mmmimmimmmmmfmimmmmmmmmmimmimmmi^immmmiif^^f^Mmm^mam^mm^g^fimigmiim
EPA   Hazardous Waste Treatment,
                      ^
                      Disposal Facilities
               ma!mmmmMmmmmmmmmmiimmiimmMmmmiMmmmmmimimmMmmmimfmmmimmmimmmmmmmm®fmmmmfimmmm
               DLiBa£kfioiuiid_ Information
                     [ated Organic Air
                    •nnigffiBiiHi^
                    [pounclments, and Containers
         Cleat*
t^

-------

-------
                       EPA-453/R-94-076b
       Hazardous Waste Treatment,



 Storage, and Disposal Facilities (TSDF) -



 Background Information for Promulgated



Organic Air Emission Standards for Tanks,




 Surface Impoundments, and Containers
           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



               November 1994

-------
                            DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Emission Standards Division
of the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, EPA, and
approved for publication.  Mention of trade names or commercial
products is not intended to constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.  Copies of this report are available
through the Library Services Office  (MD-35), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, or from
National Technical Information Services, 5285 Port Royal Road,
Springfield, VA 22161.
                                 ii

-------
               U.S.  ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

         Hazardous Waste Treatment,  Storage,  and Disposal
          Facilities (TSDF)  -  Background Information for
            Promulgated Organic Air Emission Standards
         for Tanks,  Surface Impoundments, and Containers

                           Prepared by:
Bruce C.  .Jordan
Directory Emission Standards division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC  27711
         / (D^te)
1.   The standards will limit organic air emissions at hazardous
     waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities  (TSDF)
     that are subject to regulation under Subtitle C of the
     Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).  The rules
     establish final organic air emission control requirements
     for tanks, surface impoundments, and certain containers.
     The final standards are promulgated under the authority of
     Section 3004(n) of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments
     to RCRA.

2.   Copies of this document have been sent to the following
     Federal Departments:  Agriculture, Commerce, Defense,
     Energy, Health and Human Services, Interior, Labor, and
     Transportation; the Office of Management and Budget; the
     National Science Foundation; and other interested parties.

3.   For additional information contact:

     Ms.  Michele Aston
     Emission Standards Division (MD-13)
     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
     Research Triangle Park, North Carolina  27711
     Telephone:   (919)  541-2363

4.   Copies of this document may be obtained from:
     U.S. EPA Library (MD-35)
     Research Triangle Part, North Carolina
     Telephone:  (919) 541-2777

     National Technical Information Services
     5285 Port Royal Road
     Springfield, Virginia  2216
27711
                               iii

-------

-------
                        Table of Contents
                                                             PAGE
1.0 SUMMARY	1-1
     1.1 SUMMARY OF RULE CHANGES SINCE PROPOSAL	1-1
     1.2 SUMMARY OF FINAL RULES IMPACTS	1-12

2.0 INTRODUCTION	2-1

3.0 IMPLEMENTATION OF RCRA SECTION 3004 (n)  	3-1

4.0 IMPACT ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY	4-1
     4.1 NATIONAL IMPACTS MODEL	4-1
          4.1.1 TSDF Waste Data Base	.4-1
          4.1.2 General Emission Estimate Methodology  .  .  .  .4-9
          4.1.3 Model Unit Emission Calculations	4-12
          4.1.4 Baseline Land Disposal Restrictions
               Assumptions	  . - . -	4-17
          4.1.5 Baseline Emission Control Assumptions  .  .  .  4-21
     4.2 HEALTH IMPACT ANALYSIS 	  4-24
          4.2.1 General Health Impact Analysis Methodology   4-24
          4.2.2 The EPA Human Exposure Model	4-30
          4.2.3 Maximum Individual Risk Analysis	4-32
          4.2.4.Noncancer Health Impacts  	  4-38
     4.3 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS  	  4-39
          4.3.1 Control Cost Estimates	4-39
          4.3.2 Regulatory Impact Analysis  (RIA)  	  4-44
     4.4 REVISED IMPACTS ANALYSIS 	  4-49

5.0 CONTROL OPTION DEVELOPMENT  	 	 5-1
     5.1 TSDF EMISSION SOURCE SELECTION  	 5-1
          5.1.1 Containers	5-1
          5.1.2 Land Disposal Units	5-3
     5.2 EMISSION CONTROL STRATEGY SELECTION  	 5-5
     5.3 ACTION LEVEL FORMAT SELECTION   	 	 5-9
          5.3.1 Emission Rate Action Level	5-9
          5.3.2 Multiple TSDF Action Levels	5-11
          5.3.3 Other Action Level Formats	.  .  5-14
     5.4 EMISSION CONTROLS SELECTION  	  5-17

6.0 RULE REQUIREMENTS	6-1
     6.1 APPLICABILITY	6-1
          6.1.1 Affected Hazardous Waste	6-1
          6.1.2 Spill Management and Cleanup Activities  .  .  . 6-4
          6.1.3 Radioactive Mixed Waste   	 6-4
          6.1.4 Wastes to Which the Rule Applies	6-6
          6.1.5 Coke Byproduct Plants	6-10
          6.1.6 Wastewater Treatment Units  .  	  6-11
     6.2 EXEMPTIONS FROM AIR EMISSION CONTROL REQUIREMENTS   6-13
          6.2.1 Exemption Format	6-13
          6.2.2 Exemptions for Treated Hazardous Waste     .  6-17

-------
                 Table of Contents  (Continued)
                                                             PAGE
          6.2.3 Site-Specific  Exemptions   	   6-23
     6.3 WASTE DETERMINATION AND COMPLIANCE  PROCEDURES   .  .   6-24
          6.3.1 Determination  of Volatile  Organic
              Concentration  	   6-24
          6.3.2 Waste  Determination for Offsite Waste .  .  .   6-33
          6.3.3 Waste  Determination for Treated Waste ...   6-34
          6.3.4 Waste  Determination Frequency 	   6-36
     6.4 TANK EMISSION CONTROL REQUIREMENTS	6-41
          6.4.1 Tank Applicability/Exemptions	6-41
          6.4.2 Tank Control Requirements    	6-44
     6.5 SURFACE  IMPOUNDMENT EMISSION CONTROL REQUIREMENTS   6-63
     6.6 CONTAINER AIR EMISSION CONTROL REQUIREMENTS  ...   6-70
          6.6.1 Container Applicability/Exemptions  ....   6-70
          6.6.2 Container Cover Requirements	6-76
          6.6.3 Container Loading Requirements  	   6-84
          6.6.4 Container Treatment Control  Requirements  .   6-90
          6.6.5 Control Requirements for Vacuum Trucks   .  .   6-91
     6.7 SUBPART  X MISCELLANEOUS UNIT STANDARDS	6-93
     6.8 CLOSED WASTE  TRANSFER BETWEEN UNITS  	   6-94
     6.9 CONTROL  DEVICE REQUIREMENTS  	   6-97
          6.9.1 Closed-Vent System	6-97
          6.9.2 Control Device	  6-100
          6.9.3 Changeout of Small Carbon Canisters ....  6-108
          6.9.4 Demonstration of Compliance	6-109
     6.10  MANAGEMENT OF SPENT ACTIVATED CARBON	6-111
          6.10.1  TSDF Owner/Operator Certification  ....  6-111
          6.10.2  Spent Carbon Management  Alternatives .  .  .  6-114
     6.11  INSPECTION/MONITORING REQUIREMENTS  	  6-117
     6.12  RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS	6-131
     6.13  REPORTING REQUIREMENTS	6-134
     6.14  ALTERNATIVE ORGANIC AIR EMISSION CONTROLS . .  .  .  6-135

7.0 GENERATOR 90-DAY ACCUMULATION TANKS AND CONTAINERS  .  .   .7-1
     7.1 PERMIT EXEMPTION CONDITION AMENDMENTS   	 7-1
     7.2 APPLICABILITY TO OTHER GENERATOR ACCUMULATION
          UNITS	7-15

8.0 TEST METHODS	S"1
     8.1 METHOD 25D	S"1
          8.1.1 Method 25D  Sample  Collection   .	8-1
          8.1.2 Method 25D  Sample  Analysis   	 ....8-5
     8.2 METHOD 25E	S"13
     8.3 APPLICATION  OF TEST METHODS TO SUBPART CC
          STANDARDS	8'14

9.0 RULE IMPLEMENTATION	9-1
                                V3.

-------
                  Table of Contents  (Continued)
                                                             PAGE
     9.1 PERMIT-AS-A-SHIELD POLICY	9-1
     9.2 IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE  (COMPLIANCE DATES)	9-6
     9.3 HSWA INTERIM STATE AUTHORIZATION EXTENSION  ....  9-10
     9.4 OPTIONS FOR PART B APPLICATION INFORMATION  ....  9-10
     9.5 PERMIT MODIFICATION CLASSIFICATION	  .  9-11
     9.6 RELATIONSHIP TO COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL
          RESPONSE COMPENSATION AND LIABILITY ACT  (CERCLA)   9-12

10.0 OTHER COMMENTS	  10-1
                               vii

-------

-------
                           1.0 SUMMARY
1.1  SUMMARY OF RULE CHANGES SINCE PROPOSAL
     The EPA proposed the rule on July 22, 1991 (refer to
56 FR 33491).  Based on public comments received by the EPA at
proposal as well as the EPA's evaluation of additional
information obtained after proposal, certain requirements of the
rule have been changed from those proposed.  The major changes
affect provisions establishing the rule applicability, the
procedures for determining the average volatile organic
concentration of a waste, and the air emission control
requirements for containers.  In addition, the EPA has made many
changes to the specific regulatory text to clarify the EPA's
intent in the application and implementation of the rule
requirements.  The substantive changes to the rule since proposal
are summarized below.
1.1.1  TSDF Tanks. Surface Impoundments, and Containers
     A new subpart CC is promulgated in both 40 CFR parts 264 and
265.  Subpart CC under 40 CFR part 264 applies to owners and
operators of permitted TSDF while subpart CC under 40 CFR part
265 applies to owners and operators of interim-status TSDF.  All
changes since proposal to subpart CC in 40 CFR part 264 and to
subpart CC in 40 CFR part 265 are identical with the exception of
changes to the rule reporting requirements.  There are no
reporting requirements under 40 CFR 265 subpart CC for owners and
operators of interim-status TSDF.  Hereafter for convenience in
this background information document (BID), the term "subpart CC
standards" is used collectively to refer to both subpart CC in 40
CFR part 264 and subpart CC in 40 CFR part 265.
                               1-1

-------
     The compliance time for the subpart CC standards has been
revised since proposal to allow up to an additional 30 months
after   Jnsert da*-g iso d    after date of pubcatio
        Roister! to install and begin operation of air emission
control equipment required by the rule provided that the owner or
operator develops and places in the facility operating records by
this date an  implementation schedule for installation of the
equipment.  Compliance dates and implementation requirements for
the subpart CC standards are explained further in chapter 9 of
this BID.
1.1.1.1  fippi inability.  The applicability  of the subpart CC
  ...
 standards has been revised since proposal  to  specifically exempt
 from the rule certain tanks,  surface impoundments,  and  containers
 in which the owner or operator has stopped adding hazardous
 waste.   The subpart CC standards do not apply to a  tank, surface
 impoundment, or container that meets either of the  following
 conditions:  (1) no hazardous waste is added to the waste
 management unit on or after [insert date 1*0 day* «fter date of
             ir "- »~*»™l Register] (see generally 55  FR  39409,
 September 27, 1990); or (2) addition of hazardous waste to the
 waste management unit is stopped and the owner or operator has
 begun implementing or completed closure pursuant to an approved
 closure plan.
      in addition, the applicability of the subpart CC standards
 has been changed such that the rule is not applicable to any
 container having a design capacity less than 0.1 m
 (approximately  26 gallons) regardless of the organic content of
 the hazardous waste handled in the container.  In response to
 comments on  the proposed rule, the EPA reviewed the types of
 small containers commonly used to accumulate and transfer
 hazardous waste.  Considering the small quantity of hazardous
 waste handled in a  sample  collection vial, safety can, disposal
 can, and other types  of small containers and the short periods of
 time that the waste normally remains in one of these containers,
 the EPA concluded that existing  rules  for  containers having a
 design capacity less  than 0.1 m3 are sufficient  to protect human
                                 1-2

-------
health and the environment.  (Refer to chapter 6 of this BID).
     Finally, the EPA has decided to temporarily defer
application of the subpart CC standards to tanks, surface
impoundments, and containers managing hazardous wastes under
certain special circumstances.  For now, the EPA is deferring
application of the subpart CC standards to waste management units
that are used solely to treat or store hazardous wastes generated
on-site from remedial activities required under RCRA corrective
action or CERCLA response authorities (or similar State
remediation authorities).  Also, the EPA is deferring application
of the subpart CC standards to waste management units that are
used solely to manage radioactive mixed wastes.  The EPA's
rationale for these deferrals is explained in section 6.1.3 of
chapter 6 of this BID.
1.1.1.2  General standards.  For each tank, surface impoundment,
or container to which the subpart CC standards apply (referred to
here as an "affected unit"), the owner or operator is required to
use the air emission controls specified in the rule except when
the hazardous waste placed in an affected unit meets certain
conditions.  As explained in the following paragraphs, the
conditions under which an affected unit is exempted from the air
emission control requirements of the subpart CC standards have
been revised since proposal.
1.1.1.2.1  Waste volatile organic concentration exemption.  Under
the final subpart CC standards, an affected unit is exempt from
the air emission control requirements of the rule if all
hazardous waste placed in the unit is determined to have an
average volatile organic concentration  less than 100 parts per
million by weight  (ppmw) based  on the organic composition of the
hazardous waste at the point of waste origination.  This waste
volatile organic concentration  limit incorporates several
revisions that have been made by the EPA since proposal.
     First,  the format for the  limit has been changed to be the
average volatile organic concentration  of the hazardous waste on
a mass-weighted basis during normal operating conditions for the
source or process  generating the waste  (in contrast to the
                                1-3

-------
proposed format of the maximum volatile organic concentration for
the hazardous waste never to be exceeded).  Averaging periods up
to 1 year in duration are allowed for each individual waste
stream under the final rule.  The procedures for determining the
average volatile organic concentration of a waste are explained
further in section 6.3 of chapter 6 of this BID.
     Second, determination of the volatile organic concentration
of the waste under the final rule is based on the organic
composition of the waste at the "point of waste origination"
(instead of the "point of waste generation" as proposed).  The
Hpoint of waste origination" is defined  in the final rule with
respect to the point where the TSDF owner or operator first has
possession of a hazardous waste.  When the TSDF owner or operator
is the generator of the hazardous waste, the "point of waste
origination" means the point where a solid waste produced by a
system, process, or waste management unit is determined to be a
hazardous waste as defined  in 40 CFR part 261.  In this case,
this term  is being used  in  a similar manner to the use of the
term "point  of generation"  in waste operations air standards
established  under authority of  the Clean Air Act  in 40 CFR parts
60,  61,  and  63 of this chapter.  When  neither the TSDF owner nor
operator is  the generator  of the hazardous waste, the  "point of
waste  origination" means the point where the  owner or  operator
 accepts delivery  or  takes  possession  of the hazardous  waste.
      Finally,  the EPA revised  the  impact analysis used for this
 rulemaking after  proposal  to  incorporate additional TSDF  industry
 data.   An opportunity for public comment on this  analysis was
 provided by the EPA (refer to chapter 4 of this BID).   Based on
 the revised analysis results,  the EPA selected a new  value  for
 the volatile organic concentration limit.  Section V.C of the
 preamble to the final subpart CC standards presents the rationale
 for the selection of the control option used as the basis for the
 final rule,
 1.1.1.2.1  Treated hazardous waste exemption.  Under the subpart
 CC  standards, each affected tank, surface impoundment, and
 container that manages hazardous waste having an average volatile
                                1-4

-------
organic concentration equal to or greater than 100 ppmw, as
determined by the procedures specified in the rule, is required
use air emission controls in accordance with the rule
requirements.  The owner or operator must install and operate the
specified air emission controls on every affected tank, surface
impoundment, and container used in the waste management sequence
from the point of waste origination (as applies to the specific
hazardous waste stream) through the point where the organics in
the waste are removed or destroyed by a process in accordance
with the requirements of the rule.  If a particular hazardous
waste is not treated to meet these requirements, then all
affected units at the TSDF used in the waste management sequence
for this hazardous waste are required to use the air emission
controls specified by the subpart CC standards.
     If the hazardous waste is treated to remove or destroy the
organics in the waste by a process that meets or exceeds a
minimum level of performance as specified in the rule, then
affected units at the TSDF operated downstream of the treatment
process in the waste management sequence for this hazardous waste
are not required to use the air emission controls specified by
the subpart CC standards.  It is  important to emphasize that
tanks, surface impoundments, and  containers  (subject to the rule)
in which the treatment process is conducted are required to use
the applicable air emission controls specified by the subpart CC
standards with the exception of certain tanks and  surface
impoundments used for  active biological treatment  of hazardous
waste  and achieving the performance requirements specified in the
rule.
     The conditions under which a treated hazardous waste no
 longer is required to  be managed  in affected units using air
emission controls under the subpart CC standards have been
revised and expanded  since proposal to include many alternatives
 from which  an  owner or operator can choose  one with which to
 comply.  The final subpart  CC  standards  allow an  owner  or
 operator to use any type  of treatment process that can
 continuously achieve  one  of the  specified  sets  of  performance
                                1-5

-------
conditions.  These conditions have been changed to include:  (1)
the average volatile organic concentration of the hazardous waste
exiting the process is less than 100 ppmw (except for certain
site-specific situations where multiple hazardous waste streams
are treated by a single process in which case a volatile organic
concentration limit for the waste exiting the process is
established by the rule procedures at a value lower than 100
ppmw);  (2) the organic reduction efficiency for a process
treating multiple hazardous waste streams is equal to or greater
than 95 percent, and the average volatile organic concentration
of the hazardous waste exiting the treatment process is less than
50 ppmw; or  (3) the actual organic mass removal rate for the
process is greater than the required mass removal rate
established  for the process.  The alternative treatment process
performance  requirements specified in the final subpart CC
standards  are discussed further in section 6.2.2 of chapter 6 of
this BID.
     The proposed explicit exemption for hazardous wastes
complying  with the  land disposal restriction  (LDR) treatment
standards  is not included  in  the final  subpart CC standards.
EPA concluded that  the expanded number  of alternatives for
treated hazardous waste and other provisions  added to the  final
rule provide a reasonable  regulatory mechanism by which a  TSDF
owner  or  operator can determine whether a hazardous waste
complying with the  LDR treatment standards  is exempted from being
managed in accordance with the air  emission  control requirements
of the subpart  CC  standards.
 1.1.1.3  Waste  Determination  Procedures.  As already noted, the
procedures that a  TSDF owner  or operator may use to determine the
volatile organic concentration of  a hazardous waste have been
revised for the final subpart CC standards.   For a case when
 direct measurement is chosen for determining the volatile  organic
 concentration of a hazardous waste,  the proposed statistical
 calculation procedure using Method 25D results  is  not  included  in
 the final subpart CC standards.   Instead,  procedures  are
 specified in the final rule to compute the mass-weighted  average
                                1-6
The

-------
volatile organic concentration of a hazardous waste using Method
25D results for waste generated as part of a continuous process
and for waste generated as part of a batch process.  Under
circumstances when the same batch process is performed repeatedly
but not necessarily continuously, the final rule allows the owner
or operator to determine the average volatile organic
concentration of the waste from this process by averaging results
for one or more representative waste batches generated by the
process.  In all cases, a sufficient number of waste samples for
analysis  (with a minimum of four samples) must be collected to be
representative of the normal range of the operating conditions
for the source or process generating the hazardous waste.  Normal
operating conditions for the source or process generating the
waste include cyclic process operations such as startup and
shutdown.  Process malfunctions, maintenance activities, or
equipment cleaning are not considered to be normal operating
conditions for the purpose of determining the average volatile
organic concentration of a waste.  These waste determination
procedures are discussed further in section 6.3 of chapter 6 of
this BID.
     The proposed explicit requirements for determining the
volatile  organic concentration of a hazardous waste using
information  in a waste certification notice prepared by the waste
generator are not included in the final rule.  Instead, for
hazardous waste that is not generated by the TSDF owner or
operator  (i.e., waste shipped to the TSDF from off-site sources
under different ownership), the  final rule allows the TSDF owner
or  operator  to determine the waste volatile organic concentration
by  either testing the waste when he or she accepts delivery of
the hazardous waste or using appropriate information about the
waste composition that is prepared by the generator of the waste.
The generator prepared information can be included in manifests,
shipping  papers, or waste  certification notices accompanying the
waste shipment, as agreed upon between the waste generator and
the TSDF  owner or operator.
                                1-7

-------
1.1.1.4  Tin* standards.  Several changes to the tank standards
have been made since proposal.  An exemption from the tank
standards has been added for those affected tanks used for
biological treatment of a hazardous waste in accordance with
requirements specified in the rule.  Changes have been made to
clarify the regulatory text regarding the tank cover design and
operating requirements.  Also, the conditions have been clarified
that must be met for a particular tank to use a fixed-roof type
cover without any additional controls in accordance with the
subpart CC standards.  Finally, provisions have been added to the
rule to address those special situations in which emergency
venting of the tank or the air emission controls installed on the
tank is necessary for safety.
1.1.1.5  surface Impoundment  Standards.  Changes to the surface
impoundments standards have been made to be consistent with the
changes to the tank standards as applicable.
1.1.1.6  container Standards.  Several changes have been made to
the container standards  since proposal in addition to  limiting
the applicability of the subpart CC  standards to containers
having a design  capacity equal to  or greater than 0.1  m3.  The
air emission control requirements  for affected containers have
been  revised to  provide several  air  emission control alternatives
 from  which an owner  or operator  may  choose  one with which to
 comply.   For containers having a design  capacity  less  than or
 equal to 0.46 m3 (approximately 119  gallons), an  owner or
 operator may place the hazardous waste  in drums that meet U.S.
 Department of Transportation (DOT)  specifications under
 49 CFR part 178 without any additional  testing,  inspection,  or
 monitoring requirements.  An owner or operator  is also allowed
 under the final rule to place the hazardous waste in tank trucks
 and tank railcars that are annually demonstrated  to be vapor
 tight using Method 27 in 40 CFR 60 appendix A without any
 additional testing,  inspection, or monitoring requirements.
      The requirements for waste transfer operations for
 containers have been revised under the final subpart CC
 standards.  Submerged-fill of hazardous waste that is loaded into
                                1-8

-------
containers by pumping is required only when transferring the
waste into containers having a design capacity greater than
0.46 m3.  Submerged fill of the waste is not required when
filling smaller size containers such as 55-gallon drums.
     The air emission control requirements for owners and
operators treating hazardous waste in open containers have been
revised.  Whenever it is necessary for the container to be open
during the treatment process, the container is required to be
located in an enclosure connected to a closed-vent system with an
operating organic emission control device.  The final subpart CC
standards include specific enclosure design and operation
requirements which allow the enclosure to have permanent openings
for worker access.
     Finally, the container standards have been revised to be
consistent with the safety venting provisions added to the tank
and surface impoundment standards.
1.1.1.7  Closed-Vent System and Control Device Standards.  The
design and operating requirements for closed-vent systems and
control devices have been changed to be consistent with those
requirements already applicable to TSDF owners and operators
under subpart AA in 40 CFR parts 264 and 265.  The subpart AA
standards have been in effect since 1990 and establish RCRA air
standards to control organic emissions from process vents on
certain types of hazardous waste treatment units.
1.1.1.8  Inspection and Monitoring Requirements.  The inspection
and monitoring requirements under the subpart CC standards have
been revised since proposal.  The requirements for inspection and
monitoring of closed-vent systems and control devices have been
changed to be identical to the  inspection and monitoring
requirements under subpart AA in 40 CFR parts 264 and 265.  The
required  interval for the visual inspection of covers installed
on tanks, surface impoundments, and certain containers has been
changed to once every 6 months.  After the initial cover
inspection and monitoring for detectable organic emissions is
completed, the owner or operator is only required to inspect and
monitor those cover openings that have been opened  (i.e., have
                                1-9

-------
not continuously remained in a closed, sealed position) since the
last visual inspection and monitoring.  Special inspection and
monitoring provisions have been added for cover fittings that are
unsafe or difficult, as defined in the rule, for facility
personnel to inspect and monitor.
     The subpart CC standards have been changed to allow leak
repair on tank and surface impoundment covers to be delayed
beyond 15 calendar days if both of the following conditions
occur:   (1) repair of the leak requires first emptying the
contents of the tank or surface impoundment; and (2) temporary
removal of the tank or surface impoundment  from service will
result in the unscheduled cessation  of production from the
process unit, or operation of the waste management unit, that is
generating the hazardous waste managed in the tank or surface
impoundment.  Repair of a leak must  be performed at the next time
the process, system, or waste management unit that is generating
the hazardous waste managed  in the tank or  surface impoundment
stops operation for any reason.
1.1.1.9  Recordkeep.^g Requirements. The subpart CC standards
have been  changed  to require cover design documentation only for
floating-roof type tank covers,  surface impoundment covers, and
enclosures used for control  of  air emissions from containers.
Also, the  recordkeeping requirements have been  revised as
appropriate  to  address the  changes to the final rule described
previously in this chapter  of the BID.
 1.1.1.10  Reporting Requirements.  The reporting requirements  in
the subpart  CC  standards  are the same as proposed with one
 exception.  The time  interval within which  TSDF owners and
 operators subject to  the subpart CC standards  under 40 CFR part
 264 must report to the Regional Administrator  all  circumstances
 resulting in noncompliance with the applicable conditions  has
 been change to within 15 calendar days of  the  time that  an owner
 or operator becomes aware of the circumstances.
 1.1.2  TSDF Miscellaneous Units
      The final rules amend 40 CFR 264.601 by adding to the permit
 terms and provisions required for RCRA permitting of a
                                1-10

-------
miscellaneous unit the appropriate air emission control
requirements in 40 CFR 264 subparts AA, BB, and CC.  This
amendment is the same as proposed.
1.1.3  Generator 9Q-Dav Tanks and Containers
     The conditions with which a hazardous waste generator must
comply, pursuant to 40 CFR 262.34(3), to exempt tanks and
containers accumulating hazardous waste on-site for no more than
90 days from the RCRA subtitle C permitting requirements are
amended by the final rules to include compliance with the air
emission control requirements of 40 CFR 265 subparts AA, BB, and
CC.  This amendment is the same as proposed.
1.1.4  Other RCRA Regulatory Actions
     The EPA proposed several amendments to existing RCRA air
standards.  One amendment proposed adding requirements for the
management of spent carbon removed from a carbon adsorption
system to the closed-vent system and control device standards
under 40 CFR 264 subparts AA and BB, and 40 CFR 265 subparts AA
and BB*  The final amendment has been revised to allow the owner
or operator the additional option of burning the spent carbon in
a boiler or industrial furnace that is permitted under subpart H
of 40 CFR part 266.  A second amendment promulgated in the final
rules updates the leak detection monitoring provisions under 40
CFR 264 subparts AA and BB, and 40 CFR 265 subparts AA and BB for
closed-vent systems to be consistent with other air standards
recently promulgated by the EPA.  Under this amendment, annual
leak detection monitoring is not required for those closed-vent
system components which continuously operate in vacuum service or
those closed-vent system joints, seams, or other connections that
are permanently or send-permanently sealed  (e.g.,  a welded joint
between two sections of metal pipe, a  bolted and gasketed pipe
flange).
1.1.5  Test Methods
     As part  of the  subpart CC rulemaking, the EPA proposed two
new reference test methods  (Method  25D and Method  25E) to be
added  to  40 CFR part 60 Appendix A.  Method  25D  is a  test method
 for the determination  of the volatile  organic concentration of
                               1-11

-------
waste materials.  Since proposal, the EPA decided it is also
appropriate to use Method 25D to implement other EPA air
standards being developed under authority of the Clean Air Act.
The promulgation of some of these other air standards prior to
the promulgation of subpart CC required the EPA to promulgate
Method 25D in a separate rulemaking  (refer to 59 FR 19402,
April 22, 1994).
     Method 25E is being promulgated as a part of the subpart CC
rulemaking.  Method 25E is the test method for determining the
organic vapor pressure of wastes.  The sampling requirements for
Method 25E have been revised since proposal to provide for
sampling of the waste in a tank.
1.2  SUMMARY OF FINAL RULE IMPACTS
     The EPA estimates that implementation of the subpart CC
standards will  reduce nationwide organic emissions from TSDF
tanks, surface  impoundments, and containers by approximately
970,000 Mg/yr.  In addition, the EPA estimates that nationwide
organic emissions from 90-day  tanks  and containers will be
reduced by  approximately 73,000 Mg/yr.
     Control of organic air emissions  addresses many  air  quality
problems  including ambient ozone formation, adverse human health
effects  from  inhalation of air toxics, and, to a  lesser extent,
depletion of  stratospheric ozone.  Ambient ozone  concentrations
exceed the National  Ambient Air Quality  Standards (NAAQS)  in many
metropolitan  areas throughout the  United  States.  Thus, the rule
promulgated today will  contribute  to progress in  attaining the
NAAQS  for ozone in nonattainment areas and also  in  preventing
 significant deterioration of  the air quality  in those areas of
 the United States currently in attainment with the  NAAQS  for
 ozone.
      The final rule will also significantly  reduce  the risk to
 the public of contracting cancer posed by exposure  to toxic
 constituents contained in the organic emissions  from hazardous
 waste management activities.   The cancer risk to the entire
 exposed population nationwide (i.e., annual cancer incidence)
 from exposure to organic emissions from TSDF is estimated by the
                                1-12

-------
EPA to be reduced from approximately 48 cases per year to a level
of 2 cases per year.  Annual cancer incidence as a result of
exposure to organic emissions from 90-day tanks and containers is
estimated by the EPA to be reduced from approximately four cases
per year to less than one case per year.
     Maximum individual risk (MIR) is a measure of the added
probability of a person contracting cancer if exposed
continuously over a 70-year period to the highest annual average
ambient concentration of the air toxics emitted from a TSDF site.
There are approximately 2,300 TSDF locations in the United
States.  The MIR for all but approximately 20 of these facilities
is estimated by the EPA to be reduced by implementation of the
subpart CC standards to a level that is less than 1 x 10"4.  The
target MIR levels historically used by the EPA for other
promulgated RCRA standards range from 1 x 10""4 to 1 x 10"6.
Because the MIR values for a few TSDF are estimated to remain
higher than the historical RCRA target, the EPA is continuing to
evaluate the waste management practices and the individual
chemical compounds composing the organic emissions at these TSDF.
Following this evaluation, the EPA will determine what other
actions are necessary to attain the health-based goals of RCRA
section 3004(n).  The omnibus permitting authority in section
3005(c)(3) can be invoked to supplement or add to the
requirements  in the subpart CC standards, should the rule
requirements  be determined to be  insufficient to assure
protection of human health and the environment at a particular
facility.
      The  total nationwide capital  investment cost to TSDF owners
and operators to  implement the subpart  CC standards is estimated
by the EPA to be  approximately $290 million.  The total
nationwide annual cost  for these  standards is estimated to be
approximately $110  million per year.  The total nationwide
capital costs to  hazardous waste  generators  of installing the
required air emission controls on 90-day tanks and containers  is
estimated by the  EPA  to be  approximately $23 million.  Total
nationwide  annual cost for  the  90-day tank and container controls
                               1-13

-------
is estimated to be approximately $7 million.
     The EPA concludes that the promulgation of the final subpart
CC standards will not have a significant economic impact on
hazardous waste generators or TSDF owners and operators.  Prices
for commercial hazardous waste management services are estimated
by the EPA to increase by less than 1 percent on a nationwide
annualized basis.  The quantity of hazardous waste handled by
commercial hazardous waste management companies is projected to
be reduced by less than 1 percent on a nationwide annualized
basis.  Few, if any, facility closures are anticipated.  Job
losses in the hazardous waste industry are estimated to be less
than 1.5 percent.  Furthermore, this impact on employment does
not reflect positive employment effects on industries producing
the air emission control equipment that will be used to comply
with the rule.  No significant impacts are expected on small
businesses.
                                1-14

-------
                         2.0  INTRODUCTION
     The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed
standards on July 22, 1991 under the authority of Section 3004(n)
of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) to the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)  that would control
organic air emissions from tanks, surface impoundments, and
containers operated at hazardous waste treatment, storage, and
disposal facilities  (TSDF) (refer to 56 FR 33491).  The preamble
to the proposed rule discussed the availability of a background
information document (BID) (EPA-450/3-89-023)  that presents
information used in the development of the proposed rule.
     Comments from the public on the rulemaking were solicited at
the time of proposal, and copies of the Federal Register notice
and the BID for the proposed rule were distributed to  interested
parties.  A 90-day comment period from July 22, 1991 to
October 21, 1991 was provided to accept written comments from the
public on the proposed rule and BID.  The opportunity  for a
public hearing was provided to allow interested persons to
present oral comments on the rulemaking.  However, the EPA did
not receive a request for a public hearing so a public hearing
was not held.
      Following the EPA's review  of public comments received on
the proposed rule, the  EPA revised the impact analysis used for
its final determination regarding the rulemaking. The EPA
provided an  opportunity for public comment on the additional data
used  for these  impact analysis revisions.  A listing of the
additional data  was  published  in a Federal Register Notice of
Data  Availability on September  18, 1992  (refer  to 57 FR  43171),

                                2-1

-------
and the data were made available for public inspection at the EPA
RCRA Docket Office.  A 30-day comment period from September 18,
1992 to October 19, 1992 was provided to accept comments from the
public on the additional data.
     A total of 84 letters commenting on the proposed rule and
the BID for the proposed rule were received by the EPA.  In
addition, the EPA received one comment letter on the additional
data listed in the Federal Register Notice of Data Availability.
Copies of the comment letters are available for public inspection
in the docket for the rulemaking at the EPA RCRA Docket Office
(OS-305) in room 2427 of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 401 M Street SW, Washington, DC  20460  (additional
information regarding access to the docket is available by
calling  (202) 475-9327).  A list of the commenters, their
affiliations, and the EPA docket number assigned to their
correspondence is presented in table 2-1.
     The purpose of this document is to present the EPA's
responses to the comments on the proposed rulemaking.  Many of
the comment letters contain multiple comments regarding various
aspects of the rulemaking.  For the purpose of  orderly
presentation, the  comments are categorized by the following
topics:
      •   chapter  3.0
      •   Chapter  4.0
      •   Chapter  5.0
      •   Chapter  6.0
      •   Chapter  7.0

      •   Chapter  8.0
      •   Chapter  9.0
      •   Chapter 10.0
Implementation of RCRA Section 3004(n)
Impact Analysis Methodology
Control Option Development
Rule Requirements
Generator 90-Day Accumulation Tanks and
Containers
Test Methods
Rule Implementation
Other Comments.
      The RCRA air emission standards for TSDF tanks,  surface
 impoundments, and containers are promulgated under this
 ruleaaking as a new subpart CC in both 40 CFR parts 264 and 265.
                                2-2

-------
Requirements under 40 CFR par 264 apply to permitted TSDF and
requirements under 40 CFR part 265 apply to interim-status TSDF,
The regulatory requirements in subpart CC under 40 CFR part 264
and subpart CC under 40 CFR part 265 are identical with the
exception that subpart CC under 40 CFR part 264 also includes
reporting requirements.  For the convenience of presentation,
when the term "subpart CC standards" is used in this BID, it
collectively refers to the identical requirements in both
40 CFR 264 subpart CC and 40 CFR 265 subpart CC.
                                2-3

-------






rANDARDS FOR
FACILITIES
"Z. tn
o o
II

ll
O 0^
gi
oc. >-
i*
TABLE 2-1. LIST OF COMMEN
HAZARDOUS WASTE TR











8
£
(9
1
t_
C
O

1
|
£
u
*


Commenter name and address

<
j
i
]
^
4
(
C






Cindy Wentzel
Compliance Manager
Edwards Oil Service, Inc.
530 South Rouge
Detroit, Ml 48217

CD
0
1
LU
9
a>

^
83
O
Eldon Rucker
Deputy Director
Health and Environmental Affairs
American Petroleum Institute
1 220 L Street, NW

.
Q.
83
UJ
9
r-
a>
ii.















Washington, DC 20005








c
o
s
I
R. Darryl Banks
Deputy Commissioner
New York State
Dept. of Environmental Con
50 Wolf Road
Albany, NY 12233

^
8
o
I
9
o>
li.


Raymond F. Pelletier
Director
Office of Environmental Guidance
Department of Energy
Washington, DC 20585

cs
8
!
ffi
9
9
LU





%
ro
John T. Wellspring, CHMM
Senior Environmental Sped

CO
8
l-CESP-0
OJ
ii.


David F. Zoll
Vice President-General Counsel

a
O
8
2
iu
o
9
u.





CO
Resource Consultants
P.O.Box 1848
Brentwood, TN 37024-18-







c
_o
Chemical Manufacturers Associat
2501 M Street, NW
Washington, DC 20037










0
!




r^
in
9
David A. Crosbie, P.E.
Senior Environmental Coorc
Hercules Incorporated
State Highway 837
West Elizabeth, PA 15088

§
8
I
9
op
ii.










Joel Jerome
Manager, Site Remediation
Bridgewater Plant
American Cyanamid Company
Bound Brook, NJ 08805

,j.
8
8
oL
LU
9
9
u.












Anita R. Junker
Environmental Manager

0
o
^5
^^
ffi
9
9



— c.

in
o
o
0
2
LU
U
9
li.





m
American Cyanamid Cornp<
Fortier Plant
1 0800 River Road
Westwago, LA 70094








1 s

-------

















•o
3
1
O
<£
i
LU
ffi
1-












u>
<£
^
•o
re
1
re
0)
re
®
£
e
o
O
1
|
w
i
o
o
a






 Q.
€ .E CO
H— _ J7*
F»*
Ills"
£ <3 "° ** ®
y 	 TO X «
" 1 5 ™ 1
jlgCj|
<2>,c,u
 V* *"
              > co •* (a
              c o co «-
              ui cc. co a
2
£
9
co
f F-91-CESP-00019 R. Stan Jorgensen
'f jce Director of Regulatory Affairs
;e ENSCO, Inc.
333 Executive Court
r Little Rock, AR 72205
0>
6
I
5
re
i

Q
Q
5
a.
LU
9
en
u.
O
05
Environmental Manage









O.
V)
•o
c
National Aeronautics a










Administration









f
05
O
03
1
V)
t
c
01
bri
u!
c
o









CO
CO
00
co
u.
1
03
o
8
re
o.
U)
to
c
c
0)









F-91-CESP-00020 Nicholas A. Di Pasquale
zardous Director, Hazardous Waste Program
<5
CO
c
re
i
CO
S
0}
tfl
o
o
9
85
tu
9
9
uL
oxic/Ha;
Industrial Waste and T









State of Missouri
Department of Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Quality
.§
**—
M—
O
Substances
Environmental Quality










Ford Motor Company









o
U)
(O
to §•
„ c
1 §
d ^
X a)
0- ~)
oo

-------
I
1
1
1












?j
g
1
.0

CM
3








£
T>
•o
(D
S3
C
1
1
fe
§-°

C
E
5
"y
Q




Commenter name and address
k
C
i
*-
1
18
o









Robert W. Niemi, Jr.
Environmental Engineer
Michigan Disposal, Inc.
1349 Whittaker Road
Ypsilanti, Ml 48197

CO
CM


0.
CO
2
en
uL



1
Donald E. Park
Director
Corporate Environmental Affairs
Ethyl Corporation
Health and Environment Departm
451 Florida Street
Baton Rouge, LA 70801

i^
8
^
9
9
u.




CM
en

CM

Barbara A. Hilliard
Chevron Corporation
P.O. Box 7924
San Francisco, CA 941

CM


0.
CO
UJ
9
9
u.
1
O

"S o
1. Sam Higuchi, Jr.
Environmental Compliance and Si
National Oceanic and Atmospheri
Administration
1 325 East West Highway
Room 4434
Silver Spring, MD 20910

cs
o
^
OL
CO
UJ
9
9
u.





h»
o
1

rt
Basil G. Constantelos, 1
Environmental Affairs
Safety-Kleen Corp.
777 Big Timber Road
Elgin, IL 80123
00
C>4

9
OL
CO
9
9
u.




Mike Babos
Project Engineer
Merck & Co., Inc.
P.O. Box 2000
Rahway, NJ 07065-0900
co
CM
8
9
Q.
co
UJ
9
9
u.


.
CO &

re co
D. B. Redington
Director, Regulatory M
Monsanto Company
800 N. Lindbergh Boul
St. Louis, MO 63167
o
CO
o
0
9
0.
IS
9
9
""

Er
'<= %
11
C. Susi Jackson
environmental Protection Depart
Lawrence Livermore National Lai
P.O. Box 808
Livermore, CA 94550
in
CM
o
o
9
Q.
CO
2
9
u.
c
c
o
.0

























2-6

-------












"8
3
c
1
8
*7

!fi

H-












co
i
^•^
Commenter name and ad<
<5
n

2
1
O
O
O







8
Commenter name and addre
1
c
E
Q
j
c
o
o



£•
£
S
o
3
•c
J.i
. ra
•85
:§2


co
ui
9
9
u.







i«
6l
CL 2









O
O
(O
X
* Ǥ
Health, Environment & Safe
Unocal Corporation
1201 West 6th Street, P.O.
Los Angeles, CA 90051









0)
I
5
•o
a- •%
&&$
it*
|«!
" a-5
°- a «
w J5 w

^ u i^
CM
CO
8
2
to
3
9
u.













o
_ CO
i*
Activities Group
Piper & Marbury
1 200 Nineteenth Street, I
Washington, DC 20036














in
CO
]5
1



























>
(O
Q.

o
u
?
" 0
David W. Timmons
Consulting Engineer
E. 1. du Pont de Nemours
P.O. Box 6090
Newark, DE 19714-609
00
co
O
I
(2
9
9
^*"





~
£
5 >•
Ric Olson
Manager, Regulatory Issues
Scott Luoma
Attorney/RCRA
The Dow Chemical Compar
Midland, Ml 48674
co
CO
o
!
{2
9
cr>
u.



.t
1 6
0 0
N ^^
0?5
C n JC.
*"* .. Q)
* W5 .2?
4-» *^ UJ
I'M
. fc w c in
£ S0 «r-
_Q CO Vj
2 CO"? ^^
i ™ i § °-
. o = > —
<-olt
*§S33
lilll
•^ o eo H £

co
o
o
2
CO
UJ
9
5>
•""



I

o
o
eg
G. E. Palchak, Manager
Environmental Engineering
Coatings and Resin Group
PPG Industries, Inc.
P.O. Box 2009
Allison Park, PA 15101

co
o
o
2
£2
9
9
u.



c
«=
SS
o
Is
VJ {jo
er g (£
f^|
^ H cc
^* C 03
III
o
o
o
2
to
111
9
9







"o
o
James W. Pollack
Manager
Corporate Environmental C
m
co
8
2
UJ
9
er>
u.







North Point
901 Lakeside Avenue
Cleveland, OH 44114














Dow Corning Corporation
Midland, Ml 48686-0994





1
c
I
8
























2-7

-------













•o
CSJ
a
m
i-


















V)
CO
•g
CO
1
O
JD


E
«5
*•*
•g
.g


U>
AS
y
TJ
Commenter name and adi
1
g
3
C
1
»!
*
•|
o





Raymond F. Pelletier
Director
Office of Environmental Guidance
Department of Energy
Washington, DC 20585
CO
^*
8
T^
Q.
C/5
o
m
uL


|
^
& a>
TS !3
C. L Pettit
Senior Analyst
Institute of Chemical Was
Management
1 730 Rhode Island Avem
T—
^"
O
S
O,
• 1
9
T-
2














5
C. A. Douthitt
President
National Association of Chemical
Recyclers
1 333 New Hampshire Avenue, N
Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20036














Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20036










JT
8
A*
UB
fjfl
UJ
UJ
9
u.






Bruce A. Steiner
Vice President
Environment and Energy
cN
^
g
Q
0.
ifi
9
O5
uL










i 5
t> r-
C CN

American Iron and Steel
1 133 15th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20005



















Robert M. Scarberry
Regulatory Affairs Manager
Waste Management, Inc.
1 155 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Suite 800
Washington, DC 20036
00


Dm
(/)
UJ
9
9
UL















.0
CO
'5
o
tn
in
Peter J. Pantuso
Legislative Director
Rubber Manufacturers A
1 400 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20005
CO


9
a.
CO
UJ
9
en
UL









in
£
£

U)
Amy E. Schaffer
Director, Industrial Waste Prograi
American Paper Institute/Nationa
m

§
Q_
V)
111
9
9
u.




^






Products Association
1 250 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036










en
O T—
s ,-
B .
Donn Hirschmann
Manager, Pollution Conti
Allied-Signal Inc.
Engineered Materials Sei
P.O. Box1139R
Morristown, NJ 07962
„
o
0
9
£L
CO
UJ
9
9
u.











O
1?
0 -5
Linda E. Greer, Ph.D.
Joseph Girth, Ph.D.
Douglas W. Wolf, Esq.
The Natural Resources Defense i
1350 New York Avenue, NW, S
Washington, DC 20005
o
ia
o

CL
CO
111
9
9
uL
V
CO 03
1 $»
O Tj in
O '£ 00
fc -JL
Victor L. Saufley
Manager, Environmental
Southdown, Inc.
Citicorp Center, 1 200 Si
Suite 2400
Houston, TX 77002-44
in
o
O
9
a.
CO
UJ
9
9
UL
-
J)
C
I
8


























2-8

-------













•o
.c
c
o
.0
CM
"J
03

l~m













%
£
Commenter name and add
0>

^
E
^5
i









tt\
Commenter name and address
1

ss
C

1
o
n
a



'5
5:
if
v «
Mitcheal Wilson
Vice-President of Environn
Gibraltar Chemical Resoun
P.O. Box 1640
Kilgofe, TX 75663
l
IJ o.
.y ? 2
Kathy J. Metcalf
Managing Consultant, Pol
Sun Refining and Marketir
Ten Penn Center
1801 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103-'

in

0.
V)
UJ
9
9
i^





(0
re
•^
E %
David C. Ailor
Director of Regulatory Affairs
American Coke and Coal Che
Institute
1 255 Twenty-Third Street, N\
Washington, DC 20037

in
C5 "
§
8
9

uL




|
^
Abbott Laboratories
1401 Sheridan Road
North Chicago, IL 60064
















United Technologies
United Technologies Building
Hartford, CT 06101




*•







O
V
Sandra M. Smith
Information & Communicj
o>
in
o
o
1
CO
9
9
U.








w
Kirk J. Thomson
Director, Environmental Affaii

in


0.
9
5>
i
u.



|
u
fli
1^
Coordinator
Advanced Environmental
















c
re
Q.
O ^^
f j ^^
O3 f}
55 n
,gffi
IS














Corporation
Gold Mine Road
Flanders, NJ 07836
















o
CM
00
Oi
1
re














Richard C. Fortuna
Executive Director
0

u.






!2
're


0
^
1|
|^>
S z
Hazardous Waste Treatm
1440 New York Avenue,
Washington, DC 20005













^
re
Q.
Irene J. Dinning
Manager of Environmental A1
Mine Safety Appliances Com
P.O. Box 426
Pittsburgh, PA 15230
in
in
o
§
Q.
9
en
uL








•o
C
c
o




























2-9

-------
1











^
§
I
.0
V*
dl
UJ
1












Commenter name and address
c5
S3
^

I
1

Q





Commenter name and address
»_
•s

3
c
c
1
Ip
C





Terry F. Yosie
Vice President
American Petroleum Institute
1 220 L Street, NW
Washington, DC 20005

(O
to


OL
C/J
UJ
9
T—
m
u.



m
^

R. T. Jackson, Director
Environmental Affairs
Union Carbide Chemicals and Plas
Company Inc.
39 Old Ridgebury Road
Danbury, CT 06817-0001

CD




i?
5>
u.





Donna L. Singletary
Executive Director
Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition
1 101 30th Street, NW, 5th Floor
Washington, DC 20007

tO
o
o
9
i
Ml
9
9
UL


c
Z S.
i E
J. S. Roberts, Manager
Environmental Protection Departm
Westinghouse Savannah River Co
P.O. Box 61 6
Aiken, SC 29802

to



Q.
IS
9
9
u.





John N. Scott
Vice President
Quality. Environmental & Safety
Phillips Petroleum Company
Bartlesville, OK 74004
00
CD
0
^^
^J
oL
ffi
9
9
u.





E. W. Cunningham
Sr. Environmental Consultant
BP Oil Company
200 Public Square
Cleveland, OH 44114-2375
CO
CD



QL
ft
9
9
u.



c
o
M. L. Mullins
Vice President-Regulatory Affairs
Chemical Manufacturers Associat
2501 M Street, NW
Washington, DC 20037
CO
to
o
o
9
0.
ffl
9
9
u.





Thomas A. Robinson, Ph.D.
Manager, Regulatory Affairs
Vulcan Chemicals
P.O. Box 530390
Birmingham, AL 35253-0390

ID


9
0.
UJ
9
9
u.





Lewis E. Stewart
Captain, U.S. Army
Acting Commander
Holston Army Ammunition Plant
Kingsport, TN 37660-9982
o
I*.
o
p^
s^
8>
9
9
u.


o
o
CO

-------













T3
s
C
1
O
o

•r
CM
Uj
m
^
h-















^
UJ
9
9
u.






_co
.2
Jj
(0
2

"fe «>
Benito Garcia, Bureau Chii
Hazardous and Radioactiv

o
3
Q_
V)
UJ
9
i
u.






Amoco Corporation
200 East Randolph Drive
P.O. Box 87703




















Bureau
State of New Mexico
Environment Department












CO
Chicago, IL 60680-070




















SJ CM
o is
.2000
|5|
U. CM ^
m Q c
^ Ol 
.§ 8
CD Tt
ui w 4
William M. Robertson, P.
Operations Manager
Corporate Environmental
Abbott Laboratories
1401 Sheridan Road
North Chicago, IL 6006
00
o
g
t^
d.
IU
9
9
uL








te C
fli O
w .—
.= (0
=» X
c 2
Ml O.
Dale A. Duhon
Corporate Environmental I
Great Lakes Chemical Cor
P.O.Box 1958
El Dorado, AR 71731
in
8
9
Q.
CO
UJ
9
9
uL
ntinued)
8

































2-11

-------












'B
0>
3
•|j
j|

i


JJJ
CD
H

















Commenter name and address


1


„
s

4-*
y
Q








CO
«
Commenter name and addi



j
X
1
c

<
4.

J
(
I
O
P
S
CO
2
Peter D. Venturini, Chief
Stationary Source Division
State of California Air Resourc<
1 1 02 Q Street, P.O. Box 281 5
Sacramento, CA 95812


o
i
3

tn
Ml
9
o>
iL



V)
re
•c
£
^J
CA

David Shanks
Sr. Technical Specialist
Environmental and Hazardi
Services
McDonnell Aircraft Compa
P.O. Box 51 6




,_
CO
o
o
a.
CJ
9
«*•























co
St. Louis, MO 63166-051












t
1
o
U
David W. Timmons
Consulting Engineer
E. 1. du Pont de Nemours and
P.O. Box 6090
Newark, NJ 19714-6090


S
3
QL
CO
in

o>
uL






c
o
4-*
to
W.
a
S. A. Green, Manager
GOCO ES&H Programs
Environmental Affairs
Westinghouse Electric Cor
Gateway Center
Pittsburgh, PA 15222




CM
CO
o

cp
CO
UJ
{f
^-
°P
u.



