1
PART
A
OF
THE
SUPPORTING
STATEMENT
1.
IDENTIFICATION
OF
THE
INFORMATION
COLLECTION
1(
a)
Title
and
Number
of
the
Information
Collection
The
title
of
this
collection
is
"
Monitoring,
Inspection,
Recordkeeping,
and
Reporting
Requirements
for
NESHAP
for
Mercury
Cell
Chlor­
Alkali
Plants."
This
is
a
new
Information
Collection
Request
(
ICR),
and
the
tracking
number
is
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA)

ICR
No.
2046.02.

1(
b)
Short
Characterization
This
ICR
was
prepared
for
a
U.
S.
EPA
final
rulemaking
developed
under
the
authority
of
section
112
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
(
CAA).
The
final
rule
amends
title
40,
chapter
I,
part
63
of
the
Code
of
Federal
Regulations
(
CFR)
with
subpart
IIIII
­
National
Emissions
Standards
for
Hazardous
Air
Pollutants
(
NESHAP)
for
mercury
cell
chlor­
alkali
plants
(
hereafter
this
subpart
is
referred
to
as
the
"
mercury
cell
chlor­
alkali
NESHAP").
The
mercury
cell
chlor­
alkali
NESHAP
includes
standards
for
mercury
air
emissions
from
all
(
major
and
area
source)
mercury
cell
chloralkali
plants.
Respondents
are
owners
or
operators
of
affected
sources
regulated
under
the
mercury
cell
chlor­
alkali
NESHAP.
All
existing
sources
must
be
in
compliance
with
the
requirements
of
the
mercury
cell
chlor­
alkali
NESHAP
within
three
years
of
the
effective
date
(
promulgation
date)
of
standards
for
an
affected
source.
All
new
or
reconstructed
mercury
cell
chlor­
alkali
affected
sources
must
be
in
compliance
with
the
requirements
of
the
mercury
cell
chlor­
alkali
NESHAP
on
the
date
of
startup
or
the
effective
date,
whichever
is
later.

For
the
purposes
of
this
rule,
the
chlorine
production
source
category
is
divided
into
two
subcategories:
(
1)
mercury
cell
chlor­
alkali
plants
and
(
2)
chlorine
production
plants
that
do
not
rely
upon
mercury
cells
for
chlorine
production
(
diaphragm
cell
chlor­
alkali
plants,
membrane
cell
chlor­
alkali
plants,
etc.).
This
ICR
only
addresses
the
mercury
cell
chlor­
alkali
subcategory.
The
non­
mercury
chlorine
production
subcategory
is
being
addressed
under
a
separate
action.
This
ICR
is
based
on
nine
existing
mercury
cell
chlor­
alkali
plants
in
the
United
States
which
were
considered
to
be
a
part
of
the
mercury
cell
chlor­
alkali
plant
source
category
for
regulatory
development
and
would
be
required
to
comply
with
the
mercury
cell
chlor­
alkali
NESHAP
within
2
three
years
of
the
effective
date
(
promulgation
date).
It
is
believed
that
no
new
mercury
cell
chlor­
alkali
plants
will
be
constructed,
an
assertion
which
is
strengthened
by
the
fact
that
no
new
plants
have
been
constructed
in
the
United
States
in
over
30
years.
Future
demand
for
chloralkali
production
is
anticipated
to
be
met
using
other
chlor­
alkali
cell
types
which
do
not
result
in
any
mercury
emissions.
Therefore,
no
new
or
reconstructed
plants
were
considered
in
this
ICR.

The
period
considered
in
this
ICR
is
the
first
three
years
following
promulgation
of
the
mercury
cell
chlor­
alkali
NESHAP.
For
the
purposes
of
calculating
the
monitoring,

recordkeeping
and
reporting
burden
over
this
period,
we
made
the
following
assumptions
based
on
available
information.
We
assumed
that
all
existing
and
new
major
sources
will
read
the
rule.

To
be
conservative,
we
assumed
that
each
facility
would
choose
the
continuous
monitoring
option
to
demonstrate
compliance
with
the
emission
limitations
for
vents
and
each
facility
would
choose
to
implement
the
work
practice
standards,
and
a
continuous
monitoring
program.

We
estimate
total
MIRR
costs
for
new
and
existing
sources
during
the
first
three
years
after
promulgation
of
the
mercury
cell
chlor­
Alkali
NESHAP
are
$
924,140.
Of
the
estimated
total
MIRR
costs,
$
295,928
is
the
labor
cost
for
the
first
three
years
(
which
is
elsewhere
accounted
for
as
labor
hours),
$
365,754
is
the
operation
and
maintenance
(
O&
M)
cost
(
i.
e.,
all
recurring
MIRR
cost
not
reflected
as
labor),
and
$
262,458
is
the
annualized
capital
and
startup
cost.
See
section
6
for
more
details
on
cost
estimates.

2.
NEED
FOR
AND
USE
OF
THE
COLLECTION
2(
a)
Need/
Authority
for
the
Collection
We
have
been
directed
by
section
112
of
the
CAA
to
regulate
the
emissions
of
HAP
from
stationary
sources.
Section
112(
c)(
1)
of
the
CAA
requires
us
to
list
categories
and
subcategories
of
major
and
area
sources
of
HAP
and
to
establish
NESHAP
for
the
listed
source
categories
and
subcategories.
The
chlorine
production
source
category
contains
major
sources
of
HAP
emissions
and
is
included
on
our
list
of
categories
scheduled
for
regulation.
In
addition,

section
112(
c)(
6)
requires
us
to
list
source
categories
and
subcategories
assuring
that
sources
accounting
for
not
less
than
90
percent
of
the
aggregate
emissions
of
each
of
seven
specific
pollutants
(
including
mercury)
are
subject
to
standards
under
section
112(
d)
of
the
CAA.

