Browse: Departments Dates Agencies
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Treasury Department
CFR Citation: 40 CFR Part 63
RIN ID: RIN 2060-AH68
FRL ID: [FRL-7215-7]
NOTICE: Part II
DOCUMENT ACTION: Final rule; amendments.
SUBJECT CATEGORY: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Generic Maximum Achievable Control Technology
EFFECTIVE DATES: July 12, 2002.
DOCUMENT SUMMARY: This action promulgates amendments to the ``generic'' maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards to add national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for four additional source categories: Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing, Carbon Black Production, Ethylene Production, and Spandex Production. The generic MACT standards provide a structural framework that allows source categories with similar emission types and MACT control requirements to be covered under one subpart, thus promoting regulatory consistency in NESHAP development. The EPA has identified these four source categories as major sources of hazardous air pollutants (HAP), including cyanide compounds, acrylonitrile, acetonitrile, carbonyl sulfide, carbon disulfide, benzene, 1,3 butadiene, toluene, and 2,4 toluene diisocyanate (TDI). Benzene is a known human carcinogen, and 1,3 butadiene is considered to be a probable human carcinogen. The other pollutants can cause noncancer health effects in humans. These standards will implement section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) by requiring all major sources to meet HAP emission standards reflecting the application of MACT. This action also promulgates NESHAP for the heat exchange systems and wastewater operations at ethylene manufacturing facilities.
SUMMARY: Environmental Protection Agency,
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
Docket. The docket is an organized and complete file of all the information considered by the EPA in the development of this rulemaking. The docket is a dynamic file because material is added throughout the rulemaking process. The docketing system is intended to allow members of the public and industries involved to readily identify and locate documents so that they can effectively participate in the rulemaking process. Along with the proposed and promulgated standards and their preambles, the contents of the docket will serve as the record in the case of judicial review. (See section 307(d)(7)(A) of the CAA.) The regulatory text and other materials related to this rulemaking are available for review in the docket or copies may be mailed on request from the Air Docket by calling (202) 2607548. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying docket materials.Public Comments. The NESHAP for the four source categories mentioned above were proposed on December 6, 2000 (65 FR 76408). The comment letters received on the proposal are available in Docket No. A 9717 or the dockets established for the four source categories (see ADRESSESS), along with a summary of the comment letters and EPA's responses to the comments. In response to the public comments, EPA adjusted the final NESHAP where appropriate.
Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of today's final NESHAP will also be available on the WWW through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following the Administrator's signature, a copy of the NESHAP will be posted on the TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed or final rules at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t3pfpr.html. The TTN provides information and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control. If more information regarding the TTN is needed, call the TTN HELP line at (919) 5415384.
Regulated Entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated by this action include:
[[Page 46259]]
Examples of regulated
Category NAICS code SIC code entities
Industrial........................... 325188, 325199......... 2819, 2869............. Producers and
coproducers of
hydrogen cyanide and
sodium cyanide.
325182................. 2895................... Producers of carbon
black by thermal
oxidative
decomposition in a
closed system, thermal
decomposition in a
cyclic process, or
thermal decomposition
in a continuous
process.
325110................. 2869................... Producers of ethylene
from refined petroleum
or liquid
hydrocarbons.
325222................. 2824................... Producers of spandex.
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. Not all facilities classified under the NAICS or SIC codes are affected. Other types of entities not listed could be affected. To determine whether your facility is regulated by this action, you should examine the applicability criteria in Sec. 63.1104 of the final NESHAP. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
Judicial Review: The NESHAP were proposed on December 6, 2000 (65 FR 76408). This action announces EPA's final decisions on the NESHAP. Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, judicial review of the final NESHAP is available by filing a petition for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by September 10, 2002. Only those objections to the NESHAP which were raised with reasonable specificity during the period for public comment may be raised during judicial review. Under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the requirements that are the subject of today's final NESHAP may not be challenged later in civil or criminal proceedings brought by EPA to enforce these requirements.
Outline. The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows:
I. Introduction
A. What Is the Purpose of the NESHAP?
B. What is the source of authority for development of NESHAP?
C. What criteria are used in the development of NESHAP?
D. Why is the EPA including today's standards in the generic MACT standards?
II. Summary of Major Comments and Changes Since Proposal to 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart YY and the Referenced Subparts
III. Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing
A. Summary of Environmental, Energy, Cost, and Economic Impacts
B. Summary of Major Comments and Changes Since Proposal IV. Carbon Black Production
A. Summary of Environmental, Energy, Cost, and Economic Impacts
B. Summary of Major Comments and Changes Since Proposal
C. New Source Review/Prevention of Significant Deterioration Applicability
V. Ethylene Production
A. Summary of Environmental, Energy, Cost, and Economic Impacts
B. Summary of Major Comments and Changes Since Proposal VI. Spandex Production
A. Summary of Environmental, Energy, Cost and Economic Impacts
B. Summary of Major Comments and Changes Since Proposal VII. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
C. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments
D. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
F. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) as Amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.
G. Paperwork Reduction Act
H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
I. Congressional Review Act
J. Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. Introduction
A. What Is the Purpose of the NESHAP?
The purpose of the final NESHAP is to protect the public health by
reducing emissions of HAP from facilities in four source categories:
Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing, Carbon Black Production, Ethylene Production, and Spandex Production.
B. What Is the Source of Authority for Development of NESHAP?
Section 112 of the CAA requires us to list categories and subcategories of major sources and area sources of HAP and to establish NESHAP for the listed source categories and subcategories. The four categories of major sources for which NESHAP are being established by today's action were listed on the following dates: Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing, July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576) and February 12, 1998 (63 FR 6291); Carbon Black Production, June 4, 1996 (61 FR 28197); Ethylene Production, June 4, 1996 (61 FR 28197); and Spandex Production, July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576). Major sources of HAP are those that have the potential to emit greater than 10 tons per year (tpy) of any one HAP or 25 tpy of any combination of HAP.
C. What Criteria Are Used in the Development of NESHAP?
Section 112 of the CAA requires that we establish NESHAP for the control of HAP from both new and existing major sources. The CAA requires the NESHAP to reflect the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of HAP that is achievable. This level of control is commonly referred to as the MACT.
