
based on the 2010 Decennial Census block populations.
To avoid double counting, the ``Hispanic or Latino'' category is treated as a distinct demographic
category for these analyses. A person is identified as one of five racial/ethnic categories above: White,
African American, Native American, Other and Multiracial, or Hispanic/Latino. A person who identifies as
Hispanic or Latino is counted as Hispanic/Latino for this analysis, regardless of what race this person may
have also identified as in the Census.
The methodology and the results of the demographic analysis are
presented in a technical report, Analysis of Demographic Factors for
Populations Living Near Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Facilities,
available in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-
0619).
As explained in the proposal preamble (87 FR 10140), current
ambient air quality monitoring data and modeling analyses indicate that
ambient lead concentrations near the existing lead acid battery
manufacturing facilities are all below the NAAQS for lead. The CAA
identifies two types of NAAQS: primary and secondary standards. Primary
standards provide public health protection, including protecting the
health of ``sensitive'' populations such as asthmatics, children, and
the elderly. Secondary standards provide public welfare protection
including protection against decreased visibility and damage to
animals, crops, vegetation, and buildings. With ambient concentrations
below the NAAQS prior to the finalization of these standards, we
conclude that the emissions from lead acid battery manufacturing area
source facilities are not likely to pose significant risks or impacts
to human health in the baseline prior to these regulations. The review
and update of the NSPS and NESHAP in this action will further reduce
lead exposures and HAP emissions to provide additional protection to
human health and the environment. The EPA expects that the Lead Acid
Battery Manufacturing NSPS and NESHAP will reduce future lead emissions
due to the more stringent standards finalized for the grid casting,
paste mixing, and lead reclamation processes. We expect lead emission
reductions of 0.64 tpy from paste mixing facilities at existing lead
acid battery manufacturing plants as discussed in sections III.A.3 and
III.B.3. We also expect to provide additional protection to human
health and the environment by finalizing compliance assurance measures
such as requirements for performance testing, inspections, monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting and by requiring compliance with the
standards at all times (including periods of SSM), and by expanding the
applicability provisions to certain battery component facilities. The
rules will also increase data transparency through electronic
reporting. Therefore, the level of HAP emissions to which populations
in proximity to the affected sources are exposed will be reduced by the
NESHAP requirements being finalized in this action and will be
minimized at any future new, modified, or reconstructed source under
the NSPS.
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Additional information about these statutes and Executive orders
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was,
therefore, not submitted to OMB for review.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
The information collection activities in the final rule have been
submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA. The Information Collection
Request (ICR) documents that the EPA prepared have been assigned EPA
ICR number 2739.01 and OMB control number 2060-NEW for 40 CFR part 60,
subpart KKa, and EPA ICR number 2256.07 and OMB control number 2060-
0598 for the NESHAP. You can find a copy of the ICRs in the docket for
this rule, and they are briefly summarized here. The ICRs are specific
to information collection associated with the lead acid battery
manufacturing source category, through the new 40 CFR part 60, subpart
KKa, and amendments to 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPPPP. We are
finalizing changes to the testing, recordkeeping and reporting
requirements associated with 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPPPP, in the
form of requiring performance tests every 5 years and including the
requirement for electronic submittal of reports. In addition, the
number of facilities subject to the standards changed. The number of
respondents was revised from 41 to 43 for the NESHAP based on our
review of operating permits and consultation with industry
representatives and state/local agencies. We are finalizing
recordkeeping and reporting requirements associated with the new NSPS,
40 CFR part 60, subpart KKa, including notifications of construction/
reconstruction, initial startup, conduct of performance tests, and
physical or operational changes; reports of opacity results,
performance test results and semiannual reports if excess emissions
occur or continuous emissions monitoring systems are used; and keeping
records of performance test results and pressure drop monitoring.
Respondents/affected entities: The respondents to the recordkeeping
and reporting requirements are owners or operators of lead acid battery
manufacturing sources subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKa, and 40
CFR part 63, subpart PPPPPP.
Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 60,
subpart KKa, and 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPPPP).
Estimated number of respondents: 43 facilities for 40 CFR part 63,
subpart
[[Page 11581]]
PPPPPP, and 0 facilities for 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKa.
Frequency of response: The frequency of responses varies depending
on the burden item. Responses include onetime review of rule
amendments, reports of performance tests, and semiannual excess
emissions and continuous monitoring system performance reports.
Total estimated burden: The annual recordkeeping and reporting
burden for responding facilities to comply with all of the requirements
in the new NSPS, 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKa, and the NESHAP, averaged
over the 3 years of this ICR, is estimated to be 2,490 hours (per
year). The average annual burden to the Agency over the 3 years after
the amendments are final is estimated to be 60 hours (per year). Burden
is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
Total estimated cost: The annual recordkeeping and reporting cost
for responding facilities to comply with all of the requirements in the
new NSPS and the NESHAP, averaged over the 3 years of this ICR, is
estimated to be $168,000 (rounded, per year). There are no estimated
capital and operation and maintenance costs. The total average annual
Agency cost over the first 3 years after the amendments are final is
estimated to be $3,070.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When OMB
approves this ICR, the Agency will announce that approval in the
Federal Register and publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 to
display the OMB control number for the approved information collection
activities in this final rule.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. The
small entities subject to the requirements of this action are small
businesses that own lead acid battery manufacturing facilities or
facilities that do not make lead acid batteries but have a lead acid
battery grid casting process or a lead oxide production process. The
Agency has determined that there are nine small businesses subject to
the requirements of this action, and that eight of these small
businesses are estimated to experience impacts of less than 1 percent
of their revenues. The Agency estimates that one small business may
experience an impact of approximately 1.6 percent of their annual
revenues once every 5 years mainly due to the compliance testing
requirements, with this one small business representing approximately
11 percent of the total number of affected small entities. The other 4
of the 5 years, we estimate the costs would be less than 1 percent of
annual revenues for this one small business. Details of this analysis
are presented in Economic Impact and Small Business Analysis for the
Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing NSPS Review and NESHAP Area Source
Technology Review: Final Report, which is available in the docket for
this action.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action imposes
no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments or the
private sector.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the National Government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. No tribal facilities are known to be engaged in
the industries that would be affected by this action nor are there any
adverse health or environmental effects from this action. Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and
because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety
risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to
children. The EPA's assessment of the potential impacts to human health
from emissions at existing sources were discussed at proposal (87 FR
10140). The newly required work practices to minimize fugitive dust
containing lead and the revised emission limits described in sections
III.A.4 and III.B.4 will reduce actual and/or allowable lead emissions,
thereby reducing potential exposure to children, including the unborn.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR
Part 51
This rulemaking involves technical standards. Therefore, the EPA
conducted searches through the Enhanced NSSN Database managed by the
American National Standards Institute (ANSI) to determine if there are
voluntary consensus standards (VCS) that are relevant to this action.
The Agency also contacted VCS organizations and accessed and searched
their databases. Searches were conducted for the EPA Methods 9, 12, 22,
and 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. No applicable VCS were identified
for EPA Methods 12, 22, and 29 for lead.
During the search, if the title or abstract (if provided) of the
VCS described technical sampling and analytical procedures similar to
the EPA's reference method, the EPA considered it as a potential
equivalent method. All potential standards were reviewed to determine
the practicality of the VCS for this rule. This review requires
significant method validation data which meets the requirements of the
EPA Method 301 for accepting alternative methods or scientific,
engineering and policy equivalence to procedures in the EPA reference
methods. The EPA may reconsider determinations of impracticality when
additional information is available for particular VCS.
One VCS was identified as an acceptable alternative to an EPA test
method for the purposes of this rule; ASTM D7520-16, ``Standard Test
Method for Determining the Opacity of a Plume in the Outdoor Ambient
Atmosphere''. ASTM D7520-16 is a test method describing the procedures
to determine the opacity of a plume using digital imagery and
associated hardware and software. The opacity of a plume is determined
by the application of a Digital Camera Opacity Technique (DCOT) that
consists of a Digital Still Camera, Analysis Software, and the Output
Function's content to obtain and interpret digital images to determine
and report plume opacity. ASTM
[[Page 11582]]
D7520-16 is an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 9 with the
following conditions:
1. During the DCOT certification procedure outlined in section 9.2
of ASTM D7520-16, you or the DCOT vendor must present the plumes in
front of various backgrounds of color and contrast representing
conditions anticipated during field use such as blue sky, trees, and
mixed backgrounds (clouds and/or a sparse tree stand).
2. You must also have standard operating procedures in place
including daily or other frequency quality checks to ensure the
equipment is within manufacturing specifications as outlined in section
8.1 of ASTM D7520-16.
3. You must follow the record keeping procedures outlined in 40 CFR
63.10(b)(1) for the DCOT certification, compliance report, data sheets,
and all raw unaltered JPEGs used for opacity and certification
determination.
4. You or the DCOT vendor must have a minimum of four independent
technology users apply the software to determine the visible opacity of
the 300 certification plumes. For each set of 25 plumes, the user may
not exceed 15 percent opacity of anyone reading and the average error
must not exceed 7.5 percent opacity.
5. This approval does not provide or imply a certification or
validation of any vendor's hardware or software. The onus to maintain
and verify the certification and/or training of the DCOT camera,
software and operator in accordance with ASTM D7520-16 and the VCS
memorandum is on the facility, DCOT operator, and DCOT vendor.
The search identified one other VCS that was a potentially
acceptable alternative to an EPA test method for the purposes of this
rule. However, after reviewing the standards, the EPA determined that
the candidate VCS ASTM D4358-94 (1999), ``Standard Test Method for Lead
and Chromium in Air Particulate Filter Samples of Lead Chromate Type
Pigment Dusts by Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy,'' is not an acceptable
alternative to EPA Method 12 due to lack of equivalency, documentation,
validation data, and other important technical and policy
considerations. Additional information for the VCS search and
determinations can be found in the memorandum Voluntary Consensus
Standard Results for Review of Standards of Performance for Lead Acid
Battery Manufacturing Plants and National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants for Lead Acid Battery, which is available in
the docket for this action.
The ASTM standards (methods) are reasonably available for purchase
individually through ASTM, International (see 40 CFR 60.17 and 63.14)
and through the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Webstore,
https://webstore.ansi.org. Telephone (212) 642-4980 for customer
service.
We are also incorporating by reference the EPA guidance document
``Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance'' (EPA-454/R-98-015). This
document provides guidance on fabric filter and monitoring systems
including monitor selection, installation, set up, adjustment, and
operation. The guidance also discusses factors that may affect monitor
performance as well as quality assurance procedures.
The EPA guidance document ``Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection
Guidance'' (EPA-454/R-98-015) is reasonably available at https://www3.epa.gov/ttnemc01/cem/tribo.pdf or by contacting the National
Technical Information Service (NTIS) at 1-800-553-6847.
Under 40 CFR 63.7(f) and 68.3(f), a source may apply to the EPA to
use alternative test methods or alternative monitoring requirements in
place of any required testing methods, performance specifications, or
procedures in the final rule or any amendments.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629; February 16, 1994) directs
Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by
law, to make EJ part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as
appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on
minority populations (people of color and/or indigenous peoples) and
low-income populations.
The EPA anticipates that the human health and environmental
conditions that exist prior to this action have the potential to result
in disproportionate and adverse human health or environmental effects
on people of color, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples.
