Rule2023-25275
New Source Performance Standards Review for Secondary Lead Smelters
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
November 20, 2023
Effective
November 20, 2023
Issuing agencies
Environmental Protection Agency
Abstract
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing amendments to the new source performance standards (NSPS) for secondary lead smelters pursuant to the periodic review required by the Clean Air Act (CAA). Specifically, the EPA is finalizing revisions to the NSPS that applies to affected secondary lead smelters constructed, reconstructed, or modified after December 1, 2022 (NSPS subpart La). The EPA is also finalizing amendments to the NSPS for secondary lead smelters constructed, reconstructed, or modified after June 11, 1973, and on or before December 1, 2022, (NSPS subpart L). In addition, we are finalizing the use of EPA Method 22 (Visual Determination of Fugitive Emissions from Material Sources and Smoke Emissions from Flares) as an alternative for demonstrating compliance with the opacity limit.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 88 Issue 222 (Monday, November 20, 2023)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 222 (Monday, November 20, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 80594-80617]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2023-25275]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 60
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0481; FRL-9630-02-OAR]
RIN 2060-AV78
New Source Performance Standards Review for Secondary Lead
Smelters
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing
amendments to the new source performance standards (NSPS) for secondary
lead smelters pursuant to the periodic review required by the Clean Air
Act (CAA). Specifically, the EPA is finalizing revisions to the NSPS
that applies to affected secondary lead smelters constructed,
reconstructed, or modified after December 1, 2022 (NSPS subpart La).
The EPA is also finalizing amendments to the NSPS for secondary lead
smelters constructed, reconstructed, or modified after June 11, 1973,
and on or before December 1, 2022, (NSPS subpart L). In addition, we
are finalizing the use of EPA Method 22 (Visual Determination of
Fugitive Emissions from Material Sources and Smoke Emissions from
Flares) as an alternative for demonstrating compliance with the opacity
limit.
DATES: This final rule is effective on November 20, 2023. The
incorporation by reference (IBR) of certain publications listed in the
rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of November
20, 2023.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0481. All documents in the docket are
listed on the <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> website. Although listed,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available
electronically through <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amber Wright, Sector Policies and
Programs Division (D243-02), Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 109 T.W. Alexander
Drive, P.O. Box 12055, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711;
telephone number: (919) 541-4680; email address: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2f585d4648475b014e424d4a5d6f4a5f4e01484059"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="ed9a9f848a8599c38c808f889fad889d8cc38a829b">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. Throughout this document 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:
ABR Association of Battery Recyclers
ASTM ASTM, International
BSER best system of emission reduction
CAA Clean Air Act
CBI Confidential Business Information
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DCOT digital camera opacity technique
EJ environmental justice
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ERT Electronic Reporting Tool
FR Federal Register
HEPA high efficiency particulate air
IBR incorporation by reference
ICR information collection request
km kilometers
mg/dscm milligram per dry standard cubic meter
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
NSPS new source performance standards
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement
OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PDF portable document format
PM particulate matter
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RIN Regulatory Information Number
SOP standard operating procedures
SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunctions
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
U.S.C. United States Code
VCS voluntary consensus standard
WESP wet electrostatic precipitator
Organization of this document. The information in this preamble is
organized as follows:
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
C. Judicial Review and Administrative Review
II. Background
A. What is the statutory authority for this final action?
B. How does the EPA perform the NSPS review?
C. What is the source category regulated in this final action?
III. What changes did we propose for the secondary lead smelting
NSPS?
IV. What actions are we finalizing and what is our rationale for
such decisions?
A. Revised NSPS for Blast, Reverberatory, and Pot Furnaces
B. NSPS Subpart La Without Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction
Exemptions
C. Testing and Monitoring Requirements
D. Electronic Reporting
E. Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements
F. Definitions
G. Effective Date and Compliance Dates
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts
A. What are the air quality impacts?
B. What are the secondary impacts?
C. What are the cost impacts for regulated facilities?
D. What are the economic impacts?
E. What are the benefits?
F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
[[Page 80595]]
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 14094: Modernizing Regulatory Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and
1 CFR Part 51
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
The source category that is the subject of this final action is
composed of secondary lead smelters regulated under CAA section 111,
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS). The 2022 North American
Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for the source category is
331492. The NAICS code serves as a guide for readers outlining the type
of entities that this final action is likely to affect. The NSPS
codified in 40 CFR part 60, subpart L are directly applicable to
secondary lead smelters constructed, reconstructed, or modified after
June 11, 1973, and on or before December 1, 2022. The NSPS codified in
40 CFR part 60, subpart La, are directly applicable to affected
facilities that begin construction, reconstruction, or modification
after December 1, 2022. Federal, state, local and tribal government
entities would not be affected by this action. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria found
in 40 CFR part 60, subparts L and La, and consult the person listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble, your
state air pollution control agency with delegated authority for NSPS,
or your EPA Regional Office.
B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this final action is available on the internet at <a href="https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/secondary-lead-smelters-new-source-performance-standards-nsps">https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/secondary-lead-smelters-new-source-performance-standards-nsps</a>. Following publication in the Federal
Register, the EPA will post the Federal Register version of the final
rule and key technical documents at this same website.
A redline/strikeout version of the rules showing the final edits
being made to incorporate the changes to 40 CFR part 60, subpart L and
the new text for 40 CFR part 60, subpart La finalized in this action is
available in the docket (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0481). Following
signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA also will post a copy of
these documents to <a href="https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/secondary-lead-smelters-new-source-performance-standards-nsps">https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/secondary-lead-smelters-new-source-performance-standards-nsps</a>.
C. Judicial Review and Administrative Review
Under CAA section 307(b)(1), judicial review of this final action
is available only by filing a petition for review in the United States
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by January 19,
2024. Under CAA section 307(b)(2), the requirements established by this
final rule may not be challenged separately in any civil or criminal
proceedings brought by the EPA to enforce the requirements.
Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that ``[o]nly an
objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable
specificity during the period for public comment (including any public
hearing) may be raised during judicial review.'' This section also
provides a mechanism for the EPA to convene a proceeding for
reconsideration, ``[i]f the person raising an objection can demonstrate
to the EPA that it was impracticable to raise such objection within
[the period for public comment] or if the grounds for such objection
arose after the period for public comment, (but within the time
specified for judicial review) and if such objection is of central
relevance to the outcome of the rule.'' Any person seeking to make such
a demonstration to us should submit a Petition for Reconsideration to
the Office of the Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Room 3000, WJC West Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460, with a copy to both the person(s) listed in the preceding FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, and the Associate General Counsel
for the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General Counsel (Mail
Code 2344A), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460.
II. Background
A. What is the statutory authority for this final action?
The EPA's authority for this final rule is CAA section 111, which
governs the establishment of standards of performance for stationary
sources. Section 111(b)(1)(A) of the CAA requires the EPA Administrator
to list categories of stationary sources that in the Administrator's
judgment cause or contribute significantly to air pollution that may
reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. The EPA
must then issue performance standards for new (and modified or
reconstructed) sources in each source category pursuant to CAA section
111(b)(1)(B). These standards are referred to as new source performance
standards, or NSPS. The EPA has the authority to define the scope of
the source categories, determine the pollutants for which standards
should be developed, set the emission level of the standards, and
distinguish among classes, types, and sizes within categories in
establishing the standards.
CAA section 111(b)(1)(B) requires the EPA to ``at least every 8
years review and, if appropriate, revise'' the NSPS. However, the
Administrator need not review any such standard if the ``Administrator
determines that such review is not appropriate in light of readily
available information on the efficacy'' of the standard. When
conducting a review of an existing performance standard, the EPA has
the discretion and authority to add emission limits for pollutants or
emission sources not currently regulated for that source category.
In setting or revising a performance standard, CAA section
111(a)(1) provides that performance standards are to reflect ``the
degree of emission limitation achievable through the application of the
BSER which (taking into account the cost of achieving such reduction
and any nonair quality health and environmental impact and energy
requirements) the Administrator determines has been adequately
demonstrated.'' The term ``standard of performance'' in CAA section
111(a)(1) makes clear that the EPA is to determine both the 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)
[[Page 80596]]
generally 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. CAA section 111(h)(1) authorizes the
Administrator to promulgate ``a design, equipment, work practice, or
operational standard, or combination thereof'' if in his or her
judgment, ``it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce a standard of
performance.'' CAA section 111(h)(2) provides the circumstances under
which prescribing or enforcing a standard of performance is ``not
feasible,'' such as, when the pollutant cannot be emitted through a
conveyance designed to emit or capture the pollutant, or when there is
no practicable measurement methodology for the particular class of
sources.
Pursuant to the definition of new source in CAA section 111(a)(2),
standards of performance apply to facilities that begin construction,
reconstruction, or modification after the date of publication of the
proposed standards in the Federal Register. Under CAA section
111(a)(4), ``modification'' means any physical change in, or change in
the method of operation of, a stationary source which increases the
amount of any air pollutant emitted by such source or which results in
the emission of any air pollutant not previously emitted. Changes to an
existing facility that do not result in an increase in emissions are
not considered modifications. Under the provisions in 40 CFR 60.15,
reconstruction means the replacement of components of an existing
facility such that: (1) the fixed capital cost of the new components
exceeds 50 percent of the fixed capital cost that would be required to
construct a comparable entirely new facility; and (2) it is
technologically and economically feasible to meet the applicable
standards. Pursuant to CAA section 111(b)(1)(B), the standards of
performance or revisions thereof shall become effective upon
promulgation.
B. How does the EPA perform the NSPS review?
As noted in section II.A. of this preamble, CAA section 111
requires the EPA to, at least every 8 years, review and, if
appropriate, revise the standards of performance applicable to new,
modified, and reconstructed sources. If the EPA revises the standards
of performance, they must reflect the degree of emission limitation
achievable through the application of the BSER considering the cost of
achieving such reduction and any nonair quality health and
environmental impact and energy requirements. CAA section 111(a)(1).
In reviewing an NSPS to determine whether it is ``appropriate'' to
revise the standards of performance, the EPA evaluates the statutory
factors, which may include consideration of the following information:
<bullet> Expected growth for the source category, including how
many new facilities, reconstructions, and modifications may trigger
NSPS in the future.
<bullet> Pollution control measures, including advances in control
technologies, process operations, design or efficiency improvements, or
other systems of emission reduction, that are ``adequately
demonstrated'' in the regulated industry.
<bullet> Available information from the implementation and
enforcement of current requirements indicating that emission
limitations and percent reductions beyond those required by the current
standards are achieved in practice.
<bullet> Costs (including capital and annual costs) associated with
implementation of the available pollution control measures.
<bullet> The amount of emission reductions achievable through
application of such pollution control measures.
<bullet> Any non-air quality health and environmental impact and
energy requirements associated with those control measures.
In evaluating whether the cost of a particular system of emission
reduction is reasonable, the EPA considers various costs associated
with the particular air pollution control measure or a level of
control, including capital costs and operating costs, and the emission
reductions that the control measure or particular level of control can
achieve. The Agency considers these costs in the context of the
industry's overall capital expenditures and revenues. The Agency also
considers cost effectiveness analysis as a useful metric and a means of
evaluating whether a given control achieves emission reduction at a
reasonable cost. A cost effectiveness analysis allows comparisons of
relative costs and outcomes (effects) of 2 or more options. In general,
cost effectiveness is a measure of the outcomes produced by resources
spent. In the context of air pollution control options, cost
effectiveness typically refers to the annualized cost of implementing
an air pollution control option divided by the amount of pollutant
reductions realized annually.
After the EPA evaluates the statutory factors, the EPA compares the
various systems of emission reductions and determines which system is
``best,'' and therefore represents the BSER. The EPA then establishes a
standard of performance that reflects the degree of emission limitation
achievable through the implementation of the BSER. In doing this
analysis, the EPA can determine whether subcategorization is
appropriate based on classes, types, and sizes of sources, and may
identify a different BSER and establish different performance standards
for each subcategory. The result of the analysis and BSER determination
leads to standards of performance that apply to facilities that begin
construction, reconstruction, or modification after the date of
publication of the proposed standards in the Federal Register. Because
the NSPS reflect the BSER under conditions of proper operation and
maintenance, in doing its review, the EPA also evaluates and determines
the proper testing, monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting
requirements needed to ensure compliance with the emission standards.
C. What is the source category regulated in this final action?
The EPA first promulgated NSPS for the secondary lead smelting
source category on March 8, 1974 (39 FR 9308). These standards of
performance are codified in 40 CFR part 60, subpart L, and are
applicable to sources that commence construction, modification, or
reconstruction after June 11, 1973. These standards of performance
regulate emissions of PM from blast and reverberatory furnaces and
specifies limits for visible emissions (opacity) for blast and
reverberatory furnaces and for pot (refining) furnaces. The EPA amended
NSPS subpart L on October 6, 1975 (40 FR 46250) to remove a provision
providing that the failure to meet the NSPS emissions limits due to the
presence of uncombined water in the stack gases was not considered a
violation. In March 1979, the EPA reviewed the NSPS and analyzed
possible revisions to the NSPS; however, the review did not result in
any revisions to the NSPS subpart L at that time.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See <a href="https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/91010O7P.PDF?Dockey=91010O7P.PDF">https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/91010O7P.PDF?Dockey=91010O7P.PDF</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The secondary lead smelting source category consists of facilities
that produce lead and lead alloys from lead-bearing scrap material.
Lead is used to make various construction, medical, industrial, and
consumer products such as batteries, glass, x-ray protection gear, and
various fillers. The secondary lead smelting process consists of: (1)
pre-
[[Page 80597]]
processing of lead bearing materials, (2) melting lead metal and
reducing lead compounds to lead metal in the smelting furnace, and (3)
refining and alloying the lead to customer specifications.
At secondary lead smelting facilities, blast and reverberatory
furnaces are used in the smelting processes, and pot furnaces are used
in the refining process. The process exhaust from blast and
reverberatory furnaces is a source of PM emissions, and emissions of PM
also occur as process fugitives at various points during the smelting
process, such as during charging and tapping of furnaces and refining
processes. Entrainment of dry materials in ambient air due to material
processing, vehicle traffic, wind erosion from storage piles, and other
activities can also be a source of PM emissions.
Currently, there are 11 secondary lead smelting facilities in the
United States and each facility operates furnaces that are subject to
NSPS subpart L, which specifies that owners or operators of affected
facilities must limit PM emissions from blast and reverberatory
furnaces to not more than 50 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter
(mg/dscm) or 0.022 grains per dry standard cubic feet (gr/dscf).
Subpart L also specifies that visible emissions must not exceed 20
percent opacity from blast or reverberatory furnaces and 10 percent
opacity from pot furnaces. Secondary lead smelting facilities use a
variety of control devices (e.g., baghouses, gas scrubbers), often in
combination, to comply with the PM emissions and opacity limits of the
NSPS.
The EPA proposed the current review and revisions of the secondary
lead smelting source category NSPS subpart L on December 1, 2022 (87 FR
73708). We received four comment letters, including one from the
industry trade association (the Association of Battery Recyclers, or
ABR) and three from other stakeholders, during the comment period.
Summaries of the more significant comments we timely received regarding
the proposed rule and our responses are provided in this preamble. A
summary of all other public comments on the proposal and the EPA's
responses to those comments is available in Summary of Public Comments
and Responses on Proposed Rule: New Source Performance Standards for
Secondary Lead Smelting (40 CFR part 60, subparts L and La) Best System
of Emission Reduction Review, Final Amendments, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0481. In this action, the EPA is finalizing decisions and
revisions pursuant to CAA section 111(b)(1)(B) review for the secondary
lead smelting NSPS subpart L after our considerations of all the
comments received.
III. What changes did we propose for the secondary lead smelting NSPS?
On December 1, 2022, the EPA proposed revisions to the NSPS for
secondary lead smelters pursuant to CAA section 111(b)(1)(B) review of
NSPS subpart L. In that action, the EPA proposed to establish a new
subpart (40 CFR part 60, subpart La) applicable to affected sources
that begin construction, reconstruction, or modification after December
1, 2022. The EPA proposed in the NSPS subpart La, revised standards for
PM emissions and opacity for blast furnaces, reverberatory furnaces,
and process fugitive emissions sources that apply at all times,
including periods of SSM. The EPA proposed initial and periodic PM and
opacity performance testing, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.
The EPA also proposed to revise the definitions for blast and
reverberatory furnaces and added a new definition for pot furnaces.
