Browse: Departments Dates Agencies
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Veterans Affairs Department
CFR Citation: 40 CFR Part 63
Docket ID: [Docket ID No. OAR-2003-0121; FRL-7551-3]
RIN ID: RIN 2060-AE82
NOTICE: Part II
DOCUMENT ACTION: Final rule.
SUBJECT CATEGORY: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing
DATES: This rule is effective November 10, 2003.
DOCUMENT SUMMARY: This action promulgates national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing facilities. The final rule establishes emission limits and work practice standards for new and existing miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing process units, wastewater treatment and conveyance systems, transfer operations, and associated ancillary equipment and implements section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) by requiring all major sources to meet hazardous air pollutants (HAP) emission standards reflecting application of the maximum achievable control technology (MACT). The HAP emitted from miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing facilities include toluene, methanol, xylene, hydrogen chloride, and methylene chloride. Exposure to these substances has been demonstrated to cause adverse health effects such as irritation of the lung, eye, and mucous membranes, effects on the central nervous system, and cancer. We do not have the type of current detailed data on each of the facilities and the people living around the facilities covered by the final rule for this source category that would be necessary to conduct an analysis to determine the actual population exposures to the HAP emitted from these facilities and the potential for resultant health effects. Therefore, we do not know the extent to which the adverse health effects described above occur in the populations surrounding these facilities. However, to the extent the adverse effects do occur, and the final rule reduces emissions, subsequent exposures will be reduced. The final rule will reduce HAP emissions by 16,800 tons per year for existing facilities that manufacture miscellaneous organic chemicals.
SUMMARY: Environmental Protection Agency,
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
Regulated Entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated by this action include:Category NAICS\*\ Examples of regulated entities Industry................... 3251, 3252, 3253, 3254, 3255, 3256, and Producers of specialty organic 3259, with several exceptions.. chemicals, explosives, certain polymers and resins, and certain pesticide intermediates. \*\ North American Industry Classification System.
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. To determine whether your facility is regulated by this action, you should examine the applicability criteria in Sec. 63.2435 of the final rule. 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.
Docket. We have established official public dockets for this action under Docket ID No. OAR20030121 and A9604. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. All items may not be listed under both docket numbers, so interested parties should inspect both docket numbers to ensure that they have received all materials relevant to the final rule. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Air and Radiation Docket in the EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, 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) 5661744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket Center is (202) 5661742. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying docket materials.
Electronic Access. You may access this Federal Register document
electronically through the EPA Internet under the Federal Register
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/. An electronic version of the
public docket also is available through EPA's electronic public docket
and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ to view public comments, access the index listing
of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those
documents in the public docket that are available electronically.
Portions of the docket materials are available electronically through
Docket ID No. OAR20030121. Once in the system, select ``search,''
then key in the appropriate docket identification number. You may still
access publicly available docket materials through the Docket ID No. A 9604.
Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of the final rule will also be available on the WWW through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, a copy of the rule will be placed on the TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. 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.
Judicial Review. Under CAA section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, judicial
review of the final NESHAP is available only by filing a petition for
review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit January 9, 2004. Under section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, only an
objection to a rule or procedure raised with reasonable specificity
during the period for public comment can be raised during judicial
review. Moreover, under CAA section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the requirements
[[Page 63853]]
established by the final rule may not be challenged separately in civil
or criminal proceedings brought to enforce these requirements.
Background Information Document. The EPA proposed the NESHAP for miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing on April 4, 2002 (67 FR 16154), and received 53 comment letters on the proposal. A background information document (BID) (``National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for the Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry, Summary of Public Comments and Responses,'') containing EPA's responses to each public comment is available in Docket ID No. OAR20030121.
Outline. The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows:
I. Background
A. What is the source of authority for development of NESHAP?
B. What criteria are used in the development of NESHAP?
C. What is the history of the source categories?
D. What are the health effects associated with the pollutants emitted from miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing?
E. How did we develop the final rule?
II. Summary of the Final Rule
A. What are the affected sources and emission points?
B. What are the emission limitations and work practice standards?
C. What are the testing and initial compliance requirements?
D. What are the continuous compliance requirements?
E. What are the notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements?
III. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts
A. What are the air emission reduction impacts?
B. What are the cost impacts?
C. What are the economic impacts?
D. What are the nonair health, environmental, and energy impacts?
IV. Summary of Responses to Major Comments
A. What changes to applicability did the commenters suggest?
B. How did we change the compliance dates?
C. How did we develop the standards?
D. Standards for Process Vents
E. Storage Tank Standards
F. Standards for Wastewater Systems
G. Standards for Equipment Leaks
H. Standards for Transfer Racks
I. Pollution Prevention
J. Initial Compliance
K. Ongoing Compliance
L. Recordkeeping and Reporting
M. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction
N. Change Management
O. Overlapping Requirements
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
J. Congressional Review Act
I. Background
A. 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 some area sources of HAP and to establish NESHAP for the listed source categories and subcategories. A major source of HAP is a stationary source or group of stationary sources located within a contiguous area under common control that has the potential to emit greater than 9.1 megagrams per year (Mg/yr) (10 tons per year (tpy)) of any one HAP or 22.7 Mg/yr (25 tpy) of any combination of HAP.
B. 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, taking into consideration the cost of achieving the emissions reductions, any nonair quality health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements. This level of control is commonly referred to as 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 all major sources achieve the level of control 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 (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. In considering whether to establish standards more stringent than the floor, we must consider cost, nonair quality health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements.
C. What Is the History of the Source Categories?
Section 112 of the CAA requires us to establish rules for categories of emission sources that emit HAP. On July 16, 1992, we published an initial list of 174 source categories to be regulated (57 FR 31576). The listing was our best attempt to identify major sources of HAP by manufacturing category. Following the publication of that listing, we published a schedule for the promulgation of emission standards for each of the 174 listed source categories. At the time the initial list was published, we recognized that we might have to revise the list from time to time as better information became available.