Chloralkali
production
was
among
the
categories
of
sources
identified
under
112(
c)(
6)
to
achieve
3
the
90
percent
emission
reduction
goal
for
mercury.
While
this
category
was
titled
as
"
chloralkali
production,"
the
only
sources
of
mercury
emissions
are
mercury
cell
chlor­
alkali
plants.

However,
the
mercury
cell
chlor­
alkali
subcategory
was
not
officially
"
listed"
under
112(
c)(
6)

because
the
chlorine
production
source
category
was
already
listed
under
112(
c)(
1)
and
would
be
subject
to
112(
d)(
2)
standards
via
that
chlorine
production
source
category
listing.

The
HAP
identified
as
being
emitted
from
mercury
cell
chlor­
alkali
sources
are
mercury,

chlorine,
and
hydrogen
chlorine
(
HCl).
We
are
using
our
authority
under
section
112(
d)(
4)
of
the
CAA
to
not
regulate
chlorine
and
HCl
emissions
from
mercury
cell
chlor­
alkali
sources.

Therefore,
the
only
HAP
being
regulated
by
the
final
rule
is
mercury.

We
estimate
that
the
mercury
cell
chlor­
alkali
production
processes
contribute
around
5
½
percent
of
the
total
nationwide
anthropogenic
stationary
source
category
mercury
emissions
(
63
FR
17838),
and
over
25
percent
of
the
total
nationwide
mercury
emissions
from
noncombustion
sources.
The
only
type
of
chlor­
alkali
production
process
that
uses
and
emits
mercury
is
the
mercury
cell
process.

Mercury
is
a
neurotoxicant
that
accumulates,
primarily
in
the
especially
potent
form
of
methylmercury,
in
aquatic
food
chains.
The
highest
levels
are
reached
in
predator
fish
species.

Mercury
emitted
to
the
air
from
various
types
of
sources
(
usually
in
the
elemental
or
inorganic
forms)
transports
through
the
atmosphere
and
eventually
deposits
onto
land
or
water
bodies.

When
mercury
is
deposited
to
surface
waters,
natural
processes
(
bacterial)
can
transform
some
of
the
mercury
into
methylmercury
that
accumulates
in
fish.
Ingestion
is
the
primary
exposure
route
of
interest
for
methylmercury.
The
health
effect
of
greatest
concern
due
to
methylmercury
is
neurotoxicity,
particularly
with
respect
to
fetuses
and
young
children.

Section
112(
d)
requires
us
to
promulgate
regulations
establishing
emission
standards
for
each
category
or
subcategory
of
major
sources
and
area
sources
of
HAP
listed
pursuant
to
section
112(
c).
Section
112(
d)(
2)
specifies
that
emission
standards
promulgated
under
the
section
shall
require
the
maximum
degree
of
reductions
in
emissions
of
the
HAP
subject
to
section
112
that
are
deemed
achievable
(
the
maximum
achievable
control
technology,
or
MACT)
taking
into
consideration
the
cost
of
achieving
the
emission
reduction,
any
non­
air
quality
health
and
environmental
impacts,
and
energy
requirements.
Section
112(
d)(
4)
provides
for
consideration
of
1This
regulatory
program
was
originally
set
forth
at
38
FR
8826,
April
6,
1973;
and
amended
at:
40
FR
48302,
October
14,
1975;
47
FR
24704,
June
8,
1982;
49
FR
35770,
September
12,
1984;
50
FR
46294,
November
7,
1985;
52
FR
8726,
March
19,
1987;
and,
53
FR
36972,
September
23,
1988.

4
health
thresholds
with
an
ample
margin
of
safety.
Certain
other
sections
of
section
112
require
the
EPA,
in
addition
to
technology­
based
standards,
to
evaluate
risk
to
public
health
and
the
environment
in
determining
whether
other
control
measures
are
appropriate.

Section
114
of
the
CAA
gives
us
authority
to
collect
data
and
information
necessary
to
enforce
standards
established
under
section
112
of
the
CAA.
Certain
records
and
reports
are
necessary
to
enable
the
Administrator
to
(
1)
identify
existing
and
new
emission
sources
subject
to
the
mercury
cell
chlor­
alkali
NESHAP,
and
(
2)
ensure
that
the
requirements
specified
for
an
affected
source
subject
to
the
mercury
cell
chlor­
alkali
NESHAP,
which
are
based
on
maximum
achievable
control
technology
(
MACT),
are
being
achieved.

2(
b)
Practical
Utility/
Users
of
the
Data
The
information
will
be
used
by
our
enforcement
personnel
to:
(
1)
identify
existing
or
new
emission
sources
subject
to
the
mercury
cell
chlor­
alkali
NESHAP,
(
2)
ensure
that
MACT
is
being
properly
applied,
and
(
3)
ensure
that
control
equipment
is
being
properly
operated
and
maintained
on
a
continuous
basis
to
reduce
mercury
emissions
from
mercury
cell
chlor­
alkali
plants.

Records
and
reports
are
necessary
to
enable
us
to
identify
facilities
subject
to
the
mercury
cell
chlor­
alkali
NESHAP
that
may
not
be
in
compliance.
Based
on
reported
information,
we
can
decide
whether
to
inspect
a
facility
and
which
records
or
processes
to
inspect.
The
records
that
facilities
maintain
must
indicate
to
us
whether
facility
personnel
are
operating
and
maintaining
control
equipment
properly.

