Federal Register: October 29, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 208)
DOCID: fr29oc09-26 FR Doc E9-25576
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Treasury Department
CFR Citation: 40 CFR Part 63
RIN ID: RIN 2060-AM19
EPA ID: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0334; FRL-8972-6]
NOTICE: Part IV
DOCID: fr29oc09-26
DOCUMENT ACTION: Final rule.
SUBJECT CATEGORY:
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Chemical Manufacturing Area Sources
DATES: This final rule is effective on October 29, 2009.
DOCUMENT SUMMARY:
EPA is issuing national emission standards for the control of hazardous air pollutants for nine area source categories in the chemical manufacturing sector: Agricultural Chemicals and Pesticides Manufacturing, Cyclic Crude and Intermediate Production, Industrial Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing, Industrial Organic Chemical Manufacturing, Inorganic Pigments Manufacturing, Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing, Plastic Materials and Resins Manufacturing, Pharmaceutical Production, and Synthetic Rubber Manufacturing. The standards and associated requirements for the nine area source categories are combined in one subpart. This final rule establishes emission standards in the form of management practices for each chemical manufacturing process unit as well as emission limits for certain subcategories of process vents and storage tanks. The rule also establishes management practices and other emission reduction requirements for subcategories of wastewater systems and heat exchange systems.
SUMMARY:
Environmental Protection Agency
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
Outline. The information in this preamble is organized as follows:
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
B. Where can I get a copy of this document?
C. Judicial Review
II. Background Information for this Final Rule
III. Summary of Major Changes Since Proposal
A. Applicability
B. Emission Standards
C. Initial Compliance
D. Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting
E. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction (SSM)
F. Title V
IV. Summary of Final Rule
A. Applicability
B. Compliance Dates
C. Standards
D. Initial Compliance Requirements
E. Continuous Compliance Requirements
F. Notifications, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements V. Summary of Comments and Responses
A. Applicability
B. Compliance Dates
C. Standards
D. Initial Compliance Demonstrations
E. Monitoring Requirements
F. Recordkeeping and Reporting
G. Requirements During Periods of Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction (SSM)
H. Title V Permitting
VI. Impacts of Final Area Source Standards
A. What are the air impacts?
B. What are the cost impacts?
C. What are the economic impacts?
D. What are the nonair health, environmental, and energy impacts?
VII. 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 Risks and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and LowIncome Populations
K. Congressional Review Act
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
The regulated categories and entities potentially affected by this
action are shown in the table below. This final rule applies to each
chemical manufacturing process unit (CMPU) that uses as feedstocks,\1\
generates as byproducts, or produces as products any of the following
15 hazardous air pollutants (HAP): 1,3butadiene; 1,3dichloropropene;
acetaldehyde; chloroform; ethylene dichloride; methylene chloride;
hexachlorobenzene; hydrazine; quinoline (i.e., ``chemical manufacturing
organic urban HAP'' or ``Table 1\2\ organic HAP''); or compounds of
arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese, or nickel (i.e.,
``chemical manufacturing metal urban HAP'' or ``Table 1 metal HAP'').
Consistent with the proposed rule, the standards do not apply to
hydrogen halide and halogen HAP (i.e., hydrogen chloride, chlorine, and
hydrogen fluoride) at affected sources, except when these HAP are
generated in combustionbased emission control devices that are used to
meet the proposed standards for organic HAP on Table 1.\3\ The affected
source for this rule is the facilitywide collection of CMPUs that use,
generate, or produce one or more of the Table 1 HAP and the wastewater
systems and heat exchange systems associated with the CMPUs that use
Table 1 HAP. A CMPU includes all process equipment and activities
involved in the production of a material described by North American
Industry Classification System (NAICS) Code 325.\4\ If a CMPU uses, generates, or
[[Page 56009]]
produces one of the chemical manufacturing organic urban HAP listed
above, then the standards apply to all listed Clean Air Act (CAA)
section 112(b) organic HAP emitted from that CMPU. Similarly, if a CMPU
uses, generates, or produces one of the chemical manufacturing metal
urban HAP listed above, then the standards apply to all listed CAA section 112(b) metal HAP emitted from that CMPU.
\1\ Feedstocks are reactants, solvents, or any other additives to the process.
\2\ ``Table 1'' refers to Table 1 in the final rule.
\3\ Collectively, the Table 1 organic and metal HAP are referred
to as the ``chemical manufacturing urban HAP'' or ``Table 1 HAP.''
\4\ The CMPU is defined by a facility's production of materials
described by NAICS code 325. A facility producing such a material
(or family of materials) may use more than one train or series of
equipment to make it. All equipment (i.e., unit operation) used to
produce a specific product (as well as all the vents and activities
associated with making this product) are considered to be part of a
single CMPU for purposes of this rule. For example, facility X makes
a pharmaceutical product that requires the use of methylene chloride
as a solvent. The product is produced in any of three different size reactors, depending on the quantity needed or equipment
availability. All of the reactors; other process equipment (e.g.,
for separation, drying, etc.); connecting piping and related pumps,
valves, etc.; storage tanks; transfer operations; surge control
vessels; bottoms receivers; and other activities (e.g., routine cleaning) are part of a single CMPU.
The regulated categories and entities potentially affected by this action include:
Examples of regulated
Industry category NAICS code\1\ entities
Chemical Manufacturing......... 325 Chemical manufacturing
area sources that use
as feedstock, generate
as byproduct, or
produce as product,
any of the HAP subject
to this subpart except
for: (1) Processes
classified in NAICS
Code 325222, 325314,
or 325413; (2)
processes subject to
standards for other
listed area source
categories \2\ in
NAICS 325; (3) certain
fabricating
operations; (4)
manufacture of
photographic film,
paper, and plate where
material is coated or
contains chemicals
(but the manufacture
of the photographic
chemicals is
regulated); and (5)
manufacture of
radioactive elements
or isotopes, radium
chloride, radium
luminous compounds,
strontium, and uranium.
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.
