[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 10 (Friday, January 15, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 2611-2615]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-1031]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[AD-FRL-6220-8]
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Natural
Gas Transmission and Storage
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposal; reopening of public comment
period and notice of public hearing.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On February 6, 1998 (63 FR 6288), the EPA proposed standards
(the proposal or proposed standards) to limit emissions of hazardous
air pollutants (HAP) from existing and new natural gas transmission and
storage facilities under section 112 of the Clean Air Act as amended in
1990 (Act). The public comment period on the proposed standards ended
April 7, 1998. This action announces the availability of supplemental
information, the reopening of the public comment period on the
supplemental information, and the notice of public hearing.
During the public comment period, the EPA received comments that
the data collected by the EPA to support development of the proposed
rule did not adequately characterize the HAP emission sources and
controls in the natural gas transmission and storage source category.
The EPA agreed to solicit and consider additional data pertaining to
the development of maximum available control technology (MACT)
standards for the natural gas transmission and storage source category.
The EPA plans to consider comments received on this action, along with
comments received on the proposal, and take final action by May 15,
1999.
DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before February 16,
1999. For information on submitting electronic comments see the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. If a public hearing
is held, comments referring to new information resulting from the
public hearing must be received by March 1, 1999.
Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the EPA requesting to speak at a
public hearing by January 22, 1999, a public hearing will be held on
February 1, 1999, beginning at 9:30 a.m. Persons wishing to present
oral testimony must contact the EPA by January 22, 1999. For
information on requesting a public hearing see the ADDRESSES section of
this notice. For detailed information on the public hearing see the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.
ADDRESSES: Comments. Comments should be submitted (in duplicate, if
possible) to: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (MC-
6102), Attention: Docket No. A-94-04, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460. The docket is located
at this address in Room M-1500, Waterside Mall (ground floor). The EPA
requests that a separate copy of comments also be sent to Greg Nizich,
Waste and Chemical Processes Group (MD-13), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711;
telephone: (919) 541-3078; fax: (919) 541-0246 or electronically at:
[email protected]. Comments and data may be submitted electronically
by following the instructions listed in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. No
confidential business information (CBI) should be submitted
electronically.
Public Hearing: Persons interested in speaking at a hearing should
notify Ms. JoLynn Collins, telephone (919) 541-5671, Waste and Chemical
Processes Group (MD-13), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, NC 27711. Persons interested in attending the hearing
should contact Ms. Collins to verify that a hearing will occur.
Docket. A docket, No. A-94-04, containing information considered by
the EPA in the development of the proposed standards, public comments
received on the proposal, and the information discussed in today's
notice, is available for public inspection and copying between 8 a.m.
and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday (except Federal holidays), at the Air
and Radiation Docket and Information Center. See the above address. A
reasonable fee may be charged for copying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning today's
action,
[[Page 2612]]
contact Mr. Greg Nizich, Waste and Chemical Processes Group (MD-13),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711; telephone: (919) 541-3078; fax (919) 541-0246; or
electronically at: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public Hearing. A public hearing will be
held, if requested, to provide interested persons an opportunity for
oral presentation of data, views, or arguments concerning the
supplemental data for the natural gas transmission and storage proposed
standards. If a public hearing is requested and held, the EPA may ask
clarifying questions regarding the oral presentation but will not
respond to the presentation or comments. Written statements and
supporting information will be considered with equivalent weight as any
oral statement and supporting information subsequently presented at a
public hearing, if held.
Electronic Comments. Electronic comments can be sent directly to
the EPA at: A-and-R-D[email protected]. Electronic comments must be
submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the use of special characters and
any form of encryption. Comments and data will also be accepted on
disks in WordPerfect in 5.1 and 6.1 file format or ASCII file format.
All comments and data in electronic form must be identified by the
docket number A-94-04. Electronic comments on this notice may be filed
online at many Federal Depository Libraries.