3.
NONDUPLICATION,
CONSULTATION,
AND
OTHER
COLLECTION
CRITERIA
3(
a)
Nonduplication
A
search
of
our
existing
standard
and
ongoing
ICRs
revealed
some
overlap
in
information
gathering
efforts
between
the
mercury
cell
chlor­
alkali
NESHAP
and
a
federal
rule.
We
originally
promulgated
the
"
National
Emission
Standard
for
Mercury"
on
April
6,
1973
(
See
40
CFR
part
61,
subpart
E,
§
61.50
et.
seq.).
1
This
standard
(
hereafter
referred
to
as
the
part
5
61
NESHAP)
limits
mercury
emissions
from
mercury
chlor­
alkali
plants
as
well
as
mercury
ore
processing
facilities
and
sludge
incineration
and
drying
plants.
Since
the
final
mercury
cell
chloralkali
NESHAP,
including
many
of
the
MIRR
requirements,
is
more
stringent
than
the
part
61
NESHAP,
upon
the
compliance
date
of
the
final
mercury
cell
chlor­
alkali
NESHAP,
mercury
cell
chlor­
alkali
plants
would
neither
have
any
obligation
nor
any
ability
to
comply
with
the
part
61
NESHAP
instead
of
the
part
63
provisions.
Therefore,
there
would
effectively
be
no
duplication
of
information­
gathering
efforts
among
our
existing
standards
and
ongoing
ICR's.

Certain
control
system
performance
test
reports
required
by
the
final
mercury
cell
chloralkali
NESHAP
may
duplicate
information
also
required
by
a
State
air
regulatory
agency.
In
such
cases,
a
copy
of
the
test
report
submitted
to
the
State
agency
could
be
provided
to
EPA
to
meet
requirements
in
the
final
mercury
cell
chlor­
alkali
NESHAP.

3(
b)
Public
Notice
Required
Prior
to
ICR
Submission
to
OMB
This
section
does
not
apply
since
public
notice
was
given
as
part
of
the
proposal
process
for
the
mercury
cell
chlor­
alkali
NESHAP.

3(
c)
Consultations
OMB
regulations
require
periodic
consultation
with
respondents
and
data
users
such
as
members
of
industry
as
well
as
State
and
local
governments.
We
consulted
with
representatives
of
the
six
companies
operating
mercury
cell
chlor­
alkali
plants
throughout
the
mercury
cell
chloralkali
NESHAP
development
process
(
Occidental
Chemical
Corporation;
Olin
Corporation;
PPG
Industries,
Incorporated;
ASHTA
Chemicals,
Incorporated;
Pioneer
Chlor­
Alkali
Company,

Incorporated;
and
Vulcan
Materials
Company).

Public
comments
on
the
mercury
cell
chlor­
alkali
NESHAP
were
solicited
by
the
proposal
notice.
We
received
a
total
of
nine
letters
commenting
on
the
proposed
standards
(
two
letters
were
received
well
after
the
close
of
the
public
comment
period).
The
comments
were
summarized
and
addressed
in
the
EPA
document
"
Background
Information
Document
for
Promulgation
of
National
Emissions
Standards
for
Hazardous
Air
Pollutants
(
NESHAP):

Mercury
Cell
Chlor­
Alkali
Plants
­
Summary
of
Public
Comments
and
Responses."
All
comments
that
were
received
were
considered
and
some
changes
in
response
to
the
comments
are
reflected
in
the
final
mercury
cell
chlor­
alkali
NESHAP.
6
3(
d)
Effects
of
Less
Frequent
Collection
If
the
requirement
for
the
designated
representatives
of
owners
and
operators
of
affected
sources
to
submit
compliance
demonstrations
of
relevant
information
were
collected
less
frequently,
we
would
not
be
reasonably
assured
that
a
source
is
in
compliance
with
the
mercury
cell
chlor­
alkali
NESHAP.
In
addition,
our
authority
to
take
administrative
action
would
be
significantly
reduced.

3(
e)
General
Guidelines
The
mercury
cell
chlor­
alkali
NESHAP
requires
owners
and
operators
of
an
affected
source
to
retain
records
for
five
years,
which
exceeds
the
three­
year
retention
period
contained
in
the
general
information
collection
guidelines
in
5
CFR
1320.6.
The
five­
year
retention
period
is
consistent
with
the
General
Provisions
(
40
CFR
part
63,
subpart
A)
and
the
retention
requirement
in
the
operating
permit
program
under
title
V
of
the
CAA.
All
subsequent
general
guidelines
have
been
followed
and
do
not
violate
any
of
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
guidelines
contained
in
5
CFR
1320.6.

3(
f)
Confidentiality
All
information
submitted
to
us
for
which
a
claim
of
confidentiality
is
made
will
be
safeguarded
according
to
the
our
policies
set
forth
in
Title
40,
Chapter
1,
Part
2,
Subpart
B
­­

Confidentiality
of
Business
Information
(
see
40
CFR
part
2;
41
FR
36902,
September
1,
1976;

amended
by
43
FR
39999,
September
28,
1978;
43
FR
42251,
September
28,
1978;

44
FR
17674,
March
23,
1979).
Even
where
we
have
determined
that
data
received
in
response
to
an
ICR
is
eligible
for
confidential
treatment
under
40
CFR
part
2,
Subpart
B,
we
may
nonetheless
disclose
the
information
if
it
is
"
relevant
in
any
proceeding"
under
the
statute
[
42
U.
S.
C.
7414(
c);
40
CFR
2.301(
g)].
This
information
collection
complies
with
the
Privacy
Act
of
1974
and
Office
of
Management
and
Budget
(
OMB)
Circular
108.

3(
g)
Sensitive
Questions
Information
that
will
be
reported
consists
of
emissions
data
and
other
information
that
are
not
expected
to
be
of
a
sensitive
nature.
Therefore,
this
section
is
not
applicable.