\2\ The source categories in NAICS 325 for which other area source
standards apply are: Acrylic Fibers/Modacrylic Fibers Production,
Chemical Preparation, Carbon Black, Chemical Manufacturing: Chromium
Compounds, Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers Production, Paint and
Allied Coatings, and Mercury Cell ChlorAlkali Manufacturing.
Area sources in NAICS 325 not specifically identified in the chart above may also be affected by this action. To determine whether your chemical manufacturing area source is regulated by this action, you should examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 63.11494 of subpart VVVVVV (National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Chemical Manufacturing Area Sources). For additional information about applicability provisions, see sections III.A, IV.A, and V.A of this preamble. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult either the air permit authority for the entity or your EPA regional representative as listed in 40 CFR 63.13 of subpart A (General Provisions).
B. Where can I get a copy of this document?
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of this final action will also be available on the Worldwide Web (WWW) through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, a copy of this final action will be posted on the TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at the following address: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/. The TTN provides information and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control. C. Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, judicial review of this final rule is available only by filing a petition for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by December 28, 2009. Under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the requirements established by this final rule may not be challenged separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by EPA to enforce these requirements.
Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that ``[o]nly an
objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable
specificity during the period for public comment (including any public
hearing) may be raised during judicial review.'' This section also provides a mechanism for EPA to convene a proceeding for
reconsideration, ``[i]f the person raising an objection can demonstrate
to EPA that it was impracticable to raise such objection within [the
period for public comment] or if the grounds for such objection arose
after the period for public comment (but within the time specified for
judicial review) and if such objection is of central relevance to the
outcome of this rule.'' Any person seeking to make such a demonstration
to us should submit a Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the
Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000, Ariel Rios Building, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the
person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section,
and the Associate General Counsel for the Air and Radiation Law Office,
Office of General Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
II. Background Information for This Final Rule
Section 112(d) of the CAA requires EPA to establish national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for both major and area sources of HAP that are listed for regulation under CAA section 112(c). A major source is any stationary source that emits or has the potential to emit 10 tons per year (tpy) or more of any single HAP or 25 tpy or more of any combination of HAP. An area source is a stationary source that is not a major source.
Section 112(k)(3)(B) of the CAA calls for EPA to identify at least 30 HAP which, as the result of emissions from area sources, pose the greatest threat to public health in the largest number of urban areas. EPA implemented this provision in 1999 in the Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy, (64 FR 38715, July 19, 1999) (Strategy). Specifically, in the Strategy, EPA identified 30 HAP that pose the greatest potential health threat in urban areas, and these HAP are referred to as the ``30 urban HAP.'' Section 112(c)(3) of the CAA requires EPA to list sufficient categories or subcategories of area sources to ensure that area sources representing 90 percent of the emissions of the 30 urban HAP are subject to regulation. We selected the nine chemical manufacturing area source categories based on these requirements. A primary goal of the Strategy is to achieve a 75 percent reduction in cancer incidence attributable to HAP emitted from stationary sources.
Under CAA section 112(d)(5), EPA may elect to promulgate standards
or requirements for area sources ``which provide for the use of
generally available control technologies or management practices (GACT)
by such sources to reduce emissions of hazardous air pollutants.''
Additional information on GACT is found in the Senate report on the
legislation (Senate Report Number 101228, December 20, 1989), which describes GACT as:
[[Page 56010]]
* * * methods, practices, and techniques which are commercially
available and appropriate for application by the sources in the
category considering economic impacts and the technical capabilities
of the firms to operate and maintain the emissions control systems.
Consistent with the legislative history, we can consider costs and
economic impacts in determining GACT, which is particularly important
when developing regulations for source categories that have many small businesses.
Determining what constitutes GACT involves considering the control technologies and management practices that are generally available to the area sources in the source category. We also consider the standards applicable to major sources in the same industrial sector to determine if the control technologies and management practices are transferable and generally available to area sources. In appropriate circumstances, we may also consider technologies and practices at area and major sources in similar categories to determine whether such technologies and practices could be considered generally available for the area source category at issue. Finally, as we have already noted, in determining GACT for a particular area source category, we consider the costs and economic impacts of available control technologies and management practices on that category.
We are issuing these national emission standards in response to a
courtordered deadline that requires EPA to issue standards for nine
source categories listed pursuant to CAA section 112(c)(3) and
(k)(3)(B) by October 16, 2009 (Sierra Club v. Johnson, no. 011537, D.D.C., March 2006).
III. Summary of Major Changes Since Proposal
A. Applicability
In the proposed rule, we proposed that the affected source include the entire facility if the facility emitted any of the chemical manufacturing urban HAP. Specifically, under the proposal, all process vents, storage tanks, transfer operations, wastewater systems, and cooling towers at the facility would be subject to the standards if any emissions source at the facility emitted one of the chemical manufacturing urban HAP. In response to comments, we narrowed the scope of applicability of this final rule, and we made several changes to clarify the applicability provisions. The most significant change is that only CMPU that emit one or more of the 15 chemical manufacturing urban HAP and the wastewater systems and heat exchange systems associated with those CMPUs are subject to the rule. A CMPU includes all process equipment and activities involved in the production of a material (or family of materials) described by NAICS code 325. Additionally, a CMPU includes each surge control vessel, bottoms receiver, pump, compressor, agitator, pressure relief device, sampling connection system, openended valve or line, valve, connector, storage tank, transfer rack, and instrumentation system associated with the production of a subject NAICS 325 material. The final rule provides that a CMPU consists of one or more processing steps used in the production of the subject NAICS 325 material.
The final rule further specifies that each CMPU within an affected source that emits one of the chemical manufacturing urban HAP is subject only to requirements that apply to the same type of HAP that triggered applicability, not requirements for all types of HAP. For example, a CMPU that uses only chemical manufacturing organic urban HAP is required to control all CAA section 112(b) organic HAP. Similarly, a CMPU that uses only chemical manufacturing metal urban HAP is required to control all CAA section 112(b) metal HAP. For the purposes of this provision, hydrazine is considered to be an organic HAP.
