[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 173 (Thursday, September 8, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-21957]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: September 8, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 9 and 63
[AD-FRL-5052-3]
RIN 2060-AC 12
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for
Industrial Process Cooling Towers
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action promulgates final standards that limit the
discharge of chromium compound air emissions from industrial process
cooling towers (IPCT's) pursuant to section 112 of the Clean Air Act as
amended in 1990 (the Act). Chromium compounds are among the 189
hazardous air pollutants (HAP's) listed for regulation under section
112 of the Act. Industrial process cooling towers that use chromium-
based water treatment programs have been identified by the EPA as
significant emitters of chromium compounds to the atmosphere. The
purpose of the final rule is to effectively eliminate chromium compound
air emissions from IPCT's through the prohibition of chromium-based
water treatment chemicals in affected new and existing IPCT's.
DATES: These regulations are effective September 8, 1994.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications in this
standard is approved by the Director of the Office of the Federal
Register as of September 8, 1994.
ADDRESSES: Docket. Docket No. A-91-65, containing information
considered by the EPA in developing the promulgated IPCT NESHAP is
available for public inspection and copying between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except for Federal holidays, at the EPA's Air
and Radiation Docket and Information Center, Room M1500, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC
20460; telephone (202) 260-7548. A reasonable fee may be charged for
copying.
Background Information Document
A background information document (BID) for the promulgated ITCT
national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) may
be obtained from the docket; the U.S. EPA Library (MD-35), Research
Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone number (919) 541-2777; or from
National Technical Information Services, 5285 Port Royal Road,
Springfield, Virginia 22161; telephone (703) 487-4650. Please refer to
``National Emission Standards for Hazardous Pollutants for Industrial
Process Cooling Towers--Background Information for Promulgated
Standards'' (EPA-453/R-94-041b). The BID contains a summary of the
public comments made on the proposed IPCT standard and EPA responses to
the comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Phil Mulrine of the Industrial Studies Branch, Emissions Standards
Division (MD-13), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone (919) 541-5289.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, judicial
review of NESHAP is available only by filing a petition for review in
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
within 60 days of today's publication of this rule. Under section
307(b)(2) of the Act, the requirements that are the subject of today's
notice may not be challenged later in civil or criminal proceedings
brought by the EPA to enforce these requirements.
The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows:
I. Background
II. Summary
A. Summary of Promulgated Standards
B. Summary of Major Changes Since Proposal
III. Summary of Environmental, Energy, Cost, and Economic Impacts
A. Environmental Impacts
B. Energy Impacts
C. Cost Impacts
D. Economic Impacts
IV. Public Participation
V. Significant Comments and Responses
A. Selection of Regulatory Authority
B. Selection of Pollutant to be Regulated
C. Selection of Sources to be Regulated
D. Compliance Dates
E. Notification Requirements
F. Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements
G. Interaction of the IPCT NESHAP and the General Provisions
H. Selection of Control Technology
I. Cost Impact
J. Wording of the Regulation
K. De Minimis Cooling Water Chromium Concentration
IV. Administrative Requirements
A. Docket
B. Executive Order 12286
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act
E. Miscellaneous
I. Background
Section 112(b) of the Act lists 189 HAP's and requires the EPA to
establish national emission standards for all major sources and some
area sources of those HAP's. Among the listed pollutants are chromium
compounds. On July 16, 1992 ( (57 FR 31576), EPA published a list of
major and area sources for which NESHAP are to be promulgated and on
December 3, 1993 (58 FR 83941), EPA published a schedule for
promulgation of those standards. The IPCT source category is included
in the list of major sources to be regulated for which the EPA is to
establish national emission standards by November 1994.
The IPCT rule was proposed in the Federal Register on August 12,
1993 (58 FR 43028). No public hearing on this rule was requested, but
41 comment letters were received.
II. Summary
A. Summary of Promulgated Standards
The standard being promulgated today will eliminate emissions of
chromium compounds from new and existing IPCT's that are major sources
or are integral parts of major sources by prohibiting the use of
chromium-based water treatment chemicals in those IPCT's.
1. Affected Sources
Cooling towers are devices that are used to remove heat from a
cooling fluid, typically water, by contacting the fluid with ambient
air. The IPCT source category includes cooling towers that are used to
remove heat that is produced as an input or output of chemical or
industrial processes. The IPCT source category also includes cooling
towers that cool industrial processes in combination with heating,
ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems. Standards to control
chromium emissions from cooling towers that cool HVAC systems
exclusively (comfort cooling towers (CCT)) were promulgated on January
3, 1990, under section 6 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA),
(55 FR 222).
This rule is applicable only to those IPCT's in which chromium-
based water treatment chemicals are used on or after [Insert date of
publication of this final rule] and which are major sources or are
integral parts of major sources as defined in Sec. 112(a)(1) of the
Act. A major source is any stationary source or group of stationary
sources located within a contiguous area and under common control that
emits or has the potential to emit, considering controls, 10 tons per
year or more of any HAP or 25 tons per year or more of any combination
of HAP's.
This rule is not applicable to area source IPCT's, which are IPCT's
that are neither major sources nor integral parts of major sources.
However, owners or operators of area source IPCT's should take note of
two specific requirements of the General Provisions to part 63 of the
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) that are applicable to area sources.
First, Sec. 63.6(a) of the General Provisions states that if an area
source increases its emissions of HAP's (or its potential to emit
HAP's) such that the source now qualifies as a major source, that
source would then become subject to any relevant standards promulgated
under part 63 for major sources. Thus, any area source IPCT that is
operated with chromium-based water treatment chemicals and that later
becomes a major source or becomes an integral part of a major source is
subject to this subpart. Second, as required by Sec. 63.10(b)(3) of the
General Provisions, owners or operators of area source IPCT's that use
chromium water treatment chemicals on or after September 8, 1994, must
keep on file a record of the determination that the IPCT is an area
source IPCT.
2. Format of the Standard
As authorized under section 112(h) of the Act, this standard is a
work practice standard rather than an emission standard. The standard
regulates emissions of chromium from affected IPCT's by prohibiting the
use of chromium-based water treatment chemicals in those IPCT's.
3. Compliance Date
The compliance date of this rule for existing IPCT's is March 8,
1996. All affected existing IPCT's must discontinue the use of
chromium-based water treatment chemicals by that date. The compliance
date for new IPCT's that are placed into operation before September 8,
1994 is September 8, 1994. The compliance date for new IPCT's that are
placed into operation after September 8, 1994 is the date that
circulation of water through the IPCT is initiated.
In accordance with Sec. 63.6(c)(5) of the General Provisions, the
compliance date for existing area source IPCT's that become major
sources or integral parts of major sources is 18 months from the date
on which the IPCT becomes a major source or integral part of a major
source. In accordance with Sec. 63.6(b)(7) of the General Provisions,
the compliance date for new area source IPCT's that become major
sources or integral parts of major sources is the date that the IPCT
becomes a major source or integral part of a major source.
4. Compliance Demonstrations
This rule contains no requirements for performance testing or for
monitoring IPCT emissions or any other parameter. However, regulatory
agencies have the option of requiring cooling water sampling for
residual hexavalent chromium (Cr+6) if warranted. This rule
specifies methods for sampling and analyzing cooling water for
Cr+6 and a de minimis Cr+6 concentration of 0.5 parts per
million (ppm) by weight. Any affected IPCT with a cooling water
Cr+6 concentration in excess of 0.5 ppm would be considered in
violation of this standard. Because it may require several weeks for
the concentration of Cr+6 in cooling water to decline below 0.5
ppm, the final rule allows a 3 month time period following the
compliance date before a Cr+6 concentration in excess of 0.5 ppm
is considered to be a violation of the standard.
5. Notification Requirements
Owners or operators of affected IPCT's are required to submit two
notifications: an initial notification and a notification of compliance
status. The initial notification will enable enforcement personnel to
identify the population of IPCT's subject to the standard. This
notification must include the name and address of the owner or
operator, the address of the affected IPCT, and information on the
types of water treatment chemicals used in the IPCT. For existing
IPCT's or new IPCT's that are in operation on the effective date of
this rule, the initial notification must be submitted by September 8,
1995. Owners or operators of new IPCT's that are not yet in operation
are required to submit the initial notification within 12 months of
initial startup of the IPCT. This rule overrides the requirement of
Sec. 63.9(b) of the General Provisions which requires that the initial
notification be submitted 120 days later than the compliance date.
The notification of compliance status is a one-time certification
that must be submitted no later than 60 days after the compliance date.
