Browse: Departments Dates Agencies
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Veterans Affairs Department
CFR Citation: 40 CFR Part 63
RIN ID: RIN 2060-AE85
OAR ID: [OAR-2002-0017; FRL-7551-5]
NOTICE: Part II
DOCUMENT ACTION: Final rule.
SUBJECT CATEGORY: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Mercury Emissions From Mercury Cell Chlor-Alkali Plants
EFFECTIVE DATES: December 19, 2003.
DOCUMENT SUMMARY: This action promulgates national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP), specifically mercury emissions, from mercury cell chloralkali plants. The final rule will limit mercury air emissions from these plants. The final rule will implement section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) which requires all categories and subcategories of major sources and area sources listed under section 112(c) to meet hazardous air pollutant emission standards reflecting the application of the maximum achievable control technology (MACT). Mercury cell chloralkali plants are a subcategory of the chlorine production source category listed under the authority of section 112(c)(1) of the CAA. The chlorine production source category was also identified as a source of mercury under section 112(c)(6) that must be subjected to standards. In addition, mercury cell chloralkali plants were listed as an area source category under section 112(c)(3) and (k)(3)(B) of the CAA. The final rule, which will satisfy our requirement to issue 112(d) regulations under each of these listings (for mercury), will reduce mercury emissions by about 3,068 kilograms per year from the levels allowed by the existing Mercury NESHAP.
Mercury is a neurotoxicant that accumulates, primarily in the especially potent form of methylmercury, in aquatic food chains. The highest levels are reached in predator fish species. Mercury emitted to the air from various types of sources (usually in the elemental or inorganic forms) transports through the atmosphere and eventually deposits onto land or water bodies. When mercury is deposited to surface waters, natural processes (bacterial) can transform some of the mercury into methylmercury that accumulates in fish. Ingestion is the primary exposure route of interest for methylmercury. The health effect of greatest concern due to methylmercury is neurotoxicity, particularly with respect to fetuses and young children.
In addition, in this final action, we are utilizing our authority under section 112(d)(4) of the CAA not to regulation chlorine and hydrochloric acid (HCl) emissions from the mercury cell chloralkali plant subcategory.
SUMMARY: Environmental Protection Agency,
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
Docket. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is (202) 566 1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 5661742.
Electronic Docket Access. You may access the final rule electronically through the EPA Internet under the Federal Register listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.
An electronic version of the public docket 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. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility in the above paragraph entitled ``Docket.'' Once in the system, select ``search,'' then key in the appropriate docket identification number.
Judicial Review. Under CAA section 307(b), 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 on or before February 17, 2004. 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 established by today's final action may not be challenged separately in any civil or criminal proceeding we bring to enforce these requirements.
Regulated Entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated by this action include:
Category SIC \1\ NAICS \2\ Regulated entities
Industry.................... 2812 325181 Alkalies and Chlorine Manufacturing. \1\ Standard Industrial Classification.
\2\ North American Information Classification System.
This list 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. 63.8182 of the final rule. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult your State or local agency (or EPA Regional Office) described in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket, an
[[Page 70905]]
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 final rule will be posted on the TTN's policy and guidance
page for newly proposed or promulgated rules http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg .
Outline. The information in this preamble is organized as follows: I. Introduction and Background
A. What Is the Source of Authority for Development of NESHAP?
B. What Is the Source Category?
C. What Criteria Are Used in the Development of NESHAP?
D. What Actions Were Proposed for This Source Category?
E. How Did the Public Participate in Developing the Rulemaking?
F. What Is a Mercury Cell Chloralkali Plant?
G. How Does This Action Relate to the 40 CFR Part 61 Mercury NESHAP?
II. Summary of Changes Since Proposal
III. Summary of the Final Rule
A. What Is the Source Category?
B. What Are the Affected Sources and Emission Points To Be Regulated?
C. What Are the Emissions Limitations?
D. What Are the Work Practice Standards?
E. What Are the Operation and Maintenance Requirements?
F. What Are the General Compliance Requirements?
G. What Are the Initial Compliance Requirements?
H. What Are the Continuous Compliance Requirements?
I. How Are Initial and Continuous Compliance With the Work Practice Standards To Be Demonstrated?
J. What Are the Notification and Reporting Requirements?
K. What Are the Recordkeeping Requirements?
IV. Summary of Major Comments and Responses
A. What Issues Were Raised Regarding the Sources That Are Subject to the Rule as Proposed?
B. What Issues Were Raised Regarding the HAP Addressed by the Rule as Proposed?
C. What Issues Were Raised Regarding the Compliance Date?
D. What Issues Were Raised Regarding the Emission Limitations?
E. What Issues Were Raised Regarding the Work Practices?
F. What Issues Were Raised Regarding the Monitoring and Continuous Compliance Requirements?
V. What Are the Environmental, Cost, and Economic Impacts of the Final Rule?
A. What Are the Air Emission Impacts?
B. What Are the Nonair Health, Environmental, and Energy Impacts?
C. What Are the Cost and Economic Impacts?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
E. Executive Order 13132Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
J. Congressional Review Act
I. Introduction and Background
A. What Is the Source of Authority for Development of NESHAP?
Section 112 of the CAA contains our authorities for reducing emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP). Section 112(c)(1) 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. Section 112(c)(6) requires us to list source categories and subcategories assuring that sources accounting for not less than 90 percent of the aggregate emissions of each of seven specific pollutants (including mercury) are subject to standards under section 112(d) of the CAA. Finally, section 112(c)(3) and (k)(3)(B) require that we list source categories to ensure that area sources representing 90 percent of the area source emissions of the 30 urban HAP are subject to regulation under section 112(d).
