Friday, December 19, 2003

Part II

Environmental Protection Agency 40 CFR Part 63 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Mercury Emissions from Mercury Cell Chlor-Alkali Plants; Final Rule

VerDate jul<14>2003 15:14 Dec 18, 2003 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\19DER2.SGM 19DER2 70904 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION types of sources (usually in the Information or other information whose AGENCY elemental or inorganic forms) transports disclosure is restricted by statute. through the atmosphere and eventually The official public docket is the 40 CFR Part 63 deposits onto land or water bodies. collection of materials that is available [OAR–2002–0017; FRL–7551–5] When mercury is deposited to surface for public viewing. The EPA Docket waters, natural processes (bacterial) can RIN 2060–AE85 Center Public Reading Room is open transform some of the mercury into from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday methylmercury that accumulates in fish. through Friday, excluding legal National Emission Standards for Ingestion is the primary exposure route Hazardous Air Pollutants: Mercury holidays. The telephone number for the of interest for methylmercury. The Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and Emissions From Mercury Cell Chlor- health effect of greatest concern due to Alkali Plants the telephone number for the Air Docket methylmercury is neurotoxicity, is (202) 566–1742. AGENCY: Environmental Protection particularly with respect to fetuses and Agency (EPA). young children. Electronic Docket Access. You may access the final rule electronically ACTION: Final rule. In addition, in this final action, we are utilizing our authority under section through the EPA Internet under the SUMMARY: This action promulgates 112(d)(4) of the CAA not to regulation Federal Register listings at http:// national emission standards for chlorine and hydrochloric acid (HCl) www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/. hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP), emissions from the mercury cell chlor- An electronic version of the public specifically mercury emissions, from alkali plant subcategory. docket is available through EPA’s mercury cell chlor-alkali plants. The EFFECTIVE DATE: December 19, 2003. electronic public docket and comment final rule will limit mercury air ADDRESSES: Docket. We have system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA emissions from these plants. The final established an official public docket for Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ rule will implement section 112(d) of this action under Docket ID No. OAR– to view public comments, access the the Clean Air Act (CAA) which requires 2002–0017, A–2000–32, A–2002–09, index listing of the contents of the all categories and subcategories of major and OAR–2002–0016 available for official public docket, and to access sources and area sources listed under public viewing at the Office of Air and those documents in the public docket section 112(c) to meet hazardous air Radiation Docket and Information that are available electronically. pollutant emission standards reflecting Center (Air Docket) in the EPA Docket Although not all docket materials may the application of the maximum Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room be available electronically, you may still achievable control technology (MACT). B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., access any of the publicly available Mercury cell chlor-alkali plants are a Washington, DC. docket materials through the docket subcategory of the chlorine production FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For facility in the above paragraph entitled source category listed under the ‘‘Docket.’’ Once in the system, select authority of section 112(c)(1) of the information concerning applicability and rule determinations, contact your ‘‘search,’’ then key in the appropriate CAA. The chlorine production source docket identification number. category was also identified as a source State or local regulatory agency of mercury under section 112(c)(6) that representative or the appropriate EPA Judicial Review. Under CAA section must be subjected to standards. In Regional Office representative. For 307(b), judicial review of the final addition, mercury cell chlor-alkali information concerning analyses NESHAP is available only by filing a plants were listed as an area source performed in developing the final rule, petition for review in the U.S. Court of category under section 112(c)(3) and contact Mr. Iliam Rosario, Metals Group, Appeals for the District of Columbia (k)(3)(B) of the CAA. The final rule, Emission Standards Division (C439–02), Circuit on or before February 17, 2004. which will satisfy our requirement to U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Only those objections to the NESHAP issue 112(d) regulations under each of Carolina 27711; telephone number (919) which were raised with reasonable these listings (for mercury), will reduce 541–5308; fax number (919) 541–5600; specificity during the period for public mercury emissions by about 3,068 electronic mail address: comment may be raised during judicial kilograms per year from the levels [email protected]. review. Under section 307(b)(2)of the allowed by the existing Mercury SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Docket. CAA, the requirements established by NESHAP. The official public docket consists of the today’s final action may not be Mercury is a neurotoxicant that documents specifically referenced in challenged separately in any civil or accumulates, primarily in the especially this action, any public comments criminal proceeding we bring to enforce potent form of methylmercury, in received, and other information related these requirements. aquatic food chains. The highest levels to this action. Although a part of the Regulated Entities. Categories and are reached in predator fish species. official docket, the public docket does entities potentially regulated by this Mercury emitted to the air from various not include Confidential Business action include:

Category SIC 1 NAICS 2 Regulated entities

Industry ...... 2812 325181 Alkalies and Chlorine Manufacturing. 1 Standard Industrial Classification. 2 North American Information Classification System.

This list is not intended to be action, you should examine the or local agency (or EPA Regional Office) exhaustive, but rather provides a guide applicability criteria in § 63.8182 of the described in the preceding FOR FURTHER for readers regarding entities likely to be final rule. If you have questions INFORMATION CONTACT section. regulated by this action. To determine regarding the applicability of this action Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition whether your facility is regulated by this to a particular entity, consult your State to being available in the docket, an

VerDate jul<14>2003 15:14 Dec 18, 2003 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19DER2.SGM 19DER2 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 70905

electronic copy of the final rule will also D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 from potash manufacturing. The be available on the WWW through the E. Executive Order 13132—Federalism majority of the source category is made Technology Transfer Network (TTN). F. Executive Order 13175—Consultation up of chlor-alkali plants that produce Following signature, a copy of the final and Coordination With Indian Tribal chlorine and caustic (sodium Governments hydroxide) using mercury cells, rule will be posted on the TTN’s policy G. Executive Order 13045—Protection of and guidance page for newly proposed Children From Environmental Health diaphragm cells, or membrane cells. We or promulgated rules http:// Risks and Safety Risks also identified operating plants that www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. H. Executive Order 13211—Actions produce chlorine as a by-product: one Outline. The information in this Concerning Regulations That from the production of sodium metal in preamble is organized as follows: Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Down cells, another from the Distribution, or Use I. Introduction and Background production of potassium nitrate A. What Is the Source of Authority for I. National Technology Transfer and fertilizer that uses the nitric acid/salt Development of NESHAP? Advancement Act of 1995 process, and a third that produces B. What Is the Source Category? J. Congressional Review Act chlorine as a by-product from primary C. What Criteria Are Used in the I. Introduction and Background magnesium refining (magnesium Development of NESHAP? refining is a separately listed source D. What Actions Were Proposed for This A. What Is the Source of Authority for category and will be addressed on its Source Category? Development of NESHAP? own in a separate rulemaking). In E. How Did the Public Participate in Developing the Rulemaking? Section 112 of the CAA contains our addition, at a site where a membrane F. What Is a Mercury Cell Chlor-alkali authorities for reducing emissions of cell process is located, we have also Plant? hazardous air pollutants (HAP). Section identified a process that produces G. How Does This Action Relate to the 40 112(c)(1) of the CAA requires us to list chlorine through the decomposition of CFR Part 61 Mercury NESHAP? categories and subcategories of major HCl. Our analysis shows that the only II. Summary of Changes Since Proposal sources and area sources of HAP and to HAP emitted from sources within this III. Summary of the Final Rule establish NESHAP for the listed source chlorine production source category are A. What Is the Source Category? categories and subcategories. Section chlorine, HCl, and mercury; and B. What Are the Affected Sources and mercury is only emitted from mercury Emission Points To Be Regulated? 112(c)(6) requires us to list source C. What Are the Emissions Limitations? categories and subcategories assuring cell chlor-alkali plants. D. What Are the Work Practice Standards? that sources accounting for not less than In addition to the listing pursuant to E. What Are the Operation and 90 percent of the aggregate emissions of section 112(c)(1), chlor-alkali Maintenance Requirements? each of seven specific pollutants production was among the categories of F. What Are the General Compliance (including mercury) are subject to sources identified pursuant to section Requirements? standards under section 112(d) of the 112(c)(6) to achieve the 90 percent goal G. What Are the Initial Compliance CAA. Finally, section 112(c)(3) and for mercury. While this category was Requirements? titled ‘‘chlor-alkali production,’’ the H. What Are the Continuous Compliance (k)(3)(B) require that we list source categories to ensure that area sources only sources of mercury emissions are Requirements? mercury cell chlor-alkali plants. I. How Are Initial and Continuous representing 90 percent of the area Compliance With the Work Practice source emissions of the 30 urban HAP However, the mercury cell chlor-alkali Standards To Be Demonstrated? are subject to regulation under section subcategory was not officially ‘‘listed’’ J. What Are the Notification and Reporting 112(d). under section 112(c)(6) because the Requirements? chlorine production source category was K. What Are the Recordkeeping B. What Is the Source Category? already listed under section 112(c)(1), Requirements? The chlorine production source and sources of mercury emissions at IV. Summary of Major Comments and category was initially listed as a mercury cell chlor-alkali plants would Responses category of major sources of HAP be subject to section 112(d)(2) standards A. What Issues Were Raised Regarding the via that chlorine production source Sources That Are Subject to the Rule as pursuant to section 112(c)(1) of the CAA Proposed? on July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576). At the category listing. B. What Issues Were Raised Regarding the time of the initial listing, we defined the Finally, on July 19, 1999 (64 FR HAP Addressed by the Rule as chlorine production source category as 38706), we listed Mercury Cell Chlor- Proposed? follows: Alkali Plants as an area source category. C. What Issues Were Raised Regarding the In this listing, Mercury Cell Chlor-Alkali Compliance Date? The Chlorine Production Source Category Plants were identified as one of the area D. What Issues Were Raised Regarding the includes any facility engaged in the production of chlorine. The category source categories that contribute at least Emission Limitations? 15 percent of the total area source E. What Issues Were Raised Regarding the includes, but is not limited to, facilities producing chlorine by the following mercury emissions. Work Practices? Because of the differences in the F. What Issues Were Raised Regarding the production methods: diaphragm cell, Monitoring and Continuous Compliance mercury cell, membrane cell, hybrid fuel cell, production methods and the HAP Requirements? Downs cell, potash manufacture, emitted, we decided to divide the V. What Are the Environmental, Cost, and hydrochloric acid decomposition, nitrosyl chlorine production category into two Economic Impacts of the Final Rule? chloride process, nitric acid/salt process, Kel- subcategories: (1) Mercury cell chlor- A. What Are the Air Emission Impacts? Chlor process, and sodium chloride/sulfuric alkali plants, and (2) chlorine B. What Are the Non-air Health, acid process. production plants that do not rely upon Environmental, and Energy Impacts? In our subsequent analysis of the mercury cells for chlorine production C. What Are the Cost and Economic chlorine production source category, we (diaphragm cell chlor-alkali plants, Impacts? VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews did not identify any facilities that membrane cell chlor-alkali plants, etc.). A. Executive Order 12866—Regulatory produce chlorine using hybrid fuel Thus, on July 3, 2002, we issued Planning and Review cells, the nitrosyl chloride process, the separate proposals to address the B. Paperwork Reduction Act Kel-Chlor process, the sodium chloride/ emissions of mercury from the mercury C. Regulatory Flexibility Act sulfuric acid process, or as a by-product cell chlor-alkali plant subcategory

VerDate jul<14>2003 15:14 Dec 18, 2003 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19DER2.SGM 19DER2 70906 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

sources (67 FR 44672) and the emissions production). On July 3, 2002, we The proposed rule was published in of chlorine and HCl from both non- proposed one action to address mercury the Federal Register on July 3, 2002 (67 mercury cell chlorine production emissions from the mercury cell chlor- FR 44672). The preamble to the subcategory sources and mercury chlor- alkali plant subcategory, and a separate proposed rule discussed the availability alkali plant subcategory sources (67 FR action to address chlorine and HCl of technical support documents, which 44713). emissions from both subcategories. described in detail the information gathered during the standards C. What Criteria Are Used in the For mercury emissions from mercury development process. Public comments Development of NESHAP? cell chlor-alkali plant subcategory sources, we issued a proposed rule were solicited at proposal. Section 112(d)(2) of the CAA specifies based on MACT (67 FR 44672). We received nine public comment that NESHAP for new and existing Comments were received on the letters on the proposed rule (two of sources must reflect the maximum proposed rule and today’s action issues which were received well after the close degree of reduction in HAP emissions the final rule for the mercury emissions of the comment period). The that is achievable, taking into from the mercury cell chlor-alkali plant commenters represent the following consideration the cost of achieving the subcategory. affiliations: Mercury cell chlor-alkali emissions reductions, any non-air We also proposed not to regulate companies, industrial trade quality health and environmental chlorine and HCl emissions from both associations, environmental/ benefits, and energy requirements. This the mercury cell chlor-alkali plant and conservation organizations, and a level of control is commonly referred to women’s advocacy organization. In the non-mercury cell chlorine production as MACT. post-proposal period, we talked with subcategories under our authority in Section 112(d)(3) defines the commenters and other stakeholders to section 112(d)(4) of the CAA (67 FR minimum level of control or floor clarify comments and to assist in our 44713). We based this decision on our allowed for NESHAP. In essence, the analysis of the comments. Records of determination that no further control is MACT floor ensures that the standards these contacts are found in Docket necessary because chlorine and HCl are are set at a level that assures that all OAR–2002–0017 or Docket A–2000–32. ‘‘health threshold pollutants,’’ and affected sources achieve the level of All of the comments have been carefully chlorine and HCl levels emitted from control at least as stringent as that considered, and, where appropriate, the chlorine production processes are below already achieved by the better- final rule has been written to so reflect. controlled and lower-emitting sources their threshold values within an ample The proposed action not to regulate in each source category or subcategory. margin of safety. The basis for the chlorine and HCl emissions was For new sources, the MACT floor cannot determination was a series of site- published in the Federal Register on be less stringent than the emission specific risk assessments for every July 3, 2002 (67 FR 44713). The control that is achieved in practice by chlorine production facility in the preamble to the proposed action the best-controlled similar source. The United States that was located at a major discussed the availability of technical MACT standards for existing sources source plant site. In addition, we support documents, which described in cannot be less stringent than the average concluded, using a qualitative detail the information gathered during emission limitation achieved by the evaluation, that chlorine and HCl the standards development process. best-performing 12 percent of existing emissions from these chlorine Public comments were solicited at sources in the category or subcategory production facilities did not result in proposal. (or the best-performing five sources for adverse environmental effects. We received eight public comment categories or subcategories with fewer Background for this action is contained letters on the proposed action. The than 30 sources). in Docket OAR–2002–0016 or Docket commenters represent the following In developing MACT, we also A–2002–09. Public comments on the affiliations: Industry representatives, consider control options that are more proposed action were received, and we governmental entities, and stringent than the floor. We may are finalizing actions addressing environmental groups. In the post- establish standards more stringent than chlorine and HCl emissions in today’s proposal period, we talked with the floor based on the consideration of Federal Register. In today’s final action, commenters and other stakeholders to cost of achieving the emissions we are utilizing our authority under clarify comments and to assist in our reductions, any non-air quality health section 112(d)(4) not to regulate analysis of the comments. Records of and environmental impacts, and energy chlorine and HCl emissions from the these contacts are found in Docket impacts. mercury cell chlor-alkali plant OAR–2002–0016 or Docket A–2002–09. The CAA includes exceptions to the subcategory. Final action addressing the All of the comments have been carefully general statutory requirement to emissions of chlorine and HCl from the considered. establish emission standards based on non-mercury cell chlorine production MACT. For pollutants for which a subcategory is contained elsewhere in F. What Is a Mercury Cell Chlor-alkali threshold has been established, section today’s Federal Register. Plant? 112(d)(4) allows us ‘‘to consider such E. How Did the Public Participate in Today’s NESHAP apply to mercury threshold level, with an ample margin Developing the Rulemaking? emissions from mercury cell chlor-alkali of safety, when establishing emissions plants. Mercury cells are considerably standards. * * *.’’ Prior to proposal, we met with larger than other types of chlor-alkali industry representatives and State cells. A mercury cell plant typically has D. What Actions Were Proposed for This regulatory authorities several times to scores of individual cells (around 60 Source Category? discuss the data and information used to feet long and 9 feet wide) housed in one As discussed above, we divided the develop the proposed standards. In or more cell buildings. Mercury cells are chlorine production source category addition, these and other potential electrically connected together in series into mercury cell chlor-alkali plants, stakeholders, including equipment with circuits of 30 or more cells. and chlorine production plants that do vendors and environmental groups, had In the mercury cell process, each cell not rely upon mercury cells for chlorine opportunity to comment on the actually involves two distinct production (non-mercury cell chlorine proposed standards. operations. The electrolytic cell

VerDate jul<14>2003 15:14 Dec 18, 2003 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19DER2.SGM 19DER2 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 70907

produces chlorine gas, and a separate then be discharged to the atmosphere, NESHAP allow an owner or operator to decomposer produces hydrogen gas and used on-site, or sold for use off-site. assume a cell room ventilation emission caustic solution. There is one In a mercury cell process, a 50 percent value of 1.3 kg (2.9 lb) per day of decomposer associated with each cell, caustic solution is obtained directly mercury providing the owner/operator located directly underneath the cell. from the amalgam decomposers. Thus, adheres to a suite of approved design, The cell and the decomposer are linked the mercury cell caustic requires little maintenance and housekeeping at the two ends by an inlet end box and further processing to yield a commercial practices. Every mercury cell chlor- an outlet end box. product. alkali plant currently in operation in the A stream of liquid mercury flows in Contaminated mercury and mercury- United States complies with the cell a continuous loop between the containing wastes are generated from a room ventilation provisions by carrying electrolytic cell and the decomposer. number of sources at a mercury cell out these practices rather than by The mercury enters the cell at the inlet plant. These include the hydrogen measuring mercury emissions end box and flows down a slight grade treatment operation, the brine and discharged from the cell room. Since to the outlet end box. At the outlet end caustic treatment operations, and every plant uses the 1.3 kg per day box, the mercury flows out of the cell mercury leaks or spills. Many plants assumed value for its cell room and falls down to the decomposer. After recover mercury from these wastes on- ventilation emissions, subtracting the being processed in the decomposer, the site in a mercury retort, or mercury 1.3 kg per day cell room value from the mercury is pumped back up to the inlet thermal recovery unit. 2.3 kg per 24-hour period plantwide end box of the electrolytic cell. Mercury is emitted from two point standard effectively creates an emission Saturated salt brine (using either sources associated with the production limit for the combined emissions from sodium chloride or potassium chloride) of chlorine—the end box ventilation hydrogen streams and end box is fed to the electrolytic cell at the inlet system and by-product hydrogen ventilation systems of 1.0 kg per day end box and flows toward the outlet end system. Mercury is also emitted from (1,000 grams per day). box on top of the mercury stream. The mercury thermal recovery units, which The requirements in today’s final brine and mercury flow under a is also a point source. In addition, there standards are more stringent than the dimensionally stable metal anode made are mercury fugitive emissions from the requirements in the Mercury NESHAP. of a titanium substrate with a metal cell rooms and from the waste recovery Using the 1,000 grams per day value as catalyst. The mercury forms the cathode areas. the baseline, we estimate that mercury of the cell. In addition to mercury, chlorine and emissions will be reduced to less than An electric current is applied between HCl are emitted from mercury cell 60 grams per day (on average) by the the anode and the mercury cathode. The plants. Chlorine can be emitted from the final rule. This represents about 94 electric current causes a reaction tail gas stream from the final liquefier, percent reduction from the Mercury producing chlorine gas at the anode and the cell room, and equipment in NESHAP baseline for vents. In addition, a mercury:sodium (HgNa) or chlorine service. Hydrochloric acid is the work practice standards in today’s mercury:potassium (HgK) amalgam at used to pretreat feed brine prior to final rule represent the most explicit the cathode. Chlorine is collected at the entering a chlor-alkali cell, and at other compilation of practices currently top of the cell. The amalgam ultimately locations throughout the process to employed by the industry, along with exits at the outlet end box, falling into adjust pH. It can also be emitted from detailed recordkeeping and reporting the decomposer. Depleted brine also storage tanks and equipment in HCl requirements. While we cannot quantify exits the cell at the outlet end box. This service. the mercury emissions reductions that brine is generally piped to a tank for G. How Does This Action Relate to the would be achieved by the final work resaturation and reuse. 40 CFR Part 61 Mercury NESHAP? practice standards, we are confident that The decomposer is a packed bed their implementation would result in reactor where the mercury amalgam is We promulgated the National additional reductions in mercury contacted with deionized water in the Emission Standard for Mercury on April emissions beyond that currently presence of a catalyst. The amalgam 6, 1973 (40 CFR part 61, subpart E).1 achieved by the existing Mercury reacts with the water, regenerating Those standards (hereafter referred to as NESHAP. elemental mercury and producing the Mercury NESHAP) limit mercury Every aspect of the Mercury NESHAP caustic (NaOH or KOH) and hydrogen. emissions from mercury cell chlor-alkali that applies to mercury cell chlor-alkali The caustic and mercury are separated plants as well as mercury ore processing plants is addressed in today’s final rule in a trap at the end of the decomposer. facilities and sludge incineration and (40 CFR part 63, subpart IIIII). In fact, as The caustic and hydrogen are drying plants. Specifically, the Mercury discussed above, the requirements are transferred to auxiliary processes for NESHAP limit mercury emissions from more stringent than the respective purification, and the mercury is mercury cell chlor-alkali plants to 2.3 requirements in the Mercury NESHAP. recycled back to the cell. kilogram (kg) (5.1 pound (lb)) of Consequently, when mercury cell chlor- Chlorine is collected from the tops of mercury per 24-hour period and alkali plants are required to comply the mercury cells by a common header requires that mercury emissions be with the final rule, the requirements of system which runs through the cell measured (in a one-time test) from the Mercury NESHAP that apply to building. Hydrogen is collected from the hydrogen streams, end box ventilation them will no longer be relevant or amalgam decomposers in a common systems, and the cell room ventilation applicable. Therefore, upon the header system. The hydrogen stream system. As an alternative to measuring compliance date as indicated in contains a small amount of mercury ventilation emissions from the cell room § 63.8186 of the final rule, mercury cell vapor from the liquid mercury to demonstrate compliance, the Mercury chlor-alkali plants will no longer have processed in the decomposer. To any obligation to comply with the remove the mercury vapor, the 1 This regulatory program was originally set forth Mercury NESHAP, nor will they be hydrogen stream is typically cooled, at 38 FR 8826; April 6, 1973; and amended at 40 allowed to comply with the Mercury FR 48302, October 14, 1975; 47 FR 24704, June 8, passed through a mist eliminator, and 1982; 49 FR 35770, September 12, 1984; 50 FR NESHAP instead of the applicable usually sent to a finishing device such 46294, November 7, 1985; 52 FR 8726, March 19, provisions in 40 CFR part 63, subpart as a carbon adsorber. The hydrogen may 1987; and 53 FR 36972, September 23, 1988. IIIII. Specifically, affected sources

VerDate jul<14>2003 15:14 Dec 18, 2003 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19DER2.SGM 19DER2 70908 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

subject to the final rule would no longer In addition to the averaging time for corrective action taken when a plant- be subject to §§ 61.52(a), 61.53(b) and the by-product hydrogen/end box specific action level was exceeded. The (c), and 61.55(b), (c) and (d) of 40 CFR ventilation system vent, we changed the final rule retains the cell room part 61, subpart E, after the compliance value of the emission limitation for monitoring program, but it is as an date, which is December 19, 2006. plants with end box ventilation systems alternative to the work practices. The from the proposed limit of 0.067 g Hg/ optional cell room monitoring II. Summary of Changes Since Proposal Mg Cl2 to 0.076 g Hg/Mg Cl2. The provisions in the final rule are more The proposed rule contained a proposed limit of 0.033 g Hg/Mg Cl2 for detailed and prescriptive than the compliance date 2 years from the date plants without end box ventilation requirements in the proposed rule, and that the final rule would appear in the systems is retained in the final rule. the final rule requires the preparation Federal Register. In the final rule, the In the final rule, we have written the and submittal of site-specific cell room compliance date has been changed to 3 method for determining continuous monitoring plans. Since the cell room years from December 19, 2006. compliance for the point sources of monitoring program was made optional, However, unlike the proposed rule, emissions in both types of affected the final rule requires (if optional cell which would have required that sources covered by the rule (by-product room monitoring is not chosen) the performance tests be conducted within hydrogen streams and end box owner or operator to institute a floor- 180 days after the compliance date, the ventilation system vents at mercury cell level mercury vapor measurement final rule requires that all performance chlor-alkali production facilities and program. This program is designed to tests be conducted on or before the mercury thermal recovery unit vents at limit the amount of mercury vapor in compliance date. mercury recovery facilities). In the the cell room environment through proposed rule, performance tests would For mercury cell chlor-alkali periodic measurement of mercury vapor have been required to determine initial production facilities affected sources, levels. compliance with the applicable the proposed rule included a single The final rule also requires that the emission limitation. The proposed rule emission limitation that covered all owner of each mercury cell chlor-alkali also would have required that the mercury emissions from the two point plant report the mass of virgin mercury mercury concentration of each vent be sources associated with chlorine added to the cells. Initial compliance monitored during these performance production in mercury cells: the by- with this requirement is demonstrated tests, and that a mercury concentration product hydrogen stream and the end by reporting the mass of mercury added operating limit be established for each to cells for the 5 years preceding the box ventilation system vent. The format vent based on the monitoring results of this limitation was total grams of compliance date. This is a requirement obtained during the test. Compliance requested by commenters. mercury per Megagram of chlorine with the emission limitation would production (g Hg/Mg Cl2). For the initial have then been determined by III. Summary of the Final Rule compliance determination, the aggregate comparing the results of the continuous A. What Is the Source Category? mercury emissions from all hydrogen monitoring of mercury concentration by-product streams and all end box against the established operating limits. The chlorine production source ventilation system vents were divided There were several comments received category contains the mercury cell by the chlorine production for the same on this approach. chlor-alkali plant subcategory and period and compared with the In response to these comments, includes all plants engaged in the applicable emission limitation. continuous compliance in the final rule manufacture of chlorine and caustic in Continuous compliance would have is determined via a direct comparison of mercury cells. Other non-mercury cell then been demonstrated by emissions to the emission limitation chlorine production plants used to continuously monitoring the mercury rather than using mercury concentration produce chlorine and caustic, such as concentration in each stream and operating limits as a surrogate. For by- diaphragm cell and membrane cell comparing the daily average mercury product hydrogen streams and end box technologies, are not covered by the concentration against a level determined ventilation system vents, the aggregate final rule. during the initial compliance test. mercury emissions will be determined, Commenters objected to this daily B. What Are the Affected Sources and divided by the corresponding chlorine Emission Points To Be Regulated? averaging period for compliance production, and compared with the purposes when the emission limitations emission limitation for each 52-week The final rule defines two affected were based on annual average emissions compliance period (as discussed above). sources: Mercury cell chlor-alkali and chlorine production. In response to For mercury thermal recovery unit production facilities, and mercury these comments, we have written the vents, the measured mercury recovery facilities. The former includes averaging time for continuous concentration will be directly compared all cell rooms and ancillary operations compliance as a 52-week period. against the emission limitations (which used in the manufacture of chlorine, Further, as discussed more below, rather are in units of milligrams of mercury per caustic, and by-product hydrogen at a than establishing surrogate mercury dry standard cubic meter, or mg/dscm). plant site. The latter includes all concentration operating limits for each Also, the final rule contains two options processes and associated operations vent, continuous compliance is for measuring the mercury emissions for needed for mercury recovery from determined by a direct comparison of continuous compliance: Continuous wastes. the emissions per unit of chlorine mercury emission monitoring systems, Emission points addressed within production (g Hg/Mg Cl2) for each 52- and periodic sampling using EPA mercury cell chlor-alkali production week compliance period and the reference methods or approved facilities include each mercury cell by- emission limitation. This is a rolling alternative methods. product hydrogen stream, each mercury average compliance period that is The proposed work practice cell end box ventilation system vent, determined each week. That means a provisions included a cell room and fugitive emission sources compliance determination is required monitoring program, which would have throughout each cell room and various each week for the previous 52-week required that the mercury concentration areas. Emission points addressed within period. be monitored in the cell room and mercury recovery facilities include each