However, as we explained in the proposed rule preamble, based on
analyses of emissions and available ambient monitoring data (as
described in section IV.A of the proposal preamble (87 FR 10140)),
ambient lead concentrations near the facilities are all below the NAAQS
for lead prior to these regulations. Therefore, we concluded that the
emissions from lead acid battery area source facilities are not likely
to pose significant risks or impacts to human health if facilities are
complying with the NESHAP (see 87 FR 10134 at 10140).
The EPA anticipates that this action is likely to reduce the
existing potential disproportionate and adverse effects on people of
color, low-income populations and/or indigenous peoples. The
documentation for this decision is contained in section IV.F of this
preamble. As discussed in section IV.F of this preamble, the
demographic analysis indicates that the following groups are above the
national average within 5 km of the 43 existing facilities: Hispanics/
Latino, people living below the poverty level, 25 years old or greater
without a high school diploma, and people living in linguistic
isolation. Populations within 5 km of the 14 facilities that the EPA
expects that the Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing NESHAP will result in
HAP emissions reductions are above the national average for African
Americans and people living below the poverty level. This action
further reduces lead and other criteria and HAP emissions to provide
additional protection to human health and the environment.
K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule
report for this action to each House of the Congress and to the
Comptroller General of the United States. Neither the NSPS nor the
NESHAP amended by this action constitute a ``major rule'' as defined by
5 U.S.C. 804(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 60 and 63
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures,
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Michael S. Regan,
Administrator.
For the reasons cited in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, parts
60 and 63 of the Code of Federal Regulations are amended as follows:
PART 60--STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES
0
1. The authority citation for part 60 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4701 et seq.
[[Page 11583]]
Subpart A--General Provisions
0
2. Section 60.17 is amended by:
0
a. Redesignating paragraphs (h)(196) through (212) as paragraphs
(h)(197) through (213);
0
b. Adding new paragraph (h)(196); and
0
c. Revising paragraph (j)(1).
The addition and revision read as follows:
Sec. 60.17 Incorporations by reference.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
(196) ASTM D7520-16, Standard Test Method for Determining the
Opacity of a Plume in the Outdoor Ambient Atmosphere, approved April 1,
2016; IBR approved for Sec. 60.374a(d).
* * * * *
(j) * * *
(1) EPA-454/R-98-015, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
(OAQPS), Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance, September 1997,
https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=2000D5T6.PDF; IBR approved
for Sec. Sec. 60.373a(b); 60.2145(r); 60.2710(r); 60.4905(b);
60.5225(b).
* * * * *
0
3. The heading for subpart KK is revised to read as follows:
Subpart KK--Standards of Performance for Lead-Acid Battery
Manufacturing Plants for Which Construction, Reconstruction, or
Modification Commenced After January 14, 1980, and On or Before
February 23, 2022
0
4. Section 60.370 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as
follows:
Sec. 60.370 Applicability and designation of affected facility.
* * * * *
(c) Any facility under paragraph (b) of this section the
construction or modification of which is commenced after January 14,
1980, and on or before February 23, 2022, is subject to the
requirements of this subpart.
0
5. Subpart KKa is added to read as follows:
Subpart KKa--Standards of Performance for Lead Acid Battery
Manufacturing Plants for Which Construction, Modification or
Reconstruction Commenced After February 23, 2022
Sec.
60.370a Applicability and designation of affected facility.
60.371a Definitions.
60.372a Standards for lead.
60.373a Monitoring of emissions and operations.
60.374a Test methods and procedures.
60.375a Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
Sec. 60.370a Applicability and designation of affected facility.
(a) The provisions of this subpart are applicable to the affected
facilities listed in paragraph (b) of this section at any lead acid
battery manufacturing plant that produces or has the design capacity to
produce in one day (24 hours) batteries containing an amount of lead
equal to or greater than 5.9 Mg (6.5 tons).
(b) The provisions of this subpart are applicable to the following
affected facilities used in the manufacture of lead acid storage
batteries:
(1) Grid casting facility.
(2) Paste mixing facility.
(3) Three-process operation facility.
(4) Lead oxide manufacturing facility.
(5) Lead reclamation facility.
(6) Other lead-emitting operations.
(c) Any facility under paragraph (b) of this section for which the
construction, modification, or reconstruction is commenced after
February 23, 2022, is subject to the requirements of this subpart.
Sec. 60.371a Definitions.
As used in this subpart, the definitions in paragraphs (a) through
(i) of this section apply. All terms not defined in this subpart have
the meaning given them in the Act and in subpart A of this part.
(a) Bag leak detection system means a system that is capable of
continuously monitoring particulate matter (dust) loadings in the
exhaust of a fabric filter (baghouse) in order to detect bag leaks and
other upset conditions. A bag leak detection system includes, but is
not limited to, an instrument that operates on triboelectric, light
scattering, light transmittance, or other effect to continuously
monitor relative particulate matter loadings.
(b) Lead acid battery manufacturing plant means any plant that
produces a storage battery using lead and lead compounds for the plates
and sulfuric acid for the electrolyte.
(c) Grid casting facility means the facility which includes all
lead melting pots that remelt scrap from onsite lead acid battery
manufacturing processes, and machines used for casting the grid used in
lead acid batteries.
(d) Lead oxide manufacturing facility means a facility that
produces lead oxide from lead for use in lead acid battery
manufacturing, including lead oxide production and product recovery
operations. Local exhaust ventilation or building ventilation exhausts
serving lead oxide production areas are not part of the lead oxide
manufacturing facility.
(e) Lead reclamation facility means the facility that casts
remelted lead scrap generated by onsite lead acid battery manufacturing
processes into lead ingots for use in the battery manufacturing
process, and which is not a furnace affected under subpart L of this
part. Lead scrap remelting processes that are used directly (not cast
into an ingot first) in a grid casting facility or a three-process
operation facility are parts of those facilities and are not part of a
lead reclamation facility.
(f) Other lead-emitting operation means any lead acid battery
manufacturing plant operation from which lead emissions are collected
and ducted to the atmosphere and which is not part of a grid casting,
lead oxide manufacturing, lead reclamation, paste mixing, or three-
process operation facility, or a furnace affected under subpart L of
this part. These operations also include local exhaust ventilation or
building ventilation exhausts serving lead oxide production areas.
(g) Paste mixing facility means the facility including lead oxide
storage, conveying, weighing, metering, and charging operations; paste
blending, handling, and cooling operations; and plate pasting, takeoff,
cooling, and drying operations.
(h) Three-process operation facility means the facility including
those processes involved with plate stacking, burning or strap casting,
and assembly of elements into the battery case.
(i) Total enclosure means a containment building that is completely
enclosed with a floor, walls, and a roof to prevent exposure to the
elements and that has limited openings to allow access and egress for
people and vehicles.
Sec. 60.372a Standards for lead.
(a) On and after the date on which the performance test required to
be conducted by Sec. 60.8 is completed, no owner or operator subject
to the provisions of this subpart may cause the emissions listed in
paragraphs (a)(1) through (8) of this section to be discharged into the
atmosphere. The emission limitations and opacity limitations listed in
paragraphs (a)(1) through (8) of this section apply at all times,
including periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction. As provided in
Sec. 60.11(f), this paragraph (a) supersedes the exemptions for
periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction in the general provisions
in subpart A of this part. You must also comply with
[[Page 11584]]
the requirements in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section.
(1) From any grid casting facility, any gases that contain lead in
excess of 0.08 milligram of lead per dry standard cubic meter of
exhaust (0.000035 gr/dscf).
(2) From any paste mixing facility, any gases that contain in
excess of 0.10 milligram of lead per dry standard cubic meter of
exhaust (0.0000437 gr/dscf) or emit no more than 0.9 gram of lead per
hour (0.002 lbs/hr) total from all paste mixing sources. If a facility
is complying with the 0.9 gram of lead per hour, you must sum the
emission rate from all the paste mixing sources.
(3) From any three-process operation facility, any gases that
contain in excess of 1.00 milligram of lead per dry standard cubic
meter of exhaust (0.000437 gr/dscf).
(4) From any lead oxide manufacturing facility, any gases that
contain in excess of 5.0 milligrams of lead per kilogram of lead feed
(0.010 lb/ton).
(5) From any lead reclamation facility, any gases that contain in
excess of 0.45 milligrams of lead per dry standard cubic meter of
exhaust (0.000197 gr/dscf).
(6) From any other lead-emitting operation, any gases that contain
in excess of 1.00 milligram of lead per dry standard cubic meter of
exhaust (0.000437 gr/dscf).
(7) From any affected facility other than a lead reclamation
facility, any gases with greater than 0 percent opacity (measured
according to EPA Method 9 of appendix A to this part and rounded to the
nearest whole percentage or measured according to EPA Method 22 of
appendix A to this part).
(8) From any lead reclamation facility, any gases with greater than
5 percent opacity (measured according to EPA Method 9 of appendix A to
this part and rounded to the nearest whole percentage).
(b) When two or more facilities at the same plant (except the lead
oxide manufacturing facility) are ducted to a common control device, an
equivalent standard for the total exhaust from the commonly controlled
facilities must be determined using equation 1 to this paragraph (b) as
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23FE23.000
Where:
Se = is the equivalent standard for the total exhaust
stream, mg/dscm (gr/dscf).
Sa = is the actual standard for each exhaust stream
ducted to the control device, mg/dscm (gr/dscf).
N = is the total number of exhaust streams ducted to the control
device.
Qsda = is the dry standard volumetric flow rate of the
effluent gas stream from each facility ducted to the control device,
dscm/hr (dscf/hr).
QsdT = is the total dry standard volumetric flow rate of
all effluent gas streams ducted to the control device, dscm/hr
(dscf/hr).
(c) The owner or operator must prepare, and at all times operate
according to, a fugitive dust mitigation plan that describes in detail
the measures that will be put in place and implemented to control
fugitive dust emissions in the lead oxide unloading and storage areas.
You must prepare a fugitive dust mitigation plan according to the
requirements in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) The owner or operator must submit the fugitive dust mitigation
plan to the Administrator or delegated authority for review and
approval when initially developed and any time changes are made.
(2) The fugitive dust mitigation plan must at a minimum include the
requirements specified in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) through (iv) of this
section.
(i) Lead oxide unloading and storage areas. Surfaces used for
vehicular material transfer activity must be cleaned at least once per
month, by wet wash or a vacuum equipped with a filter rated by the
manufacturer to achieve 99.97 percent capture efficiency for 0.3 micron
particles in a manner that does not generate fugitive lead dust, except
when sand or a similar material has been spread on the area to provide
traction on ice or snow.
(ii) Spills in lead oxide unloading and storage areas. For any leak
or spill that occurs during the unloading and storage process, complete
washing or vacuuming the area to remove all spilled or leaked lead
bearing material within 2 hours of the leak or spill occurrence.
(iii) Materials storage. Dust forming materials (that contain lead
or lead compounds) must be stored in sealed, leak-proof containers or
in a total enclosure.
(iv) Records. The fugitive dust mitigation plan must specify that
records be maintained of all cleaning performed under paragraph
(c)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section.
Sec. 60.373a Monitoring of emissions and operations.