The information presented in this notice is organized as follows:
I. Background
II. Collection of Additional Information
III. MACT Floor for Existing Sources
IV. MACT Floor for New Sources
V. Throughput and Benzene Emissions Cutoffs
VI. Solicitation of Comments
VII. Administrative Requirements
A. Docket
B. Public Hearing
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
D. Executive Order 12866: A Significant Regulatory Action
Determination
E. Regulatory Flexibility Act
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
G. Executive Order 12875: Enhancing the Intergovernmental
Partnership
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks.
I. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
I. Background
On February 6, 1998 (63 FR 6288), the EPA proposed standards to
limit emissions of HAP from existing and new natural gas transmission
and storage facilities under the authority of section 112 of the Act.
These standards would be codified under 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHH.
The EPA proposed that process vents on existing or new glycol
dehydration units that are located at major HAP sources, must be
controlled for HAP unless: (1) The actual annual average flowrate of
natural gas to the unit is less than 85 thousand cubic meters per day
(m\3\/day) (3.0 million standard cubic feet per day (MMSCF/D)), or (2)
if actual annual benzene emissions from the unit are less than 0.9
megagram per year (Mg/yr) (1 ton per year (tpy)). Glycol dehydration
units required to use air emission controls would also be required
under the proposed standard to reduce HAP emissions by 95 percent or
more or to reduce HAP emissions to an outlet concentration of 20 parts
per million by volume (ppmv) or less for combustion devices. In
addition, pollution prevention measures, such as process modifications
that reduce the amount of HAP emissions generated, could be used, alone
or in combination with a control device, provided they are demonstrated
to achieve a HAP emission reduction of 95 percent or greater.
The proposed standards were developed under the authority of
section 112(d) of the Act, which requires the EPA to establish
standards to reflect the maximum degree of reduction in HAP emissions.
The EPA is required to establish standards that are no less stringent
than the level of control defined under section 112(d)(3), referred to
as the MACT floor. Under section 112 of the Act, the minimum level (the
floor) at which standards may be set, for existing sources, is the
``average emission limitation achieved by the best performing 12
percent of the existing sources'' (section 112(d)(3) of the Act). The
EPA collects and reviews available information on emission limitations
achieved by each of: (1) The best performing 12 percent of existing
sources in a category consisting of more than 30 sources, or (2) the
best performing five sources in a category consisting of 30 sources or
less. The Agency then determines an average of those limitations.
``Average'' is interpreted by the Agency to mean a measure of central
tendency such as the arithmetic mean, median, or mode or some other
central tendency within the available data.
The EPA collected information to support the proposal through: (1)
A questionnaire developed under the authority of section 114 of the
Clean Air Act (CAA) that was distributed to one company with 31 glycol
dehydration units in the natural gas transmission and storage source
category, and (2) a search of the available literature. Based on the
available information collected, the EPA estimated that five facilities
in the natural gas transmission and storage source category would be
impacted by the proposed rule. Further, the Agency concluded at that
time that the floor for existing and new sources in the natural gas
transmission and storage source category was a 95-percent HAP emission
reduction.
During the public comment period, which closed on April 7, 1998,
the EPA received several comment letters stating that the EPA did not
collect information sufficient to properly characterize the natural gas
transmission and storage source category for the purpose of developing
MACT standards. In particular, the commenters were concerned that the
proposed control level of 95 percent and the throughput level cutoff of
85 thousand m\3\/day (3.0 MMSCF/D) were not appropriate for glycol
dehydration units in the natural gas transmission and storage source
category. No comments were received requesting a change in the 0.9-Mg/
yr (1-tpy) benzene emissions cutoff. The commenters requested that the
EPA collect additional information to characterize HAP emissions and
controls in the industry properly.
II. Collection of Additional Information
The EPA addressed these concerns by collecting additional
information on glycol dehydration units in the natural gas transmission
and storage source category. The EPA conducted site visits to five
natural gas transmission and storage facilities to gain additional
first-hand knowledge of the processes and operations at existing
facilities in this source category. The EPA also met with stakeholders
from the natural gas transmission and storage industry to understand
their concerns. The EPA developed a questionnaire for distribution to
selected natural gas transmission and storage companies under the
authority of section 114 of the CAA. In the questionnaire, the EPA
requested data on the processes, operations, and control technologies
in use at existing natural gas transmission and storage facilities and
relevant to the development of HAP emissions standards.