VerDate jul<14>2003 15:14 Dec 18, 2003 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19DER2.SGM 19DER2 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 70909

mercury thermal recovery unit vent and A cornerstone of the work practice provisions for delay of repair if the fugitive emission sources associated standards is the inspection program for leaking equipment is isolated). For a with storage areas for mercury- equipment problems, leaking hydrogen leak downstream of the containing wastes. equipment, liquid mercury hydrogen header but upstream of the accumulations and spills, and cracks or final control device, a first attempt at C. What Are the Emission Limitations? spalling in floors and pillars and beams. repair is required within 4 hours, and For new or reconstructed mercury cell Specifically, the final rule requires that complete repair required within 24 chlor-alkali production facilities, the visual inspections be conducted twice hours (with delay provisions if the final rule prohibits mercury emissions. each day to detect equipment problems, header is isolated). For existing mercury cell chlor-alkali such as end box access port stoppers not The work practice standards in the production facilities with end box securely in place, liquid mercury in final rule require you to institute a floor- ventilation systems, the final rule open containers not covered by an level mercury vapor measurement requires that aggregate mercury aqueous liquid, or leaking vent hoses. If program. Under this program, mercury emissions from all by-product hydrogen a problem is found during an vapor levels are periodically measured streams and end box ventilation system inspection, the owner or operator will and compared to an action level of 0.05 3 vents not exceed 0.076 g Hg/Mg Cl2 for need to take immediate action to correct mg/m . The final rule specifies the any consecutive 52-week period. For the problem. Monthly inspections for actions to be taken when the action existing mercury cell chlor-alkali cracking or spalling in cell room floors level is exceeded. If the action level is production facilities without end box are also required as well as semiannual exceeded during any floor-level mercury ventilation systems, the final rule inspections for cracks and spalling on vapor measurement evaluation, you are requires that mercury emissions from all pillars and beams. Any cracks or required to take specific actions to by-product hydrogen streams not exceed spalling found will need to be corrected identify and correct the problem. within 1 month. 0.033 g Hg/Mg Cl2 for any consecutive As an alternative to the full set of 52-week period. Visual inspections for liquid mercury work practice standards (including the spills or accumulations are also required For new, reconstructed, or existing floor-level monitoring program), the twice per day. If a liquid mercury spill mercury recovery facilities with oven final rule also includes an optional or accumulation is identified during an type mercury thermal recovery units, requirement to institute a cell room inspection, the owner or operator will monitoring program whereby owners the final rule requires that total mercury need to initiate cleanup of the liquid and operators continuously monitor emissions not exceed 23 mg/dscm from mercury within 1 hour of its detection. mercury concentrations in the upper each oven type unit vent. For new, Acceptable cleanup methods include portion of each cell room and take reconstructed, or existing mercury wet vacuum cleaning or a suitable corrective actions as soon as practicable recovery facilities with non-oven type alternative method approved upon when elevated mercury vapor levels are mercury thermal recovery units, the petition. limit in the final rule is 4 mg/dscm. In addition to cleanup, the final rule detected. The program is not designed to be a D. What Are the Work Practice requires that an inspection of equipment continuous monitoring system Standards? in the area of the spill or accumulation be conducted to identify the source of inasmuch as the results would be used The final rule contains a set of work the liquid mercury. If the source is only to determine relative changes in practice standards to address and found, the owner or operator is required mercury vapor levels rather than mitigate fugitive mercury releases at to repair the leaking equipment as compliance with a cell room emission mercury cell chlor-alkali plants. These discussed below. If the source is not or operating limit. The owner or provisions include specific equipment found, the owner or operator will be operator is required to establish an standards such as the requirement that required to reinspect the area every 6 action level for each cell room based on end boxes either be closed (that is, hours until the source is identified or preliminary monitoring to determine equipped with fixed covers), or that end until no additional liquid mercury is normal baseline conditions. The action box headspaces be routed to a found at that location. level, or levels if appropriate, will then ventilation system. Other examples Inspections of specific equipment for be established as a yet-to-be-determined include requirements that piping in liquid mercury leaks are required once multiple of the baseline values. Once liquid mercury service have smooth per day. If leaking equipment is the action level(s) is established, interiors, that cell room floors be free of identified, the final rule requires that continuous monitoring must be cracks and spalling (i.e., fragmentation any dripping mercury be contained and conducted. If an action level is by chipping) and coated with a material covered by an aqueous liquid, and that exceeded, actions to correct the that resists mercury absorption, and that a first attempt to repair leaking situation are required to be initiated as containers used to store liquid mercury equipment be made within 1 hour of the soon as possible. If the elevated mercury have tight-fitting lids. The work practice time it is identified. The final rule vapor level is due to a maintenance standards also include operational requires that leaking equipment be activity, the owner or operator must requirements. Examples of these include repaired within 4 hours of the time it is ensure that all work practices related to requirements to allow electrolyzers and identified, although there are provisions that maintenance activity are followed. decomposers to cool before opening, to for delaying repair of leaking equipment If a maintenance activity is not the keep liquid mercury in end boxes and for up to 48 hours. cause, inspections and other actions mercury pumps covered by an aqueous Inspections for hydrogen gas leaks are will be needed to identify and correct liquid at a temperature below its boiling required twice per day. For a hydrogen the cause of the elevated mercury vapor point at all times, to maintain end box leak at any location upstream of a level. Owners and operators utilizing access port stoppers in good sealing hydrogen header, a first attempt at this cell room monitoring program condition, and to rinse all parts repair is required within 1 hour of option are required to develop site- removed from the decomposer for detection of the leaking equipment, and specific cell room monitoring plans maintenance prior to transport to the leaking equipment is required to be describing their monitoring system and another work area. repaired within 4 hours (with quality assurance/quality control

VerDate jul<14>2003 15:14 Dec 18, 2003 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19DER2.SGM 19DER2 70910 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

procedures that will be used, along with part 61, appendix A, Method 102 for by- regenerative carbon adsorbers or their action level. product hydrogen streams, and 40 CFR molecular sieves. The final rule establishes the duty for part 61, appendix A, Method 101 or As part of the initial compliance owners and operators to routinely wash 101A for end box ventilation system demonstration, the owner or operator surfaces throughout the plant where vents. In addition, the final rule also must determine the maximum or liquid mercury could accumulate. includes procedures for reducing the minimum monitoring value by Owners and operators are required to mercury emissions data collected during calculating the average of the data prepare and follow a written washdown the performance test to units of the collected during the performance test. plan detailing how and how often standard (i.e., g Hg/Mg Cl2). Each The exception to this is when the final specific areas specified in the final rule performance test is required to consist control device is a regenerative carbon are to be washed down to remove any of a minimum of three 2-hour runs with adsorber. In this case, the highest accumulations of liquid mercury. a minimum sample volume of 1.7 dscm temperature reading during the Finally, the final rule requires owners and must be conducted in accordance performance test must be used. or operators to record and report the with a site-specific test plan prepared To demonstrate initial compliance mass of virgin mercury added to cells. according to the performance test with the mercury thermal recovery unit Virgin mercury is defined as mercury quality assurance program requirements emission limits, the final rule requires that has not been processed in an onsite in § 63.7(c)(2) of the NESHAP General that owners or operators conduct a mercury thermal recovery unit or Provisions. performance test for each vent using 40 otherwise recovered from mercury- Concurrent with each test run, each CFR part 61, appendix A, Method 101 containing wastes onsite. In order to owner or operator is required to or 101A. The owner or operator is establish a baseline of mercury being determine the quantity of chlorine required to develop and follow a site- added to the cells, the final rule requires produced using an equation contained specific test plan according to owners or operators to submit the mass in the final rule which calculates § 63.7(c)(2) of the NESHAP General of virgin mercury added to cells for the chlorine production based on cell line Provisions. Three test runs would need 5 years preceding the compliance date. electric current load. to be conducted at a point after the last Initial compliance is demonstrated by control device for each vent. E. What Are the Operation and Initial compliance is achieved if the Maintenance Requirements? showing that the total mercury emission rate from all by-product hydrogen average vent mercury concentration is The final rule requires that each streams and all end box ventilation less than 23 mg/dscm for each oven type owner and operator always operate and system vents for the test are less than vent or 4 mg/dscm for each non-oven maintain each affected source, including type vent. In addition, if the final 0.076 g Hg/Mg Cl2 for plants with end air pollution control and monitoring box ventilation systems, or 0.033 g Hg/ control device is not a nonregenerable equipment, in a manner consistent with carbon adsorber and continuous Mg Cl2 for plants without end box good air pollution control practices for ventilation systems. compliance will be demonstrated using minimizing air emissions, as required In addition, if the final control device the periodic monitoring option, the under 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) of the is not a nonregenerable carbon adsorber owner or operator is required to monitor NESHAP General Provisions. The final and continuous compliance will be the same parameters as required for by- rule requires each owner and operator to demonstrated using the periodic product hydrogen streams and end box prepare and implement a written monitoring option, the owner or ventilation system vents and to establish startup, shutdown, and malfunction operator is required to monitor the the appropriate minimum or maximum plan according to the operation and following parameters during the monitoring value for the control device. maintenance requirements in performance test to establish either a H. What Are the Continuous § 63.6(e)(3) of the NESHAP General maximum or minimum monitoring Compliance Requirements? Provisions. value, as applicable for the control The final rule contains two options F. What Are the General Compliance device: for continuous compliance with the Requirements? • Exit gas temperature from emission limit for by-product hydrogen The final rule requires compliance uncontrolled streams; streams and end box ventilation system • with the emission limitations and Outlet temperature of the gas stream vents and the emission limit for applicable work practice requirements for the final cooling system when no mercury thermal recovery unit vents: at all times, except during periods or control devices other than coolers or Continuous monitoring using mercury startup, shutdown, and malfunction as demisters are used; continuous emissions monitors, or • defined in 40 CFR 63.2. The owner or The outlet temperature of the gas periodic monitoring using testing. Both operator must develop and implement a stream from the final cooling system of these options will produce results in written startup, shutdown, and when the cooling system is followed the units of the standard, so continuous malfunction plan according to the by a molecular sieve or regenerative compliance will be demonstrated requirements in 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3). carbon adsorber; through a direct comparison of • Outlet concentration of available monitoring system results. G. What Are the Initial Compliance chlorine, pH, liquid flow rate, and If mercury continuous emission Requirements? inlet gas temperature of chlorinated monitors are used to comply with the The final rule requires compliance brine scrubbers and hypochlorite final rule, a site-specific monitoring with emission limitations and work scrubbers; plan must be developed to ensure practices by December 19, 2006. • The liquid flow rate and exit gas proper control device evaluation, and a To demonstrate initial compliance temperature for water scrubbers; performance evaluation is required with the emission limits for by-product • The inlet gas temperature of according to the monitoring plan. For hydrogen streams and end box regenerative carbon adsorption each monitor, the final rule requires the ventilation system vents, the final rule systems; or site-specific monitoring plan to address requires each owner or operator to • The temperature during the heating installation and siting, monitor conduct performance tests using 40 CFR phase of the regeneration cycle for performance specifications,

VerDate jul<14>2003 15:14 Dec 18, 2003 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19DER2.SGM 19DER2 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 70911

performance evaluation procedures and Continuous compliance with work K. What Are the Recordkeeping calibration criteria, ongoing operation practice standards will be demonstrated Requirements? and maintenance procedures, ongoing by maintaining these required records. Records required by the final rule Initial compliance with the data assurance procedures, and ongoing related to by-product hydrogen streams, washdown plan will be demonstrated recordkeeping and reporting end box ventilation system vents, and by submission of the plan by the owner procedures. It must also address how mercury thermal recovery unit vents or operator and certification that they other parameters (e.g., flow rate) needed include the following: Performance test operate according to, or will operate to calculate the mass of mercury results, records showing the emissions from each emission point are according to, the plan. Continuous establishment of the applicable mercury to be monitored. If periodic weekly compliance with the plan will be concentration operating limits monitoring is the selected compliance demonstrated by maintaining related (including records of the mercury method, the owner or operator is records. Records will also be required to concentration monitoring conducted required to conduct tests on a weekly demonstrate compliance with the cell during the performance tests), records of basis using either an EPA Reference room monitoring program. the continuous mercury concentration Method (101, 101A, or 102) or an J. What Are the Notification and monitoring data, records of the daily alternative method that has been Reporting Requirements? average elemental mercury validated using Method 301, 40 CFR concentration values, and records part 63, appendix A. If the final control The final rule requires that owners or device is not a nonregenerable carbon operators submit Initial Notifications, associated with site-specific monitoring adsorber, in addition to periodic testing, Notifications of Intent to conduct a plans. the final rule contains requirements for performance test, Notification of With regard to the work practice the continuous monitoring of control Compliance Status (NOCS), and standards, the final rule requires that device-specific parameters. compliance reports. records be maintained to document To demonstrate continuous For the Initial Notification, we are when each required inspection was compliance, the final rule requires the requiring that each owner or operator conducted and the results of each owner or operator to reduce mercury notify us that their plant is subject to the inspection. Records noting equipment emissions to 52-week averages and to NESHAP for mercury cell chlor-alkali problems (such as end box cover maintain the 52-week average below plants, and that they provide other basic stoppers not securely in place or mercury in an open container not 0.076 g Hg/Mg Cl2 for plants with end information about the plant. For existing box ventilation systems, or 0.033 g Hg/ sources, this notification would need to covered by an aqueous liquid) identified Mg Cl2 for plants without end box be submitted no later than April 19, during a required inspection, and the ventilation systems. For mercury 2004. corrective action taken would also be thermal recovery units, the owner or For the Notification of Intent report, required. If equipment that is leaking operator is required to determine daily we are requiring that each owner or mercury liquid or hydrogen/mercury average mercury emissions and operator notify us in writing of the vapor is identified during a required maintain the daily average below 23 mg/ intent to conduct a performance test at inspection or at any other time, the final dscm for each oven type vent or 4 mg/ least 60 days before the performance test rule requires records of when the leak dscm for each non-oven type vent. The is scheduled to begin. was identified and when it was final rule requires the owner or operator The NOCS for the work practice repaired. Similarly, if a mercury spill or to collect emissions data using either a standards will be due 30 days after the accumulation is identified at any time, continuous mercury emissions monitor, compliance date for existing sources. In the final rule requires records of when or by collecting weekly samples using this notification, the owner or operator the spill or accumulation was found and periodic monitoring. If the periodic will need to certify that the work when it was cleaned up. monitoring option is used and the final practice standards are being or will be A copy of the current version of the control device is not a nonregenerable met. Furthermore, we are requiring that washdown plan would need to be kept carbon adsorber, the owner or operator the washdown plan be submitted as part on-site and be available for inspection. is required to also monitor specific of this notification, and that the owner Records of when washdowns were control device parameters and compare or operator certify that they operate or conducted would be required. to the maximum or minimum will operate according to the plan. The final rule requires that copies of monitoring values developed during the For the emission limits where a each notification and report that is performance test. Continuous performance test is required to submitted to comply with the final rule compliance is achieved if the demonstrate initial compliance (that is, be kept and maintained for 5 years, the monitoring values remain either below the emission limits for by-product first 2 of which must be on-site. hydrogen streams and end box the maximum monitoring value, or IV. Summary of Major Comments and ventilation system vents and the above the minimum monitoring value, Responses as appropriate. mercury thermal recovery unit vent limits), the tests will have to be This section includes discussion of I. How Are Initial and Continuous conducted no later than the compliance significant comments on the proposed Compliance With the Work Practice date, and the NOCS will be due 60 days rule. For a complete summary of all the Standards To Be Demonstrated? after the completion of the performance comments received on the proposed The final rule requires compliance test. The site-specific monitoring plan rule and our responses to them, refer to with the work practice standards within addressing the use of mercury the ‘‘Background Information Document 3 years from December 19, 2003. continuous emission monitors for vents for Promulgation of National Emissions The final rule contains specific must be submitted as part of this Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant recordkeeping requirements related to notification. (NESHAP): Mercury Emissions From the work practice standards. These Compliance reporting is required Mercury Cell Chlor-Alkali Plants’’ EPA– include records of when inspections semiannually, with the first report due 453/R–03–012 (hereafter called the were conducted, problems identified, within the first 6 months after initial ‘‘response to comments document’’) in and actions taken to correct problems. compliance. Docket OAR–2002–0017 or A–2000–32.

VerDate jul<14>2003 15:14 Dec 18, 2003 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19DER2.SGM 19DER2 70912 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

The docket also contains the actual requirements, it is reasonable to expect complete title V applications given that comment letters and supporting significant source-specific tailoring of permitting authorities would be focused documentation developed for the final the standard for each plant’s individual on the permitting of major sources. rule. configuration.’’ See, e.g., 67 FR 44706– However, as the title V program is no 07. The commenter also stated that longer in its initial stages and the initial A. What Issues Were Raised Regarding requiring title V permits of area sources permitting of existing major sources is the Sources That Are Subject to the Rule of mercury is especially appropriate nearing completion, we would not be as Proposed? because a small quantity of mercury is justified in granting a deferral to area There were no issues raised by as toxic as far greater amounts of other sources under the final rule for the same commenters regarding the sources HAP. reason. subject to the proposed rule and the Response: Section 502(a) of the CAA In terms of the commenter who affected source, as a mercury cell chlor- requires any source, including an area supported the permitting of affected alkali plant is a distinct and easily source, subject to standards or sources under the final rule, we agree identifiable entity. There were, regulations under section 111 or 112 of that the consolidation of requirements however, issues raised regarding the the CAA to operate in compliance with in a title V permit is one of the ways that proposed requirement for all affected a title V permit after the effective date title V helps assure compliance with all sources to obtain a title V permit and of any title V permits program. The applicable requirements. As this regarding the specific emission points Administrator may not exempt any commenter also pointed out, title V that were addressed in the proposed major source from the requirements of permits clarify which requirements in rule. title V. standards apply to a source where Comment: Three commenters In order to exempt area sources under requirements may vary due to various disagreed with the proposed the final rule from title V requirements, factors, e.g., design of the facility. requirements for all mercury cell chlor- the test in section 502(a) of the CAA Additionally, the title V regulations at alkali plants to obtain a title V permit, must be met. Specifically, the 40 CFR part 70 and 40 CFR part 71 help including area sources. The commenters Administrator must make a finding that a source assure compliance with its requested that this provision be deleted title V requirements are impracticable, applicable requirements by requiring from the final rule. The commenters infeasible, or unnecessarily burdensome that a source self-certify to compliance stated that the facilities affected by the for the source category or categories in initially and annually, by requiring that proposal are minor sources of HAP question. Commenters may provide data a source promptly report deviations emissions. All three commenters which would help the Administrator from its permit requirements, and by maintained that requiring minor source make such a finding, but the requiring that a permit contain facilities to obtain title V permits would commenters who were opposed to area monitoring requirements. It is also be burdensome, e.g., due to duplicative sources being permitted under the final important to note that the title V recordkeeping and reporting provisions, rule did not provide any such data. permitting process provides an for the area sources; one commenter Commenters providing supporting data opportunity for the public to comment further stated that this burden would for their arguments is consistent with on whether a source is complying with not yield any environmental benefit. what the Agency stated in its final rule its applicable requirements. In short, Additionally, according to this for the Municipal Solid Waste Landfills title V permits can enhance the commenter, dropping the title V permit NESHAP in reference to the test in effectiveness of rules such as the final requirement for area sources would not section 502(a) of the CAA (68 FR 2227, rule, and EPA, therefore, disagrees that lessen any substantive requirements for 2234, January 16, 2003). there are no environmental benefits to monitoring, recordkeeping, or operation In terms of the commenters’ concern requiring title V permits for area of any and all air pollution control about title V adding duplicative sources. devices. Commenters noted that the recordkeeping and reporting In conclusion, as the test in section CAA allows EPA to exempt certain requirements, the only potential 502(a) of the CAA has not been met, sources from obtaining a title V permit duplicative requirement that we are EPA has retained the requirement in the ‘‘* * * if the Administrator finds that aware of is in relation to deviation final rule that affected sources subject to compliance with such requirements is reporting under the semiannual the final rule must obtain title V impracticable, infeasible, or compliance report required by § 63.8254 permits. Therefore, whether an affected unnecessarily burdensome * * *’’. of the final rule and the semiannual source under the final rule is a part of One commenter noted that in monitoring report required by 40 CFR a major or area source, the major/area previously promulgated area source 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR source is required to obtain a title V MACT standards (e.g., Dry Cleaning 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A). However, this permit. MACT and Halogenated Solvent potential duplication was addressed by Comment: One commenter believed Cleaning MACT), EPA identified area § 63.8254(d) in the proposed rule and that the proposed rule violated the CAA sources as being subject to title V this has been clarified in the final rule. because the Agency did not establish permitting. However, EPA allowed the As to the deferral for area sources standards for some parts of chlor-alkali permitting authorities to defer area subject to the Dry Cleaning MACT and plants that emit mercury. The sources from title V permitting the Halogenated Solvent Cleaning commenter noted that under the requirements until December 9, 2004. MACT, the area sources subject to these proposed rule, EPA defined two affected In contrast, another commenter MACT standards were deferred from sources: Mercury cell chlor-alkali supported the proposed requirement to title V permitting until December 9, production facilities and mercury require all affected sources to obtain 2004. See final deferral rulemaking (64 recovery facilities. The commenter did title V permits. The commenter argued FR 69637, December 14, 1999). This not agree with EPA’s determination that that title V permits are needed because deferral was granted in part because of within mercury cell chlor-alkali they consolidate sources’ applicable the concern that area sources would not production facilities, chlorine requirements in a single place. The be able to obtain the technical and purification, brine preparation and commenter further noted that ‘‘*** procedural assistance from permitting wastewater treatment operations should given the detailed work practice authorities needed to file timely and not be subject to emission standards

VerDate jul<14>2003 15:14 Dec 18, 2003 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19DER2.SGM 19DER2 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 70913

because they have low mercury air B. What Issues Were Raised Regarding would result in costs for monitoring, emissions. Similarly, the commenter did the HAP Addressed by the Rule as recordkeeping, and reporting efforts to not agree with EPA’s decision not to Proposed? certify compliance with any regulate chemical mercury recovery and As noted earlier, we divided the requirements. The commenter was recovery in batch purification stills at chlorine production category into two concerned that a regulation would also mercury recovery facilities. According subcategories: Mercury cell chlor-alkali stretch EPA’s limited resources in to the commenter, the CAA does not plants and chlorine production plants monitoring for compliance. Three allow the Agency to exempt certain that do not rely upon mercury cells for commenters stated that EPA’s interpretation of their authority under classes, types and sizes of sources from chlorine production (diaphragm cell section 112(d)(4) was supported by the emission standards, unless EPA finds no chlor-alkali plants, membrane cell legislative history, which emphasizes potential for emissions. Therefore, the chlor-alkali plants, etc.). On July 3, that Congress included section 112(d)(4) commenter stated that EPA had a legal 2002, we issued separate proposals to in the CAA to prevent unnecessary obligation to establish standards that address the emissions of mercury from regulation of source categories. The cover all mercury-emitting parts of the mercury cell chlor-alkali plant commenter agreed that under section chlor-alkali facilities, and the Agency subcategory sources (67 FR 44672) and 112(d)(4), once EPA establishes that a must re-visit and set emission standards the emissions of chlorine and HCl from pollutant has a health threshold and for the parts of the production and both the non-mercury cell chlorine that exposure to that pollutant’s recovery facilities with low mercury production subcategory sources and the emissions are below the health emissions. mercury cell chlor-alkali subcategory threshold, EPA should refrain from Response: During development of the sources (67 FR 44713). Specifically, we setting MACT standards for that proposed rule, we did not receive any proposed a rule for mercury emissions pollutant. The commenter further data to indicate that mercury was from mercury cell chlor-alkali plants, suggested that EPA should use section emitted from chlorine purification, and we proposed not to regulate 112(d)(4) whenever setting emission brine preparation, or wastewater chlorine and HCl emissions from standards under section 112(d). treatment operations, and our mercury cell chlor-alkali plants and Three commenters disagreed with knowledge of the process indicated that non-mercury cell chlorine production EPA’s interpretation of section plants under our authority in section any potential emissions would be very 112(d)(4). They did not believe that 112(d)(4) of the CAA. limited (67 FR 44674). Furthermore, we section 112(d)(4) could be used as an Comments were received regarding did not receive any data indicating that alternative to setting MACT standards the proposed action not to regulate control measures designed to reduce under section 112(d)(3). One commenter chlorine and HCl emissions (see Air noted that the phrase ‘‘in lieu of’’ was HAP were in use at existing facilities Docket OAR–2002–0016 or Air Docket that had these units. The same holds not included in the section 112(d)(4) A–2002–09). The aspects of these provisions and that its absence was true for chemical mercury recovery and comments related to the mercury cell recovery in batch purification stills at intentional. In support of their claim, chlor-alkali plant subcategory can be the commenter pointed to section mercury recovery facilities. Therefore, generally classified into two basic with no reported emissions and process 112(d)(5), which does contain the categories: Our statutory authority phrase ‘‘in lieu of.’’ The commenter evidence that any emissions would be under section 112(d)(4); and the site- interpreted section 112(d)(4) to mean very limited, we concluded that there specific risk assessments that formed that health-based thresholds can be was no potential for emissions. Adding the basis for our decision. considered when establishing the degree to this the existence of a MACT floor of of MACT requirements, but not in place no control (because none are Comments Related to the Section 112(d)(4) Authority of the requirement to establish a MACT controlled), we did not regulate these floor pursuant to section 112(d)(3). processes. Comment: Several comments were The commenter also pointed to the The commenter did not provide received related to our decision not to provisions of section 112(c)(2) which emissions data that would indicate that regulate chlorine and HCl emissions require the Administrator to establish these sources emit significant amounts from chlorine production under the NESHAP for listed source categories and of mercury, or emit mercury at all. authority of section 112(d)(4). Some subcategories. The commenter was Therefore, the final rule does not commenters supported this decision concerned that EPA evaluated emissions contain standards for mercury emissions and stated the interpretation of our from chlorine production plants and from chlorine purification, brine authority under section 112(d)(4) was concluded that since they do not pose preparation, wastewater treatment appropriate and supported by the a threat to human health and the operations, chemical mercury recovery legislative history. In contrast, other environment, the Administrator is and recovery in batch purification stills. commenters disagreed with EPA’s relieved of her responsibilities to interpretation of section 112(d)(4). establish a MACT standard. The We point out that the final rule does Finally, some of the commenters stated commenter maintained that this contain very stringent emission that EPA should use its authority under position is not supported by section limitations for all point sources that section 112(c)(9)(B)(ii). 112(c)(2). have been demonstrated to be sources of One commenter stated that EPA The commenter also referred to mercury emissions. Further, the work conducted an appropriate analysis to section 112(d)(1), stating that EPA did practice requirements in the final rule determine that human exposures from not have the authority to ‘‘make a address fugitive mercury emissions in ambient concentrations are well below determination of no regulation for a all areas of the facility, including the threshold values with an ample margin listed source category or pollutant.’’ chlorine purification, brine preparation, of safety. According to another Finally, the commenter referred to wastewater treatment areas, as well as commenter, any further regulation of section 112(d)(3), which contains the areas where chemical mercury recovery chlorine and HCl emissions from the MACT floor provisions. According to processes and batch purification stills chlorine production industry would the commenter, the intent of the are located. have no environmental benefits, but NESHAP program is to develop a MACT