In response to comments, we are clarifying that the rule does not
extend to structural items (e.g., piping) and items that exist as
``articles'' as defined in 40 CFR 372.3, and are used under normal
conditions, because these items do not emit any HAP, including the chemical manufacturing urban HAP.\5\
\5\ ``Article'' means a manufactured item: ``(1) Which is formed
to a specific shape or design during manufacture; (2) which has end
use functions dependent in whole or in part upon its shape or design
during end use; and (3) which does not release a toxic chemical
under normal conditions of processing or use of that item at the facility or establishment.'' 40 CFR 372.3.
B. Emission Standards
1. Management Practices
EPA proposed management practices for a number of emission points, including for process vents (batch, continuous, and metal HAP); storage tanks; transfer operations; and equipment leaks. The proposed management practices for process vents included covering all process tanks and mixing vessels during operation; maintaining covers in the closed position on all openings and access points in other process vessels; conducting quarterly inspections to check for leaks from the process vessels and determining the integrity of the process vessels and ensuring covers are being used; and repairing leaks within 15 days. EPA proposed these management practice requirements for all affected sources. For storage tanks, EPA proposed GACT as management practices consisting of quarterly inspections for leaks, minimizing and promptly cleaning up spills, and ensuring all openings and access points are closed for all storage tanks. For transfer operations, EPA proposed to minimize emissions using management practices, such as minimizing spills, cleaning up spills promptly, covering open containers when not in use, and minimizing discharges to open waste collection systems.
In the final rule, the separate proposed management practices for process vents, storage tanks, transfer operations, and equipment leaks were consolidated and simplified into one comprehensive set of management practices that are applicable to each CMPU. The comprehensive management practices in the final rule include requirements to equip each process vessel with a cover or lid that must be in place at all times when the vessel contains HAP, except for material addition and sampling. The management practices also include sensorybased inspections of process vessels and equipment in each CMPU. Changes to management practices specific to small heat exchange systems are described in section III.B.2.f of this preamble. 2. Emission Limits and Emission Control Requirements
a. Continuous Process Vents and Batch Process Vents
For continuous process vents with a total resource effectiveness (TRE) index of 1 or less, EPA proposed management practices and 95 percent emission reduction of organic HAP emissions. After consideration of the public comments, we are finalizing management practices and the 95 percent emission reduction requirement for organic HAP emissions from continuous process vents. Based on public comments, the final rule includes a definition of continuous process vent that is based on the process vent definition in 40 CFR part 63, subpart F of the Hazardous Organics NESHAP (HON). In addition, the final rule includes a mass emission threshold of 0.1 pound per hour (lb/hr) or less, below which the TRE index calculation is not required.
For facilities with batch process vents, EPA proposed management practices and a 90 percent organic HAP emission
[[Page 56011]]
reduction if the collective uncontrolled total organic HAP emissions
from the sum of all batch process vents within the affected facility
was 19,000 pounds per year (lbs/yr) or greater. The final rule requires
management practices and 85 percent control (90 percent for new
sources) if the total organic uncontrolled HAP emissions from batch
process vents within a CMPU are 10,000 lbs/yr or greater. We
established the control efficiency of 85 percent as GACT for existing
area sources based on additional information provided by commenters.
Under the final rule, emissions from any batch process vents may be
estimated based on process knowledge, engineering assessment, and/or
test data. The proposed requirement to use the calculation methodology
in 40 CFR 63.1257(d)(2)(i) for certain types of emission episodes is
not required, but it is authorized under the final rule. The final rule
also includes an expanded definition of batch process vent that
includes examples of batch process vents and lists types of equipment and gas streams that are not batch process vents.
b. Metal HAP Process Vents
EPA proposed management practices and 95 percent metal HAP emission reduction if the collective uncontrolled total metal HAP emissions from the sum of all metal HAP process vents was greater than 400 lbs/yr on a facilitywide basis. In addition to the 400 lbs/yr level, EPA co proposed a metal HAP threshold level of 100 lbs/yr on a facilitywide basis, and asked for public comment on the appropriate threshold to use for purposes of subcategorizing metal HAP process vents based on the factors discussed in the proposed rule. For metal HAP process vents with total uncontrolled metal HAP emissions less than the threshold, management practices would be required to reduce HAP emissions. After considering public comments, the final rule requires management practices and 95 percent reduction in metal HAP emissions from each CMPU with uncontrolled metal HAP process vent emissions of 400 lbs/yr or greater.
c. Storage Tanks
The proposed rule crossreferenced the thresholds for control, as well as the standards and compliance procedures in 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb. The final rule replaces the references to subpart Kb with references to the standards and compliance procedures in 40 CFR part 63, subparts SS and WW and by directly specifying the applicable thresholds for control in Table 5 to the final rule. The capacity and maximum true vapor pressure thresholds for control in the final rule are the same as at proposal, but the final rule specifies that the maximum true vapor pressure (MTVP) threshold is to be based on the organic HAP content of the stored liquid, not the volatile organic liquid (VOL) content as specified in subpart Kb. As in other NESHAP, we intended to require MTVP determinations based on the organic HAP content in the stored liquid, but we inadvertently neglected to override the reference to VOL in the MTVP definition in subpart Kb. The standards and compliance procedures are essentially the same as at proposal, but the final rule references standards and compliance procedures in 40 CFR part 63 (Subparts SS and WW, and the General Provisions, Subpart A). The final rule also includes a vapor balancing compliance alternative that provides at least equivalent levels of HAP emission reductions as the GACT requirements that we are finalizing. Based on public comments, we have determined that GACT for storage tanks that vent to a control device includes alternative procedures during periods of planned routine maintenance of the control device. Therefore, the final rule specifies that no material may be added to the storage tank during periods of planned routine maintenance, and periods of planned routine maintenance may not exceed 240 hours per year (hrs/yr).