The EPA also proposed to amend NSPS subpart L to clarify that NSPS
subpart L applies to affected sources that commenced construction,
reconstruction, or modification after June 11, 1973, and on or before
December 1, 2022, and to update the NSPS furnace definitions,
performance testing schedule, and monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements to be more consistent with the NESHAP (40 CFR
part 63, subpart X). The EPA also proposed the IBR of an alternative
method for determining opacity and the requirement for the submission
of electronic performance test reports.
IV. What actions are we finalizing and what is our rationale for such
decisions?
The EPA is finalizing revisions to the NSPS for secondary lead
smelters pursuant to CAA section 111(b)(1)(B) review. The EPA is
promulgating the NSPS revisions in a new subpart, 40 CFR part 60,
subpart La. The revised NSPS subpart is applicable to affected sources
constructed, modified, or reconstructed after December 1, 2022. This
action also finalizes standards of performance in NSPS subpart La for
PM emission and opacity that apply at all times including during
periods of SSM and other proposed changes such as electronic reporting.
Additionally, this action finalizes proposed revisions to the testing,
monitoring, notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements,
which are the same for both NSPS subparts L and La, and finalizes a
definition for ``process fugitive emissions source'' in NSPS subpart La
based on consideration of public comments.
A. Revised NSPS for Blast, Reverberatory, and Pot Furnaces
1. Proposed BSER for PM Emissions and Opacity
Based on the EPA's permit review and assessment of control costs
and other CAA section 111 statutory considerations, the EPA proposed to
identify for NSPS subpart La that the BSER for PM emissions and opacity
from new, modified, or reconstructed blast furnaces is an afterburner
followed by efficient particulate controls (e.g., fabric filter that
may be installed in series with a high efficiency particulate air
(HEPA) filter and/or a venturi scrubber). For new, modified, or
reconstructed reverberatory and pot furnaces, the EPA proposed that the
BSER for PM emissions and opacity is efficient particulate controls
(e.g., fabric filter that may be installed in series with a HEPA
filter, venturi scrubber and/or a wet electrostatic precipitator
(WESP)).
Based on the available PM emissions and opacity data, the EPA
proposed in NSPS subpart La that the standard of performance for blast
and reverberatory furnaces that reflects the application of BSER is an
emission limit of 10 mg PM/dscm. For pot furnaces, the EPA proposed in
NSPS subpart La that the standard of performance that reflects the
application of BSER is a PM emissions limit of 3 mg/dscm. The EPA also
proposed that the standard of performance for opacity from blast,
reverberatory, and pot furnaces emissions is 0 percent.
2. How the Final Revisions to BSER and the PM Emissions and Opacity
Standards Differ From the Proposed Revisions
After considering the comments regarding the EPA's proposed BSER
determinations for NSPS subpart La and the proposed PM emissions and
opacity standards, the EPA is finalizing the BSER determinations and
the PM standards for blast and reverberatory furnaces for NSPS subpart
La, as proposed. However, after considering the comments and additional
opacity data provided by one commenter, the EPA is finalizing the
opacity limits for blast and reverberatory furnace in the final NSPS
subpart La at 5 percent, rather than the proposed opacity standard of 0
percent. Also, the EPA is revising the PM limit for pot furnaces to
address comments associated with the interaction of the proposed limit
for pot
[[Page 80598]]
furnaces with the NESHAP subpart X requirements. In the final NSPS
subpart La (40 CFR 60.122a(a)), the EPA is promulgating a definition
for ``process fugitives emission source'' (see the discussion in
section IV.F. of this preamble) and finalizing an emissions limit for
PM of 4.9 mg/dscm and an opacity limit of 5 percent from process
fugitive emissions sources that includes emissions from pot furnaces,
as well as other combined process fugitive emissions (e.g., emissions
from furnace charging and tapping and casting).
3. BSER and PM Emissions and Opacity Standards Comments and Responses
a. BSER Determination
Comment: One commenter disagreed with the EPA's determination in
the proposal preamble (87 FR 73715) that the BSER for PM emissions and
opacity from new, modified, or reconstructed blast furnaces is an
afterburner followed by efficient PM controls (e.g., fabric filter
installed in series with a high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA)
filter and/or a venturi scrubber). The commenter noted that secondary
lead smelting facilities use afterburners primarily to reduce emissions
of carbon monoxide and unburned hydrocarbons from certain types of
furnaces and configurations (e.g., blast furnaces, collocated
reverberatory furnaces) and that afterburners have little if any role
in reducing emissions of PM.
Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter's assertion that
BSER for PM emissions and opacity from new, modified, or reconstructed
blast furnaces should not include an afterburner. The afterburner helps
to prevent fouling of the fabric filter by organics and moisture in the
furnace exhaust, which results in better PM control. This determination
is consistent with the BSER discussed in previous Secondary Lead
Smelting NSPS review documents. For example, Volume 1 of the NSPS
background document (June 1973, Air Pollution Technical Data (APTD)-
1352a) states that the blast furnace afterburner is used upstream of
the baghouse to ``incinerate oily and sticky materials to avoid binding
the fabric.'' Additionally, the March 1979 NSPS review document (EPA-
450/3-79-015) states that, ``As previously noted, with blast furnaces
an afterburner is employed to ensure complete combustion of such
material [sparks and other burning material in furnace gas] before it
enters the baghouse.'' The commenter did not provide any additional
information to contradict this long-standing analysis of the benefits
of using in blast furnaces an afterburner to further reduce PM
emissions.
b. Opacity Emission Limits for NSPS Subpart La
Comment: One commenter contended that the EPA based the proposed
standard of 0 percent opacity limit for blast, reverberatory, and pot
furnaces on insufficient information and limited data. The commenter
also said that the EPA did not evaluate opacity measurements across the
affected sources and under different operating conditions (particularly
SSM periods).
In response to the EPA's request in the proposal for comments
regarding the available opacity data for blast, reverberatory, and pot
furnaces, the commenter provided a subset of opacity data measured in a
common stack utilizing a continuous opacity monitor system (COMS) at
the outlet of the baghouses before the scrubber (the commenter asserted
a claim of CBI over the baghouse data). The commenter stated that the
baghouse data demonstrate the presence of non-zero opacities during
normal operations and contradict the EPA's proposed opacity limitation
of 0 percent.
The commenter stated that the inherent subjectivity in the
measurement of opacity precludes the EPA from establishing an absolute
0 percent opacity emissions standard. The commenter noted that the
subjectivity of opacity measurements is acknowledged in the
certification requirements for both EPA Method 9 and ASTM D7520-16
(i.e., >15 percent opacity at any single plume reading or a >7.5
percent opacity average error in each plume category). The commenter
added that ASTM D7520-16 references a repeatability (precision) study
at 0 percent opacity of <plus-minus>3 percent opacity (i.e., at 0
percent opacity, ASTM D7520-16 will read between 0 percent opacity to 3
percent opacity 95 percent of the time), which could result in an
exceedance of the 0 percent opacity standard. The commenter also noted
that the proposed methodologies to determine opacity or visible
emissions can be impacted by limitations in contrasting backgrounds and
by the presence of wet plumes, which vary from source to source.
To account for the subjectivity and the margin of error associated
with the proposed compliance test methods presented above, the
commenter stated that the EPA should revise the proposed opacity limit
to 5 percent.
Response: The EPA acknowledges that, on occasion during process
operations and particularly during startup and shutdown events, brief
periods of visible emissions from these sources are possible. However,
since these sources are located in negative pressure locations, these
periods of visible emissions should not typically occur. As such, to
account for the remote possibility of these periods of visible
emissions, limited data availability, and the subjectivity and margin
of error of the visible emissions test methods, we are finalizing a
visible emission standard of no greater than 5 percent over a single 6-
minute averaging period. The 5 percent value ``threshold'' is the
lowest visible emission increment reading achievable by EPA Method 9
that is greater than 0 percent, and the 6-minute averaging period
represents the minimum number of visible emissions observations
prescribed by EPA Method 9 to calculate a valid visible emissions
average (i.e., a minimum of 24 visible emissions observations shall be
made at 15-second intervals). This opacity standard and averaging
period accounts for brief periods of visible emissions while still
maintaining stringency with the expected absence of emissions in a
negative pressure environment.
To verify this, a 6-minute EPA Method 22 visible emissions check
should occur at a minimum of once per calendar day during normal
operations, as well as during each SSM event. If any visible emissions
are observed for any period of time (i.e., >0 seconds), a 30-minute EPA
Method 9 visible emissions test must be conducted as soon as
practicable. As an alternative, a 30-minute EPA Method 9 visible
emissions test can be performed at a minimum of once per calendar day
during normal operations, as well as during each SSM event without
having to perform the EPA Method 22 visible emissions check. If any
rolling 6-minute averaging period from the 30-minute visible emissions
test is greater than 5 percent, corrective action must be initiated
within 1 hour of detecting visible emissions above the applicable
limit. After the corrective action is completed, an additional 30-
minute visible emissions test must be performed. After the corrective
action is completed, if any rolling 6-minute averaging period from the
follow-up 30-minute visible emissions test is greater than 5 percent,
the source is deemed out of compliance with the prescribed opacity
standard.
Comment: One commenter noted an apparent typographical error in the
proposed NSPS subpart La (40 CFR 60.122a) and suggested that the EPA
change the text from ``Exhibit 0 percent opacity or greater'' to
``Exhibit opacity greater than'' the limit.
Response: The EPA has revised the text in NSPS subpart La 40 CFR
[[Page 80599]]
60.122a(a)(2) and 60.122a(b)(2) to address the typographical error.
c. PM Emissions Limit for Pot Furnaces
Comment: One commenter stated that the proposed rule's treatment of
``pot furnaces,'' including the establishment of PM standards for new
pot furnaces, is misaligned with the functioning of pot furnaces at
secondary lead smelters and with their treatment under other regulatory
provisions, including NESHAP subpart X. The commenter said that NESHAP
subpart X regulates pot furnace emissions as process fugitives, which
are typically combined with emissions from other sources for ducting to
controls, and that isolating pot furnace emissions for the purpose of
performance testing may not be practical. The commenter said that the
EPA should remove the proposed PM standard for pot furnaces.
The commenter stated that NESHAP subpart X (40 CFR 63.542)
considers pot furnaces to be a process fugitive emissions source,
rather than a process emissions source. The commenter noted that
facilities may mix emissions from pot furnaces with process emissions
from the smelting furnaces which makes it more difficult to segregate
pot furnace emissions for compliance determination purposes. If the EPA
does establish NSPS subpart La emission standards for new pot furnaces
at secondary lead smelters, the commenter asserted that the EPA should
clarify that commingled emissions from smelting furnaces and pot
furnaces are subject to the proposed emission standards in 40 CFR
60.122a(a).
The commenter contended that the data the EPA used to establish the
proposed PM emissions limit for pot furnaces are insufficient because
the data include contributions from emission sources other than pot
furnaces (e.g., casting emissions).
The commenter also stated that the EPA should confirm that smaller
refining kettles used for research and development (R&D) are excluded
from the proposed definition of pot furnaces. For example, the EPA
could exclude such kettles by establishing a size limit (e.g., smaller
than 5 tons of molten metal at maximum capacity) and a usage limit
(operated fewer than 4000 hours per year). The commenter noted that the
R&D refining kettles are a fraction of the size of normal production
refining kettles (e.g., 1 ton v. 100 tons) and are, therefore,
insignificant emission sources at smelters.
Response: The EPA disagrees with commenter's statement that the
final rule should not include a PM standard for pot furnaces. As noted
in sections IV.A.1. and 2. of this preamble, the EPA has determined
that the final BSER for PM emissions and opacity from new, modified, or
reconstructed pot furnaces is efficient particulate controls, and the
commenter does not dispute that PM emissions from pot furnaces can be
reduced by application of these controls. Consequently, the EPA must
establish a PM emissions limit that reflects BSER. However, the EPA
acknowledges that isolating pot furnace emissions for NSPS compliance
testing may not be feasible for all secondary lead smelting facilities.
The EPA also acknowledges that the limited data the EPA used to
establish the proposed PM emissions limit for pot furnaces include
contributions from emission sources other than pot furnaces (i.e., data
from 5 of 6 test reports used to calculate the proposed pot furnace
limit included contributions from casting fugitives).
To address the commenter's concern related to isolating emissions
for compliance testing and the limited data set, the EPA conducted a
further evaluation of the available test data to identify data values
that included contributions from pot furnaces combined with other
process fugitive sources (e.g., emissions from furnace charging and
tapping and casting). The EPA used this data set of comingled pot
furnace emissions, which consists of 45 test runs from 3 facilities
(Clarios, South Carolina; Gopher Resource, Florida; and Gopher
Resource, Minnesota), to derive a PM emissions limit for pot furnace
emissions combined with emissions from other process fugitives. Based
on this updated analysis, in the final NSPS subpart La (40 CFR
60.122a(a)), the EPA is promulgating a process fugitive source
emissions limit for PM of 4.9 mg/dscm from the process emissions
control devices. This analysis can be found in the Particulate Matter
Emissions Test Data Memorandum for Process Fugitive Sources as
Secondary Lead Smelting Facilities located in the docket for this
rulemaking. This approach of regulating pot furnace emissions as a
process fugitive source is consistent with the approach used under
NESHAP subpart X, which requires that new or reconstructed sources must
capture all process fugitive emissions (including pot furnace
emissions) with hoods or negative pressure enclosures and route those
emissions to a control device.
Regarding the commenter's assertion that the EPA should confirm
that smaller refining kettles used for R&D are excluded from the
proposed definition of pot furnaces, the commentor did not provide any
data demonstrating that R&D kettles cannot meet the proposed
requirement. Additionally, the EPA is not finalizing the proposed
definition for pot furnaces and is finalizing a process fugitive
emissions limit. Therefore, the EPA has no basis to provide an
exception to the emissions limits specified in NSPS subpart La at this
time. However, the EPA may revisit this issue under the NESHAP subpart
X review.
B. NSPS Subpart La Without Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction
Exemptions
Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008),
the EPA has established standards in NSPS subpart La that apply at all
times. We are finalizing in NSPS subpart La specific requirements at 40
CFR 60.122a(c) that override the general provisions for SSM
requirements. In finalizing the standards in NSPS subpart La, the EPA
has taken into account startup and shutdown periods and, for the
reasons explained in this section of the preamble, has not finalized
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 emissions control, process, or monitoring equipment (40 CFR 60.2).
The EPA interprets CAA section 111 as not requiring emissions that
occur during periods of malfunction to be factored into development of
CAA section 111 standards. Nothing in CAA section 111 or in case law
requires that the EPA consider malfunctions when determining what
standards of performance reflect the degree of emission limitation
achievable through ``the application of the best system of emission
reduction'' that the EPA determines is adequately demonstrated. While
the EPA accounts for variability in setting emissions standards,
nothing in CAA section 111 requires the Agency to consider malfunctions
as part of that analysis. The EPA is not required to treat a
malfunction in the same manner as the type of variation in performance
that occurs during routine operations of a source. A malfunction is a
failure of the source to perform in a ``normal or usual manner'' and no
statutory language compels the EPA to consider such events in setting
CAA section 111 standards of performance. The EPA's approach to
malfunctions in the analogous circumstances (setting ``achievable''
standards under CAA section 112) has been upheld as reasonable by the
D.C. Circuit in U.S.
[[Page 80600]]
Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579, 606-610 (2016).
1. Proposed SSM Provisions
The EPA proposed in NSPS subpart La that the PM emissions and
opacity limits for blast, reverberatory, and pot furnaces apply at all
times, including periods of SSM. The proposed NSPS subpart La included
specific requirements at 40 CFR 60.122a(c) that would override the
general provisions for SSM requirements.
2. How the Final Revisions to the SSM Provisions Differ From the
Proposed Revisions
After considering the comment on the proposed SSM provisions, the
EPA is finalizing in NSPS subpart La that the PM emissions and opacity
limits for blast, reverberatory, and pot furnaces apply at all times,
including periods of SSM, and is finalizing the SSM provision in 40 CFR
60.122a(c), as proposed.
3. SSM Provision Comment and Response
Comment: One commenter asserted that the EPA should not remove from
NSPS subpart La the exception in the NSPS general provisions (40 CFR
60.8(c)) which states that emissions during SSM periods that exceed the
applicable NSPS limit are not considered to be a violation of the
applicable emission limit. The commenter noted that multiple rulings by
the D.C. Circuit (e.g., Portland Cement Ass'n v. Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d
375, 398 (D.C. Cir. 1973); Essex Chem. Corp. v. Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d
427, 432 (D.C. Cir. 1973); and National Lime Ass'n v. EPA, 627 F.2d
416, 431 n.46 (D.C. Cir. 1980)) have affirmed the EPA's historic
approach of not requiring affected sources to meet NSPS emission limits
during SSM events. The commenter stated that it would be arbitrary and
capricious for the EPA to interpret Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019
(D.C. Cir. 2008), as preventing the EPA from exercising discretion in
establishing an SSM exception in NSPS subpart La or as making an SSM
exception inappropriate in NSPS subpart La on the current record.