Based on information we collected in 1995, we realized that several
of the original source categories on the list had similar process
equipment, emission characteristics and applicable control
technologies. Additionally, many of these source categories were on the
same schedule for promulgation, by November 15, 2000. Therefore, we
decided to combine a number of source categories from the original
listing into one broad set of emission standards. Today's final rule
reflects the subsumption of the following source categories into a new
source category called Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing:
benzyltrimethylammonium chloride production, carbonyl sulfide
production, chelating agents production, chlorinated paraffins
production, ethylidene norbornene production, explosives production,
hydrazine production, photographic chemicals production, phthalate
plasticizers production, rubber chemicals production, symmetrical
tetrachloropyridine production, OBPA/1,3diisocyanate production, alkyd
resins production, polyester resins production, polyvinyl alcohol
production, polyvinyl acetate emulsions production, polyvinylbutyral production, polymerized vinylidene chloride production,
polymethylmethacrylate production, maleic anhydride copolymers
production, ammonium sulfate productioncaprolactam byproduct plants, and quaternary ammonium
[[Page 63854]]
compounds production. Along with these 22 source categories, the
Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing source category is also
defined to include other organic chemical manufacturing processes which are not being covered by any other MACT standards.
Today's action establishes final standards for miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing (40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF). D. What Are the Health Effects Associated With the Pollutants Emitted From Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing?
The CAA was created, in part, ``to protect and enhance the quality of the Nation's air resources so as to promote the public health and welfare and the productive capacity of the population'' (see section 101(b) of the CAA). These NESHAP will protect public health by reducing emissions of HAP from miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing facilities.
Miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing facilities emit an estimated 21,900 Mg/yr (24,100 tpy) of organic and inorganic HAP. Organic HAP include toluene, methanol, xylene, methyl ethyl ketone, ethyl benzene, methyl isobutyl ketone, and vinyl acetate. Inorganic HAP emitted by this industry include hydrogen chloride (HCl) and some HAP metals in the form of particulate matter (PM). The final rule reduces HAP emissions from miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing facilities by 68 percent. As a result of controlling these HAP, the final NESHAP will also reduce emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC). A summary of the potential health effects caused by exposure to these pollutants is presented in the preamble to the proposed rule (67 FR 16154).
E. How Did We Develop the Final Rule?
We proposed the NESHAP for the miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing source category on April 4, 2002 (67 FR 16154) and provided an 85day comment period. We received a total of 55 comment letters. A copy of each of the comment letters is available in Docket No. OAR20030121 or A9604.
The final rule reflects full consideration of all the comments we
received on the proposed rule, as well as our reassessment of certain
data in the rulemaking record. Major public comments on the proposed
subpart FFFF, along with our responses to the comments, are summarized
in section IV of this preamble. A detailed response to all comments is
included in the Background Information Document for the promulgated
standards (Docket No. OAR20030121). Comments on the proposed
miscellaneous coating manufacturing NESHAP will be summarized and discussed in the subpart HHHHH promulgation package.
II. Summary of the Final Rule
A. What Are the Affected Sources and Emission Points?
Emission points identified from miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing production include process vents, storage tanks, equipment leaks, transfer operations, and wastewater collection and treatment systems. The affected source subject to this subpart is the facilitywide collection of miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing process units (MCPU), wastewater treatment and conveyance systems, transfer operations, and associated ancillary equipment such as heat exchange systems that are located at a major source of HAP as defined in section 112(a) of the CAA. An MCPU includes a miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing process, as defined in 40 CFR 63.2550, and must meet the following criteria: (1) It manufactures any material or family of materials described in 40 CFR 63.2435(b)(1); it processes, uses, or produces HAP described in 40 CFR 63.2435(b)(2); and, except for certain process vents that are part of a chemical manufacturing process unit, as identified in 40 CFR 63.100(j)(4), the MCPU is not part of an affected source under another subpart of 40 CFR part 63. The MCPU is defined according to the equipment used to make the subject material, and it includes storage tanks that are associated with the process.
New sources are created by reconstructing existing sources,
constructing new ``greenfield'' facilities, or constructing an addition
to an existing source that is a dedicated MCPU and has the potential to
exceed 10 tpy of an individual HAP or 25 tpy of combined HAP. Reconfiguration of existing equipment does not constitute
``construction.''
B. What Are the Emission Limits and Work Practice Standards?
The final rule regulates HAP emissions from miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing facilities that are determined to be major sources. The standards apply to existing sources as well as new sources.
Process Vents
The final standards for existing batch and continuous process vents are set at a floor level of control and include requirements for organic and inorganic HAP. For batch process vents, the final standards require you to reduce uncontrolled organic HAP emissions from the sum of all batch process vents within the process by 98 percent if uncontrolled emissions exceed 4,540 kilograms per year (kg/yr) (10,000 pounds per year (lb/yr)). No control of vents is required for processes that are limited to uncontrolled emissions of 4,540 kg/yr (10,000 lb/ yr) or less, as calculated on a rolling 365day basis. A second control option for batch vents is to reduce the sum of all batch process vents within the process by 95 percent using recovery devices.
For continuous process vents, the final standards require control of vents determined to have a total resource effectiveness (TRE) index equal to or less than 1.9. The standards require you to reduce HAP emissions by at least 98 percent by weight if the TRE of the outlet gaseous stream after the last recovery device is less than 1.9, or to reduce the outlet total organic compound (TOC) concentration to 20 parts per million by volume (ppmv) or less. For continuous process vents, we reference the process vent standards contained in 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS.
For inorganic HAP, we set the standards based on the floor and made
no distinction between batch and continuous streams. The standards for
hydrogen halide and halogen HAP (i.e., HCl, hydrogen fluoride (HF), and
chlorine (C1
[[Page 63855]]
emissions reduction, and we did not set a standard above the floor.
