Quiero saber acerca de...

1378

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2021 / Proposed Rules
tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS

minimum number of sensors. We are requesting comment on the types i.e., detection methodology of devices that should be used, the appropriate detection limit for these devices, and whether the devices should be subject to the continuous parameter monitoring requirements in 40 CFR 63.8 of the General Provisions of part 63. We are requesting comment on the appropriate sampling time and whether the proposed requirement that a measurement be taken every 15 minutes is appropriate, as well as the proposed 2 ppmv concentration level that triggers action i.e., additional inspections. In conjunction, we are requesting comment on whether action should be required based on a single measurement above the 2 ppmv action level, or whether it should be required when measurements averaged over a specified time period exceed 2 ppmv e.g., if the one-hour average concentration is greater than 2
ppmv. Finally, the proposed rule generically requires that records of all chlorine concentration measurements be maintained. We are requesting comments on whether the rule should include data acquisition system and data format requirements, and if so, what associated requirements might be appropriate.
The proposed rule would require that initial attempts at corrective actions of leaks be taken within 1 hour of detection, and the leak be repaired within 1 day of the date of detection.
Records would be required to document the equipment containing more than 5
percent by volume of chlorine and the dates and times the inspections occurred. For each leak identified, records would also be required identifying the piece of equipment with the leak, the date and time it was identified, the date and time a first attempt to repair the leak was performed, the date and time the leak was stopped and repaired, and a description of the repair made to stop the leak. Records would also be required of any deviation from these work practices. Also, the number of leaks found and repaired during the reporting timeframe and any deviations from the work practices would be included in the periodic report.
2. Reconsideration Petition and Beyondthe-Floor Analysis for Mercury In early 2004, the EPA received a petition for reconsideration pursuant to CAA section 307d7B and a petition for judicial review under CAA section 307b1 from the NRDC regarding the 2003 Mercury Cell Chlor-Alkali MACT
standards. In the petition for reconsideration, NRDC claimed that the
VerDate Sep<11>2014

20:05 Jan 07, 2021

Jkt 253001

EPA failed to conduct the required beyond-the-floor analysis under CAA
section 112d2 regarding whether to prohibit mercury emissions from existing sources, as the rule did for new and reconstructed sources. In a letter dated April 8, 2004, the EPA informed NRDC that it had granted the petition for reconsideration and would respond to NRDCs petition in a subsequent notice of proposed rulemaking. On July 20, 2004, the court put the litigation into abeyance and directed the EPA to file periodic status reports.
In 2006 and 2007, the EPA conducted a testing program to measure fugitive mercury emissions at two selected facilities to inform the reconsideration.
The EPA provided final reports regarding the results of the study to NRDC as required by a joint stipulation filed in the litigation. Both of the studied facilities are no longer operational. On June 11, 2008 73 FR
33258, the EPA published a proposed rule that provided the EPAs proposed response to the petition for reconsideration, which would require facilities to install and operate a continuous mercury monitoring system in the upper portions of the cell room and continue to perform the work practice standards with reduced recordkeeping and reporting requirements and no floor-level monitoring. The EPA received comments from Oceana, PPG Industries, the Chlorine Institute, Olin Chlor-alkali Products, and an anonymous submittal.
Subsequently, in 2011, the EPA
published a new proposed rulemaking in response to the petition for reconsideration 76 FR 13852, March 14, 2011. The new proposed rule contained two options that the EPA was considering. The first option was to require remaining existing facilities to convert to a non-mercury technology to produce chlorine as a beyond-the-floor measure under CAA section 112d2.
The second option included the combination of the continuous cell room monitoring program and work practice program originally proposed in 2008 as a beyond-the-floor measure.
Like for the 2008 proposed rule, the EPA received a number of comments from various stakeholders both for and against the 2011 proposed rulemaking.
All of the EPAs technical analyses for the proposed rulemakings, public comments, and other supporting information regarding the 2008 and 2011 proposals are available in the docket for the proposals Docket ID No.
EPAHQOAR20020017. No final action has been taken on the 2008 or 2011 proposals, or to respond to the petition for reconsideration, and the
PO 00000

Frm 00076

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

litigation concerning the 2003 NESHAP
remains in abeyance with the EPA still subject to the courts order to file periodic status reports.
In conjunction with this proposed RTR action under CAA sections 112d6 and 112f2, the EPA, pursuant to CAA sections 112d2 and 3, re-evaluated whether a beyond-thefloor requirement that facilities must convert to a non-mercury technology within 3 years would still be appropriate based on updated analyses compared to those supporting the 2011
proposal. In 2011 there were four such facilities still in operation. Two of these facilities were the subject of the EPAs studies of fugitive mercury emissions over 2006 and 2007, and they have since shut down. As described above, only one operating facility remains in the U.S. that uses the mercury cell process to produce chlorine. Based on our updated analysis, contained in the docket for this proposed rule, we estimate the capital costs would be about $69 million for the one remaining facility to convert to a non-mercury process. However, there would be savings over time due to the elimination of compliance costs associated with mercury and the higher efficiency and energy savings of switching to the membrane technology. The estimated annual costs, after accounting for the expected savings, are $2.8 million per year for the one remaining mercury cell facility. Based on reported mercury emissions, the cost effectiveness of the conversion is estimated to be $22,000
per pound of mercury emissions eliminated. However, we also note that the cost-effectiveness estimate is uncertain because, first, mercury emissions are based on calculations and assumptions regarding the facilitys emissions no test data are available for this facility, and second, because there are uncertainties with the cost estimates from the 2011 proposal as being transferable to the remaining facility. In the 2011 proposal, the estimated cost effectiveness was $20,000 per pound for the industry see 76 FR 13852, March 14, 2011, but this was substantially based on the studies conducted for the two no longer operating sources.
Based on consideration of the updated costs and cost effectiveness and uncertainties, and given the passage of time, and the fact that the costeffectiveness data and analysis done in 2011 were based on two facilities that are no longer operating, we question whether those 2011 analyses would still be transferable to the one remaining operating facility. Consequently, we are not proposing in this action to require the elimination of mercury as a beyond-

E:FRFM08JAP1.SGM

08JAP1