VerDate jul<14>2003 15:14 Dec 18, 2003 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19DER2.SGM 19DER2 70914 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

floor, and EPA is not fulfilling the utilize a risk-based approach in not be set when the HAP are threshold requirements of the CAA by not determining whether to establish pollutants and levels being emitted are performing such an analysis. The emission standards for those HAP where below the threshold value with an commenter stated that a majority of we determine that the HAP are ample margin of safety. Moreover, in facilities identified in the analysis have ‘‘threshold pollutants’’ and that the each case where we have exercised adequate controls due to State standard (or no standard) will achieve authority under section 112(d)(4), we regulations and these controls should be an ‘‘ample margin of safety.’’ have established standards in each incorporated into the MACT floor The statutory language in section category (or subcategory, as here) for evaluation. The commenter was 112(d)(4) is ambiguous. Thus, under the those pollutants that do not satisfy the particularly concerned that by not Supreme Court’s decision in Chevron v. threshold pollutant and ample margin of developing a MACT floor, no new- NRDC, 467 U.S. 837 (1984), the Agency safety statutory criteria. source MACT standards were created. has the discretion to interpret the We also disagree with the commenter The commenter requested that EPA language to allow us to establish who argued that the provision in section perform a MACT floor analysis and NESHAP that do set limitations on 112(c)(2), which requires the develop a NESHAP for new sources. certain HAP emitted from sources Administrator to establish emission Two of the commenters stated that (‘‘when establishing standards’’) but to standards for listed categories and EPA should support its decision not to also decide not to set limitations on subcategories, has much bearing on our regulate the chlorine production source other HAP emitted from these same use of section 112(d)(4) in this category by citing the provisions of sources if the other HAP are threshold circumstance. By setting a standard for section 112(c)(9)(B)(ii) in addition to the pollutants and the risk from the the emission of mercury from the provisions of section 112(d)(4). The emissions are so low that no standard mercury cell chlor-alkali plant commenters stated that the evaluation for that second set of HAP is necessary subcategory, we are fulfilling our performed by EPA would also be to protect the public and the obligations under section 112(c)(2). As sufficient for deleting sources under environment with ‘‘an ample margin of stated earlier, we have utilized the same section 112(c)(9)(B)(ii) and that EPA’s safety.’’ approach in our other uses of section proposal to not regulate chlorine This approach is consistent with prior 112(d)(4), e.g., HCl emissions from production is similar to deleting a decisions EPA has made in the context combustion sources at pulp mills and subcategory of the Chlorine Production of two other NESHAP. First, in the lime production sources. source category. Therefore, in addition NESHAP for combustion sources at pulp The statutory language in section to using the authority under section mills (40 CFR part 63, subpart MM), we 112(d)(1) and (3) does not prevent us 112(d)(4), the commenters suggested chose not to set a standard for HCl from deciding that no emission standard that EPA delete the subcategory using emissions from recovery furnaces, while is necessary for a particular threshold the authority under section we did set standards for other HAP pollutant which is being emitted at 112(c)(9)(B)(ii) to avoid any uncertainty emitted from the same sources within levels well below the ample margin of over the use of its authority under the category. We explained this decision safety when we are also establishing section 112(d)(4). in the preamble to the proposed MACT standards for HAP emitted from sources Response: The EPA has the authority standard and received no adverse in that same category or subcategory. under CAA section 112(d)(4) to decide comment on the approach (63 FR 18754, This approach to our use of section not to establish a NESHAP for chlorine 18765–68, April 15, 1998). Second, we 112(d)(4) is consistent with the statutory and HCl emissions from certain chlorine proposed to set no standard under language of section 112(d)(1) and (3). production facilities. We have decided section 112(d)(4) for HCl emitted from We are establishing emission standards to limit our use of section 112(d)(4) to lime kilns, while we also proposed to for the listed category or subcategory, the emissions of chlorine and HCl from set standards for other HAP emitted by but are deciding that no MACT floor sources within the mercury cell chlor- these same sources (67 FR 78046 need be established and no emission alkali subcategory. While we have December 20, 2002). We also received standard set for those HAP that meet the decided to establish no standards for the no adverse comment on that proposed criteria of ‘‘threshold pollutant’’ and emissions of these two HAP from decision. While we originally proposed ‘‘ample margin of safety.’’ sources in the mercury cell chlor-alkali to utilize section 112(d)(4) to set no With regard to the concerns the plant subcategory, we are establishing standard for chlorine and HCl from commenter raised about the failure to standards for the mercury emissions chlorine production sources in a set a standard for new sources, our from the sources within that separate notice of the Federal Register review of the mercury cell subcategory subcategory. As explained elsewhere in (67 FR 44713, July 3, 2002), we made it indicates that no new mercury cell today’s Federal Register, we have clear that the proposed use of section chlor-alkali plants will be constructed. decided to delete the non-mercury cell 112(d)(4) would apply to emissions of Given that our emission standard for chlorine production plants subcategory these two HAP from mercury cell chlor- new sources in the mercury cell chlor- under CAA section 112(c)(9)(B)(ii). The alkali sources (as well as the emissions alkali subcategory prohibits the only HAP emitted by the non-mercury of chlorine and HCl from other chlorine emission of mercury, we do not believe cell chlorine production sources are production sources). any new sources using mercury cells for chlorine and HCl. We do not agree that Congress’ use of chlorine production will ever be Contrary to other commenters claims the phrase ‘‘in lieu of’’ in CAA section constructed (or reconstructed). that our use of section 112(d)(4) is 112(d)(5) so clearly restricts any Therefore, this no-mercury emissions inappropriate, both the statutory possible interpretation of CAA section requirement in the final rule will, in language and the legislative history of 112(d)(4) such that some form of a effect, also ensure that there are no the provision support our decision not MACT standard must always be set even chlorine or HCl emissions from new to set limitations for chlorine and HCl when the criteria of section 112(d)(4) are mercury cell facilities. emissions from sources in the mercury met. Instead, we interpret that Congress In response to other commenters’ cell chlor-alkali plant subcategory. The enacted section 112(d)(4) to provide suggestion that we utilize the authority language of section 112(d)(4) provides EPA with the discretion to take risk into of section 112(c)(9)(B)(ii) to delete the the Agency with ample discretion to account and decide that standards need chlorine production category, we have

VerDate jul<14>2003 15:14 Dec 18, 2003 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19DER2.SGM 19DER2 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 70915

decided to exercise our authority under effects (AEGL2), and life-threatening examined the literature on the that statutory provision for the non- effects or death (AEGL3). Hydrogen atmospheric fate of chlorine to validate mercury cell chlorine production chloride has been assigned AEGL values our original assumption. subcategory. That decision is discussed (65 FR 39264, June 23, 2000), including The additional information obtained in a separate notice in today’s Federal the 1-hour, AEGL1 of 2,700 µg/m3 used from the literature confirmed our earlier Register. However, we are not deleting in our revised analysis. Chlorine has information. There are several different the mercury cell chlor-alkali plant also been assigned AEGL values (62 FR pathways that molecular chlorine can subcategory because the sources within 58840), including the 1-hour AEGL1 of take, including photolysis (reaction with the category also emit mercury, and we 1,500 µg/m3 used in our revised light), reactions with hydroxyl radicals, are establishing emissions standards for analysis. reactions with oxygen atoms, and mercury emissions in today’s final rule. We maintain that the listing of health reactions with water vapor. Each Comment: Some commenters thresholds by EPA and other pathway results in different amounts of concluded that we did not establish organizations in the public domain as Cl2 being removed from the troposphere, either cancer or noncancer thresholds discussed above has ‘‘established’’ and different pathways are predominant for HCl and chlorine and, therefore, it is health thresholds for HCl and chlorine. at different times of the day. However, illegal for EPA to attempt to use section Further, the recognition of these levels photolysis is the primary pathway. 112(d)(4) to set standards. by EPA, ASTDR, and CAL EPA Therefore, this information did not Response: The ‘‘threshold level’’ in indicates that chlorine and HCl are fundamentally change the assumption section 112(d)(4) refers to the level of threshold pollutants. made in the original risk assessment, concentration of a chemical under Moreover, we provided the public an which was that on a long-term basis, which no health effects are expected opportunity to comment on the individuals will be exposed more to HCl from exposure, although this term is not thresholds for chlorine and HCl that we formed from the photolysis of chlorine defined in section 112. Further, section used in our original analysis for the than to chlorine. However, the 112 does not address the process that proposed action (67 FR 44716). We used commenters are correct that there will must be followed to ‘‘establish’’ a the same threshold level for HCl for be situations where individuals will be threshold level. both the proposed and final NESHAP exposed to chlorine. Therefore, in The reference concentration (RfC) is a for the pulp and paper mill category. We addition to the assessment where we ‘‘long-term’’ threshold, defined as an have also used the same threshold for considered only acute exposure to estimate of a daily inhalation exposure HCl in the proposed and final NESHAP chlorine, we concluded that it was that, over a lifetime, would not likely for lime production (67 FR 78046; final appropriate to consider the effects of result in the occurrence of noncancer action is anticipated in August 2003). chronic exposure to chlorine emissions health effects in humans. We have There is no requirement in section from chlor-alkali plants. In order to determined that the RfC for HCl of 20 112(d)(4) that EPA develop or finalize a provide an upper bound estimate of the micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3) is threshold for a particular HAP in a chronic risks to compare with the lower an appropriate threshold value for certain manner. The thresholds we have bound estimates assuming that all assessing risk to humans associated used for both HCl and chlorine are chlorine was converted to HCl, we with exposure to HCl through inhalation consistent with the statutory language in conducted modeling assuming that no http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0396.htm. section 112(d)(4). chlorine is photolyzed. In cases where we have not studied a In general, we consider an exposure chemical itself, we rely on the studies Comments Related to the Risk concentration which is below the RfC of other governmental agencies, such as Assessment concentration (what we call a hazard the Agency for Toxic Substances and Comment: In the analysis for the quotient of less than 1) to be ‘‘safe.’’ Disease Registry (ATSDR) or the Office proposed action (67 FR 44713), we used This is based on the definition of RfC. of Health Hazard Assessment of the HCl RfC to determine the long-term The RfC is a peer reviewed value California’s Environmental Protection health effects of chlorine emissions, defined as an estimate (with uncertainty Agency (CAL EPA), for RfC values. The since chlorine photolyzes very quickly spanning perhaps an order of CAL EPA developed an RfC value of 0.2 to HCl in sunlight. Two comments magnitude) of a daily inhalation µg/m3 for chlorine based on a large supported this methodology and stated exposure to the human population inhalation study with rats. that our decision was based on sound (including sensitive subgroups) that is Acute exposure guideline level scientific knowledge of the pollutants of likely to be without appreciable risk of (AEGL) toxicity values are estimates of concern. deleterious noncancer effects during a adverse health effects due to a single In contrast, two other commenters did lifetime (i.e., 70 years). exposure lasting 8 hours or less. The not agree with our use of the HCl RfC As discussed above, we conducted confidence in the AEGL (a qualitative as a threshold level for chlorine. The additional modeling for major source rating of either low, medium, or high) is commenters stated that not all of the facilities within the subcategory using based on the number of studies annual chlorine emissions can be the same model used for the proposed available and the quality of the data. considered as HCl and, therefore, the action (ISCST3) to estimate chronic Consensus toxicity values for effects of chlorine exposure was underestimated. chlorine exposure using the assumption acute exposures have been developed by The commenters argued that chlorine that no chlorine is photolyzed to HCl. several different organizations, and we emissions will not undergo photolysis The hazard quotients resulting from this are beginning to develop such values. A to convert to HCl when there is not additional modeling defined the upper national advisory committee organized bright sunshine (i.e., at night or on bound of our risk assessment. The by EPA has developed AEGL’s for cloudy days). highest upper-bound hazard quotient priority chemicals for 30-minute, 1- Response: The widely accepted fact estimated by the model is just over 0.3. hour, 4-hour, and 8-hour airborne that chlorine is photolyzed in sunlight (For more details regarding this revised exposures. They have also determined formed the basis for the assumption in risk assessment, refer to table 2 of the the levels of these chemicals at each the original risk assessment that chronic responses to comment document, exposure duration that will protect exposure to chlorine would not occur. available in the docket.) Given the against discomfort (AEGL1), serious As a result of this comment, we re- health protective assumptions used in

VerDate jul<14>2003 15:14 Dec 18, 2003 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19DER2.SGM 19DER2 70916 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

this analysis, the value of 0.3 represents chlorine and HCl are 5,800 µg/m3 and risk assessment conducted for the a hypothetical exposure that is well 33,000 µg/m3, respectively. chlorine production source category above what we would expect actual The 1-hour AEGL1 concentration for could vary greatly in future risk exposures to be. This is because chlorine is 2,900 µg/m3 and the assessments for other source categories. chlorine is converted to HCl in the corresponding value for HCl is 2,700 µg/ The commenters stressed that the presence of sunlight within a few m3. The ACGIH short term exposure conservative assumptions made in the minutes. In addition, the hazard limit (STEL) for chlorine, which is 1 health effects assessment, emissions quotient of 0.3, which results from this ppm is approximately equal to the estimates, and exposure assessment exposure scenario is well below the safe AEGL1 value of 2,900 µg/m3. were appropriate for the proposed value of 1. Thus, we have concluded Although we stand by our original action. that, even assuming that some chronic analysis, which used the AEGL2 level, In contrast, one commenter stated that exposure to chlorine may occur, that we have incorporated the commentor’s the risk assessment fell short of the none of the major sources included in suggested use of the AEGL1 values Agency’s prior practice. According to this subcategory will have emissions of (possibly with a safety factor) for the commenter, whenever EPA has chlorine or HCl that exceed a level of determining whether an ample margin made determinations to regulate a exposure which is adequate to protect of safety has been obtained. Therefore, specific pollutant based on health public health and the environment with we simply compared the short term (1- considerations (e.g., national ambient an ample margin of safety. hour average) modeling results from the air quality standards (NAAQS) for ozone Comment: Two commenters did not original acute risk assessment to the and PM), the Agency evaluated health support EPA’s use of the AEGL2 for use AEGL1 values. These results were effects and exposure in great detail. The as a short-term exposure limit for obtained by modeling the maximum commenter contended that in this case, chlorine and HCl. One commenter allowable hourly emissions reported in EPA appears to be content with ‘‘the stated that the AEGL2 values would not the section 114 responses for each of the bare and unsupported assumptions sufficiently protect public health sources. For plants that did not report about what health levels are safe.’’ The because they would allow emissions at fugitive emissions, fugitive emissions commenter argued that it was not were estimated using worst-case levels that cause ‘‘discomfort,’’ and appropriate for EPA to use a rigorous emission factors. according to the commenter, discomfort approach when setting standards and a The maximum modeled 1-hour more cursory approach when making a is an adverse health effect. The chlorine concentration for two of the commenter also complained that EPA decision not to regulate. three plants with the mercury cell chlor- Response: We disagree with the one did not explain why it chose to use alkali process is less than 5 percent of commenter’s characterization of the AEGL2 rather than AEGL1 or AEGL3. the AEGL1 (and ACGIH) value for assessment that forms the basis for this The commenter explained that although chlorine. Further, the highest modeled decision, and we strongly dispute the emissions from chlorine plants did not concentration for any plant, 155 µg/m3, characterization of the assessment as exceed AEGL2 values, the emissions is less than 6 percent of the AEGL1 ‘‘bare and unsupported.’’ As discussed may exceed AEGL1 values, and if they values. The highest modeled 1-hour HCl elsewhere in this preamble, we maintain did, the proposed action would not concentration for any plant, 32 µg/m3, is that the RfC and AEGL values used as meet the statutory requirements. less than 2 percent of the AEGL1 value benchmarks for this assessment are Another commenter stated that AEGL for HCl. Furthermore, all of the mercury scientifically sound and appropriate. limits are not appropriate for assessing cell chlor-alkali facilities also produce The emissions data and other inputs daily human exposure scenarios chlorine using a non-mercury chlorine used for this analysis, which were because they were developed for production process (i.e., diaphragm provided by the industry and checked emergency planning. The commenter cells). The modeled emissions represent by our staff, are representative of the recommended that EPA use the chlorine and HCl emissions from both industry. American Conference of Governmental processes. Therefore, the chlorine and In this assessment, the predicted Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH), which HCl emissions from the mercury cell health effects estimated, using very has a 1-hour Short Term Exposure Limit chlor-alkali process would be even conservative inputs and assumptions, (STEL) similar to the AEGL1 value of 1 lower. were well below the recognized health part per million (ppm) for chlorine and Based on this comparison, we thresholds. While our approach in this is used to protect against eye and conclude that the chlorine and HCl particular action may not be the same as mucous membrane irritation. The emissions from mercury cell chlor-alkali an approach for a NAAQS, we believe commenter stressed that EPA must use production plants do not represent an that it has been certainly more than conservative benchmarks before unsafe level of acute exposure. We ‘‘cursory.’’ We have looked at emissions concluding that an ample margin of further maintain that, along with the and exposure data for each of the major safety exists. chlorine exposure assessment, this sources in the subcategory. We have Response: The AEGL values represent proves that an ample margin of safety is established hazard indices for chlorine short-term threshold or ceiling exposure provided with no additional control. and HCl for each major source in the values intended for the protection of the Comment: Two commenters subcategory. We performed a qualitative general public, including susceptible or supported EPA’s method of selecting a ecological assessment. Moreover, in sensitive individuals, but not risk assessment approach to meet the response to comment received, we have hypersusceptible or hypersensitive unique needs of the chlorine production revised our analyses and taken into individuals. The AEGL values represent industry. The commenters agreed that account comments that we have biological reference values for this the risk assessment methodology should received when performing these defined human population and consist not be interpreted as a standardized reassessments. We will base each risk of three biological endpoints for each of approach that would set a precedent for assessment for this and future regulatory four different exposure periods of 30 how EPA will apply CAA section action on sound scientific principles. minutes, l hour, 4 hours, and 8 hrs. 112(d)(4) in future cases. Furthermore, Comment: In the proposed action, the As utilized in the proposed action, the the commenters stated that the degree of risk assessment modeling was AEGL2 1-hour concentrations for conservatism built into all aspects of the conducted by placing receptors at the

VerDate jul<14>2003 15:14 Dec 18, 2003 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19DER2.SGM 19DER2 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 70917

geographic center of census blocks reviewed as a whole when evaluating alkali subcategory conducted under the within 2 kilometers of the site and in public health risk, adverse authority of section 112(d)(4). the population-weighted centers of environmental effects, and possible Comment: Two commenters stated census block groups or census tracks out control strategies. The commenter that the environmental effects analysis to 50 kilometers. Two commenters did stressed that other sources of chlorine was not adequate. One commenter not agree with this methodology for and HCl should be included in the risk stated that potential ecological effects of determining receptor location for assessment under section 112(d)(4). The HCl emissions have not been properly threshold pollutants. One commenter commenter was concerned that not referenced. One commenter stated that stated that EPA’s methodology would be accounting for all chlorine and HCl EPA’s proposed action falls short of its more appropriate for cancer causing emissions from a facility would provide obligation to protect against agent, where the risk is based on the community with a false sense of environmental effects. According to the probabilities of health effects. The assurance of protection and is not commenter, EPA has understated its commenter argued that for noncancer consistent with the legislative intent of statutory obligation in the proposed (i.e., threshold pollutants) compounds, the CAA to consider cumulative HAP action. The commenter referred to the placing the receptors at the center of exposure issues through an integrated legislative history, which indicates that census tracks would not properly approach under section 112(d), 112(f), CAA section 112(d)(4) requires identify the highest impacts close to the and 112(k). Therefore, the commenter standards that ‘‘would not result in facility. They felt that it was more requested that EPA evaluate the adverse environmental effects which appropriate to measure the exposure of potential for adverse health and would otherwise be reduced or the most exposed individual (e.g., environmental impacts using eliminated.’’ The commenter listed the someone living at the fence line of a conservative risk assessment several shortcomings in the EPA’s facility or directly downwind). methodology that incorporates all environmental assessment. Response: We certainly agree with the known chlorine and HCl emissions from The commenter concluded that commenters that the greatest impacts a contiguous facility. although EPA acknowledged that it had will likely occur near the facility for this Response: Section 112 of the CAA an obligation to ensure that any source subcategory. However, we do not requires us to list categories and standards set under section 112(d)(4) agree with the commenters that our subcategories of major sources and area did not have any adverse environmental approach fails to meet statutory sources of HAP and to establish effects, the Agency did not properly requirements. We do not feel that NESHAP for the listed source categories consider the issue. Therefore, the considering an ‘‘ample margin of safety’’ and subcategories. In directing us how commenter stated that EPA could not means that we must demonstrate no risk to establish MACT emission limits, promulgate standards under section or adverse health effects for a theoretical section 112(d)(3) of the CAA requires us 112(d)(4) without contravening the person living at the fence line. Rather, to set the emission limitation at a level CAA. it is appropriate to assess the risks at that assures that all major sources Response: While CAA section locations where people most likely achieve the level of control at least as 112(d)(4) makes no mention of reside. A census block is the smallest stringent as that already achieved by the environmental effects, we took the geographic unit for which the Census better-controlled and lower-emitting potential of such adverse effects into Bureau tabulates 100 percent data. sources in each source category or account when we issued our proposed While census blocks in rural areas may subcategory. Therefore, the entire action. The level of our analysis at be larger, many blocks correspond to MACT program is structured on a proposal was adequate to satisfy the individual city blocks in more source category-specific basis. All requirements of section 112(d)(4). The populated areas. The commenter is MACT standards developed to date have commenters did not suggest that they correct in that an individual could live addressed emissions from specific believed there was the potential for closer to the plant than the center of the source categories. adverse environmental effects from HCl census block and our approach would There are instances where mercury or chlorine emissions from mercury cell have slightly underestimated risk. It is cell chlor-alkali facilities are collocated chlor-alkali plants. Were there any just as likely, however, that the closest with other source categories. However, evidence that such adverse effects were individual could live farther from the based on the risk assessment for likely, or even possible, we would have plant than the center of the census block chlorine and HCl emissions from conducted a more intensive ecological causing our risk estimates to be slightly mercury cell chlor-alkali plants, the risk assessment. overestimated. By placing receptors at predicted impacts from chlorine and The commenters are correct, however, the center of populated census blocks HCl at these plants are extremely low. that we did not discuss the ecological on all sides of a facility, we have We believe that the human health and effects of chlorine. This was because, as evaluated people living ‘‘downwind.’’ In environmental impacts from all sources was stated in the proposal preamble, we conclusion, we continue to feel that in the subcategory even when collocated did not perform a separate evaluation of placing a receptor in the geographic with other chlorine and HCl emissions chronic chlorine exposure because center of populated census blocks near will still be within an ample margin of chlorine is converted to HCl in the a facility is a well established approach safety to protect the public health, and atmosphere so rapidly. to exposure modeling which results in will not cause adverse environmental Atmospheric exposure is the primary a reasonable approximation of effects. Moreover, as indicated in the pathway for environmental effects from estimating the risks where people preamble to the proposed action, most chlorine emissions. However, since actually live, and we maintain that this major processes at the sites where most chlorine is converted to HCl, methodology is appropriate for actions mercury cell chlor-alkali facilities are studies have focused on the effects of taken under the authority of section located are subject to, or will be subject HCl on vegetation. Although plant 112(d)(4). to, NESHAP to reduce HAP emissions exposures to elevated levels of chlorine Comment: One commenter stated that (67 FR 44714, July 3, 2002). Therefore, can cause plant injury, it tends to be all chlorine emissions from chlorine it would be inappropriate to include converted to other, less toxic forms production facilities that are collocated emissions from those sources in an rather rapidly in plants and may not with other source categories need to be assessment for the mercury cell chlor- result in the direct accumulation of

VerDate jul<14>2003 15:14 Dec 18, 2003 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19DER2.SGM 19DER2 70918 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

toxic pollutant residuals important in elimination of spawning, abnormal the comment period, recommended that the food chain. larvae, reduced oxygen consumption, EPA re-define MACT to ban the use of Plant studies have found foliar and gill damage have been noted. Many mercury cell technology. The damage due to chlorine emissions, LC50 values were reported, ranging from commenter explained that this would be decreased levels of chlorphyll a and b, 0.08 mg/L after 24 hours of exposure to easily achievable because the majority decreased leaf areas, obvious chlorosis, TRC to 2.4 mg/L after 0.5 hours of of the chlorine production industry and a decline in fruit production due to exposure to TRC. already uses other, superior chlorine emissions. Acute and chronic exposures to technologies such as membrane cells There is evidence of effects to animals predicted chlorine and HCl and diaphragm cells. The commenter due to accidental and/or catastophic concentrations around the sources are claimed that EPA abused its authority to exposures, but the chlorine not expected to result in adverse establish subcategories of emission concentrations of these exposures are toxicity effects. These pollutants are not sources by creating a subcategory of unknown. However, there are no data persistent in the environment. The ‘‘mercury cell chlor-alkali plants’’ on exposure to historic or atmospheric chlorine and HCl emitted should not within the chlorine production source concentrations. significantly contribute to aquatic category which limits the pool of More information is available on the chlorine concentrations and are not facilities upon which the MACT floor is effects of chlorine from aquatic likely to accumulate in the soil. based to those who create dangerous exposures. However, there is no Chlorine rapidly converts to HCl in the pollution, as opposed to those industry evidence that suggests that emissions of atmosphere, and chlorine and HCl are leaders that use non-polluting and chlorine from industrial sources in the not believed to result in readily available equipment. air contribute significantly to aquatic biomagnification or bioaccumulation in The commenter further listed a lack of concentrations of chlorine. the environment. Therefore, we do not confidence that the mercury cell process One study reported a significant feel there will be adverse ecological could be adequately controlled. The decrease in phytoplankton activity effects due to chlorine and HCl following exposure to 0.1 ppm chlorine commenter explained that the work emissions from mercury cell chlor-alkali practice requirements which are in cooling tower water. Additional plants. laboratory studies showed that proposed to address fugitive emissions, continuous exposure to 0.002 C. What Issues Were Raised Regarding the largest source of emissions from this milligrams per liter (mg/L) total residual the Compliance Date? process, are too weak. chlorine (TRC) resulted in depressed Comment: Commenters requested an Finally, the commenter stated that algal biomass in naturally-derived extension of the compliance date, which converting all mercury cell plants to microcosms. was proposed to be 2 years from the membrane cells would still be cost- When exposed continuously for 96 effective date of the final rule. The effective, and that their estimate of the hours to 0.05 mg/L TRC, the Eurasian commenters recommended that the cost to convert all mercury cell plants to water milfoil showed a significant compliance date should be changed to other technologies ($920 million) was reduction in shoot and dry weights, 3 years after promulgation. The justifiable given the significant threat to shoot length, and chlorophyll content. commenters stated that affected public health and the environment Aquatic invertebrates are very facilities are being required to install posed by mercury. sensitive to chlorine and reaction costly, complex control and monitoring Response: We disagree with the products of chlorine, with early life equipment, as well as establish commenter that we abused our authority stages showing the most sensitivity. For additional operating and maintenance to create subcategories by example, free chlorine, procedures at their facilities in order to subcategorizing the chlorine production monochloramine, and dichloroamine ensure compliance with the emission industry and only including mercury have been shown to reduce the rate of limitations and work practice cell plants in the MACT floor analysis. oyster larvae survival. Many studies requirements of the proposed rule. The It is our general policy to subcategorize have been performed, and the results are commenters believed that 2 years was when there are technical distinctions highly variable depending on the not a sufficient period of time to among classes, types, or sizes of sources, chlorine species, the lifestage of the complete such tasks, specifically the and manufacturing processes of sources, invertebrate, and other factors such as continuous monitoring requirements. that would impact setting an salinity. The most sensitive aquatic Response: We agree that since the appropriate emission limit even when species appears to be molluscan larvae, existing sources are required to install creating the subcategories leads to some with lethal concentration 50% (LC50) of complex monitoring equipment and to with a small number of sources. This 0.005 mg/L. Sublethal effects have also establish additional operating and policy is supported by the broad been studied, including reduced growth, maintenance procedures, it is discretion provided to the Agency to reduced motility, and reproductive reasonable to allow more time than the establish subcategories under CAA failure. proposed 2-year compliance period. section 112(c), the legislative history, The effects on fish also vary Section 63.6(c)(1) of the NESHAP and EPA’s prior rulemakings. depending on the life stage and fish General Provisions states that ‘‘*** in In general, EPA has previously taken species and environmental factors, such no case will the compliance date * * * the position that subcategorization is as the pH, temperature, and type of exceed 3 years after the effective date of appropriate where types of emissions chlorine species. Larval stages are more ***.’’ Therefore, the final rule and/or types of operation make use of susceptible to effects, and freshwater specifies that the compliance date for the same air pollution control species are more sensitive than marine existing sources is 3 years after the technology infeasible. The EPA’s species. Free chlorine is generally more effective date of the final rule. rulemakings reflect this general toxic than residual chlorine; where the understanding and provide criteria for form of chlorine is dependent on the pH D. What Issues Were Raised Regarding subcategorization that focus on the of the water. Sublethal effects such as the Emission Limitations? appropriateness of applying similar avoidance, reduction of diversity in Comment: One commenter, which technology-based requirements at chlorinated effluents, reduction or submitted comments after the close of different sources.

