United States
          Environmental Protection
          Agency
Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park NC 27711
EPA-450/3-89-021
July 1990
          Air
&EPA    Hazardous Waste
          TSDF - Technical
          Guidance Document
          for RCRA Air Emission
          Standards for Process
          Vents and Equipment
          Leaks

-------

-------
                           EPA-450/3-89-021
      Hazardous Waste TSDF -
Technical Guidance Document for
   RCRA Air Emission Standards
       for Process Vents and
          Equipment Leaks
               Emission Standards Division
           U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
               Office of Air and Radiation
            Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
            Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711

                  July 1990

-------
                                  Guideline Series    .

This report is issued by the Emission Standards Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S.
Emritonmenfal Protection Agency, to provide information to State and local air pollution control agencies. Mention
of trade names or commercial products is not intended to constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
Copies of this report are available - as supplies permit - from the Library Services Office (MD-35), US. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, or, for a nominal fee, from the Na-
tional Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161.

-------
                                  CONTENTS
Number
Page
         Figures.	.....	•		      1X
         Tables	      X1

  1.0    Introduction	'	     1-1
         1.1  Purpose.	     1-1
         1.2  Future Regulatory Actions	.	     1-2
         1.3  Document Outline	     1-2

  2.0    Summary of the Regulation	     2-1
         2.1  Process Vents (Subpart AA)	     2-1
         2.2  Equipment Leaks (Subpart BB)	     2-4
         2.3  Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting	     2-4.

  3.0    Affected Sources	     3-1
         3.1  Applicability of the Process Vent  and
              Equipment Leak Standards.	     3-1
         3.2  Relationship of RCRA Exemptions to Final  Standards	     3-2
              3.2.1  Production Units	     3-3
              3.2.2  Totally Enclosed Treatment  Units	     3-3
              3.2.3  Elementary Neutralization and Wastewater
                     Units	.'...•	     3-4
              3.2.4  Generator Accumulation Tanks	     3-4
              3.2.5  Closed-loop  Reclamation Units......	     3-5
              3.2.6  Domestic Sewage  Units		"...     3-7
              3.2.7  Subtitle D Waste Management Units	     3-8
         3.3  Determining  Applicability	     3-8
              3.3.1  Applicability Examples	     3-8
              3.3.2  Applicability Decision Tree		    3-10
         3.4  Applicability Criteria	    3-10
              3.'4.1  Process Vents	    3-10
              3.4.2  Equipment Leaks	    3-13
         3.5  Applicability Disagreements	    3-14

   4.0    Equipment  Leaks..	     4-1
         4.1  Types  of  Equipment	,	     4-1
              4.1.1   Pumps	     4-1
                     4.1.1.1  Dynamic Pumps	     4-2
                      4.1.1.2  Displacement Pumps..	,	     4-6
               4.1.2   Potential  Leak  Sources  in Pumps		    4-11

-------
Number
                            CONTENTS (continued)
              4.1.3  Sealless Pumps...-	.	   4-14
              4.1.4  Valves	*	   4-17
              4.1.5  Potential Leak Sources in Valves	   4-26
              4.1.6  Leakless Valve Technology	   4-27
              4.1.7  Pressure Relief Devices	   4-37
              4.1.8  Flanges	'	   4-40
              4.1.9  Compressors	   4-40
              4.1.10 Sampling Connections	   4-44
              4.1.11 Open-Ended Lines		   4-44
         4.2  Uncontrolled Fugitive Emission Estimates	   4-44
         4.3  Equipment Leak Control	   4-47
              4.3.1  Pumps in Light-Liquid Service
                     (Sections 264.1052 and 265.1052)	   4-49
              4.3.2  Valves in Gas/Vapor Service  or  in Light-
                     Liquid Service (Sections 264.1057 and
                     265.1057)	   4-51
              4.3.3  Pumps and Valves in Heavy-Liquid  Service,
                     Pressure Relief Devices in Light-Liquid or
                     Heavy-Liquid Service, and Flanges and Other
                     Connectors (Sections 264.1058 and 265.1058)	   4-55
              4.3.4  Compressors (Sections 264.1053  and 265.1053)	   4-56
              4.3.5  Pressure Relief Devices in Gas/Vapor
                     Service  (Sections 264.1054 and  265.1054)	   4-56
              4.3.6  Sampling Connection Systems
                     (Sections 264.1055 and 265.1055)	   4-57
              4.3.7  Open-Ended Valves or Lines
                     (Sections 264.1056 and 265.1056)	   4-57
         4.4  Repair Methods	   4-58
              4.4.1  Pumps	'	   4-58
              4.4.2  Valves	   4-58
              4.4.3  Compressors	   4-59
              4.4.4  Safety/Relief Valves	   4-59
              4.4.5  Flanges	   4-60
         4.5  Percent Effectiveness of Control by LDAR
              Techniques	   4-61
         4.6  Additional Controls for Equipment Leaks	   4-63
              4.6.1  Pumps	   4-64
              4.6.2  Valves	   4-64
              4.6.3  Compressors, Pressure Relief Devices,
                     Sampling Connections, and Open-Ended Lines	   4-69
              4.6.4  Flanges	   4-70
              4.6.5  Other Considerations	   4-70
                     4.6.5.1  Lower Leak Definition	   4-70
                     4.6.5.2  Directed Maintenance	   4-70
                     4.6.5.3  Lower Applicability Concentration	   4-70
         4.7  References	   4-71
                                      IV

-------
                            CONTENTS (continued)
Number

  5.0    Process Vents			.	    5-1
         5.1  Affected Processes	•	•    5-2
              5.1.1  Distillation		    5-3
              5.1.2  Thin-Film Evaporation.	    5-7
              5.1.3  Steam Stripping	    5-9
              5.1.4  Solvent Extraction	'....,	   5-12
              5.1.5  Air Stripping	   5-15
         5.2  Process Vent Emission Rate Cutoff Determination—	   5-18
              5.2.1  Mass Balance	   5-18,
              5.2.2  Emission Test	   5-21
         5.3  Vent Controls	   5-22
              5.3.1  Condensation	   5-23
              5.3.2  Combustion Equipment	••   5-29
                     5.3.2.1  Flares	:	   5-29
                     5.3.2.2  Thermal  Incineration	   5-36
                     5.3.2.3  Catalytic Incinerators....		   5-39
                     5.3.2.4  Boilers  or Process  Heaters	,	   '5-42
              5.3.3  Adsorption		   5-47
         5.4  Control Device Design Considerations  Required  by
              the Regulation	   5-55
              5.4.1  Heat Exchanger Rules  of  Thumb	   5-57
              5.4.2  Adsorption Rules  of Thumb	   5-58
             ',5.4.3  Combustion Device Rules  of Thumb	   5-59
         5.5  Additional Controls  for  Process Vents	   5-60
              5.5.1  Condensers		   5-60
              5.5.2  Flares	   5-61
              5.5.3  Thermal Incineration	   5-61
              5.5.4  Boilers and Heaters	   5-62
              5.5.5  Carbon  Adsorption	   5-63
         5.6  References	   5-64

   6.0    Testing and Evaluation	     6-1
         6.1  Equipment  Leaks	     6-3
              6.1.1  Liquid  Waste  Streams	     6=4
              6.1.2  Gaseous Waste Streams	   6-11
              6.1.3  Light/Heavy-Liquid  Determination	   6-12
              6.1.4  Leak  Detection Monitoring	   6-14
                     6.1.4.1  Valves  and  Pumps in Light-Liquid
                               Service	   6-14
                     6.1.4.2  Valves  in  Gas/Vapor Service	,	   6-16
                     6.1.4.3  Pressure Relief Devices  in
                               Gas/Vapor Service	   6-16
                      6.1.4.4  Pipeline Flanges (and Other
                               Connectors)  and Pressure Relief
                               Devices in  Light-Liquid Service
                               and  Equipment in Heavy-Liquid
                               Service	..;.....	    6-16

-------
                            CONTENTS (continued)
Number
Page
                     6.1.4.5  Closed-Vent Systems	   6-16
              6.1.5  Equipment Requirements for Minimizing Leaks.....   6-16
         6.2  Process Vents	   6-!S
              6.2.1  Waste Stream Determination	   6-18
              6.2.2  Emission Rate Estimate	   6-23
              6.2.3  Control Device Performance Monitoring	   6-26
         6.3  Quality Assurance and Quality Control	   6-27
         6.4  References	   6-29

  7.0    Inspection, Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting	    7-1
         7.1  Inspection and Monitoring	    7-1
              7.1.1  Process Vents	    7-2
              7.1.2  Equipment Leaks	    7-4
                     7.1.2.1  Pumps..,..	    7-4
                     7.1.2.2  Compressors	.	    7-5
                     7.1.2.3  Pressure Relief Devices	    7-6
                  •   7.1.2.4  Valves	    7-7
                     7.1.2.5  Other Equipment	    7-9
         7.2  Recordkeeping	    7-9
              7.2.1  General RCRA Recordkeeping Requirements	    7-9
              7.2.2  Process Vent Recordkeeping Requirements	   7-16
              7.2.3  Equipment Leak Recordkeeping  Requirements	   7-20
         7.3  Reporting Requirements	—	•   7-23

  8.0    Implementation and Compliance	    8-1
         8.1  State Authorization	    8-1
              8.1.1  Applicability of  Rules  in Authorized States	    8-1
              8.1.2  Effect on State Authorization	    8-2
         8.2  Implementation  (The RCRA Permitting  Process)	„	    8-3
              8;2.1  Facilities with Permits.	    8-3
              8.2.2  Interim-Status Facilities		    8-6
              8.2.3  New  Facilities and  Newly  Regulated  Units	    8-6
              8.2.4  Omnibus  Permitting  Authority	    8-8
              8.2.5  Part  B  Information  Requirements	    8-9
         8.3  Compl iance	   8-10
         8.4  Agency Enforcement	   8-14

  9.0    Training	•	    9-1
         9.1   Introduction	    9-1
         9.2  Training  Programs	    9-2
                                      VI

-------
                            CONTENTS (continued)

Appendixes                                                              £M§
    A      Federal Register Notice	    A-1
    B      Method 21.  Determination of Volatile Organic
           Compound Leaks..	    B'1
    C      .Example Condenser Design.	    C-l
    D      Example Calculation for Condenser Heat Balance
           as a Check on Condenser Design	    D-l
    E      The Effect of Concentration on Condenser
           Efficiency and Emissions...	    E-1
    F      Design Checklists	,	    F-l
    G      Response Factors of VOC Analyzers for Selected
           Organic Chemicals	...	    G-l
    H      Portable VOC Detection Devices	    H-l
    I      Carbon Canister Monitoring Frequency	    1-1

-------
vm

-------
                                   FIGURES
Number
                                                                        Page
  3-1    Applicability decision tree for process vent rules
         (Subpart AA)	• • • •	   3'n
  3-2    Applicability decision tree for equipment  leaks
         (Subpart BB).....	:	   3'12

  4-1    Classification of dynamic pumps	     4-3
  4-2    Classification of displacement  pumps	     4-4
  4-3    Centrifugal pump construction	     4-5
  4-4    Chempump canned-motor pump	.. •	     4-7
  4-5    A piston mounted on a rod	,	     4-8
  4-6    A plunger	,	'	•	     4-8
  4-7    Two types of diaphragms  used  in Reciprocating  pumps	     4-8
  4-8    Gear-type rotary pump having  two  impellers	   4-10
  4-9    Horizontal  screw pump.	   4-10
  4-10   Typical mechanical seal  arrangements	   4-13
  4-11   Seal less pumps use magnetic couplings,  canned  motors,
         or diaphragms to isolate pumped liquid  below from
         atmosphere	   4-15
  4-12   Some  variations  in gate-valve stems,  discs and bonnets	   4-20
  4-13   Standard globe valve  is:  (a)  plug-type with, inside
         screw;  variations  include:   (b) angle valve, (c)  Y-
         pattern and (d)  needle  valve...	.....	>•    4-21
  4-14   Plug  valve  can be  closed with a quarter turn
         of the  handle	."	'.	    4-23
  4-15   Two forms  of the butterfly  valve  shown  above are the
          (a) rubber-lined and  (b) high-performance	    4-25
  4-16A Lubricated  plug  valve	•	    4-28
  4-16B Ball  valve	    4-28
  4-16C Manual  globe  v.alve	    4-29
  4-16D Globe control  valve	•	    4-29
  4-16E Nonrising  stem gate  valve	    4-30
  4-16F Rising  stem gate valve	•    4-30
  4-16G  Butterfly  valve.	    4-30
  4-17    Basic stuffing box	    4-31
   4-18    Valve stem seal  with expanded graphite rings.;	    4-31
   4-19    Example of bellows seals......	    4-33
   4-20    Diagrams  of valves with diaphragm seals	    4-35
   4-21    Handwheel  operated pinch valve	•    4-36
   4-22    Diagram of a spring-loaded relief valve	    4-38
   4-23    Rupture disc	   4-39
                                      IX

-------
                             FIGURES (continued)
Number
Page
  4-24   Flanged joint	   4-41
  4-25   A typical single-stage water-cooled reciprocating
         compressor; a screw-type rotary compressor	   4-42
  4-26   Labyrinth shaft seal. (two views)	.	   4-43
  4-27   Restrictive-ring shaft seal..	.•	   4-45
  4-28   Mechanical (contact) shaft seal	   4-46
  4-29   Liquid film shaft seal with cylindrical bushing	   4-46

  5-1    Schematic diagram of batch distillation with
         fractionating column	    5-5
  5-2    Schematic diagram of a thin-film evaporator system	    5-8
  5-3    Schematic diagram of a stream stripping system	   5-10
  5-4    Schematic diagram of solvent extraction system.	   5-14
  5-5    Schematic diagram of an air stripping system	   5-16
  5-6    Schematic diagram of a shell-and-tube surface condenser	   5-25
  5-7    Schematic diagram of a contact condenser	   5-25
  5-8    Condensation system	. „	   5-26
  5-9    Steam-assisted elevated flare system	   5-30
  5-10A  Flare tip	   5-32
  5-10B  Ground f 1 are	   5-32
  ,5-11   Discrete burner, thermal oxidizer	   5-37
  5-12   Distributed burner, thermal oxidizer	   5-37
  5-13   Catalytic incinerator	   5-41
  5-14   Two-stage regenerative adsorption system	   5-49

  6-1    Regulatory decision tree	    6-2

  8-1    Flow diagram of the EPA's RCRA permitting process	    8-4

-------
                                   TABLES
Number

  1-1
Guidance Document Organization	•	    1-3
  4-1    Four Basic Valve Types	   4-18
  4-2    Emission Factors for Leaks from Process Equipment	   4-48
  4-3    Effectiveness of Controls Required by Standards	   4-50
  4-4    Illustration of a Skip-Period Monitoring Program	   4-54
  4-5    Input Parameters for LDAR Model	   4-62
  4-6    Estimated Control Effectiveness for LDAR Programs
         for Valves and Pumps		;....	   .4-63
  4-7    Dual Mechanical Seal System Costs per Pump	   4-65
  4-8    Dual Mechanical Seal System Annualized Costs per  Pump	   4-67

  5-1    Example Application #1 of Emission Cutoff  for
         Process Vents	•	   5-19
  5-2    Example Application #2 of Emission Cutoff  for
         Process Vents	   5-20
  5-3    Recommended Outlet Gas Temperatures	   5-58

  6-1   " Applicability of Organic Content Analytical Methods	     6-8
  6-2    Applicability of Organic Analytical Detectors	     6-9
  6-3    Vapor Pressures of Common Solvents	   6-13
  6-4    Example Source Screening Data  Sheet	   6-15
  6-5    Equipment Requirements for  Reducing Process Leaks	   6-17
  6-6    Applicability of Flow Measurement Methods	   6-24
  6-7    Example Emission Rate Calculation	   6-25
  6-8    Process Vent  Control Device Monitoring  Methods
         as  Specified  by Section  264.1033(f)	   6-28

  7-1    Cross-Reference Between  Substantive Requirements
         and Recordkeeping/Reporting Requirements  of  Parts 264
         and 265,  Subparts  AA and BB	    7-10

  8-1    Checklist for Initial  and  Foilowup  Inspections	    8-16

  9-1    Recommended Training  (EPA sponsored)	     9-3
  9-2    Recommended Training  (Non-EPA sponsored)	     9-6
                                      XI

-------

-------
                               1.0   INTRODUCTION

 1.1   PURPOSE
      This  document  is  designed to  provide technical  guidance for Resource
 Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)  permit writers  and reviewers to imple-
-ment the process vent  and equipment leak organic air emission standards for
 hazardous  waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSDF).   This
 guidance document provides information needed to assess the applicability of
 the air standards for  process vents and equipment leaks to TSDF emission
 sources and the conformance of emission, controls to standard requirements.
 The document can also  be used as a reference to train RCRA permit writers,
 reviewers, and applicants (hazardous waste TSDF owners and operators).  It
 also identifies additional training materials and existing EPA courses rele-
 vant to the standards.
      These standards (promulgated 55 FR 25454, June 21, 1990; see Appen-
 dtx A) have been developed under Section 3004(n) of the Hazardous and Solid
 Waste Amendments (HSWA) to the RCRA of 1976.  The process vent and equipment
 leak standards appear in the Code of Federal  Regulations, Parts 264 and 265,
 Subparts AA and BB, respectively.  The equipment leak provisions  incorporate
 requirements that have been promulgated under the Clean Air Act  (CAA) for
 equipment  in benzene and  vinyl chloride service and for equipment in the
 synthetic  organic chemical manufacturing  industry (SOCMI).
      Both .Parts 264 and 265,  Subpart AA standards for process vents and
 Subpart BB standards for  equipment leaks,  are considered by  EPA to  be  "self-
 implementing";  i.e., the  standards can be satisfied without  the need  for
 detailed  explanation or  negotiation between  the facility owner/operator  and
 EPA.   This is  achieved by including specific criteria  for  facility  owners/
 operators  that can be  used to identify waste management  units that  are
 subject to the regulations and by  clearly specifying the emission control
                                       1-1

-------
and administrative requirements of the rules.  To demonstrate compliance,
facilities must document their emission estimates and control device effi-
ciencies with design/engineering analyses based on criteria contained in the
rules (e.g., either engineering calculations or source tests can be used to
document compliance with the process vent emission limit) and must maintain
these and monitoring, leak detection, and repair records in their operating
record.
     This and other EPA guidance documents do not supersede the regulations
promulgated under RCRA and pub-lished in the Code of Federal Regulations.
Instead, they provide guidance, interpretations, suggestions, and references
to additional information.
1.2  FUTURE REGULATORY ACTIONS
     The development of TSDF air standards is being performed in phases.  In
Phase I, ,EPA promulgated standards (55 FR 25454, June 21, 1990) to control
organic air emissions from process vents and equipment leaks at hazardous
waste TSDF.  The'regulations developed in Phase II would supplement those
standards by establishing air standards for additional waste management
operations at hazardous waste TSDF.  These waste management operations
include surface impoundments, storage and treatment tanks (including vents
on closed, vented tanks), containers, and miscellaneous units.
     The regulations promulgated in the first two phases control emissions
of organics as a class rather than controlling emissions of individual waste
constituents.  If necessary, additional guidance/regulations to further
reduce emissions and risk, after implementing the first two phases, will be
developed in Phase III of the TSDF regulatory approach.
1.3  DOCUMENT OUTLINE
     The organization of this document is shown in Table 1-1.
                                     1-2

-------
                   TABLE 1-1.  GUIDANCE DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION
     Chapter/Appendix
                                        Description
Chapter 1.0:  Introduction
Chapter 2.0:
Summary of the
Regulation
Chapter 3.0:  Affected Sources
Chapter 4.0:  Equipment Leaks
Chapter 5.0:  Process Vents
Chapter 6.0:  Testing and Evaluation
Chapter 7.0:
Chapter 8.0:
Inspection, Monitoring
Recordkeeping, and
Reporting

Implementation and
Compliance .
Chapter 9.0:  Training
A:  Federal Register Notice
8:  How to Pack a Rump
C:  Condenser Design
D:  Calculations for Condensers on a Thin-Film
    Evaporator (Distillation) Unit
E:  The Effect of Concentration on Condenser
    Efficiency and Emissions
F:  Design Checklists
G:  Carbon Canister Monitoring Frequency
Discussed in this chapter are the
purposes and organization of this
document.

The air emission standards for process
vents and equipment leaks are briefly
summarized in this chapter.

This chapter contains discussions on
the applicability of the standards and
provides examples that can be used to
determine applicability.

Discussed in this chapter are the
types of equipment subject to the
standards, estimates of uncontrolled
fugitive emissions from equipment,
equipment leak control requirements,
and repair methods.

The processes affected by the stand-
ards are briefly described along with
methods for estimating process vent
emissions, and vent emission control
options.
Discussed here are the sampling and
analytical procedures that will be
used to determine applicability cri-
teria and monitoring.
This chapter reviews the inspection,
monitoring,  recordkeeping, and report-
ing requirements of the rules.

This chapter contains discussions on
implementation, compliance, and
enforcement of the standards in rela-
tion to the RCRA permitting process.
This chapter provides guidance regard-
ing available material that could be
used in training and information on
existing EPA courses.
                               1-3

-------

-------
                       2.0  SUMMARY OF THE REGULATION

     The standards (promulgated 55 FR 25454,  June 21, 1990) limit emissions
of organics. from certain process vents and equipment leaks_at new and exist-
ing hazardous waste TSDF requiring a RCRA permit under RCRA Subtitle C
(i.e., TSDF that need authorization to operate under RCRA Section 3005[e]).
This applicability includes all hazardous waste management units that are
subject to the permitting requirements of Part 270 and hazardous waste
recycling units that are located on hazardous waste management facilities
otherwise subject to the permitting requirements of Part 270.
2.1  PROCESS VENTS (SUBPART AA)
     The standards are applicable to vents on affected hazardous waste
management units that manage hazardous waste with an annual average total
organics concentration of 10 parts per million by weight  (ppmw) or greater
and specifically  include:   (1)  process vents on  distillation, fractionation,
thin-film evaporation, solvent  extraction, and air or steam stripping opera-
tions  and vents on condensers  serving these operations, and  (2) process
vents  on tanks  (e.g.,  distillate  receivers, bottoms  receivers,  surge  control
tanks,  separator  tanks,  and hot wells) associated with distillation,  frac-
tionation, thin-film evaporation,  solvent extraction, and  air or  steam
stripping processes  if emissions  from these process  operations  are  vented
through the  tanks.
      To comply  with  the process vent standards,  the  facility  owner/operator
 is required  to  identify all process  vents associated with distillation,
 fractionation,  thin-film evaporation,  solvent  extraction,  and stripping
 processes  that  are handling or processing hazardous  wastes that manage
 wastes exceeding the applicability criterion  of 10  ppmw total organics
 (i.e., vents affected by the process vent standard).  Up-to-date information
 and data used to determine whether or not a hazardous waste management  unit
                                      2-1

-------
and its associated process vent(s) are subject to the Subpart AA standards
must be maintained in the facility operating record (Sections 264.1035(e)
and 265.0135(e)).  For example, documentation of a waste analysis showing
that the waste managed in a distillation-unit is less than the 10-ppmw.
applicability criterion must be kept in the facility operating record.
     The owner/operator must then determine emission rates (through engi-
neering calculations or direct source tests) for each vent and for the
entire facility from all affected vents.  Total facility process vent
emission rates must then be compared to the short- and long-term process
vent emission rate limit (1.4 kg/h or 2.8 Mg/yr [3 Ib/h or 3.1 short
tons/yr]) to determine if additional emission controls are required.  Facil-
ities with organic emissions from affected vents that never exceed the
emission rate limit are not required to install controls or monitor process
vent emissions under this rule.  If the process vent emission rate limit is
exceeded, the owner/ operator must install additional controls or change
waste management process operations to reduce total facility process vent
emissions to below the cutoff or install additional controls to reduce total
facility process vent organic emissions from all affected vents by 95 weight
percent; if enclosed combustion devices are used, the owner/operator has the
option of reducing the organic concentration of each affected vent stream to
a total organic compound concentration of no more than 20 parts per million
by volume (ppmv), expressed as the sum of the actual compounds on a dry
basis corrected to 3 percent oxygen.  The standards for process vents do not
require the use of any specific equipment or add-on control devices.
Condensers, carbon adsorbers, incinerators, boilers, process heaters, and
flares are applicable and demonstrated emission control devices for the
regulated processes, although the choice of control is not limited to these.
     Regardless of the technology selected by the facility, estimates of
process vent emissions and emission reductions achieved by add-on control
devices must be thoroughly documented, including certification of 95 percent
reduction capability for control equipment.  This information and documenta-
tion must be kept on record and must be included in the facility's Part B
application.  The implementation schedule, also required as Part B informa-
tion, establishes dates for installation of the required emission controls
                                                                          «
for each particular facility.
                                     2-2

-------
     The standards for process vents contain requirements that specific
control device operating parameters be monitored continuously (Sections
264.1034 and 265.1034) and the monitoring information be recorded in the
facility operating record to ensure that the devices perform according to
their design and are properly operated and maintained.  Operating parameters
are specified for condensers, carbon adsorbers, flares, incinerators, and
other enclosed combustion devices.  Wh-ile minimum operating conditions are
identified for organic vapor destruction devices (e.g., incinerators and
flares) to ensure 95 percent destruction, values or ranges of values for
recovery device (i.e., condensers and carbon adsorbers) operating parameters
cannot be specified on an industry-wide basis;  A recovery device must be
designed for a particular application and monitored to ensure that  it is
being operated within design specifications.   (Note;  This is an important
point for permit writers/reviewers  to keep  in mind when evaluating  control
device efficiencies.)  Proper design shall  be determined through and docu-
mented by engineering calculations, vendor  certification, and/or emission
testing, although the use of emission testing to determine compliance with
efficiency requirements  is  expected to  occur only rarely.  For facilities
with final RCRA permits, periods  when monitoring data  indicate that control
device operating  parameters exceed  established  tolerances for design speci-
fications for more  than  24  hours  must be  reported on  a  semiannual  basis.
The  records  and reports  must  include dates, duration,  cause,  and corrective
measures taken.   (Note;  Air standards  also have been  promulgated  for  the
control of  air  emissions from permitted hazardous waste incinerators (40 CFR
264, Subpart 0).  These  standards require that incinerators  burning hazard-
ous  waste be operated to achieve  a destruction and  removal  efficiency  (ORE)
of at  least  99.99 percent  for those primary organic hazardous constituents
 listed in the  facility permit.   However,  the  process  vent  stream (i.e.,
 gases  and vapors) from a hazardous waste management unit would  not be
 classified  as  a hazardous  waste.   Noncontainerized  gases emitted from
 hazardous wastes  are not themselves hazardous wastes because the RCRA
 statute implicitly  excludes them.  Therefore,  combustion of process vent
 streams in  an  incinerator is not subject to the 99.99 ORE requirement.)
                                      2-3

-------
2.2  EQUIPMENT LEAKS (SUBPART BB)
     The equipment leak standards apply to emissions from valves, pumps,
compressors, pressure relief devices, sampling connection systems, and open-
ended valves or lines.  Under the final standards, controls for these
sources are required at TSDF where the equipment contains or comes in con-
tact with hazardous waste streams with 10 percent or greater total organics
content (by weight).  The owner/operator of a facility may choose any of the
applicable test methods identified in the Subpart BB rules for determining
the organic content of wastes managed at the facility.
     To comply with the equipment leak standards, the facility owner/opera-
tor must identify all affected equipment (i.e., pumps, valves, compressors,
etc., that contain or contact hazardous waste streams with organic concen-
trations that will ever equal or exceed 10 percent by weight); establish
which affected equipment are in heavy-liquid service; and determine which
valves are unsafe or difficult to monitor.  By the effective date of this
regulation (promulgation plus 6 months), the facility owner/operator must
conduct the initial monthly monitoring survey of pumps and valves in light-
liquid service.  (Note;  A vapor pressure cutoff specified in Section 260.10
defines equipment in light-liquid service.)  A number of portable volatile
organic detection devices are capable of detecting equipment leaks.  Any
analyzer can be used, provided it meets the specifications and performance
criteria set forth in EPA Reference Method 21 (contained in Appendix A of 40
CFR Part 60).
     Affected compressors must be equipped with a dual mechanical seal
system that includes a barrier fluid system or must be designated as having
"no detectable emissions."  Sampling connections must be equipped with a
closed-purge system.  Open-ended valves or lines must be equipped with a
cap, blind flange, plug, or a second valve.  Pressure relief devices must be
operated with "no detectable emissions."  These types of equipment and
available controls are discussed in Chapter 4.0.
2.3  MONITORING, RECORDKEEPING, AND REPORTING
     Under the RCRA general inspection requirements, Sections 264.15 and
265.15, the owner/operator of a facility is required to inspect his facility
for malfunctions, deterioration, operator errors, and discharges that could
result in hazardous waste release or threat to human health.  The owner/
                                     2-4

-------
operator Is responsible for developing and following an inspection schedule
and for maintaining a copy of the schedule at the facility.  Monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting are also required by the process vent and
equipment leak provisions.  Each TSDF owner/operator subject to the pro-
visions of Parts 264 and 265, Subparts AA and BB, must comply with the
monitoring and testing requirements of Sections 264.1034, 265.1034,
264.1063, and 265.1063.  Additional information on monitoring and inspection
requirements are contained in Section 7.1 of this document.
     All TSDF owners/operators subject to the provisions of Subparts AA
and/or BB must comply with the recordkeeping requirements of Sections
264.1035, 264.1064, 265.1035, or 265.1034.  An owner/operator of more than
one facility subject to these requirements may comply with the recordkeeping
requirements for these hazardous waste management units with one record-
keeping  system if  the system identifies each record  by each hazardous waste
management unit.
      In  Chapter 7.0 of this document, Sections 7.2  and 7.3 outline  the
general  RCRA  recordkeeping  requirements and  the  specific  recordkeeping and
reporting  requirements of the process vent and equipment  leak  air  emission
standards.  Table  7-1  summarizes the  recordkeeping  and reporting  require-
ments  of the  process  vent and equipment leak.air emission  standards.
      The standards for process  vents  and  equipment  leaks  for  RCRA-permitted
facilities subject to the provisions  of Part 264,  Subparts AA and  BB,
require that  control  device exceedances  (i.e.,  occasions  when monitoring
 indicates  control  device  operating parameters  are outside or exceed toler-
 ances on design  specifications)  not corrected  within 24  hours be reported to
 the Regional  Administrator  on  a semiannual  basis.  (See  Section 7.2.2 for a
 discussion of control device exceedances.)   The reports  must include the
 dates, duration,  cause,  and corrective measures taken.  For equipment leaks,
 a report is required if a leak  is  not repaired within the designated time
 period.  If a facility does not have any exceedances during the reporting
 period, no report is required.   There are no reporting requirements for
 interim-status facilities subject to these air standards.
                                      2-5

-------

-------
                            3.0  AFFECTED SOURCES

3.1  APPLICABILITY OF THE PROCESS VENT AND EQUIPMENT LEAK STANDARDS
     The Subpart AA and BB standards do not expand the RCRA-permitted
community for the purp'oses of air emissions control.  As promulgated, the
standards control organic emissions as a class from process vents and
equipment leaks at hazardous waste TSDF that are subject to permitting
requirements under RCRA Section 3005 and are applicable only to specific
hazardous waste management units.  The rules apply to hazardous waste
management units that are subject to the permitting requirements of  Part. 270
and to hazardous waste recycling units that are  located at facilities other-
wise subject to the permitting requirements of Part 270.  Exempt units other
than recycling units  (e.g., 90-day accumulation  tanks and wastewater
treatment units as specified  in Section 270.1(c)(2)) are not subject to  the
rules even when they  are part  of a permitted facility.
     Subparts AA  and  BB apply  to owners or operators of facilities  that
recycle  hazardous wastes only  if they  are  subject  to the requirements of
Parts 264 or 265  due  to other hazardous waste  activities at  the  facility
 (Section 261.6[d]).   Although  recycling  units  such as batch  distillation
processes are  exempt  from  permit requirements  under RCRA,  if a facility  is
 subject  to.RCRA  permit  requirements  independent  of Subparts  AA and BB  (e.g.,
 because  of  hazardous  waste storage tanks  on-site), then  all  the process
 vents  and  equipment  at  the facility  are  subject  to the  requirements of  these
 standards,  provided  the process  vents and equipment meet  the other appli-
 cability criteria.
      The Subpart AA regulations  apply specifically to process vents
 associated with hazardous waste distillation,  fractional on, thin-film
 evaporation,  solvent extraction,  and air or steam stripping operations that
 manage hazardous waste with 10 ppmw or greater total organics concentration
 on a time-weighted,  annual average basis.  The concentration of organics  in
                                      3-1

-------
the vent is not a consideration in determining applicability.  The final
rules for process vents require that the owner or operator subject to the
provisions of Subpart AA comply with one of the following:   (a) reduce total
organic emissions from all affected vents at the facility to below 1.4 kg/h
(3 Ib/h) and 2.8 Mg/yr (3.1 ton/yr), or (b) install control devices that
reduce total organic emissions-from all affected vents at the facility by 95
weight percent or, for enclosed combustion devices, to a total organic
compound concentration of 20 ppmv or less (expressed as the sum of actual
compounds, on a dry basis corrected to 3 percent oxygen).  The Subpart BB
equipment leak standards apply to equipment that contains or contacts
hazardous waste with organic concentrations at least 10 percent by weight
(Sections 264.1050[b] and 265.1050[b]).
     If the owner or operator of a TSDF with sources potentially affected by
the requirements of Part 264, Subparts AA or BB, has received a permit under
Section 3005 of RCRA prior to the effective date (Sections 264.1030[c] and
264.1050[c], respectively), then the standards are not applicable until the
permit is reissued under Section 124.15 or reviewed under Section 270.50.
Permits issued after the effective date will incorporate the requirements of
these regulations.  If the owner or operator of an interim-status facility
with sources potentially subject to the requirements of Part 265, Subparts
AA and BB, has submitted a Part B application under Section 3005 of RCRA,
the requirements of Subparts AA and BB will still apply.  In these cases,
permit applicants will be required to  revise their Part B permit application
and incorporate the requirements of these standards.
3.2  RELATIONSHIP OF RCRA EXEMPTIONS TO FINAL STANDARDS
     The types of facilities or units  that are listed below are exempt from
the process vent and equipment leak air emission standards.  Explanation of
each of the exemptions is provided in  the following paragraphs.
     1.   Units such as product (not hazardous waste) distillation
          columns generating organic hazardous waste still bottoms are
          not subject to the standards while the wastes are  in the
          product distillation column  unit.
     2.   Totally enclosed treatment facilities.
     3.   Elementary neutralization and wastewater treatment tanks as
          defined by 40 CFR 260.10.
                                     3-2

-------
     4.    Generators that accumulate hazardous waste in  tanks  and
          containers for 90 days or less.   (Note;   The EPA intends  to
          modify this exemption at a later date.)
     5.    Closed-loop recycling (reclamation)  units.
     6.    Units exempted under the domestic sewage exclusion (i.e.,
          publicly owned treatment works [POTW] receiving hazardous
          wastes).
     7.    Units managing Subtitle D wastes.
3.2.11  Production Units
     Under 40 CFR 261.4(c), hazardous wastes that are generated in process-
related equipment such as product or raw material storage tanks or pipelines
are exempt from RCRA regulation.  This exemption applies until the waste is
physically removed from the unit  in which  it was generated, unless the unit
is a surface impoundment or unless the hazardous waste remains in  the unit
more than 90 days after the unit  ceases to.be .operated for manufacturing,
storage, or transportation of  product or raw materials.  Therefore,  units
such as product  (not hazardous  waste) distillation  columns generating
organic hazardous waste  still  bottoms are  not  subject to the RCRA  process
vent and equipment  leak  standards while the wastes  are  in the product
distillation column  or  unit.   However, distillation columns that treat such
hazardous wastes  (i.e.,  hazardous waste management  units) are subject to
these standards  if  located at  a RCRA-permitted facility.
3.2.2   Totally Enclosed Treatment Units
     Totally enclosed  treatment facilities also are exempt  from RCRA Sub-
title C requirements under 40  CFR 264.1(g)(5), 40  CFR 265.1(c)(9), and
270.l(c)  (2).   A "totally enclosed treatment  facility"  is  a hazardous waste
treatment facility  that is "directly connected to  an industrial production
process and  which is constructed and operated in a manner that  prevents  the
 release of any hazardous waste or any constituent  thereof into  the environ-
ment during  treatment" (40 CFR 260.10).   Two important characteristics  de-
 fine a  totally enclosed treatment facility.  The key characteristic of  a
 totally enclosed treatment facility is that it does not release any hazar-
 dous waste or constituent of hazardous waste into the environment during
 treatment.  Thus, if a facility  leaks,  spills, or discharges waste or waste
 constituents,  or emits waste or waste constituents into the air during
 treatment, it is not a totally enclosed treatment facility within the

                                      3-3

-------
meaning of these regulations.  The second important characteristic is that
it must be directly connected to an industrial production process.
Treatment facilities located off the site of generation, e.g., commercial
TSDF, are not directly connected to an industrial process and therefore are
not exempt.  In addition, storage and disposal units and ancillary equipment
not used to treat hazardous wastes fall outside the definition of a totally
enclosed treatment facility.
     The EPA believes that most on-site treatment facilities are not totally
enclosed.  Distillation columns and other treatment technologies generally
are designed to release emissions into the air.  Therefore, by definition,
these on-site technologies are generally not totally enclosed.  (See 45 FR
33218, May 19, 1980 [no constituents released to air during treatment].)
Because of the precise definition, there should be no process vent emissions
from units that are exempted as "totally enclosed treatment facilities."
3.2.3  Elementary Neutralization and Wastewater Treatment Units
     Also excluded from these standards are elementary neutralization and
wastewater treatment units as defined by 40 CFR 260.10.  The EPA amended  '
these definitions (see 53 FR 34080, September 2, 1988) to clarify that the
scope of the exemptions applies to the tank systems, not just the tank.  For
example, if a wastewater treatment or elementary neutralization unit is not
subject to RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste management standards, neither is
ancillary equipment connected to the exempted unit.  The amendments also
clarify that, in order for a wastewater treatment tank to be exempt, it must
be part of an on-site wastewater treatment facility.  Thus, equipment and
process vents associated with distillation, fractionation, thin-film eva-
poration, solvent extraction, or air or steam stripping operations and
ancillary equipment (piping, pumps, etc.) that are associated with a tank
that is part of a wastewater treatment system subject to regulation either
under Section 402 or 307(b) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) are not subject to
these standards.  However, EPA intends that air emission sources not'subject
to RCRA may be subject to Clean Air Act (CAA) guidance and/or standards.
3.2.4  Generator Accumulation Tanks
     In 40 CFR 270, hazardous waste generators who accumulate waste on-site
in containers or tanks for less than the time periods provided in Section
262.34 are specifically excluded from RCRA permitting requirements (i.e., a
                                     3-4

-------
generator may accumulate hazardous waste on-site for 90 days or less without
a RCRA permit or without having interim status).  To qualify for the exclu-
sions in Section 262.34, generators who accumulate hazardous waste on-site
for up to 90 days must comply with 40 CFR 265, Subpart I or J (depending on
whether the waste is accumulated in containers or tanks), and with other
requirements specified in Section 262.34.  Small-quantity generators (i.e._,
generators who generate more than 100 kg [222.2 Ib] but fewer than 1,000 kg
[2,222.2 Ib] per calendar month) are allowed to accumulate waste on-site for
up to 180 days or, if they must ship waste off-site for a distance of 200
miles or more and if they meet certain other requirements set out. in Section
262.34, for up to 270 days.                       ,       •       • .   •     -
     The promulgated regulation for process vents and equipment leaks does
not create a new exemption for 90-day accumulation, nor does it modify the
existing regulation.  The EPA is considering what changes  (if any) should be
made to Section 262.34  (the  "90-d.ay rule") under a  separate  rulemaking  (51
FR 25487, July  14, 1986).  As part of that effort,  EPA currently is  evalu-
ating whether air emissions  from these and other accumulator tanks  at the
generator site  should be subject to additional  control  requirements.
Preliminary  analysis  indicates  that 90-day tanks and  containers may  have
significant  organic air emissions; consequently, as part of  the second  phase
of TSDF  air  emission  regulations,  EPA  intends  to propose to  modify  the
exemption to require  that 90-day  tanks meet  the control  requirements of the
TSDF  air standards.   Until a final decision  is made on  regulating  the emis-
sions  from  these  units, they will  not  be subject  to additional  controls
under Subparts  AA and BB.
3.2.5  Closed-loop  Reclamation  Units
      The process  vent and  equipment  leak rules regulate the activity of
 reclamation at  certain  types of RCRA facilities for the first  time.  The EPA
 has  amended 40  CFR 261.6  under its RCRA authority over reclamation to allow
 covering reclamation  of hazardous wastes in  waste management units affected
 by these rules.  It should be recognized,  however,  that the rules  apply only
 at facilities otherwise needing a RCRA permit.  In addition, the closed-loop
 reclamation exemption in Part 261.4(a)(8)  is not changed by these rules.
 Therefore,  not all  reclamation units will  necessarily be affected by the
 process vent.and equipment leak rules.
                                      3-5

-------
     In response to a court opinion  (American Mining Congress v. EPA, 824
F.2d 1177, D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, July 31, 1987, concerning the
scope of EPA's RCRA authority), EPA  proposed amendments to the RCRA defini.-
tion of "solid waste" that would clarify when reclamation operations can be
considered to be managing solid and  hazardous wastes (53 FR 519, January 8,
1988).  The EPA has accepted comments on its interpretation and proposed
amendments.  The EPA has not yet taken final action on this proposal.  Thus,
EPA is addressing the scope of its authority over reclamation operations
under RCRA in the context of that rulemaking.  The process vent and equip-
ment rules are based on EPA's current interpretation of its RCRA authority,
as described in the January 1988 proposal.
     The following summarizes EPA's  proposed position.  In general, the pro-
posed amendments would exclude from  RCRA control only those spent solvents
reclaimed as part of a continuous, ongoing manufacturing process where the
material to be reclaimed is piped (or moved by a comparably closed means of
conveyance) to a reclamation device, any storage preceding reclamation is in
a tank; and the material is returned, after being reclaimed, to the original
process where it was generated.  (Other conditions on this exclusion relate
to duration and purpose of the reclamation process.  See proposed Section
261.4 [a] [8]'.)
     However,, processes (or other types of recycling) involving an element
of "discard" are (or can be) within  RCRA Subtitle C authority.  When spent
materials are being reclaimed, this  element of discard can arise in two
principal ways.  First, when spent materials are reclaimed by someone other
than the generator, normally in an off-site operation, the generator of the
spent material is getting rid of the material and so is discarding it.  In
addition, the spent material itself, by definition, is used up and unfit for
further direct use; the spent material must first be restored to a usable
condition.  Moreover, storage preceding such reclamation has been subject to
the Part 264 and 265 standards since November 19, 1980.  (See generally 53
FR 522 and underlying record materials.)  The American Mining Congress
opinion itself indicates that such materials are solid wastes (824 F.2d at
1187).
     When a spent material is reclaimed on-site in something other than a
closed-loop process, EPA also considers that the spent material is discarded
                                     3-6

-------
(i.e.,  spent solvents removed from the process, transferred to an on-site
distillation unit, and regenerated have been removed from the production
process).  The EPA's reasoning is that these materials are no longer
available for use in an ongoing process and have been disposed from that
operation, even if the reclamation operation is on-site.  Finally, EPA also
considers that when hazardous secondary materials are reclaimed but when
burned as fuels, the entire operationr-culminating in thermal combus-
tion—constitutes discarding via destructive combustion (53 FR 523).
Consequently, under this reading, any intermediate reclamation step in these
types of fuel production operations remains within EPA's Subtitle C
authority.         .
     In summary, under EPA's current interpretation of the court's opinion,
air emissions from distillation, fractionation, thin-film evaporation,
solvent extraction, and stripping processes involving reclamation of spent
solvent and other spent hazardous secondary materials can be  regulated under
RCRA Subtitle C whenever the reclamation system is not part of the type of
closed-loop reclamation system described in proposed Part 261.4(a)(8).  Any
changes to this interpretation as part of the  solid waste definition final
rule may  affect the scope of this rule.
3.2.6  Domestic Sewage Units
     Under the  "domestic sewage  exclusion"  (DSE)  (specified  in Section
1004[27]  of RCRA  and  codified  in 40 CFR 261.4[A][1]) , solid  or dissolved
material  in domestic  sewage  is not, by definition, a  "solid  waste" and, as a
corollary, cannot be  considered  a "hazardous waste."  Thus,  the  domestic
sewage exclusion  covers:
     •     "Untreated  sanitary  wastes  that pass through  a  sewer system"
     •     "Any  mixture of domestic  sewage and  other wastes  that  passes
           through  a  sewer system to a  POTW  for treatment"  (40 CFR
 The premise of the exclusion is that it  is  unnecessary to subject  hazardous
 wastes mixed with domestic sewage to RCRA management requirements  since
 these DES wastes receive the benefit of  treatment offered by POTW  and are
 already regulated under Clean Water Act  programs such as the National
 Pretreatment Program.
                                      3-7

-------
     The exclusion allows industries connected to POTW to discharge
hazardous wastes to sewers containing, domestic sewage without having to
comply with certain RCRA generator requirements such as manifesting and
reporting requirements.  Moreover, POTW receiving excluded wastes are not
deemed to have received hazardous wastes and, therefore, are not subject to
RCRA treatment, storage, and disposal facility requirements.
3.2.7  Subtitle D Waste Management Units
     Subtitle D wastes are all solid wastes regulated under RCRA not subject
to hazardous waste regulations under Subtitle C.  These wastes are defined
in 40 CFR Part 257.  In accordance with the above-mentioned definitions and
exclusions, several categories of Subtitle D wastes have been identified.
At least two of these waste categories, industrial nonhazardous waste and
small-quantity generator waste, include wastes with significant amounts of
organics.
     Hazardous wastes-generated by conditionally exempt small-quantity
generators are solid wastes that are exempt, under 40 CFR 261.5, from
Subtitle C regulations and thus are Subtitle D wastes.  Conditionally exempt
wastes are defined as those wastes that meet the definition of a hazardous
waste under 40 CFR 261 and that are generated at a rate of less than 100
kg/month.
     Detailed data on the types of facilities and process units that manage
Subtitle D wastes are not available (with the exception of data on surface
impoundments, landfills, land application units, and wastepiles); therefore,
no characterization can be made regarding the type of process vents and
their operating parameters for those waste treatment units managing
Subtitle D wastes (such as industrial nonhazardous waste and conditionally
exempt wastes).
3.3  DETERMINING APPLICABILITY
3.3.1  Applicability Examples
     The following are scenarios where the final rule is and is not
applicable:
     1.   Facility A is an off-site reclaimer of hazardous waste spent
          solvents by distillation.
          a.   The spent solvents are stored in. RCRA-permitted storage
               tanks before being reclaimed.
                                     3-8

-------
          Facili'ty  A's  distillation  column  and  associated  equip-
          ment would  be subject  to the  rule (assuming 'the  spent
          solvents  or their  derivatives contain greater  than  10
          ppmw organics).  This  is because  Facility  A's  storage of
          spent  solvent before distillation already  requires  a
          permit [40  CFR 261.6[c]].

     b.    The solvents  are distilled without any prior  storage.

          Facility  A's  distillation  activities  are not  subject to
          the process vent rules because the facility  is not  a
          TSDF and  therefore is  not  required to obtain  a RCRA
          permit.  The  EPA believes  that this situation  is
          unlikely  to occur.

2.   Facility B recycles hazardous  waste spent solvents  generated
     on-site.

     a.    The solvents are stored in tanks for a total  of fewer
          than 90 days from  time of generation, and the distilled
          spent solvents are piped back into the production proc-
          ess.  There is no  other hazardous waste management at
          the facility.

          Facility B's distillation unit is not covered by
          Subparts AA and BB rules because 90-day accumulation
          tanks and containers are not covered by the rule, and
          Facility B is not required to obtain a storage permit
          (40 CF-R 262.34).

     b.   The tank preceding distillation  stores the solvents for
          more  than 90  days.

          Facility B's  distillation unit is covered by  the rule
          because  Facility  B already requires  a  storage permit.
          Note,  however,  that this  type of configuration  could
          potentially  constitute an excluded closed-loop
          reclamation  system if  it  meets conditions in  40 CFR
           The  facility  also  operates  a  surface  impoundment manag
           ing  a  different  hazardous waste.

           Facility  B's  distillation of  a  hazardous  waste is
           subject to the rule because the facility  requires  a
           permit for the impoundment.

           The  facility  generates  hazardous waste spent solvents
           and  sends them to  on-site distillation without prior
           storage.
                                 3-9

-------
               The distillation activities are not subject to the rule
               because no TSDF is operating.  They would be covered if
               Facility B had an independent unit requiring a RCRA
               permit, as in Example 2c.
     3.   Facility C operates a manufacturing process that distills
          organic-rich feedstocks and generates a distillation bottom
          that is a listed hazardous waste.
          The distillation column is not covered by the rule because it
          processes raw materials, not hazardous wastes.  In addition,
          no storage permit is required for the still bottom while it
          is in the distillation column (40 CFR 261.4[c]).  It should
          be noted that this facility would likely be covered under a
          CAA requirement (e.g., 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart VV).
3.3.2  Applicability Decision Tree
     Figures 3-1 and 3-2 present decision trees that can be used to deter-
mine if a facility is required to comply with RCRA Parts 264 or 265, Sub-
parts AA and/or BB.
3.4  APPLICABILITY CRITERIA
                                   *
3.4.1  Process Vents
     As noted above, a process vent associated with hazardous waste distil-
lation, fractionation, thin-film evaporation, solvent extraction, or air or
steam stripping operations that manage wastes with at least 10 ppmw total
organics on a time-weighted annual average basis will be subject to the
standards.  The proposed 10-percent criterion for process vents was not
included in the final rules because the standards contain a facility-based
emission rate limit of 1.4 kg/h (3 Ib/h) or 2.8 Mg/yr (3.1 ton/yr) that is
more relevant for controlling emissions from affected sources and excluding
facilities with little emission reduction potential.  Based on the final
emissions and health risk analyses, this emission rate limit represents an
emission level from process vents that is protective of human health and the
environment.  In addition, modeling indicates that control of facilities
with process vent emissions less than the emission rate limit does not
result in further reductions of either cancer risk or incidence on a nation-
wide basis.  Facilities with organic emissions from affected, process vents
that do not exceed these emission rates will not have to reduce their proc-
ess vent emissions under the provisions of Subpart AA.
                                    3-10

-------
                                                        Doe*
                                                     the facility
                                                  need authorization
                                                to operate under RCRA
                                                    Section 3005?
   Hazardous
  waste TSDF
 process vent &
 equipment leak
emission standarda
   applk ability
                                                       Are there
                                                    hazardous waate
                                            management unite at the facility
                                         using dbtfflation, fractionation, thin-film
                                            evaporation, solvent extraction,
                                                and air or steam stripping?
                                                    Are these unit*
                                                 "90-day" tanks, part of a
                                              "totally enclosed treatment facility,"
                                            part of a closed-loop reclamation unit,
                                              part of a wastewater or elementary
                                               neutralization unit regulated
                                                    under CWA?
                                                    Are these units
                                               managing hazardous wastes
                                               with 10 ppmw or greater total
                                                 organks concentrations?
    Exempt
from requirements
of Part 264 & 265,
Subparts AA * BB
                                                                                        Subpart
                                                                                     AA(264&265)

                                                                                        applies.
Figure 3-1.  Applicability decision tree for process  vent rules  (Subpart AA)
                                                     3-11

-------
         Hazardous
        wttteTSDP
        proceai vent 
-------
     To determine whether a particular waste managed  in  a hazardous waste
management  unit  of  the type specified in the rule  (e.g., a  steam  stripping
or.air stripping unit) is subject to the provisions of Subpart AA of  Parts
264 and 265,  the owner/operator  is  required to  conduct a determination  of
the waste's total organic concentration  initially  (by the effective date of
the standards or when the waste  is  first managed by a waste management  unit)
and thereafter on a periodic  basis  (for  continuously  generated wastes).
      A waste determination  would only be necessary for Subpart AA appli-
cability  when an owner/operator  manages  the waste  .in  a distillation,  frac-
tionation,  thin-film evaporation,  solvent  extraction, or air or  steam strip-
ping operation that is  not  controlled  for  organic  process  vent  emissions.
Waste determinations would.not be necessary  for wastes managed  in (affected)
 units that are controlled for organic  emissions to meet  the substantive
 requirements of Subpart AA.
      Determination  that the time-weighted, annual  average total  organic
vconcentration of the waste managed in  the unit is  less than 10 ppmw must be
 performed by direct measurement or by knowledge of the waste as described
 later in Chapter 6.0 of this document.
      The final  rules require that an owner/operator  repeat the waste
 determination whenever there is a change  in the waste being managed or a
 change in  the process that generates or treats the waste or, if  the waste
 and process  remain constant, at least annually.
      With  the time-weighted, annual average applicability  criterion, a
 hazardous  waste management unit would not be subject to the process  vent
 rule if  it occasionally treats wastes that exceed 10 ppmw  if at  other  times
 the wastes being treated in  the unit were such that  the weighted annual
 average  total  organic concentration of all wastes treated  is less than  10
 ppmw.
 3.4.2  Equipment Leaks
      A piece of equipment  (e.g., pumps, valves, sampling connections)  is
 subject  to the standards if  it  contains or contacts  hazardous waste  with
 organic  concentrations  at  least 10 percent by  weight.   An  owner or  operator
 of a facility must determine,  for  each  piece  of equipment, whether  the
 equipment contains or  contacts  a hazardous waste  with organic  concentrations
 that will  ever equal or exceed  10  percent by  weight  (Sections  264.1063[d]
                                      3-13

-------
and 265.1063[d]).  Test methods are incorporated by reference under Section
260.11[a] for determining the organic concentration of hazardous waste.  For
each method, the applicability lo different waste matrices and the conver-
sion of test results to the units of the standard are described in Chapter
6.0.  An owner or operator alternatively may apply knowledge of the hazar-
dous waste stream or the generation process to determine that the percent
organic content of the hazardous waste clearly will never equal or exceed 10
percent by weight.  If an owner or operator determines that a piece of
equipment is handling waste with greater than 10 percent total organics by
weight, then the equipment is subject to the Sufapart BB requirements.  The
owner/operator must repeat the determination following the procedures in the
applicable test methods referenced in the rules (Sections 264.1063 and
265.1063) to obtain an exception.  If any action is taken that would result
in the determination no longer being appropriate to the facility's or a
particular unit's operation (e.g., an upstream process change that results
in a change in the waste's organic content), then a new waste determination
is required.
3.5  APPLICABILITY DISAGREEMENTS
     Determining the applicability of the standards to hazardous waste
management processes is of paramount importance to the TSDF owner or opera-
tor in complying with the final standards.  A mistake, even an inadvertent
one, will not excuse a facility owner or operator from the obligation to
comply with either the requirements of the standards or potential enforce-
ment actions.  Accurate determinations of what equipment must be controlled
are crucial to ensuring that all equipment subject to this rule is in fact
controlled.
     When the facility owner/operator and Regional Administrator disagree on
whether a hazardous waste management unit manages a waste with 10 ppmw or
greater organic content or a piece of equipment contains or contacts a waste
with 10 percent or more organic content, then procedures that conform to the
test methods referenced in the rules must be used to resolve the disa-
greement.  In situations where the owner/operator and the Regional
Administrator disagree on the determination of emissions or emission
reduction achieved, then a performance test, conducted as specified in the
rules, must be used to resolve the disagreement.
                                    3-14

-------
                            4.0  EQUIPMENT LEAKS

     With the goal- of reducing the potential  adverse health effects of
organic and toxic air emissions, the Subpart BB equipment leak standards
limit organic emissions from process equipment or piping that handle
hazardous waste streams with an organic content of 10 percent or more (by
weight) at TSDF requiring authorization to operate under RCRA Section 3005.
This chapter describes the various types of equipment and control techniques
to limit organic emissions, presents equipment standards, discusses pumps
and valves that could be designated for no detectable emissions, provides
emission factors for estimating uncontrolled fugitive emissions from process
equipment at TSDF, and provides information on repair methods for leaking
pumps  and valves.
4.1  TYPES OF  EQUIPMENT
     TSDF have numerous potential  sources of equipment  leak  fugitive emis-
sions.   This section provides  a brief  description of each  type  of equipment
and  associated potential emission  sources to assist the permit  writer/re-
viewer and facility  owner/operator in  identifying equipment  affected by the
regulation.  The  following  types  of equipment  are discussed:  valves, pumps,
compressors, flanges,  pressure relief  devices,  sampling connection  systems,
and  open-ended valves  or  lines.
4.1.1   Pumps
      Pumps  are integral  pieces of equipment  to most  hazardous waste manage-
ment processes,  transporting liquid and sludge wastes  throughout a facility.
 Pumps  may be classified on the basis  by which  energy  is added to the fluid
 and  may be divided into two major categories:   (1)  dynamic,  in  which energy
 is continuously  added to increase the fluid velocities, and (2) displace-
 ment,  in which energy is periodically added by application of force to one
 or more movable boundaries.                               .
                                      4-1

-------
     Dynamic pumps may be further subdivided into several varieties of cen-
trifugal' and other special-effect pumps.  Figure 4-1 presents in outline
form a summary of the significant classifications and subclassifications of
dynamic pumps.
     Similarly, displacement pumps may be classified into reciprocating and
rotary types, depending on the nature of movement of the pressure-producing
members.  Each of these major classifications may be further subdivided into
several specific types, as indicated in Figure 4-2.
     4.1.1.1  Dynamic Pumps.
     Centrifugal Pumps
     The centrifugal pump is the type most widely used in the chemical
industry for transferring liquids of all types—raw materials,  materials in
manufacture, and finished products—as well as for general services of water
supply, boiler feed, condenser circulation, condensate return,  etc.1  Cen-
trifugal pumps are available in a vast range of sizes in capacities from 2
or 3 gal/min up to 100,000 gal/min and for discharge heads (pressures from a
few feet up to several thousand pounds per square inch).  The size and type
best suited to a particular application can be determined only  by an engi-
neering study of the problem and its requirements.  .
     The primary advantages of a centrifugal pump are simplicity, low ini-
tial cost, uniform (nonpulsating) flow, small floor space requirements, low
maintenance expense,, quiet operation, and adaptability to use with motor or
turbine drive.
                                   v
     A simple'centrifugal pump consists of an impeller rotating within a
casing (see Figure 4-3).  The impeller consists of a number of  blades,
either open or shrouded, mounted on.a shaft that projects outside the
casing.  Impellers may have their axis of rotation either horizontal or
vertical to suit the work to be done.  Closed-type or shrouded  impellers are
generally most efficient and are almost universally used in centrifugal
pumps handling clear liquids.  Generally, open- or semiopen-type impellers
are used in small, inexpensive pumps or pumps handling abrasive liquids and
high viscosity liquids.  Impellers may be of the single-suction type or
double-suction type—single if the liquid enters from one side, double if it
enters from both sides.
                                     4-2

-------
                        PUMPS
      DYNAMIC
              -[DISPLACEMENT]
    CENTRIFUGAL
                                       VARIABLE PITCH
        I f- SINGLE STAGE -y CLOSED IMPELLER
            SINGLE
         J" SUCTION

          L DOUBLE
            SUCTION
SELF-PRIMING -

NONPRIMING   -

SINGLE STAGE -

MULTISTAGE   -
                  .OPEN
                   IMPELLER

                  . SEMI-OPEN
                   IMPELLER

                  .CLOSED
                   IMPELLER
      -[PERIPHERAL I



        [j- SINGLE STAGET pSELF-PRlMING
            MULTISTAGE
 -NONPRIMING


              \

- JET(EOUCTOR)

- GAS LIFT

— HYDRAULIC RAM

— ELECTROMAGNETIC
Figure 4-1.  Classification of dynamic pumps.
                         4-3

-------
                             -—	[ JJYNAMIC j
          I- STEAM-DOUBLE ACTING
                               -C
SIMPLEX
DUPLEX
                    p- SINGLE ACTING -i
          — POWER —1               |-
                    I*. DOUBLE ACTING -J
—I  DIAPHRAGM [

    Ir- SIMPLEX
      L- MULTIPLEX
                                  - SIMPLEX
                                  - DUPLEX
                                  - TRIPLEX
                                  - MULTIPLEX
                             FLUID OPERATED
                             MECHANICALLY OPERATED
H:
ROTARY
                            VANE
                            PISTON
                            FLEXIBLE MEMBER
                            SCREW
                            PERISTALTIC
                            GEAR
                            LOBE
                            CIRCUMFERENTIAL PISTON
                            SCREW
   Figure 4-2.  Classification of displacement pumps.
                   4-4

-------
                       POINT OF ENTRANCE      ... -...
                       TO IMPELLER VANES      [fj°ew
                                                       .UTE
                                                   IMPELLER
                               SECTION THROUGH IMPELLER AND
                              VOLUTE ALONG MEAN FLOW SURFACE
Figure 4-3. Centrifugal pump construction.
                     4-5

-------
     The canned-motor pump, a special type of centrifugal pump as shown in
Figure 4-4, is widely used in the chemical industry.  Canned-motor pumps are
described in Section 4.1.3.
     4.1.1.2  Displacement Pumps.  The total dynamic head developed by a
centrifugal, mixed-flow, or axial-flow pump is uniquely determined for any
given flow by the speed at which it rotates.  Positive-displacement pumps
and those that approach positive displacement will ideally produce whatever
head is impressed upon them by the restrictions to flow on the discharge
side.  Actually, neglecting slippage, the maximum head attainable is
determined by the power available in the drive and the strength of the pump
parts.
     In general, overall efficiencies of positive-displacement pumps are
higher than with centrifugal equipment because internal losses are mini-
raized.  On the other hand, the flexibility of each piece of equipment in
handling a wide' range of capacities is somewhat limited.
     Reciprocating Pumps
     There are three classes of reciprocating pumps:  piston pumps, plunger
pumps, and diaphragm pumps.  Reciprocating pumps work on the principle of a
reversing piston motion within a cylinder drawing in fluid on the ingoing
stroke and delivering it under pressure on the outgoing stroke.  To do this
they require one-way valves (or equivalent piston-swept ports) on both the
suction and delivery sides.
     A variety of configurations are possible depending on the mechanical
system used to derive the reciprocating piston motion; the number of
cylinders; the valving system; etc.  The terms "piston" and "plunger" are
often used interchangeably by users and occasionally lead to confusion in
communications.  A piston, as shown in Figure 4-5, is a cylindrical disk
mounted on a smaller-diameter rod and usually fitted with some type of
sealing ring.  The rings move with the piston.  A plunger, as shown in
Figure 4-6, is a smooth rod similar to a piston rod.2  The sealing rings are
stationary, and the plunger slides through the rings.  A diaphragm is a
flexible disk or tube, as shown in Figure 4-7, that serves to isolate the
pumpage (the pumped fluid) from the piston, plunger, or atmosphere.  There-
fore, a diaphragm pump may be designated for no detectable emissions under
the provisions of Sections 264.1052(e) and 265.1052(e).  A diaphragm
                                     4-6

-------
Figure 4-4. Chempump canned-motor pump.
                .4-7

-------
             Figure 4-5.  A piston mounted on a rod.
                 (Courtesy Union Pump Co.).
     Figure 4-6. A plunger. (Courtesy Union Pump Co.)
 TUBUl AR  DIAPHRAGM
DISC DIAPHRAGM
Figure 4-7. Two types of diaphragms used in Reciprocating pumps.

                              4-8

-------
may be mechanically actuated (connected directly to a reciprocating rod) or
hydraulically actuated (driven by liquid that is oscillated by a piston or
plunger).  Additional information on the diaphragm pump can be found in
Section 4.1.3, "Sealless Pumps."
     Rotary Pumps                                                    .
     The main pumping action of rotary pumps is caused by relative movement
between the stationary and rotating elements of the pump.  These pumps  are
distinguished from  reciprocating positive-displacement pumps in which the
main motion of the  moving elements  is reciprocating rather than rotary.
Rotary pumps  are distinguished from centrifugal pumps in which liquid
displacement  and pumping action depend on  liquid velocity by the positive-
displacement  nature of the pumping  action  of rotary pumps.
     As  a  positive-displacement pump, the  amount of liquid displaced by each
revolution of a rotary pump  is  independent of speed.  In addition,  a time-
continuous liquid  seal is maintained  between the outlet  and Inlet  ports by
the action and position  of the  pumping elements and the  close  clearances  of
the pump.  Rotary  pumps  will  handle any  liquid  that does not contain grit or
abrasive material  when constructed  of proper materials.
      Rotary  pumps  are available in  two  general  classes:   interior  bearing
and exterior bearing. The  interior-bearing type  is  used for handling
 liquids  of a lubricating nature,  and the exterior-bearing  type is  used with
nonlubrieating  liquids.   The interior-bearing  pump is lubricated  by the
 liquid being pumped, and the exterior-bearing  type is oil-lubricated.
      One of the major types  of rotary pumps is  the gear pump.   Gear pumps
 have two or more impellers  in a rotary-pump casing;  the impellers will take
 the form of toothed-gear wheels (as in Figure 4-8),  helical  gears, or  lobed
 cams.  In each case, these impellers rotate with extremely small  clearance
 between each other and between the surface of the impeller and the casing.
 Referring to Figure 4-8, the two toothed  impellers rotate as indicated by
 the arrows.  The suction connection is at the bottom.  As the spaces between
 the teeth of the impeller pass the suction opening,  liquid is impounded -
 between them, carried around the casing to the discharge opening, and  then
 forced out through this opening.   The flow of liquid is indicated by the
 arrows.                                                              ,
                                      4-9

-------
Figure 4-8. Gear-type rotary pump having two impellers.3
                     Scadooaxy      Potential
                                 kakasou
             Seal
           Figure 4-9. Horizontal screw pump.
                         4-10

-------
     The use of straight teeth in gear pumps will produce pulsations in the
discharge having a frequency equivalent to the number of teeth on both gears
multiplied by the speed of rotation.  The amplitude of these disturbances is
a function of the tooth design.  This pulsation can be eliminated by the use
of rotors having helical teeth with a suitable angle.  This in turn
introduces end thrust that, if excessive, can be balanced by the use of
double helical or herring-bone teeth.
     Another major type of rotary pump is the screw pump.  Screw pumps fall
into three distinct categories:  single screw pumps  (Archimedean screws),
rigid screw pumps, and eccentric screw pumps (progressive cavity pumps).
     The progressive cavity pump is very versatile and can handle a variety
of liquids with a high efficiency.4   It consists of  a rigid screw-form rotor
rolling in a resilient internal helical strator  of hard or soft rubber with
a moderately eccentric motion  (see  Figure 4-9).  The progressive cavity pump
can be specifically tailored to handle slurries, pastes, solids, and viscous
liquids.  These'applications are suitable largely because of the low flow
velocities realized through the pump.
4.1.2  Potential  Leak  Sources  in Pumps
     Leakage of hazardous  waste fluid to the atmosphere can occur where the
moving pump shaft meets the stationary casing.   To minimize such leakage,
two sealing techniques  are commonly applied:   packed seals  and mechanical
seals.
     Packed Seals                        ,
     Packed seals consist  of  a "stuffing box"  in the pump  casing.   Specially
selected  packing  materials (chosen  on the basis  of the  process materials  and
environment)  are  compressed  into the stuffing  box with  a packing gland,
resulting in  a tight  seal  around the shaft.  Because the shaft must move,
either  rotationally  or laterally,  lubrication  must be  supplied to  the
packing  and  shaft to  prevent  excessive heat generation  from the  friction
between  the  shaft and packing, which could  shorten the  life of  the equip-
ment.   Leaks  may  result from the degradation of  the  packing.
      Leaks  from packed seals  can often be reduced by tightening  the packing
 gland.   But  at some point the packing will  have  deteriorated to  the extent
                                     4-11

-------
that it must be replaced.  Often, pump packing can be replaced only when the
pump is out of service.
     Mechanical Seals
     Single and dual mechanical seals are used to seal pumps with rotating
shafts.  Both have the common attribute of a lapped seal face between a
stationary element and a rotating seal ring.  Although mechanical seals are
not leakless sealing devices, the leakage of organic emissions from the seal
can be minimized by a properly installed and operated mechanical seal.
     Because a mechanical seal'will leak (unless routinely replaced), the
ultimate potential for leakage can be reduced through redundancy of sealing
mechanisms.  For instance, a single seal may employ a packed seal as an
auxiliary sealing mechanism to reduce fugitive emissions.  Or the same
purpose might be just as easily accomplished with a dual mechanical seal
arrangement (either back-to-back or tandem).  As shown in Figure 4-10, the
dual mechanical seals in both arrangements form a cavity.
     In the'back-to-back arrangement, a barrier fluid circulates between the
two seals.  With the barrier fluid pressure maintained above the pump's
operating pressure, any leakage is across the inboard seal face into the
hazardous waste stream fluid and across the outboard seal face to the
atmosphere.  The tandem arrangement basically has a single seal backed up by
another single seal; both seals are mounted facing the same direction.
     The seal fluid (also referred to as the buffer or barrier fluid) is
circulated through the space between the seals.  Any hazardous waste stream
fluids that may leak into the barrier fluid across the inboard seal inter-
face may be removed with the barrier fluid or degassed in a reservoir.  The
degassed materials could then be treated in a control system.  Barrier fluid
degassing is not necessary if the pump is equipped with a system that purges
the barrier fluid into a hazardous waste stream with zero total organic
emissions to the atmosphere (Sections 264.1052[d][1][iii] and
265.1052[d][l][iii]) or if the pressure of the barrier fluid is maintained
at a level higher than the pump fluid pressure; this results in the leakage
entering the pumped fluid rather than the barrier fluid.
                                    4-12

-------
Seal box
    Throat bushing
Shaft sleeve
                         Connection A (refer to appropriate
                          primary seal piping arrangement)
                                              • Connection B (refer to appropriate
                                               auxiliary seal piping arrangement)
                                                                                   Seal end plate
I    Rotating
I    seal member

I"
     Single Seal
                                            Stationary   ^
                                            seal member-7
                        Connection A (refer to appropriate
                         primary seal piping arrangement)
       bushing (mechanical seal
restrictive bushing) or auxiliary
sealing device

        Connection C (refer to appropriate
        tandem seal piping arrangement)
                                                                             Connection B (refer to
                                                                             appropriate auxiliary seal
                                                                             piping arrangement)
                                              seal number   Throtte Dusrijng (mechanical seal
                                                            restrictive bushing) or auxiliary
                                                            sealing device

                     Connection A (refer to appropriate                .-Connection C (refer to appropriate
                      primary seal piping arrangement)—•>,         ^s   double seal piping arrangement)
                                                                             Connection B (refer to
                                                                             appropriate auxiliary seal
                                                                            . piping arrangement)
      Rotating/
      seal member
      Tandem Seals
                                            Stationary
                                            seat member
                                                          Throttle bushing (mechanical seal
                                                          restrictive bushing) or auxiliary
                                                          sealing device
      Double Seals
   NOTE These illustrations are typical and do not constitute any specific design

    Figure 4-10. Typical mechanical seal arrangements.

                          4-13

-------
     In general, mechanical seals have the advantage of improved sealing
characteristics and auxiliary control for organics that may leak into the
barrier fluid system.  However, the repair of mechanical seals can be both
costly and time-consuming.  To -eliminate a leak from a pump equipped with a
mechanical seal, the pump must be taken off-line and dismantled to permit
repair or replacement of the seal.  Dismantling a pump, however, could
result in spills of process fluid, "causing the emission of organics.  Al-
though temporary, these emissions could be greater than the continued leak
from the seal.  Additionally, care must be exercised to minimize emissions
resulting from dismantling the pump.
4.1.3  Seal less Pumps
     In addition to the pump types and seal designs discussed above, several
types of sealless technology are available.  Seal less pumps are designed not
to leak at all; i.e., they do not have an externally actuated shaft pene-
trating the pump housing.  Therefore, a sealless pump can be designated for
no detectable emissions under the provisions of Sections 264.1052(e) and
265.1052(e).
     Seal!ess pumps are very widely used for handling toxic, noxious, and
explosive liquids, e.g., acids, bleaches, poisonous solvents, and active
pharmaceutical compounds.  They require less maintenance than sealed pumps,
which saves on maintenance costs and reduces downtime.  However, sealless
pumps generally cost twice as much or more initially as sealed pumps.  By
and large, the overall economics will vary from one application to another
and should be based on many factors such as power consumption; initial cost;
cost of maintenance; an'd probable cost of cleanup, repair, and unplanned
downtime due to failure.
     Figure 4-11 shows four types of sealless pumps.5  in the gear and
centrifugal types, note that the pumped fluid is isolated from the
atmosphere by solid metal.  In the double-diaphragm type, the isolation is
achieved by two flexible membranes.
     Seal!ess Centrifugal Pumps
     In a sealless centrifugal pump design, the manufacturer replaces the
standard shaft and seal with a sealless drive.  Figure 4-11 shows a
magnetically coupled centrifugal pump; the impeller shaft, surrounded by
magnets, is supported on bearings within a metal containment can.  Outside
                                    4-14

-------
Thruit
washers
Outer
coupling
                                                , Motor
Inner coupling
                                                    .. 0-ring
                                                               Outer
                                                               coupling.
                                                                   tt Bearing
                                                         Motor
                                                         shaft
                                                  •Inner
                                                   coupling
                                                                   Gear
      Impeller
                                             "Pedestal
                                                             Magnets
           a. Magnetically-coupled centrifugal pump
           Outlet
                                                                                           Pedestal
                                                                       c. Magnetically-coupled gear pump
  Volute-^
        Conuinment
        can,
 Inlet

                                                          Outlet EE=
                                                 "• Bearing



      Impeller      BJI             »Motor rotor/pump shaft



              b. Canned motor centrifugal puma
                                                                     Cam
                             Inlet ^M
                                  d. Hydraulieally-lMeked diaphragm metartng pump
         Figure 4-11. Seailess pumps use magnetic couplings, canned motors, or diaphragms
                            to isolate pumped liquid below from atmosphere.
                                                   4-15

-------
the can is another set of magnets attached to the motor shaft.  As the motor
turns the outer coupling, magnetic attraction forces the inner coupling,  and
thus the shaft and impeller, to turn also.
     The canned-motor centrifugal pump shown in Figures 4-4 and 4-11 is the
other sealless type.  These units are close-coupled designs in which the
cavity housing the motor rotor and the pump casing are interconnected.  As a
result, the motor bearings run in the process liquid and all seals are
eliminated.  Because the process liquid is the bearing lubricant, abrasive
solids cannot be tolerated.  Standard single-stage canned-motor pumps are
available for flows up to 700 gal/min and heads up to 250 ft.  Two-stage
units are also available for heads up to 600 ft.  Canned-motor pumps are
being widely used for handling organic solvents, organic heat-transfer
liquids, and light oils, as well as many clean toxic or hazardous liquids,
or where leakage is an economic problem.
     Such pumps are built by machining an electric-motor stator and rotor to
make room for the shaft sleeve and containment can.  Because this arrange-
ment alters the standard dimensions, it makes for a less efficient motor
that gives off more heat.  For this reason, such pumps often include cooling
systems.  Magnetically coupled pumps do not have such heat buildup.
     Seal!ess Gear Pumps
     Seal!ess gear pumps are more prone to wear than centrifugal pumps
because they have internal seals and more bearings.  Such pumps are used to
transfer and circulate difficult fluids—they have been known to run for
more than a year without maintenance in hydrogen peroxide and sulfite
service—and for high-head, high-viscosity, and suction-lift applications.
     Gear pumps (Figure 4-11) require more torque than centrifugal pumps and
have to be capable of handling the startup torque as well as the running
torque.  The startup torque is about twice as great because the fluid in the
line has to be accelerated.  Such torque requirements once limited gear
pumps to capacities below 10 gpm, but more powerful magnetic materials have
extended capacities to 50 gpm or more.
     Diaphragm Pumps
     These pumps never have seals; the design does not require them.  More-
over, they are generally selected not for their sealless design but for
their ability to meter precisely and to handle abrasives, slurries, and
                                    4-16

-------
highly viscous liquids.  Because diaphragm pumps (Figure 4-11) have a
pulsing action, they cannot be used in applications that demand steady flow.
And because they are less efficient than centrifugal or rotary pumps, they
are used mainly for fluids that other pumps cannot handle.
4.1.4  Valves
     The valve is a common element found in most TSDF serving to regulate
the flow'of fluids as well as to isolate piping or equipment for mainten-
ance.  There are four basic valve types:  globe, plug (plug valves can be
further subdivided into three categories:  conical, ball, and butterfly),
gate, and diaphragm.  These valve types are all constructed based on two
basic principles:  dutchboy (closing the pipe end) or tourniquet (squeezing
the pipe, if it is flexible).  The first principle is developed in three
ways:   (1) moving the  stopper by direct thrust onto the orifice seating  (the
basis of globe-type valves),  (2) rotating the stopper (the basis for plug-
type valves),  or  (3) sliding the stopper across the face  of the orifice
seating  (the basis of  gate-type valves).  The second principle, squeezing
action,  is the basis of  all diaphragm-type valves.  Each  valve type  has  its
own  individual characteristics and its  own advantages or  disadvantages.
Therefore, many variations of the basic types are made  by valve manufac-
turers  for a wide variety of  applications.  Table 4-1 provides a summary  of
the  four basic valve types.
     Gate Valves
      Flow  is  straight  through  in the gate  valve.   It  is opened by  raising
 its  "gate"  (more  commonly referred to as  a disk  or  wedge) up  and out of  the
 flowpath.  As  the valve  begins  to  open, the area of the flowpath changes
 very rapidly  and  nonlinearly.   Flow  in a  partially  opened valve  occurs
 around the bottom and  edges  of  the gate.   Even  fairly short  periods  of
 operation  in  this mode can  cause damage to the  valve by erosion  and  disk
 vibration.
      There are several basic types  of gate valves.   The most common  by  far
 in process  service  is  the wedge gate in which two seats sit  at a slight
 angle to the vertical.  In the closed position,  the gate seals against  both
 seats.
      There are many variations of  the basic  design, such as  the solid,  flex-
 ible,  or split (double-disk)  wedge;  inside or outside screw stem;  rising or
                                     4-17

-------
TABLE 4-1. FOUR BASIC VALVE TYPES
ADVANTAGES
GLOBE —j—
_ , 	 J 1 V 	 Best shut-off and
1 ~ 1 1 6M BALL. I I Sftwigtit through flow.

1 • — *
| Quick acting.
/*[ 7N Good regulating
BUTTERFLY (II) characteristics
VI \S Compact

GATE* J_
3 	 n Tj*" Straight through flow
DIAPHRAGM — r-
^^— ^^"rN_ Glandless.
^ — — i^^—" — • ^^L^"" Positive shut-off on
/"^ « dirty fluids

DISADVANTAGES
High head loss
Temperature limitations on
PTFE sleeved valves and
need for attention to 'lubricant'
in lubricated valves

Temperature limited
by seating material


Metal to metal seated (ype does
not give tight shut-off.
Temperature limited by seating
material on resilient seated type

Slow acting.
Bulky
Pressure and
temperature limited
by diaphragm
material'

                4-18

-------
nonrising stem; screwed, union, welded, bolted, or pressure-seal bonnet
joint; screwed or bolted packing gland; threaded, seal-welded, pressed, or
integral seat rings; handwheel, gear operator, or lever; screwed, socket-
welded, flanged butt-welded, grooved, or clamp end; and numerous other
variations (Figure 4-12).  The classic steel gate valve is one having
flanged ends, bolted bonnet, rising stem, outside screw and yoke (stem
bushing support), handwheel operator, solid wedge, with hard-faced seat
rings.
     Globe Valves
     By far the most common type of throttling valve in process service-is
the globe valve.  Other types, such as the angle, needle, and Y-pattern
valves, represent little more  than variations  on the same operating
principle (Figure 4-13).
     This valve gets its name  from its shape.  It differs from  a gate  valve
in that the disk moves  directly away from, not across,  the seat when it is.
opened.  This  requires  that the seat be  concentric with the stem, which
places.it at  right  angles  to  the flowpath.  This causes the flowstream to
make  two right-angle turns, which generates a pressure  drop quite a bit
higher than that produced  by  the gate  valve.   Because the flow  area changes
linearly with  the stem  movement, and the flowpath  (as the disk  begins  to
lift  off the  seat)  is fairly  streamlined,  this valve  is ideal for control
applications.
      Differently shaped disks can produce different control characteristics.
The most common  disk  is the plug type  with a  conical  seating  surface  (Fig-
ure 4-13).   Others  include the ball-type disk with a  spherical  seating sur-
face.   Used  for  handling viscous fluids, it is slightly less  likely  to bind
 in the seat.   The  V-port disk gives  very fine control  at  low  flow  rates.
 Smaller seat diameters  provide fine  throttling at low flow  rates.
      The globe valve can seat much  tighter than  a gate valve  under average
 operating  conditions.   This is important in high-pressure service  and in
 handling a very  light gas (such as  hydmnen), and it  is possible because the
 force applied to the stem is transmitted directly as  a seating  force,  rather
 than  as the wedging action in a gate valve.
                                     4-19

-------
Rising sttm, owUW* scrrp
                              Non-rising stem
                                                         SoMw«dg«
Double dise-
                                                             bonnet
                                                                                 Betted born**
            Figure 4-12. Some variations in gate-valve stems, discs and bonnets.
                                        4-20

-------
                                          e. Y«eattem globe valv«
                             valv*
                                                                      d. Ne*dl« vaiv«
Figure 4-13. Standard globe valve is: (a) plug-type with inside screw; variations include:
                   (b) angle valve, (c) Y-pattern and (d) needle valve.
                                     4-21

-------
     Plug Valves
     Also-basically a straight-through design, this valve's "plug" is
inserted into the flow passage.  The valve is a quarter-turn valve; i.e., it
is opened or closed by rotating the plug 90 degrees.  The plug is tapered
and is approximately the same diameter as the flow passage (Figure 4-14).
Fluid passes through a slot in the plug that usually is narrower than the
other parts of the fluid passageway.  To compensate for this,  the slot is
usually longer than the diameter of the flow passageway, and the cross-
section of the valve body opening approaching the plug changes from round to
oblong.
     By special order, the plug can be made with round holes in it, but this
is usually much more expensive than standard plugs and is only needed for
erosive service or when large objects must be passed through.   For throttl-
ing service, the plug can be made with a horizontal V-shaped opening.
     There.are basically four different types of plug valves.   In the lubri-
cated type, the plug is surrounded,by a film of grease, which  is injected
from the outside.  Hydraulic pressure keeps foreign matter from behind the
plug.  The other three types are nonlubricated.  One of these  has a plastic
sleeve, usually of polytetrafluoroethylene, over the bearing surface, and is
known as a sleeved plug.  In another, the entire waterway and  plug are lined
with plastic (or the plug may be all plastic).  The fourth type, the wedge
plug, is operated by lifting an inversely tapered plug slightly, then rotat-
ing it 90 degrees and setting it back down. , This action pulls the plug away
from a seal component (called a slip) at each port, then reseats the slips
to give a tight shutoff.  This type can also be designed as a  block-and-
bleed valve.  Of all these plug valves, the sleeved type is the most common.
Each type can be designed as a three-way or four-way valve, but only in a
plane perpendicular to the stem.
     Ball Valves
     The ball valve, which basically evolved from the plug valve, is also a
quarter-turn valve, but with a spherical closure device.  The opening in the
ball is invariably round, but usually not of the same diameter as the flow
passage.
                                    4-22

-------
Figure 4-14. Plug valve can be closed with a quarter
               turn of the handle.
                         4-23

-------
     Ball valves are capable of somewhat limited throttling.  They can be
built as three-, four-, five-, and even six-way designs with almost any
combination of flow patterns, including into the bottom of the valve.
Multiple-port valves (in which one port is shut off before another is
opened) are larger and more expensive than those in which one port is opened
before the previously open one is closed because more radial separation must
be provided.
     Ball valves are manufactured in varying degrees of sophistication,
ranging from throwaway brass valves having rubber seals to high-performance
metal-seated valves designed for handling high-pressure, 1,000 °F (537.7 °C)
abrasive catalyst or coke fines.  Most conventional ball valves have a
floating ball; that is, the ball is suspended between the two seats.  Line
pressure assists in sealing by pushing the ball into the downstream seat.
In the larger valves, the ball is normally supported by trunnions.
     Butterfly Valves                   -
     There are two different types of butterfly valves  (Figure 4-15).  One
is the so-called "rubber-lined" valve, which is the generic name for any
butterfly valve that has a disk totally concentric with the stem (Figure
4-15).^  Almost all of these valves also have a single-piece resilient seat
or liner that wraps over the end-flange sealing surfaces.  Rubber-lined
valves are almost always limited to a specific maximum pressure, which is
less than the flange rating, due to the liner and disk design.  Their
service is also limited by temperature.
     In the other type--the "high-performance," "eccentric disk," or "trun-
nion"—the center of the disk is offset slightly outward from the center!ine
of the shaft, with a spherical seating surface on the disk, and the shaft is
offset slightly from the centerline of the valve body (Figure 4-15).  This
valve seals by a combination of shaft torque and line pressure.  The high-
performance type is normally rated to full American National Standards
Institute (ANSI) flange rating, but still may have a maximum temperature
limitation due to the seat material.
     Check Valves
     Nonreturn, or check, valves take several forms,, but all operate in
essentially the same manner.  As long as fluid is flowing through the valve,
it stays open.  When fluid velocity drops to zero or actually reverses, the
                                    4-24

-------
Figure 4-15. Two forms of the butterfly valve shown above are the
           (a) rubber-lined and (b) high-performance.
                              4-25

-------
valve closes.  The selection of the specific type of check valve depends on
the response desired.  Because an operating mechanism is usually not
required, the valve is normally smaller and less expensive than other
equivalent shutoff or control valves.
     Some force in addition to the fluid flow is usually needed to close the
valve.  This force is often gravity, as in swing- and lift-check valves.  In
many types, a spring (often in addition to gravity) helps push the disk
closed.  Most spring-loaded check valves will close when, or very slightly
before, the flow velocity drops to zero.  Gravity-operated check valves
sometimes do not really close effectively'until the flow actually reverses.
Depending on the mass of the moving parts, the gravity-assisted valves may
open a little sooner or wider than spring-assisted types.
     Some check valves can be made to pass a small amount of flow in the
reverse direction by drilling a small hole in the disk or by piping a bypass
around, the valve itself.  This is usually done to keep a small amount of.
circulation in a section of line, which would not otherwise be there because
of the presence of the check .valve.
     Check valves serve a number of purposes.  In the discharge piping from
rotating equipment (such as a centrifugal pump), they prevent the fluid
stream from turning the equipment shaft backward.  They are often installed
where two flow streams come together and one is intermittent or could be
overpowered by the other.  They also keep two streams from mixing (to
prevent contamination, for instance) or prevent a section of piping from
becoming overpressured.
     Relief Valves
     Safety relief valves are spring-loaded and designed to open when
process pressure exceeds a set pressure, allowing the release of vapors or
liquids until the system pressure is reduced to its normal operating level.
When the normal pressure is reattained, the valve reseats, and a seal is
again formed.  This valve type is discussed further in Section 4.1.7 of this
document.
4.1.5  Potential Leak Sources in Valves
     Most valve designs have a valve stem that operates to restrict or to
open the valve for fluid flow.  Typically, the stem is sealed by a packing
gland or 0-ring to prevent leakage of organic emissions to the atmosphere,
                                    4-26

-------
as illustrated in Figures 4-16A-G.7  The possibility of .a leak through this
seal  makes it a potential source of fugitive emissions.  Packing glands
(stuffing boxes) are the most commonly used sealing mechanism for valves,
and a wide variety of packing materials are available to suit most opera-
tional requirements of temperature, pressure, and compatibility.  Figure
4-17 shows the basic type of stuffing box typical for valves with a rising
stem.  In this type of stuffing box, an annular chamber contains the packing
between the gland at the top and a shoulder at the bottom.  The underside of
the stuffing box carries a back seat that, combined with a corresponding
seat around the stem, is utilized to isolate the packing from the fluid of
the system when the valve is fully open.  Packed glands can accommodate both
linear and rotary motions (for rotary values).  However, 0-rings and most
other types of gland rings can prove to be less satisfactory with linear
motion and accommodate only rotary motion (see Figure 4-18).8  Because of
design and materials limitations, 0-rings are much less common as the
sealing mechanism for valves in chemical plants.
     With time  and prolonged use, the packing or sealing 0-ring  in the valve
can fail.  To eliminate  the leakage of organics  resulting from the seal
failure,  the valve packing and seals must be  replaced or the  valve body
repaired  or  replaced.
4.1.6  Leak!ess  Valve Technology
      Some valve types and designs  have  little or no  potential for stem
leakage  of organic emissions:  valves with  "leakless"  or  "sealless"
technologies.   These valves may be designated for  no detectable  emissions
under the provisions of  Sections 264.1057(f)  and 265.1057(f)  because  they
eliminate the  conventional seals that  allow leaks  from around the valve
stem.  Control  efficiencies  of  100 percent  have  been assigned to the  equip-
ment  by  EPA.   However,  leakless  valves  do  fail  in  service for a variety of
 reasons;  when  failure occurs,  a  significant leak can develop if the  valve  is
 not  backed with conventional  packing.   Basically,  three valve technologies
 can  be considered leakless.   These three leakless  valve types are sealed-
 bellows  valves, diaphragm valves,  and pinch valves.
      Sealed  Bellows  Valves
      Sealed  bellows  valves  use a bellows to seal the valve stem and  totally
 eliminate media loss due to  valve stem leakage.   An example.of  this  seal  is
                                     4-27

-------
         Potential leak
            areas
Fttqf
              Figure 4-16A. Lubricated plug valve.
                                           . leakazeu
                                               Figure 4-16B. Bail valve.
                                             4-28

-------
Packing
 giand

Packing
       Seat
                           Packing nut
                                Bodv
Figure 4-16C. Manual globe valve.
                              Disk
 Figure 4-16D. Globe control valve.
            4-29

-------
                                Packing nut

                               Potential
                              leak areas
                                                     Potential
                                                     leak areas
                               Packing nut

                             Packing gland


                                  Packing
                                                                                         Disk, or
                                                                                         wedge
Figure 4-16E. Nonrising stem gate valve.
Figure 4-16F.  Rising stem gate valve.
                                                                    Disk
                                  Figure 4-16G.  Butterfly valve.
                                            4-30

-------
Figure 4-17. Basic stuffing box.  (Courtesy of Babcock-Persta
          Armaturen-Vertriebsgesellschaft mb.H.)
 Figure 4-18. Valve stem seal with expanded graphite rings.
                         4-31

-------
presented in Figure 4-19.  The bellows unit is a flexible metallic membrane.
The bottom end of the bellows is welded around the lower end of the stem,
                                                              *
and the top end is welded to some part of the valve casing.  A stem antiro-
tation device is incorporated in-the design to prevent torque being applied
to the bellows as the valve is opened and closed.
     The bellows sealing feature, in theory, can be applied to most types  of
valves.  However, at the present time, the only valves that are widely
available commercially are the globe and gate types.  Sealed bellows valves
in the ball-and-plug configurations are also now being produced by a single
valve manufacturer.
     Sealed bellows valves are used for streams in toxic chemical  service
(including organic streams), for high vacuum service where conventional
valves tend to loose their packing, and for other very specialized service
(e.g., the nuclear power industry).  It is not unusual when dealing with
hazardous media to fit sealed bellows valves with an additional backup gland
having conventional packing or seals or with a leak detector in case of
failure.
     Restrictions that limit the application of sealed bellows valves
include, pressure and temperature limits, and stream or media characteris-
tics.  The maximum high-pressure bellows valve is rated at 1,500 Ib ANSI
(2,500 psig).  The most frequently occurring valve pressure range is from
150 to 300 Ib within which are reported to be about 80 percent of the
demands of the chemical industry.
     Another concern associated with this type of valve is the uncertainty
of the life of the bellows seal.  The metal bellows are subject to corrosion
and fatigue under severe operating conditions.  Corrosivity is influenced  by
temperature and other factors.  Underestimating corrosion can lead to
premature failures.  Another stream characteristic that can result in
problems for sealed bellows valves involves the presence of particulates  (or
slurries) and media with the potential to go solid.  Particles (solids)  can
build up around the bellows and impede operation.  Also, slurries and high-
velocity streams can cause mechanical vibration of the bellows, which can
lead to stress problems and early failure.  Cost for sealed bellows valves  .
can be as much as two to five times the price of conventional valves.
                                    4-32

-------
8ELLOWS
                                    BODY
                                   SONNET
 Figure 4-19.  Example of bellows seals.
                     4-33

-------
     Diaphragm Valves
     The potential for leakage around the stem of a diaphragm valve is
eliminated by isolation of the valve stem from the hazardous waste stream
fluid by a flexible elastomer diaphragm.  The two major types of diaphragm
valves are weir valves and straight-through valves.  The former has a
dividing weir on the valve's body below which is a mounted elastomeric '
diaphragm (see Figure 4-20).  In the closed position, the diaphragm is
seated on the weir.  The design of the straight-through diaphragm valve
consists of either a parallel, top-tapered, or venturi-pattern body with
closure provided by a wedge-shaped projection of the diaphragm.
     The diaphragm valve has an excellent reputation for handling corrosive
and toxic solutions, as well as solids-laden liquids.  If materials are
properly selected, these valves can cater to the majority of corrosive and
erosive streams.
     The'major disadvantage of the diaphragm valve is that temperature and
pressure extremes damage and destroy the diaphragm in the.valve.  Depending
on the material, these valves can accommodate temperatures up to 350 °F
(176.6 °C) and a maximum pressure of 350 psi (weir)/225 °F (107.2 °C)  and
100 psi (straight-through).  Diaphragm valves are not typically backed up
with conventional packing around the stem.
     With regard to purchase price and maintenance cost, the diaphragm valve
is competitive with the conventional valve and sells at a cost of 10 to
30 percent more than conventional valves (depending on the size and applica-
tion, the diaphragm valve could be less expensive than the conventional
valve).
     Pinch Valves
     The concept of a double diaphragm, with two flat sheets being forced
against each other to close the valve, has appeared in valves for service
with corrosives and slurries.  This form of the pinch valve or clamp valve,
as illustrated in Figure 4-21, is similar to the diaphragm valve in design
and also has an isolated stem to prevent leaks.
     The basic components of the valve are a metal body, consisting of two
flanged half cylinders bolted together, and two elastomer liner halves.  In
its simplest form, it can consist merely of a length of elastomeric tube
                                    4-34

-------
DIAPHRAGM
      DISK
                                                                ST5M
                                                                DIAPHRAGM
             Figure 4-20.  Diagrams of valves with diaphragm seals.10
                                     4-35

-------
                  SHUT
Figure 4-21.  Handwheel operated pinch valve.
                       4-36

-------
fitted with a pinch bar mechanism.  More usually,  the molded rubber tube is
housed in a metal body that also incorporates the pinching mechanism.
     Available elastomer materials provide a wide variety of applications
for the pinch valve.  In general, the pinch valve is suitable for handling
corrosive media, solids in suspension, and slurries because the valve can be
tightly shut off and will even close when entrained solids are present in
the fluid.
     The problems associated with the pinch valve are flutter, low pressure
rating, and compatibility of elastomer and hazardous waste stream.  The
pressure and temperature ratings  are also limited to those of the diaphragm
material.
4.1.7  Pressure  Relief Devices
      Engineering codes require that pressure-relieving devices or systems be
used  in applications where the process pressure may exceed the maximum
allowable  working pressure of the vessel.  The most common type of pressure-
relieving  device used  in chemical process units is the pressure relief valve
 (Figure 4-22).   Typically, safety relief valves are spring-loaded and
designed to  open when  the  process pressure exceeds a  set  pressure, allowing-
the  release  of  vapors  or  liquids until  the system  pressure  is  reduced to its
normal operating level.  When the normal pressure  is  reattained,  the valve
 reseats,  and a  seal  is again  formed.   The  seal  is  a  disk  on  a  seat,  and  the
 possibility  of  a leak  through this  seal  makes  the  pressure  relief valve  a
 potential  source of organic  fugitive  emissions.  Two  potential  causes of
 leakage  from safety relief valves are "simmering or popping,"  a condition
 due to the system pressure being close to  the  set  pressure  of the valve, and
 improper reseating of the valve after a relieving  operation.
      Rupture disks are also common  in chemical  process units.   These disks
 are made of a material that ruptures  when  a set pressure is exceeded,  thus
 allowing the system to depressurize.   A variety of types of rupture disks
 have been develdped.  The following kinds  of ductile metal  rupture disks are
 in common use (see Figure 4-23):
      •    Prebulged solid construction
      •    Prebulged, composite construction
      •    Flat, composite construction
      •    Reverse buckling.
                                     4-37

-------
          Possible
          Leak Area
                                \LT

                        Process Side
Figure 4-22. Diagram of a 'spring-loaded relief valve.
                 4-38

-------
                                                              r
        t
                                                                       /
                                                                           '	1
                                                                                    Vent Side Holder
 Safety Oisc&  ;
Identification Tag i
a. Exploded view of prebuiged composite rupture
   disc showing slotted top section followed by
   seal member and vacuum support.  (Courtesy
   of Marston Palmer Limited.)
b. Rupture disc device with reverse buckling disc
   of pure graphite, (courtesy of Marston Palmer
   Limited.)
c.  Rupture disc device, containing two
   rupture discs in series (Courtesy
   of Sempell Armaturen.)
     d. Rupture disc mounted to the inlet
        side of pressure relief valve.
        (Courtesy of Sempell Armaturen.)
                                       Figure 4-23. Rupture disc.

