Home/Federal/Federal Register/2022-03396

Proposed Rule2022-03396

Review of Standards of Performance for Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Plants and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Area Sources Technology Review

Primary source

Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.

Published

February 23, 2022

Issuing agencies

Environmental Protection Agency

Abstract

This proposal presents 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 (TR) 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 proposing revised lead (Pb) 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 facilities that begin construction, reconstruction, or modification after February 23, 2022). In addition, the EPA is proposing the following amendments for both the area source NESHAP (for new and existing sources) and under a new NSPS subpart (for lead acid battery facilities that begin construction, reconstruction or modification after February 23, 2022): 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; 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 start-up, shut down, and malfunctions. The EPA is also proposing 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.

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 87 Issue 36 (Wednesday, February 23, 2022)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 36 (Wednesday, February 23, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 10134-10158]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2022-03396]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 60 and 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0619; FRL-8602-01-OAR]
RIN 2060-AV43

Review of Standards of Performance 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: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This proposal presents 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 (TR) 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
proposing revised lead (Pb) 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 facilities that begin construction, reconstruction, or
modification after February 23, 2022). In addition, the EPA is
proposing the following amendments for both the area source NESHAP (for
new and existing sources) and under a new NSPS subpart (for lead acid
battery facilities that begin construction, reconstruction or
modification after February 23, 2022): Performance testing once every 5
years to demonstrate compliance; work practices to minimize emissions
of fugitive lead dust; increased inspection

[[Page 10135]]

frequency of fabric filters; bag leak detection systems for facilities
above a certain size; 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 start-up, shut down, and malfunctions. The
EPA is also proposing 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.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 25, 2022. Under the
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), comments on the information collection
provisions are best assured of consideration if the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) receives a copy of your comments on or
before March 25, 2022.
Public hearing: If anyone contacts us requesting a public hearing
on or before February 28, 2022, we will hold a virtual public hearing.
See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for information on requesting and
registering for a public hearing.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2021-0619, by any of the following methods:
<bullet> Federal eRulemaking Portal: <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/">https://www.regulations.gov/</a>
(our preferred method). Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
<bullet> Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#27460a4649430a550a4348444c42536742574609404851">[email&#160;protected]</a>. Include Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2021-0619 in the subject line of the message.
<bullet> Fax: (202) 566-9744. Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2021-0619.
<bullet> Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket
Center, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0619, Mail Code 28221T, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460.
<bullet> Hand/Courier Delivery: EPA Docket Center, WJC West
Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004.
The Docket Center's hours of operation are 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m., Monday-
Friday (except federal holidays).
Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID
No. for this rulemaking. Comments received may be posted without change
to <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/">https://www.regulations.gov/</a>, including any personal information
provided. For detailed instructions on sending comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document. Out of an abundance of caution
for members of the public and our staff, the EPA Docket Center and
Reading Room are open to the public by appointment only to reduce the
risk of transmitting COVID-19. Our Docket Center staff also continues
to provide remote customer service via email, phone, and webform. Hand
deliveries and couriers may be received by scheduled appointment only.
For further information on EPA Docket Center services and the current
status, please visit us online at <a href="https://www.epa.gov/dockets">https://www.epa.gov/dockets</a>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this proposed
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; fax number: (919) 541-4991;
and email address: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#96fef7f8e5f3f8b8f7fbf7f8f2f7d6f3e6f7b8f1f9e0">[email&#160;protected]</a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Participation in virtual public hearing.
Please note that because of current Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC) recommendations, as well as state and local orders for
social distancing to limit the spread of COVID-19, the EPA cannot hold
in-person public meetings at this time.
To request a virtual public hearing, contact the public hearing
team at (888) 372-8699 or by email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#89dad9d9cdf9fcebe5e0eae1ece8fbe0e7eec9ecf9e8a7eee6ff">[email&#160;protected]</a>. If
requested, the virtual hearing will be held on March 10, 2022. The
hearing will convene at 10:00 a.m. Eastern Time (ET) and will conclude
at 5:00 p.m. ET. The EPA may close a session 15 minutes after the last
pre-registered speaker has testified if there are no additional
speakers. The EPA will announce further details at <a href="https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/lead-acid-battery-manufacturing-area-sources-national-emission">https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/lead-acid-battery-manufacturing-area-sources-national-emission</a>.
If a public hearing is requested, the EPA will begin pre-
registering speakers for the hearing no later than 1 business day after
a request has been received. To register to speak at the virtual
hearing, please use the online registration form available at <a href="https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/lead-acid-battery-manufacturing-area-sources-national-emission">https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/lead-acid-battery-manufacturing-area-sources-national-emission</a> or contact the public
hearing team at (888) 372-8699 or by email at
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b4e7e4e4f0c4c1d6d8ddd7dcd1d5c6dddad3f4d1c4d59ad3dbc2">[email&#160;protected]</a>. The last day to pre-register to speak at the
hearing will be March 7, 2022. Prior to the hearing, the EPA will post
a general agenda that will list pre-registered speakers in approximate
order at: <a href="https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/lead-acid-battery-manufacturing-area-sources-national-emission">https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/lead-acid-battery-manufacturing-area-sources-national-emission</a>.
The EPA will make every effort to follow the schedule as closely as
possible on the day of the hearing; however, please plan for the
hearings to run either ahead of schedule or behind schedule.
Each commenter will have 5 minutes to provide oral testimony. The
EPA encourages commenters to provide the EPA with a copy of their oral
testimony electronically (via email) by emailing it to
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2c444d425f4942024d414d42484d6c495c4d024b435a">[email&#160;protected]</a>. The EPA also recommends submitting the text of
your oral testimony as written comments to the rulemaking docket.
The EPA may ask clarifying questions during the oral presentations
but will not respond to the presentations at that time. Written
statements and supporting information submitted during the comment
period will be considered with the same weight as oral testimony and
supporting information presented at the public hearing.
Please note that any updates made to any aspect of the hearing will
be posted online at <a href="https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/lead-acid-battery-manufacturing-area-sources-national-emission">https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/lead-acid-battery-manufacturing-area-sources-national-emission</a>. While the EPA expects the hearing to go forward as set forth
above, please monitor our website or contact the public hearing team at
(888) 372-8699 or by email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e2b1b2b2a69297808e8b818a8783908b8c85a2879283cc858d94">[email&#160;protected]</a> to determine if
there are any updates. The EPA does not intend to publish a document in
the Federal Register announcing updates.
If you require the services of a translator or special
accommodation such as audio description, please pre-register for the
hearing with the public hearing team and describe your needs by March
2, 2022. The EPA may not be able to arrange accommodations without
advanced notice.
Docket. The EPA has established a docket for this rulemaking under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0619. All documents in the docket are
listed in <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/">https://www.regulations.gov/</a>. 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. With the exception of such material, publicly

[[Page 10136]]

available docket materials are available electronically in
<a href="http://Regulations.gov">Regulations.gov</a>.
Instructions. Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2021-0619. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/">https://www.regulations.gov/</a>, including any personal
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed
to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by
statute. Do not submit electronically to <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/">https://www.regulations.gov/</a>
any information that you consider to be CBI or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. This type of information should be
submitted as discussed below.
The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the Web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit <a href="https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets">https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets</a>.
The <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/">https://www.regulations.gov/</a> website allows you to submit your
comment anonymously, which means the EPA will not know your identity or
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through
<a href="https://www.regulations.gov/">https://www.regulations.gov/</a>, your email address will be automatically
captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the
public docket and made available on the internet. If you submit an
electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and
other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
digital storage media you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment
due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification,
the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files
should not include special characters or any form of encryption and be
free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about the
EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at <a href="https://www.epa.gov/dockets">https://www.epa.gov/dockets</a>.
Due to public health concerns related to COVID-19, the Docket
Center and Reading Room are open to the public by appointment only. Our
Docket Center staff also continues to provide remote customer service
via email, phone, and webform. Hand deliveries or couriers will be
received by scheduled appointment only. For further information and
updates on EPA Docket Center services, please visit us online at
<a href="https://www.epa.gov/dockets">https://www.epa.gov/dockets</a>.
The EPA continues to carefully and continuously monitor information
from the CDC, local area health departments, and our federal partners
so that we can respond rapidly as conditions change regarding COVID-19.
Submitting CBI. Do not submit information containing CBI to the EPA
through <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/">https://www.regulations.gov/</a>. Clearly mark the part or all of
the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on any
digital storage media that you mail to the EPA, note the docket ID,
mark the outside of the digital storage media as CBI, and identify
electronically within the digital storage media the specific
information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version
of the comments that includes information claimed as CBI, you must
submit a copy of the comments that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI directly to the public docket through the procedures
outlined in Instructions above. If you submit any digital storage media
that does not contain CBI, mark the outside of the digital storage
media clearly that it does not contain CBI and note the docket ID.
Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and
the EPA's electronic public docket without prior notice. Information
marked as CBI will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 2.
Our preferred method to receive 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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#107f71616063737279507560713e777f66">[email&#160;protected]</a>, and as
described above, 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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#37585646474454555e7752475619505841">[email&#160;protected]</a> to
request a file transfer link. If sending CBI information through the
postal service, please send it to the following address: OAQPS Document
Control Officer (C404-02), OAQPS, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, Attention Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0619. The mailed CBI material should be double wrapped
and clearly marked. Any CBI markings should not show through the outer
envelope.
Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. Throughout this notice 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
BACT Best Available Control Technology
BSER Best System of Emissions Reduction
CAA Clean Air Act
CBI Confidential Business Information
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
ECHO Enforcement and Compliance History Online
EIS Emissions Inventory System
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ERT Electronic Reporting Tool
FR Federal Register
GACT Generally Available Control Technology
gr/dscf grains per dry standard cubic foot
HAP hazardous air pollutant(s)
HEPA high efficiency particulate air
LAER Lowest Achievable Emission Rate
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
OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
OECA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
OMB Office of Management and Budget
Pb lead
RACT Reasonably Available Control Technology
RBLC Reasonably Available Control Technology, Best Available Control
Technology, and Lowest Achievable Emission Rate Clearinghouse
SBA Small Business Administration
SIC Standard Industrial Classification
SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction
tpy tons per year
TR technology review
TRI Toxic Release Inventory
[mu]g/m3 microgram per cubic meter
VCS voluntary consensus standards
VE visible emissions

[[Page 10137]]

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?
II. Background
A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
1. NSPS Authority
2. NESHAP Authority
B. What is this source category and how do the current rules
regulate its emissions?
C. What data collection activities were conducted to support
this action?
D. What other relevant background information and data are
available?
III. Analytical Procedures and Decision-Making
A. How does the EPA perform the NSPS review?
B. How does the EPA perform the technology review?
IV. Analytical Results and Proposed Rule Summary and Rationale
A. Results of Ambient Air Monitoring Data and Model Screening
Analyses
B. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our NSPS
review, and what is the rationale for those decisions?
C. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our
technology review, and what is the rationale for those decisions?
D. What other actions are we proposing, and what is the
rationale for those actions?
1. NSPS, 40 CFR Part 60, KKa
2. NESHAP, 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart PPPPPP
E. What compliance dates are we proposing, and what is the
rationale for the proposed compliance dates?
1. NSPS, 40 CFR Part 60, KKa
2. NESHAP, 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart PPPPPP
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts
A. What are the air quality impacts?
1. NSPS, 40 CFR Part 60, KKa
2. NESHAP, 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart PPPPPP
B. What are the cost impacts?
1. NSPS, 40 CFR Part 60, KKa
2. NESHAP, 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart PPPPPP
C. What are the economic impacts?
1. NSPS, 40 CFR Part 60, KKa
2. NESHAP, 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart PPPPPP
D. What are the benefits?
1. NSPS, 40 CFR Part 60, KKa
2. NESHAP, 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart PPPPPP
E. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?
VI. Request for Comments
VII. Incorporation by Reference
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (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

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

The source category that is the subject of this proposal is lead
acid battery manufacturing regulated under CAA section 111 New Source
Performance Standards and under CAA section 112 Generally Available
Control Technology Standards (GACT). The North American Industry
Classification System (NAICS) code for the lead acid battery
manufacturing industry is 335911. This NAICS code provides a guide for
readers regarding the entities that this proposed action is likely to
affect. Federal, state, local, and tribal government entities would not
be affected by this proposed action. 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 is any facility engaged in producing lead acid or lead acid
storage batteries, including, but not limited to starting-lightning-
ignition (SLI) 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).
The lead acid battery manufacture source category was identified as a
pollutant specific minor source category 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).

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 action is available on the internet. Following signature by the
EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this proposed action at
<a href="https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/lead-acid-battery-manufacturing-new-source-performance-standards">https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/lead-acid-battery-manufacturing-new-source-performance-standards</a> and <a href="https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/lead-acid-battery-manufacturing-area-sources-national-emission">https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/lead-acid-battery-manufacturing-area-sources-national-emission</a>. Following publication in the Federal
Register, the EPA will post the Federal Register version of the
proposal and key technical documents at these same websites.
The proposed changes to the CFR that would be necessary to
incorporate the changes proposed in this action are presented in an
attachment to the memoranda titled: Proposed Regulation Edits for 40
CFR part 63, subpart PPPPPP: National Emission Standards for Lead Acid
Battery Manufacturing Area Sources and Proposed New Subpart KKa for 40
CFR part 60, subpart KKa: Standards of Performance for Lead Acid
Battery Manufacturing Plants. These memoranda are available in the
docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0619) and include
a redline version of the regulation for the NESHAP and new proposed
regulatory language for the new NSPS subpart. Following signature by
the EPA Administrator, the EPA will also post a copy of the memorandum
for the area source NESHAP and the attachments to <a href="https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution//">https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution//</a>lead-acid-battery-manufacturing-area-
sources-national-emission. Regarding the NSPS, a copy of the memorandum
and the attachments for the proposed regulatory language for the new
subpart KKa will be posted to <a href="https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/lead-acid-battery-manufacturing-new-source-performance-standards">https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/lead-acid-battery-manufacturing-new-source-performance-standards</a>.