Anil Bob Kothari
Regulatory Affairs Coordinator


0
3
0.
CO
UJ
9
O)
uL

























>
Waste Management Inc.
1155 Connecticut Avenue, NV
Suite 800
Washington, DC 20036

































o.

00
o.
V)
i—
m
cc
LL.
l£>
5
2
're
C
(D
o
**-
o

._
'&
o
_c
T3
S

1

iriod extension.
00058.
1 information.
data used for impact analys
s & si
c {S °o
S 9 € i
S «~ . "0 -o
E o> c re ID
8 i -1 "S g
fe o -2 <= S
£ „, E .9 «
« TO •§ w »
§ -y «? i |
g- Q. «> J3 E
£ o js ^ a
• -O O *O *
2-12

-------
            3.0  IMPLEMENTATION OF RCRA SECTION  3004(n)
     Comment:  A total of 21 comments were received concerning
the extent to which standards developed under the Clean Air Act
authority should be used to implement the congressional directive
of RCRA section 3004(n).  Twenty commenters (F-91-CESP-00010,
00012, 00015, 00023, 00027, 00029, 00031, 00033, 00038, 00043,
00046, 00057, 00063, 00065, 00066, 00068, 00069, 00076, 00079,
00082) believe that protection of human health and the
environment from TSDF air emissions is most appropriately,
effectively, and efficiently addressed by developing standards
under the Clean Air Act authority.  Therefore, the EPA should
make the determination that the requirements of RCRA section
3004(n) are best fulfilled by deferring to rules established
under Clean Air Act authority.  In contrast to these commenters,
one commenter  (F-91-CESP-00050) states that RCRA section  3004(n)
provides no  indication that development of the rules necessary to
protect human health and the environment from TSDF air emissions
can be deferred to other statutory authorities.
      Commenters note that the proposed rule requires control  of
TSDF  air toxics and ozone precursor emissions.  The commenters
advocating the use of  Clean Air Act authority to implement RCRA
section  3004(n) present several reasons  for their position.
      1.  Existing Clean Air Act programs and new programs now
being implemented in response to  the  1990 Clean Air Act
Amendments  adequately  address the control of air toxics and  ozone
precursor emissions  (F-91-CESP-00010,  00012, 00023, 00027, 00033,
00043,  00063,  00065,  00066,  00069,  00076, 00082).
                                3-1

-------
     2.  The proposed rule duplicates or contradicts existing or
planned Clean Air Act rules to control TSDF air toxics [e.g.,
benzene waste operations National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), hazardous organics chemicals
(HON) NESHAP, maximum available control technology (MACT)
standards]  (F-91-CESP-00010, 00012, 00033, 00038, 00057, 00063,
00066, 00069, 00076).
     3.  The proposed rule is inconsistent with Clean Air Act
rules, which are based on a regional approach to setting control
levels for  ozone precursors depending on whether an area is in
attainment  with national ambient air quality standards (e.g.,
proposed rule requires all TSDF to meet the same control
requirements regardless of the ozone attainment status of the
region in which the TSDF is located) (F-91-CESP-00043, 00046,
00065, 00069, 00076).
     4.  The proposed rule does not comply with RCRA section
1006(b), which requires the EPA to coordinate its regulations
under RCRA  rules and to avoid duplication, to the maximum extent
practicable, of appropriate provisions of the Clean Air Act  (F-
91-CESP-00065, 00066, 00069).
     5.  The proposed rule is inconsistent with the EPA's
pollution prevention policy  (F-91-CESP-00010, 00079).
     6.  The proposed rule is contrary to the EPA's "cluster
concept" of examining and coordinating regulations addressing the
same emission source to minimize duplicative or contradictory
requirements  (F-91-CESP-00057, 00063).
     7.  control of air emissions under RCRA creates difficulties
in administration  and enforcement of rules because,
traditionally, one State regulatory agency administers air rules
and another administers hazardous waste rules  (F-91-CESP-00069).
     Response;  The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments to RCRA
added  section 3004(n), which directs the  EPA to  "... promulgate
regulations for the monitoring and control of air emissions  from
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
                                3-2

-------
the environment."  The EPA considers the most appropriate,
effective, and efficient way to fulfill this congressional
mandate is to develop air standards for TSDF that are implemented
under the existing RCRA subtitle C permitting program already in
place for these facilities.  However, the EPA disagrees with one
commenter's assertion that, in establishing these RCRA air
standards, the EPA cannot consider the impact of air standards
promulgated or currently being developed under other statutory
authorities such as the CAA.  On the contrary, RCRA
section 1006(b) requires the EPA to coordinate its regulations
under RCRA statutes and to avoid duplication, to the maximum
extent practicable, with appropriate provisions of the CAA.
     The  EPA disagrees that the requirements of RCRA section
3004(n) are best fulfilled by deferring to air standards
established under CAA authority.  There is no indication  that
Congress  intended for air standards to be issued only within the
authority granted to the EPA by the CAA.  If this was the case,
then Congress would not have amended RCRA section 3004(n) under
HSWA after Congress had already authorized the EPA to control air
emissions under the CAA.  Refer to S. Rep. No. 284, 98th  Cong.
1st  sess. 63.  Thus, both RCRA and the CAA authorize the  EPA to
control air emissions  from TSDF.
     Although historically many standards promulgated by  the EPA
under  authority  of RCRA have addressed the prevention of  soil and
water  contamination  from  improper management  of hazardous waste,
the  EPA  is  not  limited by RCRA to promulgating standards  only for
certain media  (e.g.,  surface waters, groundwater, and  soils).
Indeed, RCRA  section 3004(n)  specifically directs the  EPA to
 issue  regulations controlling  air emissions  from TSDF  as
necessary to  protect human health and  the environment.
     The selection of TSDF air emission  sources  for  control by
 establishing  air standards under RCRA  section 3004(n)  is  based  on
 controlling those TSDF air emission sources  determined by the  EPA
 to have significant toxic and ozone precursor emission potential
 but for which emission control is not  adequately addressed by
 other standards promulgated by the EPA such as NESHAP and NSPS
                                3-3

-------
established under the CAA.  At proposal, the EPA concluded that
additional air emission control requirements for TSDF tanks,
surface impoundments, and containers are needed.  This decision
was based on the EPA's determination that existing and future
Federal standards under the CAA and State air standards do not
adequately address the control of TSDF organic air emissions.
     Clean Air Act section 112 as been amended by Congress since
RCRA section 3004(n) was enacted.  Section 112 of the CAA as
amended requires the EPA to identify major sources and area
sources of HAP emissions and to develop NESHAP for these sources.
To date for this air standards development program, the EPA has
either promulgated or proposed several NESHAP that may apply to
some hazardous waste management activities at TSDF.  However, in
general, these NESHAP added requirements to address HAP emissions
from certain waste and material recovery operations that are not
subject to or exempted from regulation under the RCRA air
standards in 40 CFR parts 264 and 265.  Thus, the NESHAP and
other air standards being developed under the CAA are not
intended to duplicate the RCRA air standards, but instead to
integrate with the RCRA air standards to create a comprehensive
air program for addressing organic air emissions from all waste
and related material recovery operations.
     For example, on-site wastewater treatment operations at
synthetic organic chemicals manufacturing industry  (SOCMI)
facilities are regulated under the hazardous organic NESHAP  ("the
HON11) promulgated on April 22, 1994  (see 59 FR 19402).  At many
of these facilities, the hazardous wastewaters generated by
process units and resulting wastewater treatment sludges are
managed in tank systems that are exempted from RCRA permitting
requirements under  provisions in 40 CFR 264.l(g)(6) or
40 CFR 265.l(c)(10).  Thus, the air emission control requirements
under the HON,  in most cases, affect wastewater treatment tanks
not subject to the  RCRA air standards.
     A second example is  the recently proposed NESHAP for
off-site waste and  recovery operations  (59  FR 51913, October  13,
1994).  This NESHAP would apply to owners and operators of
                                3-4

-------
facilities, with certain exceptions, that manage wastes or
recoverable materials which have been generated off-site at
another facility and contain specific organic HAP.  The rule
would apply to operations managing solid wastes as defined under
RCRA (hazardous and nonhazardous wastes) as well as operations
handling recovered materials excluded from the RCRA definition of
solid waste (e.g., recycled materials containing organic HAP,
used oil reprocessed for sale as a fuel).  As a result, certain
off-site waste and recovery operations with organic HAP
emissions, but exempted from regulation under the RCRA air
standards, would be required to use air emission controls under
this NESHAP.
     In contrast to the NESHAP now being developed under CAA
section 112, the EPA has already achieved progress toward full
implementation of RCRA section 3004(n), which requires a "cradle
to grave" approach to hazardous waste management that addresses
protection of air, water, and groundwater.  Air standards have
been promulgated for TSDF treatment process vents (subpart AA in
40 CFR parts 264 and 265) and for TSDF process equipment leaks
(subpart BB in 40 CFR parts 264 and 265) in addition to the
development of these air standards for TSDF tanks, surface
impoundments, and containers.  There is no benefit to delaying
implementation of air standards for TSDF tanks, containers, and
surface impoundments to a future rulemaking under amended CAA
section 112 when the EPA can proceed now with the promulgation of
effective air standards under RCRA section 3004(n) for these air
emission sources.
     The subpart CC air rules do comply with section 1006(b) of
RCRA.  This section requires that the air standards be consistent
with and not duplicative of CAA standards.  Although RCRA section
1006(b) requires some accommodation with existing regulatory
standards, it "does not permit the substantive standards of RCRA
to be compromised."  Chemical Waste Management v. EPA. 976 F.2d
at 23 (D.C. Cir. 1992).  It is obviously reasonable for the EPA
to view the RCRA section 3004(n) mandate as a standard which
cannot (or at least need not) be compromised.  Similarly, the CAA
                               3-5

-------
Amendments of 1990 require that air standards developed under the
CAA be consistent with RCRA rules.  To conform with the dual RCRA
and CAA requirements that standards be consistent, the air
standards developed under RCRA section 3004(n) do not duplicate
or contradict existing NESHAP or NSPS.
     The EPA is fully aware that at many facilities where
hazardous wastes are managed, the RCRA air  standards under 40 CFR
part 264 and 265 as well as NESHAP and NSPS for specific source
categories may be applicable to a particular TSDF.  Certain
testing, monitoring, inspection, recordkeeping, and other
requirements under the RCRA air standards may be  similar to or
duplicative of requirements under the applicable  NESHAP or NSPS.
In many  cases at a TSDF,  individual waste operations will be
subject  to either the air  emission control  requirements under the
RCRA air standards or the  air  emission control requirements under
the applicable NESHAP or NSPS.  Thus,  it  is necessary to include
testing,  monitoring,  inspection,  recordkeeping, and other
implementation requirements  in each rule  to assure compliance
with and enforcement of the  rule.  However, in certain
situations,  some individual  waste operations  at a TSDF  could be
subject to air  emission control requirements  under both the RCRA
air standards as well as a NESHAP or  NSPS.   In  such  cases,  the
EPA believes it is unnecessary for owners and operators of  these
waste management units to conduct duplicative waste  testing, keep
 duplicate sets of records, or perform other duplicative actions
 to demonstrate compliance with both sets of rules.   Therefore,
 consistent with RCRA section 1006(b)  to the maximum extent
 practicable, the EPA is coordinating the testing, recordkeeping,
 reporting, and other implementation activities required under the
 RCRA air standards and related rules developed under the CAA.
 The EPA has requested public comment in a  related proposed NESHAP
 rulemaking  (the off-site waste and recovery operations NESHAP,
 see 59 FR 51919, October  13, 1994) on how  the applicable
 requirements included in  the RCRA air standards  should be
 incorporated into CAA rules being developed by the EPA for waste
 and recovery operations that will allow owners and operators
                                3-6

-------
subject to both sets of rules to demonstrate compliance with all
applicable rules without having to repeat the duplicative
requirements.
     Nevertheless, RCRA section 1006(b) cannot be used to ignore
key elements of RCRA; see chemical Waste Management v. EPA, 976
F.2d at 23.  In this case, Congress has indicated that TSDF air
emissions need to be controlled on the RCRA timetable, not that
of the CAA.  Deferring totally to the CAA would vitiate this key
RCRA requirement.   [See also RCRA section 3004(q) and CAA section
112(n)(7) in which Congress indicated that pendency of CAA air
standards for RCRA units does not vitiate RCRA requirements.]
     The EPA's approach to developing air standards for TSDF
under RCRA is consistent with CAA programs to achieve attainment
and to maintain national ambient air quality standards  (NAAQS).
The NAAQS specify limits to pollutant concentrations in the
ambient air to protect public health and welfare.  A NAAQS has
been established  for ozone.  Ambient ozone concentrations in many
metropolitan regions of the United States exceed the NAAQS.
Organic emissions from TSDF as well as other sources react
photochemically with other chemical compounds  in the atmosphere
to form ozone.  The CAA requires that  States develop and the EPA
approve air  emission control plans called "State implementation
plans"  (SIP's).   For those regions within a State that  are in
nonattainment with  the NAAQS for ozone, the SIP  specifies the
standards  and other control measures to be implemented  by the
State to attain  the NAAQS.  However, the CAA requires the EPA  not
only to  implement programs to  attain the NAAQS in nonattainment
areas but  also  to maintain,  and prevent significant deterioration
of,  the  air quality in  those areas  of  the Nation currently in
attainment with the NAAQS.   Consequently,  in addition to the CAA
control  programs to address  specific  regional  NAAQS attainment
problems,  the EPA also develops under  the  CAA  authority minimum
national emission standards  applicable to  stationary  sources
 independent of whether the source is  located in a NAAQS
 attainment or nonattainment area.   The.EPA considers  the  subpart
 CC standards to be reasonable national standards needed to
                                3-7

-------
control emissions of air toxics as well as to attain and maintain
NAAQS for ozone.
     The subpart CC standards are consistent with the EPA's
pollution prevention policy.  Pollution prevention involves
reducing the quantity of pollution produced for a given quantity
of product prior to recycling, treatment, or control of
emissions.  Activities defined as source reduction measures in
the Pollution Prevention Act include technology modifications,
process and procedure modifications, reformulation or redesign of
products, and substitution of raw materials.  A decrease in
production alone does not qualify as pollution prevention.  Under
the subpart CC standards, a TSDF owner or operator is not
required to manage a hazardous waste in a tank, surface
impoundment, or container using the specified air emission
controls in cases when the owner or operator determines that the
organic content of all hazardous waste placed in the unit meets
certain conditions specified in the rule.  Thus, the subpart CC
standards encourage pollution prevention by providing an
incentive to generators to initiate source reduction measures
that will reduce the concentration of organics in a hazardous
waste.
     The development of TSDF air standards under RCRA is not
contrary to the EPA's "cluster" approach of examining and
coordinating regulations addressing the same emission source to
minimize duplicative or contradictory requirements.  The
different EPA Offices responsible for implementing RCRA and CAA
requirements are coordinating the development of this rulemaking
to ensure that subpart CC standards are compatible with other
rules and programs applicable to TSDF owners and operators.
     The air emission control requirements for tanks under the
subpart CC standards incorporate provisions of NSPS that were
promulgated under the authority of the CAA and apply to storage
tanks constructed or modified after July 23, 1984, that contain
volatile organic liquids  (40 CFR 60 subpart Kb).  Therefore, air
emission controls already in use on a TSDF tank in compliance
with 40 CFR 60  subpart Kb will comply with air emission control
                               3-8

-------
requirements of the subpart CC standards.  Also, the subpart CC
standards for closed-vent systems and control devices cross
reference the requirements for closed-vent systems and control
devices promulgated under subpart AA in 40 CFR parts 264 and 265.
The subpart AA requirements are consistent with the requirements
for closed-vent systems and control devices under several CAA air
standards.
     The implementation of air standards under RCRA does not
create difficulties in administration and enforcement of the
rules by State regulatory agencies.  Although many existing RCRA
standards focus on preventing the contamination of soil and
water, other existing RCRA regulations regulate air emissions
from some TSDF sources  (e.g., combustion of hazardous waste is
regulated under 40 CFR 264 subpart O for hazardous waste
incinerators and under 40 CFR part 266 subpart H for boilers and
industrial furnaces).  Air emissions are also sometimes addressed
through the EPA's omnibus permitting authority under RCRA
section 3005(c)(3).  States authorized by the EPA administer and
enforce the requirements of RCRA rules in lieu of the EPA
administering the rules in that State.  The EPA is aware that, in
many States, one State agency administers air standards while
another State agency administers rules regulating the management
of hazardous waste in the State.  Similarly, it is common for yet
another State agency to administer water quality rules.  The
experience of authorized States administrating existing RCRA
rules  shows  that responsibility for administrating these rules
can be delegated to a separate State agency without impeding the
administration  and enforcement of non-RCRA air and water rules by
other  State  agencies.

     Comment;   One commenter  (F-91-CESP-00050) states that the
EPA  is implementing RCRA section 3004(n) using a "cost-conscious"
approach  and that  it  is illegal for the  EPA to consider costs
under  RCRA  in the promulgation of rules.  The commenter presents
the  following arguments:   (1) the  language of RCRA sections
3004(n) and 3004(m),  the  legislative history of RCRA, and
                               3-9

-------
relevant case law prohibit this cost-conscious approach; (2) the
EPA is developing rules in phases over a period of years to "ease
the impact of passing high cost regulations" to all TSDF where it
might not be essential for emissions to be reduced in certain
specific cases; and (3) the EPA applied cost considerations to
select the control alternative used as the basis for the proposed
rule.
     Response;  The EPA's implementation of RCRA section 3004(n)
is consistent with its historical application of cost to RCRA
rulemakings.  Furthermore, the EPA's decision to develop
standards under RCRA section 3004(n) in phases was not based on
cost considerations.  Rather, as discussed later in this section
of the BID, the phased approach for developing standards is
intended to achieve substantial progress toward the
implementation of RCRA section 3004(n) while the EPA continues to
compile data and assess the complex issues involved in regulating
air emissions from a source category as diverse as hazardous
waste TSDF.
     The EPA disagrees with the commenter's assertion that the
legislative history of RCRA prohibits consideration of cost in
the development of standards for  any reason.  As a general
matter, RCRA does not  explicitly  address the role of costs. The
statute and its legislative history are best interpreted as
requiring the EPA to promulgate rules that are protective of
human health and the environment  without regard to cost.
However, there  is a limited role  for the consideration of costs
in the development of  standards under RCRA.
      Specifically, cost considerations can be 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.   Nothing  in the statute, legislative
history,  or the relevant  case  law,  including the  cases  cited by
the  commenter,  suggests  that this limited  consideration of  costs
                               3-10

-------
is inappropriate.  See NRDC v. EPA. 824 F.2d 1146 (en bane) (D.C.
Cir. 1987), Union Electric Co. v. EPA. 427 U.S. 246 (1976); Lead
Industries Ass'n v. EPA. 647 F. 2d 1130 (D.C. Cir.), cert.
denied. 449 U.S. 1042  (1980).
     The Senate Report cited by the commenter, which states only
that M[l]evels of control [under 3004(n)] may be based on such
factors as volatility and toxicity of wastes and the type of
process that is regulated," does not purport to enumerate all the
factors that the EPA may consider and certainly does not address
the specific issue of whether the EPA, acting under its authority
to implement the requirements of RCRA, can consider costs when
choosing among fully or equally protective options.  Indeed, it
would be illogical and irresponsible  for the EPA not to consider
cost in these circumstances; and nothing in RCRA or its
legislative history would compel the  EPA to act in this manner.

     Comment;  Two commenters  (F-91-CESP-00007, 00046) disagree
with the EPA's phased  approach to  implementing RCRA section
3004(n) because  it establishes standards to control total organic
emissions  from TSDF without  considering the variability of the
toxicity of the  individual chemical compounds  in the organic
emissions  from  individual TSDF.  One  commenter  (F-91-CESP-00046)
states that the  EPA's  approach subjects those  TSDF that manage
wastes containing  volatile organic constituents of low toxicity
to  unnecessary  regulation while  providing  limited benefit
relative to human  health and the environment.  The other
commenter  (F-91-CESP-00007)  states that control requirements for
TSDF should be  established taking  into  account the differences in
the toxicity  of individual constituents in the wastes managed at
a TSDF to  determine  the need for and  appropriateness of the
control requirements.
      Response;   The  EPA concluded  that  the best approach  to
implementing  RCRA  section  3004(n)  is  to use  a phased approach so
that standards  for the majority  of TSDF emissions  could be
implemented as  quickly as  possible (refer  to 56 FR 33495,
July 22,  1991). This approach involves first developing
                               3-11

-------
nationwide standards to control total organic emissions from TSDF
followed by other actions as necessary to meet the health-based
goals of RCRA section 3004(n).  The EPA disagrees that by first
establishing standards to control total organic emissions that
are applicable to TSDF nationwide the EPA is imposing unnecessary
or burdensome requirements on some TSDF owners and operators.
     Hazardous wastes from many different sources are managed at
TSDF.  As a result, the organic air emissions from TSDF
potentially can contain a large variety of organic compounds.
Many of these organic compounds, referred to here as
"constituents," are ozone precursors.  Also, the toxicity of the
individual constituents in the organic emissions from a
particular TSDF varies widely.  Some of these constituents are
known or suspected to be toxic or carcinogenic to humans at
certain levels of exposure (or, for carcinogens, at any
concentration level).  Thus, organic emissions from TSDF managing
hazardous wastes contribute to ambient ozone formation
(regardless of constituent toxicity) and increase cancer and
other health risks.
     The first and second phases of the RCRA section 3004(n)
regulatory program generically address the control of emissions
of both organic constituents that are air toxics and organic
constituents that are ozone precursors by controlling the
emissions of organics as a class (i.e., standards controlling
total organic emissions) rather than controlling emissions of the
specific constituents.  The control of total organic emissions
has the advantage of being straightforward because it can be
accomplished with the minimum number of standards, whereas the
control of individual constituents requires multiple standards.
Regulating total organic emissions also reduces the number of
constituents for which separate standards ultimately may be
required.  Therefore, the applicability of the subpart CC
standards is not based on waste constituents, and control of
organic emissions  is achieved for all TSDF.
     Substantial progress toward full implementation of RCRA
3004(n) has been achieved through first promulgating rules for
                               3-12

-------
controlling total organic emissions from TSDF treatment process
vents (subpart AA in 40 CFR parts 264 and 265) and from TSDF
process equipment leaks (subpart BB in 40 CFR parts 264 and 265)
followed by rules for controlling total organic emissions from
TSDF tanks, surface impoundments, and containers (subpart CC in
40 CFR parts 264 and 265).  The implementation of these
nationwide standards for total organic emissions is estimated to
reduce the MIR for most but not all TSDF to levels that achieve
the target MIR levels that historically have been used for other
promulgated RCRA standards.  The EPA is further evaluating the
waste management practices and the specific constituents that
comprise organic emissions from each individual TSDF with
estimated MIR values greater than the historical RCRA target MIR
levels to determine what other actions are necessary to meet the
health-based goals of RCRA section 3004(n).

     Comment;  One commenter disagrees with the EPA's using a
risk-based approach to implement RCRA section 3004(n).  The
commenter claims that health risks from exposure to TSDF air
emissions cannot be quantified adequately because of the
complexity of TSDF and the EPA's lack of adequate data.
Therefore, the commenter believes that the EPA should abandon its
risk-based approach and instead develop standards using a
technology-based approach.
     Response;  The commenter's point certainly has merit in some
circumstances.  For example, the EPA's inability to reliably
quantify risks from land disposal of hazardous waste led the
Agency  to promulgate technology-based treatment standards to
implement the  land disposal restrictions.  Here, however, the EPA
does not consider the technology-based approach suggested by the
commenter to be the best way to  implement  section  3004(n) because
the EPA believes that health risks from exposure to TSDF air
emissions  can  be quantified adequately for the purpose of
regulatory  decisionmaking.
      Section 3004(n) of RCRA directs the  EPA  to promulgate
regulations for  the monitoring and control of air  emission  from
                               3-13

-------
TSDF Has necessary, to protect human health and the environment."
This is the general approach applied by Congress to RCRA
legislation.  The EPA has consistently interpreted such statutory
directives as imposing a requirement on the EPA to perform a risk
assessment to quantify, to the extent practicable, the risks
posed by sources to the general public and, based on that
assessment, to identify the controls or measures required to
reduce this risk to a quantifiable acceptable level.  Since the
EPA believes that this risk assessment can be performed reliably
with respect to TSDF air emissions, the EPA is following this
regulatory approach in developing standards under RCRA section
3004(n).
     To compare different regulatory strategies for controlling
TSDF organic air emissions, the EPA used computer models to
estimate total organic air emissions from TSDF and the risk of
contracting cancer posed by exposure to toxic constituents
contained in these organic emissions.  Because of the complexity
of the hazardous waste management industry and the lack of
detailed information about every TSDF location, it was necessary
for the EPA to make certain assumptions regarding TSDF operating
practices and the composition of wastes managed at these TSDF to
characterize the industry on a nationwide basis.  The EPA
recognizes that assumptions and procedures used for the impact
analysis introduce uncertainty and affect the quantitative risk
estimates.  It is  for these and other reasons that the EPA does
not view the risk  estimates as precise indicators of health risk.
However, the EPA considers these risk estimates to be reasonable
approximations of  the magnitude of the health risk levels
associated with TSDF air emissions and, therefore, suitable for
evaluating the relative effectiveness of different control
alternatives, as applied to this industry, to protect human
health.
      It  is true that, where evaluation of risks is particularly
uncertain, the EPA has used technology-based standards as the
best  means  of controlling the risk.  This  is the  approach adopted
 (and  upheld by the D.C. Circuit) for the land ban treatment
                               3-14

-------
standards, and it may prove necessary for evaluating risks from
emissions from certain types of hazardous waste combustion
activities [yielding products of incomplete combustion (PIC's),
for example, where the identity or toxicity of many PIC's are not
known, see 56 FR at 7149-50 (Feb. 21, 1991)].  The EPA does not
believe that this degree of uncertainty exists for evaluating
TSDF air emissions, particularly given the approach of
controlling total organic emissions.

     Comment;  Four commenters responded to the EPA's request in
the proposal preamble for comments on the integration of its
omnibus permitting authority under RCRA section 3005(c)(3) into
standards setting under section 3004(n) (56 FR 33514).  All of
the commenters support the position that omnibus permitting be
reserved for special circumstances and not be used to apply
nationwide standards.  One commenter (F-91-CESP-00012) states
that case-by-case permitting is time consuming and costly for
both regulatory agencies and industry, while having a consistent
set of nationwide standards allows regulated industries to
develop a planned approach to environmental compliance.  A second
commenter  (F-91-CESP-00014) states that regulations imposed
through permitting will not be uniform and will be much more
costly to  industry and regulatory agencies to implement.  The
third commenter  (F-91-CESP-00050) states that relevant case law
supports the development of uniform nationwide standards and
rejects the use of omnibus permitting authority to meet the
congressional directive of RCRA section 3004(n).  The fourth
commenter  (F-91-CESP-00069) states that the legislative history
for the omnibus permitting provision shows that this authority is
intended to address  special cases and circumstances and not to be
used  to apply baseline standards.
      Response:  The  "omnibus" permitting authority of RCRA
section 3005(c) provides that "[e]ach permit  . .  .  shall have
such  terms and conditions as the Administrator (or the State)
determines necessary to protect human health and  the
environment."  The EPA maintains the position, supported by
                               3-15

-------
commenters, that this authority is intended to address special
circumstances and is not to be used as the mechanism to apply
nationwide standards.  Specifically, the EPA agrees that the
omnibus authority was not intended to operate in lieu of
regulations, as a vehicle for imposing baseline standards to
protect human health and the environment, and that the attempt to
use omnibus in this fashion would be time-consuming and costly
for both the regulated community and the EPA and would result in
the application of non-uniform standards to facilities within an
industry.  However, the EPA notes that, although the legislative
history cited by one commenter providing examples of appropriate
uses for omnibus is instructive in interpreting RCRA section
3005(c), the EPA does not consider itself to be bound by these
examples and is free to interpret the application and extent of
the omnibus authority in a case-by-case fashion based on the
language of RCRA section 3005(c) and the purposes underlying the
provision.  The EPA does, however, agree with the commenter that
the authority should be used with restraint.
       The EPA believes that  its use of omnibus permitting
authority under RCRA section  3005(c)(3) while nationwide
standards are being developed in phases is consistent with the
intended use of the authority.  The EPA notes further that the
omnibus authority can be used either to fill gaps  (situations
unaddressed by national rules) or to make existing standards more
stringent.  In either case, a finding  (and record support) for
the omnibus condition being necessary to protect human health and
the environment is necessary.  We repeat that the fact that the
EPA has  issued a national rule controlling a particular situation
does not prevent a permit writer  from  imposing a more stringent
site-specific standard.
     During the interim while nationwide standards are being
developed,  the EPA  is encouraging permit writers to use omnibus
permitting authority for those permitting situations where
additional protection of human health  and the environment is
needed after  implementing existing  rules.  The use of omnibus
permitting authority to  achieve protection of human health and
                               3-16

-------
the environment until regulations accomplishing that result are
promulgated is also fully consistent with the language and intent
of the provision and is specifically sanctioned in its
legislative history  [S. Rep. No. 284, 98th Cong. 1st Sess. 31
(1983)].
                               3-17

-------

-------
                 4.0 IMPACT ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
4.1 NATIONAL IMPACTS MODEL
4.1.1 TSDF Waste Data Base
     Comment;  Twelve commenters (F-91-CESP-00007, 00010, 00027,
00029, 00033, 00046, 00047, 00048, 00060, 00065, 00066, 00069)
state that the EPA used outdated and inadequate TSDF waste data
for the national impacts analysis supporting the proposed rule.
The commenters note that major EPA rules regulating hazardous
waste management have been promulgated since the information in
the TSDF waste data base was collected, and claim that industry
compliance with these rules has resulted in significant changes
in the quantities and characteristics of wastes now managed at
TSDF as well as the waste management practices used to manage
these wastes.
     Response:  Since proposal the EPA has updated the waste data
base used for the national impacts analysis.  The EPA revised the
waste data base used for the national impacts analysis to include
new data regarding waste quantities, waste characteristics, and
waste management unit operations for approximately 2,300 TSDF
locations throughout the United States.  The major sources of
these new data are the results compiled from comprehensive
nationwide surveys of hazardous waste generators and TSDF owners
and operators that the EPA conducted in 1987.  The data obtained
by these surveys are the most recent nationwide TSDF data
consistently available.
      In support of the regulatory development required by the
legislative directives of the Hazardous and Solid Waste
                               4-1

-------
Amendments (HSWA) of 1984, the EPA conducted two nationwide
surveys in 1987:  the National Survey of Hazardous Waste
Treatment, Storage, Disposal, and Recycling Facilities (referred
to hereafter as the "TSDR Survey"); and the National Survey of
Hazardous Waste Generators (referred to hereafter as the
"GENSUR").  For these surveys, questionnaires regarding hazardous
waste management activities were sent to facilities throughout
the United States that generate, treat, store, dispose of, or
recycle waste considered hazardous under RCRA.  The
questionnaires requested detailed information concerning the
hazardous wastes managed, the units used to manage hazardous
waste, and the waste and management processes conducted in those
units during 1986.
     The TSDR Survey questionnaire was sent to all facilities
that treat, dispose of, or recycle RCRA hazardous waste in units
that are required to be permitted under RCRA.  In addition, the
survey included  sending questionnaires to a statistical sample of
facilities that  conducted only storage operations of RCRA
hazardous waste  for more than 90 days.  The TSDR Survey
questionnaire was sent to a total of 2,626 facilities.  The EPA
received  responses from 2,501 of these facilities.
     By incorporating the results of the TSDR Survey, the waste
data base now used for the national impacts model contains waste
management data  at four levels of detail for each individual TSDF
location  listed:  facility, activity, process, and unit.  The
facility  level  includes the entire set of units, processes, and
operations at one geographical location operated under one EPA
identification  number and used to manage hazardous waste.  The
activity  level  includes the general hazardous waste management
technologies used at the TSDF such as wastewater treatment,
incineration, fuel blending, and land disposal.  An activity may
consist  of one  or more processes.  The process level consists of
a specific waste management operation defined as a single,
technical process  such as waste fixation or waste neutralization.
A waste  management process may use one or more units.  A unit is
a single device used  to manage hazardous waste such as a tank,
                                4-2

-------
surface impoundment, hazardous waste incinerator, or landfill.
     Data from the TSDR Survey allowed the EPA to update and
expand the waste management process sequences specified for each
TSDF to more accurately reflect current industry-wide waste
management practices.  Several treatment configurations were
added that include waste fixation as a separate treatment
process.  Also, the waste quantities were proportioned
differently among the waste management units managing aqueous
wastes versus those managing organic wastes.
     The GENSUR questionnaire was sent to a stratified sample of
facilities that generated hazardous waste in 1986.  These
facilities included RCRA-permitted and interim-status TSDF, which
manage waste generated on site, as well as RCRA permit-exempt
facilities that generate hazardous waste and accumulate it onsite
for 90 days or less before shipping it to an offsite TSDF for
disposal.  Information collected in the GENSUR included the
following subjects:  wastewater generation and management,
hazardous waste generation and management, waste minimization,
solid waste management units, closure of surface impoundments,
closure of wastepiles, accumulation in containers, accumulation
areas, satellite accumulation areas, and onsite hazardous waste
management activities.  Also, where applicable, information was
collected on hazardous waste characterization, fuel blending,
reuse as fuel, metals recovery for reuse, solvent and liquid
organic recovery for reuse, other recovery processes, and tank
systems.
     In addition to using the TSDR Survey and the GENSUR, several
other data sources were used to improve the waste composition and
form information in the TSDF waste data base.  An updated
Industry Studies Data Base (ISDB) was used to include new data
for TSDF associated with petroleum refineries and also to include
previously unavailable waste data for several Standard Industrial
Classification (SIC) categories.  New data from the GENSUR and
the ISDB were used to revise default waste form distributions,
waste compositions, and the hierarchy (i.e., preferential order
of use when duplicate compositions exist for the same SIC, RCRA
                               4-3

-------
code, and form) of waste composition data.  Another improvement
was the use of information contained in the Confidential Business
Information (CBI) versions of the ISDB rather than the non-CBI
version used previously.  Analyses of the CBI version provided
data from additional SIC categories and more chemical constituent
data than previously available.

     Comment;  Commenters state that, by not including the
toxicity characteristic  (TC) wastes in the waste data base, the
EPA has grossly underestimated the impacts of the rule.  One
commenter  (F-91-CESP-00069) states that at least 15 substances on
the TC list are organic  compounds, and cites the EPA's estimate
that 730 million Mg/yr of wastewater and 0.85 million to
1.7 million Mg/yr of nonwastewaters would be identified as
hazardous wastes under the revised toxicity characteristic rule.
     Response;  On March 29, 1990, the EPA promulgated a revised
TC rule that results in  the regulation of additional wastes under
RCRA subtitle  C  (55 FR  11798).  These wastes are not included in
the TSDF waste data base used by  the national impacts model to
calculate  the  nationwide impacts  of the rulemaking.  However, the
EPA believes that the nationwide  impacts estimates are not
significantly  understated by not  including the  TC wastes in the
waste data base.  Most  of the TC  wastes are wastewaters managed
in RCRA permit-exempt tanks and,  thus, the requirements of the
subpart CC standards do not apply.  Although there are some
benefits  and costs  associated with applying the subpart CC
standards to the nonwastewater  TC waste, the quantity of these
wastes  is relatively  small.  Thus, the magnitudes of the benefits
and  costs associated with  controlling organic-containing,
nonwastewater  TC wastes do  not  appreciably  increase the total
nationwide total organic emissions,  health, and cost impacts
calculated by  the national  impacts model.
      The  revised TC rule became effective in  September  1991;
consequently the TC wastes were not  included  in the TSDR Survey
 and the GENSUR.   In the preamble to  the  proposed subpart CC
 standards, the EPA acknowledged that the TC wastes were not
                                4-4

-------
included in the national impacts estimates used as the basis for
selecting the proposed rule and requested information to better
assess the impacts associated with TC wastes (56 FR 33496, July
22, 1991).  No TC waste data were submitted by commenters.
     In addition to requesting information from the public, the
EPA representatives visited selected TSDF during the comment
period to obtain information directly from TSDF operators
regarding current TSDF waste management practices.  Four TSDF
were selected from the 100 largest TSDF in the United States
(based on the annual hazardous waste quantity managed at the
facility).  The quantity of hazardous wastes did not increase at
two of the TSDF as a result of the revised TC rule because the
new waste codes applied to wastes that were already identified as
hazardous wastes.  At the third TSDF, the quantity of hazardous
waste did not increase but the TSDF operator reported additional
analytical costs for waste testing.  At the fourth TSDF, one
high-volume wastewater stream has potentially been added as a new
hazardous waste as a result of the revised TC rule.
     A commenter cites the EPA's waste estimates presented in the
promulgation preamble for the TC rule (55 FR 11798) as waste
quantities that should be addressed in the subpart CC standards
impact analysis.  The EPA estimates that the additional wastes
identified as hazardous as a result of the TC rule are
approximately 730 million Mg/yr of wastewater and 0.85 million to
1.8 million Mg/yr of nonwastewaters  (i.e., sludges and solids).
Furthermore, the EPA stated in the preamble for the TC rule that
TC wastewaters are assumed to be exempt from the RCRA subtitle C
regulations because the EPA expects these wastes to be managed in
RCRA permit-exempt tanks.  The EPA did not find nor receive any
new information that justifies changing these TC waste quantity
estimates or suggesting that the EPA's assumption regarding
management of TC wastewaters is no longer reasonable.  The EPA
also has  received verbal information  (documented in the waste
specific  prohibitions-third third wastes docket, Docket No. F-90-
L13A-FFFFF) that a number of large industry categories  (chemical,
paper, petroleum) that operate hazardous waste impoundments do
                               4-5

-------
not have any impoundments that receive exclusively TC wastes,
confirming that no revised estimates are needed for numbers of
impoundments that will be covered by this rule.

     Comment;  One commenter  (F-91-CESP-00046) states that the
waste data base used for the  national impacts analysis contains
little if any data on specific types of waste handled, amount of
material treated by each treatment method, or the amount of each
waste treated.  The commenter requests that the rulemaking be
delayed until data from the new  survey discussed by the EPA in
the proposal preamble are included in the waste data base.
     Response;  The EPA disagrees that the TSDF waste data base
used for the national impacts analysis contains no or very
limited data on specific types of waste handled, amount of
material treated by each treatment method, or amount of each
waste treated.  The TSDF waste data base used for the impact
analysis has always contained waste management data for each
individual TSDF as reported  in nationwide surveys.  As described
in a previous response, the  data from the surveys mentioned by
the EPA in the proposal preamble (i.e., TSDR Survey and the
GENSUR) have been added to the TSDF waste data base to expand and
update the detailed waste management data for each individual
TSDF  location.

      Comment;  One commenter (F-91-CESP-00065) suggests that the
EPA  include  in its waste data base readily available data on
waste management  practices  such  as data from biennial generator
reports and  required  TSDF  reports.
      Response;  The  EPA considered,  but decided  not to
 incorporate,  information from biennial generator reports  into the
TSDF waste data base because the report data  format is not
 consistent on a nationwide basis.   In  States  that are authorized
 to implement RCRA programs,  the  reporting requirements of the
 biennial reports  are determined by the individual State.  These
 reporting requirements vary from State to State.  Consequently,
 the same types of data are not reported  by  all waste  generators.
                                4-6

-------
This is in contrast to the GENSUR, which was conducted by the EPA
at a national level and involved sending a uniform set of
questions to waste generators nationwide.  The GENSUR also was
subjected to stringent quality control and validation procedures
to maximize the completeness of the data reported for each
generator while minimizing errors and discrepancies in the data.
As part of this procedure, the EPA did compare information from
the biennial reports for selected generators to the data reported
in the GENSUR by these generators to help identify discrepancies
in the GENSUR data base.

     Comment;  One commenter (F-91-CESP-00049) claims that the
TSDF waste data base is dated and inappropriate for estimating
impacts at waste generator sites.  The commenter states that
there is no assurance that the waste management practices used by
generators for accumulating waste are similar enough to those
used by TSDF owners and operators to extrapolate the analysis
from one to the other.  The commenter claims that the EPA
incorrectly assumed 70 percent of the wastes in 90-day
accumulation tanks and containers is sent to other onsite waste
management units.  Instead, the commenter states that 100 percent
of the wastes from waste generator accumulation units is sent to
offsite TSDF for treatment and disposal.
     Response;  The EPA believes that use of the TSDF waste data
base and national impacts analysis results is appropriate for
estimating impacts from 90-day tanks and containers.  The
commenter is incorrect in stating that 100 percent of the waste
from 90-day accumulation tanks and containers is sent to offsite
TSDF for treatment and disposal.  A 90-day tank or container is a
waste management unit at a large waste generator site that is
exempted from RCRA permitting if the unit is used to accumulate
waste for 90 days or less and meets certain other conditions
specified in 40 CFR 262.34.  This waste can later be managed in
onsite permitted units.  Thus, waste accumulation in 90-day tanks
and containers occurs at TSDF as well as waste generator sites
where the only waste management activity is accumulating waste
for shipment to a TSDF.
                               4-7

-------
     The EPA did not assume that 70 percent of the wastes in
90-day accumulation tanks and containers is sent to other onsite
waste management units.  For the proposed rule, the EPA performed
an analysis to estimate the impacts of controlling 90-day tanks
and containers.  The nationwide waste quantity accumulated in
90-day tanks and containers was estimated based on data from the
TSDR Survey and the National Survey of Hazardous Waste Generators
and Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities Regulated under
RCRA conducted in 1981.  The more recent TSDR Survey provided
information regarding waste quantities stored in 90-day tanks and
containers located at TSDF in 1986.  These data do not include
the 90-day tanks and containers at the RCRA permit-exempt waste
generator accumulation sites.  Consequently, the 1981 data were
used to estimate waste quantities stored in the 90-day tanks and
containers at these sites.  The EPA would prefer to have more
up-to-date information for these waste accumulation-only sites
but no other data are readily available on a consistent,
nationwide basis.
     Using the survey data, the EPA estimated that approximately
13 million Mg/yr of waste are accumulated in 90-day tanks and
containers at TSDF and an additional approximate 5 million Mg/yr
of waste  is accumulated in 90-day tanks and containers at waste
generator sites exempted from RCRA permitting.  Using these
estimated values, the percentage of the wastes in 90-day
accumulation tanks and containers managed at TSDF is calculated
to be  approximately 70 percent.  The waste quantity estimate
calculations are presented in appendix L in the proposal BID and
the  survey data used for the calculations are  available in the
proposal  docket  (Docket No. F-90-CESP-S00399).
     Based on  the best available nationwide survey waste quantity
data,  over two-thirds  of the wastes  in 90-day  accumulation tanks
and  containers is estimated to  be managed at TSDF.  Thus, the EPA
believes  it  is reasonable to use  impact estimation factors for
90-day accumulation tanks and containers based on results from
the  national impact model analysis  of RCRA-permitted tank and
container units.
                                4-8

-------
4.1.2 General Emission Estimate Methodology
     Comment;  One commenter (F-91-CESP-00054) states that the
EPA should conduct actual testing of emission sources in addition
to computer modeling of emissions to ensure the greatest degree
of protection to human health and the environment.
     Response;  In support of the rulemaking, the EPA used the
results from many field tests of actual TSDF emission sources.
The results from these tests were used by the EPA to assess the
air emission levels from different types of TSDF waste management
units, evaluate the effectiveness of emission controls, evaluate
measurement techniques for determining air emissions, and
evaluate the emission models used for the impact analysis.  The
TSDF emission sources tested include surface impoundments,
wastewater treatment systems, sludge dewatering units, waste
fixation units, active and inactive landfills, land treatment
units, and waste transfer, storage, and handling operations.
A summary of the results from many of the source tests is
presented in appendix F of the proposal BID.   The complete test
reports are available in the rule proposal docket (Docket No.
F-91-CESP-FFFFF).

     Comment;  One commenter (F-91-CESP-00066) recommends that
the EPA reevaluate the use of the CHEMDAT7 emission models in the
national impacts analysis.  The commenter claims that the flux
chamber measurements used by the EPA to validate the models
overestimate actual emissions.  Specifically, the commenter cites
a study ("Measurement of BTEX Emission Fluxes from Refinery
Wastewater Impoundments Using Atmospheric Tracer Techniques", API
publication 4518, December 1990) in which flux chambers were
purposely not used to avoid any artificial disturbance of the
air-water interface.  According to the commenter, the study
results show that the emissions modeled by CHEMDAT7 exceed
measured emissions by an order of magnitude.
     Response;   The EPA disagrees that the CHEMDAT7 model, when
used as designed, overstates emissions from surface impoundments
by an order of magnitude.  The EPA reviewed the report cited by
                               4-9

-------
the commenter.  This review showed that the study investigators
used the CHEMDAT7 model improperly to estimate the emissions from
the surface impoundment tested.  The CHEMDAT7 model is designed
to predict long-term average air emissions from a surface
impoundment for which the waste that is added to the impoundment
has been adequately characterized.  All of the input parameters
needed to use the CHEMDAT7 model as designed were not adequately
measured during the field testing  (these parameters included
inlet waste concentrations, Henry's law constants, biodegradation
rates, and the time-averaged wind  speed before the tracer
sampling time).  Because of these  modeling limitations as well as
other concerns regarding interpretation of the tracer measurement
results, the EPA does not consider the comparison of the CHEMDAT7
model predictions with the field tracer measurements presented in
the study to be valid.  The EPA believes that the version of the
CHEMDAT7 model used for the national impacts analysis represents
a reasonable procedure for estimating emissions from TSDF surface
impoundments.

     Comment;  One commenter  (F-91-CESP-00007) states that
additional data  are needed to  support the  assumptions and
calculations  used for the national impacts analysis because the
analysis performed at proposal shows no  change in  individual
cancer  risk  as a result  of  increasing control performance from 95
to  98 percent.
      Response;   The  fact that  the estimates  for maximum
 individual cancer risk did  not change as a result  of  increasing
the control  performance  from 95 to 98 percent  is not  indicative
 of  a problem with the  national impacts  model.  At  proposal, an
 analysis separate from the  national impacts  models was used to
 estimate individual cancer  risk for a  specific TSDF  selected  to
 represent a "reasonable worst case facility."  Risk  at an
 individual TSDF may or may not be affected by  changes in action
 level or control efficiency,  depending on factors  such as waste
 organic content, the type and configuration of  the waste
 management units contributing to the facility risk,  and  the
                                4-10

-------
contribution to the risk from sources that are not controlled by
the subpairt CC standards.  Furthermore, MIR is calculated to only
one significant figure so that small changes are lost in the
rounding to one figure.  The approach for estimating maximum
individual cancer risk at proposal is no longer used for the
impact analysis (a more detailed discussion of this point is
presented later in this section).

     Comment;  Two commenters (F-91-CESP-00027, 00066) disagree
with the characterization of the emission estimates as
"nationwide average emission rates" because they consider many of
the modeling assumptions to be worst case or maximum estimates.
Both commenters claim that the EPA has underestimated the effects
of the land disposal restrictions on organic emission rates and
on the quantity of waste managed in surface impoundments.
     Response;  The EPA believes it is reasonable to characterize
the emission factors used for the national impacts model as
representative of nationwide average conditions.  The assumptions
made to develop the emission factors regarding waste
characteristics and management practices are not "worst-case"
assumptions.  These assumptions were selected based on the
distribution of nationwide TSDF waste management practices
identified from the TSDF waste data base.  Regarding the effects
of the LDR on emission rates and the quantity of waste managed in
surface impoundments, the national impacts analysis has been
revised since proposal, based on information received from site
visits and telephone contacts with several TSDF, to take these
factors into account; this is described in other sections of this
BID chapter.  Because the actual conditions at a particular TSDF
location may vary significantly from national average conditions,
the EPA does not consider the national average model estimates to
necessarily represent any specific individual TSDF.

     Comment;  Two comments were received regarding the
presentation of the impact analysis in the documentation
supporting the rule proposal.  One commenter (F-91-CESP-00013)
                               4-11

-------
states that the proposal BID sections on industry description and
air emissions, control technologies, control options, costs, and
economics are well written and technically defensible.  A second
commenter (F-91-CESP-00046) states that there is no information
in the proposal preamble or the BID with which to evaluate the
many assumptions used for the impact analysis.
     Response;  The compilation of the EPA documents, test
reports, survey data, reference books, computer printouts, and
other information used to develop this rulemaking is extensive
and voluminous.  It is not possible to present all this
information in a single preamble or the BID.  However, the three-
volume BID supporting the proposed rule does contain a
significant amount of technical information regarding the impact
analysis.  Appendices C through L in the proposal BID describe in
detail the impact analysis methodology and present many of the
calculations  performed and assumptions made to obtain the
emission and  cost input factors used for the national impacts
model.  These appendices also list all of the references from
which the EPA obtained information to perform the impact
analysis.
     All of the  information used by the EPA for this rulemaking
is available  for public review with the exception of a small
amount of data that has been declared by the companies submitting
the  information  to be CBI.  Copies of the non-CBI information are
available for public inspection  in the docket for the rulemaking
 (docket  nos.  F-91-CESP-FFFFF, F-92-CESA-FFFFF, F-94-CESF-FFFFF)
at the  EPA RCRA  Docket Office  (OS-305) in room 2427  of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street SW, Washington, DC
20460  (additional  information regarding access to the docket is
available by  calling  (202)  475-9327).
4.1.3 Model Unit Emission  Calculations
      Comment; Two commenters  (F-91-CESP-00066, 00069) state that
organic emissions  from  biologically active  treatment tanks  and
surface impoundments  are  overestimated by the national impacts
model.   Both commenters cite three reasons  for the  overestimate:
 (1)  the assumption that the volatile organic  concentration  of all
                               4-12

-------
dilute aqueous wastes is 1,000 ppmw favors air emissions over
biodegradation; (2) the aeration/mixing power levels specified
for tanks and surface impoundments are 2 to 3 times greater than
those typically used in biological treatment units; and (3) the
model used to compute emission factors (CHEMDAT6) uses incorrect
biological kinetics.  In addition, one commenter  (F-91-CESP-
00069) adds that the EPA's impact analysis overstates emissions
from systems heavily dependent on aggregation for subsequent
waste treatment such as wastewater systems.  This commenter also
states that the EPA acknowledged that "compositions commonly
found in the WCDB  (waste characterization data base) were not
representative of  the waste code in a dilute aqueous form and
could cause an overestimation of emissions."  This led the EPA to
limit, for estimating purposes, the high end organic
concentrations for waste codes/constituents managed in wastewater
systems, but the EPA continued to overestimate emissions from
dilute systems.
     Response;  The EPA reviewed the assumptions  and methodology
used to estimate organic emissions from biologically active
sources.  As a result of this review, several revisions to the
emission models were made.  The waste organic concentrations of
the waste assumed  to be managed in biologically active model
units was reduced  from 1,000 ppmw to 100 ppmw.  The aeration
parameters for the biologically active tank and surface
impoundment model  units were increased based on information
obtained from site visits  to TSDF that operate RCRA-permitted
biological treatment units.   (It  is important to  note that the
data base used for the national impacts model does not include
TSDF tanks exempted  from RCRA subtitle C requirements, and not
subject to regulation under this  rule.)  The procedure for
calculating percent  turbulence was changed to be  based on the
turbulent area associated  with the aerator's horsepower, yielding
a reduction in estimated turbulent area.  The net effect of these
modeling changes was a decrease in the estimated  fractions
emitted.
      The CHEMDAT6  model used at proposal to compute emission
                               4-13

-------
factors for the impact analysis has been replaced by the CHEMDAT7
model.  The emission models in CHEMDAT7 reflect improvements and
revisions that the EPA has made in response to extensive industry
review of the models.  The mathematical model used to predict the
rate of biodegradation in biological treatment units was revised
for CHEMDAT7 to use the Monod biological kinetics model.  The
Monod model is preferred over the biological kinetics model
previously used in CHEMDAT6 because the Monod model provides a
better technical basis as supported by analysis of biodegradation
data.