                                                4-39

-------
The advantage of a rupture disk is that the disk seals tightly and does not
allow any organic emissions to escape from the system under normal opera-
tion.  However, when the disk does rupture, the system depressurizes until
atmospheric conditions are obtained.  This could result in an excessive
release of fugitive emissions.
4.1.8  Flanges
     Flanges are bolted, gasket-sealed junctions (Figure 4-24) used wherever
pipe or other equipment such as vessels, pumps, valves, and heat exchangers
may require isolation or removal.  Normally, flanges are employed for pipe
diameters for 50 mm or greater and are classified by pressure and face type.
     Flanges may become fugitive emission sources when leakage occurs due to
improperly chosen gaskets or a poorly assembled flange.  The primary cause
of flange leakage is due to thermal stress that piping or flanges in some
services undergo; this results in the deformation of the seal between the
flange faces.1^
4.1.9  Compressors
     Gas compressors used in chemical process units are similar to pumps in
that they can be driven by rotary or reciprocating shafts (Figure 4-25).
They are also similar to pumps in their need for shaft seals to isolate the
process gas from the atmosphere.  As with pumps, these seals are likely to
be the source of fugitive emissions from compressors.
     Shaft seals for compressors may be chosen from several different types:
labyrinth, restrictive carbon rings, mechanical contact, and liquid film.
All of these seal types are leak restriction devices; none of them com-
pletely eliminates leakage.  Many compressors may be equipped with ports in
the seal area to evacuate gases collecting there.
     The labyrinth type of compressor seal is composed of a series of close
tolerance, interlocking "teeth" that restrict the flow of gas along the
shaft.  A straight-pass labyrinth compressor seal is shown in Figure 4-26.
Many variations in "tooth" design and materials of construction are avail-
able.  Although labyrinth-type seals have the largest leak potential of the
different types, properly applied variations in "tooth" configuration and
shape; can reduce leakage by up to 40 percent over a straight-pass-type
labyrinth.14
                                    4-40

-------
Figure 4-24. Flanged joint
                         12
            4-41

-------
Figure 4-25. A typical single-stage water-cooled reciprocating compressor;
                   A screw-type rotary compressor.
                                 4-42

-------
»O*rT MAY tf ADDED
*OH SCAVENGING OK
IMEKT-CAS SEAUMO
   Teeth
                                      Poceadal
                                      leak area
Figure 4-26.  Labyrinth shaft seal (two views).
                      4-43

-------
     Restrictive carbon ring seals consist of multiple stationary carbon
rings with close shaft clearances.  This type of seal may be operated dry-or
with a sealing fluid.  Restrictive ring seals can achieve lower leak rates
than the labyrinth.15  A restrictive ring seal is shown in Figure 4-27.
     Mechanical contact seals (shown in Figure 4-28) are similar to the
mechanical seals described for pumps.  In this type of seal, clearance
between the rotating and stationary elements is reduced to zero.  Oil or
another suitable lubricant is supplied to the seal faces.  Mechanical seals
can achieve the lowest leak rates of the types described here,  but they are
not suitable for all processing conditions.17
     Centrifugal compressors also can be equipped with liquid film seals.  A
diagram of a liquid film seal is shown in Figure 4-29.  The seal is formed
by a film of oil between the rotating shaft and stationary gland.  When the
circulating oil is returned to the oil reservoir, process gas can be
released to the atmosphere.18  TO eliminate the release of organic emissions
from the seal oil system, the reservoir can be vented to a control device.
4.1.10  Sampling Connections
     The operation of a hazardous waste management unit is checked periodi-
cally by routine analyses of influents and effluents.  To obtain representa-
tive samples for these analyses, sampling lines must first be purged prior
to sampling.  The purged liquid or vapor is sometimes drained onto the
ground or into a sewer drain, where it can evaporate and release organic
emissions to the atmosphere.
     To eliminate any possible emissions, closed-purge sampling can be used.
In this case, the purge material is eliminated either by collecting the
purge material in a closed collection system for eventual recycle or
disposal or by returning the purge material directly to the process.
4.1.11  Open-Ended Lines
     Some valves are installed in a system so that they function with the
downstream line open to the atmosphere.  Examples are purge valves, drain
valves, and vent valves.  A faulty valve seat or incompletely closed valve
would result in leakage and fugitive organic emissions to the atmosphere.
4.2  UNCONTROLLED FUGITIVE EMISSION ESTIMATES
     The development of uncontrolled fugitive emission factors for SOCMI is
described in Reference 19.  The resulting emission factors are shown in
                                    4-44

-------
                           MAT 1C
                       ACOCOFOft
                       VACUUM
Figure 4-27.  Restrictive-ring shaft seal.16
             4-45

-------
                 STATIOMAXY S£AT }

                      CAMBOM KING
    KOTATINC SEAT
                         COMTAMIMATEO
                         O«.OOT
     Figure 4-28.  Mechanical (contact) shaft seal.
                   INNtK IUSMIMC    OUTS* IUSMINC I
      CAS
      r*cssu*c
                C3MTAMINATZ9
                oo. our
en our
Figure 4-29.  Liquid film shaft seal with cylindrical bushing.
                              4-46

-------
Table 4-2.  These emission factors" are applicable to equipment containing or
contacting hazardous wastes with organic concentrations at least 10 percent
by weight at TSDF.  Generally, the method for developing emission factors
used leak/no leak emission factors derived from data in Reference 21 coupled
with leak frequencies from Reference 22 to arrive at average emission
factors for equipment in SOCMI.  However, there are three exceptions:  (1)
The gas valve emission factor reported in Reference 23 for SOCMI units had a
smaller confidence interval associated with it, and it was substituted for
the emission factor derived from data in Reference 24; (2) the emission
factor for sampling connections is based on the amount of sampling purge
reported  for every 1,000 barrels of refinery throughput25 and the average
count of  sampling connections per 1,000 barrels of refinery throughput
reported26; (3) the emission  factor for open-ended lines represents valve
seat leakage only.  The emissions attributable to the  valve, such as from
around the stem and packing,  are accounted for in the  valve emission factor.
4.3  EQUIPMENT LEAK CONTROL
     No single emission reduction technique can be used  for all  fugitive
emission  sources.  The techniques used  to control emissions from equipment
leaks can be classified into  two categories:  equipment  and work practices.
An  equipment control  technique  means  that some piece  of  equipment  is used  to
reduce or eliminate  emissions.  A common  example  is an add-on control  device
such as  a vapor  incinerator that  is  used  to  reduce organic  emissions from a
process  vent.   For  fugitive emission  sources,  equipment  controls include:
 (1)  leak!ess technology for valves  and  pumps;  (2) plugs,  caps,  blinds,  etc.,
for.open-ended  lines; (3)  rupture  disks and  soft-seats (0-rings) for pres-
sure relief devices;  (4)  dual mechanical  seals with  barrier fluid/degassing
vent systems  for rotary equipment;  (5)  closed-loop  sampling systems;  and (6)
enclosure of seal area/vent to a  combustion  control  device for  dynamic
 seals.   These  equipment control techniques  can generally attain up to  100
 percent  reduction of emissions, depending on the control efficiency of the
control  device.   Mechanical  seals and those techniques that rely on a
 combustion  control  technique  have been assigned  an  overall control effi-
 ciency of 95 percent, which is consistent with the efficiency assigned to
 some typically applied recovery techniques.
                                     4-47

-------
      TABLE 4-2.  EMISSION FACTORS FOR LEAKS FROM .PROCESS EQUIPMENJ20
       Equipment
Emission factors,
   kg/h/source
Pump seals
  Light liquid
  Heavy liquid
Valves
  Gas
  Light liquid
  Heavy liquid
Compressor seals
Safety relief valves—gas
Flanges
Open-ended lines
Sampling connections
     0.0494
     0.0214

     0.0056
     0.0071
     0.00023
     0.228
     0.104
     0.00083
     0.0017
     0.0150
                                     4-48'

-------
     The control  techniques used for the largest number of fugitive emission
sources are work practices.  The primary work practice applied to. pressure
relief devices, valves, pumps, and other sources is leak detection and
repair (LDAR) of sources.  The'control effectiveness of both work practices
and equipment control techniques is presented in Table 4-3.
     The following subsections summarize the equipment leak control require-
ments of Parts 264 and 265, Subpart BB.  Subpart BB incorporates sections of
40 CFR 60, Subpart VV, .Standards of Performance for Equipment Leaks of VOC
in the Synthetic Organics Chemicals Manufacturing  Industry, and of 40 CFR
61, Subpart  V, National  Emission Standard for Equipment Leaks (Fugitive
Emission Sources).
4.3.1  Pumps  in Light-Liquid  Service  (Sections 264.1052 and 265.1052)
     This  paragraph  summarizes the equipment leak  requirements for pumps  in
light-liquid service.  Light-liquid service  is determined  by  the methods  in
Sections 264.1063(h)  and 265.1063(h),  as described in  Chapter 6,0  of  this
document.   Each pump in  light-liquid  service must  be  in the facility  LDAR
program.   The LDAR program requires each pump to be monitored monthly to,
detect  leaks (Sections 264.1052[a]  and 265.1052[a]) with  a portable organic
vapor  analyzer following EPA  Reference Method 21 protocol  (Method  21  is
described  in Appendix B, and  its  use  relative to these rules  is  discussed in
Chapter 6.0 of this  document).   In addition  to  the monthly monitoring
requirements, each pump  in light-liquid service must  be checked  weekly  by
visual  inspection for indications of  liquid  dripping  from the pump seal.
The following exceptions to Sections  264.1052(a)  and  265.1052(a)  are
 provided:
      •    The pump is equipped with a dual  mechanical seal system (see
           Section 4.1.2 for a description of dual  mechanical  seals)  that
           includes a barrier fluid system and a sensor that will detect
           failure of the seal system, the barrier fluid system,  or both
           (Sections  264.1052[d] and 265.1052[d]).
      •    The pump  is designated, as described in Sections 264.1064(g)(2)
           and 265.1064(g)(2), for no detectable emissions.   No detectable
           emissions are indicated by a portable organic vapor analyzer
           reading of  less than 500 ppm above background.  The pump must also
           meet the  requirements of Sections 264.1052(e) and  265.1052(e).
           Pumps that  can be  designated for no detectable  emissions are
           described  in  Section 4.1.3.
                                     4-49

-------
        TABLE 4-3.  EFFECTIVENESS OF CONTROLS REQUIRED BY STANDARDS27
  Emission source
           Control technique
                                                                 Control
                                                               efficiency,
Pump seals
  Light liquid
  Heavy liquid

Compressors
Flanges

Valves
  Gas
  Liquid

Safety/relief valves
  Gas
  Liquid

Sampling connections

Open-ended lines
LDAR
NA

Mechanical seals with barrier fluid
systems and control of degassing
vents
NA
LDAR
LDAR
Rupture 'disk systems
Rupture disk systems

Closed purge sampling

Caps, plugs, or other equipment that
will close the open line .
 61
  0

100
 73
 59
100
100

100

100
LDAR s Leak detection and repair.
  NA = Not applicable.
                                    4-50

-------
          The pump is  equipped with  -a closed-vent system capable of. captur-
          ing and transporting any leakage from the seal  or seals to a 95-
          percent efficient control  device as required by Sections 264.1060
          and 265.1060 (Sections 264.1052[f]  and 265.1052[f]).
     A pump is determined to be leaking if an instrument reading of 10,000
ppm or greater is measured or there are indications of liquid dripping from
the pump seal (Sections 264.1052[b]  and 265.1052[b]).   When a leak is
detected, it must be repaired as soon as practicable,  but not later than 15
calendar days after it is detected unless the delay of repair standards
(Sections 264.1059 and 265.1059)' apply.  (Note: The term "practicable"
refers to a balance between eliminating a source of organic emissions and
allowing the operator sufficient time to obtain necessary repair parts and
maintain some degree of flexibility  in overall plant maintenance schedul-
ing.)  The first  attempt at repair must be made within 5 calendar days of
the leak being detected  (Sections 264.1052[c] and 265.1052[a]).  First
attempts at  repair include, but are  not  limited to, the  following:.  •
tightening of packing gland nuts  and injection of  lubricant  into  lubricated
packing.
      Delay of repair  for equipment  for which  leaks  have  been detected  is
allowed  if a hazardous waste  management  unit  shutdown  is required.   In  such
a  case,  repair of this equipment  must be made before  the end of the next
hazardous waste  management unit shutdown (Sections  264.1059[a]  and
265.1059[a]).  Delay  of  repair also is  allowed  for equipment that  is
 isolated from the hazardous waste management unit  and that does not continue
 to contain  or contact hazardous waste with organic concentrations  of at
 least 10 percent by weight (Sections 264.1059[b]  and  265.• 1059[b]).   Provi-
 sions specific to pumps  allow delay of repair if repair requires the use of
 a  dual mechanical seal  system that  includes  a barrier fluid system and
 repair is completed  as soon as practicable,  but not later than 6 months
 after the leak was  detected (Sections 264.1059[c]  and 265.1059[c]).
 4.3.2  Valves in Gas/Vapor Service or in Light-Liquid Service (Sections
        264.1057  and 265.1057)
      This paragraph summarizes the equipment leak requirements for valves in
 gas/vapor service or in light-liquid service.  A valve  is in gas/vapor
 service if it contains or contacts  a hazardous waste stream that is in the
                                     4-51

-------
gaseous state at operating conditions (Section 264.1031).  Light-liquid

service is determined by the'methods in Sections 264.1063(h) and

265.1063(h), as described in Chapter 6.0 of this document.  Each valve in

gas/vapor service or light-liquid service must be. in the facility LDAR

program.  The LDAR program requires that valves be monitored monthly for

leaks with a portable organic vapor analyzer following EPA Reference Method

21 protocol (Method 21 is described, in Appendix B, and its use relative to

these rules is discussed in Chapter 6.0 of this document).

     Any valve for which a leak is not detected for 2 successive months may

be monitored the first month of each succeeding quarter, beginning with the

next quarter, until a.leak is detected (Sections 264.1057[c][1] and

265.1057[c][l]).  Once a leak has been detected, the valve must be monitored

monthly until a leak is not detected for 2 successive months (Sections

264.1057[c][2] and 265.1057[c][2]) with the following exceptions:

     •    The valve is designated, as described in Sections 264.1064(g)(2)
          and 265.1064(g)(2), for no detectable emissions.  No detectable
          emissions are indicated by a portable organic vapor analyzer
          reading of less than 500 ppm above background.  The valve must
          also meet the requirements of Sections 264.1057(f) and
          265.1057(f).  Valves that can be designated for no detectable
          emissions are described in Section 4.1.6 of this chapter.

     •    The valve is designated, as described in Sections 264.1064(h)(1)
          and 265.1064(h)(1), as an unsafe-to-monitor valve.  A valve may be
          classified as unsafe to monitor because of process conditions such
          as extreme temperatures or pressures.  The owner or operator must
          determine that the valve is unsafe to monitor because monitoring
          personnel would be exposed to an immediate danger, and must adhere
          to a written plan that requires monitoring of the valve as fre-
          quently as practicable during safe-to-monitor times (Sections
          264.1057[g] and 265.1057[g]).  For example, some valves might be
          monitored at times when process conditions are such that the valve
          is not operating under extreme temperature and pressure as would
          be found in high-pressure polymer reactors.

     •    The valve is designated, as described in Sections 264.1064(h)(2)
          and 265.1064(h)(2), as a difficult-to-monitor valve.  Some valves
          are difficult to monitor because access to the valve bonnet is
          restricted or the valve is located in an elevated area.  The owner
          or operator must determine that the valve cannot be monitored
          without elevating the monitoring personnel more than 2 meters
          above a support surface, and a written plan must be followed that
          requires monitoring of the valve at least once per calender year
          (Sections 264.1057[h] and 265.1057[h]).
                                    4-52

-------
     •     The owner or operator elects  to  comply  with  an  allowable  percent-
          age of valves leaking of equal to  or less  than  2.0  percent  by
          meeting the requirements of Sections 264.1061 and 265.1061.
          The owner or operator elects  to  comply  with  skip period LDAR work
          practices by meeting the requirements of Sections 264.1062  and
          265.1062.
     Table 4-4 illustrates how a "skip-period" monitoring program (Sections
264.1062 and 265.1062) might be implemented  in practice.   In  this case,  the
"good performance level (2 percent or less of valves leaking)" must be met
for five consecutive quarters  (i=5) before three  quarters of  leak detection
could be skipped (m=3).  If the quarterly  LDAR program showed that 2 percent
or less of the valves  in gas service and valves in light-liquid service  or
gas/vapor service in a process .unit were leaking  for each of five consecu-
tive quarters, then three quarters could be skipped following the fifth
quarter in which the.percent of these valves  leaking was less than the "good
performance  level."  After an  additional three quarters were skipped, all
valves would be monitored again in the fourth quarter.  This strategy would
permit the owner/operator of a process unit that has consistently demon-
strated it is meeting  the "good performance level" to monitor valves  in gas
service and  valves  in  light-liquid service annually instead of quarterly.
     Because the provisions of the above  alternative standards for the
valves  in gas/vapor service or light-liquid service are  similar, it  is
important to note  their differences.   The "skip  period leak detection
standard" can only be applied  if  the requirements of 2614.1057 and  265.1057
have been met and  no leak has  been detected for  two consecutive  quarters.
However,  the "percentage  of  valves allowed  to leak  standard"  does  not
require the  valve  standards  of Sections 264.1057 and  265.1057 to be  met
before it is applicable.  Another difference  is  the frequency of monitoring.
For example, with  the "skip  period leak detection standard,"  if  a  period of
two consecutive quarters  had a percentage of  2 percent or less  leaking
valves,  the owner or operator may begin to  skip  one of the quarterly leak
detection periods.  Accordingly,  three quarterly periods can be  skipped
 after  five consecutive quarters with 2 percent or less  leaking  valves.   In
 contrast, with  the "percentage of valves  allowed to leak standard,"  the
 valves are monitored once initially, annually, and at times  requested by the
 Regional  Administrator.
                                     4-53

-------
         TABLE 4^4.  ILLUSTRATION OF A SKIP-PERIOD MONITORING PROGRAM*
Leak Leak rate of Quarterly Good
detection valves during action taken performance
period period, % (monitor vs skip) level achieved?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
3.1
0.8
1.4
1.3
1.9
0.6
—
—
—
3.8
1.7
1.5
0.4
1.0
0.9
--
--
—
0.9
--
—
..
1.9
Monitor
Monitor
Monitor
Monitor
Monitor
Monitor
Skip
Skip
Skip
Monitor
Monitor
Monitor
Monitor
Monitor
Monitor
Skip '
Skip
Skip
Monitor
Skip
Skip
Skip
Monitor
No
Yes 1-
Yes 2
Yes 3
Yes 4
Yes 5b
- 1
- 2
- 3
No 4C
Yes 1
Yes 2
Yes 3
Yes .4
Yes 5b
- 1
- 2
- 3
Yes 4^
- 1
- 2
- 3
Yes 4d
ais5, ms3, good performance level of 2 percent.

^Fifth consecutive quarter below 2 percent means three quarters of monitoring
 may be skipped.

cPercentage of leaks above 2 percent means quarterly monitoring reinstituted.

^Percentage of leaks below 2 percent means three quarters of monitoring may
 be skipped.
                                     4-54

-------
     As far as monitoring is concerned,  a valve is determined to be leaking
if an instrument reading of 10,000 ppm or greater is measured (Sections
264.1057[b] and 265.1057[b]).  When a leak is detected, it must be repaired
as soon as practicable, but not later than 15 calendar days after the leak
is detected unless delay of repair is allowed under the provisions of
Sections 264.1059 and 265.1059.  The first attempt at repair must be made
within 5 calendar days of the leak being detected (Sections 264.1057[d][2]
and 265.1057[d][2]).
     The general delay-of-repair provisions for equipment for which leaks
have been detected are described in Section 4.3.1 of this chapter.  Delay of
repair for valves is allowed if emissions of purged material resulting from
immediate repair are greater than the emissions likely to result from delay
of  repair and when repair .procedures are effected, the purged material -is
collected and destroyed  in  a 95-percent efficient control device  (Sections
264.1059[c] and 265.1059[c]).  Also, delay of  repair beyond  a hazardous
waste  management unit  shutdown is allowed for  a valve  if valve  assembly
replacement is  necessary during the  hazardous  waste management  unit shutdown
and valve  assembly  supplies have  been depleted from a  once-sufficient
inventory.  Delay of  repair beyond the next  hazardous  waste  management unit
shutdown will  not be  allowed unless  the  next hazardous waste management  unit
shutdown  occurs sooner than 6  months after the first hazardous  waste manage-
ment unit  shutdown  (Sections 264.1059[e]  and 265.1059[e]).
4.3.3   Pumps  and  Valves in Heavy-Liquid  Service.  Pressure  Relief  Devices
        in  Light-Liquid or  Heavy-Liquid  Service,  and Flanges  and Other
        Connectors  (Sections 264.1058 and 265.1058)
      A piece  of equipment  is in  heavy-liquid service  if  it is  not in
 gas/vapor service or in Tight-liquid service (Section  264.1031).   Each pump
 and valve in  heavy-liquid  service,  pressure  relief device in light-liquid or
 heavy-liquid  service, and  flange and other connector must be monitored
 within 5 days with a portable organic vapor  analyzer following EPA Reference
 Method 21 protocol  if evidence of a potential  leak is found by visual,
 audible, olfactory, or any .other detection method.  A leak is detected if an
 instrument reading of 10,000 ppm or greater is measured.  When a leak is
 detected, it shall be repaired as soon as practicable, but not later than 15
 calendar days  after it is  detected unless the delay of repair standards
                                     4-55

-------
described in Sections 4.3.1 and 4.3.2 of this chapter apply.  The first
attempt at repair must be made within 5 calendar days of the leak being
detected.
4.3.4  Compressors (Sections 264.1053 and 265.1053)
     This paragraph summarizes the equipment leak control requirements for
compressors.  Each compressor must be equipped with a seal system that
includes a barrier fluid system with a sensor to indicate failure of the
seal system, the barrier fluid system, or both such that leakage of process
fluid to the atmosphere is prevented (Sections 264.1053[a]-[e] and
265.1053[a]-[e]) with the following exceptions:
     •    The compressor is equipped with a closed-vent system capable of
          capturing and transporting any leakage from the seal to a 95-
          percent efficient control device as required by Sections 264.1060
          and 265.1060.
     •    'The compressor is designated, as described in Sections
          264.1064(g)(2) and 265.1064(g)(2), for no detectable emissions.
          No detectable emissions are indicated by a portable organic vapor
          analyzer reading of less than 500 ppm above background.  The
          compressor must be tested for no detectable emissions upon desig-
          nation, annually, or at other times requested by RCRA permit
          writers/reviewers (Sections 264.1053[i] and 265.1053[i]).
     A compressor is determined to be leaking if the sensor indicates fail-
ure of the seal system, the barrier fluid system, or both.  When a leak is
detected, it must be repaired as soon as practicable, but not later than 15
calendar days after it is detected unless the delay of repair standards
described in Section 4.3.1 for equipment in general apply.  The first
attempt at repair must be within 5 calendar days of the leak being detected.
4.3.5  Pressure Relief Devices in Gas/Vapor Service (Sections 264.1054
       and 265.1054)
     This paragraph summarizes the equipment leak control requirements for
pressure relief devices in gas/vapor service.  A pressure relief device is
in gas/vapor service if it contains or contacts a hazardous waste stream
that is in the gaseous state at operating conditions (Section 264.1031).
Except during pressure releases, each pressure relief device in gas/vapor
service must be operated with no detectable emissions unless the pressure
                                    4-56

-------
relief device is equipped with a closed-vent system capable of capturing and
transporting leakage from the pressure relief device to a 95-percent effi-
cient control device as required by Sections 264.1060 and 265.1060.  No
detectable emissions are indicated by a portable organic vapor analyzer
reading of less than 500 ppm above background..  After each pressure release,
the pressure relief device must be returned to a condition of no detectable
emissions as soon as practicable, but no later than 5 calendar days after
the pressure release unless the delay of repair standards  (described in
Section 4.3.1 of this chapter) apply.  No later than 5 calendar days after
the pressure release, the pressure relief device must be monitored by
portable organic vapor analyzer to confirm  the condition of no detectable
emissions.
4.3.6  Sampling Connection Systems (Sections  264.1055 and  265.1055)
     This paragraph describes the equipment leak control requirements  for
sampling connection systems.  Each sampling connection system must be
equipped with  a closed-purge  system  or closed-vent  system  except where an
alternative  means  of  emission limitation other than a thermal incinerator,
catalytic  incinerator,  flare, boiler, process heater, condenser, or  carbon
adsorption  system  is  used to  comply  with the requirements  of  the regulation.
 In-situ  sampling  systems are  also  exempt "from the  control  requirements of
this  section.   Each closed-purge or  closed-vent.system must meet the
 requirements of Sections 264.1060  or 265.1060.
 4.3.7  Qpen-Ended  Valves or Lines  (Sections 264.1056 and'265.1056)
      This  paragraph describes the equipment leak control  requirements  for
 open-ended valves  or lines.   Each open-ended valve or line must be equipped
 with a cap,  blind flange, plug, or a second valve except where an  alterna-
 tive means of emission limitation other than a thermal  incinerator,  cata-
 lytic incinerator, flare, boiler,  process  heater,  condenser,  or carbon
 adsorption system is used to comply with the requirements of the regulation.
 The cap, blind flange, plug, or second valve must  seal  the open end at all
 times except during operations requiring process fluid flow through the
 open-ended valve or line.  An open-ended valve or  line equipped with  a
 second valve must be operated in a manner  such that the valve on the  hazar-
 dous waste stream end is closed before the  second  valve is closed.  If a
                                      4-57

-------
double block-and-bleed system is used, the bleed valve or line may remain
open during operations that require venting the line between the block
valves but must be equipped with a cap, blind flange, plug, or a second
valve at all other times.
4.4  REPAIR METHODS
     The following descriptions of repair methods include only those
features of each fugitive emission source (pump, valve, etc.) that need to
be considered in assessing the applicability and effectiveness of each
method.  They are not intended to be complete repair procedures.
4.4.1  Pumps
     Many process units have spare pumps that can be operated while the
leaking pump is being repaired.  Leaks from packed seals may be reduced by
tightening the packing gland.  At some point, however, the packing may
deteriorate to the point where further tightening would have no effect or
possibly even increase fugitive emissions from the seal.  The packing can be
replaced with the pump out of service.  Appendix B gives a brief illus-
tration of how to pack a pump.  When mechanical seals are used, the pump
must be dismantled so the leaking seal can be repaired or replaced.
Dismantling pumps may result in spillage of some process fluid causing
organic emissions.  These temporary emissions could be greater than the
continued leak from the seal.  Therefore, the pump should be drained of as
much of the organics as possible before opening for seal replacement.
4.4.2  Valves
     Most valves have a packing gland that can be tightened while in
service.  Although this procedure should decrease the emissions from the
valve, in some cases it may actually increase the emission rate if the
packing is old and brittle or has been overtightened.  Plug-type valves can
be lubricated with grease to reduce emissions around the plug.  Some types
of valves have no means of in-service repair and must be isolated from the
process and removed for repair or replacement.  Other valves, such as
control valves, may be excluded from in service repair by operating proce-
dures or safety procedures (the valve should be drained of organics that are
to be properly disposed of before opening the value for repair).  In some
instances, isolating a valve may be relatively easy; for example, if a
                                    4-58

-------
manual bypass loop is available, or if the process operation can be changed
temporarily.  But in most cases, the isolation of a valve can be achieved
only by a process shutdown—a major operation.  If a hazardous waste manage-
ment unit must be shut down to isolate a leaking valve, the emissions
resulting from the shutdown might be greater than the emissions from the
valve if it were allowed to leak until the next scheduled unit shutdown
permits isolation for repair.
     Depending on site-specific factors, it may be possible to repair
process valves by injection of a sealing fluid into the source.  Injection
of sealing  fluid has been successfully used to repair  leaks from valves in
petroleum refineries in' California.28  in some cases,  valves are replaced
rather than  repaired.   Extremely small valves can be difficult to  repack and
may therefore be replaced after failure.  If  a hazardous waste management
process requires a  high degree  of purity  (such as the  recycling of pharma-
ceutical chemicals), it may also be  necessary to  replace a  valve rather than
repair it.
4.4.3  Compressors
      Leaks -from  packed  seals  may be'reduced by the  same  repair  procedure
that  was described  for  pumps.  Other types of seals  require that the
compressor  be out of service  for repair.  Because most compressors normally
do not have spares,  repair  or replacement of  the  seal  would require a
shutdown of the  process.   If  the  leak is  small, temporary  emissions
 resulting  from  a shutdown  could be  greater  than the emissions  from the
 leaking  seal.   Therefore,  a compressor should be  flushed of as  much of the
 organics  as possible before opening for seal  replacement.
 4.4.4  Safety/Relief Valves
      Emissions  of organics from safety/relief valves,  in general,  result
 from leakage of the organics around the valve seat.  The leakage is most
 commonly attributable to improper seating of the valve,  initially  or after
 overpressure relieving.  There are basically three means of el-iminating
 leaks from safety/relief valves:   (1) installation of a rupture disk in the
 line prior to the relief valve; (2) connection of the discharge port of the
 relief valve to a closed-vent system; and (3) use of soft seat technology
 such as elastomer "0-rings."
                                     4-59

-------
     Used upstream of the safety/relief valve, a rupture disk effectively
seals the process below the set pressure of the disk.  When this set
pressure is exceeded, the rupture disk will break, allowing the safety/
relief valve to relieve the process overpressure.  The American Society of
Mechanical Engineers (ASME) codes provide for such installations and set
forth the design constraints for installing rupture disks in conjunction
with relief valves.29  A$ME codes also provide design criteria to prevent
potential safety hazards from pressure building between the disk and valve.
For example, a pressure gauge and bleed valve installed between the disk and
relief valve provide an indication of leakage around the disk and the means
to relieve this pressure.
     After an overpressure relief, a new rupture disk would have to be
installed to reseal the-system.  For such an arrangement, it may be neces-
sary to install a three-way valve with a parallel relief valve.  This would
allow isolation of the rupture disk/relief valve system for disk replace-
ment, while maintaining a backup relief valve in service.  A block valve
upstream of the rupture disk/relief valve system will accomplish the same
purpose where safety codes allow the use of a block valve in relief valve
service.
     The second method that effectively eliminates leaks from safety/relief
valves is connection of the relief valve discharge port to a closed-vent
system.  A closed-vent system is composed of piping, connections, and, where
necessary, flow-inducing devices (e.g., fans, compressors); the system
transports gas or vapor to a control device such as a flare, incinerator,
boiler, or process heater.  In connecting a safety/relief valve to a closed-
vent system, any leakage through the seat of the valve will be destroyed in
the control device.
4.4.5  Flanges
     Occasionally, flange leaks can be sealed effectively by simply tighten-
ing the flange bolts.  If a flange leak requires off-line gasket seal
replacement, a total or partial shutdown will probably be necessary because
most flanges cannot be isolated.  Temporary flange repair methods can be
used in many cases.  The emissions resulting from shutting down a unit would
probably be larger than the continuous emissions that would result from not
                                    4-60

-------
shutting down the unit until the time for a shutdown for other reasons
(unless a leak is major).  Flange leak incidences are very low and many can
be corrected by on-line maintenance.  Data from petroleum refineries show
that flanges emit very small amounts of organics.30
4.5  PERCENT EFFECTIVENESS OF CONTROL BY LDAR TECHNIQUES
     For some sources of equipment leak fugitive emissions, LDAR programs
provide an effective means of reducing the total organics emitted.  The
emissions reduction potential for LDAR as a control technique is highly
variable depending on several factors.  The principal element impacting
emissions reduction is the frequency of monitoring  (surveying) sources for
leak detection.  For example, a monthly monitoring  plan would typically be
more effective in reducing emissions than a quarterly monitoring plan
because leaks would be found and corrected more quickly.  Some characteris-
tics of individual sources,also affect emission reduction:  leaking emission
factor  (as compared to the  nonleaking emission factor), leak occurrence
rate,  leak recurrence rate,  and repair effectiveness.
     Using specific source  characteristics, an evaluation of control  effec-
tiveness can be  made  for different monitoring plans using the EPA's LDAR
Model.  The  model  is  detailed  in a  technical note,31  and the development  of
the model  is summarized  in  Reference 32.  The model is  a set of  recursive
equations  that operates  on  an  overall population  of sources that can  be
segregated into  the  following  subgroups  for  any  given monitoring interval:
 (1) sources  that leak due to the  leak occurrence rate;  (2)  sources that  leak
and cannot be repaired  below the  10,000  ppmv  leak definition;  (3)  sources
that leaked, were repaired successfully,  but  leaked again  soon  after  the
 repair (i.e., leak recurrence);  and (4)  sources  that do not leak (i.e.,
 those screening  below the 10,000  ppmv leak  definition).  The  relative
 numbers of sources in each subgroup change with each monitoring interval
 step,  based on the characteristics for  the sources.
      The input parameters used in  examining an  LDAR program for valves and
 pumps based on monthly monitoring are shown in  Table 4-5.   The LDAR Model
 used to estimate emission reductions gives incremental  results as well as
 results for a program that has been established.   For the example, once a
 monthly monitoring plan is in place, emission reductions of 73 percent and
                                     4-61

-------
                  TABLE 4-5.   INPUT PARAMETERS FOR LDAR MODEL9
Values selected
Input parameter
Emission factor, kg/hr/source
Occurrence rate, percent
Initial leak frequency, percent
Fractional emission reduction from:
(a) unsuccessful repair
(b) successful repair
Fraction of sources for which
repair attempts failed
Fraction of repaired sources
•exhibiting early leak recurrence
Turnaround frequency, yr
Pumps ,
light liquid
0.0494
3.4
8.8
0
0.972
0
0
2
Valves,
gas 1
0.0056
. 3.8
11.4
0.625
0.977
0.1
0.14 '
2
Valves,
ight liquid
0.007
i
3.8
6.5
0.626
0.977
0.1
0.14
2
Selection of input parameters  discussed  in Reference 33.
                                      4-62

-------
59 percent can be expected for valves in gas and light-liquid services;
likewise, a 61-percent reduction in emissions can be achieved for pumps  in
light-liquid service under a monthly LDAR plan.
     Table 4-6 presents the estimated control effectiveness obtained using
the LDAR model for simple monthly, quarterly, semiannual, and annual moni-
toring of valves and pumps.  Additionally, the monthly/quarterly hybrid
program allowed by EPA for valves is shown.  These'results show that, as •
monitoring frequency is increased, the anticipated emission reduction
increases.  Further, the results indicate some instances where there is no
positive effect in reducing emissions due to monitoring and repair on too
infrequent a schedule.  Such results, however, are subject to interpretation
for specific cases because they are based on "average" input values for an
entire industry.
             TABLE 4-6.  ESTIMATED CONTROL  EFFECTIVENESS FOR LDAR
                PROGRAMS FOR VALVES AND  PUMPS  (decimal percent)
Monitoring interval
Monthly
Monthly/quarterly
Quarterly
Semiannual
Annual

Gas
0.73
0.65
0.64
0.50
0.24
Valves
Light-liquid
0.59
0.46
0.44
0.22
(0.19)
Pumps
0.6
-------
     The EPA intends to prepare guidance to be used by permit^writers to
help identify facilities that would potentially have high residual risk due
to air emissions.  Once the permit writer has determined that a particular
facility may have a high risk after controls required by emission standards
are in place, it may be necessary to require additional controls beyond
those levels required by the standards.  This section provides a general
discussion of the controls available for equipment le.aks (i.e., pumps,
valves, compressors, flanges, sampling connections, and so on) that would
result in control levels more stringent than the level achieved under the
requirements of Subpart BB of Parts 264 and 265.
4.6.1  Pumps
     The equipment leak rules require monthly leak detection monitoring for
pumps in light-liquid service (see Section 4.3.1).  As noted in Table 4-4,
with the implementation of the monthly LDAR for pumps, an overall emission
control efficiency of about 61 percent can be .expected.  However, the level
of control required by the LDAR program does not result in the highest level
of emission control that could be achieved for fugitive emissions from
pumps.  For example, in appropriate circumstances, pumps can be controlled
by dua.l mechanical seals that "would capture nearly all fugitive emissions.
An overall control efficiency of 95 percent could be achieved with dual
mechanical seals based on venting of the degassing reservoir to a control
device that meets the requirements of Subpart BB.  Costs for dual mechanical
seal systems can range from $4,500 to nearly $10,000 per pump for installing
a packaged and pressurized recirciilating system without a cooler, for pumps
in the 60 to 400 gal/min range (see Tables 4-7 and 4-8 for additional
information on the cost of dual mechanical seals).
     Leakless pumps (see Section 4.1.3) such as the canned-motor pump,
diaphragm pumps, and other seal!ess pumps can be used in specific
situations.  Sealless pumps are designed to eliminate the use of seals and
therefore do not leak.  These sealless pumps do have limited applicability
and care must be exercised in prescribing their use.
4.6.2  Valves
     Based on results of the EPA's LDAR model, once a monthly leak detection
monitoring plan is in place, emission reductions of 73 percent and 59
                                    4-64

-------
              TABLE 4-7.  DUAL MECHANICAL SEAL SYSTEM COST PER PUMP
            Item
1986 Dollars
                                                            Cost basis'
Double mechanical
seals (new)

  Seal cost

  Installation

  Savings on single seal
 1 Installed capital cost

Double mechanical seal
(retrofit)

  Seal cost

  Installation
   Seal  creditb


   Savings  on single seal*5
   Labor savings

   Installed capital  cost


 Barrier fluid systems for DMS


 Closed-vent system DMS



 Total new DMS system cost
   1,700

  -   475a

    (400)




.   1,775




   1,700

1,000 - 10,000




    (200)


    (400)   '
    (100)

   (2,000)c


   2,625 .


   5,250



   9,650
19 h at $25/h

Credit allowed for the cost
of a single seal that would
have been installed in place
of the DMS
 Total retrofit DMS system cost     9,875e
Installation of DMS on
existing pumps requires
approximately 20 man-hours
per pump

Return  (salvage) value of
the old seal

Credit  allowed for  the cost
of the  single seal  that
would have  been  installed  in
place of the double
mechanical  seal

4 h at  $25/h

Assumes a  retrofit
 installation  labor  of $1,000

 Reservoir  system (i.e.,
 tank,  pump, and  cooler)

 Piping, plug  valves,  and
 flame arresters  (510,500 per
 2 pumps)

 Does  not include the cost of
 a control  device^

 Does  not include the cost of
 a control  device^
                                       4-65

-------
                                TABLE  4-7  (continued)
 aTotal  installation  cost  per  pump  for  new  and  existing  pumps  in  1988  dollars.

 ^Savings  depends  on  replacement  time.   If  the  seal  is replaced upon failure,
  then credit  is allowed.   If  a single  seal  has useful life when  replaced,  no
  credit should be allowed.

 CA  chemical plant installed dual mechanical  seal  (DMS)  and barrier fluid  systems
  on 15  pumps.  The cost of materials  (including seals,  fittings,  piping,
  reservoir, and level  detector)  was ~$68,000 for 15 pumps.  The  cost  of  labor  to
  make the necessary  modifications  and  to  install  the controls was $156,000 and
  included installation of seals  on pumps  as  well  as piping for nonrecirculating
  barrier  fluid.   The total installed cost  of $224,000 yields  an  estimate  of
  514,900  per  pump.   The system includes a  pressurized reservoir  with  a level
  detector and alarm.  The barrier  fluid is  not recirculated and  degassing
  reservoir vents  are not  used.
     is  anticipated  that  the majority of TSDF  can  operate  the  DMS  barrier  fluid
  system at  a pressure  that  is  at  all  times  greater than the pump  stuffing box
  pressure.   In  such cases,  the TSDF  are not required  to degas the fluid and  vent
  the vapor  to a control  device.   With a barrier fluid higher  than the  pump
  pressure,  any  leak from a  pump seal  failure  will  be  into the waste  stream.
  There  could be TSDF that are  unable to operate the barrier fluid at a higher
.  pressure than  the  pump.  For  example,  a TSDF recycling pharmaceutical solvents
  may be unable  to tolerate  any contamination.  These  TSDF would then be required
  to  have a  closed-vent system  to  a control  device. The degree to which the
  existing TSDF  industry  can accommodate DMS with  the  higher pressure barrier
  fluid  is not known and  would  have to be determined on a  case-by-case  basis.

eVendor cost for DMS systems ranged  from $4,500 to $9,500 for an  installed
  package pressurized recirculating system without a cooler for pumps in the  60-
  to  400-gal/min range.  Total  costs  averaged  nearly $15,000  (in 1988 S) per  pump
  on  a recent retrofit  of 15 existing 150- to  200-gal/min  pumps, with pressurized
  reservoir  without  recirculating  barrier fluid and degassing  vents,  at a  large
  chemical plant.
                                       4-66

-------
        TABLE 4-8.   DUAL MECHANICAL  SEAL  SYSTEM ANNUALIZED  COST  PER  PUMP
Item Basis
Maintenance labor & material 4% TCI
(MLM)
Overhead 100% MLM
Taxes, insurance,
administrative, etc.
Capital recovery 0.16275 x TCI
DMS annual i zed cost,
$/pump in 1986
= 390
= 390
= 390
= 1,570
2,740
TCI - Total capital investment = $9,650 (see Table 4-7)
                                       4-67

-------
percent can be expected for valves in gas and light-liquid service, respec-
tively.  However, in some cases there are more stringent, technologically
feasible controls.  For example, leakless equipment for valves, such as
diaphragm and sealed bellows valves, when usable, eliminates the seals that
allow fugitive emissions; thus, control efficiencies in such cases are
virtually 100 percent as long as the valve does not fail (see Section
4.1.6).
     With regard to leakless valves, the applicability of these types of
valves is limited for TSDF, as noted by EPA in the preamble to the final
rules.  The EPA does not believe that leakless valves can be used in an
environmentally sound manner on the wide variety of operating conditions and
chemical constituents 'found nationwide in TSDF waste streams, many of which
are .highly corrosive.  The use of these leakless technologies must be speci-
fied on a case-by-case basis only.  The design problems associated with
diaphragm valves are the temperature and pressure limitations of the elas-
tomer used for the diaphragm.  It has been found that both temperature
extremes and process liquids tend to damage or destroy the diaphragm in the
valve.  Also, operating pressure constraints will limit the application of
diaphragm valves to low-pressure operations such as pumping and product
storage facilities.  There are two main disadvantages to sealed bellows
valves.  First, they are, for the most part, only available commercially in
configurations that are used for on/off valves rather than for flow control.
As a result, they cannot be used in all situations.  Second, the main
concern associated with this type of valve is the uncertainty of the life of
the bellows seal.  The metal bellows are subject to corrosion" and fatigue
under severe operating conditions.  Corrosivity is influenced by temperature
and such factors as the concentration of corrosive constituents and the
presence of inhibiting or accelerating agents.  Corrosion rates can be
difficult to predict accurately; underestimating corrosion can lead to
premature and catastrophic failures.  Even smalt amounts (trace quantities)
of corrosives in the stream can cause corrosion problems for sealed bellows
valves; these tend to aggressively attack the metal bellows at crevices and
cracks (including welds) to promote rapid corrosion.  Sealed bellows valves
particularly are subject to corrosion because the bellows is an extremely
thin meta-llic membrane.
                                    4-68

-------
     The durability of metal  bellows, is highly questionable if the valve is
operated frequently; diaphragm and bellows valves are not recommended in the
technical literature for general service.  The EPA does not believe that the
application of sealed bellows, diaphragm, or pinch valves is technologically
feasible for all TSDF valve conditions, nor is the EPA convinced that their
application-would lead to a significant reduction in emissions and health
risks.  Valve sizes, configurations, operating temperatures and pressures,
and service requirements are some of the areas in which diaphragm, pinch,
and sealed bellows valves have limitations that restrict service.  With
regard to the emission reductions achieved by sealed bellows, diaphragm, and
pinch valve technologies, these valves are not totally leakless.  The
technologies do eliminate the conventional seals that allow leaks from
around the valve stem; however, these valves do fail in service from a
variety of causes and, when failure occurs, these valves can have signifi-
cant  leakage.  This  is because these valves generally are not backed up-with
conventional stem seals or packing.  The EPA is reevaluating the control
efficiencies assigned to these technologies.  The EPA has requested in  a
separate FEDERAL REGISTER notice  (54 FR 30228, July  19, 1989) additional
information on the  applicability  and use of leakless valves at TSDF, and
this  information will be used to  further determine the applicability of
leakless valves to  TSDF waste streams  and  their potential for reduction of
emissions  and health risks.   The  cost  of some leakless valves can be signi-
ficantly higher  (i.e., two to three times) than conventional valves  in  the
same  service.
4.6.3  Compressors.  Pressure  Relief Devices.  Sampling Connections,  and
        Open-Ended  Lines
      For compressors, the  use of  mechanical seals with barrier  fluid systems
 and control  of  degassing vents  (at  95  percent)  are  required by  the
 Subpart BB standards.   This  is  considered  the most  stringent  control avail-
 able for reduction  of emissions from  compressors.   (Note;   Compressors  are
 not expected to be widely  used  at TSDF.)   The use of control  equipment
 (i.e.,  rupture  disk systems  or  closed-vent systems  to flares  or inciner-
 ators)  is  the technical  basis for controlling pressure relief devices.
 Closed purge sampling is the required control  for sampling connection
                                     4-69

-------
systems and is the most stringent feasible control.  For open-ended valves
or lines, the use of caps, plugs, or other equipment that will close the
open end is required; these are the most stringent controls possible.
4.6.4  Flanges
     Flanges are excluded from the routine LDAR monitoring requirements .""but
must-be monitored if leaks are indicated (i.e., if the operators see, hear,
or smell leaks from such equipment):  Flanges may become fugitive emission
sources when leakage occurs due to improperly chosen gaskets, poorly
assembled flanges, or thermal stress resulting in the deformation of the
seal between the flange faces.  Although the average emission from flanges
is roughly an order of magnitude less than that for valves (see Table 4-2),
the number of these components at a'TSDF may be such that, under unusual
circumstances where additional emission control at a facility is necessary,
flanges could be included in the LDAR routine monitoring program.
4.6.5  Other Considerations
     4.6.5.1  Lower Leak Definition.  The EPA has not concluded that an
effective lower leak definition (i.e., <10,000 ppm) has been demonstrated as
successful in achieving further emission reductions.  Most data developed
for current standards on leak repair effectiveness have applied 10,000 ppm
as the leak definition and therefore do not indicate the effectiveness of
repairs for leaks less than 10,000 ppm.  This subject is being further
examined by EPA, and additional guidance will be .forthcoming.
     4.6.5.2  Directed Maintenance.  There is some evidence that directed
maintenance is more effective than the conventional LDAR program; however,
available data were insufficient to serve as a basis for requiring directed
maintenance for all sources nationwide.  In directed maintenance efforts,
tightening of the packing is monitored simultaneously, and tightening is
continued only to the extent that it reduces emissions.  In contrast,
"undirected" repair means repairs such as tightening valve packings without
simultaneously monitoring results to determine whether the repair is
increasing or decreasing emissions.
     4.6.5.3  Lower Applicability Concentration.  Subpart BB equipment leak
standards apply to equipment  (i.e., pumps, valves, and so on) that contain
or contact hazardous waste streams that have a total organic concentration
                                    4-70

-------
of at least 10 percent by weight.  The 10-percent cutoff focuses control
efforts on equipment most likely to cause significant adverse human health
and environment impacts, i.e., equipment containing relatively concentrated
organics and having the greatest potential for air emissions.  Available
data from the original equipment leak studies do not suggest that fugitive
emissions from leaking equipment handling streams containing less than
10-percent organics are significant, nor have the control technologies been
evaluated for equipment containing less than 10-percent organics.  There-
fore, a requirement to extend the LDAR program to equipment containing or
contacting waste streams with less than 10-percent organics would be
difficult to evaluate with regard to overall effectiveness.  Such a
requirement should be made only  after a thorough evaluation on a case-by-
case basis.            .                  -
4.7  REFERENCES
1.   Perry, P. H., and  C. H.  Chilton  (eds).  Chemical  Engineers Handbook.
     5th  Edition.  New  York,  McGraw-Hill.   1973.  p. 6-5  - 6-26.
2.   Henshaw, T. L.   Reciprocating  Pumps.   New York, Van  Nostrand  Reinhold
     Company.  1987.  p. 8-22.
3.   Warring, R. H.  Selection,  Systems  and  Applications.   2nd  Edition.
     Houston, Gulf  Publishing Company.   1984.  p. 93-97.
4.   Reference 3.
 5.   Nasar, A. M.   When to  Select  a Sealess Pump.   Chemical  Engineering.
     May  26,  1986.   p.  85-89.
 6.   Merrick,  C.   A Guide to Selecting  Manual  Valves.   Chemical  Engineering.
      September 1,  1986.  p.  52-64.
 7.    Erikson,  D.  G., and V.  Kalcevic (IT Enviroscience).   Fugitive Emis-
      sions.  In:   Organic Chemical  Manufacturing.  Volume 3:   Storage, Fugi-
      tive and Secondary 'Sources.  U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency.
      Publication  No. EPA-450/3-80-025.  December 1980.   Report 2,  II-5.
 8.    Handbook of  Valves,  Piping and Pipelines.   Houston,  Gulf Publishing
      Company.  1982.  p. 314, 315.
 9.    Tempieton,  H. C. Valve Installation, Operation and Maintenance.  Chemi-
      cal  Engineering.  78(23):148.  1971.
              i
 10.  Pilulik, A.   Manually Operated Valves.  Chemical  Engineering.   April 3,
      1978.  p. 121.
                                     4-71

-------
11.  Kemplay, J. (eds.)-  Valve User's Manual.  London, Mechanical Engineer-
     ing Publications Ltd.  British Valve Manufacturers Association.  1980.
     p. 51.

12.  Reference 1, p. 6-58.

13.  McFarland, I.  Preventing Flange Fires.  Chemical Engineering Progress.
     65(8):59-61. 1969.

14.  Nelson, W. E.  Compressor Seal Fundamentals.  Hydrocarbon Processing.
     56(12):91-95. 1977.

15.  Reference 14.

16.  American Petroleum Institute.  Centrifugal Compressors for General
     Refinery Service.  API Standard 617, Fourth Edition.  November 1979.
     p. 8.

17.  Reference .14.

18.  Reference 7, p. 11-7.

19.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  Fugitive Emission Sources of
     Organic Compounds—Additional. Information on Emissions, -Emission
     Reductions, and Cost.  Research Triangle Park, NC.  Publication No.
     EPA-450/3-82-010.  April 1982.

20.  Reference 19. .

21.  Wetherold, R. G., L. P. Provost, and C. D. Smith  (Radian Corporation).
     Assessment of Atmospheric Emissions from Petroleum Refining.  Appendix
     B:  Detailed Results.  Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection
     Agency.  Research Triangle Park, NC.  Publication No., EPA-600/2-80-
     075c. April 1980.

22.  Blacksmith, J. R., et al.  (Radian Corporation).  Frequency of Leak
     Occurrence for Fittings in Synthetic Organic Chemical Plant Process
     Units.  Problem-Oriented Report.  Prepared for U.S. Environmental
     Protection Agency.  Research Triangle Park, NC.   Publication No. EPA-
     600/2-81-003.  September 1980.

23.  Langley, G. J.,*,tand L. P. Provost (Radian Corporation).  Revision of
     Emission Factors for Nonmethane Hydrocarbons from Valves and Pump Seals
     in SOCMI Processes—Technical Note.  Prepared for the U.S. Environ-
     mental Protection Agency.  Research Triangle Park, NC.  November 1981.

24.  Reference 21.

25.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  Compilation of Air Pollutant
     Emission Factors.  Research Triangle Park, NC.  AP-41.  February 1980.
                                    4-72

-------
26.



27.

28.


29.




30.

31.
Powell, D., et al.  (PES, Inc.). ' Development of Petroleum Refinery Plot
Plans   Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  Research
Triangle Park, NC.   Publication No. EPA-450/3-78-025.  June 1978.
                                in On-Line Leak Sealing.  Oil and Gas
Reference 19.

Teller, J. H.  Advantages Found
Journal.  77(29):54-59.  1979.

American Society of Mechanical Engineers.  Part UG - General Require-
ments  (Section VIII, Division I).  In:  ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel
Code, An American National Standard.  New York, The America! Society of
Mechanical Engineers.  1977. p. 449.                                   -

Reference 21.

Williamson, H. J., et al. (Radian Corporation).  Model for  Evaluating
the Effects of Leak Detection and Repair Programs on Fugitive Emis-
sions.  Technical Note.  DCN 81-290-403-06-05-03.  September 1981.
32.  Reference 19.

33.  Reference 19.
                                     4-73

-------

-------
                              5.0   PROCESS  VENTS

      The  process  vent  standards apply  to vents emitting  organic  liquids,
 gases,  or fumes that are  released  by mechanical  or  process-related  means
 from hazardous wastes  having  a total organic  concentration  of 10 parts  per
 million by weight (ppmw)  and  are  specific  to:   (1)  process  vents on
 distillation,  fractional on,  thin-film evaporation,  solvent extraction,  and
 air or steam stripping operations  and  vents on combustion (i.e.,
 incinerators,  flares,  boilers, and process heaters)  and  noncombustion (i.e.,
 adsorbers and condensers)  control  devices  serving these  operations; and (2)
.process vents on  tanks associated with distillation, fractional on, thin-
 film evaporation, solvent extraction,  and  air or steam stripping processes
 (e.g., distillate receivers,  bottoms, receivers,  surge control tanks,
 separator tanks,  and hot wells)  if emissions  from these  process operations
 are vented through the tanks.                                      -
      To comply with the process vent standards,  the facility owner/operator
 is required to identify all process vents  associated with distillation,
 fractionation, thin-film evaporation,  solvent extraction, and stripping
 processes that are handling or processing hazardous wastes.  The owner/oper-
 ator must then determine which of these vents are affected by the process
 vent standard (i.e., those .managing wastes with at  least 10 ppmw total
 organics) and determine emission  rates, through mass balance calculations or
 'direct source tests, for each vent and for the entire facility  from  all
 affected  vents.  Facility emission rates  must then  be compared  to  the short-
 and  long-term process  vent emission rate  limits  (1.4 kg/h  or 2.8 Mg/yr
 [3  Ib/h  or  3.1 short tons/yr]) to determine whether additional  emission
 controls  are required.   If the process vent emission rate  limit is  exceeded,
 the  owner/operator must  install additional controls to  reduce total  facility
 process  vent organic emissions to below the cutoff  or reduce total  facility
                                       5-1

-------
process vent organic emissions by 95-percent.  The standards for process
vents do not require the use of any specific equipment or add-on control
devices.  Condensers, carbon adsorbers, enclosed combustion devices, and
flares are applicable emission control equipment for the regulated
processes, although the choice of control is not limited to these.
     The rules for process vents contain requirements that specific control
device operating parameters be mon-itored (Sections 264.1033 and 265.1033).
Operating parameters are specified for condensers,.carbon adsorbers, flares,
incinerators, and other enclosed combustion devices.  Although minimum oper-
ating conditions are identified for organic vapor destruction devices (e.g.,
incinerators and flares) to ensure 95 percent destruction, values or ranges
of values for recovery device (i.e., carbon adsorbers and condensers for
which the primary function is not that of recovering solvents or other
organics for use, reuse, or sale) operating parameters cannot be specified
on an industrywide basis.' A recovery device must be designed for the
particular application and monitored to ensure that it is being operated
within design specifications.  Proper design needed to achieve the emission
rate limit or the 95-percent emission reduction performance requirement must
be determined through engineering calculations, material balances,
manufacturer/vendor certification (a documented agreement between the owner/
operator and the vendor to guarantee the meeting of a standard of perform-
ance for a particular product), and/or emission testing, although the use of
emission testing to determine compliance with efficiency requirements is
expected to occur only rarely.  The control device monitoring information is
required to be recorded in the facility operating record (Sections 264.73
and 265.73).
     The following sections of this chapter discuss process vents affected
by the regulation, procedures to determine if process vent emission rates
are below the cutoff limit, as well as control devices and control device
operating parameters that must be monitored.
5.1  AFFECTED PROCESSES
     The processes affected by the regulation are those associated with
hazardous waste distillation, fractionation, thin-frlm evaporation, solvent
extraction, and air or steam stripping operations and tanks serving these
                                     5-2

-------
operations (e.g., distillate receivers,  bottoms receivers, surge control
tanks, separator tanks, and hot wells).   These processes are typically
vented to the atmosphere either directly (through a primary condenser or
other vapor recovery device), through a vacuum-producing system, or through
a tank such as a distillate receiver.  Emission tests conducted by EPA have
shown vent flow rates ranging from 0.0014 to 3.1 L/s (0;003 to 6.6 CFM) and
mass organic emission rates ranging from 0.0015 to 34.8 Mg/yr (0.0017 to
38.4 ton/yr) at various hazardous waste units involving the distilla-
tion/separation operations specified in the.rule.  The following sections
provide brief process descriptions and typical process vent configurations
for the affected processes.
5.1.1  Distillation
     Distillation is the most commonly used separation and purification
procedure in refineries, solvent recovery systems, large  organic chemical
manufacturing plants,  and TSDF.  The fundamental operating principles for-a
distillation column are the  same regardless of the application.  This sec-
tion  briefly discusses some  of the principles  involved in distillation to
provide a better understanding of the operating characteristics of distil-
lation units.
      Distillation is an operation separating  one or  more  fee'd stream(s)*
into  two  or more product streams, each product stream having component
concentrations  different from  those  in the  feed stream(s).  The separation
is  achieved by  the  redistribution of the components  between the liquid-  and
vapor-phase as  they approach equilibrium within the  distillation  unit.   The
more  volatile component(s)  concentrate  in  the vapor  phase, while  the less
volatile  components(s) concentrate  in the  liquid phase.   Both the  vapor  and
 liquid  phase  originate predominantly by  vaporization and  condensation of the
 feed  stream.                                   .
      Distillation  systems  can  be divided  into subcategories  according to the
 operating mode, the operating  pressure,  the number of distillation stages,
 the introduction of inert  gases,  and the use of additional  compounds to  aid
 separation.  A  distillation unit may operate in a  continuous  or a batch
      *For batch distillation, the word "charge" should be used in place of
 "feed stream."
                                      5-3

-------
mode.  The operating pressures can be below atmospheric (vacuum), atmospher-
ic, or above atmospheric (pressure).  Distillation can be a single-stage or
a multistage process.  Inert gas, especially steam, is often introduced to
improve separation.  Finally, compounds are often introduced to aid in
distilling hard to separate mixture constituents (azeotropic and extractive
distillation).
     Batch distillation is a commonly used process for recovery of organics
from hazardous wastes.  Its principal use is for recovery of valuable
organic chemicals for recycling or reuse and the re-refinin.g of waste oil.
It also can be applied to reduce the organic air emission potential of
hazardous wastes by separating the volatile compounds from the wastes.
Although it has been applied to aqueous wastes, it has been more typically
applied to predominantly organic wastes (i.e., wastes with high organic
concentrations).
     The simplest form of distillation is a batch operation that consists of
a heated vessel (called the pot), a condenser, and one or more distillate
receiving tanks.  This process is identical in principle to batch steam
stripping except that the waste charge is heated indirectly instead of by
direct steam injection.  The waste material is charged to the pot and heated
to boiling; vapors enriched in organics are.then removed, condensed, and
collected in receiving tanks.  The distillation is continued to a cutoff
point determined by the concentration of organics in the condensate or the
concentration of organics remaining in the batch.  A common modification is
to add a rectifying column and some means of returning a portion of the
distillate as reflux (see Figure 5-1).  Rectification, or fractionation, is
a multistage distillation operation that enables the operator to obtain
products from the condensate that have a narrow composition range.  At
times, inert carriers (such as steam) are added to the distillation column.
The light end vapors evolving from the column are condensed and collected in
a distillate receiver tank.  Part of the distillate is returned to the top
of the column so it can fall countercurrent to the rising vapors.  Different
distillate cuts are made by switching to alternate receivers, at which time
the operating conditions may be changed.  If the distillate is collected as
one product, the distillation is stopped when the combined distillate
reaches the desired average composition.!  Several references are available
                                      5-4

-------

                   O
                   O


                   I
                   7s

                   jo

                   1
                   o
                   jn
                   •o
                   o


                   S
                   O)
                   .2
                   •o

                   CO
                   in


                   1
                   cn
s

=

5
uT
4>
en
§,
«f
2

JT

"3
4) (0
cn e
  SCO
  4)
in e
S.I
4>»

£1


it
a, u
•a S



i!
CO <8

ll

!1
o «
M S

1^
£ -O
a* Q>

1 =
§•2



II
— £
75 01
«-s
^s-
 O (O

ll
 e o
51
   «J
   (D
  JQ
   4>



   2

   £
   o
   Q.

   S
  •o

  I
                                  •o
                                  4)
                               ^5

                               •c r
  (A j°


  11

  If



  11
   O"O
   4) 4>

   4> =
I  £ S
002
~  - «
o  u e
4>  4> a
S-  5-=
   S3 2
   v> 5
in  
-------
that discuss batch distillation design and operation at a temperature
determined by the boiling point of the waste, which may increase with the
time of operation.  The distillation can be carried out under pressure or
under vacuum.  The use of a vacuum reduces the operating temperature and may
improve product recovery, especially when decomposition or chemical reaction
occurs at higher temperatures.
     Batch distillation provides a means for removing organics from a waste
matrix and recovering the organics by condensation for recycle, sale as
product, or for fuel.  The products and residues include the condensate that
is enriched in organics and recovered, noncondensables 'that escape through
the condenser vent, and the waste residue that remains in the pot.  The
noncondensables are composed of gases dissolved in the waste and very
volatile organic compounds with relatively low-vapor-phase concentrations.
The waste material after distillation may have been concentrated with-high-
boiling-point organics or solids that are not removed with the overhead
vapors.  These still bottoms may be a free-flowing liquid, a viscous slurry,
or an organic material that may solidify upon cooling.  If the waste mate-
rial contains water, a separate aqueous phase may be generated with the
condensate.  This phase may be returned to the batch or processed with
additional treatment to remove organics or other contaminants.
     Batch distillation may be used for hazardous wastes that have a;signif-
icant vapor-phase concentration of organics at the distillation temperature.
If the waste can be pumped and charged to the still pot and the residue can
be removed from the pot, then the waste is likely to be treatable for
organic removal by this process.  Such waste forms include dilute aqueous
wastes  (the operation would be similar to batch steam stripping), aqueous or
organic sludges, or wastes with volatiles in a high-boiling-point organic
solvent or oil.  The batch distillation of sludges has not been demonstrated
and evaluated in full-scale units; consequently, the processing of sludges
in a batch distillation unit is subject to the same limitations described
for the batch steam stripping of sludges (Section 5.1.3).  Batch distilla-
tion has been used to remove organics from plating wastes, phenol from
aqueous wastes, to recover and separate solvents, and to re-refine waste
oils.2,3  jhe applicability of batch distillation for a specific waste type
                                     5-6

-------
can be evaluated by a simple laboratory distillation to assess potential
organic recovery.  As with Other organic removal techniques, the process  may
require optimization in a pilot-scale or full-scale system for different
types of wastes to determine operating conditions that provide the desired
distillate composition or percent removal from the waste.
     Batch stills usually are operated as a single equilibrium stage (i.e.,
with no reflux); consequently, the organic removal efficiency is primarily a
function of the vapor/liquid equilibrium coefficient of the organics at
distillation temperature and the fraction of the waste boiled over as
distillate.  The use of a rectifying section yields an overhea'd product with
a composition that can be controlled by the operator.  The  removal effi-
ciency for various waste types can be highly variable because of the
dependence on both properties of the waste (e.g., organic equilibrium) and
the operatihg conditions that are used.
5.1.2  Thin-Film Evaporation
     Thin-film  evaporators  (TFE) are designed to  promote heat transfer by
spreading a thin layer of liquid on one  side of a metallic  surface while
supplying heat  to  the other side.4  The  unique  feature of this  equipment  is
the mechanical  agitator device, which  permits the processing  of high-
viscosity liquids  and  liquids with suspended solids.   However,  if solid
particles are  large,  a coarse filtration  operation  may be required to
pretreat the waste stream going to the TFE.  The  mechanical agitator
promotes the transfer of  heat to the material by  exposing a large surface
area  for the evaporation  of volatile  compounds  and  agitates the film  to
maintain the solids in suspension without fouling the heat  transfer  area.
Heat  can be  supplied by  either  steam'or hot  oil;  hot oils are used  to heat
the material to temperatures  higher  than can be achieved with saturated
 steam.  TFE  can be operated at  atmospheric pressure or under vacuum as
 needed based on the characteristics  of the material treated.   A TFE
.operation  is  illustrated in Figure  5-2.
      The two types of mechanically  agitated TFE are horizontal  and  vertical.
 A typical  unit consists  of a motor-driven rotor with longitudinal  blades
 that rotate  concentrically within  a heated cylinder.  The rotating blade has
 a typical  tip  speed of 9 to 12 m/s  (30 to 39 ft/s) and a clearance of 0.8 to
 2.5 mm (0.032  to 0.098 in)  to the outer shell.    In a vertical design, feed
                                      5-7

-------

             c *


             I I
             U wi
I
                   a S
                               Sm



                               t
Z g
     s
     e
     •S
                   o>
                  I
                  o
                  a.
                  §
                                      o

                                      a

                                _J
                  I
                  3E
                  4*
                  (0

                  15


                  if

                  .«

                  o

                  i
                  i:
                  o
                  j:
                  u>


                  -i
                  En
                  u!
                                                        = 2
< en
                                                     so eo «
                                                     0)  0)
                                                 tj
                                                 en S M  ^

                                                 co c c .£
                         5-8

-------
material enters the feed nozzle above the heated zone and.is transported
mechanically by the rotor and grating down a helical path on the inner heat
transfer surface while the volatile compounds are volatilized and leave the
evaporator on the top.  The vapor-phase products from TFE are condensed in a
condenser, and the bottom residues are collected for disposal.
     TFE have been used widely for many years in a number of applications
such as processing of chemicals, Pharmaceuticals, plastics, and foods.5
Because of their unique features, their use in-chemical and waste material
processing has expanded rapidly.  The flexibility in operating temperature
and pressure add potential to TFE for recovering low-boiling-point organics
from a complex waste matrix.
     Waste forms suitable for TFE treatment include organic liquids, organic
sludge/slurry, two-phase aqueous/organic  liquids, and aqueous sludges.  TFE
would not be an economical means of treating dilute aqueous waste because of
the high water content  in the waste.
5.1.3  Steam Stripping
     Steam stripping  involves the fractional distillation of volatile
constituents from  a less volatile waste matrix.  Both batch and continuous
steam stripping are comrnercially proven processes and have  been commonly
used to  remove organics from aqueous streams such as process wastewater.
'Several  references discuss  steam.stripping  in  detail,  including a steam-
stripping manual published  by EPA,6  descriptions of tire  theory and  design
procedures,7"10 and descriptions of  applicability to hazardous wastes.11'14
The  basic operating principle of steam  stripping is the  direct contact of
steam with  the waste,  which results  in  the  transfer of heat to the  waste  and
the  vaporization of the more volatile constituents.  The vapor  is condensed
and  separated  (usually decanted)  from the condensed water vapor.  A simpli-
fied diagram of  a  steam stripping  operation is shown  in  Figure  5-3.
      Batch  steam  stripping  may offer advantages at  hazardous  waste  facil-
•ities  because  the  unit can  be operated  in a manner  most  suitable  for the
particular  batch  of waste to be stripped.  For example,  the same  unit may be
 used to remove volatiles  from a batch  of wastewater,  from a waste containing
 solids,  or  from a  high-boiling organic  matrix.  Batch  stills may  also be
 used if the material  to be separated contains  solids,  tars, or resins that
 may foul or plug a continuous unit.
                                      5-9

-------
                                                      0)


                                                           o»
                                                           o>
                                                           
                         (O
                                                          i

                                                          5s
                                                          *• n\
                                                          •9 M
                                                          3 o

                                                          - S

                                                          §«
                                                           e o
                              .2

                              g
                              o
                              Q.

                              S


                              1
            TJ
            0)
            CO


             5
     E  £ «
     
-------

                        M
                        31
                        o
                        •o
                        o
                        0) CO

                        SP£
                                I
                                0)
 SL

•o.

i








0"







I(

1L






F,
i
1

I

il


c







1
i


,


1
s




i
lO



l)i




;

i ,


3
•E
3
!i
«n
i


I



\

S
1
i




a!


>;



0
)If

i
0

I

o
















<
;











II
s
|

-
I I
Iflll)

c we -o
^O 10 B a>
t> aj « C *
1 11 §
1 §S §
> « S *-
••• £ 2
.£ < * c
| ll<'^
2 -o c r r
O9 5 CO CO  « g £ £ s
"• li 2 s 2
*3» Cb ffl
= 888 =
«e .Si. & o
•e £ J2- JQ =
?: 3 32
5"" (0 (A ^L
_ ZI !3 O
JS c |g
*J
i
5-14

-------
5.1.5  Air Stripping
     Air stripping is a process that uses forced air to remove volatile com-
pounds from a less volatile liquid.  The contact between air and liquid can
be accomplished in spray towers, mechanical or diffused-air aeration sys-
tems, and packed towers.22  The focus of this section is on packed tower air
strippers because the vapor-laden air can be sent, to a control device for
ultimate control of organic air emissions.  In packed towers, the liquid to
be treated is sprayed into the top of a packed column and flows down the
column by gravity. "Air is injected at the bottom of the column and rise's
countercurrent to the liquid flow.  The air becomes progressively richer in
organics as it rises through the column and is sent to a control device to
remove or destroy organics in the airstream.  See Figure 5-5 for a schematic
of a typical air stripping system with gas-phase organic emission control.
     The principle of operation is the equilibrium differential between the.
concentration of the organics in the waste and the air with which it is in
contact.  Consequently, compounds that are very volatile are the most easily
stripped.  The packing  in the column promotes contact between the air and
liquid and enhances the mass transfer of organics to the air.  The residues
from air stripping include the  organic-laden air and the water effluent from
the air stripper.  This effluent will contain very low  levels of the most
volatile organic compounds; however, semivolatile compounds that are not
easily air stripped may still be present.  The process  does not offer a
significant potential for recovery and reuse of organics.  Condensers gener-
ally are not used to recover the stripped  organics because of the large
energy requirements to  cool the large quantity of noncondensables (primarily
air) and to condense the relatively  low  vapor-phase  quantities of organic
compounds.
     Air stripping  has  been used primarily on dilute aqueous  waste  streams
with organic concentrations that  range from  a few parts per  billion  to
hundreds of parts per million.  The  feed stream  should  be  relatively free  of
solids to  avoid  fouling in the  column; consequently, some  form  of solids
removal may be  required for certain  aqueous  hazardous wastes.   In addition,
dissolved  metals  that may  be oxidized  to an  insoluble  form should be
removed.   Equipment may be designed  and  operated to  air-strip organics  from
sludges  and solids  in  a batch  operation;  however, this  application  has  not
                                     5-15

-------
  £>

o

          e

         •3 —
         ~ e
          £ 2


         I!
         •si
                                                o


                                                S
                                                
-------
been demonstrated extensively and is'not a common practice.  The major
industrial application of air stripping has been in the removal of ammonia
from wastewater.23  In recent years, the use of air strippers has become a
widely used technology in the removal of volatile compounds from contami-
nated ground water.24,25
     Packed towers can achieve up to 99.9 percent removal of volatiles from
water.26  the major factors affecting removal efficiency include the
equilibrium between the organics and the vapor phase (usually measured by
Henry's law constant for dilute aqueous wastes) and the system's design,
which determines mass transfer rates.  Removal efficiency increases as the
equilibrium coefficient increases; consequently, the extent of removal is
strongly  affected by the type of waste and the volatility of the individual
organic constituents.  Mass transfer rates (and removal efficiency) are also
a function of the air-to-water ratio, height of packing, and type of pack-
ing.27  The operating temperature is also an important variable that affects
efficiency because of its direct effect on the vapor/liquid equilibrium.
Higher temperatures result in higher vapor-phase concentrations of organic
and higher removal rates.  Air strippers have operational difficulties.in
freezing  weather that may require heating the input waste stream, heating
and insulating  the column, or housing the operation inside an  enclosure.
Air strippers are typically designed to remove key or major constituents.
Compounds more  volatile than the design constituent are  removed at or  above
the design efficiency, and less volatile compounds are removed at a  lower
efficiency.
      The  air  leaving  the  stripping  column usually  is treated by  incineration
 (thermal  or catalytic) or carbon  adsorption.  The  choice between  incinera-
tion  and  carbon adsorption depends  on  the specific conditions  at  the  facil-
 ity.   For example, high  relative  humidity  in  the airstream leaving the air
 stripper  may  adversely affect the  adsorption  capacity  of a carbon bed.  This
 problem could be avoided  by  choosing incineration.   However,  if the
 airstream contains chlorinated  organics,  the  incinerated airstream may need
 to  be scrubbed  to remove  HC1,  leading  to  higher costs.   In this case,  it
 might be  better to choose carbon  adsorption  and design the system to avoid
 potential humidity problems.
                                     5-17

-------
5.2  PROCESS VENT EMISSION RATE CUTOFF DETERMINATION
     After identifying all affected process vents, -the owner/operator must
determine whether the affected process vent's emission rate is below the
emission rate limits established by the regulation.  To make this decision,
the owner/operator must determine emission rates for each vent and for the
entire facility through mass balance calculations or direct source test and
compare the rates to the short- and long-term process vent emission rate
limits (1.4 kg/h or 2.8 Mg/yr [3 Ib/h or 3.1 short tons/yr]).  Example
applications of the emission cutoff for process vents are presented, in
Tables 5-1 and 5-2.
     Alternative methods of estimating facility process vent emissions are
discussed in the following sections.
5.2.1  Mass Balance
     Losses or emissions from any process can be estimated from an accurate
mass balance.  Emission estimates, however, to determine if compliance has
been met should be based on the waste streams with the highest emission
potential allowed under the permit (or if no permit has been issued, allowed
under interim status).  If all inlet and outlet process streams are pre-
cisely characterized with regard to flow rates, composition, and physical
properties, any difference between the total known amount of material enter-
ing the system and that known to be leaving would be emissions.  This can be
expressed as:
                   Mass emissions = Mass in - Mass out  .              (5-1)
     In practice, precise measurements of material volumes, flow rates, and
characteristics are often difficult to obtain.  Most flow rates and material
rate measurements in chemical processing are made in terms of volume.  Thus,
fluid densities must be known to convert volumetric measurements to mass
flows.  A liquid material balance can be expressed as:
                        E. = EL,W.  .P. - ZL.W.
                          '   .jJ'fJJ   ^ K 1
(5-2)
where:
         E-J = Emission rate  (losses) of component i, Ib/h
         LJ = Volumetric flow rate of inlet stream j, gal/h
                                    5-18

-------














ee
>
S
«J
i
1
1
<•/
i
1-4
w

tu
u.
°
1
H4 i
|

Ul
1
IA
HI
i

































4»
1
3
S
I

^
•
«
i
|

•
4S
•2
i
s
m
b
e
c
1
1










!

!







„ ,



•o'u-" e •
*"£ 1 i* U


k • — S a* o
e c — (§*> — •
^ °> ~ • • Si
J:l«"-5
J*s-l
— • a » t»4»
l-GiiSS
H> C M U • *


(.
•
.£
llll

•
.
••o
sills I
j:l!^i
»u
a.
Ill
U * 4>




JC
J
&
J
! S
IA




!• I 1. 1-
«-0 «C4»>OI> — — 1
•** * m e t— KJ» ""sJ!
•— t t> — > • • • *2 5
£•• E 4» L4>^1 6 •** *
Ii! I'-llil! 1st



5— * 5 S^ ™U 281 2 S-o i
>2 J 1 ^-S'Si^Ji- >2-S ti;
»? ' . •


4> • • ' * * '
can « *
*•§ *
Ew

<» »
!f

*
5
.§ ; :

«
*s «
.2
og N
si ; .. S
»8
8
2-^ S
u o •


*• »
e •
u
J| ^ . - '


ii s - s s
;US » s s

>, X 'X X • -

"o'»"o< «*u *"o
• x • x • x^a

|
8
e


§
4*
u
3

49
e
8
1

1
1
i

^
|
4>
^


^
^
O
Ol
1

J?
^
m
a
JC
|
i
a
u
o



1
J S
• <•
J 1
' • •
1 --

i II °U"
!ffi l?§
I?
u •
12
• e
U 9
*>- •
Ii
~ f



§5
1-
• U
1?
01
o
e e
— o
• N
• •
Is
a 5
ll
.-5
25
— ^
— 4>
»_e
• ^
si
s.|

s!
= i
• •
Jf
O *
• J
e •
• m
ll

9



4>
u -o

4> 1
O »

• s

J*






























is
49.
u
o
1

3



5
O
4>
4>
1

*

U


,
e

***
1
01
3
O
U

4)
^9
2
C
^
•
§
*t
•
U
o
1
vapor* 1



u
o
1
'•
•o
c
o
s
3
•
M
3
j
4>
fc.
1
O
2
j

3



5
O
4>
£
3

II

1
5-19

-------
t
I




















1
]
1
~

^
1
S
i
it
i
S! Jj
e
i
•
\
*
i»|«|»3






j
I


",
i






»»«r -> i
^ *• C 1. O •
^•«w» **•*— »^ —
*l-jjtst



o

1 g a 2 a*>
1 S'jllx

" J " 0 *^




Ilifli
S * 1 5 "
o • v • •




u
L.
Sal
• C **
e — »






ja
. 3

1
t







^
i!
i?
~3
* a
• k
if
>:
e g

£ *
f
5-5
i-


*i

^ •
9 U
41-
|l
g

•
^1

•
"• £
IS
a
J= u
k JB
p
.
*«* U
£5 o


•1

?u
p
s|


i
*o
u.
i i 8 ^
3i. • ^glk^ ?! ^11^
X * ^^ 51*" J^feS^3 i" 0 *> « ™ X
^*2 a— — oc— c!c««J —.on— is —
— ji». 3 — j«o«*>^.cj_ — • i £ a

I1?s lltiisilll 31?J^



^ ;' §





1 -3
eJ »


" w *


N . — *
| 1 . |



3 m ^
• • K


M U>

I. 1.


S n



" . » 5

1 1 1
• • •
i 8 S S
* 	 .


; f ^ J!i ^«
5 • x m x m
Ul *• Ul *• Ul «a-
^
5
•
I
«
8
L b
x a
S 8
ei 'c
. £
U
2 !
§^
^
SI S
S 8~ S
4> • 41
C I5 J
J* 4»
? "1 1i
i §1 I
• JZ £
a.»- «
C si: 'c
1 il •
M — (• O
M 9 4?
? . I5 S
^ T -S §•
S -5 fe- •
>> • u *
< S .'I
^ S »-o c
- • 3 0
4> • • k
M t> CB ^
£ 1 .'I S
, - 2-: §.
2 d li 5
— I -o
§x «*->., •
•**. O 4* ^
a — k
« 5 &= J
1 5 Si -^
T> A— •
C S II 1
! 1 lj
0 J9 * JS C
u — 3*3 a
I " J- S
a e *i s
a 3-e •
T •* ^.- . -°
^ ^ i] 5 3
f*~ 4> •*»
§*> k U
. : :g i i
a | 9m\ 5 A
^i e «tf o o

k • |;55
1 [ || | 1
9 * li ! !
. , * ] f| f \
Itui'S'SSu'o
= j r j; • ,. .• ^,
'o a u E4».£^^
t— U • • O^* 3 3
'• • — *» & *•' * •
• • X
•>»••»•> » •
t "-"«""
E * *£ g i 1 1
z S i2 iZ > J > >
; u w ^-- • d u *o
5-20

-------
         L|< =.Volumetric flow rate of outlet stream k, gal/h
       W-j j = Weight fraction of component i in inlet stream j
       Wi |< = Weight fraction of component i in outlet stream k
     Pj, pk = Density of liquid stream j and k, respectively, Ib/gal.
All parameters in Equation 5-2 are measured.  (For guidance on sample-
taking, see Chapter 6.0.)  The emissions can also be expressed as a
percentage of the total organic throughput of the process.
5.2.2  Emission Test
     A direct source or performance emission test is an alternative means of
determining the emission rate for a process vent.  The direct source emis-
sion test should be conducted when wastes and process operating conditions
are at maximum emission potential.  Methods for measuring emissions from
ducted sources are well documented.28  The  approach  requires  that the volu-
metric, flow rate of the gas be determined,  typically as-measurements of
velocity and duct cross-sectional area, and that the gas organic concentra-
tion be measured.  The emission rate for each organic constituent can then
be calculated as:
                                Ei = CiU A   ,   .                        (5-3)
where:
     ET  =  Emission  rate  of component  i, /tg/s
       U  =  Gas velocity  through  vent, m/s
     C-j  =  Concentration  of component  i  in  vent  gas,  /ig/m3
       A =  Cross-sectional  area  of vent, m2.
All  parameters  in  Equation 5-3  are measured directly.
      Emission testing is discussed in  Chapter 6.0.   Table 6-7 lists several
flow measuring  methods  that  could be considered for the measurement of the
flow rate  in the process vent stream of concern.   In addition,  Section 6.1.2
discusses  the measurement of the organic  content of the waste stream gases
 (the preferred  method of analysis is EPA Method 18).
      Once the process vent organic content and gas flow rate have been meas-
ured,  these data can be used to calculate the emission rate.  The hourly
 emission rate (kg/h) is equal to the flow rate (m3/s) multiplied by. the
                                     5-21

-------
organic concentration (ppmv), the average molecular weight (kg/g mole), and
appropriate conversion factors (see Table 6-8).  The emission rate for the
hourly value should be based on the maximum expected emission from the
source.  Similarly, the yearly emission rate is based on the maximum total
emissions expected from the facility; therefore, the calculation will have
to be based on the maximum hourly emission and the yearly hours of
operation.
5.3  VENT CONTROLS
     If the total facility process vent emission rate for hourly or yearly
emissions exceeds the limits in the regulation, then controls will have to
be used to reduce emissions below the limits or, if the emission rate limits
cannot be attained, by 95 percent or greater of the total vented mass.
These controls or control devices used to reduce the emissions from the
process vents affected by the regulation are by definition enclosed
combustion devices, vapor recovery systems, or flares, though process vent
controls are not limited to these devices.  Any device for which the primary
function is to recover or capture solvents or other organics for use, reuse,
or sale (e.g., a primary condenser on a solvent recovery unit) is considered
to be a component of the process rather than a control device.  The emission
reduction attained by a device that is part of the process should not be
included in the emission reduction calculation for the purpose of determing
compliance.
     The vented emission must be transported to a control device by a
"closed-vent system."  This system has already been discussed in the
equipment leak section because all "closed-vent systems" must be monitored
for leaks.  The control device efficiency must be determined by calculating
the mass of organics entering the control device and the mass of organics
exiting the same control device.
     As previously mentioned, any engineering judgment concerning control
device efficiency may put the owner/operator at risk if that judgment proves
erroneous.  A performance test, if used to determine efficiency, will
consist of measuring the organic content and gas flow rate into and out of
the control device.  The test procedures that have been referenced for gas-
phase organic concentration measurement and velocity (flow rate) measurement
                                    5-22

-------
 are appropriate for the performance -test.  A performance test  should  include
 at least three 1-h test periods  under conditions that would  exist when the
 hazardous waste management  u.nit  is operating at the  highest  load or capacity
 level  reasonably expected to  occur..  The organic reduction efficiency would
 be estimated  for each  1-h period, and an average of  the three  values  would
 represent the system performance at maximum conditions.
      In addition to the performance test,  the  owner/operator will be
 required to monitor continuously certain operational parameters of the
 control device to  ensure continued attainment  of design organic reduction
 efficiency.  Table 6-8 lists  possible controls, monitoring requirements, and'
 monitoring  methods.  The relationship of the organic reduction performance
 and  control device operating  parameter  can be  established during  the  per-
 formance test or through engineering  calculations, material  balances, or
 manufacturer/vendor certification (a  documented  agreement between  the
 owner/operator  and the vendor to guarantee the meeting  of a  standard  of
 performance for  a  particular product).
      The  owner/operator must keep a  logbook  that  provides data on  the
.specified  control  device operating  parameters  that are  required'to be
 monitored  under Subpart AA of the standards  for process vents.  Periods  when
 monitoring indicates  that  control device operating parameters  exceed
 established tolerances set forth by the regulation must also be recorded and
 reported  to the Regional  Administrator (see  Section  7.2.2,  "Process Vent
 Recordkeeping Requirements," for information regarding exceedances).   This
 log should also contain information and data identifying all affected proc-
 ess vents, annual  throughput and facility operating hours of each affected
 unit, estimated emission rates'for each affected vent and for the overall
 facility,   and the approximate location within the facility of each affected
 unit.
 5.3.1  Condensation
      Condensation is  a process  of converting all or part of the condensable
 components of a vapor phase  into a liquid phase.  This is achieved by the
 transfer of  heat from the  vapor phase to a cooling  medium.  If only  a part
 of the vapor phase is condensed, the newly formed liquid phase and the
 remaining  vapor phase will be in equilibrium.  In this case,  equilibrium
 relationships at the  operating  temperatures must be considered.  The heat
                                      5-23

-------
removed from the vapor phase should be sufficient to lower the vapor-phase
temperature to (or below) its dewpoint temperature (temperature at which
first drop of liquid is formed).
     Condensation devices are of two types:  surface condensers and contact
condensers.29  Surface condensers generally are shell-and-tube type heat
exchangers.  The coolant and the vapor phases are separated by the tube
wall, and they never come in direct contact with each other (see Figure
5-6).  Vapors are coaled in contact condensers by spraying relatively cold
liquid directly into the gas stream.  The coolant is often water,  although
in some situations'another coolant may be used.  Most contact condensers are
simple spray chambers, like the one pictured in Figure 5-7.
     Contact condensers are, in general, less expensive, more flexible, and
more efficient-in removing organic vapors than surface condensers.  On the
other hand, surface condensers may recover marketable condensate and mini-
mize waste disposal problems.  Often, condensate from contact condensers
cannot be reused and may require significant wastewater treatment prior to
disposal.  Surface condensers must be equipped with more auxiliary equipment
and have greater maintenance requirements.  Surface condensers are consid-
ered in the discussion of control efficiency and applicability because they
are used more frequently in the hazardous waste management industry.
     The major equipment components used in a typical surface condenser
system for organic removal are shown in Figure 5-8.  This system includes
(1) shell- and-tube dehumidification equipment (2) shell-and-tube heat
exchanger (3) refrigeration unit, and (4) recovered organic storage tanks
and operating pumps.  Most surface condensers use a shell-and-tube type of
heat exchanger to remove heat from the vapor.30  AS the coolant passes
through the tubes, the organic vapors condense outside the tubes and are
recovered.  The coolant used depends on,the saturation temperature of the
organic vapor stream.  Chilled water can be used down to 7 °C (45 °F),
brines to -34 °C (-30 °F), and chlorofluorocarbons below -34 °C (-30 °F).31
Temperatures as low as -62 °C (-80 °F) may be necessary to condense some
organic vapor.32
     The design of surface condensers involves calculating the rate of heat
transfer through the wall of the exchanger per unit time, its "duty," or
                                    5-24

-------
     COOJ.AHTIHUT    VAPO» OUTLET

             I
VAPOR INUT
   eOOLAHT OUTtCT    COHOCNStO VOC
Figure 5-6.  Schematic diagram of a shell-and-tube surface condenser.
            VAPOR INLET.
                                      VAPOR OUTLET
                                       WATCH INLET
                                          OtSTKltimOH
                                             TUT

                                       UGUIO UVIL
                                 IIOUIO OUTLET
   Figure 5-7. Schematic diagram of a contact condenser.
                                5-25

-------
                                                                     Cleaned Gas Out
                                                                    to Primary Control
                                                                  Hare, Afterburner, etc.
Organic-Laden
         Gas
Dehumldiflcation
      Unit
To remove water
   and prevent
   freezing in
 main condenser
                  Coolant
                   Return
(1)
                                                             Main Condenser
                                                                            (2)
                                             Coolant
                                                       Condensed
                                                       Organic
                                                                                          To Process
                                                                                          or Disposal
                                    Figure 5-8. Condensation system.
                                                5-26

-------
calculating the heat-transfer area.  The rate of heat transfer for a surface
condenser is governed by the-following relationship:
                          ' UoATm
or
                                    (5-4)
where:
      Q = Total heat load/rate of heat transfer, Btu/h
     U0 = Overall heat-transfer coefficient, Btu/h °F ft2
     Tm = Mean temperature difference, °F
      A = Heat transfer surface area, ft2.
If the heat-transfer area, the overall heat-transfer coefficient and the
mean temperature difference are known, the condenser duty can easily be
calculated. .  (See Appendixes C and D  for sample calculations on the size and
rate of heat  transfer of  a condenser; for an analysis of the effect of
concentration on condenser efficiency, see Appendix E.)  Calculation of
heat-transfer coeffici-ents, a tedious step in definitive design, is avoided
in predesign  evaluations  where approximate values  are adequate.  An
extensive tabulation of typical overall coefficients, based on  industrial
practice, is  found  in Reference 1  (pp. 10-39 to 10-42).  The appropriate
mean  temperature difference can be calculated using the following
expression:
                MTD =
                                      co
                                                 -Tci>
                                                   'ci
                                                      )J
                                     (5-5)
 where:
      Tni  = Inlet temperature of hot fluid,  K (°F)
      Tno = Outlet of hot fluid
      Tc-j  = Inlet of cold fluid
      Tco = Outlet of cold fluid.
 If flow in the exchanger is not truly countercurrent, an appropriate correc-
 tion factor must be applied.33  in practice, the vapor stream will contain
                                     5-27

-------
multicomponents, air and at least one other gas, thus complicating the
design procedures.
     To ensure that the condenser is operated and maintained within design
specifications, 40 CFR 264.1033(f) and 265.1033(f) require the owner/oper-
ator to monitor and inspect each condenser required to comply with the
facility process vent emission rates by implementing the following
requirements:
     •    Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate according to the
          manufacturer's specifications a flow indicator that provides
          a record of vent'stream flow to the control device at least
          once every hour.  The flow indicator sensor shall be
          installed in the vent stream at the nearest feasible point to
          the control device inlet, but before being combined with
          other vent streams.
     •    Install a monitoring device equipped with a continuous
          recorder to measure the concentration level of the organic
          compounds in the exhaust vent stream from the condenser; or
     •    Install a temperature monitoring device equipped with a
          continuous recorder.  The. device shall be capable of moni-
          toring temperature at two locations and have an accuracy of
          ±1 percent of the temperature being monitored in degrees
          Celsius or ±0.5 °C, whichever is greater.  One temperature
          sensor shall be installed at a location in the exhaust vent
          stream from the'condenser, and a second temperature sensor
          shall be installed at a location in the coolant fluid exiting
          the condenser.
A secondary parameter that can be monitored to give an indication of the
operating or removal efficiency is the quantity of organic removed over
time.
     The volatile organic removal efficiency for a condenser is dependent
upon the gas stream organic composition and concentrations as well as the
condenser operating temperature.  Condensation can be an effective control
device for gas streams having high concentrations of organic compounds with
high boiling points.  However, condensation is not effective for gas streams
containing low organic concentrations or composed primarily of low-boiling-
point organics.  At these conditions, organics cannot readily be condensed
at normal condenser operating temperatures.  This point is demonstrated in
the results of a field evaluation of a condenser used to recover organics
from a steam stripping process treating wastewater at a plant manufacturing
                                    5-28

-------
ethylene dichloride and vinyl chloride monomer.  The measured condenser
removal efficiencies for specific organic constituents in the controlled
vent' stream ranged from a high value of 99.5 percent for 1,2-dichloroethane
to a low value of 6 percent for vinyl chloride.
5.3.2  Combustion Equipment
   .  There are basically three types of combustion equipment used in
controlling gaseous emissions:  flares, thermal oxidizers (thermal inciner-
ators, boilers or process heaters), and catalytic oxidizers  (catalytic
incinerators).  Inside a flare, a flame is used to oxidize all the combust-
ible material.  In a thermal oxidizer, combustible gases pass over or'around
the burner flame first and then into a chamber where the gas flow rate  is
decreased, thus allowing an  adequate time for complete oxidation.  Catalytic
oxidizers are similar to thermal oxidizers.  The major difference between
the two  is that, after the combustible gases pass through the flame area,
the gas  is sent through a catalyst  bed that promotes oxidation at tempera-
tures  lower .than the ones necessary in a thermal oxidizer.   This reduces
fuel usage, and lighter construction can be used in catalytic units.  The
main problem  in catalytic oxidation is the reduction or  loss of catalyst
activity due  to fouling by particulate matter  or suppression or poisoning  by
sulfur and halogen  compounds or certain metals.  Control devices  used to
reduce TSDF process  vent emissions  would be subject to these contaminants  in
the waste gas stream;  therefore,  thermal oxidation  is the most applicable
 incineration  technique.
      5.3.2.1   Flares.   Flaring is  an open  combustion  process in which the
 oxygen required  for combustion is  provided by  the  ambient  air  around  the
 flame.  Good  combustion  in  a flare is  governed by  flame  temperature,
 residence time of components in  the combustion zone,  turbulent mixing of  the
 components  to complete the oxidation reaction, and oxygen  for free radical
 formation.
      There are two types of flares:  ground-level  flares and elevated
 flares.  Kalcevic presents a detailed discussion of different types of
 flares, flare design and operating considerations, and a method  for estimat-
 ing capital  and operating costs for flares.34  The basic elements of an
 elevated flare system are shown in Figure 5-9.  Process off-gases are  sent
 to the flare through the collection header (1).  The off-gases entering the
                                     5-29

-------
                                                (9)
                                      Steaa
                                     H022I6S
                                   (6)
                                      fiaiiitf
                   Helps  prevent flash back
                                       fhn
                                       Stack
                                       (5)
Gas Cotleeiiaa Header
 and Tiaaslet Uae  (1)
JC
                                  Gu
                                  (4)
1
                                           Flare Tip (|
                                           iiot
                                          Buiaen (7 }

                           ^
                     ~K
                                                                    Seai
                                                                   •Uae
                                                                    Air UK
                                                      3
                         Ocau
                  Rgure 5-9. Steam-assisted elevated flare system.
                                  5-30

-------
header can vary widely in volumetric flow rate, moisture content, organic
concentration, and heat value.  The knock-out drum (2) removes water or
hydrocarbon droplets that could create problems in the flare combustion
zone.  Off-gases are usually passed through a water seal (3) before going to
the flare.  This prevents possible flame flashbacks, caused when the off-gas
flow to the flare is too low and the flame front pulls down into the stack.
     Purge gas (N2, C02, or natural gas) (4) also helps to prevent flashback
in the flare stack  (5) caused by low off-gas flow.  The total volumetric
flow to the flame must be carefully controlled to prevent low flow flashback
problems and to avoid a detached flame  (a space between the stack and flame
with incomplete combustion) caused by an excessively high flow rate.  A gas
barrier (6) or a stack seal is sometimes used just below the flare head to
impede the flow of  air into the flare gas network.
     The organic vapor stream enters at the base of the flame where it is
heated by already burning fuel and pilot burners  (7) at the flare tip  (8)
(see Figure 5-10A).   Fuel flows into the combustion'zone where the exterior
of the microscopic  gas pockets is oxidized.  The  rate  of reaction is limited
by the mixing  of the  fuel and oxygen from the  air.  If the  gas pocket  has
sufficient oxygen  and residence time in the flame zone, it  can be completely
burned.  A diffusion  flame  receives its combustion  oxygen by  diffusion of
air  into the  flame  from  the surrounding atmosphere.   The high volume of  fuel
flow in a  flare  requires more combustion air at  a faster rate than  simple
gas  diffusion can  supply so flare  designers  add  steam injection  nozzles  (9)
to  increase gas  turbulence  in the  flame boundary zones, thus  drawing  in  more
combustion  air and improving  combustion efficiency.   This steam  injection
promotes  smokeless flare operation by  minimizing the  cracking reactions  that
form carbon.   Significant  disadvantages of  steam usage are  the  increased
noise and cost.   The steam requirement depends on the composition  of  the gas
 flared,  the steam velocity from the injection  nozzle,  and the tip  diameter.
Although  some gases can be flared  smokelessly  without any  steam, typically .
0.15 to 0.5 kg of steam per kg  of  flare gas is required.
      Steam 'injection is usually controlled manually with  the operator
 observing the flare (either directly  or on a television monitor) and adding
 steam as required to maintain smokeless operation.   Several flare manufac-
 turers offer devices that sense a flare's flame characteristics and adjust
 the steam flow rate automatically to maintain smokeless operation.

                                     5-31

-------
                      Wane {as    Steam injection

                      •burner      >,  point
                                            Klot light
                   Figure 5-10A. Flare tip.
      Burner*
f&* *-.."-J m El^fe...... >	
»"*^.'* .IT' '    -• «* W«MM^MBrfita^b^^^lMHIBW^>MMh>Mi^iMta
fc ;-'(v—•vV_.- ~
                 Figure 5-10B. Ground flare.
                           5-32

-------
     Some elevated flares use forced'air instead of steam to provide the
combustion air and the mixing required for smokeless operation.  These
flares consist of two coaxial flow channels.  The combustible gases flow in
the center channel, and the combustion air (provided by a fan in the bottom
of the flare stack) flows in the annulus.  The principal advantage of air-
assisted flares is that expensive steam is not required.  Air assistance is
rarely used on large flares because airflow is difficult to control when the-
gas flow is intermittent.  About 597 W (0.8 hp) of blower capacity is
required for each 45 kg/h (100 Ib/h) of gas flared.35
     Ground flares are usually enclosed and have multiple burner heads that
are staged to operate based on the quantity of gas released to the flare
'(see Figure 5-10B).  The energy of the gas itself  (because of the high
nozzle pressure drop) is usually adequate to provide the mixing necessary
for smokeless operation, and air or steam assist is not required.  A fence
or other enclosure reduces noise and light from the flare and provides some
wind protection.
     Ground flares are less  numerous and have  less capacity than elevated
flares.  Typically, they are used to burn gas  "continuously," while steam-
assisted elevated  flares are used to dispose of large  amounts of gas
released  in emergencies.
     A series of flare destruction  efficiency  studies  have been performed  by
EPA.  Based on  the results of  these studies, EPA concluded that 98 percent
combustion efficiency can be achieved  by steam-assisted  and  air-assisted
flares burning  gases with heat contents greater than  11  MJ/m3  (300 Btu/ft3).
To  achieve this efficiency  level, EPA  developed a  set  of flare  design  guide-
 lines.   The guidelines specify flare  tip exit  velocities  for different flare
types  and waste gas  stream  heating  values.
      To  ensure  that  flares  achieve  the emission  reductions  required  by the
 standards,  Sections  264.1033 and  265.1033  of the  rules require the owner/
 operator to  design,  monitor, and  inspect  each  flare required to comply with
 the facility  process vent  emission  rate limits by  implementing the following
 requirements:
                                     5-33

-------
Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate according to the
manufacturer's specifications a flow indicator that provides
a record of vent stream flow to the control device at least
once every hour.  The flow indicator sensor shall be
installed in the vent stream at the nearest feasible point to
the control device inlet, but before being combined with
other vent streams.

Design and operate flares with no visible emissions as
determined by the methods specified in Sections 264.1033(e)
and 265.1033(e), except for periods not to exceed a total of
5 minutes during any 2 consecutive hours.

Operate flares with a flame present at all times, as deter-
mined by the methods specified in Sections 264.1033(f) and
265.1033(f) in paragraph (f)(2)(iii).

Use flares only if the net heating value of the gas being
combusted is 11.2 MJ/scm (300 Btu/scf)'or greater; if the
flare is steam-assisted or air-assisted; or if the net
heating value of the gas being combusted is 7.45 MJ/scm  (200
Btu/scf) or greater if the flare is nonassisted,,  The net
heating value of the gas being combusted shall be determined
by the methods specified in Sections 264.1033(e) and
265.1033(e).

Design and operate steam-assisted and nonassisted flares with
an exit velocity, as determined by the methods specified in
Sections 264.1033(e) and 265.1033(e), less than 18.3 m/s (60
ft/s), except as provided in Sections 264.1033(d) and
265.1033(d) in paragraphs (d) (4) (ii) and (iii),.

Design and operate steam-assisted and nonassisted flares with
an exit velocity, as determined by the methods specified in
Sections 264.1033 and 265.1033(e)(3), equal to or greater
than 18.3 m/s (60 ft/s) but less than 122 m/s  (400 ft/s) if
the net heating value of the gas being combusted is greater
than 37.3 MJ/scm (1,000 Btu/scf).

Design and operate steam-assisted and nonassisted flares with
an exit velocity, as determined by the methods specified in
Sections 264.1033(e) (3) and 265.1033(e) (3)-, less than the
velocity, Vmax, as determined by the method specified in
Sections 264.1033(e)(4) and 265.1033(e)(4), and  less than  122
m/s (400 ft/s).

Design and operate air-assisted flares with an exit velocity
less than the velocity, Vmax, as determined by the method
specified in Sections 264.1033(e)(5) and 265.1033(e)(5).

Flares used to comply with this section shall  be steam-
assisted, air-assisted, or nonassisted.
                           5-34

-------
     Use Reference Method 22 in-40 CFR Part 60 to determine the
     compliance of flares with the visible emission provisions of
     this subpart.  The observation period is 2 hours and shall be
     used according to Method 22.

     Calculate the net heating value of the gas being combusted in
     a flare using the following equation:
              HT = K
                ' n.
                  E
                Li-1
CiHi
(5-6)
where:

     HT
      K  =
       Net heating value of the sample,  MJ/scm;  where the net
       enthalpy per mole of off-gas is based on  combustion at
       25 °C and 760 mm Hg, but the standard'temperature for
       determining the volume corresponding to one mole is
       20 «C;

       Constant; 1.74 x 10'7 (1/ppm) (g mol/scm) (MJ/kcal)
       where standard temperature for (g mol/scm) is 20 °C;

CT  =  Concentration of sample component i in ppm on a wet
       basis, as measured for organics by Reference Method 18
       in 40 CFR Part 60 and measured for hydrogen and carbon
       monoxide by ASTM D1946-82 (incorporated by reference
       as specified in Section 260.11); and

Hi  =  Net heat of combustion of sample component i, kcal/g
       mole at 25 *C and 760 mm Hg.  The heats of combustion
       may be determined using ASTM D2382-83  (incorporated by
       reference as specified in Section 260.11) if published
       values are not available or cannot be  calculated.

Determine the actual exit  velocity of a flare by dividing  the
volumetric flow rate  (in units of standard temperature and
pressure), as determined by Reference Methods 2, 2A, 2C,  or
2D in 40 CFR Part 60 as appropriate; by the unobstructed
(free) cross-sectional area of the  flare tip.