II. Background

A. What is the statutory authority for this action?

1. NSPS Authority
The EPA's authority for this rule is CAA section 111, which governs
the establishment of standards of performance for stationary sources.
Section 111 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

[[Page 10138]]

that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or
welfare. 42 U.S.C. 7411(b)(1)(A). The EPA must then issue performance
standards for new (and modified or reconstructed) sources in each
source category. 42 U.S.C. 7411(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. 42 U.S.C. 7411(b).
The CAA section 111(b)(1)(B) (42 U.S.C. 7411(b)(1)(B)) requires the
EPA to ``at least every 8 years review and, if appropriate, revise''
new source performance standards. The CAA section 111(a)(1) (U.S.C.
7411(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 non-air quality health and
environmental impact and energy requirements) the Administrator
determines has been adequately demonstrated.'' 42 U.S.C. 7411(a)(1).
This definition 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(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 111(a), proposed
standards of performance apply to facilities that begin construction,
reconstruction, or modification after the date of publication of such
proposed standards in the Federal Register.
2. NESHAP Authority
The statutory authority for this 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 standards that apply
to area sources.\1\ This action constitutes 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 residual risk
review requirement of CAA section 112(f)(2) does not apply. No such
exemption exists for the CAA section 112(d)(6) technology review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Several additional CAA sections are relevant to this action as they
specifically address regulation of hazardous air pollutant (HAP)
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 for each area source
category. Consistent with the legislative history, we can consider
costs and economic impacts in determining what constitutes GACT.

B. What is this source category and how do the current rules regulate
its emissions?

Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing includes any facility engaged in
producing lead acid batteries. Pursuant to the CAA 111 authority
described above, performance standards were set in 40 CFR part 60,
subpart KK for the Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing source category on
April 16, 1982 (47 FR 16564). Many years later, pursuant to the CAA 112
authority described above, GACT standards were set for the Lead Acid
Battery Manufacturing source category on July 16, 2007 (72 FR 135). As
noted above, this proposed action presents the required CAA 112(d)(6)
technology review for that source category.
Under 40 CFR 60 subpart KK a lead acid battery manufacturing plant
is defined as any plant that produces a storage battery using lead and
lead compounds for the plates and sulfuric acid for the electrolyte.
While 40 CFR 63 subpart PPPPPP defines a lead acid battery
manufacturing plant in the same manner as 40 CFR 60 subpart KK, the
source category under section 112 includes, but is not limited to, lead
oxide production, grid casting, paste mixing, and three-process
operation (battery assembly).
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 the
stamping or casting of Pb into grids. 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

[[Page 10139]]

performed in one operation termed the ``three process operation.''
There are 40 Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing facilities in the
United States located across 18 states and owned by 19 different
entities. There is a significant size range across the parent
companies: From about 20 to 150,000 employees, and annual revenues from
about $4 million to $47 billion. Eight parent companies, owning ten LAB
facilities, are small businesses with revenues from $4 million to $147
million. In addition, a small entity owns two lead oxide manufacturing
facilities that will become subject to the proposed NESHAP under our
proposed revision to the applicability provisions.
Based on our review, we conclude that all 40 sources are currently
subject to the NSPS for lead acid battery manufacturing plants in 40
CFR part 60, subpart KK. Subpart KK applies to all lead acid battery
manufacturing plants constructed, reconstructed, or modified since 1982
if they produce or have the design capacity to produce in one day
batteries containing an amount of Pb equal to or greater than 5.9
megagrams (6.5 tons). Based on available information, the production
capacities for all 40 existing facilities are above this threshold. The
current NSPS (``NSPS KK'') contains emissions limits for Pb and opacity
limits from each of the specific lead acid battery manufacturing
processes, including grid casting, lead oxide manufacturing, paste
mixing, and three-process operation. It also includes Pb emissions
limits and opacity limits for lead reclamation and other lead-emitting
processes. As for the NESHAP, in 2007, the EPA promulgated GACT
standards for the Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing area source category
under 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPPPP. The GACT standards include the
same emissions and opacity limits as those in the Lead Acid Battery
Manufacturing NSPS KK as well as some additional monitoring
requirements that were not included in the NSPS KK. The NESHAP applies
to all lead acid battery manufacturing facilities that are area sources
regardless of production capacity. The EPA estimates that one of the 40
lead acid battery manufacturing facilities in the U.S. that is subject
to the NSPS KK is a major source as defined under CAA section 112, and
is therefore not subject to the area source GACT standards.\2\ In
addition to these 40 facilities, we estimate that there are six
facilities that have one or more processes involved in the production
of lead acid batteries, but they do not make the final battery product.
One parent company is a small entity owning two facilities. These six
facilities are not currently subject to either the NSPS KK or the area
source NESHAP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ East Penn Manufacturing, located in Pennsylvania.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. What data collection activities were conducted to support this
action?

During our reviews of the current NSPS (40 CFR part 60, subpart KK)
and NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPPPP) and the development of the
proposed new NSPS subpart (``NSPS KKa'') (i.e., 40 CFR part 60, subpart
KKa) and proposed amendments to the NESHAP, the EPA used emissions and
supporting data from the 2017 National Emissions Inventory (NEI) and
Toxics Release Inventory (TRI).
A variety of sources were used to compile a list of facilities
subject to subpart KK and subpart PPPPPP. The list was based on
information downloaded from the EPA's Enforcement and Compliance
History Online (ECHO) database and the EPA's Emissions Inventory System
(EIS) database. The ECHO system contains compliance and permit data for
stationary sources regulated by the EPA. The ECHO database was queried
by Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) and NAICS code as well as
by subpart. The NEI data from 2017 were also queried through the EIS
database. The industry association, Battery Council International
(BCI), reviewed the draft facility list and provided updates where
necessary.

D. What other relevant background information and data are available?

In addition to the NEI, TRI, ECHO, and EIS databases, the EPA
reviewed the additional information sources listed below to determine
whether there have been developments in practices, processes, or
control technologies by lead acid battery manufacturing sources. These
include the following:
<bullet> Air permit limits and selected compliance options from
permits that were available online. A number of states did not have
permits available online or only had some permits available online.
Those permits were obtained through working with the EPA Regional
Offices or communicating with states. Through these efforts, we
obtained and reviewed state permits for 37 of the 40 plants currently
subject to the rules to inform the technology review and BSER review
and to obtain other relevant information about the source category such
as monitoring approaches applied. We also obtained and reviewed six
permits for the six additional facilities that, under the proposed
revisions to the NESHAP's applicability provisions, would become
subject to the NESHAP.
<bullet> Information provided by state agencies. This included such
data as emissions tests, inspection reports, and emissions reports.
<bullet> Communication with the industry association representing
the industry in the affected NAICS category and their members.
<bullet> Search of the Reasonably Available Control Technology
(RACT)/Best Available Control Technology (BACT)/Lowest Achievable
Emission Rate (LAER) Clearinghouse (RBLC).
<bullet> A 1989 draft review 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.

III. Analytical Procedures and Decision-Making

A. How does the EPA perform the NSPS review?

In reviewing an NSPS, the EPA reevaluates the BSER factors
considering any advances in technologies, changes in cost, and other
factors. The EPA evaluates whether available information from the
implementation and enforcement of current requirements indicate that
emission limitations and percent reductions beyond those required by
the standards are achieved in practice. In reviewing an NSPS the
following is considered:
<bullet> Expected growth for the source category, including how
many new facilities, reconstructions, and modifications may trigger
NSPS in the next 8 years.
<bullet> Advances in control technologies, process operations,
design or efficiency improvements, or other factors that would lead to
selection of a more stringent BSER. This includes an analysis of costs
(capital and annual costs) and emission reductions (cost effectiveness)
expected from such advances as well as any non-air quality health and
environmental impact and energy requirements associated with those
advances.
In addition to reviewing the BSER that were considered at the time
NSPS subpart KK was developed, we reviewed additional data sources
developed since NSPS subpart KK was promulgated in 1982. We also
reviewed the NSPS KK and the available data to determine if any
requirements associated with the current standards need to be updated
to ensure compliance. See sections II.C and II.D of this preamble for
information

[[Page 10140]]

on the specific data sources that were reviewed as part of this action.

B. How does the EPA perform the technology review?

For the NESHAP area source GACT standard, our technology review
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'':
<bullet> Any add-on control technology or other equipment that was
not identified and considered during development of the original GACT
standards;
<bullet> 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;
<bullet> Any work practice or operational procedure that was not
identified or considered during development of the original GACT
standards;
<bullet> 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
<bullet> 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. See sections
II.C and II.D of this preamble for information on the specific data
sources that were reviewed as part of the technology review.

IV. Analytical Results and Proposed Rule Summary and Rationale

A. Results of Ambient Air Monitoring Data and Model Screening Analyses

Since the primary HAP emitted from this source category is Pb, also
a criteria pollutant, and because of significant concerns regarding the
potential for Pb emissions from various sources to pose impacts to
public health, including in environmental justice impacted communities,
the EPA decided to conduct an analysis of available ambient air
monitoring data near lead acid battery facilities as well as a
screening analysis using dispersion modeling to assess the potential
for impacts due to emissions from lead acid battery facilities. The
results of these analyses are presented below and in more detail in the
memoranda titled Emissions and Ambient Monitoring Data Used for the
Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Rule Reviews and Assessment of
Potential Health Impacts of Lead Emissions in Support of the 2022 Lead
Acid Battery Manufacturing Technology Review of Area Sources Proposed
Rule, which are available in the docket for this proposed rule. These
modeling results, along with the available monitoring data, indicate
that the area sources are not likely to pose significant risks or
impacts to human health if they are complying with the NESHAP.
1. Ambient Air Monitoring Analysis
Ten lead acid battery facilities have Pb ambient air monitors at or
near the facility. The list of facilities and details on the data
analysis can be found in the memorandum Emissions and Ambient
Monitoring Data Used for the Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Rule
Reviews. Nine of the ten facilities have had Pb levels well below the
Pb National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS), which is 0.15 [mu]g/
m\3\ (based on a 3-month rolling average), at all times in the past 3
years (2018-2020). One facility in Kentucky had a NAAQS exceedance
(where 3-month rolling average of monitored Pb levels exceeded 0.15
[mu]g/m\3\) in 2018 due to a baghouse malfunction. This malfunction was
due to failure to operate and maintain the control equipment in a
manner consistent with good air pollution control practices, and the
malfunction was dealt with through an agreed order between the Energy
and Environment Cabinet of Kentucky and the facility. The order is
available in the docket for this proposed rule. The issue was fixed in
2018, and the ambient air Pb levels at the Kentucky facility were well
below the NAAQS in 2019 and 2020.
2. Dispersion Modeling Screening Analysis
The EPA conducted a screening analysis using the American
Meteorological Society/Environmental Protection Agency Regulatory Model
(AERMOD) dispersion model for 17 lead acid battery facilities. This
subset of facilities was chosen because they had an ambient monitor
nearby (7 facilities; including 6 area source and one major source) or
their total estimated Pb emissions were greater than 0.05 tons per year
(tpy) (10 additional facilities). Results from this screening prompted
more refined modeling of the seven facilities with monitors nearby. In
this refined modeling, other lead-emitting sources located within 10 km
of one of the monitors were included. The modeled annual concentrations
of Pb were compared to monitored annual concentrations. Two adjustment
factors were applied to the modeled annual concentrations: One to
convert the annual concentrations to a 3-month rolling average, which
is the form of the NAAQS, and the second to adjust the modeled result
based on the ambient concentrations monitored at each site. The
adjusted maximum modeled concentrations were well below the NAAQS of
0.15 [mu]g/m\3\ for all facilities modeled. More details on the
modeling of the area sources are presented in Assessment of Potential
Health Impacts of Lead Emissions in Support of the 2022 Lead Acid
Battery Manufacturing Technology Review of Area Sources Proposed Rule,
which is available in the docket. Based on these analyses, because all
results were below the lead NAAQS, we conclude that the area sources
are not likely to pose significant risks or impacts to human health if
they are complying with the NESHAP. The one major source, while not
subject to the area source NESHAP, is a well-controlled facility with
emission limits equal to or more stringent than the emission limits in
the NESHAP pursuant to state requirements. We intend to address this
major source facility (and any other potential future major sources) in
a separate future action.

B. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our NSPS
review, and what is the rationale for those decisions?