     Comment;  Two commenters  (F-91-CESP-00066, 00069) state that
emissions for nonquiescent tanks and surface impoundments are
overestimated by the national  impacts model because many of these
units are mixed with diffused  air or slow-speed mixers rather
than the surface aerators as assumed by the EPA.
     Response;  The EPA believes that the nonquiescent tank and
surface impoundment emissions  estimated by the national impacts
model analysis are reasonable  for the purpose of estimating
nationwide  impacts to develop  this rulemaking.  Nonquiescent
tanks and surface impoundments refer to treatment units in which
the waste is intentionally mixed to blend treatment additives and
supply additional oxygen/ among other reasons.  The EPA reviewed
the mixing  parameters used for nonquiescent tank and  surface
impoundment model units.  The  EPA did not find or receive any new
information from commenters that suggests that the EPA's
assumptions are not representative of mixing conditions in
RCRA-permitted treatment tanks and surface impoundments.

      Comment;  One commenter  (F-91-CESP-00060) states that
quiescent tank emissions are underestimated by the national
impacts model because of the assumptions used by the  EPA to
estimate working  losses.  The  commenter recommends that the EPA
calculate working  losses from  quiescent tanks based on complete
unloading  and reloading of waste every 90 days.
      Response;  The  EPA believes that the quiescent tank
                               4-14

-------
emissions estimates by the national impacts model analysis are
reasonable for the purpose of estimating nationwide impacts to
develop this rulemaking.  Quiescent tank emissions resulting from
working losses were estimated by the EPA using model storage
tanks that span the range of tank sizes and operating conditions
representative of typical TSDF waste management practices.  These
model tank units are described in appendix C of the proposal BID.
The model unit parameter that represents the frequency of loading
and unloading of a tank is retention time.  A different retention
time ranging from 200 to 440 hours was used for each of the four
model tanks  (i.e., it was assumed that a tank would be filled
repeatedly and then emptied every 8.3 to 18.3 days depending on
the model tank size).  Increasing the retention time to 90 days
would decrease the emission estimate for quiescent tanks instead
of increase the emission estimate as stated by the commenter.

     Comment;   One commenter  (F-91-CESP-00069) claims that the
organic control efficiencies for applying covers to tanks and
applying internal floating roofs in tanks with covers are
overstated by the national impacts model because these
efficiencies were calculated for waste compositions with higher
organic concentrations than the concentrations used to estimate
emission factors for baseline  emissions.  The commenter states
that the emission factors used by the EPA for dilute aqueous
wastes  in  storage and treatment tanks were based on an assumed
waste organic concentration of 1,000 ppmw, but the calculated
suppression  efficiencies for controls were based on application
of controls  to wastes with higher organic concentrations, an
average of 2,020 ppmw for fixed roofs and 4,000 ppmw for  internal
floating roofs.  The commenter contends this results in an
overestimate of  the effectiveness and therefore cost
effectiveness of controls applied to these source types.
     Response;   The EPA disagrees that the control efficiencies
for  fixed  roofs  and  internal floating roofs should also be
calculated for wastes at  1,000 ppmw.  The subpart CC standards
require that tanks managing wastes  with volatile organic
                               4-15

-------
concentrations above a specified level apply organic air emission
controls.  Therefore, the estimated efficiencies of control
devices used on the tanks should be based on a waste's volatile
organic concentration levels that may necessitate control.  In
fact, the efficiencies for a fixed roof applied to tanks managing
dilute aqueous wastes were calculated as the average for three
different concentration levels; 400, 1,700, and 4,000 ppmw at
proposal.  The efficiency for internal floating roofs was based
on a waste composition with 4,000 ppmw at proposal.  Calculations
of efficiencies for an internal floating roof applied to a fixed-
roof tank show the range to be 74 to 81 percent over the
concentration range of 4,000 to 400 ppmw, respectively.
Therefore, the assumed efficiency in the national impacts model
is probably too low rather than too high, and the cost
effectiveness may actually be underestimated rather than
overestimated as the commenter contends.

     Comment;  One commenter (F-91-CESP-00048) disagrees with the
emission estimates for waste fixation.  The commenter claims that
the bench-scale laboratory study used by the EPA as the basis for
the emission factors is flawed in methodology and based on wastes
no longer relevant to current waste fixation practices.
According to the commenter, the sampling approach used for the
laboratory study precludes the determination of the degree to
which compounds initially chemically tied to the waste actually
remained in the waste after fixation.  Furthermore, the waste
types used by the EPA for the laboratory study are 75 percent
water by weight, which the commenter states is not representative
of the amount of free liquid in wastes currently treated by waste
fixation.
     Response;  The EPA has conducted additional waste fixation
testing since the waste fixation emission rates used for the
proposal analysis were developed.  The results of this testing
indicate that the waste fixation emission rates used at proposal
are reasonable.  Analyses of organic emissions were performed on
a continuous hazardous waste fixation process at a commercial
                               4-16

-------
hazardous waste TSDF.  In addition, bench-scale testing was
performed in conjunction with the full-scale emission source
test.  The laboratory study experiment provided data regarding
the fraction of organics released to the air when a waste
material is actively mixed with a fixative agent and data
regarding the fraction of organics released to the air when the
fixed waste is subsequently cured and stored in an uncovered
unit.  The full-scale emission source test report (Docket No.
F-92-CESA-S00010 and S-00011) and the bench-scale emission test
report  (Docket No. F-92-CESA-S00012) are available in the docket.
4.1.4 Baseline Land Disposal Restrictions Assumptions
     Comment:  Commenters disagree with the EPA's assumption that
all dilute aqueous liquids, aqueous sludges/slurries, and high-
solids content waste mixtures are treated at each TSDF site using
a waste  fixation process.  One commenter  (F-91-CESP-00048)
presents a summary of a TSDF industry survey showing that aqueous
liquids  and aqueous  slurries do not generally go to waste
fixation but  instead are deep-well injected or undergo wastewater
treatment.  The commenter states that the EPA's assumption that
waste  fixation  is conducted at every TSDF site is incorrect by
noting that,  of the  22 TSDF sites  operated by the commenter, only
8  sites conduct waste fixation.  Three  commenters  (F-91-CESP-
00048,  00060,  00066) state that waste fixation is not best
demonstrated  available technology  (BOAT)  for most organic waste
materials  under LDR, nor  is waste  fixation proper treatment for
wastes containing significant  amounts of  organics.  Two  of these
commenters (F-91-CESP-00048,  00060)  also  note that, under typical
waste management  practices,  fixation of waste is performed after
organics in the waste have been  destroyed or removed by
technologies such as thermal  destruction  or  solvent extraction.
      Response;   The EPA  assumed  for  the national  impacts analysis
used to support the proposal  rule that  all TSDF  owners and
 operators treat dilute  aqueous liquids, aqueous  sludges/slurries,
 and high-solids content  waste mixtures  by waste  fixation (also
 referred to as waste solidification or  stabilization) prior  to
 disposal in either a landfill,  wastepile,  or disposal
                               4-17

-------
impoundment.  For the national impacts analysis used for the
final rule, the EPA changed this assumption based on information
in the TSDR Survey and further investigation of TSDF waste
fixation practices.  The revised national impacts analysis now
reflects the use of tank treatment methods for many dilute
aqueous liquids, aqueous sludges/slurries, and high-solids
content waste mixtures in response to the LDR in the baseline
estimates rather than waste fixation.
     The TSDR Survey specifically addresses waste fixation and
provides the EPA with significantly more detailed information
about TSDF waste fixation practices than was available at
proposal.  As a result of this new information, the annual
nationwide quantity of waste estimated to be fixated was reduced
by approximately a factor of 10 from the quantity estimated at
proposal.  In addition, a review of the BOAT for the First and
Second Third LDR (40 CFR 286.33 and 40 CFR 268.34) wastewater
indicated that about 50 percent of those technologies are tank
treatments  (not stabilization) and that another 30 percent
involve treatment/incineration.  Therefore, the LDR baseline
assumptions have been revised for the national impacts analysis
to indicate the use of tank treatment for wastewaters as opposed
to waste fixation.

     Comment;  Two commenters (F-91-CESP-00050, 00060) disagree
with the EPA's LDR assumptions concerning treatment of organic
wastes.  The commenters state that certain organic wastes will
not be incinerated, as assumed by the EPA, but will instead be
disposed in land disposal units without being treated to BOAT
levels.  One commenter (F-91-CESP-00050) states that numerous
wastes that contain organics will continue to be disposed of in
land disposal units for four reasons: (1) characteristic
ignitable wastes are only required by the LDR to be treated to be
nonignitable and may still contain considerable quantities of
organics after treatment; (2) toxicity characteristic leaching
procedure  (TCLP) wastes are currently not required to be treated,
and there is no indication when the EPA will issue BOAT treatment
                               4-18

-------
standards for these wastes; (3) numerous wastes may receive
treatability variances from the LDR based on inadequate treatment
capacity; and (4) wastes, contaminated soils, and debris from
Superfund and corrective action cleanups will be sent to TSDF,
but are not currently required to be incinerated.  The second
commenter (F-91-CESP-00060) states that the EPA's assumption is
undermined by the EPA's failure to promulgate LDR standards for
numerous organic toxicity characteristic wastes.  The assumption
is therefore speculative and may not transform into reality for
many years.  Both commenters note that the EPA will not be
obligated to promulgate LDR treatment standards for numerous
wastes that contain organics until the mid or late 1990's, under
the terms of the proposed consent decree in EDF v. EPA. No. 89-
0598  (D.C.D.C., complaint filed March 8, 1989).
     Response;  This comment is out of date.  The EPA recently
promulgated standards for ignitible wastes being disposed of in
landfills, wastepiles, or land treatment units requiring
treatment of all underlying hazardous constituents in the waste
[section 268.37, 58 FR at 29885  (May 24, 1993)].
     The EPA acknowledges that there currently may be special
conditions where it is possible for a particular TSDF owner or
operator to continue to dispose of an organic waste in a land
disposal unit without having first treated the waste.  However,
the EPA expects  these conditions to be an exception rather than a
general practice, and also expects the occurrence of these
exceptions to diminish as additional LDR treatment standards are
promulgated and  new treatment  units are built.  The EPA currently
is developing LDR standards for the additional wastes that have
been  identified  as hazardous wastes as a result of the TC
revisions that became effective  September 25, 1990.  Final
prohibitions and treatment standards for organic TC wastes will
be promulgated by the end  of 1994.
      Regarding treatability variances, the EPA allows
site-specific variances  for situations where treatment capacity
is currently  inadequate  to allow time for treatment capacity to
be  increased.  The  issuance of these variances  is limited, and
                               4-19

-------
the variance typically expires after 2 years.  The EPA does not
believe it warranted to alter a national standard (which
continues to operate after the capacity extension expires) to
account for such a relatively short delay.  Finally, the
requirements of the subpart CC standards will apply to wastes,
contaminated soils, and debris from Superfund and corrective
action cleanups that are transported to a TSDF.

     Comment:  One commenter  (F-91-CESP-00077) states that the
EPA's LDR assumptions do not account for recycling operations.
The commenter disagrees with the EPA's assumption that all
organic liquids and organic sludges/slurries currently placed in
landfills and wastepiles will be incinerated.  The commenter
states fuel substitution is allowed by the LDR and is appropriate
for many organic liquids and organic sludge/slurry wastes.  The
commenter also disagrees with the assumption that the waste
management unit treating a waste to comply with LDR treatment
standards is the last unit prior to disposal of the waste.  This
assumption is inappropriate for recycling operations, where a
hazardous waste such as distillation bottoms is generated as a
byproduct of the recycling process.
     Response;  The EPA believes that the baseline LDR
assumptions used for the national impacts analysis are reasonable
for the purpose of estimating nationwide  impacts to develop this
rulemaking.  The assumptions made by the  EPA do not reflect all
possible ways that a particular TSDF owner or operator can choose
to comply with the LDR.  However, the effect on the nationwide
impact estimates remains the  same, regardless of whether  one
assumes that organic  liquids  and organic  sludges/slurries are
placed in  landfills and wastepiles, burned in a hazardous waste
incinerator, or burned for energy as a substitute fuel in a
boiler or  furnace.
      The assumption that the  waste management unit used to treat
a waste to comply  with LDR treatment standards  is the last unit
prior to disposal  of  the waste  in the waste management
configuration  at  a particular TSDF  location  is  no longer  used  for
                               4-20

-------
the national impacts analysis.  As discussed earlier in this
chapter, the TSDF waste data base has been updated to include the
results of the TSDR Survey and the GENSUR.  Because treatment
configurations used by recyclers are reported in the TSDR Survey,
waste recycling operations are now represented in the waste data
base used for the national impacts analysis and it is no longer
necessary to make this assumption.
4.1.5 Baseline Emission Control Assumptions
     Comment;  Six commenters (F-91-CESP-00027, 00048, 00057,
00065, 00071, 00078) state that the baseline emission control
assumptions do not reflect the organic emission reduction that
will be achieved at TSDF because of compliance with existing EPA
and State air regulations.  One commenter (F-91-CESP-00071)
states that wastewater treatment and collection systems are being
upgraded at the commenter's TSDF to comply with the RCRA TC rule,
the benzene waste operations NESHAP, and the RCRA refinery sludge
listing.  A second commenter  (F-91-CESP-00027) states that in
response to the LDR, treatment standards for listed K-wastes are
based on closed-system solvent extraction.  A third commenter (F-
91-CESP-00048) questions the baseline assumption that no storage
tanks have organic emission controls, noting that 78 percent of
449 storage tanks containing organic and aqueous liquids at the
commenter's 22 TSDF use conservation vents and two-thirds of
these are vented to organic control devices.  The commenter
states that an appreciable number of State and Federal air and
RCRA permit writers have been incorporating storage tank organic
emission controls into permits.  One commenter (F-91-CESP-00078)
states that many TSDF currently use organic emissions controls
representing BACT or demonstrating 95 percent control from
facility point sources.
     Response;  The baseline emission estimates do account for
emission reductions resulting from emission controls used at TSDF
to comply with RCRA air rules for non-combustion treatment unit
process vents  (40 CFR 264 subpart AA), equipment leaks (40 CFR
264 subpart BB), and hazardous waste incinerators (40 CFR 264
subpart O).  As previously discussed in section 4.1.1 of this
                               4-21

-------
BID, TC wastes are not included in the baseline emission
estimates because most of the TC wastes are wastewaters and the
EPA expects these wastes to be managed in RCRA-exempt tanks.
     Emission controls on TSDF waste management units to comply
with Clean Air Act NSPS or NESHAP rules or individual State air
standards are not included in the baseline emission estimates
because the EPA has insufficient information regarding the
emissions controls in place at individual TSDF sites.  The TSDR
Survey and the GENSUR contain only limited information on air
emission controls in place and planned for tank systems.  It is
not possible to deduce from this information any general
conclusions with regard to the type of air emissions control used
or  its control efficiency.  Review of this information does
indicate that the type of organic air emissions controls used at
TSDF varies widely and cannot be characterized in terms that can
reasonably be incorporated into the national impacts analysis.
By  not including all  existing organic air emissions controls used
at  TSDF, the national impacts analysis may overstate nationwide
baseline emissions.   However, the impact of any overestimate of
the emissions is balanced by the fact that the costs of
controlling these  emissions are also overstated.  Thus, the EPA
believes that the  national  impacts  analysis results are useful
for a  relative  comparison of different  control options.
Furthermore,  commenters  who have already  installed appropriate
controls  should not incur significant  additional  costs  of
compliance with this rule.

      Comment;   Two comments were  received regarding  the
 conversion of surface impoundments  managing hazardous waste to
 tanks.  At one TSDF, 12 surface impoundments are being  closed  in
 response to other regulatory requirements and replaced  with
 wastewater treatment units permitted under the Clean Water Act
 (F-91-CESP-00062).  A second commenter (F-91-CESP-00027)  states
 that many refinery surface impoundments will be closed  and
 replaced with tanks as a result of the RCRA TC rule and the RCRA
 listing of petroleum refinery primary and secondary sludge as  a
                                4-22

-------
hazardous waste.
     Response;  The commenters support the EPA's assessment that
many TSDF owners and operators are electing to close surface
impoundments managing hazardous wastes and replace the units with
tanks to comply with the LDR standards and other regulations.  In
addition to information received from commenters, the EPA
investigated the conversion of TSDF surface impoundments to tanks
by directly contacting a sampling of TSDF owners and operators
through a telephone survey of several large TSDF and visiting
four other large TSDF.  At most of these facilities, management
of hazardous waste pursuant to LDR standards has been
discontinued by either: closing the hazardous waste surface
impoundments and installing tanks to manage the waste; or no
longer accepting the wastes previously placed in surface
impoundments.
     The EPA revised the national impacts model to reflect the
current industry trend of closing existing surface impoundments
and replacing the units with tanks.  Based on a review of the
information obtained from the telephone survey of TSDF owners and
operators, from TSDF site visits conducted by the EPA
representatives, and provided by commenters, the EPA assumed for
the national impacts analysis that 75 percent of wastes that were
reported to be managed in surface impoundments in 1986 are now
being managed in tanks.

     Comment;  One commenter  (F-91-CESP-00065) concludes that the
EPA's impact analysis significantly overestimates nationwide TSDF
organic emissions based on the commenter's comparison of the
EPA's baseline emission estimates by specific chemical
constituents presented in table E-2 of appendix E in the proposal
BID with synthetic organic chemical manufacturing industry
(SOCMI) chemical production data for 1988 and emission estimates
for a SOCMI facility.
     Response;  The EPA reviewed the data provided by the
commenter and concluded that these data are insufficient to
support any characterization regarding the accuracy of the EPA's
                               4-23

-------
nationwide TSDF organic emission estimates.  Table E-2 in
appendix E of the proposal BID presents the EPA's calculation of
an emissions-weighted, nationwide composite unit risk factor that
the EPA used to estimate cancer risk at proposal.  (As discussed
in section 4.2.3 of this BID, the EPA no longer uses this factor
for the impact analysis).  Table E-2 lists specific chemical
constituent nationwide baseline emission estimates for 71
chemical compounds of known or suspected carcinogens identified
by the EPA to be in the wastes managed at TSDF.
     The EPA estimated nationwide TSDF organic emissions using a
computer model that processes hazardous waste data obtained from
nationwide surveys of the entire TSDF industry.  These surveys
indicated that, based on the SIC codes reported by the survey
respondents, hazardous wastes managed at TSDF are generated not
only by the SOCMI industry but by more than 150 different
industrial categories.  Nationwide TSDF emissions of a specific
chemical constituent are not directly related to the nationwide
production of that chemical by SOCMI plants in the United States
in a given year.  Furthermore, comparing emissions from a single
SOCMI facility to the nationwide total emissions from all TSDF
does not indicate whether the nationwide TSDF emissions are over-
or underestimated by the impact analysis.  Air emissions from a
particular TSDF vary  significantly depending on many factors
including the type of waste management units at the facility, the
quantity and type of wastes managed  in these units, and the type
of air  emission controls operated on these units.

4.2 HEALTH  IMPACT ANALYSIS
4.2.1 General Health  Impact  Analysis Methodology
     Comment;   One commenter (F-91-CESP-00046) states that the
cancer  incidence  estimates are  suspect because assumptions had to
be made regarding TSDF plant configurations and  operating
practices,  the  composition of wastes managed at  these TSDF, the
cancer  potency  of the organics  contained in these wastes, the
emission of these organics to the  atmosphere from TSDF  sources,
and the exposure of  people  living  near TSDF to these  air toxic
                               4-24

-------
emissions.  The commenter notes that in spite of the fact that
the EPA acknowledged that emissions cannot be estimated with any
accuracy for any individual TSDF, the EPA used the national
impacts model to allocate emissions to specific TSDF and used
national average data on waste streams to determine the risk
factors applicable to specific sites.
     Response:  For the impacts analysis conducted for the
proposed rule, the EPA applied a single weighted-average
composite cancer unit risk value to all TSDF locations in the
data base.  Since that analysis was made, information has become
available from the 1986 surveys that improves the basis for the
estimated impacts associated with regulating these sources.  The
EPA has used this information to modify its national impacts
model to calculate facility-specific cancer unit risk factors.
These risk factors were developed using the estimated
carcinogenic emissions resulting from the hazardous wastes
reported in the surveys to be managed at each facility.  As at
proposal, only those carcinogens for which unit risk estimates
are available were used in the analysis of cancer risk.
     Estimation of air emissions of carcinogens from a particular
facility using the revised methodology depends on the composition
of wastes managed at the facility.  The industry profile used in
the national impacts model contains the list of RCRA waste codes
managed at each TSDF as reported in the 1986 TSDR Survey.  The
list of chemical constituents and their concentrations in each of
those wastes is estimated from the national impacts model waste
characterization data base.  The compositions of each RCRA waste
code are  selected for the SIC listed by the facility in their
survey responses.  The compositions are based on the typical
physical  forms of the RCRA waste code reported to be generated by
facilities in that SIC.
     These changes to the cancer unit risk factor calculation
result in a better estimate than was available at proposal of the
cancer potency for emissions from each facility.  There is still
a degree  of uncertainty  in the estimate of annual cancer
incidence because certain assumptions must be made regarding TSDF
                               4-25

-------
plant configurations, operating practices, etc.  However, the
complex interrelationships of these assumptions make it
impossible to characterize the annual cancer incidence estimates
as being over- or underestimated.  Furthermore, the EPA believes
that this degree of uncertainty in the annual cancer incidence
estimates is acceptable because these estimates are not used as
precise indicators of health risk but instead are one of several
factors used by the EPA to evaluate the relative effectiveness of
different control options in protecting human health.

     Comment;  Sixteen commenters (F-91-CESP-00012, 00023, 00024,
00027, 00028, 00033, 00039, 00043, 00047, 00048, 00060, 00064,
00066, 00069, 00075, 00078) disagree with the inclusion of dioxin
in the composite unit risk factor.  Factors cited by commenters
for disagreeing with the EPA's assumption are:   (1) the vast
majority of TSDF do not handle wastes containing dioxin,  (2) the
EPA's assumption that dioxin is present in its most potent isomer
form is not appropriate, (3) dioxin is not a volatile substance,
and (4) the controversy in the scientific community over the
calculation of the unit risk factor for dioxin.
     Response;  For the impacts analysis conducted for the
proposed rule, the EPA applied a single weighted-average
composite cancer unit risk value to all TSDF locations in the
data base.  The EPA agrees with the commenters that not all TSDF
process wastes that contain dioxin or, for that matter, the
specific combination of the chemical constituents that were used
to calculate the composite unit risk factor.  Therefore, to
better reflect actual TSDF waste management practices, the EPA
modified its national impacts model to calculate a
facility-specific cancer unit risk factor based  on the estimated
carcinogenic emissions resulting from the hazardous wastes
reported in the 1986 survey responses to be managed at each
facility.  Using this revised methodology, cancer risks resulting
from  exposure to air emissions of dioxin are estimated to occur
only  near the individual TSDF that reported managing
dioxin-containing wastes,
                               4-26

-------
     Estimation of air emissions of carcinogens from a particular
facility using the revised methodology depends on the composition
of wastes managed at the facility.  The industry profile used in
the national impacts model contains the list of RCRA waste codes
managed at each TSDF as reported in the TSDR Survey.  The list of
chemical constituents and their concentrations in each of those
wastes is estimated from the national impacts model waste
characterization data base.  The compositions of each RCRA waste
code are selected for the SIC reported by a facility in their
survey responses, based on the typical physical forms of the RCRA
waste code when generated by facilities in that SIC.
     These changes to the cancer unit risk factor calculation
result in a better estimate of the cancer potency for emissions
from each facility.  At proposal, the national impacts analysis
assumed that all dioxin is present as the most potent isomer.
This assumption was not made for the new analysis because most of
the waste composition data identify the specific dioxin isomers
that are present in the waste managed at the TSDF.  The
commenters correctly observed that dioxin is relatively
nonvolatile and that factor has been taken into account in the
revised estimation methodology.  With respect to the issue of the
unit risk factor for the 2,3,7,8-TCDD isomer, the current debate
in the scientific community is not over whether or not the dioxin
isomer is a carcinogen but rather over the level of carcinogenic
potency for the  isomer.  It is possible the carcinogenic potency
estimate may be  revised at a future date.  However, because no
new factor is  yet available, the carcinogenic potency value
 (33  (/ig/m3)'1)  used for the proposal impact analysis was  not
revised for the  current/updated  impact analysis.

     Comment;  One commenter  (F-91-CESP-00069) states that the
EPA's basic approach to calculating cancer unit risk factors
produces  an exaggerated estimate  of cancer potency  for  individual
organic compounds.  This  commenter notes  that the unit  risk
factors for virtually  all  of the  compounds included in  the
                               4-27

-------
composite unit risk factor were calculated on the basis of animal
data.  The commenter states that the EPA acknowledges there is no
sound scientific basis for selecting a particular methodology to
extrapolate cancer risks observed in high-dose animal studies to
predict human cancer risks at much lower levels of exposure.  The
commenter cites assumptions and extrapolation methodologies that
tend to inflate the increased cancer risk in humans including the
emphasis on positive results from the most genetically sensitive
test species, use of a linear extrapolation model, use of the
upper 95 percent confidence limit instead of the maximum
likelihood estimate, and the use of an interspecies scaling
factor based on surface area rather than body weight.
     Response;  The EPA would prefer to use cancer unit risk
factors that have been derived from human data, but human data do
not exist for the majority of compounds.  Animal studies indicate
that exposure to a compound may present a potential health risk
to humans.  The National Research Council has explained that
cancer in humans and animals is strikingly similar adding,
"virtually every form of human cancer has an experimental
counterpart, and every form of multicellular organism is subject
to cancer."  Therefore extrapolation methods have been devised
that consider the many biological differences that exist between
animals and humans to predict possible adverse health effects in
humans from well-designed animal studies.
     It is the EPA's view that the linear low-dose extrapolation
is preferred over other extrapolation models, unless low-dose
data and/or mechanism of action or metabolism data show that the
dose-response curve is nonlinear at the untested low dose levels.
The extrapolation models are needed to predict human cancer risks
at much lower exposure levels than found in occupational or
animal studies.  The EPA has elected to use the linear
nonthreshold assumption for cancer dose-response assessments
because, as a matter of science policy, the EPA prefers to use
assumptions that will provide risk estimates that are not likely
to be exceeded given the lack of understanding about the
mechanisms of carcinogenic action.  This choice of models intends
                               4-28

-------
to provide an upper bound (i.e., because of the linear
assumption) estimate of cancer risk to the exposed population.
     The EPA uses an interspecies scaling factor that is based on
surface area because certain pharmacological effects, namely
metabolism, commonly correlate to surface area.  The EPA will use
surface area unless there is convincing evidence to the contrary
to consistently provide an upper bound for the cancer potency
estimate.

     Comment;  One commenter (F-91-CESP-00015) concludes that the
health impact methodology or assumptions are of questionable
validity based on the commenter's comparison of the EPA's
baseline estimate that nationwide TSDF organic emissions result
in a 2 x 10'2 maximum lifetime risk of cancer whereas the
nationwide lifetime risk of cancer from all causes is
approximately 2.5 x 10'1.  The commenter states that this suggests
that 8 percent of the nationwide risk of cancer is attributable
to TSDF organic emissions, which is inconsistent with known
cancer rates and risk estimates for other causes.
     Response;  The nationwide  lifetime risk of cancer from all
causes represents the probability that any individual in the
United States has of contracting cancer; i.e., each individual
has a lifetime probability of 25 percent (2.5 x 1CT1) of
contacting cancer.  In contrast, the MIR is a risk measure or
indicator that was designed to  evaluate the potential of an
emitting plant to cause cancer  in the hypothetical most exposed
individual under the assumptions used in the risk and exposure
assessments.  The MIR value is  used by the EPA for relative
comparisons of pollutants, emission sources, and control
alternatives.  The MIR of 2 x 1CT2 applies only to the one
individual nearest the one TSDF, among all of the approximately
2,300 TSDF in the United States, that has the potential to cause
the highest risk.  It is not an actuarially measured risk, nor
does it apply to all individuals living in the vicinity of a TSDF
in the United States.  In calculating MIR values for this
                               4-29

-------
rulemaking, the EPA is not attempting to estimate any specific
individual's overall potential of developing cancer.

     Comment;  Two commenters state that the health impact
analysis should be expanded to consider other health impacts in
addition to cancer risk from air pollutant inhalation.  One
commenter  (F-91-CESP-00007) states that the risk analysis should
consider in more detail the short-term exposure that could occur
frequently at a TSDF.  A second commenter (F-91-CESP-L0001)
submits that the risk assessment methodology should consider
impacts from all applicable routes of exposure and recommends
including at least inhalation, dermal exposure, crop ingestion,
and ingestion of mother's milk.
     Response;  The EPA agrees that it would have been desirable
to conduct a more detailed assessment of short-term exposure.
However, the data necessary to conduct a more definitive
assessment, such as plot plans that locate emissions on plant
property,  onsite meteorology data, and site-specific emissions
data, were not available and would have been extremely resource
intensive  to collect.  The same reasons apply to the second part
of the comment  (i.e., insufficient site-specific information).
One can speculate that the air route of exposure is the dominant
exposure route for the organic compounds of interest in this
rulemaking although more work remains to be done in this area.
However, the EPA expects the other routes of exposure to be
important  for dioxin  emissions.  The reason for this is the
tendency for dioxin to partition and accumulate in organic
substances.  The greater the access humans have to contamination
through pathways such as plants, fish, and dairy products, the
higher the exposures  and risks they are subjected to.  However,
dioxin emissions do not appear to make up a significant portion
of total TSDF emissions as discussed in the next comment.
4.2.2 The  EPA Human Exposure Model
     Comment;   Two comments were received regarding the
appropriateness of using the EPA Human Exposure Model  (HEM) to
estimate nationwide cancer incidence.  One commenter  (F-91-CESP-
                               4-30

-------
00064)  states that it is unrealistic to use the HEM for
estimating the magnitude of human exposure for persons living up
to 50 km from an emission source.  This commenter believes that
there are so many variables when attempting to determine exposure
of persons as far as 30 miles from a source as to make the
finding speculative at best and probably quite inaccurate.  A
second commenter (F-91-CESP-00050) states that the use of the HEM
is a source of many uncertainties in the risk assessment.  This
commenter cites specifically the assumption of "uniform chemical
composition" of emissions for the dispersion modeling  (i.e., the
use of a composite unit risk factor), the assumption that the
land surrounding all TSDF is flat, and the nature of
meteorological factors such as winds incorporated in the model.
     Response;  It is the EPA's position that dispersion modeling
is adequate out to 50 km provided that the selected meteorology
from the nearest airport does not change appreciably over the
50-km study region.  Risk estimates are calculated in  a series of
steps, which involve assumptions as well as estimates  of
representative data.  The EPA recognizes, that the assumptions and
procedures used introduce some uncertainty and affect  the
quantitative risk estimates.  It is for these and other reasons
that risk estimates are not viewed as precise indicators of
health risk, but as a tool for relative comparisons of sources
and emission controls.
     At proposal, the use of a composite unit risk factor and the
assumption of flat terrain for dispersion modeling were necessary
because of the  lack of  site-specific information available for
each TSDF location.  As  is discussed in the first response in the
next section of this BID, a facility-specific unit risk was
calculated for use  in the impacts analysis conducted after
proposal.  The  facility-specific unit risk factor better reflects
actual TSDF waste management practices and yields an improved
estimate  of national cancer incidence.  However, because of  the
assumptions that  are  inherent  in an  exposure analysis, the EPA
views the results only  as an  indicator of national cancer
 incidence.   For example, the  estimated cancer  incidence  could be
                               4-31

-------
changed by the incorporation of terrain features in the
estimation of ambient concentrations.  Such a change in the input
to the exposure analysis could raise or lower the estimated
exposures depending on the specific site being addressed.
     Regarding the nature of meteorological factors incorporated
into the HEM, the EPA enters certain meteorological data recorded
at the National Weather Service weather station located nearest
each TSDF location modeled.  At the time of these modeling
inputs, there were such stations located at 314 airports
throughout the United States.  From these data, HEM used
information concerning wind speed and direction and atmospheric
stability.
4.2.3 Maximum Individual Risk Analysis
     Comment:  Three commenters (F-91-CESP-00046, 00050, 00064)
disagree with the approach used by the EPA for "reasonable worst
case" MIR analysis.  One of these commenters (F-91-CESP-00046)
requests that the EPA consider dividing the TSDF industry into
additional subcategories so that a more "reasonable worst case"
risk can be estimated.  Another of the commenters (F-91-CESP-
00064), while acknowledging that it is not the EPA policy,
believes it is more reasonable to use the "most likely estimate"
(MLE) of risk combined with the average of possible expected
exposures in developing a site-specific model.  The third
commenter (F-91-CESP-00050) states that the EPA should select the
TSDF for analysis that creates the highest exposure to
carcinogenic emissions, and claims that this was not done because
inappropriate selection criteria were used.  The commenter states
that the EPA did not select sites with high emissions, the most
carcinogenic emissions, the worst meteorological or geographic
characteristics, or neighboring dwellings closest to the emission
sources.  Also, no attempt was made by the EPA to adjust its
model inputs to conform to a reasonable worst-case scenario.
     Other commenters disagree with assumptions used by the EPA
for "reasonable worst case" MIR analysis.  Four commenters (F-91-
CESP-00014,  00039, 00066, 00069) disagree with the assumption
that the "most exposed individual" resides at the fenceline
                               4-32

-------
rather than using site-specific information.  One commenter
(F-91-CESP-00039) notes that a distance of only 25 meters from
the organic emission source to the nearest resident would occur
only in unusual situations because of zoning constraints and
operating practices of industrial facilities.  This commenter
recommends that the EPA develop a range of exemption thresholds
based on the distance to the nearest resident.  Three commenters
(F-91-CESP-00014, 00066, 00069) disagree with the use of the
dioxin-dominated composite unit risk factor to estimate the
maximum lifetime risk, even though the designated site does not
manage dioxin-containing wastes.  Two commenters  (F-91-CESP-
00066, 00069) disagree with the assumption that anyone could be
exposed to the ambient concentration of a pollutant for every
hour of a 70-year lifetime.
     Response;  The EPA agrees with comments that techniques
other than the one used for the proposed rule can provide more
assurance that a high-risk facility has not been overlooked in
selecting a  facility for the MIR determination if the required
information  and data needed to use these techniques are
available.   Upon obtaining new information  from the TSDR Survey,
GENSUR, and  other sources after proposal, the EPA revised the
approach used to identify potentially high-risk facilities for
the MIR determination  and revised the procedures used to estimate
the risk for those  facilities that are candidate  sites for the
MIR determination.
      For consistency,  it would be ideal  if  the national impacts
model provided  a means of screening all  facilities and targeting
potentially  high-risk  facilities for a more detailed
site-specific  investigation  of risk potential.  At the time the
analyses of  facility risk were prepared  for the proposed rule, it
was not possible to use the  national impacts model in this way
because the  methodology (and data)  for determining
facility-specific  unit risk  factors were not in place, i.e.,  a
composite  unit risk factor was used  for  all facilities.  With the
changes  to the national impacts model resulting from the improved
data base,  this shortcoming  has been eliminated.
                               4-33

-------
     The first step in MIR analysis used for the final rule is a
screening step to identify the potentially high-risk TSDF.  This
screening step is necessary because with over 2,300 TSDF it is
not practical to do in-depth facility risk investigations for
every TSDF location.  The screening step was performed using risk
estimates generated by the national impacts model for all
facilities.  Although improvements have been made to the model
that now permit estimation of a unit cancer risk factor for each
TSDF location (as opposed to using a single composite unit risk
factor for all TSDF locations nationwide), the national impacts
model estimates emissions with the use of certain averaging
assumptions.  Therefore, better estimates of specific TSDF risks
are obtained by using the national impacts model output to
identify those TSDF with a high cancer risk potential and then
performing more detailed analyses on that subset of facilities.
     The revised MIR risk analysis approach involved the
selection of the top 400 facilities  (ordered from the highest to
lowest risk) for more detailed analyses.  Selection of the top
400 facilities is repeated for baseline emissions and emissions
for each of the control options.  This reanalysis is done because
the facilities in the "high-risk" subset after control will
change as the waste concentration action level for controls
changes.
     The second step in the MIR analysis is to recover
facility-specific waste management process and waste composition
data for the selected subsets.  This is done by accessing
information reported in the 1986 National Survey of Hazardous
Waste Generators.   For each facility, the survey booklets list
the waste management processes through which each waste flows and
contain a  list of the constituents of greatest concern either due
to their toxicity or concentration.  The survey booklets also
indicate a concentration range for each of the reported
constituents.  The  recovered data are used to simulate  (model)
the onsite waste management operations and the wastes managed at
each individual TSDF location.
     The third step begins by classifying each of the facility
                               4-34

-------
processes into one of the model unit categories used with the
national impacts model.  For example, alkaline chlorination is
classified as an uncovered treatment tank and an aerated lagoon
or basin is classified as an aerated treatment impoundment.
Using the same emission models  (CHEMDAT7) used for the national
impacts model, but substituting the facility-specific waste
compositions and waste processing sequences, the emissions of
carcinogenic constituents are estimated for each process (unit).
Emissions of individual constituents are estimated by using
emission fractions defined in terms of the set of chemical
surrogates used with the national impacts model.  Each surrogate
is used to represent a range of chemical compound properties for
vapor pressure, Henry's law constants, and biodegradability.  The
model units are described in detail in appendix C to the proposal
BID; the emission models in the document entitled "Hazardous
Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities: Air Emission
Models"  (EPA-450/3-87-026); and the updated emission factors and
chemical surrogates in Docket item F-92-CESA-S00014.  Emissions
after control are calculated by applying control efficiency
factors to uncontrolled emissions.
     The revised risk analysis  also attempts to account for
changes that have occurred at facilities since 1986 in response
to the LDR rules and the minimum technology design and operating
requirements.  Particularly, many facilities have discontinued
managing wastes in surface impoundments by constructing tanks to
replace the impoundments, no longer accepting those wastes from
offsite, or changing their processes to avoid generating the
wastes formerly managed in impoundments.  Contacts with
facilities suggest that about 75 percent of the facilities
formerly managing wastes  in  impoundments have converted to
managing those wastes  in  tanks.  Consequently, risk modeling for
those facilities indicating  impoundments in 1986 has been revised
to assume 75  percent of the waste is now managed in tanks with
only the remaining 25  percent still being managed in
impoundments.  This is an attempt to approximate how TSDF owners
and  operators are responding to the LDR rules without data about
                               4-35

-------
specific facility responses.
     The fourth step in the MIR risk analysis converts the
emissions estimates into downwind concentrations that are used to
generate risk estimates by the EPA's Human Exposure Model.  For
this HEM effort, all emission points are treated as being
collocated in a 10-m2  source.   Latitude and longitude  data for
each TSDF location are used to obtain local or nearest
meteorologic station data for the dispersion model.  Combining
the emission and meteorologic data in calculations, the HEM
estimates annual downwind concentrations of each carcinogen at
various distances from the source.  The point of maximum exposure
is assumed to be 200 m from the source.  Using the concentration
of each carcinogen at 200 m from the source and the unit cancer
risk factor for each, the risks are summed for all carcinogens to
produce an estimate of the facility risk for the MIR analysis.
     After performing these procedures for the top 400 facilities
(indicated by the national impacts model), a new set of risk
estimates is generated.  The risk estimates produced by this more
detailed analysis yield a prioritized listing of facilities from
which the worst facility is selected as the basis for the MIR
impact for baseline and each control option.
     The EPA did not divide TSDF into source subcategories
because there was not a compelling reason to do so.  There would
be a very real lack of site-specific data on emissions no matter
how many source categories were created.  Furthermore, the
emission control devices selected or the regulatory options
available would be the same for all source categories if multiple
source categories were created, so, there is no advantage.
     The computer program of the linearized multistage model can
calculate the maximum likelihood estimate of risk.  The EPA does
not use or encourage the use of maximum likelihood estimates
because the maximum likelihood estimate is extremely sensitive to
changes in the data while upper bound estimates are significantly
more stable.
     The term "fenceline" is an unfortunate one in that it is
                               4-36

-------
sometimes misinterpreted to mean that the EPA is assuming that
people live directly on the plant boundary.  The proper
interpretation of the term is that the EPA uses the plant
boundary or "fenceline" to define where ambient air begins.
People do not have to be shown to actually live at the place
where ambient air begins.  In some cases, the EPA has
specifically looked for locations around an emission source where
people live and then adjusted the risk estimates accordingly.
However, these adjustments can be made when the EPA has good
site-specific information regarding plant boundaries, the
location of emission sources on plant property, source emissions,
and site-specific meteorology.  The concept of deriving a range
of exemption thresholds is not feasible without detailed
site-specific information.
     The EPA no longer uses a single composite cancer unit risk
factor to estimate MIR from exposure to TSDF emissions.  The
cancer potency of dioxin is applied only to those individual TSDF
locations at which wastes containing dioxin were reported to be
managed.
     The EPA has consistently taken the position that the model
and assumptions used to estimate exposure and risk should be
commensurate with the quality and amount of data available.
While the EPA agrees that incorporation of human activity data
would represent an analytical improvement, the increase in
sophistication required to address issues such as determining how
long people are in an area, whether they use air conditioning
and/or sleep with windows open, the air exchange rate of
residences, the residents average and peak breathing rates, etc.,
is not commensurate with the available data, the nature of the
effects evaluated, the underlying uncertainties in estimating
cancer risks, and intended use of the risk assessment results.
Refer to appendix E of the proposal BID for a description of
assumptions, methodologies used, and major uncertainties in the
risk assessment and risk characterization for TSDF.
     The period of time assumed that a person is exposed to the
estimated concentrations remains at 70 years.  The exposure
                               4-37

-------
period used for risk analyses is an issue currently under review
by the EPA.
4.2.4 Noncancer Health Impacts
     Comment;  One commenter (F-91-CESP-00050) disagrees with the
EPA's assessment of noncancer impacts.  According to the
commenter, basing the assessment on the 179 chemicals for which
the EPA could determine "reference doses" assumes that the vast
majority of the emissions are harmless.  The commenter also
submits that nationwide average exposure calculations should have
been performed rather than using modeling calculations on the
same two TSDF sites used to estimate the maximum lifetime cancer
risk.  The commenter notes that less than 40 of the 179 chemicals
with "reference doses" are identified as being emitted from the
two sites.  The commenter provides the following additional
comments on the assessment of noncancer impacts.  The emissions
are modeled, not measured.  The exposures considered are limited
to inhalation exposures, ignoring dermal exposures and other
routes of exposure'to contaminated water, food, and soil.  No
attempt was made to account for the cumulative effects of
simultaneous multiple exposures.  Comparing each chemical
individually to its reference dose is a minimization of the
hazard.  The EPA did not attempt to account for the wide variety
of compositions people are exposed to or the variety of
interactions among the various chemicals.  The analysis fails to
adequately explore the risks of adverse effects that could result
from short-term exposures to relatively high concentrations of
acutely toxic substances.
     Response;  The analysis conducted to assess short-term
effects was  designed to use the most detailed information
available.   The EPA recognized that adequate site-specific
information  did not exist for TSDF in many areas including
magnitude of emissions, compounds emitted, location of emission
points, site-specific meteorology data, and acute health effects
information  for the compounds that could be emitted.  All these
shortcomings severely detract from an  ideal acute effects
analysis.  Use of  nationwide average modeling results are not a
                               4-38

-------
substitute for information needed for specific TSDF.
     The intent of the noncancer effect analysis was to evaluate
alternative emission control strategies for their effectiveness
in mitigating potential acute effects.  The EPA selected TSDF
that had relatively large emissions and sufficient information
for proper characterization of the TSDF for refined emission and
dispersion modeling.  The TSDF selected also contained a variety
of emission sources so that the effectiveness of alternative
control strategies could be evaluated.  Accounting for
interactions among chemicals and quantifying multimedia affects
could not be meaningfully conducted with the limited site-
specific data that were available.  The EPA does not believe that
an acute health effects problem exists at TSDF but does not have
the data to prove whether one does or not.  Compounds that are
emitted from TSDF are seldom released in large masses such as
from the failure of a pressure-relief valve.  TSDF emissions are
better characterized as more of a gradual steady-state phenomenon
without large extremes.
     Ambient monitoring data for TSDF are also very limited, very
expensive to collect, and cannot be used to evaluate the
effectiveness of potential regulatory options.  Monitoring
networks also may be limited by several major problems.  For
example, monitoring methods may not exist for the compounds of
concern or the techniques may not be sensitive enough to measure
the relatively small concentrations that are usually found in
ambient air.  It is also difficult to find the point of maximum
concentration and locate the monitor there.  In addition, it may
be difficult to differentiate between a TSDF's contribution to
the measured value from non-TSDF sources that emit the same
pollutants of concern.

4.3 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
4.3.1 Control Cost Estimates
     Comment;  One commenter  (F-91-CESP-00048) disagrees with the
EPA's cost estimate for container covers.  The commenter states
that dumpster cover costs cannot be extrapolated to rolloff boxes
                               4-39

-------
because the respective sizes and the nature of the covers are
dissimilar.  The commenter states that the capital cost of a lid
on a new rolloff box is 15 times higher than the EPA's dumpster
lid cost estimate.  The cost to retrofit a lid would be
substantially higher because of the installation costs.  Also,
the life expectancy for the fiberglass cover system currently
manufactured for a rolloff box is in the range of 3 to 5 years,
with 3 years being more likely.  In addition, quarterly
maintenance is needed.  The commenter estimates that the annual
cost for one rolloff box is more than 24 times higher than the
EPA's annual control cost for a dumpster.
     Response;  For the impact analysis, the EPA estimated the
cost of applying a cover to a bin-type container with a capacity
of 3 m3 (commonly referred to as a "dumpster").   The EPA did not
estimate the cost of applying a cover to the larger capacity bin-
type containers  (commonly referred to as "roll-off boxes").
Standard size capacity roll-off boxes used in the TSDF industry
have capacities ranging from 15 to 30 m3.   Based on the
commenter's estimates, the capital cost for a roll-off box cover
is approximately  15 times greater than that for a dumpster cover,
and the annual cost is approximately 24 times greater than the
cost for a dumpster.  Considering that roll-off boxes can hold
5 to 10 times more waste than a dumpster, the EPA concludes that
the higher costs  of covers for  roll-off boxes still justify
controlling emission  from these sources.
     It should be noted that in certain situations, tarpaulin
covers on  roll-off boxes will meet the air emission control
requirements  of  the subpart  CC  standards.  Based on information
received since proposal,  the EPA  has concluded  that use  of  a
tarpaulin  for a  roll-off  box cover satisfies the basic  intent  of
SS  264.1086(c) and  265.1087(c)  of the rule  (i.e., the  requirement
that container covers be  maintained  in a closed, sealed  position)
provided that specific operating  conditions  are met, as  described
in  section 6.2.2 of this  BID.   The use of a  tarpaulin  cover will
                                4-40

-------
be considerably less expensive than the use of a fiberglass cover
system on a roll-off box.

     Comment;  One commenter (F-91-CESP-00048) disagrees with the
EPA's cost estimate for controlling a waste fixation pit.  The
commenter states that the cost is underestimated by a factor of
10 to 20 because the EPA's equipment cost estimates are low and
do not include costs for necessary extensive containment and
additional silos (e.g., for reagents) or costs for permitting.
The commenter also states that the nature of the wastes that are
treated with waste fixation today no longer resemble the high
water content of the waste (common before LDR) that the EPA used
as the basis for its control cost estimates.
     Response;  The EPA reviewed the cost estimates prepared at
proposal for applying controls to an open waste fixation pit.
The component cost estimates for the mechanical mixer, fabric
filter, and carbon adsorber are reasonable considering the size
of the model unit upon which the costs are based.  The EPA cost
estimate does not include costs for the silos needed to store the
binder materials (e.g.,  lime), the ancillary material handling
equipment necessary to transfer the binder to the mechanical
mixer, or the containment structure to hold the treated waste
during curing.  By not including costs for this equipment, the
EPA agrees that the proposal cost estimate understates the cost
of converting an open waste fixation pit to a mechanical mixer
system that  complies with the  subpart CC standards.
     The commenter did not provide sufficient information for the
EPA to evaluate the commenter's cost estimate to replace an open
pit with a mechanical mixing waste fixation system.  However,
even accepting the commenter's statement that the cost of a
mechanical mixing waste  fixation system is an order-of-magnitude
higher than  the EPA's proposal estimate, the  EPA believes that
this cost  is reasonable  given  TSDF owners and operators  are
already choosing to  incur the  cost of  installing mechanical
mixing waste fixation  systems  for reasons other than to  comply
with this  rulemaking.
                               4-41

-------
     Data from the TSDR Survey and visits of the EPA
representatives to TSDF sites where waste fixation is conducted
indicate that the trend in the TSDF industry is to conduct waste
fixation in units that are much less expensive to control than
open pits (i.e., mechanical mixing units, tanks, and containers).
The TSDR Survey indicates that approximately 75 percent of the
total waste fixated in 1986 was mixed in mechanical mixers,
tanks, and containers.  This commenter has installed mechanical
mixer waste fixation systems at four TSDF sites with plans for
similar systems at additional sites.

     Comment;  One coramenter (F-91-CESP-00049) states that the
covers proposed for surface impoundments could not be installed
feasibly over the forest products industry's surface impoundments
if controls are required in the future because the wastes they
handle are either listed or exhibit a hazardous waste
characteristic and contain volatile organics above the proposed
regulatory threshold.  The commenter claims that the cost for
air-supported structures for large surface impoundments is
prohibitively expensive, ranging from $5 to $10/ft2 of  ground
surface area covered.  Such an enclosure would cost between
$21 million and $43 million for a 100-acre surface impoundment,
the average size of a paper industry surface impoundment.  In
addition, the useful life of an air-supported structure is only
12 to 20 years because of photodegradation of the PVC from which
these structures are made.
     Response;  The cost estimate used by the EPA for the impact
analysis for installing an air-supported structure on a surface
impoundment corresponds to a cost of approximately $6/ft2 of
ground surface area covered.  This cost value is within the range
of cost values stated by the commenter.  Also, this cost value is
less than the cost of a double lining on a surface impoundment,
which is already required by existing RCRA regulations.
Furthermore, for determining the annual cost of using an air-
supported structure to control surface impoundment emissions, the
                               4-42

-------
EPA assumed a service life of 10 years for the air-supported
structure.  This period is shorter than the 12- to 20-year
service life cited by the commenter.  Using a service life of
12 years or more for the cost estimate would result in an annual
cost for using an air-supported structure lower than the cost
used by the EPA for the impact analysis.
     The EPA's control cost estimate for an air-supported
structure is based on a surface impoundment size much smaller
than 100 acres.  In fact, the EPA does not expect that any TSDF
owner or operator will use an air-supported structure on a
surface impoundment of several acres or larger to comply with the
subpart CC standards.  Most large surface impoundments that will
continue to be used at TSDF for hazardous waste management
contain wastewaters.  For example, as stated by the commenter,
the forest products industry's surface impoundments handle
process wastewaters that are not RCRA waste streams and would not
be covered by the subpart CC standards.  Even if the organic
content of a listed or characteristic wastewater stream is
sufficiently high to require controls, the EPA expects that the
TSDF owner or operator would choose a less expensive approach to
complying with the standard, such as pretreating the waste to
remove or destroy the organics in the waste in accordance with
one of the sets of general requirements specified in the
standard.