Surge control vessels and bottoms receivers were included in the proposed definition of storage tank because we proposed that these types of vessels would be subject to the same standards as storage tanks. Surge control vessels and bottoms receivers remain subject to the storage tank standards in the final rule. However, based on public comments, we removed surge control vessels and bottoms receivers from the definition of storage tank, and instead explicitly specify in section 63.11496(h) of the final rule that the storage tank standards apply to surge control vessels and bottoms receivers that meet the applicability criteria for storage tanks set forth in Table 5 of the final rule. All storage tanks that store liquid containing organic HAP and are part of a CMPU subject to the final rule are subject to the management practice requirements. In addition, the definition of storage tank in the final rule is changed to make the definition consistent with definitions in other NESHAP such as the Miscellaneous Organic NESHAP (MON), HON, and Pharmaceutical maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards by excluding wastewater storage tanks and tanks storing liquid containing organic HAP only as impurities.
d. Wastewater
EPA proposed to subcategorize wastewater streams based on the size of the wastewater stream and determined that large wastewater streams were those with partially soluble HAP (PSHAP) concentrations of 10,000 parts per million by weight (ppmw) or greater. For wastewater streams with PSHAP concentrations of less than 10,000 ppmw discharge, we proposed as GACT to send the wastewater stream to an onsite or offsite wastewater treatment process, and, for wastewater streams containing PSHAP concentrations of 10,000 ppmw or greater, we proposed as GACT use of gravity separation or other techniques to separate organic and water layers and to send the water layer to a wastewater treatment process. We proposed that the organic layer must be recovered and reused in a process, used as a fuel, or disposed of as hazardous waste.
Based on comments, we are revising our subcategorization determination to account for wastewater streams with PSHAP concentrations of 10,000 ppmw or greater that do not have a separate organic layer. The separation techniques that we established as GACT for larger wastewater streams will not work for wastewater streams that contain only a water phase. For this reason, we are also now considering the type of stream in our subcategorization determination to account for the wastewater streams that do not separate at PSHAP concentrations of 10,000 ppmw. In the final rule, the larger wastewater stream subcategory is defined as those wastewater streams with PSHAP concentrations of 10,000 ppmw or greater that also have a separate organic layer.
As stated above, the proposed GACT requirement for a wastewater
stream that contains PSHAP concentrations of 10,000 ppmw or greater was
to separate the stream into the organic and aqueous phase and treat
them according to the requirements in the proposed standards. The final
rule retains these provisions for the newly defined large wastewater
systems subcategory and also provides an alternative compliance option
to hardpipe the total stream to a combustion unit or other onsite
hazardous waste treatment facility (or to a tank from which it is
collected and shipped offsite). This alternative provides at least
equivalent levels of HAP emission reductions as the emission control
requirements contained in this proposed rule. We are also finalizing the proposed requirement
[[Page 56012]]
for single phase wastewater streams and the aqueous phase for two phase
streams that requires the wastewater streams be sent to a wastewater treatment process.
Based on public comments, we also revised the definition of wastewater stream to be consistent with MON and HON wastewater stream definitions.
e. Transfer Operations
EPA proposed that management practices to minimize evaporation losses and use of submerged loading were GACT for transfer operations. After considering public comments on the transfer operations requirements, we have replaced in some cases and revised in others the management practices for transfer operations and are promulgating a comprehensive management practice requirement (see discussion in section III.B.1 of this preamble), which includes inspection of transfer operations. In addition to the management practices, we have determined that GACT for most material transfers is the use of submerged loading or bottom loading. In response to public comments, we have added an alternative compliance option to route emissions to a fuel gas system or process in accordance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS. This alternative provides at least equivalent levels of HAP emission reductions as the GACT requirements that we are finalizing.
Based on public comments, we have also determined that submerged or bottom loading is neither general industry practice nor GACT for the transfer of reactive and resinous materials because sources do not currently employ submerged or bottom loading for these materials due to operational issues. Therefore, the final rule defines reactive and resinous materials and requires sources to include in the initial Notifications of Compliance Status a list of any materials that meet these definitions. Source must also keep records of the use of these materials and report in the semiannual compliance report the use of any additional resinous or reactive materials occurring during the reporting period. Reactive materials are defined in the final rule as energetics, organic peroxides, and other unstable chemicals such as chemicals that react violently with water and chemicals that vigorously polymerize, decompose, condense, or become selfreactive under conditions of pressure or temperature. Resinous materials are defined in the final rule as viscous, highboiling point material resembling pitch or tar that sticks to or hardens in the fill pipe under normal transfer conditions.
f. Heat Exchange Systems
The proposed rule used the term ``cooling tower'' systems; however, we intended to regulate ``heat exchange'' systems as is consistent with the HON. We also intended to include ``oncethrough'' systems as part of the affected source. Therefore, the final rule uses the term ``heat exchange system'' in place of the proposed term ``cooling tower system.'' The final rule also includes a definition of ``heat exchange system'' that is consistent with the definition in 40 CFR 63.101 of the HON and clearly specifies that oncethrough systems are included.
After considering public comments, we have retained the proposed inspection and leak repair requirements for small heat exchange systems and monitoring and leak repair requirements for large heat exchange systems as the GACT requirements in the final rule. The proposed rule also required compliance with 40 CFR 63.104(a), and several commenters did not understand what that requirement meant. To address the confusion caused by the proposed rule, we clarified in the final rule that heat exchange systems meeting the conditions set forth in 40 CFR 63.104(a) are not subject to the inspection or monitoring requirements contained in the final rule, as that is what we intended when we proposed the rule.
As a compliance alternative to the requirement to perform repairs after an inspection of a small heat exchange system reveals indications of a potential leak into cooling water, the final rule also allows the owner or operator to demonstrate that the HAP concentration in the cooling water does not constitute a leak, as defined in 40 CFR 63.104(b)(6). For both large and small heat exchange systems, the final rule also allows compliance with the HON heat exchange system requirements in 40 CFR 63.104(b) or (c). For equipment that meets Current Good Manufacturing Practice (CGMP) requirements in 21 CFR part 211, the physical integrity of the reactor may be used as the surrogate indicator of heat exchange system leaks under 40 CFR 63.104(c). These compliance alternatives provide at least equivalent levels of HAP emission reductions as the emission control requirements contained in this final rule.