This rule overrides the requirement of Sec. 63.9(h) of the General
Provisions that requires owners or operators of affected sources to
submit annual notifications of compliance status. The notification of
compliance status must state that the source is in compliance with this
standard and must be signed by a responsible official. In addition, the
notification of compliance status must include information on the type
of cooling water treatment chemicals used in the affected IPCT.
6. Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements
This rule requires no routine or periodic reporting by owners or
operators of affected IPCT's. The only records that owners or operators
of affected IPCT's are required to keep under this rule are the initial
notification and the notification of compliance status. These records
must be retained for a minimum of 5 years onsite. In addition, as
stated previously, owners or operators of area source IPCT's that use
chromium water treatment on or after September 8, 1994 must keep on
file for a minimum of 5 years the documentation that substantiates that
the IPCT is an area source IPCT and is not subject to this rule.
B. Summary of Major Changes Since Proposal
1. Applicability
The final rule is applicable only to those IPCT's that are major
sources or are integral parts of major sources and are operated with
chromium-based water treatment chemicals on or after the effective date
of the rule. Under the proposed rule, all IPCT's that are major sources
or are integral parts of major sources would have been subject to the
standard, regardless of the type of water treatment program used in
those IPCT's.
2. Definitions
In the final rule, several definitions were modified or added to
clarify the rule and to eliminate the need to reference the Act or the
General Provisions to part 63.
3. Compliance Date
In the proposed rule, Sec. 63.403(a) specified a compliance date
for existing IPCT's of 6 months after promulgation. In the final rule,
the compliance date for existing IPCT's was changed to 18 months
following promulgation of the rule.
4. Compliance Demonstrations
Section 63.404 of the proposed rule was titled ``Monitoring
requirements.'' In the final rule, Sec. 63.404 is titled ``Compliance
demonstrations'' to more accurately reflect the content of the section.
The final rule also includes a second approved method for sampling and
analyzing cooling water samples for Cr+6: Method 3500-Cr D,
Colorimetric Method, Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and
Wastewater, American Public Health Association. The second approved
method is based on the same analytical procedure as Method 7196, which
was the only EPA-approved method specified in the proposed rule. In
addition, the final rule specifies a de minimis concentration of 0.5
ppm by weight Cr+6 in IPCT cooling water; the proposed rule did
not specify a de minimis level for chromium. Furthermore, the final
rule allows a 3 month time period following the compliance date before
a Cr+6 concentration in excess of 0.5 ppm is considered to be a
violation of the standard.
5. Notification Requirements
In the proposed rule, recordkeeping requirements were addressed in
Sec. 63.405 and notification requirements were addressed in
Sec. 63.406, which was titled ``Reporting.'' In the final rule, these
sections have been reorganized to conform with the organization of the
General Provisions to part 63: notification requirements are addressed
in Sec. 63.405, and recordkeeping and reporting requirements are
addressed in Sec. 63.406.
The final rule requires two one-time notifications for each
affected IPCT: One initial notification and one notification of
compliance status. The proposed rule referenced Sec. 63.9 of the
General Provisions to part 63 regarding the requirements of the initial
notification and notification of compliance status but did not list the
specific requirements of the notifications. The final rule specifies
the types of information required in each notification and specifies
deadlines for submittals of both notifications. The initial
notification must be submitted by owners or operators of existing
IPCT's by September 8, 1995 and by owners or operators of new IPCT's
within 12 months of the initial startup of the affected IPCT. The
notification of compliance status must be submitted within 60 days of
the date of the IPCT is brought into compliance with this subpart. The
proposed rule required annual submissions of the notification of
compliance status.
6. Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements
As stated previously, recordkeeping requirements were moved from
Sec. 63.405 in the proposed rule to Sec. 63.406 in the final rule. The
proposed rule required IPCT owners or operators to maintain records of
water treatment chemical purchases. Owners or operators of IPCT's that
were operated with chromium-based water treatment chemicals also were
required to maintain an inventory of the chromium chemicals that are
onsite and to document the disposition of those chromium chemicals. In
the final rule, these recordkeeping requirements have been eliminated.
However, the final rule still requires IPCT owners or operators to keep
copies of the initial notifications and the notifications of compliance
status in accordance with Sec. 63.10 of the General Provisions.
The proposed rule did not specify a minimum record retention
period, but referenced Sec. 63.10 of the General Provisions to part 63
regarding general requirements for recordkeeping. The final rule
specifies a minimum record retention period of 5 years.
III. Summary of Environmental, Energy, Cost, and Economic Impacts
A. Environmental Impacts
The environmental impacts for this rule were not affected by
changes made to the rule between proposal and promulgation. These
impacts are summarized below.
1. Air
This standard prohibits the use of chromium-based water treatment
programs in affected IPCT's. The total baseline Cr+6 emissions
from all existing IPCT's are estimated to be 23 megagrams per year (Mg/
yr) (25 tons/yr). The standard will achieve a 99 percent reduction of
Cr+6 emissions nationwide by eliminating all Cr+6 emissions
from existing IPCT's that are major sources or are integral parts of
major sources. None of the nonchromium chemicals that are used as
substitutes for chromium chemicals in cooling water are listed as HAP's
under Sec. 112(b) of the Act.
The standard will also prevent emission of 1.6 Mg/yr (1.8 tons/yr)
of Cr+6 from the 870 new IPCT's projected by 1998 (the fifth year
of the standards). This estimate is based on the assumption that, in
the absence of a standard, chromium use would remain at current levels
(i.e., 10 percent or 87 of new IPCT's would be placed on chromium-based
programs).
Substitute nonchromium-based treatment programs typically require
higher levels of phosphates and polymeric dispersants than do chromium-
based treatment programs. Nonchromium treatment programs may also
contain molybdates. Thus, emissions of these compounds would increase
under the standard. However, none of these compounds are listed HAP's.
Total baseline emissions of phosphates for all existing IPCT's are
estimated to be 104 Mg/yr (114 tons/yr). Under the standard, phosphate
emissions from existing IPCT's would increase by 46 Mg/yr (50 tons/yr)
to approximately 150 Mg/yr (165 tons/yr).
Zinc, which is not a listed HAP, is a common corrosion inhibitor
present in many cooling water treatment programs. Almost all current
chromium-based programs contain zinc because the two metals act
synergistically to inhibit corrosion. Nonchromium treatments may also
contain zinc at levels similar to those in the chromium/zinc programs
that they replace. As chromium/zinc treatments are replaced by
nonchromium treatments, zinc emissions are not expected to change
significantly.
Molybdate-based programs currently have a very small share (less
than 1 percent) of the water treatment market. Although the market for
molybdate programs is expected to grow modestly under the standard,
molybdate usage is expected to remain limited because these programs
are more expensive than other treatment programs. Consequently,
molybdate emissions are not expected to increase significantly.
Under the standard, particulate matter (PM) emissions from existing
IPCT's will not change from baseline levels of approximately 10,000 Mg/
yr (11,000 tons/yr). New source PM levels will also be unaffected by
these standards.
In the absence of the standard, phosphate emissions from new
sources in 1998 would be approximately 4 Mg/yr (4.4 tons/yr). Under the
standard, phosphate emissions from new IPCT's in the fifth year will
increase to 5.8 Mg/yr (6.4 tons/yr), and total nationwide phosphate
emissions for new and existing IPCT's in the fifth year of the standard
will be 156 Mg/yr (172 tons/yr).
2. Water
Blowdown from existing IPCT's is pretreated to remove Cr+6
before discharge. Any Cr+6 removed from treated IPCT blowdown is
handled as solid waste. The standard will eliminate any accidental
water discharges of Cr+6 from IPCT blowdown pretreatment programs.
Under the standard, nationwide phosphate discharges from existing
IPCT's will increase by as much as 830 Mg/yr (910 tons/yr), and new
sources that will go into operation by 1998 will discharge an
additional 610 Mg/yr (670 tons/yr). As a result, total phosphate
discharges will increase from the baseline level of 7,700 Mg/yr (8,470
tons/yr) to 9,140 Mg/yr (10,050 tons/yr). In the absence of the
standard, new sources that will go into operation by 1998 would
increase nationwide phosphate water discharges by 550 Mg/yr (610 tons/
yr). As a result, total phosphate discharges will increase from the
baseline of 7,700 Mg/yr (8,470 tons/yr) to 8,250 Mg/yr (9,075 tons/yr).
These increases in phosphate discharges are extremely small in
comparison to phosphate discharges from cropland and pastureland
runoff. Consequently, there are no significant impacts associated with
these increased phosphate discharges.