We defined the term ``process'' to include all equipment that collectively function to produce a material or family of materials that are covered by the source category. For batch process vents, we also established an equivalent mass cutoff of 200 lb/yr in the final rule that corresponds to the 50 ppmv concentration.
The new source standards for batch and continuous process vents follow the same formats as described above. However, some of the applicability triggers are more stringent. All batch process vents within a process for which the uncontrolled organic HAP emissions from batch process vents exceed 1,360 kg/yr (3,000 lb/yr) must be reduced by either 98 percent using a control device or 95 percent using a recovery device. All continuous process vents with a TRE of less than or equal to 5.0 must be controlled by 98 percent. For inorganic HAP, the standards for new sources are identical to the standards for existing sources. The new source standard for PM HAP emissions from process vents is 97 percent control for each process with uncontrolled PM HAP emissions greater than or equal to 400 lb/yr. Control requirements for halogenated streams are also the same as for existing sources. Storage Tanks
The final rule requires existing sources to control emissions from storage tanks having capacities greater than or equal to 38 cubic meters (m3) (10,000 gallons (gal)) and storing material with a HAP partial pressure of greater than 6.9 kilopascals (kPa) (1.0 pound per square inch absolute (psia)). For new sources, the standards require control of storage tanks having capacities greater than or equal to 38 m3 (10,000 gal) and storing material with a HAP partial pressure of greater than 0.7 kPa (0.1 psia). For both existing and new sources, the required control is to use a floating roof or to reduce the organic HAP emissions by 95 percent by weight or more. We also concluded in a revised analysis that for small storage tanks (capacities <10,000 gal), that there is a ``no emission reduction'' MACT floor, and we did not specify a standard because the total impacts of a more stringent regulatory alternative were found to be unreasonable. Additionally, we concluded that the new source MACT floor as proposed is appropriate (95 percent control of all tanks with capacities of 10,000 gal and storing material with a HAP partial pressure of 0.1 psia) for all tanks.
Wastewater
The final rule requires management and treatment of Group 1
wastewater streams and residuals removed from Group 1 wastewater
streams to be consistent with the requirements contained in 40 CFR part
63, subpart G. For the purposes of 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF, the
characteristics of Group 1 wastewater streams are defined with the
following characteristics at the point of determination (POD):
[sbull] Process wastewater containing partially soluble HAP at an
annual average concentration greater than 50 parts per million by
weight (ppmw) and a combined total annual average concentration of
soluble and partially soluble HAP of 10,000 ppmw or greater at any flowrate.
[sbull] Process wastewater containing partially soluble HAP at an
annual average concentration greater than 50 ppmw and a combined total
annual average concentration of soluble and partially soluble HAP of
1,000 ppmw or greater at an annual average flowrate of 1 liter per minute (lpm) or greater.
[sbull] Process wastewater containing partially soluble HAP at an
annual average concentration of 50 ppmw or less and soluble HAP at an
annual average concentration of 30,000 ppmw or greater and a total annual load of soluble HAP of 1 tpy or greater.
At new sources, the requirements are identical to those for
existing sources, but the applicability triggers on individual streams
are more stringent. In addition to controlling streams that meet the
thresholds for existing sources, control is also required for the following streams at their POD:
[sbull] Process wastewater containing an annual average HAP
concentration exceeding 10 ppmw of compounds listed in Table 8 of 40
CFR part 63, subpart G, with annual average flowrate greater than 0.02 lpm.
[sbull] Process wastewater containing partially soluble HAP at an
annual average concentration of 50 ppmw or less and soluble HAP at an
annual average concentration of 4,500 ppmw or greater and a total annual load of soluble HAP of 1 tpy or greater.
The final rule also requires compliance with the requirements of 40 CFR 63.105 for maintenance wastewater streams, and compliance with the requirements in 40 CFR 63.149 for liquid streams in open systems within an MCPU.
Transfer Racks and Ancillary Sources
The final standards for transfer racks, maintenance wastewater, and heat exchange systems are unchanged from the proposal, and they are identical to the requirements in the hazardous organic NESHAP (HON). For transfer operations, we are requiring the HON level of control for transfer racks that load greater than 0.65 million liters per year (l/ yr) (0.17 million gallons per year (gal/yr)) of liquid products that contain organic HAP with a partial pressure of 10.3 kPa (1.5 psia). For each transfer rack that meets these thresholds, total organic HAP emissions must be reduced by 98 percent by weight or more, or the displaced vapors must be returned to the process or originating container. For maintenance wastewater, you must prepare a plan for minimizing emissions. For heat exchange systems, you must implement a monitoring program to detect leaks into the cooling water.
Equipment Leaks
For equipment leaks, the final rule requires implementation of a leak detection and repair (LDAR) program. For processes with no continuous process vents, you must implement the program in 40 CFR part 63, subpart TT. For processes with at least one continuous process vent, you must implement the program in 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU. Alternatively, you may elect to comply with the requirements in 40 CFR part 65, subpart F (i.e., the Consolidated Federal Air Rule). Pollution Prevention
The final rule also includes a pollution prevention alternative for
existing sources that meets the control level of the MACT floor and may
be implemented in lieu of the emission limitations and work practice
standards described above. The pollution prevention alternative
provides a way for facilities to comply with MACT by reducing overall
consumption of HAP in their processes; therefore, it is not applicable
for HAP that are generated in the process or for new sources.
Specifically, you must demonstrate that the productionindexed
consumption of HAP has decreased by at least 65 percent from a 3year
average baseline set no earlier than the 1994 through 1996 calendar
years. The productionindexed consumption factor is expressed as the
mass of HAP consumed, divided by the mass of product produced. The
numerator in the factor is the total consumption of the HAP, which
describes all the different areas where it can be consumed, either
through losses to the environment, consumption in the process as a reactant, or otherwise destroyed.