4.
THE
RESPONDENTS
AND
THE
INFORMATION
REQUESTED
4(
a)
Respondents/
SIC
and
NAICS
Codes
7
Respondents
are
owners
or
operators
of
all
existing
and
new
mercury
emitting
affected
sources
in
the
mercury
cell
chlor­
alkali
subcategory
of
the
chlorine
production
source
category.

The
source
category
and
affected
sources
regulated
by
the
mercury
cell
chlor­
alkali
NESHAP
are
classified
under
the
Standard
Industrial
Classification
(
SIC)
code
2812,
"
Alkalies
and
Chlorine."

The
corresponding
North
American
Industrial
Classification
System
(
NAICS)
code
is
325181,

"
Alkalies
and
Chlorine
Manufacturing."
A
total
of
nine
existing
mercury
cell
chlor­
alkali
plants
in
eight
states
(
Ohio,
Alabama,
Delaware,
Georgia,
Tennessee,
Louisiana,
West
Virginia,
and
Wisconsin)
were
considered
to
be
part
of
the
source
category
for
regulatory
development.

Because
no
growth
is
expected
in
the
industry,
no
new
or
reconstructed
plants
were
considered
as
respondents.

4(
b)
Information
Requested
The
final
standards
are
based
on
add­
on
control
devices
and
work
practices
and/
or
continuous
emission
monitoring
to
reduce
HAP
emissions.
In
order
to
demonstrate
compliance
with
the
standards,
facilities
have
the
option
of
using
continuous
emissions
monitoring
systems
(
CEMS)
or
periodic
monitoring
possibly
in
combination
with
continuous
parameter
monitoring
systems
(
CPMS)
for
control
devices
(
CPMS
are
only
required
for
control
devices
that
are
not
nonregenerable
carbon
adsorbers).
For
fugitive
emissions,
facilities
have
a
choice
of
implementing
a
work
practice
and
periodic
floor­
level
monitoring
program
or
installing
CEMS.

The
burden
and
cost
estimates
presented
below
assume
the
use
of
continuous
monitoring
and
implementation
of
a
work
practice
and
a
continuous
monitoring
program
for
fugitives.

4(
b)(
i)
Data
Items,
Including
Recordkeeping
Requirements.

All
mercury
cell
chlor­
alkali
sources
are
required
to
submit
the
following
notifications:

(
1)
initial
notification,
(
2)
notification
of
compliance
status,
and
(
3)
notification
of
intent
to
conduct
a
performance
test
(
control
devices
only).

All
affected
major
sources
(
including
those
for
which
there
are
no
emission
limits
in
the
rule)
with
an
initial
startup
date
before
the
proposal
date
of
the
standards
(
July
3,
2002)
must
submit
a
one­
time
initial
notification
not
later
than
120
days
after
the
effective
date
of
the
mercury
cell
chlor­
alkali
NESHAP.
No
new
sources
are
anticipated.
8
The
due
date
for
the
notification
of
compliance
status
is
dependent
upon
whether
a
performance
test
is
required.
If
a
performance
test
is
not
required,
the
notification
of
compliance
status
report
must
be
submitted
within
30
days
following
the
initial
compliance
demonstration,

which
is
due
within
30
days
of
the
compliance
date.
For
sources
that
must
conduct
a
performance
test,
the
notification
of
compliance
status
must
be
submitted
before
the
close
of
business
on
the
60th
calendar
day
following
completion
of
the
performance
test
(
which
must
be
completed
by
the
compliance
date).

Sources
required
to
conduct
a
performance
test
to
demonstrate
initial
compliance
must
submit
a
notification
of
intent
to
conduct
a
performance
test
at
least
60
calendar
days
before
the
performance
test
is
scheduled
to
begin.

Affected
sources
subject
to
standards
under
the
mercury
cell
chlor­
alkali
NESHAP
must
submit
ongoing
compliance
reports.
The
first
compliance
report
is
due
on
January
31
or
July
31,

whichever
date
follows
the
end
of
the
first
calendar
half
after
the
compliance
date.
Compliance
reports
subsequent
to
the
first
compliance
report
must
be
submitted
semiannually
for
all
sources.

Each
compliance
report
would
have
to
be
signed
by
a
responsible
company
official
who
certifies
its
truth,
accuracy,
and
completeness
and
certifies
that
the
affected
source
has
complied
with
the
relevant
standards.
Affected
sources
are
required
to
include
in
the
report
information
on
deviations
from
emission
limitations.
Statements
certifying
compliance
with
the
site­
specific
monitoring
plans,
the
work
practices,
and
the
washdown
plans
must
also
be
included.

Information
on
startups,
shutdowns,
and
malfunctions
that
were
consistent
with
the
startup,

shutdown,
or
malfunction
plan
must
be
included.
The
semiannual
compliance
report
must
be
submitted
semiannually
on
January
31
and
July
31
and
must
cover
the
calendar
half
ending
on
December
31
and
June
30,
respectively.

The
mercury
cell
chlor­
alkali
NESHAP
requires
owners
or
operators
of
affected
sources
subject
to
standards
under
the
mercury
cell
chlor­
alkali
NESHAP
to
develop
startup,
shutdown,

or
malfunction
plans
(
SSMP)
to
document
procedures
that
will
be
taken
in
the
case
of
any
of
these
events.
The
SSMP
must
be
prepared
by
the
affected
source's
compliance
date.
If
a
startup,

shutdown,
or
malfunction
occurs
that
is
not
consistent
with
the
SSMP,
the
affected
source
is
required
to
submit
a
startup,
shutdown
and
malfunction
report
by
fax
or
telephone
within
two
9
working
days
after
starting
actions
inconsistent
with
the
SSMP
and
by
letter
within
seven
working
days
after
the
end
of
the
event.