The MACT floor is the minimum control level allowed for NESHAP and is defined under section 112(d)(3) of the CAA. In essence, the MACT floor ensures that the standard is set at a level that assures that all major sources achieve the level of control at least as stringent as that already achieved by the bettercontrolled and loweremitting sources in each source category or subcategory. For new sources, the MACT floor cannot be less stringent than the emission control that is achieved in practice by the bestcontrolled similar source. The MACT standards for existing sources can be less stringent than standards for new sources, but they cannot be less stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the bestperforming 12 percent of existing sources in the category or subcategory (or the bestperforming five sources for categories or subcategories with fewer than 30 sources).
In developing MACT, we also consider control options that are more
stringent than the floor. We may establish standards more stringent
than the floor based on the consideration of cost of achieving the emissions reductions, any health and
[[Page 46260]]
environmental impacts, and energy requirements.
D. Why Is the EPA Including Today's Standards in the Generic MACT Standards?
We are including NESHAP for the Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing, Carbon Black Production, Ethylene Production, and Spandex Production source categories under the generic MACT standards to reduce the regulatory burden associated with the development of separate rulemakings. An owner or operator should consult the generic MACT standards for information on applicability of the standards to their source, compliance schedules, and standards. The generic MACT standards generally refer the owner or operator to other subparts for requirements necessary to demonstrate compliance.
We are including the NESHAP for the Cyanide Chemicals
Manufacturing, Carbon Black Production, Ethylene Production, and
Spandex Production source categories in the generic MACT standards to
simplify the rulemaking process, to minimize the potential for
duplicative or conflicting requirements, to conserve limited resources,
and to ensure consistency of the air emissions requirements applied to
similar emission points. We believe that the generic MACT regulatory
framework is appropriate for these source categories because it allows
us to incorporate specific applicability and control requirements that
reflect our decisions on these source categories while also utilizing
generic requirements previously established for similar emission sources that we have determined are also applicable here.
II. Summary of Major Comments and Changes Since Proposal to 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart YY and the Referenced Subparts
The major comments received regard the performance specifications for continuous parameter monitoring systems (CPMS) that were proposed as an amendment to the referenced 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS. Other comments received on subpart YY and the referenced subparts and the responses to those comments are in Docket No. A9717.
Several commenters stated that the proposed performance specifications for CPMS would be costly and would not provide an environmental benefit. We proposed performance specifications for CPMS to ensure that such systems are installed, calibrated, and operated in a manner that would yield accurate and reliable information regarding the performance of closed vent systems and control devices. Subpart SS currently states that ``all monitoring equipment shall be installed, calibrated, maintained, and operated according to manufacturer's specifications or other written procedures that provide adequate assurance that the equipment would reasonably be expected to monitor accurately.'' Therefore, owners and operators are already required by subpart SS to follow written performance specifications, but not necessarily the ones that we proposed in the amendments.
We have decided not to include the performance specifications for CPMS in the final subpart SS for two reasons. First, the number and complexity of the comments would not allow for the expeditious promulgation of the standards for the four source categories we are including under subpart YY. Second, we are currently developing performance specifications for CPMS to be followed by owners and operators of all sources subject to standards under 40 CFR part 63.
Since owners and operators subject to subpart SS are currently
required to follow specifications for CPMS, even though they may not be
as specific as those we proposed, we have decided to wait for the
rulemaking that will propose performance specifications for all of 40
CFR part 63. We decided it would be premature to promulgate performance
specifications for subpart SS when the performance specifications that
would ultimately be promulgated for all of 40 CFR part 63 may be
significantly different as a result of possible public comments received on that rulemaking.
III. Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing
A. Summary of Environmental, Energy, Cost, and Economic Impacts 1. What Are the Air Quality Impacts?
Nationwide baseline HAP emissions are estimated to be 238 megagrams per year (Mg/yr) (263 tpy). The final standards will reduce HAP emissions by approximately 106 Mg/yr (117 tpy). This is a 45 percent HAP emission reduction from the baseline level for this source category and a 58 percent reduction for those facilities required to install controls to comply with the final standards.
We also estimate that the final standards will reduce emissions of
volatile organic compounds (VOC) by 102 Mg/yr (113 tpy). We estimate
that the final standards will result in an increase in sulfur oxides
(SO
We believe that there will not be significant adverse nonair health, environmental or energy impacts associated with the final standards. This is supported by impacts analyses associated with the application of the control and recovery devices required under the final standards. We determine impacts relative to the baseline that is set at the level of control in absence of the rule.
Control of equipment leaks is expected to reduce the amount of HAP containing material that would be discharged to a facility's wastewater treatment stream through equipment washdown or from stormwater runoff.
The use of a scrubber for HAP control of emissions from vents will create HAPcontaining effluent. It is anticipated that any wastewater stream created from the use of a scrubber would be treated at a facility's wastewater treatment system with other waste streams.
There are minimal solid or hazardous waste impacts expected as a result of the final standards. A small amount of solid waste may result from replacement of equipment such as seals, packing, rupture disks, and other equipment components, such as pumps and valves. A minimum amount of solid or hazardous waste could also be generated from the use of steam strippers to control wastewater emissions. The possible sources generated include organic compounds recovered in the steam stripper overhead condenser or solids removed during feed pretreatment.
The energy demands associated with the final standards will result
from the use of additional electricity, natural gas, and fuel oil to
run control equipment. The storage tank, transfer operations, equipment
leak, and wastewater controls are not expected to require any
additional energy. The total nationwide energy demand that would result
from implementing the process vent controls is approximately 3.1 x 10\14\ Joules per year.
[[Page 46261]]
3. What Are the Cost and Economic Impacts?
The total estimated capital cost of the final standards is $939,000. The total estimated annual cost of the final standards is $2.4 million. These costs represent fourth quarter 1998 dollars.
We prepared an economic impact analysis to evaluate the impacts that the final standards would have on the cyanide manufacturing market, consumers, and society. The total annualized social cost (in 1998 dollars) of the final standards on the industry is $2.4 million, which is much less than 0.001 percent of total baseline revenue for the affected sources. A screening analysis indicates that no individual firm affected by the final standards for the cyanide chemicals manufacturing source category would experience costs in excess of 0.001 percent of sales. For this reason, we believe that the impact of the final standards will be minimal. No cyanide chemicals manufacturing facility closures are expected.