[[Page 63856]]
Emissions Averaging Provisions
The final rule incorporates the emissions averaging provisions in 40 CFR part 63, subpart G (the HON), with some changes to accommodate batch process vents. For example, the final rule specifies that uncontrolled emissions from batch process vents are to be calculated using the procedures in 40 CFR part 63, subpart GGG, and performance testing must be conducted under worst case conditions, as defined in subpart GGG.
Alternative Standard
The final rule contains an alternative standard for process vents and storage tanks. When emissions are controlled using combustion control devices, the alternative standard requires control to an undiluted TOC concentration of 20 ppmv or less and an undiluted hydrogen halide and halogen HAP concentration of 20 ppmv or less. For noncombustion control devices, the TOC concentration and total hydrogen halide and halogen HAP concentration both must be reduced to 50 ppmv or less. Continuous monitoring of outlet TOC and total hydrogen halide and halogen HAP is required for compliance with this alternative standard. C. What Are the Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements? Process Vents
The final rule requires calculation of uncontrolled emissions as a first step in demonstrating compliance with the 98 percent or 95 percent reduction requirement for batch process vents. This initial calculation of uncontrolled emissions is not required if you choose to control process vents using the alternative standard or using specified combustion devices. For continuous process vents, the final rule requires calculation of the TRE index values using the procedures contained in the HON for continuous process vents.
To verify that the required reductions have been achieved, you must either test or use calculation methodologies, depending on the emission stream characteristics, control device, and the type of process vent. For each continuous process vent with a TRE less than or equal to 1.9, compliance with the percent reduction emission limitation must be verified through performance testing. For batch process vents, initial compliance demonstrations must be conducted in accordance with the requirements in the Pharmaceuticals Production NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart GGG). Specifically, performance tests are required for control devices handling greater than 9.1 Mg/yr (10 tpy) of HAP, while either engineering assessments or performance tests are allowed for control devices with lower loads and for condensers. Performance tests must be conducted under worstcase conditions if the control device is used to control emissions from batch process vents.
Storage Tanks, Transfer Racks, and Wastewater
To demonstrate initial compliance with emission limits and work practice standards for storage tanks, transfer racks, and wastewater systems, the final rule allows you to either conduct performance tests or document compliance using engineering calculations. The initial compliance procedures are specified in 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS (National Emission Standards for Closed Vent Systems, Control Devices, Recovery Devices and Routing to a Fuel Gas System or a Process), subpart WW (National Emission Standards for Storage Vessels (Tanks Control Level 2)), and subpart G (the HON), for control devices used to reduce emissions from storage tanks and transfer racks, storage tanks controlled with floating roofs, and wastewater sources, respectively. D. What Are the Continuous Compliance Requirements?
The final rule requires monitoring, inspections, and calculations to demonstrate ongoing compliance. Typically, continuous monitoring (i.e., every 15 minutes) of emissions or operating parameters is required when using a control device or wastewater treatment device. If operating parameters are monitored, operating limits must be established during the initial compliance demonstration. Periodic inspections are required for emission suppression equipment on waste management units and floating roofs on storage tanks and wastewater tanks. For processes that have Group 2 batch process vents (i.e., total organic HAP emissions less than 10,000 lb/yr), you must track the number of batches produced to show that emissions remain below the Group 1 threshold.
Continuous monitoring requirements for control devices are specified in 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS, with some exceptions specified in the final rule. For example, the final rule requires that monitoring data during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) be used in daily averages, whereas subpart SS excludes such data from averages. For batch process vents, you may request approval to set operating limits for individual or groups of emission episodes using the results of the performance test and applicable supplementary information. To use this approach, you must provide rationale for your selected operating limits in your precompliance report. As an alternative to daily averaging, the final rule also allows averaging over a batch or segment of a batch for control devices used to reduce emissions from batch process vents. For control devices that do not control more than 1 tpy of HAP emissions, only a daily verification that the control device is operating as designed is required.
Inspections for floating roofs must be conducted in accordance with
40 CFR part 63, subpart WW. All monitoring and inspection requirements
for wastewater systems must be conducted in accordance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart G.
E. What Are the Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements?
Recordkeeping and reporting requirements are outlined in the General Provisions to part 63 (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), as well as the requirements in referenced subpart G (the HON), subpart SS (National Emission Standards for Closed Vent Systems, Control Devices, Recovery Devices and Routing to a Fuel Gas System or a Process), subpart TT (National Emission Standards for Equipment LeaksControl Level 1), subpart UU (National Emission Standards for Equipment Leaks Control Level 2 Standards), and subpart WW (National Emission Standards for Storage VesselsControl Level 2). The sections of subpart A that apply to the final rule are designated in Table 12 to subpart FFFF of 40 CFR part 63. Additional recordkeeping and reporting requirements are specific to the final rule. For example, you are required to submit a precompliance report if you choose to comply using an alternative monitoring approach, use an engineering assessment to demonstrate compliance, or comply using a control device handling less than 1 tpy of HAP emissions. The final rule also references the SSM recordkeeping and reporting requirements contained in 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS. Under these provisions, SSM records are required only for events during which excess emissions occur or events when the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan (SSMP) was not followed.
Consistent with the General Provisions, you must submit an initial
notification, a notification of compliance status (NOCS) report, and
compliance reports. The initial notification is required within 120 days of the effective date of 40 CFR part 63,
[[Page 63857]]
subpart FFFF. That brief notification serves to alert appropriate
agencies (State agencies and EPA Regional Offices) of the existence of
your affected source and puts them on notice for future compliance
actions. The NOCS report, which is due 150 days after the compliance
date of the NESHAP, is a comprehensive report that describes the
affected source and the strategy being used to comply. The NOCS report
is also an important aspect of the title V permitting strategy for
sources subject to subpart FFFF. Compliance reports are required every 6 months.
III. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts A. What Are the Air Emission Reduction Impacts?
We estimate nationwide baseline HAP emissions from miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing sources to be 21,900 Mg/yr (24,200 tpy). We project that the final rule will reduce HAP emissions by about 15,200 Mg/yr (16,800 tpy). Because many of the HAP emitted by miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing facilities are also VOC, the NESHAP will also reduce VOC.
Combustion of fuels in combustionbased control devices and to
generate electricity and steam will increase secondary emissions of
carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NO
(PM
The cost impacts include the capital cost to install control devices and monitoring equipment, and include the annual costs involved in operating control devices and monitoring equipment, implementing work practices, and conducting performance tests. The annual cost impacts also include the cost savings generated by reducing the loss of product or solvent in the form of emissions. The total capital cost for existing sources is estimated to be $127 million, and the total annual cost for existing sources is estimated to be $75.1 million per year.
We estimate that in the first 3 years after the effective date of 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF, that the annual cost burden will average $3,150/yr per respondent for recordkeeping and reporting requirements. This estimate was based on having 251 sources. Most of these costs are for new and reconstructed sources that must be in compliance upon startup; other costs are for existing sources to prepare initial notifications and plans. In the fourth year after the effective date, existing facilities must begin to monitor and record operating parameters to comply with operating limits and prepare compliance reports, which will significantly increase the annual burden nationwide.
We expect that the actual compliance cost impacts of the NESHAP will be less than described above because of the potential to use common control devices, upgrade existing control devices, implement emissions averaging, or comply with the alternative standard. Because the effect of such practices is highly sitespecific and data were unavailable to estimate how often the lower cost compliance practices could be utilized, we could not quantify the amount by which actual compliance costs might be reduced.
C. What Are the Economic Impacts?
The economic impact analysis for 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF,
shows that the expected price increase for affected output is 0.5
percent, and the expected change in production of affected output is a
reduction of 0.3 percent. One plant closure is expected out of the 207
facilities affected by the final rule. It should be noted that the
baseline economic conditions of the facility predicted to close affect
the closure estimate provided by the economic model, and that the
facility predicted to close appears to have low profitability levels
currently. Therefore, no adverse impact is expected to occur for those
industries that produce miscellaneous organic chemicals affected by the
NESHAP, such as soaps and cleaners, industrial organic chemicals, and agricultural chemicals.
D. What Are the Nonair Health, Environmental, and Energy Impacts?
With the assumption that overheads from steam stripping will be
recoverable as material or fuel, no solid waste is expected to be
generated from steam stripping of wastewater streams. No solid waste is
expected to be generated from controls of other emission points. We
expect the overall energy demand (i.e., for auxiliary fuel in
incinerators, electricity generation, and steam production) to increase
by an estimated 6.1 million gigajoules per year (5.8 trillion British thermal units per year).
IV. Summary of Responses to Major Comments
A. What Changes to Applicability Did the Commenters Suggest?
Comment: Several commenters suggested using only one industrial classification code, preferably the NAICS. The commenters also recommended increasing the specificity of the NAICS codes to six digits. As an alternative, one commenter suggested that the codes be scrapped and applicability be based simply on the manufacture of organic chemicals. Finally, the commenters requested exceptions for all codes that refer to inorganic chemical manufacturing processes.
Response: We decided to retain both the SIC and NAICS codes in the final rule. Although SIC codes are being phased out, we decided to retain them because many industries still use these codes, and they were the basis for the selecting industries that received the section 114 information request. We rejected the suggestion to use sixdigit NAICS codes because the list would be unnecessarily long; listing exclusions is much shorter. For the final rule, we also decided to list only the threedigit NAICS code for the chemical manufacturing subsector (325) rather than the seven fourdigit codes for industry groups within this subsector because 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF, applies to all of the industry groups. However, there are selected manufacturing processes within both the SIC and NAICS industry groups for which the final rule is not applicable. These processes are exempted in the final rule by listing only the applicable sixdigit NAICS code. Thus, a process described by a listed sixdigit NAICS code is exempt even if it falls within an otherwise applicable SIC code. The exemptions cover all but three of the processes described by NAICS codes 325131, 325181, 325188, 325314, 325991, and 325992. The three processes within these otherwise exempt categories are hydrazine, reformulating plastics resins from recycled plastics products, and photographic chemicals.
Comment: Two commenters stated that hydrazine manufacturing should
not be subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF, and the Hydrazine
Manufacturing source category should be delisted because within the
next few months, there will no longer be major sources within the
source category; emissions from hydrazine manufacturing are too low to
trigger controls; and hydrazine is an inorganic compound. If hydrazine is not removed from the miscellaneous
[[Page 63858]]
organic chemical manufacturing source category, one of the two
commenters suggested that alternative testing methods are needed for
hydrazine and that the definition of TOC should be changed to include
hydrazine. The other commenter pointed out that the TRE equation is
meaningless for hydrazine manufacturing plants because it requires
sources to determine the hourly emission rate of organic HAP, and
hydrazine and the raw materials used to produce hydrazine (e.g., chlorine, caustic soda, and ammonia) are all inorganic.
Response: Subpart FFFF covers the manufacture of hydrazine because it was one of the source categories subsumed, and the standards are based on a broad variety of chemical manufacturing processes. We developed separate standards for hydrogen halide and halogen emissions that require 99 percent control when uncontrolled hydrogen halide and halogen emissions exceed 1,000 lb/yr per process. However, hydrazine itself is also a HAP. Therefore, process vents containing hydrogen halide and halogen HAP would be subject to standards for hydrogen halide and halogen emissions. Hydrazine emissions from process vents would be subject to either the continuous process vent standards or the batch process vent standards. For the purposes of calculating the TRE for continuous process vents or mass emissions for comparison with the 10,000 lb/yr applicability threshold for batch process vents, the final rule specifies that hydrazine is to be considered an organic HAP.