VerDate jul<14>2003 15:14 Dec 18, 2003 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19DER2.SGM 19DER2 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 70919

The EPA feels that the streams are based on limited data were not biased and quantitatively non- subcategorization scheme it has used for provided by a single facility in Maine representative. Therefore, we have this category of sources (as described that has been closed for nearly 2 years. concluded that we cannot fully above and in the proposed rule) is The commenters maintained that for all demonstrate that the proposed beyond- consistent with the statute, the of the eleven plants combined (ten the-floor standard is achievable using legislative history, and EPA’s past affected plants plus the closed Maine commercially available technology. implementation of section 112(c) and plant), there was very little high quality In the proposal preamble, however, the MACT program. The HAP emitted point source emission data. Due to the we also stated that we were retaining by the two subcategories (mercury cell significant chance that the data used to the option of setting the standard at the chlor-alkali plants and non-mercury cell develop the standard are biased and next lowest normalized emission value chlorine production) plants are quantitatively non-representative, the of 0.076g Hg/Mg Cl2 for plants with end different—while plants in both commenters stated that the Agency was box ventilation systems. The plant with categories emit chlorine and HCl, only not justified in moving beyond the floor this emissions level controls its by- plants in the mercury cell subcategory to the most stringent value ever product hydrogen system with a series emit mercury. The processes used to obtained by the industry. of iodine and potassium iodide produce chlorine that the plants in the The commenters further argued that impregnated carbon adsorbers, and their two subcategories used are generally EPA’s conclusion that the ‘‘beyond-the- end box ventilation system vent with a different (because of the use of the floor’’ emission limitations can be met condenser and demister, which are mercury cells). Thus, no change was with existing, commercially available commercially available technologies. made in response to this comment and control equipment is not supported and Further, in the documentation for the the final rule does not ban mercury cells thereby seriously flawed. The proposed standard, we determined on a (except the final rule does prohibit the commenters pointed out that EPA plant-specific basis which commercially emission of mercury from new or presented no data in the preamble or available technologies could be made to reconstructed chlor-alkali production elsewhere in support of their decision comply with the proposed standard. facility sources). that the proposed standards could be The commenters provided no comment With regard to the cost effectiveness met with commercially available control on why the application of the very of a ban of mercury cell chlor-alkali systems. specific application of these facilities, the commenter did not Response: First, we disagree with the technologies could not achieve the provide any basis for their estimate so commenters’ assertions that we did not emission limitations. we could not verify these costs. Further, have justification for going beyond the The emissions estimates for the we do not feel that ‘‘conversion’’ floor, and that we did not have an facility with normalized emissions of accurately describes the replacement of accurate basis for costs associated with 0.076 g Hg/Mg Cl2 are based on weekly a mercury cell plant to another meeting the MACT floor or meeting testing using methods that are technology. There is little salvageable beyond-the-floor emission limitations. modifications of EPA Methods 101A from a mercury cell plant that can be We conducted a very detailed plant- and 102. The primary difference used in the construction of a membrane specific cost impacts analysis which is between the methods used by the cell plant, so the demolition of the available in the docket. The commenters facility and the EPA Reference Methods mercury cell plant followed by the did not provide any specific comments is that the sampling is not isokinetic. construction of a membrane cell plant is on this detailed analysis or any specific We discussed our opinion that data a more accurate characterization. data or rationale to refute our cost obtained using this type of modified Therefore, we did not promulgate a analysis. Therefore, we stand by our method were acceptable to use in MACT final rule that requires non-mercury original analysis and have not made any standards in the proposal BID. technology for chlorine production. changes to the cost impacts approach. Therefore, it can be considered that the Comment: Two commenters did not Based on our analysis, we concluded emission estimates used to establish the agree with the proposed ‘‘beyond-the- that the costs/benefits of going beyond level of 0.076 grams Hg/Mg Cl2 are floor’’ emission limitations. They stated the floor are warranted. Given the based on weekly performance tests. We that there is no justification for EPA to persistent nature of mercury in the do not consider such data to be of low set emission limits beyond the floor, as environment and its associated health quality. Therefore for the final rule, we proposed. The commenters stressed that and welfare impacts, we continue to feel have selected the 0.076 grams Hg/Mg EPA is required to assess the cost- that the additional emission reductions Cl2 beyond-the-floor option as MACT benefit relationship when considering that will be achieved by the beyond-the- for plants with end box ventilation ‘‘beyond the MACT floor’’ limitations. floor option are warranted considering systems. According to the commenters, the the associated costs. For the by-product hydrogen stream Agency did not set forth an accurate However, in the proposal preamble for plants without end box ventilation basis for costs associated with meeting (67 FR 44682), we acknowledged that systems and mercury thermal recovery the MACT floor or cost/benefits there was uncertainty associated with unit vents, there were no questions associated with meeting the ‘‘beyond the level of control associated with the raised regarding the availability of the the MACT floor’’ emission limitations. beyond-the-floor option proposed control techniques used at the lowest These commenters were also because the molecular sieve adsorption emitting plants that formed the basis for concerned that the very low emission control technology is no longer the proposed emission limitations. limits required by EPA’s beyond-the- commercially available, and because the Further, at proposal, we examined the floor determination cannot be obtained plant representing this level of control data used to establish the emission by the industry as a whole. Specifically, is no longer operating. We did not limitations and determined that they the commenters stated that the Agency receive any comments indicating that were of adequate quality to be used to lacks high quality point source emission the molecular sieve control technology establish standards. Therefore, the final data upon which to base their ‘‘beyond- is commercially available. Further, since rule retains the proposed emission the-floor’’ limits. The commenters the plant has closed, we were unable to limitations for these emission sources. pointed out that the mercury emission obtain additional information to further Comment: Commenters were limitations for hydrogen vent gas scrutinize the data to ensure that they concerned that the proposed mercury

VerDate jul<14>2003 15:14 Dec 18, 2003 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19DER2.SGM 19DER2 70920 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

emission limitation for by-product assume that significant mercury losses characterized the 2001 consumption as hydrogen had a daily averaging period are occurring through fugitive an outlier, but the 79 tpy consumed in for continuous compliance. According emissions. Accordingly, the commenter 2000 still represents a significant to the commenters, the Agency felt it is crucial that the EPA step up decrease from the baseline level. developed the proposed standard using efforts to address all potential release Even with this decrease in annual average emissions and actual routes from such facilities, including consumption, significant mercury annual production and then fugitive emissions. remains unaccounted for by the interpolated to a daily limit without Another commenter, which submitted industry. The mercury releases reported regard to statistical error. Therefore, the comments after the close of the to the air, water, and solid wastes in the commenters requested either an annual comment period, expressed the view 2000 Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) average emission rate limit or that the that the mercury consumed cannot be totaled around 14 tons. This leaves daily limit be set at not less than two accounted for in material balances. This around 65 tons of consumed mercury times the annual limit divided by 365 commenter asserted that the proposed that is not accounted for in the year (days). rule failed to address the majority of the 2000. Response: The commenters are correct true annual mercury emissions from the While it may appear to the in that the normalized mercury mercury cell chlor-alkali industry. The commenters that the discrepancy in the emissions used to establish the commenter explained that the mercury mercury material balance is the result of standards were based on annual average used in this industry is not incorporated fugitive emissions, there is little emissions and annual actual chlorine into final products or consumed in the empirical evidence to support this production. Therefore, the commenters’ process, so all mercury purchased is conclusion. The commenters did not concerns about the variability of the used to replenish mercury that has been provide any emissions data to support control systems over a year and the lost from the manufacturing process. their assertion. Furthermore, industry ability to comply on a daily basis with The commenter compared the amount personnel claim that mercury which this limit have merit. We considered the of mercury purchased by the industry in condenses and accumulates in pipes, two options offered by the commenters 1994 (136 tons) to EPA’s estimate of tanks, and other plant equipment makes (a 365-day compliance period and annual emissions (22,200 pounds or up a large component of the adjustments to account for daily 11.1 tons) and concluded that the unaccounted for mercury. While the variations). proposed rule fails to account for nearly commenters completely discount this We do not feel that it would be 90 percent of the true mercury claim by the industry, it is relevant to appropriate to apply a generic emissions from this industry. The consider the very high density of multiplier to the limit for mercury cell commenter drew this conclusion based mercury. For instance, the 65 tons of chlor-alkali plants to account for short- on the assumption that most of the unaccounted for mercury in 2000 term variation. In addition, mercury cell mercury would be released to the air averages just over 7 tons per plant. One emissions data were not available to rather than transferred off-site as solid gallon of mercury weighs around 113 assess the variability in emissions from waste or accumulated in on-site tanks pounds, meaning that around 124 these emission points. Therefore, we and ponds. The commenter noted that gallons of mercury would be concluded that the emission limitation EPA’s estimate of annual emissions was unaccounted for per plant. This is a very should reflect an annual average. This based on outdated and inadequate small percentage (less than 2 percent) of would be consistent with the data used estimates of fugitive emissions which the amount of mercury typically on site to create the emission limitation and were based on short-term measurements at most facilities. However, the industry would allow for short-term variations in taken when fugitive emissions were is also unable to fully substantiate their operations and control device non-representatively low. theory. Therefore, the fate of all the performance. One of these commenters, who mercury consumed at mercury cell The final rule is allowing weekly submitted comments after the comment chlor-alkali plants remains somewhat of monitoring/testing as an alternative period, recommended that EPA require an enigma. method to determine continuous both monitoring of fugitive emissions We agree that work practice standards compliance with the emission from cell rooms and waste storage areas should only be set when it is not limitations. In order to be consistent and establish a reduction goal for such feasible to prescribe or enforce an with the continuous compliance emissions. According to the commenter, emission standard. Indeed, our reasons approach, we concluded that the by- technologies are available to quantify for establishing work practices instead product hydrogen/end box ventilation airborne mercury concentrations of numerical limits are based on factors emission limitation in the final rule continuously, and in combination with associated with the practicality and should be annualized on a 52-week estimates of air flow rates, estimates of feasibility of setting a realistic limit rolling basis. Specifically, the final rule fugitive loss rates under selected against which compliance can be requires that mercury emissions from all conditions could be made and could measured and enforced. by-product hydrogen streams and end serve as the basis for reduction targets. First, data are not available to box ventilation system vents not exceed Response: The issue of unaccounted establish a numerical emission standard 0.076 grams Hg/Mg Cl2 for any for mercury has been the subject of for fugitive emissions. As stated in the consecutive 52-week period. intense scrutiny from other groups proposal preamble (67 FR 44680), within EPA and the indusry. As part of emissions data for fugitives from cell E. What Issues Were Raised Regarding the Great Lakes Binational Toxics rooms and waste storage areas are very the Work Practices? Strategy, mercury cell chlorine limited. Second, we do not agree with Comment: One commenter producers annually report the total the commenter’s implication that recommended that EPA establish mercury consumption for the industry. available measurement technologies numerical standards for fugitive From the baseline consumption of 160 could support enforcing a numerical emissions. The commenter maintained tons per year (tpy) for the years 1990– emission standard for the following that, absent published information on 1995, the industry reported an 81 reasons: good mass balance analyses performed percent reduction of mercury consumed • Mercury emission monitors have not at chlor-alkali facilities, one can only in 2001 (30 tpy). One of the commenters been used to monitor fugitive

VerDate jul<14>2003 15:14 Dec 18, 2003 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19DER2.SGM 19DER2 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 70921

emissions at mercury chlor-alkali product hydrogen streams, end box intervals for when the corrective actions facilities for compliance ventilation systems, and mercury must occur are also specified. demonstrations; thermal recovery unit vents, but not for Furthermore, some types of inspections • The variability in the number of and cell room fugitive emissions. The are required at more frequent intervals location of exhaust vents at each commenter claimed that emissions from than required by the Mercury NESHAP facility affects the amount of air the cell room will be able to exceed (e.g., inspecting decomposers for moved through the cell rooms and 2,300 grams/day so long as the work hydrogen leaks twice per day rather thus affects the mass emission rate of practices are followed, when the rule as than once each day). In addition, the the fugitives; and proposed prohibits such a result. detailed recordkeeping procedures and • The variability of the cell room roof The commenter concluded that it is reporting provisions are more fully configuration affects the feasibility of not sufficient to say that the work developed than those in the Mercury using the continuous emissions practices that have been proposed are NESHAP, as well as requirements for monitors at each facility. more stringent than the existing storage of mercury-containing wastes. Therefore, the establishment of requirements, because neither the Finally, the work practice standards numerical emission limitations for existing nor proposed work practices by contain a requirement for owners and fugitive emissions from the cell room themselves require any given numeric operators to develop and implement a and other areas is ‘‘not feasible,’’ as level to be achieved. They argued that plan for the routine washdown of defined in CAA section 112(h)(2)(B). the existing numeric limit provides EPA accessible surfaces in the cell room and and the public with an enforceable limit other areas. The standards establish the Thus, the final rule retains the work of performance to which owners and duty for owners or operators to prepare practice elements of the proposed rule. operators can be held. The commenter and implement a written plan for However, in response to the concerns went on to indicate that such a washdowns and specify elements to be about unaccounted for mercury, we did numerical standard is particularly addressed in the plan. A requirement for add a provision in the final rule that necessary, as plants are currently washdowns is an important part of an requires each facility to record and emitting far more than 2,300 grams per overall approach to reducing cell room report the mercury consumed each year. day of mercury. To support this fugitive emissions. While there are no mercury assertion, the commenter provided Along with a floor-level periodic consumption reduction targets in the information indicating that mercury cell mercury monitoring program (discussed final rule, we believe that reporting plants add much more mercury to their later), not only will the work practice mercury consumption on a plant- cells than 2,300 grams per day, and they standards in the final rule result in specific basis will encourage additional concluded that cell room emissions is a reduced mercury fugitive emissions action to identify unaccounted for very likely way that mercury is lost. In (and, therefore, mercury consumption), mercury and reduce mercury conclusion, the commenter stated that it but provide much more enforceable consumption. would be inappropriate for EPA to rely provisions so that an inspector can Comment: A commenter that entirely on a work practice standard and verify that they are being met. submitted comments well after the close eliminate stricter provisions that would In addition, we have calculated of the comment period expressed the enable the Agency to insist that facilities emission reductions for the final rule. opinion that there was a fundamental keep their emissions below a set level. Assuming that every facility is flaw in the proposed rule because the Response: The 40 CFR part 61, complying with the 1,000 grams per day proposal will weaken existing sources’ Mercury NESHAP, § 61.53(c)(1), limit from point sources (this value obligations to limit mercury emissions contains requirements for stack assumes that 1,300 grams per day of the from the cell room. They cited 42 U.S.C. sampling to determine emission levels 2,300 grams per day facility limit are § 7412(d)(7), which prohibits emission for cell room ventilation systems at being used for fugitive emissions), we standards from weakening existing mercury chlor-alkali plants. If an owner estimate that baseline emissions from all standards. This commenter summarized or operator meets the prescribed work nine existing facilities (relative to the the 40 CFR part 61 mercury NESHAP, practice standards, they can assume a Mercury NESHAP) are 3,285 kg/yr. We which requires mercury cell chlor-alkali mercury emission rate from the cell estimate that annual emissions after the plants to not emit more than 2,300 room of 1,300 grams per day. application of MACT to be 217 kg/yr. grams per day of mercury from the While the final rule does not retain Therefore, the final rule will result in entire facility, including the cell room, the numerical emission limitation from emission reductions of 3,068 kg/yr, or the by-product hydrogen streams, the the 40 CFR part 61 Mercury NESHAP, approximately 93 percent from the end box ventilation system vents, and the requirements in the final rule for existing Mercury NESHAP. This other sources of mercury. The fugitive mercury emissions from the cell supports our position that we are not commenter stated that even if emissions room are far more stringent than the setting a standard that allows from all other points were zero, design, maintenance, and housekeeping backsliding. Therefore, once the final emission from the cell room cannot practices allowed by the Mercury rule compliance date ensues, sources exceed 2,300 grams per day. The NESHAP in lieu of meeting the subject to the provisions of the final rule commenter acknowledged that an owner numerical limit. In addition, the will no longer be subject to the Mercury or operator may forego cell room Mercury NESHAP contained only 18 NESHAP. emission testing and assume that cell work practice requirements as compared Comment: Commenters disagreed room emissions are 1,300 grams/day, to the more than 80 design, operation, with EPA’s proposal to institute a but pointed out that complying with maintenance, inspection, and required continuous mercury monitoring these work practices does not absolve actions for repair contained in tables 1 program whereby owners and operators the owner or operator of the obligation through 4 to the final rule. The work would be required to continuously to meet the applicable numeric emission practice standards specify the monitor mercury concentration in the standard. equipment and areas to be inspected upper portion of each cell room and The commenter contrasted this with along with the frequency of the take corrective actions when elevated the proposed rule, which established inspections and conditions that trigger mercury vapor levels are detected. The numerical emission standards for by- corrective action. Response time commenters stated that the proposed

VerDate jul<14>2003 15:14 Dec 18, 2003 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19DER2.SGM 19DER2 70922 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

monitoring program was seriously monitor each individual cell room. In the commenters stated that the amount flawed and should be deleted from the addition, depending on the design of the of mercury emissions measured during final rule. The commenters noted that roof, it may be possible that installation the initial compliance performance test periodic monitoring done in various of monitors that adequately monitor should be used only to verify areas of the cell room (as currently mercury concentration would not even compliance with the MACT standards, practiced to ensure compliance with be possible. and not to establish new emission Occupational Health & Safety Even with these limitations, a well limits. The commenters were concerned Administration (OSHA) permissible designed and implemented cell room that the emission limits would become exposure limits) was an appropriate monitoring program can effectively floating limits based on the most recent substitute. Several commenters stated reduce mercury fugitive emissions on a performance test, as opposed to being that they would not be opposed to the long-term basis. Therefore, we included MACT standards. continuous mercury monitoring this concept in the final rule. The commenters indicated that program if the technology were field However, we do agree with the variations around the concentrations, demonstrated. commenters that a comprehensive above and below, measured during the In contrast, one commenter, which continuous cell room monitoring performance test can be expected. submitted comments after the close of program should be sufficient to reduce Treatment systems employed to obtain the comment period, ‘‘enthusiastically’’ fugitive mercury emissions from the cell compliance (e.g., carbon) would be supported the proposed cell room room without imposing the overlapping expected to show some slight monitoring program. Nonetheless, the requirements of the detailed work deterioration after a period of operation. commenter felt that it was unwise for practices. Therefore, we have concluded Therefore, a performance test conducted the EPA to allow each owner/operator to that it is appropriate to allow facilities just after a carbon change would result set his/her own cell room action level. to implement the continuous cell room in an unrealistically low operating limit. Some commenters stated that cell monitoring program as an alternative to, Finally, the commenters were room monitoring is redundant to the and not in addition to, the work practice concerned that different facilities would housekeeping requirements, and that requirements. In the final rule, facilities have different operating limits, the work practices required in Tables are given the option to implement the depending on variables like the type of 1–5 to the proposed rule allow for cell room continuous monitoring control equipment installed, the sufficient opportunity to quickly detect program in lieu of the work practice operating conditions on the day of the abnormal sources of mercury emissions. requirements. We do, however, feel emission test (i.e., mercury volatility Another commenter stated that the final there is a need to outline more changes significantly with temperature), rule should either require continuous specifically the elements that must be and other factors. One commenter was monitoring or detailed work practice included in the cell room monitoring concerned that, given the wide standards but not both. The commenter program to ensure that it provides at variability in emission constituents, argued that cell room designs vary least the same level of control as the operators would not be able to assure greatly. Given this variability, the work practices and cell room that their facilities will consistently commenter urged EPA to enable monitoring program would have emit within the limits established facilities to select the appropriate provided together. Therefore, there are during an ideally controlled initial compliance strategy for individual more prescriptive requirements in the performance test. circumstances. final rule for the cell room monitoring Two of the commenters Response: With regard to technical plan option. The final rule dictates how acknowledged that other MACT feasibility, a cell room mercury the action level is to be established, standards require the gathering of data monitoring system was tested in 2000 at what measures must be followed when for surrogate parameters (e.g., scrubber a mercury cell facility in Augusta, the action level is exceeded, and what liquor pH, scrubber liquor flow) when Georgia, that demonstrated that the records must be kept. direct measurement of a control monitoring technology can be Although the continuous cell room parameter is not required or feasible. effectively installed and operated in monitoring provisions are optional, These surrogate parameters are used to mercury cell chlor-alkali plant cell some mercury monitoring to detect establish performance requirements for rooms, and this technology, along with elevated mercury levels in the cell room the control device. The commenters other measures, can be an effective is appropriate. Therefore, we have went on to say that in cases where mechanism to identify leaking included a periodic monitoring program performance requirements based on equipment and other problems that to be performed throughout the cell surrogate parameters were established result in fugitive mercury emissions room as a substitute for continuous during the performance test, the from the cell room. monitoring. The final rule contains a emission limitation was not modified to We acknowledge that this success, floor-level periodic monitoring program reflect the actual emissions experience which occurred in a limited and very as part of the work practice standards. during the test. However, the controlled situation for a short time commenters stated that they felt that F. What Issues Were Raised Regarding period, does not necessarily prove that this is exactly what is required under the Monitoring and Continuous similar monitoring at every mercury cell the proposed rule. room would prove to be an effective Compliance Requirements? One of the commenters argued that long-term method to reduce mercury Comment: Three commenters EPA’s required installation of fugitive emissions. In fact, the design questioned EPA’s intent in establishing instruments directly in the vent stream and operation of the Augusta facility emission limitations based on the initial to continuously monitor actual probably represented the optimum performance test. These commenters felt concentration of mercury and, therefore, circumstances for a mercury cell room that the proposed standards amounted actual mercury emissions, means that monitoring program to be successful. to changing the emission limit based on there is no need to rely on operating We are aware that cell room designs the emissions observed during the parameters which have been calculated vary greatly and recognize that the performance test which amounted to for only one set of conditions. design affects the location and number ignoring the emission limit established One commenter was concerned about of monitors necessary to accurately through the rulemaking process. Two of the cost-benefits of continuous

VerDate jul<14>2003 15:14 Dec 18, 2003 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19DER2.SGM 19DER2 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 70923

monitoring systems (CMS) in the by- these concerns. In fact, they shared our device to comply with the emission product hydrogen, end box ventilation basic concerns even if the monitoring limits in the final rule. Since improper system, and mercury thermal recovery devices were only used for operating operation of these devices could result unit vent streams. According to the limits. in higher emissions for short periods, commenter, the types of control devices We weighed the comments related to we had concerns about utilizing weekly likely to be used for controlling mercury the mercury concentration operating testing for these devices. However, we emissions from these streams (i.e., limits against the concerns associated concluded that if parametric monitoring carbon or molecular sieve units) have with using mercury concentration of surrogate parameters (e.g., condenser very good performance characteristics monitors as CEM. Our preference temperature) were conducted to ensure and are not likely to incur short-term continues to be to require mercury CEM. consistent and proper operation of these upsets. The commenter noted that With sufficient evaluation, analysis, and devices, weekly testing would be performance is subject to normal refinement, the industry will find these acceptable. variations, and the ability of these devices acceptable. However, we could Therefore, the final rule includes two systems to absorb mercury does degrade not require these devices in the final options for continuous compliance for over time. The commenter stated that rule without a fallback alternative if the by-product hydrogen stream, the before emissions reach the permit limits sources found that these monitoring end box ventilation system vent, and the due to reduced performance, the beds devices were not acceptable for use mercury thermal recovery unit vent. The must be replaced. The commenter within the industry. first option is continuous emissions requested that in lieu of CMS, facilities During the development of the monitoring using a mercury continuous should be allowed to rely on the known proposed standards, we learned that emissions monitoring system. The capability of the systems to operate many mercury cell chlor-alkali facilities second is periodic testing using Method reliably. The commenter stated that the conducted periodic (e.g., weekly, 101, 101A, or 102 or an approved Agency could delete the requirement for monthly) tests to determine the mercury alternative method. Specifically, this CMS without any real harm to the content in vent streams. This is done to second option requires that at least three environment. assess control device performance or, acceptable test runs be conducted each Response: In general, we disagree for the by-product hydrogen stream, to week. As part of the periodic testing with the premise of the commenters’ ensure product quality. These tests are option, if the final control device is not argument. The proposed rule would not typically conducted using EPA- a nonregenerative carbon adsorber, have required that continuous approved test methods, but are usually surrogate parameter monitoring is compliance for each vent be determined conducted using modified methods. required. by monitoring mercury concentration as Since this periodic testing is already an operating limit. The measured being conducted at many mercury cell V. What Are the Environmental, Cost, concentrations would not have been plants, we evaluated whether a and Economic Impacts of the Final used to compare directly with the continuous compliance option could be Rule? emission limitations. Rather, they included in the final rule based on such A. What Are the Air Emission Impacts? would have provided an indication that periodic testing. Since such testing the control device was performing in a directly measures mercury emissions, The level of mercury emissions manner consistent with the operation we concluded that it would be an allowed by the Mercury NESHAP is during the initial performance test. acceptable alternative to mercury CEM. 2,300 grams per day. If one assumes that Therefore, the proposed requirements to The only question was how often such all nine plants in the source category establish operating limits would have testing would be needed to ensure emit mercury at this level, and that each established emission limitations, or continuous compliance with the operates 365 days a year, total annual resulted in changing emission limits, emission limitations. Daily testing potential-to-emit baseline emissions based on the initial performance test. would certainly be adequate, but we would be 7,556 kg/yr (16,658 lb/yr). However, we do acknowledge that were concerned about the costs and Annual potential-to-emit baseline there is a difference in a mercury burden associated with 365 tests each emissions for fugitive emission sources concentration operating limit and an year for each process vent. would be 4,271 kg/yr (9,416 lb/yr), operating limit based on surrogate The most common final control based on 1,300 grams per day assumed parameters because the mercury device is (or will be) nonregenerative for each plant’s cell room ventilation concentration is obviously a direct carbon adsorption. These fixed bed system when the 18 design, measure of mercury emissions. In fact, carbon devices can operate for long maintenance, and housekeeping we agree with the point made by the one periods of time before a carbon change practices referenced in the Mercury commenter that there is no need to rely is needed. The carbon replacement NESHAP are followed. Annual on operating parameters when a direct frequency is often more than a year. potential-to-emit baseline emissions for measurement of emissions is being Weekly testing would be more than by-product hydrogen streams, end box required. sufficient to represent the emissions for ventilation system vents, and mercury As discussed at length in the proposal the entire week and to indicate when thermal recovery unit vents would be preamble (67 FR 44690), we considered breakthrough (i.e., the point at which 3,285 kg/yr (7,242 lb/yr), based on the requiring mercury continuous emission the carbon has become saturated with remaining 1,000 grams per day allowed. monitors (CEM) that would directly mercury emissions) is approaching. We estimate that the final rule will measure in units of the standard. Because breakthrough does not occur reduce industrywide mercury emissions Although monitoring that directly instantaneously, but is slowly for by-product hydrogen streams, end measures compliance is preferred, we approached over time, weekly testing is box ventilation system vents, and decided to propose mercury sufficient to detect the point at which mercury thermal recovery unit vents concentration operating limits based on breakthrough is approaching. from this annual potential-to-emit the uncertainties associated with the However, there is the possibility that baseline to around cost and reliability of the mercury non-carbon devices such as condensers, 217 kg/yr (478 lb/yr), which is monitoring devices. Commenters did absorbers, or regenerative molecular equivalent to about 93 percent not provide any information to alleviate sieves could be used as the final control reduction.