This action presents the EPA's review of the requirements of 40 CFR
part 60, subpart KK pursuant CAA 111(b)(1)(B). As described in section
III.A of this preamble, the statutory review of the NSPS KK for lead
acid battery manufacturing plants focused on

[[Page 10141]]

whether there are any emission reduction techniques that are used in
practice that achieve greater emission reductions than those currently
required by the NSPS KK for lead acid battery manufacturing and whether
any of these developments in practices have become the ``best system of
emissions reduction.'' Based on this review, we have determined that
fabric filters with at least 99 percent control efficiency represent
the updated BSER for grid casting and lead reclamation operations, and
fabric filters with secondary filters (such as a high efficiency
particulate air (HEPA) filter) are the updated BSER for paste mixing
operations at large facilities with capacity to process greater than or
equal to 150 tons per day (tpd) of Pb (referred to as large facilities
for the remainder of this preamble). As such, we are proposing revised
Pb emission limits to reflect the updated BSER for grid casting, lead
reclamation, and paste mixing. The proposed updated standards would
limit Pb from grid casting operations to 0.04 milligrams Pb per dry
standard cubic meter (0.04 mg/dscm) (0.0000175 grains per dry standard
cubic foot (gr/dscf)) and from lead reclamation facilities to 0.45 mg/
dscm (0.000197 gr/dscf). The proposed updated standards would limit Pb
to 0.1 milligrams Pb per dry standard cubic meter (0.1 mg/dscm,
equivalent to 0.0000437 gr/dscf) for paste mixing operations at large
facilities. The analyses and rationale for these proposed rule changes
are explained below.
For facilities with capacity to process less than 150 tpd of Pb
(referred to as small facilities for the remainder of this preamble),
the EPA is proposing to retain the standard of 1 mg/dscm for paste
mixing facilities and to retain the opacity limits for these operations
(0 percent for grid casting and paste mixing and 5 percent for lead
reclamation). The EPA is also proposing to retain the Pb emission
limits and opacity limits for three-process operations, other lead-
emitting operations, and lead oxide manufacturing. The analyses and
rationale for proposing to retain the current standards for these
operations are also explained below.
With regard to monitoring, testing, and other compliance assurance
measures, we have identified proposed improvements to requirements
associated with the current standards that will help ensure compliance,
including: Bag leak detection system requirements for fabric filters at
large facilities; increased inspections of fabric filters at all
facilities without secondary filters to ensure proper performance;
performance testing for compliance once every 5 years at all facilities
(with allowances for representative stacks as determined by the
delegated authority); and work practices to minimize fugitive dust
emissions.
The results and proposed decisions based on the analyses performed
pursuant to CAA section 111(b) are presented in more detail below.
Pursuant to CAA section 111(a), the proposed standards included in this
action apply to facilities that begin construction, reconstruction, or
modification after February 23, 2022.
a. Revised Pb Emission Limit for Grid Casting Operations and Lead
Reclamation
New source performance standards were first proposed in 40 CFR part
60, subpart KK for the Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing source category
on January 14, 1980 (45 FR 2790). The EPA proposed lead emission limits
based on fabric filters with 99 percent efficiency for grid casting and
lead reclamation operations. The EPA documented its rationale for these
proposed lead emission limits in the Lead Acid Battery Manufacture-
Background Information for Proposed Standards (EPA-450/3-79-028a,
November 1979). In public comments on the 1980 proposed rule,
stakeholders had multiple concerns with the selection of fabric
filtration as the best system of emission reduction for these
operations. Commenters stated that these facilities were normally
controlled by impingement scrubbers (at the time of the 1980 proposal).
They further pointed out that the only grid casting facility that was
controlled by a fabric filtration system at that time was plagued by
fires and asserted that spark arrestors (a safety device used to
prevent ignition of flammable emissions) would not solve the problem.
Apart from the problem of fires, commenters contended that contaminants
present in the exhaust gases from grid casting and lead reclamation
would cause frequent bag blinding. In light of these issues, in 1982
the EPA promulgated final standards in NSPS subpart KK for grid casting
and lead reclamation based on impingement scrubbers with 90 percent
efficiency, instead of fabric filters.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ See the final NSPS published on April 16, 1982 (47 FR 16564)
and the Lead-Acid Battery Manufacture-Background Information for
Promulgated Standards, November 1980, EPA-450/3-79-028b.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As discussed in the memorandum Technology Review and NSPS Review
for Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing (hereafter referred to as
``Technology Review Memorandum''), since the promulgation of the 1982
NSPS KK, it has become feasible and common for lead acid battery
manufacturing plants to control Pb emissions from the grid casting and
lead reclamation processes with fabric filters without the issues
(e.g., fires and bag blinding) identified in the 1982 rulemaking. For
example, during the current technology and BSER reviews, we discovered
that most facilities (at least 30 of the 40 facilities currently
subject to subpart KK) are now using fabric filters (with estimated
efficiency of at least 99 percent), and sometimes combined with other
controls (HEPA filters or scrubber) to control emissions from grid
casting. Furthermore, we did not identify any facilities using only a
wet scrubber. Therefore, we conclude that fabric filters are clearly
feasible and well demonstrated as an appropriate control technology for
grid casting operations. Also, based on our research, no facilities
currently do lead reclamation. However, based on our review of 37
permits, we found two permits that mention having lead reclamation
equipment, and those two lead reclamation processes are controlled with
fabric filters.
With a reduction efficiency of 99 percent, compared to the 90
percent reduction efficiency for the emissions control technology
available when the 1982 NSPS KK was developed, fabric filters represent
an improvement in emissions reduction technology capable of reducing Pb
emissions further than that of the current emission limits based on
scrubbers.
To assess whether fabric filters are the best system of emission
reduction for controlling Pb emissions from grid casting and lead
reclamation processes, we examined the costs and emission reductions
from installing and operating fabric filters on large and small
facilities. In the 1989 draft review of the NSPS KK, EPA determined
that a large facility was one that could produce in any one day an
amount of lead equal to 150 tons, a medium facility could produce lead
equal to 100 tons in any one day, and a small facility was one with the
capacity to produce in any one day lead equal to 20 tons. Based on
available data for existing facilities in this action, we determined
that the threshold of 150 tons of lead per day is still an appropriate
cut-off for large facilities. However, based on available information
we determined that a broader category was appropriate to define all
other facilities (with less than 150 tons per day capacity), which we
refer to collectively as ``small'' facilities in this action.
To calculate costs, emission reductions, and cost effectiveness for
grid casting and lead reclamation, we

[[Page 10142]]

used the estimated emissions from a 1989 EPA preliminary draft review
of the NSPS KK as well as cost of controls from that 1989 document
(scaled up to 2020 dollars). Further information regarding cost
estimates and emission estimates are provided in the memoranda titled:
Estimated Cost Impacts of Best System of Emission Reduction Review of
Subpart KK and Subpart PPPPPP Technology Review and Emissions and
Ambient Monitoring Data Used for the Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing
Rule Reviews, which are available in the docket for this proposed rule.
We estimated the costs of (1) a new grid casting and lead reclamation
facility using fabric filters with 99 percent efficiency and (2) a
theoretical ``baseline'' facility using a scrubber with 90 percent
efficiency, consistent with the current standards in the NSPS subpart
KK.\4\ The baseline facility and their estimated emissions were
developed using information from the 1989 study including Pb emissions
estimates for the grid casting and lead reclamation process in the 1989
study that are representative of the level of emissions that would be
emitted by a facility complying with the current NSPS KK standard
(based on the application of an impingent wet scrubber at 90 percent
reduction efficiency). A small and large baseline facility were then
compared to a new model small and large facility with the application
of a fabric filter at 99 percent reduction efficiency. The results of
the cost and emissions analysis are discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ The 1989 draft review document (titled Review of New Source
Performance Standards for Lead-Acid Battery Manufacture, Preliminary
Draft, October 1989) is available in the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Grid Casting Facility. We estimate Pb emissions for a small and
large uncontrolled grid casting facility are 0.5 tpy and 1.3 tpy,
respectively. We estimate Pb emissions for a small and large baseline
grid casting facility which is complying with the current NSPS KK
emission limit based on a wet scrubber with 90 percent efficiency are
0.05 tpy and 0.13 tpy, respectively. We estimate Pb emissions for a
small and large model facility that would comply with an emission limit
based on the application of a fabric filter with 99 percent efficiency
are 0.005 tpy and 0.013 tpy, respectively.
Capital costs for the baseline facility to purchase and install a
wet scrubber are estimated to be $114,000 for a small facility, and
$316,000 for a large facility. Annualized costs for the baseline
facility are estimated to be $56,000 for a small facility and $115,000
for a large facility.
Capital costs for the model facility to purchase and install a
fabric filter with 99 percent efficiency are estimated to be $167,000
for a small facility and $402,000 for a large facility. Annualized
costs for the model facility are estimated to be $79,600 for a small
facility and $155,000 for a large facility.
The total reductions in Pb emissions with a fabric filter compared
to uncontrolled emissions are estimated to be 0.45 tpy for a small
facility and 1.2 tpy for a large facility. The incremental reductions
in Pb emissions with a fabric filter compared to the current NSPS KK
baseline controls (i.e., impingent scrubber) are estimated to be 0.045
tpy (i.e., 0.05 tpy-0.005 tpy = 0.045 tpy) for a small facility and
incremental cost effectiveness for a small grid casting facility is
$524,000 per ton of Pb reduced. Incremental reductions in Pb emissions
are estimated to be 0.12 tpy for a large facility with incremental cost
effectiveness of $333,000 per ton of Pb. Detailed cost information and
analyses for both sizes of facilities are shown in the Technology
Review Memorandum available in the docket.
The results of the cost and emissions analyses indicate that the
estimated cost effectiveness for the application of fabric filter to
control Pb emissions are within the range of what the EPA has
considered in other rulemakings to be a cost-effective level of control
for Pb emissions relative to the baseline plant. For example, in the
2011 and 2012 Secondary Lead Smelting RTR proposed and final rules, the
EPA accepted a cost effectiveness up to about $1.3M/ton for metal HAP
(mainly Pb, based on 2009 dollars).\5\ We also evaluated the addition
of secondary HEPA filters along with fabric filters as a possible BSER,
as described in the Technology Review Memorandum. However, we
determined such additional controls are not cost effective for grid
casting operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ See Secondary Lead RTR Proposed Rule, 76 FR 29032, May 19,
2011, and the Final rule, 77 FR 556, January 5, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Given that fabric filters are a well-demonstrated and feasible
control technology for grid casting (as described above) and given that
this technology is cost effective, based on this review, we are
proposing to determine that fabric filters with at least 99 percent
control efficiency represent the new BSER for grid casting.
Furthermore, we have not identified any non-air environmental impacts
and energy requirements. Therefore, we are proposing to revise the Pb
emissions limit for grid casting facilities to reflect the degree of
emission limitation achievable through the application of the proposed
BSER. The EPA is proposing in a new NSPS subpart (subpart KKa) a Pb
emission limit of 0.04 mg/dscm that will apply to grid casting
operations that commence construction, reconstruction, or modification
after February 23, 2022.
Lead Reclamation Facility. We estimate Pb emissions for three types
of facilities, as follows: (1) For a small and large uncontrolled lead
reclamation facility are 0.4 tpy and 1.1 tpy, respectively; (2) for a
small and large baseline lead reclamation facility (i.e., based on the
1982 NSPS KK and application of an impingent wet scrubber with 90
percent control efficiency, as described above) are 0.04 tpy and 0.11
tpy, respectively; and (3) for a small and large model lead reclamation
facility (based on application of a fabric filter with 99 percent
control efficiency) are 0.004 tpy, and 0.011 tpy, respectively.
Capital costs for baseline facilities to purchase and install a wet
scrubber are estimated to be $74,000 for a small and large lead
reclamation facility based on our assumption that all plant sizes have
the same size reclamation facility at the time reclamation occurs at
such facilities (as explained above, we have not identified any
facilities currently conducting lead reclamation). Annualized costs for
the baseline facilities are estimated to be $27,500 for a small
facility and $39,700 for a large facility.
Capital costs for the model facility to purchase and install a
baghouse with 99 percent efficiency are estimated to be $91,000 for a
small and large facility. Annual costs for the model facility are
estimated to be $36,000 for a small facility and $52,700 for a large
facility.
The cost effectiveness of application of a fabric filter compared
to uncontrolled emissions for a small lead reclamation facility is
$90,900 per ton of Pb reduced and for a large facility is $48,000 per
ton of Pb. The incremental reductions in emissions are 0.036 tpy year
for a small reclamation operation and 0.1 tpy for a large unit. The
estimated incremental cost effectiveness of a fabric filter compared to
NSPS KK baseline (application of a scrubber) for a small lead
reclamation facility is $236,000 per ton of Pb reduced and for a large
facility is $130,000 per ton of Pb. Detailed cost information for both
facility size categories is shown in the Technology Review Memorandum.
Based on our research, we estimate that no facilities currently do
lead reclamation. However, based on our review of 37 permits, we found
two

[[Page 10143]]