Affected
sources
subject
to
the
mercury
cell
chlor­
alkali
NESHAP
are
required
to
maintain
records
of
the
following:
1)
a
copy
of
each
notification
and
report
submitted,
and
documentation
supporting
each
notification
and
report
submitted;
2)
records
related
to
startup,

shutdown,
and
malfunction;
3)
records
of
performance
tests;
4)
records
of
52­
week
rolling
average
mercury
emissions;
5)
records
associated
with
site­
specific
monitoring
plans;
6)
records
of
chlorine
production
on
a
weekly
basis;
7)
records
associated
with
work
practice
standards
(
including
the
current
floor­
level
mercury
vapor
measurement
plan,
measurements
taken
according
to
the
floor­
level
mercury
vapor
measurement
plan,
maintenance
activities
resulting
in
mercury
vapor
measurements
above
the
action
level
and
inspections
and
corrective
actions
taken);

8)
records
of
the
current
washdown
plan;
9)
records
of
the
mass
of
virgin
mercury
added
to
cells;

10)
records
associated
with
periodic
monitoring
(
if
applicable);
11)
records
of
all
deviations;
and
12)
records
of
Method
311
or
alternative
approved
method
(
if
applicable).

The
mercury
cell
chlor­
alkali
NESHAP
requires
owners
or
operators
of
an
affected
source
to
retain
records
for
5
years.
Records
must
be
maintained
on­
site
for
at
least
2
years
after
the
date
of
each
occurrence,
measurement,
maintenance,
corrective
action,
report,
or
record.

Records
may
be
kept
offsite
for
the
remaining
3
years
but
must
be
made
readily
available
upon
request.

4(
b)(
ii)
Respondent
Activities.

The
information
collection
activities
that
we
assumed
would
be
performed
by
respondents
to
meet
MIRR
requirements
in
the
first
three
years
after
promulgation
are
presented
in
Tables
1,

2,
and
3.
These
activities
are
separated
into
(
1)
monitoring,
inspecting
and
recordkeeping
activities,
which
do
not
require
direct
submissions
to
EPA,
and
(
2)
reporting
activities,
which
do
require
submissions
to
EPA.
The
listed
monitoring
activities
(
including
performance
testing)
are
associated
with
the
use
of
control
devices
to
observe
emission
limits
for
hydrogen
by­
product
streams,
end­
box
ventilation
system
vents,
and
mercury
thermal
recovery
unit
vents,
and
mercury
continuous
emission
monitoring
systems
to
ensure
continuous
compliance
with
each
standard
for
each
vent.
The
measurement
of
mercury
vapor
levels
in
the
cell
room
using
a
continuous
mercury
10
monitoring
system,
in
addition
to
the
work
practice
standards,
is
included.
The
listed
inspection
activities
are
associated
with
the
observation
of
work
practice
standards.
Although
owners
or
operators
may
choose
to
implement
a
continuous
mercury
monitoring
program
in
the
cell
room,
in
lieu
of
the
detailed
work
practices,
both
continuous
monitoring
and
work
practices
are
included
in
this
ICR
to
provide
a
conservative
estimate.

The
listed
recordkeeping
and
reporting
activities
are
the
means
of
complying
with
emission
limitations,
work
practice
standards,
and
operation
and
maintenance
requirements.
We
have
assumed
that
all
of
the
existing
sources
will
read
the
rule.
In
the
first
year,
we
have
assumed
that
all
major
sources
will
submit
an
initial
notification.
The
cost
of
control
equipment
is
not
included
in
this
ICR
because
it
is
not
purchased
for
the
purpose
of
satisfying
the
reporting
or
recordkeeping
requirements.
In
the
second
year
we
have
assumed
that
three
of
the
nine
facilities
will
(
1)
prepare
a
Washdown
Plan,
(
2)
set
up
mercury
monitoring
systems
for
each
cell
room
by
conducting
preliminary
monitoring
to
establish
normal
baseline
conditions,
including
preparing
documentation
to
establish
action
level(
s),
(
3)
prepare
a
site­
specific
monitoring
plan
for
their
vents,
and
(
4)
set
up
mercury
concentration
continuous
monitoring
systems
(
CMS)
on
these
vents
by
conducting
performance
tests
(
after
preparing
a
notification
of
intent
to
the
EPA
for
each
test),

including
preparing
test
plans,
monitoring
outlet
mercury
concentration,
and
preparing
test
reports
and
documentation
for
the
establishment
of
vent
operating
limits.
It
is
assumed
that
the
three
plants
will,
therefore,
be
able
to
prepare
a
Notification
of
Compliance
Status,
with
the
initial
compliance
demonstrations
for
vents
and
for
work
practice
standards
and
operation
and
maintenance
requirements.

In
the
third
year,
it
is
assumed
that
the
remaining
six
plants
in
the
industry
perform
the
above­
mentioned
activities
and
that
the
initial
three
plants
will
meet
applicable
vent
emission
limits
and
comply
with
work
practice
standards
and
operation
and
maintenance
requirements.
It
is
assumed
that
each
of
the
three
plants
will:
(
1)
record
information
related
to
following
the
Washdown
Plan
that
they
developed,
(
2)
use
a
mercury
monitoring
system
to
continuously
measure
cell
room
mercury
vapor
levels
and
conduct
follow­
up
activities
when
an
action
level
is
exceeded,
(
3)
use
CMS
to
continuously
monitor
vent
outlet
mercury
concentration
and
record
data
for
continuous
compliance,
(
4)
conduct
semiannual
CMS
inspections
and
calibration
checks
11
in
accordance
with
the
site­
specific
monitoring
plan
that
they
developed,
(
5)
perform
inspections
and
record
results
related
to
equipment
problems,
to
cracking,
spalling,
or
other
deficiencies
in
floors,
pillars,
and
beams,
to
caustic
leaks,
to
liquid
mercury
spills
and
accumulations,
to
liquid
mercury
leaks,
and
to
hydrogen/
mercury
vapor
leaks,
and
(
6)
record
information
about
handling
and
storage
of
mercury­
containing
wastes.
Finally,
these
three
plants
will
prepare
compliance
reports.