(a) The owner or operator of any lead acid battery manufacturing
facility subject to the provisions of this subpart and controlled by a
scrubbing system(s) must install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a
monitoring device(s) that measures and records the liquid flow rate and
pressure drop across the scrubbing system(s) at least once every 15
minutes. The monitoring device must have an accuracy of 5
percent over its operating range. The operating liquid flow rate must
be maintained within 10 percent of the average liquid
flowrate during the most recent performance test. If a liquid flow rate
or pressure drop is observed outside of the normal operational ranges
as determined during the most recent performance test, you must record
the incident and take immediate corrective actions. You must also
record the corrective actions taken. You must submit an excess
emissions and monitoring systems performance report and summary report
required under Sec. 60.375a(c).
(b) Emissions points controlled by a fabric filter without a
secondary filter must meet the requirements of paragraphs (b)(1) and
(2) of this section and either paragraph (b)(3) or (4) of this section.
New lead acid battery plants with emission points controlled by a
fabric filter without a secondary filter must meet the requirements of
paragraph (b)(5) of this section. Fabric filters equipped with a high
efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter or other secondary filter must
comply with the requirements specified in paragraphs (b)(1) and (6) of
this section.
(1) You must perform quarterly inspections and maintenance to
ensure proper performance of each fabric filter. This includes
inspection of structural and filter integrity.
(2) If it is not possible for you to take the corrective actions
specified in paragraph (b)(3)(iii) or (iv) of this section for a
process or fabric filter control device, you must keep at least one
replacement fabric filter onsite at all times for that process or
fabric filter control device. The characteristics of the
[[Page 11585]]
replacement filters must be the same as the current fabric filters in
use or have characteristics that would achieve equal or greater
emission reductions.
(3) Install, maintain, and operate a pressure drop monitoring
device to measure the differential pressure drop across the fabric
filter during all times when the process is operating. The pressure
drop must be recorded at least twice per day (at least 8 hours apart)
if the results of the most recent performance test indicate that
emissions from the facility are greater than 50 percent of the
applicable lead emissions limit in Sec. 60.372a(a)(1) through (6). The
pressure drop must be recorded at least once per day if the results of
the most recent performance test indicate that emissions are less than
or equal to 50 percent of the applicable lead emissions limit in Sec.
60.372a(a)(1) through (6). If a pressure drop is observed outside of
the normal operational ranges as specified by the manufacturer, you
must record the incident and take immediate corrective actions. You
must submit an excess emissions and continuous monitoring system
performance report and summary report required under Sec. 60.375a(c).
You must also record the corrective actions taken and verify pressure
drop is within normal operational range. These corrective actions may
include but not be limited to those provided in paragraphs (b)(3)(i)
through (iv) of this section.
(i) Inspecting the filter and filter housing for air leaks and torn
or broken filters.
(ii) Replacing defective filter media, or otherwise repairing the
control device.
(iii) Sealing off a defective control device by routing air to
other control devices.
(iv) Shutting down the process producing the lead emissions.
(4) Conduct a visible emissions observation using EPA Method 9 (6
minutes) or EPA Method 22 (5 minutes) of appendix A to this part while
the process is in operation to verify that no visible emissions are
occurring at the discharge point to the atmosphere from any emissions
source subject to the requirements of Sec. 60.372a(a) or (b). The
visible emissions observation must be conducted at least twice daily
(at least 6 hours apart) if the results of the most recent performance
test indicate that emissions are greater than 50 percent of the
applicable lead emissions limit in Sec. 60.372a(a)(1) through (6). The
visible emissions observation must be conducted at least once per day
if the results of the most recent performance test indicate that
emissions are less than or equal to 50 percent of the applicable lead
emissions limit in Sec. 60.372a(a)(1) through (6). If visible
emissions are detected, you must record the incident and submit this
information in an excess emissions and continuous monitoring system
performance report and summary report required under Sec. 60.375a(c)
and take immediate corrective action. You must also record the
corrective actions taken. These corrective actions may include, but are
not limited to, those provided in paragraphs (b)(3)(i) through (iv) of
this section.
(5) If the lead acid battery manufacturing plant was constructed
after February 23, 2022, and have emissions points controlled by a
fabric filter, you must install and operate a bag leak detection system
that meets the specifications and requirements in paragraphs (b)(5)(i)
through (ix) of this section. For any other affected facility listed in
Sec. 60.370a(b) that was constructed, modified, or reconstructed after
February 23, 2022, that operates a bag leak detection system, the bag
leak detection system must meet the specifications and requirements in
paragraphs (b)(5)(i) through (ix) of this section. Emission points
controlled by a fabric filter that is equipped with, and monitored
with, a bag leak detection system meeting the specifications and
requirements in paragraphs (b)(5)(i) through (ix) of this section may
have the inspections required in paragraph (b)(1) of this section
performed semiannually.
(i) The bag leak detection system must be certified by the
manufacturer to be capable of detecting particulate matter as lead
emissions at concentrations at or below the values in Sec. 60.372a(a),
as applicable to the process for which the fabric filter is used to
control emissions. Where the fabric filter is used as a control device
for more than one process, the lowest applicable value in Sec.
60.372a(a) must be used.
(ii) The bag leak detection system sensor must provide output of
relative particulate matter loadings.
(iii) The bag leak detection system must be equipped with an alarm
system that will alarm when an increase in relative particulate
loadings is detected over a preset level.
(iv) You must install and operate the bag leak detection system in
a manner consistent with the guidance provided in ``Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection
Guidance'' (EPA-454/R-98-015) (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
60.17) and the manufacturer's written specifications and
recommendations for installation, operation, and adjustment of the
system.
(v) The initial adjustment of the system must, at a minimum,
consist of establishing the baseline output by adjusting the
sensitivity (range) and the averaging period of the device and
establishing the alarm set points and the alarm delay time.
(vi) Following initial adjustment, you must not adjust the
sensitivity or range, averaging period, alarm set points, or alarm
delay time, except as detailed in the approved standard operating
procedures manual required under paragraph (b)(2)(ix) of this section.
You cannot increase the sensitivity by more than 100 percent or
decrease the sensitivity by more than 50 percent over a 365-day period
unless such adjustment follows a complete fabric filter inspection that
demonstrates that the fabric filter is in good operating condition.
(vii) For negative pressure, induced air baghouses, and positive
pressure baghouses that are discharged to the atmosphere through a
stack, you must install the bag leak detector downstream of the fabric
filter.
(viii) Where multiple detectors are required, the system's
instrumentation and alarm may be shared among detectors.
(ix) You must develop a standard operating procedures manual for
the bag leak detection system that includes procedures for making
system adjustments and a corrective action plan, which specifies the
procedures to be followed in the case of a bag leak detection system
alarm. The corrective action plan must include, at a minimum, the
procedures that you will use to determine and record the time and cause
of the alarm as well as the corrective actions taken to minimize
emissions as specified in paragraphs (b)(5)(ix)(A) and (B) of this
section.
(A) The procedures used to determine the cause of the alarm must be
initiated within 30 minutes of the alarm.
(B) The cause of the alarm must be alleviated by taking the
necessary corrective action(s) that may include, but not be limited to,
those listed in paragraphs (b)(5)(ix)(B)(1) through (6) of this
section.
(1) Inspecting the baghouse for air leaks, torn or broken filter
elements, or any other malfunction that may cause an increase in
emissions.
(2) Sealing off defective bags or filter media.
(3) Replacing defective bags or filter media, or otherwise
repairing the control device.
(4) Sealing off defective baghouse compartment.
[[Page 11586]]
(5) Cleaning the bag leak detection system probe, or otherwise
repairing the bag leak detection system.
(6) Shutting down the process producing the lead emissions.
(6) Emissions points controlled by a fabric filter equipped with a
secondary filter, such as a HEPA filter, are exempt from the
requirement in paragraph (b)(5) of this section to be equipped with a
bag leak detection system. You must meet the requirements specified in
paragraph (b)(6)(i) of this section and either paragraph (b)(6)(ii) or
(iii) of this section.
(i) If it is not possible for you to take the corrective actions
specified in paragraph (b)(3)(iii) or (iv) of this section for a
process or fabric filter control device, you must keep at least one
replacement primary fabric filter and one replacement secondary filter
onsite at all times for that process or fabric filter control device.
The characteristics of the replacement filters must be the same as the
current fabric filters in use or have characteristics that would
achieve equal or greater emission reductions.
(ii) You must perform the pressure drop monitoring requirements in
paragraph (b)(3) of this section. You may perform these requirements
once per week rather than once or twice daily.
(iii) You must perform the visible emissions observation
requirements in paragraph (b)(4) of this section. You may perform these
requirements once per week rather than once or twice daily.
Sec. 60.374a Test methods and procedures.
(a) In conducting the performance tests required in Sec. 60.8, the
owner or operator must use as reference methods and procedures the test
methods in appendix A to this part or other methods and procedures as
specified in this section, except as provided in Sec. 60.8(b).
(b) After the initial performance test required in Sec. 60.8(a),
you must conduct subsequent performance tests to demonstrate compliance
with the lead and opacity standards in Sec. 60.372a. Performance
testing must be conducted for each affected source subject to lead and
opacity standards in Sec. 60.372a, that has not had a performance test
within the last 5 years, except as described in paragraph (c) of this
section. Thereafter, subsequent performance tests for each affected
source must be completed no less frequently than every 5 years from the
date the emissions source was last tested.
(c) In lieu of conducting subsequent performance tests for each
affected source, you may elect to group similar affected sources
together and conduct subsequent performance tests on one representative
affected source within each group of similar affected sources. The
determination of whether affected sources are similar must meet the
criteria in paragraph (c)(1) of this section. If you decide to test
representative affected sources, you must prepare and submit a testing
plan as described in paragraph (c)(3) of this section.
(1) If you elect to test representative affected sources, the
affected sources that are grouped together must be of the same process
type (e.g., grid casting, paste mixing, three-process operations) and
also have the same type of air pollution control device (e.g., fabric
filters). You cannot group affected sources from different process
types or with different air pollution control device types together for
the purposes of this section.
(2) The results of the performance test conducted for the affected
source selected as representative of a group of similar affected
sources will represent the results for each affected source within the
group. In the performance test report, all affected sources in the
group will need to be listed.
(3) If you plan to conduct subsequent performance tests on
representative emission units, you must submit a test plan. This test
plan must be submitted to the Administrator or delegated authority for
review and approval no later than 90 days prior to the first scheduled
performance test. The test plan must contain the information specified
in paragraphs (c)(3)(i) through (iii) of this section.
(i) A list of all emission units. This list must clearly identify
all emission units that have been grouped together as similar emission
units. Within each group of emission units, you must identify the
emission unit that will be the representative unit for that group and
subject to performance testing.
(ii) A list of the process type and type of air pollution control
device on each emission unit.
(iii) The date of last test for each emission unit and a schedule
indicating when you will conduct performance tests for each emission
unit within the representative groups.
(4) If you conduct subsequent performance tests on representative
emission units, the unit with the oldest test must be tested first, and
each subsequent performance test must be performed for a different unit
until all units in the group have been tested. The order of testing for
each subsequent test must proceed such that the unit in the group with
the least recent performance test is the next unit to be tested.
(5) You may not conduct performance tests during periods of
malfunction. You must record the process information that is necessary
to document operating conditions during the test and include in such
record an explanation to support that such conditions represent normal
operation. You must make available to the Administrator in the test
report, records as may be necessary to determine the conditions of
performance tests.
(d) The owner or operator must determine compliance with the lead
and opacity standards in Sec. 60.372a, as follows:
(1) EPA Method 12 or EPA Method 29 of appendix A to this part must
be used to determine the lead concentration (CPb) and the volumetric
flow rate (Qsda) of the effluent gas. The sampling time and sample
volume for each run must be at least 60 minutes and 0.85 dscm (30
dscf).