g. Equipment Leaks
As discussed in section III.B.1 of this preamble, the proposed equipment leak requirements have been incorporated as part of the management practice requirements that apply to each CMPU subject to the final rule. However, following review of public comments, we added an alternative for equipment leaks in the final rule that allows an owner or operator to use Method 21 in lieu of sensorybased leak detection. Method 21 is at least equivalent to the leak inspection requirements we are finalizing in this rule.
h. Overlapping Rules
The final rule specifies that when equipment at an affected source
is subject to both this rule and the provisions of another rule,
compliance with the requirements of the other rule constitutes
compliance with this final rule for the subject equipment if the owner
or operator determines that the other emission control, monitoring,
recordkeeping, and/or reporting requirements provide at least
equivalent levels of HAP emission reductions and compliance assurance
as the requirements in the final rule. For example, if the control
requirements in the other rule are at least as stringent as those
provided in this rule, but the monitoring, recordkeeping, or reporting
requirement in the other rule are not as stringent or comprehensive,
the source may comply with the control requirements from the other rule, but must comply with the more stringent monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in this rule. The final rule
requires a source that is subject to overlapping standards to identify
in its Notification of Compliance Status all of the alternative
requirements with which the source will be complying and provide an
explanation of why the selected requirement is more stringent than this
rule. The final rule also states that sources are responsible for
making accurate determinations concerning the more stringent standard
and noncompliance with this rule is not excused if it is later
determined that the source was in error in its initial notification of
compliance and, as a result, is violating this rule. Compliance with
this rule is the responsibility of the affected source regardless of any notification of compliance.
C. Initial Compliance
For some control devices, the proposed rule allowed initial compliance to be demonstrated using either design evaluations or performance tests, but performance tests were required for certain other control devices. In response to comments, the final rule allows design evaluations as an alternative to performance tests for all control devices.
[[Page 56013]]
To clarify the initial compliance requirements for batch process vents and continuous process vents, some of the language from 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF that was referenced in Table 2 to the proposed rule has been written directly into 40 CFR 63.11496(g) of the final rule.
D. Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting
The proposed rule referenced parts of the General Provisions as well as subparts SS, FFFF, and NNNNNN in 40 CFR part 63 for all control device monitoring requirements. With two exceptions, these monitoring requirements are retained in the final rule. One change in the final rule is that pH may be measured once per day rather than continuously for any halogen scrubber. The second change from proposal is that Table 9 to the final rule specifies that 40 CFR 63.8(a)(2) does not apply to affected sources under this rule. We made this change so that EPA Performance Specification 17 (PS17) and EPA Quality Assurance Procedure 4, when finalized, will not apply to affected sources under this rule.
In addition to monitoring requirements, the proposed rule referenced recordkeeping requirements in several other rules. To clarify these requirements, 40 CFR 63.11501(c) of the final rule lists all of the recordkeeping requirements and references the specific section in each rule that requires it. The notification and reporting requirements have also been revised in the final rule. For example, additional notification requirements have been incorporated into the final rule for certain transfer operations and overlapping rules as discussed above.
E. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction (SSM)
During the comment period of the proposed rule, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated two provisions in EPA's CAA Section 112 regulations governing the emissions of HAP during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM). Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008). Specifically, the Court vacated 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), that are part of a regulation, commonly referred to as the ``General Provisions Rule,'' that EPA promulgated under section 112 of the CAA. When incorporated into CAA Section 112(d) regulations for specific source categories, these two provisions exempt sources from the requirement to comply with the otherwise applicable CAA section 112(d) emission standard during periods of SSM.
Industry intervenors appealed the December 2008 Sierra Club decision by filing petitions for rehearing. On July 30, 2009, the District of Columbia Circuit denied these petitions. On August 5, 2009, EPA filed a motion seeking a 60day stay of the mandate. On August 6, 2009, industry intervenors filed a motion to stay the mandate pending their appeal of the decision to the United States Supreme Court. The Court recently denied industry intervenors' motion to stay the mandate and granted EPA's motion, directing the Clerk of the Court not to issue the mandate prior to October 6, 2009. Until the District of Columbia Circuit issues the mandate effectuating the vacatur, 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and (h)(1) remain in effect.
The proposed rule included a reference to 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and (h)(1). In light of Sierra Club v. EPA, we revised Table 9, which addresses the applicability of the Part 63 General Provisions to the source categories at issue in this rule, to state that 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and (h)(1) do not apply. As such, the final emission standards summarized in section IV of this preamble apply at all times. As noted in section IV of this preamble, we are setting a separate emission standard for the nine source categories at issue here that applies to continuous process vents during periods of startup and shutdown, and that standard is 85 percent control, instead of the 95 percent control required at all other times. We are establishing a separate emission standard for these periods because they are characterized by activities such as the filling, emptying, and inerting of vessels, which generally result in significantly different emissions than normal operations. As for batch processes, startup and shutdown are part of their normal operations and, therefore, are already addressed by the standards. In addition, storage tanks, heat exchange systems, and transfer operations do not include startup and shutdown activities.
We have also added language making clear that, to the extent this rule incorporates by reference emission standards from other CAA section 112(d) rules, and those rules contain an exemption from the applicable emission standard during periods of SSM, that exemption does not apply for purposes of this rule.
F. Title V
Pursuant to section 502(a) of the CAA, the Administrator may ``in the Administrator's discretion and consistent with the applicable provisions of [the Act], promulgate regulations to exempt one or more [nonmajor] source categories (in whole or in part) from the requirements of [title V] if the Administrator finds that compliance with such requirements is impracticable, infeasible, or unnecessarily burdensome on such categories. * * *'' We proposed to exempt the sources in the chemical manufacturing area source categories subject to this rule from compliance with the requirements of title V. Since proposal, we have reconsidered the proposed exemption and determined that it is not appropriate to finalize the exemption for certain synthetic area sources. Specifically, in proposing the exemption for these categories, we did not consider the large number of synthetic area sources that reduced their HAP emissions to below the major source thresholds by installing air pollution control devices. The oversight occurred because most sources subject to the other area source rules that exempted facilities from title V permitting have very low emissions before control (and most emit metal HAP). Conversely, for the chemical manufacturing area source category, we estimate 75 facilities are synthetic area sources for HAP and at least 10 percent of these facilities have uncontrolled HAP emissions over 100 tpy. Therefore, in the final rule, title V permits are required for area sources in the nine chemical manufacturing source categories that are synthetic area sources by virtue of the fact that they have reduced their HAP emissions to below the major source thresholds by installing air pollution control devices. We are, however, finalizing the exemption from the requirements of title V for those synthetic area sources that limited their HAP emissions to below the major source thresholds solely by complying with operational limits (e.g., limiting the hours the facility can operate) and for natural area sources, which are sources that neither installed controls nor took operational limits to become an area source. The analysis in the proposed rule finding that compliance with title V is unnecessarily burdensome on these source categories remains accurate for the sources we are exempting.