Determine the maximum allowed velocity, Vmax, for flares
complying with  Sections 264.1033(d)(4)(iiiJ and
265.1033(d)(4)(iii)  by the following equation:
                                    28.8)/31.7
                                                         (5-7)
 where:
                 Maximum allowed velocity, m/s

          28.8 = Constant
                                5-35

-------
              31.7 = Constant
              HT   = The net heating value as determined in Sections
                     264.1033(e)(2) and 265.1033(e)(2).
          Determine the maximum allowed velocity, Vmax, for air-
          assisted flares by the following equation:
miv
UlaX
                        = 8.706 + 0.7084  (HT)
                         •                   I
                                              (5-8)
     where:
              Vmax   = Maximum, all owed velocity, m/s
      »    *                                                                p
              8.706  = Constant
              0.7084 = Constant
              HT     - The net heating value as determined  in Sections
                       264.1033(e)(2) and 265.1033(e)(2).
     5.3.2.2  Thermal Incineration.  Any organic chemical heated to a high
enough temperature in the presence of enough oxygen will be oxidized to
carbon dioxide and water.  This  is the"basic principle of operation of a
thermal incinerator.  The theoretical temperature  required  for thermal
oxidation to occur depends on the structure of the chemical involved.  Some
chemicals are oxidized at .temperatures much lower than others.  The organic
destruction efficiency of a-thermal oxidizer can be affected by variations
in chamber temperature, residence time, inlet organic concentration, com-
pound type, and flow regime  (mixing).  An efficient thermal incinerator
system must provide:
     1.   A chamber temperature  high enough to enable the oxidation reaction
          to proceed rapidly to  completion
     2.  'Enough turbulence to obtain good mixing  between the hot  combustion
          products from the burner, combustion air, and  organics
     3.   Sufficient residence time at the chosen  temperature for  the
          oxidation reaction to  reach completion.
     A thermal incinerator is usually a refractory-lined chamber containing
a burner at one end.  As shown in Figure 5-11, discrete  dual fuel  burners
(1) and inlets for the vent gas  (2) and combustion air  (3)  are arranged  in a
premixing chamber  (4) to mix the hot products from the burners thoroughly
with the vent gas airstreams.  The mixture of hot  reacting  gases then passes
"into the main combustion chamber (5).  This section is sized to allow the
                                     5-36

-------
Vent gas (2)
    Auxiliary
  ?yei Earner-;—
    .discrete)
     (1)
      Air
                                           Ootionai
                                            Heat   ,  .
                                           Recovery  (6)
                     Figure 5-11. Discrete burner, thermal oxidizer.
         (2)
Burner Plate-  Flame  Jets7  (1)
                              Auxiliary fuel
                               (natural gas)
                    Figure 5-12. Distributed burner, thermal oxidizer.
                                                                                tec*
                                                                                 t
                                                                        Ootjonai
                                                                          Heat
                                                                        Recovery
                                                                           (4)
                                         5-37

-------
mixture enough time at the elevated temperature for the oxidation reaction
to reach completion (residence times of 0.3 to 1 s are common).  Energy can
then be recovered from the hot flue gases in a heat recovery section (6).
Preheating of combustion air or vent gas is a common mode of energy
recovery; however, it is sometimes more economical to generate steam.
Insurance regulations require that if the waste stream is preheated, the
organic concentration must be maintained below 25 percent of the lower
explosive limit (LEL) to prevent explosion hazards.
     Thermal incinerators designed specifically for organic incineration
with natural gas as the auxiliary fuel may also use a grid-type (distrib-
uted) gas burner as shown in Figure 5-12.36  jhe tiny gas flame jets (1) on
the grid surface (2) ignite the vapors as they pass through the grid.- The
grid acts as a baffle for mixing the gases entering the chamber (3).  This
arrangement ensures burning of all vapors at lower chamber temperature and
uses less fuel.  This system makes possible a shorter reaction chamber yet
maintains high efficiency.
     Other parameters affecting incinerator performance (i.e., organic vapor
destruction efficiency) are the vent gas organic vapor composition, concen-
tration, and heating value; the water content in the stream; the amount of
excess combustion air (the amount of air above the stoichiometric air needed
for reaction); the combustion zone temperature; the period of time the
organics remain in the combustion zone (i.e., "residence time"); and the
degree of turbulent mixing in the combustion zone.
     The vent gas heating value is a measure of the heat available from the
combustion of the organic in the vent gas.  Combustion of vent gas with a
heating value less than 1.86 MJ/Nm3 (50 Btu/scf) usually requires burning
auxiliary fuel to maintain the desired combustion temperature.  Auxiliary
fuel requirements can be lessened or eliminated by the use of recuperative
heat exchangers to preheat combustion air.  Vent gas with a heating value
above 1.86 mJ/Nm3 (50 Btu/scf) may support combustion, but may need
auxiliary fuel for flame stability.
     A thermal incinerator handling vent gas streams with varying heating
values and moisture content requires careful adjustment to maintain the
proper chamber temperatures and operating efficiency.   Water requires a
great deal of heat to vaporize, so entrained water droplets in a vent gas
                                    5-38

-------
stream can substantially increase auxiliary fuel requirements because of the
additional energy needed to vaporize the water and raise it to the combus-
tion chamber temperature.  Combustion devices are always operated with some
quantity of excess air to ensure a sufficient supply of oxygen.  The amount
of excess air used varies with the fuel and burner type, but it should be
kept as low as possible.  Using too much excess air wastes fuel because the
additional air must be heated to the combustion chamber temperature.  A
large amount of excess air also increases flue gas volume and may increase
the size and cost of the system.  Packaged, single unit thermal incinerators
can be built to control streams with flow rates in the range of 0.1 NmVs
(200 scfm) to about 24 Nm3/s  (50,000 scfm).
     To ensure that the thermal incinerator is operated and maintained
within design specifications, Sections 264.1033(f) and-265.1033(f)  require
the owner/operator to monitor and inspect each thermal incinerator  required
•to comply with the facility process vent emission rate limits  by  implement-
ing th£ following requirements:
     •     Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate according  to  the manu-
          facturer's specifications a  flow indicator that provides  a record
           of vent stream flow to the control  device at  least once every   •
           hour.  The flow  indicator sensor shall  be installed  in  the vent
           stream at the nearest  feasible point  to the  control  device  inlet,
           but before being combined with other  vent streams.
                                                                  *
      •     Install a temperature  monitoring device equipped  with  a continuous
           recorder.  The device  shall  have an accuracy of ±1 percent  of  the '
           temperature  being monitored  in degrees  Celsius or ±0.5  °C, which-
           ever  is greater. The  temperature  sensor  shall be installed  at a
           location  in  the  combustion chamber downstream of  the combustion
           zone.                 .
 Also,  visible  emissions  from  an  incinerator  indicate  incomplete  combustion,
 i.e.,  inefficient  operation.
      5.3.2.3   Catalytic  Incinerators.   A catalyst is  a substance that
 changes the rate of a  chemical  reaction without being permanently altered.
 Catalysts in  catalytic incinerators cause  the oxidizing reaction to occur at
 a lower temperature than is required for thermal  oxidation.  Catalyst mate-
 rials include platinum,  platinum alloys,  copper oxide, chromium,  and cobalt.
 These materials are plated in thin layers  on inert substrates designed to
 provide maximum surface area between the catalyst and the organic vapor
 stream.
                                     5-39

-------
     Figure 5-13 presents a catalytic incinerator.  The vent gas (1)  is
introduced into a mixing chamber (3) where it is heated to approximately
320 °C (~600 °F) by the hot combustion products of the auxiliary burners
(2).  The heated mixture then passes through the catalyst bed (4).   Oxygen
arid organics diffuse onto the catalyst surface and are adsorbed in  the pores
of the catalyst.  The oxidation reaction takes place at these active sites.
Reaction products are desorbed from the active sites and diffuse back into
the gas.  The combusted gas can then be routed through a waste heat recovery
device (5) before exhausting into the atmosphere.
     Combustion catalysts usually operate over a temperature range of 320 to
650'°C (600 to 1,200 °F).  Lower temperatures can slow down or stop the
oxidation reaction.  Higher temperatures can shorten the life of the cata-
lyst or evaporate the catalyst from the inert substrate.  Vent gas streams
with high organic concentrations can result in temperatures high enough to
cause catalyst failure.  In such cases, dilution air may be required.
Accumulations of particulate matter, condensed organics, or polymerized
hydrocarbons on the catalyst can block the active sites and reduce effi-
ciency.  Catalysts can also be deactivated by compounds containing sulfur,
bismuth, phosphorous, arsenic, antimony, mercury, lead, zinc, tin,  or
halogens.  If these compounds deactivate the catalytic unit, organics will
pass through unreacted or be partially oxidized to form compounds (alde-
hydes, ketones, and organic acids) that are highly reactive atmospheric
pollutants that can corrode plant equipment.
     Catalytic incineration destruction efficiency is dependent on organic
composition and concentration, operating temperature, oxygen concentration,
catalyst characteristics, and space velocity.  Space velocity is commonly
defined as the volumetric flow of gas entering the catalyst bed chamber
divided by the volume of the catalyst bed.  The relationship between space
velocity and organic destruction efficiency is strongly influenced by
catalyst operating temperature.  As space velocity increases, organic
destruction efficiency decreases, and as temperature increases, organic
destruction efficiency increases.  A catalytic unit operating at about
450 eC (840 eF) with a catalyst bed volume of 0.014 to 0.057 m^ (0.5 to 2
ft3) per 0.47 scm/s (1,000 scfm) of vent gas passing through the device can
achieve 95 percent organic destruction efficiency.37-  Destruction
                                    5-40

-------
                                I
                                c
                                O
                                m
                                in
                                 CD
                                il
5-41

-------
efficiencies of 98 percent or greater can be obtained on some streams by
utilizing the appropriate catalyst bed volume to vent gas flow rate.
     To ensure that the catalytic incinerator is operated and maintained
within design specifications, Sections 264.1033(f) and 26i5.1033(f) require
the owner/operator to monitor and inspect each catalytic incinerator
required to comply with the facility process vent emission rate limits by
implementing the following requirements:
     •    Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate according to the manu-
          facturer's specifications a" flow indicator that provides a record
          of vent stream flow to the control device at least once every
          hour.  The flow indicator sensor shall be installed in the vent
          stream at the nearest feasible point to the control device inlet,
          but before being combined with other vent streams.
     •    Install a temperature monitoring device equipped with a continuous
          recorder.  The device shall be capable of monitoring temperature
          at two locations, and have an accuracy of ±1 percent of the
         . temperature being monitored in degrees Celsius or ±0.5 °C, which-
          ever is greater.  One temperature sensor shall be installed in the
          vent stream at the nearest possible point to the catalyst bed
          inlet, and a second temperature sensor shall be installed in the
          vent stream at the nearest feasible point to the catalyst bed
          outlet.
Also, as with thermal incineration, visible emissions from a catalytic
incinerator indicate incomplete combustion, i.e., inefficient operation.
     5.3.2.4  Boilers or Process Heaters.  Fired-process equipment or fur-
naces make up a category that includes boilers, heaters, and incinerators.
Such equipment are employed in most chemical plants to provide heat conven-
iently, efficiently, and at the temperature level required.  Indirect-fired
furnaces (boilers and process heaters) are those where heating media are
separated from process streams.
     Industrial boilers are of two types.  Fire-tube unit:* are similar to
shell-and-tube heat exchangers with combustion gases flowing through the
tubes.  The center tube of the bundle, much larger than the rest, comprises
the combustion chamber.  Flow reverses at the end of the bundle and passes
back through numerous smaller outer tubes.  Efficient and compact, fire-tube
boilers are always shop fabricated.  Steam pressures are limited by the
strength of the large cylindrical shell.  These, of course, are less than
could be contained in smaller tubes.  Thus, fire-tube furnaces are employed
                                    5-42

-------
primarily for generating modest amounts of low-pressure saturated steam.,
Because of geometry, the combustion chamber and flue gas.tubes are not
compatible with continuous cleaning.  This, in addition to a limited combus-
tion residence time, restricts fire-tube boilers to fuels no dirtier or less
convenient than residual oil.
     Water-tube boilers contain steam within the tubes while combustion
occurs in a box!ike open chamber.   In large boilers, hundreds to thousands
of tubes, usually 7 to 12 cm  (2.7 to 4.7 in.) in diameter, are installed
side by side, forming the walls of  the combustion chamber and of baffles
that control flow of and remove heat from combustion gases.  In the combus-
tion area, known as the radiant section, gas temperatures drop from about
1,930 °C {3,506 °F) to 1,030  °C (1,886 °F).  After combustion products have
been thus cooled by .radiation to wall tubes, they pass at high velocity
through slots between more tubes suspended as large banks in the gas stream.
This is known as the convection section.   In the radiant section, such
direct exposure to  higher temperature gases would damage the tube metal.
Gas entering'the convection  section at about 1,030 °C  (1,886 °F) leaves near
330 °C (626 °F).  Tubes  in the radiant section  are normally filled with
circulating, boiling liquid  to avoid hot spots.  When  superheating is
desired, this occurs in  the  hot end of the convection  system.
     Because small  tubes  are capable of much higher  pressures  than is  the
large  shell of  a fire-tube boiler,  elevated  steam pressures as well  as
superheat  are common in  water-tube furnaces.   Steam  at 45  bar  (652.7  psi)
pressure  superheated to  400  °C  (752 °F)  is a typical maximum.   Saturated
process  steam  is also  commonly generated  at  pressures  of 17  and  33 bar
 (246.6 and 478.6 psi)  in water-tube boilers.   Pressures  lower than this  are
 impractical  because of distribution piping costs.   If  lower pressure process
 steam is  needed in  substantial quantity  (i.e.,  greater than 5 kg/s  [11.023
 lb/s]),  it will  probably prove practical  to generate high-pressure steam at
 45 bar (652.7  psi)  and 400 °C (752 °F),  pass it through an expansion turbine
 to recover cheap power,  and  employ the exhaust for process needs.   This  is
 known as cogeneration.
      Because of the large,  open  combustion chambers, coal  and wood fueling
 is common in water-tube furnaces.  Flyash and soot are cleaned from convec-
 tion tubes by automatic "soot blowers" that direct high-velocity steam or
                                     5-43

-------
air jets against outer surfaces of tubes while the boiler is operating.
Water-tube boilers can be shop fabricated with heating duties up to
100,000 kJ/s (94,860 Btu/s).  Modern units burning coal arid wood or residual
oil are fitted with dust collectors for flyash removal.
     Frequently, the need arises for process heat at temperatures above
those available from the systems -already described.  In these situations and
even where an intermediate medium can be used, the process; fluid itself is
passed through tube coils in a fired furnace.  The process; system may be
reactive, as with pyrolysis furnaces, which have been used extensively to
thermally crack hydrocarbons for ethylene and propylene manufacture.  The
process stream may be nonreactive as well.  Such is the case when a fired
furnace is us'ed as a reboiler in the distillation of heavy petroleum
liqui-ds.
     Boilers and process heaters can be designed as control devices to limit
organic emissions by incorporating the vent stream (e.g., distillation) with-
the inlet fuel, or by feeding the stream into the boiler or process heater
through a separate burner.  These devices are most applicable where high
vent stream heat recovery potential exists.
     The primary purpose of a boiler is to generate steam,.  Process heaters
are applied within a TSDF for a variety of reasons including preheating and
reboiling for some distillation operations.  Both devices are important to
the operation of a TSDF, and as a result only streams that are certain not
to reduce the device's performance or reliability warrant use of a boiler or
process heater as a combustion control device.  Note;  Boilers and process
heaters can be used without a RCRA permit only if they burn gases, not
hazardous waste liquids  (not even hazardous waste liquids coming from  an air
vent).  Variations in vent stream flow rate and/or heating value could
affect the heat output or flame stability of a boiler or process heater and
should be considered when using these combustion devices.  Performance or
reliability may be affected by the presence of corrosive products  in the
vent stream.  Because these compounds could corrode boiler or process  heater
materials, vent streams with a relatively high concentration of halogenated
or sulfur-containing compounds are usually not combusted  in boilers or
process heaters.  When corrosive organic compounds are combusted,  the  flue
gas temperature must be maintained above the acid dewpoint to prevent  acid
deposition and subsequent corrosion  from occurring.

                                     5-44

-------
     The introduction of a distillation vent stream into the furnace of a
boiler or heater could alter the heat transfer characteristics of the
furnace.  Heat transfer characteristics are dependent on the flow rate,
heating value, and elemental composition of the distillation vent stream, as
well as the size and type of heat generating unit being used.  Often, there
is no significant alteration, of the heat transfer, and the organic content
of the distill atit>n stream can, in some cases, lead to a reduction in the
amount of fuel required to achieve the desired heat production.  In other
cases, the change in heat transfer characteristics after introduction of the
distillation stream may adversely affect the performance of the heat gener-
ating unit and increase fuel requirements.  If for a given distillation vent
stream increased fuel is required to achieve design heat production to the
degree that equipment damage (e.g., tube failure due to local hot spots)
might result, then heat-generating units would not be applicable as an
organic control device for that vent stream.  In addition to these relia-
bility problems, potential safety problems  are»associated with ducting
distillation vents to a boiler or process heater.  Variation in the flow
rate and organic content of the vent stream could, in some cases, lead to
explosive mixtures that could cause extensive damage.  Another related
problem  is flame fluttering that could  result from these variations.
     When a boiler or process heater is applicable and available, either  is
an  excellent control device because each can  provide at least 98 percent
destruction of organics.  However, to ensure  a control efficiency of 98   >
percent, the waste must be  introduced  into  the flame zone.   Temperatures  are
highest  at the flame zone,  and combustion kinetics are much  more rapid, •
resulting in  high destruction efficiencies.  In  addition, near complete
recovery of the  vent stream heat content  is possible.
      The control efficiency or organic  vapor  removal efficiency  can  be
determined at  any given time as  follows:
                    Mi  -
                      Mi
ER x 100 = % Removal
                                                                        (5-9)
 where:
           Mi  = Inlet organic mass flow rate,  Ib/h,
                                     5-45

-------
          M0 s Outlet organic mass flow rate, Ib/h,

          ER - Organic vapor removal/control efficiency.

     1.   Monitor the concentration of the inlet airstream and the outlet
          airstream together with the volume flow rate and convert to a mass
          flow rate.

     2..   Place the mass flow rate values into the equation for
          instantaneous removal efficiency (see above).

     For an average removal efficiency over a defined time interval t, the

concentration of .the inlet and outlet airstreams should be monitored over

the time interval t and averaged by extrapolation or time integration.

     The parameters that affect the efficiency of a thermal incinerator

(e.g., boilers and process heaters) are the same parameters that affect the

efficiency of these devices when they function as air pollution control

devices.  These parameters are temperature, residence time, inlet organic
concentration, compound type, and flow regime (mixing).  Accordingly, to

ensure that the boilers or process heaters are maintained within design

specifications, Sections 264.1033(f) and 265.1033(f) require the owner/oper-

ator to monitor, inspect, and maintain each boiler or process heater
required to comply with facility process vent emission rate limits by imple-

menting the following requirements:

     •    Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate according to the manu-
          facturer's specifications a flow indicator that provides a record
          of vent stream flow to the control device at least once every
          hour.  The flow indicator sensor shall be installed in the vent
          stream at the nearest feasible point to the control device inlet,
          but before being combined with other vent streams.

     •    For boilers or process heaters having a design heat input capacity
          less than 44 MW, install a temperature monitoring device equipped
          with a continuous recorder.  The device shall have an accuracy of
          ±1 percent of the temperature being monitored in degrees Celsius
          or ±0.5 °C, whichever is greater.  The temperature sensor shall be
          installed at a location in the furnace downstream of the combus-
          tion zone.

     •    For boilers or process heaters having a design heat input capacity
          greater than or equal to 44 MW, install a monitoring device
          equipped with a continuous recorder to measure a parameter that
          demonstrates good combustion operating practices are being used
          (e.g., concentration of CO, 02, hydrocarbons).
                                    5-46

-------
5.3.3  Adsorption
     Adsorption is a mass-transfer operation involving interaction between
gaseous and solid-phase components.  The gas-phase (adsorbate) surface is
captured on the solid-phase (adsorbent) surface by physical or chemical
adsorption mechanisms.  Physical adsorption is a mechanism that takes place
when intermolecular (van der Waals) forces attract and hold the gas mole-
cules to the solid surface.38  Chemisorption occurs when a chemical bond
forms between the gas- and solid-phase molecules.  A physically adsorbed
molecule can readily be removed from the adsorbent (under suitable tempera-
ture and pressure conditions), while the removal of a chemisorbed component
is much more difficult.                             .
     The most commonly encountered industrial adsorption systems use acti-
vated carbon as the adsorbent.  Activated carbon is effective in capturing
certain organic vapors by the physical adsorption mechanism.  However,
activated carbon has a finite adsorption capacity.  When the carbon becomes -
saturated  (i.e., all of the carbon surface is covered with organic mate-
rial), there is no further organic removal; all vapors pass through the
carbon bed.  At this point (referred to as "breakthrough"), the organic
compounds must be removed from the carbon before adsorption-can resume.
This process is called desorption or regeneration.  The organics may be
released for recovery by regeneration  of the adsorption bed with steam.
     Oxygenated adsorbents such as silica gels, diatomaceous  earth, alumina,
or synthetic zeolites exhibit a greater selectivity than activated carbon
for capturing  some compounds.  These adsorbents have  a strong preferential
affinity for water vapor over organic  gases and would be of little use for
the high moisture gas streams from some distillation  vents.39
     The two basic configurations  for  carbon adsorption systems are  regen-
erative and nonregenerative  systems.   In  regenerative systems, fixed-bed
carbon adsorbers  are  used  for controlling continuous, organic gas  streams
with flow  rates  ranging from 30 to over 3,000 m3/min  (1,000 to over  100,000
ft^/min).  The organic concentration can  be  as  low as several parts  per
billion by volume  (ppbv) or  as  high as 25 percent  of  the  lower explosive
limit  of the vapor  stream  constituents.   Fixed-bed carbon  adsorbers  may  be
operated  in either  intermittent or continuous modes.  For  intermittent
operation, the adsorber removes organics  only  during  a  specific  time period.
                                     5-47

-------
Intermittent mode of operation allows a single carbon bed to be used because
it can be regenerated during the off-line periods.  For continuous opera-
tion, the unit is equipped with two or more carbon beds so that at least one
bed is always available for adsorption while other beds are being regener-
ated.  In nonregenerative systems, the spent carbon is replaced with fresh
carbon and is disposed of or reactivated off-site for eventual reuse.
Nonregenerative systems (e.g., carbon canisters) are applicable for control-
ling organic emissions that are expected to vary in types of organics and
concentrations and to occur at relatively low total mass rates.  Carbon
canisters typically consist of a 0.21-m3 (55-gal) drum with inlet and outlet
pipe fittings.  A typical canister unit is filled with 70 to 90 kg (150 to
200 Ib) of activated carbon.  Use of carbon canisters is limited to
controlling low-volume gas streams with flow rates less than 3 m3/min
(100 ft3/min).  Carbon cannot be regenerated directly in the canister.  Once
the activated carbon in the canister becomes saturated by the organic
vapors, the carbon canister must be removed and  replaced with, a fresh carbon
canister.  The spent carbon canister is then recycled or discarded depending
on site-specific factors.
     The design of a carbon adsorption system depends on the chemical char-
acteristics of the organic compound being recovered, the physical properties
of the vent gas stream  (temperature, pressure,  and volumetric flow rate),
and the physical properties of the adsorbent.   The mass flow rate of organic
from the gas phase to the surface of the adsorbent  (the rate of capture)  is
directly proportional to the  difference  in organic concentration between  the
gas phase and the solid surface.  In addition,  the mass flow rate of organic
is dependent on the  adsorbent bed volume, the surface  area  of adsorbent
available to capture organic, and the  rate of diffusion of  organic through
the gas film at the  gas- and  solid-phase interface.   Physical adsorption  is
an exothermic operation that  is most efficient  within  a narrow  range of
temperature  and pressure.  A  schematic diagram  of a  typical  fixed-bed,
regenerative carbon  adsorption  system  is given  in Figure  5-14.  The  process
vent  gases are filtered and cooled  (1) before entering the  carbon  bed.   The
inlet  gases  to an adsorption  unit are  filtered  to prevent:  bed contamination.
The  gases are cooled to maintain  the bed at  optimum operating temperature
and  to prevent fires or polymerization of  the hydrocarbons.   Vapors  entering
                                     5-48

-------
Organic-us«
     Vent
     FU.7S31KG
        AXO
     SMUKS
                                                A8SQR8ES 1
                                                lAOSORBlHG)

                                                                  OEWKTOR
                                                                    ma/or
                                                                OtSTltJUHC TOVES
Organic
         (S)
                                                                                      law
                      Figure 5-14. Two-stage regenerative adsorption system.
                                                 5-49

-------
the adsorber stage of the system (2)'are passed through the porous activated
carbon bed.
     Adsorption of inlet vapors occurs in the bed until the activated carbon
is saturated with organics.  The dynamics of the process may be illustrated
by viewing the carbon bed as a series of layers or mass-transfer zones (3a,
b, c).  Gases entering the bed are highly adsorbed first in zone (a).
Because most of the organic is adsorbed in zone (a), very little adsorption
takes place in zones (b) and (c).  Adsorption in zone  (b) increases as zone
(a) becomes saturated with organics and proceeds through zone (c).  When the
bed is completely saturated (breakthrough), the incoming organic-laden vent
gases are routed to an alternate bed while the saturated carbon bed is
regenerated.
     Typically, the duration of the adsorption cycle varies considerably
depending on the solvent being reclaimed and its regeneration characteris-
tics.  To maximize performance of the carbon adsorber, the adsorption cycle
duration should be extended to just below the breakpoint of the bed.  The
bed's breakthrough can be determined by using organic  vapor analyzers simul-
taneously on the inlet and outlet streams of the adsorber bed.  Breakthrough
history can be determined on the particular process being controlled, then
the regeneration of the bed can be started only when absolutely necessary.
     Regeneration of the carbon bed is accomplished by heating the bed or
applying vacuum to draw off the adsorbed gases.  Low-pressure steam  (4) is
frequently used as a heat source to strip the adsorbent of organic vapor.
The steam-laden vapors are then sent to a condenser (5) and on to some type
of solvent recovery system (6).  The regenerated bed is put back into active
service while the saturated bed is purged of organics.  The regeneration
process may be repeated numerous times, but eventually the carbon must be
replaced.
     The system variables that influence carbon adsorption system perform-
ance include temperature, pressure, gas velocity, bed  depth,  humidity, and
presence of contaminants in the gas stream.  For physical adsorption
processes, the capacity of an adsorbent decreases as system temperature
increases.  Adsorption capacity increases with an increase in the partial
pressure of the vapor, which is proportional to the total pressure of the
system.  Residence time in the bed  is a function of gas velocity.  Capture
                                     5-50

-------
efficiency, the percentage of organics removed from the inlet gas stream by
the adsorbent, is directly related to residence time.  Gas velocity can be
determined for a given volume of contaminant gas as a function of the
diameter of the adsorber.
     Providing a sufficient bed depth is very important in achieving effi-
cient organic removal.   If the adsorber bed depth is shorter than the
required mass transfer zone (MTZ), breakthrough will occur immediately, thus
rendering the system ineffective.  The MTZ i's a function of six factors:
the adsorbent particle size, gas velocity, adsorbate concentration, fluid
properties of the gas stream, temperature, and pressure of the system.' MTZ
can be estimated from experimental data as follows:
                               1
                      MTZ  S
                             1 - X.
                                                                      (5-10)
where:
       D
      CB
           =  Bed  depth,  m
           =  Breakthrough capacity,  % (may be obtained  from carbon  suppliers
             in some cases;  usually  determined experimentally)
           =  Saturation  capacity,  %  (may be obtained from the carbon
             supplier)
           =  Degree of saturation  in the MTZ, % (usually assumed to be 50
             percent)
     MTZ
           = Length of MTZ,  m.
 Actual  bed depths are usually many times the MTZ to allow for adequate cycle
 times.
      Activated carbon preferentially adsorbs nonpolar hydrocarbons over
 polar water vapor.  However, at relative humidities over 50 percent, water
 molecules will begin to compete with the hydrocarbon molecules for adsorp-
 tion sites.  Consequently,  the carbon bed working capacity is'decreased.
 Above an organic concentration of 1,000 ppm, high moisture does not signif-
 icantly affect performance.  Thus, obtaining good adsorber performance for
 gas streams with a high relative humidity (i,e., >50 percent) and low
 organic concentration (<1,000 ppm) requires preconditioning the gas stream
 upstream of the carbon bed.  This can be accomplished using a dehumidifica-
 tion system,  installing duct burners to heat the gas stream, or diluting the
                                     5-51

-------
.gas  stream with ambient air.   In  addition,  contaminants  such  as  particu-
 lates,  entrained liquid droplets,  and organic compounds  with  high  boiling
 points  can also reduce adsorber efficiency.
      Carbon bed operating temperature can also affect carbon  adsorber
 performance.   Excessive bed temperatures  can result due  to the release of
 heat from exothermic chemical  reactions that may occur in  the carbon bed.
 Ketones and aldehydes are especially reactive compounds  that  exothermically
 polymerize in the carbon bed.   If temperatures rise 'too  high,  spontaneous
 combustion will result in carbon  bed fires.   To avoid this problem,  carbon
 adsorbers applied to gas streams  containing these types  of compounds must be
 carefully designed and operated to allow  sufficient airflow through  the bed
 to remove excess heat.
      In determining the control efficiency for'a carbon  adsorption system,
 the  entire system must be considered.  If the carbon adsorption  system is
 nonregenerative, the control  efficiency or organic vapor removal efficiency
 can  be  determined at any given time as follows:
                    Mi  - Mo
                      Mi
ER x 100 = % Removal
(5-11)
 where:
      Mi  - Inlet organic vapor mass flow rate,  Ib/h
      M0  = Outlet organic vapor mass flow rate,  Ib/h
      ER  - Organic vapor removal/control efficiency.
      1.    Monitor the inlet airstream and the outlet airstream simultan-
           eously.
      2.    Place the mass flow rate values into the equation for instan-
           taneous removal efficiency.
      For an average removal efficiency over a defined time interval  t,  the
 mass flow rate of the inlet and outlet airstreams should be monitored over
 the time interval t and averaged by extrapolation or time integration.   If
 the carbon adsorption system is regenerative,  and regeneration is conducted
 on-site, the control efficiency can be calculated as follows:
                                     5-52

-------
               MI-(MO +MO )
               	ri	2- = ED ;  ER x 100 = % Removal  ,             (5-12)
                    rU
where:
 MJ = Inlet organic vapor mass flow rate, Ib/h
M   = Outlet organic vapor mass flow rate, Ib/h

M   - Outlet organic vapor mass flow rate of uncondensed vapor from
      regeneration, Ib/h
      Organic vapor removal /control efficiency.
       2
      En
       K
     For gas-phase carbon adsorption applications, a fixed-bed, regenerate
carbon adsorption system typically involves two separate steps.  The first
is the adsorption step where the organic  (adsorbate) is adsorbed onto the
surface of the activated carbon, (adsorbent).  The second step  is .where the .
adsorbate  is  removed from the carbon (desorpti on) and  recovered for reuse.
Both of these steps are equally important in the overall process,  and any
organics released to the atmosphere in  either step must be  accounted for and
included in the  control device  efficiency determination.  For  example,
regeneration  or  desorption  is usually accomplished by  passing  steam through
the bed countercurrent to the vent stream flow.  Regeneration  can  also be
accomplished  by  applying heat to burn the adsorbate.   When  steam  is used  in
the regeneration process, the steam carries the desorbed organics  from the
bed and  is then  condensed and decanted.  Any  organics  that  pass through  the
            i
condenser  (i.e., not condensed) and are vented to  the  atmosphere  should  be
quantified and  accounted for in the efficiency determination of the overall
carbon adsorption system.   Also, if there are organics in  the aqueous  phase
of the steam condensate  that go untreated and eventually  escape to the
 atmosphere,  these too  must  be accounted for in the control  device efficiency
 determination.   The TSDF owner/operator is expected  to ensure that organic
 emissions  resulting from regeneration  are also  controlled and that condensed
 organic waste is proper.ly  disposed.
      Emission source test  data for full-sized,  fixed-bed carbon  adsorbers
 operating in industrial  applications  has been compiled by EPA for a study of
 carbon adsorber performance.40  The analysis of these data supports the
 conclusion that for well -designed and operated carbon adsorbers,  continuous
                                     5-53

-------
organic removal efficiencies of at  least 95 percent are achievable over long

periods.  Several units have been shown to continuously achieve organic

removal efficiences of 97 to 99 percent.  An equivalent level of performance

is indicated by results of emission source tests conducted on carbon

canisters.
     To ensure that the carbon adsorption system is operated and maintained.

within'design specifications, Sections 264.1060(f) and 265.1060(f) require

the owner/operator to monitor, inspect, and maintain each carbon adsorption

tsystem required to comply with facility process vent emission rate limits by

implementing the following requirements:

     •    Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate according to the manu-
          facturer's specifications a flow indicator that provides a record
          of vent stream flow to the control device at least once every
          hour.  The flow indicator sensor shall be installed in the vent
          stream at the nearest feasible point to the control device inlet,
          but before being combined with other, vent streams.

     •    For carbon adsorption systems that regenerate the carbon bed
          directly in the control device such  as a fixed-bed carbon
          adsorber, install a monitoring device equipped with a continuous
          recorder to measure the concentration level of the organic
          compounds in the exhaust  vent stream from the carbon bed; or

     •    Install a monitoring device equipped with a continuous recorder to
          measure a parameter that  demonstrates the carbon bed is regener-
          ated on a regular, predetermined time cycle.

     •    For a carbon adsorption system in which the carbon bed is regener-
          ated directly on-site in  the control device such as a fixed-bed
          carbon adsorber, the owner/operator  is to replace the existing
          carbon in the control device with fresh carbon at a regular,
          predetermined time interval that is  no longer than the carbon
          service life established  as a requirement ,of Section
          270.25(e)(3)(vi).

     •    For a carbon adsorption system in which the carbon bed is not
          regenerated directly on-site in the  control device such as a
          carbon canister, replace  the existing carbon in the control device
          with fresh carbon on a regular basis by using one of the following
          procedures:

               Monitor the concentration level of the organic compounds in
               the exhaust vent stream from the carbon adsorption system on
               a regular schedule,  and replace the existing carbon with
               fresh carbon immediately when carbon breakthrough is indi-
               cated.  The monitoring frequency shall be at an interval no
                                     5-54

-------
               greater than 10 percent of the time required to consume the
               total carbon working capacity established as a requirement of
               Section 270.'24(e) (3) (vii).
          ~   Replace the existing carbon with fresh carbon at a regular,  ^
               predetermined time interval that is less than the design
               service life of the carbon established as a requirement of
               Section 270.24(d)(3)(vii).
The amount of organic recovered from the regenerated bed as a function of
cycle time provides a secondary indicator of system efficiency and must be
monitored.
                                                               -\
5.4  CONTROL DEVICE DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS REQUIRED BY THE REGULATION
     Design analysis for air pollution  control equipment is performed for a
variety of reasons, including  (1) to anticipate compliance with applicable
air pollution codes,  (2) to estimate performance  of existing control equip-
ment,  (3) to evaluate the  feasibility of  a  proposed equipment design, or
 (4) to assess the  effect of process modification  on control equipment
performance.  Regardless of the reason  for  conducting the  design  analysis,
air pollution control systems  are usually designed to control emissions  at  a
.minimum cost with  maximum  reliability.   The basic tradeoffs  involve
decisions between  collection .efficiency (the percentage reduction in
 pollutant concentration  between the  inlet and outlet  of the  control  device),
 installation  cost, and operating  cost.
      Air  pollution control equipment is often designed  specifically  for the
 source on which it is installed.   The regulation requires  that  a design
 analysis  be both conducted and documented through engineering calculations,
 vendor certification, and/or emission testing (Sections 264.1035(b)(4)).
 The design  analysis, must establish values for certain key operating param-
 eters that would be indicative of the control device operating at design
 efficiency.  The regulation then specifies operating limits for these key
 operating parameters based on the design values established during the de-
 sign analysis (Sections 264.1035(b)(4)(iii)(A)-(G)  and 265.1035(b)(4)(iii)
 (A)-(G)).  The owner/operator must then report when any monitored key
 parameter exceeds these limits for more than 24 hours  (see Chapters 7.0 and
 8.0 for details on and a discussion of the monitoring  and recordkeeping
 requirements of the regulation).  The  key operating parameters that must be
 established during the design  analysis are  as follows:
                                      5-55

-------
     •     Thermal  Incinerator—The design  minimum and  average  tempera-
          ture in  the combustion  zone and  the combustion  zone  residence
          time.

     •     Catalytic Incinerator—The design  minimum and  average temper-
          ature  across the catalyst bed inlet and outlet.

     •     Boiler or Process Heater—The design minimum and  average
          flame  zone temperatures, the flame zone residence time,  the
          description of method  and location where the vent; stream is
          introduced into the flame zone.

     •     Flare—Operating limits for key  operating parameters have
          already  been determined for flares (see Sections  264.1033(d)
          and 265.1033(d)); therefore, no  design analysis is required.

     *     Condenser—The design  outlet organic concentration level, the
          design average temperature of the  condenser  exhaust  vent
          stream,  the design average temperature of the  coolant fluid
          at the condenser inlet and outlet.

     •  '   Carbon Adsorption System (Regenerative)—Design exhaust  vent
          stream organic compound concentration level, the  number  and
          capacity of carbon beds, the type  and capacity of carbon
          beds,  the type and working capacity of activated  carbon  beds,
          design total steam flow over the period of each complete
          carbon bed regeneration cycle, the duration  of the carbon bed
          steaming and cooling/drying cycles, the design carbon bed
          temperature after regeneration,  the design carbon bed regen-
          eration  time, and the  design service life of carbon.

     •     Carbon Adsorption System (Nonreqenerative)—The design outlet
          organic  concentration  level, the capacity of carbon bed, the
          type and working capacity of activated carbon,  and the design
          carbon replacement interval based  on the total  carbon working
          capacity of the control device and source operating schedule.

     Other operating parameters  are required by the regulation to be
considered during the design analysis.  However, the regulation does not

require design values for these parameters to be established.   These

operating parameters are the same for all  the control  devices and'are as

follows:  vent stream composition, constituent concentrations, and flow

rate.  The condenser and carbon  adsorber both have two additional  param-

eters,  relative humidity and temperature,  that also must be considered  in
the design analysis.  Appendix F provides design checklists of all required

operating parameters for carbon adsorption,  condensers,  combustion devices,

and flares.
                                    5-56

-------
     Numerous procedures are used to design air pollution control systems.

These procedures range in difficulty from shortcut "rules of thumb" to in-

depth design procedures based on pilot plant data.  The "rules of thumb" in

the following paragraphs can be applied when reviewing combustion and

noncombustion control device designs and can be used to "red flag"

parameters that appear out of the ordinary.   .

5.4.1  Heat Exchanger Rules of Thumb41"43                                    °

     1.   Corrosive fluids are usually passed on the tube side.

     2.   High-pressure fluids usually pass on the tube side.  Plate
          exchangers are not recommended for a pressure above 10 bar.

     3    Fouling or scaling fluids are placed on the tube side  of fixed-
          tube  exchangers.   If deposits can be removed by high-velocity
          steam or water jets, fouling fluids may also pass on the shell
          side  of exchangers that can be exposed for cleaning.

     4    High-viscosity fluids  are usually placed in the shell  side  of
          conventional  shell-and-tube exchangers.  Plate exchangers are
          attractive for such service.  For viscosities greater  than  1
          Pa  •  s, scraped-wall exchangers  are  attractive.

     5.   Condensing vapors  are  usually placed on the shell  side.

     6.   Determine  exchanger duty  from an energy balance on  one side.
          Allow up to  10 percent losses depending on  shell-side  temperature.

     7.   Approach AT's (mean temperature  difference) are .approximately
           10 °C (18  °F) for liquids or systems with  high  heat transfer
          coefficients.

     8.    Approach AT's (mean  temperature  difference)  are approximately
           50 °C (90  °F) for gases or systems  with low heat  transfer
           coefficients.

      9.    Pressure drops are approximately 0.2 to 0.6 bar for liquid
           heating,  cooling, or boiling.   For condensation or heat transfer
           to or from gases, pressure drops are approximately 0.1 bar.

      10.  The  EPA has published guidelines that provide condenser outlet gas
           temperatures that should not be exceeded when condensing organics
           with certain vapor pressures (see Table 5-3).  These guidelines
           are  useful as an indicator of condenser performance but it .must be
           noted that the guidelines'do not account for the molecular weight
           or initial concentration of the organic to be condensed, each of
           which has great bearing on how much organic is condensed.  For
           example, if  the organic concentration is higher than  the satura-
           tion concentration at the condensing temperature, condensation is
                                     5-57

-------
              TABLE 5-3.   RECOMMENDED OUTLET GAS TEMPERATURES

          1.   -25 °C when condensing VOC of vapor pressure
              >40 kPa (5.8 psia)a

          2.   -15 °C when condensing VOC of vapor pressure
              >20 kPa (2.9 psia)

          3.   0 °C when condensing VOC of vapor pressure >10 kPa
              (1.5 psia)

          4.   10 °C when  condensing VOC of vapor pressure >7 kPa
              (1.0 psia)

          5.   25 °C when  condensing VOC of vapor pressure
              >3.5 kPa (0.5 psia)

          aVapor pressures as measured at 20 °C.

          Source:  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
                   Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from
                   Manufacture of Synthesized Pharmaceutical
                   Products'.  OAQPS Guideline Series. -Publica-
                   tion No. EPA-450/2-78-029.  December 1978.
                   p. 1-5.
          expected to occur; however, if the initial  concentration is below
          the saturation concentration,  little or no condensation is
          expected.

5.4.2  Adsorption Rules of Thumb

     1.   Adsorber temperatures are usually kept below 55 °C (130 °F); inlet
          gas temperature should not exceed about 37.7 °C (100 °F) for
          sustained operations.

     2.   Some adsorbents will remove water vapor molecules as well as
          molecules of the contaminated gas.  Carbon systems should be
          operated at relative humidities of 50 percent or less.

     3.   All particulate matter larger than about 5 /*m in size should be
          removed before the gas enters the adsorber in a regenerate
          system.

     4.   Solvents should have a boiling point less than 260 °C (500 °F) so
          that they may be readily stripped from the adsorbent by the low-
          pressure steam.

     5.   To achieve 90 percent or greater capture efficiency, most carbon
          adsorption systems are designed for a maximum airflow velocity of
          30 m/min (100 ft/min) through the adsorber.  A lower limit of at
          least 6 m/min (20 ft/min) is maintained to avoid flow distribution
          problems such as channeling.

                                    5-58

-------
     6.    Pressure  drops  in  fixed  carbon  beds  normally range from 750 to
          3,730  Pa  (3  to  15  in.  H£0)  depending on  the gas velocity,  bed
          depth,  and carbon  particle  size.

     7     The  optimum  steam  requirement for thermal  swing regeneration
          usually ranges  from 0.25 to 0.35  kg  of steam/kg (0.55 to .0.77 Ib
          of steam/lb)  of carbon.   Steam in these  systems is usually
          supplied  at  pressures  ranging from 21 to 103 kPa (3 to 15  psig).

     8.    Maximum bed  depth  for  a  fixed horizontal bed is recommended as
          1.2  m (4  ft).  The maximum  adsorbent depth of 1.2 m (4 ft) is
          based on  pressure  drop considerations;

     9.    Horizontal  flow adsorbers are used for larger flow rates.
          Adsorbers of this  type are  manufactured as a package system
          capable of handling flow rates up to 1,150 nP/s (40,000 cfm).

5.4.3  Combustion Device Rules of Thumb
     1.
     2.


     3.


     4.


     5.


     6.
Thermal incinerators generally operate at 700 to 820 °C (1,300 to
1,500 °F) with residence times of approximately 0.1 to 0.6 s.
Tes.t results and combustion kinetics analyses indicated that
thermal vapor incineration destroys at least 98 percent of
nonhalogenated organic compounds in the vapor stream at a
temperature of 870 °C (1,600 °F) and a residence time of 0.75
seconds.44  If the vapor stream contains halogenated compounds, a
temperature of 1,100 °C (2,000 °F) and a residence time of   .
1 second is needed to achieve a 98-percent destruction
efficiency.45               •     .      •

Catalytic incinerators generally operate at 370 to 480 °C (700 to
900 °F) with residence times of a few hundreths of a second.

Process boilers are normally designed to operate in excess of
980 8C (1,800 °F) with a flue gas residence time of 0.5 to 3.0 s.

Pressure drops in catalytic incinerators normally range from 62 to
125 Pa (0.25 to 0.5 in. H20).

Typical gas velocities for catalytic incinerators range from 20 to
200 feet per second (fps)  (6 to 60 m/s).

Incinerator warmup usually begins with an outlet temperature of
93.3  °C  (200 °F).  This temperature  is then held for 1 h.  There-
after, the outlet temperature is  increased  at the rate of 93.3 °C
(200  °F) per hour until an outlet temperature of 315.5 °C  (600 °F)
is  reached.  Then" the outlet temperature may be increased at the
rate  of  93.3 to 204.4 °C  (200 to  400 8F) per hour until the  final
operating temperature is  reached.

Typical  maximum flare capacity  is as follows:  ground  flare, 80 to
 100 thousand  lb/h;  and elevated  flare,  1,000 to 2,000
thousand  Ib/h.
                                     5-59

-------
5.5  ADDITIONAL CONTROLS FOR PROCESS VENTS
     Permit writers, through the omnibus permitting authority of Section
                                                 a
270.32, are allowed to require emission controls that are more stringent
than those specified by a standard on a case-by-case basis.  This authority
could be used in situations where the permit writer deems there is an
unacceptably high risk after application of controls required by an emission
standard.
     Guidance to help permit writers identify facilities that would poten-
tially have high residual risk due to air emissions is being prepared by
EPA.  This section provides a general discussion of the controls available
for process vents (i.e., condensers, carbon adsorbers, flares, incinerators,
boilers, and process heaters) that would result in control levels more
stringent -than the level achieved under the requirements of Subpart AA of
Parts 264 and 265.          •
5.5.1  Condensers
     Control devices involving vapor recovery (e.g., condensers) must be
designed and operated to recover the organic vapors vented to them with an
efficiency of 95 percent in order to satisfy the requirements of Subpart AA
of the standards unless the total organic emission limits of Sections
264.1032(a)(l) and 265.1032(a)(1) for all affected process vents can be
attained at efficiencies less than 95 percent.  The regulation requires that
the design outlet organic concentration level, the design average tempera-
ture of the condenser exhaust vent stream, and the design average tempera-
ture of the coolant fluid at the condenser inlet and outlet be established
in addition to the vent stream flow rate and coolant and exhaust vent
temperature or concentration of organics in the exhaust vent being moni-
tored.  This is to ensure that the condenser is operated and maintained
within design specifications and is therefore achieving an efficiency of 95
percent.
     Additional control gre'ater than the 95 percent required by the regula-
tion can also be achieved in some situations.  Condenser efficiency is
dependent on both the concentration and volatility of organics present-in
the vent stream.  Compounds having  lower volatilities tend to condense  more
readily than those  of higher volatility.  As a result, higher efficiencies
are obtainable with vent gas streams containing the less volatile organic
                                     5-60

-------
compounds.  The efficiency of a condenser is directly related to the
concentration of the inlet vent gas stream.  In general, as the concen-
tration increases, the efficiency of the condenser also increases.  Con-
versely, low concentrations also result in low efficiencies.  (See Appendix
E for an analysis of the effect of concentration on efficiency.)  Therefore,
any .additional control beyond that set forth by the standard to achieve 95
percent control efficiency must be determined on a" case-by-case basis only
and will depend on the vent gas organic concentration and volatility of the
constituents in the vent stream.
5.5.2   Flares
     Flaring, unlike heaters, boilers, and  incinerators in which combustion
takes place  in an enclosed chamber,  is an  open combustion process.  For this
reason, it is very difficult and economically  impracticable to measure
emissions from a  flare.  A standard  of performance is therefore not feasible
for a flare.  Subpart AA of the standard,  however,  does require that certain
conditions be met for process vent streams using flares in  order to achieve
an  efficiency of  95 percent or greater.   These conditions  are  stated  in
Sections  264.1033 and 265.1033 of  the  regulation.   Because  these conditions
were generated  from test  data that show  flares meeting  certain  conditions
achieve 98 percent emission  reduction,  it is very  likely  that  an  owner or
operator  who operates  a flare  to meet  the conditions of Section 264.1033  and
265.1033  will  achieve 98 percent destruction efficiency.   It  should  be
 noted,  however,  that  the"conditions  established  from available test  data are
 the only  conditions  for which  EPA  has  data supporting that flares  achieve 98
 percent emission reduction.
 5.5.3   Thermal  Incineration
      The process vent rules require that a design-analysis be conducted on
 control devices  (i.e.,  thermal  and catalytic incinerators) to establish key
 operating parameters indicative of a control efficiency of 95 percent or
 greater..  In the case of a thermal incinerator,  the key operating parameters
 that must be established are the design minimum and average temperature in
 the combustion zone and the combustion zone residence time.  The regulation
 also requires that the vent stream flow rate as well as the temperature
 downstream of the combustion zone be monitored to ensure that the thermal
 incinerator is being operated within design specifications and therefore
                                      5-61

-------
achieving a destruction efficiency of 95 percent or greater (see Sections
264.1033 and 265.1033 as well as Sections 264.1035 and 265.1035, respec-
tively, for monitoring requirements and key operating parameters for
catalytic incinerators).  The level of control required by the standards
does not result in the highest level of emission control that could be
achieved by thermal incinerators.  For example, all new incinerators can
achieve at least 98 weight percent reduction in total organics (minus
methane and ethane), provided that the total organic concentration (minus
methane and ethane) of the process vent stream being incinerated is greater
than approximately 2,000 ppmv (volume, by compound).  However, the inlet
stream composition greatly affects the maximum achievable destruction
efficiency.  Much -slower combustion reaction rates occur at. lower inlet
concentrations; therefore, the maximum achievable destruction efficiency
decreases as inlet concentration decreases.  In summary, additional control
greater than the 95 percent required by the regulation can be accomplished
by thermal incinerators through proper design, but the inlet organic concen-
tration of the thermal incinerator feed steam must be maintained at greater
than 2,000 ppmv.
5.5.4  Boilers and Heaters
     In the case of boilers and process heaters, the regulation requires
that a 95-percent organic reduction be achieved.  In addition, the regula-
tion requires that this reduction be validated by establishing key operating
parameters in the design of the boiler or process heater and by monitoring
certain parameters to ensure the design specification is being maintained.
These key operating parameters are the design and average flame zone
temperatures, the flame zone residence time, and the description of method
and location where the vent stream is introduced into the flame zone.  The
parameters that are required to be monitored are the vent stream flow rate
into the control device and the temperature downstream of the combustion
zone (if the design heat input capacity is  less than 44 MW) or a parameter
that demonstrates good combustion operating practices are being used (if the
design heat input capacity is greater than  44 MW).  Once these design opera-
ting parameters have been established and the specified operating parameters
have been monitored, emission reductions of 95 percent, as required by the
                                    5-62

-------
standard,  can be expected for the boiler or process heater.  However,
greater control than that required by the regulation can be obtained.
     Boilers and process heaters can achieve a 98 weight percent reduction,
provided that the waste stream is introduced into the flame zone where
temperatures are highest.  Because higher temperatures are present in the
flame zone, more rapid combustion kinetics also occurs in the flame zone.
As a result, higher destruction efficiencies are attainable.  In fact,
greater than 98 percent destruction efficiencies have been demonstrated  in
tests of the combustion of organic compounds burned as fuels in boilers  and
process heaters.  Additional control greater than the 95 percent required  by
the regulation can be accomplished, but the vent stream must be introduced
into the flame zone.                        •„••..
5.5.5  Carbon Adsorption
     Subpart AA of the  regulation requires that carbon adsorbers achieve a
control efficiency of 95  percent unless the total organic  emission limits  of
Sections 264.1032(a)(1)  and  265.1032(a)(1) for all  affected process  vents
can be attained at efficiencies  less than 95 percent.  Subpart AA  also
requires that  this performance standard be demonstrated by conducting a
design analysis in which values  are  established for key operating  parameters
that would be  indicative of  the  carbon adsorber operating  at the design
efficiency.  For  regenerative  carbon adsorption systems, the key operating
parameters are design  exhaust  vent  stream organic  compound concentration
 level,  the number and  capacity of carbon  beds,  the type  and capacity of
carbon beds,  the  type  and working capacity  of  activated  carbon  beds,  design
total  steam flow  over  the period of each  complete  carbon  bed  regeneration
 cycle,  the duration of the carbon bed  steaming and cooling/drying  cycles,
 the design carbon bed  temperature after regeneration,  the  design  carbon  bed
 regeneration time,  and the design service life of carbon.   For nonregenera-
 tive carbon adsorption systems,  the key operating parameters  are the design
 outlet/organic concentration  level, the capacity of carbon bed,  the type and
 working capacity of activated carbon,  and the design carbon replacement
 interval based on the total carbon working capacity of the control device
 and source operating schedule.
      To ensure that the carbon adsorption system is operated and maintained .
 within these design specifications, the regulation also requires the
                                     5-63

-------
monitoring of the vent stream flow rate, the concentration of organics in
the exhaust vent, and a parameter that demonstrates that the bed is
regenerated on a regular basis (for automatic regeneration) or that the bed
is replaced on a regular basis.  After the design analysis has been
conducted and the carbon adsorber has satisfied the monitoring requirements,
emission reductions of 95 percent can be expected.  As for additional
control using carbon adsorbers, the current evaluation of this control
technique indicates that 95 percent is the best short- and long-term
efficiency that can be expected on an industrywide basis.  Therefore, no
recommendation for higher efficiencies can be made.  That is not to say,
however, that higher efficiencies are unobtainable in certain circumstances
at individual facilities.                    .
5.6  REFERENCES
  1,
  4.


  5.

  6.
   8.
   9.
Perry, R. H. (ed.).  Chemical Engineers' Handbook.  5th ed.
New York, McGraw-Hill Book Co;, 1973.  p. 13-50 through 13-55.
          Exner, J. H.  Detoxification of Hazardous Waste.
          Ann Arbor Science,  1980.  p. 3-25.
                                                  Ann Arbor, MI,
Metcalf and Eddy, Inc.  Briefing: Technologies Applicable to
Hazardous Waste.  Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Cincinnati, OH.  May 1985.  Section 2.9.
Allen, C. C., et al. (Research Triangle Institute).  Field Evalua-
tions of Hazardous Waste Pretreatment as an Air Pollution Control
Technique.  Prepared for U.S. EPA/ORD/HWERL.  Cincinnati, OH.
Contract No. 68-03-3253.  March 31, 1987.  p. 23.'
Luwa Corporation.  Product Literature—Luwa Thin-Film Evaporation
Technology.  P.O. Box 16348, Charlotte, NC 28216.
U.S. EPA/ORD/IERL.  Process Design Manual for Stripping of Organ-
ics.  Cincinnati, OH.  Publication No. EPA-600/2-84-139.  August
1984.
Schweitzer, P. A.  Handbook of Separation Techniques for Chemical
Engineers.  New York, McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1979.  p.' 1-147
through 1-178.
Reference 1, p. 13-1 through 13-60.
King, C. J.  Separation Processes.
Co., 1971.  809 p.
New York,  McGraw-Hill  Book
                                     5-64

-------
10      Treybal,  R. E.  Mass-Transfer Operations.  New York,  McGraw-Hill
        Book Co., 1968.  p. 220-406.
11      Berkowitz, J. B., et al.   Unit Operations for Treatment of Hazard-
        ous Industrial Wastes.  Noyes Data.Corporation.  Park Ridge, NJ.
        1978. p.  369-405, 849-896.
12      U S. EPA/ORD/HWERL.  Preliminary Assessment of Hazardous Waste
        Pretreatment as an Air Pollution Control Technique.  Publication
        No. EPA 600/2-86-028, NTIS PB46-17209/A6.  March 1986.
13.     Reference 2, p. 1-39.
14.     Reference 3, Sections 2.9, 2.15, 2.16.  •
15.     Reference 12, p. 45.
16.     Reference 12, p. 43.
17.     Reference 4,  p. 63.       "                      '
18.     Reference 6.                                 ;
19.     Hwang, S. T.,  and  P.  Fahrenthold.  Treatability of Organic  Prior-
        ity Polluants  by Steam Stripping.  In:  AIChE. .
20.     ICF Consulting  Associates,  Incorporated.   Guide to Solvent  Waste
        Reduction  Alternatives.   707  Wilshire Blvd., Los Angeles, CA
        90017.   October 10,  1986.   p. 5-27,  5-28.
21.     Reference 3,  Section 2.17.                              :
22.     Reference 14,  Section 2.16.
23.      Reference 11, Section 2.16.
24.      Reference 14, p.  869.
25.      U.S. EPA/Control  Technology Center.   Air Stripping of Contaminated
         Water Sources—Air Emissions and Controls.  Research Triangle
         Park, NC.  Publication No.  EPA-450/3-87-017.  August 1987.  125 p.
 26.      Reference 11, Section 2.16.
 27.      Reference 11, p. 869-880.
 28.      Code of Federal Regulations, Vol. 45, No. 9, Appendix A,  January
         1980.                   •
                                   5-65

-------
29.
30.




31.

32.

33.

34.,
35.




36.


37.
38.

39.


40.
Erikson, D. G.  (Hydroscience).  Emission Control Options for the
Synthetic Organic Chemical Industry; Control Device Evaluation;
Condensation.  Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Research Triangle Park, NC.  EPA Contract No. 68-02-2577.  July
1980.  p. II-l.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  Office of Air and Waste
Management.  Control Techniques for Volatile Organic Emissions
from Stationary Sources.  Research Triangle Park, NC.  Publication
No. EPA-450/2-78-022.  May 1978.  p. 83.

Reference 29, p. IV-1.

Reference 29, p. II-3, III-3.   .

Reference 1, p. 10-13 through 10-25.

Kalcevic, V. (IT Enviroscience).  Control Device Evaluation--
Flares and the Use of Emissions as Fuels.  'In:  Organic Chemical
Manufacturing.  Volume 4: Combustion Control Device.  U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.  Publication No. EPA-450/3-80-
026.  December 1980.  Report 4.

Klett, M. G., and J.B. Galeski  (Lockheed Missiles and Space Co.,
Inc.).  Flare System Study.  Prepared for U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.  Huntsville, AL.  Publication No. EPA-600/2-76-
079.

Reed, R. J.  North American Combustion Handbook,  Cleveland, North
American Manufacturing Company, 1979.  p. 269.

Key, J. A.   (Hydroscience).  Emissions Control Options for the
Synthetic Organic Chemicals Manufacturing Industry; Control Device
Evaluation:  Thermal Oxidation.  Prepared for U..S.  Environmental
Protection Agency.  Research Triangle Park, NC.  EPA Contract No.
68-02-2577.
Reference 30, p.  53.

Stern, A. C.  Air Pollution.  Volume  IV.
Academic Press,  1977.   p. 336.
3rd ed.  New York,
 41.
 Radian  Corporation.   Carbon  Adsorption  for  Control  of  VOC  Emis-
 sions:   Theory  and  Full  Scale  System  Performance.   Draft.
 Prepared for  Office of Air Quality  Planning and  Standards,  U.S.
 Environmental Protection Agency.  EPA Contract No.  68-02-4378/20.
 June  6,  1988.

 Ulrich,  G.  D.   A  Guide to Chemical  Engineering Process Design  and
 Economics.  New York, John Wiley  &  Sons,  1984.   p.  426-438.
                                   5-66

-------
42.



43.


44.




45.
 U.S.  Environmental  Protection  Agency,   APTI  Course 415 Control  of
 Gaseous  Emissions  Student Manual.   Publication  No. EPA. 450/2-81-
~005.   Research Triangle Park,  NC,  December 1981.
                 i
 Young,  R.  A.,  and  F.  L. Gross.  Specifying Air  Pollution Control
 Equipment.  New York,  Marcel  Dekker,  Inc:, 1982.   p. 123-185.

 U.S.  Environmental  Protection  Agency.   Control  Techniques for;
 Volatile Organic Emissions from Stationary Sources.  3rd Edition.
 Draft Report.   Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
 March 1986.  pp. 3-1  - 3-83.

 Reference 44.
                                   5-67

-------

-------
                         6.0  TESTING AND EVALUATION

     The testing and evaluation of the TSDF facility for process vents and
equipment starts with an evaluation of the applicability of the regulation
to the sources.  (See Chapter 3.0, Section 3.1, Figure 3-1, for a discussion
of applicability.)  For affected process vents to require emission control
under the regulation, emissions from all affected process vents at the
facility must either be greater than or equal to 1.4 kg/h (3 Ib/h) or
greater than or equal to 2.8 Mg/yr (3.1 tons/yr).  The specific criterion
for a leaking equipment component will depend on the organic content of the
waste material handled, the vapor pressure of the waste stream, and whether
the waste is a fluid (i.e., liquid or gas) at normal operating conditions.
Also, the control requirements for these streams will vary with the type of
source  (i.e., valve, pump, compressor, flange, etc.) and the properties of
the material being handled  (i.e., gas/vapor, light-liquid, and heavy-
liquid).  Figure 6-1 illustrates the decisions and determinations that will
be made in addressing the applicability of the regulation to a process vent
or equipment component.                           .
     For sources covered under the regulation, a monitoring program is
required to determine compliance with the regulation.  For process vents
this will include routine monitoring of control device operating  parameters.
For equipment,  an LDAR  program or specific equipment controls will be
required.  The  control  equipment  required under the  rules  of Subpart BB may
also require  routine monitoring to ensure proper performance under specific
circumstances.
     The following  sections discuss  allowable  sampling and analytical proce-
dures that may  be used  to  determine  the  above-mentioned  applicability.
Guidance is given on the most  appropriate measurement techniques  and  the
expected accuracy of the various  measurement methods.
                                      6-1

-------

SUBPART AA OR BB
Applies (See Fig. 3-1 & 3-2)
Equipment
Process vents
-
                          Type of equipment?
                                                   vent orgtnie emission
                              Compressors,
                          sampling connections,
                          •ad open-ended line*
                                                                                   facility process vent
                                                                                organic emission rate 4 3.1
        PRJOto
   gas/vapor service?
                                                   program (LDAR)
                                                                                         No
                                                                                       emission
                                                                                       reduction
                                                                                       required
                       Is the
                    equipment in
                    gas service?
             •OpanUdwfen
             MdMwtabt*
                                                                Is the
                                                              VPMUkPa
                                                            @ 20°C for any
                                                              compound
                                                                Control
                                                             below emission
                                                               rate limit
•Monthly LDAR
wfch Meted 21
                                                                                         *CMnl device &
                                                                                         doMd-vent tyAem with
                                                                                         control dtvice monitoring
        Is the total
coocentntion for compouods
                                  j. 20% by weight?
   Liquid @ operating
     cooditioiu?
                                                                                   95% control efficiency
                                                                                   (minimum)
                                                               Equipment is in
                                                              heavy-liquid service
    Equipment is in
  light-liquid service
                                                                          Control
                                                                          device or
                                                                          process
                                                                          changes
                                                                          required
                                                                          to meet
                                                                          emission
                                                                          rate limit
                                 Nocvounnt i
                                tf evidence of Ink found
• Monthly LDAR wife Method 21
or ittcmniv* mndirtk
                       Figure 6-1.  Regulatory decision tree.
                                                    6-2

-------
6.1  EQUIPMENT LEAKS
     The equipment leak standards, as defined in the regulation, apply to
any "leak" from a piece of piping or process equipment that results in the
release of organic emissions.  The standards specifically apply to equipment
s-uch as valves, pumps, open-ended lines, sampling connections, flanges,
etc., that handle material that has an organic content equal to or greater
than 10 percent (by weight).  If the organic content fluctuates or the
equipment handles more than one waste stream, determination will be based on
the maximum total organics content of a waste stream contained or contacted
by the equipment.  Therefore, one of the first steps in determining applica-
bility of the  equipment leak standard is to  identify whether the hazardous
waste stream(s) contacting or contained by the equipment has  (or is expected
to have)  an organic content equal to or greater than 10 percent  (by weight).
The  owner or operator is  responsible for making this determination for each
piece of  equipment that contains  or contacts a hazardous waste.  This
determination  may be  based on knowledge of the hazardous waste  stream or  the
process by which  it was produced  (engineering judgment), or it  may be based
on the  results of sampling and  analysis of the subject waste stream.
      If engineering judgment  is used as a basis for determining that  the
total organic  content of  a waste stream is  less than 10 percent (and  thus
the  equipment  is  exempt  from the requirements  of  the regulation),  then the
burden  of proof is  on the owner or  operator.  An  owner  or  operator should
 anticipate that waste stream organic concentration calculations based on
 engineering judgment  (without sampling  and  analysis) will  require  support
 documentation, and  such  documentation  should be furnished  along with  the
 permit application  and maintained in the operating record.  Little or no
 justification is required when  an owner or operator uses  engineering  judg-
 ment to determine that the total organic content of a waste is greater than
 or equal  to 10 percent by weight (and thus subjects the equipment to the
 requirements of the  regulation).
      In some situations, it will be relatively easy to demonstrate (without
 sampling and analysis) that the concentration of total  organics in a waste
 stream is less than  10 percent.  For example, the wastewater from a metal
 plating  shop may contain only trace quantities of organics.  A process flow
 diagram  along with a list of the feedstocks could be presented to support
                                      6-3

-------
the conclusion that the total organic concentration in the waste will  never
approach 10 percent.
     Operators of some facilities, such as solvent recycling plants,  will
likely use engineering judgment to determine that most of their waste
streams contain more than 10 percent total organics.  Such facilities may,
however, have one or more waste streams that contain less than 10 percent
total organics.  For example, a solvent recycling facility may remove water •
from waste solvents as a step in the recycling process.  It is likely that
some of the equipment involved in this process may handle a waste stream
that is primarily water.  In this case, sampling and analysis of the waste
stream as described in Sections 264.1063 and 265.1063 would be the most
straightforward way of determining if this portion of the facility would be
subject to the requirements of the equipment, leak standards.  If no sampling
and analysis is performed, then process information in the form of process
flow diagrams, material balances, and process design specifications would be
required to demonstrate that the organic concentration in the waste stream
never exceeds 10 percent by weight.
     The following subsections discuss sampling and analysis procedures that
may be used to determine the organic content of liquid and gaseous waste
streams.
6.1.1  Liquid Waste Streams '
     Obtaining a representative sample of a liquid waste  is critical in
measuring the stream's organic content.  Liquid waste streams should be
sampled to minimize the loss of volatile organics from the sample.  In
addition, when the waste is stratified, it is necessary to obtain and
integrate subsamples from all layers of the waste material.
     The location where the waste total organic content is determined  (i.e.,
where the sample is taken) can greatly affect the results of the deter-
mination.  This occurs because.the concentration level can decrease
significantly after generation as the waste is transferred to various waste
management units.
     If the waste is directly or  indirectly exposed to ambient air at  any
pointr a portion of the organics  in the waste will be emitted to the
atmosphere, and the concentration of organics remaining in the waste will
decrease.  For highly volatile organic compounds such as butadiene, all of
                                     6-4

-------
the compound would evaporate within a few seconds of exposure to air.
Similarly, emissions o'f organics from open waste transfer systems (e.g.,
sewers, channels, flumes) are expected to be very significant.  To ensure
that the determination of total organic concentration is an accurate
representation of the emission potential of a waste upon generation, it is
essential that the waste determination be performed at a point as.near as
possible to where the waste is generated, before any exposure to the
atmosphere can occur.
     For the reasons stated, above, the waste determination must be based on
the waste composition before the waste is exposed, either directly or
indirectly, to the ambient  air.  Direct exposure of the waste to the ambient
air means the waste surface interfaces with the ambient air.  Indirect
exposure of the waste to the ambient air means the waste surface interfaces
with a gas stream that subsequently is emitted to the ambient air.  If the
waste determination is performed using direct measurement, the standards
would require that waste samples be collected from an enclosed pipe or other
closed system which is used to transfer the waste after generation to the
first hazardous waste management unit.   If the waste determination  is
performed using knowledge of the waste, the standards would require that the
owner or  operator have documentation attesting to the volatile organic
concentration of the waste  before  any exposure to the ambient air.
     The  location where  the waste  determination would be made for any one
facility  will depend on  several factors.  One factor is whether  the waste  is
generated and managed at the same  site,  or the waste is generated at one
site and  transferred to  a commercial TSDF for management.  Another  important
factor is the mechanism  used to transfer the waste  from the  location where
the waste is generated to the  location  of the first waste management unit
(e.g., pipeline,  sewer,  tank truck).   For example,  if a waste  is first
accumulated  in  a  tank using a  direct,  enclosed pipeline to transfer the
waste  from  its  generation process,  then the waste determination  could  be
made based  on waste samples collected  at  the  inlet  to the tank.   In
contrast,  if the waste  is first accumulated  in a tank using  an  open sewer
system to transfer  the waste from its  generation process, then  the  waste
determination would need to be made based on  waste  samples  collected  at  the
                                      6-5

-------
point where the waste enters the sewer before the waste is exposed to the
ambient air.  For situations where the waste is generated off-site, the
owner or operator may make the determination at the inlet to the first waste
management unit at the TSDF that receives the waste provided the waste has
been transferred to the TSDF in a closed system such as a tank truck and the
waste is not diluted or mixed with other waste.
     If a waste-determination indicates that the total organic concentration
is equal to or greater than the applicability criteria, then the owner or
operator would be required to comply with the standards.
     Sampling methods are described in EPA's SW-846 manual on sampling and
analytical methodologies and in other analytical methods.1«2  in these
methods, emphasis is placed on taking a sample from throughout the waste
material to eliminate any possible effects of stratification.-  The methods
also suggest that the most appropriate sampling method far volatile organics
is to take the sample from below the surface of the liquid waste (e.g., 30.5
to 45.7 cm [12 to 18 in]) nearest the source of the waste discharge.  The
sample should be immediately stored in a vial such as a 40-mL volatile
organic analysis (VOA) vial with a TeflonR-l.ined septum or in a larger
container such as a 224 g (8-oz) widemouth glass container with a TeflonR
liner.  The sample container should be filled completely with the waste to .
prevent volatile organics from partitioning into the heaclspace.  The sample
should be preserved and stored at cold temperatures (i.e.,, less than or
equal to 4 °C [-15.5 °F]).  Sample agitation should be minimized during
handling.  The sample should be analyzed within 14 days of collection.
     In some instances, it is unknown if a waste to be sampled is
stratified.  In such cases, one should assume that the stream is stratified
and attempt to obtain the sample either at a location where stratification
would be minimized or at a point where the sample can be collected from the
full container depth.  When sampling from pipes, it is recommended to sample
from a vertical stretch of the pipe when possible because the fluid here may
be more completely mixed than the fluid in long horizontal sections where
stratification may occur.
     When sampling from either drums or tanks, one should attempt  to obtain
a core sample from the container.  SW-846 recommends the use of a  composite
                                      6-6

-------
liquid waste sampler (the Coliwasa)  -to collect free-flowing liquids and
slurri.es from drums or shallow tanks.  For deeper tanks, other means may be
required to extract the sample.  For example, it may be necessary to place a"
weighted sample line into the tank and pump material through the line into a
collection container as the line is lifted through the height of the tank
volume.'  This allows collection of an integrated sample of the free-flowing
material at different heights of the tank.  Care must be exercised so that
the collection flow rate is low enough to minimize any mixing of the tank
contents.  Efforts should also be made to identify the presence of and  .
estimate the depth of solids on the tank bottom.  Such solids may not be
collected by this sampling approach, especially if they have become well
compacted over a period of time.
     Once.a representative sample is secured, an analytical method must be
chosen to measure the organic content of the waste.  Several methods exist,
and in some cases the choice of one method over another is not clear.  Table
6-1 presents a list of methods suggested by the EPA for determining the
organic content of waste liquids  (Sections 264.1063[d] and 265.1063[d]).
Some can  be considered screening  techniques; others, specialty techniques.
     The  most universally applicable method  is the gas chromatographic tech-
niques as described in ASTM E 260-85.  With this method, the sample must  be
prepared  to allow direct injection  into the  analytical  instrument.  The
person responsible for the analysis  needs to select the proper column  and
column operating conditions.  Also,  the gas chromatographer  (GC) should be
equipped  with a detector that will  give the  best  response  to the particular
component(s) being analyzed.  Therefore,  it  is helpful  to  know the  approxi-
mate composition of the waste prior to conducting the  analysis.  Table 6-2
lists  several GC detectors and the  types  of  organics that  can be readily
detected  with each.   For most  purposes, a flame  ionization detector (FID) is
the best  option for analyzing  organic-containing  materials.
     ASTM D-2267-88 is a specialty  GC procedure  for aromatics  in other
organic  solvents.  Methods  in  SW-846 for  GC  analysis  (8010 for halogenated
volatile  organics  and 8020  for aliphatic  volatile organics)  are  considered
as  an  expansion of the general ASTM E 260-85 method and provide  a  good deal
of  specificity.  Standards  are usually  run with  the samples  to provide
                                      6-7

-------
        TABLE 6-1.  APPLICABILITY OF ORGANIC CONTENT ANALYTICAL METHOD$3-8
   Method
    Compounds
 most applicable
         Comments
ASTM E 260-85
(General GC
analysis)
Multiple compounds
ASTM D 2267-88
(Aromatics by GC)
Benzene, toluene, Cg,
and heavier aromatics
Method 9060 (SW-846)    Organic carbon
(Total organic carbon   greater than 1
[TOC])
               mg/L
Method 8240 (SW-846)
(Volatiles by gas
chromatographer/mass
spectrometer [GC/MS])
ASTM E 168-88
(Infrared [IR]
analysis)
ASTM E 169-87
(Ultraviolet [UV]
analysis)
Generally used to
measure Appendix VIII
compounds in waste
waters, sludges, and
soils

Single or double
component systems
Single or double
component system
Method can be applied to
many compounds, and analysis
can be done with several
diferent detectors.  Possibly
the most universally applic-
able method for this applica-
tion.

Method was developed to
measure aromatics in aviation
gasolines, reformer products,
and reformer feed.  Based on
GC techniques.  Requires a
standard for quantification.

Uses a carbonaceous analyzer
to measure carbon content of
water and domestic and indus-
trial wastes.  Could be used
as a screening technique to
determine approximate concen-
tration of organics.

Based on purge-and-trap,
GC/MS procedure.  Only
volatile compounds will be
identified.  Relatively
expensive test procedure.

Similar to UV technique
except sample can be a "mull"
mixture or a solid transparent
disk.  May not provide the
quantitative information
required by the regulation.

Method requires that measured
compounds be soluble in a
"non-interfering" solvent.
The absorbance characteristics
of the compounds must be
known.  May not provide the
information required by the
regulation.
                                         6-8

-------
             TABLE 6-2.  APPLICABILITY OF ORGANIC ANALYTICAL DETECTORS
   Detector
Organic compounds
 most applicable
          Comments
Flame ionization
Photoionization
Hall electrolytic
conductivity
device
Nondispersive
infrared
Mass spectrometer
All
Aromatics
Halogenated
Any compound with
C-H band
All
Certain substituted compounds,
like chlorinated compounds, have
low responses.

Works well for most aromatic
compounds.  Will not detect low
molecular weight hydrocarbons.

Mostly chlorination and
brominated compounds; low
response for fluorinated
compounds.

Compounds need to absorb IR,
and IR wavelengths-need to be
known.  Other compound such
as C0'2, S02, and water
can interfere.

Most expensive technique.
Usually used to confirm
identification of compounds.
                                         6-9

-------
'quantitative data;  however, the compound  is  identified only by  retention
time, thus making possible false positive identifications.
     An  additional, more  expensive  analysis  for volatile organics  is GC/MS
according to EPA Method 8240.  This method offers  not only the  reference of
retention time, but also  the mass spectra for component confirmation.  The
GC/MS analysis also provides quantitative information.
     The TOC analysis  (EPA Method 9060) provides an easy determination of
total organic content.  When using  this technique, samples with  high con-
centrations of organics will require  dilution with water or, a nonorganic
                                                                       -\
solvent  before being analyzed.  Some  TOC  analyzers have an upper range of,
0.1  percent total organics; therefore, a  100:1 dilution with water (or other
appropriate nonorganic solvent) should result in a sample concentration that
is within the instrument  range.
     The UV and IR  analysis methods presented in Table 6-1  (ASTM .E-169-87
'and  ASTM E-168-88,  respectively) are  used as qualitative tools  for compound
identification.  The IR procedure appears to provide better aliphatic
organic.compound information;  however, halogenated components may  not be
identified from the IR analysis.  Moreover,  the IR analysis may  not provide
the  required quantitative information.  The  UV methodology  is not  used as
often and may require some investigation  and review to confirm  its appli-
cability.                                   :
     The procedures referenced in Table 6-1  provide specific compound iden-
tification capabilities for volatile  organics with either GC or  GC/MS.  For
semivolatile component analysis, TOC  and  IR  have been identified in the,
regulation.  Other  alternative procedures not identified  in the  regulation
(i.e., GC/MS  [SW-846 Method 8240])  may be used.  The choice of  methods will
depend on the specific compounds to be analyzed for and the type of results
that are desired.
     The location of a laboratory or  the  lack of on-site analysis  equipment
                                            t
may  dictate the methodology to be used for analysis.  GC/MS instrumentation
is expensive and less portable than other instrumentation available for
organic  analysis.   The method  to be used  should be chosen based  on the
applicability to a  particular  waste stream and on  any matrix limitations
specified in the method.  If appropriate, cost may be used  as a  secondary
                                     6-10

-------
criterion.  Also,  owners or operators may use engineering judgment to
determine total organic content, but they must be able to justify their
decisions and are at risk if their judgment is-incorrect.
     The equipment leak rules do not specify the number of samples that must
be analyzed for the 10-percent organic content waste determination.  This is
because the determination of Subpart BB applicability should not require
precise measurement of the 10-percent total organics by weight in most
cases.  The EPA anticipates that most waste streams will have an organic
content much lower or much higher than 10 .percent.  Furthermore, because the
regulation requires control if the orga'nic content of the waste stream ever
equals or exceeds the 10-percent value, EPA believes that few owners or
operators will claim that a waste stream is not subject to the requirements
of the standards based on a sample analysis with results near 10 percent.
Therefore, a precise measurement.of waste  stream total organic content is
not  likely to  be needed to determine applicability of the equipment  leak
standards.
6.1.2  Gaseous Waste Streams
     The  analysis of a gaseous  waste stream can be performed on-site using  a
real-time measurement, or off-site when  grab  samples  are used.   The  on-site
approach  is  generally preferred when there is a continuous  stream  with a
significantly  varied composition.   In  this case,  the  analyzer takes  a con-
tinuous  or  nearly continuous  sample, which is directly  analyzed  for  total
organic  concentration.   The  sample must  be delivered  to  the analyzer through
a leak-free sample  line  and  gas sample pump.  For off-site  measurement  (and
sometimes on-site measurement), a vent gas/vapor  grab sample will  be col-
 lected in a clean  inert  container.   The  most  common  containers  are stainless
steel  sampling bombs  (2  to 5 L [0.5  to 1.3 gal]  in size),  glass  bombs,  or  ,
TedlarR bags of similar or larger size.   The sample  can be  taken instantane-
 ously or as an integrated sample if a flow regulator is used to slowly bleed
 the sample into the sample container.   The containers must  be  sealed before
 shipment to the off-site analytical  laboratory.   Also,  the sample containers
 should be routinely tested for leaks and contamination.
      GC techniques are the most common analysis methods for gas-phase meas-
 urement.  The recommended method is EPA Method 18, Measurement of Gaseous
                                     6-11

-------
Organics by Gas Chromatography.9  This method is applicable to 90 percent of
the types of gaseous organics emitted from an industrial  or hazardous waste
source and has a precision of 5 to 10 percent (relative standard deviation).
This method, however, is not able to identify and measure trace amounts of
organic compounds, such as those found in indoor air and fugitive emissions..
     As in the GC techniques for-liquid wastes,  Method 18 allows the use of
the most appropriate detector.  The detector selection guidelines presented
in Table 6-2 are applicable to gaseous waste stream measurements.
6.1.3  Liqht/Heavy-Liquid Determination
     After the 10-percent organic determination  has been made, all  liquid
streams containing 10 percent or greater organics must undergo a light-
liquid/heavy-liquid determination,  tight liquids,are those that contain one
or more compounds with a vapor pressure greater  than 0.3 kPa (0.04 psia) at
20 °C (68 °F) and the total concentration of pure components having a vapor
pressure greater than 0.3 kPa at 20 *C is greater than 20 percent -and are a-
liquid "at operating temperatures (see Figure 6-1).  All liquids that do not
meet these criteria are considered heavy liquids.
     The light-liquid determination will require that compound-specific data
be known for the waste.  Vapor pressures must be determined for each com-
pound in the waste.  Vapor pressures are listed  in the chemical literature
for most common compounds.  An analysis method for determining the vapor
pressure of a compound for which the vapor pressure is not available in the
literature is ASTM D 2879-8.  If the waste contains a compound or compounds
with vapor pressure greater than 0.3 kPa at 20 °C, such as the common
organic solvents shown in Table 6-3, the concentrations of the compounds
will have to be determined.  For streams of unknown composition, the owner/
operator can either analyze the stream to make a complete determination or
make an engineering estimate of the stream composition.  Complete analysis
is usually conducted using GC/MS, which is relatively sophisticated and
costly (i.e., $1,500 to $2,500 per sample).
     Visual observation can be used to determine whether a waste is a liquid
at ambient temperature.  This could be done by an experienced operator or
technician by examining flowability of the fluid or possibly by measuring
viscosity.  The owner or operator may be required to provide documentation
to support engineering judgment used to determine material fluidity.
                                    6-12

-------
                TABLE  6-3.   VAPOR  PRESSURES OF COMMENT SOLVENTS

Halogenated Solvents
Methyl ene chloride
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Toluene
Acetone
Xylene(s)
Mineral spirits
Alcohols
Isopropyl alcohol
Methanol
Ethanol .
VP @ 20°C,
45.2
2.3
.7.8
1.7
9.4
2.1 "
5.1
24.6
1.3
0.27
4.1
12.7
5.9
kPa (mm Hg)
(340)
(17
(59
(13
(70.6)
(16)
(38)
(185)
(9.5)
.(2.0)
(31)
(96)
(44)
Most appropriate •
analytical method
EPA Method 8240
EPA Method 8240
EPA Method 8240
EPA Method 8240
EPA Metho'd 8240
EPA Method 8240
EPA Method 8240
EPA Method 8240
EPA Method 8240
ASTM E 260
ASTM E 260
ASTM E 260
ASTM E 260
VP = vapor pressure.
                                     6-13

-------
6.1.4  Leak Detection Monitoring
     Once a waste stream has been classified as gas/vapor, light liquid, or
heavy liquid, the next step will be to determine the proper leak detection
program for the source.  The recommended screening-method is EPA Method 2111
(Section 264.1063[b]).  See Appendix B for a description of Method 21.  With
Method 21, a hand-held total organic analyzer is used to locate leaks from
sources such as valves, flanges, and pump seals.  A leak is defined as a
certain concentration, based on a reference compound (methane or n-hexane),
and is specified for each source in the TSDF regulation.  In addition, a
response factor must be determined for each compound that is to be measured,
either by testing or from reference methods.11  Appendix 6 presents the
results of a laboratory study on the sensitivity (i.e., response factors) of
two portable VOC analyzers to a variety of organic chemicals.  The data from
the screening survey are recorded on sheets similar to the one shown in
Table 6-4.
     Appendix H provides a general guide to portable VOC detection devices
that are being marketed for various uses.  The instruments in this appendix
are classified as ionization detectors, infrared detectors, or combustion
detectors.
     In the following subsections each source type is discussed and the
required monitoring program briefly presented.
     6.1.4.1  Valves and Pumps  in Light-Liquid Service.  Valves-and pumps in
light-liquid service will require the use of Method 21 protocol.  The moni-
toring instrument is calibrated in terms of parts  per million by volume
(ppmv) of methane or n-hexane in the case of Subpart BB regulations.  The
detection level for a leak  is 10,000 ppmv as measured by the monitoring
instrument organic analyzer.  In the case of pumps, the analyzer sample
probe is held 1 cm (0.4 in) from the emission source, usually at the pump
seal and shaft interface.   For  valves, emissions are measured directly on
the source,  usually between the valve stem and the housing,,
     Pumps with a dual mechanical seal and barrier fluid require only visual
inspection oh a weekly basis if the barrier fluid  system meets the require-
ments of Section 264.1052(d).   Sealless pumps are  exempted from any monitor-
ing requirements if the instrument reading upon initial inspection is less
than 500 ppm above background  (Section 264.1052[e]).  Pumps that are
                                     6-14

-------
DATE:
                  TABLE 6-4.   EXAMPLE SOURCE SCREENING DATA SHEET

                           SOURCE SCREENING DATA SHEET:

                      PLANT:   	        Screening Team:
             FT ow
Seq.  Comp.  Sheet
No.   Type    No.
                     Location  Process  Service
                       I.D.    Stream    Type3
Screening  Visible
  Value     Leak
  (ppm)     (Y/N)
Comments
 aGas,  light-liquid,  heavy-liquid.

 Component  types:

   Valve  =  VLV
   Relief valve  =  RLV
   Pressure sensitive valve  =  PSV
   Pumps  =  PMP
   Compressors = COM
   Open-ended line =  OEL
                                     6-15

-------
equipped with a closed-vent system capable of capturing and transporting any
leakage to a control device are exempt from all monitoring requirements
(Section 264.1052[f]).
     6.1.4.2  Valves in Gas/Vapor Service.  Valves in gas/vapor service
(Section 264.1057) will require the use of EPA Reference Method 21 as out-
lined above for the valves and pumps in light-liquid service.
     6.1.4.3  Pressure Relief Devices in Gas/Vapor Service.  Pressure relief
devices in" gas/vapor service (Section 264.1054) require monitoring for "no
detectable emissions" as described in EPA Method 21.  Pressure relief
devices are required to be preceded by rupture disks, which will con-
siderably reduce the possibility of leaks.' Good operating practice includes
the use of a "tell-tale" pressure gauge between the rupture disk and
pressure relief device to indicate the integrity of the rupture disk.  The
final rule requires that pressure relief devices in gas/vapor service be
monitored within 5 days after each discharge.
     6.1.4.4  Pipeline Flanges  (and Other Connectors) and Pressure Relief
Devices in Light-Liquid Service and Equipment  in Heavy-Liquid Service.
Pipeline flanges  (and other connectors) and pressure relief devices in
light-liquid service  and equipment in heavy-liquid service (Section
264.1058) are required to be monitored after an "audible, visual, olfactory,
or other detection method" indicates the presence of a  leak.  "Equipment" is
defined as each valve, pump, compressor, pressure relief device, sampling
connection system,  open-ended valve or line, flange, or accumulator vessel,
and any control devices or systems required by the regulation.   If a  leak is
detected, the owner/operator must use EPA Method 21  to  determine whether the
leak meets the  regulatory definition  (i.e., greater  than  10,000  ppmv).
     6.1.4.5  Closed-Vent Systems.  Closed-vent systems (Section 264.1060)
are used to  vent  emissions to a control device such  as  a  flare  or carbon
adsorber.  A closed  vent must be monitored  after construction to demonstrate
that the system operates with no detectable emissions  (less  than 500  ppmv).
6.1.5   Equipment  Requirements for Minimizing  Leaks
     Certain pieces  of equipment do not require leak detection  monitoring;
rather,  they require addition of specific  control equipment  for leak  pre-
vention.  These are shown  in  Table  6-5.   In all cases,  these requirements
apply  only to  sources that meet the  10-percent-by-weight  organic content
                                     6-16

-------
           TABLE 6-5.  EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR REDUCING PROCESS LEAKS
   Type of equipment
           Control requirement
Compressors (Section 264.1053)
Sampling connection system
(Section 264.1055)
Open-ended valves or lines
(Section 264.1056)
Use mechanical seals with barrier fluid
systems and control degassing vents.  The
degassing vent control must use a closed-vent
system and a control device that complies
with the process vent requirements of the
regulation.

The barrier fluid system must be equipped
with a sensor that will detect failure of the
system.  The sensor must be equipped with an
audible alarm or inspected daily.

Closed purge sampling is the required
standard for sampling connection systems.
Collected purge material must be destroyed or
recovered in a system that complies with the
process vent requirements of the regulation.

Open-ended valves or  lines require  the use
of caps, plugs, or  any other equipment that
will effect enclosure of the open end.
                                        6-17

-------
 criterion.   The compressor requirement^applies  to gas-service  applications.
 The regulations make no distinction  on  type of  service for sample  collection
 systems or  open-ended valves  or lines.
 6'.2  PROCESS VENTS
      A process vent is defined as  "any  open-ended pipe or stack  that  is
 vented to the atmosphere either directly,  through a vacuum-producing  system,
 or through  a tank (e.g., distil-late  receiver, condenser,  bottoms receiver,
 surge control -tank, separator tank,  or  hot well)  associated with
 distillation, fractionation,  thin-film  evaporation,  solvent, extraction,  and
•air or steam stripping operations."   The final  rules require that  each
 affected TSDF (i.e.,  those with waste management  units of the  type specified
 in the rules that manage hazardous waste with  10  ppmw or  greater total
 organics concentration on a time-weighted, annual average basis) (a)  reduce
 total organic emissions from all affected vents below 1.4 kg/hr  (3 Ib/h)  and
 below 2.8 Mg/yr (3.1 ton/yr),  or (b)  reduce total organic emissions from all
 affected vents at the facility by  95 weight percent, or,  for enclosed
 combustion  devices, to a total organic  compound concentration  of 20 ppmv or
 less (expressed as sum of actual compounds, on  a  dry basis corrected  to  3
 percent oxygen).
      The following subsections discuss  sampling and analysis"procedures  that
 may be used to determine the organic content of the waste stream and  the
 process vent emissions and how to  calculate the maximum hourly and annual
 emission rates from individual process  vents.
 6.2.1  Haste Stream Determination
      To determine whether a particular  hazardous  waste management  unit  of
 the type specified in the rule (e.g., a steam stripping or air stripping
 unit) is subject to the provisions of Subpart  AA  of Parts 264  and  265,  the
 owner/operator is required to determine the total organic concentration  of
 the waste managed in the unit initially (by the effective date of  the
 standards or when the waste is first managed in the waste management  unit)
 and thereafter on a periodic basis (for continuously generated wastes).   A
 waste determination for Subpart AA applicability  would not be  necessary  when
 an owner/operator manages the waste  in  a distillation, fractionation, thin-
 film evaporation, solvent extraction, or air or steam stripping  unit  that is
 controlled  for organic emissions and meets the  substantive requirements  of
 Subpart AA.
                                    ,6-18

-------
     Determination that the time-weighted, annual average total organic
concentration of the waste managed in the unit is less than 10 ppmw must be
performed by direct measurement or by knowledge of the waste as described
later in this section.  Direct measurement of the waste's total organic
concentration must be performed by collecting individual grab samples of the
waste that are representative of the waste stream managed, in the potentially
affected unit and analyzing the samples using one of the approved reference
methods identified in the rule.
     The EPA is requiring that analytical results for a minimum of four (4)
representative samples be used to determine the total organic concentration
for each waste stream managed in the unit.  In setting the minimum number of
samples at four, EPA will obtain sufficient data to characterize the total
organic concentration of a waste without  imposing an unnecessary burden on
the owner/operator to collect and analyze the samples.
     Waste determinations must be performed under process conditions
expected to  result in the maximum waste organic concentration.  For waste
generated on-site, the samples must  be collected at a point before the waste
is exposed to the atmosphere such as in an enclosed pipe or other closed
system  that  is used to transfer the  waste after generation to  the first
affected distillation/separation operation.   For waste  generated off-site,
the samples  must be collected  at the inlet to the first waste  management
unit that receives the waste,  provided the waste has  been  transferred  to  the
facility  in  a closed  system  such as  a tank truck, and the  waste is.not
diluted or mixed with  other  waste.
     The  location where  the  waste's  total organic content  is  determined  is
of importance since  sampling location can greatly affect the  results  of  the
determination.  This  occurs  because  the  concentration level can decrease
significantly after  generation as  the waste  is  transferred to (and managed
 in)  various  waste  management units.   If  the  waste  is  directly or  indirectly
exposed to  ambient air at any point, a portion  of  the organics in  the waste
will  be emitted to the atmosphere,  and the  concentration cf organics  remain-
 ing in the  waste  will  decrease.   For highly  volatile organic  compounds such
 as butadiene,  all  of the compound would  evaporate  within a few seconds of
 exposure to air.   To ensure that the determination  of total organic  concen-
 tration is  an  accurate representation  of the emission potential  of a waste,
                                     6-19

-------
it is essential that the waste determination be performed at a point as near
as possible to where the waste is generated, before any exposure to the
atmosphere can occur.
     For the reasons stated above, the waste determination must be based on
the waste composition before the waste is exposed,  either directly or indi-
rectly, to the ambient air.  Direct exposure of the waste to the ambient air
means the waste surface interfaces with the ambient air.  Indirect exposure
of the waste to the ambient air means the waste surface interfaces with a
gas* stream that subsequently is emitted to the ambient air.  If the waste
determination is performed using direct measurement, the standards would
require that waste samples be collected from an enclosed pipe or other
closed system which is used to transfer the waste after generation to the
first Hazardous waste management unit.  If the waste determination is
performed using knowledge of the waste, the standards would require that the
owner or operator have documentation attesting to the organic concentration
of the waste before any exposure to the ambient air.
     The location where the waste determination would" be made for any one
facility will depend on several factors.  One factor is whether the waste is
generated and managed at the same site, or the waste is generated at one
site and transferred to a commercial TSDF for management.  Another important
factor is the mechanism used to transfer the waste from the location where
the waste is generated to the location of the first waste management unit
(e.g., pipeline, sewer, tank truck).  For example,  if a waste is first
accumulated in a tank using a direct, enclosed pipeline to transfer the
waste from its generation process, then the waste determination could be
made based on waste samples collected at the inlet to the tank.  In
contrast, if the waste is first accumulated in a tank using an open sewer
system to transfer the waste from its generation process, then the waste
determination would need to be made based on waste samples collected at the
point where the waste enters the sewer before the waste is exposed to the
ambient air.  For situations where the waste is generated off-site, the
owner or operator may make the determination at the inlet to the first waste
management unit at the TSDF that receives the waste provided the waste has
been transferred to the TSDF in a closed system such as a tank truck and the
waste is not diluted or mixed with other waste.  If a waste determination
                                    6-20

-------
indicates that the total organic concentration is equal  to or greater than
the applicability criteria,  then the owner or operator would be required to
comply with the standards.
     Methods used to measure the organic content of liquid and gaseous waste
streams are discussed in Sections 6.1.1 and 6.1.2, respectively; these
methods also apply to measurement of the waste for the 10 ppmw applicability
criterion of Subpart AA and the determination of the organic content of the
process vent emission stream.
     As an alternative to using direct measurement, an owner/operator is
allowed to use knowledge of the waste as a means of determining that the
total organic concentration of the waste is less than 10 ppmw.  Examples of
information that might be-considered by EPA to constitute sufficient
knowledge include:  (a) documentation that organics are not involved in the
process generating the waste;  (b) documentation that the waste, is generated
by a process that is identical to a process at the same or another facility
that has previously been determined by direct measurement to have a total
organic content  less than 10 ppmw; or  (c) previous speciation analysis
results from which the total concentration of organics in the waste can be
computed.  The finals standards  include the provision that EPA can require
that the waste be analyzed using Method 8240  if EPA believes that the
documentation is  insufficient  to determine an exception by knowledge of the
waste  (Sections  264.1034, 264.1063, 265.1034, and  265.1063).
      In order to address the temporal  variability  that can occur both within
a  particular waste stream and  within the various waste streams managed  in  a
hazardous waste  management unit, the final rules  require  a time-weighted,
annual average concentration to  characterize  the waste managed  in the unit.
An annual  average organic concentration cutoff was judged by  EPA to  be
reasonable  for minimizing increases  in organic emissions  resulting from
minor  organic fluctuations  in  the waste stream.   The  final  rules require
that  an  owner/operator  repeat  the waste determination whenever  there is a
change in  the waste  being managed or a change in  the  process  that generates
or treats  the waste  that  may affect  the regulatory status of  the waste
management  unit  or,  if  the waste and process  remain constant,  at  least
annually.   For example,  continuous  processes  are more likely  to generate a
more homogeneous waste  than  batch operations;  batch operations  involve
                                     6-21

-------
processes that may frequently involve change in materials or process condi-
tions.  Batch operations, therefore, usually generate wastes with varying
characteristics, including such characteristics as organic;; content.
Ground-water concentrations would also be expected to show significant
variation if more than one well provides influent to a waste management unit
such as an air stripper and the wells that feed the unit are varied over
time or if the proportions from the wells that make up the influent are
changed.  This is because there is typically considerable spatial variabil-
ity in contaminated ground-water concentrations.  Situations where the feed
streams are changed and the change is not accounted for in the initial waste
determination would be considered a process change or change in the waste
managed that would- require a new determination.
     With the time-weighted, annual average applicability criterion, a
hazardous waste management unit would not be subject to the process vent
rule if it occasionally treats wastes that exceed 10 ppmw if at other times
the wastes being treated in the unit were such that the weighted annual
average total organic concentration of all wastes treated is less than
10 ppmw.  The time-weighted, annual average is calculated using the annual
quantity of each waste stream managed in the unit and the mean organic
concentration of the waste stream.  For example, an air stripper located at
a TSDF treats an influent comprised of three hazardous waste streams.  Two
of the feed streams are dilute aqueous waste streams (i.e., wastewaters)
with organic concentrations of X=7 ppmw and Y = 20 ppmw.  The total volumes
requiring treatment in the unit during the year are 100 million gallons for
stream X and 75 million gallons for stream Y.  The remaining stream treated
by the air stripper is a (hazardous waste) ground-water stream with an esti-
mated maximum organic concentration of Z = 1.0 ppmw and a maximum pumping
rate of 670 gallons per minute '(i-e., 350 million gallons per year  require
treatment in the un.it).  The total waste stream flow to the air stripper is
about 1,000 gallons per minute, and the unit is expected to run continuously
throughout the year.  Calculation  shows that the annual weighted average
organic concentration is about 5 ppmw.  Since the waste managed  in  the unit
is less than 10 ppmw, this unit is  not covered by the process vent  standards
of Subpart AA.  (Note;  The unit would have organic emissions of about
2 Ib/h.)
                                     6-22

-------
6.2.2  Emission Rate Estimate         •
     Determinations of process vent emissions and emission reductions or  ,
total organic compound concentrations achieved by add-on control devices may
be based on either engineering calculations or source performance tests.  If
performance tests are used to determine vent emissions, emission reductions,
or total organic compound concentrations achieved by add-on control devices,
they must conform to the requirements in Section 264.1034(c) -or Section
265.1034(c).  Under these requirements, each performance "test must consist
of three separate runsr each run is to be conducted for at least 1 hour
under the conditions that exist when the hazardous waste management unit is
operated at the highest load or capacity level reasonably 'expected to occur.
     To calculate the emission rate on an hourly (and yearly) basis, the
flow rate of each of the -affected process vent streams will have to be
determined.  EPA Method 2 in 40 CFR Part 60  is the specified procedure  for
velocity and volumetric flow rate measurement.  Table 6-6 presents the
capabilities and limitations of this method.  This table also lists several
alternative methods that may be used  to comply with the continuous monitor-
ing  requirement specified in Section  264.1033(f)(1).   EPA Method 18  in
40. CFR  Part 60 is the specified procedure for organic  content measurements.
     Once the process vent  organic content  and gas  flow  rate of the  process
vent stream have been measured, these data  can be used to calculate  the
emission rate.  Table 6-7 presents a  general  formula  for  the emission  rate
calculation.  The  hourly emission  rate should be based on the maximum
expected emission  from  the  source.  The yearly emission  rate is based  on  the
total  emissions expected from  the  facility;  therefore, the  calculation will
be based on the hourly  emission and the yearly hours  of  operation.
     The process  vent organic  content and  gas flow  rate  must be measured
under  conditions  that result in the maximum total organic emissions  from  the
subject vent.   Process  conditions  such as  temperature,  pressure,  and flow
rate and  the  concentration  of organics in  the waste stream should  be
adjusted to generate the maximum  quantity  of total  organic  emissions from
the  process vent  while  still remaining within the  range of normal  antici-
 pated  operating conditions.  For  example,  a solvent recycler may be per-
mitted to receive a wide variety  of liquid solvent  wastes for processing.
 This recycler could have a process vent on a condenser located at the top of
                                     6-23

-------







9
r<
1
i
*-

ft
5

_J
g
si
.
o
CABILITY
M
1
*
O
Ul
1
s
*









^
















1
o






s

3
O
U





u
c
u m
— jt
J 1
o •
x ^ •
•§ ^
II L
3 •
o ° e
<5 £ "i"
• c
5 J>

S
U) 03
Ok
yN *
. s
K 1
CO 10
•H -H



49 ^N
i 1 1
17
S -5.
E 6



L.
.S
5 ^?
M •*»
*w ^^
-o
o


*









i



id 0}
CM S
10
. u>
i-< i

CO CO





^p^
CM
f*

>\






M


(™ ^fc.
o

M "a
1 e
1 1
OT,
UJ
i
<1
^s

e
jl
«£ •
e
ted closer to
disturbanc
3 P4
• *o
-0 0
Jl




o
49

L
31
to S



o xv
49
L. e
i a
•— V
w. «




s
Jfc

^
e
^







*



VH

<
uJ




I
2
49
C
1
L •
3 X
n ••
• 0
— O
£ 8







g
•H


»
0
L
C O
 1_ L.
J J 5
< i i






0
d on combustl
i s
i 1
.
X
t.
49
S i

C 4» — '
g« f
• • 3 U
c .0 —
1 11


1 C
— o
1 1
49 N
— .5
U 0
— 49
" *









$









X
C
CM £
O
O IE
^ y
49 —
J 4?
n
UJ




*
M M
e t,
„ 0
49 •
M t.
3 0
• C
1]
O
49 e
_* U
- i
Q. —




5

t.
il

&




j
t.
49
j:
49
U
• 3
1.
»



49
e
u
t.
o.
u>

0
N
e»
:i
•O 49 0
S. >
e «* e
o o -o
. 0
0 0
M 0
•« 0""»
e -o
o

« e
c T
S, S
1 i









^^
O 49

•e 1 "i
J 1 8
49 a —
0 49 <».
S 0 —
(. I.
< *-* O
UJ
a
0 '«!
t- 13
•V O
3 IL
F 1
4> 0
Instrument th
cm i i oration.
= 1
"w *3
1!







Is
"H



8
S
1-S
*




CM
01
V
**^
f-
00






L.
0

A
|
i
c
a
0
's
49
O
X
m
c
Q

4d
•«• u
M C
.2 8
a.
x u
<»- a
o en
0 0
^ .
0 —
« -O
a. 1
.- <•.




































.




•••

i
j
o
^ i
«*- n
-49 £
C 49
0 W
g i
> 3
' U >







CM


*
O
X
a
i_
c
0




^^
••
A
E
*
1











L.
1
0

































L
0
U
3
49
U
« "
0 «5
— • 3
J3 0 C
a -DO
U O E
— a. x
Q. A
\ O. «-
la o -Q
o
1 O 49 U.
Z 0) 0
A •' CO.
J3 | II O 0
CO !! 2 '51 ^
6-24

-------
                   TABLE 6-7.  EXAMPLE EMISSION RATE CALCULATION
Hourly emission rate (Eft) = kg/h (Ib/h)

Hourly emission rate = Flow rate (m3/s) X Organic cone, (ppm) X Avg MW  (kg/g-mole)
 (maximum)             X Conversion factors
                       =  Qsd
                                 n
Ci MWi
(0.0416)  (lO"6]
       Qsda = Volumetric flow rate of gases entering or exiting  control  device,  as
              determined by Method 2, dscm/h                           .   .

        Cia = Organic concentration  in  ppm, dry  basis,"of  compound  i  in  the  vent
              gas, as determined  by  Method  18

         n  = Number of organic compounds  in the vent  gas

        MWi = Molecular weight of organic  compound  i  in the vent gas,  kg/kg-mole

      0 0416 = conversion factor for  molar  volume,  kg-mole/m3 (@  293 K and 760 mm
            '  Hg)

       10~6 = Conversion from ppm, ppm~l

                              Eh = kg/h  (X  2.205  = Ib/h) .