(2) EPA Method 9 of appendix A to this part and the procedures in
Sec. 60.11 must be used to determine opacity during the performance
test. For EPA Method 9, the opacity numbers must be rounded off to the
nearest whole percentage. ASTM D7520-16 (incorporated by reference, see
Sec. 60.17) is an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 9 with the
specified conditions in paragraphs (d)(2)(i) through (v) of this
section.
(i) During the digital camera opacity technique (DCOT)
certification procedure outlined in Section 9.2 of ASTM D7520-16, you
or the DCOT vendor must present the plumes in front of various
backgrounds of color and contrast representing conditions anticipated
during field use such as blue sky, trees, and mixed backgrounds (clouds
and/or a sparse tree stand).
(ii) You must also have standard operating procedures in place
including daily or other frequency quality checks to ensure the
equipment is within manufacturing specifications as outlined in Section
8.1 of ASTM D7520-16.
(iii) You must follow the record keeping procedures outlined in
Sec. 63.10(b)(1) for the DCOT certification, compliance report, data
sheets, and all raw unaltered JPEGs used for opacity and certification
determination.
(iv) You or the DCOT vendor must have a minimum of four (4)
independent technology users apply the software to determine the
visible opacity of the 300 certification plumes. For each set of 25
plumes, the user may not exceed 15 percent opacity of any
[[Page 11587]]
one reading and the average error must not exceed 7.5 percent opacity.
(v) This approval does not provide or imply a certification or
validation of any vendor's hardware or software. The onus to maintain
and verify the certification and/or training of the DCOT camera,
software and operator in accordance with ASTM D7520-16 and this letter
is on the facility, DCOT operator, and DCOT vendor.
(3) When different operations in a three-process operation facility
are ducted to separate control devices, the lead emission concentration
(C) from the facility must be determined using equation 1 to this
paragraph (d)(3) as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23FE23.001
Where:
C = concentration of lead emissions for the entire facility, mg/dscm
(gr/dscf).
Ca = concentration of lead emissions from facility ``a,''
mg/dscm (gr/dscf).
Qsda = volumetric flow rate of effluent gas from facility
``a,'' dscm/hr (dscf/hr).
n = total number of control devices to which separate operations in
the facility are ducted.
(4) The owner or operator of lead oxide manufacturing facility must
determine compliance with the lead standard in Sec. 60.372a(a)(5) as
follows:
(i) The emission rate (E) from lead oxide manufacturing facility
must be computed for each run using equation 2 to this paragraph
(d)(4)(i) as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23FE23.002
Where:
E = emission rate of lead, mg/kg (lb/ton) of lead charged.
CPbi = concentration of lead from emission point ``i,''
mg/dscm (gr/dscf).
Qsdi = volumetric flow rate of effluent gas from emission
point ``i,'' dscm/hr (dscf/hr).
M = number of emission points in the affected facility.
P = lead feed rate to the facility, kg/hr (ton/hr).
K = conversion factor, 1.0 mg/mg (7000 gr/lb).
(ii) The average lead feed rate (P) must be determined for each run
using equation 3 to this paragraph (d)(4)(ii) as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23FE23.003
Where:
N = number of lead ingots charged.
W = average mass of the lead ingots, kg (ton).
Q = duration of run, hr.
Sec. 60.375a Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
(a) The owner or operator must keep the records specified in
paragraphs (a)(1) through (7) of this section and maintain them in a
format readily available for review onsite for a period of 5 years.
(1) Records of pressure drop values and liquid flow rate from the
monitoring required in Sec. 60.373a(a) for scrubbing systems.
(2) Records of fabric filter inspections and maintenance activities
required in Sec. 60.373a(b)(1).
(3) Records required under Sec. 60.373a(b)(3) or (b)(6)(ii) of
fabric filter pressure drop, pressure drop observed outside of normal
operating ranges as specified by the manufacturer, and corrective
actions taken.
(4) Records of the required opacity measurements in Sec.
60.373a(b)(4) or (b)(6)(iii).
(5) If a bag leak detection system is used under Sec.
60.373a(b)(5), for a period of 5 years, keep the records specified in
paragraphs (a)(5)(i) through (iii) of this section.
(i) Electronic records of the bag leak detection system output.
(ii) An identification of the date and time of all bag leak
detection system alarms, the time that procedures to determine the
cause of the alarm were initiated, the cause of the alarm, an
explanation of the corrective actions taken, and the date and time the
cause of the alarm was corrected.
(iii) All records of inspections and maintenance activities
required under Sec. 60.373a(b)(5).
(6) Records of all cleaning required as part of the practices
described in the fugitive dust mitigation plan required under Sec.
60.372a(c) for the control of fugitive dust emissions.
(7) You must keep the records of failures to meet an applicable
standard in this part as specified in paragraphs (a)(7)(i) through
(iii) of this section.
(i) In the event that an affected unit fails to meet an applicable
standard in this part, record the number of failures. For each failure
record the date, time, the cause and duration of each failure.
(ii) For each failure to meet an applicable standard in this part,
record and retain a list of the affected sources or equipment, an
estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any
emission limit and a description of the method used to estimate the
emissions.
(iii) Record actions taken to minimize emissions and any corrective
actions taken to return the affected unit to its normal or usual manner
of operation.
(b) Beginning on April 24, 2023, within 60 days after the date of
completing each performance test or demonstration of compliance
required by this subpart, you must submit the results of the
performance test following the procedures specified in paragraphs
(b)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) Data collected using test methods supported by the EPA's
Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA's ERT website
(https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert) at the time of the test. Submit the results of the
performance test to the EPA via
[[Page 11588]]
the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI), which
can be accessed through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) (https://cdx.epa.gov/). The data must be submitted in a file format generated
using the EPA's ERT. Alternatively, you may submit an electronic file
consistent with the extensible markup language (XML) schema listed on
the EPA's ERT website.
(2) Data collected using test methods that are not supported by the
EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT website at the time of the test.
The results of the performance test must be included as an attachment
in the ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML
schema listed on the EPA's ERT website. Submit the ERT generated
package or alternative file to the EPA via CEDRI.
(3) Data collected containing confidential business information
(CBI). (i) The EPA will make all the information submitted through
CEDRI available to the public without further notice to you. Do not use
CEDRI to submit information you claim as CBI. Although we do not expect
persons to assert a claim of CBI, if you wish to assert a CBI claim for
some of the information submitted under paragraph (b)(1) or (2) of this
section, you must submit a complete file, including information claimed
to be CBI, to the EPA.
(ii) The file must be generated using the EPA's ERT or an alternate
electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on the EPA's ERT
website.
(iii) Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you
claim to be CBI. Information not marked as CBI may be authorized for
public release without prior notice. Information marked as CBI will not
be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR
part 2.
(iv) The preferred method for CBI submittal is for it to be
transmitted electronically using email attachments, File Transfer
Protocol (FTP), or other online file sharing services. Electronic
submissions must be transmitted directly to the OAQPS CBI Office at the
email address [email protected], and as described in this paragraph
(b)(3), should include clear CBI markings and be flagged to the
attention of the Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group. If assistance
is needed with submitting large electronic files that exceed the file
size limit for email attachments, and if you do not have your own file
sharing service, please email [email protected] to request a file
transfer link.
(v) If you cannot transmit the file electronically, you may send
CBI information through the postal service to the following address:
OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404-02), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, Attention: Lead
Acid Battery Sector Lead and Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group.
The mailed CBI material should be double wrapped and clearly marked.
Any CBI markings should not show through the outer wrapping.
(vi) All CBI claims must be asserted at the time of submission.
Anything submitted using CEDRI cannot later be claimed CBI.
Furthermore, under CAA section 114(c), emissions data is not entitled
to confidential treatment, and the EPA is required to make emissions
data available to the public. Thus, emissions data will not be
protected as CBI and will be made publicly available.
(vii) You must submit the same file submitted to the CBI office
with the CBI omitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX as described in
paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section.
(c) You must submit a report of excess emissions and monitoring
systems performance report and summary report according to Sec.
60.7(c) and (d) to the Administrator semiannually. Report the number of
failures to meet an applicable standard in this part. For each
instance, report the date, time, cause, and duration of each failure.
For each failure, the report must include a list of the affected
sources or equipment, an estimate of the quantity of each regulated
pollutant emitted over any emission limit, and a description of the
method used to estimate the emissions. You must use the appropriate
spreadsheet template on the CEDRI website (https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/cedri) for this subpart. The date
report templates become available will be listed on the CEDRI website.
The report must be submitted by the deadline specified in this subpart,
regardless of the method in which the report is submitted. Submit all
reports to the EPA via CEDRI, which can be accessed through the EPA's
CDX (https://cdx.epa.gov/). The EPA will make all the information
submitted through CEDRI available to the public without further notice
to you. As stated in paragraph (b)(3) of this section, do not use CEDRI
to submit information you claim as CBI. Anything submitted using CEDRI
cannot later be claimed CBI. If you claim CBI, submit the report
following description in paragraph (b)(3) of this section. The same
file with the CBI omitted must be submitted to CEDRI as described in
this section.
(d) If you are required to electronically submit a report through
CEDRI in the EPA's CDX, you may assert a claim of EPA system outage for
failure to timely comply with that reporting requirement. To assert a
claim of EPA system outage, you must meet the requirements outlined in
paragraphs (d)(1) through (7) of this section.
(1) You must have been or will be precluded from accessing CEDRI
and submitting a required report within the time prescribed due to an
outage of either the EPA's CEDRI or CDX systems.
(2) The outage must have occurred within the period of time
beginning five business days prior to the date that the submission is
due.
(3) The outage may be planned or unplanned.
(4) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as
soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due
diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a
delay in reporting.
(5) You must provide to the Administrator a written description
identifying:
(i) The date(s) and time(s) when CDX or CEDRI was accessed and the
system was unavailable;
(ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the
regulatory deadline to EPA system outage;
(iii) A description of measures taken or to be taken to minimize
the delay in reporting; and
(iv) The date by which you propose to report, or if you have
already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification,
the date you reported.
(6) The decision to accept the claim of EPA system outage and allow
an extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion
of the Administrator.
(7) In any circumstance, the report must be submitted
electronically as soon as possible after the outage is resolved.
(e) If you are required to electronically submit a report through
CEDRI in the EPA's CDX, you may assert a claim of force majeure for
failure to timely comply with that reporting requirement. To assert a
claim of force majeure, you must meet the requirements outlined in
paragraphs (e)(1) through (5) of this section.
(1) You may submit a claim if a force majeure event is about to
occur, occurs, or has occurred or there are lingering effects from such
an event within the period of time beginning five business days prior
to the date the submission is due. For the purposes of this section, a
force majeure event is defined as an event that will be or has been
caused by
[[Page 11589]]
circumstances beyond the control of the affected facility, its
contractors, or any entity controlled by the affected facility that
prevents you from complying with the requirement to submit a report
electronically within the time period prescribed. Examples of such
events are acts of nature (e.g., hurricanes, earthquakes, or floods),
acts of war or terrorism, or equipment failure or safety hazard beyond
the control of the affected facility (e.g., large scale power outage).
(2) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as
soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due
diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a
delay in reporting.