Through the questionnaire and site visits, the EPA collected
additional information on approximately 81 facilities in the natural
gas transmission and storage source category. The EPA is considering
this new information, along
[[Page 2613]]
with previously collected information on the natural gas transmission
and storage source category, to develop a MACT floor for process vents
on glycol dehydration units located at existing and new facilities in
this source category. The EPA is also considering the development of
appropriate natural gas throughput and benzene emissions threshold
levels for which sources below these cutoffs would not be subject to
the control requirements.
The purpose of this notice is to announce the availability of, and
to discuss the consideration of, the additional information on the
natural gas transmission and storage source category collected by the
EPA since proposal. The additional data being announced today includes
the following items located in Air Docket A-94-04: (1) Completed
responses to the EPA's section 114 survey questionnaire, items IV-G-24,
and IV-G-26 through IV-G-32; (2) site visit information, items IV-G-21,
IV-G-22, and IV-G-25; and (3) summary of the meeting with
representatives of the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America,
the Gas Research Institute, and industry, item IV-E-02. The EPA has
also prepared analyses of these data, items MACT floor memo docket
number and throughput and benzene emissions cutoff memo docket number.
III. MACT Floor for Existing Sources
According to the information collected from 112 facilities through
the section 114 questionnaire, site visits, and data previously
collected during the development of the proposed standards, 69 glycol
dehydration units are controlled. Fifty-nine of these units utilize
combustion as the control technology for process vents on glycol
dehydration units. Of these, 51 utilize flares, seven utilize enclosed
combustion devices, and one uses an in-stack flare system. Six units
utilize a combination of condensation and combustion to control glycol
dehydration unit process vents and four utilize condensation.
The MACT floor analysis for the natural gas transmission and
storage source category is based on information available on the top 14
performing glycol dehydration units, which corresponds to 12 percent of
112 glycol dehydration units.
The EPA compared the data on the average emission limitation
achieved by the 14 best performing units to the proposed control level
of 95 percent for process vents on glycol dehydration units at existing
and new natural gas transmission and storage facilities. The available
information indicates that the best performing 12 percent of the
facilities, i.e., 14 units, utilize some form of combustion and achieve
an average HAP emission reduction of 98 percent. However, among all
sources that apply combustion, the reported control efficiency ranged
from 95 to 98 percent. The EPA has been unable to determine the
technical basis for the reported differences in the control
efficiencies for these combustion devices. Therefore, in order to
account for the observed variability in HAP emission reduction
efficiency, the EPA has selected 95 percent as the required HAP
emission reduction for this source category associated with this
technology. The EPA solicits comments and supporting information on the
MACT floor level of 95-percent HAP emission reduction. As noted in the
ADDRESSES section of today's notice, the docket (Docket No. A-94-04)
contains the information collected from industry, as well as a more
detailed analysis of these data (item MACT floor memo docket number).
IV. MACT Floor for New Sources
Under the proposed standards, the MACT floor for new sources was
the same as the MACT floor for existing sources (i.e., 95-percent
control). In the review of the new additional information, the EPA did
not identify a method of control applicable to all types of new sources
that would achieve a greater level of HAP emission reduction than the
MACT floor for existing sources. Therefore, as with the proposal, the
EPA is considering a MACT floor for new sources in the natural gas
transmission and storage source category to be the same as the MACT
floor for existing sources.
V. Throughput and Benzene Emissions Cutoff
In the proposal, glycol dehydration units operating at an actual
annual average natural gas throughput less than 85 thousand m\3\/day (3
MMSCF/D) or having benzene emissions less than 0.9 Mg/yr (1 tpy) are
exempt from the control requirements. The EPA evaluated the data
collected from the 112 facilities in the natural gas transmission and
storage source category to determine whether there was a natural gas
throughput level, or a benzene emission level for which glycol
dehydration units operating below this level were not controlled.