B. What Is the Source Category?
The chlorine production source category was initially listed as a category of major sources of HAP pursuant to section 112(c)(1) of the CAA on July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576). At the time of the initial listing, we defined the chlorine production source category as follows:
The Chlorine Production Source Category includes any facility engaged in the production of chlorine. The category includes, but is not limited to, facilities producing chlorine by the following production methods: diaphragm cell, mercury cell, membrane cell, hybrid fuel cell, Downs cell, potash manufacture, hydrochloric acid decomposition, nitrosyl chloride process, nitric acid/salt process, KelChlor process, and sodium chloride/sulfuric acid process.
In our subsequent analysis of the chlorine production source category, we did not identify any facilities that produce chlorine using hybrid fuel cells, the nitrosyl chloride process, the KelChlor process, the sodium chloride/sulfuric acid process, or as a byproduct from potash manufacturing. The majority of the source category is made up of chloralkali plants that produce chlorine and caustic (sodium hydroxide) using mercury cells, diaphragm cells, or membrane cells. We also identified operating plants that produce chlorine as a byproduct: one from the production of sodium metal in Down cells, another from the production of potassium nitrate fertilizer that uses the nitric acid/ salt process, and a third that produces chlorine as a byproduct from primary magnesium refining (magnesium refining is a separately listed source category and will be addressed on its own in a separate rulemaking). In addition, at a site where a membrane cell process is located, we have also identified a process that produces chlorine through the decomposition of HCl. Our analysis shows that the only HAP emitted from sources within this chlorine production source category are chlorine, HCl, and mercury; and mercury is only emitted from mercury cell chloralkali plants.
In addition to the listing pursuant to section 112(c)(1), chlor alkali production was among the categories of sources identified pursuant to section 112(c)(6) to achieve the 90 percent goal for mercury. While this category was titled ``chloralkali production,'' the only sources of mercury emissions are mercury cell chloralkali plants. However, the mercury cell chloralkali subcategory was not officially ``listed'' under section 112(c)(6) because the chlorine production source category was already listed under section 112(c)(1), and sources of mercury emissions at mercury cell chloralkali plants would be subject to section 112(d)(2) standards via that chlorine production source category listing.
Finally, on July 19, 1999 (64 FR 38706), we listed Mercury Cell ChlorAlkali Plants as an area source category. In this listing, Mercury Cell ChlorAlkali Plants were identified as one of the area source categories that contribute at least 15 percent of the total area source mercury emissions.
Because of the differences in the production methods and the HAP
emitted, we decided to divide the chlorine production category into two
subcategories: (1) Mercury cell chloralkali plants, and (2) chlorine
production plants that do not rely upon mercury cells for chlorine
production (diaphragm cell chloralkali plants, membrane cell chlor
alkali plants, etc.). Thus, on July 3, 2002, we issued separate
proposals to address the emissions of mercury from the mercury cell chloralkali plant subcategory
[[Page 70906]]
sources (67 FR 44672) and the emissions of chlorine and HCl from both
nonmercury cell chlorine production subcategory sources and mercury chloralkali plant subcategory sources (67 FR 44713).
C. What Criteria Are Used in the Development of NESHAP?
Section 112(d)(2) of the CAA specifies that NESHAP for new and existing sources must reflect the maximum degree of reduction in HAP emissions that is achievable, taking into consideration the cost of achieving the emissions reductions, any nonair quality health and environmental benefits, and energy requirements. This level of control is commonly referred to as MACT.
Section 112(d)(3) defines the minimum level of control or floor allowed for NESHAP. In essence, the MACT floor ensures that the standards are set at a level that assures that all affected 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 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 nonair quality health and environmental impacts, and energy impacts.
The CAA includes exceptions to the general statutory requirement to establish emission standards based on MACT. For pollutants for which a threshold has been established, section 112(d)(4) allows us ``to consider such threshold level, with an ample margin of safety, when establishing emissions standards. * * *.''
D. What Actions Were Proposed for This Source Category?
As discussed above, we divided the chlorine production source category into mercury cell chloralkali plants, and chlorine production plants that do not rely upon mercury cells for chlorine production (nonmercury cell chlorine production). On July 3, 2002, we proposed one action to address mercury emissions from the mercury cell chlor alkali plant subcategory, and a separate action to address chlorine and HCl emissions from both subcategories.
For mercury emissions from mercury cell chloralkali plant subcategory sources, we issued a proposed rule based on MACT (67 FR 44672). Comments were received on the proposed rule and today's action issues the final rule for the mercury emissions from the mercury cell chloralkali plant subcategory.
We also proposed not to regulate chlorine and HCl emissions from
both the mercury cell chloralkali plant and nonmercury cell chlorine
production subcategories under our authority in section 112(d)(4) of
the CAA (67 FR 44713). We based this decision on our determination that
no further control is necessary because chlorine and HCl are ``health
threshold pollutants,'' and chlorine and HCl levels emitted from
chlorine production processes are below their threshold values within
an ample margin of safety. The basis for the determination was a series
of sitespecific risk assessments for every chlorine production
facility in the United States that was located at a major source plant
site. In addition, we concluded, using a qualitative evaluation, that
chlorine and HCl emissions from these chlorine production facilities
did not result in adverse environmental effects. Background for this
action is contained in Docket OAR20020016 or Docket A200209. Public
comments on the proposed action were received, and we are finalizing
actions addressing chlorine and HCl emissions in today's Federal
Register. In today's final action, we are utilizing our authority under
section 112(d)(4) not to regulate chlorine and HCl emissions from the
mercury cell chloralkali plant subcategory. Final action addressing
the emissions of chlorine and HCl from the nonmercury cell chlorine
production subcategory is contained elsewhere in today's Federal Register.
E. How Did the Public Participate in Developing the Rulemaking?
Prior to proposal, we met with industry representatives and State regulatory authorities several times to discuss the data and information used to develop the proposed standards. In addition, these and other potential stakeholders, including equipment vendors and environmental groups, had opportunity to comment on the proposed standards.
The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on July 3, 2002 (67 FR 44672). The preamble to the proposed rule discussed the availability of technical support documents, which described in detail the information gathered during the standards development process. Public comments were solicited at proposal.