B. Summary of Major Comments and Changes Since Proposal
In response to comments received on the proposed standards, we made several changes to the final standards, as well as some clarifications designed to make our intentions clearer. The substantive comments and/ or changes and responses made since the proposal are summarized in the following paragraphs. Our complete responses to public comments are contained in a memorandum that can be obtained from the docket (see ADDRESSES section).
1. Applicability of the Rule
Some commenters expressed that there was potential for confusion regarding the applicability of the rule. One commenter requested that we specifically exempt downstream equipment from the cyanide chemicals manufacturing NESHAP if the equipment is subject to another NESHAP.
Another commenter expressed that confusion regarding the overlapping requirements affecting the same equipment could be reduced if refined hydrogen cyanide (HCN) ``burned onsite as a fuel in a boiler or industrial furnace'' was excluded as part of the HCN process. The commenter explained that some producers that generate HCN as a byproduct of acrylonitrile manufacture opt to burn the byproduct HCN onsite as a fuel in boilers and/or industrial furnaces where its end use is regulated under other standards.
One commenter requested that we clarify and restrict the applicability of the rule by revising the definition of ``CCMPU'' as follows:
Cyanide chemicals manufacturing process unit or CCMPU means the equipment assembled and connected by hardpiping or duct work to process raw materials to manufacture, store, and transport a cyanide chemicals product. A cyanide chemicals manufacturing process unit shall be limited to any one of the following: an Andrussow process unit, a BMA process unit, a sodium cyanide process unit, or a Sohio hydrogen cyanide process unit * * *.
The commenter explained that, as proposed, the definition of CCMPU could include a chemical manufacturing process unit that creates HCN or sodium cyanide as an incidental or unintended byproduct that could be considered an affected source subject to the cyanide chemicals manufacturing requirements. The commenter stated that this clarification could also be fulfilled by modifying the definition for ``cyanide chemicals product,'' as follows:
Cyanide chemicals product means either hydrogen cyanide or sodium cyanide which is manufactured as the intended product of a CCMPU or a byproduct of the Sohio process. Other hydrogen cyanide or sodium cyanide byproducts, impurities, wastes and trace contaminants are not considered to be cyanide chemicals products.
Based on comments received, we made a few changes to the final standards. To avoid overlapping requirements applying to downstream boilers and/or industrial furnaces, we excluded HCN vent streams used for fuel value in boilers and/or industrial furnaces from HCN chemical manufacturing processes. Exclusion of these boilers and industrial furnaces that use vented emissions for fuel value from the requirements of the cyanide chemicals manufacturing process control requirements is consistent with what is done in other MACT standards.
We also made the commenter's suggested amendments to the ``CCMPU'' and ``cyanide chemicals product'' definitions in the final standards. These amendments were made because the intent of the commenter's suggested amendments is consistent with our intent, and we believe that the amended definitions will reduce any potential confusion regarding the applicability of the rule.
2. Process Vent Standards
BMA/Andrussow process vent MACT control level. During our evaluation of comments received on the proposed process vent standards, we reevaluated the MACT level of control established for BMA/Andrussow process vents. Based on our reevaluation, we decided to remove from the MACT analyses HCN rich vent streams that are routed to a boiler or industrial furnace for use as fuel. We did this to be consistent with other NESHAP and because these vent streams are already regulated by other standards. Once we removed these streams and adjusted the floor based on new information received from industry, the MACT floor and MACT level of control was determined to reduce HAP emissions by 98 weightpercent (rather than by 99 weightpercent) or to a concentration level of 20 parts per million by volume (ppmv). Therefore, the final standards have been modified to require that you reduce HAP emissions from Andrussow/BMA process vents by 98 weightpercent (rather than by 99 weightpercent), or to a concentration level of 20 ppmv. Because the MACT level of control has been changed to 98 weightpercent, the final standards also allow you to comply with the requirements for Andrussow/ BMA process vents by routing emissions to a flare.
Wetend process vents. One commenter requested that the final standards clarify that cyanide chemical manufacturing wastewater collection systems and treatment equipment (tanks) containing discarded wastewater are not part of the process and are not subject to the process vent requirements. The commenter explained that weak HAP and cyanide bearing wastewater is sent to, and handled in, onsite wastewater collection and treatment systems and collected in sumps and pumped into tanks where the wastewater is either recycled to recover HCN, or treated in these tanks by hydrolysis and alkaline chlorination. The commenter stated that such vents should be clarified to be subject to the requirements specified for process and maintenance wastewater control requirements under 40 CFR 63.1106 (a) and (b).
Based on this comment, we evaluated the wet end of the sodium
cyanide process unit regarding the clarity of the applicability of the
wetend process vent requirements versus the applicability of discarded
process wastewater vent requirements. Based on the definitions for
``wetend process vent,'' ``wastewater,'' and ``process wastewater,''
applicability of requirements appeared to be clear. However, to avoid
any potential applicability confusion, the final standards include an
amended definition for ``wetend process vent'' that specifically
clarifies that discarded water that is no longer used in the production
process is considered to be process wastewater and that vents from process and maintenance wastewater
[[Page 46262]]
operations are not wetend process vents.
Annual emissions. One commenter stated that the MACT floor determination for Andrussow/BMA process vents was based on annual emissions and the proposed standards require compliance with the floor level of control based on a formula that calculates an overall HAP emission reduction based on hourly emission rates. The commenter requested that compliance be based on meeting the proposed weight percent reduction on an annual basis to be consistent with the MACT floor. The commenter also requested that Item 2 of Table 9 be modified as follows:
a. Reduce the overall annual emission of total HAP from the collection of process vents from continuous unit operations in the process unit by 99 weightpercent in accordance with paragraph (g)(4) of this section.
We agree that the MACT floor for Andrussow/BMA process vents was based on annual emissions and, therefore, compliance with MACT should also be based on annual emissions. We have amended the final standards (Item 2 of Table 9 of Sec. 63.1103(g)) as suggested by the commenter. 3. UnsafetoMonitor Equipment
Two commenters expressed safety concerns with the proposed leak detection and repair (LDAR) provisions. It was expressed that many of the lines in HCN service are intentionally placed in outoftheway locations to minimize risk in the event of a leak. One commenter requested that we either exempt ``unsafetomonitor'' equipment components from the LDAR program or stay implementation of these requirements to allow adequate opportunity to investigate safer methods than those proposed. The commenter explained that a large percentage of pipeline components in HCN service that would be subject to the proposed LDAR provisions are elevated and are not accessible during operation due to safety concerns. The commenter stated that facilities already have procedures in place to ensure that there are no leaks when equipment is in HCN service. Industry feedback indicates that HCN equipment is unsafe to monitor at all times that equipment is in operation.