VerDate jul<14>2003 15:14 Dec 18, 2003 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19DER2.SGM 19DER2 70924 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

While the level of mercury emissions of mercury-containing solid wastes will analysis considers the impacts of the allowed by the Mercury NESHAP result with the heightened use of carbon final NESHAP on both the chlorine and defines the potential-to-emit baseline, adsorption assumed for several plant sodium hydroxide markets. the sum of annual mercury emission vents. The total estimated solid waste The chlor-alkali production source releases from by-product hydrogen impact of the final rule for point sources category contains 43 facilities, but only streams, end box ventilation system is about 8.8 mg/yr (9.7 tpy) of additional nine facilities using mercury cells are vents, and mercury thermal recovery mercury-containing spent carbon. directly affected by the final standards. vents, as estimated by mercury cell We are unable to quantify non-air These nine facilities are located at nine chlor-alkali plants, defines an annual environmental impacts associated with plants that are owned by seven actual baseline for vents of about 800 the final work practice standards, so no companies. kg/yr (1,764 lb/yr). We estimate that the wastewater and solid waste impacts are Chlor-alkali production in mercury final rule will reduce industrywide assumed for fugitive emission sources. cells leads to potential mercury mercury emissions for vents from this We estimate that the final emissions from hydrogen streams, end annual actual baseline to around 217 kg/ requirements for point sources will box ventilation system vents, mercury yr (478 lb/yr), which is equivalent to result in increased energy consumption, thermal recovery units, and fugitive about 73 percent reduction. specifically additional fan power in emission sources. The compliance costs We estimate that secondary air conveying gas streams through new for the final standards, therefore, relate pollution emissions will result from the carbon adsorbers and new packed to the purchase, installation, operation, production of electricity required to scrubbers assumed for certain plant and maintenance of pollution control operate new control devices and new vents and additional power consumed equipment at the point sources, as well monitoring equipment assumed for by new vent monitoring equipment. The as the labor costs and overheads plant vents. Assuming electricity total estimated energy impacts of the associated with observing work production as based entirely on coal final requirements for point sources is practices addressing fugitive emissions. combustion for a worst-case scenario, about 772 thousand kW-hr/yr. The estimated total annual costs for the we estimated plant-specific impacts for We estimate that the final final NESHAP are $1.8 million. This sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, requirements for fugitive emission cost estimate represents about 0.30 particulate matter, and carbon sources will result in increased energy percent of the 1997 chlorine sales monoxide emissions. The total consumption required to operate new revenue for the mercury cell chlor-alkali estimated secondary air impacts of the monitoring equipment assumed for production facilities. Furthermore, the final requirements for point sources at plant cell rooms. The total estimated total annual costs represent less than the nine mercury cell chlor-alkali plants energy impacts of the final requirements 0.01 percent of the revenues of owning is around 2.12 mg/yr (4.67 tpy) for all for fugitive emission sources is about 39 the directly affected mercury cell chlor- pollutants combined. thousand kW-hr/yr. alkali plants. The economic analysis predicts We are unable to quantify the primary C. What Are the Cost and Economic minimal changes in industry outputs air emission impacts associated with the Impacts? final work practice standards, so no and the market prices of chlorine and mercury emission reduction is assumed For projecting cost impacts of the sodium hydroxide as a result of the for fugitive emission sources. However, final rule on the mercury cell chlor- estimated control costs. The new market we feel strongly that the new and more alkali industry, we estimate that all nine equilibrium quantities of chlorine and explicit requirements contained in the plants will incur costs to meet the final sodium hydroxide decrease by less than final standards will in fact result in work practice standards and the final 0.1 percent. Equilibrium prices of mercury emission reductions beyond monitoring, recordkeeping, and chlorine and sodium hydroxide both baseline levels. Relative to secondary reporting requirements. We estimate rise by less than 0.1 percent due to the impacts, we expect that secondary air that seven plants will incur costs to final standards. Based on these pollution emissions will result from the meet the final emission limits for by- estimates, we conclude that the final production of electricity required to product hydrogen streams and end box standards are not likely to have a operate new monitoring equipment ventilation system vents, and two plants significant economic impact on the assumed for plant cell rooms. We will incur costs to meet the final chlorine production industry as a whole estimate the secondary air impacts of emission limits for mercury thermal or on secondary markets such as the the final rule for fugitive emission recovery units. The total estimated labor market and foreign trade. sources to be 0.112 mg/yr (0.124 tpy). capital cost of the final rule for the nine We performed an economic analysis mercury cell chlor-alkali plants is to determine facility- and company- B. What Are the Non-Air Health, around $1.6 million, and the total specific impacts. These economic Environmental, and Energy Impacts? estimated annual cost is about $1.4 impacts are measured by calculating the We do not expect that there will be million per year. Plant-specific annual ratio of the estimated annualized any significant adverse non-air health costs in our estimate range from about compliance costs of emissions control impacts associated with the final $130,000 for the least-impacted plant to for each entity to its revenues (i.e., cost- standards for mercury-cell chlor-alkali about $260,000 for the worst-impacted to-sales ratio). After the cost-to-sales plants. plant. ratio is calculated for each entity, it is We estimate that an increase in the The purpose of the economic impact then multiplied by 100 to convert the amount of mercury-containing waters analysis is to estimate the market ratio into percentages. Actual revenues will result from the heightened use of response of chlor-alkali production at the facility level are not available, packed tower scrubbing assumed for facilities to the final standards and to therefore, estimated facility revenues several plant vents. The total estimated determine the economic effects that may received from the sale of chlorine are water pollution impact of the final rule result due to the final NESHAP. Chlor- used. Some of these facilities also for point sources is about 1.5 million alkali production jointly creates both produce caustic as potassium liters (404 thousand gallons) of chlorine and caustic, usually sodium hydroxide, but the revenues from the additional wastewater per year. We hydroxide, in fixed proportions. Being sale of this product are not estimated. estimate that an increase in the amount joint commodities, the economic The nine mercury cell chlor-alkali

VerDate jul<14>2003 15:14 Dec 18, 2003 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19DER2.SGM 19DER2 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 70925

plants have positive cost-to-sales ratios. State, local, or tribal governments or collecting, validating, and verifying The ratio of costs to estimated chlorine communities; information; process and maintain sales revenue for these facilities range (2) create a serious inconsistency or information and disclose and provide from a low of 0.16 percent to a high of otherwise interfere with an action taken information; adjust the existing ways to 1.00 percent. The average cost-to-sales or planned by another agency; comply with any previously applicable ratio for the nine mercury process (3) materially alter the budgetary instructions and requirements; train chlorine production facilities is 0.46 impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, personnel to respond to a collection of percent. More detailed economic or loan programs, or the rights and information; search existing data analysis predicted minimal changes in obligation of recipients thereof; or sources; complete and review the chlorine production at each facility. (4) raise novel legal or policy issues collection of information; and transmit Thus, overall, the economic impact of arising out of legal mandates, the or otherwise disclose the information. the final standards is minimal for the President’s priorities, or the principles An agency may not conduct or facilities producing chlorine. set forth in the Executive Order. sponsor, and a person is not required to The share of compliance costs to It has been determined that the final respond to, a collection of information company sales are calculated to rule is not a ‘‘significant regulatory unless it displays a currently valid OMB determine company level impacts. Since action’’ under the terms of Executive control number. The OMB control seven companies own the nine affected Order 12866 and is, therefore, not numbers for EPA’s regulations are listed facilities, all seven firms face positive subject to OMB review. in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15. compliance costs from the final B. Paperwork Reduction Act The OMB control number(s) for the NESHAP. The ratio of costs to estimated information collection requirements in The information collection revenues range from a low of less than the final rule will be listed in an requirements in the final rule have been 0.01 percent to a high of 0.22 percent, amendment to 40 CFR part 9 or 48 CFR submitted for approval to OMB under and the average ratio of costs to chapter 15 in a subsequent Federal the requirements of the Paperwork company revenues is 0.06 percent. Register document after OMB approves Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Again, more detailed economic analysis the ICR. The information requirements are not at the company level predicts little enforceable until OMB approves them. C. Regulatory Flexibility Act change in company output or revenues. The information requirements are The EPA has determined that it is not So, at the company level, the final based on notifications, records, and necessary to prepare a regulatory standards are not anticipated to have a reports required by the General flexibility analysis in connection with significant economic impact on Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), the final rule. The EPA has also companies that own and operate the which are mandatory for all operators determined that the final rule will not chlorine production facilities. subject to national emission standards. have a significant economic impact on No facility or company is expected to These recordkeeping and reporting a substantial number of small entities. close as a result of the final standards, requirements are specifically authorized For purposes of assessing the impacts of and the economic impacts to consumers under section 114 of the CAA (42 U.S.C. today’s final rule on small entities, are anticipated to be minimal. The 7414). All information submitted to the small entity is defined as: (1) A small generally small scale of the impacts EPA pursuant to the recordkeeping and business according to the Small suggests that there will also be no reporting requirements for which a Business Administration (SBA) size significant impacts on markets for the claim of confidentiality is made will be standards by NAICS code, a maximum products made using chlorine or sodium safeguarded according to Agency of 1,000 employees for the alkalies and hydroxide. For more information, policies in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B, chlorine manufacturing industry; (2) a consult the economic impact analysis Confidentiality of Business Information. small governmental jurisdiction that is a report entitled ‘‘Economic Impact According to the ICR, the total 3-year government of a city, county, town, Analysis for the Final Mercury Cell monitoring, reporting, and school district or special district with a Chlor-Alkali Production NESHAP,’’ recordkeeping burden for this collection population of less than 50,000; and (3) which is available in the docket for this is 6,692 labor hours, and the annual a small organization that is any not-for- rulemaking. average burden is 2,231 labor hours. The profit enterprise which is independently VI. Statutory and Executive Order total annualized cost of monitoring, owned and operated and is not Reviews reporting, and recordkeeping is dominant in its field. approximately $628,212. The labor cost After considering the economic A. Executive Order 12866—Regulatory over the 3-year period is $295,928 or impacts of today’s final rule on small Planning and Review $98,643 per year. The annualized entities, EPA has concluded that this Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR capital cost for monitoring equipment is action will not have a significant 51735, October 4, 1993), the Agency $262,458. Annual operation and economic impact on a substantial must determine whether the regulatory maintenance costs are $365,754 over 3 number of small entities. We have action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore years, averaging $121,918 per year. This determined that two of the seven subject to Office of Management and estimate includes a one-time plan for companies that own mercury chlor- Budget (OMB) review and the demonstrating compliance, annual alkali plants are small entities. Although requirements of the Executive Order. compliance certificate reports, small businesses represent 30 percent of The Executive Order defines notifications, and recordkeeping. the companies within the source ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as one Burden means the total time, effort, or category, they are expected to incur 18 that is likely to result in a rule that may: financial resources expended by persons percent of the total industry annual (1) Have an annual effect on the to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose compliance costs. There are no economy of $100 million or more or or provide information to or for a companies with compliance costs equal adversely affect in a material way the Federal agency. This includes the time to or greater than 1 percent of their economy, a sector of the economy, needed to review instructions; develop, sales. No firms are expected to close productivity, competition, jobs, the acquire, install, and utilize technology rather than incur the costs of environment, public health or safety, or and systems for the purpose of compliance with the final rule.

VerDate jul<14>2003 15:14 Dec 18, 2003 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19DER2.SGM 19DER2 70926 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

Furthermore, firms are not projected to have developed under section 203 of the concerns were raised by these officials close their facilities due to the final rule. UMRA a small government agency plan. during this consultation. Although the final rule will not have The plan must provide for notifying F. Executive Order 13175—Consultation significant economic impact on a potentially affected small governments, and Coordination With Indian Tribal substantial number of small entities, we enabling officials of affected small Governments have nonetheless worked aggressively to governments to have meaningful and minimize the impact of the final rule on timely input in the development of our Executive Order 13175, entitled small entities, consistent with our regulatory proposals with significant ‘‘Consultation and Coordination with obligation under the CAA. The two Federal intergovernmental mandates, Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR companies have been active participants and informing, educating, and advising 67249, November 6, 2000), requires EPA in the rulemaking process through their small governments on compliance with to develop an accountable process to association with the industry trade the regulatory requirements. ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by organization, the Chlorine Institute. We have determined that the final tribal officials in the development of Therefore, we met with representatives rule does not contain a Federal mandate regulatory policies that have tribal of these small entities on numerous that may result in expenditures of $100 implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have tribal occasions. In addition, we conducted an million or more for State, local, or tribal implications’’ are defined in the extended visit to a mercury cell chlor- governments, in the aggregate, or the Executive Order to include regulations alkali plant owned by one of these private sector in any 1 year. The total that have ‘‘substantial direct effects on companies to understand their process annualized cost of the final rule has one or more Indian tribes, on the and emission control techniques, along been estimated to be $1,390,000. Thus, relationship between the Federal with any unique impacts that might today’s final rule is not subject to the government and the Indian tribes, or on occur due to the fact that their company requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the distribution of power and was a small entity. In general, the the UMRA. In addition, we have responsibilities between the Federal provisions of the rule were deigned to determined that the final rule contains government and Indian tribes.’’ achieve the maximum emission no regulatory requirements that might The final rule does not have tribal reduction while also incorporating as significantly or uniquely affect small implications. It will not have substantial many of the existing practices currently governments because it contains no direct effects on tribal governments, on being employed by the industry. The regulatory requirements that apply to the relationship between the Federal input received from these small entities such governments or impose obligations government and Indian tribes, or on the was duly considered in this evaluation. upon them. Therefore, the final rule is distribution of power and not subject to the requirements of D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of responsibilities between the Federal section 203 of the UMRA. 1995 government and Indian tribes, as Title II of the Unfunded Mandates E. Executive Order 13132—Federalism specified in Executive Order 13175. Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Executive Order 13132, entitled This is because no tribal governments Law 104–4, establishes requirements for ‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, own or operate a mercury cell chlor- Federal agencies to assess the effects of 1999), requires EPA to develop an alkali plant. Thus, Executive Order their regulatory actions on State, local, accountable process to ensure 13175 does not apply to the final rule. and tribal governments and the private ‘‘meaningful and timely input by State G. Executive Order 13045—Protection of sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, and local officials in the development of Children From Environmental Health we generally must prepare a written regulatory policies that have federalism Risks and Safety Risks statement, including cost-benefit implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have analysis, for proposed and final rules federalism implications’’ are defined in Executive Order 13045, ‘‘Protection of with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may the Executive Order to include Children from Environmental Health result in expenditures to State, local, regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, and Tribal governments, in the effects on the States, on the relationship April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that aggregate, or to the private sector, of between the national Government and (1) is determined to be ‘‘economically $100 million or more in any 1 year. the States, or on the distribution of significant’’ as defined under Executive Before promulgating an EPA rule for power and responsibilities among the Order 12866, and (2) concerns an which a written statement is needed, various levels of Government.’’ environmental health or safety risk that section 205 of the UMRA generally The final rule does not have EPA has reason to believe may have a requires us to identify and consider a federalism implications. It will not have disproportionate effect on children. If reasonable number of regulatory substantial direct effects on the States, the regulatory action meets both criteria, alternatives and adopt the least costly, on the relationship between the national the Agency must evaluate the most cost-effective, or least burdensome Government and the States, or on the environmental health or safety effects of alternative that achieves the objectives distribution of power and the planned rule on children and of the rule. The provisions of section responsibilities among the various explain why the planned rule is 205 do not apply when they are levels of Government, as specified in preferable to other potentially effective inconsistent with applicable law. Executive Order 13132. The standards and reasonably feasible alternatives that Moreover, section 205 allows us to apply only to mercury cell chlor-alkali we considered. adopt an alternative other than the least plants and do not pre-exempt States The final rule is not subject to costly, most cost-effective, or least from adopting more stringent standards Executive Order 13045 because it is not burdensome alternative if we publish or otherwise regulate State or local an economically significant regulatory with the final rule an explanation why governments. Thus, Executive Order action as defined by Executive Order that alternative was not adopted. 13132 does not apply to the final rule. 12866. In addition, EPA interprets Before we establish any regulatory Although section 6 of Executive Order Executive Order 13045 as applying only requirements that may significantly or 13132 does not apply to the final rule, to those regulatory actions that are uniquely affect small governments, EPA did consult with State and local based on health and safety risks, such including Tribal governments, we must officials in developing the final rule. No that the analysis required under section

VerDate jul<14>2003 15:14 Dec 18, 2003 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19DER2.SGM 19DER2 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 70927

5–501 of the Executive Order has the I. National Technology Transfer and Calibration of Type S Pitot Tubes,’’ for potential to influence the regulation. Advancement Act of 1995 EPA Method 2; ASTM D5835–95, As with most rulemakings developed Section 12(d) of the National ‘‘Standard Practice for Sampling under section 112(d) of the CAA, the Technology Transfer and Advancement Stationary Source Emissions for final rule is based on MACT. Risks to Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Public Law No. Automated Determination of Gas public health and impacts on the 104–113; 15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs Concentration,’’ for EPA Methods 3A; environment are not typically EPA to use voluntary consensus ASTM E337–84 (Reapproved 1996), considered in the development of standards in their regulatory and ‘‘Standard Test Method for Measuring emissions standards under section procurement activities unless to do so Humidity with a Psychrometer (the 112(d). Rather, these risks and impacts would be inconsistent with applicable Measurement of Wet- and Dry-Bulb are considered later (within 8 years after Temperatures),’’ for EPA Method 4; law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary promulgation of the MACT rule) under CAN/CSA Z223.1–M1977, ‘‘Method for consensus standards are technical the residual risk program as required by the Determination of Particulate Mass standards (e.g., materials specifications, section 112(f) of the CAA. While we do Flows in Enclosed Gas Streams,’’ for test methods, sampling procedures, not believe the final rule to be EPA Method 5; CAN/CSA Z223.2–M86 business practices) developed or ‘‘economically significant,’’ as defined (1986), ‘‘Method for the Continuous adopted by one or more voluntary under Executive Order 12866, we do Measurement of Oxygen, Carbon consensus bodies. The NTTAA directs believe that it addresses environmental Dioxide, Carbon Monoxide, Sulphur EPA to provide Congress, through health or safety risks that may have a Dioxide, and Oxides of Nitrogen in annual reports to the OMB, with disproportionate effect on children. Enclosed Combustion Flue Gas Mercury has been identified as a explanations when an agency does not Streams,’’ for EPA Methods 3A; CAN/ priority pollutant under EPA’s National use available and applicable voluntary CSA Z223.26–M1987, ‘‘Measurement of Agenda to Protect Children’s Health consensus standards. Total Mercury in Air Cold Vapour The final rule involves technical from Environmental Threats and by the Atomic Absorption standards. The EPA cites in the final Federal Children’s Health Protection Spectrophotometeric Method,’’ for EPA Advisory Committee (CHPAC). The rule EPA Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, Methods 101 and 101A; ISO 9096:1992 CHPAC was formed to advise, consult 3, 3A, 3B, 4, 5, 101, 101A, 102, and any (in review 2000), ‘‘Determination of with, and make recommendations to method to measure mercury (validated Concentration and Mass Flow Rate of EPA on issues associated with the with EPA Method 301). Consistent with Particulate Matter in Gas Carrying development of regulations to address the NTTAA, EPA conducted searches to Ducts—Manual Gravimetric Method,’’ the prevention of adverse health effects identify voluntary consensus standards for EPA Method 5; ISO 10396:1993, to children. One of the CHPAC’s in addition to these EPA methods. No ‘‘Stationary Source Emissions: Sampling primary missions was to identify five applicable voluntary consensus for the Automated Determination of Gas existing EPA regulations, which if standards were identified for EPA Concentrations,’’ for EPA Method 3A; reevaluated, could lead to better Methods 1A, 2A, 2D, and 102. The ISO 10780:1994, ‘‘Stationary Source protection for children. The CHPAC search and review results have been Emissions—Measurement of Velocity recommended the Mercury NESHAP for documented and are placed in the and Volume Flowrate of Gas Streams in chlor-alkali plants as one of the docket (OAR–2002–0017 or A–2000–32) Ducts,’’ for EPA Method 2. regulations to be reevaluated for the final rule. The following five standards considering impacts on children. We This search for emissions monitoring identified in this search were not adopted the CHPAC recommendation. procedures identified 14 voluntary available at the time the review was Therefore, we considered the impacts consensus standards and five draft conducted for the purposes of this on children in the development of the standards. The EPA determined that the rulemaking because they are under final rule. A qualitative assessment of 14 standards were impractical development by a voluntary consensus the potential impacts on children’s alternatives to EPA test methods for the body: ASME/BSR MFC 12M, ‘‘Flow in health due to mercury emissions from purposes of this rulemaking. Therefore, Closed Conduits Using Multiport chlor-alkali plants was presented in the EPA will not adopt these standards Averaging Pitot Primary Flowmeters,’’ preamble to the proposed rule (67 FR today. The reasons for this for EPA Method 2; ASME/BSR MFC 44693). determination for these 14 standards are 13M, ‘‘Flow Measurement by Velocity Because the final rule does not meet in the docket. Traverse,’’ for EPA Method 2 (and both criteria for applicability, it is not The 14 voluntary consensus standards possibly 1); ISO/DIS 12039, ‘‘Stationary subject to Executive Order 13045. are as follows: ASME C00031 or PTC Source Emissions—Determination of However, based on our assessment, the 19–10–1981, ‘‘Part 10 Flue and Exhaust Carbon Monoxide, Carbon Dioxide, and final rule will help reduce the mercury Gas Analyses,’’ for EPA Method 3; Oxygen—Automated Methods,’’ for EPA exposures to humans, including ASME PTC–38–80 R85 or C00049, Method 3A; PREN 13211 (1998), ‘‘Air children. ‘‘Determination of the Concentration of Quality—Stationary Source Emissions— Particulate Matter in Gas Streams,’’ for Determination of the Concentration of H. Executive Order 13211—Actions EPA Method 5; ASTM D3154–91 (1995), Total Mercury,’’ for EPA Methods 101, Concerning Regulations That ‘‘Standard Method for Average Velocity 101A (and mercury portion of EPA Significantly Affect Energy Supply, in a Duct (Pitot Tube Method),’’ for EPA Method 29); and ASTM Z6590Z, Distribution, or Use Methods 1, 2, 2C, 3, 3B, and 4; ASTM ‘‘Manual Method for Both Speciated and The final rule is not subject to D3464–96, ‘‘Standard Test Method Elemental Mercury’’ is a potential Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Average Velocity in a Duct Using a alternative for portions of EPA Methods Concerning Regulations That Thermal Anemometer,’’ for EPA Method 101A and Method 29 (mercury portion Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 2; ASTM D3685/D3685M–98, ‘‘Test only). Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May Methods for Sampling and Section 63.8232 of the final rule lists 22, 2001) because it is not a significant Determination of Particulate Matter in the EPA testing methods included in the regulatory action under Executive Order Stack Gases,’’ for EPA Method 5; ASTM final rule. Under 40 CFR 63.7(f) and 12866. D3796–90 (1998), ‘‘Standard Practice for 63.8(f), a source may apply to EPA for

VerDate jul<14>2003 15:14 Dec 18, 2003 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19DER2.SGM 19DER2 70928 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

permission to use alternative test Emission Limitations and Work Practice Table 4 to Subpart IIIII of Part 63—Work methods or alternative monitoring Standards Practice Standards—Requirements for requirements in place of any of the EPA 63.8190 What emission limitations must I Mercury Liquid Collection testing methods, performance meet? Table 5 to Subpart IIIII of Part 63—Required Elements of Floor-Level Mercury Vapor specifications, or procedures. 63.8192 What work practice standards must I meet? Measurement and Cell Room Monitoring J. Congressional Review Act Plans Operation and Maintenance Requirements Table 6 to Subpart IIIII of Part 63—Examples The Congressional Review Act, 5 63.8222 What are my operation and of Techniques for Equipment Problem U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small maintenance requirements? Identification, Leak Detection and Mercury Vapor Measurements Business Regulatory Enforcement General Compliance Requirements Table 7 to Subpart IIIII of Part 63—Required Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 63.8226 What are my general requirements Elements of Washdown Plans that before a rule may take effect, the for complying with this subpart? Table 8 to Subpart IIIII of Part 63— agency promulgating the rule must Requirements for Cell Room Monitoring submit a rule report, which includes a Initial Compliance Requirements Program copy of the rule, to each House of the 63.8230 By what date must I conduct Table 9 to Subpart IIIII of Part 63—Required Congress and to the Comptroller General performance tests or other initial Records for Work Practice Standards of the United States. The EPA will compliance demonstrations? Table 10 to Subpart IIIII of Part 63— submit a report containing this rule and 63.8232 What test methods and other Applicability of General Provisions to procedures must I use to demonstrate Subpart IIIII other required information to the U.S. initial compliance with the emission Senate, the U.S. House of limits? What This Subpart Covers Representatives, and the Comptroller 63.8234 What equations and procedures § 63.8180 What is the purpose of this General of the United States prior to must I use for the initial compliance subpart? publication of the rule in the Federal demonstration? This subpart establishes national Register. This action is not a ‘‘major 63.8236 How do I demonstrate initial emission standards for hazardous air rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The compliance with the emission pollutants (NESHAP) for affected final rule will be effective on December limitations and work practice standards? sources of mercury emissions at 19, 2003. Continuous Compliance Requirements mercury cell chlor-alkali plants. This List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 63.8240 What are my monitoring subpart also establishes requirements to requirements? 63.8242 What are the installation, demonstrate initial and continuous Environmental protection, compliance with all applicable emission Administrative practice and procedure, operation, and maintenance requirements for my continuous limitations and work practice standards Air pollution control, Hazardous monitoring systems? in this subpart. substances, Intergovernmental relations, 63.8243 What equations and procedures Recordkeeping and reporting must I use to demonstrate continuous § 63.8182 Am I subject to this subpart? requirements. compliance? (a) You are subject to this subpart if 63.8244 How do I monitor and collect data Dated: August 25, 2003. you own or operate a mercury cell to demonstrate continuous compliance? chlor-alkali plant. Marianne Lamont Horinko, 63.8246 How do I demonstrate continuous (b) You are required to obtain a title Acting Administrator. compliance with the emission V permit, whether your affected source limitations and work practice standards? is a part of a major source of hazardous ■ For the reasons stated in the preamble, 63.8248 What other requirements must I title 40, chapter I, part 63 of the Code of meet? air pollutant (HAP) emissions or a part of an area source of HAP emissions. A Federal Regulations is amended as Notifications, Reports, and Records follows: major source of HAP is a source that 63.8252 What notifications must I submit emits or has the potential to emit any PART 63—[AMENDED] and when? single HAP at a rate of 10 tons or more 63.8254 What reports must I submit and per year or any combination of HAP at when? ■ a rate of 25 tons or more per year. An 1. The authority citation for part 63 63.8256 What records must I keep? continues to read as follows: 63.8258 In what form and how long must I area source of HAP is a source that has the potential to emit HAP but is not a Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq. keep my records? major source. Nothing in this subpart Other Requirements and Information ■ 2. Part 63 is amended by adding revises how affected sources are 63.8262 What parts of the General subpart IIIII to read as follows: aggregated for purposes of determining Provisions apply to me? whether an affected source is a part of 63.8264 Who implements and enforces this an area, nonmajor, or major source subpart? Subpart IIIII—National Emission under any provisions of the Clean Air Standards for Hazardous Air 63.8266 What definitions apply to this subpart? Act (CAA) or EPA’s regulations. For Pollutants: Mercury Emissions From information on aggregating affected Mercury Cell Chlor-Alkali Plants Tables to Subpart IIIII of Part 63 sources to determine what is a source Table 1 to Subpart IIIII of Part 63—Work under title V, see the definition of major Sec. Practice Standards—Design, Operation, source in 40 CFR 70.2, 71.2 and 63.2. What This Subpart Covers and Maintenance Requirements (c) Beginning on December 19, 2006, Table 2 to Subpart IIIII of Part 63—Work the provisions of subpart E of 40 CFR 63.8180 What is the purpose of this Practice Standards—Required subpart? Inspections part 61 that apply to mercury chlor- 63.8182 Am I subject to this subpart? Table 3 to Subpart IIIII of Part 63—Work alkali plants, which are listed in 63.8184 What parts of my plant does this Practice Standards—Required Actions paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this subpart cover? for Liquid Mercury Spills and section, are no longer applicable. 63.8186 When do I have to comply with Accumulations and Hydrogen and (1) § 61.52(a); this subpart? Mercury Vapor Leaks (2) § 61.53(b) and (c); and

VerDate jul<14>2003 15:14 Dec 18, 2003 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19DER2.SGM 19DER2 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 70929