Nonchromium treatments contain levels of zinc similar to those in
baseline chromium programs. Therefore, zinc discharges are not expected
to increase under the standard. Although data are limited, increases in
the amount of molybdate discharged under the standard are expected to
be negligible.
3. Solid Waste
The only impacts of the standard on solid waste will result from
eliminating all Cr+6 in the solid waste from IPCT blowdown
treatment processes. Disposal of all other forms of solid waste removed
from IPCT blowdown would remain at current levels.
Blowdown from cooling towers may be treated to reduce the
concentrations of corrosion inhibitors (e.g., chromium, zinc,
phosphates, and molybdenum). The concentration of these elements in the
resulting sludge is likely to be higher than the concentrations in the
blowdown before treatment. Chromium-containing solid waste (i.e., the
treatment sludge) is sometimes identified as a hazardous waste, the EPA
hazardous waste No. D007, under Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) part 261, subpart C--Characteristics of Hazardous Waste; it is
considered a hazardous waste if its leachate contains greater than 5
milligrams per liter (mg/L) total chromium as determined by the
Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure. Chromium-containing waste
is also subject to the Land Disposal Restrictions in RCRA part 268,
which allows land disposal only if the hazardous waste is treated in
accordance with subpart D--Treatment Standards. Land disposal of the
waste is allowed if the chromium concentration in the waste does not
exceed 5 mg/L total chromium. Hazardous wastes also must be handled and
stored according to specific RCRA procedures.
Baseline blowdown discharges are estimated to contain a maximum of
400 mg/yr (440 tons/yr) of Cr+6. Consequently, the standard will
eliminate solid waste disposal of a maximum of 400 Mg/yr (440 tons/yr)
of Cr+6 by eliminating all Cr+6 from IPCT's. Zinc-,
molybedenum-, and phosphate-containing wastes are not identified as
hazardous wastes and, therefore, do not have the same solid waste
disposal requirements as chromium-containing wastes. Under the
standard, the solid waste impacts due to zinc-, molybdenum-, and
phosphate-containing wastes will be negligible.
B. Energy Impacts
The energy impacts, which are described below, were not affected by
changes made to the rule between proposal and promulgation. The only
energy impacts for the standard over baseline will result from the
energy required to operate the additional chemical feed and regulation
equipment that is required for nonchromium-based water treatment
programs. The nationwide energy impacts associated with the standard
are small.
Nonchromium-based water treatment programs typically require
tighter control of chemical feed and recirculating water quality
parameters than do chromium-based programs. The components required for
a basic nonchromium-based chemical feed and regulation system include a
pH controller, conductivity controller, and metering chemical feed
pumps.
For existing sources, a nationwide increase of up to 3,500
megawatt-hours per year (MWh/yr) (12,000 million British thermal units
per year (Btu/yr)) will result from the use of additional automated
instrumentation/controller equipment under the standard. This
represents an increase of approximately 0.01 percent of the energy
required to operate these IPCT's. For new sources, a nationwide
increase of up to 370 MWh/yr (1,300 million Btu/yr) will result under
the standard.
Typical baseline automated instrumentation/controllers for an IPCT
currently on a chromium-based water treatment program consume
approximately 1.5 MWh/yr (50 million Btu/yr). Energy consumption for
instrumentation/controllers for this IPCT will increase to 4.4 MWh/yr
(150 million btu/yr) under the standard.
C. Cost Impacts
The cost impacts, which are described below, were not affected by
changes made to the rule between proposal and promulgation. Cost
components of the nonchromium control measure include the increased
cost of nonchromium chemicals over the cost for chromium chemicals and
the cost to install, operate, and maintain automated chemical feed and
regulation equipment. When properly controlled, nonchromium-based water
treatment programs perform comparably to chromium-based programs.
Therefore, it is assumed that corrosion rates, heat exchanger
lifetimes, cleaning frequencies and costs, and other maintenance
requirements are similar for both types of water treatment programs,
and no significant cost result from conversion.
Total annualized baseline costs for model towers range from $5,100
to $485,000 respectively for model towers with recirculation rates of
1,000 gallons per minute (gal/min) to 105,000 gal/min. These costs
include annualized capital costs for the cooling tower and baseline
instrumentation/controller equipment and annual operating costs for the
instrumentation/controller equipment and chromium-based water treatment
chemicals.
Nationwide annualized incremental cost for the standard is $14
million. This corresponds to a projected increase of about 6 percent
over the annualized costs to operate all IPCT's nationwide. To comply
with the standard, the total incremental annualized costs above
baseline for model towers range from $4,270 to $144,000 for model
towers with recirculation rates of 1,000 gal/min to 105,000 gal/min,
respectively. These costs include the incremental annualized capital
costs for additional instrumentation/controller equipment and the
incremental annual operating costs for the additional equipment and the
nonchromium-based water treatment chemicals. The total nationwide
increase in annual chemical costs to switch existing IPCT's on
chromium-based treatment programs to nonchromium-based programs is
$12.5 million. This corresponds to an increase of only 2.5 percent
above the total nationwide annual cost of water treatment programs for
all IPCT's and CCT's, which is about $500 million.
Under the standard, the estimated nationwide annualized cost in
1998 of prohibiting new sources from using chromium is $1.2 million.
This corresponds to a projected increase of about 0.5 percent over the
nationwide annualized costs in the absence of regulation.
D. Economic Impacts
The economic impacts, which are described below, were not affected
by changes made to the rule between proposal and promulgation. Economic
impacts were assessed by examining the effect of the elimination of
chromium-based water treatment programs on the final end product prices
for each affected industry. The results of this assessment indicate
that there are no significant economic impacts on the industries to be
affected by this regulation.
Typical price increases range from 0.001 percent to 0.04 percent
for the affected industries. The industries that have the highest
percentage of IPCT's using chromium corrosion inhibitors will bear
higher control costs and experience greater economic impacts than
relatively minor users of chromium chemical programs. The chemical
manufacturing industry, a relatively major user of chromium, will bear
the highest compliance cost and, therefore, is the industry that will
experience the greatest economic impact with a typical price increase
of 0.011 percent and a projected worst-case scenario price increase of
0.33 percent. All other affected industries will experience maximum
price increases less than those predicted for the chemical
manufacturing industry.
The following criteria are used to determine what constitutes a
significant adverse economic impact for small businesses: (1)
Annualized compliance costs increase total cost of production by more
than 5 percent; (2) capital costs of compliance represent a significant
portion of capital available to small entities; (3) requirements of the
regulation are likely to result in closures of small entities; and (4)
compliance costs as a percentage of sales for small polants are at
least 10 percent higher than for large plants. The standard will not
have any significant impacts on a substantial number of small entities
since none of the above criteria are triggered by this regulation.
IV. Publication Participation
Prior to proposal of the IPCT rule, interested parties were advised
by public notice in the Federal Register (56 FR 54576, October 22,
1991) of a meeting of the National Air Pollution Control Techniques
Advisory Committee (NAPCTAC) to discuss the draft IPCT rule recommended
for proposal. That meeting was held on November 19-21, 1991. This
meeting was open to the public and each attendee was given an
opportunity to comment on the draft IPCT rule.
The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on August
12, 1993 (58 FR 43028). The preamble to the proposal discussed the
availability of the proposal BID (Chromium Emissions from Industrial
Process Cooling Towers--Background Information for Proposed Standards''
(EPA-450/R-93-022)), which describes in detail the regulatory
alternatives considered and the impacts associated with those
alternatives. Public comments were solicited at the time of proposal,
and copies of the proposal BID were made available to interested
parties.
The public comment period officially ended on October 12, 1993. A
public hearing was not requested; however, 41 comment letters were
received. The comments were carefully considered, and where determined
to be appropriate by the Administrator, changes were made in the final
IPCT rule.
V. Significant Comments and Responses
Comments on the proposed rule were received from IPCT users,
industry trade groups, the U.S. Department of Energy, a chromium
chemical supplier, and two air pollution control agencies. A detailed
discussion of these comments and responses can be found in the
promulgation BID (see ADDRESSES section). The summary of comments and
responses in the promulgation BID serves as the basis for the revisions
that have been made to the rule between proposal and promulgation.