Comment: One commenter requested an exemption for photographic processing chemicals such as fixers, bleaches, and developers because HAP emissions from the processes are minimal, the equipment to manufacture these compounds are mixing vessels, and the processes do not appear to be included in the MACT floor. The commenter suggested that administrative burdens associated with the final rule, including calculating uncontrolled emissions, are not warranted.
Response: We have not exempted manufacturing processes for photographic processing chemicals. The manufacturing equipment and emission characteristics, such as mixing vessels and their associated emissions from vapor displacement and evaporative losses, are represented by processes contained in the database.
Comment: Many commenters supported the concept of treating process
vents from the production of energetics as a separate class of emission
streams subject to alternative requirements or a lesser degree of
control for safety reasons. Several commenters provided specifics on the hazards posed by incinerationbased controls and made
recommendations that included providing definitions for energetics,
waiving requirements for energetics or establishing a process where
safe control technology can be identified on a casebycase basis, and
considering other control alternatives for compounds such as organic
peroxides, powdered metals, metal catalysts, and highly flammable gases
such as ethylene oxide and hydrogen. One of the commenters indicated
that condensation and carbon adsorption are not effective on some
compounds, such as nitroglycerine, which is unstable at low
temperatures and cannot be safely controlled by carbon adsorption
because it spontaneously combusts. The commenter supported a definition
for energetics that includes ``propellants, explosives, and
pyrotechnics.'' A second commenter suggested defining explosives as
material included in the U.S. Department of Transportation hazardous
materials tables (49 CFR 172.101) and listed as Hazard Class I
hazardous material to include all Class I materials, or specifically
materials in Divisions 1.1 through 1.6. The commenter indicated that
using this approach, explosive manufacturers would know who they are
because they are already shipping their materials as explosives;
manufacturers who make materials that have some energetic properties,
but are not shipped as explosives, would clearly be excluded. A third
commenter requested that other compounds also be included in the
subclass as explosives, particularly organic peroxides. The commenter
cited EPA's rationale in providing a similar exclusion from control
according to Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), subpart CC
for organic peroxide producers. A fourth commenter agreed and requested
that EPA incorporate language already included at 40 CFR 264.1080(d)
(duplicated at Sec. 265.1080(d)) and 40 CFR 264.1089(i) (duplicated at
Sec. 265.1089(i)) in 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF. The commenter also
suggested that other streams exist in the industry that may also meet
this definition. For instance, reactive radioactive mixed waste
wastewaters generated under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act and
the Nuclear Waste Policy Act are exempted from closed conveyance
requirements per 40 CFR 264.1080(b)(6). The U.S. Department of Energy
requested this exemption because the radioactive mixed waste (RMW)
containers ``cannot be tightly sealed due to unacceptable pressure
buildup of hydrogen gas to levels which can . . . create a potentially
serious explosion hazard.'' The commenters requested that EPA include
language that allows facilities to document the hazardous nature of
their wastewater streams and petition for exemption from the wastewater standards.
Response: In the proposal, we recognized that the 98 percent
control requirement for all process vents within affected processes
would force incineration technology, and that this technology might not
be appropriate for all process vent streams. Therefore, we also allowed
95 percent reduction of process vents if ``recovery'' control
technology was employed to achieve required reductions. We envisioned
at the time that the majority of this technology would be condensation.
We solicited comments in the proposal on what commenters would consider
achievable reductions from appropriate control technologies and how to
define energetics. With the exception of the nitroglycerin example, we
did not receive many comments that indicated that 95 percent control
could not be achieved in most cases. Regarding organic peroxides, the
addon control requirement of RCRA, subpart CC, is 95 percent;
therefore, EPA's earlier decision that indefinitely stayed requirements
for producers of organic peroxides is consistent with the assumption
that even 95 percent control cannot be achieved in these cases.
Similarly, just as some reactive radioactive mixed wastewaters cannot
be safely managed in closed systems, as one commenter suggested, there
may be other situations that exist where sources may not be able to
achieve the control efficiencies required by the final standards
because of safety concerns. Based on the specific comments we received,
we have concluded that it is appropriate to narrowly define a class of
energetics and organic peroxides producers and allow, on a case
specific basis, a procedure to request an alternative compliance
option. For these materials, the owner or operator must prepare and
submit documentation in the precompliance report similar to the
requirements in 40 CFR 264.1089(i) and 265.1089(i), explaining why an
undue safety hazard would be created if the air emission controls
specified in 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF, were installed on process
vents, wastewater, and storage tanks containing energetics and organic
peroxides, and describing what practices would be implemented to [[Page 63859]]
minimize HAP emissions from energetics and organic peroxides manufacturing.
We did not broadly define energetics to encompass reactive or explosive conditions and the presence of highly flammable gases such as ethylene oxide and hydrogen. Based on past rules, we realize that combustion technology may not be appropriate in these cases, but other control technologies achieving relatively high control efficiencies are available and technically feasible.
Finally, the final rule includes a definition of ``energetics'' that is based on the definitions suggested by the commenters, and a definition of ``organic peroxides'' that is taken from 40 CFR 264.1080(d):
Energetics means propellants, explosives, and pyrotechnics and include materials listed at 49 CFR 172.101 as Hazard Class I Hazardous Materials, Divisions 1.1 through 1.6.
Organic peroxides means organic compounds containing the bivalent oostructure which may be considered to be a structural derivative of hydrogen peroxide where one or both of the hydrogen atoms has been replaced by an organic radical.
Borrowing from language contained in 40 CFR 264.1080(d), only processes producing ``organic peroxides as the predominant products manufactured by the process'' and manufacturing ``more than one functional family of organic peroxides or multiple organic peroxides within one functional family,'' with one or more of these organic peroxides that ``could potentially undergo selfaccelerating thermal decomposition at or below ambient temperatures'' would be eligible for identical treatment as energetics.