Based on our evaluation of the comments received regarding safety concerns with the proposed LDAR provisions, we concur that there are some equipment components that may never be safe to monitor. Therefore, we have added language to the final standards specifying that you are allowed to designate ``unsafetomonitor'' equipment with your Notification of Compliance Status report. If it is demonstrated to the Administrator's satisfaction that designated equipment is never safe to monitor, you would not be required to monitor the designated equipment. 4. Hydrogen Fueled Flares
Destruction efficiency. One commenter expressed that a 99%+ destruction efficiency is supported for hydrogen flares based on data included in the EPA's ``Basis for Hydrogen Flaring'' report. The commenter stated that these data were based on test methods developed with the EPA and a special flare testrig built for the experiment.
Another commenter requested that we add language to 40 CFR 63.1103(g)(4)(ii)(B) to allow an owner or operator of a cyanide manufacturing facility to include a flare control efficiency greater than 98% in the calculation of the overall HAP emission reduction, provided they can demonstrate a higher control efficiency based on technically relevant measurements that are of sufficient quality, considering data variability.
We agree with the commenters that an owner or operator of a cyanide manufacturing facility should be allowed to include a flare control efficiency greater than 98% in the calculation of their overall HAP emission reduction provided they can demonstrate a higher control efficiency for their flare. Therefore, the final standards allow an owner or operator to include a flare control efficiency greater than 98% in the calculation of their overall HAP emission reduction if they can demonstrate, to the Administrator's satisfaction, a greater control efficiency (40 CFR 63.1103(g)(4)(ii)(A)).
Flare compliance monitoring requirements. Several commenters recommended that a waiver from testing for all HCN flares be granted. Specifically, one commenter requested a waiver from testing of the net heating value using EPA Method 18, and two commenters requested that a waiver from testing the velocity, using EPA Method 2, 2A, 2C, or 2D of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, be granted (40 CFR 63.11(b)(6)(ii) and (7)(i), respectively). One commenter expressed that flow velocity testing using EPA Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, or 2G of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, require the insertion of a probe into the waste gas stream which poses safety risks.
Based on comments received regarding it being unsafe to test HCN
rich vent streams to flares, and our evaluation of the comments, we
have included provisions in the final standards that allow an owner or
operator to submit engineering calculations and/or data to substantiate
that flares meet applicable heat content and flow rates under worst case conditions (40 CFR 63.987(b)(3)(v) and (4)).
IV. Carbon Black Production
A. Summary of Environmental, Energy, Cost, and Economic Impacts 1. What Are the Air Quality Impacts?
We estimate that the final NESHAP will reduce HAP emissions by 1,830 Mg/yr (2,020 tpy). This is a 26 percent HAP emission reduction from the total baseline HAP emissions, and a 95 percent HAP emission reduction for those facilities required to install controls to meet the standards.
We estimate that the final NESHAP will reduce CO emissions by
474,000 Mg/yr (522,000 tpy); VOC by 16,900 Mg/yr (18,600 tpy); hydrogen
sulfide by 10,300 Mg/yr (11,300 tpy); and PM by 740 Mg/yr (820 tpy). We
estimate that the final NESHAP will increase SO
2. What Are the Cost and Economic Impacts?
The total estimated capital cost of the final NESHAP is $54.9 million. The total estimated annual cost of the final NESHAP is $11.2 million. These costs represent fourth quarter 1998 dollars.
We prepared an economic impact analysis to evaluate the impacts the
final NESHAP will have on the industry, market, consumers, and society.
The total annualized social cost (in 1997 dollars) of the final NESHAP
to the industry is $11.2 million, which is less than 0.001 percent of
total baseline revenue for the affected sources. A screening analysis
suggests only one of the firms affected by the final NESHAP will
experience costs in excess of 1 percent of sales, and no firm will
experience costs in excess of 1.5 percent of sales. For this reason, we
believe that the impact of the final NESHAP will be minimal. We expect no facility closures as a result of the final NESHAP.
[[Page 46263]]
3. What Are the NonAir Health, Environmental, and Energy Impacts?
We believe that there will not be any significant adverse nonair health, environmental or energy impacts associated with the final NESHAP. This is supported by impacts analyses associated with the application of control and recovery devices required under the final NESHAP.
There are no water pollution or solid waste impacts expected from the use of air emission control devices as a result of the final NESHAP. An increase in energy consumption will result from the use of combustion control systems. We estimate that carbon black production facilities will consume an additional 186 million cubic feet of natural gas per year to meet the regulatory requirements of the final NESHAP. This represents an increase in total domestic natural gas consumption of less than 1/100th of one percent.
B. Summary of Major Comments and Changes Since Proposal
In response to comments received on the proposed standards for the Carbon Black Production source category, we made several changes to the final NESHAP. Only one substantive change was made based on comments received on the proposal. We have summarized the relevant comment/ change made in the following paragraphs. Our complete responses to public comments are contained in a memorandum that can be obtained from the docket (see ADDRESSES section).
One commenter requested an exemption from the closed vent system initial and annual closed vent system inspection requirements. The commenter expressed that certain safety features are incorporated into their closed vent system operations to protect against overpressure in the case of catastrophic failure of their process filter systems. Concern was expressed that the proposed initial and annual closed vent system inspection requirements may defeat these safety measures because costeffective technology to provide leak proof seals for the extreme operating temperature ranges that occur in the carbon black production process is not available. The commenter explained that the catastrophic loss of a bag filter due to gaseous buildup and failure can result in ignition of gases, fires, and explosions. In order to prevent the failure of the compartments, industry isolates the failed compartment from the process. Safety relief valves (e.g., weightedlid systems) are designed into the system to relieve excess pressures, to prevent fires and explosions, and to prevent loss of compartments. The commenter explained that a typical pressure relief device used in carbon black production does not seal 100 percent, but that the process emits very small amounts of HAP, and single bag failure results in emissions that lead to opacity exceedances.