A. Selection of Regulatory Authority
Several commenters stated that the EPA should have regulated IPCT's
under TSCA, which was the authority used for the CCT rule promulgated
in 1990 (55 FR 222). Most of these commenters noted that part of the
rationale for selecting TSCA as the authority for the CCT rule was that
it was more efficient to place the regulatory burden on a small number
of chemical distributors than on the large number of cooling tower
owners and operators. These commenters suggested that this same
rationale is even more appropriate in the case of IPCT's because the
impacted vendor population is even smaller than it was at the time the
CCT rule was promulgated, and the enforcement system under TSCA is
already in place. In addition, prohibiting sales of chromium water
treatment chemicals for use in IPCT's under TSCA would result in the
elimination of chromium emissions from all IPCT's, not just those at
major sources.
The primary reason the EPA regulated CCT's under TSCA was to
simplify enforcement. At the time the CCT rule was promulgated, there
were an estimated 250,000 CCT's in operation and fewer than 200 water
treatment chemical distributors. By banning the sale and distribution
of chromium water treatment chemicals for CCT use under TSCA, the focus
of enforcement was directed at the relatively small number of
distributors rather than the very large number of potential chromium
water treatment chemical users. In the case of IPCT's, the number of
affected sources is much smaller, numbering fewer than 800.
The TSCA is an alternative regulatory authority in that, before a
standard can be promulgated under TSCA, section 9(b) of TSCA requires
the EPA to determine if the risk associated with the action can be
prevented or sufficiently reduced under another (primary) regulatory
authority. If the risk can be prevented or adequately reduced under
another authority, the regulation can be promulgated under TSCA only if
the Administrator determines that it is in the ``public interest'' to
protect against that risk under TSCA rather than under the primary
regulatory authority.
In the case of IPCT's, the risk associated with emissions of
chromium from IPCT's can be eliminated under the authority of the Act;
therefore, the Administrator would have to find that regulation of
IPCT's under TSCA would satisfy other public interest factors. The
primary reason to consider regulating IPCT's under TSCA would be
regulatory efficiency. As was the case with CCT's, the number of
vendors is much smaller than the population of sources. Thus, it might
appear to be more efficient to regulate IPCT's in a fashion similar to
CCT's. However, because IPCT's will be permitted under title V of the
Act, a permitting system is or will be established for sources with
affected IPCT's. Thus, regulating IPCT's under the authority of the Act
provides a simple mechanism for enforcement that does not involve
significant additional burden on either the regulated sources or
enforcement personnel. Although the population of IPCT's is relatively
large, the fact that the affected IPCT's are located at permitted
facilities is in sharp contrast to the case of CCT's, which are
predominantly located at facilities that are not permitted. For these
reasons, the Administrator determined that the advantages for
regulating IPCT's under TSCA were not compelling enough to satisfy the
public interest criteria of section 9(b) of TSCA.
The Administrator acknowledges that not all IPCT's are regulated
under this rule. However, the number of IPCT's that use chromium-based
water treatment chemicals and are not covered by this regulation is
estimated to be less than 1 percent of all IPCT's, and chromium
emissions from these area source IPCT's constitute no more than 1
percent of total nationwide chromium emissions from IPCT's.
B. Selection of Pollutant to be Regulated
One commenter suggested that the EPA should regulate other HAP's
from IPCT's in addition to Cr+6. This commenter states that
cooling towers that use chlorine to prevent biological growth are also
sources of chloroform, dioxin, and other chlorinated organic compounds,
which may be emitted in sufficient quantities to pose a health risk.
However, the commenter provided no supporting information or
documentation.
Currently, the EPA has no information other than this comment that
indicates that other listed HAP's are emitted from IPCT's. If, at a
later date, however, the regulation of emissions of other HAP's from
IPCT's is determined to be warranted, this regulation on IPCT's could
be amended to include additional standards that limit other HAP
emissions from IPCT's.
C. Selection of Sources to be Regulated
Fourteen commenters suggested that the standard should apply only
to IPCT's that are using chromium-based water treatment chemicals at
the time the standard was proposed or is promulgated because these are
the only IPCT's that emit HAP's. Several commenters noted that the Act
only authorizes the EPA to develop NESHAP for sources of HAP's, which
could not include IPCT's using nonchromium water treatment programs.
One commenter stated that by making the NESHAP applicable to all
IPCT's, even those that have never used or no longer use chromium-based
water treatment chemicals, the EPA would put complying sources in the
position of possibly incurring a violation of the standard simply for
failure to maintain records to prove that chromium had not been used.
The commenters believed that there is no balance between the burden of
the recordkeeping proposed and the benefits that supposedly would flow
from those requirements.
Two commenters noted that the applicability statement in the
recently promulgated NESHAP for perchloroethylene emissions from dry
cleaning facilities states that the standard applies to owners or
operators of each dry cleaning facility that uses perchloroethylene.
Narrowing the applicability of the IPCT NESHAP in a similar fashion
would not affect the environmental benefit to be obtained.
After reviewing the comments received and considering other
factors, the EPA has concluded that the applicability of the IPCT rule
should be limited to those IPCT's that are operated with chromium-based
water treatment chemicals. No environmental benefit would be gained by
making the rule applicable to IPCT's that are not operated with
chromium-based water treatment chemicals because those IPCT's do not
emit chromium compounds. In addition, if the rule were applicable to
all major source IPCT's as proposed, owners and operators of IPCT's
that have stopped using or have never used chromium-based water
treatment chemicals could be subject to fines and penalties despite
being in compliance with the standard. For these reasons, the EPA has
decided to limit the applicability of the IPCT rule to those major
source IPCT's that are operated with chromium-based water treatment
chemicals on or after the effective date of the rule.
One commenter believes that the applicability of the standard
should be limited to IPCT's operating at or below 65 deg.C (149
deg.F). The commenter suggested that all high-temperature IPCT's should
be placed in a separate subcategory because of the technical problems
that accompany switching high-temperature IPCT's using high-solids
makeup water to nonchromium water treatment programs. The commenter has
been told by vendors of settling agents that at about 70 deg.C (158
deg.F), polymeric dispersants will decompose and cause fouling of
systems and increased corrosion. In addition, as the cooling water
fouls, the process must operate at higher temperatures, which results
in higher emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX) from the reactor.
Between the period 1989 and 1992, the EPA conducted an
investigation specifically targeted at evaluating the feasibility of
using nonchromium-based water treatment programs in IPCT's that serve
high temperature processes. Based on information obtained from water
treatment chemical vendors, manufacturers of high-temperature-process
chemicals, and petroleum refineries, the overwhelming body of evidence
indicates that nonchromium water treatment programs are comparable to
chromium water treatment programs in overall performance. Therefore,
the EPA concluded and continues to believe that there is no basis for
exempting IPCT's serving high temperature processes from the rule or to
subcategorize the IPCT source category for high temperature processes.
Several commenters suggested that the applicability of the standard
be extended to all IPCT's, including area source IPCT's. One commenter
stated that South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule
1404, which was adopted in April 1990, is applicable to all cooling
towers.
Section 112 of the Act allows the EPA to regulate emissions from
both major and area sources of HAP emissions. However, prior to
regulating area sources, Sec. 112(c) of the Act requires the EPA to
make a finding of a threat of adverse effects to human health or the
environment due to HAP emissions from those area sources. The EPA has
made no such finding for area source IPCT's. Area source IPCT's are
estimated to contribute less than 1 percent of nationwide emissions of
chromium from all IPCT's. Therefore, the final rule applies only to
IPCT's that are major sources or are integral parts of major sources.
D. Compliance Dates
Seven commenters suggested alternative compliance dates ranging
from 18 months to 5 years after the effective date for a number of
reasons. Owners or operators of IPCT's will need time to work with
vendors of nonchromium treatment programs to determine the range of
acceptable operating conditions that would accomplish the objectives of
water treatment and process cooling. Testing regimes could include
numerous changeouts of heat exchanger surfaces over periods of several
months to determine rates of corrosion under varying conditions of
temperature and quality of makeup water. Potential construction or
reconstruction could involve unit shutdown and maintenance and would
warrant more time for compliance. Chromium may have soaked into the
wooden components of the IPCT's and may be present in the sediment in
the recirculating basins. Facilities using makeup water with a high
iron concentration may have difficulty switching to nonchromium water
treatment programs because iron removal equipment may be required on
each cooling tower.
The proposed 6-month compliance period is not long enough to allow
for the extensive modifications to IPCT systems, such as the
installation of new chemical feed and water quality monitoring
equipment, that may be required to switch to nonchromium water
treatment systems. Six months may not provide enough time for large
industrial complexes with numerous cooling towers to convert to
nonchromium-based water treatment chemicals.