5.
THE
INFORMATION
COLLECTED­­
AGENCY
ACTIVITIES,
COLLECTION
METHODOLOGY,
AND
INFORMATION
MANAGEMENT
5(
a)
Agency
Activities
A
list
of
our
activities
for
each
of
the
first
three
years
after
promulgation
of
the
mercury
cell
chlor­
alkali
NESHAP
are
provided
in
Tables
4
through
6.
These
tables
are
introduced
in
Section
6(
c)
of
this
ICR.

5(
b)
Collection
Methodology
and
Management
Information
contained
in
the
one­
time
only
reports
will
be
entered
into
the
Aerometric
Information
Retrieval
System
(
AIRS)
Facility
Subsystem
(
AFS)
that
is
maintained
and
operated
by
our
Office
of
Air
Quality
Planning
and
Standards
(
OAQPS).
Information
contained
in
the
periodic
reports
submitted
to
us
will
be
reviewed
for
accuracy
and
completeness.
Data
from
records
maintained
by
the
respondents
and
obtained
during
periodic
visits
by
our
personnel
will
be
tabulated
and
published
for
internal
use
in
compliance
and
enforcement
programs.

5(
c)
Small
Entity
Flexibility
Minimizing
the
information
collection
burden
for
all
sizes
of
organizations
is
a
continuing
effort
on
our
part.
We
have
reduced
the
reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements
respondent
burden
to
include
only
the
information
needed
to
determine
compliance
with
the
mercury
cell
chlor­
alkali
NESHAP.

By
definition,
a
small
business
is
any
business
that
is
independently
owned
and
operated
and
not
dominant
in
its
field
as
defined
by
the
Small
Business
Administration
(
SBA)
regulations
under
Section
3
of
the
Small
Business
Act.
For
the
mercury
cell
chlor­
alkali
industry,
a
small
business
is
defined
by
the
number
of
employees,
and
the
small
business
threshold
is
1,000
or
fewer
employees
(
65
FR
53533).
12
Two
of
the
seven
firms
operating
the
nine
mercury
cell
chlor­
alkali
plants
in
the
United
States
are
considered
small
entities.
However,
the
mercury
cell
chlor­
alkali
NESHAP
is
not
expected
to
have
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities,
and
small
business
considerations
would
not
apply.

5(
d)
Collection
Schedule
The
mercury
cell
chlor­
alkali
plants
NESHAP
is
scheduled
for
promulgation
in
the
Federal
Register
in
2003.
Collection
of
information
will
begin
after
promulgation
of
the
standards.

An
Initial
Notification
for
an
existing
source
would
be
due
no
later
than
120
days
after
the
publication
of
the
final
rule
in
the
Federal
Register.
For
sources
required
to
conduct
a
performance
test,
the
Notification
of
Intent
to
conduct
a
performance
test
would
be
due
at
least
60
calendar
days
before
the
performance
test
is
scheduled
to
begin.
A
Notification
of
Compliance
Status
would
be
due
as
follows:
(
1)
before
the
close
of
business
on
the
30th
day
following
the
completion
of
demonstrating
initial
compliance
with
work
practice
standards
and
site­
specific
plans,
and
(
2)
before
the
close
of
business
on
the
60th
day
following
the
completion
of
a
vent
performance
test.

Compliance
reports
would
be
submitted
semiannually
and
must
be
postmarked
by
January
31
or
July
31,
whichever
date
follows
the
end
of
the
semiannual
reporting
period.
An
Immediate
Startup,
Shutdown,
Malfunction
Report
would
be
submitted
within
two
working
days
after
commencing
actions
inconsistent
with
the
Startup,
Shutdown,
and
Malfunction
Plan,

followed
by
a
letter
within
seven
working
days
after
the
end
of
the
event.

6.
ESTIMATING
THE
BURDEN
AND
COST
OF
THE
COLLECTION
6(
a)
Estimating
Respondent
Burden
The
annual
burden
hour
estimates
for
respondent
MIRR
activities
in
the
first
three
years
after
promulgation
are
presented
in
Tables
1,
2,
and
3.
Our
estimates
for
labor
hour
per
activity
were
based
on
the
EPA's
experience
with
similar
standards
and
sources.

6(
b)
Estimating
Respondent
Costs
Tables
1,
2,
and
3
contain
estimates
of
annual
respondent
labor,
other
O&
M,
and
capital
costs
in
the
first
three
years
after
promulgation.
Annual
labor
cost
was
estimated
based
on
the
number
of
labor
hours
per
MIRR
activity,
annual
number
of
activities
per
respondent
(
as
specified
13
in
the
mercury
cell
chlor­
alkali
NESHAP),
number
of
respondents
per
activity
for
the
given
year,

and
labor
rates.
Annualized
capital
cost
was
estimated
by
identifying
the
capital
equipment
each
respondent
would
be
expected
to
purchase
and
install
to
comply
with
the
MIRR
requirements
in
the
mercury
cell
chlor­
alkali
NESHAP.
Annual
O&
M
cost
was
estimated
as
the
initial
cost
to
setup
the
measurement
instrumentation
for
use,
including
vent
performance
tests
and
preliminary
cell
room
monitoring,
and
the
recurring
cost
of
operating
and
maintaining
that
equipment.

Hourly
compensation
for
management,
technical,
and
clerical
labor
hours
were
obtained
from
the
U.
S.
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics'
Internet
web
site,
Table
2,

(
http://
www.
bls.
gov/
new.
release/
ecec.
t02.
htm)
accessed
January
3,
2001.
These
values,
in
March
2000
dollars,
were
multiplied
by
a
factor
of
1.3
to
account
for
overhead
cost.
Thus,
the
hourly
labor
rates
used
in
the
annual
labor
cost
estimate
are
$
48.35
for
management,
$
44.77
for
technical,
and
$
22.38
for
clerical
labor.