(3) § 61.55(b), (c) and (d). startup date is after December 19, 2003, (a) You must meet the work practice you must comply with each emission standards in Tables 1 through 4 to this § 63.8184 What parts of my plant does this limitation, work practice standard, and subpart, except as specified in subpart cover? recordkeeping and reporting paragraph (g) of this section. (a) This subpart applies to each requirement in this subpart that applies (b) You must adhere to the response affected source at a plant site where to you upon initial startup. intervals specified in Tables 1 through chlorine and caustic are produced in (d) You must meet the notification 4 to this subpart at all times. mercury cells. This subpart applies to and schedule requirements in § 63.8252. Nonadherence to the intervals in Tables two types of affected sources: the Several of these notifications must be 1 through 4 to this subpart constitutes mercury cell chlor-alkali production submitted before the compliance date a deviation and must be documented facility, as defined in paragraph (a)(1) of for your affected source(s). and reported in the compliance report, this section; and the mercury recovery as required by § 63.8254(b), with the facility, as defined in paragraph (a)(2) of Emission Limitations and Work date and time of the deviation, cause of this section. Practice Standards the deviation, a description of the (1) The mercury cell chlor-alkali conditions, and time actual compliance production facility designates an § 63.8190 What emission limitations must I meet? was achieved. affected source consisting of all cell (a) Emission limits. You must meet (c) As provided in § 63.6(g), you may rooms and ancillary operations used in request to use an alternative to the work the manufacture of product chlorine, each emission limit in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section that applies practice standards in Tables 1 through product caustic, and by-product 4 to this subpart. hydrogen at a plant site. This subpart to you. (1) New or reconstructed mercury cell (d) You must institute a floor-level covers mercury emissions from by- mercury vapor measurement program to product hydrogen streams, end box chlor-alkali production facility. Emissions of mercury are prohibited limit the amount of mercury vapor in ventilation system vents, and fugitive the cell room environment through emission sources associated with cell from a new or reconstructed mercury cell chlor-alkali production facility. periodic measurement of mercury vapor rooms, hydrogen systems, caustic levels and actions to be taken when a systems, and storage areas for mercury- (2) Existing mercury cell chlor-alkali production facility. During any floor-level mercury concentration action containing wastes. level is exceeded. The program must (2) The mercury recovery facility consecutive 52-week period, you must not discharge to the atmosphere total meet the requirements listed in designates an affected source consisting paragraphs (d)(1) through (4) of this of all processes and associated mercury emissions in excess of the applicable limit in paragraph (a)(2)(i) or section. As specified in operations needed for mercury recovery § 63.8252(e)(1)(i) to implement this from wastes at a plant site. This subpart (ii) of this section calculated using the procedures in § 63.8243(a). program, you must prepare and submit covers mercury emissions from mercury to the Administrator a floor-level thermal recovery unit vents and fugitive (i) 0.076 grams of mercury per × mercury vapor measurement plan which emission sources associated with megagram of chlorine produced (1.5 ¥4 must contain the elements listed in storage areas for mercury-containing 10 pounds of mercury per ton of chlorine produced) from all by-product Table 5 to this subpart. wastes. (1) You must utilize a mercury (b) An affected source at your mercury hydrogen streams and all end box measurement device described in of cell chlor-alkali plant is existing if you ventilation system vents when both Table 6 to this subpart to measure the commenced construction of the affected types of emission points are present. level of mercury vapor in the cell room source before July 3, 2002. (ii) 0.033 grams of mercury per (c) A mercury recovery facility is a megagram of chlorine produced (6.59 × at floor-level. ¥ (2) You must conduct at least one new affected source if you commence 10 5 pounds of mercury per ton of floor-level mercury vapor measurement construction or reconstruction of the chlorine produced) from all by-product evaluation each half day. This affected source after July 3, 2002. An hydrogen streams when end box evaluation must include three affected source is reconstructed if it ventilation systems are not present. meets the definition of ‘‘reconstruction’’ (3) New, reconstructed, or existing measurements of the mercury in § 63.2. mercury recovery facility. You must not concentration at locations representative discharge to the atmosphere mercury of the entire cell room floor area. The § 63.8186 When do I have to comply with emissions in excess of the applicable average of these measurements must be this subpart? limit in paragraph (a)(3)(i) or (ii) of this recorded as specified in § 63.8156(c)(1). (a) If you have an existing affected section. At a minimum, you must measure the source, you must comply with each (i) 23 milligrams per dry standard level of mercury vapor above mercury- emission limitation, work practice cubic meter from each oven type containing cell room equipment, as well standard, and recordkeeping and mercury thermal recovery unit vent. as areas around the cells, decomposers, reporting requirement in this subpart (ii) 4 milligrams per dry standard or other mercury-containing equipment. that applies to you no later than cubic meter from each non-oven type (3) You must establish a floor-level December 19, 2006. mercury thermal recovery unit vent. mercury concentration action level that (b) If you have a new or reconstructed (b) [Reserved] is no higher than 0.05 milligrams per mercury recovery facility and its initial cubic meter (mg/m3). startup date is on or before December § 63.8192 What work practice standards (4) If a mercury concentration greater 19, 2003, you must comply with each must I meet? than the action level is measured during emission limitation, work practice You must meet the work practice any floor-level mercury vapor standard, and recordkeeping and requirements specified in paragraphs (a) measurement evaluation, you must meet reporting requirement in this subpart through (f) of this section. As an the requirements in either paragraph that applies to you by December 19, alternative to the requirements specified (d)(4)(i) or (ii) of this section. 2003. in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this (i) If you determine that the cause of (c) If you have a new or reconstructed section, you may choose to comply with the elevated mercury concentration is mercury recovery facility and its initial paragraph (g) of this section. an open electrolyzer, decomposer, or

VerDate jul<14>2003 15:14 Dec 18, 2003 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19DER2.SGM 19DER2 70930 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

other maintenance activity, you must elements listed in Table 5 to this (A) Within 1 hour of the time the record the information specified in subpart and meet the requirements in action level was exceeded, you must paragraphs (d)(4)(i)(A) through (C) of paragraphs (g)(1) through (4) of this conduct each inspection specified in this section. section. Table 2 to this subpart, with the (A) A description of the maintenance (1) You must utilize mercury exception of the cell room floor and the activity resulting in elevated mercury monitoring systems that meet the pillars and beam inspections. You must concentration; requirements of Table 8 to this subpart. correct any problem identified during (B) The time the maintenance activity (2) You must establish an action level these inspections in accordance with was initiated and completed; and according to the requirements in the requirements in Table 2 and 3 to this (C) A detailed explanation how all the paragraphs (g)(2)(i) through (iii) of this subpart. applicable requirements of Table 1 to section. (B) If the Table 2 inspections and this subpart were met during the (i) Beginning on the compliance date subsequent corrective actions do not maintenance activity. specified for your affected source in reduce the mercury concentration below (ii) If you determine that the cause of § 63.8186, measure and record the the action level, you must inspect all the elevated mercury concentration is mercury concentration for at least 30 decomposers, hydrogen system piping not an open electrolyzer, decomposer, days using a system that meets the up to the hydrogen header, and other or other maintenance activity, you must requirements of paragraph (g)(1) of this potential locations of mercury vapor follow the procedures specified in section. leaks using a technique specified in paragraphs (d)(4)(ii)(A) and (B) of this (ii) Using the monitoring data Table 6 to this subpart. If a mercury section until the floor-level mercury collected according to paragraph (g)(1)(i) vapor leak is identified, you must take concentration falls below the floor-level of this section, establish your action the appropriate action specified in Table mercury concentration action level. You level at the 75th percentile of the data 3 to this subpart. must also keep all the associated records set. for these procedures as specified in (iii) Submit your action level as part Operation and Maintenance Table 9 to this subpart. of your Notification of Compliance Requirements (A) Within 1 hour of the time the Status report according to floor-level mercury concentration action § 63.8222 What are my operation and § 63.8252(e)(1). maintenance requirements? level was exceeded, you must conduct (3) Beginning on the compliance date As required by § 63.6(e)(1)(i), you each inspection specified in Table 2 to specified for your affected source in must always operate and maintain your this subpart in the area where the § 63.8186, you must continuously affected source(s), including air concentration higher than the floor-level monitor the mercury concentration in pollution control and monitoring mercury concentration action level was the cell room. Failure to monitor and equipment, in a manner consistent with measured, with the exception of the cell record the data according to § 63.8256(c) safety and good air pollution control room floor and the pillars and beam (4)(ii) for 75 percent of the time in any practices for minimizing emissions. inspections. (B) You must also inspect 6-month period constitutes a deviation. all decomposers, hydrogen system (4) If the average mercury General Compliance Requirements piping up to the hydrogen header, and concentration for any 1-hour period other potential locations of mercury exceeds the action level established § 63.8226 What are my general vapor leaks in the area using a according to paragraph (g)(2) of this requirements for complying with this subpart? technique specified in Table 6 to this section, you must meet the requirements subpart. You must correct any problem in either paragraph (g)(4)(i) or (ii) of this (a) You must be in compliance with identified during these inspections section. the applicable emission limitations for according to the requirements in Tables (i) If you determine that the cause of by-product hydrogen streams, end box 2 and 3 to this subpart. the elevated mercury concentration is ventilation system vents, and mercury (e) You must prepare, submit, and an open electrolyzer, decomposer, or thermal recovery unit vents in § 63.8190 operate according to a written other maintenance activity, you must at all times, except during periods of washdown plan designed to minimize record the information specified in startup, shutdown, and malfunction. fugitive mercury emissions through paragraphs (g)(4)(i)(A) through (C) of You must be in compliance with the routine washing of surfaces where this section. applicable work practice standards in liquid mercury could accumulate. The (A) A description of the maintenance § 63.8192 at all times, except during written plan must address the elements activity resulting in elevated mercury periods of startup, shutdown, and contained in Table 7 to this subpart. concentration; malfunction. (f) You must keep records of the mass (B) The time the maintenance activity (b) You must develop and implement of all virgin mercury added to cells on was initiated and completed; and a written startup, shutdown, and an annual basis. (C) A detailed explanation how all the malfunction plan (SSMP) according to (g) As an alternative to the work applicable requirements of Table 1 to the provisions in § 63.6(e)(3). practice standards in paragraphs (a) this subpart were met during the Initial Compliance Requirements through (d) of this section, you may maintenance activity. institute a cell room monitoring (ii) If you determine that the cause of § 63.8230 By what date must I conduct program to continuously monitor the the elevated mercury concentration is performance tests or other initial mercury vapor concentration in the not an open electrolyzer, decomposer, compliance demonstrations? upper portion of each cell room and to or other maintenance activity, you must (a) You must conduct a performance take corrective actions as quickly as follow the procedures specified in test no later than the compliance date possible when elevated mercury vapor paragraphs (g)(4)(ii)(A) and (B) of this that is specified in § 63.8186 for your levels are detected. As specified in section until the mercury concentration affected source to demonstrate initial § 63.8252(e)(1)(iv), if you choose this falls below the action level. You must compliance with the applicable option, you must prepare and submit to also keep all the associated records for emission limit in § 63.8190(a)(2) for by- the Administrator, a cell room these procedures as specified in Table 9 product hydrogen streams and end box monitoring plan containing the to this subpart. ventilation system vents and the

VerDate jul<14>2003 15:14 Dec 18, 2003 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19DER2.SGM 19DER2 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 70931

applicable emission limit in (5) For each by-product hydrogen (2) To establish a maximum § 63.8190(a)(3) for mercury thermal stream, Method 102 in appendix A of 40 monitoring value or minimum recovery unit vents. CFR part 61 to measure the mercury monitoring value, as appropriate for (b) For the applicable work practice emission rate after the last control your final control device, you must standards in § 63.8192, you must device. average the recorded parameters in demonstrate initial compliance within (6) For each end box ventilation paragraphs (f)(1)(i) through (vi) of this 30 calendar days after the compliance system vent, Method 101 or 101A in section over the test period. If your final date that is specified for your affected appendix A of 40 CFR part 61 to control device is a regenerative carbon source in § 63.8186. measure the mercury emission rate after adsorber, you must use the highest § 63.8232 What test methods and other the last control device. temperature reading measured in procedures must I use to demonstrate (7) For each mercury thermal recovery paragraph (f)(1)(vii) as the reference initial compliance with the emission limits? unit vent, Method 101 or 101A in temperature in § 63.8244(b)(2)(v). You must conduct a performance test appendix A of 40 CFR part 61 to measure the mercury emission rate after § 63.8234 What equations and procedures for each by-product hydrogen stream, must I use for the initial compliance end box ventilation system vent, and the last control device. demonstration? mercury thermal recovery unit vent (e) During each test run for a by- according to the requirements in product hydrogen stream and each test (a) By-product hydrogen streams and § 63.7(e)(1) and the conditions detailed run for an end box ventilation system end box ventilation system vents. You in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this vent, you must continuously measure must determine the total grams of section. the electric current through the mercury per Megagram of chlorine (a) You may not conduct performance operating mercury cells and record a production (g Hg/Mg Cl2) of chlorine tests during periods of startup, measurement at least once every 15 produced from all by-product hydrogen shutdown, or malfunction, as specified minutes. streams and all end box ventilation in § 63.7(e)(1). (f) If the final control device is not a system vents, if applicable, at a mercury (b) For each performance test, you nonregenerable carbon adsorber and if cell chlor-alkali production facility, and must develop a site-specific test plan in you are demonstrating compliance using you must follow the procedures in accordance with § 63.7(c)(2). periodic monitoring under § 63.8240(b), paragraphs (a)(1) through (6) of this (c) You must conduct at least three you must continuously monitor the section. test runs to comprise a performance test, parameters listed in paragraph (f)(1) of (1) Determine the mercury emission as specified in § 63.7(e)(3) and in either this section and establish your rate for each test run in grams per day paragraph (c)(1) or (2) of this section. maximum or minimum monitoring for each by-product hydrogen stream (1) The sampling time and sampling value (as appropriate for your control and for each end box ventilation system volume for each run must be at least 2 device) using the requirements in vent, if applicable, from Method 101, hours and 1.70 dry standard cubic paragraph (f)(2) of this section. 101A, or 102 (40 CFR part 61, appendix meters (dscm). Mercury results below (1) During the performance test A). the analytical laboratory’s detection specified in paragraphs (a) through (d) (2) Calculate the average measured limit must be reported using the of this section, you must continuously electric current through the operating reported analytical detection limit to monitor the control device parameters mercury cells during each test run for calculate the sample concentration in paragraphs (f)(1)(i) through (vii) of value and, in turn, the emission rate in each by-product hydrogen stream and this section and record a measurement for each end box ventilation system the units of the standard; or at least once every 15 minutes. (2) The sampling time for each test vent, if applicable, using Equation 1 of (i) The exit gas temperature from this section as follows: run must be at least 2 hours and the uncontrolled streams; mercury concentration in each field (ii) The outlet temperature of the gas n sample analyzed must be at least two stream for the final (i.e., the farthest ∑CL times the reported analytical detection i, run downstream) cooling system when no CL = i=1 (.)Eq 1 limit. control devices other than coolers or avg, run (d) You must use the test methods n demisters are used; specified in paragraphs (d)(1) through (iii) The outlet temperature of the gas Where: (4) of this section and the applicable test stream from the final cooling system methods in paragraphs (d)(5) through (7) CLavg, run = Average measured cell line of this section. when the cooling system is followed by current load during the test run, (1) Method 1 or 1A in appendix A of a molecular sieve or regenerative carbon amperes; adsorber; 40 CFR part 60 to determine the CLi, run = Individual cell line current sampling port locations and the location (iv) Outlet concentration of available load measurement (i.e., 15 minute and required number of sampling chlorine, pH, liquid flow rate, and inlet reading) during the test run, traverse points. gas temperature of chlorinated brine amperes; and scrubbers and hypochlorite scrubbers; (2) Method 2, 2A, 2C, or 2D in n = Number of cell line current load appendix A of 40 CFR part 60 to (v) The liquid flow rate and exit gas temperature for water scrubbers; measurements taken over the determine the stack gas velocity and duration of the test run. volumetric flow rate. (vi) The inlet gas temperature of (3) Method 3, 3A, or 3B in appendix regenerative carbon adsorption systems; (3) Calculate the amount of chlorine A of 40 CFR part 60 to determine the and produced during each test run for each stack gas molecular weight. (vii) The temperature during the by-product hydrogen stream and for (4) Method 4 in appendix A of 40 CFR heating phase of the regeneration cycle each end box ventilation system vent, if part 60 to determine the stack gas for carbon adsorbers or molecular applicable, using Equation 2 of this moisture content. sieves. section as follows:

VerDate jul<14>2003 15:14 Dec 18, 2003 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19DER2.SGM 19DER2 ER19DE03.000 70932 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

− PCLntEq=×()13.(. 10 6 ()()() 2) Cl2 ,,, run avg run cells run run

Where: the end box ventilation system vent, exhaust using Equation 7 of this section

PCl2,run = Amount of chlorine produced if applicable. as follows: during the test run, megagrams (6) Calculate the total mercury n chlorine (Mg Cl2); emission rate from all by-product ¥ ∑ 1.3 × 10 6 = Theoretical chlorine CHg, run hydrogen streams and all end box = production rate factor, Mg Cl2 per = i 1 ventilation system vents, if applicable, CHg, avg (.)Eq 7 hour per ampere per cell; at the mercury cell chlor-alkali n CL = Average measured cell line avg,run production facility using Equation 5 of Where: current load during test run, this section as follows: C = Average mercury concentration amperes, calculated using Equation Hg,avg for the mercury thermal recovery 1 of this section; n unit vent, milligrams of mercury ncell,run = Number of cells on-line during EEq= ∑ E(. 5) Hg, H2 EB Hg, avg per dry standard cubic meter the test run; and = i 1 exhaust; trun = Duration of test run, hours. Where: CHg,run = Mercury concentration for each (4) Calculate the mercury emission EHg,H2EB = Total mercury emission rate test run, milligrams of mercury per rate in grams of mercury per megagram from all by-product hydrogen dry standard cubic meter of of chlorine produced for each test run streams and all end box ventilation exhaust, calculated using Equation for each by-product hydrogen stream system vents, if applicable, at the 6 of this section; and and for each end box ventilation system affected source, g Hg/Mg Cl2; n = Number of test runs conducted for vent, if applicable, using Equation 3 of EHg,avg = Average mercury emission rate the mercury thermal recovery unit this section as follows: for each by-product hydrogen vent. stream and each end box ventilation   § 63.8236 How do I demonstrate initial ()()Rt system vent, if applicable, g Hg/Mg =  run run  () compliance with the emission limitations EHg, run Eq. 3 Cl2, determined using Equation 4 of ()24 ()P  and work practice standards?  Cl2 , run  this section; and (a) For each mercury cell chlor-alkali n = Total number of by-product Where: production facility, you have hydrogen streams and end box demonstrated initial compliance with EHg,run = Mercury emission rate for the ventilation system vents at the the applicable emission limit for by- test run, g Hg/Mg Cl2; affected source. product hydrogen streams and end box Rrun = Measured mercury emission rate for the test run from paragraph (b) Mercury thermal recovery vents. ventilation system vents in (a)(1) of this section, grams Hg per You must determine the milligrams of § 63.8190(a)(2) if you comply with day; mercury per dscm exhaust discharged paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section: from mercury thermal recovery unit (1) Total mercury emission rate from trun = Duration of test run, hours; 24 = Conversion factor, hours per day; vents, using the procedures in all by-product hydrogen streams and all and paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section. end box ventilation system vents, if (1) Calculate the concentration of applicable, at the affected source, PCl2,run = Amount of chlorine produced during the test run, calculated using mercury in milligrams of mercury per determined according to §§ 63.8232 and dscm of exhaust for each test run for 63.8234(a), did not exceed the Equation 2 of this section, Mg Cl2. each mercury thermal recovery unit applicable emission limit in (5) Calculate the average mercury vent using Equation 6 of this section as § 63.8190(a)(2)(i) or (ii); and emission rate for each by-product follows: (2) If you have chosen the periodic hydrogen stream and for each end box monitoring option specified in ventilation system vent, if applicable,  −  § 63.8240(b) and your final control using Equation 4 of this section as ()m ()10 3  = Hg device is not a nonregenerable carbon follows: CHg, run   (.)Eq 6     adsorber, you have established a Vm() n  std  parameter value according to ∑ E § 63.8232(f)(2). Hg, run Where: (b) For each mercury recovery facility, = i=1 C = Mercury concentration for the EHg, avg (.Eq 4) Hg,run you have demonstrated initial n test run, milligrams of mercury per compliance with the applicable Where: dry standard cubic meter of emission limit for mercury thermal exhaust; EHg,avg = Average mercury emission rate recovery unit vents in § 63.8190(a)(3) if for the by-product hydrogen stream mHg = Mass of mercury in test run you comply with paragraphs (b)(1) and or the end box ventilation system sample, from Method 101, 101A, or (2) of this section. vent, if applicable, g Hg/Mg Cl2; 102, micrograms; (1) Mercury concentration in each EHg,run = Mercury emission rate for each 10-3 = Conversion factor, milligrams per mercury thermal recovery unit vent test run for the by-product microgram; and exhaust, determined according to hydrogen stream or the end box Vm(std) = Dry gas sample volume at §§ 63.8232 and 63.8234(b), did not ventilation system vent, if standard conditions, from Method exceed the applicable emission limit in applicable, g Hg/Mg Cl2, calculated 101, 101A, or 102, dry standard § 63.8190(a)(3)(i) or (ii); and using Equation 3 of this section; cubic meters. (2) If you have chosen the periodic and (2) Calculate the average monitoring option in § 63.8240(b) and n = Number of test runs conducted for concentration of mercury in each have a final control device that is not a the by-product hydrogen stream or mercury thermal recovery unit vent nonregenerable carbon adsorber, you

VerDate jul<14>2003 15:14 Dec 18, 2003 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19DER2.SGM 19DER2 ER19DE03.001 ER19DE03.002 ER19DE03.003 ER19DE03.004 ER19DE03.005 ER19DE03.006 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 70933

have established a maximum or § 63.8242 What are the installation, § 63.8243 What equations and procedures minimum monitoring value, as operation, and maintenance requirements must I use to demonstrate continuous appropriate for your control device for my continuous monitoring systems? compliance? according to § 63.8232(f)(2). (a) If you choose the continuous (a) By-product hydrogen streams and (c) For each affected source, you have mercury monitoring option under end box ventilation system vents. For demonstrated initial compliance with § 63.8240(a), you must install, operate, each consecutive 52-week period, you the applicable work practice standards and maintain each mercury continuous must determine the g Hg/Mg Cl2 in § 63.8192 if you comply with emissions monitor according to produced from all by-product hydrogen paragraphs (c)(1) through (7) of this paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) of this streams and all end box ventilation section. section. system vents, if applicable, at a mercury (1) You certify in your Notification of (1) Each mercury continuous cell chlor-alkali production facility Compliance Status that you are emissions monitor must sample, using the procedures in paragraphs operating according to the work practice analyze, and record the concentration of (a)(1) through (3) of this section. You standards in § 63.8192(a) through (d). mercury at least once every 15 minutes. must begin collecting data on the (2) You choose the continuous cell (2) Each mercury continuous compliance date that is specified in room monitoring program option, you emissions monitor analyzer must have a § 63.8186 for your affected source and certify in your Notification of detector with the capability to detect a calculate your first 52-week average Compliance Status that you are mercury concentration at or below 0.5 mercury emission rate at the end of the operating according to the continuous times the mercury concentration level 52nd week after the compliance date. cell room monitoring program under measured during the performance test (1) Each week, you must determine § 63.8192(g) and you have established conducted according to § 63.8232. the weekly mercury emission rate in your action level according to (3) In lieu of a promulgated grams per week for each by-product § 63.8192(g)(2). performance specification as required in hydrogen stream and for each end box (3) You certify in your Notification of § 63.8(a)(2), you must develop a site- ventilation system vent, if applicable, Compliance Status that you are specific monitoring plan that addresses using one of the monitoring options in operating according to your washdown the elements in paragraphs (a)(3)(i) paragraph (a)(1)(i) or (ii) of this section. plan. through (vi) of this section. (i) Continuous mercury monitoring (4) You have submitted your (i) Installation and measurement according to §§ 63.8242 and 63.8244(a). washdown plan as part of your location downstream of the final control (ii) Periodic monitoring according to Notification of Compliance Status. device for each by-product hydrogen § 63.8244(b). (5) You have submitted your stream, end box ventilation system vent, (2) Each week, you must determine continuous cell room monitoring plan, and mercury thermal recovery unit vent. the chlorine production and keep if applicable, as part of your Notification (ii) Performance and equipment records of the production rate as of Compliance Status. specifications for the sample interface, required under § 63.8256(b)(6). (6) You have submitted your floor- the pollutant concentration analyzer, (3) Beginning 52 weeks after the level cell room monitoring plan, if and the data collection and reduction compliance date specified in § 63.8186 applicable, as part of your Notification system. for your affected source, you must of Compliance Status. (iii) Performance evaluation calculate the 52-week average mercury (7) You have submitted records of the procedures and acceptance criteria (i.e., emission rate from all by-product mass of virgin mercury added to cells calibrations). hydrogen steam and all end box for the 5 years preceding the applicable (iv) Ongoing operation and ventilation system vents, if applicable, compliance date for your affected source maintenance procedures according to using Equation 1 of this section as as a part of the Notification of the requirements of § 63.8(c)(1), (3), and follows: Compliance Status. (4)(ii). 52   (d) You must submit the Notification (v) Ongoing data quality assurance ()Rweek of Compliance Status containing the E = ∑  i  (.)Eq 1 procedures according to the Hg   results of the initial compliance requirements of § 63.8(d). = ()P i 1  Cl2 , weeki  demonstration according to the (vi) Ongoing recordkeeping and requirements in § 63.8252(e). reporting procedures in accordance with Where: Continuous Compliance Requirements the general requirements of § 63.10(c), EHg = 52-week average mercury (e)(1), and (e)(2)(i). emission rate for weeki, g Hg/Mg § 63.8240 What are my monitoring (4) You must conduct a performance Cl2; requirements? evaluation of each mercury continuous Rweek, i = Mercury emission rate for For each by-product hydrogen stream, emissions monitor according to your weeki from paragraph (a)(1) of this each end box ventilation system vent, site-specific monitoring plan. section, g Hg per week; and each mercury thermal recovery unit (5) You must operate and maintain PCl2, weeki = Amount of chlorine vent, you must monitor the mercury each mercury continuous emissions produced during weeki, from emissions using the procedures in monitor in continuous operation paragraph (a)(2) of this section, Mg paragraph (a) or (b) of this section. according to the site-specific monitoring Cl2 per week. (a) You must continuously monitor plan. (b) Mercury thermal recovery units. If the mercury concentration using a (b) If you choose the periodic you choose the continuous monitoring mercury continuous emissions monitor monitoring option and your final option in § 63.8240(a), you must according to the requirements in control device is not a nonregenerable demonstrate continuous compliance §§ 63.8242(a) and 63.8244(a); or carbon adsorber, you must install, using paragraph (b)(1) of this section. If (b) You must periodically monitor the operate, and maintain a continuous you choose the periodic monitoring mercury emissions according to the parameter monitoring system (CPMS) option in § 63.8240(b), you must requirements in §§ 63.8242(b) and for each parameter specified in demonstrate continuous compliance 63.8244(b). § 63.8232(f)(1), according to § 63.8(c). using paragraph (b)(2) of this section.