We received nine public comment letters on the proposed rule (two of which were received well after the close of the comment period). The commenters represent the following affiliations: Mercury cell chlor alkali companies, industrial trade associations, environmental/ conservation organizations, and a women's advocacy organization. In the postproposal period, we talked with commenters and other stakeholders to clarify comments and to assist in our analysis of the comments. Records of these contacts are found in Docket OAR20020017 or Docket A200032. All of the comments have been carefully considered, and, where appropriate, the final rule has been written to so reflect.
The proposed action not to regulate chlorine and HCl emissions was published in the Federal Register on July 3, 2002 (67 FR 44713). The preamble to the proposed action discussed the availability of technical support documents, which described in detail the information gathered during the standards development process. Public comments were solicited at proposal.
We received eight public comment letters on the proposed action. The commenters represent the following affiliations: Industry representatives, governmental entities, and environmental groups. In the postproposal period, we talked with commenters and other stakeholders to clarify comments and to assist in our analysis of the comments. Records of these contacts are found in Docket OAR20020016 or Docket A200209. All of the comments have been carefully considered.
F. What Is a Mercury Cell Chloralkali Plant?
Today's NESHAP apply to mercury emissions from mercury cell chlor alkali plants. Mercury cells are considerably larger than other types of chloralkali cells. A mercury cell plant typically has scores of individual cells (around 60 feet long and 9 feet wide) housed in one or more cell buildings. Mercury cells are electrically connected together in series with circuits of 30 or more cells.
In the mercury cell process, each cell actually involves two distinct operations. The electrolytic cell
[[Page 70907]]
produces chlorine gas, and a separate decomposer produces hydrogen gas
and caustic solution. There is one decomposer associated with each
cell, located directly underneath the cell. The cell and the decomposer
are linked at the two ends by an inlet end box and an outlet end box.
A stream of liquid mercury flows in a continuous loop between the electrolytic cell and the decomposer. The mercury enters the cell at the inlet end box and flows down a slight grade to the outlet end box. At the outlet end box, the mercury flows out of the cell and falls down to the decomposer. After being processed in the decomposer, the mercury is pumped back up to the inlet end box of the electrolytic cell.
Saturated salt brine (using either sodium chloride or potassium chloride) is fed to the electrolytic cell at the inlet end box and flows toward the outlet end box on top of the mercury stream. The brine and mercury flow under a dimensionally stable metal anode made of a titanium substrate with a metal catalyst. The mercury forms the cathode of the cell.
An electric current is applied between the anode and the mercury cathode. The electric current causes a reaction producing chlorine gas at the anode and a mercury:sodium (HgNa) or mercury:potassium (HgK) amalgam at the cathode. Chlorine is collected at the top of the cell. The amalgam ultimately exits at the outlet end box, falling into the decomposer. Depleted brine also exits the cell at the outlet end box. This brine is generally piped to a tank for resaturation and reuse.
The decomposer is a packed bed reactor where the mercury amalgam is contacted with deionized water in the presence of a catalyst. The amalgam reacts with the water, regenerating elemental mercury and producing caustic (NaOH or KOH) and hydrogen. The caustic and mercury are separated in a trap at the end of the decomposer. The caustic and hydrogen are transferred to auxiliary processes for purification, and the mercury is recycled back to the cell.
Chlorine is collected from the tops of the mercury cells by a common header system which runs through the cell building. Hydrogen is collected from the amalgam decomposers in a common header system. The hydrogen stream contains a small amount of mercury vapor from the liquid mercury processed in the decomposer. To remove the mercury vapor, the hydrogen stream is typically cooled, passed through a mist eliminator, and usually sent to a finishing device such as a carbon adsorber. The hydrogen may then be discharged to the atmosphere, used onsite, or sold for use offsite.
In a mercury cell process, a 50 percent caustic solution is obtained directly from the amalgam decomposers. Thus, the mercury cell caustic requires little further processing to yield a commercial product.
Contaminated mercury and mercurycontaining wastes are generated from a number of sources at a mercury cell plant. These include the hydrogen treatment operation, the brine and caustic treatment operations, and mercury leaks or spills. Many plants recover mercury from these wastes onsite in a mercury retort, or mercury thermal recovery unit.
Mercury is emitted from two point sources associated with the production of chlorinethe end box ventilation system and byproduct hydrogen system. Mercury is also emitted from mercury thermal recovery units, which is also a point source. In addition, there are mercury fugitive emissions from the cell rooms and from the waste recovery areas.
In addition to mercury, chlorine and HCl are emitted from mercury
cell plants. Chlorine can be emitted from the tail gas stream from the
final liquefier, the cell room, and equipment in chlorine service.
Hydrochloric acid is used to pretreat feed brine prior to entering a
chloralkali cell, and at other locations throughout the process to
adjust pH. It can also be emitted from storage tanks and equipment in HCl service.
G. How Does This Action Relate to the 40 CFR Part 61 Mercury NESHAP?
We promulgated the National Emission Standard for Mercury on April
6, 1973 (40 CFR part 61, subpart E).\1\ Those standards (hereafter
referred to as the Mercury NESHAP) limit mercury emissions from mercury
cell chloralkali plants as well as mercury ore processing facilities
and sludge incineration and drying plants. Specifically, the Mercury
NESHAP limit mercury emissions from mercury cell chloralkali plants to
2.3 kilogram (kg) (5.1 pound (lb)) of mercury per 24hour period and
requires that mercury emissions be measured (in a onetime test) from
hydrogen streams, end box ventilation systems, and the cell room
ventilation system. As an alternative to measuring ventilation
emissions from the cell room to demonstrate compliance, the Mercury
NESHAP allow an owner or operator to assume a cell room ventilation
emission value of 1.3 kg (2.9 lb) per day of mercury providing the
owner/operator adheres to a suite of approved design, maintenance and
housekeeping practices. Every mercury cell chloralkali plant currently
in operation in the United States complies with the cell room
ventilation provisions by carrying out these practices rather than by
measuring mercury emissions discharged from the cell room. Since every
plant uses the 1.3 kg per day assumed value for its cell room
ventilation emissions, subtracting the 1.3 kg per day cell room value
from the 2.3 kg per 24hour period plantwide standard effectively
creates an emission limit for the combined emissions from hydrogen
streams and end box ventilation systems of 1.0 kg per day (1,000 grams per day).