permits that mention having lead reclamation equipment, and those two
reclamation processes are controlled with fabric filters. We also
evaluated the addition of secondary HEPA filters along with fabric
filters as a possible BSER, as described in the Technology Review
Memorandum. However, we determined such additional controls are not
cost effective for lead reclamation activities.
Overall, based on our review, we conclude that it is technically
feasible for facilities to control Pb emissions from lead reclamation
with a fabric filter. Regarding costs, results of the cost analyses
indicate that the cost effectiveness estimated are within the range of
what the EPA has considered to be a cost-effective level of control for
Pb emissions relative to the baseline model plant, as described above
under the grid casting analysis section. Therefore, we are proposing to
determine that fabric filters with at least 99 percent control
efficiency represent the new BSER for lead reclamation facilities and
we are proposing to revise the Pb emissions limit for lead reclamation
facilities to reflect the degree of emission limitation achievable
through the application of the proposed BSER. The EPA is proposing in a
new NSPS subpart (subpart KKa) a revised Pb emissions limit of 0.45 mg/
dscm that will apply to lead reclamation operations that commence
construction, reconstruction, or modification after February 23, 2022.
b. Revised Pb Emission Limit for Paste Mixing Facilities
In the 1982 NSPS KK final rule April 16, 1982 (47 FR 16564), the
EPA determined BSER for paste mixing was based on application of a
fabric filter control system. The use of HEPA filters as a potential
secondary control was not mentioned in either the 1980 proposed rule
January 14, 1980 (45 FR 2790) or 1982 final rule April 16, 1982 (47 FR
16564) Federal Register notices.
However, since that time, as discussed in the Technology Review
Memorandum, HEPA filters have become readily available. A notable
number of facilities in the lead acid battery manufacturing source
category now use HEPA filters to control emissions from some processes
as a secondary control device following a fabric filter. HEPA filters
are capable of removing at least 99.97 percent of particles with a size
of 0.3 microns ([micro]m). The diameter specification of 0.3 [micro]m
responds to the worst case--the most penetrating particle size.
Particles that are larger or smaller are trapped with even higher
efficiency. With a secondary HEPA filter's capability to achieve
additional reduction efficiency of at least 99.97 percent following the
fabric filters compared to the 99 percent reduction efficiencies of the
primary fabric filter, the BSER emissions control technology available
when the NSPS KK was developed (i.e., fabric filters) combined with a
secondary HEPA filter represents an improvement in emissions reduction
technology. The EPA evaluated and considered this improvement in
emissions reduction technology at grid casting, paste mixing, three-
process operations, lead oxide manufacturing, and lead reclamation
facilities. As described below, adding secondary HEPA filters to a
paste mixing facility's current control device were found to be cost
effective at large facilities while this technology was not found to be
cost effective for the other processes or facilities considered. The
results are discussed below and in more detail in the Technology Review
Memorandum.
Paste Mixing Facility. Based on our review, paste mixing operations
have the highest potential for Pb emissions compared to all other
processes at lead acid battery manufacturing facilities. We identified
16 facilities (40 percent of the total) that currently have secondary
filters to achieve much higher control efficiency on their paste mixing
operations. This technology has been clearly demonstrated to be
feasible for a number of facilities.
Emissions for a small and large baseline paste mixing facility
(based on application of a fabric filter) are estimated to be 0.026 tpy
and 0.10 tpy, respectively. Emissions for a small and large model
facility with a fabric filter plus a secondary HEPA filter are
estimated to be 8E-06 tpy, and 3E-05 tpy, respectively. With reduction
efficiency of 99.97 percent, we estimate Pb emissions reductions from
baseline facility compared to model facility with secondary HEPA filter
would be 0.026 and 0.1 tpy for small and large facilities,
respectively.
Capital costs for a new small facility to add secondary HEPA
filters on their paste mixing process are estimated to be $57,000 and
for a new large facility $135,000. Annualized costs are estimated to be
$43,700 for a new small facility and $88,800 for a new large facility.
We note that the EPA 1989 preliminary draft NSPS KK review document
(cited above), indicated that facilities could achieve significant cost
savings by recirculating air back into the plant and from recycling
baghouse dust which would reduce annual cost estimates. However, based
on our review of available information, we do not have reason to
believe that these savings would occur today due to OSHA and RCRA
requirements and potentially other factors such as various state
requirements. This topic is discussed in more detail in the Technology
Review Memorandum cited above. We solicit comment regarding whether or
not cost savings would occur with the installation and operation of
secondary HEPA filters and if so, how much savings would actually
occur.
Given the estimated annual costs and estimated reductions described
above, the incremental cost effectiveness of a fabric filter plus a
secondary HEPA filter for a new small facility is estimated to be
$1,680,000 per ton of Pb reduced and for a new large facility is
$888,000 per ton of Pb reduced (in 2020 dollars) as compared to the
baseline paste mixing facilities (based on application of a fabric
filter). Detailed cost information for both facility size categories
are provided in the Technology Review Memorandum.
The results of the cost and emission analyses indicate that the
estimated cost effectiveness for new large facilities is within the
range of what the EPA has considered to be a cost-effective level of
control for Pb emissions. Furthermore, as mentioned above, we
identified 16 facilities that currently apply this technology, which
indicates the technology is clearly feasible. However, the results of
the cost and emission analyses indicate that the estimated cost
effectiveness for small facilities is above the range of what the EPA
has considered to be a cost-effective level of control for Pb
emissions. Further information regarding the cost estimates and
emission estimates are provided in the memoranda titled: Estimated Cost
Impacts of Best System of Emission Reduction Review of Subpart KK and
Subpart PPPPPP Technology Review and Emissions and Ambient Monitoring
Data Used for the Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Rule Reviews, which
are available in the docket for this proposed rule.
Since secondary HEPA filters have been demonstrated and are a
feasible control technology for paste mixing (as described above), and
because the estimated cost effectiveness for large facilities is within
the range of values accepted previously by EPA, the EPA is proposing to
determine that secondary HEPA filters represent the new BSER for paste
mixing at large facilities. Furthermore, we have not identified any
significant non-air environmental impacts and energy requirements.
Therefore, we are proposing to revise the Pb emissions limit for paste
mixing operations at large facilities to reflect

[[Page 10144]]

the degree of emission limitation achievable through the application of
the proposed BSER. The EPA is proposing in a new NSPS subpart (subpart
KKa) standard of performance of 0.1 mg/dscm that will apply to paste
mixing operations at large facilities (i.e., at facilities with
capacity to process in one day an amount equal to or greater than 150
tons of Pb) that commence construction, reconstruction, or modification
after February 23, 2022. We are not proposing any changes to the
emissions limits for paste mixing operations at small facilities
because of the costs and cost effectiveness, and potential economic
impacts to the smaller facilities to add secondary filters if they were
to undergo reconstruction, modification, or build a new small facility.
Therefore, we are proposing to retain the current standard of 1.00 mg/
dscm for paste mixing operations at small facilities that commence
construction, reconstruction, or modification after February 23, 2022,
as the analysis showed that the application of a fabric filter at 99
percent continues to be the BSER for these facilities.
c. Review of Other Process Units at Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing
Facilities
In addition to paste mixing, we also evaluated potential updates to
the BSER and the emissions limits for the three-process operations and
lead oxide manufacturing but did not identify any cost-effective
options. Therefore, we are proposing to retain in the new NSPS subpart
(subpart KKa) the emissions limits for these two emissions sources
(i.e., 1.00 mg/dscm for three-process operations and 5.0 mg/kg feed for
lead oxide manufacturing) for facilities that commence construction,
reconstruction, or modification after February 23, 2022. The data and
analyses regarding these operations are provided in the Technology
Review Memorandum, which is available in the docket.
d. Fabric Filter and Scrubber Monitoring, Reporting, and Recordkeeping
Requirements That Are Consistent With the Requirements in 40 CFR Part
63, Subpart PPPPPP
As mentioned above, we have identified improvements in compliance
requirements related to the current performance standards for lead acid
battery manufacturing facilities. In addition to proposing the revised
performance standards discussed above, we are proposing minor changes
to be included in the new NSPS subpart KKa to update the applicable
requirements and enhance compliance and enforcement. A standard
requirement for monitoring scrubber systems is to measure liquid flow
rate across the system. The NSPS KK currently only requires monitoring
and recording pressure drop across the scrubber system every 15
minutes. We propose to add an additional requirement to monitor and
record liquid flow rate across each scrubbing system at least once
every 15 minutes. We expect that there would be no costs associated
with this requirement for new sources because this is a standard
monitoring equipment in scrubbing systems. Many of the lead acid
battery manufacturing facilities use fabric filters for controls, but
the current NSPS subpart KK does not include compliance requirements
for these devices. We propose to add monitoring, reporting, and
recordkeeping requirements associated with the use of fabric filters to
the new NSPS subpart KKa. These proposed requirements are consistent
with the monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements for lead
acid battery manufacturing sources that use fabric filters to comply
with the current area source GACT requirements in 40 CFR part 63,
subpart PPPPPP along with three proposed amendments for subpart PPPPPP
in this action, as follows: Increased frequency of fabric filter
inspections from semi-annually to monthly for fabric filters without
secondary filters (e.g., HEPA filters); replacement bags on site; and
addition of bag leak detection systems for large facilities that do not
have secondary filters, as described in more detail below. The proposed
requirements, for any emissions point controlled by a fabric filter,
include the following:
<bullet> You must perform and record monthly inspections and
maintenance to ensure proper performance of each fabric filter unless
you have a secondary filter (see below). This includes inspection of
structural and filter integrity.
<bullet> You must either install, maintain, and operate a pressure
drop monitoring device to measure the differential pressure drop across
the fabric filter at all times when the process is operating, and
record pressure drop at least once per day or conduct a visible
emissions observation at least once per day. If pressure drop is
outside the normal range or visible emissions (VE) are detected, you
must record the incident, and take and record immediate corrective
action. In the case where pressure drop is outside the normal range,
you must also submit a monitoring system performance report; and in the
case of detected VEs, you must also conduct an opacity measurement
(Method 9), and if it exceeds the applicable opacity standard then you
must also submit an excess emissions report.
<bullet> For systems with fabric filters equipped with a secondary
filter, you may monitor (pressure drop or visible emissions) less
frequently (weekly), and you may perform and record inspections and
maintenance as directed by the manufacturer, but no less frequently
than semi-annually to ensure proper performance of each fabric filter.
<bullet> To ensure timely repair, facilities must keep replacement
filters on site in case filters are damaged.
e. Bag Leak Detection Systems for Large Facilities
Through the review of regulations developed since the promulgation
of the lead acid battery manufacturing NSPS KK, it was found that the
NESHAP for Primary Lead Processing (40 CFR part 63, subpart TTT) and
Secondary Lead Smelters (40 CFR part 63, subpart X) require fabric
filters (i.e., baghouses) to have bag leak detection systems at new and
existing sources, unless a secondary HEPA filter is used. These systems
typically include an instrument that is capable of monitoring
particulate matter loadings in the exhaust of a baghouse in order to
detect bag failures (e.g., tears) and an alarm to alert an operator of
the failure. 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. The current lead acid battery
manufacturing NSPS KK and area source NESHAP do not have bag leak
detection system requirements, but based on the permit review, we
determined that eight plants currently use bag leak detection systems.
Therefore, we consider the use of a bag leak detection system to be a
development in operational procedures that will ensure compliance with
the NSPS KKa by identifying and correcting fabric filter failures
earlier than would be indicated by the daily VE or pressure drop
monitoring.
The capital costs are estimated to be $68,000 and annualized costs
of $14,000 per baghouse. Most existing facilities have several stacks.
Given the typical number of stacks at a large facility (about 12), we
estimate the total capital costs for a new large facility to include
bag leak detection systems would be $802,000 and annual costs to
operate and maintain the system to be $161,000. However, as described
in section IV.B.d above, these facilities will not need to conduct
daily pressure drop readings or VE observations and monthly
inspections; therefore, we expect there

[[Page 10145]]

to be an associated unquantified cost savings and the actual total
annual costs will be somewhat lower than the values shown in this
paragraph.
As discussed in section II.B above, there is a significant size
range across the parent companies: From about 20 to 150,000 employees,
and annual revenues from about $4 million to $47 billion. Nine parent
companies, owning ten LAB facilities and two lead oxide manufacturing
facilities, are small businesses. We assume the large facilities are
likely to be on the higher end of the range with regard to number of
employees and annual revenues and less likely to qualify as a small
business. Since bag leak detection systems are a useful tool to help
ensure compliance and minimize or prevent noncompliant emissions and
given the range of revenues across the companies, we think the costs
are reasonable and feasible for the large facilities. Therefore, the
EPA is proposing that large facilities (i.e., those with equal to or
greater than 150 tpd capacity) must install and operate bag leak
detection systems on units that do not have a secondary filter, such as
a HEPA filter. We are also proposing that these large facilities that
will need to install and operate bag leak detection systems, and any
other facility (i.e., those with less than 150 tpd capacity) in the
source category that uses bag leak detection systems due to state
requirements or other reasons, will not need to conduct daily pressure
drop readings or VE observations and monthly inspections (described in
section IV.B.d above).
With regard to small facilities, as mentioned above, the capital
costs are estimated to be $68,000 and annualized costs of $14,000 per
baghouse. The average area source facility has about 8 baghouses, with
a range of 1 to 33. Given the configurations of existing facilities, we
assume a typical new small facility would have 3-6 baghouses.
Therefore, capital costs could be in the range of $200,000 to $400,000
and annual costs could be in the range of $42,000 to $84,000 for a new
small facility. As discussed in section II.B above, there is a
significant size range across the parent companies: From about 20 to
150,000 employees, and annual revenues from about $4M to $47B. Nine
parent companies, owning ten LAB facilities and two lead oxide
manufacturing facilities, are small businesses.
Given the costs of bag leak detection systems and the range of size
of companies, range of revenues and number of small businesses, the EPA
has determined the costs for bag leak detection systems could be
excessively burdensome for smaller facilities and could impose
significant economic impacts on some of those companies; therefore, we
propose that these facilities will have the monitoring requirements
discussed in section IV.B.d above (i.e., inspections and VE or pressure
drop readings), but not a requirement to install bag leak detection
systems.
f. Performance Testing
The Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing NSPS KK requires that plants
conduct an initial performance test for new, modified, or reconstructed
facilities to establish that the emissions limits for that particular
type of equipment can be met. In addition, performance tests are also
frequently used to establish operating parameters that can be monitored
to show ongoing compliance with the relevant standard(s).
While the current Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing NSPS KK requires
only an initial performance test, our review of permits revealed that
many state and local air agencies require plants to conduct periodic
performance tests. Almost half of all 40 facilities are required to
conduct performance tests on a schedule that varies from annually to
once every 5 years. In addition, the EPA has been adding requirements
to NESHAP when other amendments are being made to the rules to include
performance tests to ensure compliance. For instance, while the
original Asphalt Processing and Roofing Manufacturing NESHAP only
required an initial one-time performance test, in the 2020 RTR final
rule the EPA established that performance tests must be conducted at
least once every 5 years (85 FR 14526) for that source category. The
Iron and Steel Foundries NESHAPs also require testing of once every 5
years. Furthermore, while the original Secondary Lead Smelting NESHAP
that was promulgated in 1995 only required initial performance tests
for total hydrocarbons (THC), the regulation has been revised to now
require annual performance tests for THCs (on the same schedule as
annual testing requirements for Pb) and requires performance tests
every 6 years for dioxin and furans from each source that emits those
pollutants, unless the facility uses continuous emissions monitors. We
consider these more frequent performance testing requirements to be a
development in operational procedures that will help ensure continued
compliance with the Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing NSPS KKa by
identifying emissions sources that are no longer meeting the relevant
standards due to equipment deterioration or other issues.
The EPA is proposing to include in the Lead Acid Battery
Manufacturing NSPS subpart KKa compliance provisions to require owners
or operators of lead acid battery manufacturing affected sources to
conduct performance tests once every 5 years. However, to minimize the
cost impacts of such testing, the EPA is proposing 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 EPA or the delegated
authority. To explain further, in order to obtain approval for
representative testing, we are proposing that facilities must submit a
test plan to the EPA or the delegated authority which includes a
detailed description of why the company thinks a certain stack is
representative of other stacks (including input materials, detailed
process description, and control devices) for review and approval by
EPA or the delegated authority before such testing is performed. We are
also proposing to require that the unit (within a group of stacks
determined to be representative of one another) with the oldest
performance test must be tested first. The order of testing for each
subsequent test within that group of stacks must proceed such that the
unit with the least recent performance test is the next unit to be
tested. Thus, units with multiple, similar stacks will have to rotate
their testing every 5-years, starting with the stack with the least
recent performance test. Along with the test plan, we are also
proposing that facilities must create a testing schedule, consistent
with this proposed approach which indicates when subsequent tests will
be performed, to be reviewed and approved by EPA or the delegated
authority.
We estimate that performance testing for Pb costs about $23,000 to
test one stack and an additional $5,500 to test each additional stack
during the same testing event. Estimated costs for a new facility will
depend on the total number of stacks to be tested. We conclude these
costs are reasonable given the importance of periodic testing to help
ensure continuous compliance with the standards and to ensure the
control devices continue to operate as designed.
g. Work Practices To Minimize Fugitive Dust Emissions
Through the review of permits for lead acid battery manufacturing
facilities, we found that some permits include fugitive dust
minimization programs. In addition, since the development of the Lead
Acid Battery Manufacturing NSPS KK, other rules,