Based on our additional review of the source categories since
proposal, we conclude that exemption for the synthetic area sources
that installed controls is not appropriate given the facts associated
with these sources as set forth below, and we do not believe title V is
unnecessarily burdensome on these area sources. Unlike many other area [[Page 56014]]
source categories that we have exempted from title V while implementing
the requirements of CAA sections 112(c)(3) and 112(k)(3)(B), the nine
chemical manufacturing area source categories include a large number of
synthetic area sources that installed air pollution controls to become
area sources. We evaluated other area source categories and determined
that most sources subject to the other area source rules that exempted
facilities from title V permitting have very low emissions before
control. For the chemical manufacturing area source categories, we
estimate that at least seven of the 47 facilities that are synthetic
area sources for HAP by virtue of installing controls would have
uncontrolled HAP emissions over 100 tons per year. Synthetic area
sources that installed controls represent more than 10 percent of the
total number of sources that will be subject to the final rule. In
fact, these sources are much more like the major sources of HAP subject
to the HON and the MON. In addition, many of these sources are located
in cities, and often in close proximity to residential and commercial
centers where large numbers of people live and work. The record also
indicates that many of these synthetic area sources have significantly
higher emissions potential when uncontrolled than the other sources in
the nine chemical manufacturing area source categories. For example, we
have identified seven facilities that have uncontrolled emissions that exceed 100 tpy.
For these reasons, we believe that the additional public participation and compliance benefits of additional informational, monitoring, reporting, certification, and enforcement requirements that exist in title V should be the same for a major source that installed a control device after 1990 to become an area source as for a source that is major and installed a control device to comply with an applicable major source NESHAP, and thereby reduced emissions below major source levels (10 tpy of a single HAP or 25 tpy of total HAP). Many of the synthetic area sources that became area sources by virtue of installing addon controls are large facilities with comprehensive compliance programs in place because their uncontrolled emissions would far exceed the major source threshold. We maintain that requiring additional public involvement and compliance assurance requirements through title V is important to ensure that these sources are maintaining their emissions at the area source level and, while there is some burden on the affected facilities, we think that the burden is not significant because these facilities are generally larger and more sophisticated than the natural area sources and sources that took operational limits to become area sources.
For these reasons above, we have decided not to finalize the title V exemption for these facilities. The final rule requires title V permits for major sources of HAP emissions that installed controls after 1990 to become area sources of HAP emissions. We estimate that approximately 150 sources that will be subject to this rule are required to have title V permits because of criteria pollutants and the final rule will require an additional 47 affected area sources to obtain title V permits.
We are not requiring title V permits for sources that reduced their
emissions to area source levels by taking operational restrictions,
such as restricting hours of operation or production, or for natural
area sources. We conclude that our analysis in the proposed rule that
title V is unnecessarily burdensome for sources in the Chemical
Manufacturing source categories remains accurate for the sources we are exempting.
IV. Summary of Final Rule
A. Applicability
The final NESHAP applies to each CMPU that is located at an area source of HAP emissions that uses as feedstocks, generates as byproducts, or produces as products any of the Table 1 HAP, where the Table 1 HAP are present in the feedstocks or are generated and present in the process fluid at concentrations greater than 0.1 percent for carcinogens, as defined by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and greater than 1.0 percent for noncarcinogens. A CMPU includes all process equipment, vents, and activities involved in the production of a material described by NAICS code 325, and it consists of one or more unit operations and all associated recovery devices. A CMPU also includes each surge control vessel, bottoms receiver, pump, compressor, agitator, pressure relief device or valve, sampling connection system, openended valve or line, valve, connector, storage tank, transfer rack, and instrumentation system associated with the production of NAICS code 325 materials. An affected source is the facilitywide collection of all CMPUs that use, generate, or produce one or more Table 1 HAP. An affected source also includes each heat exchange system and wastewater system that is associated with any CMPU that uses, generates, or produces one or more Table 1 HAP.
The nine chemical manufacturing area source categories include production of most of the materials classified under NAICS 325. The final rule specifies applicability based on CMPUs that are used to produce chemicals classified under NAICS 325, except for production of materials in NAICS 325 that are subject to other area source standards, as specified in the rule, see 40 CFR 63.11494(c)(1), and specific operations that are not considered to be chemical manufacturing, such as photographic paper (NAICS 325992), as described in 40 CFR 63.11494(c)(2) of the final rule.
To be subject to the rule, the CMPU must use as feedstocks, generate as byproducts, or produce as products any of the 15 chemical manufacturing urban HAP. If the CMPU is subject to the final rule, the standards apply to all CAA section 112(b) organic HAP emitted from the CMPU and all CAA section 112(b) metal HAP emitted from the CMPU, depending on the type of HAP that triggers applicability under the rule. Specifically, a CMPU using only Table 1 organic HAP is required to control all CAA section 112(b) organic HAP from the CMPU, a CMPU using only Table 1 metal HAP is required to control all CAA section 112(b) metal HAP from the CMPU, and a CMPU using both metal and organic Table 1 HAP is required to control all CAA section 112(b) metal and organic HAP
B. Compliance Dates
All existing area source facilities with operations subject to this final rule must comply with the final rule requirements for their existing operations no later than October 29, 2012. A new area source must comply with the final rule requirements by October 29, 2009 or upon startup, whichever is later. For the purposes of determining compliance with the rule, a new source is a source that commenced construction or reconstruction after October 6, 2008.