\1\ This regulatory program was originally set forth at 38 FR
8826; April 6, 1973; and amended at 40 FR 48302, October 14, 1975;
47 FR 24704, June 8, 1982; 49 FR 35770, September 12, 1984; 50 FR
46294, November 7, 1985; 52 FR 8726, March 19, 1987; and 53 FR 36972, September 23, 1988.
The requirements in today's final standards are more stringent than the requirements in the Mercury NESHAP. Using the 1,000 grams per day value as the baseline, we estimate that mercury emissions will be reduced to less than 60 grams per day (on average) by the final rule. This represents about 94 percent reduction from the Mercury NESHAP baseline for vents. In addition, the work practice standards in today's final rule represent the most explicit compilation of practices currently employed by the industry, along with detailed recordkeeping and reporting requirements. While we cannot quantify the mercury emissions reductions that would be achieved by the final work practice standards, we are confident that their implementation would result in additional reductions in mercury emissions beyond that currently achieved by the existing Mercury NESHAP.
Every aspect of the Mercury NESHAP that applies to mercury cell
chloralkali plants is addressed in today's final rule (40 CFR part 63,
subpart IIIII). In fact, as discussed above, the requirements are more
stringent than the respective requirements in the Mercury NESHAP.
Consequently, when mercury cell chloralkali plants are required to
comply with the final rule, the requirements of the Mercury NESHAP that
apply to them will no longer be relevant or applicable. Therefore, upon
the compliance date as indicated in Sec. 63.8186 of the final rule,
mercury cell chloralkali plants will no longer have any obligation to
comply with the Mercury NESHAP, nor will they be allowed to comply with
the Mercury NESHAP instead of the applicable provisions in 40 CFR part 63, subpart IIIII. Specifically, affected sources
[[Page 70908]]
subject to the final rule would no longer be subject to Sec. Sec.
61.52(a), 61.53(b) and (c), and 61.55(b), (c) and (d) of 40 CFR part
61, subpart E, after the compliance date, which is December 19, 2006. II. Summary of Changes Since Proposal
The proposed rule contained a compliance date 2 years from the date that the final rule would appear in the Federal Register. In the final rule, the compliance date has been changed to 3 years from December 19, 2006. However, unlike the proposed rule, which would have required that performance tests be conducted within 180 days after the compliance date, the final rule requires that all performance tests be conducted on or before the compliance date.
For mercury cell chloralkali production facilities affected
sources, the proposed rule included a single emission limitation that
covered all mercury emissions from the two point sources associated
with chlorine production in mercury cells: the byproduct hydrogen
stream and the end box ventilation system vent. The format of this
limitation was total grams of mercury per Megagram of chlorine
production (g Hg/Mg Cl
In addition to the averaging time for the byproduct hydrogen/end
box ventilation system vent, we changed the value of the emission
limitation for plants with end box ventilation systems from the
proposed limit of 0.067 g Hg/Mg Cl
In the final rule, we have written the method for determining continuous compliance for the point sources of emissions in both types of affected sources covered by the rule (byproduct hydrogen streams and end box ventilation system vents at mercury cell chloralkali production facilities and mercury thermal recovery unit vents at mercury recovery facilities). In the proposed rule, performance tests would have been required to determine initial compliance with the applicable emission limitation. The proposed rule also would have required that the mercury concentration of each vent be monitored during these performance tests, and that a mercury concentration operating limit be established for each vent based on the monitoring results obtained during the test. Compliance with the emission limitation would have then been determined by comparing the results of the continuous monitoring of mercury concentration against the established operating limits. There were several comments received on this approach.
In response to these comments, continuous compliance in the final rule is determined via a direct comparison of emissions to the emission limitation rather than using mercury concentration operating limits as a surrogate. For byproduct hydrogen streams and end box ventilation system vents, the aggregate mercury emissions will be determined, divided by the corresponding chlorine production, and compared with the emission limitation for each 52week compliance period (as discussed above). For mercury thermal recovery unit vents, the measured mercury concentration will be directly compared against the emission limitations (which are in units of milligrams of mercury per dry standard cubic meter, or mg/dscm). Also, the final rule contains two options for measuring the mercury emissions for continuous compliance: Continuous mercury emission monitoring systems, and periodic sampling using EPA reference methods or approved alternative methods.
The proposed work practice provisions included a cell room monitoring program, which would have required that the mercury concentration be monitored in the cell room and corrective action taken when a plantspecific action level was exceeded. The final rule retains the cell room monitoring program, but it is as an alternative to the work practices. The optional cell room monitoring provisions in the final rule are more detailed and prescriptive than the requirements in the proposed rule, and the final rule requires the preparation and submittal of sitespecific cell room monitoring plans. Since the cell room monitoring program was made optional, the final rule requires (if optional cell room monitoring is not chosen) the owner or operator to institute a floorlevel mercury vapor measurement program. This program is designed to limit the amount of mercury vapor in the cell room environment through periodic measurement of mercury vapor levels.
The final rule also requires that the owner of each mercury cell chloralkali plant report the mass of virgin mercury added to the cells. Initial compliance with this requirement is demonstrated by reporting the mass of mercury added to cells for the 5 years preceding the compliance date. This is a requirement requested by commenters. III. Summary of the Final Rule
A. What Is the Source Category?
The chlorine production source category contains the mercury cell
chloralkali plant subcategory and includes all plants engaged in the
manufacture of chlorine and caustic in mercury cells. Other nonmercury
cell chlorine production plants used to produce chlorine and caustic,
such as diaphragm cell and membrane cell technologies, are not covered by the final rule.