Comment: One commenter asked for clarification that only solvent recovery operations operating at chemical manufacturing facilities are covered under 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF. The commenter also suggested adding a paragraph to the final rule to alert wastewater treatment operators that the final rule might apply to them.
Response: We have not included the suggested language because solvent recovery operations are in fact covered by 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF, even if they are not located at a chemical manufacturing facility. However, offsite operations that are part of an affected source under another subpart of 40 CFR part 63, such as the Offsite Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP (subpart DD), are not subject to subpart FFFF, as specified in Sec. 63.2435(b)(3) of the final rule. Secondly, offsite treatment facilities are not affected sources but they may be required to treat wastewaters according to the provisions in subpart FFFF. Operators will be notified by respective dischargers of their obligation to treat in accordance with Sec. 63.132(g)(1), as referenced in Table 7 to subpart FFFF of part 63.
Comment: A number of commenters identified concerns with the ``family of materials'' concept and requested that EPA either eliminate it or make several changes. Several commenters suggested that the term is inconsistent with the floor determination and the information collection request (ICR), which allowed respondents to group materials but did not require it. One commenter suggested that the family of materials concept would discourage innovative or new and changed products due to constantly changing calculations and control requirements and increased administrative burden associated with tracking families. The commenter also stated that the concept is incompatible with flexible batch processes and could lead to division of products and equipment that are emitting to the same vent or groupings of products located in different buildings. The commenter suggested that grouping be conducted on shared process vents rather than families.
Four of the commenters suggested two key concepts to incorporate
into the definition: the need to be able to group together processes with essentially identical emission sources and/or stream
characteristics; and the recognition that, under some circumstances,
functionality (e.g., end use or product characteristics) may be an
appropriate option in lieu of chemical composition. One of the
commenters also suggested that we revise the list of examples because
the proposed examples appear to be much broader categories of products
than what other parts of the definition seem to allow and apply the
concept only to batch process units in the same operational area.
One commenter stated that if EPA insisted on regulating equipment based on a ``family of materials'' concept, it should be limited to batch processes, and the emission threshold from the batch database should be recalculated. Finally, one of the commenters suggested that if EPA does not remove the family of materials concept, EPA must allow facilities to exclude from a family of materials grouping all individual products when the manufacture results in uncontrolled HAP emissions of less than 500 lb/yr for nondedicated batch operations or 100 lb/yr for dedicated batch operations.
Response: The concept of ``family of materials'' is merely a logical grouping to describe materials that have very similar production and emission stream characteristics such that they can be considered as a single process. The final rule bases its control requirement on the sum of uncontrolled emissions within a process grouping. Only processes with uncontrolled organic HAP emissions of greater than 5 tpy are required to be controlled by 98 percent. Therefore, the definition of process determines what sources are included within a process grouping, which in turn affects applicable requirements and must be clearly specified in the final rule. In the proposed rule, we introduced the term family of materials to describe materials that vary only slightly in molecular structure, functional groups or other characteristics and are produced using procedures that result in essentially identical HAP emission streams from essentially identical emission sources. Our intent in requiring the grouping of these materials is to keep operators from artificially breaking them up into separate ``processes'' to avoid control requirements. We consider this concept to be important and have retained it in the final rule, with some modifications. Further, from our concept of ``standard batch,'' we would say that each family of materials has the same ``standard batch.''
The standard batch concept was developed to allow owners and operators to identify and characterize emission events associated with a process. Once the emissions from each process are characterized, the owner or operator can merely count the number of batches conducted per year for each process to determine uncontrolled and controlled HAP emissions and compliance requirements. The standard batch concept provides a manageable way to document emissions; processes with the same identical standard batch should be considered the same process.
We agree with the commenters that our proposed definition did not adequately convey the concept of identical emission streams characteristics. We note that as long as groupings are also based on identical HAP emission characteristics, a grouping based on functionality is still compatible with the concept of having only one standard batch per process, which is a cornerstone of our compliance implementation strategy. Therefore, we have incorporated the suggested option so that the final definition requires identical emissions and either similar composition or functionality.
We reject the argument that the database is flawed because we did not require groupings when we surveyed
[[Page 63860]]
the industry. Although we did not require groupings, we encouraged
respondents to group materials and provided guidance ``that products
that involve different HAP or different process equipment in case of
dedicated processes should not be grouped together.'' This language is
basically consistent with the family of materials concept, and we note
that many processes in our database appear to be material groupings.
Therefore, we did not revise the MACT floor or proposed standards for
batch vents. We also have not incorporated the suggestion to exempt
``individual products for which the manufacture results in less than
500 lb/yr uncontrolled HAP emissions for nondedicated batch
operations'' because this language is unnecessary and inappropriate.
Although the commenter may not have provided information on individual
products with less than 500 lb/yr (e.g., the commenter could have
grouped families and emissions would be over 500 lb/yr and required to
be reported), we expect that some respondents applied the 500 lb/yr
reporting test on families of materials, based on the substantive
number of groupings reported. Thus, there is no basis for exempting
individual products for which the manufacture results in HAP emissions
below the suggested 500 lb/yr threshold. Finally, because the final
rule makes no distinction between ``batch'' and ``continuous''
processes, but rather on batch and continuous emissions, we do not restrict the concept to batch ``processes.''
One commenter objected to the grouping of processes that are conducted in separate buildings and areas. Our proposed and final definition of process is not equipment specific. If the same product is manufactured in more than one set of equipment, emissions from all equipment must be considered when comparing to the 5 tpy mass applicability limit. The final rule is written this way because many manufacturers use nondedicated equipment to conduct their processes, and there is the potential that processing can be moved from one area to another easily to avoid regulation. Therefore, we do not restrict the family of materials grouping according to location.