C. Standards
For each CMPU that is part of an affected source, the final rule
requires you to implement management practices that apply to all
process equipment and other equipment (e.g., pumps, valves, and
connectors) in the CMPU. In addition to the management practices, the
final rule requires compliance with numerical emission limits and
additional emission control requirements for certain process vents,
storage tanks, surge control vessels, bottoms receivers, wastewater systems,
[[Page 56015]]
and heat exchange systems that meet specified conditions. Management
practice requirements and all numerical emission limits and other
emission control requirements, except the emission limit for batch process vents, are the same at existing and new sources.
1. Management Practices
Owners and operators of CMPUs subject to this rule are required to comply with the following management practice requirements. All process vessels must be equipped with a cover or lid that is in place at all times when the vessel contains HAP, except for material addition and sampling. Transfer of liquids containing chemical manufacturing organic urban HAP to tank trucks or railcars must be conducted using submerged loading or bottom loading, except for reactive or resinous materials. You must identify each reactive or resinous material in your Notification of Compliance Status or the semiannual compliance report that covers the period when the material is first transferred. You must also conduct inspections of equipment within the CMPU quarterly to demonstrate compliance with the above management practices and confirm that all CMPU are sound and free of leaks. Any leaks must be repaired within 15 days of finding the leak or you must document the reason for the delay. In addition, you must keep records of the inspection dates, inspection results, and the dates of equipment repairs.
Owners or operators of small heat exchange systems that are part of a CMPU subject to this subpart with a cooling water flow rate of less than 8,000 gallons per minute (gal/min) and that do not meet the criteria in 40 CFR 63.104(a) are required to develop a heat exchange system inspection plan that describes the inspections that will be performed to identify hydrocarbons in the cooling water. The inspections must be conducted quarterly and may include a number of sensory inspection options for determining indications of a leak, such as visible floating hydrocarbon, hydrocarbon odor, discolored water, or chemical addition rates. You must either perform repairs to eliminate indications of a leak or take samples and determine there is no leak (as defined in 40 CFR 63.104(b)(6)). Repairs must be completed within 45 days after the inspection during which you observe indications of a leak, or you must document the reason for the delay. In addition, you must keep records of the heat exchange system inspection dates, inspection results, and the dates of leak repairs.
As an alternative to the management practice requirements for small heat exchange systems, the final rule allows compliance with the requirements for large heat exchange systems with flow rates of 8,000 gal/min or greater (i.e., the HON heat exchange system requirements in 40 CFR 63.104(b) or (c)).
2. Standards for Batch Process Vents
Owners and operators of a CMPU with collective uncontrolled organic HAP emissions greater than or equal to 10,000 lbs/yr from all batch process vents associated with an affected CMPU must meet emission limits for the organic HAP emissions. Examples of batch process vents include, but are not limited to, vents on reactors, filters, centrifuges, condensers used for product recovery, and process tanks. These vents include intermittent emissions from continuous operations as well as emissions from batch operations.
For an existing source, one control option is to reduce the collective uncontrolled organic HAP emissions from the CMPU by at least 85 percent by venting emissions from a sufficient number of vents through one or more closed vent system to any combination of control devices (excluding a flare). Alternatively, you may route uncontrolled organic HAP emissions from one or more batch process vents within the CMPU through one or more closed vent systems and meet an outlet concentration limit of 20 parts per million by volume (ppmv) (as total organic carbon or total organic HAP) or through a closed vent system to a flare, and comply with the 85 percent reduction for the remaining vents in the CMPU. For a new source, the requirements are the same as for an existing source, except the required reduction is 90 percent instead of 85 percent.
When halogenated organic HAP compounds from batch process vents are controlled by combustion, you must also reduce the hydrogen halide and halogen HAP generated in the combustion device by at least 95 percent, to no more than 0.45 kilograms per hour (kg/hr), or to no more than 20 ppmv. As an alternative to postcombustion halogen control, you may instead reduce the halogen atom mass emissions prior to the combustion device to no more than 0.45 kg/hr or 20 ppmv.
3. Standards for Continuous Process Vents
We are finalizing the proposed GACT requirements for organic HAP emissions from each continuous process vent with a TRE index value less than or equal to 1.0. Specifically, organic HAP emissions from each continuous process vent with a TRE index value less than or equal to 1.0 must meet any one of several emission control alternatives. One option is to reduce the organic HAP emissions by at least 95 percent by routing through a closed vent system to one or more control devices. Alternatively, you may route the emissions to a flare, or you may meet the concentration option described above for batch process vents. Because a continuous process vent is determined after the last recovery device, another option is to use a recovery device from which the vent stream is determined to have a TRE greater than 1.0. In addition, we are establishing a requirement to reduce the organic HAP emissions from continuous process vents with a TRE less than 1.0 by at least 85 percent during periods of startup and shutdown. Halogenated organic emissions from continuous process vents are subject to the same requirements described above for halogenated organic HAP emissions from batch process vents.