(3) You must provide to the Administrator:
(i) A written description of the force majeure event;
(ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the
regulatory deadline to the force majeure event;
(iii) A description of measures taken or to be taken to minimize
the delay in reporting; and
(iv) The date by which you propose to report, or if you have
already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification,
the date you reported.
(4) The decision to accept the claim of force majeure and allow an
extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion of
the Administrator.
(5) In any circumstance, the reporting must occur as soon as
possible after the force majeure event occurs.
(f) Any records required to be maintained by this subpart that are
submitted electronically via the EPA's CEDRI may be maintained in
electronic format. This ability to maintain electronic copies does not
affect the requirement for facilities to make records, data, and
reports available upon request to a delegated air agency or the EPA as
part of an on-site compliance evaluation.
PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES
0
6. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart A--General Provisions
0
7. Section 63.14 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (h)(109);
0
b. Removing and reserving paragraph (h)(110);
0
c. Removing and reserving paragraph (n)(3); and
0
d. Revising paragraph (n)(4).
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 63.14 Incorporations by reference.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
(109) ASTM D7520-16, Standard Test Method for Determining the
Opacity of a Plume in the Outdoor Ambient Atmosphere, approved April 1,
2016; IBR approved for Sec. Sec. 63.1625(b); table 3 to subpart LLLLL;
63.7823(c) through (e), 63.7833(g); 63.11423(c).
* * * * *
(n) * * *
(4) EPA-454/R-98-015, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
(OAQPS), Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance, September 1997,
https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=2000D5T6.PDF; IBR approved
for Sec. Sec. 63.548(e); 63.864(e); 63.7525(j); 63.8450(e);
63.8600(e); 63.9632(a); 63.9804(f); 63.11224(f); 63.11423(e).
* * * * *
Subpart PPPPP--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Area Sources
0
8. Section 63.11421 is revised and republished to read as follows:
Sec. 63.11421 Am I subject to this subpart?
(a) You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate a lead
acid battery manufacturing plant or a lead acid battery component
manufacturing plant that is an area source of hazardous air pollutants
(HAP) emissions.
(b) This subpart applies to each new or existing affected source.
The affected source is each plant that is either a lead acid battery
manufacturing plant or a lead acid battery component manufacturing
plant. For each lead acid battery manufacturing plant, the affected
source includes all grid casting facilities, paste mixing facilities,
three-process operation facilities, lead oxide manufacturing
facilities, lead reclamation facilities, and any other lead-emitting
operation that is associated with the lead acid battery manufacturing
plant. For each lead acid battery component manufacturing plant, the
affected source includes all grid casting facilities, paste mixing
facilities, three-process operation facilities, and lead oxide
manufacturing facilities.
(1) A lead acid battery manufacturing plant affected source is
existing if you commenced construction or reconstruction of the
affected source on or before April 4, 2007.
(2) A lead acid battery manufacturing plant affected source is new
if you commenced construction or reconstruction of the affected source
after April 4, 2007.
(3) A lead acid battery component manufacturing plant affected
source is existing if you commenced construction or reconstruction of
the affected source on or before February 23, 2022.
(4) A lead acid battery component manufacturing plant affected
source is new if you commenced construction or reconstruction of the
affected source after February 23, 2022.
(c) This subpart does not apply to research and development
facilities, as defined in section 112(c)(7) of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
(d) You are exempt from the obligation to obtain a permit under 40
CFR part 70 or 71, provided you are not otherwise required by law to
obtain a permit under 40 CFR 70.3(a) or 71.3(a). Notwithstanding the
previous sentence, you must continue to comply with the provisions of
this subpart.
(e) For lead acid battery component manufacturing plants, you are
exempt from the requirements of Sec. Sec. 63.11422 through 63.11427 if
the conditions of paragraphs (e)(1) through (3) of this section are
met.
(1) The grid casting facility, paste mixing facility, three-process
operation facility, or lead oxide manufacturing facility is subject to
another subpart under this part.
(2) You control lead emissions from the grid casting facility,
paste mixing facility, three-process operation facility, or lead oxide
manufacturing facility in compliance with the standards specified in
the applicable subpart.
(3) The other applicable subpart under this part does not exempt
the grid casting facility, paste mixing facility, three-process
operation facility, or lead oxide manufacturing facility from the
emission limitations or work practice requirements of that subpart.
This means you comply with all applicable emissions limitations and
work practice standards under the other subpart (e.g., you install and
operate the required air pollution controls or have implemented the
required work practice to reduce lead emissions to levels specified by
the applicable subpart).
0
9. Section 63.11422 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 63.11422 What are my compliance dates?
(a) If you own or operate a lead acid battery manufacturing plant
existing affected source, you must achieve compliance with the
applicable provisions in this subpart by no later than July 16, 2008,
except as specified
[[Page 11590]]
in paragraphs (e) through (h) of this section.
(b) If you start up a new lead acid battery manufacturing plant
affected source on or before July 16, 2007, you must achieve compliance
with the applicable provisions in this subpart not later than July 16,
2007, except as specified in paragraphs (e) through (h) of this
section.
(c) If you start up a new lead acid battery manufacturing plant
affected source after July 16, 2007, but on or before February 23,
2022, you must achieve compliance with the applicable provisions in
this subpart upon startup of your affected source, except as specified
in paragraphs (e) through (h) this section.
(d) If you start up a new lead acid battery manufacturing plant or
lead acid battery component manufacturing plant affected source after
February 23, 2022, you must achieve compliance with the applicable
provisions in this subpart not later than February 23, 2023, or upon
initial startup of your affected source, whichever is later.
(e) Until February 23, 2026, lead acid battery manufacturing plant
affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction on or
before February 23, 2023, must meet all the standards for lead and
opacity in 40 CFR 60.372 and the requirements of Sec. 63.11423(a)(1).
(f) Lead acid battery manufacturing plant affected sources that
commenced construction or reconstruction on or before February 23,
2023, must comply with the requirements in Sec. 63.11423(a)(2) by
February 23, 2026. All affected sources that commence construction or
reconstruction after February 23, 2023, must comply with the
requirements in Sec. 63.11423(a)(2) by initial startup or February 23,
2023, whichever is later.
(g) Lead acid battery manufacturing plant affected sources that
commenced construction or reconstruction on or before February 23,
2023, must comply with the requirements of Sec. 63.11423(a)(3) by
August 22, 2023. All affected sources that commence construction or
reconstruction after February 23, 2023, must comply with the
requirements of Sec. 63.11423(a)(3) by initial startup or February 23,
2023, whichever is later.
(h) After February 23, 2023, lead acid battery manufacturing plant
affected sources must comply with the startup, shutdown, and
malfunction requirements specified in table 3 to this subpart except
that you must comply with the recordkeeping requirements that table 3
refers to in Sec. 63.11424(a)(5) by May 24, 2023.
(i) If you own or operate a lead acid battery component
manufacturing plant existing affected source, you must achieve
compliance with the applicable provisions in this subpart by no later
than February 23, 2026.
0
10. Section 63.11423 is revised and republished read as follows:
Sec. 63.11423 What are the standards and compliance requirements for
new and existing sources?
(a) You must meet all the standards for lead and opacity as
specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) Until the compliance date specified in Sec. 63.11422(e), lead
acid battery manufacturing plant affected sources must comply with
paragraph (a)(1)(i) or (ii) of this section.
(i) You meet all the standards for lead and opacity in 40 CFR
60.372 and the requirements of paragraphs (a)(4) and (5), (b), and
(c)(1) through (3) of this section.
(ii) You comply with paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(2) Beginning no later than the applicable compliance date
specified in Sec. 63.11422(f) or (i), you must meet each emission
limit in table 1 to this subpart and each opacity standard in table 2
to this subpart that applies to you; you must meet the requirements of
paragraphs (a)(4) and (5), (c), and (d) of this section; and you must
also comply with the recordkeeping and electronic reporting
requirements in Sec. 63.11424(a)(6) and (7) and (b).
(3) Beginning no later than the applicable compliance date
specified in Sec. 63.11422(g) or (i), you must comply with the
monitoring requirements in paragraph (e) of this section, the
recordkeeping and electronic reporting requirements in Sec.
63.11424(a)(1) through (5) and (c) through (f), and the definition of
lead reclamation in Sec. 63.11426.
(4) At all times, you must operate and maintain any affected
source, including associated air pollution control equipment and
monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with safety and good air
pollution control practices for minimizing emissions. The general duty
to minimize emissions does not require you to make any further efforts
to reduce emissions if levels required by the applicable standard in
this part have been achieved. Determination of whether a source is
operating in compliance with operation and maintenance requirements
will be based on information available to the Administrator which may
include, but is not limited to, monitoring results, review of operation
and maintenance procedures, review of operation and maintenance
records, and inspection of the source.
(5) When two or more facilities at the same plant (except the lead
oxide manufacturing facility) are ducted to a common control device, an
equivalent standard for the total exhaust from the commonly controlled
facilities must be determined using equation 1 to this paragraph (a)(5)
as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23FE23.004
Where:
Se = is the equivalent standard for the total exhaust
stream, mg/dscm (gr/dscf).
Sa = is the actual standard for each exhaust stream
ducted to the control device, mg/dscm (gr/dscf).
N = is the total number of exhaust streams ducted to the control
device.
Qsda = is the dry standard volumetric flow rate of the
effluent gas stream from each facility ducted to the control device,
dscm/hr (dscf/hr).
QsdT = is the total dry standard volumetric flow rate of
all effluent gas streams ducted to the control device, dscm/hr
(dscf/hr).
(b) As specified in paragraph (a) of this section, you must meet
the monitoring requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this
section.
(1) For any emissions point controlled by a scrubbing system, you
must meet the requirements in 40 CFR 60.373.
(2) For any emissions point controlled by a fabric filter, you must
meet the requirements of paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section and either
paragraph (b)(2)(ii) or (iii) of this section. Fabric filters equipped
with a high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter or other secondary
filter are allowed to monitor less frequently, as specified in
paragraph (b)(2)(iv) of this section.
[[Page 11591]]
(i) You must perform semiannual inspections and maintenance to
ensure proper performance of each fabric filter. This includes
inspection of structural and filter integrity. You must record the
results of these inspections.
(ii) You must install, maintain, and operate a pressure drop
monitoring device to measure the differential pressure drop across the
fabric filter during all times when the process is operating. The
pressure drop must be recorded at least once per day. If a pressure
drop is observed outside of the normal operational ranges as specified
by the manufacturer, you must record the incident and take immediate
corrective actions. You must also record the corrective actions taken.
You must submit a monitoring system performance report in accordance
with Sec. 63.10(e)(3).
(iii) You must conduct a visible emissions observation at least
once per day while the process is in operation to verify that no
visible emissions are occurring at the discharge point to the
atmosphere from any emissions source subject to the requirements of
paragraph (a) of this section. If visible emissions are detected, you
must record the incident and conduct an opacity measurement in
accordance with 40 CFR 60.374(b)(3). You must record the results of
each opacity measurement. If the measurement exceeds the applicable
opacity standard in 40 CFR 60.372(a)(7) or (8), you must submit this
information in an excess emissions report required under Sec.
63.10(e)(3).
(iv) Fabric filters equipped with a HEPA filter or other secondary
filter are allowed to monitor less frequently, as specified in
paragraph (b)(2)(iv)(A) or (B) of this section.