 Yearly emission rate  =  Maximum  hourly rate X Number of operating hours per
                        year
 aTime-weighted average .of the three test runs required under Section 264.1034(c)
  and Section 265.1034(c).
                                         6-25

-------
a stripping column.  The organic emissions from this vent would probably be
maximized when the column operates at the maximum anticipated feedrate and
processes a waste that has the maximum anticipated concentration of volatile
(i.e., low boiling point) organic constituents.
     The facility's process vent emission rate determination must be
appropriate at all times to the facility's'current waste management unit
designs and wastes managed.  If the owner/operator takes any action that
would result in the determination no longer reflecting the facility's
operations (e.g.", if a waste of different composition is managed, the
operating hours of the affected management units are increased beyond what
was originally considered, or a new affected unit is added), then a new
emission rate determination is required (Sections 264.1035, 264.1064,
265.1035, and 265.1064).
6.2.3  Control Device Performance Monitoring
     If the facility hourly or yearly process vent emission rate exceeds the
limits in the regulation, then controls will be required to reduce emissions
to below the limit, or to reduce total organic emissions from all affected
vents at the facility by 95 weight percent.  If an incinerator, boiler, or
process heater is used as a control device, the volume concentration
standard of 20 ppmv can be met instead of the 95-weight-percent reduction.
(Note;  The provisions in this section also apply to vented emissions from
equipment leak controls on pumps, compressors, sampling connection systems,
etc.)  The vented emissions must be transported to a control device by a
closed-vent system (see Section 6.1).  The control device efficiency will be
determined by estimating the mass of organics entering and the mass of
organics exiting the same control device.  The control device efficiency
determination can be made using engineering calculations (mass balance) or
an actual performance test.
     An owner or operator should anticipate that performance calculations
based on engineering judgment will require support documentation, and such
documentation should be maintained in the operating record and furnished
along with the permit application.  As an example, removal efficiency
calculations should use equations and procedures taken from accepted
engineering design publications.  The details of the calculations should be
presented with appropriate references.  Under some circumstances, vendor
                                    .6-26

-------
performance guarantees may be accepted .in place of detailed engineering
calculations.  As an example, a vendor may have a proven track record on
similar applications, or may be able t& substantiate guarantees with
performance data collected from tests on similar applications.
     A performance test, if conducted, will require the measurement of the
total organic content and gas flow rate into and out of the control device.
The test procedures that have been presented for gas-phase total organic
content and velocity  (flow rate) measurement should be used for the perform-
ance test (e.g., Method 2 for velocity and flow rate and Method 18 for
organic content).  A performance test should include at least three 1-h test
periods during maximum system operation.  The total organic.reduction effir
ciency would be estimated for each"1-h period, and an average'of the three
values would represent the system performance at maximum conditions.
     The owner or operator also is required to continuously monitor the
control device to ensure that it is operating within design specifications.
Table 6-8 lists possible controls, required monitoring parameters, and moni-
toring methods.  The  relationship between the total organic reduction and
control device operating parameters can be established during the  perform-
ance test or by engineering  estimations.  The owner or operator must keep  a
logbook that includes the dates when  the control device operated outside of
design specifications as  indicated by the control  device monitoring, the
duration of  operation outside of design specifications, the cause,  and  cor-
rective measure(s)  taken.  This log should also  contain information  and data
identifying  all  affected  process vents, annual facility throughput,  annual
facility operating  hours, and estimated emissions  for each affected  vent  and
for the overall  facility.      •
6.3 QUALITY ASSURANCE  AND QUALITY CONTROL
     The  initial  steps  for  any  sampling  or analytical work should  be to
define  the  objectives or  goals  of  the' work.   After these  have been estab-
 lished, a  quality control  (QC)  and  quality assurance  (QA)  program  can  be
developed  to ensure that  the data  produced meet  the goals  and objectives  of
the sampling/testing program.   The responsibility of  ensuring that the QA/QC
measures  are properly employed  must  be  assigned  to a  knowledgeable person
who is  not  directly involved in the sampling or  analysis.
                                     6-27

-------






•1^
o»
S
•r
I
i
fe
ni
o>
V-
CO
3
l™4
U.
5_j
Si!
t/t




,


















' 0
L. .
IE







M
"a.
3
8
i
*

•







fc^
o
1
e
t
o
t>
0
U
3
49


1
•5
II
• N
1|
49 3
• JD
to
°
U









«
L.
O
49


C

U
c


«»


0







0
i
o
U
JZ








3

49
C
*o
a.
^D
1—
•
•
^, 0
49 49
• 3
0 O
L
• TJ
0 C
e •
49 49
L.
|3
t49
•

49 •
c g








JJ
o
49

^
Q

*0
C


U

49
X
£ •
49
U







S
"a.
o
U
Thermo
.•



.





A
0
N
^^

^»
e
g
t.
49
II
O
•Q

49
*
U
1
49

U
•
c
U.















g

^^
^p
V

^1
L.
MV
o
m

w
i^
e
49
t. *C
e Q
«^ i x

-5 a u
"o. *» o
3 •
0 1. O
L. 0 O
1








e
o '
3
1
8 -n

•o »
O 3
O
< e
« —
•

49 U
C
i S
"° 3
49 U
* ?
E •
« I.
t. 0
• 0.
O. O















g

^^
^to
XV

81
e

'i

e
O OB


a -o
o o
O -C
U 49
•o 0

C 0
• N
-C X
c a








49
c
>
4>
3
•
JZ
X


f
49
C

m
ti
*e
« t.
a o
e
H»
O
0
3
•
49
S
U
c
o
U


















M
<-
e

0
•o
J





•5
• - n
« u
.2 J
.3 §• 1
O 0
u e
o <-
S 0
1*









n
0
e
0
t.
3
49
J
0
1
49

49
C
49
M
3
JC~
X
no
e
49
e
8























,


e ^
O OB U
J> ?< —

5 "o 'o
O JC 0
C. 49 a

x 2
j: e
• o
e s. i. —
C 0 0 49
UN II
J= _X 0
Su —
c a
•c« -a.
z 2.




.?
«
t.
g _•
• 3 *3
— « OJ
^ 1 S
49' 0 49
C .O 3 •
j: t. o
49 49 0 ,
M *» •*
3 49 •w 0
m m J3
JC JS H
X 49 — 0
0 •> -C
» • 49
~ • t. o
• t. • •
0 49 — —
— M 3 a.
C C 01 0
• O 0 L.
0) (. I L.
k O 0 L
o -oeo
•H 49 e -
O • O f~.
ji e
e 49 -e' o
O A ••
~ t 4l 49 '
49 OKU
II 49 L. t
Js 1 ? I
§ 2 & S,
U • 0 0
c a t- L.
«S <













n
u
.0
i.
e
M
•o


0

5







w
0
.0
0










-










,
1
1.
.49
HI
'e









.

0
u


,0

twm
O
1.

C
o
u

X
c
0


X
0
M
•o
C
T
a
o>
0
.a
o

°a
•o
c
II
c
(1)

2 '
•
1
e
o
3
u
0
to
x
J3
TS
•••

0
a.
M
49
O
C
0
L. t-*
• V-
« n
TS CO
O B
dC i->
4>
8 e
0 O
4> 3
u
- o
•o 
4) X
a J3
o
•5 o
c t.

3
0 o-
« 0
•— . c.
1. X
0 —
JZ —
49 a
o u

M •>-
0 X *U
	 0
c c a.
3 O CO
a jo
6-28

-------
     Some of the elements of a QA program that should be defined or estab-

lished before any sampling or analysis is conducted include:  sampling  .
procedures (including field QC); sample custody; calibration procedures and

frequency; analytical procedures (including laboratory QC); data reduction,
validation, and reporting; internal QC checks; performance and system
audits; and specific routine procedures used to assess data precision,
accuracy, and completeness.  These elements along with additional QA ele-
ments are described in EPA's SW-846 manual.  Also described in SW-846 are

general QC procedures for obtaining field samples -and for  laboratory

analyses  (e.g., duplicates, spikes, blanks).
     Standard test methods generally contain information on specific QC

procedures that pertain to' that method.  Careful adherence to these
procedures and others established as part of a  site-specific QA/QC program.
will likely result in obtaining appropriate samples and accurate analysis  of

these samples.
6.4
1.
 2.
 3.
 4.
 5.
 6.
REFERENCES
U.S. EPA.  Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, SW-846, 3rd ed.,
revised.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
September 1986.

U.S. EPA.  EPA Reference Method, "Headspace Method" (Unpublished).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, Emissions Measurement Branch, Research Triangle Park,
NC.  October 1988.

ASTM.  The ASTM Annual Book of Standards, Section  14, Volume 14.01.
ASTM E 169-63  (updated by ASTM D 169-87), "General Techniques of
Ultraviolet Quantitative Analysis."  American  Society for  Testing and
Materials, Philadelphia, PA.  1984.  p. 209-214.

ASTM.  The ASTM Annual Sook of Standards, Section  14, Volume 14.01.
ASTM E 168-67  (updated by ASTM E168-88),  "General  Techniques of
Infrared Quantitative Analysis."  American  Society for Testing and
Materials, Philadelphia, PA.  1984.  p. 200-208.

ASTM.  The ASTM Annual Book of Standards, Section  14, Volume 14.01.
ASTM E 260-73  (updated by ASTM E 260-85), "General Gas Chromatography
Procedures."   American Society for Testing  and Materials,  Philadelphia,
PA.  1984.  p. 382-400.

ASTM.  The ASTM Annual Book of Standards, Part 24. ASTM D 2267-68
 (updated by ASTM  D 2267-83),  "Aromatics in  Light  Naphthas  and  Aviation
Gasolines by  Gas  Chromatography."  American Society for  Testing  and
Materials, Philadelphia, PA.  1978.
                                     6-29

-------
7.   U.S. EPA.  EPA Method 9060, "Total Organic Carbon," Test Methods for
     Evaluating Solid Waste, SW-846, 3rd ed., revised.  U.S. Environmental
     Protection Agency, Washington, DC.  September 1986.  p. 9060-1 to -5.

8.   U.S. EPA.  EPA Method 8240, "GC/MS Method for Volatiles," Test Methods
     for Evaluating Solid Waste, SW-846, 3rd ed., revised.  U.S. Environ-
     mental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.  .September 1986.  p. 8240-1
     to -43.

9.   U.S. ERA.  EPA Reference Method 18, "Measurement of Gaseous Organic
     Compound Emissions by Gas Chromatography."  40 CFR 60, Appendix A,
     revised as of July 1, 1987.  p. 740-769.

10.  ASTM.  The ASTM Annual Book of Standards, Section 5, Volume 05.02.
     ASTM D 2879-83 (updated by ASTM D 2879-86), "Vapor Pressure -
     Temperature Relationship and Initial.Decomposition Temperature of
     Liquids by Isoteniscope."  American Society'for Testing and Materials,
  '  • Philadelphia, PA.  1986.  p. 610-617.

11.  U.S. EPA.  EPA Reference Method 21, "Determination of Volatile Organic
     Compound Leaks."  40 CFR 60, Appendix A, revised as of July 1, 1987.
     p. 504-511.

12.  U.S. EPA.  EPA Reference Method 1, "Sample and Velocity Traverses for
     Stationary Sources.".  40 CFR 60, Appendix A, revised as of July 1,
     1987.  p. 504-511.

13.  U.S. EPA.  EPA Reference Method 2, "Determination of Stack Velocity  and
     Volumetric Flow Rate (Type S .Pitot Tube)."  40 CFR 60", Appendix A,
     revised as of July 1, 1987.  p. 511-529.

14.  U.S. EPA.  EPA Reference Method 1A, "Sample and Velocity Traverses for
     Stationary Sources with Small Stacks or Ducts."  Proposed addition to
     40 CFR 60, Appendix A.  1988.

15.  U.S. EPA.  EPA Reference Method 2A, "Direct Measurements of Gas Volume
     Through Pipes and Small Ducts."  40 CFR 60, Appendix A, revised as of
     July 1, 1987.  p. 529-532.
                                             >
16.  U.S. EPA.  EPA Reference Method 2B, "Determination of Exhaust Gas
     Volume Flow Rate from Gasoline Vapor Incinerators."  40 CFR 60,
     Appendix A, revised as of July. 1, 1987.  p. 532-533.

17.  U.S. EPA.  EPA Reference Method 2C, "Determination of Stack Gas
     Velocity and Volumetric Flow Rate in Small Stacks or Ducts  (Standard
     Pilot)."  Proposed addition to 40 CFR 60, Appendix A.  1988.

18.  U.S. EPA.  EPA Reference Method 2D, "Measurement of Gas Volumetric Flow
     Rates in Small Pipes and Ducts."  Proposed addition to 40 CFR 60,
     Appendix A.  1988.

19.  U.S. EPA.  EPA Reference Method 22, "Visual Determination of  Fugitive
     Emissions from Material Sources and Smoke Emissions from  Flares."
     40 CFR 60, Appendix A, revised as of July 1, 1987.  p. 790-794.

                                    6-30

-------
          7.0  INSPECTION,  MONITORING,  RECORDKEEPING,  AND REPORTING

7.1  INSPECTION AND MONITORING
     Under the general RCRA inspection requirements (Sections 264.15 and
265.15), the owner/operator of. a facility is required to inspect his facil-
ity for malfunctions^ deterioration, operator errors,  and discharges that
could result in hazardous waste release or threat to human health.  The
owner/operator is responsible for developing and following an inspection
schedule and for maintaining a copy of the schedule at the facility.
     Each TSDF owner/operator subject to the provisions of Parts 264 and
265, Subparts AA and BB, must also comply with the inspection, monitoring,
and testing requirements of Sections 264.1034, 265.1034, 264.1063, and
265.1063.  Leak detection monitoring is required in Sections 264.1052 to
264.1062 and Sections 265.1052 to 265.10.62 for the affected pieces of
equipment.  This monitoring must be in accordance with Reference Method 21
in 40 CFR Part 60.   The detection instrument used to determine if  a leak  is
present shall meet the performance criteria of this method.  When  checking
for a leak, the instrument probe must be traversed around and as close  as
possible to all potential  leak interfaces.  The detection instrument shall
be calibrated before it  is used each day using procedures and gases speci-
fied in EPA Reference Method  21.
     When equipment  is being  tested for compliance with  no detectable  emis-
sions,  the test must comply with the  leak detection monitoring  requirements
of  Section 264.1063(b) and Section  265.1063(b).   In addition, the  background
level shall  be  determined  as  described  in Method  21.   The arithmetic differ-
ence between  the maximum organic concentration  indicated by  the instrument
and the background organic concentration  level  is  compared with 500 ppm for
determining  compliance.   If the difference  between  the two values  is greater
than 500  ppm,  then emissions  are detected.
                                      7-1

-------
 7.1.1   Process Vents
     A TSDF owner/operator is required by Sections  264.1033  and  265.1033 to
 monitor and inspect each control  device required to comply with  the  process
 vent standards (Sections 264.1032 and 265.1032)  to  ensure proper^operation
 and maintenance.   As part of this requirement,  the  owner/operator is to
 install,  calibrate, operate, and  maintain a flow indicator that  provides a
 record of vent stream flow from each affected process  vent to the control
 device at least once every hour.   .The flow indicator is  to be installed as
 close  as  possible to the control  device inlet,  but  before being  combined
 with other vent streams.
     The  owner/operator is also required to install,  calibrate,  maintain,
 and operate an appropriate device to .monitor the operation of control
 devices.   For vapor incinerators, a temperature monitoring device equipped
 with a continuous recorder is required.  The monitoring  desvice must  have an
 accuracy  of ±1 .percent of the temperature being monitored in degrees Celsius
 or ±0.5 °C, whichever is greater.  For thermal  vapor incinerators, the
 temperature sensor is to be installed at a location in th« combustion
•chamber downstream from the combustion zone.  The monitoring device  required
 for catalytic vapor incinerators  must be able to monitor temperature at two
 locations.  These temperature sensors are required  to  be installed in the
 vent stream as close as possible  to the catalyst bed inlet and outlet.
     For  flares,  a heat-sensing monitoring device equipped with  a continuous
 recorder  that demonstrates continuous ignition of the  pilot  flame is
 required.
     Boilers and process heaters  with a design heat input capacity of less
 than 44 MW are required to have a temperature monitoring device.  The device
 is to  have an accuracy of ±1 percent of the temperature  being monitored in
 degrees Celsius or, ±0.5 °C, whichever is greater.   The  temperature  sensor
 is to  be  installed at a location  in the furnace downstream of-the flame
 zone.   Boilers and process heaters with a design heat  input  capacity greater
 than or equal to 44 MW are required to be equipped  with  a monitoring device
 with a continuous recorder to measure a parameter (e.g., combustion  tempera-
 ture)  that demonstrates that good combustion operating practices are being
 used.
     When condensers are used, they are required to be equipped  with either
 a concentration level or temperature monitoring device and a continuous

                                      7-2

-------
recorder.  A concentration monitoring, device must be capable of monitoring
the concentration level  of organic compounds in the condenser exhaust vent
stream.  A temperature monitoring device must be capable of monitoring
temperature at two locations and have an accuracy of ±1 percent of the
temperature being monitored in degrees Celsius or, ±0.5 °C, whichever is
greater.  One of the temperature sensors is required to be installed at a
location in the condenser exhaust vent stream, and the second temperature
sensor is to be installed at a location in the coolant fluid .exiting the
condenser.
     Carbon adsorption systems that regenerate the carbon bed directly in
the control device are required to have a monitoring device with a contin-
uous recorder:  The device can either measure the concentration level of the
organic compounds in the exhaust vent stream from the carbon bed or measure
a parameter that demonstrates that the carbon bed is regenerated on a regu-
lar, predetermined time cycle.                 -
     Carbon adsorption systems that do not  regenerate the carbon bed
directly on-site in the control device  (e.g., carbon canisters) are required
to measure the concentration level of the organic compounds  in the exhaust
vent stream on a regular schedule.  It  is also  required that the existing
carbon be replaced with fresh carbon  immediately  after breakthrough  is  indi-
cated.   The monitoring frequency  is to  be at  an  interval of  20 percent  of
the time required to consume the  total  carbon working capacity or once  a
day, whichever is less frequent.   An  example  illustrating  how  to calculate
carbon canister monitoring  frequency  is  presented in Appendix  I.
     The monitoring device  used  to indicate the concentration  level  of
organic  compounds exiting  a condenser or carbon adsorption  system should  be
based  on a  detection principle  such  as  infrared detection,  photoionization,
or thermal  conductivity.
     The TSDF owner/operator  is  required to inspect the  readings  from each
of the monitoring devices  at  least once each operating  day to-check  control
device operation  and,  if  necessary,  immediately implement  the  corrective
actions  necessary to  ensure that the control  device operates in  compliance
with  Subparts AA and  BB.
     When  a control device other than an incinerator,  flare, boiler, process
heater,  condenser,  or carbon  adsorption system is used,  the owner/operator
 is required to  demonstrate the organic emission reduction  achieved  by the

                                      7-3

-------
 control  device.   This demonstration 'can be made by conducting  a  performance
 or source test,  by using engineering  calculations,  or with  vendor  certifica-
 tion of  equipment performance.   If owners/operators elect to conduct  a
 performance test, they are required to develop  and record a test plan as
 specified in Sections 264.1035  and 265.1035.  An additional requirement when
 applying for a RCRA permit is that the Regional  Administrator  be provided
 with sufficient information to  describe the control device  operation  and
 indicate the process parameter  or parameters  that demonstrate  proper  opera-
 tion- and maintenance of the control device.  The Regional Administrator may
 request  additional information  and will specify the appropriate  monitoring,
 inspection,' and maintenance requirements.
      Closed-vent systems must be. monitored to show that no  detectable emis-
 sions are present.  This monitoring must be done initially, annually, and  at
"other times as requested by the Regional Administrator.  Leaks in  closed-
 vent systems, as indicated by an instrument reading of 500  ppm or  greater  or
 by visual inspections, must be  repaired as soon as possible, but not  later
 than 15  calendar days after the leak  is detected.  A first  attempt at repair
 must be  made no later than 5 calendar days after the leak is detected.
 7.1.2  Equipment Leaks
      7.1.2.1  Pumps.  Each pump in light-liquid service must be  monitored
 for leaks on a monthly basis in accordance with Reference Method 21 in 40
 CFR 60.   In addition, pumps in  light-liquid service must be visually
 inspected each calendar week for indications of liquid dripping  from  the
 pump seal.  If an instrument reading  of 10,000  ppm or greater  is measured  or
 if there are indications of liquid dripping from the pump seal,  then  a  leak
 is detected.  When a leak is detected, it shall be repaired as soon as
 possible, but not later than 15 calendar days after it is detected.  A  first
 attempt  at repair must be made  no later than 5  days after the  leak is
 detected.
      Pumps equipped with a dual mechanical seal system that includes  a
 barrier fluid system are exempt from  the above  monitoring requirements  if
"each dual mechanical seal system is:   (a)  operated with a barrier  fluid
 pressure that is at all times greater than the  pump stuffing  box pressure;
 (b) equipped with a barrier fluid degassing reservoir that  is  connected  by a
 closed-vent system to a control device that complies with the  requirements
                                      7-4

-------
 of Section 264.1060 or Section  265.1060;  or (c)  equipped  with  a  system that
 purges  the barrier fluid into a hazardous waste  stream with  no detectable
 organic emissions to the atmosphere,   (this system must be checked daily or
 equipped with an audible alarm*)   For such a system,  the  owner/operator must
 also determine a criterion that indicates failure of the  seal  system,  the
 barrier fluid system, or both.   Additionally, the barrier fluid  system must
 not be a hazardous waste with organic concentrations of 10 percent or
-greater by weight.  Each barrier fluid system must also be equipped with a
 sensor that will detect failure of the seal system, .the barrier  fluid
 system, or both.  The sensor must be equipped with an audible alarm that
 must be checked monthly to ensure that it is functioning  properly.  Each
 pump must be visually inspected, each calendar week, for indications of
 liquid dripping from the pump seals. .-.If liquid is.dripping.from the pump
 seal.of if the sensor.indicates failure, a leak is detected.  A  first
 attempt at repair of the leak must be.made within" 5 calendar days of
 detection, and repair must be completed not later than 15 calendar days
 after detection.
      Any pump that is designated for no detectable emissions, as indicated
 by an instrument reading of less than 500 ppm above background,  is exempt
 from the weekly and monthly monitoring requirements of Section 264.1052(a)
 or Section 265.1052(a), the repair requirements of Section 264.1052(c) or
 265.1052(c), and the requirements of Section 264.1052(d) or 265.1052(d).
 For  pumps with dual mechanical  seal systems, exemption may be granted
 provided  that the  pumps:   (a)  have no externally  actuated shaft penetrating
 the  pump  housing;  (b) operate  with no detectable  emissions  as indicated  by
 an  instrument reading of  less  than 500 ppm  above  background as measured  by
 the  methods  specified in  Section 264.1063(c) or 265.1063(c);  and  (c)  be
 visually  inspected for  indications of liquid dripping  from  the seal initi-
 ally upon designation,  annually, and  at  other times  as requested  by the
 Regional  Administrator.
      Any  pump that is equipped with  a closed-vent system capable  of
 capturing and transporting any leakage  from the  seal(s)  to  a  control  device
 that complies with the  requirements  of  Section 264.1060  or  265.1060  is
 exempt  from  the above requirements  for  pumps in  light-liquid  service.
      7.1.2.2 Compressors.  Compressors  are required to  be  equipped with a
 seal system  that, includes a barrier fluid system and prevents leakage of

                                       7-5

-------
 total  organic emissions  to  the  atmosphere.   Each  compressor  seal  system must
 be operated with  the barrier fluid  at  a  pressure  that  is  greater  than  the
 compressor stuffing  box  pressure, equipped  with a barrier fluid system that
 is connected by a closed-vent system to  a control  device  that  complies with
 Section 264.1060  or  Section 265.1060,  or equipped with a  system that purges
 the barrier fluid into a hazardous  waste stream with zero total organic
 emissions  to the  atmosphere. In  addition,  the barrier fluid must not  be a
 hazardous  waste with organic concentrations of 10 percent or greater by
 weight.
      Each  barrier fluid  system  must be equipped with a sensor  that will
 detect failure of the seal  system,  barrier  fluid  system,  or  both.  The
 sensors must be checked  daily or  equipped with an" audible alarm unless the
 compressor is located wjthin the  boundary of an unmanned  plant site, in  .
 which case the sensor must  be checked  daily.  The audible alarm must be
 checked monthly to ensure that  it is functioning  properly.   The owner/
 operator is responsible  for determining  a criterion that  indicates system(s)
 failure.  If a failure 'occurs,  a  leak  is detected. Repair is  then required
 to be initiated within 5 days and completed within 15  days of  detection.
      A compressor is exempt from  the seal and barrier  fluid  system require-
 ments described above if it is  equipped  with a closed-vent, system capable of
;capturing  and transporting  any  leakage from the seal to a control device
 that complies with the requirements of Section 264.1060 or 265.1060.
      Any compressor  that is designated for  no detectable  emissions as  indi-
 cated by an instrument reading  of less than 500 ppm above background  is
 exempt from the above requirements  if  it is demonstrated  to  be operating
 with no detectable emissions, as  measured by the  method specified in Section
 264.1063(c) or 265.1063(c)  and  is tested initially upon designation, annu-
 ally,  and  at other times requested  by  the Regional Administration to
 determine that no detectable emissions are  present.
      7.1.2.3  Pressure Relief Devices.  Pressure  relief devices  in gas/vapor
 service are required to  be  operated with no detectable emissions  except
 during pressure releases.  No detectable emissions are defined as an  instru-
 ment reading of less than 500 ppm above  background, as measured  by the
 method specified  in  Section 264.1063(c)  or  Section 265.1063(c).   As soon  as
 possible,  but not later  than.5  days after each pressure release,  the
                                      7-6

-------
pressure relief device must be returned to a condition of no detectable
emissions except as provided in Section 264.1054 or 265.1054.  No later than
5 calendar days after the pressure release, the pressure relief device shall
be monitored to confirm the conditions of no detectable emissions.  Any
pressure relief device that is equipped with a closed-vent system capable of
capturing and transporting leakage from the pressure relief device to a
control device as described in Section 264.1060 or 265.1060 is exempt from
the above requirements.
     7.1.2o4  Valves.  Valves.in light-liquid or gas/vapor service must be
monitored monthly to detect leaks in accordance with Reference Method 21 in
40 CFR 60.  If an instrument reading of 10,000 ppm or greater is measured, a
leak, is detected.  Any valve for which a leak is not detected for 2 succes-
sive months may be monitored the first month of every succeeding quarter,
beginning with the next quarter, until a leak is detected.   If a leak is
detected, the valve must be monitored monthly until a leak is not detected
for 2  successive months.  Repairs must be made as soon as possible and are
required to be initiated no later than 5 days after detection and completed
no later than 15 calendar days after detection.  .
     Any valve that is designated for no detectable emissions under the.
provisions of Section 264.1057(f) or 265.1057(f) is exempt from the above
monthly monitoring requirements  if the valve has no external  actuating
mechanism in contact with the  process fluid; is operated with emissions  less
than 500 ppm above background; and is tested for compliance  with  the  no
detectable emission standards  initially upon designation,  annually, and  at
other  times as  requested by the  Regional Administrator.
     Any valve  that  is designated under the provisions of  Section
264.1057(g) or  265.1057(g)  as  unsafe-to-monitor  is  exempt  from the monthly
monitoring  requirements  if  the owner/operator  demonstrates  that  the valve is
 unsafe to monitor  because monitoring  personnel would  be  exposed  to an imme-
 diate  danger,  and  if  the owner/operator  adheres  to  a  written plan that
 requires monitoring  of the  valve as  frequently as  possible during safe-to-
monitor times.
      Valves  designated under  the provisions of Section  264.1057(h) or
 265.1057(h)  as  difficult-to-monitor  are  exempt from the  monthly  monitoring
 requirements  if (a)  the  owner/operator demonstrates that the valve cannot be
                                      .7-7

-------
monitored without elevating the monitoring personnel more than 2 m (6.6 ft)
above a support surface, (b) the hazardous waste management unit that the
valve is a part of is located in an existing hazardous waste management
unit, and (c) the owner/operator follows a written plan that requires moni-
toring of, the valve at least once per calendar year.
     An owner/operator subject to the above requirements for valves in
gas/vapor or light-liquid service may elect to have all valves within a
hazardous waste management unit comply with an alternative standard that
allows no greater than 2 percent-of the valves to leak.- If this alternative
standard is chosen, the owner/operator must notify the Regional Administra-
tor.  A performance test must also be conducted initially upon designation,
annually, and at other times requested by the Regional Administrator.  The-
performance test requires all valves in the hazardous waste management unit
subject to the requirements in Section 264.1061 or 265.1061 to be monitored
within 1 week by the methods specified in Section 264.1063(b) or Section
265.1063(b).  If an instrument reading of 10,000 ppm or greater is measured,
a leak is detected.  If a leak is detected, it shall be repaired in accord-
ance with Section 264.1057(d) and (e) or Section 265ol057(d) and (e).  The
leak percentage is determined by dividing the number of leaking valves
subject to the requirements in Section 264.1057 or 265.1057 by the total
number of valves that are subject to the requirements in Section 264.1057 or
Section 265.1057 within the hazardous waste management unit.
     If an owner/operator decides to no longer comply with the alternative
standards for valves (Section 264:1061 or 265.1061), the Regional Adminis-
trator must be notified in writing that the standard described in Sections
264.1057(a) through (e) or Sections 265.1057(a) through (e) will be
followed.
     Additional alternative standards for valves in gas/vapor or light-
liquid service may be elected by owners/operators subject to the require-
ments of Section 264.1057 or 265.1057.  These alternative work practices
require the owner/operator to comply with the valve monitoring as described
in Section 264.1057 or 265.1057.  However, if after two consecutive quarter-
ly leak detection periods when the percentage of valves leaking is equal to
or less than 2 percent, an owner/operator may begin to skip one of the
quarterly leak detection periods; or, if after five consecutive quarterly
                                     7-8

-------
Teak detection periods when the percentage of valves leaking is equal to or
less than 2 percent, an owner/operator may begin to, skip three of the
quarterly leak detection periods.  If the percentage of valves leaking is
greater than 2 percent, the owner/operator must monitor monthly in compli-
ance with Section 264.1057 or 265.1057, but may again elect to use this
alternative standard (Section 264.1062 or 265.1062) after meeting the
requirements of Section 264.1057(c)(1) or 265.1057(c)(1).  The owner/oper-
ator must notify the Regional Administrator before implementing one of the
alternative work practices.                           .
     7.1.2.5  Other .Equipment.  Pumps and valves in heavy-liquid service,
pressure relief devices in light-liquid or heavy-liquid service, and flanges
and other connectors shall be monitored within 5 days by the method speci-
fied in Section 264.1063(b) or 265.1063(b). if evidence of a.potential-leak
is found by visual, audible, olfactory, or any other detection method.   If
an instrument reading  of  10,000 ppm or greater is measured, a  leak is
detected.  After a  leak is detected,  the first attempt at repair must be
made within 5 calendar days and the repair must be completed within  15
calendar days.  First  attempts at  repairs include, but are  not  limited to,
the practices described in Section 264.1057(e) or 265.1057(e).
7.2  RECORDKEEPING
     Each  TSDF  owner/operator  subject to the provisions of  Subparts  AA
and/or BB  must  comply  with the recordkeeping requirements of  Sections
264.1035,  264.1064, 265.1035 or  265.1034.  An owner/operator  of more than
.one  facility  subject  to these  requirements may comply with  the recordkeeping
requirements  for  these hazardous waste management  units with  one recordkeep-
ing  system if the system  identifies  each  record  by each  hazardous  waste
management unit.
      Table 7-1  summarizes the  recordkeeping  and  reporting  requirements  of
the process vent  and  equipment leak  air  emission standards.  The following
sections outline  the  general  RCRA  recordkeeping requirements  and the
 specific recordkeeping requirements  of the process vent and equipment leak
 air emission standards.
 7.2.1   General  RCRA Recordkeepinq  Requirements
      The general  RCRA recordkeeping  requirements for permitted and interim-
 status facilities are contained in 40 CFR 264, Subpart E,  and 40 CFR 265, ,
                                      7-9

-------
                TABLE 7-1.  CROSS-REFERENCE  BETWEEN  SUBSTANTIVE
                   REQUIREMENTS AND  RECORDKEEPING/REPORTING
            REQUIREMENTS OF PARTS 264 AND 265, SUBPARTS AA*  and  BB
   ItemM
                    Substantive requirement^
                                 Recordkeeping/reporting
                                       requirement
A.
Pumps in light-
liquid service
B.
C.
Pumps in light-
liquid service
(Dual seal
systems)0
Pumps in light-
liquid service
(Sealless)c
1.  Monthly LDRPe §264.1052
    and §265.1052.


2.  Weekly visual inspection^
    §264.1052(a)(2) and
    §265.1052(a)(2).
1.  Designed and operated
    under certain conditionsQ
    §264.1052(d)(l)-(6) and
    §265.1052(d)(l)-(6).

2.  Inspection of seals and
    seal systems-S264.1052(d)
    (4),(5),(6  and §265.1052(d)
  .  (4),(5).(6).

1.  Designed and operated under
    certain conditions -
    §264.1052(e)(l),(2) and
    §265.1052(e)(l),(2).
3.  Tag leaking sources
    only - §264.1064(c)
    and §265.1064(c).

4.  Record dates, repair
    attempts and methods,
    and reasons for delay
    of repair etc. -
    Ij264.1064(d) and
    jj265.1064(d).   •

3.  Record seal system
    design criterion -
    IS264.1064(j) and
    jj265.1064(j).

4.  Same as A3 and A4.
    Record results pf
    compliance tests -
    f!264.1064(g)
    and §265.1064(g).
D.  Pumps in light-
    liquid service
    (Hooded)c
E.  Compressors '
    (General)
                        2.  Tested for "no detectable
                            emissions" - §264.1052(e)(3)
                            and §265.1052(e)(3).
                    1.  Designed and operated under
                        certain conditions -
                        §264.1052(f) and
                        §265.1052(f).

                    1.  Installation of seal system
                        §264.1053(a)-(d) and
                        §265.1053(a)-(d).
                        2.  Inspection of seals -
                            §264.1053(e) and
                            §265.1053(e).
                                     Record design crite-
                                     rion - §264.1064(e)
                                     and §265.1064(e)
                                 3.  Record seal system
                                     design criterion -
                                     Ij264.1064(j) and
                                     |265.1064(j).

                                 4.  Same as A3, A4.
                                                                         (continued)
                                    7-10

-------
                                TABLE 7-1 (continued)
                        Substantive requirement^
                             Recordkeepi ng/reporti ng
                                  requirement
F.  Compressors
    (Hooded)c
G.  Compressors
    (Sealless)c
H.  Pressure relief
    devices (gas
    service) (General)
I.  Pressure relief     1.
    devices (gas
    service) (Hooded)0
J.  Sampling   .          1
    connection systems
    (General)
K.  Open-ended           1
    valves or lines
                         2.
Designed and operated under
certain conditions -
6264.1053(h) and
•§265.1053 (h).

Designed and operated under
certain conditions -
§264.1053(0(0 and
§265.1053(0(1).

Tested for  "no detectable
emissions - §264.1053(i)(2)
and  §265,1053(0(2).

Designed and operated for
no detectable emissions  -
§264.1054(a) and
§265.1054(a).

Tested for  no detectable
emissions - §264.1054(b)
and  §265.1054(b).

Designed and operated
under certain conditions -
§264.1054(c) and
§265.1054(c).  .

Designed and operated
under certain conditions -
§264.1055(a),(b)  and
§265.1055(a),(b).

Cap  open-ended  lines
§264.1056(a)(l)  and
 §265.1056(a)(l).

Operational  requirements
 §264.1056(a)(2),(b),(c)
 and  §265.1056(a)(2),(b),(c).
 L.  Valves  in  gas/       1.
    vapor service in
    light-liquid service
 Monthly LDRP - §264.1057     2,
 (a)-(e) and §265.1057(a)-(e).
                                                             Same as D2,
                                                             Same as C3.
3.  Same as C3
    Same as D2.
    Same as D2.
     Same  as  A3,  A4,
                                                                         (continued)
                                 7-11

-------
                                TABLE 7-1 (continued)
   Iterate
Substantive requirement^
                                 Recordkeep i ng/report i ng
                                       requirement
M.  Valves in gas/
    vapor service in
    light-liquid
    service
    (Leakless)0
    Valves in gas/
    vapor service in
    light-liquid
    serv-ice
    (Unsafe to monitor)
    Valves in gas/
    vapor service in
    light-liquid
    service
    (Difficult to
    monitor)
P.  Pumps and valves
    in heavy-liquid
    service
Q.  Pressure relief
    devices in liquid
    service and
    flanges and other
    connectors
    (General)

R.  Delay of repair
    (General)
1.
1.
1.
    Designed and operated        3.
    under certain conditions -
    §264.1057(f)(l)  and (2)
    and §265.1057(f)(l) and  (2).

    Tested for "no detectable
    emissions" - §264.1057(f)(3)
    and §265.1057(f)(3).

    Monitoring during safe-to-   2.
    monitor times -  §2644057
           and §265.1057(g)(2).
                                 2.
    Annual monitoring -
    §264.1057(h)(3)  and
    §265.1057(h)(3).
    LDRP within 5 days
    §264.1058(a)  and
    §265.1058(a).
    LDRP within 5 days
    §264.1058(a)  and
    §265.1058(a).
                                 3.

                                 2.
    Repair infeasible without    2.
    unit shutdown - §264.1059(a)
    and 265.1059(a)
                                     Same as C3.
                                     Maintain record of
                                     monitoring plan and
                                     explain why valve
                                     is unsafe to monitor-
                                     §264.1064(h)(lj and
                                     8265.1064(h)(l).
                                     Maintain record of
                                     monitoring schedule
                                     and explain why valve
                                     is difficult to
                                     monitor - §264.1064
                                     'h)(2) and §265.1064
                                 2.  Record heavy liquid
                                     service determination
                                     §264.1064(k)(2)  and
                                     §265.1064(k)(2).
                                     Same as A3,  A4.

                                     Same as A3,  A4.
                                     Record reason for delay
                                     repair, owner/operator
                                     signature,  expected
                                     date of repair,  dates
                                      of shutdowns -
                                     §264.1064(d)(6)-(9) and
                                     §265.1064(d)(6)-(9).
                                                                         (continued)
                                 7-12

-------
                                TABLE 7-1 (continued)
   Itemb-c
                    Substantive requirement^
                                 Recordkeepi ng/report!ng
                                       requirement
S.  Delay of repair     1.
    (Out of service)
T.  Delay of repair
    (Valves)
W.
                    1.
                        2.
U.  Delay of repair     1.
    (Pumps)
V.  Closed-vent         1.
    systems and control
    devices (General)
Closed-vent
systems and
control devices
(Vapor recovery)
X.
Closed-vent
systems and
control devices
(Enclosed
combustion)
                        2.
    Equipment isolated  from      2.
    process and not in
    service - §264.1059(b)
    and §265.1059(b).

    Purged emissions greater     3.
    than emissions from delay -
    §264.1059(c) and §265.1059(c).

    Beyond shutdown if  stock of
    valve bodies is depleted -
    §264.1059(e)' and §265.1059(e).

    If dual seal/barrier fluid   2.
    system is used - §264.1059
    (d), and §265.1059(d).

    Designed and operated under  4.
    certain conditions  -
    §264.1033, §264.1060,
    §265.1033 and §265.1060.     5.

    Tested for "no detectable    6.
    emissions" ^ §264.1033(j)(2)
    and §265.1033(j)(2).
    Operate closed-vent systems
    and control devices when
    emissions are vented to them -
    §264.1033(k) and §265.1033(k).

    Designed and operated under  4.
    certain conditions -
    §264.1033(b) and             5.
    §265.1033(b).

    Monitor control devices -
    §264.1033(f),(g),(h) and
    §265.1033(f),(g)(h).
3.  Same as V3.

1.  Designed and operated under
    certain conditions -
 ,   §264.1033(c) and
    §265.1033(c).
                                                         Same as R2.
Same as R2.
                                                         Same as R2.
                                                         Same as D2.
                                                         Same as C3.

                                                         Report exceedances
                                                         semi annually -
                                                         §264.1036(a)(2),
                                                         §264.1065(a)(4).
                                                         §265.1036(a)(2)
                                                         §265.1065(a)(4)
                                                                               and
Same as D2.

Record exceedances -
S264.1035(c)(3)(vi),
                                                         §265.1035(c)(3)(vi),
                                                         (vii),(viii),(ix),
                                                         *264.1064(e), and
                                                         §265.1064(e).
Same as  D2.
                                  7-13
                                                                         (continued)

-------
                                TABLE 7-1 (continued)
   Itemb«c
Substantive requirement^
                                 Recordkeeping/reporting
                                       requirement
X.  (con.)
Y.  Closed-vent
    systems and
    control devices
    (Flares)
    Alternative
    standards for
    valves (allow-
    able percent
    leakingjc
AA. Alternative
    standards for
    Valves (skip
    period LDRP)c
2.  Monitor control devices -    5.
    §264. 1033 (f) and
    §265.1033(f).

3.  Same as V3.

1.  Designed and operated under .4.
    certain conditions -
    §264.1033(d)(l)-(6) and      5.
    §265.1033(d)(l)-(6).

2.  Monitor control devices -
    §264.1033(f) and §265.1033(f).

3.  Same as V3.

1.  Elect to follow alternative
    and notify Regional
    Administrator -              3.
    §264.1061(a),(b)(l), and
    §265.1061(a),(b)(l).

2.  Conduct performance test -
    §264.1061(b)(2),(c)(l)-(3)
    and  265. 1061 (b) (2),
1.
                        2.
    Elect to follow one or two
    alternative work practices
    and notify Regional
    Administrator -
    §264. 1062 (a) and
    §265. 1062 (a).

    Comply initially with
    routine valves standard -
    §264.1062(b)(l) and
    §265.1062(b)(l).

    Follow one or two
    alternative work practices
    §264.1062(b)(2)-(3) and
    §265.1062(b)(2)-(3).

    Return to routine valve
    standard if 2 percent
    valves leaking is exceeded
    §264.1062(b)(4) and
    §265.1062(b)(4).
                                     Record exceedances -
                                     §264.1035(0 (3) (0,
                                     (1i),(1ii),(1v)  and
                                     8265.1035(0(3)(i),
                                     tli), (ill), (iv).

                                     Same 02.

                                     Record exceedances -
                                     §264.1035(c)(3)(v) and
                                     §265.1035(0(3)(v).
                                     Notify if return to
                                     routine work practice
                                     §264.1061(d) and
                                     §265.1061(d).
Record monitoring
schedule and percent
of valves leaking -
§264.1064(i) and  ,
§265.1064(i).
                                                                        (continued)
                                    7-14

-------
                                TABLE 7-1 (continued)
   Itemb.c
Substantive requirement^
Recordkeeping/reporting
      requirement
A8. Process vents
1.  Comply with facility emis-
    sion limit or reduce organic
    emissions from all  affected
    process vents - §264.1032
    and §265.1032.

2.  Control device designed
    and operated under certain
    conditions - §264.1033
 -   and-§265.1033.

3..  Monitor control device
    parameters - Same as W2,
    X2, Y2.
                                                         5.

                                                         6.
                                                             Same as D2.
    Same as W5..X5, Y5.

    Same as V6.
aThe requirements presented in this table are those for the process vents and
 equipment covered by Subparts AA and 88.

bEach source covered by Subparts AA and BB is listed and the requirements for
 that source are annotated mainly by indicating the substantive requirements for
 that source,, the citation for those requirements, the associated recordkeeping/
 reporting requirements and their citation.  Each block (e.g., 'A. Pumps
 (General)') is mutally exclusive of other blocks.

CA note 'c' indicates that the requirements are alternatives to the general
 requirements.  As such, these requirements take the place of the general
 requirements.  Accordingly, if a piece of equipment is covered by an alternative
 requirement, it is not covered by the general requirements.
     substantive requirements are summarized and a reference to the exact regula
 tory language is provided if more detail is needed.

eLDRP means "leak detection and repair program."  This generally includes the
 use of a portable monitor to detect leaks and then, for those pieces of equip-
 ment that are leaking, repair of the leak.  Delay of repair is general to all
 sources and is presented separately.

f Inspection generally means visual inspection of seal areas as well as seal-
 barrier fluid system integrity.  Inspection includes repair of leaking seals
 and seal /barrier fluid systems.

9Designed and operated generally means .that specific equipment or designs are
 allowed if they are- used in ways that result in emission reductions that are
 at least equivalent to the general requirements.
                                    7-15

-------
Subpart E.  These subparts contain discussions on the use of a waste
manifest system (Sections 264.71 and 265.71), requirements for facility
operating records (Sections 264.73 and 265.73), availability of records
(Sections 264.74 and 265.74), and the facility biennial report (Sections
264.75 and 265.75).  Information (with the exception of the results of
inspections) must be maintained in the operating record until facility
closure.  In addition to submitting the biennial reports and unmanifested
waste reports, the owner/ operator is required to report to the Regional
Administrator specific occurrences as outlined, in Section:; 264.77(a)-(c) and
265.77(a)-(c).
7.2.2  Process Vent Recordkeepinq Requirements
     For each process vent to which Subpart AA of Part 264 or 265 applies,
the-owner/operator must record .in the facility operating record:  identifi-
cation number and hazardous waste management unit identification, type of
unit, percent by weight total organics in the hazardous waste managed in the
unit, state (e.g., gas/vapor or liquid) of hazardous waste at the unit, the
organic emissions from each process vent associated with the unit, and
method of compliance with the standard.                   »
     The facility operating record must also include an implementation
schedule indicating dates by which the design and construction of any
control device and closed-vent systems required by the provisions of Section
264.1032 or 265.1032 will be completed.  The implementation schedule may
allow up to 18 months after the effective date for completing engineering
design and evaluation studies and for installation of controls.  The final
standards require that both permitted and. interim-status facilities maintain
the schedules and the accompanying documentation in their operating records.
The implementation schedule must be in the operating record on the effective
date of the regulation, which is 6 months after promulgation.  No provisions
have been made in the standards for extensions beyond the 18-month
allowance.
     Included in the facility operating record must be documentation that
demonstrates compliance with the process vent standards in Section 264.1032
or 265.1032.  This documentation must include information and data identify-
ing all affected process vents, annual facility throughput, annual facility
operating hours, estimated emission rates for each affected vent and for the
overall facility, and information and data supporting estimates of vent

                                    7-16

-------
emissions and emission reductions achieved by add-on control devices based
on engineering calculations or source tests.  Also included in the operating
record must be documentation that demonstrates compliance with the equipment
standards in Sections 264.1052 to 264.1062 or Sections 265.1052 to 265.1062.
The Regional Administrator may request further documentation before deciding
if compliance has been demonstrated.
     Documentation to demonstrate compliance with Section 264.1033 or
265.1033, must include a list of all .information, references, and sources
used in preparing the documentation; records required by Section 264.1035(b)
or 265.1035(b) that document the organic content of the liquids, gases, or
fumes emitted to the atmosphere; a design analysis .based on the appropriate
sections of  "Control of Gaseous Air Pollutants" or other engineering texts;
a statement  signed and dated by the owner/operator certifying that the
operating parameters.used  in the design analysis represent  the conditions
that exist when the hazardous waste management unit is operating at the
highest  load or capacity level reasonably expected to occur; and a signed
and dated statement by the owner/operator certifying that the control device
is designed  to operate at  95 or greater percent efficiency  unless the total
organic  emission limits of Section  264.1032 and 265.1032 for affected
process  vents at the  facility can be attained by a control  device involving
vapor  recovery at  an  efficiency  less than 95 percent.
     The facility's process vent emission rate determination must be  appro-
priate at  all times to the facility's  current waste management  unit designs
and wastes  managed.   If the owner/operator  takes  any  action that would
result in  the determination no  longer  being appropriate  to  the  facility's
operations,  then  a new determination  is  required  (e.g.,  if  a waste  of
different composition is managed, the  operating  hours  of the affected
management units  are  increased  beyond  what  was  originally  considered,  or a
new affected unit  is  added).
      Design and  operating  information  for each  closed-vent system and
 control  device  required  by Sections 264.1032 and 265.1032 shall  be recorded
 and kept up-to-date in  the facility operating record.   The operating  infor-
mation described in (d)  and (e)  below need  .only be kept for 3 years.   The
 required design  and operating information includes:  (a) detailed design
 specifications,  drawings,  schematics,  and piping and instrumentation
 diagrams; (b)  description and date of each modification that is made to the

                                     7-17

-------
closed-vent system or control device'design; (c) identification of operating
parameter, description of monitoring device, and a diagram of monitoring
sensor location(s) used to comply with Section 265.1033(f)(2); (d) date,
time, and duration of each period when any monitored parameter identified
above exceeds the value established in the control device design analysis,
as well as an explanation of the cause for the exceedance and the measures
implemented lo correct the control device operation; and (e) the date of
each control device startup or shutdown.
     For thermal vapor incinerators designed to operate with a minimum
residence time of 0.50 s at a minimum temperature of 760 °C (1,400 °F), tne
above information must be recorded for periods when the combustion tempera-
ture is below 760 °C (1,400 °F).  For thermal vapor- incinerators designed to
operate with an organic emission reduction'efficiency of 95 percent or
greater, the owner/operator is required to record the period when the
combustion temperature is more, than 28 °C  (82.4 °F) below the design average
combustion temperature established as a requirement of Section
264.1035(b)(4)(iii)(A) or 265.1035(b)(4)(iii)(A).
     TSDF owner/operators with catalytic incinerators are required to record
the period when the temperature of the vent stream at the catalyst bed inlet
is more than 28 °C (82.4 °F) below the average temperature of the vent
stream or the temperature difference across the catalyst bed is less than 80
percent of the design average temperature difference established as a
requirement of Section 264.1035(b)(4)(iii)(B) or 265.1035(b)(4)(iii)(B).
     For boilers or process heaters, the owner/operator is required to
record periods when the combustion temperature is more than 28 °C (82.4 °F)
below the design average combustion temperature or, when position changes
where the vent stream is introduced to the flame zone as a requirement of
Section 264.1035(b)(4)(iii)(C) or 265.1035(b)(4)(iii)(C).  When flares are
used, the owner/operator must record periods when the pilot flame is not
ignited.
     TSDF owner/operators that have condensers with a monitoring device
equipped with a continuous recorder, must record the period when the organic
compound concentration in the exhaust vent stream is more than 20 percent
greater than the design level established as a requirement of Section
264.1035(b)(4)(iii)(E) or 265.1035(b)(4)(iii)(E).  For condensers that
                                    7-18

-------
 comply with Section 264.1033(f)(2)(vi)(B)  or 265'. 1033(f) (2) (vi) (B),  the
 owner/ operator is required to record the period when the temperature of the
 exhaust vent stream is more than 6 °C (42.8 °F)  above the design average
 exhaust vent stream temperature established as a requirement of Section
 264.1035(b)(4)(iii)(E) or 265.1035(b)(4)(iii)(E) or the period when the
 temperature of the coolant fluid exiting the condenser is more than 6 °C
 (42.8 °F) above the design average coolant fluid temperature established as
.a requirement of Section 264.1035(b) (4) (iii) (E)  or 265.1036.(b) (4) (I'M) (E).
      For carbon adsorption systems that regenerate the carbon bed directly
 on site in the control device and comply with Section 264.1033(f)(2)(vii)(A)
 or 265.1033(f)(2)(vii)(A), the owner/operator is required to record any
 periods when the organic compound concentration level or reading  of organic
 compounds in the exhaust vent stream is more than 20 percent greater'than
 the design exhaust vent stream organic  compound concentration  level estab-
 lished as a requirement of Section 264.1035(b)(4)(iii)(E) or 265.1035(b)(4)
 (iii)(F).  For similar types of carbon  adsorption systems that comply with
 Section 264.1033(f)(2)(vii)(B) or 265.1033(f)(2)(vii)(B),  it is  required
 that the owner/operator record any periods when the  vent stream  continues to
 flow through the control device beyond  the predetermined carbon  bed regen-
 eration time established as a requirement of  Section 264.1035(b)(4)(iii)(F)
 or 265.1035(b)(4)(iii)(F).
      Additional  requirements for carbon adsorption systems  are that those
 systems operated subject to the requirements  of Section  264.1033(g),
 265.1033(g), 264.1033(h)(2), or 265.1033(h)(2j  must  record the date when
 existing carbon' in the control device  is  replaced with  fresh  carbon.   For
 carbon adsorption  systems  operated  subject  to the  requirements specified in
 Section  264.1033(h)(l) or  265.1033(h)(l), the owner/operator  is  required to
 maintain a  log  that  records the date and  time when the  control device is
 monitored  for carbon breakthrough,  the monitoring  device reading, and the
 date  when  existing carbon  in  the  control  device is replaced with fresh
 carbon.
       When  either carbon  regeneration or removal takes  place,  there is an
 opportunity for organics  to be released to  the  atmosphere unless the carbon
 removal  or regeneration  is carried  out under controlled conditions.  There
 would be no environmental  benefit in removing organics from an exhaust gas
                                      7-19

-------
stream using adsorption onto activated carbon if the organics are subse-
quently released to the atmosphere during desorption or during carbon
disposal.  The EPA therefore expects that owners or operators of TSDF using
carbon adsorption systems to control organic emissions take steps to ensure
that proper emission control of regenerated or disposed carbon occurs.  For
on-site regenerable carbon adsorption systems, the owner or operator must
account for the emission control of the desorption and/or disposal process
                                                            i
in the control efficiency determination.  In the case of off-site regenera-
tion or'disposal, the owner or operator should supply a certification, to be
placed in the operating file of the TSDF, that all carbon removed from a
carbon adsorption system used to comply with Subparts AA arid BB is either:
(1) regenerated or reactivated by a process that prevents the release of
organics to the atmosphere  ('Note;  The EPA interprets "prevents" as used in
this paragraph to include the application of effective control devices such
as those required by these  rules),  (2) incinerated in a device that meets
the performance standards of Subpart 0, or (3) .disposed in compliance with
Federal and State regulations.
     For control devices other than thermal or catalytic incinerators,
flares, boilers, process heaters, condensers, or carbon adsorption systems,
owners/operators of interim status  facilities must record information
indicating proper operation and maintenance of the control device in the
facility operating record.  The Regional Administrator (or Director) will
specify the appropriate recordkeeping requirements for facilities with final
permits as a  part of the permit negotiation process.
7.2.3   Equipment Leak  Recordkeepinq Requirements
      Information pertaining to equipment subject to the requirements  in
Parts  264 and 265, Subpart  BB, must be recorded in a  log that is  kept in the
facility operating record.  This information includes:
      1.  ' Equipment identification  number and hazardous waste manage-
          ment  unit identification,
      2.   Approximate  locations within the facility  (e.g.,  identify the
          hazardous waste management  unit on  a  facility plot plan),
      3.   Type  of equipment (e.g.,  a  pump or  pipeline valve),
      4.   Percent-by-weight total organics in the  hazardous waste
          stream at the  equipment,
                                     7-20

-------
     5.    Hazardqus waste state at the equipment (e.g.,  gas/vapor or
          liquid)",  and
     6.    Method of compliance with the standard (e.g.,  "monthly leak
          detection and repair" or "equipped with dual mechanical
          seals").
In addition, for a facility that takes up to 18 months after the effective
date to install a closed-vent system and control device, an implementation
schedule must be in the operating log.  If the owner or operator demon-
strates the control device effectiveness with a performance test, the
performance test pTan and test results must be in the log.  Otherwise,
detailed design documentation supporting the control device effectiveness
must be in the operating log.  The log also must contain the monitoring,
operating, and inspection information required by the standards.  .  .
     To help identify equipment not subject to monthly-UDAR, the following
-information is recorded  in a  log that is kept in the facility operating
record:                               ,
     1.   A list of identification numbers  for equipment  (except welded
          fittings) subject to the requirements of  Subpart BB;
     2.   A list of identification numbers  and signed (by the owner/op-  .
          erator)  designations for equipment that the owner/operator
          elects to designate for no  detectable emissions;
     3.   A list of equipment identification numbers  for  pressure
          relief devices;
     4.   The  date of, measured  background  level, and maximum
          instrument  reading  measured at  the equipment  during each
          compliance  test;  and
     5.   A list  of identification  numbers  of  equipment in  vacuum
          service.
     .Information  pertaining to valves subject  to  the  requirements of Sec-
 tions  264.1057(g)  and (h)  or 265.1057(g)  and  (h)  must.be recorded in a
 logbook that  is kept  in  the facility operating record.   This  information
 includes:  a list of identification numbers for valves  that are designated
 as unsafe or difficult to monitor;  an explanation for each valve stating why
 it is  unsafe or difficult to monitor; and the plan  for monitoring each
 valve.  For valves complying with Section 264.1062  or 265.1062, a schedule
                                     7-21

-------
of monitoring and the percent of valves found leaking during each monitoring
period is required to be recorded in the facility operating record.m
     When each leak is detected (as specified in Sections 264.1052,
264.1053, 264.1057, and 264.1058 or Sections 256.1052, 265.1053, 265.1057,
and 265.1058), a weatherproof and readily visible identification, marked
with the equipment identification number, must be attached to the leaking
equipment.  The identification on a valve may be removed after it has been  .
monitored for 2 successive months and no leak is detected during this time.
The identification on equipment,^except a valve, may be removed after it has
been repaired.
     When a leak is detected as specified in the above paragraph, specific
information must be recorded in an inspection log and kept in the facility
operating record.  This includes the instrument, operator, and equipment
identification numbers; the date that the leak'was detected and the dates of
attempted repairs; attempted repair methods; the statement "above 10,000" if
the maximum instrument reading measured by the methods specified in Section
264.1063(b) or 265.1063(b) after each repair attempt is equal to or greater
than 10,000 ppm; the statement "repair delayed" and the reason for the delay
if the repair is not made within 15 calendar days after discovery of the
leak; the signature of the owner/operator whose decision it was that the
repair could not be effected without a hazardous waste management unit
shutdown; the expected date of successful repair of the leak if the leak is
not repaired within 15 calender days; and the date of the successful repair
of the leak.
     Criteria for  barrier fluid system sensors  required in Sections
264.1052(d)(5) and 264.1053(e)(2) or Sections 265.1052(d)-(5) and
265.1053(e)(2), an explanation of the criteria, any changes to the criteria,
and reasons for the changes must be recorded in a log that is kept in the
facility operating record.
     Information used  for determining exemptions as provided in the applica-
bility section of  this subpart or other  specific subparts must be  recorded
in the log  kept in the facility operating record.  This information in-
cludes:   (a)  an analysis demonstrating the design capacity of the  hazardous
waste management unit;  (b) a statement listing  the hazardous waste influent
and effluent  from  each hazardous waste management unit subject to  the
                                     7-22

-------
requirements in Sections 264.1051-1060 or Sections 265.1051-1060  and  an
analysis demonstrating whether these hazardous wastes  are  heavy  liquids;  and.
(c) an analysis demonstrating that  equipment  is  not  subject  to the  require-
ments in Sections 264.1051-1060  or  Sections 265.1051-1060.
      Information and  data  that are  used  to  identify  and  demonstrate that  a
piece of equipment  is not  subject to the requirements  in Sections 264.1052-
1060  or Sections 265.1052-1060 shall be  recorded in  a  log  that  is kept in
the facility operating  record.1                                     .    .
      Records of monthly  equipment leak monitoring and  repair, detectable
emission monitoring,  and closed  vent system and  control  device  operating
information need be kept only 3  years.
      The owner/operator of any facility  subject  to this  subpart  and to
'regulations in 40  CFR Part 60, Subpart VV,  or 40 CFR Part  61,  Subpart V,  may
elect to demonstrate compliance  with the regulations by  documentation in
 accordance with Section 264.1064 or 265.1064 .o.f  this subpart or pursuant to
 provisions of  40  CFR Part 60 or  61  (Section 264..1064(1)  or 265.1064(1).  For
 cases when the documentation requirements of 40  CFR Part 60 or 61 duplicate
 the documentation  required under this.subpart,. multiple copies  of identical
 records are not required.  In these instances, the documentation under the
 regulation in  40 CFR Part 60 or 61  shall be kept with or made readily
 available with the facility operating record.
 7.3  .REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
      The.standards for process vents and equipment  leaks for RCRA-permitted
 facilities subject to the provisions of 40 CFR  Part 264, Subparts  AA  and/or
 BB, require that control device exceedances  (i.e.,  periods when  monitoring
 indicates  that operating parameters exceed established  tolerances  for design
 specifications) that go uncorrected for more than 24 hours be reported to
 the Regional  Administrator on a semiannual basis.   (See Section  7.2.2 for a
 discussion of control device exceedances.)   The reports must include  the
 dates, duration, cause, and corrective measures taken.  For equipment leaks,
 a report  is required if a  leak  is  not repaired  within the designated  time  .
 period.   If a facility  does not have any exceedances  during the  reporting
 period, no report  is required.  There are  no reporting  requirements  for
 interim status facilities  subject  to these air  rules.
                                      7-23

-------

-------
                     8.0  IMPLEMENTATION AND COMPLIANCE

8.1  STATE AUTHORIZATION
8.1.1  Applicability of Rules in Authorized States
     Under Section 3006 of RCRA, EPA may authorize qualified States to
administer and enforce the RCRA program within the State.  (See 40 CFR Part
271 for the standards ,and requirements for authorization.)  Following
authorization-, EPA retains enforcement authority under Sections 3008, 7003,
and 3013 of RCRA, although authorized States have primary enforcement
responsibility under Section 7002.
     Prior to the HSWA of 1984, a State with final authorization adminis-
tered its hazardous waste program entirely in lieu of EPA administering the
Federal program  in that State.  The Federal requirements no longer applied
in the authorized State, and EPA could not issue permits for any facilities
in the State that the State was authorized to permit.  When new, more
stringent Federal requirements were promulgated or enacted, the State was
obliged to enact equivalent authority within specified timeframes.   New
Federal requirements did not take effect  in an authorized State until the
State adopted the requirements  as State  law.
     In contrast, under Section 3006(g)(l) of RCRA,  42 U.S.C.  6926(g), new
requirements  and prohibitions  imposed by  HSWA take effect in authorized
States at the same time that they take  effect in  nonauthorized States.  The
EPA  is directed  to carry out those  requirements and  prohibitions  in  author-
ized States,  including the  issuance of  permits, until  the State  is  granted-
authorization to do  so.  While States must  still  adopt HSWA-related  provi-
sions as  State  law to retain final  authorization, the  HSWA  requirements
apply  in  authorized  States  in  the  interim.
                                      8-1

-------
8.1.2  Effect on State Authorizations
     The Subpart AA and -BB rules are promulgated pursuant to Section 3004(n)
of RCRA, a provision added by HSWA.  Therefore, EPA has added the require-
ments to Table 1 in 40 CFR 271.l(j), which identifies the Federal program
requirements that are promulgated pursuant to HSWA and take effect in all
States, regardless of authorization status.  States may apply for either
interim or final authorization for the HSWA provisions identified in 40 CFR
271.l(j).
     The EPA will implement the process vent and equipment leak rules in
authorized States until (1) they modify their programs to adopt these rules
and receive final authorization for the modification or (2) they receive
interim authorization as described below.  Because these rules- are promul-
gated pursuant "to HSWA, a State.submitting a program modification may apply
    * * i,
to receive either interim or final authorization under Section 3006(g)(2) or
Section 3006(b), respectively, on the basis of requirements that are
substantially equivalent or equivalent to EPA's.  The procedures and sched-
ule for State program modifications for either interim or final authoriza-
tion are described.in 40 CFR 271.21.  It should be noted that all HSWA
interim authorizations.will expire automatically on January 1, 1993 (see 40
CFR 271.24(c)).
     Section 271.21(e)(2) requires that authorized States must modify their
programs to reflect Federal program changes and must subsequently submit the
modifications to EPA for approval.  The deadline for State program modifi-
cations for this rule is July 1, 1991 (or July 1, 1992, if a State statutory
change is needed).  These deadlines can be extended in certain cases [40 CFR
271.21(e)(3)].  Once EPA approves the modification, the State requirements
become Subtitle C RCRA requirements.
     A State that submits its official application for final authorization •
less than 12 months after the effective date of these standards is not
required to include standards equivalent to these standards in its appli-
cation.  However, the State must modify its program by the deadlines set
forth in 40 CFR 271.21(e).  States that submit official applications for
final authorization 12 months after the effective date of the process vent
and equipment leak standards must include standards equivalent to these
standards in their applications.  Section 271.3 sets forth the requirements
a State must meet when submitting its final authorization application.

                                     8-2

-------
     States that are authorized for R'CRA may already have requirements under
State law similar to those in the process vent and equipment leak rules.
These State regulations must be assessed against the Federal regulations
(i.e., Subparts AA and BB) to determine whether they meet the tests for
authorization.  Thus, a State is not authorized to implement these require-
ments in lieu of EPA until the State program modification is approved.  Of
course, States with existing standards may continue to administer .and
enforce their standards a-s a matter of. State law.  In implementing the
Federal program, EPA will work with States under cooperative agreements to
minimize duplication of efforts.  In many cases, EPA will be able to defer
to the States in their efforts to implement their programs rather than take
separate actions under Federal authority.
8.2  IMPLEMENTATION  (THE RCRA PERMITTING PROCESS)
     The final process vent and equipment leak standards limit organic emis-
sions at new and existing hazardous waste TSDF that need authorization to
operate under RCRA Section 3005 and are required to have a permit under
RCRA, 40 CFR Part 270.  This applicability includes all hazardous waste
management units that require RCRA permits and hazardous waste recycling
units that are located on hazardous waste management facilities; if a RCRA
permit is needed for another part of the facility's operations independent
of the process vent  and equipment leak rules  (i.e., Subparts AA and BB of
Parts 264 and 265).
     Implementation  of these air rules is through incorporation of the rules
into the existing RCRA permitting process.  The applicability of these
standards with respect to their incorporation  into the RCRA permitting
process is discussed below.  Figure 8-1 presents a flow diagram of the RCRA
permitting process.  Chapter 3.0 of this document presents  a flow diagram
and several examples that may be used as an aid to determining applica-
bility.                                                   '
8.2.1  Facilities with Permits
     Facilities  are  not  required to reopen their permits as a result  of the
process vent  and equipment  leak standards.  Under the current RCRA permit-
ting system,  a facility  that has received a final permit must comply  with
all of the following requirements as specified in 40 CFR 270.4:   (1)  the
specific conditions  written  into the permit  (including conditions that
                                     8-3

-------

1 1
t-
M
t
EPA receives
and logs in
PaitB
t.
Requests for
RCRA Part B from
existing facility


8
1|
I -3
J
Administrative
1
•s
VI
1
Preparation
i
                                                  CO

                                                  CO

                                                  
                                                  •4_»
                                                 (4-1
                                                  o
                                                 '-


                                                  1

                                                 E
                                                 OG
                                                  W)
8-4

-------
demonstrate compliance with Part 264 regulations); (2) self-implementing
statutory requirements; and (3) regulations promulgated under 40 CFR Part
268 restricting the placement of hazardous waste in or on the land.  When
new regulations are promulgated after the issuance of a permit, EPA may
reopen the permit to incorporate the new requirements as stated in Section
270.41.  Otherwise, the new regulatory requirements are incorporated into a
facility's permit at the time of permit reissuance (Section 124.15), or at
the 5-year review (Section 270.50) for land disposal facilities.
     Although EPA has  the authority to reopen permits to incorporate the
requirements of new standards,  it is concerned about the resource burdens of
this approach.  To reopen permits for each new regulation at the time it is
promulgated would impose a Targe administrative burden on both EPA and the
regulated community because a major permits modification would generally
require the same administrative procedures as are required for initial
permits  (e.g., development of a draft permit, public notice, and opportunity
for public hearing).   As a consequence, the requirements of new standards
•are usually incorporated into a permit when it is renewed.  For standards
implemented through the RCRA permit system, the effect of this policy is to
"shield"  facilities that have been  issued a final permit from  any  require-
ments  promulgated after the  issuance of the permit until the time  that the
permit must be  renewed and the  new  requirements are written into the permit.
Thus,  this policy  is  often referred to  as the  "permit-as-a-shield"  policy.
Although  this policy  is generally applied,  EPA may evaluate the need to
accelerate the  implementation  of  standards  developed  under RCRA and,  if
warranted, make exceptions to-the permit-as-a-shield  policy.   However,  the
permit-as-a-shield  provision applies  to control of  air emissions  from
process  vents  and  equipment  leaks  regulated under Section 3004(n).
      Facilities issued permits  prior  to the effective date  of  these rules  do
not  have to  comply  with  the  40 CFR  264, Subparts  AA  and BB,  standards,  or
modify their permits  to  incorporate these rules,  until  their  permit is
 reissued (40 CFR 124.15)  or  reviewed  (40  CFR 270.50)  by the  Regional
Administrator.   Facilities that are issued  permits  after the  effective date
 of these rules  must comply with the requirements  of Part 264,  Subparts AA
 and BB,  for process vents and equipment leaks.
                                      8-5

-------
8.2.2  Interim-Status Facilities
     Facilities that meet RCRA interim-status requirements (i.e., compliance
with the requirements of Section 3010[a] of RCRA pertaining to notification
of hazardous waste activity and the requirements of 40 CFR 270.10 governing
submission of Part A applications) are subject to the Part 265, Subparts AA
and BB, standards on the effective date.  Owners or operators of interim-
status facilities must make the appropriate determinations regarding applic-
ability and compliance and keep the required records and documentation in
their operating records.  Interim-status facilities that have submitted
their Part B application prior to the effective date are required to modify
their Part B applications to incorporate the requirements of the Part 264
air rules.
8.2.3  New Facilities and Newly Regulated Units
     The following paragraphs describe various RCRA permit scenarios and how
implementation of Subparts AA and BB occurs for newly regulated units.
     With regard to newly constructed, regulated hazardous waste management
units, the effective date of Subparts AA and/or BB will vary depending on
the situation, including whether the TSDF is operating under RCRA interim
status.  For owners or operators of noninterim-status facilities, new
hazardous waste management units may occur at newly constructed TSDF, at
currently permitted TSDF, or at existing facilities not previously  requiring
a RCRA permit under Section 3005, e.g., formerly a Subtitle D operation or a
Subtitle C operation with RCRA-exempt units only.
     Newly constructed TSDF and existing operations not previously  permitted
are required to submit Parts A and B permit applications to receive a final
RCRA permit prior to construction of the new unit(s)  (as required under
Section 270.10[f]).  If these facilities meet the applicability  requirements
of Subparts AA and/or BB, the rules become effective  on the effective date
of the final RCRA permit, (i.e., to operate the hazardous waste management
unit, the owner or operator must  have control equipment installed and oper-
ating and comply with all other requirements of the subparts upon startup  of
the affected units).  Part B applications for new facilities submitted  prior
to the effective date will require modification to  include the Part 264,
Subparts AA and BB,  rules for process vents and equipment  leaks.  New
facilities that submit the Parts  A and  B application  after the effective
                                      8-6

-------
date must demonstrate in the Part B application how the air rules for
process vents and equipment leaks will be met.
     For currently permitted facilities, permit modification is necessary if
a new hazardous waste management unit is to be added.  For this situation,
the effective date of Subparts AA and BB, where applicable, is the effective
date of the permit modification.
     Owners and operators of interim^status TSDF adding a new hazardous
waste management unit (Section 270.72[c]) must submit a revised Part A
application along with a justification explaining the need for the addition.
If this unit meets the applicability requirements of Subparts AA and/or BB,
these rules become effective on the date the Regional Administrator approves
the changes contained in the revised Part A application.
     An existing solid waste management unit may become a hazardous waste
management unit when a solid waste becomes newly listed or identified as
RCRA hazardous.  If "these units meet the applicability requirements of
Subparts AA and/or BB, the effective date of the rule will also vary depend-
ing on the facility's permit status.  For example, owners and operators of
facilities not previously requiring a RCRA permit who have existing units
handling newly listed or identified RCRA hazardous wastes can submit a Part
A application and gain RCRA Subtitle C  interim.status  (Section 270.70[a]).
In this case, the effective date of Subparts AA and/or BB  is the submittal
date of the Part A application.
     For interim-status TSDF handling newly listed.or  identified RCRA wastes
(Section 270.72[a]), the owner  or  operator must submit a  revised Part A
application.   If there are operations at the  TSDF where Subparts AA and/or
BB applies for the first time,  the effective  date of the  rules will be the
date the owner or operator submits the  revised Part  A  application.
     RCRA-permitted  facilities  are currently  required  to  obtain  a  permit
modification  before  managing wastes  not listed in the  permit  (e.g., wastes
that a facility  is already handling  that are  newly  listed or  identified  as
RCRA hazardous).  However,'EPA  has recently promulgated  regulations  to
reduce the  level  of  detail to obtain  such  a permit modification  (53  FR
37912,  September  28,  1988).   The effective date  of  this  type  of  permit
modification  will also  be  the effective date  for  applicable Subparts  AA
and/or BB  regulations.                                                      •
                                      8-7

-------
     For facilities with hazardous waste management units that previously
were not subject to control requirements because the wastes in the units did
not contain organics in concentrations greater than the applicability
criterion of 10 ppmw or 10 percent, whichever applies, the owner or operator
would be required to comply with all Subpart AA or BB requirements on the
date that the facility or waste management units become affected by the
rules (i.e., the date the facility begins to manage wastes in the units with
organic concentrations greater than 10 ppmw for Subpart AA or greater than
10 percent for Subpart BB), irrespective of any change -in permit status that
is required by the change in concentration.  For the process vent emission
rate limit, the situation is somewhat different.  TSDF process vents associ-
ated with the distillation/separation operations specified in the rule that
manage waste with organics. concentrations of 10 ppmw or greater are affected
by the regulation regardless of whether the facility emissions are above or
below the emission rate limit.  Therefore, any change in the facility
operations that results in a TSDF going above or below the emission rate
limit "does not cause a change in the applicability of the facility to
Subpart AA.  The final rules for process vents require that owners or oper-
ators of TSDF subject to the provisions of Subpart AA:  (a) reduce total
organic emissions from all affected vents at the facility to below 1.4 kg/h
(3 Ib/h) and 2.8 Mg/yr (3.1 ton/yr), or (b) install control devices that
reduce total organic emissions from all affected vents at the facility by 95
weight percent or, in the case of enclosed combustion devices, to a total
organic compound concentration of not more than 20 ppmv, expressed as the
sum of actual compounds, on a dry basis corrected to 3 percent oxygen.  One
of these conditions must be met at  all times; the facility's emission rate
determination also must at all times reflect current design and operation
and wastes managed in the affected  units.
8.2.4  Omnibus Permitting Authority
     The permitting authority cited by Section 3005 of RCRA and codified  in
Section 270.32(b)(2) states that permits issued under this section "...shall
contain such terms and conditions as,the Administrator or State Director
determines necessary to protect human health and the environment."  This
section, in effect, allows permit writers to require, on a case-by-case
basis, emission controls that are more stringent than those specified by  a
                                     8-8

-------
 standard.   This  omnibus  authority  should  be  used  in  situations where,  in  the
 permit  writer's  judgment,  there  is an  unacceptable high  residual  risk  after
 application of controls  required by an emission standard.   The EPA intends
 to prepare a risk  guidance document to be used by permit writers  to help
 identify facilities  that would.potentially have high residual risk. The
 guidance will  include procedures to be used  to identify  potentially high
 risk facilities  and  will include guidance for making a formal, site-specific
 risk assessment.                                      ,        ,
 8.2.5  Part B Information  .Requirements
      In reviewing  the Part B application, permit  writers should verify that
 the information  required by the  air rules and other  RCRA rules is included
 in the  application and'that acceptable methods  (appropriate test  methods
 and/or  engineering judgment) have  been used  to generate  the information.
 The application  is required to include documentation of  the determinations
 of hazardous waste management unit equipment and  process vents at the  facil-
 ity not affected by these standards (e.g.,'equipment that  will not contain
 or contact hazardous wastes with concentrations  equal to or greater than
 10-percent organics).  Test methods for determining  the  total  organic
 content of the hazardous waste stream that is managed in a unit  or is
 contained in or contacts equipment, as well  as  the process vent  emissions,
 are referenced in Sections 264.1063 and 265.1063  and are discussed in
 Chapter 6.0 of this document.  The application  also should contain an  imple-
 mentation plan and schedule (discussed further  in Section 8.3)  indicating
 dates by which design and construction of any control devices required to
 comply with the standards will be completed.
      The Part B application also must include information and data document-
 ing that the process vent emission rate  limit is or will be met with the
" installation of controls that will reduce the total  organic emissions from
 all affected vents at the facility to below 1.4  kg/h  (3 Ib'/h) and  2.8 Mg/yr
 (3.1 ton/yr) or that reduce the total organic emissions from all  affected
 vents at the facility by 95 weight percent.  The process vent emission rate
 can be determined by engineering  calculations or source tests.
      As required by the equipment  leak provisions,  analyses documenting  that
 equipment  is in heavy-liquid service  and documentation  verifying  compliance
                                      8-9

-------
with the equipment leak standard must be submitted with the Part B applica-
tion.  This documentation includes the reports and records required under
the equipment leak provisions as well as other applicable RCRA information
requirements.
     The permit writer'.s review of the Part B information specific to these
air rules is estimated to require from 8 to 16 labor hours per facility
application.  Th'is includes the completeness check, technical evaluation,
and permit preparation.
8.3  COMPLIANCE   '
     Both the process vent provisions (i.e., determination of waste organic
content, emission rates, and control device efficiencies) and the equipment
leak provisions are "self-implementing"; i.e., it is clear from the language
of the standards what facilities are affected and what the; requirements are
for each affected facility.  As a result, site-specific negotiations between
facility owner/operators and .RCRA permit writers are not necessary to imple-
ment the standards.
     Therefore, interim-status facilities can comply with the rules without
awaiting permit action.  The self-implementing nature of the rules is
achieved by including specific criteria for facility owners and operators to
identify waste management units that are subject to the regulations and by
clearly specifying the emission control and administrative requirement of
the rules.
     The criteria for applicability are that certain hazardous waste manage-
ment units at new and existing TSOF that need authorization to operate under
RCRA Section 3005 are covered by the rules.  The applicability includes all
hazardous waste management units and recycling units at facilities that
require RCRA permits.  For the equipment leak standards to apply, the equip-
ment must contain or contact hazardous wastes with a 10-percent or more
total organics concentration.  For the process vent standards to apply, the
vents must be associated with specific hazardous waste management units,
i.e., distillation, fractionation, thin-film evaporation, solvent extrac-
tion, and air on steam stripping operations, that manage wastes with 10 ppmw
or greater total organics concentration.
    • Control requirements in the regulations include specific design
requirements for equipment and specific performance criteria  (i.e., a
                                    8-10

-------
weight-percent reduction and a volume concentration limit) for emission
control devices.  Provisions of the standards also list specific types of
equipment required.  Owners and operators who use one of the listed types of
equipment within the specified design and operational parameters would
therefore be in compliance with the regulation as long as the required
design, inspection, monitoring, and maintenance provisions were met.  Speci-
fications for emission controls that achieve at least a 95-weight-percent
reduction in organic emissions are somewhat less specific, but engineering
design practices are-sufficiently established that..the combination of a good
control device design and subsequent monitoring of operating parameters, as
required by the final regulation, would offer reasonable  assurance that the
specified emission  reduction  is being achieved.. Regardless of the type of
control selected, owners and  operators must maintain their own records of
control device design,  installation, and monitoring  and must submit reports
identifying exceedances of monitored control device  parameters.   Periodic
review of the required  reports and records by EPA may be  used to  ensure
compliance.
      Consistent with Section  3010 of RCRA, the  effective  date of  the  process
vent  and equipment  leak rules is 6 months  following  promulgation.  Owners
and operators of TSDF with  existing waste  management units  subject to the
provisions  of Subparts  AA  and BB must  achieve compliance  with the process,
vent  and equipment  leak control and monitoring  requirements  on  the effective
date  of .these rules (i.e.,  6  months following promulgation)  except where
compliance  would  require  the  installation  of a  closed-vent  system and con-
trol  device.   Information  developed under  other EPA regulations  has  shown
that, in  some cases,  the  design,  construction,  and installation  of  a closed-
 vent  system and control  device can  take as long as 24  months to complete.
As a  result,  EPA is allowing  up to  24  months from the  promulgation  date of
 the regulation  for facilities to  complete  installation if they  are required
 to install  a closed-vent  system and control  device and if they  can document
 that  installation of the emission controls cannot reasonably be expected to
   •
 be completed earlier.   In these circumstances,  owners/operators are required
 to develop an implementation schedule that indicates dates by which the
 design and construction of the necessary emission controls will  be complet-
 ed.  This implementation schedule must show that compliance with the final
 standards would be achieved within a period of no more than 2 years from.

                                     8-11

-------
promulgation and must be included as.part of the facility's operating record
on the effective date of these final rules.  Changes in the implementation
schedule are allowed within the 24-month timeframe if the owner or operator
documents that the change cannot reasonably be avoided.
     If installation of a control device is 'necessary for existing, regu-
lated units to comply with either Subpart AA or BB, up to 24 months may be
allowed from the promulgation date for the installation.  This extension
would also apply to those" facilities that are brought under regulation
because new statutory or regulatory amendments under RCRA that render the
facility subject to the provisions of Subparts AA and BB (e.g., units
handling wastes newly listed or identified as hazardous by EPA).  That is,
the  owner or operator may be allowed up to'18 months fronu the effective
date of the statutory or regulatory amendment (24 months from the date the
new listing is published) to complete installation of a control device.
However, for facilities adding new waste management units,, EPA believes that
the lead time involved in such actions provides adequate time for owners and
operators to design, procure, and install the required controls.  Therefore,
all new units must comply with the rules immediately  (i.e., must have
control equipment installed and operating on startup of the unit).
     The implementation/compliance schedule for the air emission standards
for process vents and equipment leaks at existing TSDF is as follows:
     •    180 days following promulgation, the new Subpart AA and BB
          standards become effective; all facilities become subject to
          the new standards.
     •    On the effective date of the standards, compliance with the.
          standards is required.  Each facility that does not have the
          control devices required by the standards in place must have
          one of the following in the facility's operating record:   (1)
          an implementation schedule indicating when the controls will
          be installed, or (2) a process vent emission rate determina-
          tion that documents that the emission rate  limit is not
          exceeded  (therefore, controls are not required).
     •    No later than 18 months following the effective date  (2 years
          following promulgation),  any control devices required by the
          standards for process vents and equipment leaks must be
          installed at all facilities.
     •    All permits issued after  the effective date  must incorporate
          the standards.  •           *                     •
                                     8-12

-------
  '   Implementation/compliance of the air emission standards at newly
regulated facilities not previously requiring a RCRA permit (e.g.,  those who
have existing units handling newly listed or identified hazardous wastes) is
as follows:
     *    180 days following the date the new statutory or regulatory
          amendment is promulgated (e.g., the date a managed waste is
          listed or identified as hazardous), the standards become
          effective; facilities become subject to the Subpart AA and/or
          BB standards.                                   •
          On the effective date of the standards, each facility that-
          does not have the control devices required by the standards
          in place must have one of the following in the facility's
          operating record:   (1) an implementation schedule indicating
          when the controls will be installed, or (2) a process vent  •
          emission rate determination that documents that the emission
          rate limit is not exceeded  (therefore, controls are not
          requi red).
      •    No later than 18 months  following the effective date, the
          controls  required by the standards must be installed at all
          facilities.
      The  requirements  for facility compliance with the air  emission  stand-
 ards  for  process vents and  equipment  leaks  are summarized  in Chapter 3.0 of
 this  document.  Section 7.1 presents  the  inspection, monitoring, and testing
 requirements.  Section 7.2  presents  the  recordkeeping  requirements.   Report-
 ing requirements are  outlined in  Section  7.3.   Information  on  enforcement is
 contained in Section  8.4.
      To demonstrate compliance,  facilities  must  document  their waste
 determinations, emission estimates,  and  control  device efficiencies  with
 design/engineering analyses based on criteria contained  in the rules (e.g.,
 either engineering calculations  or source tests  can  be used to document
 compliance with the emission  cutoff); facilities must  maintain these
 analyses and also monitoring, leak detection,  and repair records in  their
 operating record.   It is  important to point out that the facility's  process
 vent emission  rate determination must at all times reflert the facility's
 current waste management unit designs and wastes managed.  If the owner/
 operator takes any action  that would result in the determination no longer
 being appropriate to the facility's operations,  then a new waste and/or
                                     8-13

-------
emission rate determination  is  required  (Sections 264.1035 and 265.1035)
(e.g., if a waste of different  composition  is managed, the operating hours
of the affected management units  are  increased beyond what was originally
considered, or a new affected unit  is  added that may impact  regulatory
status).
8.4  AGENCY ENFORCEMENT
     The EPA's Regional  RCRA Enforcement Officials  and the Headquarters RCRA
Enforcement Division have the primary  responsibility for enforcement of the
standards.
     The Part B permit application  information (Section 270.24) will
•establish the specific process .vents  and equipment  that are  affected by the
rule, whether process vent controls'and/or  an LDAR  program are needed, and
will identify the control devices that have been selected to achieve compli-
ance as well as establish the compliance schedule.  The Part B permit
application information  for  most  facilities will be available to  the RCRA
inspector for examination before  the  initial inspection and  will  include all
of the information  required  (with the  exception of  monthly LDAR records) to
determine initial compliance.   LDAR monitoring and  the recording  of monitor-
ing results are required to  be  performed monthly.   Through examination of
the Part B application and any  exceedance reports submitted  by the owner/
operator, the inspector  should  be able to prepare before the inspection
(e.g., examine analyses  of the  achievable emission  reductions), thereby
minimizing the time required at the facility.
     During the initial  and  subsequent followup inspections,  enforcement
personnel should inspect the records  that the facility is required to
maintain by these and other  RCRA  rules to determine compliance.   The initial
inspection of the facilities affected  by the requirements of the  process
vent and equipment  leak  standards can  begin immediately after the effective
date of these rules (i.e., 6 months after promulgation).
     A checklist of items that  should  be inspected  at the facility during
the initial and followup inspections  is  included in this technical guidance
document  (Table 8-1).  Followup inspections for this standard can be
performed concurrently with  the annual inspection of the facility under  .
other RCRA standards.  Each  initial and  followup inspection,  including
                                     8-14

-------
writing a report, is estimated to range from about 11 labor hours for a
small commercial recycling facility up to about 38 labor hours for a large
TSDF with numerous management processes with equipment subject to the
standards.
                                     8-15

-------
          TABLE 8-1.  CHECKLIST FOR INITIAL AND FOLLOWUP INSPECTIONS
A.  Initial Inspection:
    •    Verify determination of processes and equipment at the facility
         subject to and not subject to the standards.  Assess how the
         determinations are made.
    Process Vent Requirements
    •    Verify that the waste stream determination of organics content is
         documented for each distillation/separation process unit.
    •    Evaluate whether the emission rate limit is being met or will be
         met.
     *    —   Are the facility throughput estimates justifiable?
         —  ' Are emission estimates reasonable given chemical charac-
            .  teristics and throughputs?
              Are source test results available?
              Are the controls identified in the compliance plan applicable
              and well designed?
    •    Verify that the compliance schedule, if needed, is in the
         facility's operating log, and determine whether the compliance
         schedule is being followed.
    Equipment Leak Requirements
    •    Evaluate analyses of equipment in heavy-liquid service.
              Is the hazardous waste management unit design capacity
              reasonable?  .
              Are all hazardous waste feed and effluent streams identified?
              Is the analysis of hazardous waste streams consistent with the
              facility waste'manifest records?
    •    Check records of monthly leak detection monitoring.
    •    Verify that leaking equipment has been tagged.
    •    Review records of repair attempts, delay of repair, etc.
                                                                  (continued)
                                    8-16

-------
                             TABLE 8.-1 (continued)
    •    Verify the determination of valves that are .difficult or unsafe to
         monitor.

    •    Review records for equipment covered by alternative requirements.


B.  Followup Inspection:                                   ..

    •    Follow-up to see that deficiencies identified in initial inspection
         have been corrected.

    Process Vent Requirements

    •    Verify that controls identified in the compliance plan have been
         installed and are operating.

    •    Review the monitoring records to determine that controls are oper-
         ating within design specifications.

  '  •    Evaluate whether the emission rate limit is being met.

              Are there any new process vents subject to the standards  at
              the facility?

              Are the original facility wastes  and throughput  rates still
              applicable?

              Are source test results available?

     Equipment Leak Requirements  (same checklist as for initial  inspection)
                                     8-17

-------

-------
                                9.0  TRAINING

9.1  INTRODUCTION  -
     The objectives of any training program for personnel responsible for
the implementation of the RCRA process vent and equipment leak organic air
emission standards, including RCRA permit writers/reviewers, RCRA enforce-  .
ment personnel," general RCRA staff (new hires), and operators/owners of
TSDF, should be:                                   '                   v
     •    To make personnel aware of applicable process vent and equip-
          ment leak emission sources they may encounter
     •    To provide the knowledge.and skills necessary to determine if
          the owner/operator is complying with the process vent and
          equipment leak organic air emission standards
     •    To make personnel aware of the capabilities and limitations
          of the various emission control techniques.
     RCRA permit writers/reviewers, RCRA enforcement personnel, general RCRA
staff (new hires), and operators/owners of TSDF must recognize and under-
stand the potential emission sources associated with the management of
organic containing waste at hazardous waste TSDF and the various emission
control techniques available.  In particular, personnel actively involved
with and/or responsible for compliance should be thoroughly familiar with
the  regulation and its requirements and the information contained in this
guidance document, as well as have a basic understanding of RCRA and its
objectives.                        .
     The level of necessary and required training should be consistent with
a  person's job function and responsibilities.  The training program should
involve classroom instruction on topics involving process vent emissions,
fugitive emissions from equipment  (e.g., pumps and valves), and control
techniques for these emission sources.  Films, tapes, slides, etc., can also
be used.  Some training classes provide onsite instruction and may include
                                     9-1

-------
hands-on experience, which is also recommended.  All  involved persons should

complete refresher training, when possible, to reinforce their  initial

training and to receive an update on any new information.

9.2  TRAINING PROGRAMS

     Personnel should be adequately trained to a level commensurate with

their job function and responsibilities.  Specific course recommendations

and areas to be covered in training sessions are included in Tables 9-1 and

9-2.  A list of recommended literature is also prov.ided below:

Equipment Leak Fugitive Emissions

          EPA
         •November 1980.-
          VOC Fugitive Emissions in Synthetic Organic Chemicals Manufactur-
          ing Industry—Background Information for Proposed Standards.
          EPA-450/3-.80-033A.   PB-81-152167.

     •  •   EPA:ESD/OAQPS
          Noyember 1980.
          Benzene Fugitive Emissions—Background  Information for Proposed
          Standards.   Draft EIS.   EPA-450/3-80-032a.   PB-81-151664.
          EPA
          December 1980.
          Organic. Chemical Manufacturing—Volume 3:
          Sources.   EPA-450/3-80-025.   PB81-220527.
Storage,  Fugitive,  and
          EPA:ESD
          November 1982.
          VOC  Fugitive  Emissions  in  Petroleum  Refining  Industry—Background
          Information for  Proposed Standards.   EPA-450/3-81-015a.
          PB-83-157743.

          EPA/QAQPS/ESD
          April  1982.
          Fugitive Emissions Sources of Organic Compounds—Additional
          Information on Emissions,  Emission Reductions, and Costs.
          EPA-450/3-82-010.-  PB-82-217126.

          EPA/QAQPS
         March  1984.
         Guideline Series—Control of Volatile Organic Compound Leaks for
         Synthetic Organic Chemical and Polymer Manufacturing Equipment.
         EPA-450/3-83-006.  PB-84-189-372.
                                    9-2

-------
Table 9-1.  Recommended Training (EPA sponsored)
Course
  No.
  Course Title
                              Emphasis of Training
  415
Control of Gaseous
Emissions
                              Students successfully completing this course will be able to evaluate systems typically
                              employed for controlling emissions of gaseous pollutants, including systems operation
                              and review of permit applications. Evaluation may be associated with inspection or for
                              judging whether a planned system will meet regulatory standards. A primary focus of
                              the course is on calculations that are needed to check system design. The course helps
                              students to develop an understanding of the process factors that guide selection of control
                              devices for various abatement requirements; it also helps students to develop an ability to
                              select and size a gaseous pollutant control device. A scientific calculator is required for
                              class exercises.

                              Course Sponsor: Air Pollution Training Institute

                              Desired Background: Engineering or Scientific degree •

                              Availability: All courses offered by the Air Pollution Training Institute are offered
                                         on an annual basis.         '

                              Contact: Betty Dodson (919) 541-2497	

445    Baseline Source        This advanced course in air pollution control equipment inspection and problem
       Inspection              diagnosis is designed for Agency inspectors and control system operating personnel. This
       Techniques             course presents discussions on the baseline techniques for equipment inspection and
                              evaluation. These techniques utilize site-specific information to facilitate the identification
                              of shifts in significant operating variables. The techniques presented in the course will be
                              useful in diagnosing complex control system operating problems that are often due to a
                              combination of factors. It will also be helpful in the early identification of problems, before
                              excess emissions or serious equipment damage occurs. Operating problems of a number
                              of control systems are reviewed to illustrate the baseline technique.

                              Course Sponsor Air Pollution Training Institute

                              Desired Background: Course 413 (Control of Paniculate Emissions), 415 (Control of
                                                  Gaseous Emissions), and 427 (Combustion Evaluation) or
                                                  equivalent field experience are required.

                              Availability: All courses offered by the Air Pollution Training Institute are offered
                                         on an annual basis.

                              Contact: Betty Dodson (919) 541-2497
  456    Fugitive VOC
          Leak Detection
                       This course is intended for engineering and field monitoring personnel. It presents an
                       overview of the organic chemicals, fugitive emission points, monitoring equipment, quality
                       assurance procedures, and the design of inspections. Hands-on demonstrations of the
                       most commonly used monitoring equipment are included.

                       Course Sponsor Air Pollution Training Institute

                       Desired Background: Successful completion of courses 31:445 (Introduction to Baseline
                                           Source Inspection Techniques) and/or APTI445 (Baseline Source
                                           Inspection Techniques) and APTI 446 (Inspection Procedures and
                                           Safety).

                       Availability: All courses offered by the Air Pollution Training Institute are offered
                                  on an annual basis.

                       Contact:  Betty Dodson (919) 541-2497

                                                                                             (continued)
                                                         9-3

-------
Table 9-1. (con.)
Court*
  No,
Course Title
Emphasis of Training
  482    Sources and Control
         of Volatile Organic Air
         Pollutants
S1:412D  Problem VVbrkbook-
         for Control of
       '  Gaseous and
         Paniculate Emissions
Si:417   Controlling VOC
        Emissions from
        Leaking Process
        Equipment
                     The student successfully completing this course will be able to evaluate systems typically
                     employed for the control of volatile organic emissions, including systems in operation and
                     as represented in VOC control plans. Evaluation of systems in operation identifies sub-
                     optimal features and is for the purpose of guiding regulatory action. Evaluation of planned
                     systems is for the purpose of determining whether a VOC control plan is likely to meet the
                     control objective it addresses. The course emphasizes calculations needed to cheek
                     system efficiency. Course content draws from EPA Control Technique Guidelines and
                     includes recent NSPS regulations.

                     Course Sponsor Air Pollution Training Institute

                     Desired Background:  Course Sl:422 (Air Pollution Control Orientation Course;
                                         3rd Edition) or have a minimum of six months of applicable
                                         work experience.

                     teailability:  All courses offered by the Air Pollution Training Institute are offered
                                on an annual basis.

                     Contact- Betty Dodson (919) 541-2497

                     This self-instructional course is designed for engineers and other technical personnel
                     responsible for making and reviewing calculations concerning air pollution control
                     equipment. The problems workbook contains three parts: a glossary of common terms
                     with explanations; a units operations section containing the basic principles of chemistry,
                     physics, and thermodynamics that are required in air pollution control equipment
                     calculations; and a problem section with solutions.

                     Cow/se Sponsor: Air Pollution Training Institute

                    Availability: No tuition fees are currently applicable to the Self-Study Courses (SI).
                               The materials for these courses are provided on a loan basis.

                    Contact:  Betty Dodson (919) 541-2497
                    This course is designed for technical people involved in monitoring industries for VOC
                    emissions from leaking process equipment The course reviews in detail the sources of
                    fugitive VOC emissions and the procedures and equipment used to detect the leaks.

                    Course Sponsor Air Pollution Training Institute

                    Availability: No tuition fees are currently applicable to the Self-Sl:udy Courses (SI).
                               The materials for these courses are provided on a lean basis.

                    Contact:  Betty Dodson (919) 541-2497
                                                                                                     (continued)
                                                       9-4

-------
Table 9-1.  (con.)
Course
  No,
            Course Title
                                Emphasis of Training
 SI:428A Introduction to
         Boiler Operation
 Sl:431
         Air Pollution Control
         Systems for Selected
         Industries
                                Designed for engineers and other technical persons responsible for inspecting boilers,
                                this course presents an introduction to the operation of boilers. This will be the first in a
                                series of four (or five) courses on inspecting and/or operating different types of boilers-
                                small package boilers, commercial boilers, industrial boilers, and utility boilers.

                                Course Sponsor Air Pollution Training institute

                                Availability: No tuition fees are currently applicable to the Self-Study Courses (SI).
                                           The materials for these courses are provided on a loan basis.

                                Contact: Betty Dodson (919) 541-2497

                                This course is an introduction to the fundamental operating characteristics of participate
                                and gaseous pollutant emission control systems. It reviews physical, chemical, and
                                engineering principles of control devices and the application of control systems to several
                                types of industrial processes.

                                Course Sponsor: Air Pollution Training Institute

                                Availability: No tuition fees are currently applicable to the Self-Study Courses (SI).
                                           The materials for these courses are provided on a loan basis.

                                Contact: Betty Dodson (919) 541-2497

Sl:445   Introduction to          This course was designed for the air pollution field inspector and industrial air pollution
                                control equipment operators. It covers the basics of the baseline inspection technique for
                                air pollution control equipment. This technique is based on the use of site-specific data to
                                evaluate shifts in operating conditions. Most major types of air pollution control devices
                                and auxiliary systems are covered. Inspection procedures, data collection, data recording,
                                and interpretation are explained. Review problems and questions are presented.

                                Course Sponsor Air Pollution Training Institute

                                Availability: No tuition fees are currently applicable to the Self-Study Courses (SI).
                                           The materials for these courses are provided on a loan basis.

                                Contact Betty Dodson (919) 541-2497

         Core Training           The Core Training Program is designed for entry-level State inspectors at RCRA sites. The
         Program                program is composed of three courses: RCRA orientation, inspector training, and permit
                                writers training.

                                Course Sponsor: EPA/ASTSWMO

                                Availability: The inspector course and the permit writers course are available on an
                                           annual basis. The orientation course is currently under development.

                                Contact: Mary Anthony (202) 624-5828
         Introduction to
         Baseline Source.
         Inspection
         Techniques
         Workshop on
         Hazardous and Toxic
         Air Pollutant Control
         Technologies and
         Permitting Issues
                                 Information presented in this workshop should be of interest to Federal, State, and local
                                 officials, industry personnel, and consultants involved in the hazardous and toxic air
                                 pollution field. The purpose of this workshop series is to transfer technical information on
                                 hazardous and toxic air pollutant control technologies and permitting issues. Topics
                                 discussed include: combustion-related technologies; carbon adsorption; absorption;
                                 fugitive equipment leaks; and paniculate control technologies.

                                 Course Sponsor: STAPPA/ALAPCO

                                 Availability: The availability of this workshop depends on the availability of funds from its
                                            sponsor to support its existence

                                 Contact:  Kirt Cox (919) 541-5399

SI » Self-Instructional
                                                          '  9-5

-------
 Table 9-2.  Recommended Training (Non-EPA sponsored)
   Cours* Till*
 Emphasis of Training
 VOC Inspection       . The YPC Inspection Techniques workshop provides inspectors with background information on
 Techniques            various VOC-emitting industries, technical control strategies, and inspection techniques. A three-
                       hour site visit, included in the workshop, demonstrates some of the inspection techniques.
                     .  Demonstrations of several VOC detection instruments provide hands-on opportunity for the
                       inspectors. Short lectures on control device inspection techniques and operating principles for
                       carbon adsorbers and incinerators'are presented. VOC source categories include solvent metal
                       cleaning, drycleaning, surface coating, gasoline marketing, petroleum refining, pharmaceutical
                       manufacturing, synthetic organic chemical manufacturing, pneumatic rooter tire making, the use
                       of cutback asphalt, graphic arts, etc.

                       Course Sponsor PEI

                       Availability:  This workshop is available when requested by a significant number of persons.    •
                       Contact: Dave Dunbar (919) 688-6338
 RCRA Facility
 Compliance Training'
Permit Review
Fwkl Training
 This three-day workshop summarizes RCRA interim-status standards, inspection protocols, and
 safety procedures. The workshop describes hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal
 facilities and requirements for the design of a management program for such facilities. Inspection
 protocols are discussed that are compatible with EPS's RCRA inspection manual.

 Course Sponsor: PEI

 ftmSabiSty, This workshop is available when requested by a significant number of persons.

 Contact- Dave Dunbar (919) 688-6338
 This three-day workshop is designed for Agency engineers and personnel who are responsible for
 permit review. The workshop covers administrative and technical consideralfons in depth. It
 discusses manpower requirements for various levels of review; optimum utilization of Agency
 personnel; permit processing mechanics; fabric filters; scrubbers; mechanical collectors; operating
 features and design criteria for control equipment; operating and maintenance considerations;
 modeling of control equipment performance; corrosion prevention; compliance testing provisions-
 siting requirements; and information retrieval systems.

 Course Sponsor:  PEI

 AmilabiUty: This workshop is available when requested by a significant number of persons.

 Contact: Dave Dunbar (919) 688-6338
As a folJowup to classroom instruction, many agencies have requested personalized instruction in
the use of the inspection equipment and analysis methods in actual field applications.- In coopera-
tion with the host agency, the course sponsor selects representative industrial sources and nego-
tiates with those sources to conduct inspections that demonstrate various inspection techniques.
Course Sponsor PEI

Availability: This workshop is available when requested by a significant number of persons.

Contact:  Dave Dunbar (919) 688-6338
                                                           9-6

-------
Table 9-2. (con.)
  Course Title
Industrial Control
Equipment for
Gaseous Pollutants
Emphasis of Training
Air Pollution            In this course, air pollution causes, transport, effects, and monitoring are reviewed as well as
Control                principles and terminology of air pollution control engineering. A major emphasis is on methods for
                       prevention, control, and solution of atmospheric environmental problems. Process design and selec-
                       tion of both paniculate and gaseous collection equipment are emphasized. Methods of avoiding
                       common operating problems are discussed. A background knowledge of general chemical and
                       petrochemical processes is assumed, but a high degree of mathematical sophistication is not
                       required.  .

                       Course Sponsor AlChE

                       Availability:  This course is offered on an annual basis.