In the new data, the Agency did not identify evidence to suggest
that glycol dehydration units operating with actual annual average
natural gas throughput rates less than 283 thousand m\3\/day (10 MMSCF/
D) or having actual benzene emissions less than 0.9 Mg/yr (1 tpy) are
controlled at the MACT floor. The EPA does not believe that it would be
cost effective to go beyond the floor for these glycol dehydration
units.
In addition, the Agency does not have any information indicating
that, there are any sources in the natural gas transmission and storage
source category operating below 283 thousand m\3\/day (10 MMSCF/D) or
having benzene emissions less than 0.9 Mg/yr (1 tpy) that have
emissions greater than the major source thresholds of 10 tpy for
individual HAP or 25 tpy for any combination of HAP.
Based on the available information, the EPA is considering raising
the throughput cutoff from the proposed level of 85 thousand m\3\/day
(3 MMSCF/D) to 283 thousand m\3\/day (10 MMSCF/D) on an actual annual
average basis; glycol dehydration units operating below this level
would not have to apply controls. Further, the EPA believes that the
0.9-Mg/yr (1-tpy) benzene cutoff provided in the proposed standards is
appropriate for glycol dehydration units in the natural gas
transmission and storage source category. Therefore, no changes have
been made to the benzene emissions cutoff.
VI. Solicitation of Comments
Specifically, the EPA is requesting comments and supporting
information on the consideration of a 95-percent HAP emission reduction
as the floor level of control for new and existing facilities in the
natural gas transmission and storage source category as required under
section 112 of the Act. The EPA is also requesting comments on the 283-
thousand m\3\/day (10-MMSCF/D) actual annual average throughput and the
0.9-Mg/yr (1-tpy) benzene emission cutoffs for the control of glycol
dehydration units in this source category.
VII. Administrative Requirements
A. Docket
The docket for this rulemaking is A-94-04. The docket is an
organized and complete file of all the information considered by the
EPA in the development of this rulemaking. The principal purposes of
the docket are (1) to allow interested parties a means to identify and
locate documents so that they can effectively participate in the
rulemaking process and (2) to serve as the record in case of judicial
review (except for interagency review materials) (section 307(d)(7)(A)
of the Act). This docket contains copies of the regulatory text, BID,
BID references, and technical memoranda documenting the
[[Page 2614]]
information considered by the EPA in the development of the proposed
rule. The docket is available for public inspection at the EPA's Air
and Radiation Docket and Information Center, the location of which is
given in the ADDRESSES section of this notice.
B. Public Hearing
A public hearing will be held, if requested, to discuss this
supplemental information in accordance with section 307(d)(5) of the
Act. If a public hearing is held, the EPA will ask clarifying questions
during the oral presentations but will not respond to the presentations
or comments. To provide an opportunity for all who may wish to speak,
oral presentations will be limited to 15 minutes each. Any member of
the public may file a written statement (see DATES and ADDRESSES).
Written statements and supporting information will be considered with
equivalent weight as any oral statement and supporting information
subsequently presented at a public hearing, if held.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information requirements of the proposed NESHAP were submitted
for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on May 15,
1997 under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An
Information Collection Request (ICR) document has been prepared by the
EPA (ICR No. 1789.01), and a copy may be obtained from Sandy Farmer,
OPPE Regulatory Information Division; U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (2137); 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460 or by calling
(202) 260-2740. The information requirements are not effective until
OMB approves them.
Today's notice will have no impact on the information collection
burden estimates made previously. This notice announces the
availability of additional data and presents the EPA's consideration of
these new data and therefore does not mandate any new requirements.
Consequently, the ICR has not been revised.