     Comment;  Two comments were received regarding costs for
installing tank controls.  One commenter  (F-91-CESP-00065) states
that the  actual cost for  installation of an internal floating
roof in a 19-foot diameter tank is  twice the EPA's cost estimate.
A second  commenter  (F-91-CESP-00063) states that the costs used
for retrofitting individual tanks with cover/controls to comply
with the  proposed requirements appear to be the right order-of-
magnitude.
     Response;  The  EPA  reviewed the cost estimates for
installing covers on tanks presented in appendix H of the
proposal  BID.   The  EPA did not  find or  receive any new
                               4-43

-------
information from commenters that justifies changing the tank
control cost factors used for the national impacts analysis.

     Comment;  One commenter (F-91-CESP-00065) states that the
EPA has not addressed the commercial availability or costs of
containers that will satisfy the requirements of the proposed
regulations.  The commenter requests that consideration be given
to the compatibility of the requirement for a "gasketed and
latched11 lid with the use of standard DOT-specification bunged
drums.
     Response;  For the final rule, the EPA is addressing the use
of DOT-specification drums to comply with the container control
requirements (refer to the discussion presented in section 6.6 of
this document).  The final rule allows waste to be placed in
drums meeting DOT specifications without any additional
equipment.  Drums meeting DOT specifications are widely available
from drum suppliers.  Since these drums are already required
under existing DOT regulations for the transport of hazardous
waste, the EPA expects that in most cases there is no additional
cost of using the drums attributable to complying with the
subpart CC standards.

4.3.2 Regulatory Impact Analysis  (RIA)
     Comment;  One commenter  (F-91-CESP-00065) states that the
RIA is flawed for a variety of reasons as summarized below.   (1)
The requirements of the proposed rules are inconsistent with the
control requirements analyzed in the RIA.  The RIA provides only
cost/benefit support for regulating organic emissions from TSDF
units, based on the concentration  in the waste entering the
units.  Costs of implementing the  rule as proposed are
underestimated since they do not consider the costs of all
requirements such as cost of a closed system  from the point of
generation  to the regulated units  and cost of handling spent
carbon from a carbon adsorption system.   (2)  The RIA uses
outdated  data concerning hazardous waste generation and
management  practices.  The commenter suggests that, at a minimum,
                               4-44

-------
the data in the model should be checked against easily accessible
data bases such as the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI).  (3) The
scope of the RIA is incomplete.  The RIA should address
regulatory alternatives that would employ a different testing
method, a different source category or a compound-specific
approach, and one simply involving regulation of open tanks.
(4) The regulation of landfills was not considered, although
these units are specifically identified in Section 3004(n).  (5)
The EPA has not performed a true cost/benefit analysis by
defining the cost of the rule as a percentage of the cost of
emission reduction.  (6) The impacts of the rule requirements on
storage-only facilities were excluded from the analysis.
However, because tanks and containers would be the units most
typically used at storage-only facilities, excluding these
facilities from the RIA is a significant oversight.
     Response;  The control costs discussed for the affected
facilities described in chapter 7 of the proposal BID are the
same costs that were used in the preparation of the RIA.  It is
true that the cost information in both documents does not include
the costs of a closed system from the point of generation to the
regulated units.  In response to comments, the EPA reevaluated
the closed-system transfer requirement.  Liquid wastes are
generally piped from the point of generation to the first storage
or treatment unit and then piped between waste management units.
The piping will satisfy the requirement for closed transfer so
that in many cases no additional costs will be incurred.  If the
cost of closed transfer represents a significant cost in a
particular situation, the owner or operator has the option of
treating the waste to lower the organic concentration.
Therefore, no additional costs have been added to the impacts
analysis for closed-waste transfer systems.  With respect to the
cost of handling spent carbon, the cost of handling spent carbon
has been included  in the costs of operating and maintaining
carbon adsorption  systems.
     Regarding the use of outdated data concerning hazardous
waste  generation and management practices, as is described in
                               4-45

-------
detail in response to comments in section 4.1.1, the EPA used the
best TSDF waste quantity, waste characteristic, and waste
management practice data available to the Agency for the analysis
of national impacts supporting the final rulemaking.  The major
sources of data are the results from comprehensive nationwide
surveys of hazardous waste generators and TSDF, .owners and
operators that the EPA conducted in 1987.  These data are the
most recent comprehensive nationwide TSDF waste data consistently
available.
     The RIA addresses the control options that served as the
basis for the proposed standards.  As described in the proposal
preamble, hundreds of possible control options can be identified
for various combinations of hazardous wastes and emission control
levels.  However, performing an impact analysis for every
possible control option regardless of the control option's
potential to protect human health and the environment would be
very time-consuming and would require extensive expenditure of
the EPA resources.  Therefore, the EPA first conducted a
screening evaluation to narrow the number of control options for
the impact analysis.  This evaluation is available  in the docket.
The evaluation results were used to define a subset of
appropriate control options from which the basis for the proposed
standards could be selected.
     With respect to the regulation of landfills under section
3004(n), TSDF emission source selection  is discussed in chapter 5
of this BID.
      In preparing the regulatory  impact  analysis, the EPA has
complied with the Executive Order  12866  and the Agency guidelines
for performing  a benefit-cost analysis of the  proposed rule, as
well  as the Regulatory Flexibility Act.  The EPA  is required to
prepare an  incremental analysis  of the benefits and costs for the
proposed  rule.  The  EPA  has  complied with the  Executive Order
requirements by identifying  the  dominant cost-effective control
options  for health  improvements  in terms of reduction of volatile
organic compound  emissions, which are precursors  to ozone,  and
reduction of mortality  risk in terms  of  exposure  to potentially
                               4-46

-------
toxic chemicals emitted by the source category.  For the
Regulatory Flexibility Act, the EPA prepared a screening analysis
of the costs of the rule as a percent of sales for various
industrial categories impacted by the rule.  This was done to
screen potential adverse impacts for identifying significant
adverse impacts on small entities.  The commenter is apparently
confusing the methodological approach, which was to identify the
cost of emission reduction in terms of the cost of waste disposal
services, with the benefit-cost analysis of health improvements
associated with the proposed rule.
     It is true that the data base used in the evaluation of
nationwide impacts of the final standards includes only permitted
facilities.  Accumulation of wastes for a period less than
90 days does not require a permit; thus, a facility that only
stores hazardous wastes for less than 90 days would not be
included in the RIA if no other waste management activities are
performed onsite.  However, as is described in response to
comments in section 4.1.1, based on the best available nationwide
survey waste quantity data, over two-thirds of the wastes in 90-
day accumulation tanks and containers is estimated to be managed
at TSDF.  Therefore, excluding storage-only facilities from the
RIA is not a significant oversight.  Furthermore, the results of
the economic impact model in the RIA indicate that the effects of
regulation on small entities are minimal and the impacts are
insignificant.  These results should apply as well to small
storage-only facilities.

     Comment;  Two commenters (F-91-CESP-00063, 00069) state that
the RIA costs for the proposed rule are underestimated because
the impacts do not include facilities impacted by the toxicity
characteristic waste rules.  The commenters believe that this
number of  facilities is significant because some TC wastes are
wastewaters stored in non-NPDES  (National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System) tanks and some of these tanks will have to be
fitted with covers and controls under the proposed rule.
     Response;  As previously discussed in this chapter, the EPA
                               4-47

-------
believes that the nationwide impacts estimates are not
significantly understated by not including the TC wastes in the
waste data base.  Most of the TC wastes are wastewaters managed
in tanks exempted under RCRA from 40 CFR parts 264 and 265 and,
thus, the subpart CC standards do not apply.  Although there are
some benefits and costs associated with applying the subpart CC
standards to the TC wastes in RCRA-permitted units, the quantity
of these wastes is relatively small.  Thus, the magnitudes of the
benefits and costs associated with controlling organic-containing
TC wastes do not appreciably increase the total nationwide
organic, health, and cost impact values calculated by the
national impacts model.

     Comment;  Four commenters  (F-91-CESP-00047, 00053, 00063,
00065) question whether the EPA included costs associated with
the rule monitoring, inspection, testing, and recordkeeping
requirements in the RIA.  One commenter  (F-91-CESP-00053)
estimates that the nationwide costs to TSDF owners and operators
and generators to comply with the proposed monitoring,
inspection, and recordkeeping requirements for containers alone
are very substantial, and the EPA must consider these costs in
its analysis.
     Response;  The costs associated with the rule monitoring,
inspection, testing, and recordkeeping requirements were
estimated and submitted to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.,
in an information collection request  (ICR No. 1593.01).  Copies
of the ICR document were made available to the public at proposal
and the EPA specifically requested comment on the burden
estimates presented in the document  (56 FR 33541).  No comments
were received on the ICR document.
     The average information collection burden for the first
3 years after promulgation is 64  labor hours and ah annual cost
of $2,300 per facility.  This is  insignificant compared to the
costs of installing, operating, and maintaining the control
equipment required by the standards.
                               4-48

-------
4.4 REVISED IMPACTS ANALYSIS
     Comment;   Two comroenters (F-91-CESP-00033, 00066) request
that the EPA provide another opportunity for public comment on
the revised national impacts analysis before promulgation of the
final rules.
     Response;  Following proposal of the rule in the
Federal Register (56 FR 33491, July 22, 1991), the EPA revised
the impact analysis used for its final determination regarding
the rulemaking.  The EPA provided an opportunity for public
comment on the additional TSDF industry data used for the impact
modeling revisions and preliminary results using the revised
national impact models.  This additional information was listed
in a Federal Register Notice of Data Availability (NDA) (57 FR
43171, September 18, 1992).  Copies of the information were made
available for public inspection at the EPA RCRA Docket Office.  A
30-day comment period from September 18, 1992 to October 19, 1992
was provided to accept comments from the public on the additional
data.  The EPA received one comment letter on the revised impact
analysis (F-92-CESA-00001).
     The commenter on the NDA supports the EPA's use of the
updated waste data base (as described in section 4.1.1 of this
document) for the national impacts analysis.  In addition, the
commenter supports the EPA's changes to the emission models for
biological treatment processes  (as described in section 4.1.3 of
this document).  Specifically, the commenter states that the
following revisions made by the EPA are appropriate and improve
the scientific basis of the emission estimates: (1) using the
Monod model for biological kinetics in CHEMDAT7 models; (2)
reducing the  surrogate chemical concentrations in aqueous wastes
to more realistic concentrations  (100 mg/L); and  (3) making
changes to the assumed biomass concentration present  in aerated
treatment units.
     The commenter disagreed with several aspects of the revised
impact analysis.  These comments and the EPA's response are
presented below.
                               4-49

-------
     Comment;  The commenter on the NDA (F-92-CESA-00001) is
concerned that the revised national impacts analysis still
overestimates organic emissions from TSDF surface impoundments.
The commenter agrees with the EPA's general LDR assumption that
surface impoundments at many TSDF are being replaced with tanks
to comply with the LDR and other regulations.  However, the
commenter believes that the EPA's assumption that 75 percent of
the total waste quantity reported in the waste data base to be
managed in TSDF surface impoundments is now managed in tanks is
conservative  (i.e., too low).  The commenter states that
continuing to operate a surface impoundment in accordance with
RCRA requirements is more costly than replacement with a tank,
and therefore a higher percentage of waste converted from surface
impoundment to tank management would be more indicative of
current TSDF waste management practices.  The commenter did not
suggest a specific percentage value to be used in place of the
75 percent value used by the EPA.
     Responset  For the national impacts analysis, the EPA
believes that 75 percent is a reasonable assumption for the
amount of waste that will be converted from management in a
surface impoundment to management in a tank.  As discussed in
section 4.1.4 of this document, the EPA selected the 75 percent
value based on information obtained by the EPA from a telephone
survey of owners and operators of large TSDF and from TSDF site
visits as well as information provided to the EPA by several TSDF
owners and operator in comments on the proposed rule.  The EPA
did not find  nor receive any additional information from the
commenter that justifies increasing the percentage of waste
converted from management in a surface impoundment to management
in a tank.

     Comment;  The commenter on the NDA  (F-92-CESA-00001) agrees
with the EPA's revised approach in the impact analysis of using
site-specific cancer risk factors to estimate cancer risk due to
exposure to  TSDF emissions.  However, the commenter is concerned
that the EPA's estimates of MIR are still unrealistic and should
                               4-50

-------
not be used as a basis for selecting standards for this
rulemaking.  The commenter states that the MIR analysis uses some
implausible assumptions (e.g., assuming exposure of the
individual for 70 years) and should be conducted in accordance
with the EPA's own Exposure Assessment Guidelines.  Furthermore,
the commenter does not believe that any MIR estimate is necessary
to assess the need for and effectiveness of the rules.
     Response;  The cancer risk impact analysis for this
rulemaking was conducted in accordance with the EPA's Exposure
Assessment Guidelines.  With regard to the assumptions used in
the impact analysis, specifically the 70 year lifetime
assumption, the EPA believes 70 years to be conservative, but
plausible.  The EPA did however conduct a second risk assessment
assuming a 33 year exposure scenario  (95 percentile).  Using this
assumption reduced risk estimates by one-half, but did not change
the decision to control these facilities, nor the choice of
control options.  Furthermore, the risk assessment conducted here
was for the purpose of determining the relative differences in
risk estimates between the control options.  For this
application, the exposure scenario would not matter; the results,
i.e., the relative differences in risk estimates, would not
change.
     The EPA holds that the assumptions used to determine the MIR
are, as with the 70 year exposure scenario, conservative, but
plausible, and result in a reasonable overall estimate of risk.
In addition, while the  EPA acknowledges the uncertainties
associated with the MIR, such uncertainties cancel out when the
risk assessment is used to discern relative risk, as  in this
case.  Thus, the EPA believes that the use of the MIR is an
appropriate tool to apply in the impact analysis  for this
rulemaking to both estimate risk and  to discern differences
between risk estimates  associated with the various control
options.
                               4-51

-------

-------
                  5.0  CONTROL OPTION  DEVELOPMENT
5.1 TSDF EMISSION SOURCE SELECTION                        |
5.1.1 Containers                                          ;
     Comment:  Commenters (F-91-CESP-00010, 00041, 00043, 00053,
00054, 00066) disagree with the EPA's decision to require air
emission controls for containers under the subpart CC rulemaking.
One group of comments argues that the organic emission potential
from TSDF containers does not warrant the application of
additional controls beyond those already required by existing
RCRA standards.  A second group of comments contends that TSDF
containers should not be included in this rulemaking because the
EPA analysis does not show organic emissions from TSDF containers
to be a significant emission source warranting controls.
     Response;  The EPA maintains that the management of organic-
containing wastes in containers at TSDF is a potentially  j
significant source of organic emissions that is not adequately
regulated by existing standards.  Control requirements for
containers under the subpart CC standards are needed to:
(1) ensure that containers used for storage of organic-containing
waste use covers effective for organic emission control;
(2) control organic emissions from treatment of organic-
containing wastes in containers by waste fixation and other
processes; and  (3) prevent circumvention of the containment and
control strategy that serves as a key component of the integrated
approach to  implementing RCRA section 3004(n).
     Containers are defined under RCRA in 40 CFR 260.10 to| be any
portable device in which a material is stored, transported,
treated, disposed of, or otherwise handled.  Examples of

                               5-1

-------
containers commonly used for managing hazardous waste include
drums and dumpsters.  Containers typically are used at many TSDF
to accumulate and store waste.  In addition, waste fixation and
other treatment processes at some TSDF are conducted directly in
open containers such as drums and bins.
     The EPA disagrees with the commenters' conclusion that
existing regulations are sufficient to control organic emissions
from containers used to manage hazardous waste at TSDF.  Existing
RCRA regulations under 40 CFR 264.173 do require containers used
to store hazardous waste at TSDF to be closed except when
necessary to add or remove waste.  However, these requirements do
not adequately address the EPA's concern regarding the containers
as an air emission source.  The existing requirement for closed
containers during storage does not specify that container covers
be vapor-tight.  A container cover used to meet the requirement
of a closed container may still allow leakage of organic vapors
from the container to the atmosphere.  Furthermore, no RCRA
requirements exist that address organic emissions produced by
other container-related waste management operations such as
hazardous waste transfer and waste treatment in open containers.
     The EPA also disagrees with the commenters' conclusion that
managing organic-containing wastes in containers is not a
significant source of organic air emissions.  The baseline
analysis to estimate nationwide TSDF organic emissions by waste
management category is not the only factor that the EPA
considered in assessing the organic emission potential of
containers.  As noted by commenters, the container category
emission estimate at proposal for the baseline analysis used
emission factors based on spillage of wastes from drums, modeling
larger bin-type containers as open dumps, and splash loading of
containers.  Since proposal, the EPA reviewed information
available on container emissions but found no new information
that justifies revising the container emission factors used for
the baseline analysis.  The revised nationwide baseline emissions
from storage of waste in TSDF containers is estimated to be
approximately 5,000 Mg/yr.
                               5-2

-------
     The baseline nationwide emission estimate for containers
does not include organic emissions from waste treatment in
containers.  The baseline analysis does estimate total organic
emissions from waste fixation operations in all types of waste
management units to be approximately 22,000 Mg/yr.  In response
to the EPA nationwide surveys, TSDF owners and operators reported
using containers for waste fixation of over 50 percent of the
total 660,000 Mg of waste fixated at TSDF in 1986.  Assuming the
distribution of organic emissions by waste fixation source are
directly proportional to the quantity of waste fixated by source,
then approximately 11,000 Mg/yr of the baseline emission estimate
can be attributed to result from waste fixation in containers.
Information obtained by the EPA representatives during site
visits to TSDF conducting waste fixation indicates that use of
containers for waste fixation continues to be a common industry
practice.  Thus, treatment of hazardous waste in containers is a
large source of organic emissions that is not regulated by the
existing RCRA regulations.
     The air emission control requirements for the subpart CC
standards are based on applying a containment and control
strategy to all TSDF tanks, surface impoundments, and containers
containing organic wastes from generation of the waste through
treatment of the waste to remove or destroy the organics in the
waste.  Requiring control of only TSDF tanks and surface
impoundments but not containers creates the opportunity to
greatly expand an already significant organic emission source if
large quantities of hazardous waste currently stored or treated
in tanks required to use air emission controls under subpart CC
standards are transferred to containers not using air emission
controls for the management of wastes.  This would allow organics
in the hazardous waste managed in uncontrolled containers to
escape to the atmosphere prior to treatment and thus reduce the
effectiveness of the containment and control approach.
5.1.2 Land Disposal Units
     Comment;  Comments were received on the proposed rule both
supporting and opposing the EPA's decision not to regulate TSDF
                               5-3

-------
wastepiles, landfills, and land treatment units under the
subpart CC standards.  Two of the commenters (F-91-CESP-00060,
00078) support the EPA's decision based on the premise that the
EPA will complete promulgation of these LDR treatment standards
in a timely manner.  Other commenters (F-91-CESP-00019, 00050)
disagree with the EPA's decision based on their opinion that the
EPA will not complete promulgation of the necessary LDR treatment
standards in a timely manner and that the EPA did not consider
all hazardous wastes categories in its analysis of the need for
air emission controls at land disposal facilities.
     Response;  The RCRA LDR treatment standards under 40 CFR
part 268 require TSDF owners and operators to treat hazardous
waste to reduce the toxicity or mobility of specific constituents
in the waste before the TSDF owner or operator can place the
waste in a land treatment unit, landfill, wastepile, or other
land disposal unit.  These pretreatment requirements are phased
in on a statutorily-prescribed schedule.
     To select the TSDF waste management units for control by the
proposed standards, the EPA estimated organic emissions for
different categories of waste management units.  At the time that
the proposed rule was being developed, LDR treatment standards
for many waste categories had not yet been promulgated.  Also,
because the LDR treatment standards are generally performance
standards, a TSDF owner or operator often can use one of several
treatment processes to comply with the standards.  Therefore, it
was necessary for the EPA to make certain assumptions regarding
how TSDF owners and operators would respond to the LDR standards.
To estimate the impacts of the LDR on emissions from TSDF land
treatment units, landfills, and wastepiles, it was assumed that
all organic liquid, sludge, and slurry wastes that had been in
land disposal units would be incinerated.  Based on this
analysis, the EPA concluded that additional requirements to
control organic emissions from land disposal units should not be
proposed as part of the subpart CC standards.  However, the EPA
stated in the preamble to the proposed rule that, as additional
LDR standards are promulgated and the treatment approaches TSDF
                               5-4

-------
owners and operators are using to comply with these standards can
be better assessed, the EPA would review its decision and, if
necessary, develop additional air emission standards for land
disposal units (refer to 56 FR 33505).
     The EPA disagrees that promulgation of the necessary LDR
treatment standards is not being accomplished in a timely manner.
The EPA has promulgated LDR standards for all hazardous waste
categories identified or listed under RCRA section 3001 as of
November 8, 1984.  The EPA currently is developing LDR standards
for the additional wastes that have been identified as hazardous
as a result of the toxicity characteristic revisions, which
became effective September 25, 1990.  These final rules will be
promulgated by the end of 1994.  The EPA estimates approximately
0.8 million to 1 million Mg/yr of these new wastes to be
nonliquid wastes such as slurries and sludges that potentially
could be land disposed.
     The EPA reviewed its decision not to regulate land disposal
units as part of the subpart CC standards with respect to the
current treatment approaches TSDF owners and operators are
adopting to comply with the LDR standards.  The EPA expects that
many hazardous wastes ultimately placed in land disposal units
will be treated to comply with the LDR treatment standards by
first treating the wastes using processes such as incineration or
steam stripping, which are very effective in removing or
destroying organics in the waste.  However, some TSDF owners and
operators are choosing to treat these types of wastes using
solvent extraction processes to comply with the LDR standards.

5.2 EMISSION CONTROL STRATEGY SELECTION
     Comment;  One commenter  (F-91-CESP-00050) disagrees with the
EPA's selection of a containment/control approach instead of a
pretreatment approach as the basis for selection of emission
controls  required by subpart CC standards for the following
reasons:   (1) the EPA's reliance on  the LDR and rules developed
under other statutes to ensure proper treatment of the TSDF
hazardous waste streams cannot be justified as a matter of law;
                               5-5

-------
(2) a containment/control approach is contrary to RCRA paragraphs
1002(b)(6) and (7), which express a preference for waste
treatment over disposal; (3) exemptions to LDR may allow certain
wastes to be disposed of in waste management units or discharged
to treatment systems for which air emission control programs have
not been fully developed; and  (4) a containment/control approach
is contrary to the control strategies of pretreatment and removal
recommended by the EPA for control of volatile organic compound
emissions from industrial wastewater facilities treating wastes
from TSDF (e.g., as described  in "Industrial Wastewater Volatile
Organic Compound Emissions —  Background Information for
BACT/LAER Determinations," EPA-450-004, January 1990).
     Response;  The EPA concluded that the best approach to
controlling organic emissions  from TSDF waste management units
pursuant to RCRA subtitle C permitting is to base the standards
on a containment/control approach that can be used at all TSDF
and encourage treatment of the waste near the point where the
waste  is generated at those TSDF where it is practical and
efficient to do so.  Adopting  this approach for the subpart CC
standards is legal under RCRA  and is consistent with other EPA
air programs.
     The EPA disagrees with the commenter's assertion that in
establishing these RCRA air standards it is illegal for the EPA
to consider the impact of rules promulgated or currently being
developed under RCRA or other  statutory authorities such as the
Clean  Air Act.  The containment/control approach selected for the
subpart CC standards is consistent with both the general and
specific  legislative directives of RCRA sections 1003(b)(6) and
3004(n).  The EPA  developed the subpart CC standards as one part
of an  integrated program to controlling air emissions from TSDF.
These  standards are intended to control organic air emissions
from TSDF sources  (and 90-day  generator tanks and containers) not
already effectively controlled by existing RCRA standards.
Certain TSDF organic sources are exempted from RCRA permitting;
thus the  present regulation does not apply to these sources.  To
control organic emissions  from these sources, the EPA is choosing
                               5-6
          	i it

-------
to develop standards under the authority of the Clean Air Act
that complement the RCRA standards, or to do further rulemaking
under RCRA section 3004(n).  Furthermore, the subpart CC
standards do not indicate a preference by the EPA for disposal
over waste treatment.  The containment/control approach, as
applied to the subpart CC standards, involves the application of
covers and other emission controls to individual TSDF tanks,
surface impoundments, and containers managing hazardous wastes
with significant organic emission potential from the point where
the waste is generated through the point where the waste is
treated to remove or destroy the organics in the waste.  The
wastes obviously must also still meet LDR standards before they
are land disposed.
     The EPA disagrees that a containment/control approach is
contrary to other EPA air programs for controlling organic
emissions.  The document referred to by the commenter addresses
the control of volatile organic compound emissions from
industrial wastewater treatment facilities.  Not all hazardous
wastes are wastewaters; many wastes handled at TSDF are sludges,
slurries, organic liquids, and solids.
     The subpart CC standards do not prohibit a TSDF owner or
operator from choosing to treat wastes to comply with the rule
(for example, steam stripping an aqueous hazardous waste to
remove organics).  While the rule does not designate specific
treatment requirements, the rule does effectively encourage
treatment near the beginning of the waste management sequence.
Under the subpart CC standards, a TSDF owner or operator may
elect to treat a waste stream to reduce the organic concentration
of the waste in accordance with the general requirements for
treated hazardous waste specified in the standards and thus avoid
the requirement and cost of using emission controls on
subsequent, downstream waste management units handling that waste
stream.  Thus, the EPA expects that, as.a result of economic
considerations, many TSDF owners and operators will use treatment
of the waste near the point where the waste is generated as a
means to comply with the subpart CC standards.  In particular,
                               5-7

-------
the Agency expects that operators of impoundments would choose to
pretreat (or segregate) rather than install control devices on
the impoundment.

     Comment;  One commenter  (F-91-CESP-00004) suggests that the
EPA use an emission control strategy based on establishing
ambient air quality standards.  Under the commenter's approach,
if periodic air monitoring performed by the TSDF owner or
operator determines that facility emissions result in ambient air
concentrations around the facility in excess of the ambient air
quality standards, then the TSDF owner or operator would apply
the engineering or administrative controls best suited to the
site.
     Response:  Determining the need to apply emission controls
to a particular TSDF tank, surface impoundment, or container
using ambient standards is not practical.  An ambient standards
approach would not be enforceable by the EPA and would create
uncertainty for TSDF owners and operators as to which TSDF waste
management units  require controls to comply with the rule.
Therefore, the EPA concluded  that an ambient standards approach
is not appropriate for this rulemaking.
     Ambient air  monitoring measures the concentration of a
particular air pollutant at a specific receptor site that is
representative of the  cumulative impacts from all neighboring
sources emitting  that  specific air pollutant.  Thus, the
usefulness of ambient  air monitoring data is limited for
evaluating air quality impacts from a specific source especially
when additional emission sources are present at the facility or
at adjacent  facilities.  If the EPA established ambient standards
and the monitoring showed that the standards were exceeded around
a particular TSDF, the EPA enforcement personnel could not
conclusively prove that the sources of air emissions resulting in
the standard being exceeded are the TSDF tanks, surface
impoundments, and containers  to which the rule applies.  The
emission  source could  be RCRA permit-exempt units at the TSDF
and, thus,  not  covered by the requirements of this rule.
                                5-8

-------
Similarly, the emissions may not even be released from the TSDF
but instead from other plants or facilities in the vicinity.
     Also, when ambient monitoring is used to determine
"worst-case" or maximum impact values, it is difficult with
limited data to ensure that the values are the most conservative.
The reason for this is that ambient concentrations are generally
highly variable in space and time.  Relying on a sampling of
single-point measurements increases the chance that the maximum
concentration will be missed altogether.  In addition, the
commenter is not clear as to what pollutants would be monitored
to afford adequate protection of human health and the
environment.  It would be very expensive and burdensome to
monitor several points around a facility for several pollutants.
Monitoring the ozone concentration is not feasible because of the
time lag between when organic ozone precursor compounds are
released and ambient ozone is formed.

5.3 ACTION LEVEL FORMAT SELECTION
5.3.1 Emission Rate Action Level
     Comment;  Seven commenters (F-91-CESP-00012, 00028, 00036,
00038, 00046, 00069, 00078) request that the rule address the
need to use organic emission controls on a particular TSDF tank,
surface impoundment, or container by establishing an action level
based on emissions rates  (i.e., deminimis emission rate).  Some
commenters request that an emission rate action level replace the
proposed waste volatile organic concentration action level.
Other commenters suggest an emission rate action level should be
used in conjunction with the waste volatile organic concentration
action level.  The commenters disagree with the EPA's conclusion
that this approach would require extensive time and resource
commitments on the part of the EPA.  Reasons cited by the
commenters for using an emission rate action level include:  (1)
it would allow the use of data that are directly related to the
actual release of organic emissions;  (2) actual emission rates
would not exceed risk assessment health-based limits; (3) it  •
would reduce facility worker exposure during waste sampling; and
                               5-9

-------
(4) it would provide TSDF operators with more options to achieve
regulatory compliance.
     Response;  For the proposed subpart CC standards, the EPA
considered but rejected using an emission rate format for the
action level.  Upon consideration of the comments, the EPA
disagrees with the commenters and maintains that an emission rate
action level is not appropriate for the subpart CC standards.
     An emission rate action level would establish the need to
control a particular TSDF tank, surface impoundment, or container
based on a quantity of organics emitted from the unit over time
(e.g., kilograms of organics per hour, megagrams of organics per
year).  The EPA acknowledges that an emission rate format may be
suitable for those organic emission sources where the pollutant
gas stream is emitted from a single point such as the exhaust
stack from a boiler or the vent stack from a chemical process
unit.  An emission rate format was selected by the EPA for the
RCRA air standards for TSDF treatment unit process vents under
subpart AA in 40 CFR parts 264 and 265 because emission rates
from these enclosed point sources can be determined with a
relatively high degree of accuracy using direct measurement of
emissions in the exhaust gas stream exiting a vent.
       The subpart CC standards regulate organic emissions from
TSDF tanks, surface impoundments, and containers.  Many of these
units are open sources.  Emissions from open area sources are
very difficult to measure accurately because the entire waste
surface is open to the atmosphere and the organic emissions occur
across large areas.  To measure the actual quantity of emissions
from the unit, a vapor-tight enclosure would need to be erected
temporarily over the entire TSDF unit's exposed waste surface to
capture all organic emissions.  Thus, actual direct measurement
of the organic emissions from an uncovered TSDF unit would be an
impractical and expensive means for a TSDF owner or operator to
use periodically for determining if a unit's emissions are below
a  specific action  level.
     Instead  of measuring the actual organic emission rate, a
TSDF owner or operator could estimate the emission rate for a
                               5-10

-------
TSDF unit by using theoretical or empirical emission models or by
simulating the unit operation (e.g., use an emission flux
chamber).  However, using an estimation method would not provide
as accurate results for a specific TSDF unit as would be achieved
by actual direct measurement of the organic emissions from the
unit.  Furthermore, to use an estimation method for implementing
standards for a specific TSDF unit would require extensive and
detailed knowledge about the physical and chemical properties of
the waste managed in the TSDF unit, the TSDF unit operating
practices, and, in some cases, the meteorology at the TSDF site.
Also, this approach would require extensive time and resource
commitments by the EPA or the designated State authority
enforcement personnel to check the estimation calculations for
the purpose of verifying compliance with the regulations.  In
addition, an emission rate format action level established as a
health-based limit based on a risk assessment would not
necessarily address the emissions of organic ozone precursors and
the formation of ambient ozone.  Therefore, because of the
complexity and burden on the permitting authority of using the
estimation methods currently available and, as discussed above,
the impracticality and expense of using actual measurements, the
EPA believes that specifying an action level based on an emission
rate format for nationwide standards applicable to TSDF tanks,
surface impoundments, and containers would not be a practical
approach.
5.3.2 Multiple TSDF Action Levels
     Comment;  Two comments were received in response to the
EPA's request for comments at proposal regarding the EPA's
decision to use the same action level for all units throughout
the entire waste management process  (56 FR 33516-33517) .  One
commenter  (F-91-CESP-00078) supports the EPA's decision.  The
other commenter  (F-91-CESP-00033) states that the EPA should
analyze the alternative approach presented in the preamble of
using a higher action level for those TSDF waste management units
in which waste fixation is conducted.
     Response;  For the proposed rule, the EPA decided to use the
                               5-11

-------
same action level from the point where the waste is generated
through the point where the organics in the waste are either
removed or destroyed.  Upon consideration of the comments
received at proposal, the EPA continues to believe that applying
the same action level for all waste management units to which the
rule applies is the most appropriate approach.  As discussed in
the proposal preamble (56 FR 33510), using a higher action level
for downstream TSDF waste management units than is used for the
upstream TSDF waste management units reduces the overall
effectiveness of the organic emission containment and control
approach.
     In the proposal preamble, the EPA discussed plans to analyze
the effect of using one action level for waste management units
up to the point where the waste is treated by waste fixation and
a higher action level for those waste management units in which
the waste fixation is conducted (56 FR 33517).  The EPA initially
planned to perform this analysis because, for the proposed rules,
two-thirds of the estimated total nationwide costs for
implementing the rule were attributed to TSDF waste fixation
processes while only 10 percent of the nationwide emission
reduction was achieved.  However, the new waste data and the
revised LDR assumptions used for the revised impact analysis
(refer to chapter 4 of this BID) significantly reduced the
estimated quantity of wastes fixated at TSDF so that waste
fixation control costs are now estimated to foe approximately
1 percent of the total nationwide costs for implementing the rule
while the estimated emission reduction is the same order of
magnitude (approximately 0.2 percent).  Therefore, the EPA
concluded that an analysis of different action levels for TSDF
waste fixation processes is not needed.

     Comment;  Four commenters (F-91-CESP-00023, 00044, 00057,
00075) recommend that the EPA use a regulatory approach that
would specify separate requirements for different TSDF industry
subcategories.  Suggestions by the commenters for defining these
TSDF industry subcategories include; (1) toxicity of the organic
                               5-12

-------
constituents in the waste managed at a TSDF; (2) whether the TSDF
is a commercial or noncommercial facility; and  (3) regional air
quality conditions (e.g., whether the TSDF is located in a rural
or urban area, or the TSDF is located in an attainment or
nonattainment area for ozone).
     Response;  Several regulatory approaches for the subpart CC
standards were considered by the EPA including the development of
separate standards for different TSDF industry subcategories.
Upon consideration of the comments received at proposal, the EPA
continues to maintain that a single set of standards is the most
appropriate approach for regulating TSDF tanks, surface
impoundments, and containers under this rulemaking.
     The application of the rule is based on the organic content
of hazardous wastes and therefore inherently distinguishes
between TSDF that manage high organic content wastes versus TSDF
that manage nonorganic content or low organic content wastes.
However, establishing separate sets of standards based on
properties of the organic constituents in the waste managed at
different TSDF subcategories would add unnecessary complexity to
the subpart CC standards and delay implementation of the rule.
In addition to the complexity of evaluating standards for
specific toxic constituents, the effect of regulating organic
ozone precursors must also be considered.  A variety of adverse
effects  (including cancer and other toxic health effects, ambient
ozone formation, and stratospheric ozone depletion) are
associated with the organic emissions from TSDF.  Because of the
knowledge required and the complexity of evaluating a multitude
of effects in determining action levels, the EPA decided to
develop  standards that control total organic emissions rather
than constituent-specific emissions from TSDF tanks, surface
impoundments, and containers.  On balance,- considering the number
and variety of pollutants, health and environmental effects, and
variability of hazardous wastes managed at TSDF, the best
approach to developing protective air emission  standards is to
develop  action levels based  on the total organic concentration
and then address the emissions of those specific constituents
                               5-13

-------
that produce any high residual risk at TSDF.
     The distinction between commercial and noncommercial TSDF is
that noncommercial TSDF manage waste generated on site while
commercial TSDF manage waste transported to the facility from
offsite waste generators.  Both commercial and noncommercial TSDF
use the same types of waste management units, follow similar
operating practices for managing waste in these units, and can
manage similar types of wastes.  Therefore, the control
requirements of the final subpart CC standards are equally
effective at controlling organic emissions at both commercial and
noncommercial subcategories.
     Establishing separate sets of standards based on regional
air quality conditions was not found to be effective for the
subpart CC rulemaking.  The EPA is directed under RCRA section
3004(n) to establish nationwide standards that are protective of
human health and the environment.  The EPA has chosen to
implement that directive by protecting against risks posed to
individuals residing  (or who may reside) near the TSDF, surely a
reasonable decision.  Ensuring that persons close to the TSDF are
not exposed to excessive risk, however, largely precludes an
approach relying on ambient air quality at the location.
Subcategorization of the TSDF industry and correlating the risk
of a person contracting cancer from exposure to TSDF air
emissions with regional air quality conditions such as whether
that person lives in an urban or rural setting or in an
attainment or nonattainment area was not found to be an effective
regulatory approach for the subpart CC standards.
5.3.3 Other Action Level Formats
     Comment;  Several commenters  (F-91-CESP-00006, 00038, 00067,
00069) recommend that the EPA use site-specific health risk-based
criteria to determine which units at a TSDF need to use organic
emission controls and, for those units requiring controls, the
control efficiency of the controls necessary to protect human
health.  Using this approach, site-specific health risk analysis
would be performed for an individual TSDF.  If analysis of air
emissions  from the facility  (e.g., by computer modeling)
                               5-14

-------
indicates unacceptable health-based impacts on people living
around the facility, then organic emission controls would be
required for specific waste management units at the facility.
     Response;  It is not appropriate to use site-specific health
risk-based criteria to determine which units at a TSDF need to
comply with the subpart CC standards.  A health risk-based
criteria approach would require that the EPA implement the
subpart CC standards to all 2,300 TSDF in the United States on a
case-by-case basis rather than implementing a single set of
nationwide standards that must be met by all TSDF owners and
operators.  As is stated in the previous response, a variety of
adverse effects, including cancer, other types of toxic effects,
ambient ozone formation, and stratospheric ozone depletion are
associated with the organic emissions from TSDF.  Evaluating
these different effects on a case-by-case basis for each TSDF
would be very complex and burdensome for both TSDF owners and
operators as well as the EPA, State, or local agency personnel
enforcing the rule.  Under the health risk-based criteria
approach suggested by the commenters, each TSDF owner or operator
would need to perform a detailed, site-specific health risk
assessment that the EPA would need to review.  If it were
determined that air emissions from the TSDF pose an unacceptable
health or environmental risk, then a plan would need to be
developed specifying the organic  emission controls to be used on
the  particular waste management units that contribute to the high
risk levels at the  facility.  Thus, the EPA would essentially be
developing  individual sets of standards for each TSDF determined
to pose  unacceptable risks.  Where State programs are authorized,
authorized  States would have to undertake this task, leaving
significant questions as to how to evaluate the equivalency of
such State  programs.
      As  discussed  in chapter 3 of this BID, the EPA concluded
that the best approach to  implementing the RCRA section 3004(n)
is to proceed with  the promulgation  of standards  as expeditiously
as possible.   This  approach  involves  first developing nationwide
standards to  control total organic emissions  from TSDF followed
                               5-15

-------
by additional requirements for those individual TSDF where more
organic emission control is appropriate to ensure protection of
public health and the environment.  Establishing nationwide
standards ensures that all TSDF owners and operators comply with
a consistent set of minimum control requirements.  Nationwide
standards facilitate the permitting of TSDF by allowing the owner
and operator seeking a permit to know in advance what control
requirements, at a minimum, need to be included in the facility
design to be issued a permit to operate and eliminating the need
for the permit writer to decide, on the basis of necessarily
uncertain and inexact risk assessment methodology, on which
control requirements to be specified in the permit.

     Comment;  One commenter (F-91-CESP-00069) suggests that the
EPA establish an action level based on the organic vapor pressure
of the waste.
     Response;  The EPA uses waste organic vapor pressure to
establish the need for additional controls on covered tanks.  The
concentration of organics in the vapors contained in a tank
headspace (i.e., space between the liquid surface and the cover)
stabilizes at an equilibrium concentration that is directly
related to the vapor pressure of the organics contained in the
waste placed in the tank.  However, many existing TSDF tanks,
surface impoundments, and containers used for managing organic-
containing wastes are open sources (i.e., waste surface is
exposed to atmosphere).  While an organic vapor pressure action
level is a useful indicator of emissions from enclosed sources
(e.g., covered tanks), it is not an appropriate action level for
sources open directly to the atmosphere or sources that actively
generate organic vapors.  The emission potential of waste managed
in open sources is independent of the organic vapor pressure of
the waste.   Thus, an organic vapor pressure action level cannot
be used for  all TSDF waste management units to which the subpart
CC standards apply.
                               5-16

-------
5.4 EMISSION CONTROLS SELECTION
     Comment;  One commenter (F-91-CESP-00050) disagrees with the
selection of 95 percent for the control device efficiency to be
used for all control options considered by the EPA.  The
commenter suggests that the EPA consider thermal incineration,
which can achieve higher control levels of 98 percent reduction
with current, well-proven technology.
     Response;  The EPA evaluated the benefit of using a control
device achieving an efficiency of 98 percent with the control
options considered during the revised impact analysis.  Based on
this evaluation, the EPA concluded that increasing the organic
air emission control level above 95 percent would limit the
selection of control devices a TSDF owner or operator could use
to comply with the subpart CC standards but would not reduce the
number of TSDF estimated to have a level of residual risk
following implementation of the subpart CC standards that is
higher than the range of target risk levels for other promulgated
RCRA standards.  Thus, the EPA used a control efficiency of
95 percent for the control options evaluated to select the basis
for the subpart CC standards.  A requirement for a 95 percent
control level allows the TSDF owner or operator the alternative
of using either organic recovery or organic destruction devices.
Furthermore, use of organic destruction devices (combustion) as a
means of control to achieve a control efficiency of 98 percent or
greater is by no means a panacea.
     A variety of organic removal and organic destruction control
devices are available that are capable of achieving high organic
emission control efficiencies.  The type of control device best
suited for reducing emissions from a covered or enclosed waste
management unit depends on unit size and the characteristics of
the organic vapor stream vented from the unit.  Based on typical
organic vapor stream characteristics, the EPA anticipates that
the organic removal control devices most likely to be used for
TSDF waste management units are carbon adsorbers and condensers.
     Carbon adsorbers or condensers can be used to recover
organics from gas streams with either high or low organic content
                               5-17

-------
for subsequent direct reuse at the TSDF site or sale as a solvent
or fuel.  Carbon adsorption is the process by which organic
molecules in a gas stream are retained on the surface of carbon
particles.  The two types of carbon adsorption systems most
frequently used for organic emission control are fixed-bed carbon
adsorbers and carbon canisters.  Fixed-bed carbon adsorbers are
used for controlling organic vapor streams with flow rates
ranging from 30 to over 3,000 m3/min.   Use of carbon canisters is
limited to controlling organic emissions from TSDF waste
management units venting vapor streams with  intermittent or low
continuous flow rates such as storage tanks  or treatment tanks
with no surface turbulence, heat addition, or exothermic
reactions.  Condensers convert organic gases or vapors to liquid
form by lowering the temperature or increasing the pressure.  For
TSDF organic emission control applications,  surface condensers
are most likely to be used.
     The design of a carbon adsorption system depends on the
inlet gas stream characteristics including organic composition
and concentrations, flow rate, and temperature.  Good carbon
adsorption performance requires that:   (1) the adsorber is
charged with an adequate quantity of high-quality activated
carbon,  (2) the gas stream receives appropriate preconditioning
 (e.g., cooling and filtering), and  (3) the carbon beds are
regenerated before breakthrough occurs  (i.e., before the carbon
becomes  saturated).  Emission test data  for  full-sized, fixed-bed
carbon  adsorbers operating in  industrial applications have been
compiled by the EPA.  Analysis of these  data indicates that,  for
well-designed and well-operated carbon adsorbers, continuous
organic removal efficiencies of at  least 95  percent are
achievable over long periods.
      The performance of  a  condenser depends  on the  gas stream
 organic composition  and  concentrations as well as the condenser
 operating temperature.   Condensation  can be  an effective control
 technique for gas  streams  that have high concentrations of
 organic compounds  with high  boiling points.   However,
                                5-18

-------
condensation is not effective for gas streams containing low
organic concentrations or composed primarily of low boiling point
organics because the organics cannot be readily condensed at
normal condenser operating temperatures.  For example, data from
a condenser field test indicate an organic removal efficiency of
over 99 percent for 1,2-dichloroethane  (high-boiling-point
organic) but an organic removal efficiency of only 6 percent for
vinyl chloride (low-boiling-point organic).  Therefore, for gas
streams with low organic concentrations or composed of low-
boiling-point organics, the application of carbon adsorption
would result in a higher control efficiency than would
condensation.
                               5-19

-------

-------
                      6.0 RULE REQUIREMENTS
6.1 APPLICABILITY
6.1.1 Affected Hazardous Waste
     Comment;  Eight commenters request clarification regarding
the applicability of the rule to waste management units that no
longer receive new hazardous wastes such as a unit undergoing
closure that contains waste that has a volatile organic content
above the action level.  Two commenters (F-91-CESP-00017, 00082)
believe that air emission concerns during closure should continue
to be addressed through RCRA closure and corrective action rules.
Seven commenters (F-91-CESP-00017, 00031, 00038, 00041, 00063,
00071, 00076) request that surface impoundments operating under
closure plans be exempted from the subpart CC standards.  Reasons
cited by the commenters include:  (1) use of the required cover
air emission controls would inhibit or prevent certain types of
closure activities such as dredging, draining, or in situ
stabilization, and (2) the cost of installing the required air
emission controls on surface impoundments is not justified when
the impoundments are to be removed permanently from service in a
relatively short period of time.
     Response;  At proposal, the EPA intended that the subpart CC
standards apply to active TSDF tanks, surface impoundments, or
containers into which hazardous waste is placed on or after the
rule effective date.  The EPA did not intend the rule to apply to
TSDF tanks,  surface impoundments, or containers no longer
receiving hazardous waste.  The need to use the organic air
emission controls required by the subpart CC standards is based
on determining the waste volatile organic concentration at the

                                6-1

-------
point of waste origination.  As was described in chapter 1.0 of
this BID, the "point of waste origination" is defined in the
final rule with respect to the point where the TSDF owner or
operator first has possession of a hazardous waste.  When the
TSDF owner or operator is the generator of the hazardous waste,
the "point of waste origination" means the point where a solid
waste produced by a system, process, or waste management unit is
determined to be a hazardous waste as defined in 40 CFR part 261.
In this case, this term is being used in a similar manner to the
use of the term "point of generation" in waste operations air
standards established under authority of the Clean Air Act in
40 CFR parts 60, 61, and 63 of this chapter.  When neither the
TSDF owner nor operator is the generator of the hazardous waste,
the "point of waste origination" means the point where the owner
or operator accepts delivery or takes possession of the hazardous
waste.  Determination of the volatile organic concentration at
this point cannot be made  for a hazardous waste already in a TSDF
being managed in a tank-, surface  impoundment, or container.  To
clarify the EPA's intention regarding the applicability of the
subpart CC standards, the  language of the final rule has been
revised.
     Language has been added to the applicability  section of the
final rule explicitly stating that the subpart CC  standards do
not apply to either a TSDF tank or surface  impoundment in which
an owner or operator has stopped  adding hazardous  waste  (except
in a surface impoundment to  implement an approved  closure plan)
and for  which an owner or  operator has begun  implementing or
completed closure pursuant to  an  approved closure  plan.  Use of
the required air emission  controls would hinder or prevent
closure  activities  from  being  performed.
     Also,  the  subpart CC  standards do not  apply to  a tank,
surface  impoundment,  or  container that holds  hazardous waste
placed in the unit  before  the  rule's  effective date  and  in which
no hazardous waste  is added  on or after the rule  is  effective.
However, wastes can be  consolidated at closure between surface
 impoundments that  are closing to implement  an approved closure
                                6-2

-------
plan.  In many situations where existing tanks and containers at
a TSDF already hold hazardous waste but no longer receive new
wastes, a TSDF owner or operator will be unable to perform a
waste determination as specified in the rules because waste
samples cannot be collected at the required locations and the
owner or operator has insufficient knowledge about the waste.
     Application of the rule only to units receiving hazardous
waste on or after the rule's effective date is consistent with
the  EPA's interpretation for surface impoundments accepting newly
identified hazardous wastes (refer to 55 FR 39409, September 27,
1990).  This means that even if a TSDF tank, surface impoundment,
or container has hazardous waste with a volatile organic
concentration equal to or greater than the action level specified
in the rule, the unit is not required to be operated in
accordance with the subpart CC standards unless additional
hazardous waste is placed in the unit on or after the rule's
effective date.  For example, in the case where a TSDF owner or
operator has placed a drum containing hazardous waste in storage
before the rule's effective date, the subpart CC standards are
not  applicable to this drum unless the owner or operator adds
more hazardous waste to the drum on or after the effective date.