          .,           Contact: AlChE Continuing Education Registrar (212) 705*7526
This course reviews the design criteria for control equipment and presents the underlying principles
and mechanisms involved. The course content includes: activated carbon and molecular sieve
adsorption columns; condensers; and thermal and catalytic incinerators.

Course Sponsor APCA

Availability: This course is offered on an annual basis.

Contact  Dan Russsl (412) 232-3444
                                                         9-7

-------
 Process Vent Emissions
           EPA
           December 1980.
           Organic Chemical Manufacturing—Volume 4.:  Combustion Control
           Devices.  EPA-450-3-80-026.  PB-81-220535.

           EPA
           December 1980.
           Organic Chemical Manufacturing—Volume" 5:  Adsorption,  Condensa-
           tion,  and Absorption Devices.   EPA-450/3-80-027.   PB-81-220543.

           EPA                                .
           December 1983.
           Distillation Operations  in  Synthetic  Organic Chemical Manufac-
           turing—Background Information  for Proposed Standards.
           EPA-450/3-83-005a.  PB-84-214006.

           EPA/QAQPS/ESD  '                                •
           June 6,  1988o
           Carbon  Adsorption for Control of VOC  Emissions:   Theory  and  Full
           Scale System Performance.   EPA  450/3-88-012.
          APCA Publications
          December  1981.
          Control of Gaseous  Emissions.
          (412) 232-3444.
                               EPA-450/2-81-005
'Haste Stream Test Methods
     Note:
EPA/OSW
Second Edition,
Revised December 1987.
Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical
Methods.  SW-846.  PB87-120-291.

  These documents are available through the EPA library and
  through the National Technical Information Service (NTIS).
  Literature having a EPA number (e.g., EPA-450/3-80-033A) is
  available at the following address and phone number:

       Environmental  Protection Agency
       Library Services Office
       MD-35
       Research Triangle Park,  NC  27711
       (919) 541-2777

  Literature having a PB number can be obtained through NTIS  at
  the following address and phone number:

       National  Technical  Information  Service
       5285 Port Royal  Road
       Springfield,  VA  22161
       (703) 487-4650

                           9-8

-------
Control of Gaseous Emissions can be obtained through APCA
Publications at the following address and phone number:  .

     APCA Publications
     P.O. Box 2861
     Pittsburgh, PA  15230
     (412) 232-3444

ASTM methods are available from the Annual Book of ASTM
Standards at the following address and phone number:

     American Society for Testing and Materials
     1916 Race St.  .
     Philadelphia, PA  19103
     (215) 299-5400

EPA Reference Method 21,  "Determination of Volatile Organic .
Compound Leaks," contained in Appendix A of 40 CFR 60 (Stock
No. 869r004-00137-l),  is  available from the following office:

     U.S. Government Printing Office
     Washington, DC  20402-9325
     (202) 783-3238
                         9-9

-------

-------
      APPENDIX A



FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE

-------

-------
25454
            Federal Register / VoL 55. No. 120  / Thursday. June 21. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY

46 CFR Parts 260,261.264,265,270.
and 271

[FHL-3814-31

Hazardous Wast* Treatment, Storage,
and Disposal Facilities-Organic Air
Emission Standards for Process Vents
and Equipment Leaks

AOSNCY: Environmental Protection
Agancy (EPA).
ACTIOHS Final rule.

SUMMARY: The-EPA is today
promulgating standards that limit
organic air emissions as a class at
hazardous waste treatment storage, and
disposal facilities fTSDF] requiring a
permit under subtitle C of the Resource  •
Conservation and Recovery'Act
(RCRAL.Today's action is the first part
of a multiphased regulatory effort to
control air emissions at new and
•existing hazardous waste TSDF. The
rule establishes final standards limiting
organic emissions from (1) process vents
associated with distillation.
 fractionation. thin-film evaporation.
 solvent extraction, and air or steam
 stripping operations that manage
 hazardous wastes with 10 parts per
 million by weight (ppmw) or greater
 total organic! concentration, and (2)
 leaks from equipment that contains or
 contacts hazardous waste streams with
 10 percent by weight or greater total
 organic*. These standards were
 proposed in the Federal Register on
 February 5.1967 (52 FR 3748).
   The final standards are promulgated
 under the authority of section 3004 of the
 Hazardous and Solid Waste
 Amendments (HSWAJ to the RCRA. The
 EPA is required by section 3004(n) of
 RCRA to promulgate standards for the
 monitoring and control of air emissions
 from hazardous waste TSDF as
 necessary to protect human health and
 the environment The EPA plans to
 promulgate additional standards under
 this section in two further phases. Phase
 n will consist of air standards for
 organic emissions from surface
 impoundments, tanks, containers, and
 miscellaneous units. These standards
 are scheduled for proposal later this
 year. In Phase in. the residual risk from
 the first two phases will be assessed
 and. if necessary, EPA will develop
 further regulations or guidance to
  protect human health and the
  environment from the effects of TSDF
  air emissions.
  EFFECTIVE BATE This final rule is
  effective on December 21,1990. The
incorporation by reference of certain
publications listed in the regulations to
approved by the Director of the Federal
Register as of September 5 and October
11,1988.
Aoemsscs: The official record for this
final rulemaking is contained in Docket
No. F-90-AESF-FFFFF. This docket and
the proposal docket (Docket No. F-88-
AESP-FFFFF) an available for public
inspection at the EPA RCRA Docket
Office (OS-300) in room 2427M of the
U»S Environmental Protection Agency.
401M Street SW.. Washington. DC
20460. Additional information
concerning the development of the
equipment leak standards is contained
in Docket No. A-79-27. which ie
available for public inspection at EPA's
Central Docket Section, room 2903E
Waterside Mall. 401M Street SW,
Washington. DC 20460. For further
information, see the discussion of
supporting documentation for the rules
under section X of this preamble.
   Background information document:
The background information document
(BID) for the final standards may be
obtained from the U.S. EPA Library
(MD-35). Research Triangle Park. North
Carolina 27711, telephone (919) 541-
2777. Please refer to "Hazardous Waste
Treatment Storage, and Disposal
Facilities (TSDF)—Background
 Information for Promulgated Organic
Emission Standards for Process  Vents
 and Equipment Leaks" (EPA-450/3-89-
 OOB). The EPA has prepared a technical
 guidance document to aid in
 implementation of these rules. This
 document may also be obtained from.
 the US. EPA Library (see above
 address). Please refer to "Hazardous
 Waste TSDF—Technical Guidance
 Document for RCRA Air Emission
 Standards for Process Vents and
 Equipment Leaks" (EPA-4SO/3-89-21J.
 ran FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
 The RCRA Hotline, toll-free at (800) 424-
 9346. For further information on
 regulatory aspects of these standards.
 contact Rick Colyer, Standards
 Development Branch. Emission
 Standards Division (MD-13). US.
 Environmental Protection Agency.
 Research Triangle Park. North Carolina
 27711. telephone number (919) 541-5282.
 For further information on the technical
 aspects of these standards, contact
 Robert Lucas, Chemicals and Petroleum
 Branch, telephone number (919) 541-
 0884. at the same address. For further
 information on test methods associated
 with these standards, contact Terry
 Harrison. Emission Measurement
 Branch, telephone number (919) 541-
  5233. at the same address as above.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION! The
contents of today's preamble are listed
in the following outline:
L Authority
D, Summary of Final Standards
  A. Vents on Hazardous Waste
    Management Process Units
  B. Equipment Leaks on Hazardous Watte
    Management Process Units
EL Background
  A. Regulatory Authority
  E Regulatory Scope of Today's Standard*
  C Air Standards under RCRA Section
    3004{n)
  D. Other RCRA Air Standards
  E, Relationship of Air Standards to Other
    Subtitle C Rules
  P. Relationship of Today's Final Standards
    to the Comprehensive Environmental
    Response. Compensation, and Liability
    Act(CERCLA)
IV. Applicability and Requirements of
    Proposed Process Vent and Equipment
    Leak Standards
V. Applicability and Requirements of Today's
    Final Standards
  A. Scops of Final Standards
  B, Standards for Process Vents
  C Equipment Leak Standards
  D. Summary of Changes from Proposal
  E. Relationship of RCRA Exemptions to
    Final Standards  ,
 VL Summary of Comments and Responses
  A. Regulatory Issues
  B. Standards and Applicability
  C Control Technology
  a Impact Analyse* Methodologies
  E. Implementation and Compliance
 Vtt. Summary of Impacts of Final Standards
  A. Overview of the Source Category
' B. Uw of Models in the Regulatory
    Development Process
   C Emission Impacts
   D. Ozone Impacts  •
   E. Health Risk Impacts
   F. Cost Impacts
 Vnt State Authorization
   A. Applicability of Rules in Authorized
     States
   B. Effect on State Authorizations
 DC. Implementation             •
 X, Administrative Requirements
   A. Regulatory Impact Analysts
   B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
   C Paperwork Reduction Act
   O. Supporting Documentation
   E, List of Subjects

  L Authority

    These regulations are promulgated
  under the authority of sections 1006.
  2002.3001-3007,3010. 3014. and 7004 of
  the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1970. as
  amended by RCRA. as amended (42
  U.S.C. 8905. 8912,8921-6927, 6930. 6934.
  and 6974).

  H. Summary of Final Standards

    The standards limit emissions of
  organic* from certain process vents and
  equipment leaks at new and existing
  hazardous waste'TSDF requiring a
  permit under RCRA subtitle C (i.e..

-------
             Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 120 / Thursday. June 21,  1990 / Rules and Regulations      25455
  permitted TSDF and TSDF that need
  authorization to operate under RCRA
  section 3005{o)). This applicability
  include* all hazardous waste
  management units that require RCRA
  oermits and recycling units that are not
  subject to RCRA permit requirements, if.
  Independent of today's final rules, a
  RCRA permit is needed for another part
  of the facility operation*.

  A. Vents on Hazardous Waste
  Management Process Units
   Today's final standards are applicable
  to vents on wast* management units
  that manage hazardous waste with an
_  annual average total organics
*  concentration of 10 ppmw or greater
  (hereafter referred to as "process
  vents") and specifically include (1)
  process vents on distillation.
  fractionatioo. thin-film evaporation.
  solvent extraction, and air or steam
  stripping operations and vents on
  condensers serving these operations:
  and (2) process vents on tanks (e.g_
  distillate receivers, bottoms receivers.
  surge control links, separator tanks, and
  hot wells) associated with distillation.
  fractionation. thin-film evaporation.
  solvent extraction, and air or steam
  stripping processes if emissions from
  these process operations are vented
  through the tanks. Up-to-date
  information and data used to determine
  whether or not a hazardous waste
  management unit and Us associated
  process vent(s) are subject to the
  subpart AA standards must be
  maintained in the facility operating
  record (i 264.1035(0 and  126S.103S(f)).
  For example, documentation of a waste
  analysis showing that the waste
  managed in the unit is less than the 10-
  ppmw applicability criterion must be
  kept in the facility operating record.
   The final rules for process vents
  require that owners or operators of
 TSDF subject to the provisions of new
  subpart AA: (1) Reduce total organic
  omissions  from all affected process
  vents at the facility to below 1.4 kg/h (3
  Ib/h) and £S Mg/yr (3.1 ton/yr). or (2)
  Install and operate a control device(s)
  that reduces total organic emissions
  from all affected process vents at the
  facility by 95 weight percent. The owner
 or operator of the facility must
 determine through test data or
 engineering judgment and calculations
  that the facility is not expected to
 exceed the emission rate limit of 1.4  kg/
 h and 23 Mg/yr. Facilities with organic
 emissions from affected vents that never
 exceed the emission rate limit will not
 be required to install controls or monitor
• process vent emissions under this rule.
 For all other affected facilities, the
 owner or operator must install controls
 to reduce total facility process vent
 emissions from all affected vents below
 the emission rate limit or to reduce total
 facility process vent organic emissions
 after primary recovery by 95 percent; if
 enclosed combustion devices are used.
 the owner/operator has the option of
 reducing the organic concentration of
 each affected vent stream at the facility
 to no more than 20 parts per million bv
 volume (ppmv). Selection of the
 emission rate limit is addressed further
 hi section- VLB below and in chapters 4.0
 and 7a of the BID.
   The final standards for process Vents.
 do not require the use of any specific
 types of equipment or add-on control
 devices. Condensers, carbon adsorbers.
 incinerators, and flares are
 demonstrated emission control
 equipment for the regulated processes.
 although the choice of control is not
 limited -to these.
   To demonstrate compliance with the
 process vent provisions, TSDF owners/
 operators must document process vent
 emissions and emission reductions
 achieved by add-on control devices and
 certify the emission reduction capability
 of the control equipment
 Documentation must (1) identify
 affected process vents, provide the
 throughput and operating hours of each
 affected unit and provide emission rate
 determinations for each affected vent
 and for the overall facility (i.e.. the total
 emissions for all affected vents at the
 facility]: and (2) show whether installed
 add-on control devices achieve the
 emission rate limit by design and during
 operation. Where the emission rate limit
 is not attained, documentation must
 show whether the add-on control
 devices achieve a 95-percent reduction
 in organic*, or the 20-ppmv organics
 concentration limit by design and during
 operation. The documentation must
 include the basis for determining the
 design emission reduction.
   The rules for process vents require
. that specific control device operating
 parameters be monitored continuously
 and the monitoring information be
 recorded in the facility operating record
 to ensure that the devices perform
 according to their design and are
 properly operated and maintained. For
 facilities with final RCRA permits.
 periods when monitoring indicates that
 control device operating parameters
 exceed established tolerances for design
 specifications must be reported
 scmiannually. The records and reports
 must include dates, duration, cause, and
 corrective measures taken. There are no
 reporting requirements for interim status
 facilities. These monitoring and
 recordkeeping requirements are
 discussed below in section V.B and in
 the BIO in chapter 11.0, section 11.4.

 B. Equipment Leaks on Hazardous
 Waste Management Process Units
   The equipment leak standards apply
 to emissions from valves, pumps.
 compressors, pressure relief devices,
 sampling connection systems, and open-
. ended valves or lines. Under the final
 standards, controls for these sources are
 required; at TSDF where the equipment
 contain!! or contacts hazardous waste
 streams with organic concentrations of
 10 percent by weight or greater. The
 owner or operator of a facility may
 choose any of the applicable test
 methods, identified in the final rules for
 determining the organic content.
   To comply with the equipment leak
 standards, the facility owner/operator
 must identify all affected equipment
 (i.e_ pumps, valves, compressors, etc.,
 that contain or contact hazardous waste
 streams with at least 10-parcent-by-
 weigbt organics). establish which of the
 affected equipment is in heavy liquid
 service, and determine which valves are
 unsafe or difficult to monitor. By the
 effective date of this regulation, the
 facility owner/operator must conduct
 the initial monthly monitoring survey of
 pumps and valves in gas/vapor OF light
 liquid service. A number of portable
 volatile organic monitoring devices are
 capable of detecting equipment leaks..
 Any analyzer can be used, provided it'
 meets the specifications and
 performance criteria set forth in EPA
 Reference Method 21 (contained in
 appends* A of 40 CFR part 60).
   Affect ad compressors must hava a
 dual mechanical seal system that
 includes a barrier fluid system or must
 be designated as having "no detectable
 emissions," which means an instrument
 reading of less than 500 ppm above
 background using EPA Reference
 Method XI. Sampling connections must
 have a closed-purge system. Open-
 ended vsiives or lines must have a cap.
 blind flange, plug, or second valve.
 Pressure relief devices must operate
 with "no detectable emissions."
   Recordkeeping  and monitoring are
 also required by the equipment leak
 provisions. For example, leaking
 equipment as determined by Method 21
 must be tagged as specified in the rule.
 and  records of repair attempts, delay of
 repair, etc., must be recorded in  a log
 and  included as part of the facility's
 operating; record. Monitoring of control
 device operating parameters is also   '
 required if a closed-vent system and
 control device are installed as a result of
 the equipment leak standards. The
 standards and recordkeeping

-------
25456
Federal Register  /  Vol.  55. No. 120 / Thursday. June  21. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
requirement* are discussed below at
section V.C.
IIL Background

A. RegulatoryAuthority
  In 1964. Congress passed HSWA.
amending RCRA. Section 3004(n) of
RCRA, as amended by HSWA. directs
EPAto"* * *  promulgate such
regulations for the monitoring and
control of air emissions at hazardous
waste treatment storage, and disposal
facilities, including but not limited to
open tanks, surface impoundments, and
landfills, as may be necessary to protect
human health and the environment."
The standards being promulgated today
address, in part, this congressional
directive and are applicable to all TSDF
that require authorization to operate
under section 3005 of RCRA. These
regulations are being promulgated under
 the authority of sections 1006,2002.
 3001-3007.3010.3014. and 7004 of the
 Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1970, as
 amended by RCRA. as amended (42
 U.S.C. 6905,6912.6921-6927. 6930.8934.
 and6974).

• B. Regulatory Scope of Today's
 Standard*
  • Today's final rules apply to facilities
 that treat store, or dispose of hazardous
 wastes as defined in 40 CFR 261.3 and.
 specifically, to certain hazardous waste
 management units at facilities requiring
 RCRA subtitle C permits. This includes
 facilities with permit* and those
 operating under interim status. Today's
 rules, codified in new subparts AA and
 BB of 40 CFR parts 264 and 265. are
 applicable to the following units at
 TSDF: (1) Hazardous waste management
 units subject to the permitting
 requirements  of part 270 (i.e.. not 90-day
 accumulation tanks at TSDF). and (2}
 hazardous waste recycling units located'
 on hazardous waste management
 facilities otherwise subject to the
 permitting requirements of part 270.
 Under 40 CFR 280.10. the term "facility"
 means ail contiguous Sand, and
, structures, other appurtenances, and
 improvement! on the land, used for
 treating, storing, or disposing of
 hazardous waste, (Note: This definition
 differs from the definition of "facility"
  for purposes of corrective action under
  RCRA section 3004fu). See 50 FR 28712.
  July 15,1985.)

  C. Air Standards Under RCRA Section
  3OH(nl
    Air emissions from hazardous wastes
 • are generated or released from
  numerous sources at TSDF,  including
  distillation and other organic separation
  units, surface impoundments, tanks.
                           containers, landfills, land treatment.
                           facilities, wastepiles. and leaks from
                           equipment associated with these
                           operations.
                             In considering the regulation of air
                           emissions under RCRA section 3004(n)
                           and within the RCRA regulatory
                           framework, EPA has concluded  that air
                           emission* from hazardous waste
                           management facilities that are subject to
                           RCRA subtitle C should be regulated
                           under the authority of RCRA section
                           3004(n). Air emissions from facilities or
                           units that manage solid wastes that are
                           not regulated as hazardous wastes
                           pursuant to 40 CFR part 261 (e.g.. cement
                           kiln dust waste) and air emissions from
                           hazardous waste from units or facilities
                           that are exempt from the permitting
                           provisions of 40 CFR 270.1(c)(2) (e.g.,
                           wastewaier treatment units with
                           National Pollutant Discharge
                           Elimination System (NPDES) permits)
                           will be subject to control techniques
                           guidelines or standards developed as
                           needed under either the Clean Ate Act
                           (CAA) or RCRA authority. Air emissions
                           from wastes managed in units subject to
                           subtitle D (nonhazardous solid wastes
                           such as those managed in municipal
                           landfills) also will be subject to
                           guidelines or standards issued under
                           CAA or RCRA authority as appropriate.
                             Air emissions from hazardous wastes
                           include pfaotochemically reactive and
                           nonphotochemically reactive organics,
                           some of which are toxic or carcinogenic.
                           and also may include toxic or
                           carcinogenic inorganic compounds.
                           Depending on the source, particuiates
                           (including metals, aerosols of organics.
                           dust a* well as toxics and carcinogens)
                           also may be released or generated.
                           These emissions, which are released to
                           the atmosphere from a wide variety of
                           sources within TSDF. present diverse
                           health and environmental risks.
                           Therefore. EPA has developed  a
                           multiphased approach for regulating
                           TSDF organic air emissions. This
                            approach, described generally below.
                            reflect* EPA's understanding of the
                            problem and knowledge of applicable.
                            effective controls at this time
                              Organic emissions from TSDF
                            managing hazardous wastes contribute
                            to ambient ozone formation and
                            increase cancer and other health risks.
                          ' Phases I and II of EPA's TSDF
                            regulatory approach will significantly
                            reduce emissions of ozone precursors
                            and air toxics and carcinogens from
                            TSDF by controlling emissions of
                            organics a* a class rather than
                            controlling emissions of individual
                            waste constituents. The regulation of
                            organics a* a class ha* the advantage of
                           . being relatively straightforward because
it can be accomplished with a minimum
number of standards, whereas the
control of individual toxic constituents
will require multiple standards.
Regulating organics as a class also
makes efficient use of EPA resource.
avoids many of the complexities of
having multiple standards, and reduce-
the number of constituents for which
separate standards may be required.
  The health and environmental effects
of ambient ozone are well documented-
measured in terms of monetary losses.
they total hundreds of millions of dollars
each year. Other health impacts of TSDF
organic emissions are summarized in
section VTLD of this preamble and are
discussed in more detail in the BID that  .
accompanies this final rule and in the
draft BID for Phase Q organic standards
titled. "Hazardous Waste TSDF—
Background Information, for Proposed
RCRA Air Emission Standards."	
available in Docket F-90-CESP-FFFFF.
The substantial .reductions in organic
emissions achievable through
implementation of Phase I and Phase II
controls will reduce atmospheric ozone
formation as a result of reductions in
TSDF emissions of ozone precursors and
will reduce nationwide cancer incidence
and maximum individual risk due to
exposure to air toxics and carcinogens
emitted from TSDF.
   Specifically, Phase I (which is being
promulgated as final rules today) entails
the promulgation of standards for the
control of organic air emissions from
selected hazardous waste management
processes and equipment leaks. As
discussed in the February 1987 proposal.
EPA chose to develop this  portion of its
TSDF rulemaking first to prevent
 uncontrolled air emissions from land
 disposal restriction (LDR) treatment
 technologies. The technologies used in
 lieu of land disposal include the
 distillation/ separation processes
 subject to the Phase I rules. Publication
 of today's final rules for air emissions
 from hazardous waste management unit
 process vents from  distillation.
 fractionation. thin-film evaporation.
 solvent extraction, and air or steam
 stripping processes and from leaks in
 piping and associated equipment
 handling hazardous wastes marks the
 completion of this first phase.
   In the second phase. EPA will propose
 (in 1990) additional standards under
 section 3004(n) to control organic air
 emissions from other significant TSDF
 air emission sources not covered-or not
 adequately controlled by existing
 standards. These sources include
 surface impoundments, tanks (including
 vents .on closed, vented tanks).
 containers, and miscellaneous units.

-------
             Federal Register / Vol.  55. No. 120 / Thursday. June 21. 1990 / Rules  and Regulations      25457
   The analyse* of impacts indicate that
 at some facilities, residual cancer risk to
 the roost exposed individuals after
 implementing the first two phases of
 regulation will remain outside tha risk
 range for other regulations promulgated
 under RCRA (which historically has
 been in the range of lxi
-------
            Federal Register / Vol. 55.  No. 120 / Thursday. June 21.  1990 / Rulea  and Regulation
25458
 nonwastewater spent solvents include
 distillation and other separation
 processes subject to the requirements of
 the Phase I rules. Today's standards are
 designed to protect human health and
 the environment by reducing air
 emissions from technologies expected to
 be used to treat wastes prior to land
 disposal
   Under the authority of RCRA section
 3004(u). EPA is developing rules to
 address releases of hazardous waste or
 hazardous constituents from solid waste
 management units (SWMU) that pose a
 threat to human health and the
 environment Because this authority
 applies to contamination of soil water.
 and air media, organic air emissions
 from SWMU at some TSDF would be   .
 addressed by the corrective action
 program EPA intends to propose under a
' separate rulemaking. The draft rules
 would establish health-based trigger
 levels measured at the TSDF boundary
 for determining whether further
 remedial studies are required to assess
 air emissions from a particular SWMU.
 Health-based cleanup standards would
 then be set .for air emission levels that
 exceed acceptable health-based levels
 at the point at which actual exposure
 occurs. When such exposure is
 determined either through monitoring or
 modeling techniques, corrective action
 will be required to reduce such
 emissions at the point of compliance.
   The corrective action program is
 designed to achieve site-specific
 solutions based on an examination of a
 particular TSDF and its environmental
 setting. It is not intended to set national
 standards that regulate organic air
 emissions from all TSDF. At sites where
  there are releases from SWMU to the
  atmosphere, organic emissions will be
  controlled based on site-specific
 'exposure concerns. Furthermore.
  releases from the SWMU that contain
  hazardous solid wastes will also be
  subject to corrective action. Therefore.
  for air emissions, corrective action is in
  part designed to expeditiously address
  threats to human health and the
  environment that are identified prior to
  implementation of more comprehensive
  air emission standards. In addition.
 • because corrective action  can address a
  wider universe of SWMU. it will
  address, in some respects, exposure
  concerns that today's final standards do
  not address.
  F. Relationship of Today's Final
  Standards to CERCLA
    The CERCLA. as amended by the
  Superfund Amendments and
  Reauthorization Act (SARA). 42 U.S.C
  9801 et seq.. authorizes EPA to
  undertake removal and remedial actions
                                       to clean up releases of hazardous.
                                       substances, pollutants, or contaminants.
                                       Removal actions typically are
                                       immediate or expedited activities
                                       necessary to minimize exposure or
                                       danger to human health and the
                                       environment from the release of a
                                       hazardous substance, pollutant, or
                                       contaminant Remedial actions are
                                       longer term, planned activities
                                       performed at sites listed on the National
                                       Priorities List to permanently clean up
                                       hazardous substances, pollutants, or
                                       contaminants and any soils, surface
                                       waters, or ground waters contaminated
                                       by these materials.  On-site remedial
                                       actions arerequired by CERCLA section
                                       121(d)(2)  to comply with the
                                       requirements of Federal and more
                                       stringent State public health and
                                       environmental laws that have been
                                       identified by EPA or the delegated State
                                       authority as applicable or relevant and
                                       appropriate requirements (ARAR) to the
                                       specific CERCLA site. In addition, the
                                       National Contingency Plan (NCP)
                                       provides that on-site CERCLA removal
                                       actions "should comply with Federal
                                       ARAR to the extent practicable
                                       considering the exigencies of the
                                       circumstances" (40 CFR 300.65(f))-
                                       Today's final standards may be
                                       considered ARAR for certain on-site
                                       remedial and removal actions.
                                         A requirement under a Federal or
                                       State environmental law may either be
                                       "applicable" or "relevant and
                                       appropriate." but not both, to a remedial
                                       or removal action conducted at a
                                       CERCLA site. "Applicable
                                       requirements." as defined in the
                                       proposed revisions to the NCP. means
                                       those cleanup standards, standards of
                                       control, and other  substantive
                                        environmental protection requirements.
                                        criteria,  or limitations promulgated
                                        under Federal or State law that
                                        specifically address a hazardous
                                        substance, pollutant contaminant
                                        remedial action, location, or other
                                        circumstance found at a CERCLA site
                                        (40 CFR 3003 (proposed). 53 FR S1475
                                        (December 21.1988)). "Relevant and
                                        appropriate requirements" means those
                                        Federal or State requirements that
                                        while not applicable, address problems
                                        or situations sufficiently similar to those
                                        encountered at the CERCLA site that
                                        their use is well suited to the particular
                                        site (S3 FR 51478).
                                          Some waste management activities
                                        used for remedial and removal actions
                                        to clean up hazardous organic
                                        substances use the distillation/
                                        separation operations regulated under
                                        subpart AA of today's rules. For
                                        example, hazardous organic liquid
                                        wastes  and ground and surface waters
contaminated with hazardous wastes
may be treated on site using air
stripping processes. Therefore, the
organic emission control requirements of
today's subpart AA rules may be
"applicable" for on-site remedial and
removal action activities that use
distillation, fractionation. thin-film
evaporation, solvent extraction, or air or
steam stripping operations that treat
substances that are identified or listed
under RCRA as hazardous wastes and
have a total organic concentration of 10
ppmw or greater. In addition, off-site
storage, treatment and disposal of all
wastes classified under RCRA as
hazardous waste must be performed at a
TSDF permitted under RCRA subtitle C.
Thus, CERCLA wastes that are defined
as hazardous under RCRA, contain more
than 10 ppmw of total organics, and are
shipped off site for management in
• distillation, fractionation, thin-film
evaporation, solvent extraction, and air
or steam stripping operations, would be
 subject to today's final standards like
 any similar RCRA hazardous waste. The
 new subpart AA control requirements1
 for process vents may also be "relevant
 and appropriate" to on-site CERCLA
 removal and remedial actions that use
 distillation, fractionation. thin-film
 evaporation, solvent extraction, and air
 or steam stripping operations to manage
 substances that contain organics that
 are not covered by this rule (e.g.,
 organics less than 10 ppmw or organics
 from nonhazardous wastes).
   Today's'final rules do not include
 control requirements for process vents
 on operations not associated with
 organics distillation/separation but
 typically associated with CERCLA
 remedial or removal actions such as soil
 excavation, in situ soil vapor extraction.
 in situ steam stripping of soil soil
 washing, stabilization, bioremediation
 (in situ or otherwise), dechlorination.
 and low temperature thermal
 desorption. Therefore, the final rule for
 process vents would not be "applicable"
 to remedial or removal actions involving
 these processes at CERCLA sites. Also.
 the final process vent standards may not
 be considered "relevant and
 appropriate" for these same activities at
 CERCLA sites. Waste management
 operations involving soil excavation, in
 situ soil vapor extraction, in situ steam
 stripping of soil, soil washing.
  bioremediation. dechlorination. and low
  temperature thermal desorption can be
  considerably different from the waste
  management operations (i.e..
  distillation/separation processes)
  regulated in subpart AA. Control
  technologies for reducing organic
  emissions from these types of processes

-------
            Federal Register / VoL 55. No. 120 / Thursday. June 21, 1990 / Rules and Regulations     254S8
 went not evaluated a* port of today's
 rukmaking. However, the air emission
 potential of remedial and removal
 actions requiring excavation, land
 treatment, land farming, in situ
 treatment activities, and other treatment
 activities involving landfills and
 WMtepUes should be determined, and. if
 necessary, th« proper emission controls
 should be applied to these activities.
  The organic emission control
 requirements of subpart BB for TSDF
 equipment leaks may also be considered
 a* an ARAR for the equipment
 components (e.g^ pumps and valves)
 uutalled at CERCLA cleanup sites that.
 contain or contact substances
 containing 10 percent by weight or more
 total organic*.
  Although today's final standards
 would not be ARAR for an types of
 remedial and removal actions that are
 potential sources of organic air  ,
 emissions, other existing RCRA or CAA
•regulations may qualify as ARAR for
 many of the** activities. For example,
 subpart O of 40 CFR part 284 establishes
 standards of performance limiting
 organic emissions from thermal
 destruction processes (Le, hazardous
 waste Incinerators).

 IV. Applicability and Requirements of
 Proposed Proem Vent and Equipment
 LMkStaadatds
  On February 5.1987 (52 FR 3748). EPA
 proposed standards under RCRA section
 3004(n) for the control of organic air
emissions from certain equipment and
 process vents at hazardous waste TSDF.
The proposed standards would have
 applied to equipment and process vents
 "!a volatile hazardous air pollutant
 fVHAP) service" (U, containing or
contacting liquids, gases, or other
derivatives of hazardous waste in
concentrations greater than 10 percent
 total organics) located at TSDF required
 to have a RCRA permit The decision as
 to whether equipment or process vents
would be covered by the rule (Lew would
ever contain or contact wastes greater
than 10 percent total organics) could be
based either on testing the waste and
derivatives according to specified test
procedures or on engineering judgment
as to these materials, total organic
content
  The proposed standards would have
required a 85-percent reduction in
organic emissions from vents hi VHAP
service oa product accumulator vessels
and on other process vent sources (e.g«
vents OB dosed accumulator tanks on
other processes). The preamble for the
proposed standard, at 52 FR 3753,
described "product accumulator
vessels" as types of equipment that
generate process emissions and include
 distillate receivers, surge control
 vessels, product separators, or hot-wells
 that are vented to the atmosphere either
 directly or through a vacuum-producing
 system. Product accumulator vessels
 included units used to distill and steam
 or air strip volatile components from
 hazardous waste: examples include
 distillation columns, steam stripping
 columns, air stripping units, and thin-
 film evaporation units at TSDF. '
   The proposed standards would have
 regulated actual reclamation processes
 for the first time. Only recycling units at
 TSDF already subject to RCRA permit
 requirements (e.g* because of storage
 activity on the facility) would have been
 subject to the proposed air standards.
 Both new and existing units would have •
 been required to have add-on control
 devices designed to achieve a 95-percent
 reduction (based on the application of
 secondary condensers) and to operate
 within that design. Once in operation.
 the facilities would have demonstrated
 compliance by monitoring the operation
 of the control device.
   The proposed standards also would
 have required implementation of a
 monthly leak detection and repair
 (LDAR) program for valves, pumps,
 compressors, pressure relief devices.
 and closed-vent systems used to handle
 hazardous wastes and their derivatives
 at TSDF. Control systems, leak
 definition methodology, leak definitions,
 and repair schedules were based on
 existing equipment leak standards
 developed under sections 111 and 112 of
 the CAA.
   Since proposal. EPA has made several
 important changes to the standards
 based on the public comments received
 after proposal and analyses resulting
 from these comments, The applicability
 and requirements of the final standards.
 including the changes made since
 proposal, are discussed hi section V.
 The EPA's responses to the major.
 comments are summarized in section VL
 Additional information is presented in
 the BIO for the final standards.
 V. Applicability and Requirements of
 Today's Final Standards
  This section provides a detailed
 summary of the final standards as they
 apply to the affected TSDF community
 and to process vents and equipment
 subject to today's rule. Also summarized
 is the relationship of the final standards
 to existing exemptions under the RCRA
 regulatory program.

A. Scopa of Final Standards
  Today's final standards limit organic
 air emissions as a class at TSDF that are
 subject to regulation under subtitle C of
RCRA. This action is the first part of a
 multiphasigd regulatory effort to control
 air emissions at new and existing
 hazardous waste TSDF. These rules
 establish final standards limiting
 organic emissions from (1) process vents
 associated with distillation.
 fractionatiion, thin-film evaporation.
 solvent extraction, and sir or steam
 stripping operations that manage
 hazardous wastes with 10 ppmw or
 greater total organics concentration on
 an annual average basis, and (2) leaks
 from equipment that contain or contact
 hazardous waste streams with 10
 percent by weight or greater total
 organics.
   The final standards do not expand the
~RCRA-permitted community for the
 purposes of air emissions control As
 promulgated, the final standards control
 organic emissions only from process
 vents and equipment leaks at hazardous
 waste TSDF that are subject to
 permitting requirements under RCRA
 section 301)5 and are applicable only to  •
 specific hazardous waste.msnagement
 units. The rules apply to hazardous
 waste management units that are
 subject to the permitting requirements of
 part 270 and to hazardous waste
 recycling emits that are located at
 facilities otherwise subject to the
 permitting requirements of part 270.
 Exempt units, other than recycling units
 (e.g.. 90-day accumulation tanks and
 wastewatET treatment units as specified
 in 5 270.1(<:)(2)}. are not subject to the
 rules even when they are part of a
 permitted facility. Permitting aspects are
 further discussed in section IX.
   The term "organics" is used in the
 final standards instead of "volatile
 organics" lo evoid confusion with
 "volatile oifganic compounds" (VOC)
 that are regulated as a class under the
 CAA. To be subject to the standards, a
 TSDF: (1) Musi have equipment that
 contains or contacts hazardous wastes
 that are 10 percent or more by weight
 total organics, or (2) must have
 distillation, fractionation, thin-film
 evaporation,  solvent extraction, or air or
 steam stripping operations that treat or
 process hazardous wastes with total
, organics concentrations of 10 ppmw or
 greater on a time-weighted annual
 average basis.
   The fine), regulations require the
 facility owners or operators to
 determine whether their equipment is
 subject to (he equipment leak rules,
 subpart BB of parts 284  and 265. The
 owner or" operator of a facility may rely
 on engineering judgment for this
 determination, or. if the waste's organic
 content is questionable, the owner or
 operator may choose any of the test
 methods identified in the final rule for

-------
 determining whether a piece of
 equipment contains or contacts
 hazardous wastes that are 10 percent or
 more total organics by weight As
 proposed, these methods includes ASTM
 Methods D-2287-88. E169-87, S168-88,
 and B 260-85 and Methods 9060 and
 8240 of SW-848. The owner or operator
 also may use any other test method for
 determining total organic content that is
 demonstrated to be equivalent to the
 test methods identified in the rule using
 the petition process described in 40 CFR
 28X23. The test method selected should
 be the one best suited for the
 characteristics of the waste stream.
 Regardless of the method chosen, the
 final standard requires the facility
 owner or operator to determine that the
 organic content is never expected to  •
 exceed 10 percent The determination of
 organic content of the waste must at all
  times be appropriate to the wastes
  currently being managed in the relevant
  units. If any action-is taken that would
  result in the determination no longer
  being appropriate to the facility's or a
  particular unit's operations (e.g» an
  upstream process change that results in
.  a change in a waste's organic content),
  then a new determination is required.
    To determine whether a particular
  hazardous waste management unit of
  the type specified in the rule (e.g. a
  steam stripping or air stripping unit) is
  subject to the provisions of subpart AA
  of parts 284 and 265. the owner/operator
  is required to determine the total
  organic concentration of the waste
  managed in the unit initially (by the
  effective date of the standards or when
  the waste is first managed in the waste
  management unit) and thereafter on a
  periodic basis (for continuously
  generated wastes). A waste
  determination for subpart AA
  applicability would not be necessary
  when an owner/operator manages the
  waste in a distillation, fractionation.
   thin-Rim evaporation, solvent
   extraction, or air or steam stripping unit
   that is controlled for organic emissions
   and meets the substantive requirements
   of subpart AA.
     Determination that the time-weighted.
   annual average total organic
   concentration of the waste managed in
   the unit is less than 10 ppmw must be
   performed by direct measurement or by
   knowledge of the waste as described
   later in this section. Direct measurement
   of the waste's total organic
   concentration must be performed by
   collecting individual grab samples of the
 .  waste and analyzing the samples using
   one of the approved reference methods
   identified in the rule.
  The EPA is requiring that analytical
results for a minimum of four samples be
used to determine the total organic
concentration for each waste stream
managed in the unit In setting the
minimum number of samples at four.
EPA will obtain sufficient data to
characterize the total organic
concentration of a waste without
imposing an unnecessary burden on the
owner/operator to collect and analyze
the samples.
   Waste determinations must be
performed under process conditions
expected to result in the maximum
 waste organic concentration. For waste
generated on site, the samples must be
 collected at a point before the waste is
 exposed to the atmosphere such as in an
 enclosed pipe or other closed system
 that is used to transfer the waste after
 generation to the first affected
 distillation/separation operation. For
 waste generated off site, the samples
 must be collected at the inlet to the first
 waste management unit that receives
 the waste, provided the waste has been
 transferred to the facility in a closed
 system such as a tank truck, and the
 waste is not diluted or mixed with  other
» waste.
    The location where the waste's total
 organic content is determined is
 important because sampling location
. can greatly affect the results of the
 determination. This effect occurs,
 because the concentration level can
 decrease significantly after generation
 as the waste is transferred to (and
 managed in) various waste management
 units.
    If the waste is directly or indirectly
 exposed to ambient air at any point a
  portion of the organics in the waste will
  be emitted to the atmosphere, and the
  concentration of organies remaining in
  the waste will decrease. For example.
  for highly volatile organic compounds
  such as butadiene, all of the compound
  would evaporate within a few seconds
  of exposure to air. To ensure that the
  determination of total organic
  concentration is an accurate
  representation of the emission potential
  of a waste upon generation, it is
  essential that the waste determination
  be performed at a point as near as
  possible to where the waste is
  generated, before  any exposure to the
  atmosphere can occur.
    For the reasons stated above, the
 . waste determination must be based on
  the waste composition before the waste
  i* exposed, either directly or indirectly.
   to the  ambient air. Direct exposure of
   the waste to the ambient air means the
   waste surface interfaces with the
   ambient air. Indirect exposure of  the
waste to the ambient air means the
waste surface interfaces with a gas
stream that subsequently is emitted to
the ambient air. If the waste
determination is performed using direct
measurement the standards would
require that waste samples be collected
from an enclosed pipe or other closed
system that is used to transfer the waste
after generation to the first hazardous
waste management unit If the waste
determination is performed using
knowledge of the waste, the standards
would require that the owner or
operator have documentation attesting
to the organic concentration of the
waste before any exposure to the
ambient air.
  The location where the waste
determination would be made for any
one facility will depend on several
factors. One factor is whether the waste
is generated and managed at the same
site or generated at one site and
 transferred to a commercial TSDF for
management Another important factor
 is the mechanism used to transfer the
 waste from the location where the waste
 is generated to the location of the first
 waste management unit (e.g.. pipeline.
 sewer, tank truck). For example, if a
 waste is first accumulated in a tank
 using a direct enclosed pipeline to
 transfer the waste from its generation
 process, then the waste determination
 could be made based on waste samples
 collected at the inlet to the tank. In
 contrast if the waste is first
 accumulated in a tank using an open
 sewer system to transfer the waste from
 its generation process  then the waste
 determination  would need to be made
 based on waste samples collected at the
 point where the waste enters the sewer
 before the waste is-exposed'to the
 ambient air. Where the waste is
 generated off site, the  owner or operator
 may make the determination based on
 samples  collected at the inlet to the first
 waste management unit at the TSDF
 that receives the waste, provided the
 waste has been transferred to the TSDF
 in a closed system such as a tank truck
  and the waste is not diluted or mixed
 with other waste. If a  waste
  determination indicates that the total
  organic concentration is equal to or
  greater than the applicability criterion.
  then the owner or operator would be
  required to comply with the standards.
    As an alternative to using direct
  measurement an owner/operator is
  allowed to use knowledge of the waste
  as a means of determining that the total
  organic concentration of the waste is
  less than 10 ppmw. Examples of
  information that might be considered by
.  EPA to constitute sufficient knowledge

-------
             Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 120 / Thursday. June 21. 1990 / Rules and Regulations      2S461
 Include; (1) Documentation that organics
 art not involved'in the process
 generating the waste. (2) documentation
 that the waste is generated by a process
 that is identical to a process at the same
 or another facility that has previously
 been determined by direct measurement
 to generate a waste stream having a
 total organic content less than 10 ppmw,
 or (3) previous spedation analysis
 results from which the total
 concentration of organics in the waste
 caa be computed and it can be
 documented that no process changes
 have occurred since the analysis that
 could affect the waste's total organic
 concentration. The final standards
 include the provision that EPA can'
 require that the waste be analyzed using
 Method 8240 if EPA believes that the
 documentation is insufficient to
 determine an exception by knowledge of
 the waste (£§ 264.1034(f) and
 205.1034(0).
   To address the temporal variability
 that can occur both within a particular
 waste stream and within the various
 waste streams managed in a hazardous •
 waste management unit, the final rules
 require a time-weighted, annual average
 concentration to characterize the waste
 managed ia the unit. The final rules
 require that an owner/operator repeat
 the waste determination whenever there
 is a change in the waste being managed
 or a change in the process that generates
 or treats the waste that may affect the
 regulatory status of the waste or, if the
 waste and process remain constant, at
 least annually. For example, continuous
 processes are more likely to generate a
 more homogeneous waste than batch
 operations: batch operations involve
 processes that may frequently involve
 change in materials or process
 conditions. Batch operations, therefore.
 usually generate wastes with varying
 characteristics, including such
 characteristics as orgsnics content
 Ground water concentrations would
 also be expected to show significant
 variation if more than one well provides
 influent to a waste management unit
 such as an air stripper and the  wells that
 feed the unit are varied over time or if
 the proportions from the wells  that make
 up the influent are changed. This is
 because there is typically considerable
 spatial variability in contaminated
 ground water concentrations. The
 situation where feed wells are changed
 and the change is not accounted for in
 the initial waste determination would be
considered a process change or change
 in the waste being managed that would
require a new determination.
  With the time-weighted, annual
average applicability criterion, a
 hazardous waste management unit
-would not be subject to this rule if it
 occasionally treats wastes that exceed
 10 ppmw if at other times the wastes
 being treated in the unit are such that
 the weighted annual average total
 organic concentration of all wastes
 treated is less thaa.10 ppmw. The time-
 weighted.-annual average is calculated
 using the annual quantity of each waste
 stream managed ia the unit and the
 mean organic concentration of each
 waste stream.
   Determining the applicability of the
.standards to affected processes, units,
 and facilities is of paramount
 importance to the TSDF owner or
 operator in complying with the final'.
 standards. A mistake even an
 inadvertent one, will not excuse a
 facility owner or operator from the
 obligation to comply with either the
 requirements of the standards or with
 potential enforcement actions. Accurate
' determinations of what equipment and
 vents must ba controlled are crucial to
 ensuring that all equipment and vents
 subject to this rule are in fact controlled.'
 When the facility owner/operator and
 the Regional Administrator disagree on
 the determination of emissions or
 emission reductioa achieved, then a
 performance test conducted as specified
 in the rules must be used to resolve the
 disagreement In situations where the
 owner/operator and Regional
 Administrator disagree on whether a
 unit manages a waste with 10 ppmw or
greater organics content or a piece of
 equipment contains or contacts a waste
with 10 percent or more organics
 content then procedures that conform to
 the test methods referenced in the rules
may be used to resolve the
disagreement
   Consistent with section 3010 of RCRA.
 the final standards for process vent and
equipment leak control and monitoring
become effective 0 months from today.
Owners and operators must come into
compliance with these requirements by
 the effective date; however, where
compliance involves the installation of a
control device. EPA is requiring that
installation be completed as soon as
possible but no later than 24 months
from the date the regulatory action
affecting the unit is published or
promulgated. To obtain the extended
time for compliance (18 months beyond
the effective date), a facility must show
that installation cannot reasonably be
expected to be completed earlier. In
these circumstances, an owner/operator
must develop an implementation
schedule that indicates when the
installation will be completed and
shows that additional time is necessary.
 The implementation schedule must be
 included in the operating record by the
 effective date of the rules. Changes in
 the implementation schedule are
 allowed within the 24-month time frame
 if the owner/operator documents that
 the charge cannot reasonably be •
 avoided,

 B. Standards for Process Vents

 Affected; Equipment

   A "process vent" is a pipe, stack, or
 other opening through which emissions
 from a hazardous waste management
 unit are released.to the atmosphere
 either directly, through a vacuum-
 producing system, or indirectly, through
 another tank. The process vents that   •
 would have been covered by the
 proposed standard included vents
 associated with any hazardous waste
 management process or waste
 management unit
   Review of the hazardous waste TSDF
 industry has shown that process vents
 are most  typically associated with
 processes related to distillation or other
 separation operations. These
 technologies were also the type being
 evaluated under the LDR for spent
 solvents,, Therefore EPA concentrated
 its analysis of process vents on those
 hazardous waste management units that
 are involved in solvent or other organic
 chemical! separation or reclamation by
 distillation, fractionation, thin-film
. evaporation, solvent extraction, or air or
 steam stripping operations. This should
 include the largest segment of process
 vents at TSDF and address those
 sources iwith the greatest emission
 potential. Vents on other types of waste
 management units (e.g. vents on storage
 tanks) ate being addressed in the Phase
 0 rulemaking.
   Two basic changes have been made
 since proposal that clarify the
 applicability of the final vent standard.
 First to avoid confusion with tanks not
 associated with  the processing of waste
 streams, the term "product accumulator
 vessel" has been deleted from the final
 standard  and affected equipment is
 more specifically defined. The
 applicability of the final standard for
 process vents also has been clarified
 since proposal to exclude air emissions
 from vents on other closed (covered]
 and vented tanks not associated with
 the specified distillation/separation
 processes to avoid regulatory
 duplication of the Phase II standards as
 discussed above.
   Thus, the final vent standards apply.
 to: (1) Vents on distillation fractionation,
 thin-film evaporation, solvent
 extraction, and air or steam stripping

-------
25462
Federal Register / VoL  55. No.  120 / Thursday. June 21. 1990 / Rules and  Regulations
processes and vents on condensers
serving these processes: and (2) vents on
tanks (e.g.. distillate receivers, bottoms
receivers, surge control tanks, separator
tasks, and hot wells associated with
distillation, fractionation. thin-film
evaporation, solvent extraction, and air
or steam stripping processes) if
emissions from these processes are
vented through the tank. For example.
uncondensed overhead emitted from a
distillate receiver (which fits the
definition of «tank) serving • hazardous
waste distillation process unit is subject
to these Phase 1 air controls. OB the
other hand, emissions from vests on
tanks or containers that do not derive
from a process unit specified above are
not covered by these rules. For example.
if the condensed (recovered) solvent is
pumped to an intermediate holding tank
following the distillate receiver
mentioned hi the above example, and
the intermediate storage tank has a
pressure-relief vent (e.g., a conservation
vent) serving the tank, this vent will not
be subject to the process vent standards.
Emissions from vents that an not
covered under today's rules will be
addressed by Phase H of the air
standards under section 3004(n).
   Second, the terms "VHAP" and "hi
 VHAP service" have been deleted from
 the final rule hi response to public
 comments. Commenters found the terms'
 inappropriate for transfer from
 equipment leak standards developed
 under section 111 or 112 of die CAA to
 RCRA standards for organic emissions
 from hazardous  waste. The EPA agrees
 with these commenters: these terms can
 be confusing and they are unnecessary
 for these rules. Therefore, the cross-
 reference to part 81 has been eliminated
 and the wording of the final regulation
 has been revised to reflect applicability
 based on clearly specified hazardous
 waste management processes or unit
 operations that manage wastes with a
 10 ppmw or greater total organic
 content
 Requirements of Final Standard for
 Process Vents
   In response to public comments,
 several changes have been made to the
 proposed standard for process vents.
 While the proposed 95-percent emission
 reduction standard would have applied
 to individual process vents emitting
 organics with concentrations of 10
 percent or greater by weight the final
 process vent 95-percent'emission
 reduction standard applies to total
 organic emissions from the combination
  of all affected vents (Le.. vents subject
  to the provisions of subpart AA) at the
  facility. As discussed in section VI of
  this preamble and in the BIO for the
                                      final rules, the term "facility" refers to
                                      the entire site that is under control of
                                      the owner or operator engaged in
                                      hazardous waste management Thus.
                                      organic emissions from affected process
                                      vents anywhere on the hazardous waste
                                      management facility are subject to the
                                      standards.
                                        The 10-percent concentration criterion
                                      for process vents has not bees included
                                      in the final rules because the
                                      promulgated standards contain a
                                      facility-based emission rate limit of 1.4
                                      kgA (3 Ib/h) and 2J» Mg/yr (3.i ton/yr)
                                      that is more effective in controlling
                                      emissions from affected sources and
                                      excluding facilities with little emission
                                      reduction potential. Based on emissions
                                      and health risk analyses conducted in
                                      response to comments, this emission
                                      rate limit represents an emission level
                                      from process vents that is protective of
                                      human health and the environment and
                                      below which additional meaningful
                                      reductions is nationwide health risk and
                                      environmental impacts attributable  to
                                      process vents'cannot be achieved.
                                      Control of facilities with process vent
                                      emissions less than 'the emission rate
                                       limit would not result in further
                                       reductions of either cancer risk or
                                       incidence os a nationwide basis.
                                       Facilities with organic emissions from
                                       process vents that do not exceed these
                                       emission rates will not have to install
                                       controls or monitor emissions from
                                       affected process vents. Selection of the
                                       emission rate limit is addressed in
                                       section VLB of this preamble and in
                                       chapters 4J> and 7.0 of the BID.
                                         Because the emission rate limits (3 lb/
                                       h and XI ton/yr) provide health-based
                                       limits, EPA considered dropping
                                       completely the organic content criterion
                                       (U., at least 10 percent total organics).
                                       However. EPA decided not to
                                       completely eliminate the organic content
                                       criterion because it is not clear that the
                                       same controls can be applied to very
                                       low concentration streams as can be
                                       applied to the higher concentration
                                       streams that generally are associated
                                       with emission rates greater than the
                                       limits. For low-concentration streams.
                                       EPA questions whether controls are
                                       needed on a national or generic basis
                                       but is unable to resolve this question at
                                       this time. Thus. EPA decided to defer
                                       controlling very low concentration
                                       streams until it is better able to
                                        characterize and assess these streams
                                        and the appropriate controls.
                                          Once EPA decided to consider
                                        facilities that manage very low
                                        concentration organic wastes as a
                                        separate category, there remained  the
                                        problem of determining the appropriate
                                        criterion. The EPA examined existing
                                                                 data on air strippers, the treatment
                                                                 device most commonly used with low-
                                                                 concentration streams: it appeared that
                                                                 the quantity of emissions and the risk
                                                                 associated with air strippers treating
                                                                 streams with concentrations below 10
                                                                 ppmw may be relatively small, thus
                                                                 minimizing the potential harm of
                                                                 deferring control until a later time.
                                                                 Examples of facilities managing low-
                                                                 concentration wastes are sites where
                                                                 ground water is undergoing remedial
                                                                 action under CERCLA or corrective
                                                                 action pursuant to RCRA. Given the
                                                                 limited set of precise data available, and
                                                                 the comments that the 10-percent
                                                                 criterion was too high. EPA determined
                                                                 that an appropriate criterion would be
                                                                 10 parts per million (ppm) total organics
                                                                 hi the waste by weight
                                                                    The 10-ppmw criterion is not an
                                                                 exemption from regulation: it is intended
                                                                 only as a way for EPA to divide the air
                                                                 regulations into phases. The EPA is
                                                                 deferring action on very low
                                                                 concentration streams (i.e.. ones with
                                                                 less than 10 ppmw total organic content)
                                                                 from the final rule today but will
                                                                 evaluate and announce a decision later
                                                                 on whether to regulate these waste
                                                                 streams.
                                                                    To comply with the final standards for
                                                                 process vents, the TSDF owner or
                                                                 operator is required to identify all
                                                                 process vents associated with
                                                                  distillation, fractionation. thin-film
                                                                  evaporation, solvent extraction, and
                                                                  stripping processes that are treating
                                                                 ' hazardous waste with a 10-ppmw or
                                                                  greater total  organics concentration on a
                                                                  time-weighted annual average basis (i.e..
                                                                  vents affected by the rules). Organic
                                                                  emission rates for each affected vent
                                                                  and for the entire facility from all
                                                                  affected vents must be determined. The
                                                                  facility process vest emission rate must
                                                                  then be compared to the short- and long-
                                                                  term process vent emission rate limits (3
                                                                  Ib/h or 3.1 ton/yr) to determine whether
                                                                  additional emission controls are
                                                                  required. If the process vent emission
                                                                  rate limit is exceeded, the owner or
                                                                  operator must take appropriate action to
                                                                  reduce total facility emissions from
                                                                  affected process vents to below the
                                                                  cutoff level or install additional
                                                                  emission controls to reduce total facility
                                                                  process vent organic emissions by 95
                                                                  weight percent If an incinerator.
                                                                  process heater, or boiler is used as a
                                                                  control device, the volume-concentration
                                                                  standard of 20 ppmv can be met instead
                                                                  of the 95-weight-percent reduction
                                                                  (§5 264.1033(c). 284.1060. 28S.1033(c), .
                                                                  and 285.1060).
                                                                     Because the final rules could apply to
                                                                  dilute process vent streams and the rule
                                                                  is formatted in terms of a weight-percent

-------
             Federal Register /  Vol. 55. No. 120 / Thursday,  June 21, 1990 / Rules and Regulations      25463
 reduction standard, it is necessary to
 include the volume concentration
 standard in the final control device
 standards to account for the
 technological limitations of enclosed
 combustion devices (43 FR 4933.
 October 21.1983). one of the control
 technologies examined as part of the
 rulemaldng. treating dilute streams.
 Below a critical concentration level, the
 maximum achievable efficiency for "
 enclosed combustion devices decreases
 as inlet concentration decreases: thus.
 for streams with low organic vapor
 concentrations, the 95-percent mass
 reduction may not be technologically
 achievable in al) cases. Available data  '
 show that 20 ppmv is the lowest outlet
 concentration of total organic
 compounds achievable with control
 device inlet streams below
 approximately 2.000 ppmv total
 organic*. Therefore, a concentration
 limit of 20 ppmv has'been added as an
 alternative standard for incinerators,
 procsse heaters, and boilers to allow for
 the drop in achievable destruction
 efficiency with decreasing inlet organics
 concentration. For consistency, the 20-
 ppmv concentration is expressed as the
 sum of the actual individual compounds.
 not carbon equivalent*, on a dry basis
 corrected to 3 percent oxygen. For
 facilities that do not meet the emission
 rate  limit, the final process vent
 standards require that control devices
 achieve a 95-percent reduction in total
 organic emissions for the facility or. in
 the case of enclosed combustion
 devices, a reduction of each process
 vent stream to a concentration of no
 more than each process vent stream to a
 concentration of no more than 20 ppmv
 total organic compounds.
  The final standards for process vents
 do not require the use of any specific
 equipment or add-on control device: the
 standards can be met using several
 types of controls. Depending on the
 characteristics of the process vent
 stream, either a condenser or a carbon
 adsorber will likely be the control
 technology of choice. However, other
 control devices such as flares.
 incinerators, process heaters, and
boilers, as well as any other device of
 the owner or operator's choice, also can
be used where applicable to achieve
compliance.
  Operating requirements for closed-
vent  systems and control devices are
included in f § 284.1033 and 285.1033. A
closed-vent system means a system  not
open to the atmosphere and composed
of piping, connections, and. if necessary.
flow-Inducing devices that transport gas
or vapor from a  piece or pieces of
equipment to a control device. If vapor
 recovery systems such as condensers
 and adsorbers are used as control
 devices, they must be designed and
 operated to recover the organic vapors
 vented to mem with an efficiency of 95
 percent or more unless the total organic
 emission limits for affected process
 vents (!§ 284.1032 and 285.1032) can be
 attained at efficiencies less than 95
 percent Vapor recovery systems whose.
 primary function is the recovery of
 organics for commercial or industrial
 use o? reuse (e.g^ a primary condenser
 on a waste solvent distillation unit) are
 not considered a control device and
 should not be included in the 95-percent
 emission reduction determination.
  If enclosed combustion devices such
 as incinerators, boilers, or process
 heaters are used, they must be designed
 and operated to achieve a total organic
 compound emission reduction efficiency
 of 95 percent or more or must provide a
 minimum residence time of 0.5 s at a
 minimum  temperature of 780 *C° The
latter are general design criteria
 established by EPA, and used in  .
 numerous rulemakings. that can be used
 by facilities to lieu of conducting a site*
 specific design for enclosed combustion
 devices. The operating requirements for
 closed-vent systems and control devices
 include a provision allowing enclosed
 combustion devices to reduce organic
 emissions to a total organic compound
concentration of 20 ppmv, by compound.
 rather than achieve the 95-weight
percent reduction.
  If flares are used, they must be
designed and operated with no visible
emissions as determined by the
procedures of Reference Method 22.
except for periods not to exceed a total
of 5 min during any 2 consecutive hours.
The final standard specifies that Saras  •
must be operated with a flame present
at all times and must be operated at all
times when emissions may be vented to
them. In addition, flares must provide  a
net heating value of the gas being
combusted of 11.2 mega joules per
standard cubic meter (MJ/scm) or more.
be steam-assisted or air-assisted, or
provide a net heating value of 7.45 Mf/
scm or more if the flare is nonassisted.
Specific design and operating
requirements for steam-assisted, air-
assisted end nonassisted flares also are
included in the final standard.
Calculations and procedures for
determining the net heating value of the
gas being combusted the actual exit
velocity and the maximum allowed
velocity are included in the final
provisions for closed-vent systems and
control devices (see 55 2S4.1033(d) and
265.1033(d)).
   Facilities must maintain
 documentation in the operating record
 supporting waste determinations.
 identifying affected process vents,
 affected waste management unit
 throughputs and operating hours.
 emission rates for each affected vent
 and for the overall facility, and the basis
 for determining the emission rates
 (IS 284.1!J3S(b](2) and 265.1035(b)(2)}.
 Regardless of the type of control device
 used, the documentation must certify
 that add-on control devices achieve the
 emission rate limit by design and during
 operation, or that add-on control devices
 achieve n 95-percent reduction in
 organics or achieve the 20-ppmv
 organics concentration limit by design
 and during operation where the
 emission rate limit is not attained. The
 design documentation must present the
 basis for determining the design
 emission reduction and establish the
 basic values for operating parameters
, used tc monitor the control device s
 operation, and maintenance. The design
 control level (i.e* the emission reduction
 needed t<» achieve the emission rate
 cutoff or 155-percent emission reduction)
 can be documented by vendor/
 manufacturer certifications, by
 engineering calculations, or through
 source tents to show that the control
 device removes the required percentage
 of organics entering the device. All
 required information and documentation
 must be kept in the facility s operating
 record. The facility's waste
 determinations and process vent
 emission rate determinations must at all
 times reflect the facility's current waste
 management unit designs and wastes
 managed If the owner/ operator takes
 any action that would result in the
 determination no longer being
 appropriate to the facility's operations
 (e.g.. if a waste of different composition
 is managiid, the operating hours of the
 affected management units are
 increased beyond what was originally
 considered, or a new affected unit is
 added thtit may impact its regulatory
 status), then a new determination is
 required (§9  234.103S(b)(2)(ii) and
 285.103S(b)(2J(ii)). In addition, certain
 information regarding the facility's
 emission determination  and control
 device design must be included in the
 facility's part B permit application.
  The finiil rules require the continuous
 monitoring of specific parameters on ail
 control devices needed to meet the
 standards to  ensure that the devices
 perform according to their design
 (SS 264.1033(f) and 265.1033(f)). The final
 rules clarify the general parameters
 listed in the proposal by describing the
 requirements in greater detail.  Operating

-------
 25464
             Federal Register  /  Vol. 55.  No. 120 / Thursday.  June 21. 1980 / Rules and Regulations
 parameters are specified for condensers,
 carbon adsorbers, flares, incinerators.
 and other enclosed combustion devices.
 Although minimum operating conditions
 are identified for organic vapor
 destruction devices (e.g., incinerators
 and flares) to ensure 95-percent
 destruction, values or ranges of values
 for recovery device (Le, condensers and
 carbon adsorbers) operating parameters
 cannot be specified on aa industry-wide
 basis. Therefore.« recovery device must
 be designed for the particular
 application and monitored to ensure that
 it ic being operated within design
 specifications. Proper design shall be
 determined through engineering
 calculations vendor certification, and/or
 emission testing.
    The owner/operator is required to
 record the control device monitoring
 information, including the basis for the
 operating parameters used to monitor
 control device performance, in the
 facility operating record. Periods when
 monitoring indicates control device
 operating parameters are outside
 established tolerances on design
  specifications must be recorded.
  Facilities with final permits
  incorporating these standards (Le..
  facilities subject to the provisions of 40 .
  CFR part 284 snbpart AA) must report
  exceedances that are not corrected
  within 24 hours to the Regional
  Administrator on a semiannual basis. • •
  The records and reports must include
  the dates, duration, cause, and
  corrective measures taken. (See '
  51264.1038(8) and 284.1065(a)(4).J
    The specific monitoring requirements
* for control device operating parameters
  include; (1) Continuous monitoring of
  coolant fluid temperature and exhaust
  gas temperatures or the concentration
  level of organic compounds in the exit
  gas stream for condensers. (2)
  continuous monitoring of exhaust gas
  organic breakthrough for carbon
  adsorbers: (3) continuous monitoring of
 ' combustion zone temperature for
  incinerators, boilers and process
  heaters: and (4) the presence of a pilot
  flame using a thermocouple or any other
  equivalent device to detect the presence
  of a flame for flares.
    The final standards would require that
  emission control equipment is properly
  designed, installed,  operated, and
   maintained. Also, as previously
   described, the standards  would require
   continuous monitoring of specific
   control device operating parameters. A
   control device monitor reading outside
   the  operating range allowed by the
  'standards (referred to in  this preamble
   as a "control device-exceedance")
   indicates that the control device is not
operating normally or is malfunctioning
(i.e., not operating at the design setting
necessary to achieve at least 95 percent
organic emission control efficiency).
Action must be taken by the owner or
operator to return the control device to
operating at the design setting. When a
control device exceedance cannot be
corrected within 24 hours of detection.
the final standards would require the
owner or operator to record specific
information concerning the control
device exeeedance. Facilities with final
RCRA permits must report this
information to EPA on a semiannual
basis; interim status facilities, are not
required to report control device
exceedances. The exceedance report
would need to describe the nature and
period of each control device
exceedance and to explain why the
control device could not be returned to
normal operation within 24 hours. A
report would need to be submitted to
EPA only if control device exceedances
have occurred during the past 8-month
reporting period. These reports would
serve to aid EPA in determining the
owner's or operator's ability to properly
operate and maintain the control device.
The EPA recognizes that a control
device malfunction may occur due to
circumstances beyond the control of the
owner or operator (e.g, defective
equipment supplied by the
 manufacturer). Therefore, a single
 control device exceedance may not
 necessarily be indicative of improper
 control device operation or
 maintenance.
 C. Equipment Leak Standards

 Affected Equipment
   The final standards apply to each
 valve, pump, compressor, pressure relief
 device, open-ended valve or line, flange
 or other connector, and associated air •
 emission control device or system that
 contains or contacts hazardous waste
 streams with 10 percent or more total
 organics by  weight
    In response to public comments, EPA
 has changed the applicability of the final
 LDAR standards for pumps and valves
 to better relate to the volatility of the
 wastes managed and thus to air
 emission potential The requirements for
 pumps and valves have been revised to
 include the heavy liquid provisions
 contained in EPA's new source
 performance standard (NSPS) for
 equipment leaks of VOC in the synthetic
' organic chemicals manufacturing
 industry (SOCMI) (40 CFR part 60. part
 VV). The  heavy liquid provisions
 (II 264.1058and 285.1058) exempt
 pumps and  valves processing lower
 vapor pressure substances from the
routine leak detection monitoring
requirements of the standards. By their
nature, heavy liquids exhibit much
lower volatilities than do light liquids,
and because equipment leak rates and
emissions have been shown to vary with
stream volatility, emissions from heavy
liquids are less than those for lighter.
more volatile streams. For example. EPA
analyses indicate that emissions from
valves in heavy liquid service are more
than 30 times lower than the emissions
from valves in light liquid service.
  Pumps.and valves are in light liquid
service if the vapor pressure of one or
more or the components being handled
by the piece of equipment is greater than
O3 kilopascal (kPa) at 20 *C if the total
concentration of the pure components
having a vapor pressure greater than 0.3
kPa at 20 *C is equal to or greater than.
20 percent by weight and if the fluid is.
liquid at operating conditions. Pumps •
and valves not in light liquid service are
defined to be in heavy liquid service.
   The regulations governing equipment
leaks also have been incorporated and
reprinted in the final standards to
eliminate cross-referencing, to part 81
regulations and to consolidate the
requirements under RCRA.
Equipment Leak Control Requirements

   The control requirements for valves
 are based on LDAR requirements.
 Valves in light liquid or gas/vapor
 service (5 J 284.1057 and 285.1057) must
 be monitored using Reference Method
 25: an instrument reading at or above
 10.000 ppm indicates the presence of a
 leak. If a leak is detected,  the valve must
 be repaired as soon as practicable but
 no later than 15 days after the leak is
 detected. A first attempt to repair the
 valve must be made no later than 5 days
 after the leak is detected. First attempts
 at repair include, but are not limited to,
 tightening or replacing bonnet bolts
 tightening packing gland nuts: or
 injecting lubricant into the lubricated
 packing.
    Monthly monitoring is required:
 however, any valve for which a leak is
 not detected for 2 successive months
 may be monitored the first month of
 each succeeding quarter until a leak is
 detected (53 284.10S7(c) and
 265.1057(c) J. If a leak is detected the
 valve must be monitored monthly until a
 leak is not detected for 2 successive
 months.
    In addition, monthly monitoring is not
 required if: (1) A leakless valve, such as
 a sealed-bellows valve, is used to
 achieve a no-detectable-emissions limit
 (500 ppm above  background, as
 measured by Method 21. with an annual
 performance test: §5 284.1057(0 and

-------
             Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 120 / Thursday, June  21. 1990 / Rules  and Regulations      2546S
 2flS.1057(fJ; (2) tin owner or operator
 meets a performance level of 2 percent
 of ill valves leaking (§§ 284.1061 and
 285.1001); (3) the owner or operator
 elects to comply with a skip-period leak
 detection and repair program as
 described for valves (§| 264.1062 and
 285.1062): or (4) the) valve is designated
 by the owner or operator as unsafe-to-
 mocitor or diflkult-to-monitor
 (li 284.1057 (a) and (hj and 285.1057 (g)
 and (h)). A valve may be designated as
' unsafo-tcHBonltor if monitoring
 personnel would be exposed to an
 immediate danger as a consequence of
 monitoring and if the owner or operator
 adheres to a written plan that requires
 monitoring of the valve as frequently as
 practicable during safe-to-monitor times.
 A valve may be designated as dlfflcult-
 tc-mooitor if the valve cannot be
 monitored without elevating monitoring
 personnel more than 2 m above a
 support surface, the valve is in an
 existing hazardous waste management
 unit and the owner or operator follows a
 written plan that requires monitoring at'
 least once a year.
   The EPA Is continuing to study the
 status of new technology available for
 the control of air emissions from valves.
 The EPA has issued a separate notice  in
 the Federal Register that discusses
 available information on leakless valve
 technology (54 FR -•"»«. July 19,1930).
 Public comments were requested in that
 notice oa several aspects of the
 technology to assist EPA in determining
 applications for which leakless valve
 technology would be appropriate at
 hazardous waste TSDF.
   The final standards also require
 monitoring for pumps at TSDF
 containing or contacting wastes with
 greater than 10 percent organics
 (!i 284.1052 and 285.1052). Each pump in
 light liquid service must be monitored
 monthly with a  portable vapor analyzer
 following the EPA Reference Method 21
 protocol In addition, each pump in light
 liquid service must be checked weekly
 by visual inspection for indications of
 liquids dripping front the pump seaL A
 pump is determined to be leaking if an
 instrument reading of 10.000 ppm or
 greater is measured or there are
 indications of liquids dripping from the
 pump seat When a leak is detected, it
 must be repaired as soon as practicable.
 but not later than 15 days after it is
 detected unless the delay-of-repair
 provisions specified in the rule apply.
 The first attempt at repair must be made
 within 5 calendar days of the leak being
 detected.
   Pumps in light liquid service are
 exempt from the monitoring
 requirements under §i 284.1052 (d) and
(e) and 265.1052 (d) and (e) if: (1) The
pump is equipped with a dual
mechanical seal system that includes a
barrier fluid between the two seals. (2) a
magnetically coupled or diaphragm
pump is used to achieve a no-detectable-
emissions limit (indicated by a portable
organic vapor analyzer reading of lese
than 500 ppm above background), or (3)
the pump i» equipped with a closed-vent
system capable of transporting any
leakage from the seal or seals  to e 95-
percent efficient control device. If
pumps are equipped with a dual
mechanical seal system, emissions from
the barrier fluid reservoir must be
vented to a control device designed and
operated to achieve a 95-percent control
efficiency, die barrier fluid must be
purged and added to the hazardous
waste stream, or die pressure of the
barrier fluid must be maintained at a
level above the pressure in the pump or
exhauster stuffing box. A pressure or
level indicator to detect any failure of
the seal system or the barrier fluid
system ie required, with the indicator
checked daily or equipped with an
alarm to signal failure of the system. If
leakless equipment is used, such as
magnetically coupled or diaphragm
pumps, the standards require an annual
performance test by Method 21 to verify
the no-detectable-emissions status of
the equipment
  Compressors must be equipped with a
seal system that includes a barrier fluid
system that prevents leakage of organic
emissions  to the atmosphere. The seal
system must be operated with the
barrier fluid at a pressure that is greater
than the compressor stuffing box
pressure, be equipped with a barrier
fluid system that is connected  by a
closed-vent system to a control device
that meets the design and operating
requirements established in 51 284.2060
and 285.1060. or be equipped with a
system that purges the barrier fluid into
e hazardous waste stream with zero
total organic emissions to the
atmosphere. In addition, the barrier fluid
system must be equipped with a sensor
that detects failure of the seal  system.
barrier fluid system, or both. A
compressor is determined to be leaking
if the sensor indicates failure of the seal
system, the barrier fluid system, or both.
When a leak is detected, it must be
repaired as soon as practicable, but not
later then  IS calendar days after it is
detected: a first attempt at repair must
be made within 5 calendar days.
  Except during emergency pressure
releases, each pressure relief device in
gas/vapor service must be operated
with no detectable emissions (500 ppm
above background, as measured by
 Reference Method 21) (SI 284.1054 and
 285.1054). No later than 5 calendar days
 after any pressure release, the device
 must be relumed to a condition of no
 detectable emissions and be monitored
 to confirm that status. Any pressure
 relief devitie that is equipped with a
 closed-vent system capable of capturing
 and transporting leakage to a  control
 device thai: meets the requirements of
,|| 284.1060 and 285.1060 is exempt  from
"these requirements.
  Each opim-ended valve or line must
 be equipped with a cap. blind flange.
 plug, OF second valve (55 284.1058 and
 285.1056). irhe cap. blind flange, plug, or
 second valve must seal the open end at
 all times' except during operation
 requiring hazardous waste stream flow
 through th« open-ended valve or line.
 Operationul requirements for second
 valves and double block and bleed
 systems aluo are specified in the final
 regulation.
  Pumps add valves in heavy-liquid
 service, pritssure relief devices in light-
 liquid or iuiavy-liquid service, and
 flanges aad other connectors must be
 monitored within 5 days by Reference
 Method 21 if evidence of a potential leak
 is found by visual audible, olfactory, or
 any other detection method (5 § 284.1058
 and 26S.10!ia). A leak is detected if an
 instrument reading-of 10.000 ppm or
 greater is measured. When a leak is
 detected, il: shall be repaired as soon as
 practicable! but not later than 15
 calendar days after detection. The first
 attempt at repair must be made within 5
 calendar days of the leak being
 detected.
  The final standards also include
 provisions for delay of repair (§5
 284.1059 and 285.1059). Delay of repair
 of leaking oquipment is allowed if the
 repair is teshnically Infeasible without a
 hazardous wasts management unit
 shutdown (Le.. a work practice or
 operational  procedure that stops
 operation of a hazardous waste
 management unit or part of a hazardous
 waste management unit). However,
 repair of the leak must be performed
 before the iend of the next shutdown of
 that unit Delay of repair also is allowed
 for equipment (i.e.. either pumps or
 valves) that is isolated from the
 hazardous waste management unit and
 is prevented from containing or
 contacting a hazardous waste  with 10
 percent or more organic content. For
 valves, delny of repair is allowed if: (1)
 The owner or operator determines that
 emissions of purged material resulting
 from immediate repair are greater than
 the emissions likely to result from delay
 of repair, and (2) when the valve is
 repaired the purged materials  are

-------
25468      Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 120 / Thursday. June 21. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
collected and destroyed or recovered in
a control device complying with the
requirements of (he standards. Delay of
repair beyond a hazardous waste
management unit shutdown is allowed
only if valve assembly replacement is
necessary during the next shutdown of
the unit valve assembly supplies have
been depleted, and valve assembly
supplies had been sufficiently stocked
before supplies were depleted (i.e.. the
owner/operator has made a good-faith
effort to maintain adequate spare parts).
For pumps, delay of repair is allowed if:
(1) Repair requires the use of a dual
mechanical seal system that includes a
barrier Quid system, and (2) repair is
completed as soon as practicable, but
not later than 6 months after the leak is
detected.
  .The final standards also include
design and operating requirements for
closed-vent systems that may be used to
comply with the equipment leak
standards (SS 284.1060 and 263.1060).
Closed-vent systems must be designed
for and operated with no detectable
emissions,  as indicated by an instrument
reading of less than 500 ppm above
background by  Reference Method 21. A
leak on a closed-vent system, indicated
by an instrument reading of £00 ppm or
by visual inspection, must be repaired
within IS calendar days after detection;
a first attempt at repair must be made
no later-than S calendar days after
detection. Monitoring must be
conducted initially, annually, and at
other times as requested by the Regional
Administrator,  to confirm the no-
detectable-emissions status of the
system. Like other control devices.
closed-vent systems must be operated at
 all times when  any emissions may be
 vented to them.
   The provisions of 40 CFR 31.244.
 subpart V; which provide a formal
 mechanism for applying for use of an
 alternative means of emission limitation.
 were specifically not included in the
 proposed TSDF process vent and
 equipment leak rules and have not been
 included in these final standards. The
 alternative means of emission limitation
 provisions are not considered self-
 implementing: i.e.. these provisions
 cannot be  satisfied without the need for
 detailed explanation or negotiation
 between the facility owner/operator and
 EPA. and thus are not appropriate as
 requirements for interim status facilities
 under part 263. Therefore, the
 alternative means of emission limitation
 provisions were not included in the final
 subpart AA and BB rules. An owner or
 operator, however, may use an
 alternative means of emission limitation
 to comply with the process vent or
 equipment leak standards of part 264.
 The owner/operator can use part B of
 the permit application to provide
 Information that demonstrates the
 effectiveness of any alternative means
 of emission limitation and can use the
 negotiation process associated with
 issuance of a final permit to establish
 conditions for use of an alternative
 means of emission limitation. The owner
 or operator would be responsible for
 collecting and verifying test data to
 document that the emission reduction
 achieved by the alternative is equal to
 or greater than the emission reduction
 achieved by the equipment design, or
 operational requirements in the
 standard.
   Additional general recordkeeping
 requirements include information on
 pump, valve, compressor, and pressure
 relief device leak repair attempts;
 reasons for repair delays; and design
 criteria for sampling connection systems
 and closed-vent systems and control
 devices. There are also recordkeeping
 and monitoring requirements for pieces
 of equipment covered by alternative
 requirements.
   Compliance with the equipment.Seak
 standards will be assessed through
 plant inspections and the review of
 records that document implementation
 of the requirements as required by the
 final standards.
 D. Summary of Changes from Proposal
    Several changes have been made.to
 the standards since proposal as the
 result of EPA's evaluation of comments
 and of additional information gathered
 in response to comments. These changes
 respond primarily to commenters*
 concerns that additional controls are
 unnecessary for TSDF process vents and
 equipment with very low emissions and
 that the applicability, implementation.
 and compliance provisions of the
 standards should be clarified. The EPA
 has addressed these problems in the
 final  rules.
    The proposed standards would have
 required that organic emissions from all
 process vents that emit organics in
 concentrations of 10 percent or greater
 on all TSDF waste management units be
 reduced by 95 percent The final rules.
 apply to process vents on specific
 hazardous waste management units that
•  treat wastes with total organics
 concentrations of 10 ppmw or greater
 and include (1) process vents on
 distillation, fractionation. thin-film
  evaporation, solvent extraction, or air or
  steam stripping operations and vents on
  condensers serving these operations and
  (2) process vents on tanks associated
  with distillation, fractionation. thin-film
  evaporation, solvent  extraction, or air or
steam stripping operations if emissions
from these process operations are
vented through the tanks.
  While the proposed standard would
have required 95 percent emission
reduction from each affected vent the
final vent standard's weight-percent
reduction applies to total emissions from
the combination of.all affected vents at
each facility. The final rules also add
facility-based emission rate limits for all
affected process vents of 1.4 kg/h (3 lb/
h)and23Mg/yr(3.1ton/yr)(§§    '  .
284.1032(a](l) and 265.1032(a)(l)).
Facilities with organic emissions from
vents below the emission rate limits will
not have to reduce process vent organic
emissions. The owner or operator of the
facility must determine and document
that emissions from affected vents will
not exceed the emission rate limits. The
EPA estimates that baseline emissions
will be reduced by about 90 percent by
controlling process vent emissions from
about 55 percent of affected facilities.
i.e., those with emissions above the
 emission rate limit
•   Another major change affects the
 applicability of the final standards for
 pumps and valves to better relate to the
 volatility of the wastes managed and
 thus to air emission LDAR potential. The
 proposed LDAR requirements for pumps
 and valves have been revised to
 distinguish between equipment in heavy
 liquid service and equipment in gas/
 light liquid service. The provisions
 exempt pumps and valves processing
 relatively low vapor pressure
 substances  (heavy liquids) from the
 routine instrument monitoring
 requirements of the standards. These
 provisions are included to avoid
 requiring unnecessary controls on
 equipment that poses little emission
 problem even when leaking.
   Because of cammenters' concerns
 with the administrative problems
 associated with obtaining a major
 permit modification, the final standards
 do not require modifications of RCRA
 permits issued before the effective date
 of these rules (§5 2S4.1030(c) and
 264.1050(0)). In such cases, requirements
 for affected hazardous waste
 management units and associated
 requirements for process vents and
 equipment must be added or
 incorporated into the facility's permit at
 review under § 270.50 or at reissue
 under § 124.15. However, in the
 forthcoming Phase II air rules. EPA will
 be proposing to modify §§ 264.1030(c)
 and 284.1050(c} as they apply to control
 of air emissions under subparts AA and
 BB. This action, if adopted, would mean
 that the air rules promulgated under
 RCRA section 3004(n) would be

-------
             Federal Register / Vol. 55. No.  120 / Thursday. June 21. 1990  /  Rules and Regulations      25467
 applicable to all facilities at of the
 effective date of the Phase U rules. Mora
 detail* regarding implementation are
 presented in section IX of this preamble.
   The proposed air emission standards
 for process vents and equipment leeks
 would have added part 269. Air
 Emission Standards for Owners and
 Operators of Hazardous Waste
 Treatment. Storage, and Disposal
 Facilities. For consistency with
 standards for other TSDF sources under'
 RCRA. the final standards have been
 incorporated into part 264. for permitted
 facilities, and part 285. for interim status
 facilities. In addition, whereas at
 propose! the equipment leak
 requirements of 40 CFR part 61. subpart
 V, were incorporated by reference, these
 provisions have been written into
 subpart BB with editorial revisions
 appropriate for a standard promulgated
 under RCRA authority rather than CAA
 authority.

 £ RaktionshipofRCRA Exemptions to
 Fined Standards
   Under 40 CFR 281.4{c). hazardous
 wastes that are generated in process-
 related equipment such as product or
 raw material storage tanks or pipelines
 are exempt from RCRA regulation. This
 exemption applies until the weste is
 physically removed from the unit in
 which it was generated, unless the unit
 is a suffice impoundment Or unless the
 hazardous waste remains in the unit
 more than 90 days after the unit ceases
 to be operated for manufacturing, or for
 storage or transportation of product or
 raw materials. This exemption is not
 affected by this rule. Therefore, units
 such as product (not hazardous waste)
 distillation columns generating
 hazardous waste still bottoms
 containing organic* are not subject to
 the standard while the wastes are in the
 product distillation column. However.
 distillation columns that receive
 hazardous wastes and that are used in
 hazardous waste treatment (Le,
 hazardous waste management units) are
 subject to this standard if the waste's
 organic content exceeds the 10-ppmw
 applicability criterion. As discussed in
 the preamble to the proposed standard.
 only thoee recycling units that are part
 of a facility already subject to RCRA
 permit requirements are subject to the
 air standards. The EPA's authority to
 control air emissions from solvent
 reclamation operation* not part of
 closed-loop systems is discussed further
 tn section VI of this preamble and in the
 BID.
  Totally enclosed treatment facilities
also are exempt from RCRA subtitle C
requirements under 40 CFR 264.1(g)(S).
40 CFR 285.1(cK9). and 270.1(c){2). A
 "totally enclosed treatment facility" is a
 hazardous waste treatment facility that
 is "directly connected to an industrial
 production process and which is
 constructed end operated in a manner
 that prevents the release of any
 hazardous waste or any constituent
 thereof Into the environment during
 treatment" (40 CFR 280.10).
  Treatment facilities located off the  .
 site of generation are not directly
 connected to an industrial process.
 Thus, commercial weste treatment
 facilities with equipment affected by the
 final standards, such as solvent
 reclamation facilities, by definition
 ordinarily would not be totally enclosed.
 In addition, storage facilities, disposal
 facilities, and ancillary equipment not
 used for treating hazardous waste do
 not fall within the definition of a totally
 enclosed treatment facility.
  The EPA believes that many on-site
 treatment facilities also are not totally
 enclosed. Distillation columns and other
 treatment technologies typically are
 designed to release emissions into the •
 air. Therefore, by definition, these on-
 site technologies generally are not
 totally enclosed. (See 45 FR 33218, May
 19. I960 (no constituents released to air
 during treatment).)
  Two important characteristics define
 a totally enclosed treatment facility. The
 key characteristic of a totally enclosed
 treatment facility is that it does not
 release any hazardous waste or
 constituent of hazardous weste into the
 environment during treatment Thus, i/a
 facility leaks, spills, or discharges waste
 or waste constituents, or emits waste or
 waste constituents into the air during
 treatment, it is no! a totally enclosed
 treatment facility within the meaning of
 these regulations. The second important
 characteristic is that K must be directly
 connected to en industrial production
 process.
  The EPA also excludes elementary
 neutralization and wastewater
 treatment tanks as defined by 40 CFR
 260.10 from regulation under the
 hazardous waste rules. The EPA
 amended these definitions (see S3 FR
 34080. September 2, 1988) to clarify that
 the scope of the exemptions applies to
 the tank systems, not just the tank. For •
 example, if a wastewater treatment or
 elementary neutralization unit is not
 subject to RCRA subtitle C hazardous
 waste management standards, neither is
ancillary equipment connected to the
exempted unit, The amendments also
clarify that, for a wastewater treatment
unit to.be covered by the exemption, it
must be pert of an oiuita wastewater
 treatment facility. Thus, emissions from
process vents associated with
 distillation, fractionation thin-film
 evaporation, solvent extraction, or air or
 steam stripping operations and ancillary
 equipment (piping, pumps, etc.) that are
 associated with a tank that Is part of the
 wastewater treatment system subject to
 regulation either under sections 402 or
 307(b) of the Clean Water Act are not
 subject to these standards. However, air
 emission sources not subject to RCRA
 may be subject to CAA guidance and/or
 standard:!.

   As noted in the preamble to the
 proposal,  under 40 CFR 26Z34.
 generatoia that accumulate hazardous
 waste in 'tanks and containers for 90
 days or loss are not subject to RCRA
 permitting requirements, provided they
 comply with the provisions of 40 CFR
 282.34, wliich include the substantive
 requiremonts for tanks and containers   •
 storing hiizardous waste. 40 CFR part
 265, subparts I and J. This remains
 unchanged, and the final standards do
 not apply  to generator tanks that
 accumulate hazardous waste for 90 days
 or less. However, as part of the Phase II
 TSDF air emission regulations. EPA
 intends tci propose to modify the
 exemptions conditions to require that 90=
 day tanks, meet the control requirements ,
 of the Phase I and Phase  II standards.

   Today'n fiaai rules regulate the
 activity oif reclamation at certain types
 of RCRA facilities for the first time. The
 EPA is amending 40 CFR 281.8 under its
 RCRA authority over reclamation to
 allow covering reclamation of hazardous
 wastes in waste management units
 affected by today's final rules. It should
 be recognized, however, that these final
 rules apply only at facilities otherwise
 heeding a  RCRA permit In addition, the
 closed-loop reclamation exemption in
 f 261.4(a)i;a) is not changed by these
 rules. Therefore, not all reclamation
 units will necessarily be affected by
 these rules.

 VL Summary of Comments and
 Responses

  Numerous comments on the proposed
 rule were received that relate to nearly
 all aspectii of the RCRA standards
 development process. The comment
 summaries cover topics relating to
 regulatory  issues, applicability of the
 standards, control technologies impact
analyses and implementation and
compliance issues. Detailed responses
to these and other comments are
included in the BID for the promulgated
standards, which is available in the
public docket for this rule.

-------
25468
' Federal Register  /  VoL 55. No. 120 / Thursday.  June 21.  1990 / Rules and Regulations
A. Regulatory Issues

Statutory Authority
  Comment: Several commenters argued
that TSDF air emissions should be
regulated under the CAA rather than
RCRA because (1) CAA standards under
sections 111 and 112 are already in place
in the SOCMI and petroleum refining
industries (2) air emissions at some
TSDF have already been permitted
under State implementation plans (SIP),
new source review programs, or under
State regulations-for VOC or air toxics
control: (3) VOC and ozone control are
the province of the CAA. not RCRA: and
(4) a statutory mechanism already exists
under the CAA for evaluating the risk
posed by air emissions.
  Response: Congress has required EPA
to promulgate air emission monitoring
and control requirements at hazardous
waste TSDF. under section 3004(n) of
RCRA. as may be necessary to protect
human health and the environment.
Congress was aware of the existence
and scope of the CAA when it enacted
section 3004(n) of RCRA. There is no
indication that Congress intended that
all air regulations be issued within the
confines of the CAA. On the contrary;
when adding section 3004(n), Congress
specifically recognized EPA's dual
authority to regulate these air pollutants
(S. Rep. 98-284. page 63).
  The EPA has conducted an analysis of
current State and Federal controls and
concluded that further regulation under
section 3004(n) is necessary to protect •
 human health and the environment The
 EPA examined State regulations, as well
 as existing Federal standards (and those
 under development),  to determine the
 potential for overlapping rules and
 permitting requirements. The EPA found
 that 8 States have established air toxics
 programs.'21 States have established
 generic standards for VOC independent
 of Federal regulations, and several
 States have extended control techniques
 guidelines (CTG) for VOC to TSDF.
 However, the standards vary widely in
 scope and application and in many
 cases controls have not been required
 .when emissions are below 40 ton/yr,
 even in the 37 States with ozone
 nonattainment areas. The EPA believes
 that today's action will help alleviate
 the nonuniformity among the States'
 efforts and will help achieve emission
 reductions necessary to protect human
 health and the environment
   A few commenters also argued that
 the standards would duplicate existing
 CAA standards that apply to the SOCMI
 and petroleum refineries. The EPA
 disagrees because the standards being
 promulgated today apply to waste
 management sources whereas the CAA
                            standards previously promulgated apply
                            to the production process.
                             The EPA also disagrees with
                            contentions that it is outside the
                            province of RCRA to address VOC and
                            ozone. As noted, section 3004(n)
                            standards, like all RCRA subtitle C
                            standards, are to protect "human health
                            and the environment" VOC and ozone
                            are threats to human health and the
                            environment and thus are well within
                            the regulatory scope of section 3004(n).
                              Organic emissions from TSDF
                            contribute to ambient ozone formation.
                            In fact. TSDF are estimated to emit
                            nearly 12 percent of all VOC from
                            stationary sources, and thus any
                            reductions in these emissions will
                            contribute to reducing ozone formation
                            and associated health and
                            environmental problems.
                            RCRA Authority Over Recycling
                              Comment: Several commenters argued.
                            that EPA does not have regulatory
                            authority under RCRA to control solvent
                            reclamation operations or units or
                            equipment managing materials destined
                            for reclamation such as spent solvent
                            because they are producing or managing
                            products and not wastes.
                              Response: The EPA disagrees with the
                            commenters regarding EPA's authority
                            to control solvent reclamation
                            operations. In response to a court
                            opinion fAmerican Mining Congress v.
                            EPA, 824 F.2d 1177, DC Circuit Court of
                            Appeals. July 31.1987) concerning the
                            scope of EPA's RCRA authority. EPA
                            proposed amendments to the RCRA
                            definition of "solid waste" that would
                            clarify when reclamation operations can
                            be considered to be managing solid and
                            hazardous wastes (53 FR 519, January 8.
                            1988). The EPA has accepted comments
                            on its interpretation arid proposed
                            amendments. The EPA has not yet taken
                            final action on this proposal Thus. EPA
                            is addressing the scope of its authority
                            over reclamation operations under
                            RCRA in the context of that rulemaking.
                            This rule is based on EPA's current
                            interpretation of its RCRA authority, as
                            described in the January 1988 proposal
                               The following summarizes EPA's
                            proposed position. In general, the
                            proposed amendments would exclude
                            from RCRA control only those spent
                            solvents reclaimed as part of a
                            continuous, ongoing manufacturing
                            process where the material to be
                            reclaimed is piped (or moved by a
                            comparably closed means of
                            conveyance) to a reclamation device.
                            any storage preceding reclamation is in
                            a tank, and the material is returned after
                            being reclaimed, to the original process
                            where it was generated. (Other
                             conditions on this exclusion relate to
 duration and purpose of the reclamation
 process. See proposed § 281.4(a)(8).)
  However, processes (or other types of
 recycling) involving an element of
 "discard" are (or can be) within RCRA
 subtitle C authority. When spent
 materials are being reclaimed, this
 element of discard can arise in two
 principal ways.-First, when spent
 materials are reclaimed by someone
 other than the generator, normally in an
 off-site operation, the generator of the
 spent material is getting rid of the
 material and so is discarding it. In
 addition, the spent material itself, by
 definition, is used up and unfit for
 further direct use: the spent material
 must first be restored to a usable
 condition. This type of operation has
 been characterized by some of the worst
 environmental damage incidents
 involving recycling (50 FR 858-661.   -   -
 January 4,1985). Moreover, storage
 preceding such reclamation has been
 subject to the part 264 and 285 standards
 since November 19,1980. (See generally
 53 FR 522 and underlying record
 materials.) The American Mining
 Congress opinion itself indicates that
 such materials are solid wastes (824
 F.2datll87).
   When a spent material is reclaimed
' on site in something other than a closed-
 loop process. EPA also considers that
 the spent material is discarded (i.e-  .
 spent solvents removed from the
 process, transferred to an on-site
 distillation unit and regenerated have
 been removed from the production  •
 process). The EPA's reasoning is that
 these materials are no longer available
 for use in an ongoing process and have
 been disposed of from that operation.
 even if the reclamation operation is on
 site. Finally, EPA also considers that
 when hazardous secondary materials
 are reclaimed but then burned as fuels,
 the entire operation—culminating in
 thermal combustion—constitutes
 discarding via destructive combustion  '
 (53 FR 523). Consequently, under this
 reading, any intermediate reclamation
 step in these types of fuel production
 operations remains within EPA's
 subtitle C authority.
   In summary, under EPA's current
 interpretation of the court's opinion, air
 emissions from distillation.
 fractionation. thin-film evaporation.
 solvent extraction, and stripping
 processes involving reclamation of spent
 solvent and other spent hazardous
 secondary materials can be regulated
 under RCRA subtitle C whenever the
 reclamation system is not part of the
 type of closed-loop reclamation system
 described in proposed part 281.4(a)(8).
 Any changes to this interpretation as

-------
             Federal Register  /  Vol. 55. No. 120 / Thursday. June 21.  1990 / Rules  and Regulations      25469
 part of the solid waste definition final
 rule may affect the scope of this rule.
 Selection of Source Category
   Comment: Several commenters
 disagreed with the selection of TSOF
 and Waste Solvent Treatment Facility
 (WSTF) process vents and equipment
 leaks for regulation because they
 believed that (1) out-of-date data or   .
 extrapolated data were used hi the
 analysis and. as a result the estimate of
 the number of affected facilities
 nationwide and the number affected by
 the proposed rule is far too  low; (2) the
 role of State regulations was not
 considered: (3) EPA should  control
 larger, more hazardous air emission
 sources at TSOF. such as storage tanks,
 before controlling process vents and  •
 equipment leaks: and (4) air emissions
 from waste solvent reclamation
 operations do not pose a health risk
 warranting control.
   Response: The EPA generally
 disagrees with the commenters that the
 selection of TSDF process vents and
 equipment leaks wu inappropriate.
 However. EPA agrees that the standards
 will affect mow than the 100 WSTF
 estimated at proposal. To respond to
 these and other comments. EPA
 conducted additional technical
 analyses. The EPA developed an
 industry profile using results of the 1988
 National Screening Survey of Hazardous
 Waste Treatment Storage. Disposal
 and Recycling Facilities (hereafter
 called the "Screener Survey"). The
 Screener Survey data represent all of
 the TSOF active in 1965 with interim
 status or final RCRA permits, which
 totalled about 3,000 facilities. The
 Screener Survey data are for operations
 la 1965. the latest year for which such
 comprehensive data are available. A
 review of the Screener Survey data
 shows a total of about 450 faculties that
 need authorization to operate under
 RCRA section 3005 and report solvent
 recovery by operations such as batch
 distillation, fractionation. thin-film
 evaporation, or steam stripping at the
 facility: Le.. operations that would have
 process vents subject to the  standards.
 The EPA used these facility  counts
 together with the reported 1985 waste
 solvent throughputs as the basis for the
 final process vent standards impacts
 analyses. In addition. EPA estimates
 that about 1.000 on site and off site
 permitted TSOF that do not practice
 solvent recovery do manage hazardous
 waste streams containing 10 percent or
 more total organics and would be
subject to the equipment lenk
requirements. In total about 1.400
facilities are potentially subject to the
provisions of subpart BB.
   State and Federal regulations also
 were reviewed to help EPA better
 estimate baseline emission control
 levels. Although a few States have
 controls in place, it appears that there
 are no general control requirements for
 TSDF process vents. Moreover, because
 TSDF with solvent recycling generally
 are small operations, any new waste
 management units with process vents
 would likely have potential VOC
 emissions of less than 40 ton/yn thus,
 prevention of significant deterioration
 (PSD) permit requirements would not
 apply. In addition. EPA sent section 3007
 information requests to several large
 and small TSDF: respondents to' the EPA
 section 3007 questionnaires did not
 indicate control requirements for
 process vents. Several of the facilities
 that were asked to provide information
 reported requirements for obtaining air
 contaminant source operating permits,
 but they reported no permit
 requirements for controlling process
 vent emissions. Therefore, the revised
 emission estimates (that are baaed on
 site-specific emission data) should
 reasonably reflect the current level of
 control of process vent emissions.
  With respect to those commenters
 who argued that other air emission
 sources should be controlled instead of
 process vents and equipment leaks, it
 should be pointed out that section
 3004(n) of RCRA requires EPA to
 promulgate regulations for the
 monitoring and control of air emissions
 from hazardous waste TSDF, including
 bat not limited to open tanks, surface
 impoundments, and  landfills, as may be
 necessary to protect human health and
 the environment Organic emissions are
 generated from process vents on
 distillation and separation units such as
 air strippers, steam strippers, thin-film
 evaporators, fractionation columns.
 batch distillation units, pot stills, and
 condensers and distillate receiving
 vessels that vent emissions from these
 units. Distillation and separation
 processes may be found in solvent
 reclamation operations, wastewater
 treatment systems, and in other
 pretreatment processes. Organic
 emissions also are released from
 equipment leaks associated with these
 processes as well as from nearly all
 other hazardous waste management
 units.
  As discussed in section 1U.D of this
preamble, the EPA chose to develop the
process vent and equipment leak portion
of its TSDF rulemaking as the first phase
of the TSDF air emission rules partly to
prevent uncontrolled air emissions from
LDR treatment technologies since these
technologies were' likely to have
 increased use. In addition. EPA already
 had control technology information to
 support these regulations, and thus
 earlier development of these rules was
 possible. This is principally because
 effective controls now in place under the
 CAA to control emissions from the same
 types of omission points in chemical
 production facilities and petroleum
 refinene!i can be applied to reduce the
 health risk posed by air emissions from
 uncontrolled distillation, fractionation,
 thin-film evaporation, solvent
 extraction!, and stripping processes and
 equipment leaks at TSDF. The EPA has
 limited the applicability of today's final
 standard! to those types of process
 vents for which control techniques are
 well developed, i.e., those associated
 with processes designed to drive the
 organics ;From the waste, such as
 distillation, fractionation. thin-film
 evaporation, solvent extraction, and
 stripping operations.
   Organic emissions also are generated
 from numerous other sources at TSDF.
 Preliminary estimates  indicate that
 nationwide organic emissions (after
 control of process vents associated with
 distillation/separation units and
 equipment leaks) are about 1.8 million
 Mg/yr. The EPA is in the process of
 developing standards for these sources
 under section 3004(n) of RCRA. and the
 standardti.are scheduled for proposal in
 1990. Source categories being examined
 include tanks, surface  impoundments,
 container!, and miscellaneous units.
 These other TSDF source categories
 require  different data and engineering
 evaluations: thus, standards for these
 other sources are on a separate
 rulemakiaig schedule. The emissions and
 risk analyses needed to support
 extension of the process vent standards
 to other closed (covered), vented tanks
 are also being developed in conjunction
 with this future rulemaking. These
 include  vcmt emissions that are
 incidental to the process, such as
 emissions caused by loading or by
 agitation/ aeration of the waste in a
 treatment tank.
  The EPA has determined that organic
 emissions from TSDF/WSTF process
 vents and equipment leaks pose a
 significant! risk to human health and the
 environment and that section 3004(n)
 provides authority to Control TSDF air
 emissions from these sources. Therefore.
 EPA has decided to take measures to
 reduce the atmospheric r»lp»*e of
organic aiir pollutants from these sources
as quickly as possible.  The fact that
distillation, fractionation. thin-film
evaporation, solvent extraction, and
stripping processes and equipment leaks
are regulated before other sources is not

-------
25470      Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 120 / Thursday. June 21. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
germane. There is no reason to delay
these rules while others are under
development
  Other commentera criticized the
selection of the source category for
regulation because their process vent
emissions either are already controlled
or are low enough so as not to pose a
threat to human health and the
environment However. EPA's analysis
of process vent emissions and impacts
indicates that for a large segment of the
industry, TSDF process vent emissions
can pose significant environmental and
health risks. These facilities are the
.target of the subpart AA process vent
standards. As discussed in section VLB
of this preamble, the final standards
include facility process vent emission
rate limits designed to avoid control of
facilities where meaningful reductions in
nationwide risk to human health and the
environment cannot be achieved.
  Several commentera also criticized the
source category for regulation because
emissions from generators who conduct •
on-site reclamation and off-site
reclaimers with no prior storage (i.e.,
those recycling activities conducted at
facilities not requiring a RCRA permit)
would not be controlled.
  The standards being promulgated
today (under section 3004{n()  apply only
to waste management facilities that
need authorization to operate under
section 3005 of RCRA. Air emissions
.from subtitle C waste management
facilities that are excluded from RCRA
permit requirements will be subject to
regulation under either the CAA or
RCRA authority as appropriate. Waste
management facilities that fall under the
requirements of subtitle D (i.e.,
nonhazardous waste operations) will
also be subject to regulation under the
CAA. The EPA limited the scope-of the
standards at proposal and in  this final
rule to facilities required to have a
permit under RCRA to minimize
disruption to the current permitting
system (i.e., net-expand the permit
universe) and  not impose a permit
burden on facilities not otherwise
subject to RCRA permits. Although EPA
is controlling only some sources in this
rule, other sources of significant levels
of air emissions will also be controlled:
 i.e.. it is a matter of timing rather than a
decision not (o control these other
sources. This phased regulatory
 approach is discussed in section III.C of
 this preamble.
 RCRA Decision Criteria
   Comment: Several commentera
 alleged that the standards do not meet
 the mandate of RCRA section 3004(n)
 because (1) the standards are not
 protective in all  cases: (2) the standards
are inconsistent with RCRA section
3QQ4(m) that requires treatment
standards based on best demonstrated
available technology (BOAT): and (3)
neither the RCRA statute nor its
legislative history allows consideration
of costs.
  .Response; The EPA believes that the
standards promulgated today
•appreciably reduce health risks .that are
presented by air emissions at TSDF and
provide protection to human health and
the environment as required by section
3004(n) of RCRA. for the vast majority of
the air emissions affected by these
standards. The EPA's analysis of
residual cancer risk after
implementation of the standards for
process vents indicates that maximum
individual risk, even at the upper-bound
emission rate, is well within the residual
risk for other standards promulgated
under RCRA. which historically has
been in the range of IX10"' to 1X10~*.
On the other hand, the analysis
indicates that residual cancer risk after
implementing the equipment leak
standards is higher than the residual
risk for other standards promulgated
under RCRA. However. EPA believes
that the equipment leak standards
achieve significant reductions in
emissions and risk and, that after
control, the vast majority of facilities are
well within the risk range of-other RCRA
standards.
  As was already described, EPA will
be promulgating regulations to control
TSDF air emissions in phases. Thus, in
Phase m. EPA will be evaluating the
need for additional control (e-g~ control
of individual toxic constituents after
implementation of these standards) for
cases where the risk from air emissions
after implementation of the Phase I and
II standards is higher than desirable.
(This regulatory approach is discussed
in section OLC of this preamble.) During
the interim, permit writers should use
EPA's omnibus permitting authority to
require more  stringent controls at
facilities where a high residual risk
remains after implementation of the
standards for volatile organics. The
permitting  authority cited by section
3005 of RCRA and codified in
 § 270.32(b)(2) states that permits
"*  *  * shall contain such terms and
conditions as the Administrator or State
Director determines necessary to protect
human health and the environment"
This section allows  permit writers to
require emission controls that are more
 stringent than those specified by a
 standard.
   As has been described above, the
 approach that EPA is using to control
TSDF air emissions is to proceed with
 promulgation of regulations to control
organic emissions as a class (Phases I
and II) and to follow this with
regulations that would require more
stringent controls for cases where the
risk after implementing the organic
standards remains high. The EPA
believes that this approach will
ultimately be protective of human health
.and the environment for all TSDF air
emissions on a nationwide basis.
  The question of whether these
standards implement the requirements
of RCRA section 3004(m) is irrelevant.
Regulations implementing section
3004(m). which is a pretreatment-based
program that defines when hazardous
wastes can be land-disposed, have been
(and will continue to be) separately
promulgated by EPA. For example, see
40 FR 288 (November 7.1966) and 52 FR
25787 (July 8,1987). fa contrast today's
regulations under section 3004(n) of .
RCRA do not specify technology-based
treatment levels for hazardous wastes
but regulate air emissions from
treatment units as necessary to protect.
.human health and the environment.
Therefore, in developing today's rule
EPA has focused on achieving
acceptable levels of health and
environmental protection rather than on
specifying pretreatment levels for
hazardous wastes. The two regulatory
efforts (i-e, 3004(m) and 3004(n) rules)
are integrated and coordinated to the
extent possible to reduce duplicate and
conflicting regulations. Furthermore.
today's rules are designed to ensure that
treatment required under 3Q04(m) is
protective of human health and the
environment
  The role of costs as a decision
criterion under RCRA In subtitle C is not
explicitly addressed in the statute. The
EPA's position is that it can consider
cost information as a basis for choosing
among alternatives either (1) when they
all achieve protection of human health
and the environment or (2) for
alternatives that are estimated to
provide substantial reductions in human
health and environmental risks but do
not achieve the historically acceptable
levels of protection under RCRA. when
they are equally protective. However.
EPA does not believe that the cost
burden on industry is a basis for
reducing the stringency of standards
EPA considers necessary to protect
human health and the environment.