Capital
cost
was
estimated
for
the
acquisition
and
installation
of
mercury
continuous
emission
monitor
to
measure
the
mercury
concentration
in
each
vent,
as
well
as
the
acquisition
and
installation
of
a
mercury
monitoring
system
to
measure
mercury
vapor
levels
in
each
cell
room.
The
total
estimated
installed
capital
cost
of
a
mercury
concentration
CMS
is
$
16,969.
The
total
estimated
capital
cost
of
a
cell
room
mercury
monitoring
system
is
$
55,277.
Each
value
was
multiplied
by
a
capital
recovery
factor
(
CRF)
of
0.1424,
using
an
interest
rate
of
7
percent
and
an
estimated
equipment
life
of
ten
years,
to
obtain
an
annualized
capital
cost
of
$
2,416
for
a
mercury
continuous
emission
monitor
and
$
7,870
for
a
cell
room
mercury
monitoring
system.

6(
c)
Estimating
Agency
Burden
and
Cost
Because
the
information
collection
requirements
were
developed
as
an
incidental
part
of
the
mercury
cell
chlor­
alkali
NESHAP,
no
costs
can
be
attributed
to
the
development
of
the
information
collection
requirements.
Because
reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements
for
the
respondents
are
required
under
Section
112
of
the
CAA,
no
operational
costs
will
be
incurred
by
the
Federal
Government.
Publication
and
distribution
of
the
information
are
part
of
the
AFS
operated
and
maintained
by
our
OAQPS,
with
the
result
that
no
Federal
costs
can
be
directly
attributed
to
the
ICR.
14
Examination
of
records
to
be
maintained
by
the
respondents
will
occur
incidentally
as
part
of
the
periodic
inspection
of
sources
that
is
part
of
the
EPA's
overall
compliance
and
enforcement
program,
and,
therefore,
is
not
attributable
to
the
MIRR
requirements.
The
only
costs
that
the
Federal
government
will
incur
are
user
costs
associated
with
the
analysis
of
the
reported
information
and
for
labor
for
site
visits
to
observe
performance
tests
and
conduct
compliance
inspections.

Tables
4,
5,
and
6
contain
estimates
of
annual
Agency
labor
hour
and
costs
in
the
first
three
years
after
promulgation.
Annual
labor
cost
was
estimated
based
on
the
number
of
labor
hours
per
Agency
activity,
annual
number
of
Agency
activities
per
respondent
per
year,
number
of
respondents
per
activity
for
the
given
year,
and
labor
rates.

Hourly
compensation
estimates
for
management,
technical,
and
clerical
labor
hours
were
derived
from
the
2001
General
Schedule
(
GS)
base
annual
salary
data
from
the
Federal
Personnel
Guide
Internet
web
site
(
http://
www.
fedguide.
com/
baseannualsalaries99.
html),
accessed
January
12,
2001,
by
dividing
annual
values
by
2,080
hours
(
the
number
of
hours
in
the
Federal
work
year).
These
were
then
multiplied
by
a
factor
of
1.2
to
account
for
overhead
cost
to
yield
hourly
labor
rates
of
$
46.01
for
management,
$
27.84
for
technical,
and
$
14.12
for
clerical
labor.

6(
d)
Estimating
the
Respondent
Universe
and
Total
Burden
and
Costs
To
calculate
the
total
burden
for
respondents,
the
number
of
respondents
(
the
respondent
universe)
completing
each
activity
was
estimated.
The
burden
for
each
activity
was
calculated
by
multiplying
the
per­
respondent
burden
per
activity
by
the
number
of
respondents.
The
total
burden
for
respondents
is
the
sum
of
the
burden
for
each
activity.

6(
e)
Bottom
Line
Burden
Hours
and
Costs
Tables
6(
e)(
I)
Respondent
tally
The
respondent
burden
hours
and
costs
estimated
for
the
first
three
years
following
promulgation
are
presented
in
Tables
1,
2,
and
3.
The
total
burden
hours
are
calculated
by
adding
the
total
labor­
hours
per
year
estimated
for
technical,
managerial,
and
clerical
staff.
Since
the
labor
burden
is
accounted
for
in
terms
of
hours,
the
total
annual
cost
is
calculated
by
adding
the
total
O&
M
cost
and
annualized
capital
cost.
The
bottom
line
respondent
burden
hour
and
cost
estimates
for
each
of
first
three
years
following
promulgation
are
summarized
below.
15
Respondent
Bottom
Line
Burden
Hours
and
Costs
Total
Annual
Person
Hours
Total
Annual
O&
M
/
Capital
Cost
1st
year
927
hours
$
0
2nd
year
308
hours
$
486,151
3rd
year
5,457
hours
$
142,061
Average
2,231
hours
$
209,404
Based
on
a
total
of
nine
respondents
nationwide,
the
three­
year
average
burden
to
each
individual
respondent
is
248
labor
hours
per
year
and
$
23,267
per
year.

6(
e)(
ii)
The
Agency
tally
The
Agency
burden
hours
and
costs
for
the
first
three
years
following
promulgation
are
presented
in
Tables
4,
5,
and
6.
The
total
burden
hours
are
calculated
by
adding
the
total
laborhours
per
year
estimated
for
technical,
managerial,
and
clerical
staff.
The
bottom
line
Agency
burden
hour
and
cost
estimates
for
each
of
first
three
years
following
promulgation
are
summarized
below.