B. What Are the Affected Sources and Emission Points To Be Regulated?
The final rule defines two affected sources: Mercury cell chlor alkali production facilities, and mercury recovery facilities. The former includes all cell rooms and ancillary operations used in the manufacture of chlorine, caustic, and byproduct hydrogen at a plant site. The latter includes all processes and associated operations needed for mercury recovery from wastes.
Emission points addressed within mercury cell chloralkali
production facilities include each mercury cell byproduct hydrogen
stream, each mercury cell end box ventilation system vent, and fugitive
emission sources throughout each cell room and various areas. Emission
points addressed within mercury recovery facilities include each [[Page 70909]]
mercury thermal recovery unit vent and fugitive emission sources
associated with storage areas for mercurycontaining wastes. C. What Are the Emission Limitations?
For new or reconstructed mercury cell chloralkali production facilities, the final rule prohibits mercury emissions.
For existing mercury cell chloralkali production facilities with
end box ventilation systems, the final rule requires that aggregate
mercury emissions from all byproduct hydrogen streams and end box
ventilation system vents not exceed 0.076 g Hg/Mg Cl
For new, reconstructed, or existing mercury recovery facilities with oven type mercury thermal recovery units, the final rule requires that total mercury emissions not exceed 23 mg/dscm from each oven type unit vent. For new, reconstructed, or existing mercury recovery facilities with nonoven type mercury thermal recovery units, the limit in the final rule is 4 mg/dscm.
D. What Are the Work Practice Standards?
The final rule contains a set of work practice standards to address and mitigate fugitive mercury releases at mercury cell chloralkali plants. These provisions include specific equipment standards such as the requirement that end boxes either be closed (that is, equipped with fixed covers), or that end box headspaces be routed to a ventilation system. Other examples include requirements that piping in liquid mercury service have smooth interiors, that cell room floors be free of cracks and spalling (i.e., fragmentation by chipping) and coated with a material that resists mercury absorption, and that containers used to store liquid mercury have tightfitting lids. The work practice standards also include operational requirements. Examples of these include requirements to allow electrolyzers and decomposers to cool before opening, to keep liquid mercury in end boxes and mercury pumps covered by an aqueous liquid at a temperature below its boiling point at all times, to maintain end box access port stoppers in good sealing condition, and to rinse all parts removed from the decomposer for maintenance prior to transport to another work area.
A cornerstone of the work practice standards is the inspection program for equipment problems, leaking equipment, liquid mercury accumulations and spills, and cracks or spalling in floors and pillars and beams. Specifically, the final rule requires that visual inspections be conducted twice each day to detect equipment problems, such as end box access port stoppers not securely in place, liquid mercury in open containers not covered by an aqueous liquid, or leaking vent hoses. If a problem is found during an inspection, the owner or operator will need to take immediate action to correct the problem. Monthly inspections for cracking or spalling in cell room floors are also required as well as semiannual inspections for cracks and spalling on pillars and beams. Any cracks or spalling found will need to be corrected within 1 month.
Visual inspections for liquid mercury spills or accumulations are also required twice per day. If a liquid mercury spill or accumulation is identified during an inspection, the owner or operator will need to initiate cleanup of the liquid mercury within 1 hour of its detection. Acceptable cleanup methods include wet vacuum cleaning or a suitable alternative method approved upon petition.
In addition to cleanup, the final rule requires that an inspection of equipment in the area of the spill or accumulation be conducted to identify the source of the liquid mercury. If the source is found, the owner or operator is required to repair the leaking equipment as discussed below. If the source is not found, the owner or operator will be required to reinspect the area every 6 hours until the source is identified or until no additional liquid mercury is found at that location.
Inspections of specific equipment for liquid mercury leaks are required once per day. If leaking equipment is identified, the final rule requires that any dripping mercury be contained and covered by an aqueous liquid, and that a first attempt to repair leaking equipment be made within 1 hour of the time it is identified. The final rule requires that leaking equipment be repaired within 4 hours of the time it is identified, although there are provisions for delaying repair of leaking equipment for up to 48 hours.
Inspections for hydrogen gas leaks are required twice per day. For a hydrogen leak at any location upstream of a hydrogen header, a first attempt at repair is required within 1 hour of detection of the leaking equipment, and the leaking equipment is required to be repaired within 4 hours (with provisions for delay of repair if the leaking equipment is isolated). For a hydrogen leak downstream of the hydrogen header but upstream of the final control device, a first attempt at repair is required within 4 hours, and complete repair required within 24 hours (with delay provisions if the header is isolated).
The work practice standards in the final rule require you to institute a floorlevel mercury vapor measurement program. Under this program, mercury vapor levels are periodically measured and compared to an action level of 0.05 mg/m\3\. The final rule specifies the actions to be taken when the action level is exceeded. If the action level is exceeded during any floorlevel mercury vapor measurement evaluation, you are required to take specific actions to identify and correct the problem.
As an alternative to the full set of work practice standards (including the floorlevel monitoring program), the final rule also includes an optional requirement to institute a cell room monitoring program whereby owners and operators continuously monitor mercury concentrations in the upper portion of each cell room and take corrective actions as soon as practicable when elevated mercury vapor levels are detected.
The program is not designed to be a continuous monitoring system
inasmuch as the results would be used only to determine relative
changes in mercury vapor levels rather than compliance with a cell room
emission or operating limit. The owner or operator is required to
establish an action level for each cell room based on preliminary
monitoring to determine normal baseline conditions. The action level,
or levels if appropriate, will then be established as a yettobe
determined multiple of the baseline values. Once the action level(s) is
established, continuous monitoring must be conducted. If an action
level is exceeded, actions to correct the situation are required to be
initiated as soon as possible. If the elevated mercury vapor level is
due to a maintenance activity, the owner or operator must ensure that
all work practices related to that maintenance activity are followed.