      Comment;  Three commenters  (F-91-CESP-00033, 00038, 00082)
request that  "de minimis cutoff" levels be established for
hazardous waste streams to which the rule is applied.  The
commenters recommend that the EPA establish a de minimis flow
rate or emission  level below which the subpart CC standards  are
not  applicable to a hazardous waste stream.
      Response:  The applicability of the final subpart CC
standards  is  not  limited by any  specific "de minimis cutoff"
defined  in  terms  of hazardous waste quantity or flow rate.
However,  the  applicability of the final rule has been revised  so
that the  subpart  CC standards do not apply to hazardous waste
placed in a container  that has a design capacity  less than or
 equal to  0.1  m3 (approximately 26 gallons).  The rationale for
                                6-3

-------
          this revision is discussed in section 6.6.1 of this document.
          Also, the subpart CC standards do not apply to any waste excluded
          from the mixture rule due to de minimis concentrations under
          40 CFR 261.3(a)(2)(iv)(D).
          6.1.2 Spill Management and Cleanup Activities
               Comment;  Two commenters (F-91-CESP-00010, 00065) request
          clarification as to how the standards will apply to emergency or
          spill management activities.  A third commenter (F-91-CESP-OOQ21)
          states that spare control devices will not be readily available
          for use in an emergency situation such as a spill.
               Response;  The subpart CC standards do not apply to tanks,
          surface impoundments, or containers at either permitted TSDF or
          interim-status TSDF when these units are used for emergency or
          spill management activities in accordance with existing RCRA
          regulations.  Under 40 CFR 264.l(g)(8)(i), an owner or operator
          of a permitted TSDF that engages in treatment or containment
          activities to provide for immediate response to a discharge or a
          threat of a discharge of a hazardous waste must comply with
          40 CFR 264 subparts C and D but not the other subparts in
          part 264.  Thus, the subpart CC standards do not apply to the
          tanks, surface impoundments, or containers at permitted TSDF that
          are used for emergency or spill management activities in
          accordance with 40 CFR 264.l(g)(8)(i).  A similar provision for
          an owner or operator of an interim-status TSDF is provided in
          40 CFR 265.l(c)(11)(i).  For a spill that does not take place at
          a TSDF, none of the requirements of 40 CFR part 264 apply,
          including subparts C and D.
          6.1.3 Radioactive Mixed Waste
               Comment;  Commenters  (F-91-CESP-00036, 00046, 00062, 00082)
          requested that the EPA consider the unique nature of radioactive
          mixed waste and the special management practices that must be
          used to safely handle this waste when determining the
          applicability of the rule to waste management units handling
          radioactive mixed waste.
               Response;  The EPA recognizes that radioactive mixed wastes
          must be managed in accordance with regulations administered by
                                         6-4
_

-------
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) under the Atomic Energy
Act (AEA) and Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, which address the
safe handling and disposal of radioactive waste.  In developing
the RCRA standards applicable to radioactive mixed wastes, the
EPA considers the special management practices required for these
wastes to avoid inconsistencies between the EPA's hazardous waste
and NRC's radioactive waste management requirements.
Furthermore, RCRA section 1006(a) precludes any solid or
hazardous waste regulation by the EPA or a State that is
"inconsistent" with the requirements of the AEA.  Thus, if a case
occurs where the regulatory requirements for radioactive mixed
waste are conflicting, the AEA requirement takes precedence over
the RCRA requirement.
     Based on an evaluation of the special practices required to
safely manage radioactive mixed wastes, the EPA decided to
temporarily defer application of the subpart CC standards to
tanks or containers that are being used to manage radioactive
mixed wastes.  The air emission controls used as the basis for
the subpart CC standards are not compatible, in some cases, with
the managment practices required for safe handling of radioactive
mixed wastes.  For example, containers used to store radioactive
mixed waste cannot be sealed with vapor leak-tight covers,
because  of unacceptable pressure buildup of hydrogen gas to
levels which can potentially cause rupture of the drum or create
a potentially serious explosion hazard.  The generation of
hydrogen gas is a result of the radiolytic decomposition of
organic  compounds  (i.e., plastics) and/or aqueous solutions
within the container.  Additionally, radiation induced
degradation and biodegradation of organic ion-exchange resin
waste, which are also radioactive mixed waste, generated during
water treatment at nuclear facilities, can result in pressure
buildup  and failure of containers.  Consequently, containers used
for storage of radioactive mixed waste must be vented  in
accordance with technical guidance published by the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission.
     The EPA emphasizes that the deferral for waste management
                                6-5

-------
units handling radioactive mixed waste is temporary.  The EPA is
planning to further investigate methods for effective control of
organic emissions from waste management units handling
radioactive mixed waste that are also consistent with the special
management practices that must be used to safely handle this
waste.
6.1.4 Wastes to Which the Rule Applies
     Comment;  One commenter (F-91-CESP-00027) states that the
rule should be structured to be applicable only to those tanks,
surface impoundments, and containers that handle hazardous waste
that exceeds the volatile organic concentration action level.
The commenter states that the presumption of the rule that all
RCRA hazardous waste fail the criteria unless proven otherwise is
overly restrictive and could incorrectly subject generators to
extensive testing and recordkeeping requirements.
     Response;  The subpart CC standards are not overly
restrictive because the rule must be structured to apply to all
TSDF owners and operators placing hazardous waste in tanks,
surface impoundments, and containers on or after the rule's
effective date regardless of the waste volatile organic
concentration at the point of waste origination to ensure the
standards can be effectively enforced by the EPA.  Limiting the
applicability of the subpart CC standards to only those TSDF
owners and operators of waste management units managing wastes
with a volatile organic concentration greater than or equal to a
certain action level at the point of waste origination would
greatly weaken the EPA's ability to verify that all TSDF owners
and operators are complying with the rule.
     The applicability section of a regulation defines not only
which TSDF owners and operators must apply air emission controls
to waste management units but also waste determination,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements with which TSDF owners
and operators must comply.  Structuring the subpart CC standards
to apply only to TSDF owners and operators with waste management
units that manage hazardous waste with a volatile organic
concentration greater than or equal to a certain action level at
                               6-6

-------
the point of waste origination prevents the EPA from establishing
waste determination, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements
under the rule for TSDF owners and operators who claim that all
of the units at their facilities manage waste with a volatile
organic concentration below the action level at the point of
waste origination.  These TSDF owners and operators would not be
required to perform waste determinations and maintain onsite
documentation available for inspection by the EPA enforcement
personnel.  There would be no "burden of proof" placed on the
TSDF owner or operator to demonstrate that the uncontrolled units
do actually manage hazardous waste with volatile organic
concentration below the action level at the point of waste
origination.  To ensure that all TSDF owners and operators comply
with the rule, the EPA would need to visit each facility and
collect and analyze waste samples for TSDF tanks, surface
impoundments, and containers not using the required air emission
controls.
     The EPA considers this rule to be reasonable and believes
that the rule does not subject the TSDF industry to extensive
testing and recordkeeping requirements.  The rule provides a TSDF
owner or operator with the alternative of performing a waste
determination by either direct testing of the waste or using the
owner's or operator's knowledge of the waste.  Furthermore, when
the hazardous waste  is generated or treated as a part of a
continuous process  or a batch process that is performed
repeatedly but not  necessrily continuously, the rule requires
that the waste determination be repeated only once per year
unless there  is  a change  in the process generating or treating
the hazardous waste that  could potentially cause the volatile
organic  concentration to  increase  above the limits specified in
the rules or  the treatment process performance to decline below
the minimum efficiency requirements of the rules.  The rule
specifies that  the  documentation  for the waste determinations
 (e.g., test results, basis  for knowledge determination) be
maintained  by the TSDF owner  or operator at the  facility site  for
 a period of  3 years from the  date of the determination.  This
                                6-7

-------
period of time for maintaining the records is consistent with
other existing RCRA regulations and, in the EPA's judgment, is
necessary for proper enforcement of the rule.

     Comment;  One commenter (F-91-CESP-00029) interprets the
preamble, proposed rule requirements, and proposed test methods
to mean that the EPA intends the subpart CC standards to apply
only to liquid, slurry, and sludge hazardous wastes but not solid
hazardous wastes.  The commenter states that the applicability
section of the rule should be revised to incorporate the
provision that hazardous waste that does not contain free liquid
as determined by the paint filter test is exempt from subpart CC
standards.
     Response;  The applicability of the subpart CC standards is
not limited by hazardous waste form  (i.e., whether the hazardous
waste is a liquid, slurry, sludge, or solid).  The rule applies
to all types of waste listed or identified as hazardous under 40
CFR part 261 regardless of waste form except for those units
specifically not subject to regulation under parts 264.l(g) and
265.l(c).  Organic solids can volatilize toxic and ozone-
precursor constituents, just as organic liquids can.

     Comment;  One commenter (F-91-CESP-00014) questions the
justification of applying the rule to receptacles managing
chlorofluorocarbons since these compounds will be phased out in
the near future.
     Response;  Production of chlorofluorocarbons in the United
States is expected to be phased out by the year 2000 with the
increased availability of acceptable refrigerants and
manufacturing process substitutes.  However, the replacement of
the existing chlorofluorocarbon refrigerants in air conditioning
and refrigeration systems nationwide will generate large
quantities of chlorofluorocarbon wastes over the next 5 to 10
years, which must be disposed of in an environmentally
responsible manner.
     Under existing RCRA regulations, the requirements of parts
                               6-8

-------
264 and 265 do not apply to receptacles managing certain used
chlorofluorocarbon refrigerants for the purpose of reclaiming the
refrigerants.  Used chlorofluorocarbon refrigerants that are
removed from totally enclosed heat transfer equipment (e.g., air
conditioning and refrigeration systems) and reclaimed for further
use are specifically defined by 40 CFR 261.4(b)(12) as a solid
waste that is not hazardous under RCRA.  Because these
chlorofluorocarbon wastes are not hazardous by definition, the
tanks and containers used to manage these wastes are not subject
to the subpart CC standards.
     The subpart CC standards do apply to receptacles used to
manage chlorofluorocarbon wastes which are not reclaimed as
refrigerants.  Since chlorofluorocarbons are gases at ambient
conditions, existing industry practices involve managing
chlorofluorocarbon wastes in pressurized containers and tanks.
The control requirements under the subpart CC standards for TSDF
containers and tanks include the use of pressure tanks and
vapor-tight containers.  The EPA expects that the existing
industry chlorofluorocarbon waste management practices at most
TSDF already meet these requirements,  in which case no additional
cost would be incurred by the TSDF owner or operator to install
air emission controls for compliance with the subpart CC
standards.

     Comment;  One commenter  (F-91-CESP-00014) asks if the rule
applies to used oil storage.
     Response:  The requirements of the subpart CC standards do
not apply to storage of used oil that  is destined for recycling.
Used oils that are recycled are exempt from RCRA subtitle C
regulation under 40 CFR 261.6(a)(4).   However, other RCRA
standards for managing recycled waste  oil under 40 CFR part 279
 (refer to 57 FR 41566, September 10, 1992) apply to used oil
generators,  transporters, processors and re-refiners, burners,
and marketers.
     The requirements of the subpart CC standards may apply to
the storage  of used oil that  is destined for disposal.  Used oil
                               6-9

-------
exhibiting one or more of the characteristics of hazardous waste
identified in 40 CFR 261 subpart C and destined for disposal is
regulated as hazardous waste under RCRA subtitle C in accordance
with all applicable standards.  Therefore, if used oil exhibits a
characteristic of hazardous waste and is destined for disposal,
facilities that store this oil must manage the oil in accordance
with all applicable tank requirements in 40 CFR parts 264 and 265
except in certain cases when the used oil is stored in RCRA
subtitle I underground storage tanks (refer to 57 FR 21528-21529,
May 20, 1992) .
6.1.5 Coke Byproduct Plants
     Comment;  Two commenters (F-91-CESP-00042, 00052) request
that coke byproduct plants be specifically exempted from the
rule.  The commenters state that proposed subpart CC control
requirements are duplicative of the control requirements for coke
byproduct tanks, surface impoundments, and containers that
already exist under the Benzene Waste Operations NESHAP  (40 CFR
part 60, subpart FF).  Coke byproduct plants should be exempted
from the subpart CC standards because the benzene waste
operations NESHAP already ensures effective control of organic
emissions from tanks, surface impoundments, and containers that
are located at these plants.  Furthermore, the requirements of
the proposed subpart CC rule are contrary to the EPA's findings
in developing the benzene waste operations NESHAP.  A coke
byproduct plant managing less than 10 Mg/yr of benzene waste is
not required to install air emission controls on tanks,  surface
impoundments, and containers under the benzene waste operations
NESHAP, but  it is quite possible that these same waste management
units would be required to install air emission controls under
the proposed subpart CC standards.
     Response;  The subpart CC standards are applicable  to coke
byproduct plants.  It is not appropriate to specifically exempt
coke byproduct plants from the subpart CC standards.  The
requirements of the subpart CC standards do not conflict with the
EPA's  findings  in developing the benzene waste operations NESHAP.
The EPA developed the benzene waste operations NESHAP under the
                               6-10

-------
                               The
legislative directive of Clean Air Act section 112 to
specifically protect human health from emissions of benzene.
EPA developed the subpart CC standards under the legislative
directive of RCRA section 3004(n) to protect human health and the
environment from not only toxic organic compounds (one of which
is benzene) but also from organic compounds that are ozone
precursors.
     Coke byproduct plants process the exhaust gases from ovens
used to produce coke from coal.  When exhausted from the ovens,
the coke oven gases contain many volatile and semivolatile
organic compounds.  The coke byproduct plants remove and recover
tars, light oils, and ammonia from the coke oven gases prior to
burning the gases in boilers, furnaces, or flares.  Waste streams
from the coke byproduct stripping and other process operations
contain benzene as well as other volatile organic compounds.
     The benzene waste operations NESHAP does not ensure
effective  control of total organic emissions from tanks, surface
impoundments, and containers that are used to manage hazardous
waste located at coke byproduct plants.  It is possible that
waste management units at a coke byproduct plant manage waste
streams that have a computed total annual benzene (TAB) quantity
less than  10 Mg/yr yet still contain significant quantities of
other air  toxic and ozone precursor organic compounds.  Under the
benzene waste operations NESHAP, these waste management units
would not  be required to use organic air emission controls.
Thus, application of air emission controls under the subpart CC
standards  to waste management units at coke byproduct plants that
are not controlled under the benzene waste operations NESHAP is
necessary  and appropriate for the protection of human health and
the environment as mandated by RCRA section 3004(n).  It should
be noted that the EPA has indicated that certain organic
byproducts generated and reused  by coke byproduct plants are not
solid wastes.  See, e.g., 261.4(a)(10).  This may lessen the
commenter's concern regarding the rule's scope.
6.1.6 Wastewater Treatment Units
     Comment:  Nine commenters  (F-91-CESP-00012,  00023, 00033,
6-11

-------
00038, 00043, 00045, 00057, 00063, 00064) expressed concern about
the applicability of the subpart CC standards to wastewater
treatment units now exempt from RCRA regulation.  The commenters
believe the rule should clarify that the wastewater treatment
unit exemption for units regulated under NPDES still applies.
Two other commenters (F-91-CESP-00030, 00069) state that the
proposed rule would disrupt the existing wastewater treatment
systems TSDF owners and operators have installed to comply with
the Effluent Guidelines and Standards under the Clean Water Act.
     Response;  Under existing RCRA regulations, wastewater
treatment tanks that manage hazardous wastewaters or wastewater
treatment sludges in accordance with regulations tinder section
402 or section 307(b) of the Clean Water Act are not presently
subject to subtitle C regulation.  The final subpart CC standards
do not alter that exemption.
     Thus, the subpart CC standards do not apply to a TSDF tank
that meets the definition of a "wastewater treatment unit" as
defined in 40 CFR 260.10.  The subpart CC standards do apply to
all TSDF surface impoundments used for^wastewater treatment and
to those TSDF tanks used for wastewater treatment that are not
covered by the regulatory exemption.
     Not all owners and operators of existing, non-exempt TSDF
wastewater treatment systems will be required to install the air
emission controls specified in the rule.  A TSDF owner or
operator is not required to install these air emission controls
if the tank or surface impoundment is used to manage hazardous
          ' !!,
wastewaters having a mass-weighted average volatile organic
concentration at the point of waste origination that is less than
100 ppmw.  Also, the subpart CC standards do not require air
emission controls on a tank or surface impoundment used for
biological treatment that meets certain performance requirements.
In situations where a tank or surface impoundment is subject to
the standards, the TSDF owner or operator can choose to either:
 (1) install  the required air emission controls on the affected
surface impoundment or tank; (2) treat the wastewaters to destroy
or remove  brganics  (e.g., using steam stripping) prior to placing
                               6-12

-------
the wastewater in the surface impoundment or tank; or (3) treat
the wastewaters in a surface impoundment or tank in which a
biological treatment process is used that destroys or degrades
organics in the hazardous waste in accordance with the
requirements of SS 264.1082(c)(iy) or 265.1083(c)(iv).  The EPA
believes that the final subpart CC standards provide sufficient
flexibility to the TSDF owner or operator for choosing an air
emission control method best suited to a particular wastewater
treatment system configuration and operating requirements.

6.2 EXEMPTIONS FROM AIR EMISSION CONTROL REQUIREMENTS
6.2.1 Exemption Format
     Comment;  One commenter  (F-91-CESP-00062) states that
exemption from the subpart  CC air emission control requirements
should be determined on the basis of the hazardous waste placed
in an individual tank or container rather than in all of the
units that comprise a "hazardous waste management unit" as
proposed in the rule.  The  commenter notes that the proposed air
emission control requirements are for individual tanks, surface
impoundments, and containers.  Under the RCRA definition of a
"hazardous waste management unit," this unit can consist of
several tanks interconnected together with their pumps and piping
or a group of containers.   Thus, for any tank or container in a
hazardous waste management  unit to be exempted from having to
apply air emission controls under the rule, every individual tank
or container in the hazardous waste management unit has to be
managing hazardous waste that has a volatile organic
concentration less than the action level.
     Response;  A "hazardous waste management unit" is defined by
RCRA as a contiguous area of  land on or in which hazardous waste
is placed  (refer to 40 CFR  260.10).  Examples of hazardous waste
management units include a  surface impoundment, a tank and its
associated piping and underlying containment system, and a
container storage area  (i.e., the containers and the land or pad
upon which the containers are placed).  A container by itself is
not a hazardous waste management unit.
                               6-13

-------
     The purpose of the subpart CC standards is to control
organic air emissions from TSDF tanks, surface impoundments, and
containers that manage hazardous waste that has a volatile
organic concentration at the point of waste origination greater
than or equal to 100 ppmw on a mass-weighted average basis.  The
EPA recognizes that, according to the RCRA definition of a
"hazardous waste management unit," it is possible to have a
situation in which a hazardous waste management unit includes
both exempt and nonexempt containers.  For example, drums
containing hazardous waste that was generated by different
sources could be stored on the same pad at a TSDF.  The drums and
pad constitute a hazardous waste management unit.  Some of the
drums stored in this hazardous waste management unit could
contain hazardous waste that has a volatile organic concentration
at the point of waste origination less than 100 ppmw.  In this
case, the EPA does not intend that these drums be required to use
air emission controls under the subpart CC standards simply
because the drums are physically located in the same hazardous
waste management unit with drums containing hazardous waste that
has a volatile organic concentration at the point of waste
origination greater than or equal to 100 ppmw.  Therefore, the
EPA clarified the regulatory language of the final subpart CC
standards by deleting the term "hazardous waste management unit"
from the rule and,  instead uses the terms "tank," "surface
impoundment," and "container."

     Comment;  One  commenter  (F-91-CESP-00053) states that
exemptions from the subpart CC standards should be determined
using RCRA waste codes because the proposed procedure for
determining the waste volatile organic concentration is
expensive.
     Response;  The subpart CC standards effectively apply to a
subset  of  listed and  identified hazardous wastes  and, to that
extent,  do use the  current RCRA hazardous waste classification
scheme.  However,  it  is  not appropriate to rely exclusively on
the  RCRA waste code classifications  for  identifying which
                               6-14

-------
hazardous wastes do not need to be managed in TSDF tanks, surface
impoundments, and containers using air emission controls required
by the subpart CC standards.  The RCRA waste codes are not
assigned on the basis of amount of organics that potentially can
be emitted to the atmosphere from a particular waste.  The RCRA
waste codes denote either the presence of a specific chemical
constituent of concern in the hazardous waste or the type of
source or process that generated the hazardous waste.  Various
types of hazardous wastes representing a wide range of organic
air emission potentials can be included under a specific RCRA
waste code.  Consequently, only some but not all of the hazardous
wastes included under a RCRA waste code may need to be managed in
TSDF tanks, surface impoundments, and containers using the air
emission controls required by the subpart CC7standards.
     The EPA disagrees that the requirement for determining the
waste volatile organic concentration is expensive.  The rule
allows a TSDF owner or operator to determine the volatile organic
concentration of a hazardous waste using either Method 25D or
knowledge of the waste.  As discussed further in chapter 8 of
this BID, Method 25D provides an analytical method for direct
measurement of the volatile organic concentration that is neither
unusually expensive nor time-consuming for a laboratory
analytical technique.  The option of using knowledge of the waste
allows TSDF owners and operators to use existing information
collected for other purposes to determine the volatile organic
concentration.

     Comment;  Many commenters  (F-91-CESP-00029, 00030,  00033,
00034,  00068, 00069,  00071, 00082) state that the volatile
organic  concentration should be determined on the basis  of the
hazardous waste  composition at the point where the hazardous
waste  enters each  tank,  surface  impoundment, or container instead
of at  the point  where the waste  is generated for all tanks,
surface impoundments, and containers that are used to manage  a
particular  hazardous  waste.
     Response;   The  subpart CC  standards  are based on an organic
                               6-15

-------
emission containment and control approach that requires certain
hazardous wastes containing organics to be managed in TSDF tanks,
surface impoundments, and containers using appropriate air
emission controls.  To be effective, these controls must be
applied from the point of waste origination through the point of
waste treatment, where the hazardous waste has been treated to
remove or destroy the organics in the hazardous waste.  To
identify which hazardous wastes do not need to be managed in this
manner, the EPA selected volatile organic concentrations
determined using Method 25D as a relative measure of the organic
emission potential of a hazardous waste.  Implementation of this
approach requires that the volatile organic concentration of the
hazardous waste be determined at the point of waste origination.
The principle reasons for this approach, as explained below, are
to prevent organics from being released or diluted, as opposed to
being effectively contained or treated.
     A hazardous waste typically is managed in a sequence of
steps requiring the waste to be transferred between a series of
tanks, surface impoundments, or containers from the point of
waste origination to the point where the waste is disposed.
Installing a cover and, where appropriate, an air emission
control device on the first tank, surface impoundment, or
container in which the hazardous waste is placed will suppress
the release of organics from that unit to the atmosphere.
However, suppression air emission controls do not remove organics
from the waste or destroy the organics in the waste.
Consequently, the potential remains that the organics retained in
the waste will be released to the atmosphere if the waste in the
first unit is transferred to an open unit (i.e., a tank, surface
impoundment, or container not using a cover and, where
appropriate, a control device).
     The volatile organic concentration of a hazardous waste can
be lowered so that it is below the concentration action level
used for the rule without necessarily treating the waste to
remove or destroy the organics in the waste.  For example, waste
streams that have volatile organic concentrations equal to or
                               6-16

-------
greater than the action level can be diluted by mixing the wastes
with other materials containing little or no organics.
Consequently, determination of the volatile organic concentration
of a hazardous waste at the point where the waste enters each
individual tank, surface impoundment, or container does not
ensure that the waste has been properly treated to remove or
destroy the organics in the waste.  Allowing the opportunity for
hazardous waste to be placed in open tanks, surface impoundments,
or containers prior to treatment could greatly diminish the
effectiveness of the containment and control approach.  Thus,
determination of the volatile organic concentration of a
hazardous waste at each point in this waste management sequence
where the hazardous waste enters a tank, surface impoundment, or
container before the waste  is treated to destroy or remove the
organics is  not acceptable  for this rule.
6.2.2 Exemptions for Treated Hazardous Waste
     comment;  Twelve commenters  (F-91-CESP-00010, 00025, 00030,
00033,  00034,  00038, 00043, 00066, 00068,  00069, 00071, 00082)
disagree with  the proposed  definition of "waste dilution" in the
rule and application of this definition for the purpose of
determining  whether dilution  is used to reduce the volatile
organic concentration of  a  hazardous waste to  less than the
action  level.   In  general,  the  commenters  believe  that mixing of
hazardous  wastes to  facilitate  centralized treatment  of the
combined waste should  not be  considered to be  dilution.   In
support of their  position,  the  commenters  present  the following
reasons:   (1)  the  proposed definition  is  inconsistent with the
 EPA's definition of dilution used for  previous RCRA rulemakings;
 (2)  the approach requires that air emission  controls  be applied
 to units managing wastes below the action level with relatively
 little emission reduction;  (3)  the approach  requires sampling,
 prior to aggregation,  each waste stream that enters a unit that
 may be required to be operated pursuant to the rule,  with
 potentially many waste streams involved in some wastewater
 treatment systems; and (4)  the approach discourages current TSDF
 owner and operator practices of combining hazardous waste streams
                                6-17

-------
to gather sufficient quantities  of waste  for treatment or to
minimize costs of offsite disposal.  Another commenter
 (F-91-CESP-00007) states that the EPA's proposed approach for
determining if dilution of .a._Wja_ste .has occurred is based on the
average volatile organic concentration of the waste exiting the
treatment unit being less than the computed weighted average
concentration entering the unit  and requests clarification as to
what is acceptable treatment under the rule.
     Response;  Under one of the exception provisions proposed
for the subpart CC standards, an owner or operator would be
excepted from managing a hazardous waste  in a tank, surface
impoundment, or a container using the air emission controls
required^" by the rule if the owner or operator determines that a
treated hazardous waste before being placed in the waste
management unit has a volatile organic concentration less than or
equal to the action level.  Allowing dilution of a hazardous
waste with other materials as a  means by  which an owner or
operator could meet the conditions of this exception (i.e.,
diluting the volatile organic concentration of the hazardous
waste to a level below the action level)  is not acceptable,
however.  A process that simply  mixes, blends, combines, or
aggregates a hazardous waste with other materials does not
destroy the organics in the waste or remove the organics from the
waste.  Even though the volatile organic  concentration of the
hazardous waste has been reduced to a level below the action
level, the same quantity of organics in the hazardous waste at
the point of waste origination would still potentially be
available to be emitted to the atmosphere from downstream tanks,
surface impoundments, or containers that manage the hazardous
waste.  (See Chemical Waste Management v.  EPA. 976 F.2d 2,  20-25
and n.8 [D.C. Cir. 1992] where the court held such aggregation
could be a form of impermissible dilution and stated a particular
concern that mass loadings of hazardous constituents to the
environment be minimized through treatment that removes or
destroys such constituents.)
     The proposed rule would have prohibited "waste dilution" of
                              6-18

-------
a hazardous waste under all circumstances to meet the treatment
conditions required for an owner or operator to be excepted from
the subpart CC control requirements.  Since proposal, the EPA has
reconsidered allowing mixing of hazardous wastes for certain
waste treatment processes.  The EPA recognizes that at TSDF where
multiple hazardous wastes are managed there are performance and
cost efficiency benefits from combining compatible hazardous
wastes for treatment in a large, centralized unit rather than
operating many small treatment units, each unit dedicated to a
particular type of hazardous waste.  Therefore, the EPA concluded
that it is appropriate to revise the conditions for which a TSDF
owner or operator is excepted from managing a treated hazardous
waste in a tank, surface impoundment, or a container pursuant to
the subpart CC control requirements.  Also, the proposed subpart
CC section entitled "exceptions to the standards" has been
renamed "standards: general" because procedures are provided by
which the owner or operator may operate a tank, container, or
surface impoundment in accordance with the subpart CC standards
rather than exempting the unit from the requirements of the
standards.
     For the  final subpart CC standards, the EPA decided not to
include a definition of  "waste dilution."  Inclusion of this
definition  in the rule is not essential and complicates the
interpretation of certain hazardous waste management practices
currently  allowed by the EPA to comply with other RCRA
regulations.  In place of defining  "waste dilution," the EPA
added  several alternative general requirement  provisions to the
 final  subpart CC standards  from which a TSDF owner or operator
may  choose to comply  for situations where  individual hazardous
wastes are mixed together to  facilitate treatment  in a
 centralized unit.   The conditions  for each  alternative general
 requirement were  established  so that any reduction  in the
 volatile organic  concentration  of  a hazardous  waste  due to
 dilution is not "credited"  toward  achieving compliance with the
 requirements of subpart  CC.
      The final  rule specifies general requirement conditions  for
                               6-19

-------
treated hazardous waste that a TSDF owner or operator must meet
when the hazardous waste has been mixed or aggregated with other
hazardous wastes or materials prior to the point of waste
treatment.  An owner or operator is not required to manage a
hazardous waste in a tank, surface impoundment, or container
meeting the subpart CC control requirements if the hazardous
waste is treated by an organic destruction or removal process
that meets or exceeds a minimum level of performance as specified
in the rules.
     One provision requires that mixed hazardous wastes be
treated by an organic destruction or removal process that
reduces the volatile organic concentration of the hazardous waste
to meet a site-specific treatment process exit concentration
limit.  This limit is determined by the TSDF owner or operator on
a case-by-case basis using an equation specified in the rule that
accounts for the portion of the reduction in the volatile organic
concentration in the resulting treated hazardous waste stream due
to dilution.  To use this equation, the owner or operator must
first determine the volatile organic concentration at the point
of waste origination for each individual hazardous waste stream
that is mixed together prior to entering the treatment process.
As an alternative to calculating the exit concentration limit for
a treatment process, the subpart CC standards allow the owner or
operator to treat the mixed hazardous wastes to a volatile
organic concentration level that is less than or equal to the
lowest waste volatile organic concentration at the point of waste
origination for all of the individual hazardous waste streams
mixed together prior to entering the treatment process.
     Another alternative  in the subpart CC standards available to
owners and operators allows mixed hazardous wastes to be treated
using a single process that achieves an organic reduction
efficiency of 95 percent  or greater on a mass basis, and reduces
the average volatile organic concentration of the resulting
hazardous waste stream exiting the process to a level less than
50 ppmw.  This alternative does not require the owner or operator
to perform any volatile organic concentration waste
                               6-20

-------
determinations for the hazardous wastes prior to mixing, yet
still accommodates the mixing of wastes that have different
volatile organic concentrations.  For a waste stream having a
volatile organic concentration greater than 2,000 ppmw, requiring
only a minimum 95 percent reduction of the organic content in the
waste stream would not lower the volatile organic concentration
of the treated waste stream to the 100 ppmw level of the rule.
However, if such a waste stream had been mixed together prior to
treatment with other waste streams having lower volatile organic
concentrations, then the volatile organic concentration of the
treated waste exiting the process could be less than 100 ppmw.
The EPA does not consider such situations to be unlikely, and has
therefore chosen for this alternative to require an exit
concentration for the treated waste lower than 100 ppmw.  The EPA
considers an exit concentration of 50 ppmw, combined with a 95
percent treatment efficiency, to be an appropriate demonstration
that the reduction in volatile organic concentration for a
mixture of hazardous waste streams has been achieved through
destruction or removal of organic constituents in the waste,
rather than by dilution.
     The final subpart CC standards also provide another
alternative that does not require the owner or operator to
perform any volatile organic concentration waste determinations
for the hazardous wastes prior to mixing when the waste is
treated by a biological process that destroys or degrades the
organics contained in the hazardous waste to meet certain
performance requirements specified in the rule.  These  conditions
are either of  the  following:  (1) achieve an organic reduction
efficiency for the biological treatment process equal to or
greater than  95 percent, and achieve an organic biodegradation
efficiency for the process equal to or greater than 95  percent;
or (2)  achieve a total  actual organic mass biodegradation rate
for all hazardous  waste treated by the process equal to or
greater than  the required organic mass removal rate for the
process.   Compliance with these parameters is determined using
the procedures specified  in  rule.
                               6-21

-------
     Comment;  Six commenters (F-91-CESP-00033, 00041, 00046,
00069, 00076, 00082) support the EPA's proposal to allow a TSDF
owner or operator to be exempted from managing a hazardous waste
in a tank, surface impoundment, or container using air emission
controls if the hazardous waste, before being placed in the waste
management unit, has been treated to comply with the LDR.  Two
commenters (F-91-CESP-L00001, 00060) support the concept of this
exemption but express concern that the proposed regulation
language is not adequate.  One of these commenters states that
the LDR regulations do not specify a concentration limit for
total volatile organic compounds comparable to the volatile
organic concentration action level specified in the subpart CC
standards.  The second commenter expresses the opinion that the
proposed regulation language for the exemption is ambiguous and
both the regulation and the EPA's intent should be clarified.
The commenter supports the LDR exemption for tanks, surface
impoundments, and containers that contain only wastes for which
LDR treatment standards have been promulgated but does not
believe that a tank, surface impoundment, or container that
contains some wastes for which there are no LDR treatment
standards should be exempt from the control requirements.
      Response;  The final subpart CC standards do not include the
proposed explicit exemption  for hazardous wastes complying with
the LDR treatment standards.   Instead, the EPA concluded that a
better approach is  to use the  general requirements in the final
rules for any treated hazardous waste  (refer to the preceeding
response  in  this section of  this chapter) to address  situations
in which  a TSDF owner or operator is already treating a hazardous
waste to  comply with the LDR treatment standards using a process
that  is also effective  in removing  or destroying organics in the
waste (e.g., a  hazardous waste incinerator or  steam stripping
unit).
      The  Land Disposal  Restrictions are  codified under 40 CFR
part  268.  The  LDR  identify  the hazardous wastes that are
restricted  from land  disposal  and specify the  conditions under
which these  hazardous wastes may be land disposed  after  the  waste
                               6-22

-------
is treated by a specified technology or treated to reduce the
concentration of individual constituents in the waste to
specified levels.  For many hazardous wastes, the LDR treatment
standard is expressed as a concentration limit, i.e., performance
level (See, e.g., treatment standards for F037, F038, and K048-
052).  To attain the concentration limit by treating the
hazardous waste, the owner or operator may use any nonprohibited
technology.
     The EPA was developing the specific LDR treatment standards
for many hazardous waste categories at the same time that the EPA
was developing the proposed subpart CC standards.  Since proposal
of the subpart CC standards, the EPA has gained a better
understanding of the treatment methods TSDF owners and operators
are choosing to use to comply with the LDR standards.  Although
most of the treatment standards would require removal or
destruction of organics in the waste to meet or exceed the
minimum levels of performance required by these rules, this is
not invariably the case, which can result in over 100 ppm
volatile organics remaining in the wastes.  Upon consideration of
current TSDF industry practices, the EPA thus no longer believes
that an unconditional exemption for all hazardous wastes meeting
the LDR treatment standards from the subpart CC standards is
warranted.  Furthermore, the subpart CC standards allow persons
to use process knowledge to determine that the wastes are not
subject to the control requirements of the standards.  Thus
generators of most wastes treated to meet the LDR requirements
can readily determine that the treatment meets or exceeds the
minimum level of performance as specified in the rules and,
therefore, that the treated wastes do not need to be managed in
accordance with the air emission control requirements of the
subpart CC standards.
6.2.3 Site-Specific Exemptions
     Comment;  One commenter  (F-91-CESP-00010) requests that the
EPA  add provisions to the rule allowing for  site-specific
exemptions or variances from the control requirements for TSDF
tanks, surface  impoundments, or containers that have unique
                               6-23

-------
situations.  The commenter cites one example situation.  The need
to use air emission controls on a waste management unit handling
dilute wastewater at a particular site should be determined by
considering the organic air emission and risk reduction .achieved
from applying controls versus the cross-media environmental and
energy impacts of installing and operating the controls.
     Response;  The EPA determined that it is not necessary to
provide provisions allowing site-specific exemptions to the air
emission control requirements for the subpart CC standards.  The
purpose of this rule, in conjunction with the subpart AA and BB
standards, is to provide a consistent set of standards applicable
to TSDF nationwide for control of organic emissions from waste
management activities.  In developing these nationwide standards,
the EPA recognized that the waste management practices used at
TSDF can vary from site to site.  This site-specific variability
is addressed in the rule by including alternative control
requirements with which a TSDF owner or operator can choose to
comply.  The EPA believes that the control requirement
alternatives provided in the rule adequately address the site-
specific conditions reasonably expected to occur at TSDF.  No
additional provisions to allow exemptions to the control
requirements on a case-by-case basis are warranted.
     In developing the subpart CC standards, the EPA estimated
the nationwide secondary air emission impacts, the cross-media
wastewater and solid waste impacts, and energy impacts associated
with implementing the air emission controls required by the rule.
The EPA concluded that the benefits of organic air emission and
cancer risk reductions provided by implementing the air emission
controls required by the subpart CC standards exceed the cross-
media and  energy impacts associated with operating these
controls.

6.3 WASTE  DETERMINATION AND COMPLIANCE PROCEDURES
6.3.1 Determination of Volatile Organic Concentration
     Comment:  Commenters state that the EPA's use of waste
volatile  organic concentration for an action level is  incorrectly
                               6-24

-------
applied in the proposed rules as a maximum concentration never to
be exceeded.  Three commenters (F-91-CESP-00027, 00066, 00069)
assert that the waste data the EPA used for the impact analysis
that serve as the basis for selecting this action level value
represent long-term average concentrations.  Accordingly, these
commenters request that the EPA adopt a more accurate statistical
approach that:  (1) uses the same volatile organic compound used
in the NPDES and pretreatment programs to analyze samples to test
against a maximum daily limit (i.e., action level); and  (2) uses
normal statistics as is used for the interlaboratory studies for
the 600 Series Methods in 40 CFR 136, appendix A.  Two other
commenters  (F-91-CESP-00033, 00063) suggest that the rule
incorporate a flow-weighted annual average stream concentration
similar to the approach used for the benzene waste operations
NESHAP.
     Response;  The impact analysis performed by the EPA as the
basis for selecting the action level value did not explicitly
define whether the waste volatile organic concentration used for
the rule action level represents a long-term average
concentration or a maximum concentration.  As discussed in
section 4.1 of this BID, the impacts for each control option were
calculated using primarily waste data reported in responses by
TSDF owners and operators and GENSUR nationwide surveys.  Thus,  .
the waste data bases used for the analysis represent compilations
of survey response data obtained from many waste generators and
TSDF owners and operators.  There is no information in the survey
responses to determine definitively if the waste data reported by
the survey  respondents are long-term average data.  The waste
data bases  likely are composed of a mix of waste concentration
data ranging from one-time concentration values based on analysis
of a single waste sample to long-term average concentration
values based on the analyses of multiple waste samples collected
over periods of weeks or months.  Considering the mix of
concentration data in the waste data bases, the EPA believes that
it is more  appropriate to interpret the volatile organic
concentration action level assigned to each of the five  control
                               6-25

-------
options as the average concentration at the point where the waste
is generated.  (This view of the data, though justified, is the
interpretation most lenient to regulated entities.)
     The impact analysis for this rulemaking was revised
following proposal (refer to chapter 4 of this BID).  Using these
revised impact analysis results, the EPA selected a new control
option as the basis for the final subpart CC standards.  The
rationale for the selection of this control option is presented
in the federal Register notice for promulgation of the rule.  The
EPA interprets the volatile organic concentration modeled for the
action level corresponding to the selected control option to
represent the mass-weighted average volatile organic
concentration of the hazardous waste.  This matches the EPA's
interpretation of the  facility data used to develop the
substantive  standards, as explained above.  As a result, the EPA
revised the  general requirements for the final rule.  The final
subpart CC standards thus allow an owner or operator to manage a
hazardous waste  in tanks, surface impoundments, and containers
that are not equipped  with subpart CC  air emission controls if
the owner or operator  determines, using the procedures  specified
in the rule, that the  hazardous waste  has a volatile organic
concentration at the point of waste origination that is less than
100 ppmw on  a mass-weighted average basis.
     The EPA is  not  finalizing  the statistical calculation
procedure for determining the waste volatile  organic
concentration that was proposed.  This procedure  is no longer
relevant to  the  rules  since the action level  used for  the  final  .
rules  is  a mass-weighted average volatile organic concentration
for the hazardous waste.
      Continuous  compliance with a  long-term average volatile
organic  concentration limit  for hazardous waste  generated  as a
continuous  stream requires periodic  checking by  the owner  or
operator.   Even though the  long-term average volatile  organic
concentration of the hazardous waste stream is less than
 100 ppmw,  the volatile organic concentration will likely
 fluctuate.   To determine compliance with a long-term  average
                                6-26

-------
volatile organic concentration, records of waste determinations
and quantities of waste managed are required.  Accordingly,
provisions are included in the final subpart CC standards
requiring TSDF owners and operators to periodically update
information used to determine the volatile organic concentration
of a hazardous waste stream (refer to section 6.2.2 of this
chapter).  In addition, the final subpart CC standards require
the owner or operator to maintain records at the TSDF site of all
waste determinations that can be reviewed by regulatory
enforcement personnel to check owner and operator compliance with
the general requirements of the rule.
     As an aid to the EPA's enforcement of the subpart CC
standards, the EPA decided it  is appropriate to add a provision
to the general requirements of the final rules that provides a
mechanism by which regulatory  enforcement personnel can easily
check the current compliance status of tanks, surface
impoundments, and containers receiving a continuous hazardous
waste stream and not using the air emission controls required by
the rule.  This provision allows the EPA at any time to perform
or request that the TSDF owner or operator perform a waste
determination using direct measurement in accordance with  the
procedure specified in  the rules.

      Comment;  Three commenters  (F-91-CESP-00043,  00066, 00069)
 state that,  if the results of  the direct measurement  indicate
 that  the waste volatile organic  concentration  is  above  the action
 level,  the  rule  should be  consistent with other RCRA  rules [e.g.,
 40  CFR  264.98(g)(6) and 40 CFR 265.93(c)(2)] and  allow  the TSDF
 owner or operator to  retest  to confirm the  results before  having
 to apply the required air  emission controls.   Furthermore, the
 EPA should not  require the implementation  of air  emission
 controls if a value for a  volatile organic  concentration above
 the actio'n level is caused by an unusual circumstance,  natural
 variation in the concentration,  sampling error,  or analysis
 error.
      Response;   A provision allowing retesting of a hazardous
                               6-27

-------
 waste before the TSDF owner or operator must place the waste in a
 tank, surface impoundment, or container using the required air
 emission controls is not needed in the subpart CC standards.  The
 waste determination procedures specified in the rule adequately
 address situations where the volatile organic concentration of a
 hazardous waste rises to or above the action level because of an
 unusual circumstance, natural variation in the concentration,
 sampling error, or analysis error.
      It is the EPA's intention that hazardous waste be managed
 pursuant to the subpart CC control requirements except for those
 situations where the TSDF owner or operator is confident that the
 average volatile organic concentration of a hazardous waste at
 the point of waste origination is consistently below the action
 level.  If the average volatile organic concentration of the
 hazardous waste at the point of waste origination is likely to
 reach or exceed the action level during any time period over
.which the average is calculated due to natural variation or
 operational circumstances, then the EPA expects the owner or
 operator to manage the hazardous waste in tanks, surface
 impoundments, and containers using the required air emission
 controls.
      In addition, the waste determination protocol specified in
 the subpart CC standards already addresses normal variations due
 to waste sampling and analysis error.  The subpart CC standards
 specify that a sufficient number of samples (with a minimum of
 four) must be collected to represent the complete range of
 organic compositions and organic quantities that occur in the
 hazardous waste due to normal variations in the operating
 conditions for the source, process, or waste management unit
 generating the waste (e.g., such as cyclic process operations or
 fluctuations in ambient temperature).  The EPA also expects that
 a TSDF owner or operator would want to collect more than four
 samples for analysis if a significant probability of sampling
 error exists for a particular hazardous waste stream.  The EPA
 does not expect analytical error to misrepresent the volatile
 organic concentration of a hazardous waste.  As discussed in
                                6-28

-------
chapter 8 of this BID, the EPA has conducted extensive studies to
assess the precision and accuracy of Method 25D.
     The RCRA provisions under 40 CFR 264.98(g)(6) and 40 CFR
265.93(c)(2) cited by the commenters apply to the monitoring of
groundwater for the purpose of detecting the presence of
groundwater contamination by hazardous constituents.  The
resampling provisions for these ground water monitoring rules are
not appropriate for regulating organic air emissions under the
subpart CC standards.

     Comment;  Three commenters  (F-91-CESP-00048, 00060, 00078)
recommend that the EPA adopt some type of screening procedure to
quickly eliminate hazardous wastes that do not contain volatile
organic constituents or have volatile organic concentrations
below the action level.  Hazardous wastes failing the screening
test would then require a more detailed analysis.
     Response;  The subpart CC standards do provide a screening
procedure to quickly eliminate hazardous wastes that do not
contain volatile organic constituents.  The owner or operator may
choose to use knowledge of the waste and record information
showing that the waste is generated by a process  for which no
organics-containing materials are used.  For the  owner or
operator who chooses to use direct measurement to determine the
volatile organic concentration,  the EPA considers Method 25D to
be  a screening method.  This method provides a relative measure
of  the organic air emission potential of a hazardous waste by
using a  protocol that  is neither unusually expensive nor time-
consuming for a laboratory analytical technique.  There is no
need for additional analyses because the action level used to
determine which hazardous wastes can qualify for  the general
requirements under the subpart CC standards is expressed in terms
of  a volatile organic  concentration level as measured by Method
25D.

      Comment;  Three  comments  (F-91-CESP-00029, 00050,  00069)
were  received that support the EPA's proposal  to  allow  TSDF
                               6-29

-------
owners or operators to use knowledge for waste determinations.
Two other commenters (F-91-CESP-L00001, 00029) request that the
EPA clarify specific examples of information that may be used as
knowledge of the waste.
     Response;  The final subpart CC standards allow TSDF owners
or operators to use their knowledge of the waste for waste
determinations [see Hazardous Waste Treatment Council v. EPA, 886
F.2d 355,370-71 (D.C. Cir. 1989) upholding the use of generator
knowledge to determine if treatment standards are met].  Examples
of information that could constitute acceptable knowledge have
been expanded in the final rule from the examples in the proposed
rule and include:  (1) organic material balances for the source,
process, or waste management unit generating the waste;
(2) documentation that lists the raw materials or intermediate
products fed to a process showing that no organics are used in
the process generating the waste; (3) information that shows the
waste is generated by a process that is substantially similar to
a process at the same or another facility that generates a waste
previously determined by direct measurement to have an average
volatile organic content less than the action level;  (4) test
data that provide speciation analysis results for the waste that
are still applicable to the current waste management practices
and from which the total concentration of organics in the waste
can be computed; or  (5) if the TSDF owner or operator receives
the waste from an off-site generator, information contained in
manifests, shipping papers, or waste certification notices
accompanying the waste.
     When test data are used as the basis for knowledge of the
waste, then the owner or operator must provide documentation
describing the testing protocol and the means by which sampling
variability and analytical variability are accounted  for in the
determination of the volatile organic concentration of the
hazardous waste.   The test data also must be validated in
accordance with Method 301 in appendix A of part 63.
                               6-30

-------
     Comment;   Four commenters (F-91-CESP-00008,  00046,  00048,
00060)  suggest test methods that should be specified in the rules
as acceptable alternatives to Method 25D for waste
determinations.  These methods include the EPA methods 5030 and
8240, gas-phase infrared spectroscopy, helium plasma
spectroscopy,  Varian headspace analyzer, GC/FID as carbon, the
sum of POC and POX from analytical equipment by OI instruments,
and GC/MS volatile organics with tentative identification of
nontarget compounds.
     Response;  The EPA has traditionally accepted alternative
test methods to the specific reference test methods promulgated
under 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, on a case-by-case basis.  The
EPA specifies the procedure to demonstrate equivalency in Method
301 in 40 CFR part 63, appendix A.  For the subpart CC standards,
the EPA has adopted the approach of allowing TSDF owners or
operators to use their knowledge of the waste as an alternative
to using Method 25D for waste determinations.  A waste
determination using knowledge of the waste can use validated test
data that provide a speciation analysis for the waste from which
the total concentration of organics in the waste can be computed.
The owner or operator can choose the type of test method used to
perform the analysis, provided the owner or operator documents
the testing protocol and the means by which sampling variability
and analytical variability are accounted for-in the waste
determination.  Also, the individual organic constituent
concentration test data must be validated in accordance with
Method 301 in appendix A of 40 CFR part 63.

     Comment;  One commenter  (F-91-CESP-00011) states that it is
unclear if the proposed 500-ppmw volatile organic concentration
action level applies to wastes that must be heated above 50 °F to
remain liquid.  According to the commenter, materials that must
be heated to 50 °F to flow  (e.g., polymer syrups and similar
viscous materials) will exceed the proposed 500-ppmw action level
in their heated state but may not if permitted to cool to below
50 °F.  The commenter suggests that the EPA specify that the
                               6-31

-------
waste volatile organic concentration be determined at some given
temperature and pressure.
     Response;  The subpart CC standards include provisions that
allow a TSDF owner or operator to use either direct measurement
or knowledge of the waste to determine the volatile organic
concentration of a hazardous waste.  If the TSDF owner or
operator chooses to use direct measurement, the waste sample is
collected at the operating temperature and pressure for the point
of waste origination  (i.e., the waste is not allowed to cool
first).  For direct measurement, the temperature and pressure
conditions for performing the analysis are specified in
Method 25D.  If the TSDF owner or operator chooses to use
knowledge of the waste, the owner or operator uses the
temperature and pressure conditions representative of the
hazardous waste at the point of waste origination.