Agency
Bottom
Line
Burden
Hours
and
Costs
Total
Annual
Person
Hours
Total
Annual
Cost
1st
year
45
hours
$
1,416
2nd
year
189
hours
$
5,425
3rd
year
645
hours
$
18,773
Average
293
hours
$
8,538
6(
e)(
iii)
Variations
in
the
annual
bottom
line
Variations
in
the
annual
bottom
line
for
this
regulation
may
occur
due
to
the
fact
that
the
one­
time
activities
may
occur
any
time
during
the
first
two
years
following
promulgation
of
the
rule.
Additionally,
some
sources
may
choose
to
achieve
compliance
before
the
compliance
date,

incurring
costs
for
monitoring,
inspection,
recordkeeping,
and
reporting
activities.

6(
f)
Reasons
for
Change
in
Burden
16
This
section
does
not
apply,
because
this
is
a
new
collection.

6(
g)
Burden
Statement
The
annual
public
reporting
and
recordkeeping
burden
for
this
collection
of
information
is
estimated
to
average
2,231hours
per
response.
Burden
means
the
total
time,
effort,
or
financial
resources
expended
by
persons
to
generate,
maintain,
retain,
or
disclose
or
provide
information
to
or
for
a
Federal
agency.
This
includes
the
time
needed
to
review
instructions;
develop,
acquire,

install,
and
utilize
technology
and
systems
for
the
purposes
of
collecting,
validating,
and
verifying
information,
processing
and
maintaining
information,
and
disclosing
and
providing
information;

adjust
the
existing
ways
to
comply
with
any
previously
applicable
instructions
and
requirements;

train
personnel
to
be
able
to
respond
to
a
collection
of
information;
search
data
sources;
complete
and
review
the
collection
of
information;
and
transmit
or
otherwise
disclose
the
information.
An
agency
may
not
conduct
or
sponsor,
and
a
person
is
not
required
to
respond
to,
a
collection
of
information
unless
it
displays
a
currently
valid
OMB
control
number.
The
OMB
control
numbers
for
EPA's
regulations
are
listed
in
40
CFR
part
9
and
48
CFR
chapter
15.
The
respondent
universe
consists
of
nine
existing
mercury
cell
chlor­
alkali
plants.
The
total
respondent
burden
hours
and
costs
are
presented
in
Tables
1
through
3.
The
total
three­
year
monitoring,
inspecting,
recordkeeping,
and
reporting
burden
for
this
collection
is
estimated
at
6,692
labor
hours,
and
the
annual
average
burden
is
2,231
labor
hours
per
year.
The
labor
hour
burden
estimate
includes
time
to
read
the
rule,
write
and
submit
notifications
and
reports,
prepare
site­
specific
plans,
and
perform
monitoring,
inspection,
and
recordkeeping
activities.

The
total
three­
year
annual
O&
M
cost
is
estimated
at
$
365,754,
averaging
$
121,918
per
year.

The
total
three­
year
annualized
capital
cost
is
estimated
at
$
262,458,
averaging
$
87,486
per
year.

Thus,
the
total
three­
year
annual
O&
M
and
annualized
capital
cost
is
estimated
at
$
628,212,

averaging
$
209,404
per
year.
This
cost
burden
estimate
includes
financial
resources
to
acquire
and
install
cell
room
mercury
monitoring
systems,
conduct
preliminary
monitoring
of
cell
room
mercury
vapor
levels,
operate
and
maintain
cell
room
monitoring
systems
used
for
continuous
measurement,
acquire
and
install
vent
mercury
continuous
emissions
monitors,
conduct
vent
performance
tests,
and
operate
and
maintain
mercury
continuous
emissions
monitors
used
for
continuous
compliance.
17
To
comment
on
the
Agency's
need
for
this
information,
the
accuracy
of
the
provided
burden
estimates,
and
any
suggested
methods
for
minimizing
respondent
burden,
including
the
use
of
automated
collection
techniques,
EPA
has
established
a
public
docket
for
this
ICR
under
Docket
ID
No.
OAR­
2002­
0017,
which
is
available
for
public
viewing
at
the
Air
and
Radiation
Docket
and
Information
Center,
in
the
EPA
Docket
Center
(
EPA/
DC),
EPA
West,
Room
B102,

1301
Constitution
Ave.,
NW,
Washington,
DC.
The
EPA
Docket
Center
Public
Reading
Room
is
open
from
8:
30
a.
m.
to
4:
30
p.
m.,
Monday
through
Friday,
excluding
legal
holidays.
The
telephone
number
for
the
Reading
Room
is
(
202)
566­
1744,
and
the
telephone
number
for
the
Air
Docket
is
(
202)
566­
1742.
An
electronic
version
of
the
public
docket
is
available
through
EPA
Dockets
(
EDOCKET)
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
edocket.
Use
EDOCKET
to
submit
or
view
public
comments,
access
the
index
listing
of
the
contents
of
the
public
docket,
and
to
access
those
documents
in
the
public
docket
that
are
available
electronically.
Once
in
the
system,
select
"
search,"
then
key
in
the
docket
ID
number
identified
above.
Also,
you
can
send
comments
to
the
Office
of
Information
and
Regulatory
Affairs,
Office
of
Management
and
Budget,
725
17th
Street,
NW,
Washington,
DC
20503,
Attention:
Desk
Office
for
EPA.
Please
include
the
EPA
Docket
ID
No.
(
OAR­
2002­
0017)
in
any
correspondence.
18
PART
B
OF
THE
SUPPORTING
STATEMENT
This
section
is
not
applicable
to
the
"
Monitoring,
Inspection,
Recordkeeping,
and
Reporting
Requirements
for
NESHAP
for
Mercury
Cell
Chlor­
Alkali
Plants"
because
statistical
methods
are
not
used
in
data
collection
associated
with
this
regulation.