(A) If you are using a pressure drop monitoring device to measure
the differential pressure drop across the fabric filter in accordance
with paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section, you must record the pressure
drop at least once per week. If a pressure drop is observed outside of
the normal operational ranges as specified by the manufacturer, you
must record the incident and take immediate corrective actions. You
must also record the corrective actions taken. You must submit a
monitoring system performance report in accordance with Sec.
63.10(e)(3).
(B) If you are conducting visible emissions observations in
accordance with paragraph (b)(2)(iii) of this section, you must conduct
such observations at least once per week and record the results in
accordance with paragraph (b)(2)(iii) of this section. If visible
emissions are detected, you must record the incident and conduct an
opacity measurement in accordance with 40 CFR 60.374(b)(3). You must
record the results of each opacity measurement. If the measurement
exceeds the applicable opacity standard in 40 CFR 60.372(a)(7) or (8),
you must submit this information in an excess emissions report required
under Sec. 63.10(e)(3).
(c) As specified in paragraph (a) of this section, you must meet
the performance testing requirements in paragraphs (c)(1) through (6)
of this section.
(1) Existing sources are not required to conduct an initial
performance test if a prior performance test was conducted using the
same methods specified in this section and either no process changes
have been made since the test, or you can demonstrate that the results
of the performance test, with or without adjustments, reliably
demonstrate compliance with this subpart despite process changes.
(2) Sources without a prior performance test, as described in
paragraph (c)(1) of this section, must conduct an initial performance
test using the methods specified in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) through (iv)
of this section.
(i) EPA Method 12 or EPA Method 29 of appendix A to 40 CFR part 60
must be used to determine the lead concentration (CPb) and the
volumetric flow rate (Qsda) of the effluent gas. The sampling time and
the sample volume for each run must be at least 60 minutes and 0.85
dscm (30 dscf).
(ii) EPA Method 9 of appendix A to 40 CFR part 60 and the
procedures in Sec. 63.6(h) must be used to determine opacity. The
opacity numbers must be rounded off to the nearest whole percentage.
Or, as an alternative to Method 9, you may use ASTM D7520-16
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 63.14) with the caveats in
paragraphs (c)(4)(ii)(A) through (E) of this section.
(A) During the digital camera opacity technique (DCOT)
certification procedure outlined in Section 9.2 of ASTM D7520-16, you
or the DCOT vendor must present the plumes in front of various
backgrounds of color and contrast representing conditions anticipated
during field use such as blue sky, trees, and mixed backgrounds (clouds
and/or a sparse tree stand).
(B) You must also have standard operating procedures in place
including daily or other frequency quality checks to ensure the
equipment is within manufacturing specifications as outlined in Section
8.1 of ASTM D7520-16.
(C) You must follow the recordkeeping procedures outlined in Sec.
63.10(b)(1) for the DCOT certification, compliance report, data sheets,
and all raw unaltered JPEGs used for opacity and certification
determination.
(D) You or the DCOT vendor must have a minimum of four (4)
independent technology users apply the software to determine the
visible opacity of the 300 certification plumes. For each set of 25
plumes, the user may not exceed 15 percent opacity of any one reading
and the average error must not exceed 7.5 percent opacity.
(E) This approval does not provide or imply a certification or
validation of any vendor's hardware or software. The onus to maintain
and verify the certification and/or training of the DCOT camera,
software, and operator in accordance with ASTM D7520-16 and this letter
is on the facility, DCOT operator, and DCOT vendor.
(iii) When different operations in a three-process operation
facility are ducted to separate control devices, the lead emission
concentration (C) from the facility must be determined using equation 2
to this paragraph (c)(2)(iii) as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23FE23.005
Where:
C = concentration of lead emissions for the entire facility, mg/dscm
(gr/dscf).
Ca = concentration of lead emissions from facility ``a,'' mg/dscm
(gr/dscf).
Qsda = volumetric flow rate of effluent gas from facility
``a,'' dscm/hr (dscf/hr).
n = total number of control devices to which separate operations in
the facility are ducted.
(iv) For a lead oxide manufacturing facility, the lead emission
rate must be determined as specified in paragraphs (c)(2)(iv)(A) and
(B) of this section.
(A) The emission rate (E) from lead oxide manufacturing facility
must be
[[Page 11592]]
computed for each run using equation 3 to this paragraph (c)(2)(iv)(A)
as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23FE23.006
Where:
E = emission rate of lead, mg/kg (lb/ton) of lead charged.
CPbi = concentration of lead from emission point ``i,''
mg/dscm (gr/dscf).
Qsdi = volumetric flow rate of effluent gas from emission
point ``i,'' dscm/hr (dscf/hr).
M = number of emission points in the affected facility.
P = lead feed rate to the facility, kg/hr (ton/hr).
K = conversion factor, 1.0 mg/mg (7000 gr/lb).
(B) The average lead feed rate (P) must be determined for each run
using equation 4 to this paragraph (c)(2)(iv)(B) as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23FE23.007
Where:
N = number of lead ingots charged.
W = average mass of the lead ingots, kg (ton).
[Theta] = duration of run, hr.
(3) In conducting the initial performance tests required in Sec.
63.7, you must use as reference methods and procedures the test methods
in appendix A to 40 CFR part 60 or other methods and procedures as
specified in this section, except as provided in Sec. 63.7(f).
(4) After the initial performance test described in paragraphs
(c)(1) through (3) of this section, you must conduct subsequent
performance tests every 5 years to demonstrate compliance with each
applicable emissions limitations and opacity standards. Within three
years of February 23, 2023, performance testing must be conducted for
each affected source subject to an applicable emissions limitation in
tables 1 and 2 to this subpart that has not had a performance test
within the last 5 years, except as described in paragraph (c)(6) of
this section. Thereafter, subsequent performance tests for each
affected source must be completed no less frequently than every 5 years
from the date the emissions source was last tested.
(5) In lieu of conducting subsequent performance tests for each
affected source, you may elect to group similar affected sources
together and conduct subsequent performance tests on one representative
affected source within each group of similar affected sources. The
determination of whether affected sources are similar must meet the
criteria in paragraph (c)(5)(i) of this section. If you decide to test
representative affected sources, you must prepare and submit a testing
plan as described in paragraph (c)(5)(iii) of this section.
(i) If you elect to test representative affected sources, the
affected sources that are grouped together must be of the same process
type (e.g., grid casting, paste mixing, three-process operations) and
also have the same type of air pollution control device (e.g., fabric
filters). You cannot group affected sources from different process
types or with different air pollution control device types together for
the purposes of this section.
(ii) The results of the performance test conducted for the affected
source selected as representative of a group of similar affected
sources will represent the results for each affected source within the
group. In the performance test report, all affected sources in the
group will need to be listed.
(iii) If you plan to conduct subsequent performance tests on
representative emission units, you must submit a test plan. This test
plan must be submitted to the Administrator or delegated authority for
review and approval no later than 90 days prior to the first scheduled
performance test. The test plan must contain the information specified
in paragraphs (c)(5)(iii)(A) through (C) of this section.
(A) A list of all emission units. This list must clearly identify
all emission units that have been grouped together as similar emission
units. Within each group of emission units, you must identify the
emission unit that will be the representative unit for that group and
subject to performance testing.
(B) A list of the process type and type of air pollution control
device on each emission unit.
(C) A date of last test for each emission unit and a schedule
indicating when you will conduct performance tests for each emission
unit within the representative groups.
(iv) If you conduct subsequent performance tests on representative
emission units, the unit with the oldest test must be tested first, and
each subsequent performance test must be performed for a different unit
until all units in the group have been tested. The order of testing for
each subsequent test must proceed such that the unit in the group with
the least recent performance test is the next unit to be tested.
(6) You may not conduct performance tests during periods of
malfunction. You must record the process information that is necessary
to document operating conditions during the test and include in such
record an explanation to support that such conditions represent normal
operation. You must make available to the Administrator in the test
report, records as may be necessary to determine the conditions of
performance tests.
(d) Beginning no later than the applicable compliance date
specified in Sec. 63.11422(f) or (i), you must prepare and, at all
times, operate according to a fugitive dust mitigation plan that
describes in detail the measures that will be put in place and
implemented to control fugitive dust emissions in the lead oxide
unloading and storage areas. You must prepare a fugitive dust
mitigation plan according to the requirements in paragraphs (d)(1) and
(2) of this section.
(1) You must submit the fugitive dust mitigation plan to the
Administrator or delegated authority for review and approval when
initially developed and any time changes are made.
(2) The fugitive dust mitigation plan must at a minimum include the
requirements specified in paragraphs (d)(2)(i) through (iv) of this
section.
(i) Cleaning lead oxide unloading and storage areas. Surfaces
traversed during vehicular material transfer activity in
[[Page 11593]]
lead oxide unloading and storage areas must be cleaned at least once
per month, by wet wash or a vacuum equipped with a filter rated by the
manufacturer to achieve 99.97 percent capture efficiency for 0.3 micron
particles in a manner that does not generate fugitive lead dust, except
when sand or a similar material has been spread on the area to provide
traction on ice or snow.
(ii) Spills in lead oxide unloading and storage areas. For any leak
or spill that occurs during the unloading and storage process, complete
washing or vacuuming the area to remove all spilled or leaked lead
bearing material within 2 hours of the leak or spill occurrence.
(iii) Materials storage. Dust forming materials (that contain lead
or lead compounds) must be stored in sealed, leak-proof containers or
in a total enclosure.
(iv) Records. The fugitive dust mitigation plan must specify that
records be maintained of all cleaning performed under paragraph
(d)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section.
(e) Beginning no later than the applicable compliance date
specified in Sec. 63.11422(g) or (i), you must meet the monitoring
requirements in paragraphs (e)(1) through (5) of this section.
(1) For any emissions point controlled by a scrubbing system, you
must install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a monitoring device(s)
that measures and records the liquid flow rate and pressure drop across
the scrubbing system(s) at least once every 15 minutes. The monitoring
device must have an accuracy of 5 percent over its
operating range. The operating liquid flow rate must be maintained
within 10 percent of the average liquid flow rate during
the most recent performance test. If a liquid flow rate or pressure
drop is observed outside of the normal operational ranges as you must
record the incident and take immediate corrective actions. You must
also record the corrective actions taken. You must submit an excess
emissions and continuous monitoring system performance report and
summary report required under Sec. 63.11424(c).
(2) Emissions points controlled by a fabric filter without a
secondary filter must meet the requirements of paragraphs (e)(2)(i) and
(ii) of this section and either paragraph (e)(2)(iii) or (iv) of this
section.
(i) You must perform quarterly inspections and maintenance to
ensure proper performance of each fabric filter. This includes
inspection of structural and filter integrity.
(ii) If it is not possible for you to take the corrective actions
specified in paragraph (e)(2)(iii)(C) or (D) of this section for a
process or fabric filter control device, you must keep at least one
replacement fabric filter onsite at all times for that process or
fabric filter control device. The characteristics of the replacement
filters must be the same as the current fabric filters in use or have
characteristics that would achieve equal or greater emission
reductions.
(iii) Install, maintain, and operate a pressure drop monitoring
device to measure the differential pressure drop across the fabric
filter during all times when the process is operating. The pressure
drop must be recorded at least twice per day (at least 8 hours apart)
if the results of the most recent performance test indicate that
emissions are greater than 50 percent of the lead emissions limit in
table 1 to this subpart. The pressure drop must be recorded at least
once per day if the results of the most recent performance test
indicate that emissions are less than or equal to 50 percent of the
lead emissions limit in table 1. If a pressure drop is observed outside
of the normal operational ranges, you must record the incident and take
immediate corrective actions. You must submit an excess emissions and
continuous monitoring system performance report and summary report
required under Sec. 63.11424(c). You must also record the corrective
actions taken and verify pressure drop is within normal operational
range. These corrective actions may include but are not limited to
those provided in paragraphs (e)(2)(iii)(A) through (D) of this
section.