     Comment;  Two commenters requested that the test methods be
coordinated with other EPA rules requiring similar waste stream
determinations to use resources more efficiently and promote
consistency.  One commenter  (F-91-CESP-00063) recommends that a
single test method be developed that can be used to determine
compliance under the  subpart CC standards as well as applicable
Clean Air Act rules.  A  second commenter  (F-91-CESP-00046)
requests that waste determination requirements under this rule be
coordinated with the  characterization of  individual waste streams
required under the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990.
     Response;  The EPA  considered  hazardous waste determination
procedures required under  other EPA rules  in developing the waste
determination requirements for the  subpart CC standards.  The EPA
has not developed any waste characterization requirements under
authority  of  the Pollution Prevention Act  relevant to this
rulemaking.
      The  subpart CC  standards  include provisions that allow the
owners and operators  to  use their  knowledge of the waste as an
alternative to  using  Method 25D  for waste determinations  (refer
to other  responses  in this subsection  for a discussion of
                               6-32

-------
information that could constitute acceptable knowledge of the
waste).   This provision in the subpart CC standards allows the
TSDF owner or operator to use appropriate information and test
analysis results that already have been collected as part of a
facility's normal operating procedures or to specifically comply
with other EPA rules.
     The test methods specified in the subpart CC standards are
Method 25D, "Determination of the Volatile Organic Concentration
of Waste Samples" and Method 25E, "Determination of Vapor Phase
Organic Concentration in Waste Samples."  Though Method 25D was
proposed as a part of the subpart CC rulemaking, it was
promulgated in a separate rulemaking (59 FR 19402, April 22,
1994) in conjunction with promulgation of the Hazardous Organic
NESHAP  (HON) for the synthetic organic chemical industry.
Promulgating the test methods used for determining compliance
under the subpart CC standards in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A,
allows the EPA to apply the same test methods, when applicable as
in the case of the HON, to organic emission standards being
developed under the Clean Air Act.
6.3.2 Waste Determination for Offsite Waste
      Comment;  One commenter  (F-91-CESP-00012) agrees with the
EPA's proposal to allow TSDF owners or operators the option of
either  accepting certification from generators or performing the
waste determination  once a waste  is received.  A second commenter
 (F-91-CESP-00009) states that  it  should be sufficient for a
generator  to  state that the waste exceeds the action level
without extensive documentation.
      Response;  The  proposed  explicit requirements  for
determining the volatile  organic  concentration of a hazardous
waste using information in  a  waste  certification notice prepared
by the  waste  generator are  not included  in the  final rules.
Instead,  for  hazardous waste  that is not generated  by the TSDF
owner or operator  (i.e.,  waste shipped to the TSDF  from  off-site
 sources under different ownership),  the  final rules allow the
TSDF owner or operator to determine the  waste volatile organic
 concentration by either testing the waste when  he  or  she accepts
                               6-33

-------
delivery of the hazardous waste or using appropriate information
about the waste composition that is prepared by the generator of
the waste.  The waste generator prepared information can be
included in manifests, shipping papers, or waste certification
notices accompanying the waste shipment, as agreed upon between
the waste generator and the TSDF owner or operator.
     The subpart CC standards require a waste determination only
in situations when a TSDF owner or operator chooses to manage a
hazardous waste in a tank, surface impoundment, or container that
does not use the required air emission controls.  The rule does
not require the TSDF owner or operator to maintain any
documentation that the volatile organic concentration of a
hazardous waste received from a waste generator equals or exceeds
the action level.
     The EPA expects that any hazardous waste received at a TSDF
from off-site, which is neither tested upon receipt nor
accompanied by the appropriate waste information from the waste
generator, will be handled by the TSDF owner or operator as a
waste having a volatile organic concentration equal to or greater
           ,j'                                i'
than the action level.
6.3.3 Waste Determination for Treated Waste
     Comment:  One commenter  (F-91-CESP-00020) states that the
procedure proposed in the rule to determine that no dilution has
occurred does not eliminate the potential for mixing waste
streams that have different volatile organic concentrations for
the sole purpose of decreasing the final concentration of the
combined waste stream to a level less than the action level.
First, the commenter notes a discrepancy between the text
description and the mathematical equation shown in the Federal
Register proposal notice.  Second, assuming the intention of the
equation  is to match the text, the equation will always yield a
result that is less than or equal to the concentration of the
waste entering the treatment.  The commenter recommends that one
way to eliminate the possibility of dilution is to state that no
waste stream having a volatile organic concentration less than
the action level can be treated with a waste stream having a
                               6-34

-------
volatile organic concentration equal to or greater than the
action level for the sole purpose of creating a product that has
a concentration less than the action level.
     Response;  The proposed procedure to determine whether waste
dilution has occurred for a treated hazardous waste is not
included in the final subpart CC standards.  However, the
equation addressed by the commenter is incorporated into the
procedure specified in the final rules for determining the
treatment process exit concentration limit when an owner or
operator combines, aggregates, or mixes the hazardous waste with
other hazardous wastes or materials between the point of waste
origination and the point where the waste  is treated.  The
equation presented in the proposal Federal Register notice was
printed incorrectly.  The corrected equation is in the final
rules.
     Comment;  One commenter  (F-91-CESP-00046) interprets the
proposed rule  to require that TSDF owners  and operators using the
waste determination procedure for treated  waste must make a
volatile organic concentration determination for  each stream at
the  point where the waste is generated prior to any mixing.  This
would require  segregating multiple waste streams  with a volatile
organic content greater than or  equal to the action  level that
currently are  flowing  into  a common header feeding a treatment
unit.  The  commenter considers such a requirement to be
 inappropriate  and unwarranted  as it would  require significant
modifications  to existing waste  treatment  systems at the
 commenter's facilities.  The  commenter  states that this would be
 technically difficult  and  costly,  but would not provide
 additional  protection  to human health and  the environment.
      Response;  Two alternative provisions for treated hazardous
 waste have  been added  to the  final subpart CC standards that do
 not require an owner or operator to determine the volatile
 organic concentration of  each hazardous waste that  is mixed prior
 to treatment.   An owner or operator may choose to treat the
 hazardous waste using a process that achieves  an  organic
 reduction efficiency of 95 percent or greater,  provided that the
                               6-35

-------
volatile organic concentration of the hazardous waste exiting the
process is less than or equal to 50 ppmw as determined on a
mass-weighted average basis.  The final subpart CC standards also
provide another alternative that does not require the owner or
operator to perform any volatile organic concentration waste
determinations for the hazardous wastes prior to mixing when the
waste is treated by a biological process that destroys or
degrades the organics contained in the hazardous waste to meet
certain performance requirements specified in the rule.  These
conditions are either of the following: (1) achieve an organic
reduction efficiency for the biological treatment process equal
to or greater than 95 percent, and achieve an organic
biodegradation efficiency for the process equal to or greater
than 95 percent; or (2) achieve a total actual organic mass
biodegradation rate for all hazardous waste treated by the
process equal to or greater than the required organic mass
removal rate for the process.  Compliance with these parameters
is determined using the procedures specified in the rules.
6.3.4 Waste Determination Frecruencv
     Comment;  Several comments were received regarding the EPA's
proposal to require that waste determinations be repeated at
least once per year.  One commenter  (F-91-CESP-00012) agrees with
the proposal.  Two commenters (F-91-CESP-00019, 00060) stated
that the required waste determination interval should be more
frequent than annually because waste streams can and do change
all of the time.  Four commenters  (F-91-CESP-00029, 00033, 00054,
00082) state that periodic waste determinations are unnecessary,
burdensome, and an inefficient use of resources and submit that a
waste determination be required only when there is a change that
could affect the regulatory status of the waste stream.
     Response;  Variations or changes in the process generating a
hazardous waste may cause the volatile organic concentration of
the waste to change.  The EPA considered different approaches for
determining when waste determinations need to be updated
following the initial determination.  The EPA proposed that a
waste determination be performed whenever there is a change in
                               6-36

-------
the waste being managed or a change in the operation that
generates or treats the waste.  The EPA proposed that, if no
changes have occurred, the waste determination should be
performed at least once per year.  Also at proposal, the EPA
requested comment on the alternative of requiring monthly waste
determinations with a statistical procedure for using less
frequent intervals (56 FR 33522); no commenters supported this
alternative.
     The EPA reviewed its decision to require that the waste
determination be performed at least once per year.  Based on this
review, the EPA decided that the rule needed to be clarified as
to when waste determinations are required regarding process
changes.
     When the hazardous waste is generated as part of a
continuous process, the owner or operator is required to perform
an initial waste determination of the average volatile organic
concentration of the waste stream before the first time any
portion of the material in the waste stream is placed in a waste
management unit subject to the rule, and thereafter update the
information used for the waste determination at least once every
12 months following the date  of the initial waste determination.
When the hazardous waste is generated as part of a batch process
that is performed repeatedly  but not necessarily continuously,
the owner or operator  is required to perform an initial waste
determination of the  average  volatile organic concentration for
one or more representative waste batches generated by the process
before the  first time any portion of the material in the these
waste  batches  is placed  in a  waste management unit  subject to the
rule,  and thereafter  update the  information used  for  the waste
determination  at  least once every  12 months following the date of
the  initial waste  determination.   For either case,  the  owner or
operator is required  to  perform  a  new waste determination
whenever changes  to the  process  generating the hazardous waste
are  reasonably likely to cause the average volatile organic
concentration to  increase to  a  level  at or above  100  ppmw.  If an
average volatile  organic concentration  is used, an  initial waste
                               6-37

-------
determination must be performed for each averaging period.
     Waste determinations should be performed for any waste that
is generated as a part of an unplanned event or is generated as a
part of an event that is not included in the normal operating
conditions for the source or process generating the hazardous
waste.  Examples of an unplanned event include malfunctions that
affect the operation of the process or that alter the composition
of the waste or product.  Examples of events that are not normal
operating conditions include maintenance activities and equipment
cleaning.  Normal operating conditions for the source or process
generating the waste include cyclic process operations such as
start-up and shutdown.
     For processes that have variations in normal operating
conditions such that the waste volatile organic concentration may
exceed 100 ppmw, but for which the average waste volatile organic
concentration for the averaging period is below 100 ppmw,
documentation must be retained in the facility operating record
that specifies the following information:  (1)  the maximum and
minimum waste volatile organic concentration values that will
occur for that averaging period;  (2)  the circumstances under
which a waste volatile organic concentration above 100 ppmw would
occur, and;  (3)  the calculations and waste determination
procedures used as the basis for the determination of the average
volatile organic concentration.  For a given averaging period, if
there are no deviations from the operating circumstances or from
the maximum or minimum waste volatile organic concentrations
specified in the operating plan, then no additional waste
determinations would be required after the initial waste
determination for that averaging period.
     The EPA disagrees with the commenters' conclusion that it is
adequate to require that waste determinations be performed only
when there is a change that could affect the regulatory status of
the waste stream.  From the EPA's perspective of regulatory
enforcement, this approach is not a reasonable choice because it
increases the likelihood of inconsistent implementation of the
rule by owners and operators.  The approach would not provide the
                               6-38

-------
EPA with information to ensure that the average volatile organic
concentration at the point of waste origination for a hazardous
waste being placed in waste management units not using the
specified organic air emission controls has not increased to or
above the action level because of unintentional changes in the
waste generating process or in the raw materials.  The EPA
believes these variations could be substantial and would be
significant for hazardous wastes that have a mass-weighted
average volatile organic concentration near the action level.
For such wastes, slight changes in the process generating the
hazardous waste could cause the waste volatile organic
concentration to increase to or above the action level.  Without
periodic testing, this change could go unnoticed by the owner or
operator, resulting in the release of large quantities of
organics to the atmosphere and in a violation of the standard.
Any such noncompliance would be inconsistent with the EPA's
objective of requiring organic emission controls on units for
which the owner or operator does not prove that they consistently
accept only hazardous waste with average volatile organic
concentration less than the action level at the point of waste
generation.  For this reason, the alternative suggested by the
commenter could be less protective of human health and the
environment than requiring periodic checks of the volatile
organic concentration.
     Monthly or quarterly waste determinations would shorten the
period of time during which an increase in the volatile organic
concentrations of a hazardous waste stream at the point where the
waste  is generated would remain undetected.  However, requiring
that waste determinations be updated monthly or quarterly would
be excessive  for  some hazardous waste streams.  For hazardous
wastes that have  highly variable volatile organic concentrations,
the interval  between determinations would need to be shorter than
for hazardous wastes with  less variable volatile organic
concentrations  if the results are  to be informative.  The EPA
concluded  that  an annual  interval  for waste determinations
provides  a reasonable balance between ensuring organic  air
                               6-39

-------
emissions are controlled and easing the testing and recordkeeping
burdens of the standards.

     Comment:  Two commenters (F-91-CESP-OQQ11,, .00082) remark
that the requirement for periodic/updated waste determinations
should not apply to waste stream changes that do not increase the
organic content of the waste stream.  The commenters suggest that
only changes that increase (not decrease) the volatile organic
concentration of a waste should act as a trigger for performing a
new waste determination.
     Response:  The EPA's intent is to require a waste
determination when there is a process change that could change
the regulatory status of the tanks, surface impoundments, and
containers into which the hazardous waste is placed (e.g.,
increase the mass-weighted average volatile organic concentration
of the hazardous waste at the point of waste origination to a
level that is equal to or greater than the action level used for
the rule).  The language for the final subpart CC standards has
been revised to require the owner or operator to perform a new
waste determination whenever changes to the process generating or
treating the hazardous waste could potentially cause the volatile
organic concentration to increase to or above the concentration
limit specified in the rule or cause the treatment process
performance to decline below the minimum efficiency requirements
specified in rule.  Examples of changes requiring the owner or
operator to perform a new waste determination include a change in
the composition or proportions of the raw materials fed to a
source or process generating the hazardous waste; a shutdown and
subsequent restart of the source, process, or waste management
unit generating the hazardous waste; a change in the  flow rate or
composition  of a hazardous waste for situations where multiple
hazardous wastes are combined for treatment in a single process;
and an interruption in the operation of a process treating a
hazardous waste.
                               6-40

-------
     Comment;  One commenter (F-91-CESP-00046) states that an
annual waste determination frequency is not feasible for waste
management units containing radioactive mixed wastes because of
the level of radiation exposure to sampling and laboratory
personnel and insufficient nationwide laboratory capacity for
analyzing radioactive samples.
     Response;  As explained in section 6.1.3 of this chapter,
the applicability of the subpart CC standards to waste management
units handling radioactive mixed waste is being temporarily
deferred for reasons not related to the waste determination
procedures required for the subpart CC standards.  The EPA
acknowledges that sampling and analysis of radioactive mixed
wastes requires special handling and procedures.  For situations
where performing a waste determination using direct measurement
is not practical or possible, the subpart CC standards allow the
TSDF owner or operator to use knowledge of the waste, which does
not require samples of the waste to be collected.

6.4 TANK EMISSION CONTROL REQUIREMENTS
6.4.1 Tank Applicability/Exemptions
     Comment;  One commenter  (F-91-CESP-00022) asks whether the
EPA is regulating secondary containment structures for
aboveground tanks and surface  impoundments under the subpart CC
standards.  The commenter notes that there currently are no
regulations  on the secondary containment of unpermitted releases
of gases  (including organic vapors) and asks  whether the EPA will
be issuing  secondary containment regulations  for gases or fluids
under RCRA  or other EPA  statutory authorities.
     Response;  Under existing RCRA regulations 40 CFR 264.193
and  40  CFR  265.193, a tank managing hazardous waste  is required
to have a secondary containment  and leak detection system that
meets  certain design specifications.   The  subpart CC standards
apply  only  to the tank structure itself.   The subpart CC
standards do not  apply to the secondary containment  structures
that are built  external  to  the tank and are  not  an  integral part
 of  the tank structure  (e.g.,  a concrete pad  or  synthetic membrane
                               6-41

-------
liner placed underneath the tank bottom, a dike or berm placed
around the tank, or a concrete vault into which the tank is
placed).  In the case where a double-walled tank is used to meet
the secondary containment requirements, the subpart CC standards
apply to the tank.
     The purpose of requiring a secondary containment system for
tanks is to prevent the waste from contaminating the soil,
surface waters, or groundwaters in the event of a tank leak,
accidental waste spill, or tank overfill.  Furthermore, when a
leak or spill does occur, existing RCRA regulations §§ 264.196
and 265.196 require the TSDF owner or operator to remove the tank
from service immediately, stop the flow of waste into the
secondary containment system, and promptly remove the waste
released into the secondary containment system.  All of these
actions are required to be completed within 24 hours of detecting
waste in the secondary containment system unless special site
circumstances require additional time.  Thus, no waste is  in the
secondary containment system unless waste is released into the
system due to an unexpected tank leak or accidental waste  spill
and, should a leak or spill occur, the waste is exposed to the
atmosphere for  only a short time.  Therefore, the EPA is not
planning to develop standards requiring that standby air emission
controls be installed for the tank secondary containment system.

     Comment;   One commenter  (F-91-CESP-00062) requests
clarification regarding the application of the tank standards to
sumps  because under RCRA a sump  is any pit or reservoir that
meets  the definition of a tank.  Unless the intent is to cover
all  sumps and the troughs/trenches associated with them and have
the  sump meet  all requirements  for fixed-roof tanks, the
commenter states  that  a specific exemption should be added for
sumps.
     Response:  A sump  is used  to receive and temporarily  store
wastewaters  or  other drainage at the  lowest point  in a
circulating  or  drain system.  Under 40  CFR 260.10 of RCRA, a
 "sump" is defined to be "any pit or reservoir that meets  the
                                6-42

-------
definition of a tank and those troughs/trenches connected to it
that serves to collect hazardous waste for transport to hazardous
waste storage, treatment, or disposal facilities."
      The tank control equipment-_reguirements_speci_f ied under the
subpart CC standards (e.g., a covered tank vented to a control
device, external floating roof) do apply to sumps.  However, the
subpart CC standards also require that the owner and operator use
enclosed pipes or other closed systems to transfer hazardous
waste to or from a tank required to use the subpart CC air
emission controls.  In the case where the sump is used to
transfer wastewater, for example, the EPA considers the
individual drain system requirements specified in the benzene
waste operations NESHAP under 40 CFR 61.346(a)(l) or 40 CFR
61.346(b)(1) through (b)(3) to define a "closed system" and to
provide adequate emission control for a sump.

     Comment;  Two commenters  (F-91-CESP-00066, 00069) request
that biological treatment tanks be exempt from the tank control
requirements.  The commenters believe that the level of organics
emissions from biological treatment tanks do not support the
requirement that air emission controls be used on these units.
The commenters note that biological treatment units are exempt
from air  emission controls under the benzene waste operations
NESHAP, and the commenters believe that such an exemption  is also
applicable to the subpart CC standards.
     Response;  Some TSDF use biological activated sludge
processes to  treat hazardous wastewaters.  Large open-top  tanks
or surface  impoundments  are used to conduct these processes.
While  the subpart CC standards will not apply to wastewater
treatment facilities at  many TSDF  (refer to the discussion in
section 6.1.6  of this  chapter), a  few special or unique
situations  exist  in the  TSDF  industry in which a tank used for
biological  wastewater  treatment will need to comply with these
standards.   For these  few situations, the subpart CC standards,
as proposed,  would  require a  biological treatment tank managing
wastewater  with  a volatile organic concentration  equal to  or
                                6-43

-------
greater than the action level to use a cover vented to a control
device.
     In other air rulemakings for which the EPA has sufficient
information regarding biological treatment process operations and
emissions from these operations, the EPA has exempted certain
biological treatment units from air emission control requirements
based on specific biological treatment operating parameters
(e.g., benzene waste operations NESHAP under 40 CFR 61 subpart
FF).  Under certain operating conditions, the microbes used for a
biological treatment process can degrade (i.e., destroy) the
organic compounds in waste at a rate much faster than these
organic compounds would volatilize into the air.  In this
situation, the fraction of organics emitted to the atmosphere
from a biological treatment process is low.
     Upon consideration of information concerning the biological
treatment of wastewaters at TSDF and consistent with other the
EPA rulemakings, the EPA decided it is appropriate for the final
subpart CC standards not to require additional emission controls
on certain biological treatment tanks.  Therefore, a provision
has been added to the general requirements of the final subpart
CC standards indicating that a biological treatment tank is not
required to use subpart CC air emission controls if the
biological wastewater treatment process performed in the tank
degrades organics in the hazardous waste entering the process so
that either the organic biodegradation efficiency or organic
removal efficiency of the process meets, or exceeds a minimum
level of performance as specified in the rule.
6.4.2 Tank Control Requirements
     Comment;  Commenters expressed concern regarding the EPA's
intention in requiring compliance with the specific regulatory
language in the proposed rule stating that the tank cover and all
cover openings be "designed to operate with no detectable organic
emissions."   One commenter  (F-91-CESP-00011) submits that the
EPA appears to use the term "to operate" both to refer to a cover
opening in a closed, sealed position and to a cover opening when
the opening  is being used for its intended function.  When this
                               6-44

-------
term refers to cover openings such as a tank access hatch, the
opening cannot comply with the "no detectable organic emissions"
requirement of the proposed rule when the hatch cover is open to
provide access to the inside of the tank.  The commenter requests
that the EPA revise the rule to require that cover openings be
designed to operate with no detectable organic emissions only
when the cover opening is in a closed, sealed position.  A second
commenter  (F-91-CESP-00010) states that the language of the
proposed rule requirement may be interpreted by enforcement
personnel to mean that any detection of emissions from a cover
opening during an enforcement inspection constitutes
noncompliance with the rule.  This commenter also notes that
during biennial solids cleanout for the internal inspections
required under §§ 264.195 and 265.195, or during solids cleanout
for repair mandated under §§ 264.196 and 265.196, it is virtually
impossible to comply with the requirement as proposed.  The
commenter requests that the rule be revised so that "no
detectable organic emissions" from tank cover openings is a
design requirement only.  Another commenter (F-91-CESP-00062)
believes that it is necessary to expand the conditions under
which someone can legitimately open the vent on a tank, e.g.,
during maintenance.  A final commenter  (F-91-CESP-00008)  states
that the proposed requirement precludes the case where a  constant
volume of  air is exhausted through a fixed-roof tank to a control
device meeting the requirements of § 264.1086.  If negative
pressure is maintained on the tank at all times, the commenter
submits that control is probably superior to the control  required
by  S 264.1083.  According to the commenter, this option would be
most desirable in the case of a retrofit, where a particular tank
may not have been designed for pressurization.
     Response;  Under the  subpart CC standards, the EPA intends
that each  opening on the tank cover be  closed and sealed  (i.e.,
operated with no detectable organic emissions) by a hatch, cap,
plug,  or other type of lid at all times except under the
following  conditions:  when work practices require a cover
fitting such as a hatch to be opened, when gases and vapors  are
                               6-45

-------
vented through a cover opening to a control device in accordance
with the requirements of the rule, or when safety considerations
require a cover fitting such as a pressure relief valve to
automatically open to the atmosphere.  Accordingly, the language
of the final rule has been revised to explicitly require the
cover and all cover openings to be designed to operate with no
detectable organic emissions when all cover openings are secured
in the closed and sealed position and require that each cover
opening be maintained in a closed and sealed position except
under the specific conditions set forth in the rule.
     The EPA recognizes that access through tank cover openings
is required at times to add, remove, inspect, or sample the waste
in the tank.  Also, TSDF owners and operators can perform some
routine tank maintenance or equipment repairs with access through
the tank cover openings without removing all of the waste from
the tank.  During these times, cover fittings such as access
hatches and sampling ports must remain open to the atmosphere.
Furthermore, for organic vapors to pass from inside the tank to a
control device, the vent system between the tank and the control
device must remain open.
     The tank cover will not be effective in controlling organic
emissions if openings in the tank cover allow significant amounts
of organics to escape directly to the atmosphere.  To maximize
the effectiveness of the cover for controlling organic emissions,
it is necessary that each cover fitting operate with no
detectable organic emissions when in a closed and sealed
position.  At any given time the EPA expects that only those
cover fittings required for workers to perform a particular
operation will be open and that, once the operation is completed,
those cover  fittings will be  immediately returned to a closed and
sealed  position.
     The EPA does not agree that the tank standards need to be
modified to  clarify that the  "designed to operate with no
detectable organic emissions"  is  a design requirement only.  The
records required by SS  264.1088  and  265.1089 are intended to
demonstrate  compliance  with the  control requirements of the
                               6-46

-------
standards.  The engineering design documentation for each
floating-roof type cover and records of the Method 21 leak
detection monitoring conducted in accordance with SS 264.1087 or
265.1088 show that the "no detectable organic emissions" design
requirement is being met and that the air emission control
equipment is being maintained so that "no detectable organic
emissions" exist.
     Detection of emissions from a tank cover opening is not an
immediate violation of the rule.  The rule requires that, upon
detection of a leak, the owner or operator initiate repairs
within 5 days and complete the repairs within 15 days.
Consequently, a leak that is detected during an enforcement
inspection does not constitute noncompliance if repair attempts
are started within 5 days and the repair is completed within 15
days.
     The subpart CC standards do not preclude the use of a fixed-
roof tank vented to a control device so that a negative pressure
is maintained on the tank at all times.  To the contrary, one of
the tanks specified in the rule as being adequately controlled
for air emissions is a tank equipped with a cover (e.g., a fixed
roof) vented to a closed-vent system and control device.  The
cover and all cover opening must be designed to operate with no
detectable organic emissions when all cover openings are closed
and sealed.

     Comment;  Comments were received regarding the use of
certain pressure-relief devices on tank covers.  Two commenters
(F-91-CESP-00010, 00065) note that the proposed standards for a
fixed-roof cover vented to a control device seem to preclude the
use of pressure-relief devices on the cover.  One of the
commenters notes that American Society of Mechanical Engineers
(ASME) vessel codes mandate the installation of pressure-relief
devices on vessels as prevention against catastrophic rupture.
Two commenters  (F-91-CESP-00069, 00076) recommend that use of a
conservation vent be allowed as a pressure-relief device.  One
commenter (F-91-CESP-00046) offers a suggestion regarding the
                               6-47

-------
proposed requirement to add a pressure-relief device to the vent
stack of a small tank (less than 20,000 gallons) that is allowed
to use only a fixed roof.  The conunenter submits that the
proposed pressure-relief device requirement should be eliminated
because it would be difficult to implement and would not actually
          ' 'I:          '        i     .      .   i1 .
remove or control air emissions from these tanks.
     Response:  The EPA expects that TSDF owners and operators
will follow the proper safety procedures appropriate for their
situations when designing and operating all air emission controls
required by the subpart CC standards.  To emphasize the need for
good engineering and safety practices, a provision has been added
to the final subpart CC standards specifically allowing safety
devices that vent directly to the atmosphere to be used on the
tank, cover, or closed-vent system with control device.  Each
safety device must meet the following conditions:  (1) the safety
device is not used for planned or routine venting of organic
vapors from the tank or closed-vent system with control device;
and  (2) the safety device remains in a closed, sealed position at
all times with one exception.  The safety device may open when an
unplanned event requires that the device open for the purpose of
preventing physical damage or permanent deformation of the tank,
cover, or closed-vent system with control device in accordance
with good engineering and safety practices for handling
flammable, combustible, explosive, or other hazardous materials.
An example of an unplanned event is a sudden power outage.
     Conservation vents are a type of pressure-relief valve used
on fixed-roof tanks that are designed to operate at pressures
near atmospheric pressure.  These vents serve to reduce losses of
the materials stored in the tank due to volatilization and
subsequent release of the organics though openings in the tank
roof to the atmosphere.  Typically, conservation vents are set to
open at pressure levels slightly above atmospheric pressure to
prevent the internal tank pressure from exceeding the tank design
pressure  limits.  As discussed above, the final subpart CC
standards allow vents on the  tank covers provided the vents open
only when it  is necessary to maintain the internal tank pressure
                               6-48

-------
conservation vents on
      in

organic
         emissions

  organic

  entire tank structure

  request  -url.i-.tl. „ .
=:
                                    that  adding .
                            -
                                     :r
                                         n
                                                 4 * tne

                                               '  thr EPA'S

                                         stacK o, a
                                                         «*

                                     (F-91-CBSP-00023,  00072,

                                       control requirements
                                       co

 treatment of hazardous waste

                              6-49

-------
  to operate with no detectable organic emissions when all cover
  openings  are  secured in the closed,  sealed position.
       F°r  a vertical wall tank,  the no detectable emission
  requirement under  the subpart CC standards applies  to the tank
  top cover or  tank  roof,  to the  junction between the cover and  the
  tank  walls, and to openings on  that  portion of  the  tank  walls
  that  does not directly contact  the waste placed in  the tank when
  the tank  is filled to maximum capacity.  The EPA does not  intend
  this  requirement to apply  to the seams  and welds on the  tank
  walls nor to  piping connections  through  the tank walls or  bottom
  through which waste is transferred to or from the tank.  Leakage
  from these tank structural  components is already adequately
 addressed by  the requirements specified  under subpart J of 40 CFR
 parts 264 and 265.
      A horizontal,  cylindrical tank does not have an open top
 that can be covered.  The entire surface area of the waste in the
 tank is always enclosed by the upper portion of the tank  body.
 However,  a horizontal tank does have openings through which waste
 is transferred to and from the tank as well as vents or other
 pressure-relief devices to prevent the internal pressure  of the
 tank from  exceeding the tank design pressure.  Also, the  tank may
 have separate  openings used for other purposes  such  as sampling
 the waste  or measuring the waste level inside the tank.   The  EPA
 intends that the no detectable organic emission  requirement under
 the subpart CC standards apply to all openings on that portion  of
 the horizontal tank body that does not directly  contact the waste
 placed in  the  tank  when the tank is filled  to maximum capacity.
 If  the ^ft** is located underground, then  the requirement  is
 applied above  the point where the connection to  an opening  on the
 tank body  intersects the  ground  surface.
        '''"'"•I                           •                             '
     ^Comment;    Commenters request  clarification  regarding the
 application of tank  cover requirements to cover penetrations
 other than cover openings such as access hatches, gauge wells,
and vents.   TWO commenters  (F-91-CESP-OOOH, 00072) believe that
these types of openings should be considered and provided  for in
                               6-50

-------
used for .ixin, ana :^^pleroenting the subpart CC

                         ^

                     r;=-=.rr,
  !„ which tanks designsa to operate at pressures above 209.4
  are used for rapid transfer of material by Baintainxn, the
  pressure within a tank above 204. 9 XPa durino the transfer
                          6-51

-------
 operation but not during routine storage.  Another commenter
 (F-91-CESP-00046) requests that the EPA clarify what kind of tank
 conditions would constitute a pressurized tank and whether a tank
 operating under a nitrogen blanket would qualify as a pressure
 tank.  One commenter (F-91-CESP-00011) states that the provision
 allowing the use of pressurized tanks should also apply to tanks
 designed to operate at pressures below 204.9 kPa because there
 are 90-day tanks designed to operate at these pressures.
      Resppnse;   The purpose of the subpart CC standards under
 RCRA is to control organic emissions to the atmosphere from TSDF
 tanks during normal waste storage,  treatment, and transfer
 operations.   Tanks can be designed to operate at internal
 pressures above atmospheric pressure so that a tank operates as a
 closed system and does not emit organic air emissions  at normal
 storage conditions or during routine filling and emptying
 operations.   Pressure-relief valves on these tanks operate as
 safety devices,  opening only in the event  of improper  operation
 (e.g.,  overfilling the tank)  or an  emergency situation (e.g.,
 exposure to  excessive heat).   In developing the  proposed rule,
 the  EPA concluded that  pressure tanks  can  provide  effective
 organic emission control under certain conditions  and  should  be
 addressed in the subpart CC  standards  established  for  TSDF tanks.
      Not all tanks that operate at  internal pressures  above
 atmospheric  pressure  necessarily operate as closed systems with
 no emissions to  the atmosphere under normal operating  conditions.
 Fixed-roof tanks can  be designed to operate at pressures up to  35
 kPa  (2.5  psig).   However, at these relatively low operating
 pressures, pressure-relief valves on the roof can still open to
 the atmosphere during routine  tank filling and emptying
 operations.   Thus, for  a pressurized tank to provide effective
 organic emission control, certain conditions must be established
 for the design and operation of the tank.
     The EPA proposed to allow TSDF owners and operators the
option of using  a pressure tank that is designed to operate at a
pressure in excess of 204.9 kPa and operates with no detectable
organic emissions to comply with the subpart CC control equipment
                               6-52

-------

                                                       >
 ; -.«.:;     ;             —                 „ „.
 pressure vessels designed to operate in  excess of 204.9
                       "                          , ««
         -: r r-it            ri=r rr
Tot   XPa.  A Pressure tan* could be designed  and operated as a
closed svste. at interna, pressure, .           **
Y->e>en revised T-O aAj.'-'w  «  -i~~-              .             i.v»->4-
tan* that is designed  and operated as a closed system so that
there are no detectable  organic emissions to the atmosphere
«cePt under certain safety-related conditions set forth in the

rule.
          .
 liquids from mixing with the oxygen in the ambxent
                                       "
 tank system.

      comment:  One commenter  (F-91-CESP-00009) states that the
 proposed alternative control  requirements for tanXs under the
 LhLrt CC standards (i.e., external floating roof and  internal
  fluting roof requirements, essentially duplicate the »SPS for
  v latile organic liquid storage vessels under ,0 CFR 60 subpart
  Kb.  The commenter suggests that considerable paper would be
  saved  and potential confusion could be avoided by cross-
  referencing in the subpart CC standards the appropriate
                              6-53

-------
 requirements of 40 CFR 60 subpart Kb instead of repeating the
 requirements.
      Response;  The alternative control requirements for tanks
 under the subpart CC standards duplicate the external floating
 roof and internal floating roof requirements for volatile organic
 liquid storage vessels under 40 CFR 60 subpart Kb.  For the
 convenience of tank owners and operators that manage hazardous
 wastes in tanks pursuant to the subpart CC standards, the
 requirements are duplicated in part 265 with minor regulatory
 language revisions appropriate for implementing the requirements
        , ''i         • ,  '     ' '               ',!„ ;       •               , L
 under the RCRA subtitle C permitting process.   The alternative
 control requirements for tanks provisions in part 264 cross
 reference the specific requirements of part 265.

      Comment;   Twelve commenters (F-91-CESP-00010,  00011,  00023,
 00038,  00040,  00044,  00045,  00046,  00058,  00069,  00070,  00076)
 request revision of the proposed definition of  "quiescent"
 because,  under the proposed  definition,  essentially no tank could
 qualify to use a cover only.   Commenters interpret the phrase
 "flow induced  turbulence" in the definition of  "quiescent"  to
 mean  that tank loading or unloading operations  would be
 considered mixing.  Also,  commenters noted  that the contents of
 storage tanks  are mixed or agitated for  reasons other than  waste
 treatment such as to  obtain  a representative sample of waste in
 the tank,  to prevent  solids  from settling to the bottom of  the
 tank, to  prevent cavitation  of the  bottom of the tank, or to
 protect the mechanical  seals  of  the  pumps.  Commenters submit
 that  mixing or agitation  below the  surface does not  increase air
 emissions.
      Response;   For TSDF  tanks to which the control requirements
under the  subpart CC  standards apply, the EPA proposed that the
TSDF  owner  or  operator could use only a cover on tanks that met
certain conditions.  The use of only a cover does not provide
adequate emission control for a tank in which wastes are aerated
or agitated as a part of the treatment process creating a
turbulent  liquid surface.  Turbulence on the surface of a waste
                               6-54

-------
managed in a tanX increases
                            emission of cronies fro* the waste


no turbulent flow on
                                            the vaste surface at
   tne regulatory language for the finaX subpart cc standaras to
   establish, as a condition for using a cover only, that the waste
    „ the tn* not be »i*ea, stirred, agitated, or «^£
   the tank by the owner or operator using a process that results
                                  6-55

-------
 splashing, frothing, or visible turbulent flow on the waste
 surface during normal process operations.

      Comment;   Seven commente.rs.__(F-91-CESP-00011, 00023, 00040,
 00044, 00062,  00069, 00076) do not agree with the proposed
 restriction that prohibits the addition of heat to the waste in a
 tank that is allowed to use a cover only.  The commenters note
 several situations requiring addition of heat or involving heat
 generation that should not subject a tank to using a closed-vent
 system and control device.  These situations include the
 treatment of wastes that require heat addition to remain in a
 liquid state and the use of freeze protection systems in colder
 climates to maintain an adequate viscosity that will allow
 adequate flow  of the waste.  Commenters note that it is  possible
 for neutralization processes and biological  treatment processes
 to result in an exothermic reaction with a small  temperature
 increase.
      Response;   The language for the proposed rule restricted the
 use of a cover  only to  tanks in  which no heat is  added to  the
 waste.   The EPA added this restriction because the rate  at  which
 organics in a waste are volatilized and emitted from the waste  is
 a  function  of the  temperature of the  waste.   However,  the EPA did
 not intend  that  this  restriction require an  owner or  operator to
 cease  a  waste management operation  during cold weather because
 the waste becomes  frozen or does not  have sufficient  viscosity to
 allow  adequate flow of  the  waste.   Therefore, the EPA decided
 that it  is  reasonable to revise the waste condition restricting
 the  use  of  covers  only on a  tank to specify that the waste cannot
 be  heated by the TSDF owner  or operator except to heat the waste
 to  the minimum temperature necessary to prevent the waste from
 freezing or to maintain adequate waste flow during cold weather.
     It is not appropriate to revise the restriction on heating
 of the waste to account for the temperature rise from
neutralization of a waste.   Some waste neutralization processes,
such as adding lime to an acidic waste, produce an exothermic
chemical reaction that heats the waste.  The EPA believes that
                              6-56

-------
waste to account for any  temperatur
                                       rise

                                                   sir.
surface during riorual process operations
the
               several counters request that the EPA clarify
               of "fixation."  one counter (Ml-CESP-OOOW)

           n alinfre^ent or ae *ini*is .asis.   mother  counter
 (F-91-CESP-00062)  requests clarification of the proposed
 definition for fixation to indicate that any chemical or phys.cal
 process where the primary intent is to either reduce -*£*»«*
 hazardous constituents in a waste or eliminate free l^ds „
 considered to be "fixation."                       „,„_.„ as
                 The definition of a waste f«.t«m process as
      ge^an^:
 nronosed is appropriate for the rule.  This definition
 spec" ica  ly states that fixation includes mixing of a hazardous
 waste with Lnders or fixative materiais  followed by curxn, the
 Tsultln,  waste and binder mixture.  Mixing of  a hazardous waste
                                6-57

-------
 with a binder distinguishes a waste fixation process from other
 types of waste treatment processes.  A process that does not
 involve the mixing of the hazardous waste with a binder and
 subsequent curing of the resulting mixture is not a waste
 fixation process under the rule.  Examples of operations that are
 not waste fixation process under the subpart CC standards are
 cleaning tanks and dewatering sludge where the intent is also to
 eliminate free liquids from the waste.

      Comment;   One commenter (F-91-CESP-L0001)  states that,
 although retrofitting air emission controls on open tanks used
 for mixing may be difficult,  a tank used for waste stabilization
 remains a source of emissions and should also be operated
 pursuant to the rule.   The commenter requests that best
 demonstrated available technology be applied to waste
 stabilization  techniques.
      Response;   The final  subpart CC standards  require that,  for
 waste fixation processes  conducted in a  tank, the tank be covered
 and all organic vapors from the  tank be  vented  to a  control
 device.   Therefore,  if an  open tank currently is  used at  a TSDF
 for waste fixation  and that tank is required  to apply air
 emission controls under the subpart CC standards,  then to comply
 with the rule  the tank will need to be covered  and all organic
 vapors  from  the tank be vented to a control device.

      Comment;   Four commenters (F-91-CESP-00023,  00029, 00075,
 00077)  support  the EPA's proposal  to use tank sizes and vapor
 pressure  categories consistent with the NSPS for volatile organic
 liquid  storage  under 40 CFR 60 subpart Kb.  In contrast,  another
 commenter  (F-91-CESP-00038) states that the proposed tank size
 categories are  too restrictive because the subpart CC standards
apply to tanks managing many different types of organic-
containing wastes including low-organic content wastewaters while
the NSPS standards are intended to apply to tanks containing
concentrated organics.  A sixth commenter (F-91-CESP-00019)
states that the proposed tank size and waste vapor pressure
                              6-58

-------
,„««.. .,
                 •'"•

                                  „.„„„ ,„ «,„ ..... ••<
              The EPA
                                             e
                                                   apply to

tanlcs containing concentrated organics
the
                   counters  (F-91-CBSP-00007,  00062,  reest
                   how to determine the -tanX «pa«ty
                                                            ^
 tanx  pus, pping, etc.,. - the entire
 manage,ent unit," which couid be made up of severa! tanXs
 interconnected together with their pumps and P^"9.
                The -ntro, requirement, under th   uhpart^CC
                                                          . «-
            or operator ,ay comply with the rule by  using a cover
              an^ and waste contained in the tan* »eet certa n
              one of the  conditions is the design capac.ty of the
                               6-59

-------
 tank.  For the purpose  of  determining compliance with  the  subpart
 CC standards, the design capacity of  a tank  is determined  by the
 maximum volume of waste that can be placed in the  individual tank
 structure not including the  waste contained  in ancillary
 equipment connected to  the tank  such  as pumps and  pipes.

      Comment;  One comroenter (F-91-CESP-00046) requests that,
 with respect to the vapor  pressure exemption from  the tank
 standards, consideration should  be given to providing TSDF owners
 and operators with the  option of:  (1) sampling the influent to
 the tank,  (2)  periodically monitoring tank pressure or installing
 continuous recording pressure-sensing devices in the tank roof;
 or (3)  allowing sampling of the tank headspace.   According to the
 commenter, sampling of the tank headspace would  provide a more
 accurate  or composite assessment of tank content,  especially for
 tanks receiving wastes of different composition.   In addition,
 the commenter  submits that such an approach  could  reduce the
 exposure of sampling personnel to radioactive mixed waste as well
 as reduce  lab  contamination and analytical costs and the quantity
 of waste generated.
      Response;   The  maximum organic vapor pressure  of the waste
 in a  tank  is one of  several conditions specified in the  final
 subpart CC standards  that must be met  if the  tank qualifies  to
 use a cover only.  The vapor  pressure  is only a condition for a
 tank  having a design  capacity greater  than or equal  to 75 m3
 (approximately 20,000  gal).   The  vapor pressure cutoff is based
 on the maximum organic vapor  concentration determined for the
 waste in the tank.  As defined in  subpart CC, the "maximum
 organic vapor pressure"  means the  equilibrium partial pressure
 exerted by the hazardous waste contained in a tank determined at
 3  teaPerature equal to either: (1) the local  maximum monthly
 average temperature as reported by the National Weather Service
when the hazardous waste is stored or treated at  ambient
temperature; or (2)  the highest calendar-month average
temperature of the hazardous waste when the hazardous waste is
                               6-60

-------
ambient *-*•«*""•    exposure of sailing personnel to
     «ith regard to the s**°           lab contamination, as
radioactive mixec ^* ^of Tis chapter, the applicability of
explained in sect.on  6_1.3        managenent units handling
the subpart CC standards to wast              deferred  for
radioactive mixed "^'J^^l procedures
reasons not related to *•""*•*      The EPA acknowledges that
required  for the subpart CC  ^andards^  Th                speoiai
 sampling  and analysis o, -^^^^ ^forming a »aste
 handling  and procedures.  For                practical or
 germination  using direct -sure-- - J^ ^ use
 possible, the  rule allows the TSU          -re saTOpies of the
 Pledge of the  waste, ^J^^^^ of the tan*
 waste to be collected.  Resu         cetable knowledge of the
  documentat ion

rr,:
operations.
                                             - -—
                                      storage tanks within a
        ge^sj,:  Placing treatment or stor g
   building that is vented to a control device  ,e., ^ ^^
   several open-top tanks in a buUd.n, for wh
   airspace insiae the buildi ng  -^^^ requirements of
                                 6-61

-------
 stream exhausted to the control device. 'These high air volumes
 effectively dilute the organic emissions from the open tanks
 inside the building to very low organic concentrations.  Control
 device organic removal or destruction efficiencies decrease
 significantly for gas streams with very dilute organic
 concentrations.  Thus, the control approach requested by the
 commenters does not provide an equivalent level of organic
 emission control to venting the emissions from each tank in a
 building through a closed-vent system to an air emission control
 device specified by the subpart CC standards.

      Comment;   One commenter (F-91-CESP-00038)  requests that
 external floating synthetic roofs  be allowed as an alternative
 tank control because many open-top tanks are not structurally
 designed to support a fixed-roof top and would  require
 significant wall support.   The commenter has installed  an
 external floating membrane cover on three 5-million-gallon
 wastewater tanks that are vented through carbon  adsorbers.   The
 commenter submits that source  testing has indicated a control
 efficiency of  over 95 percent  (emissions have been reduced  from
 over  6  Ib/hr to less  than 0.1  Ib/hr).
      Resppnse;   The organic  emission  control effectiveness  of  an
 emission  control system using  an external floating synthetic roof
 must  include an evaluation of  the permeability of the membrane
 Cover.  A laboratory  study conducted  by  the EPA indicates that
 the permeability (a measure  of the  flux  or leak rate)  of organic
 compounds through different  types of  commercially available
 membrane  materials can vary  greatly depending on the type of
membrane  material and the mixtures of organic constituents
present in the  liquid waste  covered by the membrane (refer to
section 6.5 of this chapter  for additional information about this
study).   Thus, the control approach requested by the commenters
does not  ensure an equivalent level of organic emission  control
in comparison to using the air emission controls specified by the
subpart CC standards.
                              6-62

-------
              „.
  r


the requirements specified in the rule.



            of a Infill,  hovever,  it is
                                                         as  a
              =              CC stanaaras use «» exis.in, KCK,
 aefinition of a "surface tapounament" as specifiea unaer
 t 260 XO   -The requirements of the subpart CC stanaaras apply to
            operators of TSOF surface i*pounaments «ho ,ust obtaln
          unaer RCR* subtitie C.  If ha.araous waste hav.ng a
                                6-63

-------
 volatile organic concentration greater than or equal to 100 ppmw
 at the point  of  waste origination (as determined according to the
 procedure specified in the rule)  is placed in such a surface
 impoundment,  then the owner or operator must install and operate
 the required  air emission controls on the surface impoundment.
      If,  as in the commenter's case,  a waste management unit does
 not fit the definition of a surface impoundment but is permitted
 as a surface  impoundment, then the terms of the permit apply.
 Therefore, the commenter's waste  management unit will be
 regulated as  a surface impoundment under the subpart CC
 standards.  However,  the commenter could apply for a permit
        I, !|       • '     ,   '    "   |l   	!' !  '    -          *       •   „
 modification  to  have  the unit RCRA-permitted as a landfill.
      If the waste being placed in the commenter's surface
 impoundment is generated from an  onsite corrective action  and the
 surface impoundment does not also manage as-generated hazardous
 waste,  application of the subpart CC  standards is being
 temporarily deferred  (see section 9.6 of this BID).

      Comment;  One commenter (F-91-CESP-00066)  requests that
 biologically  active impoundments  be exempted  from the air
      (  '•••:     '          :            »  it „  ji,                    , • . • , ,
 emission  control  requirements of  the  proposed rule.   The
 commenter submits  that  the  EPA's  estimates  of emissions from
 biological systems overestimate the environmental  and health
 effects of current emissions from biologically active TSDF and
 thus  overestimate  the benefits of the proposed rule.
      Response;   As discussed in  section 6.4.1  of  this  chapter,
 the EPA decided to allow  tanks in which certain biological
wastewater treatment processes were conducted  to operate without
the subpart CC air emission  controls.  The EPA decided  it is
 appropriate to allow the  same general requirements for surface
 impoundments.   Therefore, a provision has been added to the final
general requirements of the subpart CC standards allowing a
surface impoundment pursuant to the rule to operate without the
required air emission controls if the biological wastewater
treatment process performed in the surface impoundment destroys
and degrades organics in the hazardous waste and is designed and
                               6-64

-------
operate, in accordance with the requirements specified in the



rule.
 complicated than transter    j. si                 Furthermore, the

                                  .........
       ...!» =..«.!. «.
                                  6-65

-------
 permeability (a measure of the flux or leak rate) of organic
 compounds through different types of commercially available
 membrane materials.  A complete description of this test
 procedure and test results was available in the docket for public
 review and comment at rule proposal (refer to Docket No.
 F-91-CESP-S00486).
      The test procedure developed by the EPA uses a special
 two-section glass chamber.  An organic solution is circulated in
 the lower chamber while an air stream continuously flows through
 the upper chamber.  A section of membrane material separates
 liquid in the lower chamber from the air in the upper chamber.
 An "O" ring seal mechanism prevents leakage of organics between
 the junction of the two chamber sections.   Thus,  organics in the
 liquid can only enter the upper chamber by passing through the
 membrane material.   The purge stream of air flows through the
 upper chamber continuously during the  test run,  sweeping the
 surface of the  membrane material.   This purge  stream is
 continuously analyzed for the three compounds  in  the test
 solution using  GC/FID.
      The organic compounds selected for the tests consist of an
 organic solution containing equal  parts of  toluene,  methyl ethyl
 ketone (MEK), and methylene chloride.   Each test  run lasted a
 period of approximately 30 days.   Four  types of synthetic
 membrane materials  were tested:  HOPE,  chloro-sulfated
 polyethylene  (Hypalon),  a  vinyl-coated  polyester,  and an  ethylene
 interpolymer  adhesive.
      The results of the laboratory tests showed measurable  rates
 of permeation were detected for each organic compound for all of
 the membrane materials  tested.  The permeability of the three
 organic compounds through  2.5-mm (100-mil) HOPE was significantly
 lower than for the other types of membrane materials tested.
There was no significant difference in the long-term performance
 (i.e.,  20 to 40  days) of 100-mil HOPE produced by two different
manufacturers.
      The effectiveness of using a synthetic membrane cover to
control  air emissions from a surface impoundment was estimated
                               6-66

-------
baBed on the organic flux rates measured in the laboratory tests-
For the calculation, an aqueous waste containing the same organic
compounds as in the test fixture (toiuene, MEK, methylene
chloride) is assumed to be managed in a TSDF surface impoundment
with a depth of 1.8 meters and a waste retention time of
100 days.   It  is  also assumed that the contents of the covered
surface  impoundment are well mixed  (i.e., there is no
concentration  gradient,,  and no leakage occurs rom the   loating
membrane cover fittings.  Based on  this calculation., floating
membrane cover would  achieve approximately  99  percent emission
control  of  the organics in  the waste managed in the surface
impoundment.   In actual floating membrane cover applications
ovL.ll  organic emission control  effectiveness could  be  lower due
to factors such as leaks in cover seams and fittings, the wastes
managed in the surface impoundment contain very low solubility
 organic compounds, or the waste remains in the surface
 impoundment for very Ion, periods (i.e.,  longer than 100 days)
      The EPA proposed that the synthetic membrane material used
 for the floating membrane cover be either HOPE with a thickness
 no less than  2.5 mm  (100 mil), or a material  or a composite of
 different  materials determined to have organic permeability
 properties that  are equivalent to those of  100-mil HOPE.   In
 addition,  the EPA  placed in the docket for  the proposed  rule a
 test protocol that an  owner or operator could use to demonstrate
 that an alternative  membrane material has  organic permeability
 properties that are  equivalent to  100-mil  HOPE  (Docket No. F-91-
 CESP-S00487).  This  test protocol  is based on the test procedure
 the EPA developed for the  laboratory test  and defines membrane
 performance in terms of a  total  organic flux rate through the
  material for a specified organic solution.
       The total organic flux rate for 100-mil HOPE measured by  the
  laboratory tests on organics is consistently below
  5 000 ,,g/min/m' of membrane material.  The EPA considers an
  alternative material that is determined using the test protocol
  to have a total organic flux rate equal to or less than
                                 6-67

-------
5,000 /ig/min/m2  to have organic permeability properties
equivalent to 100-mil HOPE.  Thus, by specifying this total
organic flux value, the EPA has indirectly established a
performance standard for the floating membrane cover.
        i'hi                                 :      ,   •     ,    •  ,  ,. •

     Comment:  One commenter (F-91-CESP-00046) requests
clarification of how rainwater accumulating on the surface of the
floating synthetic membrane should be managed.
     Response;  Floating membrane covers  in current commercial
service are equipped with rainwater drain systems.  At one site
visited by the EPA, the 17.3-hectare floating membrane cover was
constructed so that rainwater is collected along the centerline
of the cover.  The rainwater drainage system consists of a 20.3-
cm diameter weighted pipe  (HDPE pipe filled with crushed stone)
that runs lengthwise down a depression in the center of the
cover.  A series of 15.2-cm diameter pipes are laid at right
                                          "«         »        ;     l!,
angles to the central pipe on the cover surface every 19.2
meters.  These pipes form channels to collected rainwater and
discharge the water into the central pipe.  The rainwater
collected in the central pipe is pumped to a storm sewer.

     Comment:  One commenter (F-91-CESP-00024) is concerned that
requiring covers on surface impoundments  containing waste
materials with high organic contents may  create explosion and
fire hazards due to concentrating hydrocarbon levels in the vapor
phase above the waste surface within the  flammability limits for
some hydrocarbons.
     Response;  The EPA expects that TSDF owners and operators
will follow the proper safety procedures  appropriate for their
situations when designing and operating all air emission controls
required by the subpart CC standards.  To emphasize the need for
safety procedures, a provision has been added to the final
subpart CC standards specifically allowing safety devices that
vent directly to the atmosphere to be used on the tank, cover, or
closed-vent system with control device, provided each safety
                               6-68

-------
the purpose of preventing physical damage or permanent
^formation of the tan*, cover, or closed-vent syste,.with
control device in accordance with good engineering and safety



to the rule  for  tank  and container  covers.

                          4-«v  fir_Qi-CESP-00049)  states that
      Comment:  One  commenter  (F-91  CESF  uuu* ,         ^






 ha ardous waste characteristic and contain volatile organics
 greater than or e^al to the proposed action level   >~™
 the  commenter, many  impoundments in the paper  .ndustry have
 surface areas of 20  acres or larger.  Floating membrane covers
 cannot be used  because  most of the surface  impoundments use
 surface aerators.  Air-supported structures cannot  be used
 Lause of  the  .1..  of  the surface impoundments.  The commenter
 states that the air-supported  cover control technology has not
 been demonstrated to be technically feasible in surface
  impoundments larger than 15  acres.  The commenter urgesthe  EPA,
  at the very minimum, to retain in the final standards the two
  proposed alternatives to erecting covers over impoundments:
  removal of volatile organics before the waste is managed in
  surface impoundments and application of EDAT to these wastes.
       BgjBonsa:  if  the center's wastes are xdent^ed as
  hazardous wastes  in the future, the surface impoundments will
                                 6-69

-------
need to be  lined or replaced.   Air  emission  controls  could be
included at the same time,  though the  time allowed  for
retrofitting a liner is  longer  than the  implementation  schedule
provided for control equipment  in subpart CC.  Up to  4  years are
allowedfor the retrofitting of a surface impoundment with a
liner, while control equipment  should  be installed  and  in
operation no later than  30  months after  the  effective date of the
amendment that renders the  surface  impoundment subject  to
subpart K.  In this case, the owner or operator could request an
implementation schedule  extension from the Regional Administrator
if the owner or operator can demonstrate that the situation is
beyond the  owner or operator's  control and that reasonable and
prudent attempts have been  made to  meet  the  subpart CC  compliance
date.
     The owner or operator  could choose  to convert surface
impoundments to a series of surface impoundments small  enough to
be covered  by air-supported structures or to a tank system
complying with the control  requirements  of §§ 264.1084  or
265.1085.   Also, as described in section 6.2.2 of this  chapter,
for the final rules the  EPA expanded the general requirement
provisions  available to  a TSDF  owner or  operator for  determining
when a treated hazardous waste  no longer is required  to be
managed in  tanks, surface impoundments,  and containers meeting
the air emission control requirements  of the rules.    Therefore,
there are several treatment provisions available as alternatives
to erecting covers over  impoundments.