[[Page 10146]]

including the NESHAPs for primary 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 oxide in enclosed spaces or containers, and
other measures. These programs are designed to minimize particulate Pb
that has been deposited to the outdoor surfaces at the facilities from
becoming airborne emissions and to minimize the fugitive dust emissions
from material handling and other processes that occur inside the
buildings or outdoors. Neither the Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing NSPS
KK nor the area source NESHAP have any fugitive dust minimization
requirements to limit Pb emissions from these sources.
We are proposing to include in the NSPS subpart KKa a requirement
for facilities to develop and implement a fugitive dust minimization
plan, which must include certain elements, such as 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 estimate that the cost burden will be mostly labor to develop
and implement the dust plan. Total estimated initial cost for a new
facility to develop a fugitive dust plan is $7,600 and annual costs to
implement the plan are estimated to be $13,000 per facility per year.
We conclude these costs are relatively low and will prevent significant
releases of fugitive dust emissions. Furthermore, we have not
identified any significant non-air environmental impacts and energy
requirements. These measures are therefore considered to be cost
effective.
h. Summary
In summary, the EPA is proposing revised Pb emission limits for
grid casting and lead reclamation (for all facilities), and a revised
limit for paste mixing (for large facilities only), under a new NSPS
subpart (KKa) for LAB facilities that begin construction,
reconstruction, or modification after February 23, 2022. In addition,
the EPA is proposing the following amendments under the new NSPS
subpart KKa (for lead acid battery facilities that begin construction,
reconstruction or modification after February 23, 2022): 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 large
facilities; electronic reporting of performance test results and
semiannual compliance reports; and proposing that the standards will
apply at all times including periods of SSM. As explained above, we are
proposing the revised limits and work practice standards because we
conclude that these proposed standards are cost effective, and we have
not identified any significant non-air environmental impacts and energy
requirements. Furthermore, we are proposing the improved monitoring
requirements for fabric filters and scrubbers (described above) and
periodic testing requirement of once every 5 years because these
measures will help ensure continued compliance and detect problems
early on so that damaged fabric filters can be quickly inspected and
repaired as needed. These proposed standards and other requirements
(for 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKa) would apply to lead acid battery
manufacturing facilities that commence construction, reconstruction, or
modification after February 23, 2022.

C. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our technology
review, and what is the rationale for those decisions?

As described in section III.B of this preamble, the technology
review for the area source NESHAP for lead acid battery manufacturing
focused on the identification and evaluation of potential developments
in practices, processes, and control technologies that have occurred
since the NESHAP was promulgated in 2007. In conducting the technology
review, we reviewed various information sources regarding the emissions
from lead acid battery manufacturing operations and other relevant
information such as control technologies applied, work practices used,
processes, and monitoring approaches. Through searches of these data
sources, several developments in practices, processes, or control
technologies were identified, evaluated and considered. As discussed
below, these include developments and improvements that could affect
the level of one or more of the emissions limits or result in the
addition of work practice standards and/or revised compliance assurance
measures. Based on this review and evaluations, the EPA is proposing
the following amendments to 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPPPP pursuant to
CAA section 112(d):
<bullet> A revised Pb emission limit for grid casting operations
and lead reclamation to reflect developments in technology;
<bullet> A revised Pb emission limit for paste mixing operations at
large facilities to reflect developments in technology;
<bullet> Improved monitoring of emission points controlled by
fabric filters and scrubbers;
<bullet> Bag leak detection systems for large facilities;
<bullet> Performance testing requirements; and
<bullet> Work practices to minimize fugitive dust emissions.
The data, analyses, results, and proposed decisions for each of
these proposed amendments pursuant to CAA section 112(d) are presented
below.
a. Revised Lead Emission Limits for Grid Casting Operations and Lead
Reclamation
The methodology used to analyze the use of fabric filters in the
grid casting and lead reclamation processes for new, reconstructed, and
modified sources is described in section IV.B.a. The data, analyses and
decisions for each of these two processes at existing area source
facilities is discussed in this section below.
Grid Casting Facility. As discussed in section IV.B.a above, the
emission limit promulgated in the 1982 NSPS was based on an impingement
scrubber with 90 percent control efficiency. In the 2007 NESHAP final
rule, the EPA adopted that same limit (based on impingent scrubbers) as
the limit for grid casting in the NESHAP. Based on our review of
facility permits, the majority of existing area source facilities (at
least 29 of the 39 facilities subject to the NESHAP) are now using
fabric filters with at least 99 percent control efficiency for their
grid casting emissions. 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. Therefore, we conclude that fabric filters are clearly
feasible and well demonstrated as an appropriate control technology for
grid casting operations. Based on these findings, the EPA is proposing
a revised Pb emission limit in the NESHAP for new and existing grid
casting facilities of 0.04 mg/dscm (0.0000175 gr/dscf) based on the use
of fabric filters with at least 99 percent control efficiency. We
estimate costs would be minimal to none for all existing area source
facilities to comply with the new grid casting emission limit.
Regarding new sources, as described in more detail in section IV.B.a,
we conclude that fabric filters are a well-demonstrated and

[[Page 10147]]

feasible control technology for grid casting and that this technology
is cost effective for new, reconstructed, and modified sources.
Lead Reclamation Facility. We estimate that there are no existing
facilities currently conducting lead reclamation activities as defined
in the rule. However, there is some uncertainty in this conclusion
because of the following data gaps: We did not have access to three
facility permits; and based on our review of 37 air permits, two
permits mentioned lead reclamation equipment which are controlled by
fabric filters. However, it is not clear if the facilities are actively
conducting lead reclamation as it is defined in the rule. As discussed
in more detail in section IV.D.c. many facilities send their Pb scrap
to a secondary lead smelter or remelt their on-site scraps and use the
molten Pb directly in a process instead of reforming it into an ingot
for later use.
Nevertheless, based on our analysis of existing sources (presented
above) and the analysis for new sources (presented in section IV.B.a),
the EPA is proposing a revised Pb emission limit of 0.45 mg/dscm
(0.000197 gr/dscf) for new and existing area source facilities, if they
conduct lead reclamation, based on the use of fabric filters with 99
percent control efficiency. We estimate no cost impacts to existing
sources due to this proposed revised limit because we did not identify
any facilities currently conducting lead reclamation, and the two
facilities which mention the presence of reclamation equipment in their
permits already have fabric filters as the control technology for those
units. Regarding new sources, as described in section IV.B.a, we
conclude that it is technically feasible and cost effective for new,
reconstructed, and modified facilities to control Pb emissions from
lead reclamation with a fabric filter.
b. Revised Pb Emission Limit for Paste Mixing Facilities
The EPA is proposing a revised Pb emission limit of 0.1 mg/dscm
(0.0000437 gr/dscf) for paste mixing facilities at new and existing
large facilities. However, the EPA is proposing to retain the paste
mixing facility Pb emission limit of 1 mg/dscm (0.000437 gr/dscf) for
new and existing small facilities. The methodology used to analyze the
use of secondary filters in the paste mixing process for new sources is
described in Section IV.B.b. The data, analyses, and decisions,
including the cost and cost effectiveness for existing facilities, is
discussed in this section.
As mentioned in section IV.B.b, we identified 16 paste mixing
facilities (40 percent of the total) that currently have secondary
filters to achieve much higher control efficiency on their paste mixing
operations. Capital costs for an existing small facility that currently
has a fabric filter to retrofit to add a secondary HEPA filter on their
paste mixing process are estimated to be $63,000, and for an existing
large facility, $149,000. Annualized costs are estimated to be $45,000
for an existing small facility and $91,000 for an existing large
facility. We estimate five existing facilities would need to add these
controls resulting in total industry capital costs of $745,000 and
annualized costs of $455,000 and achieving 0.5 tpy reduction of Pb
emissions.
The cost effectiveness for an existing small facility is $1,730,000
per ton of Pb reduced and for an existing large facility is $910,000
per ton of Pb. Detailed cost information for both facility size
categories is shown in the Technology Review Memorandum.
The results of the cost analyses for existing large facilities
indicate that the estimated cost effectiveness of adding a secondary
HEPA filter on the paste mixing process is within the range of what the
EPA has considered to be a cost-effective level of control for Pb
emissions, but it is not cost effective for existing small facilities.
Furthermore, we expect that smaller facilities would likely have lower
annual revenues compared to the larger facilities and we assume the
smaller facilities are more likely be owned by small businesses.
Therefore, we expect that in general the small facilities would be more
likely to experience significant economic impacts if they were required
to install secondary filters on their paste mixing operations. For
these reasons, we are not proposing any changes to the emissions limits
for paste mixing operations at small facilities because of the costs,
cost effectiveness, and potential for significant economic impacts to
some small businesses.
c. Review of Other Process Units at Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing
Facilities
In addition to grid casting, reclamation, and paste mixing, we also
evaluated potential revisions to the emissions limits for the three-
process operations and lead oxide manufacturing but did not identify
any cost-effective options. Therefore, we are not proposing any changes
to the emissions limits for these processes. The data and analyses
regarding these operations are provided in the Technology Review
Memorandum available in the docket.
d. Improved Monitoring of Emission Points Controlled by Fabric Filters
and Scrubbers
The area source NESHAP requires that for emission points controlled
by a fabric filter, semiannual inspections and maintenance must be
conducted to ensure proper performance of the fabric filter. In
addition, pressure drop or visible emission (VE) observations must be
conducted for the fabric filter daily (or weekly if the fabric filter
has a secondary HEPA filter) to ensure the fabric filter is functioning
properly. To reduce the likelihood of malfunctions that result in
excess lead emissions, the EPA is proposing 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.
Due to state and local permitting conditions, some facilities
already are required to perform additional inspections to ensure
equipment is functioning properly. This includes performing inspections
of the fabric filter on a more frequent basis, ranging from weekly to
quarterly, and includes performing inspections of additional equipment,
such as dust collection hoppers and conveyance systems. We consider
these more stringent inspection requirements to be a development in
operational procedures that would help ensure continued compliance by
identifying and correcting problems earlier.
Through the permit review, we also found that several plants have
requirements to keep replacement fabric filters onsite. The area source
NESHAP does not include requirements to keep replacement filters or
other materials onsite. While not elaborated on in the permits, these
requirements would ensure that when any issue or damage is noted with a
fabric filter, a timely replacement of the filter can be performed to
ensure the control device functions as intended. Such requirements also
prevent unnecessary delays with fabric filter repairs and minimize the
duration that processes would continue to operate with higher emissions
until a replacement filter can be obtained. These requirements would
also ensure that any shutdown of the processes would be minimized as
the replacement parts would be readily available for the repair to be
completed.
The EPA is proposing that inspections of emission points with
fabric filters that are not followed by a secondary filter must be
conducted monthly instead of semi-annually. For units with

[[Page 10148]]

a secondary filter the EPA proposes to retain the requirement for semi-
annual inspections. We are also proposing to require all facilities to
have replacement filters on hand in case filters are damaged, and we
are proposing that large facilities must also have replacement
secondary filters on hand for the paste mixing process control devices.
We estimate that capital costs for replacement primary filters are less
than $100 per filter and replacement secondary filters are $350 per
filter depending on the specifications of the equipment. There are no
new additional annual costs (compared to the current NESHAP) because in
the event a filter needed to be replaced, facilities would incur those
costs regardless of this requirement. Even though there is an upfront
cost to keep these replacement filters on hand, we estimate there would
be no change in net costs over time associated with this requirement
because the replacement filters would eventually be needed regardless
of whether they are already onsite. We estimate costs for the
additional inspections will vary depending on the number of emission
sources controlled with fabric filters that do not have secondary
filters. Based on our estimation, each additional inspection would cost
approximately $200.
As discussed in section IV.B.d, standard monitoring of scrubbing
systems include measuring liquid flow rate across the scrubbing system.
We propose 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. Based on our
review, we only identified three facilities that have a scrubber system
that is not followed by a fabric filter. Therefore, we estimate that
this requirement will only impact three existing facilities. Based on
our review of the operating permits for these facilities, at least one
is already monitoring liquid flow rate across scrubbing systems every
15 minutes. For the other two facilities, we expect that their
scrubbing systems already include 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
small unquantified increase in annual costs due to recordkeeping
requirements.
e. Bag Leak Detection Systems for Large Facilities
As discussed in section IV.B.e, the EPA found several lead acid
battery facilities that have bag leak detection systems. We consider
the use of bag leak detection systems a development in operational
procedures that will assure compliance with the area source NESHAP by
identifying and correcting fabric filter failures earlier than would be
indicated by the daily pressure drop monitoring or daily VE monitoring.
The EPA has promulgated other recent rulemakings that have included
this requirement for units that do not have a secondary filter such the
2012 Secondary Lead Smelting NESHAP amendments (77 FR 3, 556, January
5, 2012).
The EPA is proposing that new and existing large facilities that do
not have secondary filters must install and operate bag leak detection
systems to ensure continuous compliance with the NESHAP and detect
problems early. Capital costs are estimated to be $68,000 per baghouse
and annual costs are estimated to be $14,000 per baghouse. We estimate
that there are approximately 13 large facilities in the source
category, and that 8 of these large facilities will need to add bag
leak detection systems. The other 5 facilities either already have a
bag leak detection system or already have secondary HEPA filters.
Capital costs for the 13 facilities are estimated to be in the range of
$0 (for facilities that already have bag leak detection systems or
secondary filters) to $816,000 per facility (for a facility that has 12
fabric filters and that currently has no bag leak detection systems or
secondary filters). The estimated annual costs range from $0 to
$164,000 per facility. Total capital costs for all eight facilities are
estimated to be $2.5 million and total annual costs for all eight
facilities are estimated to be $506,000. However, we are not proposing
a requirement for small facilities because it would impose significant
economic impacts on some small businesses.
f. Performance Testing
Currently, the NESHAP requires facilities to conduct an initial
compliance test. As discussed in section IV.B.f, the EPA has proposed
and promulgated periodic performance testing in other recent
rulemakings. In this action, we are proposing a requirement to conduct
compliance testing at least once every 5 years for all existing and new
area sources. To reduce some of the cost burden, the EPA is proposing
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 are proposing that the NESHAP will include the same
testing requirements that EPA is proposing under the new NSPS subpart
KKa, as discussed in section IV.B.f.
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.
g. Work Practices To Minimize Fugitive Dust Emissions
The EPA is proposing that all facilities must develop and implement
a fugitive dust plan which includes at a minimum the work practices
discussed in section IV.B.g. We estimate that most facilities are
already doing these work practices, and that the cost burden will be
mostly labor to develop and implement the dust plan. Total estimated
costs range from $0 (for facilities that already have a fugitive dust
plan and are implementing it) to $20,000 per facility per year.