4. Standards for Metal HAP Process Vents
Owners and operators are required to reduce metal HAP emissions by at least 95 percent from each CMPU with uncontrolled metal HAP emissions of 400 lbs/yr or more. The metal HAP process vent emissions must be routed through a closedvent system to a control device. 5. Standards for Storage Tanks, Surge Control Vessels, and Bottoms Receivers
We are finalizing the proposed emission controls for emissions from
storage tanks, surge control vessels, and bottoms receivers that have
(1) a capacity of 40,000 gallons or greater with vapor pressure of
total organic HAP of 5.2 kilopascals (kPa) or greater and less than
76.6 kPa or (2) a capacity of 20,000 gallons or greater and less than
40,000 gallons with vapor pressure of total organic HAP of 27.6 kPa or
greater and less than 76.6 kPa. Control options in the final rule
include: (1) Use of an internal or external floating roof; (2) venting
through a closed vent system to a control device that reduces organic
HAP emissions by at least 95 percent; (3) vapor balancing to the tank
truck or railcar from which the tank is filled; (4) routing to a flare;
or (5) routing to a fuel gas system or process. Storage tanks, surge
control vessels, and bottoms receivers with capacity of 20,000 gallons
or greater with vapor pressure of total organic HAP of 76.6 kPa or greater must be controlled using any of the above
[[Page 56016]]
options except a floating roof. Storage tanks, surge control vessels,
or bottoms receivers with a vent stream that contains halogenated
compounds and that is controlled by combustion must also meet the same
requirements described above for halogenated batch process vents. 6. Standards for Wastewater Systems
All wastewater discarded from a CMPU subject to the rule must be treated. In addition, each process wastewater stream and each maintenance wastewater stream in which the total PSHAP concentration is 10,000 ppmw or greater, and which contains both an organic and an aqueous phase, must be decanted or separated by other techniques. Alternatively, wastewater streams that meet these conditions may be hard piped to onsite treatment as hazardous waste or hard piped to a collection tank or other vessel and shipped offsite for any of the same types of treatment. If the wastewater is separated into organic and aqueous layers, the organic material must be recycled to a process, used as fuel, or disposed of as hazardous waste. The separated aqueous phase, like other process wastewater and maintenance wastewater that does not separate into an organic and an aqueous phase, must receive some type of treatment, either onsite or offsite, as described above. 7. Standards for Heat Exchange Systems
Owners or operators of heat exchange systems with cooling water flow rate of 8,000 gal/min or greater must develop and operate in accordance with a monitoring plan that documents the procedures to be used to detect leaks of process fluids into cooling water. The plan must require monitoring of one or more surrogate indicators or monitoring of one or more process parameters or other conditions that indicate a leak. You must conduct the monitoring at least quarterly. Leaks must be repaired within 45 calendar days after detection unless specified conditions for delay of repair are met. You must keep records of leaks detected by methods described in your monitoring plan or by other methods, and you must keep records of the dates of repairs. A compliance alternative has been incorporated into the final rule that allows compliance with the HON heat exchange system requirements in 40 CFR 63.104(b). This alternative provides at least equivalent levels of HAP emission reductions as the standards that we are finalizing today. D. Initial Compliance Requirements
To demonstrate initial compliance with the management practices in the final rule, owners and operators of affected new and existing sources must certify that they have implemented all required management practices by the compliance date. To demonstrate initial compliance with the emissions control requirements, by the compliance date, the source must install and have operational, any required add on control equipment and/or have implemented any design requirements necessary to comply with the applicable standard.
For batch process vents and metal HAP process vents, owners and operators must either calculate uncontrolled emissions or demonstrate that organic HAP usage is below 10,000 lb/yr or metal HAP usage is below 400 lb/yr. The final rule specifies that HAP emissions or usage may be determined based on process knowledge, engineering assessments, or test data. For continuous process vents with an organic HAP emission rate greater than 0.1 lb/hr, owners and operators must determine the TRE index value. For wastewater streams, owners and operators must determine if the PSHAP concentration exceeds 10,000 ppmw and contains separate aqueous and organic layers. All wastewater stream characterization determinations may be based on process knowledge, engineering assessments, or test data.
To demonstrate initial compliance with a percent reduction or outlet concentration emission limit in this final rule, owners and operators must conduct either a performance test or design evaluation. Limits for operating parameters that will be monitored to demonstrate ongoing compliance must be established during the performance test or design evaluation.
E. Continuous Compliance Requirements
Quarterly inspections are required to demonstrate compliance with the management practice requirements and the standards for large heat exchange systems. Storage tanks equipped with floating roofs are also subject to periodic inspections and, for external floating roofs, seal gap measurements. Control device operating parameters must be continuously monitored to demonstrate ongoing compliance with percent reduction or outlet concentration emission limits, and the continuous presence of a pilot flame must be verified in flares. Closed vent systems that convey emissions to a control device must be monitored using Method 21 or by audible, visual, or olfactory (AVO) techniques, depending on the construction material and the source of the emissions. F. Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements
The owner or operator of a new or existing affected source is required to comply with certain requirements of the General Provisions to part 63 (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are identified in Table 9 of the final rule. Each facility is required to submit an Initial Notification and a Notification of Compliance Status according to the requirements in 40 CFR 63.9 of the General Provisions and 40 CFR 63.11501 of the final rule. Among other things, the owner or operator must submit a compliance report for each semiannual reporting period during which a deviation occurred, a leak was not repaired within the specified time period, or a process change occurred that affected a previous compliance determination or resulted in a new compliance determination, including changes in the method of compliance. V. Summary of Comments and Responses
We received a total of 35 comments on the proposed rule from industry representatives, trade associations, State and Federal agencies, industry consultants, one environmental group, and the general public during the public comment period. In addition, two speakers provided testimony at a public hearing. Sections V.A through V.H of this preamble summarize the significant comments and explain our response. Other comments addressed minor clarifications to this rule or other issues that we did not consider to be significant; these comments and our responses to them are provided in the Response to Comments Document.
A. Applicability
Comment: Several commenters requested that EPA establish one or
more de minimis applicability thresholds below which area sources that
process or emit small amounts of urban HAP would be exempt from the
rule. For example, some commenters requested a more comprehensive
version of the proposed concentration thresholds of 0.1 and 1.0 percent
urban HAP in feedstocks and products that would also apply to fuels,
byproducts, coproducts, intermediates, HAP generated in the process,
and/or catalysts. Other commenters requested a massbased HAP usage or
processing threshold (e.g., 2 megagrams per year or 25,000 lbs/yr), actual or uncontrolled HAP emissions thresholds between 50
[[Page 56017]]
lbs/yr and 6.25 tpy, a threshold based on the quantity of HAP stored
onsite (consistent with the criteria that are used to determine
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act 311/312 Tier 2 reporting thresholds), or a combination of thresholds.
Two commenters argued that EPA has legal authority to set de minimis applicability thresholds. One commenter noted that the courts have determined that EPA has the authority to establish de minimis thresholds where the application of the s
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
Mr. Randy McDonald, Coatings and
Chemicals Group (E14301), Sector Policies and Programs Division,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone number: (919) 5415402; fax number: (919) 5410246; email address:
mcdonald.randy@epa.gov.