Total Organics Approach
   Comment: Commenters argued that
applicability should be limited to known
or suspected carcinogens. In addition.
several commentera argued that
applicability of the standards should be
based on volatility and not on total

-------
Federal  Resistor /• Vol. 55. No. 120 / Thursday, June 21,  1990 / Rules  and Regulations      25471

                                                                  petroleum refineries, it is reasonable to
                                                                  expect similar performance and
                                                                  efficiency of the technology for
                                                                  controlling organic emissions at
                                                                  hazardous waste management units. The
                                                                  EPA has no reason to believe that the
                                                                  equipment standards would not be
                                                                  applicable to TSOF. Moreover, although
                                                                  EPA has not conducted actual
                                                                  equipment leak testing at TSDF,
                                                                  observations of equipment during plant
                                                                  visits have confirmed that the
                                                                  assumptions and analyses used in other
                                                                  equipment leak standards apply to
                                                                  TSDF as well.
                                                                    Changes have been made in the final
                                                                  standards and analyses to incorporate
                                                                  provisions included in the CAA
                                                                  standards Ithat reflect the effect of
                                                                  volatility OB emissions. As is discussed
                                                                  in section V of this preamble, the LDAR
                                                                  requirements for.pumps and valves have
                                                                  been revised to include the light-liquid
                                                                  provisions in EPA's NSPS for VOC
                                                                  equipment leaks in the SOCML
                                                                  Correspondingly, the emission and
                                                                  health risk analyses have been revised
                                                                  to reflect this change to the standards.
                                                                  Additional information on the
                                                                  appropriateness of the CAA data on the
                                                                  SOCMI and petroleum refineries is
                                                                  presented iin the next section.

                                                                  B. Standards and Applicability

                                                                  Standards for Accumulator Vessels

                                                                    Comment: Commenters contended
                                                                  that the rejguiatory approach of applying
                                                                  a single standard to the wide varieties of
                                                                  accumulator vessels irrespective of the
                                                                  chemical constituents that are present
                                                                  and the size of the vessel is not
                                                                  appropriate because the proposed
                                                                  standards result in the control of
                                                                  already low emission rates at
                                                                  disproportionately high costs. Standards
                                                                  for tanks (whether accumulation or
                                                                  storage tanks) should be conditioned by
                                                                  the size of the vessel the vapor pressure
                                                                  of the material being stored, and the
                                                                  type of units that pose a risk to human
                                                                  health and the environment. The EPA's
                                                                  approach should be similar to or
                                                                  consistent with the CAA NSPS for
                                                                  petroleum liquid storage vessels (40 CFR
                                                                  part 60. subpart Ka). These standards
                                                                  exempt veusels that store liquids less
                                                                  than 1.5 psia or that store less than
                                                                  40.000 gal
                                                                    Response: Commenters recommending
                                                                  that the air emission standards be
                                                                  conditioned by the size of the tank and
                                                                  the vapor pressure of the material being
                                                                  stored have misinterpreted the
                                                                  applicability of the proposed standards.
                                                                  To clarify 'the applicability of the
                                                                  standards, the term "product
                                                                  accumulator vessel" has been dropped
organic content because the relative
amount of organic content by weight
doe* not determine potential air
emission* and subsequent health effects.
  Retponto: First it should be pointed
out that ozone presents a threat to
human health and the environment that
warrant* control under RCRA. The EPA
agrees that total organic content may  .
not be a completely accurate.gauge of
potential environmental (e.g« ozone) or
health (t.g* cancer) impacts for a source
such a* procts* vent*, but it is a readily
measurable indicator. In addition, the
final rule's substantive control
requirements do apply only to vents and
equipment containing volatile
component*.
  Tht final vent standard applies to
certain process vent* emitting organics
if the vent is associated with one of the
processes specified in the rule. A
process vent Is determined to be
affected by the standard if the vent is
part of a hazardous waste distillation.
fractionation. thin-film evaporation.
solvent extraction, or air or steam
stripping unit that manage* wastes with
10 ppmw or more total organic*; this
Includes vent* on tank* (e.g* distillate
receivers or hot wells) if emissions from
the process operation* are vented
through the tank. Total organic content
of the vent stream (Le* the emission* to
the atmosphere) !* not a consideration
In determining process vent
applicability. As public commenters
pbinted out the 10-percent total
organic* concentration cutoff for the
vent stream doe* not limit total
emissions or relate to emissions that
escape capture by existing control
devices and therefore was not Included
in the final rule*.
  Furthermore, the process vent*
covered by this rule are typically
associated with distillation/separation
processes used to  recycle spent solvents
and other organic  chemicals. By
definition, distillation is a process that
consists of driving gas or vapor from
liquid* or solid* by heating and then
condensing the vapotfs) to liquid
products. Waste*  treated by distillation
are expected to contain organics that
are driven off in the process. Thus, by
their nature, process vent emissions
contain volatile organic*.
   Under the final standards, the term
"organic emissions" is used in lieu of
"volatile organic emissions" to avoid
confusion with "volatile organic
compounds." As at proposal the final
ruin applies to total organics. Because of
the hundreds of hazardous constituents
that could be contained in and
contacted by  the equipment covered by
today's rules. EPA recognizes the
potential for the residual risk at some
facilities to remain higher than the
residual risk-for other standards
promulgated under RCRA. Regulations
based only on specific constituents will
therefore be developed, as necessary, in
Phase in of EPA's regulatory approach.
The constituents to be evaluated will
include those reported as being present
in hazardous wastes managed by
existing TSDF for which health effects
have been established through the
development of unit risk factors for
carcinogens and reference doses for
noncarcinogeiis.
  A* is discussed in section VI.B of this
preamble, emission potential from
equipment leaks also was considered by
incorporating the light-liquid definition
in the section 111 CAA standards. Light
liquids exhibit much higher volatilities
than do heavy liquids, which are
relatively nonvolatile. Equipment leak
rates and emissions have.been shown to
vary with stream volatility; emissions
from heavy liquids are far less than
those for lighter, more volatile streams.
For example. EPA analyses indicate that
emissions from valves in heavy-liquid
service are more than 30 times lower
than the emissions from valves in light-
liquid service (see the BID. § 4.6). The
EPA examined the emissions and risk
associated with light- and heavy-liquid
waste streams and found that light-
liquid streams are the overwhelming
contributors to both emissions and risk..
Thus, the final standards take into
account the volatility of emissions and
the subsequent impact on health and the
environment
Application of CAA Equipment Leak
Standards
  Comment: Several commenters did
not agree that the standards should be
based on the transfer of technology from
the section 112 standards for benzene
(40 CFR, subpart V] because TSDF
waste streams and processes differ from
the chemical plants and petroleum
refineries upon which the CAA
standards are based.    . ,
  Response; Data used in establishing
the benzene fugitive standards under
CAA section 112 are based on extensive
emission and process data collected at a
variety of petroleum refinery and
SOCMI operating units. Data were
obtained for equipment and chemical
component mixtures that include many
of the same organic compounds that are
treated, stored, and disposed of in
hazardous waste management units.
Because hazardous waste management
units such as distillation units have the
same sources of fugitive organic
emissions (such as pumps and valves)
and handle the same chemicals as do
chemical manufacturing plants and

-------
            Federal Register / Vol. 58. No. 120 / Thursday. June 21, 1990 / Rules  and Regulation
25472
from the promulgated rule, including the
equipment definition, and the process
vent definition has been revised to be
specific to the applicable emission
sources. "Process vent" is defined to  .
mean "any open-ended pipe or stack
that is vented to the atmosphere either
directly, through a vacuum-producing
system, or through a tank (e.g* distillate
receiver, condenser, bottoms receiver.
surge control tank, separator tank, or
hot well) associated with distillation
fractionation. thin-film evaporation.
solvent extraction, or air or steam
stripping operations." Similarly, the
definition of "vented" has been revised
to specifically exclude the passage of
liquids, gases, or fumes "caused by tank
loading and unloading (working
losses)." Because tank working and
breathing lasses are not considered
process emissions, the comments
concerning vapor pressure and tank size
exemptions are not relevant. (It should
be noted, however, thai EPA intends to
regulate hazardous waste storage tanks,
along with various other TSDF air .
emission sources in the Phase 11, section
 3004(n). TSDF air standards now being
 developed and evaluated by the
 Agency.)
   In conducting the impact analysis of
 the WSTF/TSDF process vent
 standards, EPA considered and took
 into account the relative size of WSTF
 process units and the wide range of
 chemicals processed in the WSTF
 industry. For example, three sizes of-
 WSTF model units were defined for
 analysis of emissions, health risks, and
 economic impacts in the final
 rulemaking (see section VI.D). In
 addition, the final standards for process
 venls promulgated by EPA contain
 emission rate limits  and require controls
 only at facilities whose total process
 vent emissions are greater than 1.4 kg/h
 (3 Ib/h) and Z& Mg/yr (3.1 ton/yr). More
 detailed descriptions of the model units
 and the process vent emission rate
 limits are provided in chapters SJO and
 7 A respectively, of  the BIO.
    Comment: Several commenters
 objected to the proposed standard for
 process vents that requires a fixed 95-
 percent emission reduction. They
 believe that the process v«nt standard is
  inequitable because some operations
 could reduce emissions by 95 percent
  and still have higher emissions than
  some small uncontrolled operations and
  because facilities would have to install
  control devices on all condenser and
  still vents regardless of emissions or risk
  posed to human health or the
  environment A few commenters asked
  EPA to consider exemptions for small
  solvent operations  thai have low
emissions and thus nose little health
risk.                    .-.    .
  Response: In resoonse to these
comments. EPA estimated the TSDF/
WSTF air quality and health impacts
using updated model unit, emission rate.
and facility throughput data. Although
total facility waste solvent throughputs
were available, the data base did not
contain any information on the number
or capacities of process units at each
site. Therefore, the risk analysis is
based on overall facility operations and
total facility process vent emissions as
opposed to individual process vent
emissions. The impacts analysis results
show that nationwide reductions in
emissions, maximum individual risk
(MIR), and cancer incidence level off
(i.e.. yield only insubstantial  incremental
reductions) at a facility emission rate of
about ia Mg/yr 13.1 ton/yr).  At a typical
rate of 2JOOO h/yr of operation, this
annual emission rate corresponds to 1.4
kg/h (3 Ib/h) of organic emissions.
Control of facilities with process vent
emissions less than these values does
not result in further reductions of
nationwide MIR or cancer incidence. At
 this emission level, larger facilities (ie-
 those with uncontrolled emissions
 above the emission rate limit) that are
 controlled to a 95-percent emission
 reduction result in MIR values higher
 than the remaining uncontrolled small
 facilities (i-e- those with uncontrolled
 emissions below the limit). The same
 holds true for nationwide cancer
 incidence. The reduction in cancer
 incidence achieved by controlling
 facilities below the limit is not
 significant relative to the nationwide
 reductions achieved by controlling the
 larger facilities.
    Consequently, the analysis results
 indicate that provision of small facility
 emission rate limits of 1.4 kg/h (3 Ib/h)
 and i8 Mg/yr (3.1 ton/yr) for process
 vent emissions provides essentially the
 same level of protection for human
 health and the environment (in terms of
 risk, incidence, and emissions] as does
 covering all facilities. In addition, the
 MIR after control is within the range-of
 residual risk for other standards
 promulgated under RCRA. As a result,
 Ike final rule requires control of only
  those facilities emitting greater than 1.4
 kg/h (3 Ib/h) andZS Mg/yr (3.1 'on/yrj
 organic emissions from all process
  vents. A more detailed discussion of the
  process vent emission rate limits is
  contained in chapter 7.0 of the BID.
    Because the final standards contain
  process vent emission rate limits, it is
  anticipated that small solvent recovery
  operations would not be substantially
  affected by the final process vent
standards. The EPA estimates, based on
the high emission rates and 1985 waste
solvent throughput data, indicate that
about 45 percent of the WSTF identified
in the industry profile will have process
vent emissions of less than 2.8 Mg/yr
(3.1 ton/yr). Consequently, it is expected
that a large number of small facilities
would not be required to install
additional process vent controls.

Selection of 10-Percent Cutoff

   Comment: Commenters believed that
the 10-percent level proposed is
comparable to 100.000 ppm and may be
too high, particularly when compared to
the 10.000-ppm level that defines an
equipment leak, and' that EPA should
evaluate the health and environmental
impacts associated with the proposed
limit The 10-percent limit will allow
excessive emissions from leaking
equipment"and is based on costs, not
technical limitations. Commenters. also
argued that the 10-percent limit does not
adequately protect the environment
because emissions could be substantial
 if there are numerous leaking
components with relatively dilute
streams and that controls, such as
 carbon adsorbers, are available to
 capture emissions from dilute streams.
   Response: First for clarification, the
 10-percent organic content limit for
 equipment leaks in no way relates to the
 10.000-ppm leak definition. The leak
 definition, which is a Method 21
 instrument reading used to define when
 a leak is detected. 13 discussed in a later
 comment As proposed, the 10-percent
 total organics cutoff level for
 applicability of the standards covered
 both equipment leak (fugitive) emissions
 and process vent emissions. Control
 technologies for fugitive emissions
 comprise the use of control equipment,
 inspection of equipment and repair
 programs to limit or reduce emissions
 from leaking equipment. These control
 technologies have been studied and
 evaluated for equipment containing
 fluids with more than 10 percent
 organics (EPA-iSO/3-80-32b, EPA-^iSO/
 3-80-33b. EPA-450/3-62-010. and EPA-
 450/3-88-002). The 10-percent criterion
 was chosen in EPA's original benzene/
• SOCMI studies to focus the analyses on
  air emissions from equipment containing
  relatively concentrated organics and
  presumably having the greatest potential
  for air emissions. Available data from
  the original benzene/SOCMl studies do
  not suggest that fugitive emissions from
  leaking equipment (e.g.. pumps and
  valves) handling streams containing loss
  than 10 percent organics are significjnt
  or that the 10-percent cutoff allows
  excessive emissions from dilute streams

-------
              Federal Register  /  Vol. 55. No. 120  /  Thursday, June 21. 1990  / Rules and Regulations      25473
  However, to reavaluate this would
  require Mveral years to conduct field
  studies to collect and analyze additional
  emissions and control effectiveness data
  tot equipment leaks. Because available
  data support the need for. and
  effectiveness of. standards  for
  equipment handling streams containing
  at least 10 percent organics. the EPA
  doe* not believe that a delay in
  ruletaaking to assess emissions and
  controls for equipment handling streams
  containing less than 10 percent organics
  Is warranted.
   The effectiveness of fugitive emission
  control technologies  has been
-. thoroughly evaluated for equipment.
  containing fluids with at least 10 percent
  organic*, and fugitive emission
  standards have been proposed or
  established under both sections 111 and
 •112 of (he CAA. (See 48 FR1138. January
  5,1961: 48 FR 1165. January 5.1981:48
  FR 273. January 4.1983; 48 FR 37538.
  August 18.1983; 48 FR 48328. October 18.
,  1963:49FR22S96.May30.1984:49FR
  Z3408. June 0.1984: and 49 FR 23522.
  June 8.1964.) As elaborated in these
  rulemakings. a 10-percent cutoff deals
  with (he air emissions from equipment
  most likely to cause significant human
  health and environmental harm.
   With regard to process vent
  emissions. EPA agrees with the
  coounanter. Emission test data show
  that the 10-percent cutoff potentially
  may allow significant emissions from
  process vents on a mass-per-unit-time
  basis (e4* kg per hour or Mg per yr). As
  public coaunenters pointed  out the 10-
  percent cutoff for process vents does not
  limit total emissions, nor does it relate
  to emissions that escape capture by
  existing control devices. Therefore the
  10-percent cutoff may not be
  appropriate: as a result. EPA has
  eliminated the 10-percent cutoff as it
  applies to process vents. The EPA
  believes that an emission rate limit more
  effectively relates to emissions.
  emission potential, and health risks than
  does a 10-percent organic concentration
  cutoff. Accordingly, a health-risk-based
  facility process vent emission rate limit
  has been added to the final  rules in lieu
  of the 10-percent cutoff.
   Because the emission rate limits (3 lb/
  h and 3.1 ton/yr) provide health-based
  limits. EPA considered dropping
  completely the organic content criterion
  (I.e.. at least 10 percent total organics).
  However. EPA decided not  to eliminate
  completely the organic content criterion
  because it is not dear that the same
  controls can be applied to very low
  concentration streams as can be applied
  to the higher concentration streams that
  generally are associated with emission
 rates greater than the limits. For low-
 concentration streams. EPA questions
 whether controls are needed on a
 national or generic basis, but is unable
 to resolve this question at this time.
 Thus. EPA decided to defer controlling
 very low concentration streams until it
 is able to better characterize and assess
 these streams and the  appropriate
 controls.
   Once EPA decided to consider
 facilities that manage very low
 concentration organic  wastes as a
 separate category, there remained the
 problem of determining the appropriate
 criterion. The EPA examined existing
 data on air strippers, the treatment
 device most commonly used with low-
 concentration streams; it appeared that
 the quantity of emissions and the risk
 associated with air strippers treating
_ streams with concentrations below 10
' ppmw may be relatively small, thus
 minimizing the potential harm of '
 deferring control until  a later time.
 Examples  of facilities managing low-
 concentration wastes are sites where
 ground water js undergoing remedial
 action under CERCLA  or corrective
 action pursuant to RCRA. Based on the
 limited set of precise data available, and
 the comments that the 10-percent
 criterion was too high. EPA determined
 that an appropriate criterion would be
 10 ppm total organics in the waste by
 weight
   The 10-ppmw criterion is not an
 exemption from regulation: it is intended
 only as a way for EPA to divide the air
 regulations into phases. The EPA is
 deferring action on very low
 concentration streams (i.e., ones with
 less than 10 ppmw total organic content)
 from the final rule today but will
 evaluate and announce a decision later
 on whether to regulate these waste
 streams.
 Exemptions
   Comment: Several commenters
• disagreed  with EPA's interpretation that
 the definition of "totally enclosed
 treatment  units" (which are exempt from
 regulation) may in certain circumstances
 include on-site treatment units that use
 engineered controls to prevent the
 release of  emissions. One commenter
 stated that on-site treatment facilities
 directly tied with process equipment
 have the same potential for emissions as
 do other sources not exempted by the
 proposed regulation.
   Response: This rule does not create or
 modify any exemption for totally
 enclosed treatment facilities; rather, the
 existing definition of an exemption for
 totally enclosed treatment facilities
 remains in effect and existing
 regulatory interpretations remain in
effect as well. Although the preamble to
the proposed rule repeated the existing
definition, at also contained a request for
comments on an interpretation of the
totally enclosed facility exemption
whereby the "use of effective controls
such as those required by the proposed
standards" would meet the criteria of 40
CFR 260.10, Upon consideration of the
comments, EPA has determined that this
interpretation would have conflicted
with the reijulatory definition and
previous interpretations of the
exemption and. therefore, has decided to
withdraw it
*  As presented in the preamble to the
proposed rule, under 40 CFR 2G4.1(g)(5)
and 40 CFR 265.1(c)(9), totally enclosed
treatment facilities are exempt from
RCRA regulation. A "totally enclosed
treatment facility" is a facility treating
hazardous  waste that is "directly
connected to an industrial production
process and which is constructed and
operated in, a manner which prevents
the release of any hazardous waste or
constituent thereof into the environment  •
during treatment" (40 CFR 260.10).
Therefore,  as stated in the proposal.
preamble, process equipment designed
to release stir emissions are not "totally
enclosed."
  The EPA agrees with the commenter
that on-site treatment facilities
associated with process equipment
generally are designed to release air
emissions and. thus, are not "totally
enclosed." "The EPA specifically stated
this in the preamble to the proposed
rule. To be considered "totally
enclosed."  units must meet the test of
preventing the release of any hazardous
constituent from the unit not only on a
routine basis but also during a process
upset Thus; the risks from these units
are expected to be less than from units
that are nol! totally enclosed.
  Comment: Commenters stated that the
exemption  for tanks storing or treating
hazardous wastes that are emptied
every 90 days and that meet the tank
standards of'40 CFR 262.34 is not
justified based on risk, as RCRA
requires. The exclusion of less-than-90-
day storage! tanks from air emission
control requirements will increase the
use of the 90-day storage exemption and
the resultant air emissions.
  Response: In 40 CFR part 270,
hazardous waste generators who
accumulate waste on site in containers
or tanks for less than the time periods
provided in §262.34 are specifically
excluded from RCRA permitting
requirements. To qualify for the
exclusions  In §262.34. generators who
accumulate hazardous waste on site for
up to 90 days must comply with 40 CFR

-------
25474
            Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 120'/ Thursday. June 21. 1990 / Rules and Regulation
265. subpart! or J (depending on
whether the waste is accumulated in
containers or tanks) and with other
requirements specified in §262J4.
Small-quantity generators (i.e.,
generators who generate more than 100
kilograms but less than 1.000 kilograms
per calendar month) are allowed to
accumulate waste on site for up to 180
day's or. if they must ship wasteoff site
for a distance of 200 miles or more, and
if they meet certain other requirements,
set out in § 28234, for up to 270 days.
  The promulgated regulation does not
create a new exemption for 90-day
accumulation, nor does it modify the
existing regulation. As the commenter
notes. EPA is considering what changes
(if any) should be made to §262.34 (the
"90-day rule") under a separate
rulemaking (51FR 25487. July 14.1986).
As part of that effort EPA currently is
evaluating whether air emissions from
these and other accumulator tanks.
mentioned above, at the generator site
should be subject to additional control
requirements. Preliminary analysis'
indicates that 90-day tanks and
containers may have significant organic
air emissions: consequently, as part of
 the second phase of TSDF air emission
 regulations. EPA is considering
 proposing to modify the exemption fo
 require that 90-day tanks meet the
 control requirements of the.Phase I and
 I! standards. (The muitiphased
 standards development approach for
 regulating organic air emissions is
 discussed in section HLC of this
 preamble.) Until a final decision is made
 on regulating the emissions from these
 units, they will not be subject to
 additional controls. However. EPA does
 not believe that more generators wilt
 use the 90-day exemption if air emission
 controls are not imposed on these units.
 Those generators who are eligible for
 inclusion under §262.34 are probably
 already taking advantage of the •
 provision now by storing their
 hazardous wastes for less than 90 days.

 LOAR Program
 , Comment: Several commenters
  criticized the incorporation of the
  national emission standard for
  hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for
  benzene because of differences in scope
  from the SOCMI NSPS in that (1) the
  NSPS distinguishes between light and
  heavy liquids and the proposed
  standards based on the benzene
  NESHAP do not: (2) the NSPS does not
  require testing of all SOCMI units
  because process fluid vapor pressure is
  the overriding consideration in
  predicting leak frequencies and leak
  rates ((he proposed standards
  incorporating the NESHAP do not
recognize vapor pressure and require
testing of all SOCMI units); and (3) the
NSPS exempts facilities from routine
fugitive emission monitoring, inspection,
and repair provisions if a. heavy-liquid
product from a heavy-liquid raw
material is produced and limits
monitoring of equipment in heavy-liquid
service only to where there is evidence
of a potential leak.           -
  Response: The EPA agrees with the
commenters that the provisions for light
and heavy liquids in the SOCMI NSPS
should be incorporated in the section
3004(n) standards, even though the
•subpart V NESHAP does not contain the
distinction. No distinction was made for
the benzene NESHAP because benzene
is a light liquid. By their nature, heavy
liquids exhibit much lower volatilities
than do light liquids and because
equipment leak emissions have been
shown to vary with stream volatility.
emissions for heavy liquids are less than
those for lighter and more volatile ones.
As previously noted. EPA analyses have
determined that the emission rate for a
valve in heavy-liquid service is more
than 30 times less than the emission rate
for a  valve in light-liquid service. In
response to these comments. EPA
examined the emission and risk
associated with light- and heavy-liquid
waste streams and found that light-
 liquid streams are the overwhelming
 contributors to both emissions and risk.
Therefore, a routine LDAR monthly
 inspection is not necessary for heavy
 liquids.
   Thus,  the final regulations have been
 changed to incorporate the light/heavy-
 liquid service provisions 'for pumps and
 valves (40 CFR parts 264 and 265.
 subpart BB, §§264.1052,264.1057
 265.1052. and 265.1057). Equipment is in
 light-liquid service if the vapor pressure
 of one or more of the components is
 greater than 0.3 kPa at 20 °C, if the total
 concentration of the pure components
 having a vapor pressure greater than 0.3
 kPa at 20 *C is equal to or greater than
 20 percent by weight and if the fluid is a
 liquid at operating conditions. The 0.3-
 kPa vapor pressure criterion is based on
 fugitive emission data gathered in
 various EPA and industry studies (EPA-
 4SO/3-82-010). Equipment processing
 organic liquids with vapor pressures
 above 0.3 kPa leaked at significantly
 higher rates and frequencies than did
 equipment processing streams with
 vapor pressures below 0.3 kPa.
 Therefore. EPA elected to exempt
 equipment processing lower vapor
 pressure substances (i.e., heavy liquids)
 from the routine LOAR requirements of
  the standards. In addition, monitoring of
  equipment in heavy-liquid service is
required only where there is evidence
by visual audible olfactory, or any other
detection method of a potential leak.
  Comment: Several commenters asked
EPA to consider exemptions from
fugitive emission monitoring for small
facilities based on volume (as was done
in the benzene NESHAP and the SOCM!
NSPS), emission threshold, product
applicability threshold or equipment
component count or equipment size. In
support the commenters pointed to
similar exemptions in the CAA rules
that were in the proposed standards.
  Response: The commenters suggest
that EPA consider other exemptions for
fugitive emission monitoring that are
applied in the benzene NESHAP or
SOCMI NSPS (e.g.. small facilities with
the design capacity to produce less than
1,000 Mg/yr). The EPA recognizes that
estimated emissions and health risks
from small facilities-should be
considered in the final rules.  With
regard to the SOCMI NSPS small-facility
exemption, the cutoff was based on a
cost-effectiveness analysis. Under
section 111 of the CAA. EPA  may
exempt units where costs of the
standards are unreasonably high in
comparison to the emission reduction
achievable. Under RCRA. the statutory
criterion is protection of human health
 and the environment. Therefore, any
cutoff for RCRA standards must be risk-
 based. Cost effectiveness is only a
 relevant factor for choosing among
 alternatives either (1) when they all
 achieve protection of human health and
 the environment or (2) for alternatives
 that are estimated to provide substantial
 reductions in human health and
 environmental risks but do not achieve
 the historically acceptable levels of
 protection under RCRA. when they are
 equally protective.
   In the benzene NESHAP (49 FR 23498.
 June 8.1984), EPA concluded that
 control of units producing less  than 1,000
 Mg/yr did not warrant control  based on
 the small health-risk potential. The
 benzene standards, however, did not
 have to deal with  the many different
 pollutants covered by the TSDF process
 vent and equipment leak standards,
 some of which are much more
 carcinogenic than benzene. In addition
 to unit size (or throughput), fugitive
 emissions are also a function of the
 chemical characteristics of the
 hazardous wastes being handled.
  • Typically. TSDF have a variety of
 hazardous waste management processes
 (e.g., container storage, tank storage.
 treatment tanks, incinerators, injection
 wells, and terminal loading  operations)
 located at the same facility, all of which
  have associated pumps, valves.

-------
Federal Register / VoL  55. No. 120 / Thursday. June 21. 1990 / Rules and Regulations      25475


                                                                 closed-venl! systems for these discharges
                                                                 on a site-specific basis.
                                                                   The LDAR program transferred from
                                                                 the CAA standards does not exempt
                                                                 pressure relief devices in light liquid or
                                                                 heavy liquid service and flanges, but
                                                                 requires foirmal monitoring of these
                                                                 sources if operators see. smell, or hear
                                                                 discharges. The EPA considers that this
                                                                 is She most practical way to manage
                                                                 these sources. Although scheduled
                                                                 routine maintenance may be a way of
                                                                 avoiding the need for formal monitoring.
                                                                 it may not be c successful  method for all
                                                                 sites In eliminating leaks due to the
                                                                 numerous variables affecting leak
                                                                 occurrence. For example, flanges may
                                                                 become fugitive emission sources when
                                                                 leakage occurs due to improperly chosen
                                                                 gaskets, poorly assembled flanges, or
                                                                 thermal stress resulting in  the
                                                                 deformation of the seal between the
                                                                 flange facet. In these situations.
                                                                 operators will be able to detect such
                                                                 leaks by oiijht. smelt or sound. Support  •
                                                                 for this approach was presented and
                                                                 evaluated in developing several CAA
                                                                 rulemakinss (EPA-450/3-63-416b. EPA-
                                                                 450/3-00-0330, and EPA-450/3-81-
                                                                 OlSb).
                                                                   Comments One commenter stated that
                                                                 the LDAR program should require
                                                                 preventive maintenance, such as the
                                                                 periodic replacement of valve packings,
                                                                 before waiting for the valve to fail. In
                                                                 support, thn commenter argued that
                                                                 EPA's own data show that directed
                                                                 maintenani:e could reduce leaks from
                                                                 valves to below 10,000 ppm. The
                                                                 commenter also criticized  the 10,000-
                                                                 ppm leak definition as being too high
                                                                 and states that EPA must consider the
                                                                 levei is terns of the health effects.
                                                                   Response The key criterion for
                                                                 selecting a leak definition  is the overall
                                                                 mass emisiiion reduction demonstrated
                                                                 to be achievable. The EPA has not
                                                                 concluded that an effective lower leak
                                                                 definition has been demonstrated. Most
                                                                 data developed for current CAA
                                                                 standards CEPA-450/3-02-010) on leak
                                                                 repair effectiveness have applied 10,000
                                                                 ppm as the leak definition and therefore
                                                                 do not indicate the effectiveness of
                                                                 repair for leak definitions between 1,000
                                                                 and 10.000 ppm. Even though limited
                                                                 data between these values were
                                                                 collected for support of CAA standards,
                                                                 they are not sufficient to support a leak
                                                                 definition below 10.000 ppm. Data are
                                                                 insufficienl: to determine at what
                                                                 screening value maintenance efforts
                                                                 begin to reiiult in increased emissions.
                                                                   As the commenter noted, although
                                                                 there is some evidence that directed
                                                                 maintenance is more effective, available
                                                                 data are insufficient to serve as a basis
                   •Hi             ' '
sampling connections, eta. and
therefor*, fugitive emissions from
equipment leaks. Also, several different
types of hazardous wast* typically are
managed at • facility. Because of the
various factors affecting facility fugitive
emissions from equipment leaks (e.g,
equipment teak emissions an a function
of component counts rather than waste
throughput), it would be very difficult to
determine a small-facility exemption
bued OB risk bat expressed as volume
throughput. For these reasons. EPA did
not include exemptions for fugitive
emission monitoring such as those
applied to the benzene NESHAP or
SOCMINSP3 (Le, small process units
with the design capacity to produce less
thealdOOMg/yr).
  Comment: Commenters stated that the
TSDF fugitive emission standards
should conform to the benzene
NESHAP. which allows exemptions for
vacuum systems, systems with no
emissions, and systems whose leakage
rat* is demonstrated to be below 2
percent.
  Retpon**:Tb» EPA has included in
the final TSDF standards (§ f 284.1050
and 283.1050) the exemption for
equipment "in vacuum service" found in
the benzene NESHAP (40 CFR part 61,
jubpert V. (51342-1). Also included are
the identification requirement
contained la the regulation. "In vacuum
service" means that equipment is
operating at an Internal pressure that is
atleast 5 kPa below-ambient pressure.
The EPA haa concluded that it is
unnecessary to cover equipment "In
vacaaa service" because such
equipment has little if any potential for
emissions and* therefor*, does not pots
a threat to human health and the
environment. Accordingly, this
equipment has been excluded from the
equipment leak fugitive emission
requirements.
  The proposed standards stated that
owners and operators of facilities
subject to the provisions of the rule must
comply with the requirements of 40 CFR
pert 61. subpart V (equipment leak
standards for hazardous air pollutants),
except as provided in the rule itself. The
provisions of the proposed rule did not
exclude IS 61243-1 and 01243-2
(•Jternative standards for valves in
VHAP service), and the alternative
standards have been incorporated as
i 1264.1001.284.1002.205.1061. and
265.1062 of the fine! rule. Therefore, an
owner or operator may elect to have all
valve* within e TSDF hazardous waste
management unit comply with an
alternative standard that allows a
percentage of valves leaking of equal to
or less than 2 percent (§1264.1061 and
265.1061). or may elect for all valves
within a hazardous waste management
unit to comply with one of the
alternative work practices specified in
paragraphs (b) (2) and (3) of f 1264.1062
and 265.1062.
  Comment: One commenter suggested
that releases-from pressure relief
devices is gas service should be
directed te control equipment at least
equal its performance to those for other
process sources or an alternative means
provided to prevent ea uncontrolled
discharge. According to the commenter.
rupture discs or closed-vent systems
restrict small teaks but not major
releases; a closed-vent system
connected to a control device is needed
to capture releases. The commenter
concluded that EPA ha* provided no
data to support exempting flanges and
pressure relief devices in liquid service
from LDAR requirements and should not.
rely on operators to see, hear or smell
teaks from this equipment
  Response: Pressure relief devices
allow .the release of vapors or liquids
until system pressure is reduced to the
normal operating level The standards
are geared toward control of routine
low-level equipment teaks that may
occur independently of emergency
discharges. Pressure relief discharges
are as entirely different source of
emissions than equipment leak* or
process vents and were not covered in
the original equipment leak standards
under the CAA. The new subpart BB
rules require that pressure relief devices
in gas service be tested annually by
Method 21 (and within 5 days of any
relief discharge) to ensure that the
device is maintained at no detectable
emissions by means of a rupture disc. In
addition, because a pressure discharge
constitutes a process upset that is many
case* can lead to hazardous wast*
management unit downtime and might
also pose a risk to workers, a facility
has the incentive to tn
-------
25478
            Federal Register / Vol 55. No. 120 / Thursday. June 21. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
for requiring directed maintenance for
ail sources.
  (Note: In "directed maintenance" efforts,
the tightening of the packing it monitored
simultaneously end is continued only to the
extent that it reduces emissions. In contrast.
"undirected" repair means repairs such as
tightening valve packings without
simultaneously monitoring the result to
determine whether the repair is increasing or
decreasing emissions.)
  The EPA's rationale for selecting the
10.000-ppmv leak definition and for not
requiring directed maintenance under
the CAA LDAR program also has been
discussed in the proposal and
promulgation BHDs for benzene
emissions from coke by-product'
recovery plants (SPA-450/3-63-016 a
and H for SOCMI fugitive emissions
(EPA-450/3-80-033 a and b). for
petroleum refinery fugitive emissions
(EPA-450/3-41-015 a and b). and for.
benzene fugitive emissions (EPA-450/3-
80-032 a and b). (See also the "Response
to Public Comments on EPA's Listing of
Benzene Under section 112" (EPA-4SO/
5-82-003) "Fugitive Emission Sources of
Organic Compounds—Additional  •
Information on Emissions. Emission
Reductions, and Costs" (EPA-450/3-82-
010). and EPA's "Response to Petition
for Reconsideration" (50 FR 34144.
August 23.1985).)
  The commenter also criticizes EPA for
not reanalyzing the health effects of the
10,000-ppmv level before applying the
limit to TSDF under RCRA. Because
section 112 of the CAA and 3004(n) of
RCRA are comparable in their
recognition of health risk aa the
predominant decision factor, the EPA
believes that the leak definition has
been adequately analyzed under the
CAA and that further evaluation is not
needed prior to transferring it as part of
the LDAR program under RCRA. It must
also be pointed out that transfer of the
CAA equipment leak standards is only
the first phase of EPA's regulatory
actions related to control of TSDF air
emissions. In thisphase. EPA transferred
a known technology to reduce
emissions. If new data show that a
lower leak definition is appropriate.
EPA will then consider whether it is
appropriate to change the rules.

C, Control Technology
Feasibility of Condensers
   Comment: Several commenters did
not agree that condensers provide a
feasible means of meeting the 95-percent
emission reduction requirement for
affected process vents in the proposed
standard. Problems cited by the
commenters limiting the application of
condensers included the presence of
water in the waste stream in the TSDF
portion of the facility and the wide
variety of waste solvents treated by
WSTF. One commenter claimed that a
higher emission reduction efficiency
could be achieved through an increased
condenser area or a different condenser
refrigerant with a lower boiling point
than was used in the analysis for the
proposal.
 •Response: In response to this
comment, the feasibility of using
condensers to achieve a 9&percent
reduction of emissions from WSTF
process vent streams was reexamined
using a state-of-the-art chemical
engineering computerized process
simulator that includes a refrigeration
unit capable of producing a coolant at a
temperature as low as -29 *C (-20 *F)
and a primary water-cooled heat
exchanger to remove water vapor from
the vent stream.
  A variety of chemical constituents
and operating conditions were
examined to determine the organic.
removal efficiency achievable through
condensation. The constituents selected
for the condenser analysis (toluene.
methyl ethyl ketonejMEK). 1.1.1
trichloroethane (TCE), and methylene
chloride) were judged to be
representative of the solvents recycled
by the WSTF industry, based on a *
review of a National Association of
Solvent Recyclers (NASR) survey.
numerous site-specific plant trip reports.
and responses to EPA section 3007
information requests. Three of these four
solvents had been used in the proposal
analysis: methylene chloride, at the
lower end of the solvent boiling point
range (!.&. more difficult to condense),
was added to provide a broader range of
volatilities for the condenser analysis. A
total of 40 WSTF model unit cases
consisting of combinations of organic
emission rates, concentrations, and
exhaust gas flows representing the wide
range of operating conditions found at
WSTF were included in the condenser
analysis.
   The results of the condenser analysis
indicate that condensers cannot
universally achieve  a 95-percent
emission reduction when applied  to
WSTF process vents. With regard to
increasing organic removal efficiency by
increasing condenser area or changing
the condenser refrigerant, the analysis
shows that there are technical limits on
condenser efficiency that go beyond the
condenser design and operating
parameters. Specifically, the physical
properties of the solvents being
condensed and the solvent
concentration in the gas stream affect
condenser efficiency. In some situations.
 the partial pressure of the organic
constituent in the vapor phase was too
low to support a liquid phase
thermodynamically regardless of the
refrigerant used or condensation area:
as a result no appreciable condensation
could occur. Therefore, the analysis
shows that condensers are not
universally applicable to the control of
WSTF process vents. However, the
facility process vent emission reduction
requirements are not based solely on the
use of condensers; carbon adsorption
and incinerators/flares are capable of
attaining a 95-percent control efficiency
for all WSTF organics, including cases
where condensation is not feasible. In
summary, although condensers may not
by themselves achieve a 95-percent
emission reduction at all process vents.
condensers do provide a practical and
economic means of reducing process
vent emissions, and these devices will
likely be the initial choice of control
technology for cases where
condensation is feasible.

Feasibility of Carbon Adsorbers

   Comment: Several commenters
objected to the-identification of carbon
adsorption as a control technique
because of technical and safety
concerns related to the application of
carbon adsorbers to low organic
concentration and multicomponent
solvent streams. However, one
commenter did cite authorities that
support a 98-percent removal for this
type of control device.
   Response! First it should be noted that
carbon adsorption is one of several
control technologies that could be used
to attain the standards. Other
technologies include condensers, flares.
incinerators, and any other device that
the owner or operator can show will
meet the standards.
   Regarding carbon adsorption
applications. EPA acknowledges that
safety is an important consideration, but
concludes that any safety problems can
be avoided through proper design and
sorbent selection. Multicomponent
systems potentially can lead to
excessive heat buildup (hot spots).
particularly in large carbon beds with
low flow rates, which in turn can lead to
fire and explosion hazards.
Multicomponent vapor streams can also
lead to reduced removal efficiencies for
particular components. However, these
technical and efficiency problems can
be overcome through proper design.
operation, and maintenance.
   In general, coal-based carbons have
fewer heat'generation problems than do
wood-based carbons, and small
diameter beds promote good heat
transfer. The bed must be designed with

-------
            Federal Register / VoL 55. No.  120 / Thursday, June 21. 1990  /  Rules and Regulations       25477
consideration for the least heat
adsorbent (or fastest) component in the
mix. as well as the component
concentrations and overall flow rate.
Other considerations include component
interaction, gas stream relative
humidity, and close monitoring of the
bed effluent for breakthrough.
  In response to these comments, the
EPA examined carbon adsorption
design, operation, and performance data
from a number of plants in a wide
variety of industries; in addition, the
EPA has reexamined. with the help of
carbon manufacturers and custom
carbon adsorption equipment designers.
the elements that affect carbon
adsorption efficiency. This analysis has
reinforced EPA's original conclusion
that a well-designed, -operated, and -
maintained adsorption system can
achieve a 93-percent control efficiency
for all organic* under a wide variety of
stream conditions over both short-term
and long-term averaging periods. The
major factors affecting performance of
an adsorption unit are temperature.
humidity, organic* concentration.
volumetric flow rate "channelling"
(nonunifonn flow through the carbon
bed}, regeneration practices, and
changes in the relative concentrations of
the organic* admitted to the adsorption
system. The WSTF/TSDF process vent
stream characteristics an typically well
within design limits in terms of gas
temperature, pressure, and velocity for
carbon adsorbers. For example, the bed
adsorption rate decreases sharply when
gas temperatures are above 38 *C (100
"FJ; a review of plant field data showed
no high-temperature streams in WSTF/
TSDF process vents. If high-temperature
gas streams era encountered, the gas
stream can be cooled prior to entering
the carbon bed. Also, gas velocity
entering the carbon bed should be low
to allow time for adsorption to take
place. The WSTF/TSDF stream flows
are typically quite low and, as a result,
bed depth should not be excessive.
   Therefore. EPA concluded that, for
WSTF/TSDF process vent streams.
carbon adsorption can reasonably be
expected to achieve a 95-percent control
efficiency provided the adsorber is
supplied with an adequate quantity of
high-quality activated carbon, the gas
strea'm  receives appropriate
conditioning (e.g~ cooling or filtering)
before entering the carbon bed. and the
carbon beds are regenerated or replaced
before breakthrough. The data gathered
in the EPA carbon adsorption
performance study do not support a
higher control efficiency (I.e.. 98 percent
as opposed to 95 percent) for carbon
adsorption unite applied to WSTF/TSDF
process vents on an industrywide basis.
particularly in light of the design
considerations related to controlling
multicomponent vent streams when the
organic mix is subject to frequent
change.
  When carbon adsorption is used to
remove organics from a gas stream, the
carbon must periodically be replaced or
regenerated when the capacity of the
carbon to adsorb- organics is reached.
When either regeneration or removal of
carbon takes place, there is an
opportunity for organics to be released
to the atmosphere unless the carbon
removal or regeneration is carried out •
under controlled conditions. There
would be no environmental benefit in
removing organics from an exhaust gas
stream using adsorption onto activated
carbon if the organics are subsequently
released to the atmosphere during
desorpUon or during carbon disposal
The EPA therefore expects that owners
or operators of TSDF using carbon
adsorption systems to control organic
emissions take steps to ensure that
proper emission control of regenerated
or disposed carbon occurs. For on-sits
regenerable carbon adsorption systems.
the owner or operator must account for
the emission control of the desorption
and/or disposal process in the control
efficiency determination. In the case of
off-site regeneration or disposal the
owner or operator should supply a
certification, to be placed in the
operating file of the TSDF. that all
carbon removed from a carbon
adsorption system used to comply with
subparta AA and BB is either (1)
regenerated or reactivated by a process
that prevents the release of organics to
the atmosphere. (Note: The EPA
interprets "prevents" as used in this
paragraph to include .the application of
effective control devices such as those
required by these rules) or (2)
incinerated in a device that meets the
performance standards of subpart 0.
Feasibility of Using Controls in Series
   Comment: One commenter stated that
EPA should evaluate carbon adsorption
in series with a condenser because
condensers work best with concentrated
streams and carbon adsorbers with low
concentration streams. The two systems
together could yield an overall
efficiency of 99 percent, even if each
unit were only 90-percent effective.
   Response: As discussed in section
VILE, the MIR from process vents after
control (i.e.. 4X10"1) is within the range
of what has been considered acceptable
under RCRA. Consequently, no further
control for process vents was
considered necessary at this time.
Nonetheless, in response to these
comments,, EPA evaluated the feasibility
of using a carbon adsorber in series with
a eondensw to control WSTF/TSDF
process vent emissions. The objective of
the analysis was to determine if the
combination of control devices would
yield an overall control efficiency
greater than the 95 percent that is
achiavablo using a single device. For
example, if a 99-percent overall control
efficiency Is desired and it is assumed
that the carbon adsorber is capable of
achieving a 95-percent control efficiency
in all casei (a reasonable assumption
for a properly designed, operated, and
maintained system), then a minimum
efficiency of 80 percent would be
required for the condenser followed in
series by the 95-percent efficient carbon
bed. Howitver. in the EPA condenser
analysis conducted for the WSTF model
unit cases,,.an 80-percent control  was not
achieved i'or IB of the 40 cases
examined (See section 7.7 of the BID.)
In 7 of the 40 cases, the analysis showed
that no appreciable condensation would
occur because of low solvent
concentration and/or the high volatility
of some solvents. Because the model
unit cases are considered representative
of current WSTF operations. EPA does
not believe that die use of carbon
adsorption and condensation in series to
achieve a 99-percent control is a
technically feasible control option on an
industrywide basis. Such control
strategies win be considered further for
Phase ffl standards for individual
facilities, if necessary, should additional
analyses reveal unexpectedly high risks
in specific: situations.
Feasibility of Flares

  Comment: Several commenters
objected to the use of flares at recycling
facilities because  of technical and safety
concerns. A few commenters cite the
requirement of a constant emission
source lot efficient flare operation, and
other commenters contend that flares
are not suitable on intermittent sources
or the low-level emissions typical of
recycling operations. With regard to
safety, flares present the danger of
explosion, especially if they
malfunction: according to one
commentor. many State laws prohibit
the use of flares at recycling facilities.
  Response: Available information on
WSTF operations indicates that
condensers, carbon adsorbers, and
incinerators are the most widely used
control technologies: therefore, they are
expected to be the technologies of
choice to reduce organic emissions at
WSTF. The final technical analyses
show that a 95-percent control efficiency
can be achieved with secondary

-------
25478     Federal Register / VoL 55.  No. 320 / Thursday. June 21. J990  /  Rules and Regulations
condensers for many WSTF process
vents or with carbon adsorbers in cases
where secondary condensers are not
feasible. Flares are not required
controls, but are an available option for
facilities so equipped provided they
meet the criteria established in the final
rules. Where State laws prohibit the use
of flares at recycling facilities, other
technologies are available.
  With regard to the safety of flares,   •
EPA has determined that the use of
flares to combust organic emissions
from TSDF process vents would not
create safety problems if engineering
precautions such as those used in the
SOCMI are taken in the design and
operation of the system. The following
are typical engineering precautions.
First the flare should not be located in
such proximity to a process unit being
vented that ignition of vapors is « threat
to safety. In the analysis conducted for
this standard at proposal, it was
assumed that the flare would be located
as far as 122 meters from the process
unit Second, controls such as a fluid  •
seal or flame arrester are available that
would prevent flashback. These safety
precautions were considered in EPA's
analysis for the proposed rule. Finally,
the use of a purge gas, such as nitrogen.
plant fuel gas. or natural gas and/or the
careful control of total volumetric flow
to the flan would prevent flashback in
the flare stack caused by low off-gas
flow.

Feasibility of LDAR Program

  Comment: One eommenter opposed
the fugitive standards as proposed
because they failed to require the proper
technology to control releases from
pumps and valves. The commenter
claimed that the standards should
require a 100-percent control, based on
 what available technology (e.g., sealed
 bellows valves, sealless pumps, or dual
 mechanical seals for pumps) can
 achieve. According to the commenter,
 superior emission controls cannot be
 rejected under RCRA-solely on the basis
 of cost effectiveness.
   Response: Control technologies for
 fugitive emissions from equipment leaks,
 as required by the proposed standards,
 include the use of control equipment
 inspection of process equipment and
 repair programs to limit or reduce
 emissions from leaking equipment that
 handle streams with total organic
 concentrations of greater than 10
 percent These control technologies have
 been studied and evaluated extensively
 by EPA for equipment containing fluids
 with 10 percent or more prganics and
 are similar to those required by national
 emission standards for chemical.
petrochemical and refining facilities
under the CAA.
  A monthly LDAR program was
proposed for WSTF/TSDF pumps and
valves. Based on results of the EPA's
LDAR model, once a monthly monitoring
plan is la place, emission reductions of
73 percent and 59 percent can be
expected for valves in gas and light
liquid service, respectively, and a 61-
percent reduction hi emissions can be
achieved for pumps in light-liquid
service. For compressors, the use of
mechanical seals .with barrier fluid
systems and control of degassing vents
(95 percent) an required, although
compressors an not expected to be
commonly used at WSTF/TSDF. The
usa of control equipment (rupture disc
systems or closed-vent systems to flares
or incinerators) is the technical basis for
control of pressure relief devices. Closed
purge sampling is  the required control
for sampling connection systems and is
the most stringent feasible control. For
open-ended valves or Sines the use of
caps, plugs, or any other equipment that
will close the open end is required: these
are the most stringent controls possible.
Flanges and pressure nlief devices in
liquid service an  excluded from the
routine LDAR requirements but must be
monitored if leaks an indicated. For
operations such as those expected at
WSTF/TSDF, total reductions in fugitive
•emissions from equipment leaks of
almost 75 percent an estimated for the
entin program.
   The EPA agrees with the commenter
that the level of control required by the
LDAR program does not result in the
highest level of control that could be
achieved for fugitive emissions from
pumps and valves in certain
applications. In some cases, there an
.more stringent technologically  feasible
controls. For example, leakless
 equipment for valves, such as
 diaphragm and sealed bellows valves.
 when usable, eliminates the seals that
 allow fugitive emissions: thus, control
 efficiencies in such cases are virtually
 100 percent as long as the valve does not
 fail In appropriate circumstances,
 pumps can be controlled by dual
 mechanical seals that would capture
 nearly all fugitive emissions. An overall
 control efficiency of 95 percent could be
 achieved with dual mechanical seals
 based on venting of the degassing
 reservoir to a control device.
   With regard to leakless valves, the
 applicability of these types of valves is
 limited for TSDF, as noted by EPA in the
 proposal preamble. The design problems
 associated with diaphragm valves are
 the temperature and pressun limitations
 of the elastomer used for the diaphragm.
It has been found that both temperature
extremes and process liquids tend to
damage or destroy the diaphragm in the
valve. Also, operating pressure
constraints will limit the application of
diaphragm valves to low-pressure
operations such as pumping and product
storage facilities.
  Then an two main disadvantages to
sealed bellows valves. First they are,
for the most part only available
commercially in configurations that an
used for on/off valves rather than for
flow control As a result they cannot be
used in all situations. Second, the main
concern associated with this type of
valve is the uncertainty of the life of the
bellows seal. The metal bellows an
subject to corrosion and fatigue under
seven operating conditions.
  Over 150 types of industries an .
included in the TSDF community, and
EPA does not believe that leakless
valves can be used in an
environmentally sound manner on the  .
wide variety of operating conditions and
chemical constituents found nationwide
hi TSDF waste streams, many of which
are highly corrosive. Corrosivity is
influenced by temperature and such
factors as the concentration of corrosive
constituents and the presence of
inhibiting or accelerating agents.
Corrosion rates can be difficult to
predict accurately; underestimating
corrosion can lead to premature  and
catastrophic failures; Even small
amounts (trace quantities) of corrosives
in the stream can cause corrosion
problems for sealed bellows valves;
 these tend to aggressively attack the
 metal bellows at crevices and cracks
 (including welds) to promote rapid
 corrosion. Sealed bellows valves
 particularly an subject to corrosion
 because the bellows is an extremely thin
 metallic membrane.
   At proposal, it was estimated that 20
 percent of all plants process
 halogenated compounds, which tend to
 be highly corrosive. The subsequently
 obtained 1988 Screener Survey data
 show that of the TSDF indicating
 solvent recovery operations, at least 33
 percent of the total handle halogenated
 organic*. Furthermore, of the 12 major
 chemicals determined from site-specific
, data to be commonly occurring in waste
 solvent streams, all of the chemicals
 determined to be carcinogenic an
 halogenated (i.e.. methylene chloride,
 chloroform, and carbon tetrachloride).
 Similarly, of the 52 constituents  in TSDF
 waste streams contributing to the
 emission-weighted unit risk factor.
 about 50 percent are halogenated and
. account for the vast majority of the
 estimated nationwide emissions of

-------
            Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 120  /  Thursday, June 21.  19SO / Rules and Regulations      25479
carcinogen*. Thus. TSDF *ra known to
routinely handle and treat chemicals
that may destroy sealed bellows and
diaphragm valves.
  The durability of metal bellows la
highly questionable if the valve is
operated frequently; diaphragm and
bellows valves are not recommended in
the technical literature for general
service. The EPA does not believe that
the application of sealed bellows and
diaphragm valves is technologically
feasible for all TSDF valve conditions or
that their application would lead to a
significant reduction in emissions and
health risks. Valve sins, configurations,
operating temperatures and pressures.
and service requirements are some of
the areas in which diaphragm, pinch.
and sealed bellows valves have
limitations diet restrict service. With
regard to the emission reductions
achieved by seeled bellows, diaphragm.
and pinch valve technologies, these
valves are not totally leakless. The
technologies do eliminate the
conventional seals that allow leaks from
around the valve stem: however, these
valves do fail in service from a variety ,
of causes and. when failure occurs.
these valves can have significant
leakage. This is because these valves
generally are not backed up with
conventional stem seels or packing. The
EPA currently is reevaluating the control
efficiencies assigned to these
technologies. Because these leakless
types of equipment are limited in their
applicability and in their potential for
reducing health risks, EPA did not
consider their use es an applicable
control alternative at this time for
nationwide TSDF standards. The EPA
has requested, in a separate Federal
Register notice (54 FR 30220. July 19.
1968), additional information on the
applicability and use of leakless valves
at TSDF.
  For pumps, the most effective controls
that are technologically feasible (e.g*
dual seals) in some cases also were not
selected as the basis for equipment leak
standards. The impact analysts
Indicates that including LOAR results in
less emission and risk reduction then
does including equipment requirements
for pumps. However, the difference in
the emission and health risk reductions
attributable to implementing a monthly
LDAR program rather than the more
stringent equipment standards for
pumps appears to be small in
comparison to the results of the overall
standards (about 5 percent). The overall
standards. Including a LDAR program
for pumps and valves, would achieve an
expected emission reduction for TSDF
equipment leaks of about 19.000 Mg/yr
(21.000 ton/yr). The estimated MIR from
equipment leak emissions would be
reduced to lxlO"s from SX10'S based
on the TSDF equipment leak emission-
weighted unit risk factor; cancer
incidence would be reduced to 0.32
case/yr from 1.1 cases/yr. In
comparison, including dual seals for
pumps could achieve an additional
fugitive emission reduction of about
1,200 Mg/yr (1320 ton/yr) and an
additional incidence reduction of about
OOO case/yr. The MIR. with leakless
controls for pumps, at 1X10"' would
be unchanged from that achieved by the
LDAR program.
  Given the small magnitude and the  .
imprecise nature of the estimated
emission and risk reductions'associated
with including dual seals for pumps in
the overall standard. EPA considers the
two control alternatives (i.e., LDAR and
dual seals) as providing essentially the
same level of protection. The data and
models on which the risk estimates are
based ere not precise enough to quantify
risk meaningfully to a more exact level
The data and models include
uncertainties from the emission
estimates, the air dispersion modeling,
and the risk assessment that involves
unit risk factor, facility location. "
population, and meteorologic
uncertainties (see section VILE).
  The EPA considered these factors
when deciding whether to require TSDF"
to install dual seals on pumps to control
air emissions rather than to rely on
monthly LDAR. Considering the limited
applicability of additional equipment
controls end the low potential for
additional reductions in health risks of
applying equipment controls for valves
at TSDF and the estimated emissions
and risk reductions if leakless
equipment for pumps were required.
EPA is not requiring leakless equipment
at this time.
  In Phase HL EPA will further examine
the feasibility and impacts of applying
additional control technology  beyond
the level required by today's standards.
For example, dual mechanical seals may
be an appropriate emission control
method when applied selectively to
wastes with high concentrations of .toxic
chemicals. In such applications, the
reduction in toxic emissions (and
consequently the reduction in residual
risk) may be significant for select
situations. A summary of the health
impacts is presented in section VILE of
this preamble.
D. Impact Analyses Methodologies
Environmental Impacts Analysis
  Comment: Numerous commenters
criticized the environmental impact.
  estimates far the proposed standards
  because (1] no actual data from
  operating futilities were used: (2)
  emission estimates were not supported
  by any technical data base:  and (3) the
  waste constituents used in the analyses
  were not representative of waste solvent
  recycling operations and TSDF
  operations in general. Commenters also
  stated that the model plant solvent
  reclamation rates (throughputs], vent
 . flow rates, and emission rates used at
  proposal were not representative of the
  industry.
    Response: In response to these
 "comments. EPA reviewed all available
  site-specific data on WSTF and TSDF.
  data submitted by commenters. and
  information generated through RCRA
  section 3007 questionnaires mailed to a
  limited number of small and large
  facilities. Based on all this information.
  EPA has revised both the TSDF model
  units and emission factors that serve as
  the bases for the impacts analyses.
    With regard to the model unit
  revisions, the industry profile developed
  by EPA includes a frequency
  distribution of the waste volumes
  processed during 1985. Of the 450
  facilities in the Screener Survey
  reporting solvent recovery by operations
  such as batch distillation, fraciionation,
  or steam stripping that involved some
  form of hazardous waste. 365 reported  .
  the total quantity of waste recycled in
  1985. The median facility throughput
  was slightly more than 189.000 L/yr
  (50.000 gal/yr); the mean throughput was
  about 43X10* L/yr (1.2X10* gal/yr).
  Based on the industry profile, three sizes
  of model units (small, medium, and
  large] were defined to facilitate the post-
  proposal analyses for control costs.
  emission reductions, health risks, and
  economic impacts.
    The organic emission rates also were
•  revised for the modal units based on
  emission source  testing conducted for
  EPA. The tost data show that organic
  emission rates for primary condensers
  varied from a few hundredths of a
  kilogram (pound) to nearly 4.5 kg/h (10
  Ib/h), with six of the nine  measurements
  less than 0.45 kg/h (1 Ib/h). The two
  secondary condensers tested showed
  emission rates of 0.9 and 2.3 kg/h (2 and
  5 Ib/h), respectively.
    The flow rate of 28 standard cubic feet
  per minute (scfrn) used at proposal was
  found not to be generally valid for
  application to waste solvent recyclers.
  The flow rates specified for  the revised
  model unit!). 3.9.0.8. and 0.3 L/s.
  equivalent to 8.3,1.2. and 0.8 scfm for
  the large, medium, and small model
  units, respectively, are based on a
 •review of site-specific data from field

-------
25430
Federal Register /  VoL  55, No. 120 / Thursday. June gU.MBO  /  Rules and Regulations
tests documented in site visit reports.
The largo and medium TSDF process
vent unit flow rates also agree with
those documented in the SOCMI
Distillation NSPS BID (see Docket No.
F-SG-AESP, item S0008) as
characterizing distillation units with low
overhead gas flows. The revised impact
analyses are based on actual data from
the industry and provide a reasonable
characterization of the industry's
operations and environmental impacts.
   The constituents selected for the.
analysis of control technologies an
considered to be representative of the
 industry, based on a review of relevant
 information and literature, including (1)
 a survey of member companies
 submitted by NASR. (2) 23 site-specific
 plant visit reports, (3) responses to the
 EPA section 3007 Questionnaires from 6
 small and 11 large faculties (two
 respondents provided information for 4
 facilities each). (4) the Industrial Studies
 Data Base (ISDB) and (5) a data base
 created by the Illinois EPA. The NASR
 survey provided information on the
 types of solvents most frequently
 recycled at member facilities: the site-
 specific information and EPA survey
 responses included waste composition
 data. The ISDB is a compilation of data
 from ongoing, in-depth surveys by EPA'a
 Office of Solid Waste (OSWJ on
 designated industries that are major
 waste generators. The Illinois EPA data
 base contains information from about
 35.000 permit applications. Generators
 oust submit one application for each
 hazardous and special nonhazardous
 waste stream managed in the State of
 Illinois. Each of these data bases
 contains waste stream characterization
 data for numerous generic spent solvent
 waste streams (EPA Hazardous Wastes
 F001-F005) and D001 wastes (ignitable).
 which information from the Screener
 Survey indicates also are recycled.
    The three constituents used for the
 model facilities in the proposal analysis
 were toluene (with a boiling point (bp)
 of 110 °Cl MEK (bp of 79 °C). and TCE
 (bp of 74 *C). Methylene chloride (bp of
 40 *C) was added to the list of
 constituents evaluated in the final
 analysis to provide an even greater
 range of solvent volatilities for the
 analysis. Therefore, the technical
  feasibility and costs of applying the
 recommended control  techniques were
  evaluated for constituents representing
  the range of characteristics and
  volatilities of commonly recycled
  solvents at TSDF.
    Comment: Commenters also stated
  that it is inappropriate to apply the
,  fugitive emission factors to TSDF that
  were developed to estimate leaks from a
                           typical hydrocarbon plant because they
                           do not relate to the design, operating
                           conditions, maintenance practices, or
                           controls associated with processing of
                           waste solvents and other toxic wastes.
                           According to the commenters, the
                           emission factors and model units also
                           need adjustment to account for volatility
                           because not accounting for differences
                           hi vapor pressure overestimates risk as
                           well as emissions and underestimates
                           costs for controls.
                          ,   Response; The EPA disagrees; the
                           data used in establishing the fugitive
                           emission standards for TSDF are based
                           on emission and process data collected
                           at a variety of petroleum refinery and
                           SOCMI operating units. The EPA
                           Industrial Environmental Research
                           Laboratory fffiRL) coordinated a study
                           to develop information on fugitive
                           emissions in the SOCML A total of 24
                           chemical'process units were tested;
                           these data covered thousands of
                           screened sources (pumps, valves.
                           flanges, etc.) and included units ,
                           handling such chemicals as acetone,
                           phenol MEK. ethylene dichloride. TCE,
                          . trichloroethylene, and
                           perchloroethylene.
                             Refinery studies on fugitives also
                           include tests on units handling both
                           toluene and xylene. These same
                           chemicals are included in those listed by
                           the NASR as solvents commonly
                           recycled by member facilities and an
                           found in other sources of waste solvent
                           constituent information that are
                           described in the BID. The chemicals
                           commonly recycled at TSDF an those
                           produced in SOCMI operating units and
                           handled in petroleum refineries, and the
                           equipment involved in these industries
                           is typically the same (pumps, valves,
                           etc.]. Therefore, it is reasonable to
                           conclude that the emissions associated
                           with these chemicals and equipment an
                           similar and to expect similar emission
                           control performance and efficiencies at
                           hazardous waste management units.
                              The EPA agrees that the equipment
                           leak standards should take component
                            volatility into consideration. Previous
                            EPA and industry studies have shown
                            that the volatility of stream components.
                            as a process variable, does correlate
                            with fugitive emission and leak rates.
                            An analysis of the vapor pressures  and
                            emission rates has shown that
                            substances with vapor pressures of O3
                            kPa or higher had significantly higher
                            emission and leak rates than did those
                            with lower vapor pressures (EPA—150/3-
                            82-010). This result led to the separation
                            of equipment component emissions by
                            service: gas/vapor, light liquid, and
                            heavy liquid. These classifications have
                            been used in most CAA fugitive
emission standards to effectively direct
the major effort toward equipment most
likely to leak. Therefore the rules have
been revised to account for volatility.
For example, pumps and valves in
heavy-liquid service must be monitored
only if evidence of a potential leak is
found by visual, audible, olfactory, or
any other detection method. The
determination of light- and heavy-liquid
service is based on the vapor pressure
of the components in the stream (less
than 0.3 kPa at 20 *C defines a heavy
liquid).
"  All of the constituents used in the
model unit analysis, representing the
ranges of characteristics of commonly
recycled solvents, are light liquids to
which the benzene and SOCMI fugitive
emission factors are applicable.
Therefore, the revised risk and cost
analyses for WSTF equipment leak
fugitive emissions an based on the
fugitive emission factors used hi the
proposal analysis. The analyses of risk
and cost impacts on TSDF with affected •
fugitive emission  sources also wen
revised after proposal to account for the
differences in light and heavy liquids.

Health Risk Impacts Analysis
   Comment: Several commenters
objected to the limited support provided
for selection and derivation of the unit
risk factors used in the analysis of
cancer risks and contend that the risk
analysis and unit risk factors are not
representative of the wide variety of
wastes handled. A few of the
 commenters stated that the upper-bound
 risk factor was too high, and others
 stated it was too  low.
   Response: the selection of the range
 of unit risk factors (i.e- 2x10"* and
 2xlO~*Oig/m3r* used at proposal to
 estimate the cancer risk resulting from
 TSDF emissions was based on an
 analysis of the organic chemicals
 associated with TSDF operations. This
 analysis found that carbon tetrachlcride
 is the organic chemical with the most
 individual impact vis-a-vis emissions
 and risk. Thus, it was used as the upper
 bound on the range of unit risk factors
 used to calculate health impacts (i.e.,
 cancer risk) at proposal. However, this
 range of unit risk factors was not used in
 the final analysis.
   Based on public comments, EPA
 revised its health risk impacts analysis.
 To estimate the cancer potency of TSDF
 air emissions in the revised analysis, an
 emission-weighted composite unit
 cancer risk estimate approach was used
 by EPA to address the problem of
 dealing with the large number of toxic
 chemicals that are present at many
 TSDF. Use of the emission-weighted

-------
                 Federal Register / VoL 55, No. 12O / Thursday. June 21. 1980 / Rules and Regulations      25481
     composite factor rather man individual
     component aait cancer risk factors
     *implifl» th* risk assessment so that
     calculations da *ot need to b*
     perfooBed for each chemical emitted.
«,    Tb*coa»j>o4He unit cancer risk factor is
     combined with estimate* of ambient
     coocatomtioB* of total organic* and
     population exposure t* estimate risk da*
     ton»a«owid*TSDF emission*. SB
     calculating the emission-weighted;
     average wail risk factor, th* emission
     multiplied by the DDK cancer risk factor
     for that compound: then the (*mi«sion-
     wvighfctd avenge i» computed by
     Morning these product* and dividing
     th* mm by th* total nationwide TSDF
     •miitka value, which include* both
     carcinogenic and noncMriiwgenlc
     organic aotisaiGQ*. Using thi* tjrp* of -•
     average, would give the same results a*
     calculating th* risk foff c^ch *r^>m^%^
     Involved. However. only thea*
     carcinogen* fog wnkk- unit risk factor*
     an attallahl* went included in th*
     analytic of canctt risk under thi*
     approach.              • _
       ThradaJi at* of In* EPA** TSDF Watt*
     Qmraciematlon P*t* H»i* (WODB)
     (dbca*»*e>ia appendix D of th* BO))
     and • computerized model dcnfaped far
     »mly*i* of tJ»reg»lato«y options far
     TSEU? erabaion sowcss, EPA. estneetcd'
    , total nation wide TSDF ofjfsjjjc
     e*d*ciaB* by specific teat* caaxtitaeat.
     Thirty-*!** ch««rcala w«pr itknttfiiri ut
    •TSOP ocipoie ak poUtttaat
     k«ks a4 all tjp«i of TSDF
     taanagoMmt ptoctaaca. Unit etaccr rak
     beta** let tbci* eoatiitaests went tfa«a
     •vvrtftd basad OB beth iodividBai
     coa»tituaat and total nattoawJd* TSDP
     aquipmaat kak cry nif. tmiaaioe* to
     co«ipo«iU nan TSDF eaac*i ami risk
     factoc.
       HtusAGoa coBatiBsc&ts with* higiiaT'
     onR risk &cten than carbos
     t«trmchlorid« (Including aoytonitaile and
     «4yl«»« oxide) wttcinciaoadinth*
     calculation of the ambatoo-weignted
     mat aoc«rsi«k factor for TSDF
     equipOMfltkaks. This emissioa-
     weishtrd unit risk factor vahwwas
     detanainid to b*45xi(r • Tpg/nt^-'
     and wa» uaed to dttcnninc th* bcxith-
     rtlaled iapacta aaaocialcd with TSOF
     eo^jptacnt leak (fugitive} eminiona
     ratbac tbaa th* rang* of the unit cancer
     risk factors used at proposal that
     reptesenttd a limited number of
     chemical compound* •netted' at WSTE.
     A BOM datailad discaMioo of th*
     hazardous wast* TSDF unit risk factor
     dettnainaUoB i» contained ia append^
     Bofth»BHX
  Charmeterization of WSTF waste
s&eama in th* ft*g^ anaJysis indic&f es
that the constituents used at propoeai ia
the risk analysis ore appropriate asd
representative of th* waste solvent .
recyelmg industry. However, insufficient
nationwide data oa WSTF {a subset of
the TSDF indnatr?} wast* stress
chemical constituent quantities asd
concentration* went available to
develop a& effiissiOB*weignted>
arithmetic mean cancer unit risk factor
for WSTF process vents. While
information o» *, sataU number of
process vest stream* was> available for
th* revised analysis, tha date wen too
limited to support thai conch crfnn that
tiic &ux eUMx Qa^fcf^i^ffy o£ ^^ H *^ i^jtfn gjr
found wen cepnsesiative of the entire
{aduatry.
  Tha WSTF wast* streass and their
associated pncesc vent emission* wer*
found to contain a variety of chemical
coiutinieatb Those csastitueni* with  .
established risk fasJozs were, tit aB
ccse* foe- th* planS-«p«cific data, ffes>
halocenated organks; those hafcgesiatad
oxga&ic coasSttBent caaceetration*
tended to b* quits tarn, genesailjr less
than 1 percent of organic* emitEei
Therefore. EPA fod^dv based on th*
limited data UTaila bin, feat ase of •
midrangs unit risk facSor •vioold b*
sppcopfiafB ia estraotting nationwide
health tepaeU aMacistsd with WSTF
process rent*. Th* uns8 eanear risk
factor assmaed at proposal. 2XHT*
m^~ *e wa* th* geometric. laidnmg*
betwecK the .highest and lowest tout risk
factor far th* canattteent* foand hi th*
WSTP process; treat stream*. Th*
campoeibB, mmt cancer risk factor
caicalated fog A* equipment laak
emissiaae agsee* fewsrably with th*
procesft vest atsBoer osed si ptDposiL
Beeatu* it is aot uaceaconabls to
assum* « aimiiar mix of cnnstitnants ia
process vent* a* in equipment teaks.
and becata* available data da aot
suggest otherwise; for the purpose of
estimating impacts* th* sam* unit 'yiM^r
risk factor was esed far both process
vents and equipinent leaks. 4JX1QT*
  Caauntnt Several commenters also
stated that the failure to addres* th*
weight of evidence for carekKigenidly is
inconsistent with EPA's risk assnsnynt
goideUnea and th* principle* for
assassins cancer risk,
  flespoasar Early bs th* ntlemakmg for
TSDF. EPA rooked at the costribation to-
total estimated risk (annual incidence)
by weight of evidence. At that tun*. "C*
carcinogen* accoanted for about 5
percent of th* total risk, and "A"
carcinogens about 10 percent. Thus, for
all practical purposes, calculating
 separata risk estimates for chemicals in
 each weight of evidence category adds
 little to Che risk assessment. Moreover.
 EPA's Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk
 Assessnsen? (53 FR 33992} and
 Gnidefews for die Health Risk
 Assessniefie of Chemical Matures- (51
 FR 34824} do not describe a means to
 quantitatively Incorporate weight of
 evidence arto risk assessments. Thus.
 there is no* inconsistency between the
 risk asstasment guidelines and the
 presentation of health risk hi this
' ml croaking;
   Comment: Other commenters, believed
 that the risk assessment for the
 proposed standards was flawed because
 EPA did not consider noncancer health
 effects and because targe uncertainties
 are introduced when the additive or
 synergistfc effects of carcinogens and  .
 the interindividual variability in
 response are not factored in.
   Response: The EPA does recognize
 that health effects other than cancer
 may be iissociated with both short-term,
 and! lon{;-tefza humaa exposure to the
 organic ish^ioicals, emitted to. the air at
 WSTF/TCDF.Tha EPA believes.
 however, that a risk assessment based
 on cauotr serves as, the clearest basis
 for evalintiag, the health effects
 associated wife, exposore to sis
 emissiotisfiej&TSDF. A cjuaatitalive
 assessment of the potential nationwide
 noncancer health impacts (e.g..
 developinental. neurological.
 immunologicai and respiratory effects)
 was not conducted due to deficiencies at
 this time: ia th* health data base for,
 these types, of effects.
   Although unable: to numerically
 quantify ocncaaccr health risksv EPA
 did condueS « scseenutg analysis of the
 potential adverse noncancer health
 effect*, associated with short-tens and
 long-ten* exposure to individual waste
 constituents emitted front TSDF. This
 analysis was based OR a comparison of
 relevant health data to the highest short-
 term or Ions-term modeled ambient
 concentrations for chemicals at each of
 two selstfed TSDF. (A detailed
 presentation of the screening analysis is
 contained in the BID. appendix B.)
  Result! of this analysis suggest that
 adverse noncancer health effects are
 unlikely fo be associated with acute or
 chronic inhalation exposure to TSDF
 organfe omissions. It should be noted
 that th* Itealtb data base for many
 chemical's was limited particularly for
 short-tern exposures. The conclusions
 reached In this preliminary analysis
 should frr considered m the context of
 the tmrilntions of the health datar the
 uncertainties associated with th*
 characterization of wastes at the

-------
25482      Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 120 / Thursday. June 21. 199Q / Rules  and Regulations
facilities; and the assumptions used in
estimating emissions, ambient         «
concentrations, and the potential for
human exposure. Additional evaluation
of noncancer health effects may be
undertaken as part of the third phase of
the TSDF regulatory program. To that
effect, in the proposal preamble for the
Phase D TSDF air rules, EPA is
specifically requesting comments from
the public on methodologies and use of
health data for assessing the noncancer
health effects of TSDF organic
emissions. In addition, because there is
a potential for cancer and noncancer
health effects from TSDF chemicals from
indirect pathways such as Ingestion of.
foods contaminated by air toxics that
have deposited in the soil EPA will
evaluate the need to include an indirect
pathway element in the TSDF health
risk analysis in the future.
  The EPA is aware of the uncertainties
inherent in predicting the magnitude and
nature of toxicant interactions between
individual chemicals in chemical
mixtures. In the absence of toxicity data
on the specific mixtures of concern, and
with insufficient quantitative
information oh the potential interaction
among the components (i.e.. additivity,
synergism, or antagonism), the EPA has
assumed additivity to estimate the
earcinogenicity of the mixtures of
concern. This is consistent with  ••,
guidance provided in the 1988 "EPA
Guidelines for the Health Risk
Assessment of Chemical Mixtures" (51
FR 34014).
  The EPA also recognizes that there
are uncertainties associated with the
variability of individual human
responses following exposures to
toxicants. As stated in the 1988 "EPA
Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk
Assessment" (51 FR 33992) human
populations are variable with respect to
genetic constitution, diet, occupational
and home environment, activity
patterns, and other cultural factors.
Because of insufficient data, however.
the EPA is unable to determine the
potential impact of these factors on the
•estimates of risk associated with
exposure to carcinogens emitted from
TSDF.

Cost Impacts Analysis
  Comment: Various commenters
questioned the cost estimates used in
the analysis for carbon adsorbers and
condensers as well as the nationwide
recovery credits for WSTF and TSDF.
Commenters contend that the costs for
carbon adsorbers estimated at proposal
are low because a device is needed for
each vent if manifolding is not practiced
aa a result of (1) the potential for cross-
contamination of new or recycled
materials and (2) additional Incurred
costs when the carbon is regenerated or
disposed of.
  Response: In response to these
comments EPA evaluated controls for 40
model unit cases representing ranges
and combinations of solvent physical
properties, total flow rates, and organic
concentrations in the vent stream. Both
carbon canisters and fixed-bed
regenerable carbon systems were coated
for process vent streams where
condensers would not achieve a 95-
percent reduction because of stream
conditions. The analysis showed that
for a stream with an emission rate
greater than 0.45 kg/h (l Ib/h), a carbon
bed can achieve the same emission
reduction at lower cost than can a
carbon canister. Thus, there-is a level of
emissions at which the facility owner or
operator for economic reasons will
switch from the use of replaceable
carbon canisters to the use of a fixed-
bed regenerable carbon adsorption
system. The capital costs (1986 $) of the
fixed-bed regenerable carbon systems
ranged from $97,300 up to $202.000, and
annual operating costs ranged from
$40400 to $43,500 (from $33,100 to
843,100 when a recovery credit is
included). The capital cost (1986 S) of a
carbon canister was $1,050. and annual
operating costs ranged from $7,890 to
$24.800 (carbon canisters an not
regenerated on site and a recovery
credit is not included). The fixed-bed,
regenerable carbon system operating
costs include regeneration/disposal of
spent carbon: carbon canister operating
costs include carbon replacement and
disposal Thus, these costs were used in
conducting the final impact analyses.
  With regard to the requirement of a
control device for each vent, EPA
acknowledges that there are instances
where vent manifolding is not allowed
because of potential product
contamination. However the product
has already been recovered from the
process prior to exhaust gases passing
to the vents, which are sources of
organic emissions to the atmosphere;
therefore, manifolding of the vent
streams should not lead to a product
contamination problem.
  In the absence of the site-specific
information needed to determine control
device requirements, for the purposes of
estimating cost impacts, it was assumed
in the revised analysis that one control
device would be needed per WSTF.
Although this assumption may
underestimate the control cost for a
facility that chooses to install carbon
adsorbers on more than one vent, it is
potentially a very small underestimate
because the total annual cost of a
carbon canister, for example, is
comprised almost totally of annual
operating costs, which are directly
proportional to the emissions removed,
Thus the potential underestimate in total
annual cost resulting from assuming one
carbon adsorber per facility is not
significant Furthermore, the addition of
the process vent emission limit to the
rules based on the total facility emission
rate lessens ihe likelihood that a facility
will need to control multiple process
vents to attain the allowable emission
rate of 1.4 kg/h (3 ib/h) and 2.8 Mg/yr
(3.1 ton/yr).
  Several commenters also questioned
the nationwide cost credit for secondary
condensers estimated at proposal.
stating that secondary condensers
actually would result in substantial
costs and that the cost estimates do not
account for the more sophisticated .
systems needed in high-humidity areas
to'allow for equipment deicing or water
removal In responsB-to concerns.
regarding the estimated condenser
yields and the requirement for more
sophisticated systems hi high-humidity
areas, EPA utilized a state-of-the-art
computerized process simulator known
as the Advanced System for Process
Engineering (ASPEN) for Devaluating
analyses of condenser design and cost
The ASPEN condenser configuration
included an optional primary water-
cooled heat exchanger to reduce the size
of the refrigeration unit and to remove
water vapor in order to avoid freezing
problems because the condenser
temperature is low enough to cause ice
buildup on heat transfer surfaces.
Therefore, the revised cost estimates
account for water removal.
  The model unit cases represent
industrywide ranges and combinations
of vent stream characteristics. For the
large model unit cases (3.9 L/s total flow
rate), total annual cost with recovery
credit ranged from a credit of $4,980 up
to a net of no cost For the medium
mode! unit cases (O.S L/s total flow
rate), the total annual cost with recovery
credit ranged from $830 up to $2.000. For
the small model unit cases (0.3 L/s total
flow rate), the total annual cost with
recovery credit ranged from $1,770 up to
$2,000. Therefore, in many cases, the use
of secondary condensers does result in
positive costs; these costs, however do
not result in adverse economic impacts.
  The model unit control cost estimates
and the WSTF industry profile were
used to generate nationwide control cost
estimates of implementing the process
vent regulations. The cost estimates are
for 73 large facilities and 167 medium
facilities. The 208 small facilities (less
than 189,000 L (50,000 gal) throughput/y?

-------
            Federal Ragisfer / VoL 5R No,  12O / Thursday. Jane 21. 199O / Rules and Regulations      25433
a* defined In the port-proposal analysis J
would mt have to install additional
contra)*, because theft emissions are- Jess
than tb* facility process vent cutoff.
  Became then was insufficient site-
specific inf ormatioB available to
dfltermin* which facilities could apply
condectatioR rather than, carbon
adsorption. upper- and tower-heend
estimates wets generated. The
appcrbound coat estimate is based on
tb* assumption that fixed-bed.  .
regencsabla caiboa adsorption, system*
would b* reqoiied to control process
vents at all facilities with emissions
above the emission rat* cutoff. Similarly
the lower-bound cost estimate is based
on the assumption that condensers.
could be used to control process vents at
all fadlitias with emissions above the
emission  rate cutoff. The range in
estimates of nationwide total annual
coal £» from a credit of ScaoOO m> ta> *
cost of 3129 nriJlfon. assuming the
installation of on* control device per    "
facility.
  Finally. EPA agree* thai c recovery
credit is not applicable to TSDFCn
gtnerai bceausa most of tha hazardoo*
waste* handled al TSOFare destined
for dbpcaaL In contrast, at * WSTR th*

leaks are. potentially/ recydabla:
solvent*. Thas.no recovery credit was
applied farTSDF other than \VSTP faa
the aaaryaCT far the final equipment leak
standards.
£ Implementation end Compliance
  Comment: Ownmerrters argued that
the teat methods proposed for use hi
determining whether waste streams
contain more than 10 percent total
etfaaks are inappropriate primarily '
beeane* they do not tneasare volatile
organic*. On* comnenter objected to
the us* of weight percent when defining
-in VHAP service- based on Kqrrid
sample analyse*.
  AcspensarThe'EPA recognized thai
each, of the variou* test methods
proposed for determining th* organic
content of waste streams had limitation*
and that none was universally
applicable. The determination; of subpart
BB applicability should not require
precise measurement of the 1O percent
total organic* by weight h> most cases.
The EPA anticipates that most waste
streams will haw an organic content
much lower or much higher than 10
percent. Furthermore, because the
regulation requires control if the organic
content of the waste stream ever equals
or exceeds the 10-percent vain*. EPA
believes that few owners or operators
will claim that a waste stream is not
subject to the requirements of the
standard based on a sample analysis'
with results nearlO percent. Therefore
a precis* measnremest of waste stream
total organic content Is not li&efy to be
needed to determine applicability of the
equipment teak standards.
  If th* facility does decide to iesf the
waste, the- choice of th* appropriate
method must be based on a knowledge
of the process and waste. Tte EPA has
prepared a guidance document that
includes mfonnatfon to aid TSDF
owners/operators and enforcement and
permitting personnel in implementing
the regulations. Additional detail is
provided in the guidance document to
aid is choosing the most appropriate test
method (Refer to "Hazardous Waste
TSBF-iTechnical Guidance Document
far RCRA Air Emission Standards for
Process Vents and Equipment teaks."
  In response to the cocunenters'
concerns- that votaSlity of th® waste-
stream should be eons&rred the UJAR
provision* of the regalatkw wer*
changed to establish twopotentsai
level* of required moniformfo Thos*
process** with the greater emission
potential an? designated to> b* in KgJrt-
liquid service and are- required to
implement a Bier* restrictive IDAR
program. Thoe« processes- with a lesser
emission potential are designated to be-
te heavy-iicjffiidi ssmcs> and are reqoired
to implement a less restrictive IDAS,
program. The determination of being in
ught-iiqufd servie* far based1 OR the
concentration* of organic components n
* waste whose pure- vapor pressure
exceeds O3 tPa. This addresses the
commenters' concerns that volatility of
the waste* stream should b* considered.
For the process vent portion of the
regulation, if as organic is present at the
vent, it £s presumed to be volatile.
Therefore, vofotifiiy is considered by
virtue of where th* determination  of
applicability is made.
  With reference to the osr of weight
percent when defining "In VHAP
service'* (a term that has been dropped
from the promulgated- regulations}. EPA
believes that weight percentage is the
unit of choice when the determination of
organic content is made OR a solid.
liquid or sludge waste. It is also
commonly associated with those types
of wastes; For gaseous streams that
exceed 10 percent organic* by weight,
the commenter's point is well taken.
Volume fractions are more eommonly
reported for gaseous streams. However,
it is not easier to calculate the volume
percent rather than weight percent.
Additional information on fhe
calibration standard used, the carrier
gas in* the standard, and bctH the
organic and other inorganic gases in the*
sample are required in both cases. FOE
simplicity* the units of the standard are
uniformly weight percent regardless of
waste type.

Implementation Schedule

  Ccwzjaent Several commenters
objected to the time periods contained
in the proposed standards for
imptenenlatien schedules and
requested thai EPA not dictate a step-
by-step schedule.
  'RaspansK The EPA agrees with the
commeiifers that EPA should not dictate
step-by-step implementation schedules
for instilling the control devices and
closed-vent systems required to compfy
with thine regulations because each
affected facility needs some flexibility
to budget funds, perform engineering
evaluations, and complete construction.
Therefore. EPA has dropped the interim.
dates iri the schedule and retained only
the final period of 2. years, feam the
promulgation for completing engineering
design, iind evaluation-studies and for
installing equipment. The final rules
require, that all affected facilities comply
with this standards, on the effective date:
however. the roles allow up to 24
months from the promulgation date (i.e-
18 momths alias tba effective date) for
faciKta* to comply  if they are required
to install a control device and they can
document that installation of the
emission controls cannot reasonably be
expecicai ta b* completed earlier.
Exiatintt wasi* management units, that
became newly legolated unit* subject to
the proRsions of subpart AA or BB
beeauws of a new statutory or regulatory
amcndiaextt under RCRA (e.g« a new
listing cir identification of a hazardous
waste) will have up to 1& months after
the effective date of th* statutory or
regulatory amendments that render the
facility'subject to the provisions of
subperls AA or BE to complete
instaOatioB of the control device New
hazardous waste management units
starting.1 operation after the effective
date of aubparts AA and BB must meet
the standards upon startups This subject
is discussed further in section IX
Implementation, of this preamble. The
Gnal stiindards require that both
permitted and interim status facilities
maintain the schedules and the
accompanying documentation in their
operating'records. The implementation
schedule must be in the operating record
on the effective date of today's rule-.
which is 6 months after promulgation.
No provisions have been made in the
standaids for extensions beyond 24
months after promulgation.

-------
25484
Federal Register / Vol  55. No.  120 / Thursday. June 21. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
Permitting Requirements
  Comment: Several commenten
suggested that RCRA part B information
requirements be limited to the units
already included in the part B
application. Units that must comply with
this regulation because the facility is
subject to RCRA permit requirements for
other reasons should not be required to
be added to the part B permit
application. Other commenten objected
to statements in the preamble regarding
the role of the omnibus permitting
authority under RCRA section 3005(c)(3).
The commenten questioned the absence
of criteria for establishing when such
authority would be applied to require
more stringent controls and argued that
authorizing permit writers to impose
more stringent controls based on
unenforceable guidance is not a
substitute for regulations.
  Response: The EPA is aware that
extending specific part B information
requirements to those hazardous waste
management units that are not subject
to RCRA permitting but are located at
facilities that are otherwise subject to
RCRA permit requirements could result
in the need for those facilities to modify
RCRA permits or their part B
applications.  However. EPA believes
that extending the part B information
requirements to hazardous waste
management  units not subject to RCRA
permitting is necessary to ensure
compliance with the subpart AA and
subpart BB standards.
  The EPA also agrees that requiring a
modification  of RCRA permits (and part
B applications) as part of this rule could
 result in delays in processing and
 issuing final RCRA permits. Therefore.
 the final rules do not require facilities  to
 modify permits issued before the
 effective date of these rules. Consistent
 with 40 CFR 270.4. a facility with a final
 permit issued prior to the effective date
 is generally not required to comply with
 new part 264 standards until its permit
 is reissued or reviewed by the Regional
 Administrator. Hazardous waste
 management units and associated
 process vents and equipment affected
 by these standards must be added or
 incorporated into the facility permit
 when the permit comes up for review
 under S  270.50 or reissue under § 124.15.
 As previously noted. EPA intends to
 propose to modify this policy* in the
 forthcoming Phase II rules such that
 permitted facilities must comply with
 the interim-status air rules.
   Facilities that have obtained RCRA
 interim status, as specified  in 40 CFR
 270.70 (i.e.. compliance with the
' requirements of section 3010(a) of RCRA
 pertaining to notification of hazardous
                           waste activity and the requirements of
                           40 CFR 270.10 governing submission of
                           part A applications), will be subject to
                           the part 265 standards on the effective
                           date. Interim status facilities that have
                           submitted their part B application prior
                           to the effective date of the regulation
                           will be required to modify their part B
                           applications to incorporate today's
                           requirements.
                             The omnibus permitting authority of
                           S 270.32 allows permit writers to require.
                           on a case-by-case basis, emission
                           controls that are more stringent than  .
                           those specified by a standard. The EPA
                           has a mandate to use this authority for
                           situations in which regulations have not
                           been developed or in which special
                           requirements are needed to protect
                           human health and the environment For .
                           example, this authority could be used in
                           situations where, in the permit writers
                           judgment there is an unacceptably high
                           risk after application of controls
                           required by an emission standard. This
                           aspect of the permitting process is
                           discussed further in section DC of this
                           preamble. The EPA is currently
                           preparing guidance to be used by permit
                           writers to help identify facilities that
                           would potentially have high residual
                           risk due to air emissions. The guidance
                           will include procedures to be used to
                           identify potentially high-risk facilities
                           and will include guidance for making a .
                           formal site-specific risk assessment
                           Recordkeeping and Reporting
                             Comment: Commenten asked EPA to
                           include a provision in the final
                           standards to provide for the elimination
                           of recordkeeping requirements that may
                           be duplicative of State or Federal
                           requirements for equipment leaks.
                           Commenten also asked whether TSDF
                           are subject to any notification
                           requirements if their waste stream is
                           less than 10 percent organic*.
                             Response: The EPA agrees that
                           duplicative recordkeeping and reporting
                           should generally be eliminated to the
                           extent possible. Because of the
                           difficulties in foreseeing all situations in
                           which this could occur, a provision to
                           this effect has not been added to the
                           final standards. However, when records
                           and reports required by States are
                           substantially similar, a copy of the
                           information submitted to the State will
                           generally be acceptable to EPA. When
                           similar records and reports are required
                           by other EPA programs (such as the
                            visual observations required for pumps
                            and valves associated with storage
                            tanks and incinerators). EPA suggests
                            that ownen or operators of TSDF
                            coordinate monitoring and
                            recordkeeping efforts to reduce labor
                            and costs. One set of records should be
maintained with emphasis on the more
detailed monitoring records required by
these standards. The EPA considers that
the monitoring required for equipment
leaks under these standards differs
significantly from the monitoring
required for ground water protection
purposes under other RCRA rules.
Howeven the monitoring and
recordkeeping programs can be
combined for efficiency.
  There are no notification requirements
in the equipment leak rules for waste
streams that have been determined
never to exceed 10 percent total
organics by weight

VIL Summary of Impacts of Final
Standards

A. Overview of the Source Category

  Hazardous waste TSDF are facilities
that store, treat or dispose of hazardous
wastes. A TSDF may generate and
manage hazardous waste on the same
site, or it may receive and manage
hazardous waste generated by others.
  The EPA has conducted a number of
surveys to collect information about the
TSDF industry. The most recent of these
surveys, the 1986 National Screening
Survey of Hazardous Waste Treatment.
Storage, Disposal and Recycling
Faculties, lists more than 2.300 TSDF
nationwide. Available survey data
further indicate that the majority (96
percent) of waste managed at TSDF is
generated and managed on the same site
and identifies more than 150 different
industries, primarily manufacturing, that
generate hazardous waste.
Approximately 500 TSDF are
commercial facilities that manage
hazardous waste generated by others.
   The types of wastes managed at TSDF
and the waste management processes
used are highly variable from one
facility to another. The physical
characteristics of wastes managed at
TSDF include dilute wastewaters
(representing more than 90 percent by
weight of the total waste managed).
 organic and inorganic sludges, and
organic and inorganic solids. Waste
 management processes differ according
 to waste type and include storage and
 treatment in  tanks, surface
. impoundments, and wastepiles:
 handling or storage in containers such
 as drums, tank trucks, tank cars, and
 dumpsters: and disposal of waste in
 landfills, surface impoundments.
 injection wells, and by land treatment.
 In addition, hazardous waste may be
 managed in "miscellaneous units" that
 do not meet the RCRA definition of any
 of the processes listed above.
 Hazardous waste may also be handled

-------
            Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 120 / Thursday. June 21. 1990 / Rulea and Regulations      254gf
 In research, development, and
 demonstration units as described in 40
 CFR 27065.
  The promulgated standards limit
 organic emissions from (1) hazardous
 waste management unit process vents
 associated with distillation.
 fractionation. thin-film evaporation.
 solvent extraction, and air and stream
 stripping operations that manage waste
 with 10 ppmw or greater total organic*
 concentration, and (2) leaks from
 equipment at new and existing
 hazardous waste management units that
 contain or contact hazardous waste
 streams with 10 percent or more total
 organic*. The final equipment leak
 standards apply to each pump valve,
 compressor, pressure relief device.
 sampling connection, open-ended valve
 or line, flange, or other connector
 associated with the affected hazardous
 waste management unit About 1.400
 facilities are estimated to be potentially
 subject to the equipment leak standards  '
 (I.e., TSDP managing hazardous waste
 containing at least 10 percent organic*).
 Of these. 450 are estimated to have
 process vent* subject to the vent
 standards in subpart AA.
 A Us* of Model* la the Regulatory
 Development Process
  In estimating baseline (i.e..'
 unregulated) emissions, emission
 impacts of the regulatory options, and  •
 control costs for the options for
 equipment leaks, EPA made use of a
 combination of analytical and physical
 models of waste management processes.
 This approach waa selected because
 insufficient facility-specific data are
 available to conduct a site-specific
 characterization of the entire TSDF
 industry. For example, the
 physicalmodels of waste management
 procas*e*'(or units) were, used as
 simplified representations of the
 equipment component mix expected to
 be associated with each particular
 hazardous waste management process.
 The model unit provides an estimate of
 the number of pumps, valves, .open-
 ended lines, pressure relief valve*, and
 sampling connections that are used in
 the waste management process.
 Although these models ere not exact for
 each type of process, they provide a
 reasonable approximation of what can
 be expected on average: precise
 equipment counts for each unit at each
 facility are not available.
  In the absence of sufficient site-
specific data. EPA developed a model to
 calculate nationwide health.
environmental, and cost impacts
associated with hazardous waste TSDF.
Details of the national impacts model
can be found in the  BID, appendix D.
 This national impacts model was used
 to estimate the nationwide impacts
 necessary for comparison of the various
 TSDF equipment leak emission control
 options. The national impacts model is a
 complex computer program that uses a
 wide variety-of information and data
 concerning the TSDF industry to
 calculate nationwide impacts through
 summation of approximate individual
 facility results. Information processed
 by the model includes results of TSDF
 industry surveys aa well as
 characterizations and simulations of
 TSDF processes and wastes, emission
 factors of each type of management unit.
 the efficiencies and costs of emission
 control technologies.-and exposure and
 health impacts of TSDF pollutants. This
 information is  contained in several
 independent data files developed by
 EPA for use as inputs to the model.
 These data files an briefly described
 below.
  Industry profile data identify the
 name, location, primary standard
 industrial classification (SIC) code,
 wast* management processes, waste
 type*, and waste volumes for each
 TSDF. The industry data were obtained
 from three principal sources: A1986
 National Screening Survey of Hazardous
 Waste Treatment, Storage. Disposal.
 and Recycling Facilities: the Hazardous
 Wait* Data Management System's
 RCRA part'A permit applications; and
 the 1931 National Survey of Hazardous
 Waste Generator* and Treatment.
 Storage, and Disposal Facilities '
 Regulated Under RCRA. The industry '
 data are used in the model to define the
 location and the SIC code for each
 facility and to identify the waste
 management unit* at each facility as
 well e* the types and quantities of
 waste managed in each unit
  The hazardous waste characterization
 consists of waste data representative of
 typical wastes handled by facilities in
 each SIC code. The waste data are
 linked to specific facilities by the SIC
 cod* and the RCRA waste codes
 identified for that facility in the industry
 profile. The wast* characterization data
 include chemical properties information
 that consists of constituent-specific data
 on the physical, chemical, and biological
properties of a  group of surrogate waste
constituents that were developed to
represent the more than 4.000 TSDF
waste constituents identified in  the
waste data base. The surrogate
categories wen defined  to represent
actual organic compounds based on a
combination of their vapor pressures.
Henry's law constants, and
biodegradubiiity. The use of surrogate
properties was instituted to compensate
 for a lack of constituent-specific
 physical and chemical property data
 and to reduce the number of chemicals
 to be aiisessed by the model.
   The omission factors data consist of
 emissicm factors, expressed as
 emissions per unit of waste throughput.
 for each combination of surrogate waste
 constituent and model waste
 management process. Each model waste'
 management process was. in effect a
 "national average model unit" that
 represented a weighted average of the
 operating parameters of existing waste
 management units. The EPA's LDAR
 model was used to develop emission
 control efficiencies and emission
 reductions for the TSDF equipment leak
 emission factors used in the analysis.
 This LCIAR model is based on the
 Agency's extensive experience with
 equipment leaks in the petrochemical'
 and synthetic organic chemical
 manufacturing industries.
   Incidence data consist of estimates of
 annual  cancer incidence for the
 population within 50 km of each TSDF.
 This information was developed using
 EPA's Human Exposure Model. 1980
 census  data, and local meteorological
 data summaries. Because some of the
 data usisd in the national impacts model
 an basitd on national average values
 rather than actual facility-specific data.
 maximum risk numbers generated by the
 model lire not considered to be
 representative of facility-specific risks.
.Maximum-individual risk has meaning
 only at  the facility level. Therefore, EPA
 chose to use another methodology for
 estimating MIR for equipment leaks.
 This is discussed further in section
 VIIJE.
   Data  related to emission control
 technologies and costs include
 information that describes control
 efficiencies, capital investment and
 annual operating costs for each emission
 control option that is applicable to a
 particular waste management process.
 These data were obtained through
 engineering analyses of control device
 operations and the development of
 engineering cost estimates.
  To make use of all of these data, the
 national; impacts model contains
 procedures that (1) identify TSDF
 facilities their waste management
 processes, waste compositions, and
 annual waste throughputs: (2) assign
 chemical properties to waste
 constituents and assign control devices
 to process units: and (3) calculate
 uncontrolled emissions, emissions
 reductions,  control costs, and health
 impacts. Results produced by the model
 include, on a nationwide basis,
 uncontrolled emissions, controlled

-------
emission*, capital investment costs.
annual operating costs, annualized costs
for controls, and annual cancer
incidence. As previously stated, these
nationwide values are obtained by
summing the results of individual
facility analyses across all facilities.
  The primary objective and intended
use of the national impacts model are to
provide reasonable estimates of TSDF
impacts on a nationwide basis. Because
of the complexity of the hazardous
waste management industry and the
current lack of detailed information for
individual TSDF. the model was
developed to utilize national average
data where site-specific data are not
available. As a result, the estimated
emissions and cancer incidence from the
model do not represent the impacts for a
specific individual facility. However.
with national average data values used
where site-specific data were missing,
EPA believes that the estimates are
reasonable on a nationwide basis and» .
are adequate for dedsionmakhig.