To respond to these comments, the Agency reviewed the available
information and contacted industry representatives about the length of
time required to convert IPCT's that are operating with chromium-based
water treatment to nonchromium water treatment. The available
information indicates that the actual conversion from chromium to
nonchromium-based water treatment chemicals generally requires a period
of less than 1 month. However, under worst case conditions, conversion
may take as much as 18 months to allow adequate time for reconstruction
of the cooling system, installation of chemical feed and control
equipment, and other modifications. In addition, some facilities may
have to convert as many as 20 IPCT's to nonchromium water treatment
programs. The approach taken in such cases is to convert the IPCT's
sequentially in groups of two to four IPCT's, and the entire process
may take several months to complete.
The EPA recognizes that, to bring some facilities into compliance
with the IPCT rule, IPCT owners or operators may need to redesign
existing cooling towers systems; install additional pretreatment
systems, chemical feed control equipment, and peripheral equipment;
convert multiple IPCT's; and establish contracts with vendors for
nonchromium water treatment programs. Therefore, the Agency has revised
Sec. 63.403 of the final rule to specify a compliance date of 18 months
after the effective date for existing IPCT's.
In addition, the EPA recognizes that chromium may continue to leach
out of wooden cooling tower components for a period of months or even
years following the discontinuation of chromium-based water treatment.
For that reason, the final IPCT rule specifies a de minimis level of
0.5 ppm for residual chromium in cooling water.
E. Notification Requirements
Thirty-one commenters addressed the notification requirements of
the proposed IPCT rule. The majority of the commenters objected to the
requirement for annual certification of compliance status and suggested
reducing or eliminating notification requirements altogether.
Several commenters suggested that a one-time notification from all
affected IPCT owners and operators would be sufficient to document
compliance with the NESHAP. Other commenters stated that notification
requirements should be limited to a one-time notification from sources
using chromium-based water treatment programs as of the effective date
of the standard. Commenters also suggested limiting notification
requirements to an initial notification and a one-time submission when
compliance is achieved. One commenter stated that the requirement for
annual compliance status reports is redundant and provides no
protection of air quality.
Several commenters noted that the proposed notification
requirements were especially unwarranted because they subject sources
already in compliance with the standard (sources that have never used
chromium-based water treatment programs and those that have suspended
use) to the possibility of fines and penalties merely for violations of
notification requirements that the source may have overlooked.
As discussed previously, the Agency has decided to limit the
applicability of the IPCT rule to only those IPCT's in which chromium
water treatment chemicals are used. Therefore, owners and operators of
IPCT's that are not using chromium-based water treatment as of the
effective date of the IPCT rule are not subject to the notification
requirements.
The EPA has reviewed the arguments presented for eliminating the
requirement for annual notification of compliance status and has
concluded that annual certifications are not necessary for enforcement
purposes and produce no environmental benefit. Therefore, the Agency
has decided to eliminate the requirement for owners or operators of
affected IPCT's to submit annual compliance status reports. However,
owners or operators of IPCT's that use chromium-based water treatment
are required to submit an initial notification and, when the use of
chromium-based water treatment is discontinued, a notification of
compliance status.
Two commenters noted that the proposed notification requirements
were redundant with the title V operating permit requirements because
the title V operating permit rules also will require an annual
compliance certification by a responsible official stating that the
source is in compliance with all applicable requirements.
In accordance with Sec. 63.9(b)(3) of the General Provisions to
part 63, notifications required under title V that contain all of the
information required for part 63 notifications can serve as the part 63
notification. Therefore, owners or operators of affected IPCT's need to
submit the required information once; there is no need to submit
redundant notifications.
One commenter stated that if an initial notification is required,
only the data necessary to demonstrate compliance should be required.
The commenter noted that Sec. 63.406(a) of the proposed rule refers
sources to Sec. 63.9(b)(2) of the General Provisions, which could be
interpreted to require much more information than is required to
demonstrate compliance with the IPCT NESHAP.
The Agency recognizes that much of the information specified in
Sec. 63.9 of the General Provisions that is to be included in the
initial notification is not relevant to IPCT's. For this reason, the
EPA has revised Sec. 63.405 of the final IPCT rule to specify the types
of information that must be included in both the initial notification
and the notification of compliance status for IPCT's.
In addition, the proposed rule did not specify a deadline for
submitting the initial notification, but referenced Sec. 63.9(b) of
subpart A. The final rule requires that owners or operators of affected
IPCT's that have an initial startup before September 8, 1994 submit the
initial notification no later than September 8, 1994, and that owners
or operators of affected IPCT's that have an initial startup on or
after September 8, 1994 submit the initial notification no later than
12 months following the initial startup of the IPCT. Section 63.9(b) of
subpart A requires a deadline of 120 days for submitting the initial
notification. However, in the case of this rule, the submittal deadline
for the initial notification was extended to allow States adequate time
to establish and implement title V permit programs.
F. Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements
Nineteen commenters objected to the amount of recordkeeping
required by the proposed rule. Although some commenters suggested
deleting all recordkeeping requirements for some or all IPCT owners and
operators, the majority of commenters objected to the requirement that
IPCT owners or operators maintain records of water treatment chemical
purchases. Several of the commenters stated that maintaining records of
water treatment chemical purchases is unduly burdensome and would not
aid enforcement; other records, such as material safety data sheets
(MSDS), already maintained by facilities are adequate to demonstrate
compliance with the IPCT regulation. A number of commenters suggested
limiting chemical purchase recordkeeping requirements to purchases of
chromium chemicals only or to purchases of corrosion control chemicals
only. Two commenters suggested allowing water sample analysis as the
enforcement mechanism instead of maintaining records of water treatment
chemical purchases. Several commenters suggested exempting from all
recordkeeping those IPCT owners or operators that do not use chromium
water treatment chemicals.
Three commenters stated that maintaining records onsite or at the
same file location is burdensome, time consuming, and prone to error.
One commenter stated that all purchasing records are kept in a central
location at each production site but are not separated for specific
pieces of equipment such as IPCT's. Another stated that purchasing or
invoice records are rarely kept in the same file location as
environmental records or MSDS. Another commenter stated that many
plants do not have onsite storage space sufficient to maintain 5 years
of data. Also, in many cases, water treatment chemicals are purchased
centrally, not by individual plants.
As mentioned previously, the final IPCT rule applies only to owners
or operators of IPCT's that operate with chromium-based water
treatment. After reviewing the comments on recordkeeping requirements
for the IPCT rule, EPA has reevaluated the need to require IPCT owners
or operators to maintain records of water treatment chemical purchases
and has concluded that these requirements are overly burdensome and
generally unjustified for this rule. Therefore, the final rule contains
no requirements for owners or operators of affected IPCT's to maintain
records of water treatment chemical purchases.
The only records that the final IPCT rule requires owners and
operators to keep are the initial notification and the notification of
compliance status. In cases in which enforcement personnel suspect that
chromium water treatment chemicals have been used in violation of the
IPCT rule, IPCT owners or operators ultimately are responsible for
demonstrating compliance. This demonstration could be through the use
of records or other means including sampling and analysis of the IPCT
recirculating water in accordance with Method 7196 or Method 3500-Cr D
as specified in Sec. 63.404 of the rule.
By eliminating the requirement for maintaining records of water
treatment chemical purchases, the recordkeeping requirements for the
IPCT rule have been greatly simplified. The Agency believes that the
remaining recordkeeping requirements--that IPCT owners or operators
maintain copies of the initial notification and the notification of
compliance status--are minimal and the burden associated with
maintaining these records in the same file location is not significant.
Furthermore, the final IPCT rule requires that these records be
maintained onsite for a minimum period of 5 years.
G. Interaction of the IPCT NESHAP and the General Provisions
Seven commenters objected to the references to the General
Provisions included in the IPCT NESHAP. Six commenters stated that the
IPCT NESHAP should specifically identify which sections of the General
Provisions are applicable to IPCT sources and should specifically
override those not applicable. The commenters believe that it is
unreasonable to require sources to search through the lengthy and
complex General Provisions to identify applicable requirements when the
EPA is in a much better position to do this easily. The commenters
noted that the length and complexity of the General Provisions,
especially compared to the relative simplicity of the IPCT NESHAP,
could result in unintended noncompliance if a source misses an
applicable General Provisions requirement.
One of the commenters specifically identified Secs. 63.5
(construction and reconstruction), 63.6 (startup, shutdown, and
malfunction plans), 63.7 (performance testing), and 63.10
(recordkeeping) as sections of the General Provisions that should be
specifically excluded from applicability to IPCT sources because they
contain requirements that are meaningless and unnecessary when applied
to IPCT's.