D. What other actions are we proposing, and what is the rationale for
those actions?

1. NSPS, 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart KKa
In addition to the proposed actions described above, we are
proposing additional revisions to the NSPS KK as part of the new
proposed subpart KKa. We are proposing that emission limits and opacity
limits will apply at all times, including during startup, shutdown, and
malfunction (SSM) in order to ensure that the limits are consistent
with the decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir.
2008). We also are proposing to require electronic reporting for
performance tests and semiannual excess emissions and continuous
monitoring reports, and a clarification to the definition of ``lead
reclamation.'' Our analyses and proposed changes related to these
issues are discussed below.
a. Proposal of NSPS Subpart KKa Without Startup, Shutdown, Malfunction
Exemptions
In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C.
Cir. 2008), the United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) vacated portions of two provisions in
the EPA's CAA section 112 regulations governing the emissions of HAP
during periods of SSM. Specifically, the Court vacated the SSM

[[Page 10149]]

exemption contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), holding
that under section 302(k) of the CAA, emissions standards or
limitations must be continuous in nature and that the SSM exemption
violates the CAA's requirement that some section 112 standards apply
continuously. Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, we are proposing
standards in this rule that apply at all times. The NSPS general
provisions in 40 CFR 60.11(c) currently exclude opacity requirements
during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction and the provision
in 40 CFR 60.8(c) contains an exemption from non-opacity standards. We
are proposing in subpart KKa specific requirements at section
60.372a(a) that override the general provisions for SSM. We are
proposing that all standards in subpart KKa apply at all times,
including the opacity limits in 40 CFR part 60.
The EPA has attempted to ensure that the general provisions we are
proposing to override are inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant in
the absence of the SSM exemption. We are specifically seeking comment
on whether we have successfully done so.
In proposing the standards in this rule, the EPA has taken into
account startup and shutdown periods and, for the reasons explained
below, has not proposed 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. With regard
to malfunctions, these events are described in the following paragraph.
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 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 EPA to consider such events in setting section 111
standards of performance. The EPA's approach to malfunctions in the
analogous circumstances (setting ``achievable'' standards under section
112) has been upheld as reasonable by the D.C. Circuit in U.S. Sugar
Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579, 606-610 (D.C. Cir. 2016).
b. Electronic Reporting
The EPA is proposing that owners and operators of lead acid battery
manufacturing plants subject to the 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). 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 proposed 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 \6\
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 of the ERT.
For the semiannual excess emissions and continuous monitoring system
performance and summary reports, the proposed rule requires that owners
and operators use the appropriate spreadsheet template to submit
information to CEDRI. A draft version of the proposed template(s) for
these reports is included in the docket for this action.\7\ The EPA
specifically requests comment on the content, layout, and overall
design of the template(s).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\6\ <a href="https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert">https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert</a>.
\7\ See EPA Form 5900-577
Lead_Acid_Battery_Manufacturing_Semiannual_Excess_Emissions_CMS_Perfo
rmance_Report_Template.xlsx available at Docket ID. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2021-0619.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Additionally, the EPA has identified two specific circumstances in
which electronic reporting extensions may be provided. These
circumstances are (1) Outages of the EPA's CDX or CEDRI which preclude
an owner or operator from accessing the system and submitting required
reports and (2) force majeure events, which are defined as events that
will be or have been caused by circumstances beyond the control of the
affected facility, its contractors, or any entity controlled by the
affected facility that prevent an owner or operator from complying with
the requirement to submit a report electronically. Examples of force
majeure events are acts of nature, acts of war or terrorism, or
equipment failure or safety hazards beyond the control of the facility.
The EPA is providing these potential extensions to protect owners and
operators from noncompliance in cases where they cannot successfully
submit a report by the reporting deadline for reasons outside of their
control. In both circumstances, the decision to accept the claim of
needing additional time to report is within the discretion of the
Administrator, and reporting should occur as soon as possible.
The electronic submittal of the reports addressed in this proposed
rulemaking will increase the usefulness of the data contained in those
reports, is in keeping with current trends in data availability and
transparency, will further assist in the protection of public health
and the environment, will improve compliance by facilitating the
ability of regulated facilities to demonstrate compliance with
requirements and by facilitating the ability of delegated state, local,
tribal, and territorial air agencies and the EPA to assess and
determine compliance, and will ultimately reduce burden on regulated
facilities, delegated air agencies, and the EPA. Electronic reporting
also eliminates paper-based, manual processes, thereby saving time and
resources, simplifying data entry, eliminating redundancies, minimizing
data reporting errors, and providing data quickly and accurately to the
affected facilities, air agencies, the EPA, and the public. Moreover,
electronic reporting is

[[Page 10150]]

consistent with the EPA's plan \8\ to implement Executive Order 13563
and is in keeping with the EPA's Agency-wide policy \9\ developed in
response to the White House's Digital Government Strategy.\10\ For more
information on the benefits of electronic reporting, see the memorandum
Electronic Reporting Requirements for New Source Performance Standards
(NSPS) and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP) Rules, referenced earlier in this section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\8\ EPA's Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews, August
2011. Available at: <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0156-0154">https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0156-0154</a>.
\9\ E-Reporting Policy Statement for EPA Regulations, September
2013. Available at: <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-03/documents/epa-ereporting-policy-statement-2013-09-30.pdf">https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-03/documents/epa-ereporting-policy-statement-2013-09-30.pdf</a>.
\10\ Digital Government: Building a 21st Century Platform to
Better Serve the American People, May 2012. Available at: <a href="https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/egov/digital-government/digital-government.html">https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/egov/digital-government/digital-government.html</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Lead Reclamation Definition
Under the NSPS, subpart KK, a lead reclamation facility is a
facility (that is not an affected secondary lead smelting furnace under
40 CFR 60, subpart L) that remelts Pb scrap and casts it into ingots
for use in the battery manufacturing process. Information available to
the EPA indicates that no facilities currently remelt Pb and cast it
into ingots for use in the battery manufacturing processes. However, to
ensure that emissions are controlled from any Pb that is recycled or
reused, without being remelted and cast into ingots, the EPA is
revising 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 operation. Likewise, we are
also proposing 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 the
lead acid battery facility.
In addition, the proposed revised definition clarifies that lead
reclamation facilities also do not include the remelting of Pb 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 Pb is remelted and used
(i.e., grid casting).
2. NESHAP, 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart PPPPPP
In addition to the proposed actions described above, we are
proposing additional revisions to the NESHAP. We are proposing
revisions to the startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) provisions of
the NESHAP in order to ensure that they are consistent with the
decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), in
which 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 also are proposing various
other changes including: To require electronic reporting for
performance tests and semiannual excess emissions and continuous
monitoring reports; a clarification to the definition of lead
reclamation; and a revision to the applicability provisions to require
that facilities with some of the battery production processes (e.g.,
grid casting or lead oxide production) are subject to the standards in
the NESHAP regardless of whether or not the facility produces the end
product (i.e., batteries). Our analyses and proposed changes related to
these issues are discussed below.
a. Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction (SSM) Provisions
In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C.
Cir. 2008), the court vacated portions of two provisions in the EPA's
CAA section 112 regulations governing the emissions of HAP during
periods of SSM. Specifically, the court vacated the SSM exemption
contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), holding that
under section 302(k) of the CAA, emissions standards or limitations
must be continuous in nature and that the SSM exemption violates the
CAA's requirement that some CAA section 112 standards apply
continuously.
In March 2021, the EPA issued a rule \11\ that revised the General
Provisions to remove the SSM exemptions at 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and
(h)(1). In this action, we are proposing to eliminate references to
these SSM exemptions in this rule and to remove other additional SSM
exemptions in the rule, including any reference to requirements
included in 40 CFR part 63, subpart A (General Provisions). Consistent
with Sierra Club v. EPA, the standards that we are proposing in this
rule apply at all times. We are also proposing several revisions to
Table 1 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPPPP, as is explained in more
detail below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\11\ U.S. EPA, Court Vacatur of Exemption from Emission
Standards During Periods of Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction. (86
FR 13819, March 11, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The EPA has attempted to ensure that the provisions we are
proposing to eliminate are inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant in
the absence of the SSM exemption. We are specifically seeking comment
on whether we have successfully done so.
In proposing the standards in this rule, the EPA has taken into
account startup and shutdown periods and, for the reasons explained in
section IV.D.1.a above, has not proposed alternate standards for those
periods.
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 an 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, and this
reading has been upheld as reasonable by the court. See U.S. Sugar
Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579, 606-610 (D.C. Cir. 2016). Under CAA section
112, emissions standards for new sources must be no less stringent than
the level ``achieved'' by the best controlled similar source and for
existing sources generally must be no less stringent than the average
emission limitation ``achieved'' by the best performing 12 percent of
sources in the category. There is nothing in CAA section 112 that
directs the Agency to consider malfunctions in determining the level
``achieved'' by the best performing sources when setting emission
standards. The court has recognized that the phrase ``average emissions
limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of'' sources
``says nothing about how the performance of the best units is to be
calculated.'' Nat'l Ass'n of Clean Water Agencies v. EPA, 734 F.3d
1115, 1141 (D.C. Cir. 2013). While the EPA accounts for variability in
setting emissions standards, nothing in CAA section 112 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 112

[[Page 10151]]

standards. Similarly, although standards for area sources are not
required to be set based on ``best performers,'' EPA is not required to
consider malfunctions in determining what is ``generally available.''
In the March 2021 rule, the EPA removed the SSM exemptions at 40
CFR 63.6(f)(1) and (h)(1) to effectuate the 2008 court decision
vacating these provisions. In this action, we are changing the
applicability of these two general provisions from a ``yes'' to ``no''
and adding rule-specific language to ensure the rule applies as all
times. We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table
3) entry for the citation to 40 CFR 63.6(a)-(d), (e)(1), (f)-(j) by
changing the citation to reference only 40 CFR 63.6(a)-(d). We are also
proposing to add a row for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) and including a ``no''
for this entry in column 3, ``Applies to Subpart PPPPPP?'' Section
63.6(e)(1)(i) describes the general duty to minimize emissions. Some of
the language in that section is no longer necessary or appropriate in
light of the elimination of the SSM exemption. We are proposing instead
to add general duty regulatory text at 40 CFR 63.11423(a)(3) that
reflects the general duty to minimize emissions while eliminating the
reference to periods covered by an SSM exemption. The current language
in 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) characterizes what the general duty entails
during periods of SSM. With the elimination of the SSM exemption, there
is no need to differentiate between normal operations, startup and
shutdown, and malfunction events in describing the general duty.
Therefore, the language the EPA is proposing for 40 CFR part 60,
subpart PPPPPP does not include that language from 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1).
We are also proposing to add a row to the General Provisions table
(Table 3) for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(ii) and including a ``no'' for this
entry in column 3. Section 63.6(e)(1)(ii) imposes requirements that are
not necessary with the elimination of the SSM exemption or are
redundant with the general duty requirement being added at 40 CFR
63.11423(a)(3).
We are also proposing to add a row to the General Provisions table
(Table 3) for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(iii) and including a ``yes'' for this
entry in column 3.
While the provision at 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) was revised in March 2021,
this action proposes to add a row to the General Provisions table
(Table 3) for 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and including a ``no'' for this entry
in column 3. The language of 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) no longer exempts
sources from non-opacity standards during periods of SSM, however, for
clarity this action will no longer reference the General Provisions for
this provision. As discussed above, the court in Sierra Club vacated
the exemptions previously contained in this provision and held that the
CAA requires that some section 112 standard apply continuously.
Consistent with Sierra Club, the EPA is clarifying that standards in
this rule will apply at all times. We are also proposing to add rows to
Table 3 for 40 CFR 63.6(f)(2)-(3) and 63.6(g) and including a ``yes''
for these entries in column 3.
Similarly, we are proposing to add a row to the General Provisions
table (Table 3) for 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1) and including a ``no'' for this
entry in column 3. The language of 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1) no longer exempts
sources from opacity standards during periods of SSM, however, for
clarity this action will no longer reference the General Provisions for
this provision. As discussed above, the court in Sierra Club vacated
the exemptions previously contained in this provision and held that the
CAA requires that some section 112 standard apply continuously.
Consistent with Sierra Club, the EPA is proposing to revise standards
in this rule to apply at all times. We are also proposing to add a row
to Table 3 for 40 CFR 63.6(h)(2)-(9), (i) and (j) and including a
``yes'' for this entry in column 3.
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 3)
entry for 40 CFR 63.7 by changing the citation to 40 CFR 63.7(a)-(d),
(e)(2) and (3) and (f)-(j). We are also proposing to add a row to the
table for 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) and including a ``no'' for this entry in
column 3. Section 63.7(e)(1) describes performance testing
requirements. The EPA is instead proposing to add a performance testing
requirement at 40 CFR 63.11423(c)(7). The performance testing
requirements we are proposing to add differ from the General Provisions
performance testing provisions in several respects. The regulatory text
does not include the language in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) that restated the
SSM exemption and language that precluded startup and shutdown periods
from being considered ``representative'' for purposes of performance
testing. As in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1), performance tests conducted under
this subpart should not be conducted during malfunctions because
conditions during malfunctions are often not representative of normal
operating conditions. The EPA is proposing to add language that
requires the owner or operator to 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. Section 63.7(e) requires that the owner or
operator make available to the Administrator such records ``as may be
necessary to determine the condition of the performance test''
available to the Administrator upon request but does not specifically
require the information to be recorded. The regulatory text the EPA is
proposing to add to this provision builds on that requirement and makes
explicit the requirement to record the information.
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 3)
entry for 40 CFR 63.8 by changing the citation to 40 CFR 63.8(a), (b),
(c)(1)(ii), (d)(1) and (2), (e)-(g). We are also proposing to add rows
to the table for 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(i) and (iii) and including a ``no''
for these entries in column 3. The cross-references to the general duty
and SSM plan requirements in those subparagraphs are not necessary in
light of other requirements of 40 CFR 63.8 that require good air
pollution control practices (40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)) and that set out the
requirements of a quality control program for monitoring equipment (40
CFR 63.8(d)).
We are proposing to add a row to the General Provisions table
(Table 3) for 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) and including a ``no'' for this entry
in column 3. The final sentence in 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) refers to the
General Provisions' SSM plan requirement which is no longer applicable.
The EPA is proposing to add to the rule at 40 CFR 63.11423(e)(3) text
that is identical to 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) except that the final sentence
is replaced with the following sentence: ``The program of corrective
action should be included in the plan required under Sec.
63.8(d)(2).''
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 3)
entry for 40 CFR 63.10 by changing the citation to 40 CFR 63.10(a),
(b)(1), (b)(2)(iii), (vi-ix), (b)(3), (c)(1)-(14), (d)(1)-(4), (e),
(f). We are also proposing to add a row to the table for 40 CFR
63.10(b)(2)(i) and including a ``no'' for this entry in column 3.
Section 63.10(b)(2)(i) describes the recordkeeping requirements during
startup and shutdown. These recording provisions are no longer
necessary because the EPA is proposing that recordkeeping and reporting
applicable to normal operations will apply to startup and shutdown. In
the absence of special provisions applicable to startup and shutdown,
such as a startup and shutdown plan, there is no reason to retain
additional recordkeeping for startup and shutdown periods.