 C. Emission Impacts
   Since proposal in February 1987. EPA
 has reviewed all available site-specific
 information and data on WSTF and
TSDF. much of which has only become
 •vaiUble since proposal. For example,
 EPA is conducting a multiyear project to
 collect information on the Nation's
 generation of hazardous waste and the
 capacity available to treat, .store.
 dispose of. and recycle that waste. The
 initial phase of the project was the 1988
 National Screening Survey of Hazardous
 Waste Treatment Storage. Disposal and
 Recycling Facilities, which identified
 and collected summary information from
 all hazardous waste treatment storage.
 disposal, and recycling facilities in the
 United States. The results of this
 "Screener Survey" together with data
 from other existing data bases (such as
 the Hazardous Waste Data Management
 System's RCRA part A applications: the
 National Survey  of Hazardous Waste
 Generators and Treatment Storage, and
 Disposal Facilities Regulated Under
 RCRA in 1981: the Industry Studies
 Database: a data base of 40 CFR 261.32
 hazardous wastes from specific sources:
  the WET Model Hazardous Waste Data
  Base: and a data base created by the
  Illinois EPA) were used to support the
  development and analysis of these air
  emission regulations for hazardous
  waste TSDF. Additional sources of data
  on TSDF and waste solvent recycling
  operations included EPA field reports on
  hazardous waste facilities and
  responses to RCRA section 3007
  information requests sent to ajimited
  number of both large And small
   facilities. Based on all of this
information. EPA has revised and
expanded the impact analyses, including
estimates of emissions, risks, costs, and
the economic impact on small
businesses and on the industry as a
whole.
  Using the revised impact, analyses.
nationwide (unregulated) baseline
equipment leak organic emissions from
TSDF waste streams of 10 percent or
greater total organio are estimated at
2&200 Mg/yr.Thls estimate includes
equipment leak emissions from waste
solvent treatment facilities and from
other TSDF with hazardous waste
management processes handling wastes
with organic concentrations of 10
percent or greater, a total of about 1.400
facilities. The bases for these estimates
are contained in the BID. appendix D.
   Nationwide (unregulated) organic
emissions .from process vents at about
450 TSDF with solvent recovery
operations range from 300 Mg/yr (based
on lower-bound emission rates) to 0.100
Mg/yr (based an upper-bound emission
rates). This wide emission range occurs
because of variations hi primary
condenser recovery efficiencies and the
 use of secondary condensers at some
 sites. The lower-bound rate represents
high recovery efficiencies at all
 facilities, and the upper-bound rate
 represents low recovery efficiencies at
 all facilities. Actual nationwide
 emissions should fall between these
 values:
   With the implementation of the
 standards, nationwide TSDF equipment
 leak emissions will be reduced to about
 7.200 Mg/yn nationwide organic
 emissions from process vents will be
 reduced to « range from 270 Mg/yr _
 (lower-bound emission rates) to 900 Mg/
 yr (upper-bound emission rates).

 D. Ozone Impacts
   Reductions la organic emissions from
. TSDF sources will have a positive
 impact on human health and the
 environment by reducing atmospheric
 ozone formation as a result of
 reductions in emissions of ozone
 precursors, primarily organic
 compounds. Ozone is a major problem
 in most larger cities, and EPA has
 estimated that more than 100 million
  people live in areas that are in violation
  of the ambient ozone standards. Ozone
  is a pulmonary irritant that can impair
  the normal functions of human lungs,
  may increase susceptibility to bacterial
  infections, and can result in other
  detrimental health effects. In addition,
  ozone can reduce the yields of citrus.
  cotton, potatoes, soybeans, wheat
  spinach, and other crops, and can cause
  damage to conifer forests and a
  reduction In the fruit and seed diets of
wildlife. Because TSDF organic
emission* account for about 12 percent
of total nationwide organic emissions
from stationary sources, today's rules
will contribute to a reduction in ozone-
induced health and environmental
effects and will assist in attainment and
maintenance of the ambient air quality
standards for ozone. Table 1
g1immariTP« the emissions and health
risk impact estimates.
  Ozone precursors and
chlorofiuoroearbons. whose emissions
will be reduced by this mtemaking, are
both considered greenhouse gases (ie-
gases whose accumulation in the
atmosphere has been related to global'
warming). Although the regulation's
direct impact on global warming has not
been quantified, the direction being
taken is a positive one. Implementation
of these roles will reduce troposphere
ozone, which contributes to global
wanning.
£ Health' Risk Impacts
  Human health risks posed by  .
 exposure to TSDF air emission* are
 typically quantified in two forms:
 Annual cancer incidence and MIR.
 Annual cancer incidence is the
 estimated number of cancer cases per
 year due to exposure to TSDF emissions
 nationwide. The MIR. on the other hand.
 represents the potential risk to the one
 hypothetical individual who lives
 closest to a reasonable worst-case TSDF
 for a lifetime of TOyears. The MIR is
 derived from modeling a reasonable
 worst-case scenario and is not based on
 actual measurement of risk. It is not
 representative of the entire industry.
 and. in fact may be experienced by. few.
 if any. individuals. As explained in
 appendix B of the BID, there are great
 uncertainties in both these types of
 health risk estimates. These two health
 risk forms were used as an index to
 quantify health impacts related to TSDF
 emissions and emission controls. As
 discussed in section VLJX an
 equipment-leak-specific. emission-
 weighted unit risk factor of 4.S x 10"*
 (jig/m*)"' was used to estimate the
 nationwide annual cancer incidence and
  the MIR of contracting cancer
  associated with TSDF equipment leak
  organic emissions. See appendix B of the
  BID for a detailed analysis of the health •
  risk impacts.
    At proposal order-of-magnitude
  health impacts were estimated for
  cancer risks from exposure to organic
  air emissions from WSTF and TSDF.
  The Human Exposure Model (HEM) was
  used to calculate the magnitude of risks
  posed by WSTF at both typical and
  maximum emission rates. Based on an

-------
            Federal Register  /  Vol. 55, No. 120 / Thursday. June 21, 1990 / Rules  and Regulations      25487
estimated urban/rural distribution, EPA
selected six WSTF to represent the
nationwide WSTF Industry in
performing the risk assessment Using
the results of the analysis of these
"typical- facilities, health impacts were
extrapolated to ail WSTF and TSDF in
feneral to provide nationwide estimates.
 " In the revised health impacts analysis
for the final rules, annual cancer
incidence and MIR were again used to
quantify health impacts for the control
alternatives for process vents and
equipment leaks. However, in this
followup analysis, the HEM was run
using site-specific data on facility waste
throughputs, emission rates.
meteorology, and population density for
each WSTF and TSDF nationwide
Identified in the various data bases.
  The facility-specific information was
obtained from three principal source's.
Waste quantity and solvent recycling
data were taken from the 1986 National
Screener Survey; waste management
         processing schemes and waste types
         managed in each facility were based on
         the Hazardous Waste Data Management
         System's (HWDMS) RCRA part A
         applications; the National Survey of
         Hazardous Waste Generators and
         Treatment. Storage, arid Disposal
         Facilities Regulated Under RCRA .in
         1981 (Westat Survey): and the 1986
         National Screener Survey.
           In revising the methodology applied in
         assessing cancer risks. EPA conducted
         facility-specific HEM computer runs for
         nearly all of the 448 WSTF that
         reported, in the 1986 National Screener
         Survey, recycling and/or reuse of
         solvents and other organic compounds
         (i.e* TSDF expected to have the
         specified process vents) and for each of
         the more than 1.400 TSDF ia the industry
         profile of 2400 TSDF that were
         determined to manage wastes with at
         least 10 percent organic content These
         HEM results were used to estimate
         nationwide cancer incidence for both
TSDF equipment leaks and process
vents.
  The nationwide annual incidence
resulting from uncontrolled TSDF
equipment leaks is estimated at 1.1
cases ol: cancer per year. Based on the
estimated lower-bound emission rates.
the nationwide cancer incidence from
uncontrolled process vents is 0.015 case/
yr. Based on the upper-bound emission
rate, this incidence from process vents is
0.38 case/yr. With the application of the
final process vent standards, based on
lower-bound emission rates, the annual
cancer incidence will be reduced to
0.001 from 0.015 case/yr. Based on
upper-bound emission rates, annual
incidence will be reduced to 0.027 case/
yr from 0.38 case/yr. With the
implementation of the LDAR programs
for equipment leak emissions, the
annual cancer incidence associated with
fugitive emissions will be reduced to
about 0.32 case/yr.
      TAMJE 1. SUMMARY OF NATIONWIDE ENVIRONMENTAL AND HEALTH RISK IMPACTS OF TSOF ^R EMISSION REGULATIONS
tSDf taae» r, iKjuiy
•rootnvartt*
In^rhogp^ 	 ,.„,., „„„»,.„„„, ' -
tlff~t**~*
F"mrrtflh*t 	 , ,

Menem** OTiMm. Mo/
V
Uncoo-
VQMd
300
•.too
26306
COcitrcMwct
SfO
900
7.200
Annual jnctttnec*. C*M*/
V
Uneon-
trotM
0.015
0.38
1.1
Control
0.001
0027
0.32
Maximum individual rafe *
Uncon-
traMd
3x10-»
Sx10-«
5x10-'
Control
2X10-*
4X10"*
1X10"'
   • Annual lnctdinc»«ndM
-------
25488      Federal Register  /  VoL SS. No. 120 / Thursday, June 21. 1990 / Rules  and Regulations
available on a limited baaU since
proposal. The preliminary results of a
multiyear project to collect information
on the Nation's generation of hazardous
waste and the capacity available to
treat store, dispose of. and recycle that
waste were used as the basis of the
analysis. In the survey, all active
treatment storage, disposal, and
recycling facilities (TSDR) were sent a
detailed package of questionnaires
appropriate to the processes they
operate. The completed questionnaires
were reviewed for technical accuracy:
after independent verification, the
information collected was entered into a
complex data base. The TSDR survey -
questionnaire responses contain the
most detailed up-to-date nationwide
Information regarding the hazardous
waste management technologies each
facility has on site. For each facility.
detailed information is available in the
data base, including facility area.
numbers of hazardous waste
management units by process type (i.e,
number of surface impoundments.
incinerators, recycling units), annual
throughput by process unit and types of
waste (i.e.. RCRA waste codes)
managed by each unit at the facility.  •
The availability of this information in
computerized format made it possible to
 use the TSDR survey data base to
 identify facilities that represent the
 population of wont-case facilities with
 regard to equipment leak emission* and
 the potential for high MIR values. A
 detailed discussion of the health impacts
 methodologies is presented in appendix
 B of the BID.
   The MIR estimate was made first by
 screening detailed TSDR Survey data for
 more than 1.400 TSDF to identify the
 fatality that has the highest potential
 equipment leak emissions and the
 highest potential for these emissions to
 result in high ambient air concentrations
 (Lew high emissions on a small facility
 area). Next it was assumed that this
 facility handles hazardous wastes that
 have carcinogens with an  emission-
 weighted potency equal to that of the
 nationwide average and that an
 individual was residing at the shortest
 distance from the TSDF management
 units to the nearest apparent residence.
 The highest annual-average ambient
 concentration, resulting from this high
 emission-rate facility, predicted to occur
• at the residence nearest the facility was
 then determined by dispersion modeling.
 The Industrial Source Complex Long-
 Term (ISCLT) dispersion model was
 used In the equipment leak MIR analysis
 to model, the wont-case facility as a true
 area source with the actual facility area
 of about 1 acre as input The highest
 annual average out of the results of 5
 years of meteorological data modeled
 for each of die eight cities used to
 characterize nationwide meteorology
 was selected for use in the MIR
 calculation. Thus, this MIR estimate is
 considered a reasonable worst-case
 estimate for the industry and should not
 be interpreted to represent a known risk
 posed by any actual facility in the
 industry.
   The MIR resulting from TSDF baseline
 (or uncontrolled) equipment leak
 emissions is estimated at SXHT*. Le- 5
 chances in 1400. Based on the estimated
 lower-bound emission rates-for process
 vents, the MIR for uncontrolled process
 vents is about 3 chances in 100,000
 (3X10"1; based on the upper-bound
 emission rate, the MIR is 8x10-'.
 Because of the uncertainties inherent in
 nationwide emission and risk estimates
 that must characterize the many
 different constituents present in a
 variety of TSDF operations. EPA
 considered the upper-bound estimates in
 its dedsionmaking.
 •  With tha application of the final
 process vent standards, based on lower-
 bound emission rates, the MIR will be
 reduced to 2Xl«r»from 3X10~». Based
 on the upper-bound emission rates, the
 MIR will be reduced to 4X10-* from
 8X10~4. With the implementation of
 control requirements for equipment leak
 emissions that include monthly LDAR
. requirements for pumps and valves,
 caps for open-ended lines, closed-purge
 sampling, and rupture discs for pressure
 relief devices, die MIR associated with
 fugitive emissions will be reduced to
 about ixllT^from SX10~».  Appendix B
 of the BID. EPA 450/3-89-009, presents a
 detailed explanation of the derivation of
 these risk estimates.
   The M3R estimate for equipment leaks
 is sensitive to several factors. Emissions
 are th« most obvious factor controlling
 risk. The facility associated with the
 reported MIR for equipment leaks is one
 of the highest emitting TSDF In terms of
 equipment leaks, in the upper S9.5
 percent for potential equipment leak
 emissions. If the analysis were to us*
 the 85-pereentile emissions  (i.e, 85
 percent of the TSDF nationwide have
  lower equipment leak emissions than
  this value), men MIR would drop from
  lxl0~»to SX10"* with all other factors
  held constant
    Another factor affecting the MIR
  estimates is area of the emitting source.
  For these types of sources, risk is
  inversely proportional to the area of the
  emitting source. For example, given '
  equal emissions, a facility located over
  10 acres generally poses leas risk than a
  facility on 1 acre. For the facility
 presenting the highest risk in this rule.
 the MIR would drop from 1X10"' to
 2X 10~4 if 10 acres were used in the
 estimate rather than 1 acre. It should
 also be pointed out that for the more
 than 1.400 TSDF surveyed in the EPA
 1987 TSDR Survey, the median facility
 area was greater than 50 acres.
   Distance to the nearest resident is
 another key variable in the risk
 estimate. The actual distance to the
 nearest residence (i.e.. 250 ft)  for the
 worst-case facility was used in
 calculating the reported MIR value;
 however.-the median distance in a
 random sample of distances to the-
 nearest residence reported in a survey
 of the hazardous waste generators was
 1,000 ft If mis median distance were
 used in the estimate, even with the high
 emissions and the small area, the
 maximum risk value would drop from
 1X10~* to 2X10"*. Meteorology is also a
 factor: the worst-case dispersion was
 used In the reported estimate. If an
 average case were used, then risk would
 drop to 8X10-* with all other factors
~ hftld tsonitant,
   As the above examples show,
 facilities with anything other  than the
 combined worst-case factors  would
 'pose significantly less risk than the MIR
 reported for equipment leaks. The MIR
 estimates presented are, for the most
 part based on worst-case or
 conservative assumptions; the one
 exception is the weighted-average
 cancer potency value, or unit risk factor
 (URF). used. Tha EPA believes it is
 unreasonable to make all worst-case
 assumptions for a single facility.
 However, because of the overall
 conservative nature of the analysis, for
 the industry as_a whole, the vast
 majority of TSDF would pose
 significantly lower risk from  equipment
 leak emissions than the reported
 reasonable, worst-case value.

 F. Cost Impacts
   The EPA developed a detailed
 estimate of the total capital investment.
 annual operating costs, and total annual
 costs of each emission control
 technology applied to each affected
 waste management unit Total capital
 investment represents the total original
 cost of the installed control device.
 Total annual cost represents the total
 payment each year to repay  the capital
 investment for the control device as well
  as to pay for the control device (or work
 practice) operating and maintenance
  expenses. The costs of attaining the 95-
  percent control or emission reduction for
  process vents are based on the use of
  condensers to control process vent
  streams for which condensation is

-------
            Federal Register / VoL 55, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21. 1990 /  Rules and Regulations      25489
technically feasible and on the UM of
carbon adsorption systems to control
the remaining process vent streams
subject to the regulations. Because site-
specific information was insufficient to
determine which facilities could apply
condensers rather than carbon
adsorbers industry-wide, upper* and
lower-bound cost estimates were
generated for process vent controls. The
upper-bound cost estimates are based
on the assumption that fixed-bed.
regtnerabk carbon adsorption systems
would be required to control process
vents at all facilities with emissions
above the emission rate limit. Similarly,
the lower-bound cost estimate is based
oa the assumption that condensers
could be used to control process vents at
all facilities with emissions above the
emission rate limit .
  The nationwide capital investment
and total »nn"»l cost of implementing
the requirements of today's rule for
process. vent controls are estimated at
S24JS mfflfon and S123 million/year,
respectively, for the upper-bound case.
For the lower-bound case,' capital
investment is $1.5 million and total
annual costs represent a small savings
of STOXXW/yr. These costs are based on
an industry profile that includes 73 large
recycling facilities and 107 medium-
sized recycling facilities. The more than
200 small recycling facilities are not.
Included In the cost estimates because
they are projected not to have to install
additional controls to meet the facility
emission rate limit
  The capital investment and total
annual coats of controlling TSDF
equipment leak emissions with the
LDAR program together with tome
equipment specifications ere estimated
at 5128.8 million and S3Z3 mulion/yr.
respectively. Table 2 summarizes capital
and annual costs associated with the
final rules.
  Further information on the economic
impacts of the final standards for
organic control from TSDF process vents
and equipment leaks is presented in
section Vin of this preamble. Details of
the analysis  are presented in the BID.
chapter OQ.
                 TABLE  2.—SUMMARY  OF NATIONWIDE
                   COST IMPACTS OF TSDF AIR EMISSION
                   REGULATIONS—Continued
       2.— SUMMARY  of  NATIONWIDE
  COST IMPACTS OF TSOF Am EMISSION
  REOUtATIONS
  T8OF
capital
co*t,S
                      (IBM)
                          1.5
                              COM*.*


Uppar hound ._
iqUpmam laalri
Mrton.
- we*
eaprttf
co«t.S
• ffiMOAt
(19*8)
24.8

Nadon.
wida
tnnu«-
eoac». S
rnffiona/
*
1ZS

                  ( } Mlestaa a coat end*.
                  •kidUdaa a racovwy cradN tor raeyctng. .Me <•>
                 cowry cratit MM acpted for TSOF wttuut recycling
                                 (0.1!
                  »Tt» towaNtauni coal Mfcnalaa mum* that
                 comMnaan couW beiaad to control pnwaavanta
                 at ai facttttos n*n emiaaiona tboM «• anwikxi
                 rat*  Imrt: tn* uppar-bound eo*t aattmaiaa asauma
                 ttiat carbon adaortian wouW ba raqurad to control
                 pracaaa vacua at «tt (aal&aa wilft amationa abot«
                 ma tmiatjen ma fcnit
VUL State Authorisation

A. Applicability of Ruin in Authorized
States

  .Under section 3006 of RCHA, EPA
may authorize qualified Slate* to    ;
administer aod enforce the RCRA  •
program within the State. (See 40 CFR
part 271 for the standards and
requirements for authorization.)
Following authorization, EPA retains
enforcement authority under sections
3008.7003. and 3013 of RCRA. although
authorized States have primary
enforcement responsibility under
section 7002.
  Prior to the HSWA of 1984,« State
with final authorization administered its
hazardous waste program entirely in
lieu of EPA administering the Federal
program in that State. The Federal
requirements no longer applied is the
euthorized State, and EPA could BO*
issue permits for any facilities ia the
State that the State was authorized to
permit When new. more stringent
Federal requirements were promulgated
or enacted, the State was obliged to
enact equivalent authority within
specified timefrsmes. New Federal
requirements did not take effect in an
authorized State until the State adopted
the requirements as State law.
  In contrast, under section 3006(g)(l) of
RCRA. 42 U.S.C. 6828(g). new
requirements and prohibitions imposed
by HSWA take effect in authorized
States at the same time that they take
effect in nonauthorized States. The EPA
is directed to carry out those
requirements end prohibitions in
authorized Stales, including the issuance
of permits, until the State is granted
authorization to do so. While States
must still adopt HSWA-related
provisions as Slate law to retain final
authorization, the HSWA requirements
apply in authorized States in the interim.

£ Effect oa State Authorizations

  Today's rule is promulgated pursuant
to section 3004(n) of RCRA. a provision
added by HSWA. Therefore. EPA is
adding die requirements to Table 1 in 40
CFR 271.1(j). which identifies the
Federal program requirements mat are
promulgated pursuant to HSWA and
take effect in all States, regardless of
authorization status. States may apply
for eithei' interim or final authorization
for the HSWA provisions identified in
Table 1. aa discussed in this section of
the preamble.
  The EJ'A will implement today's rule
in authorized States until (1) they
modify their programs to adopt these
rules and receive final authorization for
the modification or (2) they receive
interim authorization as described
below. Because this rule is promulgated
pursuant to HSWA, a State submitting a
program modification may apply to
receive either interim or final
authorisation under section 3006(g)(2) or
section 3006(b), respectively, on the
basis of i-equirements that are
substantially equivalent or equivalent to
EPA's. The procedures and schedule for
State program modifications for either
interim or final authorization are
described in 40 CFR 271.21. It should be
noted that ail HSWA interim
authorizations will expire automatically
on January 1.1993 (see 40 CFR
271.24(c}|.
' Section 271.21(e)(2) requires that
authorized States must modify their
program:! to reflect Federal'program
changes and must subsequently submit
the modifications to EPA for approval.
The deadline for State program
modifications for this rule is July 1.1991
(or July 1.1992, if a State statutory
change in needed). These deadlines can
be extended in certain cases [40 CFR
271^1(e)|[3)]. Once EPA approves the
modification, the State requirements
become iiubtitle C RCRA requirements.
  A SUM that submits its official
application for final authorization less
than 12 months after the effective date
of these standards is not required to
include standards equivalent to these
standards in its application. However,
the Slate must modify its program by the
deadlines set forth in 40 CFR 27l.21(e).
States that submit official applications
for final authorization 12 months after
the effective date of these standards
must include standards equivalent to
these standards in their, applications.
Section 271.3 sets forth the requirements
a State must meet when submitting its
final authorization application.

-------
25490      Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 120 / Thursday. ?unt 21. 1990 / Rules and Regulation^
  States that are authorized for RCRA
may already have requirements under
State law similar to those in today's
rales. These State regulations have not
been assessed against the Federal
regulations being promulgated today to
determine whether they meet the tests
for authorization. Thus, a State, is not
authorized to implement these
requirements in lieu of EPA until the
State program modification is approved.
Of course. States with existing
standards may continue to administer
and enforce their standards as a matter
of State law. In implementing the
Federal program. EPA will work with
States under cooperative agreements to
minimize duplication of efforts. In many
cases. EPA will be able to defer to the
States in their efforts to implement their
programs rather than take-separate
•actions under Federal authority.

IX Implementation

  As proposed the air emission
standards for process vents and
equipment leaks were included as
subpart C of part 269, Air Emission
Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment. Storage.
and Disposal Facilities. Part 269 was to
be added to the CFR with the
promulgation of these standards. For
consistency with standards for other
TSDF sources under RCRA. the final
standards have been incorporated into
parts 264 and 285. Subpart AA applies to
process vents and subpart BB to
equipment leaks. In addition, whereas at
proposal the equipment leak
requirements of 40 CFR part 61. subpart
V. were incorporated by reference, these
provisions have been included in
subpart BB with revisions appropriate
for a standard promulgated under RCRA
authority rather than CAA authority.
   Under the current RCRA permitting
system, a facility that has received a
final permit must comply with all of the
following requirements as specified in 40
CFR 270.4: (I) The specific conditions
 written into the permit (including
 conditions that demonstrate compliance
 with part 284 regulations); (2) self-
 implementing statutory requirements:
 and (3) regulations promulgated under
 40 CFR part 268 restricting the
 placement of hazardous waste in or on
 the land. When new regulations are
 promulgated after the issuance of a
 permit EPA may reopen the permit to
 incorporate the new requirements as
 stated in J 270.41. Otherwise, the new
 regulatory requirements are
 incorporated into a facility's permit at
 the time of permit reissuance. or at the
 5-year review for land disposal
 facilities.
  Facilities that have not been issued &
final permit and that have fully
complied with the requirements for
interim status must comply with the
regulations specified in CFR part 285.
New regulations that are added to part
285 become applicable to interim status
facilities on their effective dates.
  Although EPA has the authority to
reopen permits to incorporate the
requirements of new standards, EPA is.
concerned about  the resource burdens of
this approach. To reopen permits for
each new regulation at the time it is
promulgated would impose a large
administrative burden on both EPA and
the regulated community because a
major permit modification would
generally require the same
administrative procedures as are
required for initial permits (e.g.,
development of a draft permit, public
notice, and opportunity for public
hearing). As  a consequence, the
requirements of new standards are
usually incorporated into a permit when
it ie renewed. For standards
implemented through the RCRA permit
system, the effect of this policy is to
"shield'' facilities that have been issued
a final permit from any requirements
promulgated after the issuance of the
permit until the time that the permit
must be renewed and the new
requirements are written into the permit.
Thus, this policy is often referred to as
the "permit-as-a-shieid" policy.
Although this policy is generally
applied. EPA may evaluate the need to
accelerate the implementation of
standards developed under RCRA and.
if warranted, make exceptions to the
permit-as-a-shield policy. In today's
rules, the permit-as-a-shield provision
applies to control of air emissions from
process vents and equipment leaks
regulated under section 3004(n).
However, as previously noted, in the
Phase 11 TSDF air rules. EPA intends to
propose modifications to permit-as-a-
shield provisions as they apply to
control of air emissions under these new
subparts. With this proposed action, air
rales promulgated under RCRA section
S004(n) would be applicable to all •
facilities, regardless of permit status.
   Both interim status and permitted
 facilities must comply with the
substantive  control requirements of the
final standards. However, facilities that
have already been issued a final permit
 prior to the effective date of today's
 final rules are not required to comply
 with the rules until such time as the
 permit is reviewed or is reissued.
 Interim status facilities that have
 submitted their part B permit application
 are required to modify their part B
applications to incorporate the
requirements of today's rules.
  The EPA considers that the part 265
standards promulgated here can be
satisfied without the need for detailed
explanation or negotiation between the
facility owner/operator and EPA and
therefore, interim status facilities can
comply without awaiting permit action.
The self-implementing nature of these
rules is achieved by including specific
criteria for facility owners or operators
to identify waste management units that
are subject to the regulation and by
clearly specifying the emission control
and administrative requirements of the
rules.
  The criteria for applicability are that
certain hazardous waste management
units at new and existing TSDF that
need authorization to operate under
RCRA section 3005 are covered by the-
rules. The applicability includes all
hazardous waste management units and
recycling units, at facilities that require
RCRA permits. For the equipment leak
standards to apply, the equipment must
contain or contact hazardous wastes
with a 10-percent-or:more total organics
concentration. For the process vent
standards to apply, the vents must be
. associated with specific hazardous
waste management units, i.e.,
distillation, fractionation, thin-film
evaporation, solvent extraction, or air  or
steam stripping operations, that manage
wastes with 10 ppmw or greater total
organics concentration.
   Control requirements in the final
regulation include specific design
.requirements for equipment and specific
performance criteria (i.e., a weight-
percent reduction and a volume
concentration limit) for emission control
devices. Provisions of the final
standards also list specific types of
 equipment required. Owners  and
 operators who use one of the listed
 types of equipment within the specified
 design and operational parameters
 would therefore be in compliance with
 the regulation as long as the required
 design, inspection, monitoring, and
 maintenance provisions were met
 Specifications for emission controls that
 achieve at least a 95-weight-percent
 reduction in volatile organic emissions
 are somewhat less specific, but
 engineering design practices  are
 sufficiently established that the
 combination of a good control device
 design and subsequent monitoring of
 operating parameters, as required by the
 final regulation, would offer reasonable
 assurance that the specified emission
 reduction is being achieved. Regardless
 of the type of control selected, owners
 and operators must maintain their own

-------
            Federal Register / VoL 55. No! 120 / Thursday. June 21. 1990 /  Rules and Regulations      25491
records of control device design.
installation, and monitoring and must  •
submit reports identifying exceeders of
monitored control device parameters.
Periodic review of the required reports-
and records by EPA may be used to
ensure compliance.
  Because today's rules are promulgated
under HSWA. all affected {acuities must
comply with these requirements on the
effective date of the rule, regardless of
the authorization status of the Slate in
which they are located. In addition.
because EPAVill implement these mica
in every State on the effective date, all
reports should be sent to the EPA  •
Regions! Offices unuTthe State receives
authorization to implement these rules.
Therefore, owners and operators of
TSDF with existing waste management
units subject to the  provisions of
subparts AA and BD must achieve
compliance with the process vent and
equipment leak control and monitoring
requirements on the effective date of
these rules (Le, 8 months following
promulgation) except where compliance
would require the installation of a
dosed-vent system and control device.
Information developed under other EPA
regulations has shown that in some
cases, the design, construction, and
installation of a doscd-vent system and
control device can take as long as 24
months to complete. As a result, EPA is
allowing up to 24 months from the
promulgation date of the regulation for
existing facilities to complete
installation if they ere required to install
a dosed-vent system and control device
and if they can document that
Installation of the emission controls
cannot reasonably be expected to be
completed earlier. In these
circumstances, owners'/operators are
required to develop an implementation
schedule that Indicates dates by which
the design, construction, and operation
of the necessary emission controls will
be completed. This implementation
schedule must document that
installation of dosed-vent systems and
control devices required by the final
standards would be achieved within a
period of ro more than 2 years from
today and must be  included as part of
the facility's operating record on the
effective date of these final'rules (L&. 8
months after promulgation}. Changes in
the implementation schedule  are
allowed within the 24-month  timeframe
If the owner or operator documents that
the change cannot reasonably be
avoided.
  This extension would also apply to
those existing facilities that are brought
under regulation because of new
statutory or regulatory amendments
 under RCRA that render the facility
 subject to the provisions of subpart AA
 or BB (e.g, units handling wastes newly
 listed or identified as hazardous by
 EPA). That is. the owner or operator
 may be allowed up to 18 months from
 the effective date of the statutory or
 regulatory amendment to complete
 installation of a control device.
 However, for facilities adding new
 waste management units. EPA believes
 that the lead time involved in such
 actions provides adequate time for
 owners and operators to design, procure,
 and install the required controls.
 Therefore, all new units must comply
 with the rules immediately (i.e.. must
 have control equipment installed and
 operating upon startup of the unit}.
   Under the approach discussed above,
 the standards promulgated today for
 process vents and equipment leaks
 would be implemented on the following
 schedule for existing TSDF:  .
 —180 days following promulgation, the
   new subparts AA and BO standards
   became effective; all facilities become
   subject to the new standards.
 —On the effective date of the standards,
   compliance with the standards is
   required. Each facility that does not
   have the control devices required by"
   the standards in place and operating
   must have one of the following in the
   facility's operating record: (1} An
   implementation schedule indicating
   when the controls will be installed, or
   (2] a process vent emission'rate
   determination that documents that the
   emission rate limit is not exceeded
   (therefore, controls are not required}.
 —No later than 18 months following the
   effective date (2 years following
   promulgation), any control devices
   required by the standards for process
   vents and equipment leaks must be
   installed at all facilities.
 —All permits issued after the effective
   date must incorporate the standards.
   An existing solid waste management
 unit may become a hazardous waste
 management unit requiring a RCRA
 permit when a waste becomes newly
 listed or identified as hazardous.
 Owners and operators of facilities not
 previously requiring a RCRA permit who
 have existing units handling newly
• listed or identified hazardous waste can
 submit a part A application and obtain
 interim status. The air emission
 standards promulgated today would be
 implemented at these newly regulated
 facilities on the following schedule:
 —180 days following the date the
   managed waste is listed or identified
   as hazardous, the standards become
   effective: facilities become subject to
   the subpart AA and/or BB standards.
—On the affective date of the standards,
  each facility that does not have the
  control devices required by the
  process and/or equipment leak
  standards in place must have one of
  the following in the facility's operating
  record: i[S) As implementation
  schedule radicating when the controls
  will be installed, or (2) a process vent
  emission rate determination that
  documents that the emission rate limit
  is not exceeded (therefore, controls
  are not required).                  ,
—No later than IS months following the
  effective date (2 years fallowing
  promulgation), the controls required
  by the standards must be installed at
  all facilities.
  Newly constructed TSDF are required
to submit part A and part B permit
applications and to receive a final
permit prior to construction as required
by § 270.10. Following the effective date
of the standards promulgated today, a
part B application for a new facility
must demonstrate compliance with the
standards as contained in part 264. if
applicable Therefore, all controls
required tiy the standards would have to
be in place and operating upon startup.
  Similarly, new waste management
units add
-------
25492      Federal Register  /  Vol.  55. No. 120 / Thursday. June 21. 1930 / Rules  and Regulations
rules; the 24-month extension is not
applicable in this case. For the process
vent emission rate limit, the situation is
somewhat different TSDF process vents
associated with the distillation/
separation operations specified in the
rule that manage wastes with organics
concentrations of 10 ppmw or greater
are affected by the regulation regardless
of whether the facility emissions are
above or below the emission rate limit
Therefore, any change in the facility
operations that results in a TSDF going
above or below the emission rate limit
does not cause a change in the
applicability of the facility to subpart
AA. The rales require that affected
TSDF reduce total process vent organic
emissions from all affected vents by 95
percent or reduce the facility's total
process vent emissions to or below 1.4
kg/h and 2.8 Mg/yr. One of these
conditions must be met at all times; the
facility's emission rate determination.
which documents the facility's status
regarding compliance with the process
vent standards, must also at ail times
reflect current design and operation and
wastes managed in the affected units.
  The permitting authority cited by
section 3005 of RCRA and codified in
 § 270.32(b)(2) states that permits issued
 under this section "* * * shall contain
 such terms and conditions as the
 Administrator or State Director
 determines necessary to protect human
 health and the environment" This
 section, in effect, allows permit writers
 to require, on a case-by-case basis.
 emission controls that are more
 stringent than those specified by a
 standard. This omnibus authority could
 be used in situations whereon the permit
 writer's judgment there is an
 unacceptably high residual risk after
 application of controls required by an
 emission standard. As has been stated.
 the approach that EPA is using in
 today's regulatory action is to proceed
 with promulgation of regulations to
 control organic emissions and to follow
 this with regulations that would Require
 more stringent controls for individual
 hazardous  constituents or would
 otherwise reduce risk where necessary.
 Until then, permit writers should use
 their omnibus permitting authority to
 require more stringent controls at
 facilities where a high residual risk
 remains after implementation of the
 standards for volatile organics.

  X. Administrative Requirements'

 A. Regulatory Impact Analysis
    Executive Order No. 12291 (E.O.
  12291) requires each Federal agency to
  determine whether a regulation is a
"major10 rule as defined by the order
and "to the extent permitted by law." to
prepare and consider a Regulatory
Impact Analysis (RIA) in connection
with every major rule.  Major rules are
defined as those likely to result in:
  1. An annual cost to the economy of
$100 million or more; or
  2. A major increase in costs or prices
for consumers or individual industries:
or                     _
  a, Significant adverse effects on
competition, employment investment   .
productivity, innovation, or
international trade.
  The final rule establishes the specific
emission levels and emission control
programs that facilities must meet in
reducing air emissions from hazardous
waste management units. A complete
assessment of the costs.impacts. and
benefits of these rules has been
conducted by EPA. This analysis
indicates that the requirements of the
rules for TSDF equipment leaks and
process vents result in none of the
economic effects set forth in section 1 of
the E.O.12291 as grounds for finding a '
regulation to be major. The industry-
wide anmialized costs of the standards
are estimated to be $48 million, which is
less than the $100 million established as
the first criterion for a major regulation
in E.O.12291. Price increases associated
with  the final standards are not
considered a "major increase in costs br
prices" specified as the second criterion
in E.0.12291. The final standard's effect
on the industry would not result in any
 significant adverse effects on
 competition, investment productivity.
 employment innovation, or the ability of
 U.S. firms to compete with foreign firms
 (the third criterion in E.0.12291).
   The final rule was submitted to the
 Office of Management and Budget
 (OMB) for review as required by E.O.
 12291.
 fl. Regulatory Flexibility Act
   Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
 whenever an Agency publishes any
 proposed or final rule in the Federal
 Register, it must prepare a Regulatory
 Flexibility Analysis (RFA) that
 describes the impact  of the rule on small
 entities (i.e., small businesses.
 organizations, and governmental
 jurisdictions). This analysis is not
 necessary, however, if the Agency's
 Administrator certifies that the rule will
 not have a significant economic impact
 on a substantial number of small
 entities.  The EPA has established
• guidelines  for determining whether an
 RFA is required to accompany a
 rulemaking package. The guidelines
 state that if at least 20 percent of the
 universe of "small entities" is affected
by the rule, then an RFA is required. In
addition, the EPA criteria are used to
evaluate if a regulation will have a .
"significant impact" on small entities. If
any one of the following four criteria is
met the regulation should be assumed
to have a "significant impact:"
   1. Annual compliance  costs increase
the relevant production costs for small
entities by more than 5 percent
   2. The ratio of compliance costs to
sales will be 10 percent higher for small
entities than for large entities.
   3. Capital costs of compliance will
represent a significant portion of the
capital available to  small entities, taking
into account internal cash  flow plus
external financing capabilities.
.   4. The costs of the regulation will
likely result in closures of small entities.
   At proposal. EPA's Administrator
certified that the rule would not have a
significant impact on small businesses
because the only entities subject to the
rule are those required to have a permit
for treatment storage, and'disposal of
. hazardous waste. Few, if any. of these
 facilities are small entities. Based on
 comments received at proposal. EPA
 reviewed this conclusion in light of the
 revisions made to the proposed
 standards and closely examined the
 potential impacts on the industry
 segment comprised primarily of small
 commercial recyclers. As a result of the
 revisions made to exempt small
 facilities from having to install control
 devices. EPA again concluded that the
 economic impact on small businesses
 will be minimal and did not prepare a
 formal RFA in support of the rule.
   Accordingly, I  hereby certify that this
 regulation will not have a significant
 impact on & substantial number of small
 entities. Therefore, this regulation does
 not require an RFA.
 C Paperwork Reduction Act
   The information collection
 requirements contained in this rule have
 been approved by OMB under the
 provisions of the Paperwork Reduction
 Act 44 U.S.C 3501 et seq. and have
 been assigned OMB control number
 2080-0195.
    Public reporting burden resulting from
 this rulemaking is estimated to be about
 9 hours per response (on average).
 including time for reviewing
 instructions, searching  existing data
 sources, gathering  and  maintaining the
 data needed, and completing and
 reviewing the collection of information.
 Recordkeeping requirements are
 estimated to'require ISO hours a year for
 each facility.
    Send comments  regarding the burden
  estimate or any  other aspect of this

-------
            Federal Register / Vol. 55, No.  120 / Thursday, June 21, 1990 /  Rules and Regulations      25493
collection of information, including
suggestions for reducing this burden, to
Chief. Information Policy Branch. PM-
223. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. 401M Street SW.. Washington.
DC 20460: and to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs
(Paperwork Reduction Project (2060-
0195)}, Office of Management and
Budget. Washington. DC 20503. marked
"Attention: Desk Officer for EPA."

D. Supporting Documentation
  The dockets for this rulemaking
(Docket No. F-aS-AESP-FFFFF. which
covers the development of the rules up
to proposal, and Docket No. F-90-
AESF-FFFFF, which covers
development of the final rules from
proposal to promulgation) are available
for public inspection at the  EPA RCRA
Docket Office (OS-300) in room 242TM
of the US, Environmental Protection
Agency. 401M Street SW- Washington,
IXJ 20460. The docket room is open from
9 sum. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except for Federal holidays. The public
must make an appointment to review
docket materials and should call (202)
475-9327 for appointments.  Docket A-.
79-27, containing support information
used In developing the National
Emission Standard for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Benzene Fugitive Emissions.
is available for public inspection and
copying between 8 ajn. and 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, at EPA's
Central Docket Section, room 2903B.
Waterside Mall. 401M Street SW..
Washington. DC 204CO. The public may
copy a maximum of 50 pages of material
from any one regulatory docket at no
cost. Additional copies cost S0.20/pnge.
The docket contains a copy of all
references cited in the BID for the
proposed and final rules, as well as
other relevant reports and
correspondence.

E. Us* of Subjects
40CFRPaft2BO

  Air stripping operation. Closed-vent
system. Condenser. Control device.
Distillation operation. Equipment.
Fractionation operation. Process vent.
Solvent extraction operation. Steam
stripping operation. Thin-film
evaporation operation. Vapor
incinerator. Vented. Incorporation by
reference.  *
40 CFR Part 261

   Hazardous waste. Recyclable
materials. Recycling. Hazardous waate
management units.
 40 CFR Parts 264 and 283
   Hazardous waste. Treatment, storage,
 and disposal facilities. Air emission
 standards for process vents. Air.
 emission standards for equipment leaks.
 Incorporation by reference. Process
 vents, Cloaed-vent systems. Control
 devices' Pumps, Valves, Pressure relief
 devices. Sampling connection systems.
 Open-ended lines. Alternative
 standards. Test methods, Recordkeeping
 requirements. Reporting requirements.

 4O CFR Part 270
   Administrative practices- and
•procedures. Hazardous waste permit
 program. Process vents. Equipment
 leaks. Reporting and recordkeeping
 requirements.

 40 CFR Part 271
   Hazardous waste. State hazardous
 waste programs. Process vent and
 equipment leak air emission standards
 forTSDF.
   Dated Jun« 13,1900.
 William K.Xeilly,
 Adminiitrator.
   For- the reasons set out in the
 preamble, chapter L title 40. of the Code
 of Federal Regulations, parts 260,261,
 264.265.270. and 271, are amended as
 follows.

 PART 260—HAZARDOUS WASTE
 MANAGEMENT SYSTEM: GENERAL

   1. The authority citation for part 260
 continues to read as follows:
   Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905.6912(a). 6921
 through 6827. 6630. 6934.6835.6937, 6933. and
 6839.
   2, Section 260.11 is amended by
 adding the following references la
 paragraph (a):

 j ZOO* 11  HGi4CWICtt9»
   (a)* • •
 *     •    •    •   •
   "ASTM Standard Method for Analysis
 of Reformed Gas by Gas
 Chramatography." ASTM Standard D
 1946-82. available from American
 Society foe Testing and Materials, 1916
 Race Street, Philadelphia. PA 19103.
   "ASTM Standard Test Method for
 Heat of Combustion of Hydrocarbon
 Fuels by Bomb Calorimeter (High-
 Precision Method)." ASTM Standard D
 2382-83. available from American
 Society for Testing and Materials. 1916
 Race Street. Philadelphia. PA 19103.
   "ASTM Standard Practices for
 General Techniques of Ultraviolet-
 Visible Quantitative Analysis." ASTM
 Standard E169-87. available from
 American Society for Testing and
 Materials, 1916 Race Street.
 Philadelphia, PA 19103.
   "ASTM Standard Practices for
 General Techniques of Infrared
 Quantitative Analysis." ASTM Standard
 E163-88, available from American
 Society for Testing and Materials. 1918
 Race Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103.
   "A8TM Standard Practice for Packed
 Column Gas Chromatography," ASTM
 Standard E 260-85. available from
 American Society for Testing and
 Materials. 1918 Race Street.
 Philadelphia, PA 19103.
   "ASTM Standard Test Method for
 Aromatics in Light Naphthas and
 Aviation Gasolines by Gas
 Chromaiography," ASTM Standard D
 2267-iJS, available from American
 Society for Testing and Materials. 1916
 Race Sjtreet, Philadelphia. PA 19103.
   "A8TM Standard Test Method for
 Vapor Pressure-Temperature
. Relationship and Initial Decomposition
 Temperature of Liquids by Isoteriscope."
 ASTM Standard D 2879-88. available
 from j\merican Society for Testing and
 Materials. 1916 Race Street,
 Philadelphia, PA 19103.
   "AITI Course 415: Control of Gaseous
 Emissions," EPA Publication EPA-450/
 2-81-005. December 1981. available from
 National Technical Information Service.
 5285 I»ort Royal Road. Springfield. VA .
 22161,
 PART 2S1—IDENTIFICATION AND
 LIST! NG OF HAZARDOUS WASTE

   3. The authority citation for part 261
 continues to read as follows:
   Autliority: 42 U.S.C 6905. 6912.6921. 6922.
 and 6837.

 Subpiirt A—General

   4. In | 261.6, paragraph (c)(l) is
 revised and paragraphs (c)(2)(iii) and (d)
 are added to read as follows:

 §26l.li Requirements for recyclable
 materials*
   (c)(l) Owners or operators of facilities
 that store recyclable materials before
 they sire recycled are regulated under ail
 applicable provisions of subparts A
 through L. AA. and BB of parts 234 and
 283. and under parts 124. 268. 268. and
 270 of this chapter and the notification
 requirements under section 3010 of
 RCRlL. except as provided in paragraph
 (a) of this section. (The recycling
 process itself is exempt from regulation
 except as provided in 5 261.6(d).)
   (2) ' '  '
   (iii) Section 261.6(d) of this chapter.

-------
            Federal Register / VoL 55. No. 120 / Thursday. June 21.  1990 / Rules and Regulations
25494,
  (d) Owners or operators of facilities
subject to RCRA permitting
requirements with hazardous waste
management units that recycle
hazardous wastes are subject to the
requirements of subparts AA and BB of
part 264 or 265 of this chapter.

PART 264—STANDARDS FOR
OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF
HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT,
STORAGE. AND DISPOSAL
FACILITIES
  5. The authority citation for part 264
continues to read as follows:
  Authority: 42 US.C. 6905.6912(a). 6924. and
8925.

Subpart B—General Facility Standards)

  6. Section 284.13 U amended by
revising paragraph (b]{6) to read as
.follows:
                     'analysis.
 {264.13 Oenenl'
   (b) * * ••
   (6) Where applicable, the methods
 that will be used to meet the additional
 waste analysis requirements for specific
 waste management methods as
 specified in 55 264.17.284.314.264.341.
 284.1034(d]. 284.1063(d). and 288.7 of this
 chapter.
 •    *    •    •     •'
   7. Section 264.1S is amended by
 revising the last sentence of paragraph
 (b)(4) to read as follows:
 1204.15  Generatinsr*
                          ptfquirameiits.
   (b) •  • •
   (4)'  * * At a minimum, the
  inspection schedule must include the
  terms and frequencies called for in
  Si 284.174, 264.194. 284.221 264.253.
  284.254. 264.303. 284.347, 284.802.
  264.1033.264.1052.284.1053. and
  264.1058. where applicable.
  Subpart E— Manifest System.
  Recordkeeping, and Reporting

    8. Section 264.73 is amended by
  revising paragraphs (b)(3) and (b)(6) to
  read as follows:

  $264.73 Operation record.
    (3) Records and results of waste
  analyses performed as specified In
  S! 264.13. 284.17. 204.314. 284.341.
  264.1034. 264.1083. 268-4(a). and 288.7 of
  this chapter.

    (8) Monitoring, testing or analytical
  data, and corrective action where
required by subpart F and S§ 264:228.
284.253.264JS4.264.276.284.278, 26^280.
264.303,284.309.284.347.284.602.
264.1034(c)-264.1034(f). 264.103S.
264.1063(d}-264.1063(i}. and 264.1064.

  9. Section 284J7 is amended by
revising paragraph (c) to read as
follows:

S.284J7  Additional reports.

  (c) As otherwise required by subparts
F. K through N. AA. and BB.
  10.40 CFR part 284 is amended by
adding subpart AA to read as follows:
Subput AA—Air Frniniirffi Standards for
PraceesVaatB
264.1030 Applicability.
264.1031 Definitions.
264.1032 Standard*: Process vents.
264,1033 Standard* Closed-vent systems
  and control devices.
264.1034 Test methods and procedures.
26C.103S Recordkeeping requirements.
264.1036. Reporting requirements.
264.1037-264.1049  [Reserved!

 Subpart AA—Air Emission Standards -
 for Process Vents

 } 264.1030  AppJteabURy.
   (a) The regulations in this subpart
 apply to owners and operators of
 facilities that treat store, or dispose of
 hazardous wastes (except as provided
 in|2841J.
   (b) Except for 5 3 264.1034(d) and
 284.103S(e). this subpart applies to
 process vents associated with
 distillation, fraetionation. thin-film
 evaporation, solvent extraction, or air or
 steam stripping operations that manage
 hazardous wastes with organic
 concentrations of at least 10-ppmw. if
 these operations are conducted in:
    (1) Units that are subject to the
 permitting requirements of part 270. or
    (2) Hazardous waste recycling units
 that are located on hazardous waste
 management facilities otherwise subject
  to the permitting requirements of part
  270.
    (c) If the owner or operator of process
  vents subject to the requirements of
  §S 264.1032 through 264.1036 has
  received a permit under section 3005 of
  RCRA prior to December 21.1990 the
  requirements of §5 284.1032 through
  284.1038 must be incorporated when the
  permit is reissued under S 124.15 or
  reviewed under 5 270.50.
    (Note The requirements of S J 264.1032
  through 204.1036 apply to process vents on
  hazardous waste recycling units previously
  exempt under paragraph M1.6(c)(l). Other
  exemptions under H 281.4.28244. and
  264.1(8) are not affected by theM
  requirements.)
§264.1031   DsfmttkJfia.
  As used in this subpart all terms not
defined herein shall have the meaning
given them in the Act and parts 260-268.
  Air stripping operation is a desorptioa
operation employed to transfer one or
more volatile components from a liquid
mixture into a gas (air) either with or
without the application of heat to the
liquid. Packed towers, spray towers, and
bubble-cap, sieve, or valve-type plate
towers are among the process
configurations used for contacting the
air and a liquid.
  Bottoms receiver means a container
or tank used to receive and collect the
heavier bottoms fractions of the
distillation feed stream that remain in
the liquid phase.
  Closed-vent system means a system
that is not open to the atmosphere and
that is composed of piping, connections.
and. if necessary, flow-inducing devices
that transport gas or vapor from a piece
or pieces of equipment to a control
device.
   Condenser means a heat-transfer
 device that reduces a thermodynamic .
 fluid from its vapor phase to its liquid
 phase.
   Connector means flanged, screwed.
 welded, or other joined fittings used to
 connect two pipelines or a pipeline and
 a piece of equipment For the purposes
 of reporting and recordkeeping.
 connector means flanged fittings that
 are not covered by insulation or other
 materials  that prevent location of the
 fittings.
   Continuous recorder means a data-
 recording device recording an
 instantaneous data value at least once
 every 15 minutes.
   Control device means an enclosed
 combustion device, vapor recovery
 system, or flare. Any device the primary
 function of which is the recovery or
 capture of solvents or other organics for
 use. reuse, or sale (e.g- a primary
 condenser on a solvent recovery unit) is
 not a control device.
   Control device shutdown means the
 cessation of operation of a control
 device for any purpose.
   Distillate receiver means a container
 or tank used to receive and collect liquid
 material (condensed) from the overhead
 condenser of a distillation unit and from
  which the condensed liquid is pumped
  to larger  storage tanks or other process
  units.
    Distillation operation means an
  operation, either batch or continuous.
  separating one or more feed stream(s)
  into two  or more exit streams, each exit
  stream having component
  concentrations different from those in
  the feed  stream(s). The separation is

-------
             Federal Register / VoL 55. No. 120  /  Thursday. June 21. 1990 / Rules and Regulations      2S495
 achieved by the redistribution of the
 component* between the liquid and
 vapor phase as they approach
 equilibrium within the distillation unit
   Double block and bleed system means
 .two block valves connected in series
 with a bleed valve or line that can vent
 the line between the two block valves.
   Equipment means each valve, pump.
 compressor, pressure relief device.
 sampling connection system, open-
 ended valve or line, or flange, and any
 control devices or systems required by
 this subpart
   Flame zone means the portion of the
 combustion chamber in a boiler
 occupied by the flame envelope.
   flow indicator means a device that
 indicates whether gas flow is present in
 a vent stream.
   First attempt at repair me.ans to take
 rapid action for the purpose of stopping
 or reducing leakage of organic material
 to the atmosphere using beat practices;,
   Fractioaation operation means a
 distillation operation or method used to
 separate a mixture of several volatile
• components of different boiling points in
 successive stages, each stage removing
 from the mixture some proportion of one
 of the components.
   Hazardous waste management unit
 shutdown means « work practice or
 operational procedure that stops
 operation of a hazardous waste
 management unit or part of a hazardous
 waste management unit An
 unscheduled work practice or
 operational procedure that stops
 operation of a hazardous waste
 management unit or part of a hazardous
 wast* management unit for less than 24
 hours is not a hazardous waste
 management unit shutdown. The us« of
 spare equipment and technically
 feasible bypassing of equipment without
 stopping operation are not hazardous
 waste management unit shutdowns.
   Hot well means a container for
 collecting condensate as in a steam
 condenser serving a vacuum-jet or
 steam-jet ejector.
   la gas/vapor service means that the
 piece of equipment contains  or contacts
 a hazardous waste stream that is in the
 gaseous state at operating conditions.
   In heavy liquid service means that the
 piece of equipment is not in gas/vapor
 service or in light liquid service.
   In light liquid service means that the
 niiwji of equipment contains  or contacts
 a waste  stream where the vapor
 pressure of one or more of the   •
 components' in the stream is greater than
 O3 kilopascals (kPa) at 20 *C. the total
 concentration of the pure components
 having a vapor pressure greater than OJ
 kPa at 20 *C is. equal to or greater than
 20 percent by weight, and the fluid is a
 liquid at operating conditions.
   In situ sampling systems means
 nonextractive samplers or in-line
 samplers.
   In vacuum service means that
 equipment is operating at an internal
 pressure that is at least 5 kPa below
 ambient pressure.
   Malfunction means any sudden
 failure of a control device or a
 hazardous waste management unit or
 failure of a hazardous waste
• management unit to operate in a normal
 or usual manner, so that organic
 emissions are increased.
•  Open-ended valve or line means any
 valve, except pressure relief valves,
 having one side of the valve seat IE .
 contact with process fluid and one side
 open to the atmosphere, either directly
 or through open piping.
   Pressure release means the emission
 of materials resulting from the system
 pressure being greater than the set
 pressure of the pressure relief device;
   Process heater means a device that
 transfers heat liberated by burning fuel
 to fluids contained in tubes, including all
 fluids except water that are heated to
 produce steam.
   Process vent means any open-ended
 pipe or stack that is vented to the
 atmosphere either directly, through a
vacuum-producing system, or through a
 tank (e.g., distillate receiver, condenser.
bottoms receiver. sufg£ control tank,
 separator tank, or hot well) associated
with hazardous waste distillation.
fractionation. thin-film evaporation,
solvent extraction, or air or steam
stripping operations.
   Repaired means that equipment is
adjusted, or otherwise altered, to
eliminate a leak.
   Sensor meant a device that measures
a physical quantity or the change in a
physical quantity, such  as temperature,
pressure, flow rate, pH, or liquid level.
   Separator tank means a device used
for separation of two immiscible liquids.
   Solvent extraction operation means
an operation or method of separation in
which a solid or solution is contacted
with a liquid solvent (the two being
mutually insoluble) to preferentially
dissolve and transfer one or more
components into the solvent
   Startup means the setting in operation
of a  hazardous waste management unit
or control device for any purpose.
   Steam stripping operation means a
distillation operation in which
vaporization of the volatile constituents
of a  liquid mixture takes place by the
introduction of steam directly into the
charge.
   Surge control tank means a large-
sized pipe or storage reservoir sufficient
 to contain the surging liquid discharge of
 the process tank to which it is
 connected.
   Thin-film evaporation operation
 means a distillation operation that
 employs a heating surface consisting of
 a large diameter tube that may be either
 straight'or tapered, horizontal or
 vertical. Liquid is spread on the tube
 wall by a rotating assembly of blades
 that maintain a close clearance from the
 wall or actually ride on the film of liquid
 on the wall
   Vapor incinerator means any
 enclosed combustion device that is used
 for destroying organic compounds and  '
 docis not extract energy in the form of
 steum or process heat
   Vented means discharged through an
 opening, typically an open-ended pipe or
 stack, allowing the passage of a stream
 of liquids, gases, or fumes into the
 atmosphere. The passage of liquids,
 gases, or fumes is caused by mechanical
 meisns such as compressors or vacuum-
 producing systems or by process-related
 means such as evaporation produced by
 hea ting and not caused by tank loading
 and  unloading (working losses) or by
 natural means such as diurnal
 temperature changes.

 §244.1032  Standards: Proeen vent*.
  (a) The owner or operator of a facility
 with process vents associated with
 distillation, fractionation. thin-film
 evaporation, solvent extraction, or air or
 steam stripping operations managing
 hazardous wastes with organic
 concentrations of at least 10 ppraw shall
 either
  (11) Reduce total organic emissions
 from all affected process vents at the
 facility below 1.4 kg/h {3 Ib/h) and 2.3
 Mg/yr (3.1 tons/yr], or
  (2!) Reduce, by use of a control device.
 total organic emissions from all affected
 process vents at the facility by 95 weight
 percent
  (b) If the owner or operator installs a
 dosied-vent system and control device
 to comply with the provisions of
 paragraph (a) of this section the closed-
 vent system and control device must
 meat the requirements of § 284.1033.
  (c) Determinations of vent emissions
 and emission reductions or total organic  •
 compound concentrations achieved by
 add-on control devices may be based on
 engineering calculations or performance
 tests. If performance tests are used to
 determine vent emissions, emission
 reductions, or total organic compound
concentrations achieved by add-on
control devices, the performance tests
mutit conform with the requirements of
 i 264.1034(c).

-------
  (d) When an owner or operator and
the Regional Administrator do not agree
on determinations of vent emissions
and/or emission reductions or total
organic compound concentrations
achieved by add-on control devices
based on engineering calculations, the
procedures in § 284.1034(c) shall be used
to resolve the disagreement

§264,1033  Standard*: CioMd-vwrt
•ysteme and control device*.
  (a)(l) Owners or operators of closed-
vent systems and control devices used
to comply with provisions of this part
shall comply with the provisions of this
•ection*
  (2) The owner or operator of an
existing facility who cannot install a
closed-vent system and control device
to comply with the provisions of this
subpart on me effective date that the   .
facility becomes subject to the
provisions of this subpart must prepare
an implementation schedule that
includes dates by which the .closed-vent.
system and control device will be
installed and in operation. The controls
must be installed as soon as possible.
but the implementation- schedule may
allow up to 18 months after the effective
date that the facility becomes subject to
 this subpart for installation and startup.
All units that begin operation after
December 21.1990. must comply with
 the rules immediately (i.e.. must hava
 control devices installed and operating
 oo startup of the affected unit); the 2-
 year implementation schedule does not
 apply to these units.
   (b) A control device involving vapor
 recovery (e.g.. a condenser or adsorber)
 shall be designed and operated to
 recover the organic vapors vented to it
 with an efficiency of 95 weight percent
 or greater unless the total organic
 emission limits of 1284.1032(a)(l) for all
 affected process vents can be attained
 al an efficiency lew than 95 weight
 percent*
   (c) An enclosed combustion device
 (e.g» a vapor incinerator, boiler, or
 process heater) shall be designed and
 operated to reduce the organic
 emissions vented to it by 95 weight
 percent or greater to achieve a  total
 organic compound concentration of 20
 ppmv. expressed as the sum of the
 actual compounds, not carbon
 equivalents, on a dry basis corrected to
 3 percent oxygen: or to provide a
 TplnJr""^ residence time of 0.50 seconds
 at a minimum temperature of 760 "C. If a
 boiler or process heater is used as the
 control device, then the vent stream
  shall be introduced into the flame zone
  of the boiler or process heater.
    (d)(l) A flare shall be designed for
  and operated with no visible emissions
as determined by the methods specified
in paragraph (e)(l) of this section.
except for periods not to exceed a total
of 5 minutes during any 2 consecutive
hours.
   (2) A flare shall be operated with a
flame present at all times, as determined
by the methods specified hi paragraph
(f)(2J(iii) of this section.
   (3) A flare shall be used only if the net
heating value of the gas being
combusted is 11.2 MJ/scm (300 Btu/scf)
or greater if the flare is steam-assisted
or air-assisted: or if the net heating
value of the gas being combusted is 7.45
MJ/scm (200 Btu/scf) or greater if the
flare is nonassisted. The net heating
value of the gas being combusted shall
be determined by the methods specified
in paragraph (e}(2) of this section.
   (4)(i) A steam-assisted or nonassisted
flare shall be designed for and operated
with an exit velocity, as determined by
the methods specified in paragraph
(e}(3) of this section, less than 1&3 m/s
(60 ft/s). except as provided in
paragraphs (d}(4) (U) and (iii) of this
section.
   (ii) A steam-assisted or nonassisted
flare designed for and operated with an
exit velocity, as determined by the
methods specified in paragraph (e)(3) of
this section, equal to or greater than 1&3
m/s (60 ft/s) but less than 122 m/s (400
 ft/s) is allowed if the net heating value
 of the gas being combusted is greater
 than 37.3 MJ/wan (1,000 Btu/scf).
   (iii) A steam-assisted or nonassisted
 flare designed for and operated with an
 exit velocity, as determined by the
 methods specified hi paragraph (e)(3) of
 this section, less than the velocity, Vma,
 as determined by the method specified
 in paragraph (e)(4) of this section and
 less than 122 m/s (400 ft/s) is allowed.
   (5) An air-assisted flare shall be
 designed and operated with an exit
 velocity less than the velocity. V^ as
 determined by the method specified in
 paragraph (e)(5) of this section.
   (8) A flare used to comply with this
 section shall be steam-assisted, air-
 assisted, or nonassisted.         	
   (e)(l) Reference Method 22 in 40 CFR
 part 60 shall be used to determine the
 compliance of a flare with the visible
  emission provisions of this subpart The
  observation period is 2 hours and shall
  be used according to Method 22.
    (2) The net heating value of the gas
  being combusted in a flare shall be
  calculated using the following equation:
where:
Hr-Nel heating value of the sample. MJ/
    acm: where the net enthalpy per mole of
    offgas is based on combustion at 28 °C
    aad TOO mm Hg. but the standard
    temperature for determining the volume
    corresponding to 1 mol is 20 'C:
K-Constant I74xl0-'(l/ppm) (g mol/scm)
    (Mf/kcal) where standard temperature
    for (g mol/scm) is 20 'C:
(^•Concentration of sample component i in
    ppm on a wet basis, as measured for
    organic* by Reference Method 18 in 40
    CFR part 60 and measured for hydrogen
    and carbon monoxide by ASTM 01948-
    82 (incorporated by reference as
    specified in i 280.11): and
 H|**Net heat of combustion of sample
,"   component i. kcal/9 moi at 25'C and 760
    mm Hg. The heata of combustion may be
    determined using ASTM O 2382-33
    (incorporated by reference as specified
    in i 260.11) if published values are not
 "  available or cannot be calculated.
   (3) The actual exit velocity of a'flare
 shall be determined by dividing the
 volumetric flow rate (in units of
 standard temperature and pressure), as
 determined by Reference Methods 2,2A,
 2C. or 2D in 40 CFR part 60 as
 appropriate, by the unobstructed (free)
 cross-sectional area of the flare tip.
   (4) The maximum allowed velocity in
 m/s. Vmua for a flare complying with
 paragraph (d)(4)(iii) of this section shall
 be determined by the following
 equation:
             HT-K[SCM]
  where:
  283-CoruUnt,
  31Ji> Constant
  HT-TTie net healing value as determined in
     paragraph (e)(2) of ml* section.
    (5) The maximum allowed velocity in
  m/s. VM, for an air-assisted flare shall
  be determined by the following
  equation:
  Vwr»a.706+0.70M (Hr)
  where:
  arm-Constant
  0.7084-Constant
  Hr-The net heating value as determined in
     paragraph (e)(2) of this section.
    (f) The owner or operator shall
'  monitor and inspect each control device
  required to comply with this section to
  ensure proper operation and
  maintenance of the control device by
  implementing the following
  requirements:
    (1) Install, calibrate, maintain, and
  operate according to the manufacturer's
  specifications a flow indicator that
  provides a record of vent stream flow
  from each affected process vent to the
  control device at least once every hour.
  The flow indicator sensor shall be
  . installed in the vent stream at the
  nearest feasible point to the control

-------
             Federal Register / VoL 55. No. 120 / Thursday, June 21,  1990 / Suleii and Regulations
                                                                       2S487'
 devic* Inlet but before the point at
 which the vent streams ate combined.
  (2) Install, calibrate, maintain, and
 operate according to the manufacturer's
 specifics Hens a device to ermttnyi^fjy
 monitor control device operation at
 specified below:  .
  (0 For a thermal vapor incinerate*, a
 temperature monitoring device equipped
 with a continuous recorder. The device
 ifaall have an accuracy of ±1 percent of
 the temperature being monitored In *C
 or ±
-------
25498      Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 120 / Thursday.  June 21. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
procedures specified in Reference
Method 21.
  (4) Calibration gases shall be:
  (i) Zero air (less than 10 ppm of
hydrocarbon in air).           ,
  (ii) A mixture of methane or n-hexane
and air at a concentration of
approximately, but less than, 10,000 ppm
methane or n-hexane.
  (5) The background level shall be
determined as set forth in Reference .
Method 21.
  (6) The instrument probe shall be .
traversed around all potential leak
interfaces as close to the interface as
possible as described in Reference.
Method 21.
   (7) The arithmetic difference between
 the maximum concentration indicated
 by the instrument and the background
* level is compared with 500 ppm for
 determining compliance.
    (c) Performance tests to determine
 compliance with § 264.1032(a) and with
 the total organic compound
 concentration limit of § 264.1033(c) shall
 comply with the following:
    (1) Performance tests to determine
 total organic compound concentrations
 and mass flow rates entering and exiting
 control devices shall be conducted and
 data reduced in accordance with the
 following reference methods and
 calculation procedures:
    (i) Method 2 in 40 CFR part 60 for
 velocity and volumetric flow rate.
             B
    E»=Q.- { 2 QMW, j [aonej [WTT
  (ii) Method 18 in 40 CFR part 60 for
organic content
  (iii) Each performance test shall
consist of three separate runs: each run
conducted for at least 1 hour under the
conditions that exist when the
hazardous waste management unit is
operating at the highest load or capacity
level reasonably expected to occur. For
the purpose of determining total organic
compound concentrations and mass
flow rates, the average of results of all
runs shall apply. The average shall be
computed on a time-weighted basis.
  (iv) Total organic mass flow rates
shall be determined by the following
equation:
 where:
 Efi^Totai organic mass flow rate, kg/te
. Q^= Volumetric flow rate of gases entering
    or exiting control device, a* determined
    by Method 2. dson/h;
 n - Number of organic compounds in the vent
    gas:
 C.= Organic concentration in ppm. dry basis.
    of compound I in the vent gas. as
    determined by Method 1ft
 MW,=- Molecular weight of organic
    compound i in the vent gas. kg/kg-mok
 O.O418=" Conversion factor for molar volume.
    kg-mol/m3 (@ 293 K and 760 mm Hgfc
 10"*=* Conversion from ppm. ppm" '. '

   (v) The annual total organic emission
 rate shall be determined by the
 following equation:
 where:
 E,=* Total organic mass emission rate, kg/y;
 En=Tptal organic mass flow rate for the
    process vent, kg/h:
 ll=ToUl annual hours of operations for the
    affected unit h.

   (vi) Total organic emissions from ail
 affected process vents at the facility
 shall be determined by summing the
 hourly total organic mass emission rates
 (Efc as determined in paragraph (c)(l)(iv)
 of this section) and by summing the
 annual total organic mass emission rates
 (E». as determined in paragraph (c)(l)(v)
 of this section) for all affected process
 vents at the facility.
   (2) The owner or operator shall record
 such process information as may be
 necessary to determine the conditions of
 the performance tests. Operations
 during periods of startup, shutdown, and
 malfunction shall not constitute
 representative conditions for the
 purpose of a performance test      .   •
   (3) The owner or operator of an
 affected facility shall provide, or cause
 to be provided, performance testing
 facilities as follows:
   (i) Sampling ports adequate for the
 test methods specified in paragraph
 (c)(l) of this section.
   (ii) Safe sampling platform(s).
   (iii) Safe access to sampling
 platform(s).
   (iv) Utilities for sampling and testing
 equipment
   (4) For the purpose of making
 compliance determinations, the time-
 weighted average of the results of the
 three runs shall apply. In the event that
 a sample is accidentally lost or
 conditions occur, in which one of the
 three runs must be discontinued because
 of forced shutdown, failure of an
 irreplaceable portion of the sample
 train, extreme meteorological
 conditions, or other circumstances
 beyond the owner or operator's control,
 compliance may. upon the Regional
 Administrator's approval, be determined
 using the average of the results of the
  two other runs.
    (d) To show that a process vent
  associated with a hazardous waste
  distillation, fractionation. thin-film
  evaporation, solvent extraction, or air or
  steam stripping operation is not subject
  to the requirements of this subpart, the
  owner or operator must make an initial
  determination that the time-weighted,
  annual average total organic
  concentration of the waste managed by
  the waste management unit is less than
10 ppmw using one of the following two
methods:
  (1) Direct measurement of the organic
concentration of the waste using the
following procedures:
  (i) The owner or operator must take a
minimum of four grab samples of waste
for each waste stream managed in the
affected unit under process conditions
expected to cause the maximum waste
organic concentration.
  (ii) For waste generated onsite. the
grab samples must be collected at a
point before the waste is exposed to the
atmosphere such as in an enclosed pipe
or other closed system that is used  to
transfer the waste after generation  to
the first affected distillation.
fractionation, thin-film evaporation,
solvent extraction, or air or steam'
stripping operation. For waste generated
offsite, the grab samples must be
collected at the inlet to the first waste
management unit that receives the
waste provided the waste has been
transferred to the facility in a closed
system such as a tank truck and the
waste is not diluted or mixed with other
waste.
   (iii) Each sample shall be analyzed
and the total organic concentration of
the sample shall be computed using
Method 9060 or 8240 of SW-848
(incorporated by reference under
 } 260.11).
   (iv) The arithmetic mean of the results
of the analyses of the four samples shall
apply  for each waste stream managed in
the unit in determining the time-
weighted, annual average total organic
concentration of the waste. The time-

-------
            Federal Register  / VdL  55. No. 120 / Thursday. June  ZL 1996 / Rulen and Regulation*     2S3B§
welghted-ewerageit to be calculated
using the annual quantity of each wast*
stream processed and the mean organic
concentration of-each waste stream
tna&agedfinths) unit.
  (2) Using knowledge of the waste ta
datcnnine -that its total organic
concentration is lets than 10 ppmw.
Documentation of the wast*
dsterminsiion is required. Examples of
documentation that shall b* Died to
support A {latarmi&ation iimfof *hi«
provision include production peaces*
information di?5?iimffnHng that no'Organic
compounds an used, information that
the waste is generated by a process that
is identical to « process at the same or
another facility that has previously been
demonstratediby direct measurement to
generate a waste stream having a total
organic content less than 10 ppmw. or
prior spedation analysis results on the
same wnte stream where it can also be
documented that no process-changes
have occurred since that analysis that
could affect the waste total organic
concentration.
  IP) The determination that distillation,
fractionatlon. thin-film evaporation!
solvent extraction, or air or steam
stripping operations manage hazardous
wastes-with time-weighted, annual
average total organic concentrations
less than 10 ppmw shall be made as
follows:
  (1) By the-efleclive date that the
fadHry teeomes zubiect to the
previsions of this subpart or by the date
when the waste-is first managed in a
waste management unit, wbichever-is
later, and
  (2) For continuously generated waste.
aonaalry, or
  (3) Whenever there Is a change in the
waste being managed or a change in the
process that generates or treats  the
waste.
  (f) When an owner or operator and
the Regional Administrator do not agree
on whether a distillation, fractionation.
thin-film evaporation, solvent
extraction, or air or steam stripping
operation manages a hazardous waste
with organic concentrations of at least
10 ppmw based on knowledge-of the
waste, the procedures in Method 6240
may be used to resolve the dispute.

J2M.103S fteconttCMpIng nqukamwitt.
  (a)fl) Each owner or operator subject
to the provisions of this suhpart shall
comply with the recordkeeping
requirements of this section.
  (2) An owner or operator of more than
one hazardous waste management unit
subject to the provisions of this  subpart
may comply with the recordkeeping
requirements for these hazardous waste
management units in one recordkeeping
 system if the ay item identifies each
 record by each hazardous waste
 management-unit
  •(b) Owners and operators must record
 the following information ic the facility
 operating xecord:
  (1) For facilities mat comply with the
 provisions of 1 2644033(a)(2J, an
 implementation schedule that includes .
 dates by which the dosed- vent .system
 and control -device will be installed and
 in operation. The schedule must also
 include a rationale -of why the
             ^n1?^ be completsd at an
 earlier data. The implementation
 schedul* must-be in die facility
 operating record by the effective date
 that the facility becomes subject to the
 provisions of this sabpart
   (2) Up-to-date documentation of
 compliance with the process vent
 standards hi I 264.1032. including:
   (ij Information and data identifying all
 affected process vents, annual
 throughput and operating hours of each
 affected-unit, .estimated emission rates
 for each affected vent and for the
 overall facility (La» the total emissions
 for all affected vents at the -facility). and
 the approximate location within the
 facility of each affected unit (e.g..
 identify the hazardous waste
 management units on a facility plot
 plan).
   (ii) Information and data supporting
 determinations of -rent emissions and
 emission reductions achieved by add-on
 control devices basea on engineering
 calculations or-source tests. Forthe
 purpose of determining compliance.
 determinations of vent emissions and
 emission reductions must be made Basing
 operating parameter-values (e.g.,
 temperatures, flow rates, or •vest stream
• organic compounds and concentrations)
 that represent -the conditions that result
 in maximum organic emissions, such aa
 when the waste management unit is
 operating at the highest load or capacity
 level reasonably expected to occur. If
 the owner or operator takes any action
 (e.g.. managing a waste of different
 composition or increasing operating
 hours of -affected waste management
 units) that would result in an increase in
 total organic emissions from affected
 process vents at the facility, then a new
 determination is required.
   (3) Where an owner or operator
 chooses to use-test data to determine the
 organic removal efficiency or total
 organic compound concentration
 achieved by the control device, a
 performance test plan. The test plan
 must include:
   (i) A description of how it is
 determined tout the planned test is going
 to b« conducted when the hazardous
 waste management unit is operating at
the highest load or capacity level
reasonably expected to occur. This shall
include the«rtimated or design flow rate
and organic-contest of each vent stream
and define,the acceptable operating
ranges isflcey-procesa and control device
parameters dicing the test program.
  (if) & detailed engineering description
of the closed-vent system and control
device including;
  (A) Manufacturer's name and model
number of control device.
  (B) T;rpe of control device.
  (C) 'Dimensions of the control device.
  (D) Capacity.
  IE] Gjnstruction materials.
  (iiij A detailed description of sampling
and monitoring procedures, including
sampling and-monitoring locations in the
system, the-equipment  to be used.
sampling and monitoring frequency, and
planned.analytical procedures for
sample analysis.
  {«! Oocumentatioa of compliance with
| 2B4.KB3shall indude the following
infonnsiSian:
  •(i) A list of all information references
and sources used in preparing the
documentation.
  (ii) Risoords indudhig the-dales of
each compliance lest required by
f 284.ieB3(k).
  (Ui) If engineering calculations are
used..a design analysis, specifications,
drawings, schematics, and piping and
instrumentation diagrams based on the
appropriate sections of "APT! Course
415: Control of Caseous Emissions"
(incorporated by reference as specified
hi S 26CL11) or other engineering texts
acceptable 4o the Regional
Administrator that present basic control
device design information.
DocumiuUation provided oy the control
device manufacturer or vendor that
describes the control device design hi
accordance with paragraphs
(b)(4MUi}(A) through (b)(4)(iii](G) of this
section may be used to comply with this
requirement The design analysis shall
addresii the vent stream characteristics
and control device operation parameters
as specified below.
  (A) For a thermal vapor incinerator.
the design analysis shall consider the
vent stream composition, constituent
concentrations, and flow rate. The
design unalysis shall also establish the
design minimum and average
temperature in the combustion zone and
the combustion zone residence time.
  (B) For a catalytic vapor incinerator.
the design analysis shall consider the
vent stream composition, constituent
concenlirations. and Sow rate. The
design analysis shall also establish the
design minimum and average

-------
25380      Federal Register / Vol.  55. No. 120 / Thursday.  June 21. 19SO / Rules and Regulations
temperatures across the catalyst bed
inlet and outlet.
  (C) For a boiler or process heater, the
design analysis shall consider the vent
stream composition, constituent
concentrations, and flow rate. The
design analysis shall also establish the
design minimum and average flame zone
temperatures, combustion zone
residence time, and description of
method and location where the vent
stream is introduced into the
combustion zone.
  (Dl For a flare, the design analysis
shall consider the vent stream
composition, constituent concentrations,
and flow rate. The design analysis shall
also consider the requirements specified
in S 284.1033(d).
  (E) For a condenser, the design
analysis shall-consider the vent stream
composition, constituent concentrations,
flow rate, relative humidity, and
temperature. The design analysis shall
also establish the design outlet organic
compound concentration level, design
average temperature of the condenser
exhaust vent stream, and design average
temperatures of the coolant fluid at the
condenser inlet and outlet
   (F) For a carbon adsorption system
such as a fixed-bed adsorber that
regenerates the carbon bed directly
ooiite in the control device, the design
 analysis shall consider the vent stream
 composition, constituent concentrations.
 flow rate, relative humidity, and
 temperature. The design analysis shall
 also establish the design exhaust vent
 stream organic compound concentration
 level, number and capacity of carbon
 beds, type and working capacity of
 activated carbon used for carbon beds.
 design total steam flow over the period
 of each complete carbon bed
 regeneration cycle, duration of the
 carbon bed steaming and cooling/drying
 cycles, design carbon bed temperature
 after regeneration, design carbon bed
 regeneration time, and design service
 life of carbon.
    (G) For a carbon adsorption system
 such as a carbon canister that does not
 regenerate the carbon bed directly
 onsite in the control device, the design
 analysis shall consider the vent stream
 composition, constituent concentrations,
 flow rate, relative humidity, and
 temperature. The design analysis shall
 also establish the design outlet organic
 concentration level, capacity of carbon
 bed. type and working capacity of
 activated carbon used for carbon bed.
 and design carbon replacement interval
 based on the total carbon working
 capacity of the control device and
 source operating schedule.
    (iv)  A statement signed and dated by
  the owner or operator certifying that the
operating parameters used in the design
analysis reasonably represent the
conditions that exist when the
hazardous waste management unit is or
would be operating at the highest load
or capacity level reasonably expected to
occur.
  (v) A statement signed and dated by
the owner or operator certifying that the
control device is designed to operate at
an efficiency of 95 percent or greater
unless the total organic concentration
limit of § 2S4.1032(a) is achieved at an
efficiency less than 95 weight percent or
the total organic emission limits of
S 264.1032(a) for affected process vents
at the facility can be attained by a
control device involving vapor recovery
at an efficiency less than 95 weight
percent A statement provided by the
control device manufacturer or vendor
certifying that the control equipment'
meets the design specifications may be
used to comply with this requirement
   (vi) If performance tests are used to
demonstrate compliance, all  test results.
   (c) Design documentation and
monitoring, operating, and inspection
information for each closed-vent system
and control device required to comply
with the provisions of this part shall be
recorded and kept up-to-date in the
facility operating record. The
information shall include:
   (1) Description and date of each
modification that is made to the closed-
vent system or control device design.
   (2) Identification of operating
 parameter, description of monitoring
 device, and diagram of monitoring
 sensor location or locations used to
 comply with 5 264.1033 (f)(l) and (f)(2).
   (31 Monitoring, operating, and
 inspection information required by
 paragraphs (f) through (k) of § 204.1033.
   (4) Date. time, and duration of each
 period that occurs while the control
 device is operating when any monitored
 parameter exceeds the value established
 in the control device design  analysis as
 specified below:
    (i) For a thermal vapor incinerator
 designed to operate with a minimum
 residence time of 0.50 second at a
 minimum temperature of 760 "C. period
 when the combustion temperature is
 below 760 "C.
    (ii) For a thermal vapor incinerator
 designed to operate, with an organic
 emission reduction efficiency of 95
 weight percent or greater period when
 the combustion zone temperature is
 more than 28 *C below the design
 average combustion zone temperature
 established as a requirement of
 paragraph (b)(4)(iii)(A] of this section.
    (iii) For a catalytic vapor incinerator.
  period when: ,
  (A) Temperature of the vent stream at
the catalyst bed inlet is more than 28 'C
below the average temperature of the
inlet vent stream established as a
requirement of paragraph (b)(4)(iii)(B] of
this section, or       ^
  (B) Temperature difference across the
catalyst bed is less than 80 percent of
the design average temperature
difference established as a requirement •
of paragraph (b)(4)(iii)(B) of this section.
  (iv) For a boiler or process heater.
period when:
  (A) Flame zone temperature is more
than 28 *C below the design average
•flame zone temperature established as a
requirement of paragraph (b)(4Miii)(C) of
this  section, or
  (B) Position changes where the vent
stream is introduced to the combustion
zone from the location established as a
requirement of paragraph (b)(4)(iii)(C) of
this section.
   (vj For a flare, period when the pilot
flame is not ignited.
   (vi) For a condenser that complies
with S 284.1033(f)(2)(vi){A)..period when
the organic compound concentration
level or readings of organic compounds
in the exhaust vent stream from the
condenser are more than 20 percent
greater than the design outlet organic
compound concentration level
established as a requirement of
paragraph (b)(4)(iii)(E) of this section.
   (vii) For a condenser that complies
 with S 264.1033(fK2)(vi)(B), period when:
   (A) Temperature of the exhaust vent
 •tream from the condenser is more than
 6 *C above the design average exhaust
 vent stream temperature established as
 a requirement of paragraph (b)(4)(iii)(E)
 of this section: or
   (B) Temperature of die coolant fluid
 exiting the condenser is more than 8 *C
 above the design average coolant fluid
 temperature at the condenser outlet
 established as a requirement of
 paragraph (b)(4)(iii)(E) of this section.
   (viii) For a carbon adsorption system
 such as a fixed-bed carbon adsorber
 that regenerates the carbon bed directly
 onsite in the control device and
 complies with S 264.1033(f)(2)(vii)(A).
 period when the organic compound
 concentration level or readings of
 organic compounds in the exhaust vent
 stream from the carbon bed are more
 than 20 percent greater than the design
 exhaust vent stream organic compound
 concentration level established as a
 requirement of paragraph (b)(4)(iii)(F) of
 this section.
   (ix) For a carbon adsorption system
 such as a fixed-bed carbon adsorber
 that regenerates the carbon bed directly
 onsite in the control device and
 complies with S 2e4.1033(f)(2)(vii)(B).

-------
              Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 120 / Thursday. June  21. 1990 / Rul«s and Regulations.     25501
  period when the vent stream continues
  to flow through the control device
- beyond the predetermined carbon bed
  regeneration time established as a
  requirement of paragraph (b)(4)(iii)[F) of
  this section.
    (5) Explanation for each period
  recorded under paragraph (4) of the
  cam* for control device operating
  parameter exceeding the design value
  and the measures implemented to
  correct the control device operation.
    (0) For a carbon adsorption system
  operated subject to requirements
  specified in i 284.1033(g) or
.  i 2S4.1033(h)(2). date when existing
  carbon in the control device is replaced
  with fresh carbon.
    (7) For a carbon adsorption system
  operated subject to requirements
. specified in { 284,1033(h](l), a log that
  records:
    (i) Date and time when control device
  is monitored for carbon breakthrough
  and the monitoring device reading.
    (it) Date when existing carbon in  the
  control device is replaced with fresh
  carbon.
    (8) Date of each control device startup
  and shutdown..
    (d) Records of the monitoring,
  operating, and inspection information
  required by paragraphs (cpHc}(8) of
  this section need be kept only 3 years.
    (e) For a control device other than a
  thermal vapor incinerator, catalytic
  vapor incinerator, flare, boiler, process
  heater, condenser, or carbon adsorption
  system, the Regional Administrator will
  specify the appropriate recordkeeping
  requirements.
 .  (f) Up-to-date information and data
  used to determine whether or not a
  process vent is subject to the
 requirements in 1284.1032 including
 supporting documentation as required
 by 1264.1034(d)(2) when application of
 the knowledge of the nature of the
 hazardous waste stream or the process
 by which it was produced is used, shall
 be recorded in a log that is kept in the
 facility, operating record.
 (Approved by the Office of Management and
 Budget under control number 2080-0195)

 1284.103*  Reporting requirements.
    (a) A semiannual report shall be
 submitted by owners and operators
 subject to the requirements of this
 subpart ta the Regional Administrator
 by dates specified by the Regional
 Administrator. The report shall include
 the following information:
   (1) The Environmental Protection
 Agency identification  number, name.
 and address of the facility.
   (2) For each month during the
 semiannual reporting period, dates
 when the control device exceeded or
 operated outside of the design .
 specifications as defined in
 S 284.1035(c)(4) and as indicated by the
 control device monitoring required by
 i 2&4.1033(f) and such exceedances
 were not corrected within 24 hours, or
 that a flare operated with visible
 emissions as defined in § 284.1033(d)
 and as determined by Method 22
 monitoring, the duration and cause of
 each exceedance or visible emissions.
 and any corrective measures taken.
   (b) If. during the semiannual reporting
 period, the control device does not
 exceed or operate outside of the design
 specifications as defined in
 I 264.103S(c)(4J for more than 24 hours
 or a flare does not operate with visible
 emissions as defined in § 264.1033(d}. a
 report to the Regional Administrator is
 not required.

 (Approved by the Office of Management and
 Budgefunder control number 2060-0195)

 $§264.1037-284.1649 [Reserved!.

   11/40 CFH part 284 is amended fay
 adding subpart BB to read as follows:

 Subpart 88—Air Emission Standards for
 Equipment Leaks

 204.1050  Applicability.
 284.1051  Definitions.
 264.1052  Standards: Pump* in light liquid
    service.
 284-1053  Standards: Compressors.
 284.1054  Standards: Pressure relief devices
    in gas/vapor service.
 254.1055  Standards: Sampling connecting
    systems.
 264.1058  Standards: Open-ended valves or
    lines.
 2S4.1057  Standards: Valves in gas/vapor
    service or in light liquid service.
 284.1058  Standards: Pumps and valve* in
    heavy liquid service, pressure relief
    devices in light liquid or heavy liquid
    service, and flanges and other
    connectors.
 204.1059 Standards: Delay of repair.
 264.1000 Standards: Closed-vent systems
    and control devices.
 264.1081 Alternative standards for valves in
    gas/vapor service or in light liquid
    service: percentage of valves allowed to
    leak.  '
 264.1062 Alternative standards for valves in
    gas/vapor service or in light liquid
    service: skip period leak detection and
    repair.
264.1063 Test methods and procedures.
264.1064 Recordkeeping requirements.
284.1065 Reporting requirements.
264.1066-264.1079   (Reserved)

Subpart BB—Air Emission Standards
for Equipment Leaks

§284.1050  Applicability.
  (a) The regulations in this subpart
apply to owners and operators of
facilities that treat, store, or dispose of
 hazardous wastes (except as provided
 in § 2M.1).
   (b) ISxcept as provided in
 § 284.ll084(k). this subpart applies to
 equipment that contains or contacts
 hazardous wastes with organic
 concentrations of at least 10 percent by
 weighll that are managed in:
   (i) Units that are subject to the
 permitting requirements of part 270. or
   (2) Hazardous waste recycling units
 that aiw located on hazardous waste
• management facilities otherwise subject
 to the permitting requirements of part
 270.
   (c) 11; the owner or operator of
 equipment subject to the requirements
 of §| 264.1052 through 264.1065 has
 received a permit under section 3005 of
 RCRA prior to December 21. 1990. the
 requirements of §§ 284.1052 through
 284.10(15 must be incorporated when the
 permit is reissued under 1 124.15 or
 reviewed under § 270.50.
   (d) Black piece of equipment to which
 this subpart applies shall be marked in
 such a manner that it can be
 distinguished readily from other pieces
 of equipment
   (e) Equipment that is in vacuum
 service is excluded from the
 requirements of 5 264.1052 to § 264.1060
 if it is identified as required in
 S 2B4.1064(g}(5).
  [Note: The requirements of $$264.1052 '
 through 264.1085 apply to equipment
 associated with hazardous waste recycling
 units prsviously exempt under $ 261.6(c)(l).
 Other exemptions under §§ 261.4. 262.34. and
 264.1(g) are not affected by these
 requirements.]

 § 264.KIS1  Definitions.
  As uiied in this subpart, all terms shall
 have the meaning given them in
 § 284.11)31. the Act and parts 260-2G6.

i 264.10 52  Standards: Pumps In light liquid
  (a)(l] Each pump in light liquid service
shall bit monitored monthly to detect
leaks by the methods specified in
S 284.1()63(b), except as provided in
paragraphs (d), (e), and (f) of this
section,
  (2! Each pump in light liquid service
shall b<> checked by visual inspection
each calendar week for indications of
liquids dripping from the pump seal.
  (b)(l) If a instrument reading of 10.000
ppm or greater is measured, a leak is
detected.
  (2) If there are indications of liquids •
dripping from 'the pump seal, a leak is
detected.
  (c)(l) When a leak is detected, it shall
be repaired as soon as practicable,  but
not later than 15 calendar days after it is

-------
                                                                        IS9Q I Rules and Regulations
 detected, except as provided in-
 §264.1059.
   (2j A first attempt at repair (e.g,
 tightening the packing gland] shall be
 made no later than 5 calendar days after
 each leak is detected.
   (d) Each pump equipped with a dual.
 mechanical seal system that includes a
' barrier fluid system is exempt from the
 requirements of paragraph (a) of this
 section, provided the following
 requirements are met:
   (1) Each dual mechanical seal system
 must bes
   (i) Operated with the barrier fluid at a
 pressure that is at all times greater than
 the pump stuffing box pressure, or
   (ii) Equipped with' a barrier fluid
 degassing reservoir that is connected by
 a closed-vent system to a control device
 that complies with the requirements of
 § 264.1080. or
   (iii) Equipped with a system that
 purges the barrier fluid info a hazardous.
 waste stream with no detectable
 emissions to the atmosphere.
    (2) The barrier fluid system must not
 be a hazardous waste with organic
  concentrations 10 percent or greater by
  weight
    (3) Each barrier fluid system must be
  equipped with a sensor that will detect
  failure of the seal system, the barrier
  fluid system, or both.
    (4) Each pump must be checked by
  visual inspection, each calendar week.
  for indications of liquids dripping from
  the pump seals.
    (5](i) Each sensor as described in
  paragraph (d](3) of this section must be
  checked daily or be equipped with aa
  audible alarm that must be checked
  monthly to ensure that it is functioning
  property.
     (ii) The owner or operator must
  determine, based on design
  considerations and operating
  experience, a criterion that indicates
  failure of the seal system, the barrier
   fluid system, or both.
     (6)(i) If there are indications of liquids
   dripping from the pump seal or the
   sensor indicates failure of the seal
   system, the barrier fluid system, or both
   based on the criterion determined in
   paragraph (d);S)(ii) of this section, a leak
   is detected.
     (ii) When a leak is detected, it shall be
   repaired'as soon as practicable, but not
   later than 15 calendar days after it is
   detected, except as provided in
   §264.1059.
     (iii) A first attempt at repair (e.g..
   relapping the seal) shall be made no
   later than 5 calendar days after each
   leak is detected.
     (e) Any pump that is designated, as
   described in § 2S4.1064(g)(2). for no
   detectable emissions, as indicated by an
instrument reading of less than 500 ppm
above background, is exempt from the
requirements of paragraphs (a), (c), and
(d) of this section if the pump meets the
following requirements!
  (1) Must have no externally actuated
shaft penetrating the pump housing.
  (2) Must operate with no detectable
emissions as indicated by an Instrument
reading of less than 500 ppm above
background as measured by the
methods specified in § 264.l063(c).
  (3) Must be tested for compliance with
paragraph (e}(2) of this section initially
upon designation, annually, and-at other
times as requested by the Regional
Administrator.
  (!) If any pump is equipped with a   .
closed-vent system capable of capturing
and transporting any leakage from the
seal or seals to a control device that
complies with the requirements of .
 § 284.1060, it is exempt from the
requirements of paragraphs (a) through
 (e) of this section.

 §264.1053  Standards: Compressor*.
   (q) Each compressor shall be equipped
 with e seal system that includes a
 barrier fluid system and that prevents
 leakage of total organic emissions to the
 atmosphere, except as provided in
 paragraphs (h) and (i) of this section.
   (b) Each compressor seal system as
 required in paragraph (a) of this section
 shall be:
   (1) Operated with the barrier fluid at a
 pressure that is at all times greater than
 the compressor stuffing  box pressure, or
   (2) Equipped with a barrier fluid
 system that is connected by a closed-
 vent system to a control device that
 complies with the requirements of
 § 284.1060, or .
   (3) Equipped with a system that
 purges the barrier fluid into a hazardous
 waste stream with no detectable
 emissions to atmosphere.
    (c) The barrier fluid-must not be a
 hazardous waste with organic
 concentrations 10 percent or greater by
  weight
    (d) Each barrier fluid system as
  described in paragraphs (a) through (c)
  of this section shall be equipped with a
  sensor that will detect failure of the seal
  system, barrier fluid system, or both.
    (e)(l) Each sensor as required in
  paragraph (d) of this section shall be
  checked daily or shall be equipped with
  an audible alarm that must be checked
  monthly to ensure that  it is functioning
  properly unless the compressor is
  located within the boundary of an
  unmanned plant site, in which case the
  sensor must be checked daily.
    (2) The owner or operator shall
  determine, based on design
  considerations and operating
experience, a criterion that indicates
failure of the seal system, the barrier
fluid system, or both.
  (f) If the sensor indicates failure of the
seal system, the barrier fluid system, or
both based on the criterion determined
under paragraph (e](2) of this section, a
leak is detected.
  (g)(l) When a leak is detected, it shall
be repaired as soon as practicable, but
not later than 13 calendar days after it is
detected, except as provided in
] 264.3059.
  (2) A first attempt at repair (e.g.,
tightening the packing gland) shall be
made no later than 5 calendar days after
each leak is detected.
  (h) A compressor is exempt from the
requirements of peragraphs (a) and (b)
of this section if it is equipped with a
closed-vent system capable of capturing
and transporting any leakage from the
seal to a control device that complies
with the requirements of § 284.1060,
except as provided in paragraph (i) of
this section.
   (i) Any compressor that is designated,
as described in § 284.1064(g)(2). for no
 detectable emissions as indicated by an
 instrument reading of less than 500 ppm
 above background is exempt from the
 requirements of paragraphs (a) through
 (h) of this section if the compressor:
   (1) Is determined to be operating with
 no detectable emissions, as indicated by
 an instrument reading of less than 500
 ppm above background, as measured by
 the method specified in § 284.1063(c).
   (2) Is tested for compliance with
 paragraph (i)(l) of this section initially
 upon designation, annually, and at other
 times as requested by the Regional
 Administrator.

 $264.1054  Standards: Pressure relief
 device* In gas/vapor service.
    (a) Except during pressure releases.
 each pressure relief device in gas/vapor
 service shall be operated with no
 detectable emissions, as indicated by an
 Instrument reading of less than 500 ppm
 above background, as measured by the
 method specified in S 264.1063(c).
    (b)(l) After each pressure release, the
 pressure relief device shall be returned
 to a condition of no detectable
 emissions, as indicated by an instrument
 reading of less than 500 ppm above
 background, as soon as practicable, but
 no later than 5 calendar days after each
  pressure release, except as provided in
  § 264.1059.
    (2} No later than 5 calendar days after
  the pressure release, the pressure relief
  device shall be monitored to confirm the
  condition of no detectable emissions, as
  indicated by an instrument reading of
  less than 500 ppm above background, as

-------
             Federal Register / Vol. 55t No. 120 / Thursday. June 21. 1980 / Rules and Regulations      25503
 measured by the method specified In
 12C4.lOB3(c).
   (c) Any pressure relief device that li
 •quipped with • cioted-vent «y»tem
 capable of capturing and transporting
 leakage from the pressure relief device
 to a control device as described in
 1284.1060 is exempt from the
 requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b)
 of this section.

 ! 204.1035 Standards: Sampling
 coofiecun^i system*.
   (a) Each sampling connection system
 shall be equipped with a closed purge
 system or closed-vent system.
   (b) Each closed-purge system or
 closed-vent system as required tar
 paragraph (a)  shall:
   (1} Return the purged hazardous waste
 stream directly to the hazardous waste
 management process line with no
 detectable emissions to atmosphere, or
  (2) Collect and recycle the purged
 hazardous waste stream with no
 detectable emissions to atmosphere, or
  (3) Be designed and operated to
 capture and transport all the purged
 hazardous waste stream to 'a control
 device that complies with the
 requirements of § 264.1060.   .
  (c) In »iiu sampling systems are
 exempt from the requirements of
 paragraphs (a) and (b] of this section.
12*4.105*  Standards; Open-ended valve*
or few*.
  (a)(l) Each open-ended valve or line
shall be equipped with a cap. blind
flange, plug, or a second valve.
  (2) The cap, blind flange, plug, or
second valve shall seal the open end at
all times except during operations  .
requiring hazardous waste stream flow
through the open-ended valve or line.
  (b) Each open-ended valve or line
equipped with a second valve shall be
operated in a manner such that the
valve on the hazardous waste stream
end is closed before the second valve is
closed.
  (c) When a double block and bleed
system is being used, the bleed valve or
line may remain open during operations
that require venting the line between the
block valves but shall comply with
paragraph (a) of this section at all other
times.

12*4.1057  Standards:Vatv«*togas/vapor
service or In KoM Squid aenric*.
  (a) Each valve In gas/vapor or light
liquid service shall be monitored
monthly to detect leaks by the methods
specified in i 2B4.l003(b) and shall
comply with paragraphs (b)  through (e)
of this section, except as provided in
paragraphs (f). (g), and (h) of this
section, and 15 264.1081 and 264.1062.
   (b) If an instrument reading of 10,000
 ppm or greater is measured, a leak is
 detected.
   (c](l) Any valve for which a leak is
 not detected for two successive months
 may be monitored the first month of
 every succeeding quarter, beginning
 with the next quarter, until a leak is
 detected.
   (2) If a leak is detected, the valve shall
 be monitored monthly until a leak is not
 detected for two successive months,
   (d)(l) When a leak is detected, it shall
 be repaired as soon as practicable, but
 no later than 15 calendar days after the
 leak is detected, except as provided in
 I 284.1059.
   (2) A first attempt at repair shall be
 made no later than 5 calendar days after
 each leak is detected.
   (e) First attempts at repair include, but
 are not limited-to, the following best
 practices where practicable:
   (1) Tightening of bonnet bolts.
   (2) Replacement of bonnet bolts.
   (3) Tightening of packing gland nuts.
   (4) Injection of lubricant into
 lubricated packing.
   (f] Any valve that is designated, as
 described in i 2B4.1064(g)(2). for no
 detectable emissions, as indicated by an
 instrument reading of less than 500 ppm
 above background, is exempt from the
 requirements of paragraph (a) of this
 section if the valve:
  (1) Has no external actuating
 mechanism in contact with the
 hazardous waste stream.
  (2) Is operated with emissions less
 than 500 ppm above background as
 determined by the method specified in
 I 284.1063(0).
  (3) Is tested for compliance with
 paragraph (f)(2) of this section initially
 upon designation, annually, and at other
 times as requested by the Regional
 Administrate?.
  (g) Any valve that is designated, as
 described In S 284.l064(h)(l). as an
 unsafe-to-monitor valve is exempt from
 the requirements of paragraph (a) of this
 section if:
  (1) The owner or operator of the valve
 determines that the valve is unsafe to
 monitor^because monitoring personnel
 would be exposed to an immediate
 danger as a consequence of complying
 with paragraph (a) of this section.
  (2) The owner or operator of the valve
adheres to a written plan that requires
monitoring of the valve as frequently as
practicable during safe-to-monitor times.
  (h) Any valve that is designated, as
described in § 2S4.1064(h)(2), as a
difficult-to-monitor valve la exempt from
 the requirements of paragraph (a) o&this
section if:
  (1) The owner or operator of the valve
determines that the valve cannot be
 monitored without elevating the
 monitoring personnel more than 2
 meteirs above a support surface.
   (2) The hazardous waste management
 unit within which the valve is located
 was in operation before June 21,1990.
   (3) The owner or operator of the valve
 follows e written plan that requires
 monitoring of the valve at least once per
 calendar year.