VerDate jul<14>2003 15:14 Dec 18, 2003 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19DER2.SGM 19DER2 ER19DE03.007 70934 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

(1) You must calculate the daily you must conduct at least three test runs period that your monitoring value is out average mercury concentration using per week meeting the criteria specified of range, the maximum hourly value Equation 2 of this section as follows: in § 63.8232(c)(1) and (2) to measure must be above the reference temperature mercury emissions using the test recorded according to § 63.8232(f)(2).  n  methods specified in § 63.8232(d). ∑ § 63.8246 How do I demonstrate  CHg, i  Alternatively, you may use any other  i=1  continuous compliance with the emission C = (.)Eq 2 method that has been validated using limitations and work practice standards? Hg, dailyavg n the applicable procedures in Method 301, 40 CFR part 63, appendix A. (a) By-product hydrogen streams and Where: (2) If your final control device is end box ventilation system vents. (1) For CHg, dailyavg = Average mercury anything other than a nonregenerable all by-product hydrogen streams and all concentration for the operating day, carbon adsorber, you must monitor end box ventilation system vents, if milligrams per dry standard cubic according to the requirements of applicable, you must demonstrate meter; paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through (v) of this continuous compliance with the CHg,i = Concentration of mercury section. applicable mercury emission limit by measured at the interval i (i.e., 15 (i) You must conduct at least three reducing the mercury emissions data to minute reading) using a mercury test runs per week meeting the criteria 52-week averages using Equation 1 of continuous emission monitor, specified in § 63.8232(c)(1) and (2) to § 63.8243 and maintaining the 52-week milligrams per dry standard cubic measure mercury emissions using the average mercury emissions no higher meter; and test methods specified in § 63.8232(d). than the applicable mercury emissions n = Number of concentration Alternatively, you may use any other limit in § 63.8190(a)(2). To obtain the measurements taken during the method that has been validated using data to calculate these 52-week operating day. the applicable procedures in Method averages, you must monitor in (2) You must calculate the daily 301, 40 CFR part 63, appendix A. accordance with paragraph (a)(1)(i) or average mercury concentration using the (ii) Except as specified in paragraph (ii) of this section. procedures in § 63.8234(b). (b)(2)(iii) of this section, you must (i) Continuous monitoring option. You continuously collect data at least once must collect mercury emissions data § 63.8244 How do I monitor and collect every 15 minutes using a CPMS according to § 63.8244(a), representing data to demonstrate continuous installed and operated according to at least 75 percent of the 15-minute compliance? § 63.8242(b) and record each 1-hour periods in each operating day of the 52- (a) Continuous monitoring option. average from all measured data values week compliance period (with data You must monitor mercury during each 1-hour period for the recorded during monitoring concentration according to § 63.8242(a) applicable parameter identified in malfunctions, associated repairs, and at all times that the affected source is § 63.8232(f)(1) using the methods required quality assurance or control operating with the exception of specified in § 63.8244(a). activities not counting toward the 75 paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section. (iii) As appropriate, you must percent requirement); (1) Except for monitor malfunctions, continuously monitor the temperature (ii) Periodic monitoring option. You associated repairs, and required quality specified in § 63.8232(f)(1)(vii) during must conduct at least three test runs per assurance or control activities each heating phase of the regeneration week to collect mercury emissions (including, as applicable, calibration cycle of your carbon adsorber. samples according to § 63.8244(b)(1) checks and required zero and span (iv) If the hourly average monitoring and (2)(i) and, if your final control adjustments), you must monitor value of any applicable parameter device is not a nonregenerable carbon mercury emissions continuously (or recorded under paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of adsorber, you must collect data for collect data at all required intervals) at this section is below the minimum monitoring values according to all times that the affected source is monitoring value or above the § 63.8244(b)(2)(ii) through (v). operating. A monitoring malfunction is maximum monitoring value of that same (2) You must maintain records of any sudden, infrequent, not reasonably parameter established under mercury emissions and 52-week average preventable failure of the monitoring to § 63.8232(f)(2) for 24 consecutive hours, values, as required in § 63.8256(b)(3) provide valid data. Monitoring failures your monitoring value is out of range and (4). If your final control device is that are caused in part by poor and you must take corrective action as not a nonregenerable carbon adsorber, maintenance or careless operation are soon as practicable. The hourly average you must maintain records according to not malfunctions. monitoring value must be above the § 63.8256(d). (2) You may not use data recorded minimum monitoring value or below (b) Mercury thermal recovery unit during monitoring malfunctions, the maximum monitoring value as vents. (1) For each mercury thermal associated repairs, and required quality appropriate for that parameter, within recovery unit vent, you must assurance or control activities in data 48 hours of the period that the demonstrate continuous compliance averages and calculations used to report monitoring value is out of range. with the applicable emission limit emission or operating levels or to fulfill (v) If your final control device is a specified in § 63.8190(a)(3) by a minimum data availability regenerative carbon adsorber, when the maintaining the outlet mercury hourly- requirement, if applicable. You must maximum hourly value of the average concentration no higher than use all the data collected during all temperature measured according to the applicable limit. To determine the other periods in assessing compliance. paragraph (b)(2)(iii) of this section is outlet mercury concentration, you must (b) Periodic monitoring option. If you below the reference temperature monitor according to paragraph (b)(1)(i) choose the periodic monitoring option determined according to § 63.8232(f)(2) or (ii) of this section. under § 63.8240(b), you must monitor for three consecutive regeneration (i) Continuous monitoring option. You according to the procedures in cycles, your monitoring value is out of must collect mercury concentration data paragraph (b)(1) or (2) of this section. range and you must take corrective according to § 63.8244(a), representing (1) If your final control device is a action as soon as practicable. During the at least 75 percent of the 15-minute nonregenerable carbon adsorber, then first regeneration cycle following the periods in the operating day (with data

VerDate jul<14>2003 15:14 Dec 18, 2003 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19DER2.SGM 19DER2 ER19DE03.008 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 70935

recorded during monitoring a period of startup, shutdown, or (ii) The washdown plan, and you malfunctions, associated repairs, and malfunction are not violations if you must certify that you are operating required quality assurance or control demonstrate to the Administrator’s according to the washdown plan activities not counting toward the 75 satisfaction that you have an adequate specified in § 63.8192(f). percent requirement). startup, shutdown, or malfunction plan (iii) The mass of virgin mercury added (ii) Periodic monitoring option. You that satisfies the requirements of to cells for the 5 years preceding the must conduct at least three test runs per § 63.6(e), and you have complied with compliance date. week to collect mercury emissions the startup, shutdown, and malfunction (iv) If you choose to implement a cell samples according to § 63.8244(b)(1) plan. room monitoring program according to and (2)(i) and, if your final control (2) The Administrator will determine § 63.8192(g), your cell room monitoring device is not a nonregenerable carbon whether deviations that occur during a plan. adsorber, you must collect data for period of startup, shutdown, or (2) For each initial compliance monitoring values according to malfunction are violations, according to demonstration that does include a § 63.8244(b)(2)(ii) through (v). the provisions in § 63.6(e). performance test, you must submit the (2) You must maintain records of (3) By-passing the control device for Notification of Compliance Status, mercury emissions and daily average maintenance activities is not considered including the performance test results, values as required in § 63.8256(b)(3). If a startup, shutdown, or malfunction before the close of business on the 60th your final control device is not a event. calendar day following the completion nonregenerable carbon adsorber, you Notification, Reports, and Records of the performance test according to must maintain records according to § 63.10(d)(2). The Notification of § 63.8256(d). § 63.8252 What notifications must I submit Compliance Status must contain the (c) You must demonstrate continuous and when? information in § 63.9(h)(2)(ii)(A) compliance with the applicable work (a) You must submit all of the through (G). The site-specific practice standards in § 63.8192 by notifications in §§ 63.7(b) and (c), monitoring plan required in maintaining records in accordance with 63.8(e) and (f) and 63.9(b) through (h) § 63.8242(a)(3) must also be submitted. § 63.8256(c). that apply to you by the dates specified. (b) As specified in § 63.9(b)(2), if you § 63.8254 What reports must I submit and § 63.8248 What other requirements must I start up your affected source before when? meet? December 19, 2003, you must submit (a) Compliance report due dates. You (a) Deviations. The instances specified your initial notification not later than must submit a semiannual compliance in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this April 19, 2004. report to your permitting authority section are deviations and must be (c) As specified in § 63.9(b)(3), if you according to the requirements in reported according to the requirements start up your new or reconstructed paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this in § 63.8254. mercury recovery facility on or after section. (1) You must report each instance in December 19, 2003, you must submit (1) The first compliance report must which you did not meet each emission your initial notification not later than cover the period beginning on the limitation in § 63.8190 that applies to 120 days after you become subject to compliance date that is specified for you. This includes periods of startup, this subpart. your affected source in § 63.8186 and shutdown, and malfunction. (d) For each performance test that you ending on June 30 or December 31, (2) You must report each instance in are required to conduct for by-product whichever date comes first after the which you did not meet each work hydrogen streams and end box compliance date that is specified for practice standard in § 63.8192 that ventilation system vents and for your affected source in § 63.8186. applies to you. This includes periods of mercury thermal recovery unit vents, (2) The first compliance report must startup, shutdown, and malfunction. you must submit a notification of intent be postmarked or delivered no later than (3) You must report each instance in to conduct a performance test at least 60 July 31 or January 31, whichever date which the corrective actions taken calendar days before the performance comes first after your first compliance according to § 63.8244(b)(2)(iv) did not test is scheduled to begin as required in reporting period. result in average monitoring values § 7(b)(1). (3) Each subsequent compliance being within range within 48 hours of (e) You must submit a Notification of report must cover the semiannual the period that the monitoring value is Compliance Status according to reporting period from January 1 through out of range. paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) of this section. June 30 or the semiannual reporting (4) You must report each instance in (1) For each initial compliance period from July 1 through December which the corrective action taken demonstration that does not include a 31. according to § 63.8244(b)(2)(v) did not performance test, you must submit the (4) Each subsequent compliance result in the maximum hourly Notification of Compliance Status before report must be postmarked or delivered temperature being above the reference the close of business on the 30th no later than July 31 or January 31, temperature during the first calendar day following the completion whichever date comes first after the end regeneration cycle following the period of the initial compliance demonstration. of the semiannual reporting period. that the monitoring value was out of The Notification of Compliance Status (b) Compliance report contents. Each range. must contain the items in paragraphs compliance report must contain the (b) Startups, shutdowns, and (e)(1)(i) through (iv) of this section: information in paragraphs (b)(1) through malfunctions. During periods of startup, (i) If you choose not to implement a (3) of this section, and as applicable, shutdown, and malfunction, you must cell room monitoring program according paragraphs (b)(4) through (12) of this operate in accordance with your startup, to § 63.8192(g), a certification that you section. shutdown, and malfunction plan that are operating according to the (1) Company name and address. satisfies the requirements in § 63.6(e) applicable work practice standards in (2) Statement by a responsible official, and as required in § 63.8226(b). § 63.8192(a) through (d) and your floor- with that official’s name, title, and (1) Consistent with §§ 63.6(e) and level mercury vapor measurement plan signature, certifying the truth, accuracy, 63.7(e)(1), deviations that occur during required by § 63.8192(d). and completeness of the report.

VerDate jul<14>2003 15:14 Dec 18, 2003 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19DER2.SGM 19DER2 70936 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

(3) Date of report and beginning and including the information in of-control, including the information ending dates of the reporting period. § 63.8(c)(8). specified in § 63.8(c)(8). (4) If you had a startup, shutdown or (iv) The date and time that each (v) A summary of the total duration of malfunction during the reporting period deviation started and stopped, and the deviation during the reporting and you took actions consistent with whether each deviation occurred during period and the total duration as a your startup, shutdown, and a period of startup, shutdown, or percent of the total source operating malfunction plan, the compliance report malfunction or during another period. time during that reporting period. must include the information in (v) A summary of the total duration of (vi) A breakdown of the total duration § 63.10(d)(5)(i). the deviation during the reporting of the deviations during the reporting (5) If there were no deviations from period and the total duration as a period including those that are due to the continuous compliance percent of the total source operating startup, shutdown, control equipment requirements in § 63.8246 that apply to time during that reporting period. problems, process problems, other you, a statement that there were no (vi) A breakdown of the total duration known causes, and other unknown deviations from the emission of the deviations during the reporting causes. limitations, work practice standards, period including those that are due to (vii) A summary of the total duration and operation and maintenance startup, shutdown, control equipment of continuous monitoring system standards during the reporting period. problems, process problems, other downtime during the reporting period (6) If there were no periods during known causes, and other unknown and the total duration of monitoring which the mercury continuous emission causes. system downtime as a percent of the monitor or CPMS (if applicable) were (vii) A summary of the total duration total source operating time during the out-of-control as specified in of continuous monitoring system reporting period. § 63.8(c)(7), a statement that there were downtime during the reporting period (viii) A brief description of the CPMS. (ix) The date of the latest CPMS no periods during the which the and the total duration of monitoring certification or audit. mercury continuous emissions monitor system downtime as a percent of the (x) A description of any changes in or CPMS (if applicable) were out-of- total source operating time during the monitoring system, processes, or control during the reporting period. reporting period. controls since the last reporting period. (7) For each deviation from the (viii) An identification of each requirements for work practice (10) The compliance report must hazardous air pollutant that was contain the mass of virgin mercury standards in Tables 1 through 4 to this monitored at the affected source. subpart that occurs at an affected source added to cells for the reporting period. (ix) A brief description of the process (11) The compliance report must (including deviations where the units. response intervals were not adhered to contain each instance in which (x) A brief description of the corrective actions taken under as described in § 63.8192(b)), the continuous monitoring system. compliance report must contain the § 63.8244(b)(2)(iv) did not result in (xi) The date of the latest continuous information in paragraphs (b)(1) through average monitoring values being within monitoring system certification or audit. (4) of this section and the information range within 48 hours of the period that (xii) A description of any changes in in paragraphs (b)(7)(i) and (ii) of this the monitoring value is out of range. monitoring system, processes, or section. This includes periods of (12) The compliance report must controls since the last reporting period. startup, shutdown, and malfunction. contain each instance in which (i) The total operating time of each (9) For each deviation from an corrective action taken according to affected source during the reporting operation and maintenance standard § 63.8244(b)(2)(v) did not result in the period. occurring at an affected source where maximum hourly temperature being (ii) Information on the number, you are using the periodic monitoring above the reference temperature during duration, and cause of deviations option specified in § 63.8240(b) and the first regeneration cycle following the (including unknown cause, if your final control device is not a period that the monitoring value was applicable), as applicable, and the nonregenerable carbon adsorber, the out of range. corrective action taken. compliance report must include the (c) Immediate startup, shutdown, and (8) For each deviation from an information in paragraphs (b)(1) through malfunction report. If you took an action emission limitation occurring at an (4) of this section and the information during a startup, shutdown, or affected source where you are using a in paragraphs (b)(9)(i) through (x) of this malfunction during the semiannual mercury continuous emission monitor, section. This includes periods of reporting period that was not consistent according to the site-specific monitoring startups, shutdowns and malfunctions. with your startup, shutdown, and plan required in § 63.8242(a)(3), to (i) The total operating time of each malfunction plan required in comply with the emission limitation in affected source during the reporting § 63.8226(b), and the source exceeded this subpart, you must include the period. any applicable emission limitation in information in paragraphs (b)(1) through (ii) Information on the number, this subpart, you must submit an (4) of this section and the information duration, and cause of deviations immediate startup, shutdown, and in paragraphs (b)(8)(i) through (xii) of (including unknown cause, if malfunction report according to the this section. This includes periods of applicable), as applicable, whether the requirements in § 63.10(d)(5)(ii). startup, shutdown, and malfunction. deviation occurred during a period of (d) Title V monitoring report. After (i) The date and time that each startup, shutdown, or malfunction, or your affected source has been issued a malfunction started and stopped. other period, and the corrective action title V operating permit pursuant to 40 (ii) The date and time of each instance taken. CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71, you must in which a continuous monitoring (iii) The date and time of each report all deviations from permit system was inoperative, except for zero instance in which a CPMS was requirements and provide reports of any (low-level) and high-level checks. inoperative, except for zero (low-level) required monitoring in your semiannual (iii) The date, time, and duration of and high-level checks. monitoring report as required by 40 CFR each instance in which a continuous (iv) The date, time, and duration of 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR monitoring system was out-of-control, each instance in which a CPMS was out- 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A). If you submit a

VerDate jul<14>2003 15:14 Dec 18, 2003 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19DER2.SGM 19DER2 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 70937

semiannual compliance report for an (6) Records of chlorine production on (1) Records of the CPMS data affected source as required by this a weekly basis. collected during the performance test as subpart as part of the semiannual (c) Records associated with the work specified in § 63.8232(f)(1). monitoring report required by 40 CFR practice standards. (2) Records documenting the 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR (1) If you choose not to institute a cell development of the maximum 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), and the semiannual room monitoring program according to monitoring value or minimum compliance report includes all § 63.8192(g) of this subpart, you must monitoring value, as appropriate, information required by the 40 CFR part keep the records specified in paragraphs according to § 63.8232(f)(2). 70 or 40 CFR part 71 semiannual (c)(1)(i) through (v) of this section. (3) Records of hourly average values monitoring report for the deviations that (i) Records specified in Table 9 to this of applicable parameters monitored as are reported in the semiannual subpart related to the work practice specified in § 63.8244(b)(2)(ii) or (iii). compliance report, submission of the standards in Tables 1 through 4 of this § 63.8258 In what form and how long must semiannual compliance report satisfies subpart. I keep my records? your obligation to report the same (ii) Your current floor-level mercury (a) Your records must be in a form deviation information in the semiannual vapor measurement plan. suitable and readily available for monitoring report. However, in such (iii) Records of the average value expeditious inspection and review, situations, the semiannual monitoring calculated from at least three according to § 63.10(b)(1). report must cross-reference the measurements taken according to your (b) As specified in § 63.10(b)(1), you semiannual compliance report, and floor-level mercury vapor measurement must keep each record for 5 years submission of a semiannual compliance plan. following the date of each occurrence, report does not otherwise affect any (iv) Records indicated in measurement, maintenance, corrective obligation you may have to report § 63.8192(d)(4)(i) for maintenance action, report, or record. deviations from permit requirements for activities that cause the floor-level (c) You must keep each record on site an affected source to your permitting mercury concentration to exceed the for at least 2 years after the date of each authority under 40 CFR part 70 or 40 action level. occurrence, measurement, maintenance, CFR part 71. (v) Records of all inspections and corrective action, report, or record, corrective actions taken in response to § 63.8256 What records must I keep? according to § 63.10(b)(1). You can keep a non-maintenance related situation in (a) General records. You must keep the records offsite for the remaining 3 which the mercury vapor concentration years. the records in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) exceeds the floor-level mercury of this section. concentration action level. Other Requirements and Information (1) A copy of each notification and (2) You must maintain a copy of your report that you submitted to comply § 63.8262 What parts of the General current washdown plan and records of Provisions apply to me? with this subpart, including all when each washdown occurs. Table 10 to this subpart shows which documentation supporting any initial (3) You must maintain records of the parts of the General Provisions in notification or Notification of mass of virgin mercury added to cells §§ 63.1 through 63.13 apply to you. Compliance Status that you submitted, for each reporting period. according to the requirements in (4) If you choose to institute a cell § 63.8264 Who implements and enforces § 63.10(b)(2)(xiv). room monitoring program according to this subpart? (2) The records in § 63.6(e)(3)(iii) § 63.8192(g) of this subpart, you must (a) This subpart can be implemented through (v) related to startup, shutdown, keep your current cell room monitoring and enforced by us, the United States and malfunction. plan and the records specified in Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. (b) Records associated with the by- paragraphs (c)(4)(i) through (v) of this EPA), or a delegated authority such as product hydrogen stream and end box section. your State, local, or tribal agency. If the ventilation system vent emission (i) Records of the monitoring EPA Administrator has delegated limitations and the mercury thermal conducted in accordance with authority to your State, local, or tribal recovery unit vent emission limitations. § 63.8192(g)(2)(i) to establish your agency, then that agency has the You must keep the records in action level, and records demonstrating authority to implement and enforce this paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of this the development of this action level. subpart. You should contact your EPA section related to the emission (ii) Records of the cell room mercury Regional Office to find out if this limitations in § 63.8190(a)(2) through (3) concentration monitoring data collected. subpart is delegated to your State, local, and (b). (iii) Instances when the action level is or tribal agency. (1) Records of performance tests as exceeded. (b) In delegating implementation and required in § 63.10(b)(2)(viii). (iv) Records specified in enforcement authority of this subpart to (2) Records of the mercury emissions § 63.8192(g)(4)(i) for maintenance a State, local, or tribal agency under monitoring conducted during the activities that cause the mercury vapor subpart E of this part, the authorities performance tests. concentration to exceed the action level. contained in paragraph (c) of this (3) Records of the continuous or (v) Records of all inspections and section are retained by the EPA periodic mercury emissions monitoring corrective actions taken in response to Administrator and are not transferred to data. a non-maintenance related situation in the State, local, or tribal agency. (4) Records of the 52-week rolling which the mercury vapor concentration (c) The authorities in paragraphs (c)(1) average mercury emissions. exceeds the action level. through (4) of this section will not be (5) Records associated with your site- (d) Records associated with the delegated to State, local, or tribal specific monitoring plan required in periodic monitoring option if your final agencies. § 63.8242(a)(3) (i.e., results of control device is not a nonregenerable (1) Approval of alternatives under inspections, calibrations, and validation carbon adsorber. You must keep the § 63.6(g) to the non-opacity emission checks of each mercury concentration records in paragraph (d)(1) through (3) limitations in § 63.8190 and work continuous monitoring system (CMS)). of this section. practice standards in § 63.8192.

VerDate jul<14>2003 15:14 Dec 18, 2003 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19DER2.SGM 19DER2 70938 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

(2) Approval of major alternatives to Deviation means any instance in escaping from the decomposer or test methods under § 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and which an affected source subject to this hydrogen system. (f) and as defined in § 63.90. subpart, or an owner or operator of such Hydrogen system means all vessels, (3) Approval of major alternatives to a source: piping, and equipment that convey a by- monitoring under § 63.8(f) and as (1) Fails to meet any requirement or product hydrogen stream. The hydrogen defined in § 63.90. obligation established by this subpart system begins at the decomposer and (4) Approval of major alternatives to including, but not limited to, any ends at the point just downstream of the recordkeeping and reporting under emission limitation (including any last control device. The hydrogen § 63.10(f) and as defined in § 63.90. operating limit) or work practice system includes all control devices. standard; In liquid mercury service means § 63.8266 What definitions apply to this containing or coming in contact with subpart? (2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to implement an liquid mercury. Terms used in this subpart are applicable requirement in this subpart Liquid mercury accumulation means defined in the CAA, in § 63.2, and in and that is included in the title V one or more liquid mercury droplets, or this section as follows: operating permit for any affected source a pool of liquid mercury, present on the Aqueous liquid means a liquid required to obtain such a permit; floor or other surface exposed to the mixture in which water is the (3) Fails to meet any emission atmosphere. predominant component. Liquid mercury leak means the liquid Brine means an aqueous solution of limitation (including any operating limit) or work practice standard in this mercury that is dripping or otherwise alkali metal chloride, as sodium escaping from process equipment. chloride salt solution or potassium subpart during startup, shutdown, or malfunction, regardless of whether or Liquid mercury spill means a liquid chloride salt solution, that is used in the mercury accumulation resulting from a electrolyzer as a raw material. not such failure is allowed by this subpart; or liquid mercury that leaked from process By-product hydrogen stream means equipment or that dripped during the hydrogen gas from each decomposer (4) Fails to take corrective actions within 48 hours that result in parameter maintenance or handling. that passes through the hydrogen system Mercury cell means a device monitoring values being within range. and is burned as fuel, transferred to consisting of an electrolyzer and Electrolyzer means the main another process as raw material, or decomposer, with one or more end component of the mercury cell that discharged directly to the atmosphere. boxes, a mercury pump, and other consists of an elongated, shallow steel Caustic means an aqueous solution of components linking the electrolyzer and trough that holds a layer of mercury as alkali metal hydroxide, as sodium decomposer. hydroxide or potassium hydroxide, that a flowing cathode. The electrolyzer is Mercury cell amalgam seal pot means is produced in the decomposer. enclosed by side panels and a top that a compartment through which mercury Caustic basket means a fixture suspends metal anodes. In the amalgam passes from an outlet end box adjacent to the decomposer that electrolyzer, brine is fed between a to a decomposer. contains a serrated funnel over which flowing mercury cathode and metal Mercury cell chlor-alkali plant means the caustic from the decomposer passes, anodes in the presence of electricity to all contiguous or adjoining property that breaking into droplets such that electric produce chlorine gas and an alkali is under common control, where current is interrupted. metal-mercury amalgam (mercury mercury cells are used to manufacture Caustic system means all vessels, amalgam). product chlorine, product caustic, and piping, and equipment that convey Emission limitation means any by-product hydrogen and where caustic and remove mercury from the emission limit or operating limit. mercury may be recovered from wastes. caustic stream. The caustic system End box means a component of a Mercury cell chlor-alkali production begins at the decomposer and ends after mercury cell for transferring materials facility means an affected source the primary filters. between the electrolyzer and the consisting of all cell rooms and ancillary Cell room means a building or other decomposer. The inlet end box collects operations used in the manufacture of structure in which one or more mercury and combines raw materials at the inlet product chlorine, product caustic, and cells are located. end of the cell, and the outlet end box by-product hydrogen at a mercury cell Continuous parameter monitoring separates and directs various materials chlor-alkali plant. system, or CPMS, means the total either into the decomposer or out of the Mercury concentration CMS, or equipment that may be required to meet cell. mercury concentration continuous the data acquisition and availability End box ventilation system means all monitoring system, means a CMS, as requirements of this subpart, used to vessels, piping, and equipment that defined in § 63.2, that continuously sample, condition (if applicable), evacuate the head space of each measures the concentration of mercury. analyze, and provide a record of process mercury cell end box (and possibly Mercury-containing wastes means of control system parameters. other vessels and equipment) to the waste materials containing mercury, Control device means a piece of atmosphere. The end box ventilation which are typically classified under equipment (such as condensers, coolers, system begins at the end box (and other Resource Conservation and Recovery chillers, heat exchangers, mist vessel or equipment which is being Act (RCRA) solid waste designations. eliminators, absorption units, and evacuated) and terminates at the end K071 wastes are sludges from the brine adsorption units) that removes mercury box ventilation system vent. The end system. K106 are wastewater treatment from gaseous streams. box ventilation system includes all sludges. D009 wastes are non-specific Decomposer means the component of control devices. mercury-containing wastes, further a mercury cell in which mercury End box ventilation system vent classified as either debris or nondebris amalgam and water react in bed of means the discharge point of the end (i.e., cell room sludges and carbon from graphite packing (within a cylindrical box ventilation system to the decomposes). vessel), producing caustic and hydrogen atmosphere after all control devices. Mercury pump means a component of gas and returning mercury to its Hydrogen leak means hydrogen gas a mercury cell for conveying elemental elemental form for re-use in the process. (containing mercury vapor) that is mercury re-created in the decomposer to

VerDate jul<14>2003 15:14 Dec 18, 2003 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19DER2.SGM 19DER2 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 70939

the beginning of the mercury cell. A suction pressure) into a closed Spalling means fragmentation by mercury pump is typically found either compartment. chipping. as an in-line mercury pump (near a Non-oven type mercury thermal Sump means a large reservoir or pit mercury suction pot or mercury seal recovery unit vent means the discharge for wastewaters (primarily washdown pot) or submerged mercury pump point to the atmosphere after all waters). (within a mercury pump tank or recovery/control devices of a mercury Trench means a narrow channel or mercury pump seal). thermal recovery unit in which the depression built into the length of a cell Mercury recovery facility means an retort is either a rotary kiln or single room floor that leads washdown affected source consisting of all hearth retort. materials to a drain. processes and associated operations Open-top container means any Vent hose means a connection for needed for mercury recovery from container that does not have a tight- transporting gases from the mercury wastes at a mercury cell chlor-alkali fitting cover that keeps its contents from cell. plant. being exposed to the atmosphere. Virgin mercury means mercury that Mercury thermal recovery unit means Oven type mercury thermal recovery has not been processed in an onsite the retort(s) where mercury-containing mercury thermal recovery unit or wastes are heated to volatilize mercury unit vent means the discharge point to the atmosphere after all recovery/ otherwise recovered from mercury- and the mercury recovery/control containing wastes onsite. system (control devices and other control devices of a mercury thermal recovery unit in which each retort is a Washdown means the act of rinsing a equipment) where the retort off-gas is floor or surface with a stream of aqueous cooled, causing mercury to condense batch oven retort. Responsible official means liquid to cleanse it of a liquid mercury and liquid mercury to be recovered. spill or accumulation, generally by Mercury thermal recovery unit vent responsible official as defined in 40 CFR 70.2. driving it into a trench. means the discharge point of the Week means any consecutive seven- Retort means a furnace where mercury thermal recovery unit to the day period. mercury-containing wastes are heated to atmosphere after all recovery/control Work practice standard means any drive mercury into the gas phase. The devices. This term encompasses both design, equipment, work practice, or types of retorts used as part of mercury oven type vents and non-oven type operational standard, or combination thermal recovery units at mercury cell vents. thereof, that is promulgated pursuant to Mercury vacuum cleaner means a chlor-alkali plants include batch oven section 112(h) of the CAA. cleanup device used to draw a liquid retorts, rotary kilns, and single hearth mercury spill or accumulation (via retorts. Tables to Subpart IIIII of Part 63

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART IIIII OF PART 63.—WORK PRACTICE STANDARDS—DESIGN, OPERATION, AND MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS [As stated in § 63.8192, you must meet the work practice standards in the following table]

For * * * You must * * *

1. Cell rooms ...... a. For new or modified cell rooms, construct each cell room interior using materials that are resistant to ab- sorption of mercury, resistant to corrosion, facilitate the detection of liquid mercury spills or accumula- tions, and are easy to clean. b. Limit access around and beneath mercury cells in each cell room to prevent liquid mercury from being tracked into other areas. c. Provide adequate lighting in each cell room to facilitate the detection of liquid mercury spills or accumu- lations. d. Minimize the number of items stored around and beneath cells in each cell room. 2. Mercury cells and electrolyzers .. a. Operate and maintain each electrolyzer, decomposer, end box, and mercury pump to minimize leakage of mercury. b. Prior to opening an electrolyzer for maintenance, do the following: (1) Complete work that can be done before opening the electrolyzer in order to minimize the time required to complete maintenance when the electrolyzer is open; (2) fill the electrolyzer with an aqueous liquid, when possible; (3) allow the electrolyzer to cool before opening; and (4) schedule and staff maintenance of the electrolyzer to mini- mize the time the electrolyzer is open. c. When the electrolyzer top is raised and before moving the top and anodes, thoroughly flush all visible mercury from the top and the anodes with an aqueous liquid, when possible. d. While an electrolyzer is open, keep the bottom covered with an aqueous liquid or maintain a continuous flow of aqueous liquid, when possible. e. During an electrolyzer side panel change, take measures to ensure an aqueous liquid covers or flows over the bottom, when possible. f. Each time an electrolyzer is opened, inspect and replace components, as appropriate. g. If you step into an electrolyzer bottom, either remove all visible mercury from your footwear or replace them immediately after stepping out of the electrolyzer. h. If an electrolyzer is disassembled for overhaul maintenance or for any other reason, chemically clean the bed plate or thoroughly flush it with an aqueous liquid. i. Before transporting each electrolyzer part to another work area, remove all visible mercury from the part or contain the part to prevent mercury from dripping during transport. j. After completing maintenance on an electrolyzer, check any mercury piping flanges that were opened for liquid mercury leaks. k. If a liquid mercury spill occurs during any maintenance activity on an electrolyzer, clean it up in accord- ance with the requirements in Table 3 to this subpart.