[[Page 10152]]

We are proposing to add a row to the General Provisions table
(Table 3) for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(ii) and including a ``no'' for this
entry in column 3. Section 63.10(b)(2)(ii) describes the recordkeeping
requirements during a malfunction. The EPA is proposing to add such
requirements to 40 CFR 63.11424(a)(6). The regulatory text we are
proposing to add differs from the General Provisions it is replacing in
that the General Provisions requires the creation and retention of a
record of the occurrence and duration of each malfunction of process,
air pollution control, and monitoring equipment. The EPA is proposing
that this requirement apply to any failure to meet an applicable
standard and is requiring that the source record the date, time, and
duration of the failure rather than the ``occurrence.'' The EPA is also
proposing to add to 40 CFR 63.11424(a)(7)(ii) and (iii) a requirement
that sources keep records that include a list of the affected source or
equipment and actions taken to minimize emissions, an estimate of the
quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over the standard for
which the source failed to meet the standard, and a description of the
method used to estimate the emissions. Examples of such methods would
include product-loss calculations, mass balance calculations,
measurements when available, or engineering judgment based on known
process parameters. The EPA is proposing to require that sources keep
records of this information to ensure that there is adequate
information to allow the EPA to determine the severity of any failure
to meet a standard, and to provide data that may document how the
source met the general duty to minimize emissions when the source has
failed to meet an applicable standard.
We are proposing to add a row to the General Provisions table
(Table 3) for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv) and (v) and including a ``no'' for
this entry in column 3. When applicable, these provisions require
sources to record actions taken during SSM events when actions were
inconsistent with their SSM plan or to show that actions taken were
consistent with their SSM plan. These requirements are no longer
appropriate because SSM plans will no longer be required. The
requirement previously applicable under 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv)(B) to
record actions to minimize emissions and record corrective actions is
now applicable by reference to 40 CFR 63.11424(a)(7).
We are proposing to add a row to the General Provisions table
(Table 3) for 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) and including a ``no'' for this entry
in column 3. The EPA is proposing that 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) no longer
apply. When applicable, the provision allows an owner or operator to
use the affected source's startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan or
records kept to satisfy the recordkeeping requirements of the startup,
shutdown, and malfunction plan, specified in 40 CFR 63.6(e), to also
satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR 63.10(c)(10) through (12). The EPA
is proposing to eliminate this requirement because SSM plans would no
longer be required, and therefore 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) no longer serves
any useful purpose for affected units.
b. Electronic Reporting
The EPA is proposing that owners and operators of lead acid battery
manufacturing facilities subject to the area source NESHAP at 40 CFR
part 63, subpart PPPPPP submit electronic copies of required
performance test reports and semiannual excess emissions and continuous
monitoring system performance and summary reports through the same
procedures described above in section IV.D.b for the new NSPS subpart
KKa.
c. Lead Reclamation Definition Clarification
The NESHAP references 40 CFR part 60, subpart KK for the definition
of a lead reclamation facility. The NSPS KK defines lead reclamation as
a facility (that is not an affected secondary lead smelting furnace
under 40 CFR 60, subpart L) that remelts Pb scrap and casts it into
ingots for use in the battery manufacturing process. As discussed in
Section IV.D.c, information available to the EPA indicates that no
facilities currently remelt Pb and cast it into ingots for use in the
battery manufacturing processes. However, to ensure that emissions are
controlled from any Pb that is recycled or reused, without being
remelted and cast into ingots, the EPA is revising 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 operation. We are also proposing 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 operation are
prohibited at the lead acid battery facility. In addition, the proposed
revised definition clarifies that lead reclamation facilities also do
not include the remelting of Pb 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 Pb is remelted and used (i.e., grid casting).
d. 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. It also
explained that the category includes, but is not limited to, the
following manufacturing steps: Lead oxide production, grid casting,
paste mixing, and three-process operation (plate stacking, burning, and
assembly). The EPA is aware of some facilities that conduct one or more
of the lead acid battery manufacturing processes but do not produce the
final product of a battery, and thus are not considered to be in the
lead acid battery source category, and those processes are not subject
to the lead acid battery NESHAP. To ensure these processes utilizing Pb
are regulated to the same extent as those that are located at
facilities where the final battery products are produced, the EPA is
proposing to revise the applicability provisions in the NESHAP such
that facilities that process Pb to manufacture battery parts (such as
battery grids) or input material (such as lead oxide) will be subject
to the NESHAP regardless of whether or not they produce the end product
(i.e., lead acid batteries). The source category definition is broad
enough that the EPA determined it can encompass these facilities.
Available permit information indicates that lead acid battery
manufacturing processes being conducted at facilities other than where
the final batteries are made indicates that Pb emissions from the
processes are controlled and that those facilities can meet the
emissions limits in the NESHAP. However, these facilities will also
need to meet the compliance assurance measures of the proposed NESHAP,
including improved monitoring of emission points with fabric filters,
performance testing, reporting, and recordkeeping, as well as comply
with the proposed fugitive dust mitigation plan requirements.
Therefore, we expect there will be some cost impacts for these
facilities to comply with these compliance assurance measures and work
practices. We estimate the costs for compliance testing will be $23,000
to $34,000 per facility once every 5 years; and annual costs for
fugitive dust work practices of $0 to $13,000 per facility.

[[Page 10153]]

E. What compliance dates are we proposing, and what is the rationale
for the proposed compliance dates?

a. NSPS, 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart KKa
The final action for the NSPS is not expected to be a ``major
rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2), so the effective date of the
final rule will be the promulgation date as specified in CAA section
111(b)(1)(B)). Affected sources that commence construction,
reconstruction, or modification after February 23, 2022, must comply
with all requirements of subpart KKa no later than the effective date
of the final rule or upon startup, whichever is later.
b. NESHAP, 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart PPPPPP
The final action for the NESHAP is not expected to be a ``major
rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2), so the effective date of the
final rule will be the promulgation date as specified in CAA section
112(d)(10). Affected sources that commence construction or
reconstruction after February 23, 2022, must comply with all
requirements of subpart PPPPPP, including the final amendments, no
later than the effective date of the final rule or upon startup,
whichever is later. Affected sources that commenced construction or
reconstruction on or before February 23, 2022, must comply with certain
amendments, as specified below, no later than 180 days after the
effective date of the final rule and other amendments, as specified
below, no later than 3 years after the effective date of the rule, or
upon startup, whichever is later. All affected facilities would have to
continue to meet the current requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart
PPPPPP, until the applicable compliance date of the amended standards.
For the following proposed revisions, for existing facilities we
are proposing 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; removal of the SSM exemptions;
revisions to the applicability provisions to include battery production
processes at facilities that do not produce the final end product
(i.e., batteries); and increased baghouse inspection frequency. Data
available to the EPA indicates that facilities are not performing lead
reclamation activities, and therefore the proposed clarification to the
definition of lead reclamation facility will not impact any operating
facilities. Therefore, we propose that no additional time is required
for facilities to comply with the revised definition of lead
reclamation. Regarding electronic reporting, our experience with
similar industries that are required to convert reporting mechanisms to
install necessary hardware and software, become familiar with the
process of submitting performance test results electronically through
the EPA's CEDRI, test these new electronic submission capabilities, and
reliably employ electronic reporting shows that a time period of a
minimum of 90 days, and, more typically, 180 days, is generally
necessary to accomplish these revisions. For the proposed revised SSM
revisions, since SSM plans have not been required to be developed or
followed, we do not believe that any additional time beyond the 180
days is needed for compliance with the proposed removal of the SSM
exemption. For the revisions to the applicability provisions to include
battery production processes at facilities that do not produce the
final end product of batteries, available information indicates that
these facilities can meet the emission limits with their current
controls and compliance assurance measures required by the NESHAP.
While these facilities will be newly required to perform the
recordkeeping and reporting required by the rule, the EPA is proposing
that 180 days is sufficient time to review the recordkeeping and
reporting requirements, develop systems, and perform training for
gathering, submitting, and maintaining the required information.
Similarly, the EPA has determined that facilities would not need
additional time to meet the proposed requirement to perform baghouse
inspections more frequently. These facilities already perform the
inspections and are familiar with the inspection requirements, and they
will simply need to perform the inspections more often (monthly rather
than semi-annually).
For the following proposed revisions, we are proposing a compliance
date of 3 years after the publication date of the final rule:
Requirements to develop and follow a fugitive dust mitigation plan and
requirements that performance testing be conducted at least once every
5 years. For fugitive dust mitigation, we are proposing to require
facilities to develop a mitigation plan, submit it for approval to
their air permitting authority, and follow the outlined procedures
within 3 years of publication of the final rule. The EPA anticipates it
would take approximately six months to develop a sound plan and another
six months for the relevant permitting authority to review and approve
the plan, with the potential for several revisions to the plan being
required. The implementation phase will involve training and may
involve specialized equipment or building and landscape changes (e.g.,
road paving) to accomplish the plan elements. The EPA anticipates this
phase could take 1 to 2 years, depending on the approved plan elements.
Therefore, the proposed compliance date for compliance with the
fugitive dust mitigation plan is 3 years. For the revised emissions
limits for existing paste mixing at large facilities and revised
numeric limits for grid casting and lead reclamation processes, we are
proposing a compliance date of no later than 3 years after the
effective date of the final rule. Facilities must also demonstrate
compliance with the revised numeric emissions limits for existing paste
mixing, grid casting, and lead reclamation processes within this 3-year
period. For the repeat performance tests, the requirement to test each
required emissions outlet (i.e., stack) will involve testing many
stacks at each facility, as the average facility has 8 stacks, with an
industry-wide range of 1 to 33 stacks. To coordinate the testing and to
provide flexibility to the industry to have stack testing performed
over time, rather than all at once, which will also help ensure the
appropriate testing vendors are available to the facilities in the
source category, we are proposing a compliance date for the initial
test of 3 years. For large facilities with fabric filters as a control
device without a secondary filter, a bag leak detection system is
required no later than 3 years after the effective date of the final
rule.
We solicit comment on the proposed compliance periods, and we
specifically request submission of information from sources in this
source category regarding specific actions that would need to be
undertaken to comply with the proposed amended requirements and the
time needed to make the adjustments for compliance with any of the
revised requirements. We note that information provided may result in
changes to the proposed compliance dates.

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts

A. What are the air quality impacts?

1. NSPS, 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart KKa
We are not expecting any new facilities to be built in the
foreseeable future, but if any new facilities are built

[[Page 10154]]

the proposed requirements in the new NSPS subpart KKa, would achieve an
estimated 0.08 tpy reduction of allowable lead emissions for a small
facility and an estimated 0.32 tpy reduction of allowable lead
emissions for a large facility compared to that of the current NSPS
subpart KK.
2. NESHAP, 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart PPPPPP
The proposed revised Pb emission standard for paste mixing
operations at large lead acid battery sources in this action would
achieve an estimated 0.5 tpy reduction of Pb emissions. In addition,
the Agency is also proposing work practices to minimize fugitive lead
dust emissions and expects that these will achieve some unquantified Pb
reductions. We are also proposing several compliance assurance
requirements which will ensure compliance with the NESHAP and help
prevent noncompliant emissions of Pb. Furthermore, the Agency is
proposing revised Pb emission standards for grid casting and lead
reclamation facilities. The EPA does not expect to achieve reductions
in actual emissions with these two new standards; however, the new
standards will reduce the allowable emissions from those sources and
ensure that the emissions remain controlled and minimized moving
forward. As described above, we estimate that all facilities in the
source category are already meeting the revised emissions limits. The
proposed amendments will also include removal of the SSM exemptions. We
were unable to quantify the emissions that occur during periods of SSM
or the specific emissions reductions that would occur as a result of
this action. However, eliminating the SSM exemption has the potential
to reduce emissions by requiring facilities to meet the applicable
standard during SSM periods.