Response: As discussed in more detail in the proposal, the EPA has
determined that the reasoning in the court's decision in Sierra Club v.
EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), which vacated the SSM exemption in
CAA section 112, applies equally to CAA section 111. Therefore, we
disagree with the commenter on the applicability of this decision to
CAA section 111. While the EPA recognizes the differences between the
NESHAP and NSPS programs, the court in Sierra Club held that under
section 302(k) of the CAA, emissions standards or limitations must be
continuous in nature, and the definition of emission or standard in CAA
section 302(k) and the requirement for continuous standards applies to
both NESHAP and NSPS.
C. Testing and Monitoring Requirements
1. Proposed Testing and Monitoring Provisions
The EPA proposed requiring that facilities subject to 40 CFR part
60, subparts L and La conduct periodic PM testing of blast,
reverberatory, and pot furnace emissions. The EPA also proposed under
40 CFR part 60, subpart La periodic testing of opacity from blast,
reverberatory, and pot furnace emissions. The proposed amendments would
allow facilities to request less frequent periodic PM testing, reduced
from every 12 months to every 24 months, if the previous periodic
compliance test demonstrates that PM emissions are 50 percent or less
of the final emissions limit (e.g., PM emissions from blast and
reverberatory furnaces of 25 mg/dscm or less for facilities subject to
40 CFR part 60, subpart L).
To reduce the testing burden on facilities, the EPA also proposed
allowing facilities to determine the PM emissions by either EPA Method
12 (Determination of Inorganic Lead Emissions from Stationary Sources)
or EPA Method 29 (Determination of Metals Emissions from Stationary
Sources). For determining opacity under NSPS subpart L, the EPA
proposed allowing the use of ASTM, International (ASTM) D7520-16
(Standard Test Method for Determining the Opacity of a Plume in the
Outdoor Ambient Atmosphere) as an alternative to EPA Method 9. For NSPS
subpart La, the EPA proposed allowing the use of EPA Method 22 (Visual
Determination of Fugitive Emissions from Material Sources and Smoke
Emissions from Flares) if there are zero visible emissions as an
alternative to EPA Method 9 or the ASTM D7520-16 method.
The EPA also proposed adding 40 CFR 60.124 and 40 CFR 60.124a
(Monitoring requirements) to NSPS subparts L and La, respectively, to
include some of the monitoring requirements specified in 40 CFR
63.548(a) through (i) (Monitoring requirements) of the NESHAP (40 CFR
part 63, subpart X), including development of a standard operating
procedures (SOP) manual for control devices used to reduce PM and
opacity emissions.
2. How the Final Revisions to the Testing and Monitoring Provisions
Differ From the Proposed Revisions
After considering the comments, the EPA is finalizing the testing
and monitoring provisions, as proposed. In response to public comment
regarding the appropriate level of the opacity standard, the EPA
revised the proposed opacity standard from 0 percent to 5 percent (see
the discussion in section IV.A. of this preamble). Although EPA Method
22 is used only to determine the absence of visual emissions (i.e.,
zero percent opacity), rather than to determine non-zero readings
(e.g., 5 percent opacity), the EPA is retaining the use of EPA Method
22 as an alternative method to potentially reduce the testing burden on
facilities. For example, a facility could use EPA Method 22 to
demonstrate compliance with the final opacity limit of 5 percent by
determining no visible emissions. However, if visible emissions are
detected, the facility would need to proceed to use EPA Method 9 to
confirm opacity is no more than 5 percent.
3. Testing and Monitoring Comments and Responses
Comment: One commenter contended that periodic PM testing is
unnecessary and inappropriate, and would not discover any actionable
information that would not be discovered through the regular
performance testing for particulate lead required by NESHAP subpart X.
Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter. The target
pollutant of the periodic testing under NESHAP subpart X is lead, while
the target pollutant for the NSPS is PM. The EPA concludes that it is
appropriate to require periodic testing for PM to confirm affected
facilities continue to comply with the PM limits. Codifying the testing
requirements in the NSPS provides for periodic, direct assessments
regarding facility compliance status with the PM limits in NSPS
subparts L and La.
Comment: One commenter acknowledged that allowing facilities to
conduct performance tests for NESHAP subpart X and NSPS subparts L and
La, as applicable, through collection of a single sample will
appropriately facilitate effective compliance. The commenter stated
that, to assist in the clarity of implementing the proposed rule, the
EPA should revise proposed 40 CFR 60.123 and 60.123a to clarify that
smelters are to employ section 16.1 of EPA Method 12 or the
specifications in EPA Method 29, as stated in section 1.2
[[Page 80601]]
of EPA Method 29, and detailed throughout EPA Method 29.
Response: The EPA added the test method sections cited by the
commenter to the final rules.
Comment: One commenter noted that proposed NSPS subparts L and La
(at 40 CFR 60.123(b)(2) and 60.123a(b)(2)) allow for facilities to
request from the EPA Administrator an extension (up to 24 months) for
conducting the periodic performance tests for facilities where the
previous compliance tests measured PM emissions are 50 percent or less
of the emissions limit (e.g., for NSPS subpart L, 25 mg/dscm or less).
The commenter asserted that, in practice, it is difficult for well-
controlled smelters to obtain a timely decision from the EPA regarding
the facility's request, which is essentially tantamount to an
unjustified denial of the extension request. The commenter stated that
the EPA should provide the testing extension upon receipt of the
facility's request by the appropriate EPA regional office, rather than
the facility having to wait for Administrator approval.
Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter. Providing the
performance testing extension based solely on the receipt of the
facility's request would not be appropriate because it would not
provide any opportunity for the EPA or delegated authority to verify
the facility's assertion by reviewing the request and supporting
documentation (e.g., test report) before granting the testing
extension. However, the EPA recognizes it is reasonable for a facility
to expect to get a response as to whether the 24-month period is
approved within a reasonable timeframe before their next compliance
test. Therefore, the EPA has determined that it is appropriate to
finalize a provision that would preserve the opportunity to review
incoming requests, while encouraging the EPA or delegated authority to
act within a reasonable timeframe so that facilities have adequate
notice as to when the next compliance test will be required.
Accordingly, the EPA is finalizing a provision that provides that the
extension request will be deemed automatically approved under the
following specified circumstances: (1) a facility completes a
performance test that is 50 percent or lower than the applicable
emissions limit, (2) the facility submits a request for the extension
of 24 months well before their next required compliance test (i.e., no
more than 4 months after the subject compliance test that was 50
percent or lower than the limit), and (3) the EPA does not provide a
response to such request within 6 months of receipt of such request.
The EPA has determined that this provision will provide a balanced
approach to the competing interests of all involved parties.
D. Electronic Reporting
The EPA is finalizing a requirement that owners and operators of
secondary lead smelters subject to the NSPS subparts L and La submit
the results of the initial and periodic performance tests
electronically through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) using the
Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). The EPA did
not receive any public comments regarding the proposed requirements for
electronic reporting.
E. Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements
1. Proposed Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Provisions
The EPA proposed to add the notification, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements specified in the proposed 40 CFR 60.125 and 40
CFR 60.125a (Notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements)
to NSPS subparts L and La, respectively. The proposed requirements
clarified that facilities must comply with the notification and
recordkeeping requirements specified in 40 CFR 60.7 and the reporting
requirements specified in 40 CFR 60.19. The proposed requirements in
NSPS subparts L and La included the recordkeeping requirements from
NESHAP subpart X specified in 40 CFR 63.550(b); (c)(1) through (c)(4);
(c)(11) through (c)(12); (e)(4) through (e)(7); and (e)(13).
2. How the Final Revisions to the Notification, Recordkeeping and
Reporting Provisions Differ From the Proposed Revisions
After considering the comments, the EPA is finalizing the
notification, recordkeeping and reporting provisions, as proposed, with
the exception of the editorial changes made to the text of 40 CFR
60.125(a) and 60.125a(a); 40 CFR 60.124(c) and 60.124a(c); and 40 CFR
60.124(f)(4) and 60.124a(f)(4), as discussed below in section IV.E.3.
of this preamble.
3. Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Comments and Responses
Comment: One commenter stated that the EPA should clarify as to the
proposed revisions to NSPS subpart L that certain aspects of the NSPS
General Provisions 40 CFR 60.7 and 60.19 will not apply because they
concern regulatory provisions that are absent from NSPS subpart L
(e.g., 40 CFR 60.7(a)(7) concerns continuous opacity monitoring
systems, which appropriately are not required under proposed NSPS
subpart L).
Response: The EPA revised the text of 40 CFR 60.125(a) and
60.125a(a) as set forth in the amendatory text portion of this final
rule to address the clarification suggested by the commenter.
Comment: One commenter stated that the EPA should revise the
proposed NSPS subparts L and La (40 CFR 60.124(c) and 60.124a(c)) to
replace the phrase ``PM and opacity emissions control devices'' with
the phrase ``baghouses (fabric filters or cartridge collectors)'' to
improve the consistency between the underlying requirement proposed in
40 CFR 60.124(b) and 60.124a(b), and the submission provisions proposed
in 40 CFR 60.124(c) and 60.124a(c).
Response: The EPA agrees with the editorial change suggested by the
commenter. Therefore, the final NSPS subparts L and La (40 CFR
60.124(c) and 60.124a(c)) replace the phrase ``PM and opacity emissions
control devices'' with the phrase ``baghouses (fabric filters or
cartridge collectors).''
Comment: One commenter requested that the EPA provide a mechanism
by which a secondary lead smelting facility could avoid submission of a
redundant SOP manual in response to the proposed requirements in 40 CFR
60.124 and 60.124a, given the similarities between those provisions and
the SOP required by NESHAP subpart X (40 CFR 63.548).
Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter that an additional
mechanism is needed that would allow secondary lead smelting facilities
to avoid submission of redundant SOP manuals in response to the
proposed requirements in 40 CFR 60.124 and 60.124a. Proposed 40 CFR
60.124(l) and 60.124a(l) state: ``If an affected source is subject to
the monitoring requirements specified in 40 CFR part 63, subpart X
(National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from
Secondary Lead Smelting) and those requirements are as stringent or
more stringent than the monitoring requirements specified in paragraphs
(a) through (j) of this section, compliance with the monitoring
requirements specified in 40 CFR part 63, subpart X also demonstrates
compliance with the monitoring requirements specified in paragraphs (a)
through (k) of this section.'' The EPA believes that this specification
in NSPS subparts L and La already addresses the concern raised by the
commenter.
Comment: One commenter noted that proposed NSPS subparts L and La
(40
[[Page 80602]]
CFR 60.124(f)(4) and 60.124a(f)(4)) refer to the document ``Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) Fabric Filter Bag Leak
Detection Guidance'' (EPA-454/R-98-015; September 1997). The commenter
stated that the EPA guidance document is 26 years old and may be
inconsistent with current guidance provided by manufacturers of bag
leak detection systems. The commenter requested that the EPA revise
proposed NSPS subparts L and La (40 CFR 60.124(f)(4) and 60.124a(f)(4))
to clarify that a smelter may install and operate the bag leak
detection system in a manner consistent with the manufacturer's written
specifications and recommendations if there is any conflict between the
manufacturer's instructions and the OAQPS guidance.
Response: The EPA agrees with the clarification suggested by the
commenter. Therefore, the final text of 40 CFR 60.124(f)(4) and
60.124a(f)(4) as set forth in the amendatory text portion of this final
rule.
Comment: One commenter contended that the proposed requirements in
NSPS subparts L and La (40 CFR 60.124(k), 60.124a(k), 60.125(c)(10),
and 60.125a(c)(10)) for facilities to establish and record parametric
monitoring values for each control device used to comply with the PM
and opacity emission standards are not consistent with the requirements
of NESHAP subpart X (40 CFR 63.550(a)), which only requires parametric
monitoring and recordkeeping for scrubbers. The commenter stated that
the proposed requirements in NSPS subparts L and La (40 CFR 60.124(k)
and 60.124a(k)) for secondary lead smelting facilities to establish,
during the initial or periodic performance test, the value or range of
values of the monitoring parameter(s) for each control device used to
comply with the PM and opacity emission standards was overly vague and
potentially would require the establishment of monitoring parameters
for pollution control devices (e.g., WESPs) that are employed, but are
not part of BSER, or afterburners that are employed, but have little or
no role in PM control. The commenter added that the proposed NSPS
subparts L and La include monitoring and recordkeeping provisions that
provide sufficient criteria for the proper operation of applicable
control devices (the commenter provided several citations to the
proposed rules). The commenter stated that the EPA should revise the
proposed language to specify that a secondary lead smelting facility is
not required to establish and record parametric monitoring values for
PM control devices (other than scrubbers) if the facility demonstrates
compliance with NSPS subparts L and/or La (40 CFR 60.124 and/or
60.124a) by complying with the monitoring provisions of NESHAP subpart
X.
Response: Although the EPA strives to improve the consistency
between NSPS subparts L and La and NESHAP subpart X, where possible,
the EPA's decision-making regarding the requirements for the NSPS must
be driven by the requirements of CAA section 111 and the regulatory
provisions necessary to implement standards of performance promulgated
pursuant to that authority. We have determined that parametric
monitoring of control devices is necessary for demonstrating ongoing
compliance with the PM and opacity emission standards between the
demonstrations provided by the periodic performance tests. We also
disagree with the commenter that the text in proposed NSPS subparts L
and La (40 CFR 60.124(k) and 60.124a(k)) is overly vague. The rules
specify establishment of monitoring parameter values ``for each control
device used to comply with the PM and opacity emission standards'' of
the NSPS. Regarding the commenter's contention that the proposed text
could potentially require the establishment of monitoring parameters
for control devices (e.g., WESP) and afterburners, this is consistent
with the EPA's intent. The EPA determined that BSER for PM emissions
and opacity from new, modified, or reconstructed blast furnaces is an
afterburner followed by efficient PM controls, which would include
controls such as a WESP.
Comment: One commenter said that the phrase ``and those
requirements are as stringent or more stringent than the monitoring
requirements specified in paragraphs (a) through (j) of this section''
in proposed NSPS subparts L and La (40 CFR 60.124(l) and 60.124a(l))
introduces regulatory confusion as to whether compliance with the
monitoring provisions of NESHAP subpart X also demonstrates compliance
with the proposed monitoring requirements of NSPS subparts L and La.
The commenter asserted that the EPA should either eliminate the phrase
from the regulatory text or, at a minimum, state in the preamble to the
final NSPS rulemaking that the current monitoring provisions of NESHAP
subpart X are as stringent or more stringent than the monitoring
requirements specified in the proposed NSPS.
Response: The EPA believes that the current monitoring provisions
of NESHAP subpart X are at least as stringent as the monitoring
requirements specified in the final NSPS subparts L and La.
Nonetheless, the EPA continues to find it appropriate to finalize the
proposed language at 40 CFR 60.124(l) and 60.124a(l) with respect to
the NESHAP subpart X monitoring requirements. NESHAP undergo periodic
reviews pursuant to CAA section 112, and, to the extent that NESHAP
subpart X were revised during a future review, or otherwise modified,
such that the monitoring requirements were no longer as stringent or
more stringent than those finalized in subparts L and La, it would no
longer be appropriate to permit the use of the monitoring requirements
in NESHAP subpart X in lieu of those required by the NSPS.
Comment: One commenter said that proposed NSPS subparts L and La
(40 CFR 60.124 and 60.124a) require that the monitoring systems comply
with the applicable requirements specified in the NSPS General
Provisions (40 CFR 60.13) but noted that 40 CFR 60.13(a) states that
the section is only applicable ``upon promulgation of performance
specifications for continuous monitoring systems under appendix B to
this part.'' The commenter contended that, because proposed NSPS
subparts L and La do not require continuous monitoring systems to
demonstrate compliance with emission limits, the EPA should revise the
proposed language in 40 CFR 60.124 and 60.124a to include the following
text: ``The owner shall comply with the applicable monitoring
requirements specified in 40 CFR 60.13 upon promulgation of performance
specifications in 40 CFR part 60--Appendix B for the continuous
monitoring systems required in this section. The Procedures of 40 CFR
part 60--Appendix F do not apply because the continuous monitoring
systems required in this section are not used to demonstrate compliance
with emission limits on a continuous basis.''
Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter that additional text
is needed in 40 CFR 60.124 or 60.124a. As the commenter noted, 40 CFR
60.124 and 60.124a state that the owner shall comply with the
applicable monitoring requirements specified in 40 CFR 60.13. Although
the proposed NSPS subparts L and La do not require facilities to use
continuous opacity monitoring systems (COMS) or continuous emissions
monitoring systems (CEMS) to comply with the standards, NSPS subparts L
and La do not preclude facilities from using COMS or CEMS. The
performance standards are required if the continuous monitoring system
is used to demonstrate compliance with emission limits on a continuous
basis.
[[Page 80603]]
F. Definitions
1. Proposed Definitions
The EPA proposed to incorporate the definitions shown in Table 1 of
this preamble into 40 CFR 60.121 (Definitions) of existing 40 CFR part
60, subpart L and 40 CFR 60.121a (Definitions) of the proposed 40 CFR
part 60, subpart La. These proposed definitions were intended to
improve the clarity of the NSPS subparts and to reduce potential
confusion among industry and regulatory agencies by aligning the
descriptions of the affected sources that would be regulated by 40 CFR
part 60, subparts L and La to be more consistent with the definitions
within the NESHAP at 40 CFR part 63, subpart X, as shown in Table 1.
These proposed changes did not affect the applicability of existing
NSPS subpart L.
Table 1--Part 60 Process Equipment Definitions Proposed for NSPS Subparts L and La
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current definition Proposed for NSPS
Equipment in NSPS subpart L NESHAP subpart X subparts L and La
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blast furnace......................... Any furnace used to A smelting furnace A smelting furnace
recover metal from consisting of a consisting of a
slag. vertical cylinder atop vertical cylinder atop
a crucible, into which a crucible, into which
lead-bearing charge lead-bearing charge
materials are materials are
introduced at the top introduced at the top
of the furnace and of the furnace and
combustion air is combustion air is
introduced through introduced through
tuyeres at the bottom tuyeres at the bottom
of the cylinder, and of the cylinder, and
that uses coke as a that lead compounds are
fuel source and that is chemically reduced to
operated at such a elemental lead metal.
temperature in the
combustion zone
(greater than 980
Celsius) that lead
compounds are
chemically reduced to
elemental lead metal.
Reverberatory furnace................. Includes the A refractory-lined A refractory-lined
following types of furnace that uses one furnace that uses one
reverberatory or more flames to heat or more flames to heat
furnaces: the walls and roof of the walls and roof of
stationary, the furnace and lead- the furnace and lead-
rotating, rocking, bearing scrap to such a bearing scrap such that
and tilting. temperature (greater lead compounds are
than 980 Celsius) that chemically reduced to
lead compounds are elemental lead metal.
chemically reduced to Reverberatory furnaces
elemental lead metal. include the following
types: stationary,
rotating, rocking, and
tilting.
Pot furnace........................... Not defined......... Refining kettle means an Pot furnace is a type of
open-top vessel that is refining kettle, which
constructed of cast is an open-top vessel
iron or steel and is constructed of cast
indirectly heated from iron or steel and is
below and contains indirectly heated from
molten lead for the below and contains
purpose of refining and molten lead for the
alloying the lead. purpose of refining and
Included are pot alloying the lead.
furnaces, receiving
kettles, and holding
kettles.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. How the Final Rule Definitions Differ From the Proposed Definitions
After considering the comments on the proposed definitions, the EPA
is not adopting the proposed changes to the definitions for blast
furnace, reverberatory furnace, and pot furnace in current NSPS subpart
L. For NSPS subpart La, the EPA is maintaining in 40 CFR 60.121a
(Definitions) the definitions of ``blast furnace,'' ``lead,''
``reverberatory furnace,'' and ``secondary lead smelter'' specified in
current NSPS subpart L (instead of adopting the proposed definitions in
Table 1, above) and finalizing the definition of ``process fugitive
emissions source.'' Table 2 of this preamble shows the final process
definitions for NSPS subpart La.
Table 2--Part 60 Final Definitions for NSPS Subpart La
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equipment Final NSPS subpart La
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blast furnace..................... Blast furnace means any furnace used
to recover metal from slag.
Lead.............................. Lead means elemental lead or alloys
in which the predominant component
is lead.
Reverberatory furnace............. Reverberatory furnace includes the
following types of reverberatory
furnaces: stationary, rotating,
rocking, and tilting.
Process fugitive emissions source. A source of PM emissions at a
secondary lead smelter that is
associated with lead smelting or
refining including, but not limited
to, smelting furnace charging
points; smelting furnace lead and
slag taps; pot and refining
furnaces; and casting kettles.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Definition Comments and Responses
Comment: One commenter provided several comments and
recommendations regarding the proposed definitions in NSPS subparts L
and La. The commenter said that the EPA should revise the proposed
definition of ``secondary lead smelter'' to use the term ``lead-bearing
material'' rather than ``lead-bearing scrap material'' and either
include or cross-reference the definition of ``lead bearing material''
from NESHAP subpart X (40 CFR 63.542). The commenter noted that the
proposed definitions in NSPS subparts L and La did not define either
``lead-bearing material'' or ``lead-bearing scrap material.'' The
commenter said that the EPA should clarify that these terms in the
proposed definitions of ``blast furnace'' and ``reverberatory
[[Page 80604]]
furnace'' (40 CFR 60.121(a) and 60.121a(a)), mean the same as ``lead-
bearing material'' as defined in NESHAP subpart X (40 CFR 63.542).
The commenter stated that the EPA should align the proposed
definition of ``blast furnace'' in 40 CFR 60.121(d) and 60.121a(d) with
the NESHAP definition for ``blast furnace'' used in NESHAP subpart X
(40 CFR 63.542) by including the phrases ``uses coke as a fuel source''
and ``(greater than 980 Celsius)'' to eliminate potential confusion
about applicability and the possibility of any gaps between the NESHAP
and NSPS definitions. The commenter said that the EPA should align the
proposed definition of ``reverberatory furnace'' in NSPS subparts L and
La (40 CFR 60.121(a) and 60.121a(a)) with the NESHAP subpart X
definition by excluding the last sentence of the proposed definition to
eliminate potential confusion about applicability and the possibility
of any gaps between the NESHAP and NSPS definitions: ``Reverberatory
furnaces include the following types: stationary, rotating, rocking,
and tilting furnaces.''
The commenter said that the proposed definitions for ``lead'' in
NSPS subparts L and La (40 CFR 60.121(c) and 60.121a(c)) should include
the term ``lead alloy,'' rather than ``alloy,'' because ``alloy''
arguably could refer to certain unspecified non-lead alloys. The
commenter stated that the EPA should change the term ``alloy'' to
``lead alloy'' and add the definition of ``lead alloy'' from NESHAP
subpart X (40 CFR 63.542) to NSPS subparts L and La.
The commenter also noted that the proposed NSPS subparts L and La
did not define the term ``smelting'' used in the proposed secondary
lead smelter definition and said that the EPA should either include or
cross-reference the definition of ``smelting'' from NESHAP subpart X
(40 CFR 63.542).
The commenter asserted that the EPA should clarify that, for a
refining kettle that meets the pot furnace definition, the new pot
furnace includes all of the typical refining kettle components
including (as applicable): footers, structural steel, kettle or pot
(constructed of cast iron or steel), indirect heating system (burners,
piping, monitors, combustion air system, and flue), cover, fume
collection system (hood), agitator (mixer, motor, drive, and mount),
furnace shell, refractory lining, lead pump, electrical components
(switches, controllers, etc.), and process monitors. The commenter
noted that this clarification is important because facilities regularly
replace both the kettle and the refractory lining component of the pot
furnace during the pot furnace's useful life and replacing the kettle
or the refractory lining of a pot furnace potentially could be
misinterpreted as reconstruction without appropriate clarification on
this issue.
The commenter also stated that the EPA should revise the definition
of ``pot furnace'' at proposed 40 CFR 60.121(e) and 60.121a(e) as
follows to clarify that the definition does not apply to receiving
kettles, holding kettles, or R&D kettles: ``(e) Pot furnace means a
type of refining kettle, which is an open-top vessel constructed of
cast iron or steel and is indirectly heated from below and contains
molten lead for the purpose of refining and alloying the lead. For
avoidance of doubt, the term ``pot furnace'' excludes the following
types of refining kettles: (i) receiving kettles and holding kettles
where refining or alloying activities do not occur; and (ii) pot
furnaces with a maximum capacity less than 5 tons molten metal that are
operated fewer than 4000 hours per year.''
The commenter noted that the important distinction between pot
furnaces used for refining and alloying, on the one hand, and refining
kettles used for receiving or holding molten lead, on the other hand,
is not present in the proposed rule. Instead, the commenter said that
the EPA proposed a definition of pot furnaces in 40 CFR 60.120(e) and
60.120a(e) as ``a type of refining kettle, which is an open-top vessel
constructed of cast iron or steel and is indirectly heated from below
and contains molten lead for the purpose of refining and alloying the
lead.''
Response: These proposed definitions were intended to improve the
clarity of the NSPS subparts and to reduce potential confusion among
industry and regulatory agencies by aligning the descriptions of the
affected sources that would be regulated by NSPS subparts L and La to
be more consistent with the definitions within the NESHAP subpart X.
However, after considering the comments received regarding the proposed
process equipment definitions and because of potential future changes
to the definitions in NESHAP subpart X pursuant to the EPA's upcoming
review of NESHAP subpart X, which applies to new and existing sources,
the EPA is not finalizing the proposed process equipment definition
changes in subpart L and La. The EPA had determined that it is more
appropriate to complete the NESHAP review first before finalizing any
changes to the existing definitions in NSPS subparts L and La for blast
furnace, lead, reverberatory furnace, and secondary lead.
As part of the NESHAP review process, the EPA will acquire new
information regarding secondary lead process equipment, which could
result in revisions to the existing NESHAP definitions or development
of new definitions. Were the EPA to finalize the proposed definitions
in NSPS subparts L and La at this time, such future revisions to the
definitions in NESHAP subpart X may create new inconsistencies. In this
case, finalizing the proposed definitions to NSPS subparts L and La
would not increase clarity and consistency as intended. Instead, any
definition changes made in NSPS subparts L and La at this time with the
intent of improving the consistency between the NSPS and NESHAP
definitions would be mistimed, and the EPA might need to consider
further revising the NSPS definitions established in this action in the
future to reflect the equipment definitions specified in the post-
review NESHAP. Because the EPA has decided not to finalize the revised
definitions, the EPA does not need to provide detailed responses to the
comments suggesting specific revisions to those definitions.
In addition, after revisiting the process definitions that have
been in NSPS subpart L since 1983, we find that no changes are needed
to improve clarity as initially thought at proposal. Therefore, we are
not finalizing any changes to the existing definitions in NSPS subpart
L or in NSPS subpart La. Instead, we are maintaining the blast furnace,
lead, reverberatory furnace, and secondary lead smelter definitions
currently specified in NSPS subpart L. However, we are adding to NSPS
subpart La a definition for ``process fugitive emissions source'' to
accommodate the final PM standard for pot furnaces (see the discussion
in section IV.A.2. of this preamble). Also, regarding the comments that
the EPA should include the term ``lead alloy,'' rather than ``alloy,''
the current subpart L and new subpart La both state that ``Lead means
elemental lead or alloys in which the predominant component is lead.''
This definition is clear that the only alloys affected by the rule are
alloys in which the predominant component is lead. The term ``alloys in
which the predominant component is lead'' essentially means the same
thing as ``lead alloys''. Therefore, we did not make any changes to the
definition of lead or add a new definition for lead alloys to subparts
L or La.
With regard to the comment that the EPA should include a definition
of smelting or provide a cross reference, because of potential future
changes to
[[Page 80605]]
the definitions in NESHAP subpart X (including for ``smelting'')
pursuant the EPA's upcoming review of NESHAP subpart X (discussed
above), which applies to new and existing sources, the EPA decided not
to add a new definition for smelting in subpart L or La at this time
because of potential inconsistencies once the EPA completes the next
NESHAP review.
Regarding the comment that EPA should revise the definition of
``pot furnace'', this may have been an important clarification for the
NSPS final rule if the EPA finalized the proposed pot furnace specific
emissions limit of 3 mg/dscm. However, as explained in a previous
response, instead of a pot furnace specific limit, the EPA is
promulgating a PM limit of 4.9 mg/dscm for process fugitive emissions,
which includes pot furnaces, but also includes other process fugitive
emissions sources (such as refining kettles, holding kettles, alloying
units). Therefore, we conclude that the specific definition
clarifications requested by the commenter are no longer necessary for
implementation of the NSPS and can wait until the EPA completes the
next NESHAP review.
G. Effective Date and Compliance Dates
Pursuant to CAA section 111(b)(1)(B), the effective date of the
final rule requirements in NSPS subpart La and amendments to NSPS
subpart L will be the promulgation date, which is the date of
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. Affected sources
that commence construction, reconstruction, or modification after
December 1, 2022, must comply with all requirements of NSPS subpart La
no later than the effective date of the final rule or upon startup,
whichever is later.
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts
A. What are the air quality impacts?
The final amendments to 40 CFR part 60, subpart La:
<bullet> Reduce the PM emissions limit for blast and reverberatory
furnaces from 50 to 10 mg/dscm.
<bullet> Establish new PM emissions limits for process fugitive
emissions sources of 4.9 mg/dscm.
<bullet> Lower the opacity limit for blast and reverberatory
furnaces from 20 percent to 5 percent.
<bullet> Lower the opacity limit for pot furnaces from 10 percent
to 5 percent.
New or reconstructed blast, reverberatory, and pot furnaces will
also be subject to the NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart X) requirements
for new sources, while modified blast, reverberatory, and pot furnaces
will also be subject to the NESHAP requirements for existing sources.
NESHAP subpart X regulates particulate lead emissions from process
vent, process fugitive, and fugitive dust sources. The emissions
capture systems and control devices that are already required by the
NESHAP to comply with the lead limits for blast furnaces, reverberatory
furnaces, and process fugitive emissions sources will also control PM
emissions regulated by the NSPS. Therefore, the final 40 CFR part 60,
subpart La will not result in actual reductions of PM emissions.
However, codifying the lower PM and opacity limits in the final 40 CFR
part 60, subpart La will significantly reduce the PM and opacity
allowable emissions of affected sources that commence construction,
reconstruction, or modification after December 1, 2022.
B. What are the secondary impacts?
Indirect or secondary air emissions impacts result from the
increased energy usage associated with the operation of control devices
(e.g., increased secondary emissions of criteria pollutants from
electricity generating power plants). The EPA does not expect that
facilities will need any additional control devices or other equipment
to meet the final NSPS requirements beyond those that would already be
needed to comply with the NESHAP. Therefore, the EPA does not attribute
any secondary impacts to the final 40 CFR part 60, subpart La.
C. What are the cost impacts for regulated facilities?
For 40 CFR part 60, subparts L and La, the EPA requires that
facilities conduct periodic performance tests to measure PM emissions
using EPA Method 5 (Determination of Particulate Matter Emissions from
Stationary Sources). The NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart X) also
requires periodic tests for lead using EPA Method 12 (Determination of
Inorganic Lead Emissions from Stationary Sources) or EPA Method 29
(Metal Emissions from Stationary Sources). Because both of the NESHAP
test methods analyze the PM captured on the internal surfaces of the
sampling probe and on a sampling train filter to determine the lead
concentration, facilities can conduct an additional gravimetric
analysis of the EPA Method 12 or EPA Method 29 probe rinse and filter
to determine PM emissions, rather than performing separate tests using
EPA Method 5. The EPA estimates that the additional gravimetric
analysis of the EPA Method 12 or EPA Method 29 particulate filter costs
approximately $300 per test per year. To estimate the total cost
associated with the final periodic PM performance tests under 40 CFR
part 60, subparts L and La, the EPA assumed that each respondent under
the respective subparts would conduct 3 p.m. tests per year (1 for each
furnace type). See section V.C. of this preamble for more details on
cost estimates.
For 40 CFR part 60, subpart La, the EPA is also requiring that
facilities periodically determine the opacity of blast furnace,
reverberatory furnace, and process fugitive source emissions. For NSPS
subpart La, the EPA is requiring that facilities conduct initial and
periodic tests using EPA Method 9 or ASTM D7520-16. Alternatively,
facilities can use EPA Method 22 (Visible Determination of Fugitive
Emissions) to determine no visible emissions from blast furnace,
reverberatory furnace, and process fugitive emissions sources. To
estimate the cost of the initial and periodic opacity tests for NSPS
subpart La, the EPA assumed that new facilities would be able to
determine no visible emissions using EPA Method 22, rather than using
EPA Method 9. The EPA assumed that new facilities would train facility
personnel to implement EPA Method 22 (at a one-time cost of $426 per
facility), but not incur additional capital costs associated with
conducting the EPA Method 9 observations.