6.6 CONTAINER AIR EMISSION  CONTROL REQUIREMENTS
6.6.1 Container Applicability/Exemptions
     Comment;  Nine commenters  (F-91-CESP-00033,  00038,  00041,
00059, 00062, 00069,  00076,  00077,  00081) request that the EPA
exempt smaller size containers from being required to use air
emission controls under the subpart CC standards.   Container  size
cutoffs for this exemption ranging from 7 to 500  gallons were
specifically recommended by various commenters.   Reasons for
providing a container size exemption include:  (1)  small
                              6-70

-------
     • •    + w*ste in the containers do not pose an imminent
quantities of waste in the            environment; (2)

emission hazard to public health °*™    requirements proposed
        s           sr-
                   rr               nts r
used fo Ina9e hazardous waste at a TSDK or to transport
hazardous waste to a TSDF.
                                                   to

                              r
                             6-71

-------
 are packed with absorbent material for transport to a TSDF.  Lab
 packs used for combination packagings as specified in 49 CFR
 173.12(b) are exempt from the requirements of subpart CC.
      The EPA's review of container sizes commercially available
 from vendors indicates that the capacities of safety cans, lab
 cans, disposal cans, and lab packs range from less than 0.004 m3
 (approximately 1 gallon) to 0.08 m3  (approximately  21 gallons).
 These types of small containers are used to collect small
 quantities of hazardous waste in laboratories and other ancillary
       ,11,           '               '           '     " , '     ':,•'• I >.
 operations at a TSDF but are not directly used in the hazardous
 waste management operations at a TSDF.   It was not the EPA's
 intent at proposal to apply the air emission control  requirements
 of the s,ubpart CC standards to these very small containers.
        ;,!,*"                         '    .1'    "    i      :    iii   , •  'I'1,  i
 Furthermore,  considering the small quantities of hazardous waste
 handled  in sample collection vials,  safety cans, and  other types
 of very  small containers used at TSDF and the short period of
 time that the waste normally remains  in  these containers,  the EPA
 concluded that existing rules for these  containers  are  sufficient
 to protect human health and the environment.   Therefore,  the  EPA
 decided  it is appropriate to exempt very  small containers  from
 the subpart CC standards.
      Based on the EPA's decision to apply the subpart CC
 standards to  drums  but  not  very small containers, the EPA  added a
 container size limitation to  the applicability of the final
 subpart  CC standards.   The  EPA  concluded  that a  container size
 cutoff of 0.1 m3 (approximately 26 gal)  establishes a  definitive
 boundary  between  drums  currently commercially available
 (containers with  capacities greater than  0.12 m3) and  the  safety
 cans, lab cans, disposal  cans, and other very small containers
 offered by commercial vendors (containers with capacities less
than 0.08 m3) .  Therefore, the applicability of the  subpart CC
standards to  containers was revised to be applicable only to
containers with a design capacity greater than or equal to
0.1 n3.   This  means that containers that have  design capacities
less than 0.1 m3 are exempt  from the requirements of the
                               6-72

-------
#,**
         -6°x

                                            .co-
                                     93
                                     A
                                 •

                                      *

                                                       •**
                                                   ,9V
                                                            .00'
                                                                     CO1
                                                       .00°

-------
 trucks and railcars is consistent with the proposed exemption of
 transporters and suggests that  it could be accomplished by
 exempting containers greater than 500 gallons.
      Response;   Tank trucks and tank railcars are containers
 used to handle relatively large quantities of hazardous waste.
 The capacity of a typical tank truck is approximately 30 m3
 (8,000 gallons).  Tank railcars are frequently used to handle
 hazardous waste in quantities of 38 m3  (10,000  gallons) or more.
 Furthermore,  tank trucks and tank railcars are used as an
 integral part of the hazardous management operations at TSDF
 nationwide.   Therefore,  the EPA concluded that it is appropriate
 to regulate  air emissions from tank trucks and tank railcar
 operations at TSDF under the subpart CC standards.
      The EPA  reviewed the proposed container emission  control
 requirements  as applied  to tank trucks  and tank railcars.  Based
 on this  review,  the EPA  concluded that  the tank truck
 requirements  the EPA has  adopted for its  air rules  under  the
 Clean Air Act to control  organic emissions from gasoline  tank
 trucks are an appropriate alternative to  be  included in the
 subpart  CC standards.  Under the final  subpart  CC standards,  an
 owner or  operator can elect  to  place the hazardous  waste  into a
 container that  is attached to or forms  a part of  any truck,
 trailer,  or railcar and that has  been tested  for  organic vapor
 tightness  within the preceding  12 months in accordance with  the
 requirements  of Method 27 in 40  CFR  60 appendix A.  This method
 is a  pressure test  procedure for determining  vapor-leak tightness
 of tank trucks and  railcars  into which gasoline is placed.
      Regardless of whether a TSDF owner or operator is or is not
 the °Wn™r  °f a tank truck or tank railcar, it is the TSDF owner
 or operator's responsibility to place hazardous waste in tank
 trucks and tank railcars in  accordance with the requirements  of
 subpart CC standards.  With  respect to the 10-day exemption,  the
 subpart CC standards do not  change the exemption conditions under
40 CFR 264.1(g)(9) and 40 CFR 265.1(c)(12)  for a transporter
storing manifested shipments of hazardous  waste in containers
                               6-74

-------
.setin, the retirements of 40 CFR 2S2.30 at a transfer facUity
for a period of 10 days or less.

     sauu^l  T.O counters  (F-91-CESP-00033 .  00048,  revest
4-K .- thl  EPA clarify  if the definition of waste  fixation
 explicitly n                    addition of absorbents into a


              -
  a TSDF  owner or operator  in com
  264.1(9) (10) or 265. 1(0) (13).
                                                      40  CFR
                  one counter (F-91-CESP-00061)  requests that
       e          processes performed in containers «-.«
       control retirements provided that total operatmg
                                  6-75

-------
 of vehicle  access  that  totally enclosing the  process  would
 impose.
     Response;   Exemption  of waste fixation processes performed
 in containers that are  operated intermittently  or  for short  time
 periods  is  not appropriate.   Source tests and laboratory  studies
 of waste fixation  processes  conducted  by the  EPA show that most
 of the organics  contained  in wastes that are  fixated  are  emitted
 during the  mixing  of the binder with the waste  and the subsequent
 curing of the mixture.  Consequently,  even performing waste
 fixation in containers  for 40 hours per  month can  emit
 significant quantities  of  organics.
     Comment;  One commenter  (F-91-CESP-00010) states that the
definition of "container" as  described in the preamble for the
proposed rule (56 FR 33503 and  33525) is inconsistent.
     Response;  The subpart CC  standards apply to containers
managing hazardous waste as defined by 40 CFR 260.10.  The
subpart CC standards do not change the existing RCRA definition
of container, which is "any portable device in which material is
stored, transported, treated, disposed, or otherwise handled."
The container types cited in  the proposal preamble serve only as
examples and do not define applicability of the subpart CC
standards to containers.
6.6.2 Container Cover Requirements
     Comment;  Comments were  received regarding the application
of the proposed container cover requirements to drums meeting DOT
requirements for transporting hazardous waste.  Two commenters
(F-91-CES>-00010, 00014) ask  for clarification as to whether the
standard covers and bungs found on DOT specification 17E,  17C,
and 17H drums meet the proposed container standards.   A third
commenter (F-91-CESP-00062)  states that it is unclear whether a
cover would have to be sealed water- or air-tight and recommends
that the no detectable organic emissions requirement be deleted
specifically for bung-type containers.
     Response;  The EPA reviewed the DOT regulations regarding
the transport of hazardous materials in commerce.   The DOT
                              6-76

-------
relations and
These regulations  are
throush 17, .  Any  aateria!
Waste under RCHA «gulat1Ons
       ^^^^

                             1... 10, ,  an, 171
                                  hazardous
                                    Material
                                 regulatlons

                         haZardous Baterials
                  and vessels, and
     «.
    aru  is open *en the lid is removed, an open
          : r
  rr ai: trr,
                                  «-
trnsport conditions
   £or fillln,.
                               specify a test to
                 6-77

-------
 the drum with air while the drum  is restrained under water.
 Every drum used to transport  liquid materials must be tested and
 pass the leakproof test.  For drums used to transport solids and
 semisolid waste, a sampling of drums from a manufacturer is
 tested.
      Drums with DOT codes 17E, 17C, or 17H refer to steel drums
 using DOT'S old code system for designating drums.  The DOT has
 now adopted the United Nations' alphanumeric code system for
 designating drums.  Under this coding system, a 17C steel drum,
 for example,  is designated either as a 1A1 (closed head) or 1A2
 (open head)  container.
      Based on the review of DOT regulations,  the EPA decided it
 is appropriate to add as an alternative container cover
 requirement  to the final subpart CC standards the option of
 allowing an  owner or operator to place affected waste in a drum
 [a container  having a design capacity  less  than or equal to
 0.46  m3  (approximately 119 gallons)], meeting the DOT
 specifications and testing requirements under 49  CFR part 178.
 The size of container classified  as a  drum  was  chosen to be less
 than  or  equal to 0.46 m3 to be consistent with DOT regulations.
 For a drum meeting these DOT regulations, no  organic  leak
 detection testing  is  required  under the subpart CC  standards.   It
 is important  to  note  that  none of  the exceptions to the  49  CFR
 part  178  regulations  other than the exception for  lab packs used
 for combination  packagings as  specified  in 49 CFR 173.12(b) apply
 to a container for the purpose of  complying with the subpart CC
 standards.

     Comment;  Four commenters (F-91-CESP-00008, 00010,  00048,
 00081) commented on the feasibility of applying the proposed
 container cover requirements to dumpsters and roll-off boxes.
One commenter  (F-91-CESP-00081) is not aware of any dumpster or
receiving container that will meet the proposed requirement of
 "gasketed and latched" closure and still meet the commenter's
need for containers to collect large volumes of empty paint cans,
                               6-78

-------
coating
the rul
wastes that must be managed
                                             if volatile
                                          container.  One


                                    use - a tarp to cover


                                       considered

                          .-r r
,„
                            6-79
                                                    :

-------
 the benzene waste operations NESHAP  (40 CFR part 61, subpart FF)
 when all of the following conditions are met:   (i) the affected
 container in which waste is placed is a roll-off box with a
 minimum volume of no less than 20 yd3 and  a maximum volume of  no
 greater than 40 yd3;  (2)  the waste placed  in the container is
 only bulk solids (e.g., soils, filter cake, or air pollution
 control device residue) and not a liquid,  sludge, or slurry;
 (3) the waste placed in the roll-off box is covered (sprayed)  as
 soon as practicable with an appropriate long-term vapor-
 suppressing foam that covers the entire exposed surface of the
 material in the roll-off box; (4)  the tightly fitting tarpaulin
 cover is installed with no holes,  gaps,  or tears; and (5)  the
 waste is stored in the roll-off box container for a limited
 period of time,  such as less than 30  days.   Process-specific
 conditions should  be considered when  determining a  reasonable
 storage time.

      gomment;   One  commenter (F-91-CESP-00048)  requests
 clarification  of the  cover  requirements with regard to sampling
 drums.   The  commenter states that  drum sampling often is
 performed by punching a hole in  the cover to  draw a sample and
 then  sealing the hole with  a rubber bung.
      Response;  The final subpart  CC  standards  require container
 openings  to  be maintained in a closed, sealed position with  no
 detectable organic emissions  except when it is  necessary to  add,
 remove,  inspect, or sample the waste  in the container.  Punching
 a hole  in the container creates a new opening that must be sealed
 once  facility personnel are  finished drawing the waste sample.   A
 rubber  bung may be used to seal the opening provided the rubber
 bung  is secured so that there are no detectable organic emissions
 as determined by Method 21.  If a drum meeting DOT specifications
 is sampled by punching a hole in the lid,  then the EPA considers
 it altered, and it no longer meets the DOT specifications.   Thus,
the plug needs to meet the no detectable organic emissions
criteria as determined by Method 21.
                               6-80

-------
     £2mm£nt:   one counter (F-91-CESP-00010)  states that the
EPA dles"^ discuss the availability of nationally manufactured
containers that meet the standards.
     jy^ponse:  As discussed previously in this section, the
final subpart CC standards allow the use of drums meeting DOT
waste packaging specifications are commercially available fro.
many vendors .

     £2Emsai:  one counter (F-91-CESP-00011) states that  a
container cover  opening shouad only  be required to operate  with
no detectable organic emissions when in the closed, sealed
position.  It cannot be operated with no detectable organs
emissions when open for filling.
      Bespoke.:  The EPA realizes that a container cover cannot be
 operated with no detectable organic emissions when it is
 necessary to remove the cover or uncap an opening on the
 container to add or remove waste from the container.  Under the
 subpart  CC standards,  each opening on the container cover must be
 dosed and sealed  (i.e., operated with no detectable organic
 emissions, by a hatch,  cap, plug, or other device •»•*•£»
 work practices require a cover  fitting such as a  hatch to  be
 opened by a worKer or when  safety considerations  require a cover
 fitting  such  as a pressure-relief valve  to open    *»«£££•
 the  language  of the final rule has  been  revised to explicitly
 required! container cover and all cover  openings to be designed
 to operate with no detectable organic emissions when all cover
  openings are secured in the closed, sealed position and require
  that each cover opening be maintained in a closed, sealed
  position except under the specific conditions set forth in the
  rule.

       comment:  One commenter  (F-91-CESP-00062)  believes that
   including the EPA's  proposed definition for "cover" in 40 CFR
   part 260 would result in all containers required to use covers
                                 6-81

-------
under RCRA regulations to be leak-tight regardless of whether or
not a container contains waste to which the subpart CC standards
apply.  The commenter requests that either the definition of
"cover11 be moved to parts 264 and 265 and indicate that the
definition applies only to equipment pursuant to subpart CC
requirements or specifically exempt satellite areas from
requirements for a sealed cover.
     Response;   The EPA did not intend its proposed definition
for "cover" as used for the subpart CC standards to apply to
existing references to the term "cover" as already used in other
parts of the RCRA regulations.  Therefore, all definitions that
are specific to the requirements of the subpart CC standards have
been moved to a section incorporated directly in the subpart CC
regulation.  Under the final rule, the definition of "cover"
applies only to units operated pursuant to the subpart CC
standards, and does not apply to the term "cover" when used
elsewhere in RCRA.  As discussed in section 7.2 of this BID, the
subpart CC standards do not apply to containers used for
satellite accumulation of hazardous waste in compliance with
40 CFR 262.34(C).

     Comment;  Six commenters (F-91-CESP-00032, 000036, 00046,
00062, 00072, 00076) submit that the container regulations need
to provide for the use of pressure-relief devices.  Three of the
commenters (F-91-CESP-00036, 00046, 00063) state that use of a
leak-tight cover on containers handling mixed radioactive waste
is considered to be unsafe and unacceptable because of the
potential for radiolytic generation of hydrogen from the decay of
radionuclides.   Without continuously venting the container,  there
is the potential for the hydrogen concentration to reach the
lower explosive limit, creating an explosive atmosphere that
would be extremely hazardous to personnel working in these
facilities.  The commenters request alternative compliance
methods for radioactive mixed waste containers, such as placing
the drums in a storage building vented to a control device and
allowing monitoring of the actual organic emissions at building
                              6-82

-------
eXhaUc.nePco-enter (P-sl-CESP-00032, anticipates using containers

designed to function under pressure in response to «^°pOSe
regulations.  The containers will need to be vented during
  ~                      .	  . _.	~., !*-<-* v\t-occtir>e—reliei
wil! follow the proper
                        safety procedures appropriate for their
             .
 discussen section  6.5 of this chapter, provisions have  been
 added to the final subpart CC  standards  specifically allows
 stfety devices  that vent directly  to  the atmosphere to be  used  on
 "rcontainer,  cover, enclosure, or closed-vent system with
 co tr" devici  provided each  safety device  meets »*«£??
 conditions:   (1)  the  safety device is net used for planned or
 routine venting of organic vapors  from the  container  enc osure,
  or closed-vent system with control device;  and  (2) the safety
  Lice remains in a closed,  sealed position at .11 ti— except
  when an unplanned event requires that the device be open
  prevent physical damage or permanent deformation of the
  container/cover, enclosure,  or closed-vent system with control
  Lice in accordance with good engineering and  safety practices
  for handling flammable, combustible, explosive,  or other
                       containers  handling radioactive mixed waste,

   as  explained in section ..1.3  of this chapter,  **« .**»££*»
   of  the subpart CC standards to waste management units >»ndling
   radioactive mixed waste is being temporarily deferred.  Regarding

                                  6-83

-------
the comment on diurnal  temperature changes,  the  language that  has
been added to the container  regulations  allowing venting devices
implicitly includes diurnal  temperature  changes  as  a condition
that might require venting of  the  container  to prevent physical
damage or permanent deformation  of the container or cover.
6.6.3 Container Loading Requirements
     Comment;  Three commenters  (F-91-CESP-00026, 00041, 00077)
support the proposed requirement for  submerged-fill container
loading as being an appropriate  and effective control technique.
Two commenters (F-91-CESP-00010, 00075)  disagree that submerged
loading is effective in reducing emissions.  One commenter  (F-91-
CESP-00075) states that,  if  a  material is volatile  enough that
submerged loading is warranted,  the material will evaporate and
be displaced during filling  anyway.
     Response:  The EPA maintains  that submerged loading is
effective in reducing organic  emissions  from container loading.
Splash loading results  in significant turbulence and vapor-liquid
contact when the falling  liquid  splashes on the  surface of the
liquid already in the container.   This results in organic vapor
generation and emission to the atmosphere through the container
opening used for waste  loading.  Use  of  submerged loading instead
of splash loading is estimated by  the EPA to reduce organic air
emissions from hazardous waste loading operations by
approximately 65 percent.
     Comment;  Many commenters  (F-91-CESP-00010, 00021, 00033,
00037, 00038, 00040, 00046, 00047, 00053, 00054, 00056, 00060,
00062, 00076, 00081) request that submerged filling of containers
not be required under certain conditions.  Eleven commenters  (F-
91-CESP-00021, 00033, 00037, 00038, 00047, 00053, 00054, 00056,
00062, 00076, 00081) state that requiring submerged fill for
drums could result in increased emissions and the generation of
more hazardous waste.  Two commenters (F-91-CESP-00040, 00046)
request an exemption based on quantity of waste.  One of these
commenters (F-91-CESP-00040) specifically suggests a size cutoff
of 1 gallon or less.  Another commenter (F-91-CESP-00060)
                               6-84

-------
submerged fill of  55  gaj-xw             „„--,«. to fin these drums

                                                         -
                _
                                                       _
                              fili pipe that a worker  inserts
                               7 ~-. ~

 source ot   g                       ffi.xture ^^ rags or
than or
          equal to 0.46 m3 (approximately 119 gal)].
                                6-85

-------
      Drums are commercially available in a range of standard
 sizes, including 30, 43, 55, 59, 85, and 90 gallons.  Commenters
 stated, and the EPA has evaluated and agreed, that applying a
 submerged fill requirement to drums of these relatively small
 sizes is environmentally counterproductive; more organic
 emissions would occur when the hose or fill pipe is removed from
 a drum and from spills than would otherwise occur under current
 drum filling practices.  For the final subpart CC standards, the
 EPA thus chose to limit the requirement for submerged fill of
 hazardous waste to only those containers having a capacity
 greater than 0.46 m3  (approximately  119 gal).  Accordingly,  the
 final subpart CC standards do not require drums with design
 capacities up to and including 0.46 m3 to be loaded by submerged
 fill.
      The requirement for submerged fill  of containers  with design
 capacities greater than 0.46 m3 also has been revised to require
 submerged fill only of  wastes that are transferred  by  pumping.
 Therefore,  wastes with  high solids content that  could  lead to
 clogging of the fill pipe can be  loaded  by alternative methods
 such  as  gravity feed (see response to the  next comment).

      Commen*-:   Many commenters  (F-91-CESP-00007,  00010, 00033,
 00035, 00038,  00040,  00046,  00076,  00081) disagree with the
 submerged-fill  requirement  for heavy liquid waste streams  or
        , 11          , '        '„         . • I  i ,f,       i ', ,          ,:  , , „ H'
waste streams with  solids.   One commenter  (F-91-CESP-00046)
 states that  pumps/piping would be operating under high pressure,
which might  create risks to  personnel safety.  Two commenters
 (F-91-CESP-00010, 00076) submit that some sludges and slurries
that are pumpable cannot practically be loaded with a submerged-
 fill pipe,  one commenter  (F-91-CESP-00033) cites problems  in
adding wastes to a drum containing absorbent.  A fourth commenter
 (F-91-CESP-00081) states that paint shop wastes containing two-
part epoxy paints "set up" after time and would clog a submerged-
fill pipe,  one commenter (F-91-CESP-00035) states that the words
in the proposed regulation "pumpable waste" are confusing.   The
                               6-86

-------
                  ** that the EPA establish an upper limit
commenter recommends that the EPA                Dreclude the use
                                               "
containers.                                  ,-,,ie   the EPA has





 mi  only when wastes are pu»ped into a     "
                                                                .
 practice at TSDt ^o J.            „,.„--   The EPA does not intend
 using gravity feed or conveyor systems.  The EP
                 pour counters  (M1-«P-00011. 00014  00035,
                                  6-87

-------
 between the bottom of the container and the fill pipe outlet be
 allowed.  A distance of 6 inches is needed to prevent undue wear
 on the container during filling with a 2-inch submerged pipe and
 eliminates the potential for the pipe breaking off because of
 shearingforce.  The fourth comroenter (F-91-CESP-00076) suggests
 requiring that the fill pipe extend a minimum of three-quarters
        1 T|»!''''j  ,i '  i  "   '        •    '   "      i      '     •"   ,',! ,    •   «  	
 of the depth of the container.  One commenter (F-91-CESP-00035)
 does not agree with the requirement that the submerged-fill pipe
 used to fill tanks extend within two pipe diameters of the bottom
 of the vessel being filled.   The commenter proposes a revision to
         in           •           ••       i . • , i	•.  - • '  • , . -  '     • ,   '   I,-
 allow 6 inches or three piping diameters between the bottom of
 the vessel and the submerged-fill pipe.   According to the
 commenter,  chemical companies have found that a  distance of
   ^      11 „ ,        '  • .       . '          '! ',''.!"'"  '       '  '',   '     i : , ' '!!»: ''•
 6  inchesis required to prevent undue wear on the vessel during
 filling using a 2-inch submerged pipe.   In addition,  increasing
 the  distance to 6  inches eliminates the  potential of the pipe
 breaking off because of shearing forces.   The commenter submits
 that the pipe will still be  submerged because of the rounded  ASME
 tank bottom.
         ;!;!•!  '         "            -     ; •  :, '••,<   ' •       ~     ; .'.'',: i
      Response;   For containers requiring submerged  fill,  the
 proposed fill pipe outlet location  of within  two fill pipe
 diameterp of  the bottom of the container is being revised  in
 response to  comments.   As promulgated, the fill  pipe outlet must
 either  remain submerged below the waste  surface  for a container
 already holding waste  or the  lower  bottom  edge or the tube outlet
 must extend to  within  6  inches or two piping inside diameters
 (whichever is greater)  of the  bottom of the container while the
 container is  being loaded.  Allowing the fill pipe outlet  to be
 below the surface  addresses those situations in which a removable
 fill  pipe is  being used  to load a container that already holds
 some  waste.   Adding the  minimum 6-inch clearance between the
 bottom  edge of the tube  outlet and the bottom of the container
makes the requirement consistent with previously published EPA
guidance on submerged fill.
     Regarding the suggestion that 6 inches' or three piping
diameters' clearance between the bottom of the container and the
                               6-88

-------
                r.
sufficient to
                        »   . -
                       GJ.
r
 th.
                              -91-CESP-00025)  recommends that

large
container  to  insert a fill
                                                           of

                                                    r- -
  (6 inches) from the container bottom.




           Mi:  one counter (F-91-CESP-00008) »,»..*..

                                6-89

-------
 for venting to prevent physical damage or permanent deformation
 of the container or cover.  Therefore, the final subpart CC
 standards do allow for a container opening to be open when waste
 is being added to the container.

      -Commentt   One commenter (F-91-CESP-00060)  requests that the
 EPA clarify the regulatory language to explicitly state that a
 submerged fill pipe is not required to unload pumpable waste from
 a container.   The commenter cites potential problems with using a
 submerged pipe to pump wastes that have separated into phases
 with sludge as the bottom layer.
      Response;   The regulatory language states  explicitly that
 for transfer of waste into a container having a design capacity
 equal to or greater than 0.46 m3  (approximately 119 gallons),
 "waste transfer by pumping shall be performed using  a conveyance
 system that uses a tube (e.g.,  pipe,  hose)  to add the waste  into
 the container."   A submerged fill pipe is not required for
 unloading.
 6'6'4  Container  Treatment Control Requirements
      Comment:  One commenter (F-91-CESP-00007)  requests that  the
 EPA consider requiring  an enclosure for container treatment
 operations where  all  emissions  from the enclosure are  treated
 prior  to discharge.   In contrast,  two  commenters  (F-91-CESP-
 00033, 00041) state that  enclosure of  some waste  fixation
 processes is not  practical and  request variance provisions.   One
 of  the commenters  (F-91-CESP-00041) states that containers used
 for waste fixation can  be as large as railroad roll-off cars.
 The other commenter (F-91-CESP-00033) states that the fixation
 unit is usually loaded  by dump  truck and then the solidifying
 agent  is added and mixed by backhoe.  Enclosing this type of
waste fixation process would make it unworkable.
     Response;   As discussed in conjunction with the control of
emissions from tanks in section 6.4.2 of this chapter, locating
open containers inside a building in which the entire airspace
inside the building is ventilated to a single air emission
                               6-90

-------
                              with the control requirements of

th ough the closed-vent system to the control de
 through the opening.
                One commenter (F-91 CEbf uuu  ;
 propoee aoes not inciude vapor control tor vacuum
 The counter states that large voltes of «r are exhausted
 aurin, the loadin, process, and the volatile organ,cs » the
an onboard carbon canister,  but many do not.
     L*^:  A vacuum trucX is a tan* trucK that „ loaded
througTthe^se of the negative pressure created by a vacuum
 ulp,  vacuum trucxs are used in the cleaning of treatment and
  pup
                                 6-91

-------
storage tanks and  in the  transport  of waste  loaded  from  tanks and
containers.  Emissions  from vacuum  trucks are  intermittent and
short in duration.  Vacuum trucks are not included  in the sources
regulated by the subpart  CC standards because  the feasibility of
controlling the exhaust from the vacuum pump on a vacuum truck
has not been demonstrated.
     The vacuum pump on a vacuum truck typically has a high flow
rate, ranging from 150  to 300 cfm.  The pressure head created by
the pump ranges from 5  to 25 psi.   Vacuum truck loading  is a
short duration operation.  For example, it takes around
11 minutes to fill a 3,000-gallon truck with water using a 3-in
hose and loading from an  11-ft depth.  Loading time is affected
by the size of hose used  and by the viscosity of the liquid being
loaded.
     Because a vacuum truck is a mobile source, any applicable
add-on control will have  to be mobile.  Carbon adsorption is the
most feasible potential control technique.   However, the high
flow rate will require  a  relatively large quantity of carbon.
For example, in one solvent application a vacuum truck
manufacturer estimated  that a carbon canister would become
saturated in 8 hours.  Also, the back pressure created by
applying an add-on control to the vacuum pump exhaust is a
potential problem.  The ductwork to the control device would have
to be minimized to avoid  creating enough back pressure to
significantly reduce the  efficiency of the pump.   Thus,  a
practical means of controlling the  exhaust from the vacuum pump
on a vacuum truck  has not been demonstrated.
     Comment;  One commenter (F-91-CESP-00005) operates a vacuum
truck service that engages in tank cleaning, chemical transfer,
and spill response and remediation.  This commenter states that
it would be very costly to have to scrub trucks while in transit.
The commenter notes that emissions from vacuum trucks can be
scrubbed through carbon, but it is federally mandated that
components of vacuum equipment as well as tanks be cleaned before
they leave the work site.  Plants do not have the equipment to do
                               6-92

-------
this   In
         addition, the counter states that this will create
and sates that the no ll.it criteria as proposed
be costly and put people out of work.
                                                 are
                                                             to
     -
transportation of hazardous waste is reflated by DOT standards
including those set forth in 49 CFR 173.28.
                                                 ooo,, ooo,
0004, 00056,  00069, 00070, request
how the subpart AA, BB,  and CC  standards apply to subpart X
Miscellaneous units.   Centers  state that application of these
standards  to certain  miscellaneous units is inappropriate and
posstbly unsafe,   one counter records that  the requ.re.ents
'rat cellaneous units be satisfied as  long  as  ™*« «^"t
 i. conducted within an enclosure  that appropriately ~^«
 oraanic air emissions.  The commenters request that the  EPA defer
 ac^on on such units or dearly state that no requirements  may be
 app oprlate for some subpart X units (..,..  open burning,  open
 detonation units, and that these units will be regulated under
                         X miscellaneous units are permitted on »
  case-by^asfbasis with  terms and provisions as needed to protect
  public health  and the environment through generic P"*^"^
  standards specified  in 40 CFR 264.601.  Section 264.601 requir
  that appropriate portions of the existing technical  standards
  other waste management unit categories  regulated by  RCRA  (e.g.,
  tank, surface impoundment, container, hazardous waste
  incinerator, be incorporated into  the permit conditions for the
                                 6-93

-------
miscellaneous unit.   Because  it is the EPA's intention that all
existing RCRA air  and water technical standards be considered for
issuance of a permit  for  a miscellaneous unit,  a miscellaneous
unit permitted under  40 CFR 264 subpart X must  include,  as
appropriate, the air  emission control requirements of subparts
        !'"Y\      •             i           ''  : "   ' '    ' '      :    "     f'i
AA, BB, and CC.
     Application of the subpart AA,  BB,  and CC  standards to
miscellaneous units first requires determining  which  one of the
        JO       "               '     • . •   ,. .I,;,-   -      .'   . •  .     , - ' ;>• .,
waste management unit categories,  if  any,  is most similar to the
miscellaneous unit.   For  example,  waste is  sometimes  stored or
treated in units consisting of a flexible,  synthetic  liner
supported by an aboveground metal  frame.  The permit  writer may
determine that this unit  is similar to a surface impoundment,
which consists of  a liner placed in a  depression formed  of
earthen materials  rather  than a metal  frame.  Thus, using air
emission controls  required for surface impoundments under 40 CFR
        :Jl'i!    ,    '        •      ,          r>.   ''      	, ,•    '   : ' :	, •,
264 subpart CC (e.g., floating membrane  cover)  is  appropriate for
controlling organic emissions for  this miscellaneous  unit.
Therefore, in this case where the  miscellaneous  unit  is
determined to resemble a  surface impoundment, relevant provisions
of the subpart CC  surface impoundment  standards  would be  included
in the permit for  the unit.
     The EPA is aware that certain waste management units  that
are permitted under subpart X must remain open to  the atmosphere
to operate safely  such as units  in which waste explosives  are
disposed of by detonation.  A waste management unit that  can  only
operate when open  to the air  cannot be enclosed  with  a leak-tight
cover or vented to a control  device.   In this case, the
determination may  be made by  the permit writer that application
of the subpart AA, BB, or CC  standards is not appropriate and,
thus, none of the  control requirements specified in these
standards would be included in the permit for the unit.
        i ,                    ,          "i   m       .          ''•,,'

6.8 CLOSED WASTE TRANSFER BETWEEN UNITS
     Comment!   Commenters (F-91-CESP-00029, 00069) disagree with
the EPA's proposal to require closed transfer of waste to and
                               6-94

-------

                       of organic emissions fro. transfer of
any enforcement or
                              administration problems from
organics.  Allowing open transfer of waste prov.des «- ^

 achieve the level of environmental and health «.* benefits
 e^ratea by the »A. the reguire^ent for a closed tr-n-^
 waste between waste management units operated pursuant to the .«
 emission control requirements of the subpart CC standards is
                                6-95

-------
 necessary and appropriate.
      The EPA did address organic emissions from waste transfer
 operations in the impact analysis by assuming that no organic
 emissions occur during the transfer of waste between waste
 management units.  This assumption effectively means that there
 is 100 percent control of emissions from waste transfer
 operations.
      The EPA does not expect the requirement for closed transfer
 of waste between waste management units that are required to use
 air emission controls under the subpart CC standards to affect
 primarily wastewater collection systems.   As discussed in section
 6.1.6 of this BID,  many wastewater treatment units as defined in
 S  260.10 are exempted from RCRA permitting requirements by
 S  270.1(c)(2),  and,  therefore,  the requirements of 40 CFR part
 264  or 265 are not  applicable to these wastewater treatment
 units.   Consequently,  the wastewater collection systems for  these
 units wquld  not be  affected by the closed waste transfer
 requirements of subpart CC standards.   In a case where the
 requirements of the  subpart CC standards  are applicable to a
 wastewater collection system,  the EPA believes  that  the system
 can  be closed to minimize air emissions and still  effectively
 serve its  intended purpose of collecting  wastes.   The  Benzene
 Waste Operations NESHAP (40 CFR part 61,  subpart FF) already
 requires closed individual drain systems  in the  wastewater
 treatment  systems of  chemical manufacturing plants,  coke
 byproduct  recovery plants,  and  petroleum  refineries  to which the
 requirements  of the standard  apply.

      .Comment:   One commenter  (F-91-CESP-00076) requests a
 definition of  "enclosed pipe" as well as  examples of "other
 closed systems."  The commenter requests  clarification if a
 submerged fill pipe required under the container standards would
meet  the definition of  "enclosed pipe or other closed system."
The commenter requests clarification involving the overlap in
definition of the words "transfer" and "transport."  The
commenter provides as an example containers that are moved
                               6-96

-------
         •*   ,t a facility by trucks
between sites at a facility  y
10aded from the container int
the requirement to use an enclosed
for — operations tob
which waste „ «v-
                                     Ultimately the waste is
                                         COMenter interprets
                                              ^^ ^^

                                                   lon in
                                              P
                                     of  the  container by trucX.
                                                         the
              ** enclosed pipe is a tube in which the body has


                          t«     — - •
a tanx trucX used to transport  hazardous waste.
   6.9  CONTROL DEVICE REQUIREMENTS
   .'.,.! n^^-v^pt
                                       .00011)  notes  that the
                                        the preamble  and revests
                                                        terms
              appllca^e t^thelubpart CC standards have been
              the  general RCRA definitions under S 260.10 and

                               6-97

-------
                                                                 *i 1
                                                                 i'l'I
 placed directly in the subpart CC standards.  In addition, the
 terms defined under the subpart AA standards (§ 264.1031) but
 also used in the subpart CC standards such as "closed-vent
 system" have been cross-referenced.

      Comment;   Several commenters requested clarification as to
 how the requirement for a closed-vent system under the subpart CC
 standards relates to the requirements under the subpart AA and BB
 standards.   One commenter (F-91-CESP-00011) states that the
 requirements of the subpart AA standards already apply to many
 closed-vent systems while the proposed subpart  CC standards
 appear to apply to others.   The commenter suggests that the EPA
 clarify what types of closed-vent systems would be subject to
 which standard.   Further,  the commenter suggests that the EPA
 consider how systems covered by more  than one standard are
 regulated (i.e.,  are they required to meet both standards or the
 more  stringent  of the two).   A second commenter (F-91-CESP-00062)
 states that the subpart BB  requirements must  be applied to the
 pipes,  ductwork,  valves,  fans,  housings,  etc.,  to  ensure that
 they  are producing no detectable  organic emissions.   As such,  the
 commenter believes that proposed  closed-vent  requirements under
       11	';         '                       .'          ',,•'' ,1,: ' 	', .
 the subpart CC  standards are redundant,  and the  rule  should  be
 revisedto  reference  requirements  in  subpart  BB  standards.
      Response:  Organic emissions  from process vents  for  TSDF
 distillation, fractionation,  evaporation,  solvent extraction,  air
 stripping,  and steam  stripping waste  operations  are regulated
 under the subpart  AA  standards in 40  CFR parts 264 and  265.  The
 standards require  that  certain process vents on  these treatment
 units cannot be open  directly to the  atmosphere  but instead must
 be connected to a  control device.  Under the subpart CC
 standards,  certain TSDF tanks, surface impoundments, and
 container treatment operations must be covered and vented to a
 control device.  Both the subparts AA and CC standards require
that the ducting used to route the organic vapors to the control
device be designed to operate with no detectable organic
emissions as determined by Method 21.   In other  words, the
                               6-98

-------
enforcement inspections T.O «               wrt*.0« that the
                «,»»oiAnce   The  commenter notes tna-c tne











 ^'^Ltr^s «as explainea in section ..«.. regain,  the

 no ae^Si; cyanic emission, require»ent tor tanX «v«.  the











                           show that the "no detectable organs

                                 6-99

-------
 are not violations of the standards.  Consequently, a leak that
 is detected  during an enforcement inspection does not constitute
 noncompliance  if  repair attempts are started within 5 days and
 the repair is  completed within 15 days.

      Commentt   One commenter (F-91-CESP-00032)  recommends that if
 a  closed-vent  system is maintained under negative pressure at all
 times when a unit is in operation, then  the monitoring of such a
 closed-vent  system should not be required.   The commenter notes
 that the negative pressure will ensure that all emissions are
 routed to a  control device.   According to the commenter,  the EPA
 has included a  similar provision in its  NESHAP proposed rule for
 fugitive emissions control.
      Response:  The EPA has included in the  final subpart  CC
 standards the exemption for closed-vent  systems "in vacuum
 service"included in the benzene waste operations NESHAP  (40 CFR
 61  subpart FF) .   The term "in vacuum service11 means that  the
 closed-vent  system is operating at an internal  pressure that is
 at  least  5 kPa  below ambient pressure.   The EPA has concluded
 that  it  is unnecessary to cover equipment (e.g.,  pumps, valves,
 compressors,  and  closed-vent systems)  "in vacuum service"  because
 such  equipment  has  little if any potential  for  organic  emissions.
 6.9.2  Control Device
     •Con"?ent:   One  commenter (F-91-CESP-00062)  states that  the
proposed  subpart  CC standards allow  up to 5  percent of  the
organic emission  in the gas  stream to be  emitted  from the control
    t     l"l          "       '  ,          ''.''I''     .    •.,  .'• "'! i*
device.   The commenter submits  that  this  amount could easily be
above  the  Hno detectable  organic  emissions"  requirement of the
system itself and requests clarification  that the control device
effluent  is not included  in  the  "no  detectable organic emissions"
requirement.
     Response:   Tne subpart  CC standards require that the control
device operate at conditions that reduce the organics in the
controlled vapor stream by at least  95 percent by weight.  The
requirement for "no detectable organic emissions" does not apply
to the exhaust gas stack or vent on the control device.   However,
                              6-100

-------
         for "no detectable organic emissions" does apply

          on «- control device such as access hatches.



                              states that the
            ndar
EPA's proposed standard
emissions «o» "^•
reasonable assuming that tne
                              achleval>le and

                          percent reduction

                             uncontrolled
devices »y not be attainabie „
th-t so,e type of activated carbon

— r;:— -
                               fce ^ control
                                      --
YQLH./A. 0 »^«—— — — -   v




SfESSS^s-Sr.
depends on the physical   —••-<=>-= «

control device and the
device.  For example, the «^~	
on the physical/chemical properties of the organ.cs

                     6-101

-------
    condensed,  the organic concentration in the gas stream,  and the
    operating temperature of the condenser.  Extensive performance
    testing of  each of the applicable control technologies under a
    range of conditions has demonstrated that 95 percent emission
    reduction is  achievable for any organic concentration if a
    properly designed control device is applied.

         Comment:  .Several commenters (F-91-CESP-00062,  00069,  00077)
    request that  the  EPA revise the subpart CC standards to  be
    consistent with the control device  requirements  specified  in the
    subpart AA standards.   One commenter  (f-91-CESP-00062) claims
    that  requiring  95  percent reduction for each  control device  is
    unnecessary and overly restrictive.  According to the commenter,
    requiring an average emission reduction of  95 percent for the
    facility, similar  to the  requirement of subpart AA,  would allow
   the owner or operator  the option  of controlling some  emission
   sources by more than 95 percent and other emission sources by
   less than 95 percent.  This would provide the owner or operator
   the increased  flexibility to devise a minimum cost control
   strategy that  would achieve the same emission and health risk
   reductions as  would be achieved by the proposed standards.   One
   commenter (F-91-CESP-00062) requests that the rule reference
   conditions in  S 264.1033(b), which would make the rule consistent
   with subpart AA requirements for efficiency of control devices.
   The commenter  notes that this would allow control devices unable
   to meet 95 percent efficiency requirements,  with  the  exception of
   flares and combustion devices,  to be able to comply with
   achievable efficiency requirements.  A  third commenter (F-91-
   CESP-00069)  requests that  the EPA develop alternative facility-
   wide emission  cutoffs as established in the  subpart AA standards.
        Response;   Under the  subpart  AA standards, control devices
   are  allowed to  operate  at  efficiencies  less  than 95 percent if
   the  total organic  emissions from all affected process  vents at a
   facility are less  than  3 Ib/hr and 3.1 ton/year.  These
   facility-wide emission  rate  limits are based on a health risk
   analysis  of all  TSDF nationwide with process vents affected by
                                6-102
•ffii,
           ,	iiiii ;..

-------
-
Control devices are
                         to
                                               of health risk
 commenter  suggests
                                                   f emission
 ::::::o:n
          a-:^ c
 steam or air s
                                           .
            triooing operations).  There are
            tripping  P
                                                    -

                                        three)  per TSDF

                                         : =:
control
 emissions and to ensure that real                  emlssions from

 achieved .ecause of the potent.a^or «a •««  J
 standards to operate at an
                               6-103

-------
      The  EPA does  not  believe that the subpart CC requirements
  are unreasonably burdensome or will result  in over control.   The
  nationwide risk analysis  performed in support of  the  subpart  CC
  standards indicates that  a  95 percent emission reduction
  nationwide is necessary to  protect human health and the
  environment,  m fact, for  some facilities, more  stringent
  control may be needed  to  lower the residual risk  after
  implementation of the  subpart CC standards to  a level within  the
  range of other promulgated  RCRA rulemakings.   The  EPA is
  continuing to evaluate the  waste management practices and the
  individual chemical compounds  composing the organic emissions at
 these TSDF to determine if  other actions are necessary to meet
 the health-based goals of RCRA  section 3004(n).
      Finally,  the subpart CC standards dp not require that each
 tank,  surface impoundment and container ^hat is vested to a
 control Device be vented to a separate control device dedicated
 to only that  particular unit.  All of the tanks, surface
 impoundments,  and containers that are vented to a  control  device
 could be vented to  a  single control device that achieves at leasst
 a 95 percent  emission  reduction.  Therefore,  the facility  owner
 or operator does  have  some flexibility in  devising a control
 strategy for affected  sources.  Also,  the  rule requires  that the
 control  device must achieve  a minimum 95 percent emission
 reduction.  If an enclosed combustion device such  as a thermal
 incinerator is used, greater than 99 percent emission reduction
 should be  achieved.  Generally,  other  types of  control devices
 will not achieve the control efficiency of an  incinerator, but in
 most cases better than  95  percent should be achieved with a well-
 designed and well-maintained control device.

     Cpmrnent;  One commenter (F-91-CESP-00076) notes that when
 the control device selected  is an incinerator that meets the
 requirements of parts 264 and 265, subpart O (incinerators), the
 unit must meet a minimum destruction and removal efficiency of
 99.99 percent for each principal  organic hazardous  constituent.
According to the commenter,  incineration may be the only
                              6-104

-------
               •^r- treatment,  BO  that  when the incinerator is


                  °
                 e

   neenviro^anta! b«.«it.  »» annua! average control



To" each waste strea, Banagea  as a  function of operat.ng
                               "
 T^cl Z cl^-^'^^   ^  *^         *                           _
 not operating is also being promulgated as proposed.


      eoMat:  one commenter  (F-91-CESP-00046)  notes

 according to the proposal preamble,  an existing *°^

 heater can be used for  organic vapor destruction.   However,

                                6-105

-------
  according  to  the  commenter,  the discussion does not indicate
  whether  such  uses of  boilers or process heaters will require that
  the appropriate regulatory authorities be notified.   The
  conunenter  requests that  the  EPA expand this discussion to
  indicate whether  the  appropriate regulatory authorities must be
  notified of the destruction  of  organics in boilers  and process
  heaters.   The conunenter  also requests  that the  EPA  describe  in
  detail the types  of information that must be supplied  in such a
  notification, if  required, as well as  the format of  the
 notification.
      Two conunenters (F-91-CESP-00010,  00028) request guidance as
 to how the control devices that may be  installed to meet the
 proposed rule will be regulated by existing RCRA standards and
 whether the use of an existing boiler or  industrial furnace for
 emission,!3 destruction can be achieved through a modification of
 an existing air permit.  As examples of control devices that
 could  be installed, the first of these commenters presents the
 thermal vapor incinerators, catalytic incinerators,  flares,
 boilers,  and process heaters  mentioned by the EPA as acceptable
 destruction devices designed  to control organic vapor emissions
 from TSDF.   The commenter questions how or if 40 CFR 264 and 265,
 subpart O,  265 subparts P and Q, and 266 subpart H will apply to
 these  units in addition to subparts AA  through  CC of 40 CFR 264
 and 265.  Likewise, the commenter notes that discussions on
 regeneration of carbon adsorption systems do not clarify the
 applicability  of subpart  X.   According  to the commenter,  should
 the TSDF  unit  standards apply to any of these control devices,
 40  CFR 270  requires that  they be permitted prior to  installation.
 The conunenter  requests  clarification for State agencies  to
 determine their role in permitting these control devices, and  for
 TSDF owners and operators to  determine the precise design,
 construction, monitoring,  and  operation  of these devices to
develop design details.  The  second commenter recommends that a
combustion  unit used as an air emission  control device for the
destruction of organic constituents not be required to be a RCRA-
permitted unit.

                              6-106
     ,	„• ,;. i'lliilll

-------
     Bespsnss:  Regarding the use of an existing boiler or
     E£SE2J1£S     .„  _lr poiiution control device,  subpart CC
process heater  as  an  a.  pollu              authorities for such


does n;: rs:9tui:ry   ::     t int* j «*«t «. r~«*. ».* be
















                       to an existing boiler or
 air permit will be required.

     ^he organic vapors emitted fro. hazardous waste are not













             and 265, subpart 0, 265 subparts P and Q, and 266
  CFK 26and »5 to these units, control devices must be des.gned


  and   erated pursuant to the retirements of SS 264.108, or

      .

operating parameters pursuant to SS

subpart AA.

                                                 265.1033 of
                                6-107

-------
      Cprnment;  One conunenter  (F-91-CESP-00009) notes that, with
 respect to combustion devices,  S  265.1087 requires, by reference
 to S 265.1033, adjustment of  emission  levels to 3 percent oxygen
 on a dry basis.  According to the commenter, the boilers and
 industrial furnaces  (BIF) regulations published February 21, 1991
 require adjustment to 7 percent oxygen.  The commenter believes
 that this disparity will result in confusion for those TSDF
 opting to control tank emissions by venting to boilers complying
 with the BIF rules.  The commenter recommends that a single
 oxygen correction factor be chosen.
      Response;  Owners and operators that must comply with the
 BIF rules for emissions of toxic organic compounds,  toxic metals,
 hydrogen chloride,  chlorine gas, and particulate matter from
 boilers and industrial furnaces burning hazardous waste must
 correct emissions to 7 percent oxygen on a dry basis.   Owners and
 operators of enclosed combustion devices used as control  devices
 pursuant to subpart CC should correct emissions to 3  percent
 oxygen  on a dry basis.   Several  Clean Air Act rules require  that
 emissions be corrected to 3  percent  oxygen on a dry basis.   A
 correction factor of  3  percent was chosen for the  TSDF  organic
.emission rules to maintain consistency with  similar Clean Air Act
 air emission rules.   The  requirements of the BIF rules  and the
 Clean Air Act  air emission rules do  not  overlap, therefore there
 are no  inconsistent requirements.
 6'9-3 Chanaeout of Small  Carbon  Canisters
     Comment:   One commenter  (F-91-CESP-00062) notes that the
 replacement  interval  of small  carbon  canisters is to be
 determined using  worst-case conditions,  based on the assumption
 that worst-case conditions occur 100 percent of the time.
 According to the  commenter, there are situations where worst-case
 conditipps may  occur as little as 20 percent of the time.  As a
 result of the worst-case assumption,  the commenter submits that
 changeout of the  control device will be required long before the
 control device  experiences breakthrough, which will not be
 economically beneficial.  The commenter proposes that
 nonregenerative carbon adsorption systems that are used on
                              6-108

-------
determining carbon changeout

occurred.                   m«.,,tor« using a carbon adsorption
     EME2nsm:   owners  and  °P*««" U*  *     regenerate the
syste* sucn as  a carbon can.ster th t ^  .       ^ ^^


carbon bed ««*l» !»^4^ ^specif ies two procedures for
S 264.1033(h).   sect.on 264.103 »W  ^           the control

determining when to repiace the e»st «,         ceflures requlres

 aevice with fresh carbon.  The firrt °        .OBpoUnds  in the

  .....
concept of implementing

the Clean Air Act.
                                               for control devices
   that
                                                 .  Uar emission
 provide for consistent a

 Clean Air Act and RCRA

 sources.


                « « r^rmnpnter (F-91-CESP-00023)
      fnwm^ntt  One commenuet \* •*•*•
 requir^nf for owners or operators to certify that control

                                6-109

-------
  devices are designed to operate at the performance level is
  unnecessary.
       Response;   The EPA believes that the owner or operator
  certification of control device performance is a minimal
  requirement for demonstrating compliance with the standards.   It
  is intended to  ensure that sound engineering practice is followed
  in desi!nin
-------
source, but in no case shall the distance be less than 25
centimeters.