VerDate jul<14>2003 15:14 Dec 18, 2003 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19DER2.SGM 19DER2 70940 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART IIIII OF PART 63.—WORK PRACTICE STANDARDS—DESIGN, OPERATION, AND MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS—Continued [As stated in § 63.8192, you must meet the work practice standards in the following table]

For * * * You must * * *

3. Vessels in liquid mercury service If you replace a vessel containing mercury that is intended to trap and collect mercury after December 19, 2003, replace it with a vessel that has a cone shaped bottom with a drain valve or other design that readily facilitates mercury collection. 4. Piping and process lines in liquid a. To prevent mercury buildup after December 19, 2003, equip each new process line and piping system mercury service. with smooth interiors and adequate low point drains or mercury knock-out pots to avoid liquid mercury buildup within the pipe and to facilitate mercury collection and recovery. 5. Cell room floors ...... a. Maintain a coating on cell room floors that is resistant to absorption of mercury and that facilitates the detection of liquid mercury spills or accumulations. b. Maintain cell room floors such that they are smooth and free of cracking and spalling. c. Maintain the cell room floor to prevent mercury accumulation in the corners. d. Maintain a layer of aqueous liquid on liquid mercury contained in trenches or drains and replenish the aqueous layer at least once per day. e. Keep the cell room floor clean and free of debris. f. If you step into a liquid mercury spill or accumulation, either remove all visible mercury from your foot- wear or replace your footwear immediately. 6. End boxes ...... a. Either equip each end box with a fixed cover that is leak tight, or route the end box head space to an end box ventilation system. b. For each end box ventilation system: maintain a flowof aqueous liquid over the liquid mercury in the end box and maintain the temperature of the aqueous liquid below its boiling point, maintain a negative pres- sure in the end box ventilation system, and maintain the end box ventilation system in good condition. c. Maintain each end box cover in good condition and keep the end box closed when the cell is in service and when liquid mercury is flowing down the cell, except when operation or maintenance activities re- quire short-term access. d. Keep all bolts and C-clamps used to hold the covers in place when the cell is in service and when liquid mercury is flowing down the cell. e. Maintain each access port stopper in an end box cover in good sealing condition and keep each end box access port closed when the cell is in service and when liquid mercury is flowing down the cell. 7. Decomposers ...... a. Maintain each decomposer cover in good condition and keep each decomposer closed and sealed, ex- cept when maintenance activities require the cover to be removed. b. Maintain connections between the decomposer and the corresponding cell components, hydrogen sys- tem piping, and caustic system piping in good condition and keep the connections closed/tight, except when maintenance activities require opening/loosening these connections. c. Keep each mercury cell amalgam seal pot closed and sealed, except when operation or maintenance activities require short-term access. d. Prior to opening a decomposer, do the following: fill the decomposer with an aqueous liquid or drain the decomposer liquid mercury into a container that meets requirements in Table 1, Item 9 or 10, allow the decomposer to cool before opening, and complete work that can be done before opening the decomposer. e. Take precautions to avoid mercury spills when changing graphite grids or balls in horizontal decomposers or graphite packing in vertical decomposers. If a spill occurs, you must clean it up in ac- cordance with the requirements in Table 3 to this subpart. f. After each maintenance activity, use an appropriate technique (Table 6 to this subpart) to check for hy- drogen leaks. g. Before transporting any internal part from the decomposer (such as the graphite basket) to another work area, remove all visible mercury from the part or contain the part to prevent mercury from dripping dur- ing transport. h. Store carbon from decomposers in accordance with the requirements in 40 CFR part 265, subparts I and CC, until the carbon is treated or is disposed. 8. Submerged mercury pumps ...... a. Provide a vapor outlet connection from each submerged pump to an end box ventilation system. The connection must be maintained under negative pressure. b. Keep each mercury pump tank closed, except when maintenance or operation activities require the cover to be removed. c. Maintain a flow of aqueous liquid over the liquid mercury in each mercury pump tank and maintain the aqueous liquid at a temperature below its boiling point. 9. Open-top containers holding liq- Maintain a layer of aqueous liquid over liquid mercury in each open-top container. Replenish the aqueous uid mercury. layer at least once per day and, when necessitated by operating procedures or observation, collect the liquid mercury from the container in accordance with the requirements in Table 4 to this subpart. 10. Closed containers used to store a. Store liquid mercury in containers with tight fitting covers. liquid mercury. b. Maintain the seals on the covers in good condition. c. Keep each container securely closed when mercury is not being added to, or removed from, the con- tainer. 11. Caustic systems ...... a. Maintain the seal between each caustic basket cover and caustic basket by using gaskets and other ap- propriate material. b. Do not allow solids and liquids collected from back-flushing primary caustic filters to contact floors or run into open trenches. c. Collect solids and liquids from back-flushing each primary caustic filter and collect these mercury-con- taining wastes in process vessels or in accordance with the requirements in 40 CFR part 265, subparts I and CC.

VerDate jul<14>2003 15:14 Dec 18, 2003 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19DER2.SGM 19DER2 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 70941

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART IIIII OF PART 63.—WORK PRACTICE STANDARDS—DESIGN, OPERATION, AND MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS—Continued [As stated in § 63.8192, you must meet the work practice standards in the following table]

For * * * You must * * *

d. Keep each caustic basket closed and sealed, except when operation or maintenance activities require short term access. 12. Hydrogen systems ...... a. Collect drips from each hydrogen seal pot and compressor seal in containers meeting the requirements in this table for open containers. These drips should not be allowed to run on the floor or in open trench- es. b. Minimize purging of hydrogen from a decomposer into the cell room by either sweeping the decomposer with an inert gas or by routing the hydrogen to the hydrogen system. c. Maintain hydrogen piping gaskets in good condition. d. After any maintenance activities, use an appropriatetechnique (Table 6 to this subpart) to check all hy- drogen piping flanges that were opened for hydrogen leaks.

TABLE 2 TO SUBPART IIIII OF PART 63.—WORK PRACTICE STANDARDS—REQUIRED INSPECTIONS [As stated in § 63.8192, you must meet the work practice standards in the following table]

At least once You must inspect * . * each * * * And if you find * * * You must * * *

1. Each vent hose on each mercury cell Half day ...... A leaking vent hose ...... Take action immediately to correct the leak. 2. Each open-top container holding liquid Half day ...... Liquid mercury that is not covered by an Take action immediately to cover the liq- mercury. aqueous liquid. uid mercury with an aqueous liquid. 3. Each end box ...... Half day...... a. An end box cover not securely in Take action immediately to put the end place. box cover securely in place. b. An end box stopper not securely in Take action immediately to put the end place. box stopper securely in place. c. Liquid mercury in an end box that is Take action immediately to cover the liq- not covered by an aqueous liquid at a uid mercury with an aqueous liquid. temperature below boiling. 4. Each mercury amalgam seal pot ...... Half day ...... A seal pot cover that is not securely in Take action immediately to put the seal place. pot cover securely in place. 5. Each mercury seal pot ...... Half day ...... A mercury seal pot stopper not securely Take action immediately to put the mer- in place. cury seal pot stopper securely in place. 6. Cell room floors...... Month ...... Cracks, spalling, or other deficiencies Repair the crack, spalling, or other defi- that could cause liquid mercury to be- ciency within 1 month from the time come trapped. you identify the deficiency. 7. Pillars and beams ...... 6 months ...... Cracks, spalling, or other deficiencies Repair the crack, spalling, or other defi- that could cause liquid mercury to be- ciency within 1 month from the time come trapped. you identify the deficiency. 8. Each caustic basket ...... Half day ...... A caustic basket cover that is not se- Take action immediately to put the caus- curely in place. tic basket cover securely in place. 9. All equipment and piping in the caustic Day ...... Equipment that is leaking caustic ...... Initiate repair of the leaking equipment system. within 72 hours from the time that you identify the caustic leak. 10. All floors and other surfaces where Half day ...... A liquid mercury spill or accumulation ..... Take the required action specified in liquid mercury could accumulate in cell Table 3 to this subpart. rooms and other production facilities and in mercury recovery facilities. 11. Each electrolyzer bottom, electrolyzer Day ...... Equipment that is leaking liquid mercury Take the required action specified in side panel, end box, mercury amalgam Table 3 to this subpart. seal pot, decomposer, mercury pump, and hydrogen cooler, and all other ves- sels, piping, and equipment in liquid mercury service in the cell room. 12. Each decomposer and all hydrogen Half day ...... Equipment that is leaking hydrogen and/ Take the required action specified in piping up to the hydrogen header. or mercury vapor. Table 3 to this subpart. 13. All equipment in the hydrogen system 3 months ...... Equipment that is leaking hydrogen and/ Take the required action specified in from the start of the header to the last or mercury vapor. Table 3 to this subpart. control device.

VerDate jul<14>2003 15:14 Dec 18, 2003 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19DER2.SGM 19DER2 70942 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 3 TO SUBPART IIIII OF PART 63.—WORK PRACTICE STANDARDS—REQUIRED ACTIONS FOR LIQUID MERCURY SPILLS AND ACCUMULATIONS AND HYDROGEN AND MERCURY VAPOR LEAKS [As stated in § 63.8192, you must meet the work practice standards in the following table]

During a required inspection or at any other time, If you find * * * You must * * *

1. A liquid mercury spill or accumulation ...... a. Initiate clean up of the liquid mercury spill or accumulation as soon as possible, but no later than 1 hour from the time you detect it. b. Clean up liquid mercury using a mercury vacuum cleaner or by using an alternative meth- od. If you use an alternative method to clean up liquid mercury, you must submit a descrip- tion of the method to the Administrator in your Notification of Compliance Status report. c. If you use a mercury vacuum cleaner, the vacuum cleaner must be designed to prevent generation of airborne mercury; you must cap the ends of hoses after each use; and after vacuuming, you must wash down the area. d. Inspect all equipment in liquid mercury service in the surrounding area to identify the source of the liquid mercury within 1 hour from the time you detect the liquid mercury spill or accu- mulation. e. If you identify leaking equipment as the source of the spill or accumulation, contain the drip- ping mercury, stop the leak, and repair the leaking equipment as specified below. f. If you cannot identify the source of the liquid mercury spill or accumulation, re-inspect the area within 6 hours of the time you detected the liquid mercury spill or accumulation, or within 6 hours of the last inspection of the area. 2. Equipment that is leaking liquid mercury ...... a. Contain the liquid mercury dripping from the leaking equipment by placing a container under the leak within 30 minutes from the time you identify the liquid mercury leak. b. The container must meet the requirement for open-top containers in Table 1 to this subpart. c. Make a first attempt at stopping the leak within 1 hour from the time you identify the liquid mercury leak. d. Stop the leak and repair the leaking equipment within 4 hours from the time you identify the liquid mercury leak. e. You can delay repair of equipment leaking liquid mercury if you either isolate the leaking equipment from the process so that it does not remain in mercury service; or determine that you cannot repair the leaking equipment without taking the cell off line, provided that you contain the dripping mercury at all times as described above, and take the cell off line as soon as practicable, but no later than 48 hours from the time you identify the leaking equip- ment. You cannot place the cell back into service until the leaking equipment is repaired. 3. A decomposer or hydrogen system piping up a. Make a first attempt at stopping the leak within 1 hour from the time you identify the hydro- to the hydrogen header that is leaking hydro- gen and/or mercury vapor leak. gen and/or mercury vapor. b. Stop the leak and repair the leaking equipment within 4 hours from the time you identify the hydrogen and/or mercury vapor leak. c. You can delay repair of a equipment leaking hydrogen and/or mercury vapor if you isolate the leaking equipment or take the cell off line until you repair the leaking equipment. 4. Equipment in the hydrogen system, from the a. Make a first attempt at stopping the leak within 4 hours from the time you identify the hy- start of the hydrogen header to the last con- drogen and/or mercury vapor leak. trol device, that is leaking hydrogen and/or mercury vapor. b. Stop the leak and repair the header within 24 hours from the time you identify the hydrogen and/or mercury vapor leak. c. You can delay repair of equipment leaking hydrogen and/or mercury vapor if you isolate the leaking equipment.

TABLE 4 TO SUBPART IIIII OF PART 63.—WORK PRACTICE STANDARDS—REQUIREMENTS FOR MERCURY LIQUID COLLECTION [As stated in § 63.8192, you must meet the work practice standards in the following table]

You must collect liquid At the following intervals When collecting the mercury, you must meet these requirements mercury from * * *

1. Open-top containers ...... a. At least once each 72 i. If you spill liquid mercury ii. From the time that you iii. Within 4 hours from the hours. during collection or collect liquid mercury time you‘ collect the liq- transport, you must take into a temporary con- uid mercury, you must the action specified in tainer until the time that transfer it from each Table 3 to this subpart you store the liquid mer- temporary container to a for liquid mercury spills cury, you must keep it storage container that and accumulations. covered by an aqueous meets the specifications liquid. in Table 1 to this sub- part. 2. Vessels, low point a. At least once each See 1.a.i through iii above. drains, mercury knock- week. out pots, and other closed mercury collection points.

VerDate jul<14>2003 15:14 Dec 18, 2003 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19DER2.SGM 19DER2 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 70943

TABLE 4 TO SUBPART IIIII OF PART 63.—WORK PRACTICE STANDARDS—REQUIREMENTS FOR MERCURY LIQUID COLLECTION—Continued [As stated in § 63.8192, you must meet the work practice standards in the following table] 3. All other equipment ...... a. Whenever maintenance See 1.a.i. through iii activities require the above. opening of the equip- ment.

TABLE 5 TO SUBPART IIIII.—REQUIRED ELEMENTS OF FLOOR-LEVEL MERCURY VAPOR MEASUREMENT AND CELL ROOM MONITORING PLANS [Your Floor-Level Mercury Vapor Measurement Plan required by § 63.8192(d) and Cell Room Monitoring Plan required by § 63.8192(g) must contain the elements listed in the following table]

You must specify in your plan * * * Additional requirements

Floor-Level Mercury Vapor Measurement Plan

1. Locations in the cell room where you will measure the The locations must be representative of the entire cell room floor area. At a minimum level of mercury vapor. you must measure the level of mercury vapor above mercury-containing cell room equipment, as well as areas around the cells, decomposes, or other mercury-con- taining equipment. 2. Equipment or sampling and analytical methods that If an instrument or other equipment is used, the plan must include manufacturer you will use to measure the level of mercury vapor. specifications and calibration procedures. The plan must also include a description of how you will ensure that the instrument will be calibrated and maintained ac- cording to manufacturer specifications. 3. Measurement frequency ...... Measurements must take place at least once each half day. 4. Number of measurements ...... At least three readings must be taken at each sample location and the average of these readings must be recorded. 5. A floor-level mercury concentration action level ...... The action level may not be higher than 0.05 mg/m3.

Cell Room Monitoring Plan

1. Details of your mercury monitoring system. 2. How representative sampling will be conducted ...... Include some pre-plan measurements to demonstrate the profile of mercury con- centration in the cell room and how the selected sampling locations ensure con- ducted representativeness. 3. Quality assurance/quality control procedures for your Include a description of how you will keep records or other means to demonstrate mercury monitoring system. that the system is operating properly. 4. Your action level ...... Include the background data used to establish your level.

TABLE 6 TO SUBPART IIIII OF PART 63.—EXAMPLES OF TECHNIQUES FOR EQUIPMENT PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION, LEAK DETECTION AND MERCURY VAPOR MEASUREMENTS [As stated in Tables 1 and 2 of Subpart IIIII, examples of techniques for equipment problem identification, leak detection and mercury vapor measurements can be found in the following table]

To detect * * * You could use * * * Principle of detection * * *

1. Leaking vent hoses; liquid mercury that is Visual inspections not covered by an aqueous liquid in open-top containers or end boxes; end box covers or stoppers, amalgam seal pot stoppers, or caustic basket covers not securely in place; cracks or spalling in cell room floors, pillars, or beams; caustic leaks; liquid mercury accu- mulations or spills; and equipment that is leaking liquid mercury. 2. Equipment that is leaking hydrogen and/or a. Auditory and visual inspections mercury vapor during inspections required by Table 2 to this subpart. b. Portable mercury vapor analyzer—ultra- A sample of gas is drawn through a detection violet light absorption detector. cell where ultraviolet light at 253.7 nanometers (nm) is directed perpendicularly through the sample toward a photodetector. Elemental mercury absorbs the incident light in proportion to its concentration in the air stream. c. Portable mercury vapor analyzer—gold film A sample of gas is drawn through a detection amalgamation detector. cell containing a gold film detector. Ele- mental mercury amalgamates with the gold film, changing the resistance of the detector in proportion to the mercury concentration in the air sample.

VerDate jul<14>2003 15:14 Dec 18, 2003 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19DER2.SGM 19DER2 70944 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 6 TO SUBPART IIIII OF PART 63.—EXAMPLES OF TECHNIQUES FOR EQUIPMENT PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION, LEAK DETECTION AND MERCURY VAPOR MEASUREMENTS—Continued [As stated in Tables 1 and 2 of Subpart IIIII, examples of techniques for equipment problem identification, leak detection and mercury vapor measurements can be found in the following table]

To detect * * * You could use * * * Principle of detection * * *

d. Portable short-wave ultraviolet light, fluores- Ultraviolet light is directed toward a fluores- cent background—visual indication. cent background positioned behind a sus- pected source of mercury emissions. Ele- mental mercury vapor absorbs the ultra- violet light, projecting a dark shadow image on the fluorescent background. e. Portable combustible gas meter. 3. Level of mercury vapor in the cell room and a. Portable mercury vapor analyzer—ultra- See Item 2.b. other areas. violet light absorption detector. b. Portable mercury vapor analyzer—gold film See Item 2.c. amalgamation detector. c. Permanganate impingement ...... A known volume of gas sample is absorbed in potassium permanganate solution. Ele- mental mercury in the solution is deter- mined using a cold vapor adsorption ana- lyzer, and the concentration of mercury in the gas sample is calculated.

TABLE 7 TO SUBPART IIIII OF PART 63.—REQUIRED ELEMENTS OF WASHDOWN PLANS [As stated in § 63.8192, your written washdown plan must address the elements contained in the following table]

For each of the following areas * * * You must establish the following as part of your plan * * *

1. Center aisles of cell rooms ...... A description of the manner of washdown of the area, and the washdown frequency for the area. 2. Electrolyzers 3. End boxes and areas under end boxes 4. Decomposers and areas under decomposers 5. Caustic baskets and areas around caustic baskets 6. Hydrogen system piping 7. Basement floor of cell rooms 8. Tanks 9. Pillars and beams in cell rooms 10. Mercury cell repair areas 11. Maintenance shop areas 12. Work tables 13. Mercury thermal recovery units 14. Storage areas for mercury-containing wastes

TABLE 8 TO SUBPART IIIII OF PART 63.—REQUIREMENTS FOR CELL ROOM MONITORING PROGRAM [As stated in § 63.8192(g)(1), your mercury monitoring system must meet the requirements contained in the following table]

If you utilize an * * * Your * * * Must * * *

1. Extractive cold vapor spectroscopy system .. a. Mercury vapor analyzer ...... Be capable of continuously monitoring the ele- mental mercury concentration with a detec- tion level at least two times lower than the baseline mercury concentration in the cell room. b. Sampling system ...... Obtain measurements at three or more loca- tions along the center aisle of the cell room at a height sufficient to ensure that sample is representative of the entire cell room. One sampling location must be above the midpoint of the center aisle, and the other two an equidistance between the midpoint and the end of the cells. 2. Open path differential optical absorption a. Mercury vapor analyzer ...... Be capable of continuously monitoring the ele- spectroscopy system. mental mercury concentration with a detec- tion level at least two times lower than the baseline mercury concentration in the cell room. b. Path ...... Be directed along the center aisle at a height sufficient to ensure that the sample is rep- resentative of the entire cell room.

VerDate jul<14>2003 15:14 Dec 18, 2003 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19DER2.SGM 19DER2 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 70945

TABLE 9 TO SUBPART IIIII OF PART 63.—REQUIRED RECORDS FOR WORK PRACTICE STANDARDS [As stated in § 63.8256(c), you must keep the records (related to the work practice standards) specified in the following table]

For each * * * You must record the following information * * *

1. Inspection required by Table 2 to this subpart ...... Date and time the inspection was conducted. 2. Situation found during an inspection required by Table 2 to this sub- a. Description of the condition. part: leaking vent hose; open-top container where liquid mercury is b. Location of the condition. not covered by an aqueous liquid; end box cover that is not securely c. Date and time you identify the condition. in place; end box stopper that is not securely in place; end box d. Description of the corrective action taken. where liquid mercury is not covered by an aqueous liquid at a tem- e. Date and time you successfully complete the corrective action. perature below boiling; seal pot cover that is not securely in place; open or mercury seal pot stopper that is not securely in place; crack, spalling, or other deficiency in a cell room floor, pillar, or beam that could cause liquid mercury to become trapped; or caustic basket that is not securely in place. 3. Caustic leak during an inspection required by Table 2 to this subpart a. Location of the leak. b. Date and time you identify the leak. c. Date and time you successfully stop the leak and repair the leaking equipment. 4. Liquid mercury spill or accumulation identified during an inspection a. Location of the liquid mercury spill or accumulation. required by Table 2 to this subpart or at any other time. b. Estimate of the weight of liquid mercury. c. Date and time you detect the liquid mercury spill or accumulation. d. Method you use to clean up the liquid mercury spill or accumulation. e. Date and time when you clean up the liquid mercury spill or accu- mulation. f. Source of the liquid mercury spill or accumulation. g. If the source of the liquid mercury spill or accumulation is not identi- fied, the time when you reinspect the area. 5. Liquid mercury leak or hydrogen leak identified during an inspection a. Location of the leak. required by Table 2 to this subpart or at any other time. b. Date and time you identify the leak. c. If the leak is a liquid mercury leak, the date and time that you suc- cessfully contain the dripping liquid mercury. d. Date and time you first attempt to stop the leak. e. Date and time you successfully stop the leak and repair the leaking equipment. f. If you take a cell off line or isolate the leaking equipment, the date and time you take the cell off line or isolate the leaking equipment, and the date and time you put the cell or isolated equipment back into service. 6. Occasion for which it is not possible to perform the design, operation a. Reason for not being able to perform each procedure determined to and maintenance procedures required by Item 2 of Table 1 to this be not possible. subpart. b. Actions taken to reduce or prevent mercury emissions, in lieu of the requirements in Table 1 to this subpart.

TABLE 10 TO SUBPART IIIII OF PART 63.—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART IIIII [As stated in § 63.8262, you must comply with the applicable General Provisions requirements according to the following table]

Citation Subject Applies to Subpart IIIII Explanation

§ 63.1 ...... Applicability ...... Yes. § 63.2 ...... Definitions ...... Yes. § 63.3 ...... Units and Abbreviations ...... Yes. § 63.4 ...... Prohibited Activities ...... Yes. § 63.5 ...... Construction/Reconstruction ...... Yes. § 63.6(a)–(g), (i), (j)...... Compliance with Standards and Yes. Maintenance Requirements. § 63.6(h) ...... Compliance with Opacity and Visi- No ...... Subpart IIIII does not have opac- ble Emission Standards. ity and visible emission stand- ards. § 63.7(a)(1), (b)–(h) ...... Performance Testing Require- Yes ...... Subpart IIIII specifies additional ments. requirements related to site- specific test plans and the con- duct of performance tests. § 63.7(a)(2) ...... Applicability and Performance No ...... Subpart IIIII requires the perform- Test Dates. ance test to be performed on the compliance date. § 63.8(a)(1), (a)(3); (b); (c)(1)–(4), Monitoring Requirements ...... Yes. (6)–(8); (d); (e); and (f)(1)–(5). § 63.8(a)(2) ...... Continuous Monitoring System No ...... Subpart IIIII requires a site-spe- (CMS) Requirements. cific monitoring plan in lieu of a promulgated performance spec- ification for a mercury con- centration CMS.

VerDate jul<14>2003 15:14 Dec 18, 2003 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19DER2.SGM 19DER2 70946 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 10 TO SUBPART IIIII OF PART 63.—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART IIIII—Continued [As stated in § 63.8262, you must comply with the applicable General Provisions requirements according to the following table]

Citation Subject Applies to Subpart IIIII Explanation

§ 63.8(a)(4) ...... Additional Monitoring Require- No ...... Subpart IIIII does not require ments for Control Devices in flares. § 63.11. § 63.8(c)(5) ...... COMS Minimum Procedures ...... No ...... Subpart IIIII does not have opac- ity and visible emission stand- ards. § 63.8(f)(6) ...... Alternative to Relative Accuracy No ...... Subpart IIIII does not require Test. CEMS. § 63.8(g) ...... Data Reduction ...... No ...... Subpart IIIII specifies mercury concentration CMS data reduc- tion requirements. § 63.9(a)–(e), (g)–(j) ...... Notification Requirements ...... Yes. § 63.9(f) ...... Notification of VE/Opacity Test .... No ...... Subpart IIIII does not have opac- ity and visible emission stand- ards. § 63.10(a); (b)(1); (b)(2)(i)–(xii), Recordkeeping/Reporting ...... Yes. (xiv); (b)(3); (c);(d)(1)–(2), (4)– (5); (e); (f). § 63.10(b)(2)(xiii) ...... CMS Records for RATA Alter- No ...... Subpart IIIII does not require native. CEMS. § 63.10(d)(3) ...... Reporting Opacity or VE Observa- No ...... Subpart IIIII does not have opac- tions. ity and visible emission stand- ards. § 63.11 ...... Flares ...... No ...... Subpart IIIII does not require flares. § 63.12 ...... Delegation ...... Yes. § 63.13 ...... Addresses ...... Yes. § 63.14 ...... Incorporation by Reference ...... Yes. § 63.15 ...... Availability of Information ...... Yes.

[FR Doc. 03–22926 Filed 12–18;–03; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

VerDate jul<14>2003 15:14 Dec 18, 2003 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19DER2.SGM 19DER2