B. What are the cost impacts?

1. NSPS, 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart KKa
The costs for a new, reconstructed, and modified facility to comply
with the proposed regulatory requirements discussed above are described
in detail in section IV.B and are summarized below. As mentioned
previously in this preamble we do not expect any brand-new facilities
in the foreseeable future. Therefore, the actual costs for new sources
are expected to be zero since we do not expect any such sources.
However, we do expect that some existing facilities could undergo
modifications or reconstruction.
Revised Emission Limit for Grid Casting: Incremental capital costs
for a small new, reconstructed, and modified source to install and
operate a fabric filter (BSER) compared to an impingement scrubber
(baseline) on grid casting operations are $53,000, with incremental
annual costs estimated to be $23,600. Incremental capital costs for a
large new, reconstructed, and modified baseline facility to install and
operate fabric filters (BSER) compared to impingement scrubbers
(baseline) on grid casting operations are estimated to be $86,000 with
incremental annual costs estimated to be $40,000.
Revised Emission Limit for Lead Reclamation: Incremental capital
costs are estimated to be $17,000 for small and large new,
reconstructed, and modified sources to install fabric filters (BSER)
compared to impingement scrubbers (baseline) on lead reclamation
operations. Incremental annual costs for a small baseline facility to
install fabric filters (BSER) compared to impingement scrubbers
(baseline) are estimated to be $8,500. Incremental annual costs are
estimated to be $13,000 for a large baseline and model facility.
Revised Emission Limit for Paste Mixing Operations: Capital Costs
for a new large facility to include secondary filters in their facility
design are $135,000. Annual costs are estimated to be $88,800 for a
large facility.
Bag Leak Detection Requirements: For a new large facility to
install and operate bag leak detection systems, capital costs would be
approximately $802,000 per facility and annual costs would be
approximately $161,000 per facility.
Performance Testing Requirements: We estimate that performance
testing for lead costs about $23,000 to test one stack and an
additional $5,500 to test each additional stack during the same testing
event.
Work Practices to Minimize Fugitive Lead Dust: Estimated initial
costs for new facilities to develop a fugitive dust plan to minimize
fugitive lead dust emissions is $7,600 and annual costs to implement to
plan are approximately $13,000 per facility per year.
2. NESHAP, 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart PPPPPP
The estimated costs for a theoretical new source to comply with the
NESHAP are the same as the costs described above (in section V.B.1)
under the NSPS KKa. The costs for compliance testing for existing
sources are estimated to be $0 to $181,000 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 testing for the
entire industry are estimated to be $1.3 million every 5 years (which
equates to an average annual cost of $260,000 per year for the entire
industry). Table 1 below shows the estimated costs and number of
facilities affected for all other proposed changes.

Table 1--Estimated Costs for All Proposed Amendments Other Than Compliance Testing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total capital Total annual Number of
Proposed requirement costs for the costs for the facilities Capital costs Annual costs
industry industry impacted per facility per facility
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Work Practices............... \a\ $350,000 $381,000 \b\ 45 $7,600......... $0 to $12,600.
Fabric Filter Inspections.... 0 72,000 21 $0.............. $0 to $10,500.
Bag Leak Detection System 2,700,000 544,000 10 $0 to $814,000.. $0 to $164,000.
Requirements.
Revised Limit for Paste 750,000 345,000 5 $150,000........ $69,000.
Mixing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total for all proposed 3,800,000 1,340,000 \b\ 45 $0 to $996,000.. $0 to $294,000.
requirements other than
testing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ These are initial costs to create a fugitive dust plan. Total estimated costs to industry would be $350,000,
or approximately $7,600 per facility.
\b\ This ``45'' includes 39 LAB NESHAP Manufacturing facilities and six facilities affected by the proposed
applicability clarification described above.

[[Page 10155]]

C. What are the economic impacts?

The EPA conducted economic impact analyses for this proposal, 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, which is available in the docket for this
action. The economic impacts of the proposal 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 this proposal will incur total annualized
costs of 0.5 percent or greater of their revenues. Thus, these economic
impacts are low for affected companies and the industries impacted by
this proposal, and there will not be substantial impacts on the markets
for affected products. The costs of the proposal 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.

D. What are the benefits?

1. NSPS, 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart KKa
The new standards for grid casting, lead reclamation and paste
mixing will reduce the allowable emissions from the new, reconstructed,
and modified sources and ensure that the emissions remain controlled
and minimized moving forward.
2. NESHAP, 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart PPPPPP
As described above, the proposed amendments would result in some
reductions in emissions of Pb. The proposed amendments also revise the
standards such that they apply at all times, which includes SSM
periods. We are also proposing several compliance assurance
requirements which will ensure compliance with the NESHAP and help
prevent noncompliant emissions of Pb. Furthermore, the proposed
requirements to submit reports and test results electronically will
improve monitoring, compliance, and implementation of the rule.
Reducing emissions of lead dust is expected to reduce potential
exposures to nearby communities. A quantitative analysis would be
technically complicated, resource intensive and infeasible to perform
in the time available. For these reasons, we did not perform a
quantitative analysis. Rather, we qualitatively characterize the health
impacts of lead to convey an understanding of potential benefits. This
is presented in Economic Impact and Small Business Analysis for the
Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing NSPS Review and NESHAP Area Source
Technology Review, which is available in the docket for this action.

E. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?

Executive Order 12898 and EPA policy direct the EPA, to the
greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental
justice part of its 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 low-income populations (59
FR 7629, February 16, 1994). Additionally, Executive Order 13985 was
signed to advance racial equity and support underserved communities
through Federal government actions (86 FR 7009, January 20, 2021). The
EPA defines environmental justice 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 commercial operations or
programs and policies'' (<a href="https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice">https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice</a>). 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.
To examine the potential for any environmental justice issues that
might be associated with the source category, we performed a
demographic analysis which is an assessment of individual demographic
groups of the populations living within 5 km and within 50 km of the
facilities. The EPA then compared the data from this analysis to the
national average for the demographic indicators. Based on that
analysis, we found that the demographic profile within 5 km and 50 km
of the LAB facilities shows the following groups above the national
average: Hispanics, Ages 18-64, People living below the Poverty Level,
25 years old or greater without a High School Diploma, and People
living in Linguistic Isolation, as shown in Table 2. The methodology
and results of the demographic analysis are presented in more detail in
the memorandum, which is available in the docket, Analysis of
Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Lead Acid Battery
Manufacturing Area Sources.

Table 2--Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Area Sources: Proximity
Demographic Assessment Results--5 km and 50 km Study Area Radius
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Population Population
within 50 within 5 km
km of 39 of 39
facilities facilities
(%) (%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nationwide Source Category
----------------------------------------
Total Population............... 328,016,242 47,907,121 2,233,864
----------------------------------------
White and People of Color by Percent
----------------------------------------
White.......................... 60 52 37
People of Color................ 40 48 63
----------------------------------------
People of Color by Percent
----------------------------------------

[[Page 10156]]

African American............... 12 12 10
Native American................ 0.7 0.3 0.2
Hispanic or Latino (includes 19 25 43
white and nonwhite)...........
Other and Multiracial.......... 8 11 9
----------------------------------------
Income by Percent
----------------------------------------
Below Poverty Level............ 13 12 14
Above Poverty Level............ 87 88 86
----------------------------------------
Age Groups by Percent
----------------------------------------
Age (Years) 0-17............... 22 22 23
Age (Years) 18-64.............. 62 63 64
Age (Years) >=65............... 16 15 13
----------------------------------------
Education by Percent
----------------------------------------
Over 25 and without a High 12 14 19
School Diploma................
Over 25 and with a High School 88 86 81
Diploma.......................
----------------------------------------
Linguistically Isolated by Percent
----------------------------------------
Linguistically Isolated........ 5 7 9
------------------------------------------------------------------------

As explained in section IV.A, ambient air quality monitoring data
and modeling analyses indicate that ambient Pb concentrations near the
facilities are all below the NAAQS for Pb. 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.\12\ Both the primary and
secondary NAAQS for Pb are 0.15/m\3\ based on a 3-month rolling
average. The primary NAAQS are designed to protect public health with
an adequate margin of safety.\13\ Therefore, we conclude 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\12\ <a href="https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants/naaqs-table">https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants/naaqs-table</a>.
\13\ <a href="https://www.epa.gov/naaqs">https://www.epa.gov/naaqs</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Request for Comments

We solicit comments on this proposed action. In addition to general
comments on this proposed action, we are also interested in additional
data that may improve the analyses. We are specifically interested in
receiving any information regarding developments in practices,
processes, and control technologies that reduce Pb emissions.

VII. Incorporation by Reference

The EPA proposes to amend the 40 CFR 60.17 to incorporate by
reference for one VCS
<bullet> ASTM D7520-16, Standard Test Method for Determining the
Opacity of a Plume in the Outdoor Ambient Atmosphere, approved April 1,
2016, IBR requested for 40 CFR 60.374a(d)(2). This method is an
acceptable alternative to the EPA's Method 9 under specific conditions
stated in 40 CFR 60.374a(d)(2)(I) through (v). This test method
described the procedures to use the Digital Camera Opacity Techniques
(DCOT) to obtain and interpret the digital images in determining and
reporting plume opacity. It also describes procedures to certify the
DCOT.
The EPA proposes to amend the 40 CFR 63.14 to incorporate by
reference for one VCS
<bullet> ASTM D7520-16, Standard Test Method for Determining the
Opacity of a Plume in the Outdoor Ambient Atmosphere, approved April 1,
2016, IBR requested for 40 CFR 63.11423(c)(4)(ii). This method is an
acceptable alternative to the EPA's Method 9 under specific conditions
stated in 40 CFR 63.11423(c)(4)(ii)(A) through (E). This test method
described the procedures to use the Digital Camera Opacity Techniques
(DCOT) to obtain and interpret the digital images in determining and
reporting plume opacity. It also describes procedures to certify the
DCOT.
The ASTM documents are available from the American Society of
Testing and Materials (ASTM) at <a href="https://www.astm.org">https://www.astm.org</a>; by mail at 100
Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959; or
by telephone at (610) 832-9500.

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at <a href="https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders">https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders</a>.

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 this proposed 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

[[Page 10157]]

numbers 1072.14 for the NSPS KKa and 2256.07 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 proposing 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 45 for the
NESHAP based on our review of operating permits and consultation with
industry representatives and state/local agencies. We are proposing
recordkeeping and reporting requirements associated with the new 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: 45 facilities for 40 CFR part 63,
subpart 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 KKa and the NESHAP, averaged over the 3 years of this
ICR, is estimated to be 2,580 hours (per year). The average annual
burden to the Agency over the 3 years after the amendments are final is
estimated to be 66 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
NSPS KKa and the NESHAP, averaged over the 3 years of this ICR, is
estimated to be $174,000 (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 $3,380.
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.
Submit your comments on the Agency's need for this information, the
accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods
for minimizing respondent burden to the EPA using the docket identified
at the beginning of this rule. You may also send your ICR-related
comments to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs via
email to OIRA<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#dc83afa9beb1b5afafb5b3b29cb3b1bef2b9b3acf2bbb3aa">[email&#160;protected]</a>, Attention: Desk Officer for the
EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR
between 30 and 60 days after receipt, OMB must receive comments no
later than March 25, 2022. The EPA will respond to any ICR-related
comments in the 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 facilities. 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 1.3 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 four of the five
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, 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. The 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 Populations and Low-Income Populations

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. This action's assessments of potential impacts to human
health are contained in section IV.A of this preamble. The proposed
work practices to minimize fugitive dust containing lead and the
proposed new and revised emission limits described in section IV.B and
IV.C 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.

[[Page 10158]]

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, and
29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. No applicable VCS were identified for
EPA Methods 12 and 29 for lead.
During the search, if the title or abstract (if provided) of the
VCS described technical sampling and analytical procedures that are
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 voluntary consensus standard was identified as acceptable
alternative to EPA test methods for the purposes of this rule. The
voluntary consensus standard ASTM D7520-16, ``Standard Test Method for
Determining the Opacity of a Plume in the Outdoor Ambient Atmosphere''
is an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 9 with the following
conditions:
1. 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).
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 Sec.
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 (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 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 this letter
is on the facility, DCOT operator, and DCOT vendor.
The search identified one VCS that was potentially applicable for
this rule in lieu of EPA reference methods. After reviewing the
available standards, EPA determined that one candidate VCS (ASTM D4358-
94 (1999)) identified for measuring emissions of pollutants or their
surrogates subject to emission standards in the rule would not be
practical 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.
Under 40 CFR 63.7(f) and 40 CFR 68.3(f) of subpart A of the General
Provisions, 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. The EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the
proposed rulemaking and, specifically, invites the public to identify
potentially applicable VCS and to explain why such standards should be
used in this regulation.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority
populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The documentation for this decision is contained in section V.C and
V.E of this preamble. As discussed in section V.E of this preamble, we
performed a demographic analysis for the lead acid battery
manufacturing source category, which is an assessment of the proximity
of individual demographic groups living close to the facilities (within
50 km and within 5 km). Results of the demographic analysis indicate
that the following groups above the national average: Hispanics, Ages
18-64, People living below the Poverty Level, 25 years old or greater
without a High School Diploma, and People living in Linguistic
Isolation. However, based on analyses of emissions and available
ambient monitoring data (described in section IV.A of this preamble),
we conclude ambient Pb concentrations near the facilities are all below
the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for Pb and therefore
the sources are not likely to pose significant risks to human health.

Janet G. McCabe,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2022-03396 Filed 2-22-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>

View on FederalRegister.gov →Plain-text source

Indexed from Federal Register on February 23, 2022.

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.