We estimate that 2 of the 11 existing facilities will be modified
or reconstructed over the next five years such that these 2 facilities
will be subject to subpart La, and the other 9 facilities will be
subject to subpart L. Therefore, for 40 CFR part 60, subpart L, the
total incremental cost for the periodic PM testing over the 3-year
period is $16,200 three tests per year at $300 per test for 9
respondents for years 2 and 3 (facilities subject to subpart L have
already conducted initial performance tests for PM emissions and
opacity). For 40 CFR part 60, subpart La, the total incremental cost
for PM testing over the 3-year period is $8,100 (i.e., three tests per
year at $300 per test for the two existing facilities that the EPA
assumes will undergo reconstruction and one new facility) and the total
incremental cost for opacity testing is $426 for EPA Method 22 training
(i.e., $426 one-time cost for the new facility). Based on a review of
facility operating permits, the two existing facilities that we
determined could be reconstructed over the 3-year period (thereby
triggering NSPS subpart La applicability) already conduct periodic
opacity tests using EPA Method 9. Therefore, the EPA did not estimate
opacity testing costs for the two potential reconstructed facilities.
The
[[Page 80606]]
estimated total incremental cost for emissions testing for two
reconstructed sources and one new source projected over the 3-year
period is $8,526.
The EPA did not estimate cost impacts for the final monitoring
requirements in 40 CFR part 60, subparts L and La because this action
will allow subject facilities to comply with these subparts by
complying with the applicable monitoring requirements for new sources
specified in the NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart X). Therefore, there
is no additional monitoring burden.
D. What are the economic impacts?
The EPA conducted an economic impact analysis (EIA) and small
business screening assessment for this final action, as discussed in
the proposal for this action and detailed in the memorandum, Economic
Impact Analysis for Final Revisions and Amendments to the New Source
Performance Standards for Secondary Lead Smelters, which is available
in the docket for this action. The economic impacts of this final
action were estimated by comparing total annualized compliance costs to
revenues at the ultimate parent company level. This is known as the
cost-to-revenue or cost-to-sales test. This ratio provides a measure of
the direct economic impact to ultimate parent company owners of
facilities while presuming no impact on consumers.
As discussed in the proposal for this action, we estimate that the
total cost for emissions testing, reporting, and recordkeeping
projected over the 3-year period for the 9 sources subject to NSPS
subpart L is $80,000. The average annual cost per facility is
approximately $3,000. The 9 facilities subject to NSPS subpart L are
owned by seven different parent companies with an annual average
revenue of $4.5 billion in 2021. As discussed in section V.C. of this
preamble, we assume the other 2 existing facilities will be modified or
reconstructed and therefore will be subject to subpart La. The economic
impact associated with this cost as an annual cost per sales, for the
average parent company in the industry, is less than 0.0001 percent and
is not expected to result in a significant market impact, regardless of
whether it is fully passed on to the consumer or fully absorbed by the
affected firms.
In addition, the cost analysis assumed that facilities subject to
final 40 CFR part 60, subpart La would conduct initial and periodic
tests for PM emissions and opacity, but would not need to install
control devices to meet the final PM and opacity emissions limits
because the new, modified, or reconstructed facility would install the
same types of controls already necessary to comply with NESHAP subpart
X. The EPA also assumed that facilities subject to the final NSPS
subpart La would not incur monitoring costs attributed to the new NSPS.
The EPA views the testing costs to be upper-bound estimates on the
potential compliance costs of the final 40 CFR part 60, subparts L and
La. Even under the upper-bound cost assumptions described above, the
EPA expects the potential economic impacts of this final action will be
small.
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), we performed
an analysis to determine if any small entities might be
disproportionately impacted by the final requirements. The EPA does not
know with certainty which existing facilities may be reconstructed or
modified in the future and subject to NSPS subpart La, and therefore
cannot perform an accurate cost-to-sales analysis. However, based on an
assessment of the projected growth in the secondary lead smelting
industry, the EPA believes it is unlikely that any future facilities
will be reconstructed or modified by a small business.
E. What are the benefits?
The final revisions to 40 CFR part 60, subparts L and La clarify
both rules, improve the practical enforceability of the rules, and
enhance compliance and enforcement. The EPA expects that implementing
the final amendments to 40 CFR part 60, subparts L and La will help
ensure that control systems used to reduce PM and opacity emissions
from affected sources are properly operated and maintained over time.
Additionally, the final amendments to require electronic reporting
of emissions test results in 40 CFR part 60, subparts L and La will
ultimately reduce the burden on regulated facilities, delegated air
agencies, and the EPA, and also improve access to data, minimize data
reporting errors, and eliminate paper waste and redundancies.
F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?
Executive Order 12898 directs the EPA to identify the populations
of concern who are most likely to experience unequal burdens from
environmental harms, which are specifically minority populations
(people of color), low-income populations, and Indigenous peoples (59
FR 7629; February 16, 1994). Additionally, Executive Order 13985 is
intended to advance racial equity and support underserved communities
through Federal government actions (86 FR 7009; January 20, 2021). The
EPA defines environmental justice (EJ) as ``the fair treatment and
meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color,
national origin, or income, with respect to the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies.'' \2\ The EPA further defines 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.'' 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. For purposes of analyzing regulatory impacts, the EPA
relies upon its June 2016 Technical Guidance for Assessing
Environmental Justice in Regulatory Analysis,\3\ which provides
recommendations that encourage analysts to conduct the highest quality
analysis feasible, recognizing that data limitations, time, resource
constraints, and analytical challenges will vary by media and
circumstance. The Technical Guidance states that a regulatory action
may involve potential EJ concerns if it could: (1) create new
disproportionate impacts on minority populations, low-income
populations, and/or indigenous peoples; (2) exacerbate existing
disproportionate impacts on minority populations, low-income
populations, and/or indigenous peoples; or (3) present opportunities to
address existing disproportionate impacts on minority populations, low-
income populations, and/or indigenous peoples through this action under
development.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See <a href="https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice">https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice</a>.
\3\ See <a href="https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/technical-guidance-assessing-environmental-justice-regulatory-analysis">https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/technical-guidance-assessing-environmental-justice-regulatory-analysis</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Agency has conducted an analysis of the demographics of the
populations living near existing facilities in the Secondary Lead
Smelting source category. Because this action finalizes standards of
performance for new, modified, and reconstructed sources that commence
construction after December 1, 2022, the locations of the construction
of new secondary lead smelters are not known. As discussed above, we
assumed two existing facilities might be modified. However, it is not
known with any
[[Page 80607]]
certainty which of the existing secondary lead smelters might be
modified or reconstructed. Therefore, the demographic analysis was
conducted for the 11 existing secondary lead smelters as a proxy for
the characterization of the demographics in areas where new, modified,
or reconstructed source might be located in the future.
Section F. (``What analysis of environmental justice did we
conduct?'') of the proposal preamble (87 FR 73708) presents the full
results of the demographic analysis. The analysis included an
assessment of individual demographic groups of the populations living
within 5 kilometers (km) and within 50 km of the existing facilities.
We then compared the data from the analysis to the national average for
each of the demographic groups. The results show that, for populations
within 5 km of the 11 secondary lead smelters, the percent Hispanic or
Latino population is higher than the national average (38 percent
versus 19 percent). The percent of ``other and multiracial population''
and people living in linguistic isolation within the same geographic
area are higher than the national average (12 percent versus 8 percent
and 8 percent versus 5 percent, respectively). The percent of the
population over 25 without a high school diploma is higher than the
national average (19 percent versus 12 percent), while the percent of
the population living below the poverty line is similar to the national
average. The results of the analysis of populations within 50 km of the
11 secondary lead smelters are similar to the 5 km analysis.
The technical report, Analysis of Demographic Factors for
Populations Living Near Secondary Lead Smelting Source Category
Operations, which is available in the docket for this action (Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0481), presents the methodology and the results of
the demographic analysis.
As indicated above, the locations of any new secondary lead
smelting facilities that would be subject to NSPS subpart La are not
known. Also, it is not known with any certainty which existing
secondary lead smelters may be modified or reconstructed and subject to
the NSPS subpart La. Thus, we are limited in our ability to estimate
the potential EJ impacts of this rule. However, we anticipate the
changes to the NSPS will generally minimize or reduce future emissions
in surrounding communities of new, modified, or reconstructed
facilities, including those communities with higher percentages of
people of color. Furthermore, the EPA expects that the NSPS subpart La,
will ensure compliance with the PM emissions and opacity limits at all
times (including periods of SSM) via initial and periodic emissions
testing. NSPS subpart La also codifies standards of performance
reflecting improvements in PM control technologies that have occurred
in the industry since promulgation of the current NSPS subpart L.
Therefore, effects of emissions on populations in proximity to any
future affected sources, including in communities potentially
overburdened by pollution, which are often people of color, low-income,
and Indigenous communities, will be minimized due to compliance with
the standards of performance being finalized in this action.
VI. 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 14094: Modernizing Regulatory Review
This action is not a significant regulatory action as defined in
Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094, and was
therefore not subject to a requirement for Executive Order 12866
review.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
The information collection activities in this final rule have been
submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA. The updated Information
Collection Request (ICR) document that the EPA prepared for NSPS
subpart L has been assigned EPA ICR number 1128.13, and the new ICR
prepared for the final NSPS subpart La has been assigned EPA ICR number
2729.01. You can find copies of the ICRs in the docket for this rule,
and they are briefly summarized here. The information collection
requirements are not enforceable until OMB approves them.
The EPA is finalizing amendments to the existing NSPS (40 CFR part
60, subpart L) that:
<bullet> Require periodic testing for PM emissions.
<bullet> Incorporate monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements that are consistent with NESHAP subpart X.
<bullet> Require electronic reporting of performance test results.
A summary of the ICR for NSPS subpart L follows:
Respondents/affected entities: Secondary lead smelting facilities.
Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 60,
subpart L).
Estimated number of respondents: Nine existing facilities subject
to 40 CFR part 60, subpart L.
Frequency of response: Annually.
Total estimated burden: The annual recordkeeping and reporting
burden for facilities to comply with all the requirements in the NSPS
is estimated to be 228 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR
1320.3(b).
Total estimated cost: The annual recordkeeping and reporting costs
for all facilities to comply with all the requirements in the NSPS is
estimated to be $27,000 (per year).
The EPA is also finalizing a new subpart (40 CFR part 60, subpart
La) for new, modified, or reconstructed facilities that commenced
construction, reconstruction, or modification after December 1, 2022,
that:
<bullet> Includes definitions for ``blast furnace,'' ``lead,''
``reverberatory furnace,'' and ``secondary lead smelter'' that are the
same as NSPS subpart L.
<bullet> Includes a definition for ``process fugitive emissions
source'' to be consistent with the definition used in NESHAP subpart X.
<bullet> Establishes a tighter PM limit (10 mg/dscm) for blast and
reverberatory furnaces.
<bullet> Establishes a new PM limit (4.9 mg/dscm) for process
fugitive emissions sources.
<bullet> Establishes a tighter opacity limit (5 percent) for blast,
reverberatory, and process fugitive emissions sources.
<bullet> Removes the exemptions for periods of SSM.
<bullet> Requires initial and periodic testing for PM emissions and
opacity.
<bullet> Incorporates monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements that are consistent with the NESHAP (40 CFR part 63,
subpart X).
<bullet> Requires electronic reporting of performance test results.
A summary of the ICR for NSPS subpart La follows:
Respondents/affected entities: Secondary lead smelting facilities.
Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 60,
subpart La).
Estimated number of respondents: Three facilities (two
reconstructed and one new source) in the next 3 years.
Frequency of response: Annually.
Total estimated burden: The annual recordkeeping and reporting
burden for facilities to comply with all the requirements in the NSPS
is estimated to be 127 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR
1320.3(b).
Total estimated cost: The annual recordkeeping and reporting costs
for all
[[Page 80608]]
facilities to comply with all the requirements in the NSPS is estimated
to be $14,000 (per year).
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When OMB
approves this ICR, the Agency will announce that approval in the
Federal Register and publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 to
display the OMB control number for the approved information collection
activities contained in this final rule.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities (SISNOSE) under the
RFA.
This action will not impose any significant requirements on small
entities. Details of the analysis in support of this determination are
presented in the memorandum titled, Economic Impact Analysis and Small
Business Screening Assessment for Final Revisions and Amendments to the
New Source Performance Standards for Secondary Lead Smelters, which is
available in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0481).
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action imposes
no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments, and
there are no nationwide annualized costs of this final rule for
affected industrial sources in 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 (65 FR 67249; November 9, 2000). It will not have
substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship
between the Federal government and Indian Tribes or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian
Tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. This final rule imposes
requirements on owners and operators of secondary lead smelting
facilities and not tribal governments. The EPA does not know of any
secondary lead smelting facilities owned or operated by Indian tribal
governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045 directs Federal agencies to include an
evaluation of the health and safety effects of the planned regulation
on children in Federal health and safety standards and explain why the
regulation is preferable to potentially effective and reasonably
feasible alternatives. This action is not subject to Executive Order
13045 because it is not a significant regulatory action under section
3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866, and because the EPA does not believe
the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action
present a disproportionate risk to children.
The EPA does not believe there are disproportionate risks to
children because the new NSPS subpart La lowers PM emissions and
opacity from new, modified, or reconstructed secondary lead smelters
compared to the current NSPS, which will benefit children's health.
Additionally, the periodic PM emissions and opacity testing
requirements of NSPS subparts La and L, and the updated monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements, improve compliance with
emission limits, which also benefits children's health.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR
Part 51
This action involves technical standards. The EPA is requiring use
of EPA Method 5 (Determination of Particulate Matter emissions from
Stationary Sources) to measure filterable PM and EPA Method 9 (Visual
Determination of the Opacity of Emissions from Stationary Sources) to
determine visible emissions from blast and reverberatory process vents
and process fugitive emissions. Therefore, the EPA conducted searches
for the Secondary Lead Smelting NSPS through the Enhanced National
Standards Systems Network Database managed by the American National
Standards Institute (ANSI). We also contacted voluntary consensus
standards (VCS) organizations and accessed and searched their
databases.
We conducted searches for EPA Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2B, 2C, 2D, 2F,
2G, 2H, 3, 3A, 3C, 4, 5, 9, 12, 22, and 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix
A. During the EPA's VCS 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 reviewed it as a
potential equivalent method. We reviewed all potential standards to
determine the practicality of the VCS for this rule. This review
requires significant method validation data that meet the requirements
of 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 a particular VCS. No applicable
VCS were identified for EPA Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2B, 2C, 2D, 2F, 2G,
2H, 3, 3A, 3C, 4, 5, 12, 22, or 29.
In this final action, the EPA incorporates by reference the VCS
ASTM D7520-16, ``Standard Test Method for Determining the Opacity of a
Plume in the Outdoor Ambient Atmosphere approved April 1, 2016'' which
is an instrumental method to determine plume opacity in the outdoor
ambient environment as an alternative to visual measurements made by
certified smoke readers in accordance with EPA Method 9. The concept of
ASTM D7520-16, also known as the Digital Camera Opacity Technique or
DCOT, is a test protocol to determine the opacity of visible emissions
using a digital camera. This method is based on previous method
development using digital still cameras and field testing of those
methods. The purpose of ASTM D7520-16 is to set a minimum level of
performance for products that use DCOT to determine plume opacity in
ambient environments.
The DCOT method is an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 9 with
the following caveats:
<bullet> During the digital camera opacity technique (DCOT)
certification procedure outlined in section 9.2 of ASTM D7520-16, you
or the DCOT
[[Page 80609]]
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).
<bullet> You must also have SOP 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.
<bullet> You must follow the recordkeeping procedures outlined in
40 CFR 63.10(b)(1) for the DCOT certification, compliance report, data
sheets, and all raw unaltered JPEG files used for opacity and
certification determination.
<bullet> You or the DCOT vendor must have a minimum of four
independent technology users apply the software to determine the
visible opacity of the 300 certification plumes. For each set of 25
plumes, the user may not exceed 15 percent opacity of any one reading
and the average error must not exceed 7.5 percent opacity.
<bullet> 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. This method
describes procedures to determine the opacity of a plume, using digital
imagery and associated hardware and software, where opacity is caused
by PM emitted from a stationary point source in the outdoor ambient
environment. The opacity of emissions is determined by the application
of a DCOT that consists of a digital still camera, analysis software,
and the output function's content to obtain and interpret digital
images to determine and report plume opacity.