If a maintenance activity is not the cause, inspections and other
actions will be needed to identify and correct the cause of the
elevated mercury vapor level. Owners and operators utilizing this cell
room monitoring program option are required to develop sitespecific
cell room monitoring plans describing their monitoring system and quality assurance/quality control
[[Page 70910]]
procedures that will be used, along with their action level.
The final rule establishes the duty for owners and operators to routinely wash surfaces throughout the plant where liquid mercury could accumulate. Owners and operators are required to prepare and follow a written washdown plan detailing how and how often specific areas specified in the final rule are to be washed down to remove any accumulations of liquid mercury.
Finally, the final rule requires owners or operators to record and report the mass of virgin mercury added to cells. Virgin mercury is defined as mercury that has not been processed in an onsite mercury thermal recovery unit or otherwise recovered from mercurycontaining wastes onsite. In order to establish a baseline of mercury being added to the cells, the final rule requires owners or operators to submit the mass of virgin mercury added to cells for the 5 years preceding the compliance date.
E. What Are the Operation and Maintenance Requirements?
The final rule requires that each owner and operator always operate and maintain each affected source, including air pollution control and monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with good air pollution control practices for minimizing air emissions, as required under 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) of the NESHAP General Provisions. The final rule requires each owner and operator to prepare and implement a written startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan according to the operation and maintenance requirements in Sec. 63.6(e)(3) of the NESHAP General Provisions.
F. What Are the General Compliance Requirements?
The final rule requires compliance with the emission limitations and applicable work practice requirements at all times, except during periods or startup, shutdown, and malfunction as defined in 40 CFR 63.2. The owner or operator must develop and implement a written startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan according to the requirements in 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3).
G. What Are the Initial Compliance Requirements?
The final rule requires compliance with emission limitations and work practices by December 19, 2006.
To demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limits for by
product hydrogen streams and end box ventilation system vents, the
final rule requires each owner or operator to conduct performance tests
using 40 CFR part 61, appendix A, Method 102 for byproduct hydrogen
streams, and 40 CFR part 61, appendix A, Method 101 or 101A for end box
ventilation system vents. In addition, the final rule also includes
procedures for reducing the mercury emissions data collected during the performance test to units of the standard (i.e., g Hg/Mg
Cl
Concurrent with each test run, each owner or operator is required to determine the quantity of chlorine produced using an equation contained in the final rule which calculates chlorine production based on cell line electric current load.
Initial compliance is demonstrated by showing that the total
mercury emission rate from all byproduct hydrogen streams and all end
box ventilation system vents for the test are less than 0.076 g Hg/Mg
Cl
In addition, if the final control device is not a nonregenerable
carbon adsorber and continuous compliance will be demonstrated using
the periodic monitoring option, the owner or operator is required to
monitor the following parameters during the performance test to
establish either a maximum or minimum monitoring value, as applicable for the control device:
[sbull] Exit gas temperature from uncontrolled streams;
[sbull] Outlet temperature of the gas stream for the final cooling
system when no control devices other than coolers or demisters are used;
[sbull] The outlet temperature of the gas stream from the final cooling
system when the cooling system is followed by a molecular sieve or regenerative carbon adsorber;
[sbull] Outlet concentration of available chlorine, pH, liquid flow
rate, and inlet gas temperature of chlorinated brine scrubbers and hypochlorite scrubbers;
[sbull] The liquid flow rate and exit gas temperature for water scrubbers;
[sbull] The inlet gas temperature of regenerative carbon adsorption systems; or
[sbull] The temperature during the heating phase of the regeneration
cycle for regenerative carbon adsorbers or molecular sieves.
As part of the initial compliance demonstration, the owner or operator must determine the maximum or minimum monitoring value by calculating the average of the data collected during the performance test. The exception to this is when the final control device is a regenerative carbon adsorber. In this case, the highest temperature reading during the performance test must be used.
To demonstrate initial compliance with the mercury thermal recovery unit emission limits, the final rule requires that owners or operators conduct a performance test for each vent using 40 CFR part 61, appendix A, Method 101 or 101A. The owner or operator is required to develop and follow a sitespecific test plan according to Sec. 63.7(c)(2) of the NESHAP General Provisions. Three test runs would need to be conducted at a point after the last control device for each vent.
Initial compliance is achieved if the average vent mercury concentration is less than 23 mg/dscm for each oven type vent or 4 mg/ dscm for each nonoven type vent. In addition, if the final control device is not a nonregenerable carbon adsorber and continuous compliance will be demonstrated using the periodic monitoring option, the owner or operator is required to monitor the same parameters as required for byproduct hydrogen streams and end box ventilation system vents and to establish the appropriate minimum or maximum monitoring value for the control device.
H. What Are the Continuous Compliance Requirements?
The final rule contains two options for continuous compliance with the emission limit for byproduct hydrogen streams and end box ventilation system vents and the emission limit for mercury thermal recovery unit vents: Continuous monitoring using mercury continuous emissions monitors, or periodic monitoring using testing. Both of these options will produce results in the units of the standard, so continuous compliance will be demonstrated through a direct comparison of monitoring system results.
If mercury continuous emission monitors are used to comply with the
final rule, a sitespecific monitoring plan must be developed to ensure
proper control device evaluation, and a performance evaluation is
required according to the monitoring plan. For each monitor, the final
rule requires the sitespecific monitoring plan to address installation and siting, monitor performance specifications,
[[Page 70911]]
performance evaluation procedures and calibration criteria, ongoing
operation and maintenance procedures, ongoing data assurance
procedures, and ongoing recordkeeping and reporting procedures. It must
also address how other parameters (e.g., flow rate) needed to calculate
the mass of mercury emissions from each emission point are to be
monitored. If periodic weekly monitoring is the selected compliance
method, the owner or operator is required to conduct tests on a weekly
basis using either an EPA Reference Method (101, 101A, or 102) or an
alternative method that has been validated using Method 301, 40 CFR part 63, appendix A. If the final control device is not a
nonregenerable carbon adsorber, in addition to periodic testing, the
final rule contains requirements for the continuous monitoring of control devicespecific parameters.
