National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Industrial Process Cooling Towers

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