One of the commenters stated that all requirements of the IPCT
NESHAP should be presented without reference to the General Provisions.
The commenter suggested that the IPCT standard specifically state that
the General Provisions do not apply to the IPCT NESHAP.
The EPA recognized that many of the requirements of the General
Provisions are not relevant to this rule because they pertain to
emission standards rather than to work practice standards. In
consideration of the length and complexity of the General Provisions,
the EPA has decided to include in the final IPCT rule a table that
indicates which sections of the General Provisions are and are not
applicable to IPCT's. The EPA did consider repeating relevant General
Provisions in the IPCT rule, as suggested by some of the commenters to
eliminate the need for owners or operators of affected IPCT's to
reference the General Provisions. However, this approach would have a
major disadvantage in that it would greatly increase the length of the
IPCT rule by requiring the repetition of generally relevant
requirements. In addition, if this approach were adopted for all
NESHAP, part 63 of the CFR would consist largely of numerous
repetitions of the same generally relevant requirements, thus defeating
the purpose of the General Provisions.
H. Selection of Control Technology
One commenter suggested that the EPA allow high-efficiency drift
eliminators (HEDE's) or other techniques to control emissions from
high-temperature IPCT's using chromium water treatment programs. This
commenter states that with a chromium concentration of 3 ppm in the
cooling tower water, an HEDE can reduce emissions from the tower to a
level that would not be harmful to human health during the extended
period that would be required for conversion to nonchromium-based water
treatment programs.
The feasibility of using nonchromium-based water treatment programs
in IPCT's that serve high-temperature processes was investigated by the
EPA. The investigation concluded that the percentage of high-
temperature-process IPCT's that operate without chromium-based water
treatment chemicals far exceeds the 12 percent required for
establishing the maximum achievable control technology (MACT) floor
under Sec. 112(d) of the Act. Therefore, there is no basis for
subcategorizing the IPCT source category by process temperature. In
addition, using nonchromium water treatment is a pollution prevention
measure.
Regarding the use of HEDE's in combination with low-chromium water
treatment to reduce the risk associated with chromium emissions to a
reasonable level, section 112(d) of the Act requires the EPA to set
standards for emissions of HAP's that are no less stringent than the
average emission limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent
of sources. The EPA has found MACT to be more stringent than the use of
HEDE's. Further, the EPA estimates that HEDE's are used in no more than
5 percent of IPCT's nationwide, use of HEDE's and low-chromium water
treatment programs would not eliminate chromium emissions as will
nonchromium water treatment, and retrofitting HEDE's does not
constitute a pollution prevention measure as defined in the Pollution
Prevention Act.
I. Cost Impact
One commenter stated that the EPA did not fully address the impact
on individual regulated facilities of the high capital cost associated
with the equipment upgrade required to switch from chromium-based to
nonchromium-based treatment programs. This commenter states that at one
refinery, for example, the conversion to nonchromium water treatment
will include adding air coolers, redesigning heat exchangers, and
upgrading cooling water headers, which will result in a capital cost of
more than $10 million. Production losses also are anticipated due to
increases in fouling of the cooling water system. Another commenter
stated that at his facility where the existing chromium systems use a
single chromium storage tank and a small pump to add the chromium to
the system, conversion to nonchromium treatment programs would require
installation of five additional tanks with associated pumps, valves,
and control systems at a capital cost of $750,000. The commenter
estimated that the annual cost for several IPCT's would increase by
about $200,000 per year and that the estimated annual costs associated
with increased fouling when operating with nonchromium water treatment
would be $600,000 at one location.
To estimate the cost of compliance for this standard, the EPA
conducted an extensive investigation into the costs associated with
various types of cooling water treatment programs. The information
collected included comparative data on the performance of both
chromium-based and nonchromium-based water treatment programs,
information on costs to convert IPCT's from chromium-based water
treatment programs to nonchromium-based water treatment programs, and
information on costs associated with operating nonchromium-based
programs in IPCT's. The estimated cost of compliance of this rule was
based on the information compiled from these investigations.
Information obtained from four water treatment vendors that account for
more than 60 percent of all IPCT water treatment chemical sales was
used by EPA as the basis for estimating the cost of compliance with
this rule.
The annualized costs to convert and operate IPCT's on nonchromium-
based water treatment chemicals consists of chemical and equipment cost
components. The chemical cost component represents the difference in
annual chemical costs between chromium-based and nonchromium based
chemicals. An average annual cost of nonchromium-based water treatment
chemicals supplied by the vendors was determined to be $126 per million
pounds of blowdown. The average annual chromium-based water treatment
chemical cost was estimated to be $72 per million pounds of blowdown.
The increase in annual chemical costs range from $1,314 for an IPCT
with a recirculation rate of 1,000 gallon per minute (gal/min) to
$140,937 for an IPCT with a recirculation rate of 105,000 gal/min.
The equipment cost component consists of the equipment capital cost
and the annual cost of maintenance and of energy. The equipment
requirements to achieve adequate control of nonchromium-based water
treatment programs, as indicated by water treatment chemical vendors,
include a pH controller, conductivity/blowdown controller, and some
(typically two) metering chemical feed pumps. Based on the information
compiled by EPA, these are the only additional types of equipment that
are mandatory for operating an IPCT on nonchromium-based water
treatment after conversion from chromium-based water treatment. Capital
costs for this equipment are $2,000, $2,000, and $600 for a basic pH
controller, conductivity controller, and metering pump, respectively.
The EPA also obtained actual plant-specific information on the costs to
convert from chromium-based to nonchromium-based water treatment. Some
facilities indicated that no costs were incurred when IPCT's were
converted to nonchromium water treatment chemicals. Other plants
incurred costs that far exceeded the average equipment costs described
above. However, in such cases, the conversion to nonchromium-based
water treatment coincided with several other improvements to the IPCT
systems and process equipment that were not requisite for the
successful operation of the IPCT systems on nonchromium-based water
treatment chemicals.
The equipment cost component of the average annual control costs
for the IPCT rule was estimated to be $2,954. This estimate was made
based on the assumption that 50 percent of IPCT's nationwide would
require all three types of control equipment and 50 percent of IPCT's
nationwide would require two of the three types of control equipment.
Therefore, the annualized costs for nonchromium-based water treatment
range from $4,300 for an IPCT with a recirculation rate of 1,000 gal/
min to $144,000 for an IPCT with a recirculation rate of 105,000 gal/
min. However, the EPA recognizes that the compliance costs at some
facilities may be higher or lower than the average cost per IPCT system
used by EPA to estimate the nationwide costs.
It should also be noted that the selection of the regulatory
alternative for the IPCT standard was based on MACT. Because more than
90 percent of all IPCT's are operated with nonchromium water treatment,
the MACT floor for IPCT's clearly is nonchromium water treatment.
Although the Act requires the EPA to consider control costs in
determining what level of control beyond the floor is achievable,
selection of the standard is technology-based.
J. Wording of the Regulation
Two commenters suggested a change to the definition of ``chromium-
based water treatment chemicals'' to clarify that chromium that appears
only as an impurity in the water treatment chemicals is not included in
definition. The commenters note that many chemicals contain trace
amounts of chromium from natural impurities or from trace dissolution
of steels, and that, as written, the definition does not distinguish
between chromium-based water treatment chemicals and other chemicals
used in IPCT's that may contain chromium at only trace concentrations.
The commenter suggests that any water treatment chemical should not
contain more than 1 percent nonhexavalent chromium and 0.1 percent
Cr+6 by weight. According to the commenter, the 1 percent level is
appropriate because, under the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) hazard communication standard (29 CFR 1910.1200),
and regulations implementing the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA), section 313 (40 CFR part 372), the
presence of chromium compounds at those concentrations must be noted on
the MSDS for the product. In contrast, chromium compounds present at
concentrations below these levels will not necessarily be listed, and
the purchaser will likely be unaware of them.
The EPA acknowledges that chromium may be present in trace amounts
in water treatment chemicals. However, the specification of a minimum
chromium impurity level in water treatment chemicals has no relevance
to the application or enforcement of this rule. Furthermore, even if an
impurity level was relevant, the commenter's suggested level of 0.1
percent Cr+6, which is equivalent to 1,000 ppm, and 1.0 percent
nonhexavalent chromium, which corresponds to 10,000 ppm, are hardly
appropriate levels when one considers that the Cr+6 concentration
of the recirculating water treated with a typical chromium-based
program is 10 to 15 ppm.