We evaluated the commenter's concerns and request for exemption
from closed vent system inspection requirements for specified pressure
relief devices used to protect against overpressure in the case of
catastrophic failure of their process filter systems. Based on safety
concerns and technology considerations, we have included provisions in
the final NESHAP that exempt pressure relief devices that meet
specified criteria (i.e., devices used to protect against overpressure
in the case of catastrophic failure of the process filter system) from
the closed vent system inspection requirements of 40 CFR 63.983(b) and
(c). The final NESHAP require that exempted pressure relief devices
meeting criteria specified in the NESHAP be identified in your Notification of Compliance Status report.
C. New Source Review/Prevention of Significant Deterioration Applicability
A question arose concerning the potential installation of
cogeneration technology at carbon black plants which would recover
waste heat and gas for use as a fuel input for power generation. This
technology could potentially be used to meet the HAP control
requirements of the NESHAP. However, cogeneration may result in
NO
In 1992, we adopted an explicit PCP exclusion for electric utility steam generating units (57 FR 32314). In a July 1, 1994, guidance memorandum, we provided guidance to permitting authorities on the approvability of PCP exclusions for source categories other than electric utilities. In that guidance (available at http://www.epa.gov/ rgytgrnj/programs/artd/air/nsr/nsrmemos/pcpguide.pdf), we indicated that addon controls and fuel switches to less polluting fuels may qualify for an exclusion from major NSR as a PCP. To be eligible to be excluded from otherwise applicable major NSR requirements, a PCP must, on balance, be ``environmentally beneficial,'' and the permitting authority must ensure that the project will not cause or contribute to a violation of the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) or PSD increment, or adversely affect visibility or other air quality related values (AQRV) in a Class I area, and that offsetting reductions are secured in the case of a project which would result in a significant increase of a nonattainment pollutant. The permitting authority can make these determinations outside of the major NSR process. The 1994 guidance did not supercede existing NSR requirements, including approved State NSR programs, nor void or create an exclusion from any applicable minor source preconstruction review requirements in an approved State implementation plan (SIP). Any minor NSR permitting requirements in a SIP would continue to apply, regardless of any exclusion from major NSR that might be approved for a source under the PCP exclusion policy.
We believe that the current guidance on the PCP exclusion
adequately provides for the possible exemption from major NSR for
cogeneration technology resulting from the NESHAP. Permitting
authorities should follow that guidance to the extent allowed under the
applicable SIP in order to determine whether the installation of
cogeneration technology in a given circumstance qualifies as a PCP.
Projects that qualify for the exclusion would be covered under minor
source regulations in the applicable SIP, and permitting authorities
would be expected to provide adequate safeguards against NAAQS and
increment violations and adverse impacts on AQRV in Federal Class I
areas. Only in those areas where potential adverse impacts cannot be
resolved through the minor NSR programs or other mechanisms would major NSR apply.
V. Ethylene Production
A. Summary of Environmental, Energy, Cost, and Economic Impacts
Environmental, energy, cost, and economic impacts were estimated
for the proposed ethylene production NESHAP. No changes have been made
to the provisions for process vents, storage vessels, transfer
operations, or equipment leaks that would affect these estimates. The changes that were made
[[Page 46264]]
to the waste and heat exchange system requirements did not materially
change the estimated impacts. The changes generally refined the NESHAP
provisions and made them consistent with the basis of the original
estimates; therefore, the impacts estimates have not been revised.
Specifically, the original estimates of impacts associated with heat exchange system requirements were estimated to be minimal because the proposed NESHAP would have required monthly monitoring which is already being performed by most facilities. As pointed out by several comments, most facilities are not testing at the inlet and outlet of each heat exchanger, as required in the proposed NESHAP, and such a requirement would result in increased compliance costs. However, this requirement has been removed from the NESHAP, making the requirements consistent with the basis of the original impacts assessment.
Although the requirements for waste have been significantly revised, they remain consistent with the basis for the original impacts assessment. The original assessment was based on the assumption that facilities with a total annual benzene (TAB) quantity less than 10 Mg/ yr would have to add equipment to manage and treat waste streams. The revised waste requirements maintain this requirement. For facilities with a TAB quantity greater than 10 Mg/yr, the majority of comments regarding the impacts estimated for waste concerned the fact that costs were not included for facilities that will have to add equipment to manage and treat streams that were previously uncontrolled due to a compliance option. The revised NESHAP allow facilities to use the compliance options; therefore, it is not necessary to revise the impacts assessment.
The estimates of environmental, energy, cost, and economic impacts, which have not been revised, are presented in detail in the preamble for the proposed ethylene production NESHAP (65 FR 76433, December 6, 2000). In summary, it is estimated that the NESHAP will decrease HAP emissions by 60 percent or 992 Mg/yr (1,090 tpy) and VOC emissions by 64 percent or 9,271 Mg/yr (10,188 tpy). The annual cost (including amortized capital costs, operating and maintenance costs, and recovery credits) is estimated to range from $7,600 per year for facilities already managing and treating their waste according to the Benzene Waste Operations NESHAP to $1.3 million per year for facilities with a TAB quantity less than 10 Mg/yr that are not currently subject to the Benzene Waste Operations NESHAP requirements to manage and treat waste streams. No adverse economic impact is expected and no significant adverse nonair health, environmental, or energy impacts are expected to result from compliance with the ethylene production NESHAP. B. Summary of Major Comments and Changes Since Proposal
Comments on the proposed NESHAP were received from ten different entities. A comprehensive summary of public comments can be found in the document entitled ``National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air PollutantsEthylene Production, Background Information Document for Final Standards, Summary of Public Comments and Responses'' (the ethylene production NESHAP BID). The BID contains summaries of all of the comments received with corresponding responses that describe all of the changes that have been made to the NESHAP.
The most significant comments concerned three emission types: waste, heat exchange systems, and equipment leaks. These comments also resulted in the most significant changes to the proposed NESHAP. The following sections summarize the comments received and changes that have been made regarding waste, heat exchange systems, and equipment leaks.