D. Executive Order 12866: A Significant Regulatory Action Determination
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 5173 (October 4, 1993)), the EPA
must determine whether the proposed regulatory action is
``significant,'' and therefore, subject to OMB review and the
requirements of the Executive Order. The order defines a
``significant'' regulatory action as one that is likely to lead to a
rule that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million
or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of
the economy, public health or safety in State, local, or tribal
governments or communities; (2) create a serious inconsistency or
otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user
fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
It has been determined that today's notice of data availability is
not a ``significant'' regulatory action, since it does not establish or
lead to new regulatory requirements (and therefore is not a regulatory
action). Therefore, today's notice did not require OMB review.
E. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements, unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental
jurisdictions. Today's notice announces the availability of additional
information and the EPA's consideration of these new data and does not
establish any binding rules of general applicability.
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub. L.
104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, the
EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-
benefit analysis, for the proposed and final rules with ``Federal
mandates'' that may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100
million or more in any one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for
which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally
requires the EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of
regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-
effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives
of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are
inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows the EPA
to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-
effective, or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator
publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was
not adopted. Before the EPA establishes any regulatory requirements
that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including
tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the
UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for
notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of
affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the
development of the EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal
intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising
small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
The EPA has determined that today's action does not include a
Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or
more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate or
to the private sector. Therefore, the requirements of the Unfunded
Mandates Act do not apply to today's action.
G. Executive Order 12875: Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership
Under Executive Order 12875, the EPA may not issue a regulation
that is not required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a
State, local, or tribal government unless the Federal government
provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs
incurred by those governments, or the EPA consults with those
governments. If the EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 12875
requires the EPA to provide the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a
description of the extent of the EPA's prior consultation with
representatives of affected State, local, and tribal governments, the
nature of their concerns, copies of any written communications from the
governments, and a statement supporting the need to issue the
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 12875 requires the EPA to
develop an effective process permitting elected officials and other
representatives of State, local, and tribal governments to provide
meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory proposals
containing significant unfunded mandates.
While the proposed rule, published on February 6, 1998, does not
create mandates upon State, local, or tribal governments, the EPA
involved State and local governments in its development. Because
today's action is
[[Page 2615]]
announcing the availability of additional data and the EPA's
consideration of this new data, today's action does not create a
mandate upon State, local, or tribal governments.
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045 applies to any rule that the EPA determines
(1) is economically significant as defined under Executive Order 12866,
and (2) the environmental health or safety risk addressed by the rule
has a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action
meets both criteria, the EPA must evaluate the environmental health or
safety effects of the planned rule on children and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the EPA.
Today's action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it
does not involve decisions on environmental health or safety risks that
may disproportionately affect children.
I. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Under Executive Order 13084, the EPA may not issue a regulation
that is not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects
the communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes
substantial direct compliance costs on those communities unless the
Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by the tribal governments, or the EPA
consults with those governments. If the EPA complies by consulting,
Executive Order 13084 requires the EPA to provide to the OMB, in a
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a
description of the extent of the EPA's prior consultation with
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires the EPA to
develop an effective process permitting elected officials and other
representatives of Indian tribal governments to provide meaningful and
timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters that
significantly or uniquely affect their communities.
Today's action does not significantly or uniquely affect the
communities of Indian tribal governments. The proposed rule, published
on February 6, 1998, does not create mandates upon tribal governments.
Because today's action announces the availability of additional data
and the EPA's interpretation of that data, today's action does not
create a mandate on tribal governments. Accordingly, the requirements
of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to this action.
J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) directs all Federal agencies to use voluntary consensus
standards instead of government-unique standards in their regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, business practices) that are developed or adopted by one or
more voluntary consensus standards bodies. Examples of organizations
generally regarded as voluntary consensus standards bodies include the
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), the National Fire
Protection Association (NFPA), and the Society of Automotive Engineers
(SAE). The NTTAA requires Federal agencies like the EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, with explanations when an agency decides not to
use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
Today's notice does not involve any new technical standards or the
incorporation by reference of existing technical standards. Therefore,
consideration of voluntary consensus standards is not relevant to this
action.
Dated: January 7, 1999.
Robert Perciasepe,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation.
[FR Doc. 99-1031 Filed 1-14-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-U