K. De Minimis Cooling Water Chromium Concentration
Two commenters suggested that the EPA add a de minimis cooling
water chromium concentration to the standard because the recirculating
water in an IPCT that is not using chromium-based water treatment
chemicals might contain very low but detectable levels of chromium if
the components of the IPCT are wooden and chromium chemicals had been
used in the tower in the past or if the fresh makeup water to the IPCT
contains chromium. Including a de minimis chromium level would prevent
potential enforcement actions against owners or operators who are
actually in compliance with the standard. In addition, one commenter
stated that although the proposed rule states that enforcement
personnel could require water sample analysis on a case-by-case basis
if they suspect a violation, no compliance concentration level is
proposed. The commenter suggested that the EPA set a chromium
compliance concentration of 0.15 mg/liter.
The EPA recognizes that some residual chromium may be present in
IPCT cooling water that is not treated with chromium-based water
treatment chemicals. Raw water supplies may contain trace quantities of
chromium; in IPCT's in which chromium water treatment was used,
chromium may leach out of wooden components following the
discontinuation of chromium use; and chromium is a constituent of some
types of wood preservatives and may contribute to cooling water
residual chromium concentrations in IPCT's with wooden components.
Therefore, the EPA has concluded that there is justification for
specifying a de minimis chromium concentration in cooling water.
To determine an appropriate de minimis level, the EPA gathered
available data and consulted with industry experts. The recommended
useable range for Reference Method 7196, ``Hexavalent Chromium,
Colorimetric,'' which is the analytical method specified in Sec. 63.404
for measuring the residual chromium concentration in cooling water, is
0.5 to 50 ppm Cr+6 by weight. The available information on the
decline of residual chromium in cooling water indicates that residual
chromium concentrations are likely to be well below 0.5 ppm within a
few months of the discontinuation of chromium water treatment.
Chromium-based water treatment programs can achieve acceptable
results in controlling corrosion with chromate concentrations as low as
4 to 6 ppm (1.8 to 2.7 ppm as chromium). Therefore, the residual
concentrations of chromium in cooling water in which these low-chromium
treatment programs are used are significantly higher than the
recommended lower limit of 0.5 ppm for Method 7196. The EPA concludes
that a de minimis concentration of residual Cr+6 in cooling water
of 0.5 ppm is reasonable, and this de minimis level has been
incorporated into Sec. 63.404 of the final IPCT regulation. This de
minimis Cr+6 level is high enough to account for residual chromium
concentrations that would result from the leaching of chromium from
wooden IPCT components, but is well below any level at which chromium
would provide effective corrosion control. Furthermore, to allow
adequate time for the residual Cr+6 concentration in the cooling
water to decline below the de minimis level, the final rule allows a 3
month time period following the compliance date before a Cr+6
concentration in excess of 0.5 ppm is considered to be a violation of
the standard. The EPA does not believe that a de minimis level of 0.15
ppm chromium is reasonable because this concentration is below the
recommended range of chromium concentrations for Reference Method 7196
and because residual chromium concentrations may be as high as 0.15 ppm
for many months following the discontinuation of chromium water
treatment.
VI. Administrative Requirements
A. Docket
The docket for this rulemaking is A-91-95. The docket is an
organized and complete file of all the information submitted to or
otherwise considered by the EPA in the development of this rulemaking.
The principal purposes of the docket are: (1) To allow interested
parties a means to identify and locate documents so that they can
effectively participate in the rulemaking process; and (2) to serve as
the record in case of judicial review (except for interagency review
materials) (section 307(d)(7)(A) of the Act). The docket is available
for public inspection at the EPA's Air and Radiation Docket and
Information Center, the location of which is given in the ADDRESSES
section of this notice.
B. Executive Order 12286
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)), the
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the
Executive Order. The Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as
one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more,
or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.''
Pursuant to the terms of the Executive Order 12866, it has been
determined that this is a ``significant regulatory action.'' As such,
this action was submitted to OMB for review.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
Information collection requirements associated with this rule have
been approved by OMB under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and have been assigned OMB control
number 2060-0268. An Information Collection Request (ICR) document has
been prepared by EPA (ICR No. 1625.02) and a copy may be obtained from
Sandy Farmer, Information Policy Branch, EPA 2136, Washington, DC
20460, or by calling (202) 260-2740.
The public reporting burden for this collection of information is
estimated to average 21 hours per respondent in the first year and 6
hours per respondent in the subsequent 2 years. This includes the time
required for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources,
gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing
the collection of information.
Send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of
this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this
burden, to Chief, Information Policy Branch, 2136, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460; and to the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget, Washington, DC 20503, marked ``Attention: Desk Officer for
EPA.''
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
requires that a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis be performed for all
rules that have ``significant impact on a substantial number of small
entities.'' If a preliminary analysis indicates that a proposed
regulation would have a significant economic impact on 20 percent or
more of small entities, then a regulatory flexibility analysis must be
prepared.
Present Regulatory Flexibility Act guidelines defined an economic
impact as significant if it meets one of the following criteria:
(1) Compliance increases annual production costs by more than 5
percent, assuming costs are passed on to consumers;
(2) Compliance costs as a percentage of sales for small entities
are at least 10 percent more than compliance costs as a percentage of
sales for large entities;
(3) Capital costs of compliance represent a ``significant'' portion
of capital available to small entities, considering internal cash flow
plus external financial capabilities; or
(4) Regulatory requirements are likely to result in closures of
small entities. The results of an economic assessment indicated that
compliance costs as a percentage of production costs or as a percentage
of sales are both less than 5 percent. Also, capital availability will
not be constrained because total control costs are relatively small and
would not require extensive financing. Because capital availability is
not a constraint, the standard is not likely to result in closure of
small entities.
Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 605(b), I hereby certify
that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small business entities because the number of
small business entities that would be affected is not significant.
E. Miscellaneous
In accordance with section 117 of the Act, publication of this
promulgated rule was preceded by consultation with appropriate advisory
committees, independent experts, and Federal departments and agencies.
This regulation will be reviewed 8 years from the date of
promulgation. This review will include an assessment of such factors as
evaluation of the residual health risks, any overlap with other
programs, the existence of alternative methods, enforceability,
improvements in emission control technology and health data, and the
recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 9
Environmental protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
40 CFR Part 63
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by
reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: July 29, 1994.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, of
the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 9--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 9 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 135 et seq., 135-136y; 15 U.S.C. 2001, 2003,
2005, 2006, 2601-2671; 21 U.S.C. 331j, 346a, 348; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq., 1311, 1313d, 1314, 1321, 1326, 1330, 1344, 1345
(d) and (e), 1361; E.O. 11735, 38 FR 21243, 3 CFR, 1971-1975 Comp.
p. 973; 42 U.S.C. 241, 242b, 243, 246, 300f, 300g, 300g-1, 300g-2,
300g-3, 300g-4, 300g-5, 300g-6, 300j-1, 300j-2, 300j-3, 300j-4,
300j-9, 1857 et seq., 6901-6992k, 7401-7671q, 7542, 9601-9657,
11023, 11048.
2. Section 9.1 is amended by adding a new entry to the table under
the indicated heading to read as follows:
Sec. 9.1 OMB approvals under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OMB control
40 CFR citation No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*****
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
for Source Categories:
*****
63.403-63.406.............................................. 2060-0268
*****
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PART 63--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
2. By adding a new subpart Q consisting of Secs. 63.400 through
63.405 to read as follows:
Subpart Q--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for
Industrial Process Cooling Towers
Sec.
63.400 Applicability.
63.401 Definitions.
63.402 Standard.
63.403 Compliance dates.
63.404 Compliance demonstrations.
63.405 Notification requirements.
63.406 Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
Subpart Q--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
for Industrial Process Cooling Towers
Sec. 63.400 Applicability.
(a) The provisions of this subpart apply to all new and existing
industrial process cooling towers that are operated with chromium-based
water treatment chemicals on or after September 8, 1994 and are either
major sources or are integral parts of facilities that are major
sources as defined in Sec. 63.401.
(b) Table 1 of this subpart specifies the provisions of subpart A
that apply and those that do not apply to owners and operators of
IPCT's subject to this subpart.
Sec. 63.401 Definitions.
Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Act, in subpart A of
this part, or in this section as follows:
Chromium-based water treatment chemicals means any combination of
chemical substances containing chromium used to treat water.
Commenced means, with respect to construction or reconstruction of
an IPCT, that an owner or operator has undertaken a continuous program
of construction or reconstruction or that an owner or operator has
entered into a contractual obligation to undertake and complete, within
a reasonable time, a continuous program of construction or
reconstruction.