The ASTM D7520-16 document is available from ASTM at <a href="https://www.astm.org">https://www.astm.org</a> or 1100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-
2959, telephone number: (610) 832-9500, fax number: (610) 8329555;
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#8ffceafdf9e6eceacfeefcfbe2a1e0fde8"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="94e7f1e6e2fdf7f1d4f5e7e0f9bafbe6f3">[email protected]</span></a>.
The EPA is finalizing the use of the guidance document, EPA-454/R-
98-015, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS Fabric
Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance, September 1997. This document
provides guidance on the use of triboelectric monitors as fabric filter
bag leak detectors. The document includes fabric filter and monitoring
system descriptions; guidance on monitor selection, installation,
setup, adjustment, and operation; and quality assurance procedures.
Several types of instruments are available to monitor changes in
particulate emission rates for the purpose of detecting fabric filter
bag leaks or similar failures. The principles of operation of these
instruments include electrical charge transfer and light scattering.
The document is available at <a href="https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=2000D5T6.PDF">https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=2000D5T6.PDF</a>.
Additional information for the VCS search and determinations can be
found in the docket for this final action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0481).
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations and
Executive Order 14096: Revitalizing Our Nation's Commitment to
Environmental Justice for All
Executive Order 14096 (88 FR 25251, Apr. 26, 2023) directs federal
agencies to advance the goal of environmental justice for all. This
action builds upon and supplements the efforts of Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) to address environmental justice.
The EPA believes that the human health or environmental conditions
that exist prior to this action result in or have the potential to
result in disproportionate and adverse human health or environmental
effects on communities with environmental justice concerns. The
locations of future new, modified, and reconstructed secondary lead
smelters are not known with any certainty. Therefore, we evaluated the
populations living near existing secondary lead smelters as a proxy for
the characteristics of the demographics in areas where a new, modified,
or reconstructed source might locate in the future. The result of the
analysis shows that the percent Hispanic or Latino population, ``other
and multiracial population'' and people living in linguistic isolation
within the same geographic area, over 25 without a high school diploma
are higher than the national average.
The EPA believes that this action is likely to reduce existing
potential disproportionate and adverse effects on communities with
environmental justice concerns. We anticipate the changes to the NSPS
will generally minimize or reduce future emissions in these communities
that are in proximity to new, modified, or reconstructed facilities.
Specifically, the EPA expects that the Standards of Performance for
Secondary Lead Smelters Constructed after December 1, 2022, will ensure
compliance with the PM and opacity limits at all times (including
periods of SSM) via initial and periodic emissions testing and
parametric monitoring of control devices. Subpart La also codifies
improvements in PM control technologies that have occurred in the
industry since promulgation of the current NSPS subpart L. Therefore,
effects of emissions on populations in proximity to any future affected
sources, including in communities with environmental justice concerns,
will be minimized due to compliance with the standards of performance
being finalized in this action.
The information supporting this Executive Order review is contained
in a technical report, Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations
Living Near Secondary Lead Smelting Source Category Operations,
available in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0481), and in section IV.F. of the proposed rule's preamble (87 FR
73708), as well as summarized in section V.F. of this preamble.
K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of
the United States. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures,
Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Michael S. Regan,
Administrator.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Environmental
Protection Agency amends title 40, chapter I of the Code of Federal
Regulations as follows:
PART 60--STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES
0
1. The authority citation for part 60 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart A--General Provisions
0
2. Amend Sec. 60.17 by revising paragraphs (h)(206) and (j)(2) to read
as follows:
Sec. 60.17 Incorporations by reference.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
(206) ASTM D7520-16, Standard Test Method for Determining the
Opacity of a Plume in the Outdoor Ambient
[[Page 80610]]
Atmosphere, approved April 1, 2016; IBR approved for Sec. Sec.
60.123(c)(6); 60.123(c)(6)(i); 60.123(c)(6)(ii); 60.123(c)(6)(v);
60.123a(c)(6)(ii); 60.123a(c)(6)(ii)(A); 60.123a(c)(6)(ii)(B);
60.123a(c)(6)(ii)(E); 60.271(k); 60.272(a) and (b); 60.273(c) and (d);
60.274(h); 60.275(e); 60.276(c); 60.271a; 60.272a(a) and (b);
60.273a(c) and (d); 60.274a(h); 60.275a(e); 60.276a(f); 60.271b;
60.272b(a) and (b); 60.273b(c) and (d); 60.274b(h); 60.275b(e);
60.276b(f); 60.374a(d).
* * * * *
(j) * * *
(2) EPA-454/R-98-015, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
(OAQPS), Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance, September 1997,
<a href="https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=2000D5T6.PDF">https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=2000D5T6.PDF</a>; IBR approved
for Sec. Sec. 60.124(f); 60.124a(f); 60.273(e); 60.273a(e);
60.273b(e); 60.373a(b); 60.2145(r); 60.2710(r); 60.4905(b); 60.5225(b).
* * * * *
Subpart L--Standards of Performance for Secondary Lead Smelters for
Which Construction, Reconstruction, or Modification Commenced After
June 11, 1973, and On or Before December 1, 2022
0
3. Revise the heading for subpart L to part 60 to read as set forth
above.
0
4. Amend Sec. 60.120 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 60.120 Applicability and designation of affected facility.
* * * * *
(b) Any facility under paragraph (a) of this section that commences
construction or modification after June 11, 1973, and on or before
December 1, 2022, is subject to the requirements of this subpart.
0
5. Amend Sec. 60.122 by revising paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 60.122 Standard for particulate matter.
(a) * * *
(1) Contain particulate matter (PM) in excess of 50 milligrams per
dry standard cubic meter, mg/dscm (0.022 grains per dry standard cubic
feet, gr/dscf).
* * * * *
0
6. Revise Sec. 60.123 to read as follows:
Sec. 60.123 Test methods and procedures.
(a) Initial performance tests. The owner or operator shall conduct
performance tests to demonstrate initial compliance with the PM
emission and opacity standards specified in Sec. 60.122.
(b) Periodic performance tests. After November 20, 2023, the owner
or operator shall conduct periodic performance tests to demonstrate
compliance with the PM emissions standards specified in Sec.
60.122(a). The owner or operator shall conduct the first periodic test
by no later than July 31, 2024. The owner or operator shall conduct
subsequent periodic tests according to the schedule specified in
paragraph (b)(1) or (2) of this section.
(1) Conduct performance tests no later than 12 months following the
previous compliance test.
(2) Conduct performance tests no later than 24 months following the
previous compliance test if the previous compliance test measured PM
emissions of 25 mg/dscm or less and the owner or operator has obtained
approval from the Administrator for a written request to extend the
period of the periodic performance test. The extension request will be
deemed automatically approved if the owner or operator submits the
results of a PM performance test of 25 mg/dscm or less, the owner or
operator submits the request for the extension within 4 months after
the subject compliance test, and the Administrator does not provide a
response to such request within 6 months of submission.
(c) Test methods. In conducting the performance tests required in
Sec. 60.8, the owner or operator shall use the following EPA reference
test methods and procedures in appendix A of this part or other methods
and procedures as specified in this section, except as provided in
Sec. 60.8(b).
(1) EPA Method 1 at appendix A-1 to this part to select sampling
port locations and the number of traverse points.
(2) EPA Method 2 at appendix A-1 to this part or EPA Method 5D at
appendix A-3 to this part, section 8.3 for positive fabric filters, to
measure the volumetric flow rate of the gas stream.
(3) EPA Method 3, 3A, or 3B at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-2 to
determine the dry molecular weight of the stack gas and concentrations
of carbon dioxide and oxygen in the sample gas.
(4) EPA Method 4 at appendix A-3 to this part to determine the
moisture content of the gas stream.
(5) EPA Method 5 or 5D at appendix A-3 to this part to measure PM
concentrations. The EPA Method 5 tests shall be conducted during
representative periods of furnace operation, including charging and
tapping, and the sampling time and sample volume for each test run
shall be at least 60 minutes and 0.90 dscm (31.8 dscf), respectively.
As an alternative to using EPA Method 5, owners or operators may
measure PM emissions by the following methods:
(i) EPA Method 12 at appendix A-5 to this part (see section 16.1 of
Method 12) to measure PM and inorganic lead concentrations.
(ii) EPA Method 29 at appendix A-8 to this part to measure metal
(lead) concentrations and PM (see section 1.2 of Method 29).
(6) EPA Method 9 at appendix A-4 to this part and the procedures
specified in Sec. 60.11 for determining opacity. ASTM D7520-16
(incorporated by reference at Sec. 60.17) is an acceptable alternative
to EPA Method 9 with the specified conditions in paragraphs (c)(6)(i)
through (v) of this section.
(i) During the digital camera opacity technique (DCOT)
certification procedure outlined in section 9.2 of ASTM D7520-16
(incorporated by reference at Sec. 60.17), the owner or operator or
the DCOT vendor shall present the plumes in front of various
backgrounds of color and contrast representing conditions anticipated
during field use such as blue sky, trees, and mixed backgrounds (clouds
and/or a sparse tree stand).
(ii) The owner or operator shall also have standard operating
procedures (SOPs) 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 (incorporated by reference
at Sec. 60.17). Records shall be maintained in a form suitable and
readily available for expeditious review.
(iii) The owner or operator shall follow the recordkeeping
procedures outlined in Sec. 63.10(b)(1) for the DCOT certification,
compliance report, data sheets, and all raw unaltered JPEGs used for
opacity and certification determination.
(iv) The owner or operator or the DCOT vendor shall have a minimum
of four (4) independent technology users apply the software to
determine the visible opacity of the 300 certification plumes. For each
set of 25 plumes, the user may not exceed 15 percent opacity of any one
reading and the average error shall not exceed 7.5 percent opacity.
(v) This approval does not provide or imply a certification or
validation of any vendor's hardware or software. The onus to maintain
and verify the certification and/or training of the DCOT camera,
software, and operator in accordance with ASTM D7520-16 (incorporated
by reference at Sec. 60.17) and this section is on the owner or
operator, DCOT operator, and DCOT vendor.
0
7. Add Sec. Sec. 60.124 and 60.125 to subpart L to read as follows:
[[Page 80611]]
Sec. 60.124 Monitoring requirements.
(a) The owner shall comply with the applicable monitoring
requirements specified in the NSPS General provision Sec. 60.13.
(b) The owner shall prepare, and at all times operate according to,
a SOP manual that describes in detail procedures for inspection,
maintenance, and bag leak detection and corrective action plans for all
baghouses (fabric filters or cartridge filters) used to reduce PM and
opacity emissions from any affected source subject to the emissions
standards in Sec. 60.122.
(c) The owner shall submit the SOP manual for the baghouses (fabric
filters or cartridge collectors) described in paragraph (b) of this
section to the Administrator or delegated authority for review and
approval.
(d) The procedures specified in the SOP manual for inspections and
routine maintenance shall, at a minimum, include the requirements of
paragraphs (d)(1) through (9) of this section.
(1) Daily monitoring of the pressure drop across each baghouse
cell.
(2) Weekly confirmation that dust is being removed from hoppers
through visual inspection, or equivalent means of ensuring the proper
functioning of removal mechanisms.
(3) Daily check of compressed air supply for pulse-jet baghouses.
(4) An appropriate methodology for monitoring cleaning cycles to
ensure proper operation.
(5) Monthly check of bag cleaning mechanisms for proper functioning
through visual inspection or equivalent means.
(6) Monthly check of bag tension on reverse air and shaker-type
baghouses. Such checks are not required for shaker-type baghouses using
self-tensioning (spring loaded) devices.
(7) Quarterly confirmation of the physical integrity of the
baghouse through visual inspection of the baghouse interior for air
leaks.
(8) Quarterly inspection of fans for wear, material buildup, and
corrosion through visual inspection, vibration detectors, or equivalent
means.
(9) Continuous operation of a bag leak detection system.
(e) The procedures specified in the SOP manual for baghouse
maintenance shall include, at a minimum, a preventative maintenance
schedule that is consistent with the baghouse manufacturer's
instructions for routine and long-term maintenance.
(f) The bag leak detection system required by paragraph (d)(9) of
this section, shall meet the specification and requirements of
paragraphs (f)(1) through (8) of this section.
(1) The bag leak detection system shall be certified by the
manufacturer to be capable of detecting PM emissions at concentrations
of 50.0 mg/dscm (0.022 gr/dscf) or less.
(2) The bag leak detection system sensor shall provide output of
relative PM loadings.
(3) The bag leak detection system shall be equipped with an alarm
system that will alarm when an increase in relative particulate
loadings is detected over a preset level.
(4) The owner shall install and operate the bag leak detection
system in a manner consistent with the guidance provided in EPA-454/R-
98-015, Office of Air quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) Fabric
Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance, (incorporated by reference, see
Sec. 60.17) or the manufacturer's written specifications and
recommendations for installation, operation, and adjustment of the
system.
(5) The initial adjustment of the system shall, at a minimum,
consist of establishing the baseline output by adjusting the
sensitivity (range) and the averaging period of the device, and
establishing the alarm set points and the alarm delay time.
(6) Following initial adjustment, the owner shall not adjust the
sensitivity or range, averaging period, alarm set points, or alarm
delay time, except as detailed in the approved SOP manual required
under paragraph (b) of this section. The owner cannot increase the
sensitivity by more than 100 percent or decrease the sensitivity by
more than 50 percent over a 365-day period unless such adjustment
follows a complete baghouse inspection that demonstrates that the
baghouse is in good operating condition.
(7) For negative pressure, induced air baghouses, and positive
pressure baghouses that are discharged to the atmosphere through a
stack, the owner shall install the bag leak detector downstream of the
baghouse and upstream of any wet acid gas scrubber.
(8) Where multiple detectors are required, the system's
instrumentation and alarm may be shared among detectors.
(g) The owner shall include in the SOP manual required by paragraph
(b) of this section a corrective action plan that specifies the
procedures to be followed in the case of a bag leak detection system
alarm. The corrective action plan shall include, at a minimum, the
procedures used to determine and record the time and cause of the alarm
as well as the corrective actions taken to minimize emissions as
specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) The procedures used to determine the cause of the alarm shall
be initiated within 30 minutes of the alarm.
(2) The cause of the alarm shall be alleviated by taking the
necessary corrective action(s) that may include, but not be limited to,
those listed in paragraphs (g)(2)(i) through (vi) of this section.
(i) Inspecting the baghouse for air leaks, torn or broken filter
elements, or any other malfunction that may cause an increase in
emissions.
(ii) Sealing off defective bags or filter media.
(iii) Replacing defective bags or filter media, or otherwise
repairing the control device.
(iv) Sealing off a defective baghouse compartment.
(v) Cleaning the bag leak detection system probe, or otherwise
repairing the bag leak detection system.
(vi) Shutting down the process producing the PM emissions.
(h) Baghouses equipped with high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA)
filters as a secondary filter used to control emissions from any source
subject to the PM and opacity emission standards in Sec. 60.122 are
exempt from the requirement to be equipped with a bag leak detection
system. The owner or operator shall monitor and record the pressure
drop across each HEPA filter system daily. If the pressure drop is
outside the limit(s) specified by the filter manufacturer, the owner or
operator shall take appropriate corrective measures, which may include
but not be limited to those given in paragraphs (h)(1) through (4) of
this section.
(1) Inspecting the filter and filter housing for air leaks and torn
or broken filters.
(2) Replacing defective filter media, or otherwise repairing the
control device.
(3) Sealing off a defective control device by routing air to other
control devices
(4) Shutting down the process producing the particulate emissions.
(i) Baghouses followed by a wet electrostatic precipitator (WESP)
used as a secondary control device for any source subject to the PM and
opacity emission standards in Sec. 60.122 are exempt from the
requirement to be equipped with a bag leak detection system.
(j) If a wet scrubber is used to demonstrate continuous compliance
with the PM emissions standards for blast and reverberatory furnaces
specified in Sec. 60.122(a), the owner or operator shall monitor and
record the pressure drop and water flow rate of the wet scrubber during
the initial
[[Page 80612]]
performance or periodic compliance test conducted to demonstrate
compliance with the PM emissions limit under Sec. 60.122(a).
Thereafter, the owner or operator shall monitor and record the pressure
drop and water flow rate values at least once every hour and maintain
the pressure drop and water flow rate at levels no lower than 30
percent below the pressure drop and water flow rate measured during the
initial performance or compliance test.
(k) During the initial performance test required by Sec.
60.123(a), or any periodic performance test required by Sec.
60.123(b), the owner or operator shall establish the value or range of
values of the monitoring parameter(s) for each control device used to
comply with the PM and opacity emission standards specified in Sec.