1. Waste Operations
Several commenters disagreed with the determination of MACT for waste for a variety of reasons. Generally, commenters argued that the MACT floor should be based on the Benzene Waste Operations NESHAP. As such, commenters viewed our proposed requirements as more stringent than the MACT floor, which they stated are not justified. Commenters mainly disagreed with the fact that the proposed waste requirements did not include the 1, 2, and 6 Mg/yr compliance options, the 10 Mg/yr TAB quantity applicability cutoff, and applicability and treatment requirements based on benzene. We considered each of the specific issues and came to the conclusions discussed in the following sections.
Compliance options. At proposal, we determined that the standard requirements of the Benzene Waste Operations NESHAP represented the MACT floor for both new and existing ethylene sources. The standard Benzene Waste Operations NESHAP requirements state that facilities with 10 Mg/yr or greater TAB quantity must control waste streams that have flow rates of at least 0.02 liters per minute (lpm), wastewater quantities of at least 10 Mg/yr, and benzene concentrations of at least 10 parts per million by weight (ppmw). In addition to the standard control requirements, the Benzene Waste Operations NESHAP includes three compliance options that allow a facility to chose which streams to manage and treat as long as certain conditions are met: either the TAB quantity for the untreated waste streams cannot exceed 2 Mg/yr, the facility TAB quantity for treated and untreated process wastewater streams is less than 1 Mg/yr, or the facility TAB quantity for all waste streams with at least 10 percent water content is less than 6 Mg/ yr. These options are referred to as the 1, 2, and 6 Mg/yr compliance options. The waste or wastewater streams that can be exempted from management and treatment vary with the different compliance options. Details of these compliance options are specified in 40 CFR 61.342(c), (d), and (e) of the Benzene Waste Operations NESHAP.
Commenters disagreed with the fact that the compliance options were not included in the waste requirements for the proposed Ethylene Production NESHAP. Generally, the commenters argued that the compliance options have been found to be equivalent to the standard requirements of the Benzene Waste Operations NESHAP, through development of the Benzene Waste Operations NESHAP and the waste standards for the Petroleum Refineries NESHAP and, therefore, should be included. The commenters also noted that three of the five best performing facilities are using a compliance option.
Since proposal of the Ethylene Production NESHAP, we have obtained
information on which facilities are using compliance options and what
streams they are controlling. Our general finding is that, regardless
of how a facility is complying with the Benzene Waste Operations
NESHAP, facilities typically control continuous streams, and facilities
tend not to control intermittent streams. Examples of streams that are
typically not controlled are samples and maintenance waste (both during
normal operations and turnarounds). The fact that the same types of
streams are typically being controlled, regardless of whether a
facility is complying with the standard requirements or a compliance
option, supports the finding that the 1, 2 and 6 Mg/yr compliance
options are equivalent to the standard Benzene Waste Operations NESHAP
requirements (and to each other) in the level of control achieved at
ethylene production facilities. Therefore, we have determined that it is appropriate to include the 1, 2, and 6 Mg/yr
[[Page 46265]]
compliance options in the Ethylene Production NESHAP.
10 Mg/yr applicability cutoff. Under the proposed NESHAP, all ethylene production facilities that are major sources of HAP emissions, including those with a TAB quantity less than 10 Mg/yr, would have been required to comply with the waste management and treatment requirements. Facilities with a TAB quantity less than 10 Mg/yr are not currently required to comply with the management and treatment requirements of the Benzene Waste Operations NESHAP. Commenters argued that because the Benzene Waste Operations NESHAP represents the floor, the 10 Mg/yr applicability cutoff should be included in the Ethylene Production NESHAP. Commenters cited the Petroleum Refineries NESHAP as a precedent, noting that the Benzene Waste Operations NESHAP was determined to represent the MACT floor for waste control at petroleum refineries and the Petroleum Refineries NESHAP does not require control of waste at sources with a TAB quantity less than 10 Mg/yr.
Review of the practices in use at the five best performing ethylene production facilities (representing 12 percent of the industry) shows that four of the five are subject to and, therefore, are assumed to be complying with the management and treatment requirements of the Benzene Waste Operations NESHAP. Only one of the best performing facilities is not required to comply with the management and treatment requirements of the Benzene Waste Operations NESHAP because the TAB quantity for the facility is less than 10 Mg/yr. Exempting facilities with a TAB quantity less than 10 Mg/yr from management and treatment requirements would not reflect the level of control achieved by the average of the five bestperforming facilities.
We have determined that the MACT floor for waste includes the management and treatment of waste streams from ethylene production, regardless of a facility's TAB quantity. However, using the Benzene Waste Operations NESHAP stream applicability requirements to determine which streams must be controlled at facilities with a TAB quantity less than 10 Mg/yr may not be appropriate. The 1, 2, and 6 Mg/yr compliance options are not appropriate because their use at a facility with a TAB quantity less than 10 Mg/yr could result in no waste streams being controlled. For example, the 6 Mg/yr option allows a facility to choose which streams to manage and treat as long as the TAB quantity for all streams is less than 6 Mg/yr. If the TAB quantity for the facility is already 6 Mg/yr or less, no streams would have to be managed and treated, which is not consistent with the MACT floor level of control. Requiring facilities to comply with the standard requirements of the Benzene Waste Operations NESHAP would also not be appropriate because it may require the facilities to treat intermittent streams which are generally not controlled by the bestperforming facilities that form the basis of the MACT floor determination.
We have determined that the most appropriate way to require facilities with a TAB quantity less than 10 Mg/yr to achieve the level of control achieved by the bestperforming facilities is to specify the streams that must be controlled. Data received since proposal indicate that the best performing ethylene facilities control two types of streams as part of their Benzene Waste Operations NESHAP compliance strategy: (1) Spent caustic streams (wastes from the caustic washing process to remove sulfur compounds and other contaminants from the process stream), and (2) dilution steam blowdown streams (condensed steam used to quench the cracked gas condensates). We have determined that it is appropriate to apply the flow rate and concentration control applicability cutoffs in the standard requirements of the Benzene Waste Operations NESHAP to these streams. The bestperforming facilities are generally not controlling intermittent streams.
Based on this information, the Ethylene Production NESHAP have been revised to require that facilities with a TAB quantity less than 10 Mg/ yr manage and treat, according to the requirements of the Benzene Waste Operations NESHAP, each spent caustic and dilution steam blowdown waste stream with a benzene concentration greater than or equal to 10 ppmw, a flow rate greater than or equal to 0.02 lpm, and an annual wastewater quantity greater than or equal to 10 Mg/yr. The control requirements for these streams apply at all times except during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM), if the SSM precludes the ability to comply and the facility follows the provisions of their SSM plan.