(A) Inspecting the filter and filter housing for air leaks and torn
or broken filters.
(B) Replacing defective filter media, or otherwise repairing the
control device.
(C) Sealing off a defective control device by routing air to other
control devices.
(D) Shutting down the process producing the lead emissions.
(iv) Conduct a visible emissions observation using EPA Method 9 or
EPA Method 22 of appendix A to 40 CFR part 60 while the process is in
operation to verify that no visible emissions are occurring at the
discharge point to the atmosphere from any emissions source subject to
the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section. The visible
emissions observation must be conducted at least twice daily (at least
6 hours apart) if the results of the most recent performance test
indicate that emissions are greater than 50 percent of the lead
emissions limit in table 1 to this subpart. The visible emissions
observation must be conducted at least once per day if the results of
the most recent performance test indicate that emissions are less than
or equal to 50 percent of the lead emissions limit in table 1. If
visible emissions are detected, you must record the incident and submit
this information in an excess emissions and continuous monitoring
system performance report and summary report required under Sec.
63.11424(c) and take immediate corrective action. You must also record
the corrective actions taken. These corrective actions may include but
are not limited to those provided in paragraphs (e)(2)(iii)(A) through
(D) of this section.
(3) Emissions points controlled by a fabric filter equipped with a
secondary filter, such as a HEPA filter, must meet the requirements of
paragraphs (e)(3)(i) and (ii) of this section and either paragraph
(e)(3)(iii) or (iv) of this section.
(i) You must perform the inspections required in paragraph
(e)(2)(i) of this section quarterly.
(ii) If it is not possible for you to take the corrective actions
specified in paragraph (e)(2)(iii)(C) or (D) of this section for a
process or fabric filter control device, you must keep at least one
replacement primary fabric filter and one replacement secondary filter
onsite at all times for that process or fabric filter control device.
The characteristics of the replacement filters must be the same as the
current fabric filters in use or have characteristics that would
achieve equal or greater emission reductions.
(iii) You must perform the pressure drop monitoring requirements in
paragraph (e)(2)(iii) of this section. You may perform these
requirements once weekly rather than once or twice daily.
(iv) You must perform the visible emissions observation
requirements in paragraph (e)(2)(iv) of this section. You may perform
these requirements weekly rather than once or twice daily.
(4) Beginning no later than the applicable compliance date
specified in Sec. 63.11422(g) or (i), if you operate a bag leak
detection system, that system must meet the specifications and
requirements in paragraphs (e)(4)(i) through (ix) of this section.
Emission points controlled by a fabric filter equipped that are
monitored with a bag leak detection system meeting the specifications
and requirements in paragraphs (e)(4)(i) through (ix) of this section
may have the inspections required in paragraph (e)(2)(i) of this
section performed semiannually.
(i) The bag leak detection system must be certified by the
manufacturer to be
[[Page 11594]]
capable of detecting particulate matter as lead emissions at
concentrations at or below the values in table 1 to this subpart, as
applicable to the process for which the fabric filter is used to
control emissions. Where the fabric filter is used as a control device
for more than one process, the lowest applicable value in table 1 must
be used.
(ii) The bag leak detection system sensor must provide output of
relative particulate matter loadings.
(iii) The bag leak detection system must be equipped with an alarm
system that will alarm when an increase in relative particulate
loadings is detected over a preset level.
(iv) You must install and operate the bag leak detection system in
a manner consistent with the guidance provided in ``Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection
Guidance'' (EPA-454/R-98-015) (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
63.14) and the manufacturer's written specifications and
recommendations for installation, operation, and adjustment of the
system.
(v) The initial adjustment of the system must, at a minimum,
consist of establishing the baseline output by adjusting the
sensitivity (range) and the averaging period of the device and
establishing the alarm set points and the alarm delay time.
(vi) Following initial adjustment, you must not adjust the
sensitivity or range, averaging period, alarm set points, or alarm
delay time, except as detailed in the approved standard operating
procedures manual required under paragraph (e)(4)(ix) of this section.
You cannot increase the sensitivity by more than 100 percent or
decrease the sensitivity by more than 50 percent over a 365-day period
unless such adjustment follows a complete fabric filter inspection that
demonstrates that the fabric filter is in good operating condition.
(vii) For negative pressure, induced air baghouses, and positive
pressure baghouses that are discharged to the atmosphere through a
stack, you must install the bag leak detector downstream of the fabric
filter.
(viii) Where multiple detectors are required, the system's
instrumentation and alarm may be shared among detectors.
(ix) You must develop a standard operating procedures manual for
the bag leak detection system that includes procedures for making
system adjustments and a corrective action plan, which specifies the
procedures to be followed in the case of a bag leak detection system
alarm. The corrective action plan must include, at a minimum, the
procedures that you will use to determine and record the time and cause
of the alarm as well as the corrective actions taken to minimize
emissions as specified in paragraphs (e)(4)(ix)(A) and (B) of this
section.
(A) The procedures used to determine the cause of the alarm must be
initiated within 30 minutes of the alarm.
(B) The cause of the alarm must be alleviated by taking the
necessary corrective action(s) that may include, but not be limited to,
those listed in paragraphs (e)(4)(ix)(B)(1) through (6) of this
section.
(1) Inspecting the baghouse for air leaks, torn or broken filter
elements, or any other malfunction that may cause an increase in
emissions.
(2) Sealing off defective bags or filter media.
(3) Replacing defective bags or filter media, or otherwise
repairing the control device.
(4) Sealing off defective baghouse compartment.
(5) Cleaning the bag leak detection system probe, or otherwise
repairing the bag leak detection system.
(6) Shutting down the process producing the lead emissions.
(5) For continuous monitoring subject to the requirements of Sec.
63.8(d)(2) to develop and implement a continuous monitoring system
quality control program, you must keep these written procedures on
record for the life of the affected source or until the affected source
is no longer subject to the provisions of this part, to be made
available for inspection, upon request, by the Administrator. If the
performance evaluation plan is revised, you must keep previous (i.e.,
superseded) versions of the performance evaluation plan on record to be
made available for inspection, upon request, by the Administrator, for
a period of 5 years after each revision to the plan. The program of
corrective action should be included in the plan required under Sec.
63.8(d)(2).
0
11. Section 63.11424 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 63.11424 What are the recordkeeping and reporting requirements
for this subpart?
(a) You must keep the records specified in this section according
to the applicable compliance date in Sec. 63.11422(f) and (g) or (i)
and maintain them in a format readily available for review onsite for a
period of 5 years.
(1) Records of pressure drop values and the liquid flow rate from
the monitoring required in Sec. 63.11423(e)(1) for scrubbing systems.
(2) Records of fabric filter inspections and maintenance activities
required in Sec. 63.11423(e)(2)(i) or (e)(3)(i).
(3) Records required under Sec. 63.11423(e)(2)(iii) or (e)(3)(iii)
of fabric filter pressure drop, pressure drop observed outside of
normal operating ranges as specified by the manufacturer, and
corrective actions taken.
(4) Records of the required visible emissions observations in Sec.
63.11423(e)(2)(iv) or (e)(3)(iv).
(5) You must keep the records of failures to meet an applicable
standard in this part as specified in paragraphs (a)(5)(i) through
(iii) of this section.
(i) In the event that an affected unit fails to meet an applicable
standard in this part, record the number of failures. For each failure
record the date, time, cause, and duration of each failure.
(ii) For each failure to meet an applicable standard in this part,
record and retain a list of the affected sources or equipment, an
estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any
emission limit and a description of the method used to estimate the
emissions.
(iii) Record actions taken to minimize emissions and any corrective
actions taken to return the affected unit to its normal or usual manner
of operation.
(6) If a bag leak detection system is used under Sec.
63.11423(e)(4), for a period of 5 years keep the records, specified in
paragraphs (a)(6)(i) through (iii) of this section.
(i) Electronic records of the bag leak detection system output.
(ii) An identification of the date and time of all bag leak
detection system alarms, the time that procedures to determine the
cause of the alarm were initiated, the cause of the alarm, an
explanation of the corrective actions taken, and the date and time the
cause of the alarm was corrected.
(iii) All records of inspections and maintenance activities
required under Sec. 63.11423(e)(4).
(7) Records of all cleaning required as part of the practices
described in the fugitive dust mitigation plan required under Sec.
63.11423(d)(2)(iii) for the control of fugitive dust emissions.
(b) Beginning on April 24, 2023, within 60 days after the date of
completing each performance test or demonstration of compliance
required by this subpart, you must submit the results of the
performance test following the procedures specified in Sec. 63.9(k)
and paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) Data collected using test methods supported by the EPA's
Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA's ERT website
(https://
[[Page 11595]]
www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-
tool-ert) at the time of the test. Submit the results of the
performance test to the EPA via the Compliance and Emissions Data
Reporting Interface (CEDRI), which can be accessed through the EPA's
Central Data Exchange (CDX) (https://cdx.epa.gov/). The data must be
submitted in a file format generated using the EPA's ERT.
Alternatively, you may submit an electronic file consistent with the
extensible markup language (XML) schema listed on the EPA's ERT
website.
(2) Data collected using test methods that are not supported by the
EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT website at the time of the test.
The results of the performance test must be included as an attachment
in the ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML
schema listed on the EPA's ERT website. Submit the ERT generated
package or alternative file to the EPA via CEDRI. If a performance test
consists only of opacity measurements, reporting using the ERT and
CEDRI is not required.
(3) Data collected containing confidential business information
(CBI). All CBI claims must be asserted at the time of submission. Do
not use CEDRI to submit information you claim as CBI. Anything
submitted using CEDRI cannot later be claimed CBI. Although we do not
expect persons to assert a claim of CBI, if you wish to assert a CBI
claim for some of the information submitted under paragraph (b)(1) or
(2) of this section, you must submit a complete file, including
information claimed to be CBI, to the EPA. The file must be generated
using the EPA's ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the
XML schema listed on the EPA's ERT website. The preferred method to
submit CBI is for it to be transmitted electronically using email
attachments, File Transfer Protocol (FTP), or other online file sharing
services (e.g., Dropbox, OneDrive, Google Drive). Electronic
submissions must be transmitted directly to the OAQPS CBI Office at the
email address [email protected], and as described in this paragraph
(b)(3), should include clear CBI markings and note the docket ID. If
assistance is needed with submitting large electronic files that exceed
the file size limit for email attachments, and if you do not have your
own file sharing service, please email [email protected] to request a
file transfer link. If sending CBI information through the postal
service, submit the file on a compact disc, flash drive, or other
commonly used electronic storage medium and clearly mark the medium as
CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI Office,
Attention: Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Sector Lead, MD C404-02,
4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file with the CBI omitted
must be submitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX as described in
paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section. Under CAA section 114(c),
emissions data is not entitled to confidential treatment, and the EPA
is required to make emissions data available to the public. Thus,
emissions data will not be protected as CBI and will be made publicly
available.