To demonstrate continuous compliance, the final rule requires the
owner or operator to reduce mercury emissions to 52week averages and
to maintain the 52week average below 0.076 g Hg/Mg Cl
Cl
I. How Are Initial and Continuous Compliance With the Work Practice Standards To Be Demonstrated?
The final rule requires compliance with the work practice standards within 3 years from December 19, 2003.
The final rule contains specific recordkeeping requirements related to the work practice standards. These include records of when inspections were conducted, problems identified, and actions taken to correct problems. Continuous compliance with work practice standards will be demonstrated by maintaining these required records.
Initial compliance with the washdown plan will be demonstrated by submission of the plan by the owner or operator and certification that they operate according to, or will operate according to, the plan. Continuous compliance with the plan will be demonstrated by maintaining related records. Records will also be required to demonstrate compliance with the cell room monitoring program.
J. What Are the Notification and Reporting Requirements?
The final rule requires that owners or operators submit Initial Notifications, Notifications of Intent to conduct a performance test, Notification of Compliance Status (NOCS), and compliance reports.
For the Initial Notification, we are requiring that each owner or operator notify us that their plant is subject to the NESHAP for mercury cell chloralkali plants, and that they provide other basic information about the plant. For existing sources, this notification would need to be submitted no later than April 19, 2004.
For the Notification of Intent report, we are requiring that each owner or operator notify us in writing of the intent to conduct a performance test at least 60 days before the performance test is scheduled to begin.
The NOCS for the work practice standards will be due 30 days after the compliance date for existing sources. In this notification, the owner or operator will need to certify that the work practice standards are being or will be met. Furthermore, we are requiring that the washdown plan be submitted as part of this notification, and that the owner or operator certify that they operate or will operate according to the plan.
For the emission limits where a performance test is required to demonstrate initial compliance (that is, the emission limits for by product hydrogen streams and end box ventilation system vents and the mercury thermal recovery unit vent limits), the tests will have to be conducted no later than the compliance date, and the NOCS will be due 60 days after the completion of the performance test. The sitespecific monitoring plan addressing the use of mercury continuous emission monitors for vents must be submitted as part of this notification.
Compliance reporting is required semiannually, with the first report due within the first 6 months after initial compliance. K. What Are the Recordkeeping Requirements?
Records required by the final rule related to byproduct hydrogen streams, end box ventilation system vents, and mercury thermal recovery unit vents include the following: Performance test results, records showing the establishment of the applicable mercury concentration operating limits (including records of the mercury concentration monitoring conducted during the performance tests), records of the continuous mercury concentration monitoring data, records of the daily average elemental mercury concentration values, and records associated with sitespecific monitoring plans.
With regard to the work practice standards, the final rule requires that records be maintained to document when each required inspection was conducted and the results of each inspection. Records noting equipment problems (such as end box cover stoppers not securely in place or mercury in an open container not covered by an aqueous liquid) identified during a required inspection, and the corrective action taken would also be required. If equipment that is leaking mercury liquid or hydrogen/mercury vapor is identified during a required inspection or at any other time, the final rule requires records of when the leak was identified and when it was repaired. Similarly, if a mercury spill or accumulation is identified at any time, the final rule requires records of when the spill or accumulation was found and when it was cleaned up.
A copy of the current version of the washdown plan would need to be kept onsite and be available for inspection. Records of when washdowns were conducted would be required.
The final rule requires that copies of each notification and report that is submitted to comply with the final rule be kept and maintained for 5 years, the first 2 of which must be onsite.
IV. Summary of Major Comments and Responses
This section includes discussion of significant comments on the
proposed rule. For a complete summary of all the comments received on
the proposed rule and our responses to them, refer to the ``Background
Information Document for Promulgation of National Emissions Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutant (NESHAP): Mercury Emissions From Mercury
Cell ChlorAlkali Plants'' EPA453/R03012 (hereafter called the
``response to comments document'') in Docket OAR20020017 or A2000 32.
[[Page 70912]]
The docket also contains the actual comment letters and supporting documentation developed for the final rule.
A. What Issues Were Raised Regarding the Sources That Are Subject to the Rule as Proposed?
There were no issues raised by commenters regarding the sources subject to the proposed rule and the affected source, as a mercury cell chloralkali plant is a distinct and easily identifiable entity. There were, however, issues raised regarding the proposed requirement for all affected sources to obtain a title V permit and regarding the specific emission points that were addressed in the proposed rule.
Comment: Three commenters disagreed with the proposed requirements for all mercury cell chloralkali plants to obtain a title V permit, including area sources. The commenters requested that this provision be deleted from the final rule. The commenters stated that the facilities affected by the proposal are minor sources of HAP emissions. All three commenters maintained that requiring minor source facilities to obtain title V permits would be burdensome, e.g., due to duplicative recordkeeping and reporting provisions, for the area sources; one commenter further stated that this burden would not yield any environmental benefit. Additionally, according to this commenter, dropping the title V permit requirement for area sources would not lessen any substantive requirements for monitoring, recordkeeping, or operation of any and all air pollution control devices. Commenters noted that the CAA allows EPA to exempt certain sources from obtaining a title V permit ``* * * if the Administrator finds that compliance with such requirements is impracticable, infeasible, or unnecessarily burdensome * * *''.
One commenter noted that in previously promulgated area source MACT standards (e.g., Dry Cleaning MACT and Halogenated Solvent Cleaning MACT), EPA identified area sources as being subject to title V permitting. However, EPA allowed the permitting authorities to defer area sources from title V permitting requirements until December 9, 2004.