Benzene as a surrogate. One modification made to the Benzene Waste Operations NESHAP requirements for the proposed Ethylene Production NESHAP waste requirements was to base the requirements on total HAP rather than benzene. For example, in the standard requirements of the Benzene Waste Operations NESHAP, a stream containing less than 10 ppmw of benzene is not required to be managed and treated. Under the proposed Ethylene Production NESHAP, streams containing less than 10 ppmw total HAP would not have been required to be managed and treated. Similarly, the Benzene Waste Operations NESHAP require streams to be treated to reduce benzene to 10 ppmw or by 99 percent while the proposed Ethylene Production NESHAP would have required streams to be treated to reduce total HAP to 10 ppmw or by 99 percent.
Several commenters disagreed with EPA's decision to base applicability and treatment requirements on total HAP rather than benzene. Commenters argued that because they are currently treating wastes based on benzene concentration, the requirement to treat wastes based on total HAP concentration is an abovethefloor option. The commenters stated that existing treatment systems are not likely to be capable of treating to the more stringent standards based on total HAP. Commenters stated that although the additional costs would be significant, the additional emission reductions would be minimal because benzene is generally an appropriate surrogate for HAP, and little additional emission reduction would be achieved.
Our original intent in proposing stream applicability and treatment
requirements on total HAP content rather than benzene content was to
ensure that streams containing HAP other than benzene are treated and
controlled. We maintain that because compliance with the Benzene Waste
Operations NESHAP represents the MACT floor and results in control of
HAP other than benzene, the MACT floor includes control of HAP other
than benzene. However, we have determined that it is not necessary to
base stream applicability and treatment requirements on total HAP to
ensure that all HAP are managed and treated. Information obtained
through survey responses and comments shows that, with few exceptions,
all of the waste streams from ethylene production units that contain
HAP contain benzene. According to commenters (Docket A9822), of all
the waste streams generated by 33 ethylene manufacturing production
units, only two do not contain benzene but contain other HAP. One
stream is generated from a reflux drum on a debutanizer column. The
stream contains 1,3butadiene and has a flow rate of 2 gallons per
minute. The other stream is an intermittent stream that is generated
during turnarounds that contains naphthalene. Applying the finding that the bestperforming
[[Page 46266]]
facilities generally control continuous streams but not intermittent
streams, either due to flow rate and concentration cutoffs or use of a
compliance option, we have determined that controlling the continuous
1,3butadiene stream, but not the naphthalene turnaround stream, is
consistent with the MACT floor. To ensure that continuous streams that
contain HAP other than benzene are controlled, while at the same time
minimizing the burden of identifying these streams, we are specifically
requiring management and treatment of waste streams that contain
greater than or equal to 10 ppmw of 1,3butadiene. To ensure that this
requirement does not result in the control of intermittent streams that
are generally not controlled, the flow rate applicability cutoffs for
benzenecontaining streams (0.02 lpm or 10 Mg/yr wastewater quantity) also applies to the butadiene streams.
We have determined that it is not necessary to express the treatment requirements in terms of total HAP. We agree with commenters that treatment and control devices used to remove or destroy benzene will remove and destroy the other HAP regulated by this rule to approximately the same level. Benzene can be used as a surrogate to determine treatment and control efficiencies. If no benzene is present in a regulated stream, another HAP (such as 1,3butadiene) must be used to show that treatment and control efficiencies required for benzene are achieved for that HAP. In such cases, compliance can also be demonstrated by routing the stream to a control device that is being used to comply with the Benzene Waste Operations NESHAP.
Offsite waste treatment. Some facilities send their regulated wastes offsite for treatment by another entity. The proposed rule specified that wastes must not be transferred unless the transferee has submitted to EPA a certification that they will manage and treat the waste in accordance with the rule and that they accept the responsibility for compliance. Several commenters stated that the certification requirements should be deleted.
The final rule retains the certification requirements. The discharger has the ultimate responsibility for assuring that waste transferred to another party for offsite treatment is treated in conformity with the applicable standard. The transferee is acting as the agent of the discharger when it accepts responsibility for treating the waste. The provisions in the proposal requiring certification by the transferee are less onerous for the discharger than the only practicable alternative, which would require that the discharger actively supervise the activities of the offsite treatment facility. The certification provisions are similar to the requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart G (the Hazardous Organic NESHAP), and will pose no unreasonable burden on the generators or receivers of the waste. 2. Heat Exchange Systems
Sampling location. The proposed Ethylene Production NESHAP included requirements to sample cooling water at the inlet and outlet of each heat exchanger for the presence of compounds that indicate a leak. Sampling at each heat exchanger was required to address the fact that cooling water circulation rates through ethylene production units tend to be relatively high. Obtaining only one inlet and outlet sample for the entire system (for example, at the cooling tower) could result in a leak not being detected because the concentration of the leaked compound could be lower that the detection limit of the testing method used.
Several commenters argued that the requirement does not reflect the floor level of control, stating that none of the bestperforming facilities are required to test at the inlet and outlet of every heat exchanger. These commenters argued that such a requirement would be an abovethefloor option that is not cost effective. Several commenters provided estimates of the additional costs associated with sampling and testing at each heat exchanger. The estimated annualized costs provided by the commenters ranged from $60,000 to $1.2 million per year for a single ethylene production unit.
One commenter suggested an approach for addressing the circulation rate issue. The commenter based the suggestion on the assumptions that: (1) The requirements of the Hazardous Organic NESHAP result in an adequate level of leak detection, and (2) the circulation rate of cooling water through an ethylene production unit is eight times the circulation rate through a Hazardous Organic NESHAP unit. Using these assumptions, the 1 ppmw leak definition of the Hazardous Organic NESHAP and the average of circulation rates reported for ethylene units in survey responses, the commenter estimated that a 6.35 pound per hour (lb/hr) leak rate would be detected at a Hazardous Organic NESHAP unit. The commenter suggested allowing facilities to decide where to test for leaks with the condition that a leak of this magnitude would be detected. The commenter stated that such a requirement would ensure a level of performance comparable to the Hazardous Organic NESHAP and would provide facilities flexibility to tailor a monitoring program to their unique circumstances. The commenter explained that one facility may choose to sample the combined cooling water flow from many heat exchangers using a test method with a relatively low detection limit, while another may sample the flow from fewer exchangers using a higher detection limit.