60.122.
(l) If an affected source is subject to the monitoring requirements
specified in 40 CFR part 63, subpart X (National Emissions Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Secondary Lead Smelting) and those
requirements are as stringent or more stringent than the monitoring
requirements specified in paragraphs (a) through (j) of this section,
compliance with the monitoring requirements specified in 40 CFR part
63, subpart X also demonstrates compliance with the monitoring
requirements specified in paragraphs (a) through (k) of this section.
Sec. 60.125 Notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.
(a) The owner or operator shall comply with the applicable
notification and recordkeeping requirements specified in Sec. 60.7 and
the reporting requirements specified in the NSPS General Provisions
Sec. 60.19.
(1) Records shall be maintained in a form suitable and readily
available for expeditious review, according to Sec. 60.7(f). However,
electronic recordkeeping and reporting may be used if suitable for the
specific case (e.g., by electronic media such as Excel spreadsheet, on
CD or hard copy), and when required by this subpart.
(2) Records shall be kept on site for at least 2 years after the
date of occurrence, measurement, maintenance, corrective action,
report, or record, according to Sec. 60.7(f).
(b) The SOP manual required in Sec. 60.124(b) shall be submitted
to the Administrator in electronic format for review and approval of
the initial submittal and whenever an update is made to the procedure.
(c) The owner or operator shall maintain for a period of 2 years,
records of the information listed in paragraphs (c)(1) through (10) of
this section.
(1) Electronic records of the bag leak detection system output.
(2) An identification of the date and time of all bag leak
detection system alarms, the time that procedures to determine the
cause of the alarm were initiated, the cause of the alarm, an
explanation of the corrective actions taken, and the date and time the
cause of the alarm was corrected.
(3) All records of inspections and maintenance activities required
under Sec. 60.124(d) as part of the practices described in the SOP
manual for baghouses required under Sec. 60.124(b).
(4) Electronic records of the pressure drop and water flow rate
values for wet scrubbers used to control PM emissions from blast or
reverberatory furnaces as required in Sec. 60.124(j).
(5) Records of the occurrence and duration of each malfunction of
operation (i.e., process equipment) or the air pollution control
equipment and monitoring equipment.
(6) Records of actions taken during periods of malfunction to
minimize emissions in accordance with Sec. 60.11(d), including
corrective actions to restore malfunctioning process and air pollution
control and monitoring equipment to its normal or usual manner of
operation.
(7) Records of all alarms from the bag leak detection system
specified in Sec. 60.124(d)(9).
(8) Records maintained as part of the practices described in the
SOP manual for baghouses required under Sec. 60.124(b), including an
explanation of the periods when the procedures were not followed, and
the corrective actions taken.
(9) Record of the periods when the pressure drop and water flow
rate of wet scrubbers used to control process fugitive sources dropped
below the levels established in Sec. 60.124(j), and an explanation of
the corrective actions taken.
(10) Records of the rationale for the control device monitoring
parameter value(s), established as specified in Sec. 60.124(k),
monitoring frequency, and averaging time. Include all data and
calculations used to develop the value and a description of why the
value, monitoring frequency, and averaging time demonstrate continuous
compliance with the applicable emission standard.
(d) In addition to the reporting requirements specified in Sec.
60.7 and Sec. 60.19, the owner or operator shall submit the results of
the initial and periodic performance tests within 60 days after the
date of completing each performance test required by this subpart,
following the procedures specified in paragraphs (d)(1) through (3) of
this section.
(1) Data collected using test methods supported by the EPA's
Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA's ERT website
(<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>) at the time of the test. Submit the results of the
performance test to the EPA via the Compliance and Emissions Data
Reporting Interface (CEDRI), which can be accessed through the EPA's
Central Data Exchange (CDX) (<a href="https://cdx.epa.gov">https://cdx.epa.gov</a>). The data shall be
submitted in a file format generated using the EPA's ERT.
Alternatively, the owner or operator may submit an electronic file
consistent with the extensible markup language (XML) schema listed on
the EPA's ERT website.
(2) Data collected using test methods that are not supported by the
EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT website at the time of the test.
The results of the performance test shall be included as an attachment
in the ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML
schema listed on the EPA's ERT website. Submit the ERT generated
package or alternative file to the EPA via CEDRI.
(3) Confidential business information (CBI).
(i) The EPA will make all the information submitted through CEDRI
available to the public without further notice to the owner or
operator. Do not use CEDRI to submit information that the owner or
operator claims as CBI. Although we do not expect persons to assert a
claim of CBI, if the owner or operator wishes to assert a CBI claim for
some of the information submitted under paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this
section, the owner or operator shall submit a complete file, including
information claimed to be CBI, to the EPA.
(ii) The file shall be generated using the EPA's ERT or an
alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on the
EPA's ERT website.
(iii) Clearly mark the part or all of the information that the
owner or operator claims to be CBI. Information not marked as CBI may
be authorized for public release without prior notice. Information
marked as CBI will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
(iv) The preferred method to receive CBI is for it to be
transmitted electronically using email attachments, File Transfer
Protocol, or other online file sharing services. Electronic submissions
shall be transmitted directly to the OAQPS CBI Office at the
[[Page 80613]]
email address <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b0dfd1c1c0c3d3d2d9f0d5c0d19ed7dfc6"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="137c7262636070717a537663723d747c65">[email protected]</span></a>, and as described above, should include
clear CBI markings and be flagged to the attention of the Group Leader,
Measurement Policy Group. If assistance is needed with submitting large
electronic files that exceed the file size limit for email attachments,
and if the owner or operator does not have a file sharing service,
please email <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#48272939383b2b2a21082d3829662f273e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="49262838393a2a2b20092c3928672e263f">[email protected]</span></a> to request a file transfer link.
(v) If the owner or operator cannot transmit the file
electronically, the owner or operator may send CBI information through
the postal service to the following address: OAQPS Document Control
Officer (C404-02), OAQPS, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, Attention Group Leader,
Measurement Policy Group. The mailed CBI material should be double
wrapped and clearly marked. Any CBI markings should not show through
the outer envelope.
(vi) All CBI claims shall be asserted at the time of submission.
Anything submitted using CEDRI cannot later be claimed CBI.
Furthermore, under CAA section 114(c), emissions data is not entitled
to confidential treatment, and the EPA is required to make emissions
data available to the public. Thus, emissions data will not be
protected as CBI and will be made publicly available.
(vii) The owner or operator shall submit the same file submitted to
the CBI office with the CBI omitted to the EPA through CEDRI via the
EPA's CDX as described in paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this section.
(e) Claims of EPA system outage. If the owner or operator is
required to electronically submit a report through CEDRI in the EPA's
CDX, the owner or operator may assert a claim of EPA system outage for
failure to timely comply with that reporting requirement. To assert a
claim of EPA system outage, the owner or operator shall meet the
requirements outlined in paragraphs (e)(1) through (7) of this section.
(1) The owner or operator shall have been or will be precluded from
accessing CEDRI and submitting a required report within the time
prescribed due to an outage of either the EPA's CEDRI or CDX systems.
(2) The outage shall have occurred within the period of time
beginning five business days prior to the date that the submission is
due.
(3) The outage may be planned or unplanned.
(4) The owner or operator shall submit notification to the
Administrator in writing as soon as possible following the date the
owner or operator first knew, or through due diligence should have
known, that the event may cause or has caused a delay in reporting.
(5) The owner or operator shall provide to the Administrator a
written description identifying:
(i) The date(s) and time(s) when CDX or CEDRI was accessed and the
system was unavailable;
(ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the
regulatory deadline to EPA system outage;
(iii) A description of measures taken or to be taken to minimize
the delay in reporting; and
(iv) The date by which the owner or operator proposes to report, or
if the owner or operator has already met the reporting requirement at
the time of the notification, the date the owner or operator reported.
(6) The decision to accept the claim of EPA system outage and allow
an extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion
of the Administrator.
(7) In any circumstance, the report shall be submitted
electronically as soon as possible after the outage is resolved.
(f) Claims of force majeure. If the owner or operator is required
to electronically submit a report through CEDRI in the EPA's CDX, the
owner or operator may assert a claim of force majeure for failure to
timely comply with that reporting requirement. To assert a claim of
force majeure, the owner or operator shall meet the requirements
outlined in paragraphs (f)(1) through (5) of this section.
(1) The owner or operator may submit a claim if a force majeure
event is about to occur, occurs, or has occurred or there are lingering
effects from such an event within the period of time beginning five
business days prior to the date the submission is due. For the purposes
of this section, a force majeure event is defined as an event that will
be or has been caused by circumstances beyond the control of the
affected facility, its contractors, or any entity controlled by the
affected facility that prevents the owner or operator from complying
with the requirement to submit a report electronically within the time
period prescribed. Examples of such events are acts of nature (e.g.,
hurricanes, earthquakes, or floods), acts of war or terrorism, or
equipment failure or safety hazard beyond the control of the affected
facility (e.g., large scale power outage).
(2) The owner or operator shall submit notification to the
Administrator in writing as soon as possible following the date the
owner or operator first knew, or through due diligence should have
known, that the event may cause or has caused a delay in reporting.
(3) The owner or operator shall provide to the Administrator:
(i) A written description of the force majeure event;
(ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the
regulatory deadline to the force majeure event;
(iii) A description of measures taken or to be taken to minimize
the delay in reporting; and
(iv) The date by which the owner or operator proposes to report, or
if the owner or operator has already met the reporting requirement at
the time of the notification, the date the owner or operator reported.
(4) The decision to accept the claim of force majeure and allow an
extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion of
the Administrator.
(5) In any circumstance, the reporting shall occur as soon as
possible after the force majeure event occurs.
0
8. Add subpart La consisting of Sec. Sec. 60.120a through 60.125a to
part 60 to read as follows:
Subpart La--Standards of Performance for Secondary Lead Smelters for
Which Construction, Reconstruction, or Modification Commenced After
December 1, 2022
Sec.
60.120a Applicability and designation of affected facility.
60.121a Definitions.
60.122a Standard for particulate matter.
60.123a Test methods and procedures.
60.124a Monitoring requirements.
60.125a Notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.
Subpart La--Standards of Performance for Secondary Lead Smelters
for Which Construction, Reconstruction, or Modification Commenced
After December 1, 2022
Sec. 60.120a Applicability and designation of affected facility.
(a) The provisions of this subpart are applicable to the following
affected facilities in secondary lead smelters: Process fugitive
emissions sources, blast (cupola) furnaces, and reverberatory furnaces.
(b) Any facility under paragraph (a) of this section that commences
construction, reconstruction, or modification after November 20, 2023,
is subject to the requirements of this subpart.
Sec. 60.121a Definitions.
As used in this subpart, all terms not defined herein shall have
the meaning given them in the Act and in subpart A of this part.
Blast furnace means any furnace used to recover metal from slag.
[[Page 80614]]
Lead means elemental lead or alloys in which the predominant
component is lead.
Process fugitive emissions source means a source of particulate
matter (PM) emissions at a secondary lead smelter that is associated
with lead smelting or refining including, but not limited to, smelting
furnace charging points; smelting furnace lead and slag taps; pot and
refining furnaces; and casting kettles.
Reverberatory furnace includes the following types of reverberatory
furnaces: stationary, rotating, rocking, and tilting.
Secondary lead smelter means any facility producing lead from a
lead-bearing scrap material by smelting to the metallic form.
Sec. 60.122a Standard for particulate matter.
(a) On and after the date on which the performance test required to
be conducted by Sec. 60.8 is completed, no owner or operator subject
to the provisions of this subpart shall discharge or cause the
discharge into the atmosphere from a blast (cupola) or reverberatory
furnace any gases which:
(1) Contain PM in excess of 10 milligrams per dry standard cubic
meter, mg/dscm (0.0044 grains per dry standard cubic feet, gr/dscf).
(2) Exhibit opacity greater than 5 percent.
(b) On and after the date on which the performance test required to
be conducted by Sec. 60.8 is completed, no owner or operator subject
to the provisions of this subpart shall discharge or cause the
discharge into the atmosphere from any process fugitive emissions
source any gases which:
(1) Contain PM in excess of 4.9 mg/dscm (0.0021 grains per dry
standard cubic feet, gr/dscf).
(2) Exhibit opacity greater than 5 percent.
(c) The PM and opacity emissions standards specified in paragraphs
(a) and (b) of this section apply at all times, including periods of
startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
Sec. 60.123a Test methods and procedures.
(a) Initial performance tests. The owner or operator shall conduct
performance tests to demonstrate initial compliance with the PM and
opacity emission standards specified in Sec. 60.122a.
(b) Periodic performance tests. Following the initial compliance
demonstration required by paragraph (a) of this section, the owner or
operator shall conduct periodic performance tests to demonstrate
compliance with the PM and opacity emissions standards specified in
Sec. 60.122a according to the schedule specified in paragraph (b)(1)
or (2) of this section.
(1) Conduct performance tests no later than 12 months following the
previous compliance test.
(2) Conduct performance tests up to 24 calendar months following
the previous compliance test if the previous compliance test measured
PM emissions equal to or less than the concentrations specified in
paragraphs (b)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section and the owner or operator
has obtained approval from the Administrator for a written request to
extend the period of the periodic performance test. The extension
request will be deemed automatically approved if the owner or operator
submits the results of a PM performance test equal to or less than the
applicable concentrations specified in paragraphs (b)(2)(i) and (ii) of
this section, the owner or operator submits the request for the
extension within 4 months after the subject compliance test, and the
Administrator does not provide a response to such request within 6
months of submission.
(i) 5 mg/dscm for blast and reverberatory furnaces.
(ii) 2.4 mg/dscm for process fugitive emissions sources.
(c) Test methods. In conducting the performance tests required in
Sec. 60.8, the owner or operator shall use the following EPA reference
test methods and procedures in appendix A of this part or other methods
and procedures as specified in this section, except as provided in
Sec. 60.8(b).
(1) EPA Method 1 at appendix A-1 to this part for selecting
sampling port locations and the number of traverse points.
(2) EPA Method 2 at appendix A-1 to this part at appendix A-1 to
this part or EPA Method 5D at appendix A-3 to this part, section 8.3
for positive fabric filters, to measure the volumetric flow rate of the
gas stream.
(3) EPA Method 3, 3A, 3B, or 3C at appendix A-1 to this part to
determine the dry molecular weight of the stack gas and the
concentrations of carbon dioxide and oxygen in the sample gas.
(4) EPA Method 4 at appendix A-3 to this part to determine the
moisture content of the gas stream.
(5) EPA Method 5 or 5D at appendix A-3 to this part for measuring
PM concentrations. The EPA Method 5 or 5D tests shall be conducted
during representative periods of furnace operation, including charging
and tapping, and the sampling time and sample volume for each test run
shall be at least 60 minutes and 0.90 dscm (31.8 dscf), respectively.
As an alternative to using EPA Method 5, owners or operators may
measure PM emissions by the following methods:
(i) EPA Method 12 at appendix A-5 to this part (see section 16.1 of
Method 12) to measure inorganic lead concentrations and PM.
(ii) EPA Method 29 at appendix A-8 to this part to measure metal
(lead) concentrations and PM (see section 1.2 of Method 29).
(6) EPA Method 9 at appendix A-4 to this part and the procedures
specified in Sec. 60.11 for determining opacity. Owners or operators
may use the following methods as alternatives to EPA Method 9 as
applicable and appropriate:
(i) EPA Method 22 (Visual Determination of Fugitive Emissions) at
appendix A-7 to this part for determining no visible emissions.
(ii) ASTM D7520-16 (incorporated by reference at Sec. 60.17) is an
acceptable alternative with the specified conditions in paragraphs
(c)(6)(ii)(A) through (E) of this section.
(A) During the digital camera opacity technique (DCOT)
certification procedure outlined in section 9.2 of ASTM D7520-16
(incorporated by reference at Sec. 60.17), the owner or operator or
the DCOT vendor shall present the plumes in front of various
backgrounds of color and contrast representing conditions anticipated
during field use such as blue sky, trees, and mixed backgrounds (clouds
and/or a sparse tree stand).
(B) The owner or operator shall also have standard operating
procedures (SOPs) 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 (incorporated by reference
at Sec. 60.17).
(C) The owner or operator shall follow the recordkeeping procedures
outlined in Sec. 63.10(b)(1) for the DCOT certification, compliance
report, data sheets, and all raw unaltered JPEGs used for opacity and
certification determination.
(D) The owner or operator or the DCOT vendor shall have a minimum
of four (4) independent technology users apply the software to
determine the visible opacity of the 300 certification plumes. For each
set of 25 plumes, the user may not exceed 15 percent opacity of any one
reading and the average error shall not exceed 7.5 percent opacity.