In contrast, another commenter supported the proposed requirement to require all affected sources to obtain title V permits. The commenter argued that title V permits are needed because they consolidate sources' applicable requirements in a single place. The commenter further noted that ``* * * given the detailed work practice requirements, it is reasonable to expect significant sourcespecific tailoring of the standard for each plant's individual configuration.'' See, e.g., 67 FR 4470607. The commenter also stated that requiring title V permits of area sources of mercury is especially appropriate because a small quantity of mercury is as toxic as far greater amounts of other HAP.
Response: Section 502(a) of the CAA requires any source, including an area source, subject to standards or regulations under section 111 or 112 of the CAA to operate in compliance with a title V permit after the effective date of any title V permits program. The Administrator may not exempt any major source from the requirements of title V.
In order to exempt area sources under the final rule from title V requirements, the test in section 502(a) of the CAA must be met. Specifically, the Administrator must make a finding that title V requirements are impracticable, infeasible, or unnecessarily burdensome for the source category or categories in question. Commenters may provide data which would help the Administrator make such a finding, but the commenters who were opposed to area sources being permitted under the final rule did not provide any such data. Commenters providing supporting data for their arguments is consistent with what the Agency stated in its final rule for the Municipal Solid Waste Landfills NESHAP in reference to the test in section 502(a) of the CAA (68 FR 2227, 2234, January 16, 2003).
In terms of the commenters' concern about title V adding duplicative recordkeeping and reporting requirements, the only potential duplicative requirement that we are aware of is in relation to deviation reporting under the semiannual compliance report required by Sec. 63.8254 of the final rule and the semiannual monitoring report required by 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A). However, this potential duplication was addressed by Sec. 63.8254(d) in the proposed rule and this has been clarified in the final rule.
As to the deferral for area sources subject to the Dry Cleaning MACT and the Halogenated Solvent Cleaning MACT, the area sources subject to these MACT standards were deferred from title V permitting until December 9, 2004. See final deferral rulemaking (64 FR 69637, December 14, 1999). This deferral was granted in part because of the concern that area sources would not be able to obtain the technical and procedural assistance from permitting authorities needed to file timely and complete title V applications given that permitting authorities would be focused on the permitting of major sources. However, as the title V program is no longer in its initial stages and the initial permitting of existing major sources is nearing completion, we would not be justified in granting a deferral to area sources under the final rule for the same reason.
In terms of the commenter who supported the permitting of affected sources under the final rule, we agree that the consolidation of requirements in a title V permit is one of the ways that title V helps assure compliance with all applicable requirements. As this commenter also pointed out, title V permits clarify which requirements in standards apply to a source where requirements may vary due to various factors, e.g., design of the facility. Additionally, the title V regulations at 40 CFR part 70 and 40 CFR part 71 help a source assure compliance with its applicable requirements by requiring that a source selfcertify to compliance initially and annually, by requiring that a source promptly report deviations from its permit requirements, and by requiring that a permit contain monitoring requirements. It is also important to note that the title V permitting process provides an opportunity for the public to comment on whether a source is complying with its applicable requirements. In short, title V permits can enhance the effectiveness of rules such as the final rule, and EPA, therefore, disagrees that there are no environmental benefits to requiring title V permits for area sources.
In conclusion, as the test in section 502(a) of the CAA has not been met, EPA has retained the requirement in the final rule that affected sources subject to the final rule must obtain title V permits. Therefore, whether an affected source under the final rule is a part of a major or area source, the major/area source is required to obtain a title V permit.
Comment: One commenter believed that the proposed rule violated the
CAA because the Agency did not establish standards for some parts of
chloralkali plants that emit mercury. The commenter noted that under
the proposed rule, EPA defined two affected sources: Mercury cell
chloralkali production facilities and mercury recovery facilities. The
commenter did not agree with EPA's determination that within mercury
cell chloralkali production facilities, chlorine purification, brine
preparation and wastewater treatment operations should not be subject to emission standards
[[Page 70913]]
because they have low mercury air emissions. Similarly, the commenter
did not agree with EPA's decision not to regulate chemical mercury
recovery and recovery in batch purification stills at mercury recovery
facilities. According to the commenter, the CAA does not allow the
Agency to exempt certain classes, types and sizes of sources from
emission standards, unless EPA finds no potential for emissions.
Therefore, the commenter stated that EPA had a legal obligation to
establish standards that cover all mercuryemitting parts of chlor
alkali facilities, and the Agency must revisit and set emission
standards for the parts of the production and recovery facilities with low mercury emissions.
Response: During development of the proposed rule, we did not receive any data to indicate that mercury was emitted from chlorine purification, brine preparation, or wastewater treatment operations, and our knowledge of the process indicated that any potential emissions would be very limited (67 FR 44674). Furthermore, we did not receive any data indicating that control measures designed to reduce HAP were in use at existing facilities that had these units. The same holds true for chemical mercury recovery and recovery in batch purification stills at mercury recovery facilities. Therefore, with no reported emissions and process evidence that any emissions would be very limited, we concluded that there was no potential for emissions. Adding to this the existence of a MACT floor of no control (because none are controlled), we did not regulate these processes.
The commenter did not provide emissions data that would indicate that these sources emit significant amounts of mercury, or emit mercury at all. Therefore, the final rule does not contain standards for mercury emissions from chlorine purification, brine preparation, wastewater treatment operations, chemical mercury recovery and recovery in batch purification stills.
We point out that the final rule does contain very stringent
emission limitations for all point sources that have been demonstrated
to be sources of mercury emissions. Further, the work practice
requirements in the final rule address fugitive mercury emissions in
all areas of the facility, including the chlorine purification, brine
preparation, wastewater treatment areas, as well as areas where
chemical mercury recovery processes and batch purification stills are located.
B. What Issues Were Raised Regarding the HAP Addressed by the R
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT For information concerning applicability and rule determinations, contact your State or local regulatory agency representative or the appropriate EPA Regional Office representative. For information concerning analyses performed in developing the final rule, contact Mr. Iliam Rosario, Metals Group, Emission Standards Division (C43902), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number (919) 5415308; fax number (919) 5415600; electronic mail address: rosario.iliam@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