Based on information provided by commenters, we agree that requiring testing at the inlet and outlet of each heat exchanger does not represent the floor level of control. We find that the suggestion to allow facilities to develop a sitespecific sampling plan based on performance comparable to the Hazardous Organic NESHAP would represent the floor. We have reviewed and agree with the commenter's suggested approach for establishing the floor level sampling plan based on a specified leak detection limit, with one exception. We adjusted the calculation to correct an error in calculating the average circulation rate, which resulted in a leak rate that must be detected of 6.75 lb/ hr. Going beyond the floor to the proposed testing requirement would impose costs that are unreasonable given the small emissions reductions that would be achieved. The final rule allows the use of any sampling location plan that is sufficiently sensitive to detect a leak rate of 6.75 lb/hr.
Monitoring frequency. Commenters expressed concern that the
proposed rule did not allow reduced heat exchanger monitoring frequency
for sustained good performance, which is allowed in other LDAR
programs. One of the commenters suggested that we adopt the Hazardous
Organic NESHAP requirements for heat exchanges, which start with
monthly monitoring and then allow quarterly monitoring. We agree with
these comments in general. The floor for heat exchangers is an LDAR
program with monthly monitoring. We recognize, however, that the
emission performance of LDAR programs is variable and is influenced by
a number of sitespecific factors. We believe that providing an
incentive in the final rule for reduced monitoring will encourage
facilities to undertake measures to diagnose the causes of leaks and
reduce the frequency of occurrence. Accordingly, the final rule
includes a provision for reduced monitoring for units with sustained
good performance in preventing leaks. This provision is generally
consistent with the Hazardous Organic NESHAP, and we believe it is [[Page 46267]]
equivalent to the floor and will provide an incentive for greater emissions reductions while minimizing monitoring burden.
The final rule requires monthly monitoring for the first 6 months. If no leaks are detected during this period, then the monitoring frequency changes to quarterly. If a leak is subsequently detected, then monthly monitoring is required until the leak is repaired. After the leak is repaired, then monthly monitoring is required for 6 months. If no leaks occur during this period, the monitoring frequency returns to quarterly.
Repair requirements. The proposed Ethylene Production NESHAP would have required a leak to be repaired within 15 days of being detected. Commenters stated that the bestperforming facilities are not required to repair leaks within 15 days so this is an abovethefloor option. Commenters provided detailed comments on the steps and costs involved in repairing heat exchangers.
Our original intent in requiring repair in 15 days was to provide consistency with the repair requirements for other leaking components. Through the comments received in response to the proposed NESHAP, we have learned that repairing heat exchangers is different than repairing other types of leaking components. According to commenters, to repair a heat exchanger, it must be shut down, isolated from the process, cleaned, opened, tested to find the leak(s), and repaired. The commenters added that removing an exchanger from service often requires a unit to be shutdown. Commenters provided the contrasting example of a leaking valve, for which packing and flange bolts can often simply be tightened externally or, in extreme cases, can be externally pumped with a sealant or clamped to repair. Based on the information received in response to the proposed NESHAP, we agree that the 15day repair period is more stringent than the floor and that the more stringent requirement is not reasonable because it does not allow adequate time for repair. We have determined that a 45day repair period represents the floor. This is the repair period allowed by the Hazardous Organic NESHAP. In addition to extending the repair period to 45 days, we have revised the repair and delay of repair provisions to be consistent with the Hazardous Organic NESHAP.
3. Equipment Leaks
The proposed Ethylene Production NESHAP required connector monitoring. Commenters disagreed with the approach EPA used to determine the MACT floor, stating that HAP emissions from uncontrolled connectors are overestimated due to an inaccurate emission factor. One commenter (Docket A9822) provided an alternate emission factor based on data that they gathered from ethylene production units. According to the commenter, when their emission factor is used in the MACT floor analysis, it results in a different five bestperforming facilities, of which only two perform connector monitoring. Commenters asserted that connector monitoring is, therefore, not part of the floor. In addition, one commenter explained that their study shows that there is no statistically significant difference between the average emission rates for connectors being monitored for the first time and those that are monitored as part of a continuing monitoring program. Commenters also provided cost data to show that some facilities will incur high costs to monitor con
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT For further information concerning
applicability and rule determinations, contact the appropriate State or
local agency representative. If no State or local representative is
available, contact the EPA Regional Office staff listed in 40 CFR
63.13. For information concerning the analyses performed in developing
the NESHAP, contact the following at the Emission Standards Division, U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711:
Phone/facsimile/ email
Information type Contact (mailcode) Group address
General........................... Mark Morris (C50404). Organic Chemicals (919) 5415416/(919) 5413470/
Group. morris.mark@epa.gov
Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing... Keith Barnett Organic Chemicals (919) 5415605/(919) 5413470/
(C50405). Group. barnett.keith@epa.gov
Carbon Black Production........... John Schaefer Organic Chemicals (919) 5410296/(919) 5413470/
(C50404). Group. schaefer.john@epa.gov
Ethylene Production............... Warren Johnson Organic Chemicals (919) 5415267/(919) 5413470/
(C50404). Group. johnson.warren@epa.gov
Spandex Production................ Elaine Manning Waste and Chemical (919) 5415499/(919) 5413470/
(C43903). Processes Group. manning.elaine@epa.gov
Common CFR Searches
14 CFR Part 39 40 CFR Part 52 14 CFR Part 71 33 CFR Part 165 50 CFR Part 679 47 CFR Part 73 26 CFR Part 1 40 CFR Part 180 33 CFR Part 117 50 CFR Part 17 44 CFR Part 67 50 CFR Part 648 14 CFR Part 97 33 CFR Part 100 40 CFR Part 63 50 CFR Part 622 44 CFR Part 65 50 CFR Part 660 26 CFR Part 301 39 CFR Part 111 40 CFR Part 300 6 CFR Part 5 40 CFR Part 271 47 CFR Part 64 40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 50 CFR Part 665 44 CFR Part 64 10 CFR Part 50 49 CFR Part 571 47 CFR Part 76