Compliance date means the date by which an affected IPCT is
required to be in compliance with this subpart.
Construction means the on-site fabrication, erection, or
installation of an IPCT.
Cooling tower means an open water recirculating device that uses
fans or natural draft to draw or force ambient air through the device
to cool warm water by direct contact.
Effective date means September 8, 1994 for this subpart.
Existing IPCT means any affected IPCT that is not a new IPCT.
Industrial process cooling tower, also written as ``IPCT,'' means
any cooling tower that is used to remove heat that is produced as an
input or output of a chemical or industrial process(es), as well as any
cooling tower that cools industrial processes in combination with any
heating, ventilation, or air conditioning system.
Initial startup means the initiation of recirculation water flow
within the cooling tower.
Major source means any stationary source or group of stationary
sources located within a contiguous area and under common control that
emits or has the potential to emit considering controls, in the
aggregate, 10 tons per year or more of any hazardous air pollutant or
25 tons per year or more of any combination of hazardous air
pollutants.
New IPCT means any affected IPCT the construction or reconstruction
of which commenced after August 12, 1993.
Owner or operator means any person who owns, leases, operates,
controls, or supervises an IPCT.
Potential to emit means the maximum capacity of a stationary source
to emit a pollutant under its physical and operational design. Any
physical or operational limitation on the capacity of the stationary
source to emit a pollutant, including air pollution control equipment
and restrictions on hours of operation or on the type or amount of
material combusted, stored, or processed, shall be treated as part of
its design if the limitation or the effect it would have on emissions
is federally enforceable.
Reconstruction means the replacement of components of an affected
or a previously unaffected IPCT to such an extent that the fixed
capital cost of the new components exceeds 50 percent of the fixed
capital cost that would be required to construct a comparable new IPCT.
Responsible official means one of the following:
(1) For a corporation: a president, secretary, treasurer, or vice
president of the corporation in charge of a principal business
function, or any other person who performs similar policy or decision-
making functions for the corporation, or a duly authorized
representative of such person if the representative is responsible for
the overall operation of one or more manufacturing, production, or
operating facilities and either:
(i) The facilities employ more than 250 persons or have gross
annual sales or expenditures exceeding $25 million (in second quarter
1980 dollars); or
(ii) The delegation of authority to such representative is approved
in advance by the Administrator.
(2) For a partnership or sole proprietorship: a general partner or
the proprietor, respectively.
(3) For a municipality, State, Federal, or other public agency:
either a principal executive officer or ranking elected official. For
the purposes of this part, a principal executive officer of a Federal
agency includes the chief executive officer having responsibility for
the overall operations of a principal geographic unit of the agency
(e.g., a Regional Administrator of the EPA).
(4) For affected sources (as defined in this part) applying for or
subject to a title V permit: ``responsible official'' shall have the
same meaning as defined in part 70 of this chapter or Federal title V
regulations (42 U.S.C. 7661), whichever is applicable.
Water treatment chemicals means any combination of chemical
substances used to treat water in cooling towers, including corrosion
inhibitors, antiscalants, dispersants, and any other chemical
substances used to treat water.
Sec. 63.402 Standard.
No owner or operator of an IPCT shall use chromium-based water
treatment chemicals in any affected IPCT.
Sec. 63.403 Compliance dates.
The requirements of Sec. 63.402 of this subpart shall be applied on
the following schedule:
(a) For existing IPCT's, the compliance date shall be 18 months
after September 8, 1994.
(b) For new IPCT's that have an initial startup before September 8,
1994, the compliance date shall be September 8, 1994.
(c) For new IPCT's that have an initial startup on or after
September 8, 1994, the compliance date shall be the date of the initial
startup.
Sec. 63.404 Compliance demonstrations.
No routine monitoring, sampling, or analysis is required. In
accordance with section 114 of the Act, the Administrator or delegated
authority can require cooling water sample analysis of an IPCT if there
is information to indicate that the IPCT is not in compliance with the
requirements of Sec. 63.402 of this subpart. If cooling water sample
analysis is required:
(a) The water sample analysis shall be conducted in accordance with
Method 7196, Chromium, Hexavalent (Colorimetric), contained in the
Third Edition of ``Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/
Chemical Methods,'' EPA Publication SW-846, (November 1986) and its
Revision I, (December 1987), which are available for the cost of
$110.00 from the Government Printing Office, Superintendent of
Documents, Washington, DC 20402, (202) 783-3238 (document number 955-
001-00000-1; or Method 3500-Cr D, Colorimetric Method, contained in the
18th Edition of ``Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and
Wastewaster'' (1992), which is available from the American Public
Health Association, 1015 15th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005. These
methods were approved for incorporation by reference by the Director of
the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part
51. Copies may be inspected as a part of Docket A-91-65, located at the
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, room M1500, EPA
Central Docket Section, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC. Copies may
be inspected at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol
Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
(b) On or after 3 months after the compliance date, a cooling water
sample residual hexavalent chromium concentration in excess of 0.5
parts per million by weight shall indicate a violation of Sec. 63.402.
Sec. 63.405 Notification requirements.
(a) Initial notification. (1) In accordance with Sec. 63.9(b) of
subpart A, owners or operators of all affected IPCT's that have an
initial startup before September 8, 1994 shall notify the Administrator
in writing. The notification, which shall be submitted not later than
12 months after September 8, 1994, shall provide the following
information:
(i) The name and address of the IPCT owner or operator;
(ii) The address (i.e., physical location) of the affected IPCT;
(iii) A statement that the notification is being submitted as
required by this subpart; and
(iv) A description of the type of water treatment program used in
the affected IPCT, including the chemical name of each corrosion
inhibitor ingredient used; the average concentration of those corrosion
inhibitor ingredients maintained in the cooling water; and the material
safety data sheet for each water treatment chemical or chemical
compound used in the IPCT.
(2) In accordance with Sec. 63.9(b) of subpart A, owners or
operators of all affected IPCT's that have an initial startup on or
after September 8, 1994 shall notify the Administrator in writing that
the source is subject to the relevant standard no later than 12 months
after initial startup. The notification shall provide all the
information required in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (a)(1)(iv) of this
section.
(b) Notification of compliance status. (1) In accordance with
Sec. 63.9(h) of subpart A, owners or operators of affected IPCT's shall
submit to the Administrator a notification of compliance status within
60 days of the date on which the IPCT is brought into compliance with
Sec. 63.402 of this subpart and not later than 18 months after
September 8, 1994.
(2) The notification of compliance status must:
(i) Be signed by a responsible official who also certifies the
accuracy of the report;
(ii) Certify that source has complied with Sec. 63.402 of this
subpart; and
(iii) Include the information required in paragraph (a)(1)(iv) of
this section.
(iv) Include the following statement: ``I certify that no chromium-
based water treatment chemicals have been introduced since (the initial
compliance date) into any IPCT located within the facility for any
purpose.''
Sec. 63.406 Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
To demonstrate continuing compliance with Sec. 63.402 of this
subpart, the owner or operator of each affected IPCT shall maintain
copies of the initial notification and the notification of compliance
status as required by Sec. 63.405 of this subpart for a period of at
least 5 years onsite.
Table 1 to Subpart Q--General Provisions Applicability to Subpart Q
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applies to
Reference Subpart Q Comment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.1................... Yes.........
63.2................... Yes.........
63.3................... No..........
63.4................... Yes.........
63.5................... No..........
63.6 (a), (b), (c), and Yes.........
(j).
63.6 (d), (e), (f), No..........
(g), (h), and (i).
63.7................... No..........
63.8................... No..........
63.9 (a), (b)(1), Yes.........
(b)(3), (c), (h)(1),
(h)(3), (h)(6), and
(j).
63.9 (b)(2), (b)(4), No.......... Requirements for initial
(b)(5), (b)(6), (d), notifications and notifications
(e), (f), (g), (h)(2), of compliance status are
(h)(4), (h)(5). specified in Sec. 63.405(a) and
Sec. 63.405(b), respectively, of
subpart Q; other provisions of
subpart A are not relevant to
IPCT's.
63.10 (a), (b)(1), Yes......... Section 63.406 requires an onsite
(b)(2)(xii), record retention of 5 years.
(b)(2)(xiv), (b)(3),
(d), and (f).
63.10 (b)(2) (i) to No..........
(xi), (c), and (e).
63.11.................. No..........
63.12 to 63.15......... Yes.........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 94-21957 Filed 9-7-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-M