 §2S4.105S  Standards: Pumpa and valves
 In heiivy liquid service, pressure relief
 devtoM In light liquid or heavy liquid
 eervka, and flange* and other connectors.
   (a) Pumps and valves in heavy liquid
 service, pressure relief devices in light
 liquid! or heavy liquid service, and
 flanges and other connectors shall be
 monitored within 5 days by the method
 specified in 9 264.1063(b) if evidence of
 a potential leak is found by visual.
 audible, olfactory, of any other
 detection method.
   (b) If an instrument reading of 10.000
 ppm or greater is measured, a leak is
 detected.
   (e)(I) When a leak is detected, it shall
 be repaired as soon as practicable, but
 not later than IS calendar days after it is
 detected, except as provided in
 S 264.1059.
 •  (2) 'Hie first attempt at repair shall be
. made no later than 5 calendar days after
 each lleak is detected.
   (d) first attempts at repair include.
 but ai« not limited to, the best practices
 described under § 2B4.10S7(e). .

 §264.1059 Standards: Delay of repair.
   (a) Delay of repair of equipment for
 whicti leaks have been detected will be
 allowed if the repair is technically
 infeaiibie without a hazardous waste
 management unit shutdown. In such a
 case, irepair of this equipment shall
 occur before the end of the next
 hazardous waste management unit
 shutdown.
   (b) Delay of repair of equipment for
 which leeks have been detected will be
 allowisd for equipment that is isolated
 from the hazardous waste management
 unit and that does not continue to
 contain or contact hazardous waste with
 organic concentrations at least 10
 percent by weight
   (c) Delay of repair for valves will be
 allowed if:
   (1) irhe owner or operator determines
 that emissions of purged material
 resulting from immediate repair are
greater than the emissions likely'to
 result from delay of repair.
   (2) When repair procedures are
 effected, the purged material is collected
 and destroyed or recovered in a-control
devica complying with § 264.1060.

-------
  (d) Delay of repair for pumps will be
allowed if:
  (1) Repair requires the use of a dual
mechanical seal system that includes a
barrier fluid system.
  (2) Repair is completed as soon as *
practicable, but not later than 5 months
after the leak was detected.
  (e) Delay of repair beyond a
hazardous waste management unit
shutdown will be allowed for a valve if
valve assembly replacement is
necessary during the hazardous waste
management unit shutdown, valve
assembly supplies have been depleted,
and valve assembly supplies had been
sufficiently stocked before the supplies
were depleted. Delay of repair beyond
the next hazardous waste management
unit shutdown will not be .allowed
unless the next hazardous waste
management unit shutdown occurs
sooner than 8 months after the first
hazardous waste management unit, •
shutdown.

§284.1060 Standard* Closed-vent
system* and control device*.
   Owners or operators of closed-
vent systems and control devices shall
comply with the provisions of
 5 264.1033.

$264.1061  Alternative standard* for
valve* to gas/vapor service or In light liquid
service; percentage of valve* allowed to
teak.
   (a) An owner or operator subject to
 the requirements of § 264.1057 may elect
 to have all valves within a hazardous
 waste management unit comply with an
 alternative standard that allows no
 greater than 2 percent of the valves to
 leak.
   (b) The following requirements shall
 be met if an owner or operator decides
 to comply with the alternative standard
 of allowing 2 percent of valves to leak:
   (1) An owner or operator must notify
 the Regional Administrator that the
. owner or operator has elected to comply
 with the requirements of this section.
   (2) A performance test as specified in
 paragraph (c) of this section shall be
 conducted initially upon designation.
 annually, and at other times requested
 by the Regional Administrator.
   (3)  If a valve leak  is detected, it shall
 be repaired in accordance with
  § 264.1057(d) and (e).
   (c) Performance tests shall be
  conducted in the following manner
    (1) All valves subject to the
  requirements in § 264.1057 within the
  hazardous waste management unit shall
  be monitored within 1 week by the
  methods specified in 5 284.1063(b).
    (2) If an instrument reading of 10,000
  ppm or greater is measured, a leak is
  detected.
   (3) The leak percentage shall be
 determined by dividing the number of
 valves subject to the requirements in
 § 264.1057 for which leaks are detected
 by the total number of valves subject to
 the requirements in § 264.1057 within the
 hazardous waste management unit
   (d) If an owner or operator decides to
 comply with this section no longer, the
 owner or operator must notify the
 Regional Administrator in writing that
' the work practice standard described in
 § 264.1057(a) through (e) will be
 followed.

 §264.1062  Alternative standards for
 valve* In gas/vepor service or in Ufiht liquid
 sendee: skip period leak detection and
    (a)(l) An owner or operator subject to
  the requirements of § 264.1057 may elect
  for all valves within a hazardous waste
  management unit to comply with one of
  the alternative work practices specified
  in paragraphs (b) (2) and (3) of this
  section.
    (2) An owner or operator must notify
  the Regional Administrator before
  implementing one of the alternative
  work practices.
    (b)(l) An owner or operator shall
  comply with the requirements for
  valves, as described in J 264.1057,
  except as described in paragraphs (b)(2)
  and (b)(3) of this section.  • •
    (2) After two consecutive quarterly
  leak detection periods with the
  percentage of valves leaking equal to or
  less than 2 percent, an owner or
  operator may begin to skip one of the
  quarterly leak detection periods for the
  valves subject to the requirements in
  1 264.1057.
    (3) After five consecutive quarterly
  leak detection periods with the
  percentage of valves leaking equal to or
  less than 2 percent, an owner or
  operator may begin to skip three of the
  quarterly leak detection periods for the
  valves subject to the requirements in
  § 264.1057.
    (4) If the percentage of valves leaking
  is greater than 2 percent, the owner or
  operator shall monitor monthly in
  compliance with the requirements in
   § 284.1057, but may again elect  to use
  this section after meeting the
  requirements of § 264.1057(c)(l).
  (Approved by the Office of Management and
  Budget under control number 2060-0195)

  {264.1063  Te«t methods and procedure*.
     (a) Each owner or operator subject to
   the provisions of this subpart shall
   comply with the test methods and
   procedures requirements provided in
   this section.
  (b) Leak detection monitoring, as
required in §§ 264.1052-264.1062. shall
comply with the following requirements:
  (1) Monitoring shall comply with
Reference Method 21 in 40 CFR part.60.
  (2) The detection instrument shall
meet the performance criteria of'
Reference Method 21.
  (3) The instrument shall be calibrated
before use on each day of its use by the
procedures specified in Reference
Method 21.
  (4) Calibration gases shall be:
  (i) Zero air (less than 10 ppm of
hydrocarbon in air).
  (ii> A mixture of methane or n-hexane
and air at a concentration of
approximately, but less than. 10.000 ppm
methane or n-hexane.
  (5) The instrument probe shall be
traversed around all potential leak
interfaces as close to the interface as
possible as described in Reference
Method 21.                     '   •
'  (c) When equipment is tested for
compliance with no detectable
emissions, as required in  §§ 264.l052(e),
264.1053(i), 264.1054. and 264.1057{f). 'he
test shall comply with the following
requirements:
  (1) The requirements of paragraphs
(b)(l) through (4) of this section shall
apply.
  (2) The background level shall be
determined as set forth in Reference
Method 21.
  (3) The instrument probe shall be
 traversed around all potential leak
 interfaces as close to the interface as
 possible as described in Reference
 Method 21.
   (4) The arithmetic difference between
 the maximum concentration indicated
 by the instrument and the background
 level is compared with 500 ppm for
 determining compliance.
   (d) In accordance with the waste
 analysis plan required by 5 284.13(b), an
 owner or operator of a facility must
 determine, for each piece of equipment.
 whether the equipment contains or
 contacts a hazardous waste with
 organic concentration that equals or
 exceeds 10 percent by weight using the
 following:
   (1) Methods described in ASTM
 Methods D 2267-88. E169-87. E 168-88,
 E 260-85 (incorporated by reference
 under $ 260.11);
    (2) Method 9060 or 824aof SW-S48
 (incorporated by reference under
 § 260.11): or
    (3) Application of the knowledge of
 the nature of the hazardous waste
 stream or the process by which it was
 produced. Documentation of a waste
 determination by knowledge is required.
  Examples of documentation that shall

-------
            Federal-Register / VoL 55, No. 120  /  Thursday. June 21. 1998 / Rules and Regulations      2S50S
be used to support • determination
under this provision include production
process Information documenting that
no organic compound* are used.
Information that the waste is generated
by a process that Is identical to a
process at the same or another facility
that has previously been demonstrated
by direct measurement to have a total
organic content less than 10 percent or
prior spedation analysis results on the
same waste stream where it can also be
documented that no process changes
have occurred since that analysis that
could affect the waste total organic
concentration.
  (e) If an owner or operator determines
that a piece of equipment contains or
contacts a hazardous waste with
organic concentrations at leest 10
percent by weight the determination
can be revised only after following the
procedures in paragraph (d](l) or (d){2)
of this section.
  (f) When an owner or operator end
the Regional Administrator do not agree
OB whether a piece of equipment
contains or contacts a hazardous waste
with organic concentrations at least 10
percent by weight the procedures in
paragraph [d)(l) or (d](2) of this section
can.be used to resolve the dispute.
  Cj] Samples used in determining the
percent organic content shall be
representative of the highest total
organic content hazardous waste that Is
expected to be contained in or contact
the equipment
  (h) To determine if pumps or valves
are In light liquid service, the vapor
pressures of constituents may be
obtained from standard reference texts
of may be determined by ASTM D-
2879-60 (Incorporated by reference
under I2ao.ll).
  (ij Performance tests to determine if a
control device achieves 85 weight
percent organic emission reduction shall
comply with the procedures of
i 284,1034(c](l) through (c){4).

I3M.10S4 Reeenfteeptaa requirements.
  (a)(l) Each owner or operator subject
to the provisions of this subpert shall
comply with the recorakeeping
requirements of this section.
  (2) An owner or operator of more than
one hazardous waste management unit
subject to the provisions of this subpart
may comply with the recordkeeping
requirements for these hazardous waste
management units In one recordkeeping
system If the system identifies each
record by each hazardous waste
management unit
  (b) Owners and  operators must record
'ho following information in the facility
operating record:
   (1) For each piece of equipment to
 which Subpart BB of Part 284 applies:
   (!) Equipment identification number
 and hazardous waste management unit
 identification.
   (U) Approximate locations within the
 facility (e.g« identify the hazardous
 waste management unit on a facility plot
 plan).
   (iii) Type of equipment (e.g- a pump or
 pipeline valve).
   (iv) Percent-by-weight total organic*
 in the hazardous waste stream at the
 equipment
   (v) Hazardous waste state at the
 equipment (e.g., gas/vapor or liquid).
   (vi) Method" of compliance with the
 standard (e.g, "monthly leak  detection
 and repair" or "equipped with dual
 mechanical seals").
   (2) For facilities that comply with the
 provisions of S 284.1033(a)(2). an
 implementation schedule as specified in
 i 264.1033(a)(2).
   (3) Where aa owner or operator
 chooses to use test data to demonstrate
 the organic removal efficiency or total
 organic compound concentre- ioo
 achieved by the control device, a
 performance test plan as specified in
 § 264.103S(b)(3).
   (4) Documentation of compliance with
 S 284.1060, including the detailed design
 documentation or performance test
 results specified in i 284.103S(b)(4),
   (c) When each leak ia detected as
 specified ia § S 284.1032.284.1053,
. 264.1057. and 284.1058. the following
 requirements apply:
 ,  (1) A weatherproof and readily visible
 identification, marked with the
 equipment identification number, the
 date evidence of a potential leak was
 found ia accordance with i 264.1058(a).
 and the date the leak waa detected.
 shall be attached to the leaking
 equipment
   (2) The identification oh equipment
 except on a valve, may be removed after
 it has been repaired.
   (3) The identification on a valve may
 be removed after it has been monitored
 for 2 successive months as specified in
 i i 2B4.10S7f c) and no leak has been
 detected during those 2 months.
   (d) When each leak is detected as
 specified In 5 5 284.1052, 284.1053.
 284.1057. and 284.1058. the following
 information shall be recorded in an
 inspection log and shall be kept in the
 facility operating record:
   (1) The instrument and operator
 Identification numbers and the
 equipment identification number.
   (2) The date evidence of a potential
 leak was found in accordance with
 ! 264.l05B(a).
  (3) The date the leak was detected
and thu.dates of each attempt to repair
the leak.
  (4) Repair methods applied in each
attempt to repair the leak
  (5) "Above 10.000" if the maximum
instrument reading measured by the
methods specified in § 284.1083(b) after
each mpair attempt is equal to or greater
than 10,000 ppm.
  (8) "Repair delayed" and the reason
for the delay if a leak is not repaired
within 15 calendar days after discovery
of the leak,
  (7) Documentation supporting the
delay of repair of a valve in compliance
with S 284.1059(c).
  (S) The signature of the owner or
operator (or designate) whose decision
it was that repair could not be effected
without a hazardous waste management
unit shutdown.
  (9) The expected date of successful
repair of the leak if a leak is not
repaired within IS calendar days.
  (10) The date of successful repair of
the leak.
  (e) Design documentation and
monitoring, operating, and inspection
information for each closed-vent system
and control device-required to comply
with the provisions of S 284.1060 shall
be recorded and kept up-to-date In the .
facility operating record as specified in
§ 264.1035(c). Design documentation is
spedfiod ia § 284.1035  (c)(l) and (c)(2)
and monitoring, operating, and
inspection Information in
|284.1lJ35(c)(3)-(c)(8).
  (f) For a control device other than a
thermal vapor incinerator, catalytic
vapor incinerator, flare, boiler, process
heater, condenser, or carbon adsorption
system, the Regional Administrator will
specify the appropriate recordkeeping
requirements.
  (g) Tie following information
pertaining to all equipment subject to
the requirements in 19 284.10S2 through
284.1060 shall be recorded In a log that
is kept ia the facility operating record:
  (1) A list of identification numbers for
equipment (except welded fittings)
subject to the requirements of this
lubp&rL
  (2)(i) A list of identification numbers
for equipment that the owner or
operator elects to designate for no
detectable emissions, as indicated by an
instrument reading of less than 500 ppm
above background, under the provisions
of IS 2(34.1052(o). 264.1053(1), and
264.1057(f).
  (ii) The designation of this, equipment
as subject to the requirements of
§§ 264.ZOS2(e), 284.1053(1). or 264.1057(0
shall bo signed by the owner or
operator.

-------
2SS06      Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 120 / Thursday. June  21. 1990 / Rules  and Regulations
  (3) A list of equipment identification
numbers for pressure relief devices
required to comply witX 1284.1054(a).
  (4)(i) The dates of each compliance
lest required in §5 264.1052(e),
2B4.1053(i). 264.1054. and 264.1057(0-
  (ii) The background level measured
during each compliance test.
  (iii) The maximum instrument reading
measured at the equipment during each .
compliance  test
  (5) A list of identification numbers for
equipment in vacuum service.
  (h) The following information
pertaining to all valves subject to the
requirements of § 264.1057 (g) and (h)
shall be recorded in a log that is kept in
the facility operating record:
  (1) A list of identification numbers for
valves that are designated as unsafe to
monitor, an explanation for each valve
stating why the valve is unsafe to
monitor, and the plan-for monitoring
each valve.
  (2) A list of identification numbers for
 valves that are designated as difficult to
 monitor, an explanation for each valve
 stating why the valve is difficult to
 monitor, and the planned schedule for
 monitoring each valve.
   (i) The following information shall be
 recorded in the facility operating record
 for valves complying with § 264.1062:
   (1) A schedule of monitoring.
   (2) The percent of valves found
 leaking during each monitoring period.
   (j) The following information shall be
 recorded in a log that is kept in the
 facility operating record:
   (1) Criteria required  in
 § 264.1052(d)(5)(ii) and  § 284.1053(e)(2)
 and an explanation of the design
 criteria.
    (2) Any changes to these criteria and
 the reasons for the changes.
    (k) The following information shall be
 recorded in a log that is kept in the
 facility operating record for use in
 determining exemptions as provided in
 the applicability section of this subpart
 and other specific subparts:
    (11 An analysis determining the design
 capacity of the hazardous waste
 management unit.
    (2) A statement listing the hazardous
 waste influent to and effluent from each
 hazardous waste management unit
 subject to the requirements in
  Si 264.1052 through 264.1060 and an
 analysis determining whether these
 hazardous wastes are heavy liquids.
    (3) An up-to-date analysis and the
 supporting information and data  used to
 determine whether or not equipment is
  subject to the requirements in
  55 264.1052 through 264.1060. The record
  shall include supporting documentation
  as required by i 264.1063(d)(3) when
  application of the knowledge of the
nature of the hazardous waste stream or
the process by which it was produced is
used. If the owner or operator takes any
action (e.g« changing the process that
produced the waste) that could result in
'an increase in the total organic content
of the waste contained in or contacted
by equipment determined not to be
subject to the requirements in
if 264.1052 through 264.1060, then a new
determination is required.            "'
   (1) Records of the equipment leak
information required by paragraph (d) of
this section and the operating
information required by paragraph (e) of
this section need be kept only 3 years.
   (m) The  owner or operator of any
facility that is subject to this subpart
and to regulations at 40 CFR part 60,
subpart W, or 40 CFR part 61, subpart
V, may elect to determine compliance
with this subpart by documentation
 either pursuant to j 264.1064 of this
 subpart or pursuant to those provisions
 of 40 CFR  part 60 or 61. to the extent
 that the documentation under the
 regulation at 40 CFR part 60 or part 61
 duplicates the documentation required
 under this subpart The documentation
 under the  regulation at 40 CFR part"60 or
 part 61 shall be kept with-or made
 readily available with the facility
 operating  record.
 (Approved  by the Office of Management and
 Budget under control number 2060-0195)

 § 264.1065  Reporting raquirwwnta.
   (a) A semiannual report shall be
 submitted by owners and operators
 subject to the requirements of this
 subpart to the Regional Administrator
 by dates specified by the Regional
 Administrator. The report shall include
 the following information:
   (1) The  Environmental Protection
 Agency identification number, name.
 and address of the facility.
   (2) For each month during the
 'semiannual reporting period:
    (i) The equipment identification
 number of each valve for which a leak
 was not repaired as required in
  S 264.10S7(d).
    (ii) The equipment identification
  number of each pump for which a leak
  was not repaired as required in
  § 264.1052 (c) and (d)(6).
    (iii) The equipment identification
  number of each compressor for which a
  leak was  not repaired as required in
  § 264.1053(g).
    (3) Dates of hazardous waste
  management unit shutdowns that
  occurred  within the semiannual
  reporting period.
    (4) For  each month during the
  semiannual reporting period, dates
  when the control device installed as
  required  by I 264.1052.254.1053,
 264.1054. or 264.1055 exceeded or
 operated outside of the design
 specifications as defined in I 264.1064(e)
 and as indicated by the control device
 monitoring required by § 264.1060 and
 was not corrected within 24 hours, the
 duration and cause of each exceedance,
 and any corrective measures taken.
'  (b) If, during the semiannual reporting
 period, lejaks from valves, pumps, and
 compressors are repaired as required in
 ii 264.1057 (d). 264.1052 (c) and (d)(6).
 and 264.1053 (g), respectively, and the
 control device does not-exceed or
 operate outside of the design
 specifications as defined in § 2S4.1064(«)
 for more than 24 hours, a report to the
 Regional Administrator is not required.

 (Approved by the Office of Management and
 Budget under control number 2060-0195]

 §§264.1066-264.1079  [Reserved]

 PART 265—INTERIM STATUS
 STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND
 OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
 TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND
 DISPOSAL FACILITIES

    12. The authority citation for part 265
 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6095. 6912(3). 6924.
  6925, and 8935.

  Subpart B—General Facility Standards

    13. Section 265.13 is amended by
  revising paragraph (b)(6) to read as
  follows:

  §265.13  General waste analysis.
  •    •    •    •    •

    (b)  * * '
    (6) Where applicable.'the methods
  that will be used to meet the additional
  waste analysis requirements for specific
  waste management methods as
  specified in §§ 265.193.265.225. 265.252.
  285.273. 265.314. 265.341. 265.375. 265.402.
  265.1034(d). 265.1063(d), and 208.7 of this
  chapter.
    14. Section 265.15 is amended by
  revising the last sentence of paragraph
  (b)(4) to read as follows:

  § 265.15  G«n«raJ inspection requirements.


    (b)
    (4) *- *  * At a minimum, the inspection
  schedule must'include the terms and
  frequencies called for in 51 265.174.
  265.193. 265.195. 285.228. 265.347. 265.3?7,
  265.403. 265.1033. 265.1052. 265.1053. and
  265.1058.

-------
            Federal Register / VoL S3, No. 120 / Thursday,  Juns 21. 1990 /  Rules and Regulations      25507
Subpart E— ManH **t System,
  IS. Section 285^3 la amended by
wising paragraphs (b)(3) and (b)(6) to
read as follow*;

1 24*73  Operating record.
  (3) Record* and results of wast*
analyses and trial tests performed as
specked in il 285.13. 265.193. 285.225.
28i252. 265^73. 285.314. 285J41. 285J75,
285.402. 285.1034. 285.1063. 28&4(a). and
2S&7 of this chapter.

  (6) Monitoring, testing or analytical
data when required by i§ 28530. 28534.
285.191. 285.193. 285.195. 285£7B. 285278.
2S5J90(dHl), 285347. 2S&377.
283.1<»4{c}-2SS.1034(f). 285.1035.
28&1063(d)-2S5.1063(i}. and 285.1064.

  IS. Section 285J7 is amended by
adding paragraph (d) «s follows:

|3t&77  AddWonal reports.

  (d) As othenvis* required by Subparts
AAandBB.
  17. 40 CFR part 285 is amended by
adding Subpart AA to read as follows:
Sobpwt AA-Ak EariMie*) SUad*rd* tot
289.1030 Applicability.
284.1031 DtflniUom.
283.1032 SUodardc Prpcen vent*.
283.1033 Slindardc Qo*ed-vent syitea* and
  control device*.
233.1034 T«tt SMtfaod* and procedure*.
289.1039 Recordkeeping requimmnU.
2S3.103S— 285.1049  [ReMTved]

Subpcrt AA— Air Emission Standards
for Process Vsnts

I3M.T030 AppfcaMtty.
  (a) Th* regulations in this subpart
apply to owners and operators of
facilities that treat, store, or dispose of
hazardous wastes (except as provided
In 1 285.1).
  (b) Except for IS 285.1034(d) and
28S.103S(d). this subpart applies to
process vent* associated with
distillation, fractionation. thin-film
evaporation, solvent extraction, or air or
steam stripping operations that manage
hazardous wastes with organic
concentrations of at least 10 ppmw. if
these operations are conducted in:
  (1) Units that are subject to the
permitting requirements of part 270. or
  (2) Hazardous  waate recycling unit*
that are located on hazardous waste
management  facilities otherwise subject
to the permitting requirements of part
270.
   (Note The requirements of It 285.1032
 through 285.1038 apply to process vent* on
 hazardous waite recycling units previously
 exempt under paragraph 26l£(c)(l). Oth*r
 exemptions under IS 2614, 26Z34, and
 2SS.l(c) are not aBected by the<«
 requirements.)

 I28S.193S  Definition*.
   As used in this subpart all terns shall
 have the meaning given them in
 i 284.1031. the Act and part* 280-266.

 f 265.1033  Standards: Pracas* vents.
   (a) The owner or operator of a facility
 with process vents associated with
 distillation, fractionation, thin-film
' evaporation, solvent extraction or air or
 steam stripping operations managing
 hazardous wastes with organic
 concentrations at least 10 ppmw shall
 either
   (1) Reduce total organic emissions
 from all affected process vents at the
 facUity below 1.4 kg/h (3 Ib/h) and 23
 Mg/yr (3.1 tons/yr)', or
   (2) Reduce, by use of a control device,
 total organic emissions from all affected
 process vents at the facility by 95 weight
 percent.      .                      _
   (b) If the owner or operator installs a
 closed-vent system and control device
 to comply with the provisions of
 paragraph (a) of this section, the closed*
 vent system and control device must
 meet the requirements of 1 285.1033.
   (cj Determinations of vent emissions
 and emission reductions or total organic
 compound concentrations achieved by
 add-oa control devices may be based on
 engineering calculations or performance
 tests. If performance tests are used to
 determine vent emissions, emission
 reductions, or total organic compound
 concentrations achieved by add-on
 control devices, the performance tests
 must conform with the requirement* of
 ! 285.1034(6).
  ' (d) When an owner or operator and
 the Regional Administrator do not agree
 on determinations of vent emissions
 and/or emission reductions or total
 organic compound concentrations
 achieved by add-on control devices
 based on engineering calculations, the
 test methods in § 285.1034(e) shall be
 used to resolve the disagreement

 {285.1033 Standards: Ctoaed-eent
 systems and control devices*
   (a)(l) Owners or operators of closed-
 vent systems and control devices used
 to comply with provisions of this part
 shall comply with the provisions of this
 section.
   (2) The owner or operator of an
 existing facility who cannot install a
 closed-vent system and control device
 to comply with the provisions of this
 subpart on the effective date that the
facility becomes subject to the
provisions of this subpart must prepare
an implementation schedule that
includes dates by which the closed-vent
system and control device will be
installed and in operation. The controls
must be ilastalled as soon as possible.
but the implementation schedule may
allow up to 18 months after the effective
date thai: the facility becomes subject to
this subpiart for installation and startup.
All unite that begin operation after
December 21.1990 must comply with the
rules immediately (Le- must have
control devices installed and operating
on startup of the affected unit); the 2-
year implementation schedule does not
apply to these units.
  (b) A control-device involving vapor
recovery (e-g» a condenser or adsorber)
shall be. (designed and operated to
recover the organic vapors vented to it
with an efficiency of 95 weight percent
or greaUr.unless the total organic
emission limits of ! 285.1032(a)(l) for all
affected process vents can be attained
at an efficiency less than 95 weight
percent
  (c) An enclosed combustion device
(e.g* a viipor incinerator, boiler, or
process Iteater) shall be designed and
operated to reduce the organic
emissions vented to it by 95 weight
percent or greater to achieve a total
organic compound concentration of 20
ppmv. expressed as the sum of the
actual compounds,  not carbon
equivalent*, on a dry basis corrected to
3 percen.it oxygen: or to provide a
minimum residence time of 0.50 seconds
at a minimum temperature of 760 *C If a
boiler or process heater is used as the
control device, then the vent stream
shall be (introduced into the flame
combustion zone of the boiler or process
heater.
  (d)(l) A flare shall be designed for
and operated with no visible emissions
as determined by the methods specified
in paragraph (e)(l) of this section.
except for periods not to exceed a total
of 5 minutes during any 2 consecutive
hours.
  (2) A flare shall be operated with a
flame prissent at all times, as determined
by the methods specified in paragraph
(f)(2)(iii) of this section.
  (3) A flare shall be used only if the net
heating value of the gas being
combustisd is 11.2 MJ/scra (300 Btu/scfl
or greater, if the flare is steam-assisted '
or air-asiiistedi or if the net heating
value of the gas being combusted is 7.45
Ml/sent (200 Btu/scl) or greater if the
flare is ndnassisted. The net heating
value of the gas being combusted shall
be determined by the methods specified
in paragraph (e)(2)  of this section.  '

-------
            Federal .Restate / Vol. 53. No. 120 / Thursday. June 21.  1990 / Rules and Regulation.
25568
  (4){i) A steam-assisted or nonassisted
flare shall be designed for and operated
with an exit velocity, as determined by
the methods specified in paragraph
(e|(3) of this section, of less than 18.3 m/
s (60 ft/s). except as provided in
paragraphs (d)(4) (ii) and (iii) of this
section.
  (ii) A steam-assisted or nonassisted
flare designed for and operated with an
exit velocity, as determined by the
methods specified in paragraph (e)(3) of
this section, equal to or greater than 1&3
m/s (60 ft/s) but less than 122 m/s (400
ft/s) is allowed if the net heating value
of the gas being combusted is greater
than 37.3 Mf/scm (1,000 Btu/scfJ.
   (iii) A  steam-assisted or nonassisted
flare designed for and operated with an
exit velocity, as determined by the
methods specified in paragraph (e)(3) of
 this section, less than the velocity. V,^.
 as determined by the method specified
 in paragraph (e](4) of this section, and
 less, than 122 m/s (400 ft/s) is allowed.
   (5) An air-assisted flare shall be
 designed and operated with an exit
 velocity less than the velocity. V,.,, as
 determined by the method specified in
 paragraph (e)(5) of this  section.
   (6) A flare used to comply with this
 section shall be steam-assisted, air-
 assisted, or nonassisted.
   (e](l)  Reference Method 22 in 40 CFR
 part 80 shall be used to determine the
 compliance of a flare with the visible
  emission provisions of this subpart. The
  observation period is 2 hours and shall
  be used according to Method 22.
    (2) The net heating value of the gas
  being combusted in a flare shall be
  calculated using the following equation:
  where:
  HT=*Net heal'ng value at the sample. M)/
      sum: when the net enthalpy per mole of
      ofTgas is based on combustion at 25 *C
      and 780 mm Hg. but the standard
      temperature for determining the volume
      corresponding to 1 mol is 20 *C:
  K =. Constant. 1.74x10"' (1/ppm) (g mol/scm)
      (MJ/kcal) where standard temperature
      for (g mol/scm) i* 20 *C
  d*> Concentration of sample component i in
      ppm on a wet basis, a* measured for
      organic! by Reference Method 18 in 40
      CITl part 80 and measured for hydrogen
      and carbon monoxide by ASTM 01946-
      82 (incorporated by reference as
      specified in 5 260.11): and
                                       H,=Net heat of combustion of sample
                                           component i. kcal/g mol at 25 'C and 760
                                           mm Hg. The heats of combustion may be
                                           determined using ASTM D 2382-83
                                           (incorporated by reference as specified
                                           in 5 260.11) if published values are not
                                          .'available or cannot be calculated.
                                         (3) The actual exit-velocity of a flare
                                       shall be determined by dividing the
                                       volumetric flow rate (in units of
                                       standard temperature and pressure), as
                                       determined by Reference Methods 2.2A.
                                       2C, or 2D in 40 CFR part 60 as
                                       appropriate,  by the unobstructed (free)
                                       crass-sectional area of the flare tip.
                                          (4) The maximum allowed velocity in
                                       m/s. V^ for a flare complying with
                                        paragraph (d)(4)(iii) of this section shall
                                        be determined by the following
                                        equation:
                                        Log,,
-------
             Federal  Register / Vol. 55. No.  120 / Thursday, June  21. 1990 / Rules and  Regulations    ,  25509
 parameter that indicates the carbon bed
 is regenerated on a regular.
 predetermined time cycle.
   (3) Inspect the readings from each
 monitoring device required by
 paragraphs (fl (1) and (2) of this section
 at least once each operating day to
 check control device operation and. if
 necessary, immediately implement the
 corrective measures-necessary to ensure
 the control device operates in
 compliance with the requirements of this
 section.
   (g) An owner or operator using a
 carbon adsorption system such as a
 fixed-bed carbon adsorber that
 regenerates the carbon bed directly
 onsita in the control device, shall
 replace the existing carbon in the
 control device with fresh carbon at a
 regular, predetermined time interval that
 is no longer than the carbon service life
 established as a requirement of
 §2«5.1035{bK4)lHl)(F).          •   .
'   (h) An owner or operator using a
 carbon adsorption system such as a
 carbon canister that does not regenerate
 the carbon bed directly onsite in the
 control device shall replace the existing
 carbon in the control device with fresh
 carbon on a regular basis by using one
 of the following procedures:
   (1) Monitor the concentration level of
 the organic compounds in the exhaust
 vent stream from the carbon adsorption
 system on a regular schedule and
 replace the existing carbon with  fresh
 carbon immediately when carbon
 breakthrough is indicated. The
 monitoring frequency shall be daily or at
 an interval no greater than 20 percent of
 the time required to consume the total
 carbon working capacity established as
 a requirement of { 285.1035(b)(4)(iii](G).
 whichever is longer.
   (2) Replace the existing carbon with
 fresh carbon at a regular, predetermined
 time interval that Is less than the design
 carbon replacement interval established
 as a requirement of
 $ 28S.l035{b)(4Hiii)(G).
   (i) An owner or operator of an
 affected facility seeking to comply with
 the provisions of this part by using a
 control device other than a thermal
 vapor incinerator, catalytic vapor
 incinerator, flare, boiler, process heater.
 condenser, or carbon adsorption system
 is required to develop documentation
 including sufficient information to
 describe the control device operation
• and identify the process parameter or
 parameters that indicate proper
 operation and maintenance of the
 control device.
   (j](l) Closed-vent systems shall be
 designed for and operated with no
 detectable emissions, as indicated by an
 instrument reading of less than 500 ppm
 .above background and by visual
 inspections, as determined by the
 methods specified as 1265.1034(b).
   (2) Closed-vent systems shall be
 monitored to determine compliance with
 this section during the initial leak
 detection monitoring  which shall be
 conducted by the date that the facility.
 becomes subject to the provisions of this
 section, annually, and at other times as
 requested by the Regional
 Administrator.
   (3) Detectable emissions, as indicated
 by an instrument reading greater than
 500 ppm and visual inspections, shall be
 controlled as soon as practicable, but
 not later than 15 calendar days after the
 emission is detected.
   (4) A first attempt at repair shall be
 made no later than 5 calendar days after
 the emission is detected.
   (k) Closed-vent systems and control
 devices used to comply with provisions
 of this subpart shall be operated at all
 times when emissions may be vented to
 them.

 § 265.1034  Teat methods and procedures.
   (a) Each owner or operator subject to
 the provisions of this subpart shall
 comply with the test methods and
 procedures requirements provided in
 this section.
   (b) When a closed-vent system is
 tested for compliance with no detectable
 emissions, as required in § 285.1033(j),
 the test shall comply with the following
 requirements:
   (1) Monitoring shall comply with
 Reference Method 21 in 40 CFR part 60.
   (2) The detection instrument shall
 meet the performance criteria of
 Reference Method 21.
   (3) The instrument shall be calibrated
 before use on each day of its use by the
 procedures specified in Reference
 Method 21.
   (4) Calibration gases shall be
   (i) Z«ro air (less than 10 ppm of
 hydrocarbon in air).
   (ii) A mixture of methane or n-hexane
 and ail1 at a concentration of
 approximately, but less than. 10.000 ppm
 methane or n-hexane.
   (5) The background level shall be
 determined as set forth in Reference
 Method 21.
   (6) The instrument probe shall be
 traversed around all potential leak
 interfaces as close to the interface as
 possible as described in Reference
 Method 21.
   (7) The arithmetic difference between
 the maximum concentration indicated
 by the Instrument and  the background;
 level is compared with 500 ppm for
 determining  compliance.
   (c) Performance tests to determine
 compliance with § 265.1032(a) and with
 the tottii organic compound
 concentration limit of § 26S.1033(cj shall
 comply with the following:
   (1) Performance tests to determine
 total organic compound concentrations
 and mass flow rates entering and exiting
 control devices shall be conducted and
 data reduced in accordance with the
 following reference methods and
 calculation procedures:
   (i) Method 2 in 40 CFR part 60 for
 velocity and volumetric flow rate.
   (ii) Method IS in 40 CFR part 60 for
 organic: content.
   (iii) liach performance test shall
 consist of three separate runs: each run
 conducted for at least 1 hour under the
 conditions that exist when the
. hazardous waste management unit is
 operating at  the highest load or capacity
 level reasonably expected to occur. For
 the purpose of determining total organic
 compound concentrations and mass
 flow rates, the average of results of all
 runs shall apply. The average shall be
 computed on a time-weighted basis.
   (iv) Total organic mass flow rates
 shall b» determined by the following
 equation:
                                                    2  C.MW,    (0.04161
 where:
 E,-ToUl organic muss flow rule, kg/h:
 (1* m Volumetric flow rate of gases entering
     or exiting control device, as determined
     by Method 2. dscm/h:
 n- Number of organic compounds in the vent
     gux
 C,=Organic concentration in ppm. dry basis.
    of compound i in the vent gas. as
    determined by Method IB:
 MW(» Molecular weight of organic
    compound i in the vent gas. kg/kg-mol:

-------
 255-10    "  Federal Register / Vol.  55. No. 120 / Thursday.  June-21. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
 OMlOvConvenion factor for molar volume.
    kg-mol/m>(@ 293 K and 760 mm Hgfc
 HTe=« Conversion from ppra. ppm*1.
   (v) The annual total organic emission
 rate shall be determined by the
 following equation:
 E.-(E.HH)
 where:
 E»- Total organic masa emission rate, kg/y,
 £,=-Total organic miss flow rate for the
    process vent kg/'h:
 H~Total annual hours of operation* for the
    affected unit, h.
   (vi) Total organic emissions horn all
 affected process vents at the facility
 shall be determined by summing the
 hourly total organic mass emission rates
 (E,,. as determined in  paragraph (c)(l)(v)
 of this section) and by summing the
 annual total organic mass emission rates
 (E/u as determined in paragraph .(c)(l)(v)
 of this section) for all affected process
 vents at the facility.
   (2)-The owner or operator shall record
 such process information aa may be
 necessary to determine the conditions of
 the performance tests. Operations
 during periods of startup, shutdown, and
 malfunction shall not constitute
 representative conditions for the
 purpose of • performance-test
    (3) The owner or operator of an
 affected facility shall provide, or cause
 to be provided, performance testing
 facilities as follows:
    (i) Sampling ports adequate for the
 test methods specified in paragraph
 (c)(l) of this section.
    (ii) Safe sampling platform(s).
    (Hi) Safe access to  sampling
 platform(s).
    (iv) Utilities for sampling and testing
 equipment.
    (4) For the purpose of making
 compliance determinations, the  time-  .
 weighted average of the results of the
  three runs shall apply. In the event that
  a sample is accidentally lost or
  conditions occur in which  one of the
  three runs must be discontinued because
  of forced shutdown,  failure of an
  irreplaceable portion of the sample
  train, extreme meteorological
  conditions, or other circumstances
  beyond the owner or operator's control.
  compliance may. upon the Regional
  Administrator's approval, be determined
  using the average of the results  of the
  two other runs.
    (d) To show that a process vent
  associated with a hazardous waste
  distillation, fractionation,  thin-film
.  evaporation, solvent extraction, or air or
  steam stripping operation is not subject
  to the requirements of this subpart. the
  owner or operator must make an initial
  determination that the time-weighted.
  iinmiiil average total organic
concentration of the waste managed by
the waste management unit is less than
10 ppmw using one of the following two
methods:
  (1) Direct measurement of the organic
concentration of the waste using the
following procedures:
  (i) The owner or operator must take a-
minimum of four grab samples of waste
for each waste stream managed in the
affected unit under process conditions
expected to cause the maximum waste
organic concentration.
  (ii) For waste generated onsite. the
grab samples must be collected at a
point before the waste is exposed to the
atmosphere such as in an enclosed pipe
or other closed system that is used to
transfer the waste after generation to
the first affected distillation
fractionation, thin-film evaporation.
solvent extraction, or air or steam
stripping operation. For waste generated
offsite. the grab samples must be
collected at the inlet  to the first waste
management unit that receives the
waste provided the waste has been
transferred to the facility in a closed
system such as a tank truck and the
.waste is not diluted or mixed with other
waste.
   (iii) Each sample shall be analyzed
and the total organic concentration of
the sample shaU be computed using
Method 9060 or 8240 of SW-848
(incorporated by reference under
 S 280.11).
   (iv) The arithmetic mean of the results
of the  analyses of the four samples shall
apply  for each waste stream managed in
 the unit in determining the time-
 weighted, annual average total organic
 concentration of the  waste. The time-
 weighted average is  to be calculated
 using the annual quantity of each waste
 stream processed and the mean organic
 concentration of each waste stream
 managed in the unit.
   (2) Using knowledge of the waste to
 determine that its total organic
 concentration is less than 10 ppmw.
 Documentation of the waste
 determination is required. Examples of
 documentation that  shall be used to
 support a determination under this
 provision include production process
 information documenting that no organic
 compounds are used., information that
 the waste is generated by a process that
 is identical to a process at the same or
 another facility that has previously been
 demonstrated by direct measurement to
 generate a waste stream having a total
 organic content less than 10 ppmw. or
 prior speciation analysis results on the
 same waste stream  where it can also be
 documented that no process changes
 have occurred since that analysis that
could affect the waste total organic
concentration.
  (e) The determination that distillation
fractionation. thin-film evaporation,
solvent extraction, or air or steam
stripping operations manage hazardous
wastes with time-weighted annual
average total organic concentrations
less than 10 ppmw shall be made as
follows:
  (1) By the effective date that the
facility becomes subject to the
provisions of this subpart or by the date
when the waste is first managed in a
waste management unit, whichever is
laten and
  (2) For continuously generated waste.
annually: or
  (3) Whenever there is a change in the
waste  being managed or a change in the
process that generates or treats the
waste.
  (f) When an owner or operator and
the Regional Administrator  do not agree •
on whether a distillation, fractionation.
thin-film evaporation, solvent
extraction, or air or steam stripping
operation manages a hazardous waste
with organic concentrations of at least
10 ppmw based on knowledge of the
waste, the procedures in Method 8240
can be used to resolve the dispute.

§263.1035  Recordkeeptna requirements.
   (a)(l) Each owner or operator subject
to tHe provisions of this subpart shall
comply with the recordkeeping
requirements of this section.
   (2) An owner or operator of more than
one hazardous waste management ur.it
subject to the provisions of this subpart
may comply with the recordkeeping
requirements for these hazardous waste
management units in one recordkeeping
 system if the system identifies each
 record by each hazardous waste
 management unit
   (b) Owners and operators must record
 the following information in the facility
 operating record:
   (1) For facilities that comply with '.he
 provisions of § 26S.1033(a)(2), an
 implementation schedule that includes
 dates by which the closed-vent system
 and control device will be installed and
 in operation. The schedule  must also
 include a rationale of why the
 installation cannot be completed at an
 earlier date. The implementation
 schedule must be in the facility
 operating record by the effective date
 that the facility becomes subject to the
 provisions of this subpart.
   (2) Up-to-date documentation of
 compliance with the process vent  .
- standards in 5 205.1032. including:
   (i) Information and data  identifying all
 affected process vents, annual

-------
              Federal Register /  VoL  5S. No. 120 / Thursday,  June 21. 1990 / Rules and Regulations      2SS11
  throughput end operating hours of each
  affected unit estimated emission rates
  for each affected vent and for the
  overall facility (i.e., the total emissions
  for all affected vents at the facility), and
  the approximate location within the
  facility of each affected unit (e.g.,
  identify the hazardous waste
  management units on a facility plot
  plan]; and
   (11) Information and data supporting
  determinations of vent emissions and
  emission reductions achieved by add-on
  control devices based on engineering
  calculations or source tests/Fpr the
  purpose of determining compliance.
  determinations of vent emissions and
  emission reductions must be made using
  operating parameter values (e.g.,
•  temperatures, flow rates or vent stream
  oqjinlc compounds and concentrations)
  that represent the conditions that result
  in maximum organic emissions, such as
  when the waste management unit is
  operating at the highest load or capacity
  level reasonably expected to occur. If
  the owner or operator takes any action
  (e,gn managing a waste of different
  compoaition or-increasing operating
 hours of affected waste management
 units) thaf would result in an increase in
  total organic emissions from affected
 process vents at the facility, then a new
 determination is required.
   (3) Where an owner or operator
 chooses to use test data to determine the
 organic removal efficiency or total
 organic compound concentration
 achieved by the control device, a
 performance test plan. The test plan
 must include:
   (i) A description of how it is
 determined that the planned test is going
 to be conducted when the hazardous
 waste management unit is operating at
 the highest load or capacity level
 reasonably expected to occur. This shall
 Include the estimated or design flow rate
 and organic content of each vent stream
 and define the acceptable operating
 ranges of key process and control device
 parameters during the test program.
   (11) A detailed engineering description
 of the closed-vent system and control
 device Including:
   (A) Manufacturer's name and model
 number of control device.
   (B) Type of control device.
   (C) Dimensions of the control device.
   (D) Capacity.
   (E) Construction materials.
   (Hi) A detailed description of sampling
and monitoring procedures, including
sampling and monitoring locations in the
system, the equipment to be used.
sampling and monitoring frequency, and
planned analytical procedures for
sample analysis.
   (4) Documentation of compliance with
 § 269.1033 shall include the following
 information:
   (i) A list of all information references
 and sources used in preparing the
 documentation.
   (ii) Records including the dates of
 each compliance test required by
 § 285.1033(j).
   (iii) If engineering calculations are
 used, a design analysis, specifications,
 drawings, schematics, and piping and
 instrumentation diagrams based on the
 appropriate sections of "APTI Course
 415: Control of Gaseous Emissions"
 (incorporated by reference as specified
 in 1260.11) or othec, engineering texts
 acceptable to the Regional
 Administrator that present basic control
 device design information.
 Documentation provided by the control
 device manufacturer or vendor that
 describes the control device design in
 accordance with paragraphs
 (b)(4)(iii)(A) through (b](4)(iil)(G) of this
 section may be used to comply with this
 requirement The design analysis shall
 address the vent stream characteristics
 and control device'operation parameters
 as specified below.
   (A) For a thermal vapor incinerator,
 the design analysis shall consider the
 vent stream composition, constituent
 concentrations, and flow rate. The
 design analysis shall also establish the
 design minimum and average
 temperature in the combustion zone and
 the combustion zone residence time.
   (B) For a catalytic vapor incinerator.
 the design analysis shall consider the
 vent stream composition, constituent
 concentrations, and flow rate. The
 design analysis shall also establish die
 design minimum and average
 temperatures across the catalyst bed
 inlet and outlet
  (C) For a boiler or process heater, the
 design analysis shall consider the vent
 stream composition, constituent
 concentrations, and flow rate. The
 design analysis shall also establish the
 design minimum  and average flame zone
 temperatures, combustion zone
 residence time, and description of
 method and location where the vent
 stream is introduced into the
 combustion zone.
  (D) For a flare, the design analysis
 shall consider the vent stream
 composition, constituent concentrations,
 and flow rate. The design analysis shall
 also consider the requirements specified
 in ! 285.1033(d).
  (E) For a condenser, the design
 analysis shall consider the vent stream
composition, constituent concentrations,
flow rate, relative humidity, and
temperature. The design analysis shall
also establish the design outlet organic
 compound concentration level, design
 average temperature of the condenser
 exhaust vent stream, and design average
 temperatures of the coolant fluid at the
 condenser inlet and outlet.
   (F) For A carbon adsorption system
 such as a fixed-bed adsorber that
 regenerates the carbon bed directly
 onsite in the control device, the design
 analysis shall consider the vent stream
 composition, constituent concentrations.
 flow rate, relative humidity, and
 temperature. The design analysis shall
 also establish the design exhaust vent
 stream organic compound concentration
 level, number and capacity of carbon
 beds, type and working capacity of
 activated carbon used for carbon beds.
 design total steam flow over the period
 of each complete carbon bed
 regeneration cycle, duration of the
 carbon bed steaming and cooling/drying
 cycles, denign carbon bed temperature
 after regeneration, design carbon bed
 regeneration time, and design service
 life of carbon.
   (C) For a carbon adsorption system
 such as a rarbon canister that does not
 regenerate! the carbon bed directly
 onsite in tile control device, the design
 analysis shall consider the vent stream
 composition, constituent concentrations,
 flow rate, relative humidity, and
 temperature. The design analysis shall
 also establish the design outlet organic
 concentration level, capacity of carbon
 bed. type and working  capacity of    •
 activated carbon used for carbon bed.
 and design carbon replacement  interval
 based on the total carbon working
 capacity of the control  device and
 source operating schedule.
   (iv) A statement  signed and dated by
 the owner or operator certifying that the
 operating parameters used in. the design
 analysis reasonably represent the'
 conditions that exist when the
 hazardous waste management unit is or
 would be operating at the highest load
 or capacity level reasonably expected to
 occur.
   (v) A statement signed and dated by
 the owner or operator certifying that the
 control device is designed to operate at
 an efficiency of 93 percent or greater
 unless the total organic concentration
 limit of { 2i35.1032(a) is achieved at an
 efficiency less than 95 weight percent or
 the total organic emission limits  of
 § 28S.1032(a) for affected process vents
 at the facility can be attained by a
 control device involving vapor recovery
 at an efficiency less than 95 weight
 percent A statement provided by the
 control device manufacturer or vendor
certifying that the control equipment
meets the design specifications may be
used to comply with this requirement.

-------
25512
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 120 / Thursday. June 21. 1990 / Rutes  and Regulations
  fvi) If performance tests are used to
demonstrate compliance, all teat results.
  (c) Design documentation and
monitoring,, operating, and inspection
information for each closed-vent system
and control device required to comply
with the provisions of this part shall be
recorded and kept up-to-date in the
facility operating record. The
information shall include:
  (IJ Description and date of each
modification that is mad* to the closed-
vent system or control device design.
  (2} Identification of operating
parameter, description of monitoring
device, and diagram of monitoring
sensor location or locations used to
comply with 3 265.1033(3(1} and (f)(Z).
  (3) Monitoring, operating and
inspection information required by
paragraphs (f) through (j) of 3 265.1033.
  (4) Date. time, and duration of each
period that occurs while the control
device is operating when any monitored
parameter exceeds the value established
in the control device design analysis as
specified below:
  (i) For a thermal vapor incinerator
designed to operate with a minimum
residence time of 0.50 seconds at a
minimum temperature of 780 "C. period
when the combustion temperature i*
below 76O°C.
'   (ii) For • thermal vapor incinerator
designed to operate with an organic
emission reduction efficiency of 95
 percent or greater, period when the
 combustion zone temperature is more
 than 28 *C below the design average
 combustion zone temperature
 established as a requirement of
 paragraph (b)(4)(iii}(A) of this section.
   (iii) For a catalytic vapor incinerator.
 period when:
   (A) Temperature of the vent stream at
 the catalyst bed inlet is more than 28 *C
 below the average temperature of the
 inlet vent stream established as a
 requirement of paragraph (b)(4)(iii)(B) of
 this section: or
   (B) Temperature difference across the
 catalyst bed is less than 80 percent of
 the design average temperature
 difference established as a requirement
 of paragraph (b)(4)(iiiKB) of this section.
   (iv) For a boiler or process heater.
 period when:
   (A) Flame zone temperature is more
 than 28.*C below the design average
 flame zone temperature established as a
 requirement of paragraph (b)(4)(iii)(C) of
 this section; or
   (B) Position changes where the vent
 stream is introduced to the combustion
 zone from the location established as a
 requirement of paragraph (b)(4)(iii](C} of
 this section.
    (v) For a flare, period when the pilot
 flame is not ignited.
                              (vi) For a condenser that complies
                            with 126S.1033(f)(2)(vi](A>. period when
                            the organic compound concentration
                            level or readings of organic compounds
                            in the exhaust vent stream from the
                            condenser are more than 20 percent
                            greater thaa the design outlet organic
                            compound concentration level
                            established as a requirement of
                            paragraph (b)(4)(iii)(E} of this section.
                              fvii) For » condenser that complies
                            with } 28&.1033(f)(2)(vi)(B}, period when:
                              (AJ Temperature of the exhaust vent
                            stream from the con denser is more than
                            6 °C above the design average exhaust
                            vent stream temperature established as
                            a requirement of-paragraph (b)(4J(in)(El
                            of this section; or
                              (B) Temperature of the coolant fluid
                            exiting the condenser is more than S *C
                            above the design average coolant fluid
                            temperature at die condenser outlet
                            established as a requirement of
                            paragraph (b)(4)(iii](E) of this section.
                              (viii) For a carbon adsorption system
                            such as a fixed-bed carboa adsorber
                            that regenerates the carbon bed directly
                            onsite in the control device .and
                            complies with § 2e5.1033(n(2)(vuKA].
                            period when the organic compound
                            concentration level or readings of
                            organic compounds hi the exhaust vent
                            stream from the carbon bed are more
                            than 20 percent greater than the design
                            exhaust vent stream, organic compound
                            concentration level established as a
                            requirement of paragraph (b)(4)(iU)CF] of
                            this section.
                              (tx) For a carbon adsorption system
                            such as a fixed-bed carbon adsorber
                            that regenerates the carbon bed directly
                            onsite in the control  device and
                            complies with $ 2flS.1033(f)(2)(vii)(B).
                            period when the vent stream continues
                            to flow through the control device
                            beyond the predetermined carbon bed
                            regeneration time established as a
                            requirement of paragraph (b)(4Kiii}(Fi of
                            this section.
                               (5) Explanation for each period
                            recorded under paragraph (3) of the
                            cause for control device operating
                            parameter exceeding the design value
                            and the measures implemented to
                             correct the control device operation,
                               (8) For carbon adsorption systems
                             operated subject to requirements
                             specified in i 285.1033(g) or
                             § 2B5.1033(h)(2}. date when existing
                             carbon in the control device is replaced
                             with fresh carbon.
                               (7) For carbon adsorption systems
                             operated subject to requirements
                             specified in 3 26S.l033(h)(l). a log that
                             records:
                               (i) Date and time when control device
                             is monitored for carbon breakthrough
                             and the monitoring device reading.
  (ii) Date when existing carbon in the
control device is replaced with fresh
carbon.
  (8) Date of each control device startup
and shutdown.
  (d? Records of the monitoring.
operating, and inspection information
required by paragraphs (c)(3) through
(c)(8) of this section need be kept only 3
years.
  (e> For a control device other than a
thermal vapor incinerator, catalytic
vapor incinerator, flare, boiler, process
heater, condenser, or carbon adsorption
system, monitoring and inspection
information indicating proper operation
and maintenance of the control device
must be recorded in the facility
operating record.
   (f) Up-to-date information and data
used to determine whether or pot a
process vent is. subject to the
requirements in § 265.1032 including
supporting documentation as required
by 3 265.l034(d)(2) when application of
 the knowledge of the nature of the
. hazardous waste stream or the process
by which it was produced is'used. shall
 be recorded in a log that is kept m the
 facility operating record.
(Approved by the Office of Management and
Budget under control number 2060-01951

 SS285.1038-385.1049  [Reserved]

   18.40 CFR part 265 is amended by
 adding subpart BB to read as follows:

 Subpart BB—Afr Emission Standards for
 Equipment Leak*
 285.1030 Applicability.
 265.1051 Definitions.
 233.1052 Standards: Pumps in light liquid
   service.
 285.1053 Standards: Compressors.
 285.1054 Standards: Pressure relief devices in
   gas/v«por service.
 285.1055 Standards: Sampling connecting
   systems.
 265.1058 Standards: Open-ended valves or
   line*.
 205.1057 Standards: Valves in gas/vapor
   service or in light liquid service.
 285.1058 Standards: Pumps and valves in
   heavy liquid service, pressure relief devices
  ' io light liquid or heavy liquid service, and
   flanges and other connectors.
 285.1059 Standards: Delay of repair.
 285.1060 Standards: Closed-vent s'ystems and
   control devices.
 265.1081 Alternative standards for valves in
 . gas/vapor service or in light liquid service:
   percentage of valves allowed to leak.
 265.1082 Alternative standards for valves in
   gas/vapor service or in light liquid service:
   skip period leak detection and repair.
 265.1083 Test methods and procedures.
 265.1064 Recordkeeping requirements.
 265.1085-265.1079 (Reserved)

-------
            Federal Register / VoL 55. No. 120 / Thursday. June a. 19SO  /  Rules and Regulations      25513
Subpact BS— Air Emission Standard*
for Equipment Leaks

{2*3.1050  Applicability.
  (•) The regulation* in this subpatt
apply to owneta and operators of
facilities that beau store. 
-------
25514
            Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 120 / Thuraday.'june 2L 1990 / Rules and Regulations
failure of the seal system, the barrier
fluid system or both.
  (f) If the sensor indicates failure of the
  llj fti UAB &VUQW& ti»WI«*»»»««» avtmmmmm^f <•» —•«
seal system, the barrier fluid system, or
both based on the criterion determined
under paragraph (e)(2) of this section, a
leak is detected.
  (g)(lj When a leak ii detected, it shall
be repaired as soon as practicable, but
not later than 15 calendar days after it it
detected, except as provided in
§265.1059.
  (2) A Erst attempt at repair (e.g,
tightening the packing gland) shall be
made no later than 5 calendar days after
each leak is detected.
  (h) A compressor is exempt from the
requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b)
of this section if it is equipped with a
closed-vent system capable of capturing
and transporting any leakage from the
seal to a control device that complies
with the requirements of § 285.1060.
except as provided in paragraph (i) of
fhis section.
   (!) Any compressor that is designated.
as described in S 265.1064(g)(2). for no
detectable emission as indicated by an
instrument reading of less than 500 ppm
above background is exempt from the
requirements of paragraphs (a) through
(h) of this section if the compressor
   (1) Is determined to be operating with
 no detectable emissions, as indicated by
 an instrument reading of less than 500
 ppm above background, as measured by
 the method specified in § 285.1063(c).
   (2) Is tested for compliance with
 paragraph (i)(l) of this section initially
 upon designation, annually, and at other
 times as requested by the Regional
 Administrator.
 9265.1054
               idantePr
                          irvraflef
 device* in gas/vapor senrte*.
   (a) Except during pressure releases.
 each pressure relief device in gas/vapor
 service shall be operated with no
 detectable emissions, as indicated by an
 instrument reading of less than 500 ppm
 above background, as measured by the
 method specified in 5 26S.1083(c).
   (b)(l) After each pressure release, the
 pressure relief device shall be returned
 to a condition of no detectable
 emissions, as indicated by an instrument
 reading of less than 500 ppm above
 background, as soon as practicable, but
 no later than 5 calendar days after each
 pressure release, except as provided in
  § 265.1059.
    (2) No later than 5 calendar days after
  the pressure release, the pressure relief
  device shall be monitored to confirm the
  condition of no detectable emissions, as
  indicated by an instrument reading of
  less than 500 ppm above background, as
 . measured by the method specified in
  I 265.1063(c).
  (c) Any pressure relief device that is
equipped with a closed-vent system
capable of capturing and transporting
leakage from the pressure relief device
to a control device as described in
3 265.1080 is exempt from the
requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b)
of thia section.

} 265.1055  Standard* Sampling
connecting systems.
  •(a) Each sampling connection system
shall be equipped with a closed-purge
system or closed-vent system.
  (b) Each closed-purge system or
closed-vent system as required in
paragraph (a) shall:
  (1) Return the purged hazardous waste
stream directly to the hazardous waste
management process line with no
detectable emissions to atmosphere, or
  (2) Collect and recycle the purged
hazardous waste stream with no
detectable emissions to atmosphere, or
  (3) Be designed and operated to
capture and transport all the purged
hazardous waste stream to a control
device that complies with the
requirements of § 265.1060.
  (c) In situ sampling systems are.
exempt from the requirements of
paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section. •

§283.1056  Standards: Open-ended valve*
or tine*.
   (a)(l) Each open-ended valve or line
 shall be equipped with a cap, blind
 flange, plug, or a second valve.
   (2) The cap, blind flange, plug, or
 second valve shall seal the open end at
 all times except during operations
 requiring hazardous waste stream flow
 through the open-ended valve or line.
   (b) Each open-ended valve or line
 equipped with a second valve shall be
 operated in a manner such that the
• valve on the hazardous waste stream
 end is closed before the second valve is
 closed.
   (c) When a double block and bleed
  system is being used, the bleed valve or
  line may remain open during operations
  that require venting the line between the
  block valves'but shall  comply with
  paragraph (a) of this section at all other
  times.
  §265.1057  Standard*: Valves In gas/vapor
  Mrvtc* or In Hght liquid «*rvlc*.
    (a) Each valve in gas/vapor or light
  liquid service shall be monitored
  monthly to detect leaks by the methods
  specified in ! 28S.1083(b) and shall
  comply with paragraphs (b) through (e)
  of this section, except as provided in
  paragraphs (f), (g). and (h) of this
  section' and §§ 265.1061 and 265.1062.
    (b) If an instrument  reading of 10.000
  ppm or greater is measured, a leak is
  detected.
  (c)(l) Any valve for which a leak is
not detected for two successive months
may be monitored the first month of
every succeeding quarter, beginning
with the next quarter, until a leak is
detected.
  (2) If a leak is detected, the valve shall
be monitored monthly until a leak is not
detected for 2 successive months.
  (d)(l) When a leak is detected, it shall
be repaired as soon as practicable, but
no later than 15 calendar days after the
leak is detected, except as provided in  -
{ 28511059.
  (2) A first attempt at repair shall be
made no later than 5 calendar days after
each leak is detected.
  (e) First attempts at repair include, but
are not limited to. the following best
practices where practicable:
  (1) Tightening of bonnet bolts.
  (2) Replacement of bonnet bolts.
  (3) Tightening of packing gland niits.
  (4) Infection of lubricant into
lubricated packing.
  (f) Any valve that is designated, as
described in § 265.1064(gH2). for no
detectable emissions, as indicated by an
instrument reading of less than 500 ppm
above background, is exempt from the
requirements of paragraph (a) of this
 section if the valve:
   (1) Has no external actuating
 mechanism in contact with the
 hazardous waste stream.
   (2) Is operated with emissions less
 than 500 ppm above background as
 determined by the method specified in
 § 285.1063(c).
   (3) Is tested for compliance with
 paragraph (f)(2) of this section initially
 upon designation, annually, and at other
 times as requested by the Regional
 Administrator.
   (g) Any valve that is designated, as
 described in § 28S.1064(h)(l), as an
 unsafe-to-monitor valve is exempt from
 the requirements of paragraph (a) of this
 section if:
   (1) The owner or operator of the valve
 determines that the valve is unsafe to
 monitor because monitoring personnel
 would be exposed to an immediate
 danger as a consequence of complying
 with paragraph (a) of this section.
   (2) The owner or operator of the valve
 adheres to a written plan that requires
 monitoring of the valve as  frequently as
 practicable during safe-to-monitor times.
   (h) Any valve that is designated, as
 described in § 26S.1064(h){2). as a
 difficult-to-monitor valve is exempt from
  the requirements of paragraph (a) of this
 section if:
    (1) The owner or operator of the valve
  determines that the valve cannot be
  monitored without elevating the

-------
             Federal Register /  Vol.  55. No. 120 / Thursday,  ftine 21. 1990 /  Rules and Regulations      25515
 monitoring personnel more than 2
 meters above a support surface.
   (2) The hazardous waste management
 unit within which the valve is located
 was in operation before June 21.1S9O.
   (3) The owner or operator of the valve
 follows a written plan that requires   '
 monitoring of the valve at least once per
 calendar year.

 I265.10SS  Standards:Pump*andvalve*
 to heavy BquM service, pressure relief
 device* to Ugh* BquW or heavy Bqukf
 service, and ffangea and other connectors*
   (a) Pumps and valves in heavy liquid
 service, pressure relief devices in light
 liquid or heavy liquid service, and
 flanges and other connectors shall be
 monitored within 5 days by the method
 specified in J 265.1063(fa j if evidence of
 a potential leak is found by visual.
 audible, olfactory, or any other
 detection method.
   (b] If an instrument reading of 10.000
 ppm or greater is measured, a leak is
 detected.
   (cKl) When a leak i» detected, it shall
 be repaired as soon as practicable, but
 not later than 15 calendar days after it is
 detected, except as provided in
 {265.1059.
   (2) The first attempt at repair shall be
 made no later than 5 calendar days after
 each leak is detected.
   (d) First attempts at repair include.
 but are not limited  to. the best practices
 described under § 2B5.l057(e].

 J 2*1.105* Standards:Octavo* rapakv.
  (a) Delay of repair of equipment for
 which leaks have been detected wilfbe
 allowed if the repair is technically
 infeaiible without a hazardous waste
 management unit shutdown. In such •
 case, repair of this equipment shall
 occar before the end of the next
 hazardous waate management unit
 shutdown.
  (b) Delay of repair of equipment for
 which leaks have been detected will be
 allowed for equipment that ia isolated
 from the hazardous waste management
 unit and that doe* not continue to.
 contain or contact hazardous waste with
 organic concentrations at least 10
 percent by weight  '
  (c) Delay of repair for valves will be •
 allowed if:
  (1) Tb* owner or operator determines
 that emissions of purged material
 resulting from immediate repair are
greater than the emissions likely to
result from delay of repair.
  (2) When repair procedures are '
effected, the purged material is collected
and destroyed or recovered in a control
device complying with § 265.1060.
  (d) Delay of repair for pumps will be
allowed ifc
   (1) Repair requires the use of a dual
 mechanical seal system that includes a
 barrier fluid system.
   (2) Repair is completed as soon as
 practicable, but not later than 6 months
 after the leak was detected.
   (e) Delay of repair beyond a
 hazardous waste management unit
 shutdown will be allowed for a valve if
 valva assembly replacement is
 necessary during the hazardous waste
 management unit shutdown, valve
 assembly supplies have been depleted.
 and valve assembly supplies had been
 sufficiently stocked before the supplies
 were depleted.  Delay of repair beyond
 the next hazardous Waste management
 unit shutdown will not be allowed
 unless the next hazardous waste
 management unit shutdown occurs
 sooner than 6 months after the first
 hazardous waste management unit
 shutdown.

 5 285. tOCO  Standards: Cfoced-vent
 systemic and eonfiro4 dsvfecst.
   Owners or operators of closed-
 vent systems and control devices shall
 comply with the provisions of  '
 §285.1033.

 i SSS.1M1  Alternative standards for
 valve* In gas/vapor service or In light (quid
 sarvtea: percentaga'of valves allowed to
 leak.
   (a) Aa owner or operator subject to
 the requirement* of § 285.1057 may elect
 to have ail valves withia a hazardous
 waste management unit  comply with an
 alternative standard which allows no
 greater thaa 2 percent of the valves to
 leak.
   (b) The following requirements shall
 be met if an owner or operator decides
 to comply with  the alternative standard
 of allowing 2 percent of valves to lealc
 . (1) An owner or operator must notify
 the Regional Administrator that the
 owner or operator has elected to comply
 with the requirements of this section.
  (2) A performance test as specified in
 paragraph (c) of this section shall be
 conducted initially upon designation,
 annually, and at other times requested
 by the Regional Administrator.
  (3) If a valve leak is detected, it shall
be repaired in accordance with
 § 265.1057 (d) and (e).
  (c) Performance tests shall be
 conducted in the following manner
  (1) All valves subject to the
requirements in § 265.1057 within the
hazardous waste management unit shall
be monitored within 1 week by the
methods specified in i 285.1063(b).
  (2) If an instrument reading of 10,000
ppm or greater is measured, a leak is
detected.
  (3) The leak percentage shall be
determined by dividing the number of •
 values subject to the requirements in
 § 28ii.l057 for which leaks are detected
 by the total number of valves subject to
 the requirements in § 255.1057 within the
 hazardous waate management unit.
    (djl If an owner or operator decides no
 longer to comply with this section, the
 owner or operator must notify the
 Regional Administrator in writing that
 the work practice standard described in
 ! 26!i.l057 (a) through (e) will b?
 followed.

 §265.1062  Alternative standards for
 vahras In gas/vapor service or In light liquid
 service: skip period leak, detection and
 repair.
   (a)(l) An owner or operator subject to
 the requirements of 1 265.1057 may elect
 •for a II valves within a hazardous waste
 management unit to comply with one of
• the alternative work practices specified
 in paragraphs (b) (2J and (3) of this
 section.
   (2) An owner or operator must notify
 the Regional Administrator .before
 implementing one of the alternative
 work; practices.
   (b](l) An owner or operator shall
 comply with the requirements for
 valviis. as described in § 265.1057,
 except as described in paragraphs  (b}(2)
 and |b)(3) of this section.
   (2) After two consecutive quarterly
 leak detection periods with the
 percitntage of valves leaking equal to or
 less Itaaa 2 percent an owner or
 operator may begin to skip one of the
 quarterly leak detection periods for the
 valveis subject to the requirements in
 ! 265.1057.
   (3) After five consecutive quarterly
 leak detection periods with the
 percentage of valves leaking equal  to or
 less than Z percent an owner or
 operator may begin to skip three of the
 quarterly leak detection periods for the
 valves subject to the requirements in
 § 265.1057.
   (4) If the percentage of valves leaking
 is greater than 2 percent, the owner or
 operators hall monitor monthly in
 compliance with  the requirements in
 § 285.1057. but may again elect to use
 this section after meeting the
 requirements of § 285.l057(c)(l).

 5285.1043  Teat matheda and procedure*,
   (a) Each owner or operator subject to
 the provisions of this subpart  shall
 comply with the test methods and
 procedures requirements provided in
 this section.
  (b) Leak detection monitoring, as
 required in §§ 265.1052-265.1062. shall
 comply with the following requirements:
  (1) Monitoring shall comply with
 Reference Method 21 in 40 CFR Part 60.

-------
2S316      Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 120 / Thursday. June 21. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
  (2) The detection instrument shall
meet the performance criteria of
Reference Method 21.
  (3) The instrument shall be calibrated
before use on each day of its use by the
procedures specified in Reference
Method 21.
  (4) Calibration gases shall be:
  (i) Zero air (less than 10 ppm of
hydrocarbon in air).  '         . .
  (ii) A mixture of methane or n-hexane
and air at a concentration of
approximately, but-less than. 10.000 ppm
methane or n-hexane.
  (5] The instrument probe shall be
traversed around ail potential leak
interfaces as close to the interface as
possible as described in Reference
Method 21.
  (c) When equipment is tested for
compliance with no detectable
emissions, as required in SI 26S.10S2(e).
285.1053(1], 265.1054. and 285.1057(f). the
test shall comply with the following
requirements:
  (1) The requirements of paragraphs (b)
(1) through (4) of this section shall apply.
.  (2) The background level shall be
determined, as set forth in Reference
Method 21.
  (3) The instrument probe shall be
 traversed around all potential leak
interfaces as close to the interface as
 possible as described in Reference
 Method 21.
   (4) The arithmetic difference between
 the maximum concentration indicated •
 by the instrument and the background
 level it compared with 500 ppm for
 determining compliance.
   (d) In accordance with the waste
 analysis plan required by J 28S.13(b), an
 owner or operator of a facility must
 determine, for each piece of equipment.
 whether the equipment contains or
 contacts a hazardous waste with
 organic concentration that equals or
 exceeds 10 percent by weight using the
 following:
   (1) Methods described in ASTM
 Methods D 2287-88, E169-87. E168-88.
 E 260-85 (incorporated by reference
 under 5 260.11):
   (2) Method 9060 or 8240 of SW-848
 (incorporated by reference under
 J 280.11): or
   (3) Application of the knowledge of
 the nature of the hazardous waste
 stream or the process by which it was
 produced. Documentation of a waste
 determination by knowledge is required.
 Examples of documentation that shall
 be used to support a determination
 under this provision include production
 process information documenting that
 no organic compounds are used.
 information that the waste is generated
 by a process that is identical to a
 process at the same or another facility
 that has previously been demonstrated
 by direct measurement to have a total
 organic content less than 10 percent or
 prior speciation analysis results on the
 same waste stream where it can also be
 documented that no process changes
 have occurred since that analysis that
 could affect the waste total organic
 concentration.
   (e) If an owner or operator determines
 that a piece of equipment contains or
 contacts a hazardous waste with
. organic concentrations at least 10
 percent by weight the determination
 can be revised only after following the
 procedures in paragraph (d](l) or (d)(2)
 of this section."
   (f) When an owner or operator and
 the Regional Administrator do not agree
 on whether a piece of equipment
 contains or contacts a hazardous waste  ;
 with organic concentrations at least 10
 percent by weight the procedures in
 paragraph (d](l) or (d)(2) of this section
 can be used to resolve the dispute.
   (g) Samples used in determining the
 percent organic content shall be
 representative of the highest total
 organic content hazardous waste that is
 expected to be contained in or contact
 the equipment
   (h) To determine if pumps or valves
 are in light liquid service,  the vapor
 pressures of constituents may be
 obtained, from standard reference texts '
 or may be determined by ASTM D-
 2879-88 (incorporated by reference
 under § 260.11).
    (i) Performance tests to determine if a
 control device achieves 95 weight
 percent organic emission reduction shall
 comply with the procedures of
 § 265.1034 (c)(l) through (c)(4).
  §288.1084
 • . (a)(l) Each owner or operator subject
  to the provisions of this subpart shall
  comply with the recordkeeping
  requirements of this section.
   ' (2) An owner or operator of more than
  one hazardous waste management unit
  subject to the provisions of this subpart
  may comply with the recordkeeping
  requirements for these hazardous waste
  management units in one recordkeeping
  system if the system identifies each
  record by each hazardous waste
  management unit.
    (b) Owners and operators must record
  the following information in the facility
  operating record:
    (1) For each piece of equipment to
  which subpart BB of part 265 applies:
    (i) Equipment identification number
  and hazardous waste management unit
  identification.
    (ii) Approximate locations within the
  facility (e.g.. identify the hazardous
waste management unit on a facility plot
plan).
  (iii) Type of equipment (e.g.. a pump or
pipeline valve).
  (iv) Percent-by-weight total organics
in the hazardous waste stream at the
equipment
  (v) Hazardous waste state at the
equipment (e.g.. gas/vapor or liquid).
  (vi) Method of compliance with the
standard (e.g.. "monthly leak detection
and repair" or "equipped with dual
mechanical seals").
  (2) For facilities that comply with the
provisions of $ 265.1033(a)(2). an
implementation schedule as specified  in
$ 265.1033(a}(2).                   -,
  (3) Where an owner or operator
chooses to use test data to demonstrate
the organic removal efficiency or total
organic compound concentration
achieved by the control device, a
performance test plan as specified in
§ 265.103S(b)(3).
  (4) Documentation of compliance with
§ 2654060, including the detailed design
documentation or performance test
results specified in § 2S5.1035(b)(4).
  (c) When each leak is detected as
specified in §§ 265.1052.265.1953.
265.1057. and 265.1058. the following
requirements apply:
  (1} A weatherproof and readily visible
identification, marked with the
equipment identification number, the
date evidence of a potential leak was
found in accordance with $ 265.1058(a),
and the date the leak was detected.
shall be attached to the leaking
equipment
  (2) The identification on equipment
except on a valve, may be removed after
it has been repaired.
  (3) The identification on a valve may
be removed after it has been monitored
for 2 successive months as specified in
S 265.1057(c) and no leak has been
detected during those 2 months.
  (d) When each leak is detected as
specified in §§ 265.1052. 265.1053.
265.1057. and 265.1058. the following
information shall be recorded in an
inspection log and shall be kept in the
facility operating record:
  (1) The instrument and operator
identification numbers and the
equipment identification number.
  (2) The date evidence of a potential
leak was found in accordance with
 § 265.1058(a).
  (3) The date the leak was detected
and the dates of each attempt to repair
 the leak.
  (4) Repair methods applied in each
 attempt to repair the leak.
  (5) "Above 10.000" if the maximum
 instrument reading measured by the
 methods specified in | 265.1063(b) after

-------
             Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 120 / Thursday. June  21. 1990 / Rules and  Regulations       2S5I7
 each repair attempt is equal to or greater
 than 10,000 ppm.
   (6) "Repair delayed" and the reason
 for the delay if a leak a not repaired
 within 15 calendar days after discovery
 of the leak.
   (7) Documentation supporting the
 delay of repair of a valve in compliance
 with f 2S5.105S(c).
   (8) The signature of the owner or
 operator (or designate) whose decision
 It WHS that repair could not be effected
 without a hazardous waste management
 unit shutdown.         ,
   (9) The expected date of successful
 repair of the leak if a leak is not
 repaired within 15 calendardays.  ~
   (10) The date of successful repair of
 the leak.
   (e) Design documentation and
 monitoring, operating, and inspection
 information for each closed-vent system
 and control device required to comply
 with the provisions of § 285.1060 shall
 be recorded and kept  up-to-date in the
 facility operating record as specified in
 I 26S.l035(c). Design documentation is
 specified in | 265.1035 (c)(l) and (c}(2)
 end monitoring, operating, and
 inspection information in { 285.1035
 (cK3Hc}C8).
   (f) For a control device other than a
 thermal vapor incinerator, catalytic
 vapor Incinerator, flare, boiler, process
 heater, condenser, or carbon adsorption
 system, monitoring and inspection
 information indicating proper operation
 and maintenance of the control device
 must be recorded hi the facility
 operating record.
   (3) The following information
 pertaining to all equipment subject to
 the requirements in §5 285.1052 through
 285.1060 shall be recorded in a log that
 is kept in the facility operating record:
   (1) A list of identification numbers for
 equipment (except welded fittings)
 subject to the requirements of this
 subpart
   (2)(i) A list of identification numbers
 for equipment that the owner or
 operator elects to designate for no
 detectable emissions, as indicated by an
 instrument reading of less than 500 ppm
 above background, under the provisions
 of S| 26S.10S2(e). 285.1053(i), and
 285.1057(1).
   (li) The designation of this equipment
 as subject to the requirements of "  "
 iS 265.1052(e). 205.1053(0, or 285.10S7(f)
 shall be signed by the  owner or
'operator.
  (3) A list of equipment identification
 numbers for pressure relief devices
 required to comply with § 285.1054(a).
  (4)(i) The dates of each compliance
 tust required in 5 § 265.1052(e).
 20S.1053(i). 285.1054. and 285.1057(f).
   (ii) The background level measured
 during each compliance test
   (iii) The maximum instrument reading
 measured at the equipment during each
 compliance test
   (5) A list of identification numbers for
 equipment in vacuum service.
   (hj The following information
 pertaining to all valves subject to the
 requirements of 1265.1057 (g) and (h)
 shall be recorded in a log that is kept in
 the facility operating record:
   (1) A list of identification numbers for
 valves that are designated as unsafe to
 monitor, an explanation for each valve
 stating why. the valve is unsafe to
 monitor, and the plan for monitoring
 each valve.
   (2) A list of identification numbers for
 valves that are designated as difficult to
 monitor, an explanation for each valve
 stating Why the valve is difficult to
 monitor, and the planned schedule for
 monitoring each valve..
   (i) The following information shall be
 recorded in the facility operating record
 for valves' complying with § 285.1062:
   (1) A schedule of monitoring.
   (2) The percent .of valves found
 leaking during each monitoring period.
   (j) The following information shall be
 recorded in a log that is kept in the
 facility operating record:
   (1) Criteria required in
 §1 285.1052(d)(5)(ii) and 265.1053(e)(2)
 and an-explanatioh of the criteria.
   (2) Any changes to these criteria and
 the reasons for the changes.
   (k) The following information shall be
 recorded in a log that is kept in the
 facility operating record for use in
 determining exemptions as provided in
 the applicability section of this subpart
 and other specific subparts:
   (1) An analysis determining the design
 capacity of the hazardous waste
 management unit
   (2) A statement listing the hazardous
 waste influent to and effluent from each
 hazardous waste management unit
 subject to the requirements in
 II 285.1052 through 285.1060 and an
 analysis determining whether these
 hazardous wastes are heavy liquids.
   (3) An up-to-date analysis and the
 supporting information and'data used to
 determine whether or not equipment is
 subject to the requirements in
 13 285.1052 through 265.1060. The record
 shall include supporting documentation
 as required by | 265.1063(d)(3) when
application of the knowledge of the
nature of the hazardous waste stream or
 the process by which it was produced is
used. If the owner or operator takes any
action (e.g., changing the process that
produced the waste) that could result in
an increase in the total organic content
of the waste contained in or contacted
 by equipment determined not to be
 subject to the requirements in
 II 285.1052 through 265.1060, then a new
 determination is required.
   (1) Records of the equipment leak
 inclination required by paragraph (d) of
 this section and the operating
 information required by paragraph (e) of
 this section need be kept only 3 years.
   (mi) The owner or operator of any
 facility that is subject to this subpart
 and to regulations at 40 CFR part 60,
 subp art W, or 40 CFR part 61, subpart
 V, may elect to determine compliance
 with this subpart by documentation
 eithtir pursuant to  5 285.1064 of this
 subpart. or pursuant to those provisions
 of 40 CFR part 60 or 61, to the extent
 that the documentation under the'
 regulation at 40 CFR part 80 or part 61
 duplicates the documentation required
 under this subpart The documentation
 under the regulation at 40 CFR part 60 or
 part 81 shall be kept with or made
 readily available with the facility
 operating record.                   • •
 (Approved by the Office of Management and
 Budgijt under control number 2060-0195)

 §§26ltO«S-2«5J079  [Reserved]

 PART 270—EPA-ADMINISTERED
 PERMIT PROGRAMS: THE
 HAZARDOUS WASTE PERMIT
 PROGRAM

   19. The authority citation for part 270
 continues to read as follows:
  Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905.6912.8921-6927,
 6930. 6S34. 6935.6937-6939. and 6974.

 Subpart B—Permit Application

  20. Section 270.14 is amended by
 revising the last sentence of paragraph
 (b)(5'| and by revising paragraphs (b)(8)
 (iv). |'v), and by adding paragraph
 (b)(8jl(vi) to read as follows:

 5270,14 Contenta-of Part & General
 requirements
 •    •    •     •    •

  (b) * '  *
  (5) * *  * Include, where applicable,
 as part of the inspection schedule.
 specific requirements in §5 284.174.
 204.103(0. 264.195, 264.228, 264.254.
 264.273, 284.303. 264.602. 264.1033.
 264.11)52.284.1053, and 264.1053.
  (8) • •, •
  (iv]l Mitigate effects si equipment
failure and power outages:
  (v) Prevent undue exposure of
personnel to hazardous waste (for
example, protective clothing); and
  (vi] Prevent releases to atmosphere.

-------
.25518-     Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 120 / Thursday.  June 21. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
   Section 27O24 is added to read as
 follows:
 §37024  Specific Part B Information
 requirement* for process vents.
   Except aa otherwise provided in
 5 264.1. owners and operators of
 facilities that have process vents to .
 which subpart AA of part 264 applies
 must provide the following additional
 information:
   (a) For facilities that cannot install a
 closed-vent system and control device
 to comply with the provisions of 40 CFR
 2S4 subpart AA on the effective date
 that the facility becomes subject to the
 provisions of 40 CFR 284 or 283 subpart
 AA. an implementation schedule as
 specified in 12S4.1033(a)(2).
   (b) Documentation of compliance with
 the process vent standards in J 284.1032.
 including:
   (1) Information  and data identifying
 all affected process vents, annual
 throughput and operating hours of each
 affected unit estimated emission rates
 for each affected vent and for the
 overall facility (i.e.. the total emission*
 for all affected vents at the facility), and
 the approximate location within die
 facility of each affected unit (e.g»
 identify the hazardous waste
 management nnits oa a facility plot
 plan).
   (2) Information and data supporting
  estimates of vent emissions and
• emission reduction achieved by add-on
  control devices based on engineering
  calculations or source tests. For the
  purpose of determining compliance.
  estimates, of vent emissions and
  emission reductions must be made using
  operating parameter values (e.g>
  temperatures, flow rates, or
  concentrations) that represent the
  conditions that exist when  the waste
  management unit is operating at the
  highest load or capacity level
  reasonably expected to occur.
    (3) Information and data used to
  determine whether or not a process vent
  is subject to the requirements of
   §264.1032.
    (c) Where an owner or operator
   applies for permission to use a control
   device other than a thermal vapor
   incinerator, catalytic vapor incinerator.
   flare, boiler, process heater, condenser.
   or carbon adsorption system to comply
   with the requirements of 5 264.1032. and
   chooses to use test data to determine the
   organic removal efficiency or the total
   organic compound concentration
   achieved by the control device, a
   performance test plan as specified in
   § 264.103S(b)(3).
     (d) Documentation of compliance with
   §  204.1033. including:
  (1) A list of all information.referenees
and sources used in preparing the
documentation.
  (2) Records including the dates of
each compliance test required by
§ 2&U03(k).
  (3) A design analysis, specifications.
drawings, schematics, and piping and
instrumentation diagrams based on the
appropriate sections of "APT! Course
415: Control of Gaseous Emissions"
(incorporated by reference as specified
in S 260.11? or other engineering texts
acceptable to the Regional
Administrator that present basic control
device design information. The design
analysis shall  address "the vent stream
characteristics and control device
operation parameters as specified in
§ 284.1035{b)(4Hiii).
   (4) A statement signed and dated by
the owner or operator certifying that the
operating parameters used in the design
analysis reasonably represent the
conditions that exist when die
hazardous waste management unit is or
would be operating at the highest load
or capacity level reasonably expected to
occur.
   {$) A statement signed and dated by
the owner or operator certifying that to*
control device is designed to operate at
 an efficiency of 95 weight percent or
greater unless the total organic emission
 limit* of § 284.1032(a) for affected
 process vents at the facility can be
 attained by a control device involving
 vapor recovery at an efficiency less than
 95 weight percent.
 (Approved by the Office of Management and
 Budgat tmdar control number 2060-0195)
   22. Section 27O2S is added as follows:

 I2T02S  Specific part BtnformaUon
 requirements for equipment
   Except as otherwise provided hi
  § 2S4.1. owners and operators of
  facilities that have equipment to which
  subpart BB of part 284 applies must
  provide the following additional
  information:
    (a) For each piece of equipment to
  which subpart BB of part 284 applies:
    (1) Equipment .identification number
  and hazardous waste management unit
  identification.
    (2) Approximate locations within the
  facility (e.g* identify the hazardous
  waste management unit on a facility plot
  plan).
    (3) Type of equipment (e.g., a pump or
  pipeline valve).
    (4) Percent by weight total organic* in
  the hazardous waste stream at the
  equipment
    (S) Hazardous waste state at the
  equipment (e.g.. gas/vapor or liquid).
  (6) Method of compliance with the
standard (e.g.. "monthly leak detection
and repair" or "equipped with dual
mechanical seals").
  (b) For facilities that cannot install a
closed-vent system and control device
to comply with the provisions of 40 CFR
264 subpart BB on the effective date  that
the facility becomes subject to the
provisions of 40 CFR 264 or 285 subpart
BB. an implementation schedule as
specified in } 284.1033(a)(2).
  (c) Where an owner or operator
applies for permission to use a control
device other than a thermal vapor
incinerator, catalytic vapor incinerator.
flare, boiler, process heater, condenser.
or carbon adsorption system and
chooses to use test data to determine the
organic removal efficiency or the total
organic compound concentration
achieved by the control device, a
performance test plan as specified in
 § 264.103S(b)(3).
   (d) Documentation that demonstrates
. compliance with the equipment
 standard* in II 284.1052 to 284.1059.
 This documentation shall contain the
 record* required under § 264.1084. The
 Regional Administrator may request
 further documentation before deciding if
 compliance has been demonstrated.
   (e) Documentation to demonstrate
 compliance with 3 264.1060 shall include
 the following information:
   (1) A list of all.information references
 and source* used is preparing die
 documentation.
   (2) Records including the dates of
 each-compliance test required by
 § 264.10330).
    (3) A design analysis, specifications.
 drawings, schematics, and piping and
 instrumentation diagrams  based on the
 appropriate sections of "ATPl Course
 415: Control of Gaseous Emissions"
 (incorporated by reference as specified
 in i 260.11) or other engineering texts
 acceptable to the Regional
 Administrator that present basic control
 device design information. The design
 analysis shall address die vent stream
  characteristics and control device
  operation parameter* as specified in
  § 264.1035(bH4)(iii).
    (4) A statement signed and dated by
  the owner or operator certifying that the
  operating parameters used in the_design
  analysis reasonably represent the
  conditions that exist when the
  hazardous waste management unit'is
  operating at the highest load or capacity
  level reasonably expected to occur.
    (5) A statement signed and dated by
  the owner or operator certifying that the
  control device is designed to operate at
  an efficiency of 95 weight percenter
  greater.

-------
            Federal Register / Vol. 55. No.  120 / Thursday. ]une  21, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
(Approved by the Office of Management and
Budget under control number 2060-0915)

PART 271— REQUIREMENTS FOR
AUTHORIZATION OF STATE
HAZARDOUS WASTE PROGRAMS

  23. The authority citation for part 271
continues to read as follows:
  Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6005. 6812(a). and 6BS8.

Subpart A— R*quiraflMnta for Final
Authorization

  24, Section 271.1(j) is amended by
adding the following entry to Table 1 in
chronological order by date of
publication:

1271.1  Purpose and scop*.
•    •"•"••

  OJ .....

TABLE   1.  REGUIATIONS IMPLEMENTING
  TH€  HAZARDOUS  AND  Souo WASTE
  AM6NOM6NTS OF 1984
           THtoof
                              due
      PTOC«H V«n*    Untun
dMed   wdEquipnMni   FB
put*-    LMkOiQirae    ra«-
otionl.   AirEnieaion
        SUndentttor    on
                             (Imwt
                              diM.1
         Opmional
                        of

                        ll
         Slortae,and
[FR Doc. 90-142M Filed 0-20-90:8:45 am)
     cooc im n •

-------
             APPENDIX B ' '

METHOD 21.  DETERMINATION OF VOLATILE
       ORGANIC COMPOUND LEAKS

-------

-------
                                 APPENDIX B
                    METHOD 21.   DETERMINATION OF VOLATILE
                           ORGANIC COMPOUND LEAKS
1.   Applicability and Principle
     1,1  Applicability.  This method applies to the determination of vola-
tile organic compound' (VOC) leaks from process equipment.  These sources
include, but are not limited.to, valves, flanges and other connections,
pumps and compressors, pressure relief devices, process drains, open-ended
valves, pump and compressor seal system degassing vents, accumulator vessel
vents, agitator seals, and access door seals.
     1.2  Principle.  A portable instrument is used to detect VOC leaks-
from individual sources.  The instrument detector type is not specified,
but it must meet the specifications and performance criteria contained in
Section 3.  A leak definition concentration based on a reference compound
is specified in each applicable regulation.  This procedure is intended to
locate and classify leaks only, and is not to be used as a direct measure
of mass emission rates from individual sources.
2.   Definitions
     2.1  Leak Definition Concentration.  The  local VOC  concentration  at
the surface of a leak source that  indicates that a VOC emission  (leak)  is
present.  The leak definition is an instrument meter reading based on  a
reference compound.
     2.2  Reference Compound.   The VOC  species selected  as an  instrument
calibration basis for specification of  the leak definition concentration.
[For example:   If a leak definition concentration  is 10,000 ppmv  as
methane,, then any source emission  that  results  in  a local concentration
that yields a meter reading of  10,000 on  an  instrument  calibrated with
methane would be classified'as  a leak.   In this example,  the  leak
definition  is  10,000  ppmv, and  the reference  compound  is methane.]
                                      B-3

-------
     2.3  Calibration Gas.  The VOC compound used to' adjust the instrument
meter reading to a known value.  The calibration gas is usually the refer-
ence compound at a concentration approximately equal to the leak definition
concentration.
     2.4  No Detectable Emission.  The local VOC concentration at thre
surface of a leak source that indicates that a VOC emission (leak) is not
present.  Since background VOC concentrations may exist, and to account for
instrument drift and imperfect reproducibility, a difference between the
source surface concentration and the local ambient concentration is deter-
mined.  A difference based on meter readings of less than 5 percent of the
leak definition concentration indicates that a VOC emission (leak) is not
present.  (For example, if the leak- definition in a regulatidn is 10,000
ppmv, then the allowable increase in surface concentration versus local
ambient concentration would be 500 ppmv based on the instrument meter
readings.)
     2.5  Response Factor.  The ratio of the known concentration of a VOC
compound to the observed meter reading when measured using an  instrument
calibrated with the reference" compound specified in the application
regulation.
     2.6  Calibration Precision.  The degree of agreement between measure-
ments of the same known value, expressed as the relative percentage of the
average difference between the meter readings  and the  kinown concentration
to the known concentration.
     2.7  Response Time.  The time interval from a  step change in VOC
concentration at the input of the sampling  system to the time  at which 90
percent of the corresponding final value  is reached as displayed on the
instrument readout meter.
3.0  Apparatus
     3.1  Monitoring Instrument.
     3.1.1   Specifications.
     a.  The VOC  instrument detector shall  respond  to  the  compounds being
processed.   Detector types which may meet this requirement  include, but  are
not  limited  to, catalytic oxidation, flame  ionization, infrared absorption,
and  photoionization.
                                      B-4

-------
     b.  The instrument shall  be capable of measuring the leak definition
concentration specified in the regulation.
     c.  The scale of the instrument meter shall  be readable to ±5 percent
of the specified leak definition concentration.
     d.  The instrument shall  be equipped with a pump so that a continuous
sample is provided to the detector.  The nominal  sample flow rate shall be
1/2 to 3 liters per minute.
     e.   The instrument shall be intrinsically safe for operation .in
explosive atmospheres as defined by the applicable U.S.A. standards (e.g.,
National Electrical Code by the National Fire Prevention Association).-
     3.1.2  Performance Criteria.
     a.  The instrument response factors for the individual compounds to be
measured must.be less than 10.
   • • b.  The instrument response time must be equal to or less than 30
seconds.  The response time must be determined for the instrument configur-
ation  to be used during testing.
     c.  The calibration precision must be equal to or less than  10 percent
                                                      »
of the calibration gas value.
     d.  The evaluation procedure  for each parameter  is  given  in  Section
4.4.
     3.1.3   Performance Evaluation  Requirements.
     a.  A  response  factor must  be  determined  for  each compound  that  is  to
be measured, either  by testing  or  from  reference sources.   The response
factor tests are  required  before placing  the  analyzer into  service/ but" do
not have to be  repeated  at subsequent  intervals.
     b.  The calibration  precision test must  be  completed  prior to placing
the analyzer into service, and  at  subsequent  3-month intervals or at the
next use whichever is later.
      c.   The response time test is required prior  to placing the instrument
 into service.   If a  modification to the sample pumping system of -flow
 configuration  is  made that would change the response time,  a new test is
 required prior to further use.
      3.2  Calibration Gases.   The monitoring instrument is calibrated in
 terms  of parts per million by volume (ppmv)  of the reference compound
 specified in the applicable  regulation.  The calibration gases required for
                                      B-5

-------
monitoring and instrument performance evaluation are a zero gas (air,
<10 ppmv VOC) and a calibration gas in air mixture approximately equal to
the leak definition specified in the regulation.  If cylinder calibration
gas mixtures are used, they must be analyzed and certified by the manufac-
turer to be within ±2 percent accuracy, and a shelf life must be specified.
Cylinder standards must be either reanalyzed or replaced at the end of the
specified shelf life.  Alternately, calibration gases may be prepared by
the user according to any accepted gaseous standards preparation procedure
that will yield a mixture accurate to within ±2 percent.  Prepared stand-
ards must be replaced each day of use unless it can be demonstrated that
degradation does not occur during storage.
     Calibrations may be performed using a compound other than the refer-
ence compound if a conversion factor is determined" for that alternative
compound so that the resulting meter readings during source surveys can be
converted to reference compound results..
4.   Procedures
     4.1  Pretest Preparations.  Perform the instrument evaluation proce-
                  u
dures given in Section 4.4 if the evaluation requirements .of Section 3.1.3
have not been met.
     4.2  Calibration Procedures.  Assemble and start up the VOC analyzer
according to the manufacturer's instructions.  After the appropriate warmup
period and-zero or internal calibration procedure, introduce the calibra-
tion gas into the instrument sample probe.  Adjust the instrument meter
readout to correspond to the calibration gas value.   [Note:  If the meter
readout cannot be adjusted to the proper value, a malfunction of the
analyzer is indicated and corrective actions are necessary before use.]
     4.3  Individual Source Surveys.
     4.3.1  Type  I—Leak Definition Based on Concentration.  Place the
probe inlet at the surface of the component interface where leakage  could
occur.  Move the  probe along the interface periphery while observing  the
instrument readout.   If an increased meter reading is observed, slowly
sample the interface where leakage  is  indicated until the maximum meter
              t
reading is obtained.  Leave the probe  inlet at this maximum reading
location for approximately two times the  instrument response time.   If the
                                      B-6

-------
maximum observed meter reading is greater than  the leak definition in  the
applicable regulation, record and report the results as specified in the
regulation reporting requirements.  Examples of the application of this
general technique to specific equipment types ares
     a.  Valves—The most common source of leaks from valves is at the seal
between the stem and housing.  Place the probe at the interface where  the
stem exits the packing gland and sample the stem circumference.  Also,
place the probe at the interface of the packing gland take-up flange seat
and sample the periphery.  In addition, survey valve housings of multipart
assembly at the surface of all interfaces where leaks could occur.
     b.  Flanges and Other Connections—For welded flanges, place the probe
at the outer edge of the flange-gasket interface and sample the circumfer-
ence of the flange.  Sample other types of nonpermanent joints (such as
threaded connections) with a similar traverse.
     c.  Pumps and Compressors—Conduct a circumferential traverse at the
outer  surface of the pump or compressor shaft and seal interface.  If the
source is a rotating shaft, position -the probe  inlet within 1 cm of the
shaft  seal interface for the survey.   If the housing configuration prevents
a complete traverse of the shaft  periphery,  sample  all accessible portions.
Sample all other joints on the pump or compressor housing where  leakage
could  occur.
     d.   Pressure Relief Devices—The  configuration of most pressure  relief
devices prevents sampling at  the sealing  seat  interface.   For  those devices
equipped  with an enclosed extension, or  horn,  place the  probe  inlet at
approximately the center of  the  exhaust  area to the atmosphere.
     e.   Process Drains—For open drains,  place the probe  inlet  at approxi-
mately the center of  the area open  to  the atmosphere.   For covered drains,
place  the probe at  the  surface of the  cover interface  and  conduct a peri-
pheral traverse.
      f.   Open-Ended Lines or Valves—Place the probe  inlet at  approximately
the center of  the  opening to the atmosphere.
      g.   Seal  System Degassing Vents  and Accumulator  Vents—Place the probe
 inlet  at  approximately  the  center of  the opening to the atmosphere.
      h.   Access Door Seals—Place the probe inlet at  the surface of the
 door seal interface and conduct a peripheral traverse.
                                      B-7

-------
     4.3.2  Type II—"No Detectable Emission".
     Determine the local ambient concentration around the source by moving
the probe inlet randomly upwind and downwind at a distance of one to two
meters from the source.  If an interference exists with this determination
due to a nearby emission or leak, the. local ambient concentration may be
determined at distances closer to the source, but in no case shall the
distance be less than 25 centimeters.  Then move the probe inlet to the
surface of the source and conduct a survey as described in 4.3.1.  If an
increase greater than 5 percent of the leak definition concentration is
obtained, record and report the results as specified by the regulation.
     For those cases where the regulation requires a specific device
installation, or that specified vents be ducted or piped to a control
device, the existence of these conditions shall be-visually confirmed.
When the regulation also requires that no detectable emissions exist,
visual observations and sampling surveys are required.  Examples of this
technique are:
     (a)  Pump or Compressor Seals—If applicable, determine the type of
shaft seal.  Perform a survey of the local area ambient VOC concentration
and determine if detectable emissions exi-st as'described above.
     (b)  Seal System Degassing Vents, Accumulator Vessel Vents, Pressure
Relief Devices—If applicable, observe whether or not the applicable
ducting or piping exists.  Also, determine if any sources exist in the
ducting or piping where emissions could occur prior to the control device.
If the required ducting or piping exists and there are no sources where the
emissions could be vented to the atmosphere prior to the control device,
then it is presumed that-no detectable emissions are present.
     4.4  Instrument Evaluation Procedures.  At the beginning of the
instrument performance evaluation test, assemble and start up the instru-
ment according to the manufacturer's instructions for recommended waqnup
period and preliminary adjustments.
     4.4.1  Response Factor.  Calibrate the instrument with the reference
compound as specified in the applicable regulation.  For each organic
species that is to be measured during individual source surveys, obtain or
prepare a known standard in air at a concentration of approximately 80
percent of the applicable leak definition unless limited by volatility or
                                     B-8

-------
explosivity.  In these cases,  prepare a standard at 90 percent of the
saturation concentration, or 70 percent of the lower explosive limit,
respectively.  Introduce this mixture to the analyzer and record the
observed meter reading.  Introduce zero air until a stable reading is
obtained.  Make a total of three measurements by alternating between the
known mixture and zero air.  Calculate the response factor for each repeti-
tion and the average response factor.
     Alternatively, if response factors have been published for the com-
pounds of interest for the instrument or detector type, the response factor
determination is not required, and existing results may be referenced.
Examples of published response factors for flame ionization and catalytic
oxidation detectors are  included in Section 5.
     4.4.2  Calibration  Precision.  Make.a total of three measurements by
alternately using zero gas and the specified calibration gas.  Record the
meter readings.  Calculate the average algebraic difference between  the
meter readings  and the known  value.   Divide this average difference  by the
known calibration value  and multiply  by 100 to  express  the resulting cali-
bration  precision as  a percentage.
     4.4.3   Response  Time.   Introduce zero gas  into the instrument .sample
probe.   When  the meter reading has stabilized,  switch quickly to  the speci-
fied calibration gas.  Measure the time from  switching to when 90 percent
of the  final  stable  reading  is attained.   Perform  this test sequence three
times and record the  results. Calculate  the  average  response time.
5.  Bibliography
     5.1  DuBose,  D.  A., and 6.  E.  Harris.   Response  Factors  of VOC
Analyzers at a Meter Reading of  10,000 ppmv  for Selected Organic Compounds.
 U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C.
 Publication No. EPA 600/2-81-051.   September 1981.
      5.2  Brown,  G.  E.,  et al.   Response  Factors of VOC Analyzers
 Calibrated with Methane for Selected Organic Compounds.  U.S. Environmental
 Protection Agency,  Research Triangle park, N.C.  Publication No. EPA 600/2-
 81-022.  May 1981.
      5.3  DuBose,  D. A,, et al.   Response of Portable VOC Analyzers to
 Chemical Mixtures.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triang.le
 Park,  N.C.  Publication No. EPA 600/2-81-110.  September 1981.
                                      B-9

-------

-------
       APPENDIX C



EXAMPLE CONDENSER DESIGN

-------