(c) Beginning on February 23, 2024, or once the report template for
this subpart has been available on the CEDRI website for one year,
whichever date is later, you must submit a report of excess emissions
and monitoring systems performance report and summary report according
to Sec. Sec. 63.9(k) and 63.10(e)(3) to the Administrator
semiannually. Report the number of failures to meet an applicable
standard in this part. For each instance, report the date, time, cause,
and duration of each failure. For each failure, the report must include
a list of the affected sources or equipment, an estimate of the
quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit,
and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions. You
must use the appropriate electronic report template on the CEDRI
website (https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/cedri)
or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed
on the CEDRI website for this subpart. The date report templates become
available will be listed on the CEDRI website. Unless the Administrator
or delegated state agency or other authority has approved a different
schedule for submission of reports, the report must be submitted by the
deadline specified in this subpart, regardless of the method in which
the report is submitted. Submit all reports to the EPA via CEDRI, which
can be accessed through the EPA's CDX (https://cdx.epa.gov/). The EPA
will make all the information submitted through CEDRI available to the
public without further notice to you. Do not use CEDRI to submit
information you claim as CBI. Anything submitted using CEDRI cannot
later be claimed CBI. The report must be submitted by the deadline
specified in this subpart, regardless of the method in which the report
is submitted. Although we do not expect persons to assert a claim of
CBI, if you wish to assert a CBI claim, follow the requirements
specified in paragraph (b)(3) of this section. The same file with the
CBI omitted must be submitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX as described
earlier in this paragraph (c).
(d) Any records required to be maintained by this subpart that are
submitted electronically via the EPA's CEDRI may be maintained in
electronic format. This ability to maintain electronic copies does not
affect the requirement for facilities to make records, data, and
reports available upon request to a delegated air agency or the EPA as
part of an on-site compliance evaluation.
0
12. Section 63.11425 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.11425 What General Provisions apply to this subpart?
(a) The provisions in subpart A of this part, that are applicable
to this subpart are specified in table 3 to this subpart.
* * * * *
0
13. Section 63.11426 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 63.11426 What definitions apply to this subpart?
The terms used in this subpart are defined in the CAA, in Sec.
63.2 for terms used in the applicable provisions of subpart A of this
part, and in this section as follows:
Bag leak detection system means a system that is capable of
continuously monitoring particulate matter (dust) loadings in the
exhaust of a fabric filter (baghouse) in order to detect bag leaks and
other upset conditions. A bag leak detection system includes, but is
not limited to, an instrument that operates on triboelectric, light
scattering, light transmittance, or other effect to continuously
monitor relative particulate matter loadings.
Grid casting facility means a facility which includes all lead
melting pots, pots that remelt scrap from onsite lead acid battery
manufacturing processes, and machines used for casting the grid used in
lead acid batteries.
Lead acid battery component manufacturing plant means any plant
that does not produce a final lead acid battery product but at which
one or more of the following processes is conducted to develop a
product for use in lead acid batteries: grid casting, paste mixing,
three-process operations, and lead oxide manufacturing.
Lead acid battery manufacturing plant means any plant that produces
a storage battery using lead and lead compounds for the plates and
sulfuric acid for the electrolyte.
Lead oxide manufacturing facility means a facility that produces
lead oxide from lead for use in lead acid batteries, including lead
oxide production and product recovery
[[Page 11596]]
operations. Local exhaust ventilation or building ventilation exhausts
serving lead oxide production areas are not part of the lead oxide
manufacturing facility.
Lead reclamation facility means a facility that casts remelted lead
scrap generated by onsite lead acid battery manufacturing processes
into lead ingots for use in the battery manufacturing process, and
which is not a furnace affected under subpart X of this part. Lead
scrap remelting processes that are used directly (not cast into an
ingot first) in a grid casting facility or a three-process operations
facility are parts of those facilities and are not part of a lead
reclamation facility.
Other lead-emitting operation means any operation at a plant
involved in the manufacture of lead acid batteries from which lead
emissions are collected and ducted to the atmosphere and which is not
part of a grid casting, lead oxide manufacturing, lead reclamation,
paste mixing, or three-process operation facility, or a furnace
affected under subpart X of this part. These operations also include
local exhaust ventilation or building ventilation exhausts serving lead
oxide production areas.
Paste mixing facility means a facility including lead oxide
storage, conveying, weighing, metering, and charging operations; paste
blending, handling, and cooling operations; and plate pasting, takeoff,
cooling, and drying operations.
Three-process operation facility means a facility including those
processes involved with plate stacking, burning or strap casting, and
assembly of elements into the battery case.
Total enclosure means a containment building that is completely
enclosed with a floor, walls, and a roof to prevent exposure to the
elements and that has limited openings to allow access and egress for
people and vehicles.
0
14. Section 63.11427 is amended by revising paragraph (b) introductory
text and adding paragraph (b)(5) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.11427 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
* * * * *
(b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this
subpart to a State, local, or tribal agency under subpart E of this
part, the approval authorities contained in paragraphs (b)(1) through
(5) of this section are retained by the Administrator of the U.S. EPA
and are not transferred to the State, local, or tribal agency.
* * * * *
(5) Approval of an alternative to any electronic reporting to the
EPA required by this subpart.
0
15. Table 1 to subpart PPPPPP of part 63 is revised to read as follows:
Table 1 to Subpart PPPPPP of Part 63--Emission Limits
As stated in Sec. 63.11423(a)(2), you must comply with the
emission limits in the following table:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For . . . You must . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Each new or existing grid Emit no more than 0.08 milligram of
casting facility. lead per dry standard cubic meter
of exhaust (0.000035 gr/dscf).
2. Each new or existing paste Emit no more than 0.1 milligram of
mixing facility. lead per dry standard cubic meter
of exhaust (0.0000437 gr/dscf); or
emit no more than 0.9 gram of lead
per hour (0.002 lbs/hr) total from
all paste mixing operations.
3. Each new or existing three- Emit no more than 1.0 milligram of
process operation facility. lead per dry standard cubic meter
of exhaust (0.000437 gr/dscf).
4. Each new or existing lead oxide Emit no more than 5.0 milligram of
manufacturing facility. lead per kilogram of lead feed
(0.010 lb/ton).
5. Each new or existing lead Emit no more than 0.45 milligram of
reclamation facility. lead per dry standard cubic meter
of exhaust (0.000197 gr/dscf).
6. Each new or existing other lead- Emit no more than 1.0 milligram of
emitting operation. lead per dry standard cubic meter
of exhaust (0.000437 gr/dscf).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
16. Table 2 to subpart PPPPPP of part 63 is added to read as follows:
Table 2 to Subpart PPPPPP of Part 63--Opacity Standards
As stated in Sec. 63.11423(a)(2), you must comply with the opacity
standards in the following table:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any gases emitted must not exceed .
For . . . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Each new or existing facility 0 percent opacity (measured
other than a lead reclamation according to EPA Method 9 of
facility. appendix A to 40 CFR part 60 and
rounded to the nearest whole
percentage or measured according to
EPA Method 22 of appendix A to 40
CFR part 60).
2. Each new or existing lead 5 percent opacity (measured
reclamation facility. according to EPA Method 9 and
rounded to the nearest whole
percentage).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
17. Table 3 to subpart PPPPPP of part 63 is added to read as follows:
Table 3 to Subpart PPPPPP of Part 63--Applicability of General
Provisions to This Subpart
As required in Sec. 63.11425, you must comply with the
requirements of the NESHAP General Provisions (subpart A of this part)
as shown in the following table.
[[Page 11597]]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Citation Subject Applies to this subpart? Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.1............................... Applicability......... Yes......................... .....................
63.2............................... Definitions........... Yes......................... .....................
63.3............................... Units and ............................ .....................
Abbreviations.
63.4............................... Prohibited Activities Yes......................... .....................
and Circumvention.
63.5............................... Preconstruction Review No.......................... .....................
and Notification
Requirements.
63.6(a) through (d)................ Compliance with Yes......................... .....................
Standards and
Maintenance
Requirements.
63.6(e)(1)(i)...................... General Duty to No.......................... Section
Minimize Emissions. 63.11423(a)(3)
specifies general
duty requirements.
63.6(e)(1)(ii)..................... Requirement to correct No.......................... .....................
malfunctions as soon
as possible.
63.6(e)(1)(iii).................... Enforceability of Yes......................... .....................
requirements
independent of other
regulations.
63.6(e)(3)......................... SSM Plans............. No.......................... This subpart does not
require a startup,
shutdown, and
malfunction plan.
63.6(f)(1)......................... Compliance Except No.......................... .....................
During SSM.
63.6(f)(2) and (3)................. Methods for Yes......................... .....................
determining
compliance.
63.6(g)............................ Use of an alternative Yes......................... .....................
nonopacity emission
standard.
63.6(h)(1)......................... SSM Exemption......... No.......................... .....................
63.6(h)(2) through (9), (i) through Compliance with Yes......................... .....................
(j). opacity/visible
emission standards,
compliance extensions
and exemptions.
63.7(a) through (d), (e)(2) and Performance Testing Yes......................... .....................
(3), (f) through (h). Requirements.
63.7(e)(1)......................... Conditions for No.......................... Requirements for
conducting performance test
performance tests. conditions are found
in Sec.
63.11423(c)(7).
63.8(a), (b), (c)(1)(ii), (d)(1) Monitoring Yes......................... .....................
and (2), (e) through (g). Requirements.
63.8(c)(1)(i)...................... General duty to No.......................... Section
minimize emissions 63.11423(a)(3)
and CMS operation. specifies general
duty requirements.
63.8(c)(1)(iii).................... Requirement to develop No.......................... .....................
SSM Plan for CMS.
63.8(d)(3)......................... Written procedures for No.......................... .....................
CMS.
63.9............................... Notification Yes......................... .....................
Requirements.
63.10(a), (b)(1), (b)(2)(iii), Recordkeeping and Yes......................... .....................
(b)(2)(vi) through (ix), (b)(3), Reporting
(c)(1) through (14), (d)(1) Requirements.
through (4), (e), (f).
63.10(b)(2)(i)..................... Recordkeeping of No.......................... .....................
occurrence and
duration of startups
and shutdowns.
63.10(b)(2)(ii).................... Recordkeeping of No.......................... Section
failures to meet a 63.11424(a)(5)
standard. specifies these
requirements.
63.10(b)(2)(iv) and (v)............ Actions taken to No.......................... .....................
minimize emissions
during SSM.
63.10(c)(15)....................... Use of SSM Plan....... No.......................... .....................
63.10(d)(5)........................ ...................... No.......................... This subpart does not
require a startup,
shutdown, and
malfunction plan.
See Sec.
63.11424(c) for
excess emissions
reporting
requirements.
63.11.............................. Control Device No.......................... This subpart does not
Requirements. require flares.
63.12.............................. State Authorities and Yes......................... .....................
Delegations.
63.13.............................. Addresses............. Yes......................... .....................
63.14.............................. Incorporations by Yes......................... .....................
Reference.
63.15.............................. Availability of Yes......................... .....................
Information and
Confidentiality.
63.16.............................. Performance Track Yes......................... .....................
Provisions.
63.1(a)(5), (a)(7) through (9), Reserved.............. No.......................... .....................
(b)(2), (c)(3), (d), 63.6(b)(6),
(c)(3) and (4), (d), (e)(2),
(e)(3)(ii), (h)(3), (h)(5)(iv),
63.8(a)(3), 63.9(b)(3), (h)(4),
63.10(c)(2) through (4), (c)(9).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2023-02989 Filed 2-22-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