Comment: Many comments addressed various concepts in the definition of miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing process. Several commenters considered the definition to be too lengthy and confusing. Some suggested removing statements that do not define the process. Others asked for clarification of various terms used within the definition such as ``nondedicated,'' ``nondedicated solvent recovery,'' ``equipment,'' and ``product.'' Two commenters stated that ``product or isolated intermediate'' should be changed to ``miscellaneous organic chemical product.''
Several commenters objected to various requirements for nondedicated formulation operations. For example, some commenters opposed the requirement that all nondedicated formulation operations be considered a single process. They noted that the ICR did not request data for aggregated formulation operations and, thus, the MACT floor was based on separate formulation processes. Other commenters requested clarification of the term ``contiguous area'' as it relates to formulation operations. Several commenters found the exclusion for formulation operations that involve ``mixing'' to be confusing. They also requested that all formulation operations be exempt, not just those that are nondedicated and involve mixing, because none of these operations result in many emissions. One commenter expressed concern that estimating emissions for ``hundreds'' of small vents with minimal emissions for all the various formulated products would be burdensome, and control would be very costly. One commenter asked for an explanation of why nondedicated formulation operations (and nondedicated solvent recovery operations) are treated differently than other nondedicated operations.
Several commenters stated that cleaning operations should be part of the process only if they are routine and predictable because these are the only cleaning operations for which emissions can be estimated and included in a standard batch. Other commenters added that cleaning should not be part of the process if it involves opening of process vessels because there are no practical control methods for such events.
Response: Except for nondedicated solvent recovery and formulation operations, miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing processes are product based, meaning that all equipment used to manufacture a product is to be included in determining process vent control. We think this productbased approach is necessary because owners and operators may have the flexibility to manufacture the same product in more than one distinct area in a way that would avoid control under an equipment based standard. However, in the case of solvent recovery operations such as distillation operations, defining a process by product would mean that each separately recovered product would be a separate process, which would result in fewer ``processes'' triggering the control requirement for the same equipment. The same is true for nondedicated formulation operations, where various finished materials could be formulated for shipment or as final product. Considering these two types of nondedicated operations as single processes also likely reflects the way in which these operations are managed and permitted. Further, we think respondents reported their data following this convention. Often, these operations will vary only in the type of HAP used. If the same HAP solvent is used for a variety of products, the emission stream characteristics per batch will essentially be the same. Therefore, considering a number of these operations as a single process actually simplifies recordkeeping. Note, however, that the final rule contains two key exemptions for batch process vents that may exempt many of the emission sources contributing to ``minimal'' emissions that the commenter is describing (i.e., 50 ppmv or 200 lb/yr).
Although our proposed definition excluded ``mixing,'' we meant to exclude ``mixing of coatings,'' since this operation is to be covered by 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHH. When a product is blended or mixed with other materials in equipment that is dedicated to the manufacture of a single product, the mixing is included as part of the miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing process.
We wanted to limit nondedicated solvent and formulation processes to related operations within the same area, which is the reason for the language regarding ``contiguous operations.'' However, we agree with one of the commenters that the term contiguous also conveys other meanings and, therefore, have revised the definition to refer to ``each nondedicated solvent recovery (or formulation) operation.'' The intent is to limit the process to operations located within a distinct operating area.
We agree that nonroutine cleaning operations involving vessel
openings should not be considered as part of a process because they are
difficult to characterize within a standard batch. These emissions
would be attributed to startup and shutdown events, which are addressed
separately in the final rule. In some instances, however, cleaning that
is conducted within enclosed equipment between batches or between
campaigns should be considered part of a process; these operations
often consist of conducting solvent rinses through the equipment. Emissions from these
[[Page 63861]]
operations are similar to emissions during processing and the final
rule's emission estimation procedures are suitable for these events.
Therefore, they can be included in a standard batch for a given product and can be practically implemented.
Comment: Some commenters are confused about how a process ends with the production of an ``isolated intermediate'' or product. One commenter stated that a process should end with the production of an isolated intermediate. Subsequent manufacturing operations using the intermediate should be considered part of a different process, and emissions from the operation should be managed separately from the emissions for the isolated intermediate process. A second commenter objected to the language in the proposal preamble that qualified the meaning of ``stored'' to be longterm storage, or that the material must be shipped offsite. The commenters stated that the term ``storage'' without qualification as to the length of storage or the purpose of storage is sufficient. A third commenter was concerned that the first sentence stated that an isolated intermediate is a ``product,'' but the second sentence stated that many ``isolated intermediates'' many be produced in the manufacture of a product; and that to be an isolated intermediate, a material must be stored, but the definition of storage tanks specifically excludes tanks storing isolated intermediates. The commenter stated that the definition needs to define the end of an MCPU where that MCPU produces a material that is not itself a commercial product. Two commenters wanted clarification that the term isolated intermediate refers to an organic material and suggested changing the term to ``isolated organic intermediate'; and four commenters suggested that the term be limited to batch processes.
Response: The concept of isolated intermediate is to identify a repeatable sequence of processing events that yield a material that is stable and subsequently stored befo
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT Mr. Randy McDonald, Organic Chemicals Group (C50404), Emission Standards Division, U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number (919) 5415402; electronic mail (email) address mcdonald.randy@epa.gov.
Common CFR Searches
14 CFR Part 39 40 CFR Part 52 14 CFR Part 71 33 CFR Part 165 26 CFR Part 1 50 CFR Part 679 40 CFR Part 180 47 CFR Part 73 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 26 CFR Part 301 50 CFR Part 622 39 CFR Part 111 40 CFR Part 300 50 CFR Part 660 44 CFR Part 65 40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 40 CFR Part 271 47 CFR Part 64 14 CFR Part 23 14 CFR Part 25 21 CFR Part 522 50 CFR Part 665 47 CFR Part 76 27 CFR Part 9