6560-50
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 9 + 63
[AD- FRL ]
RIN
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.
EFFECTIVE DATE: [Insert date of publication of this final
rule]. The incorporation by reference of certain
publications in this standard is approved by the Director of
the Office of the Federal Register as of [Insert date of
publication of this final rule].
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 IPCT 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, Emission Standards Division
(MD-13), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone
(919) 541-5289.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under 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 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
VI. 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 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, 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 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 [Insert date of
publication of this final rule] 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 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
[Insert date 18 months after publication of this final
rule]. 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 [Insert date of publication of this
final rule] is [Insert date of publication of this final
rule]. The compliance date for new IPCT's that are placed
into operation after [Insert date of publication of this
final rule] is the date that circulation of water through
the IPCT is initiated.
In accordance with 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 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 [Insert date 12 months from date of publication
of this final rule]. 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 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 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 [Insert date
of publication of this final rule] 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, 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, 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 63.405 and notification requirements were
addressed in 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
63.405, and recordkeeping and reporting requirements are
addressed in 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 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 [12 months
after date of publication of final rule] 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 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 63.405 in the proposed rule to 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 63.10 of the General
Provisions.
The proposed rule did not specify a minimum record
retention period, but referenced 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 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-, molybdenum-, 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 plants 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. Public 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 would 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
65øC (149øF). 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 70øC (158øF), 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, 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
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 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 63.406(a) of
the proposed rule refers sources to 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 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 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 63.9(b) of subpart A. The final rule requires
that owners or operators of affected IPCT's that have an
initial startup before [Insert date of publication of this
final rule] submit the initial notification no later than
[Insert date 12 months from date of publication of this
final rule], and that owners or operators of affected IPCT's
that have an initial startup on or after [Insert date of
publication of this final rule] 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
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 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 recognizes 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 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 the 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),
313 (40 CFR 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 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 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-91-65. 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) ( 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, the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has notified the EPA
that it does consider this a "significant regulatory action"
within the meaning of the Executive Order.
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 define 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
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
40 CFR PART 63
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances,
Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
__________________ ___________________________
Date Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
6560-50
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., 136-136y; 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:
9.1 OMB approvals under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
* * * * *
40 CFR Citation OMB Control 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 63.400
through 63.406 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
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 [Insert date of publication of this final rule] and
are either major sources or are integral parts of facilities
that are major sources as defined in 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.
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 the date of promulgation in the
Federal Register of 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
or Federal title V regulations in this chapter
(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.
63.402 Standard.
No owner or operator of an IPCT shall use chromium-
based water treatment chemicals in any affected IPCT.
63.403 Compliance dates.
The requirements of 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 [Insert date of publication of this Federal
Register].
(b) For new IPCT's that have an initial startup before
[Insert date of publication of this Federal Register], the
compliance date shall be [Insert date of publication of this
Federal Register].
(c) For new IPCT's that have an initial startup on or
after [Insert date of publication of this Federal Register],
the compliance date shall be the date of the initial
startup.
63.404 Compliance demonstrations.
No routine monitoring, sampling, or analysis is
required. In accordance with 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 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, "Hexavalent Chromium,
Colorimetric," SW 846, or Method 3500-Cr D, Colorimetric
Method, Standard Methods For the Examination of Water and
Wastewater, American Public Health Association; and
(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 63.402 of this subpart.
63.405 Notification requirements.
(a) Initial notification.
(1) In accordance with 63.9 (b) of subpart A, owners
or operators of all affected IPCT's that have an initial
startup before [Insert date of publication of this Federal
Register] shall notify the Administrator in writing. The
notification, which shall be submitted not later than
12 months after [Insert date of publication of this Federal
Register], 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 63.9 (b) of subpart A, owners
or operators of all affected IPCT's that have an initial
startup on or after [Insert date of publication of this
final rule] 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 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 63.402 of this subpart and not later than
18 months after [Insert date of publication of this final
rule].
(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 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."
63.406 Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
(a) To demonstrate continuing compliance with 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 63.405 of
this subpart for a period of at least 5 years onsite.
Please e-mail any comments or questions to the Clean Air Act Information
Network.
Return to the
Clean Air Act Information Network Home Page