(E) This approval does not provide or imply a certification or
validation of any vendor's hardware or software. The onus to maintain
and verify the certification and/or training of the DCOT camera,
software, and operator in accordance with ASTM D7520-16
[[Page 80615]]
(incorporated by reference at Sec. 60.17) and this section is on the
owner or operator, DCOT operator, and DCOT vendor.
Sec. 60.124a Monitoring requirements.
(a) The owner shall comply with the applicable monitoring
requirements specified in Sec. 60.13.
(b) The owner shall prepare, and at all times operate according to,
an SOP manual that describes in detail procedures for inspection,
maintenance, and bag leak detection and corrective action plans for all
baghouses (fabric filters or cartridge filters) used to reduce PM and
opacity emissions from any affected source subject to the emissions
standards in Sec. 60.122a.
(c) The owner shall submit the SOP manual for the baghouses (fabric
filters or cartridge collectors) described in paragraph (b) of this
section to the Administrator or delegated authority for review and
approval.
(d) The procedures specified in the SOP manual for inspections and
routine maintenance shall, at a minimum, include the requirements of
paragraphs (d)(1) through (9) of this section.
(1) Daily monitoring of the pressure drop across each baghouse
cell.
(2) Weekly confirmation that dust is being removed from hoppers
through visual inspection, or equivalent means of ensuring the proper
functioning of removal mechanisms.
(3) Daily check of compressed air supply for pulse-jet baghouses.
(4) An appropriate methodology for monitoring cleaning cycles to
ensure proper operation.
(5) Monthly check of bag cleaning mechanisms for proper functioning
through visual inspection or equivalent means.
(6) Monthly check of bag tension on reverse air and shaker-type
baghouses. Such checks are not required for shaker-type baghouses using
self-tensioning (spring loaded) devices.
(7) Quarterly confirmation of the physical integrity of the
baghouse through visual inspection of the baghouse interior for air
leaks.
(8) Quarterly inspection of fans for wear, material buildup, and
corrosion through visual inspection, vibration detectors, or equivalent
means.
(9) Continuous operation of a bag leak detection system.
(e) The procedures specified in the SOP manual for baghouse
maintenance shall include, at a minimum, a preventative maintenance
schedule that is consistent with the baghouse manufacturer's
instructions for routine and long-term maintenance.
(f) The bag leak detection system required by paragraph (d)(9) of
this section, shall meet the specification and requirements of
paragraphs (f)(1) through (8) of this section.
(1) The bag leak detection system shall be certified by the
manufacturer to be capable of detecting PM emissions at concentrations
of 50.0 mg/dscm (0.022 gr/dscf) or less.
(2) The bag leak detection system sensor shall provide output of
relative PM loadings.
(3) The bag leak detection system shall be equipped with an alarm
system that will alarm when an increase in relative particulate
loadings is detected over a preset level.
(4) The owner shall install and operate the bag leak detection
system in a manner consistent with the guidance provided in EPA-454/R-
98-015, Office of Air quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) Fabric
Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance (incorporated by reference, see
Sec. 60.17) or the manufacturer's written specifications and
recommendations for installation, operation, and adjustment of the
system.
(5) The initial adjustment of the system shall, at a minimum,
consist of establishing the baseline output by adjusting the
sensitivity (range) and the averaging period of the device, and
establishing the alarm set points and the alarm delay time.
(6) Following initial adjustment, the owner shall not adjust the
sensitivity or range, averaging period, alarm set points, or alarm
delay time, except as detailed in the approved SOP manual required
under paragraph (b) of this section. The owner cannot increase the
sensitivity by more than 100 percent or decrease the sensitivity by
more than 50 percent over a 365-day period unless such adjustment
follows a complete baghouse inspection that demonstrates that the
baghouse is in good operating condition.
(7) For negative pressure, induced air baghouses, and positive
pressure baghouses that are discharged to the atmosphere through a
stack, the owner shall install the bag leak detector downstream of the
baghouse and upstream of any wet acid gas scrubber.
(8) Where multiple detectors are required, the system's
instrumentation and alarm may be shared among detectors.
(g) The owner shall include in the SOP manual required by paragraph
(b) of this section a corrective action plan that specifies the
procedures to be followed in the case of a bag leak detection system
alarm. The corrective action plan shall include, at a minimum, the
procedures used to determine and record the time and cause of the alarm
as well as the corrective actions taken to minimize emissions as
specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) The procedures used to determine the cause of the alarm shall
be initiated within 30 minutes of the alarm.
(2) The cause of the alarm shall be alleviated by taking the
necessary corrective action(s) that may include, but not be limited to,
those listed in paragraphs (g)(2)(i) through (vi) of this section.
(i) Inspecting the baghouse for air leaks, torn or broken filter
elements, or any other malfunction that may cause an increase in
emissions.
(ii) Sealing off defective bags or filter media.
(iii) Replacing defective bags or filter media, or otherwise
repairing the control device.
(iv) Sealing off a defective baghouse compartment.
(v) Cleaning the bag leak detection system probe, or otherwise
repairing the bag leak detection system.
(vi) Shutting down the process producing the PM emissions.
(h) Baghouses equipped with high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA)
filters as a secondary filter used to control emissions from any source
subject to the PM and opacity emission standards in Sec. 60.122a are
exempt from the requirement to be equipped with a bag leak detection
system. The owner or operator shall monitor and record the pressure
drop across each HEPA filter system daily. If the pressure drop is
outside the limit(s) specified by the filter manufacturer, the owner or
operator shall take appropriate corrective measures, which may include
but not be limited to those given in paragraphs (h)(1) through (4) of
this section.
(1) Inspecting the filter and filter housing for air leaks and torn
or broken filters.
(2) Replacing defective filter media, or otherwise repairing the
control device.
(3) Sealing off a defective control device by routing air to other
control devices.
(4) Shutting down the process producing the particulate emissions.
(i) Baghouses followed by a wet electrostatic precipitator (WESP)
used as a secondary control device for any source subject to the PM and
opacity emission standards in Sec. 60.122a are exempt from the
requirement to be equipped with a bag leak detection system.
(j) If a wet scrubber is used to demonstrate continuous compliance
with the PM emissions standards for blast and reverberatory furnaces
specified in Sec. 60.122a(a), the owner or
[[Page 80616]]
operator shall monitor and record the pressure drop and water flow rate
of the wet scrubber during the initial performance or annual compliance
test conducted to demonstrate compliance with the PM emissions limit
under Sec. 60.122a(a). Thereafter, the owner or operator shall monitor
and record the pressure drop and water flow rate values at least once
every hour and maintain the pressure drop and water flow rate at levels
no lower than 30 percent below the pressure drop and water flow rate
measured during the initial performance or compliance test.
(k) During the initial performance test required by Sec.
60.123a(a), or any periodic performance test required by Sec.
60.123a(b), the owner or operator shall establish the value or range of
values of the monitoring parameter(s) for each control device used to
comply with the PM and opacity emission standards specified in Sec.
60.122a.
(l) If an affected source is subject to the monitoring requirements
specified in 40 CFR part 63, subpart X (National Emissions Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Secondary Lead Smelting) and those
requirements are as stringent or more stringent than the monitoring
requirements specified in paragraphs (a) through (j) of this section
compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart X also demonstrates compliance
with the monitoring requirements specified in paragraphs (a) through
(k) of this section.
Sec. 60.125a Notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.
(a) The owner or operator shall comply with the applicable
notification and recordkeeping requirements specified in Sec. 60.7 and
the reporting requirements specified in Sec. 60.19.
(1) Records shall be maintained in a form suitable and readily
available for expeditious review, according to Sec. 60.7(f). However,
electronic recordkeeping and reporting may be used if suitable for the
specific case (e.g., by electronic media such as Excel spreadsheet, on
CD or hard copy), and when required by this subpart.
(2) Records shall be kept on site for at least 2 years after the
date of occurrence, measurement, maintenance, corrective action,
report, or record, according to Sec. 60.7(f).
(b) The SOP manual required in Sec. 60.124a(b) shall be submitted
to the Administrator in electronic format for review and approval of
the initial submittal and whenever an update is made to the procedure.
(c) The owner or operator shall maintain for a period of 2 years,
records of the information listed in paragraphs (c)(1) through (10) of
this section.
(1) Electronic records of the bag leak detection system output.
(2) An identification of the date and time of all bag leak
detection system alarms, the time that procedures to determine the
cause of the alarm were initiated, the cause of the alarm, an
explanation of the corrective actions taken, and the date and time the
cause of the alarm was corrected.
(3) All records of inspections and maintenance activities required
under Sec. 60.124a(d) as part of the practices described in the SOP
manual for baghouses required under Sec. 60.124a(b).
(4) Electronic records of the pressure drop and water flow rate
values for wet scrubbers used to control PM emissions from blast or
reverberatory furnaces as required in Sec. 60.124a(j).
(5) Records of the occurrence and duration of each malfunction of
operation (i.e., process equipment) or the air pollution control
equipment and monitoring equipment.
(6) Records of actions taken during periods of malfunction to
minimize emissions in accordance with Sec. 60.11(d), including
corrective actions to restore malfunctioning process and air pollution
control and monitoring equipment to its normal or usual manner of
operation.
(7) Records of all alarms and corrective actions taken for the bag
leak detection system specified in Sec. 60.124a(d)(9).
(8) Records maintained as part of the practices described in the
SOP manual for baghouses required under Sec. 60.124a(b), including an
explanation of the periods when the procedures were not followed, and
the corrective actions taken.
(9) Record of the periods when the pressure drop and water flow
rate of wet scrubbers used to control process fugitive sources dropped
below the levels established in Sec. 60.124a(j), and an explanation of
the corrective actions taken.
(10) Records of the rationale for the control device monitoring
parameter value(s), established as specified in Sec. 60.124a(k),
monitoring frequency, and averaging time. Include all data and
calculations used to develop the value and a description of why the
value, monitoring frequency, and averaging time demonstrate continuous
compliance with the applicable emission standard.
(d) In addition to the reporting requirements specified in
Sec. Sec. 60.7 and 60.19, within 60 days after the date of completing
each performance test required by this subpart, the owner or operator
shall submit the results of the initial and periodic performance tests
following the procedures as specified in paragraphs (d)(1) through (3)
of this section.
(1) Data collected using test methods supported by the EPA's
Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA's ERT website
(<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>) at the time of the test. Submit the results of the
performance test to the EPA via the Compliance and Emissions Data
Reporting Interface (CEDRI), which can be accessed through the EPA's
Central Data Exchange (CDX) (<a href="https://cdx.epa.gov">https://cdx.epa.gov</a>). The data shall be
submitted in a file format generated using the EPA's ERT.
Alternatively, the owner or operator may submit an electronic file
consistent with the extensible markup language (XML) schema listed on
the EPA's ERT website.
(2) Data collected using test methods that are not supported by the
EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT website at the time of the test.
The results of the performance test shall be included as an attachment
in the ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML
schema listed on the EPA's ERT website. Submit the ERT generated
package or alternative file to the EPA via CEDRI.
(3) Confidential business information (CBI). (i) The EPA will make
all the information submitted through CEDRI available to the public
without further notice to the owner or operator. Do not use CEDRI to
submit information the owner or operator claims as CBI. Although we do
not expect persons to assert a claim of CBI, if the owner or operator
wishes to assert a CBI claim for some of the information submitted
under paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section, the owner or operator
shall submit a complete file, including information claimed to be CBI,
to the EPA.
(ii) The file shall be generated using the EPA's ERT or an
alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on the
EPA's ERT website.
(iii) Clearly mark the part or all of the information that the
owner or operator claims to be CBI. Information not marked as CBI may
be authorized for public release without prior notice. Information
marked as CBI will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
(iv) The preferred method to receive CBI is for it to be
transmitted electronically using email attachments, File Transfer
Protocol, or other online file sharing services. Electronic
[[Page 80617]]
submissions shall be transmitted directly to the OAQPS CBI Office at
the email address <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ec838d9d9c9f8f8e85ac899c8dc28b839a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7a151b0b0a091918133a1f0a1b541d150c">[email protected]</span></a>, and as described above, should
include clear CBI markings and be flagged to the attention of the Group
Leader, Measurement Policy Group. If assistance is needed with
submitting large electronic files that exceed the file size limit for
email attachments, and if the owner or operator does not have a file
sharing service, please email <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#85eae4f4f5f6e6e7ecc5e0f5e4abe2eaf3"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="402f21313033232229002530216e272f36">[email protected]</span></a> to request a file
transfer link.
(v) If the owner or operator cannot transmit the file
electronically, the owner or operator may send CBI information through
the postal service to the following address: OAQPS Document Control
Officer (C404-02), OAQPS, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, Attention Group Leader,
Measurement Policy Group. The mailed CBI material should be double
wrapped and clearly marked. Any CBI markings should not show through
the outer envelope.
(vi) All CBI claims shall be asserted at the time of submission.
Anything submitted using CEDRI cannot later be claimed CBI.
Furthermore, under CAA section 114(c), emissions data is not entitled
to confidential treatment, and the EPA is required to make emissions
data available to the public. Thus, emissions data will not be
protected as CBI and will be made publicly available.
(vii) The owner or operator shall submit the same file submitted to
the CBI office with the CBI omitted to the EPA through CEDRI via the
EPA's CDX as described in paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this section.
(e) If the owner or operator is required to electronically submit a
report through CEDRI in the EPA's CDX, the owner or operator may assert
a claim of EPA system outage for failure to timely comply with that
reporting requirement. To assert a claim of EPA system outage, the
owner or operator shall meet the requirements outlined in paragraphs
(e)(1) through (7) of this section.
(1) The owner or operator shall have been or will be precluded from
accessing CEDRI and submitting a required report within the time
prescribed due to an outage of either the EPA's CEDRI or CDX systems.
(2) The outage shall have occurred within the period of time
beginning five business days prior to the date that the submission is
due.
(3) The outage may be planned or unplanned.
(4) The owner or operator shall submit notification to the
Administrator in writing as soon as possible following the date the
owner or operator first knew, or through due diligence should have
known, that the event may cause or has caused a delay in reporting.
(5) The owner or operator shall provide to the Administrator a
written description identifying:
(i) The date(s) and time(s) when CDX or CEDRI was accessed and the
system was unavailable;
(ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the
regulatory deadline to EPA system outage;
(iii) A description of measures taken or to be taken to minimize
the delay in reporting; and
(iv) The date by which the owner or operator propose to report, or
if the owner or operator has already met the reporting requirement at
the time of the notification, the date the owner or operator reported.
(6) The decision to accept the claim of EPA system outage and allow
an extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion
of the Administrator.
(7) In any circumstance, the report shall be submitted
electronically as soon as possible after the outage is resolved.
(f) If the owner or operator is required to electronically submit a
report through CEDRI in the EPA's CDX, the owner or operator may assert
a claim of force majeure for failure to timely comply with that
reporting requirement. To assert a claim of force majeure, the owner or
operator shall meet the requirements outlined in paragraphs (f)(1)
through (5) of this section.
(1) The owner or operator may submit a claim if a force majeure
event is about to occur, occurs, or has occurred or there are lingering
effects from such an event within the period of time beginning five
business days prior to the date the submission is due. For the purposes
of this section, a force majeure event is defined as an event that will
be or has been caused by circumstances beyond the control of the
affected facility, its contractors, or any entity controlled by the
affected facility that prevents the owner or operator from complying
with the requirement to submit a report electronically within the time
period prescribed. Examples of such events are acts of nature (e.g.,
hurricanes, earthquakes, or floods), acts of war or terrorism, or
equipment failure or safety hazard beyond the control of the affected
facility (e.g., large scale power outage).
(2) The owner or operator shall submit notification to the
Administrator in writing as soon as possible following the date the
owner or operator first knew, or through due diligence should have
known, that the event may cause or has caused a delay in reporting.
(3) The owner or operator shall provide to the Administrator:
(i) A written description of the force majeure event;
(ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the
regulatory deadline to the force majeure event;
(iii) A description of measures taken or to be taken to minimize
the delay in reporting; and
(iv) The date by which the owner or operator proposes to report, or
if the owner or operator has already met the reporting requirement at
the time of the notification, the date the owner or operator reported.
(4) The decision to accept the claim of force majeure and allow an
extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion of
the Administrator.
(5) In any circumstance, the reporting shall occur as soon as
possible after the force majeure event occurs.
[FR Doc. 2023-25275 Filed 11-17-23; 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>Indexed from Federal Register on November 20, 2023.
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.