            ..  one counter  (F-91-CESP-00062, submits that
                     subpart CC stanaaras proviae two methoas by
 whe       or operator can aete-nnine the ^^-~^«
 control aevice.  One methoa is by performance testxng   The
 alternative -nethoa is by using engineering calculations in
 accoraance with the requirements specifiea in the rule.
 6.10 MANAGEMENT OF SPENT ACTIVATED CARBON
                 sevencommenters  (F-9X-CESP-00011,
         00048,  00060,  00069,  00077)  disagree with the EPA s
    oPOsal tha; the TSDF owner or operator certify that carbon .s
  ^eneratea or reactivatea by a process that minimizes em.ssions
  o£ organics to the atmosphere" for spent carbon that „
  regen!ratea or reactivatea off site.  The centers submit that
  off site regeneration processes are not unaer any control by the
  TSDF owner/operator of the carbon adsorption system generating
  the spent activated carbon.
       One counter (F-91-CESP-00077) believes that  if the EPA
                                 6-111

-------
 considers  standards for carbon regeneration and reactivation to
 be warranted,  such requirements may only be imposed through due
 process  rulemaking.  The commenter considers pseudo-enforcement
 via certification by users of such services to be entirely
 outside  the  authority and authorized procedures of the the EPA.
      Commenter F-91-CESP-00045 notes that under existing RCRA
 provisions,  generators of spent carbon from carbon adsorption
 systems  will be held ultimately responsible for the proper
 disposal of  such waste.   The commenter feels that a certification
 requirement  would add nothing to these existing provisions and
 submits  that all. that is needed is a disposal requirement.
        JIB'!1  ,    	    <•      . '. . .   „    I1-,. "•" ',	 .if1-,. . .'•  '  , , it.   ,    . • ,,,  ': ,;: • ,;,,
      Two commenters (F-91-CESP-00060, 00077)  submit that spent
 carbon can be  sent to a subpart O incinerator,  but that only the
 incinerator  operator can certify that the incineration process in
 fact  "achieves the performance standards  in subpart O" at the
 time  the carbon is incinerated.   One commenter (F-91-CESP-00077)
 notes that it  is the EPA's sole authority (which by law it can
 only delegate  to a State with an authorized program) to
 establish, implement,  and enforce regulations under RCRA.
According  to the commenter,  the responsibility  and burden of
 complying  and  certifying compliance with  regulations can only be
 assumed  by the facility  or operations to  which  it  applies and
 cannot be  diverted to a  third party.
     The following alternatives  to the proposed  certification
requirement were suggested by the commenters.  One commenter
 (F-91-CESP-00048)  suggests that  standards  for spent  carbon
reactivation/regeneration be  developed and  the carbon  generator
then be required to maintain  records  that the material was  sent
to a facility  complying  with  the requirements.  Another  commenter
 (F-91-CESP-00069)  states that owners/operators could be  required
to document that they  send their carbon to  facilities which
certify that they meet the applicable  requirements.  A third
commenter  (F-91-CESP-00044) suggests that it may be possible  for
the TSDF owner or operator to make a general certification that
the spent carbon  is  being sent to a facility that uses control
devices or that  is  regulated  under 40 CFR subpart O.  A fourth
                               6-112

-------
           "-;:;         . -.
fouows. The requirement for a
r=
 operations were not
               — —
                        "
                   owner or
          ed as theraal treatment
                265. .« ..
  6-113

-------
  and  the permit  standards of part 264,  subpart X.   Also because of.
  promulgation of the BIF rules,  the option has been added allowing
  the  owner or operator to burn carbon removed from a carbon
  adsorption system  in a boiler or industrial  furnace that is
  permitted under 40 CFR 266  subpart H.   The EPA believes  that the
  BIF  regulations pertaining  to carbon regeneration/reactivation
  units in combination with the revised  requirements  of  the  TSDF
  organic air emission rules  will  ensure proper handling of  the
  TSDF spent carbon.

      .Comment;   One  commenter  (F-91-CESP-00060) notes that
 SS 264.1086(e)   and  265.1087(e) do not  specify  to whom  the
 required certification  should be sent.  The commenter  suggests
 that the EPA should  simply require that the facility maintain
 documentation that the  spent carbon was sent to an offsite
 facility meeting the requirements of SS 264.1086(e)(1)  or  (2),  or
 managed  on site so as to meet those requirements.
      Response;   As is explained in the previous response, the
 certification requirement has been changed to a documentation and
 recordkeeping requirement.
 6'10'2 Spent  Carbon Management Alternatives
      goinment:   Three commenters (F-91-CESP-00019,  00060,  00077)
 state that spent carbon should be clearly  identified as a
 hazardous waste. Then spent carbon regeneration,  reactivation,
 fuel  substitution,  and incineration activities would be directly
 controlled by the requirements of these air emission rules
 (commenters F-91-CESP-00019,  00077)  or  byseparate  standards
 specifying the type of emission control equipment that  a  carbon
 regeneration/reactivation facility must use to  minimize air
 emissions,  (commenter F-91-CESP-00060) .
     Pes|°nse;   Spent carbon, with adsorbed organics, used to
 control air emissions from hazardous waste  treatment, storage, or
disposal*s not  necessarily a hazardous waste.  It is a hazardous
WaSte if ^ Dibits  a characteristic, or if it was used to
capture emissions from treating listed hazardous waste.   However,
subpart cc, as promulgated, specifically identifies the
                              6-114

-------
           methods for managing spent carbon.   Spent carbon must
H Of 40 CFR 266.

     samsD^  one commenter  (F-91-CESP-00033) supports the
concept that activated carbon should not be used merely to
transport the emissions of organics to-other location
 ,£ C£UU*L^ A*»^3  *•"•••• — —	
 in a removal from the atmosphere of 95 percent
 of organics that result from the hazardous waste having greater
 than 500 ppmw volatile organic content.  As an example  the
 commenter notes that percent of organics removal from the
 atmosphere cou!d be determined by a combination of thecarbon
 removal efficiency and the destruction efficiency of the unit
 used to incinerate the carbon.
      EejEE2M£:   First  it should be noted that, as discussed
 previously  in  this BID, the proposed  500-ppmw action level
 referred  to by the commenter has been changed to a mass-weighted
 average volatile organic concentration of  !00 ppmw in  the final
  subpart cc standards.  As  proposed and promulgated,
  SS 264.1087(b)(2)  and 265.1088(b)(2)  require that the  control
  "vice shall operate at  conditions that reduce  the organics in
  the gas stream vented to it by at least 95 percent by weight^
  For control devices other than carbon adsorption reducing the
  organics in the gas stream by at least 95 percent will result in
  a corresponding reduction in the quantity of organics emitted to
  the atmosphere.  However for carbon there is the potential that
  the adsorbed  organics could still be emitted to the atmosphere in
  the carbon reactivation/regeneration or disposal processes.
  Therefore, as the commenter suggests,  SS  264.1087(c)(3) and
                                 6-115

-------
 265.1088(c)(3)  require that the determination of carbon
 adsorption system efficiency be based on the total quantity of
 organics vented to the atmosphere from all carbon adsorption
 system equipment that is used for organic adsorption, organic
 desorption or carbon regeneration, organic recovery,  and carbon
 disposal.

      Comment:   According to one commenter (F-91-CESP-00007)  most
 carbon from nonhazardous applications is shipped off  site for
 regeneration.   The commenter notes that spent carbon  from TSDF is
 hazardous waste and raises the question of whether carbon
 regenerators mix this carbon with their nonhazardous  variety for
 regeneration.   The commenter believes that regeneration will
 require manifesting of spent TSDF carbon and payment  of hazardous
 waste fees unless the EPA can develop an automatic delisting
 procedure.
      Response!   Carbon with adsorbed  organics, having been used
 to control air  emissions  from hazardous  waste treatment,  storage,
 or disposal,  is not necessarily  a  hazardous  waste.  The spent
 carbon  is  a hazardous waste if it  exhibits a hazardous
 characteristic  or if used to treat listed wastes.  However,  under
 the BIF rules,  regeneration or reactivation  of carbon used to
 control air emissions from hazardous waste treatment, storage, or
 disposal facilities  must  be performed  in a RCRA thermal  treatment
 unit.   Hence carbon  used  to control air emissions from hazardous
 waste treatment,  storage,  or disposal will require a manifest to
 ensure  that it  is regenerated or reactivated  in a unit subject to
 subtitle C regulation.  The subpart CC standards further provide
 that regeneration must occur in either a subpart X unit or in a
 BIF subject to the standards in subpart H of part 266.

     .Comment;  six commenters  (F-91-CESP-00045, 00047, 00048,
 00056,  00060, 00067) request that the EPA specifically authorize
the burning of spent carbon in a BIF pursuant to the requirements
of subpart H.  One commenter (F-91-CESP-00045) notes that the BIF
rule requires the same level of control of organic emissions  as
                              6-116

-------
                                                           ...»
                AS has been noted in response to a cogent in
secto         o* this BIO, at the ti»e the proposal pacXage was
 incinerator
 weekly  inspection requirements.  The commented state that
 weekly  inspections along with the existing and proposed
 requirements  for tight  covers should be adequate *° <™



  refer to comments  below.]   In contrast,  three counters (F-91-
  CESr-00036, 00046,  00055,  do not agree with the weeKiy inspection
                                6-117

-------
 requirements.  Two of these commenters  (F-91-CESP-00036,  00046)
 address their comment to containers handling radioactive  mixed
 wastes and cite health and safety concerns for the inspection
 personnel.  One of these commenters (F-91-CESP-00036) states that
 the containers are stored in a "dense pack" to reduce radiation
 exposure from the surface of the drums.  Disassembling the stacks
 of drums would expose workers to radiation.  The third commenter
 (F-91-CESP-00055)  also stores containers stacked in groups in
 accordance with State regulatory agency drum configuration
 requirements and cites health and environmental concerns from
 moving the drums as well as reduced storage capacity.
      Response;   The proposed inspection requirements called for
 the visual inspection of each cover initially upon installation
 of the cover and thereafter at least once a week.   In response  to
 commenters'  concerns with the weekly inspection requirements, the
 EPA evaluated the  effectiveness of  less frequent visual
 inspections  and  determined that semiannual  visual  inspections
 should be  sufficient to  ensure that  the covers  are being properly
 used and adequately  maintained.   In  addition, a cover is not
 required to  be inspected if  it has remained in  the closed,  sealed
 position continuously for the  entire time since the previous
 inspection.   Also, the subpart  CC standards do  not add any visual
 inspection requirements  beyond  the weekly visual inspections of
 container storage areas  required by subpart I for  a container
 that has a design capacity less than or equal to 0.46 m3
 (approximately 119 gallons).  Regarding containers handling
 radioactive mixed waste, as explained in section 6.1.3 of this
 chapter, the applicability of the subpart CC standards to waste
 management units handling radioactive mixed wastes is being
 temporarily deferred.
     For clarity in the final standards, the visual inspection
 requirements have been amplified.  A visual inspection requires
viewingthe entire cover surface and each cover opening in  a
closed, sealed position for evidence of any defect that may
affect the ability of the cover or cover opening to continue to
                              6-118

-------

requirements of subpart CC.

     £2Mnt:  Thirteen com.enter,
000,3, 00029,  00034  00038  0
00077, 00078)  do not beHeve

                                                         of
                                         COB]Benters  (r.9l-
 -  ——
 co-enters present
 enissions region;
 short period of time;
 not be on site .or
 ieased and
 the lessor,-
 through existing
 containers
 quiescent and the cover
 monitor the covers «ill  increas,
                                                        «»
                      ey o         follouing: (l)  monitoring


                           ^^  ation containers »ouW
                    (3)  90 day •          •      containers are
                                           . retirements of
                          r..r     adeguateXy controlied
                       S    requirements ;  (6, after sampling,
                    and DOT req                     waste ^
                                         -ing containers to
                                                emissions due
to accidental .pill.; »<1
Determine
(8)
                              «'«""
                                                be required to
                                                monitoring and
                                                HHH-,
:;r;::

                              6-119

-------
 all applicable DOT regulations  on packaging hazardous waste for
 transport under 40 CFR part  178.  The  final subpart CC standards
 also exempt from the monitoring requirements a container that is
 attached to or forms a part  of  any truck, trailer, or railcar and
 that has, been tested for organic vapor tightness within the
 preceding 12 months in accordance with the pressure test
 procedures specified in Method  27 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A.
 Method 27 was developed for  the determination of vapor tightness
 of a gasoline delivery tank  and involves the measurement of the
 ability of a container to maintain pressure or a vacuum for a
 specified period of time.  In addition, an enclosure used to
 control air emissions from open treatment containers is exempt
 from the semiannual cover monitoring requirements if it is
 operated in accordance with the requirements of subpart CC.
 Finally,  a cover that has continuously remained in the closed,
 sealed  position for the entire period since the last time the
 cover was monitored is not required  to be monitored.
     If * container is used that is  attached to or forms  a part
 of  any  truck,  trailer,  or railcar  and has not been tested for
 organic vapor  tightness  within the preceding 12 months  in
 accordance with Method 27  procedures,  the owner or operator must
 show that the  container  cover is vapor-leak  tight  and maintain
 records §0 this effect.   Demonstration  that  a cover is vapor-leak
 tight should be by Method  21  leak detection monitoring when waste
 is  first  placed in the container.

     Comment;  Three commenters  (F-91-CESP-00018,  00059, 00060)
 believe that monitoring of the drums upon receipt at the storage
 or  treatment facility is unnecessary, provided that the existing
 and proposed requirements for containers are followed and that
 the containers remain unopened.  The commenters believe that the
weekly  inspections will reveal the condition of the containers.
One commenter  (F-91-CESP-00060) notes that, unlike tanks,
potential for emissions from  containers is physically limited
since containers are nonvented systems, and therefore requests
dropping the semiannual monitoring requirement or changing it to
                              6-120

-------
             .     The second
an annual bas^s.  ™e "°™
that monitorin,
o£ the container by a
repetitive since monitor  n,
installation o£ the cover.
monitor^ should  not  be
                           counter  (F-91-CESP-00059) states
                               connections and seals on rece.pt
                               did not ,enerate  the waste  is
                                      initially upon
                                              ves that
                                    faciltes that do not open
                                            (F.91.CESP-00018>

                                 t
                   A6  m3 (approximately
       ..
 specifications under

                                                  monitorlng is
Deifications unde, : « «JP-     •   ^ fcas ^^
the previous response, a cover  *               entire perlod
                                                      to be
monitored  semiannually.
                          .-^ (F-91-CESP-00053)  questions whether
      ssmssi..   one co«.enter (F 91 CES               ved through
 any additional emission "duct.on^^ ^beyond that^ .
 the current implementation of S "5' "^ ^enerltor site.
 requiring monitorin, of the conta.ner^ M.t the 9     ^ ^
      g^^^:  AS noted above, the final st
 require monitorin, of a "-"'     Ls  at the
  CFR part 178
                                                ,  00076)  request
                                 6-121

-------
                  The commenters  are  referring to the Federal
           Notice of Agreement  on Negotiated Regulation  (56 FR
  9315) .  This regulation applies to  leaks from equipment such as
  valves, pumps, compressors, sampling connections, and flanges.
  The Notice of Agreement on Negotiated Regulation is not relevant
  to the monitoring of emission control equipment required by the
  subpart CC standards.
                 The EPA received many comments (F-91-CESP-00010
  00038,  00040,  00046,  00069)  that, for some units,  it would be
  very difficult and even impossible to comply with  the proposed
  inspection  and monitoring requirements.   Two commenters  (F-91-
  CESP-00038,  00069)  request the addition  of allowances for
  container covers designated  as unsafe- or difficult-to-monitor
  consistent with the subpart  BB standards and with  the MACT
  standards for  fugitive  emissions.  One commenter (F-91-CESP-
  00046) states  that  many radioactive mixed waste treatment and
  storage tanks  are located  in reinforced  cement cells  that are
  lined with stainless steel and surrounded with earthen materials
 The ceils are designed  for radiation shielding and to isolate the
 tanks from the environment.  Another commenter (F-91-CESP-oooiO)
 submits that tops or covers currently existing or subsequently
 ^stalled may not be accessible or designed to support the  weight
 of an individual.   in addition, the commenter believes that the
 requirement  to monitor during loading of  waste in the unit,  or
 for nonquiescent processes, while the unit is generating
 emissions, poses additional critical  safety concerns  for the
 personnel performing the monitoring.   TWO of the commenters
 (F-91-CESP-00040, 00046) request  exemptions to the  visual
 inspection requirements  when  it can be  shown  that completing the
 inspections would be prohibitive  because  of health and safety
 considerations.  One commenter  (F-91-CESP-00046) also requests an
 alternative method for inspecting for leaks on seals and fittings
Whe" the affected equipment is located in a closed ventilation
system (i.e., a building or ^ where M Qf ^ ^ ^ ^^
out of a sxngle stack).  Another commenter (F-91-CESP-00038)  with
                              6-122

-------


   ause monitoring personnel would >e              t
danaer as a consequence of the monitoring, and (2) the owner




times.  roi a                             owner or operator
 Monitor » explanation ana planned monitoring schedule must be

 the  facility  operating record.
       concerning  the monitoring of radioactive mixed waste
 treatment and storage tanks,  as  explained  in sect.on  6  1.3 of
 this chapter, the applicability  of  the suopart  CO standards to
                                6-123

-------
        ''I'l
 waste management units handling radioactive mixed waste is being
 temporarily  deferred.
        ,'	I!'1     .                       ,,,'',            '       , ', .St '»
      The  subpart CC standards require that each cover connection
 and seal/ with  the  exceptions discussed previously in this
 sectionof the  BID,  be monitored initially upon installation of
 the cover and thereafter  at  least once every 6  months.   There are
 no specifications of operating conditions during the  monitoring.
      As discussed in section 6.4.2 of this chapter, placing
 treatment or storage waste management units  within  a  building
 that is, jSf:vent-d  to a  control  device (e.g.,  locating  several open-
 t0p t:an&5 °r mult*Ple  containers  in a building  for  which the
 entire airspace  inside the building is ventilated through a
 single carbon adsorber) does not  comply with the control
 requirements of the  final subpart CC  standards.  Finally, with
 respect j:o monitoring  and inspection  of "cover systems," the top
 is a  part of the control system and not a part of the tank
 structure.  The inspection requirements of subpart J do not
 addresstops.  Therefore,  the monitoring and inspection
 requirements  for "cover systems" are  not duplicative of the
 inspection requirements of subpart J.

     Cpmjnept:   Two commenters (F-91-CESP-00036,  00046) request
 exemptions to the proposed weekly visual inspection requirements
 when such  inspections would endanger worker safety and health.
     Pesppnse;   As has  been discussed  previously in this section
 °f thS ^!D/ the  visual  inspection requirements have  been revised
 so that Jfeekly  inspection  of  individual covers is not  required.
 A1S°' a containeC having a design capacity less  than or  equal  to
 0.46 m3 (approximately 119  gallons) that complies with all
 applicable DOT regulations on packaging hazardous waste  for
 transport under  49 CFR  part 178  is not required to be  inspected.

     •gomment;  °ne commenter  (F-91-CESP-00054) requests
clarification of  "when  workers require access,"  The commenter
asks whether access means each time a  rag is placed in a
                              6-124

-------


      *- ^ -^sj^ri.r^rru .
inspection, or sampling. Therefor ,        required to be
inspection, or sampling
               +—^ /F-Qi-CESP-00076) submits that tanks

                   6-125

-------
 operator is required to perform the  cover  inspection  only  for
 those portions of the tank cover and those connections to  the
 tank cover or tank body (e.g., fill  ports, access hatches, gauge
 wells, etc.) that extend to or above the ground surface and can
 be opened to the atmosphere.  As has been  discussed previously in
 this section of the BID, inspection  is only required  initially
 and semiannually by the final standards.   Also, a cover opening
 that has continuously remained in the closed, sealed position for
 the entire period since the last time the  cover was visually
 inspected is not required to be inspected  semiannually.
      Concerning the covers of double-walled tanks, the covers
 should be visually inspected in accordance with the subpart CC
 requirements.   The leak detection systems required for tanks must
 be designed to detect the  release of hazardous waste or
 accumulated liquid (from leaks,  spills,  or precipitation)  rather
 than  vapor  releases.   The  semiannual visual inspection required
 by SS 264.1088(b)  and 265.1089(f)  is intended to identify  visible
 defects  in  the  cover  that  could  release  organic vapors to  the
 atmosphere.

      Comment:   Two commenters  (F-91-CESP-00060,  00077)  request
 clarification that the monitoring requirements as  proposed  in
 S  264.10|7(b)(2) do not apply  to tanks constructed with roofs
 that  have been  fixed  in place  with welding.  According to the
 commenter,  such tanks do not have a reasonable likelihood of
 leaking in  a manner that already-established inspection and
 testing procedures would not detect.  The commenters believe that
 imposingthe proposed monitoring requirements  on fixed-roof tanks
 would therefore not be warranted for  human  health or
 environmental reasons and would be a  waste  of  resources.
     Response;  The subpart CC standards monitoring requirements
 apply to cover connections and seals, i.e., the connections and
seals on cover openings such as hatches.   The  joints on fixed
roof covers are not: required to be monitored.
                              6-126

-------
    £eMMi:   one  counter  (F-91-CESP-00035)  interprets the

                           -t fixed roofs on
are co^oequip»ent, and as such a,e covered >y
inspection, and recordKeepin, retirements of the subpart
standards, the «„! subpart CC -ndards ^ c ^
re.uire.ents for the cover  .. ,.. « - a r^^
each part, I.... S  2641.
-------
 and repair of organic vapor leaks  in  tank  air  emission control
 equipment.
                Two commenters  (F-91-CESP-00011, 00073) request
 that the EPA coordinate the  leak detection monitoring frequency
 and the action level with those required under subpart BB.
      Response;  The air emission sources that are common to
 subparts BB and CC and for which there are leak detection
 monitoring requirements are  closed-vent systems and control
 devices.  Subparts BB and CC are consistent in their requirements
 that leak detection monitoring be conducted initially and
 annually thereafter.   Regarding the action level,  for closed-vent
 systems with control devices there is not an action level for the
 leak defection monitoring.   Closed-vent systems with control
 devices used to comply with the RCRA air emission  standards are
 required to operate with no detectable organic emissions  when
 organic vapors are being vented to the control device.

      CpnuTient;   Two commenters (F-91-CESP-00033,  00047)  suggest
 that the additional inspection  and monitoring  required  under
 subpart CC  will be unduly burdensome and costly.
      Pesppn.se;   The requirements  for inspection  and  monitoring
 under the subpart  CC standards  are  the minimum level needed  to
 ensure  compliance  with  the air  emission  control  requirements  for
 tanks,  surface  impoundments,  and containers.   Previous experience
 with similar inspection and monitoring requirements  associated
 with Clean Air  Act standards  has shown that the requirements dp
 not  create an unreasonable burden.

      Cpmment;   Two commenters (F-91-CESP-00033, 00075)  state that
 the  inspection  and monitoring requirements should be revised so
 they do not conflict with those under the Clean Air Act.  One of
 the commenters  submits, for example, that the requirement for
semiannual equipment leak monitoring should be revised to an
annual equipment leak monitoring requirement,  as in the New
Source Performance Standards.
                              6-128

-------

-
         VOC
 ea                                      ^^ ^
industry, requires closed -vent syst               semiannual leak
monitored i»iti.»» an* annua 1 ^erea, ter      ^ ^ ^^


              •s^^.-. — - rr the New
       Performance standards for equipment  leaKs.

               one counter  (P-9LCESP-0003B, suggests that leaX
                        tied to aotua!
each cover connection .d     rered
 .nit         eac                                        ^
   required monitoring frequency.


           SDi!  TVO counters  (F-91-CESP-0001000012) agree with
   the ZPA's Proposal to extend the repair P^« ^ «^ ^ ^

   impoundments beyond the 15-calendar-day

                                6-129

-------
      Pr°SefS  that generates the waste is shut down.  One commenter
  
-------
process could possibly create a substantial hardship and

                               5S55T
                                               „
  subpart BB standards.


  6.12 RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS           , v. i • „„« that it
      ssmssi..  one counter (F-91-CESP-00010) beUeves that

  1. unreasonabXe to expect owners and
                          6-131

-------
 tank  systems  should provide enough detail to meet the  intention
 of this section.
       Eesppnse;  The final  subpart CC  standards  require cover
 designdocumentation only  for  each internal  floating roof cover
 or external floating roof  cover  installed on a  tank in accordance
 with  the alternative control requirements for tanks of S 264.1091
 or S  265.1091.  The alternative  control requirements for tanks
 are equipment standards requiring conformance with detailed
 equipment specifications.  Required documentation includes
 information prepared by the owner or operator or provided by the
 cover manufacturer or vendor describing the  cover design, and
 certifying that the cover meets the design specifications listed
 in the standard.  The EPA expects the detailed design information
 to be maintained in the records of an owner or operator who
 chooses to comply with the alternative control requirements for
 tanks.
      Regarding the adequacy of the design and installation
 requirements of subpart j,  the requirements of §S 264.192 and
 265'192include one assessment that includes design standards  for
 tanks  and/or ancillary  equipment.  The assessment will  not
 neCeSSa^ily  include the detailed  information on  covers  and  cover
 openings required  by SS 264.1089(a)(1)  and 265.1091(a)(1).

     .Comment;   Seven commenters (F-91-CESP-00010,  00023,  00046,
 00047, 00054,  00061, 00076)  disagree with  the proposed
 recordkeeping  requirements  for  containers,  claiming the
 requirements are unreasonable and burdensome.  One commenter
 (F-91-CESP-00010)  remarks that  many containers are on site only
 for a  short  period of time  or are  rental bins  that are  exchanged
 Wlth Safh shiPment-  The commenter recommends  that the short
 period of time that containers  are on site should allow for their
 exemption.  Another commenter (F-91-CESP-00054) states that
 container storage  areas are removed or relocated periodically,
making it burdensome to keep the records for the life of the
 facility.  This commenter suggests that container storage areas
be excluded from the requirement for recordkeeping to improve
recordkeeping quality and reduce the recordkeeping burden.   A
                              6-132

-------
third
                                 states that  the recordkeeping
                                    mass-produced to meet DOT
                                                       would
 container
                                   container recordKeeping
     EME2nBS^   the finatsubpart  CO standards.  The final rules
requirements for the final  sunp             documentation
ao not include any cover •°*™~»« ^^ documentation
recordKeepin, -^^-J-jTl.^.  — ' '« '
required for containers is for             &s  that must be open
container subject to the subpart CO stand        ^  includes
                                       «. -^ -
                                                        gallons)
                                   i
 aetection monitoring usin, Method
 design capacity greater than 0.46  m  < ^PP
 that have been opened vithin the ^^^^ monitorln,
 previous monitoring.  Records of the leaX             ^
 results for these containers must be Xept
 A container that is attached ^ « ^-.^ P-^^ ^
 trailer,  or "^^^^^^ than monitored for detectable
 ^rc^iLrrng^ethod  „.  .— . - «ethod .  test
  results also  must be maintained for 3 years.
                  ...
   promulgated as proposed with

                                 6-133

-------
 requirements consistent  with the requirements  of  the  subpart BB
 standards.  Records are  required of the dates  leaks are  detected
 by Method 21 monitoring,  the date of each  attempt to  repair  a
 leak, repair methods applied,  and the date of  successful repair.
 The second revision requires records of the management of carbon
 removed from a carbon adsorption system in accordance with the
 requirements of subpart  CC for managing spent  carbon.

 6.13 REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
      CPPffient.'   Two commenters  (F-91-CESP-00038, 00069) support
 the EPA^s general approach of  requiring reports only when
 exceedances occur rather than  requiring regular general status
 reports at regular intervals.  However, the commenters state that
 the proposed requirements are unclear as to the reporting
 obligations if  there are no control device malfunctions within
 the 6-month specified time frame.  The commenters also request
 that the EPA clarify if these reports are required to  be
 maintained as part of the facility records.
        \liij   ' • "   •   '••.  '',. • ."  i1      .       .. •   i .   . .        ..         . • :• •
      Response*;  A report is not required to be  submitted to  the
 EPA for  a  6-month period during which all control  devices used to
 comply with the subpart  CC standards are operated  by the  owner or
 operator so that  during  no period of 24  hours or  longer  did  a
 control  device  operate continuously in noncompliance with the
 applicable operating values defined in 40 CFR 264.1035(c)(4)  or  a
 flare operate with visible emissions as  defined in 40  CFR
 264.1033(d).
     The subpart CC standards do  not require a  copy of the report
 submitted to the EPA to be maintained as  a  part of  the facility
 records.  However, all of the information upon which the  report
 is based is required to be maintained in the facility records  for
 at least 3 years.

     Corcrcent;  Two commenters  (F-91-CESP-00046,  00054)  suggest
that reports of noncompliance with the rule requirements should
only need to be maintained in the facility operating records  as
opposed to being submitted to the EPA Regional Administrator.
                              6-134

-------
                   reporting requirements in the subpart CC
                                            ,
rules rather than within 30 days as proposed.
             a'BOre Banageable nechanis» than requiring Z^
  innovative equivalent designs.
       BOEan^^  The subpart CC standards do not Delude a
  provision specifying a .echanis* by which a TSDF owner or
  operator can request a variance fro, the raqu.re.ents of the
  rule   The subpart CC standards do allow TSDF owners and
  op rltors to »eet tanX control requirements consistent „«, the
                                 6-135

-------
 requirements in the NSPS for volatile organic liquid  (VOL)
 storage under 40 CFR 60 subpart Kb.  Under the VOL storage NSPS,
 a Blechln^5In is Provided by which a person can apply to the EPA to
 use an alternative means of emission limitation to comply with
 tne ru-Le provided the person demonstrates to the satisfaction of
 the EPA that the alternative means is at least equivalent to the
 control equipment specified in the rule.  If approved by the EPA,
 a notice is published in the Federal Register permitting its use
 as an alternative means for purposes of compliance with the VOL
 storage NSPS.   The subpart CC standards allow any such
 alternative control technology approved for use  under the
 provisions of  the VOL Storage NSPS also to be acceptable for use
 on TSDF tanks  to comply with the subpart CC standards.
      The EPA believes that the subpart  CC standards provide TSDF
 ownersfnd operators with  flexibility in selecting the  control
 technologies to  be used to comply  with  the rule  requirements  and
 do not place any particular control  technology at  an  economic and
 developmental  disadvantage.   The subpart CC  standards allow a
 TSDF  owner or  operator  to  use  any  appropriate control technology
 provided  that  it  can achieve the performance criteria specified
 10 thS *Ule'   F°r  example'  anv  contro1 device can be used that
 reduces the  organics  in the gas stream vented to it by at least
 95  percent by weight or other conditions specified in 40 CFR
 264-10t|(c)  and  (d).  Similarly, particular types of acceptable
technologies for treating a hazardous waste to reduce the organic
content of the waste are not specified in the rule.  An owner or
°Perat°l °an Choose any treatment technology that can destroy or
reduce organics in the waste so that it achieves  one of the
general requirements for treated wastes  specified in the rule.
                              6-136

-------
     ,.0 GENERATOR 90-DAY ACCUMULATION TANKS AND CONTAINERS
,.! PERMIT EXEMPTION CONDITION *«*«       EPR,S aecision to





 containers;  and (2,  the proposed ^ j^1*   contalners, ln
 to extend the «^™ ^^ ', "L T^nistrative Procedure
 violation of se^on 5"  CMM0069) further submits that




  90-day tanks and containers  impermssibly xnterfer
  manufacturing processes.                             coranents.
                 and  containers",  fro»  the RCRA subtle c
                                  7-1

-------
  permitting requirements.   Amending these conditions is a valid
  exercise of the EPA's authority under RCRA section 3004(n).
       Section 262.34  allows certain tanks and containers at
  generator facilities to accumulate hazardous waste for specified
  time  periods without obtaining RCRA permits.  The intent of  this
  provision is to strike a  reasonable balance between the
  congressional desire not  to interfere with the generator's
  manufacturing or production processes and the  need to  provide
  adequate  protection  of human health and  the environment
  (45 FR 12730, February 26,  1980).   Thus,  section  262.34(a) does
  not provide  a hazardous waste generator  with a complete exemption
  from all  RCRA section  3004  requirements.   On the  contrary, it
  incorporates most of the  relevant tank and container standards
 under 40  CFR part 265  and requires  compliance with these
 standards as a condition  for  maintaining RCRA permit-exempt
 status [refer, e.g.,  to 40 CFR 262.34(a)(1)].  This rule is not
 intended to shield 90-day tanks and containers from future
 technical TSDF requirements.  Therefore,  it is wholly appropriate
 for the EPA to update the technical requirements for tanks and
 containers that serve as the basis for the RCRA permit exemption.
 The EPAJlas alreadY done so, for example, when tank standards
 were amended in 1986.
      A1fh°Ugh 90-day  tanks and containers are not  required to be
 permitted under  RCRA  subtitle C,  the EPA  rejects the commenters'
 narrow reading of RCRA section 3004(n)  as limiting the  EPA's
 authority to extend the requirements to these units.
 Section 3004(n)  of RCRA requires  the EPA  to promulgate  rules  for
 the  control  of air emissions from "hazardous waste treatment,
 storage,  and  disposal facilities."    The  EPA does  not agree that
 RCRA section  3004(n)  reflects  a congressional intent that the EPA
 regulate  air  emissions  only  from  permitted  and  interim-status
 TSDF and not  from 90-day tanks and containers.  These tanks and
 containers are physically  identical  (i.e.,  the same types of
tanks and  containers are used  by generators to accumulate and by
TSDF owners and operators to store and treat waste).  There is no
environmental basis for not considering them subject to the
                               7-2

-------

section 300, 

treatin, ""^                   h RCRA actions 3002 and
 and containers,
                       the
     tn                             containers are already subject


 sees no reason that Congress  intended 90 d *
                                               "

                 -r,
  under
EPA's pre-HSWA authority and, therefore
                                                     are not
   amended tank Btandards, were HSWA rules) .
        As a variation of the ardent that 90-day tanks and
   containers shouid not be re^iated, one counter asserts that
        section 3004 (n) reflects a congress.onal intent that the
                                  7-3

-------
 regulate air emissions only  from permitted  and  interim-status
 TSDF and not from 90-day tanks  and  containers.  The  commenter
 apparently argues that the explicit inclusion of such authority
 under RCRA section 3004(n) and  not  under RCRA section 300?
 impliesa congressional finding that waste  accumulation does not
 significantly contribute to  air pollution.  The EPA  finds no
 indication, in the legislative  history of RCRA, or elsewhere,
 that Congress ever made such a  finding, and the EPA's conclusion,
 as disclssed later in this chapter,  is that on-site  accumulation
 ~°f haza^dous waste in 90-day units  is a significant  source of
 organic air emissions.  Again,  the  EPA finds no indication that
 Congress intended to preclude the EPA from regulating air
 emissions from nonpermitted hazardous waste storage and treatment
 under RCRA section 3004(n).
      In addition to RCRA  section 3004(n),  the EPA has authority
 Under RCRA section 3002 to amend 40 CFR 262.34(a).   One commenter
 states that,  although RCRA section 3002(a)(3)  authorizes the EPA
 to require the  use of appropriate containers, RCRA  section 3002
 provides no authority to  regulate air emissions.  The EPA
 disagrees with  this  statement.   The  RCRA section 3Q02(a) (3)
 authority,  as well as the  general authority  under RCRA  section
 3002  to  promulgate such rules regulating generators  "as  may  be
 necessary to protect  human health and the environment,"  is broad
 enough to encompass the regulation of air emissions from units
 storing  or  treating hazardous waste  at generator facilities.
     Finally, the EPA cited both RCRA sections 3002 and 3004 as
 the statutory authority for the  proposed rule.  Therefore, this
 rulemaking  is in full  conformance with section 553(b)(2) of the
 Administrative Procedures Act.
       , i ;"B;| „  ii    ,   	           •       '    "'    :, ,     ''            -, ;  ,:
       „ EPA also *e3ects the argument that the application of
 air emission controls to 90-day  tanks and containers
 impermissibly interferes with manufacturing processes.  The EPA
 concluded in 1980, as cited above, that the appropriate balance
 between protection of the environment and noninterference with
manufacturing processes was achieved by requiring 90-day tanks
 and containers to comply with certain technical  requirements as a
                               7-4

-------
--
76,000 Mg/yr.   Given the
9o-aay tanxs and containers, the sam
to retire that these units -mp
requirements of subparts AA, BE,
exemption from RCHA
to extend under this
,ules to containers used
the  widespread  use  of these
 operator,  to  collect  small
                              tta
                                                has led the EPA
                                                   late control
                                                  to maintain an
                                                      decided not
                                                 o£ these alr
                                                    because of
                                              ufacturino process
                                                    waste  as
                                                       with the
               six  commenters C-
              OOOSS,  surest that
redundant to existing regulations
containers to be closed except to  add or
oommenter «
repetitious as tanks
                                                         at retire
                                                  waste.   One

                                                 : retrofitted to
meet  State and
                The EPA
                                               the clean Air Act.
                                         the commenters- conclusion
        gejaienjis:  The  EP    i          suf£iclent to control organic
   that existing KCBA regulations are suff icien            ^^
   emissions from  90-day containers.   *«s"n'   ^   nazardous
   KCKA S »««.173  do require """^to  add or  remove
                                              ..
                                                 .....
                                   7-5

-------
  controls required by the New Source Performance Standards for
  volatile organic liquids apply only to new,  modified,  or
  reconstructed tanks of certain sizes and containing  organic
  liquids  above certain vapor pressures.   These controls are
  COnSid£Ired the minimum design control required for any large  tank
  containing organic hazardous waste,  regardless of the  date of
  C°nStr^?tion  °f the tank<   Accordingly,  the  minimum  control
  requirements  under the subpart CC  standards  incorporate  the tank
  organic  emission control requirements specified in 40  CFR part 60
  subpart  Kb (with the  exception of  a  tank with  a capacity greater
  than 75  a3 and containing an organic liquid with a vapor pressure
 greater  than  76.6  kPa, which  is required to use only a closed-
 Vent Sy!tem and  a  contro1 device).   The EPA maintains that many
 tanks currently used at TSDF to store hazardous waste are smaller
 than the sizes that require emission controls under 40 CFR 60
 subpart Kb; therefore the inclusion of these requirements should
 haVS minimal imPacts-  However, incorporating the subpart Kb
 requirements will ensure that any existing large tanks used for
 the storage of hazardous waste at TSDF are controlled at least as
 effectively as new, modified, or reconstructed tanks  storing
 volatile  organic liquids.

      go|y fit:   °ne commenter (F-91-CESP-00031)  requests that
 emissions from generator accumulation tanks and containers be
 regulated on an individual toxic constituent  basis under  phase
 III  of  the EPA's program to  implement RCRA  section 3004(n).  The
 commenter submits that the rule provides no justification for
 inclusion of generators in the  current rulemaking.
     Response;   in the Federal  Reaist^ notice  for the proposed
 rule< thf EPA  presented the  rationale for including 90-day tanks
 and containers in this  rulemaking and presented organic emission,
 cancer  incidence,  and cost impact estimates for applying the
proposed  requirements to 90-day tanks and containers
 (56 FR 3353°~33531> •  The EPA believes that this rationale is
still valid and it  is appropriate to regulate total organic
                               7-6

-------
emissions fro, 90-day tanKs and container, as part of this
""Thelpact estimates presented at proposa! for regulating






 =;=i"~::; ='---- -- =."»
     inaUy  the EPA is using a phased approach to implement






       d Uided ^at the best approach to achieving these

        control objectives is to ^J^^^^^.











  and may not adequately address the control of organs

  constituents that are ozone precursors.
r&..
             E1even counters address the impact

                        7-7

-------
  °0049)  state that emissions from 90-day accumulation units have
  not been quantified or confirmed.   Eight commenters (F-91-CESP-
  00015,  00031,  00043,  00046, 00048,  00062,  00066,  00069)  argue
  that the data  used from surveys of  90-day  facilities are outdated
  and do  not reflect current practices of facilities  (such as
  modifications  due to  the LDR and recycling)  or  the  common
  compounds found  at these facilities.   Commenters  also state that
  the estimate of  container emissions is based on spillage of
  materials,  which the  commenters believe to be insignificant.  One
  commenter (F-91-CESP-00015)  submits that there  is no basis  to
  show that most organics  are emitted before wastes are  transmitted
  to  TSDF,  as is suggested in the preamble to  the proposed
„  rulemaking.  Two commenters (F-91-CESP-00031, 00034) state  that
  the  assumption that emissions from  generators are identical to
  emissions  from TSDF is unwarranted.
      Response;   The EPA  disagrees with  the commenters' statement
 that organic emissions from  90-day  tanks and containers have not
 been quantified.   In the Federal Register notice for the proposed
 rUlS' tie EPA Presented organic emission, cancer incidence, and
 cost impact estimates for applying the proposed requirements to
 90-day tanks and containers  (56 FR 33530).   As discussed in the
 previous response, the impact estimates presented  at proposal for
 regulating 90-day tanks and containers have been revised by the
 EPA to reflect the updated waste data obtained by  the EPA and
 changes  to the impact analysis methodology  used  for  this
 rulemaking.
      The EPA also disagrees with the commenters' conclusion that
 managing organic-containing wastes in 90-day  containers is not a
 significant source of  emissions. As discussed in  section 5.1.1
 of this  document, limited available  information  requires  the EPA
 to use emission factors for drums based on  spillage  of  wastes.
 However,  the organic emissions value estimated by the EPA is not
 the only factor that the  EPA considered in  assessing the  organic
 emission potential of  90-day containers.  Waste generators use
 accumulation containers to  collect hazardous waste at or  near the
point where the waste  is  generated,  where the potential to emit
                               7-8

-------
organics is h,- for
o£ any organics in the vast e
panics in the ^
the atmosphere.  If these
atmosphere, a significant
,ay be  emitted to  the atmosphere
to a  TSDF  waste management
 standards. Under  these
 certain 90-day confine ,            downstream TSOF
 the organic emission reduction, ^ fr            ^ uastes and
 surface impoundments, or <=°nt""e"         would be decreased
                                  remain open to the
                                        ganics in the waste
                                         waste is transferred
                                                  ^ ^
                                         raissions from
                                            .  conse^entiy.
                   from the
       The  use  of the TSDF waste data
  analysis  resu!ts  are  appropriate
                                -.-
                                                    impacts
                                                      from
                                                    ,.!.! of


generators treat ha.ardous waste on
accumulated in RCRA perm.t-exempt 9 0          containers at the
often *~-^J»|^^^irU«i-. — two-thirds
same facility.  The EPA estima
of the hazardous wastes accumulated »      Y^
containers are  treated at ^"^^ it ls reasonable  to
of this  document,.  Thus, the EPA              and cQntalners

                                                         of  RCRA"
                       —
 permitted tank and container  units
      S2MMt:  several comments were received
  tmplementation costs of apply-, the "^ r         5)  states
  tanks  and containers.  One commenter (F
                                7-9

-------
  Without, ^ Pr°POSed Standards f« 9°-*=y tanks and containers
  without fully assessing the cost impacts  to generators.  Two
  colters (F-91-CESP-00037,  00053,  state that sufficient cost
  benefit analyses were not performed  for this aspect of the
  rulemaking.   one of these counters  CF-91-CESP-00053,  submits
  that Monitoring and recordkeeping costs must be considered.   The

  rrrecSrdrtimiteS *hat ** 71'°°° «««•*«•.  — 1  .onlt«rin,
  and Lcf reP1"9 C°StS f°r °°ntaine" »l» total  $355,000,000
  beUeve" !h ;°°0' I&SpeCtive^  One — ter  (Ml-«8P-ooo.9,
 «ov          ^ e00n°'I'1C analySiS Pe«°™«» ^r this  proposed
 Provision of the rulen.aking underestimates the cost.  Three
 c°o°™rLT (F;91-CESP-°00"'  °°°".  00066,  state that the
 contribution from containers to total nationwide organic
 oostandB
 cost and manpower.
                                                for the proposed
 annal                  estimates of the nationwide capital and
 annual costs of applying the proposed requirements to 90-day
           C°ntalners <56 FR »«M) .   The cost estimation
             used by the  EPA was presented in appendix L of the
          BID (EPA-450/3-8S-023C, .  No specific comments were
          5"1  the  WA'S C°St  esti"a"°" -thodolow.  in addition
        specifically considered the costs to waste generators

          Wlth
th
the
        ?
                                            inspection, testing
                               '«  "-day tanXs and con^iners
                    '  ins"eoti°". testing, and recordkeeping
                                                  in the
                                                :r
                              i:;-TsT
copies ofa|this ICR document K,re  made'avll^'e
                                                  the
                             7-10

-------
rule did not indude ™* *°           omission by revising

 significant burden on waste generators.


                       4. ,. /T?_Qi-cESP-00034) believes that
            :  One coitonenter (F-91 CESP      ;
 containers because the •»«*• ^        265 oontrols  organic
                          nocp
           ''      or not «U, .  Subpart EB in 40 CPK part 2es
                              7-11

-------
 these standards as a  condition for maintaining  RCRA  permit-exempt
 status for a 90-day tank  or  container.   For  those  limited  cases
 for whi<* the subpart AA  standards or  subpart BB standards are
 applicable to 90-day  tanks and containers, implementing the
 requirements of the standards  will achieve effective control of
 organic emissions from the source.

      SSffiffieni:  Three  commenters  (F-91-CESP-00043, 00066, 00065)
 state that the requirements of the  rule h^ave no effect on
 reducing spills and request exemption for 90-day accumulation
 units used for the storage of and/or treatment of spills.
      " pe.SP°nse:   Section 262.34 (a)  allows a waste generator to
 accumulate hazardous waste on site  for 90 days or less without a
 RCRA permit provided that the generator complies with certain
 specified conditions including the provision in 40  CFR part 265
 under subpart C,  subpart D,  subpart I for containers,  and  subpart
 J  for talks-   Under existing RCRA regulations specified in
      ,1'  I I'l'iln,'. i !       ' i '.H     '     '    i MI   ,„ , , ,  n    ,,  *    ||n    n| ,    M 	 n	  n,
 S  265*1(I?(11*(i)•'  an  owner  or °Perator of an interim-status TSDF
 that  engages  in treatment  or containment activities to  provide
 for immediate response to  a  discharge (i.e.,  spill),  threat of  a
 discharge of  a hazardous waste,  or a discharge of a material that
 upon discharge becomes a hazardous waste must comply  only with
 subparts c and D in 40 CFR part 265 but  not the  other subparts  in
 part 265.  A  similar provision  is provided in 40 CFR part 264 for
 owners and operators of permitted TSDF.   it is the EPA's
 intention that generators  operating 90-day tanks and containers
 comply with the same air emission control requirements  specified
 for owners and operators of TSDF  tanks and containers that must
 be permitted under RCRA.  Therefore, regulatory language has been
 added t0 Ihe final r,ule to ^arify that the subpart CC standards
 control requirements do not apply to 90-day tanks and containers
 if these units are used for emergency or spill management
activities,  in accordance with the requirements under  40 CFR 265
subparts c and D.
                              7-12

-------
            .  Three  co-anters  (P-91-CESP-00031, 000». 00055)
recordKeeping, ana
                                                   (r.91.CESP-
                                                              for
—
 with  section 262.34(aj  WIA
 n0nitorin,,  and recordKeepin, ^^f^f^^.^^us TSDF
 containers that the owner or operator of an -«           EpA
 must per.™ as
 did not propose any
                or
                               r
                                                    subpart CC

                                               '«
                                           -
 result of this rulemaXing.             lon, nonitoring,  and
      The EPA proposed «P~£  ^£^ to  be  performed  by
 reoordKeeping retirements that »°^a      generators required to
 TSDF owners and  ^•^"J^'S Mntainers.  Xn
 use emission controls on 90 day i:an^               revised the
  response to events on the proposed rule          «
   standards.   These
                    revisions to the *»**•<***"'
                                                       , of this
   final subpart CO standards estabUsh a set of

   .onitoring, and recordXeeping ™£~£
   containers that are necessary to effect lV.ly
   and  are  reasonable for a waste generator to perform

                                  7-13

                                                              *"*

-------
                 One commenter (F-91-CESP-00037) believes that if
  generators are regulated by these rules, then a higher action
  level should be used, the use of submerged fill for generators
  should be reconsidered,  and drum construction standards should be
  used in lieu of recordkeeping.
       Response:   The EPA  has made revisions to the final
  subpart CC standards that address several  of  the  commenter 's
  concerns.   First,  the final subpart CC standards  require  that
 .submerged  fill  be  used only when waste is  loaded  by pumping into
  a container  with a capacity equal to or greater than 0.46 m3
  (approximately  119 gallons)  (see section 6.6.3 of  this  document).
  Second, the  final  subpart CC standards  for containers have been
         t0 all°V wastes to *>e  managed  in drums that  meet DOT
                 for transporting  hazardous materials, which are
 SpeCifi!d Under  40  CFR Part  178  
-------
             h  -a
atmosphere from the open 90-day containers
     ssm^:  onecommenter  (,-,l-C=SP-00047> states that the
rule ^Tctuse generator, to become TSDF and that is neither
 be emitted to the  atmosphere.
          XC.BX^ TO 0THER O
       Cojunent:   Twelve comments (F-91 CESP u
  areas.  All 12 commenters state that these
                         for tanXs and containers used by small-
           Aerators  for  ™^^^ «^^ T'o,
   and  operated in compliance  with 40 CFR 262. 34W     i  )
   the  EPA did not propose  control requirements  under this
   rulemaXing for containers used for satellite  accumulation of
                                 7-15

-------
  hazardous waste  in  compliance with 40 CFR 262.34(c).   The final
  rule does not apply to any of these units.
      "Sinall quantity generators"  are designated under  RCRA to  be
  those facilities that generate at least  100 kilograms  but less
  than 1,000 kilograms of hazardous waste  in a  calendar  month.
  Section 262.34(d) allows a small-quantity generator to accumulate
  hazardous waste on  site for up to 180  days and §262.34(d)  allows
  accumulation up to  270  days in a  tank  orcontainer without  a RCRA
  permit provided that generator complies with  certain specified
.conditions.   At proposal,  the  EPA decided not to amend these
  existing conditions  to  include the subpart CC standards control
 requirements because  the organic  emission potential from small-
 quantity generator accumulation units was estimated to be
 relatively small (56  FR 33531).  However, the EPA stated at
 proposal that these units could be regulated at a future date if
 new information  becomes available to indicate impacts different
 from those currently estimated.
      "Satellite  accumulation" is designated by existing RCRA
 provisions as  the accumulation up to and  including 55  gallons of
 hazardous  waste  or  1 quart of acutely hazardous waste  listed in
 s 261-33(e)  in containers at or near any  point of  generation
 where the  waste  is  initially accumulated  and which is under the
 control  of the process operator.  Section 262.34(c) allows a
 waste generator to use containers  for satellite accumulation
 without complying with RCRA permitting  requirements and 40 CFR
 265  subpart I provided that generator meets certain specified
 conditions.  The EPA decided not to amend  these existing
 conditions to include the subpart  CC  standards control
 requirements because of  the widespread use of these containers by
manufacturing process operators  to collect small quantities of
hazardous waste as generated, and the integrated use of these
containers with the manufacturing operations.
        ih 41    "          „    » ,,   '   •      ,',"''                , i 'i •"" " ,i..
     c°Piroent:  Two commenters (F-91-CESP-00076, 00081)  suggest
that the rule does not contain the necessary wording to reflect
the EPA's intent expressed in the preamble that the subpart CC
                              7-16

-------

controx retirements should not apply to
Ration units.  These ™"" "
, 262.3«d,<2, - -ill- to a so e  *
the commenters suggest that S 262.   < M

                  section  2e2.34(a, (,,
the cons that .  s.aU-qu.ntity
maintaining a RCRA per»it exe.pt.on                      The EPA
                                         -
                                                   —
              -   Five  counters  (F-91-CESP-00033,  00043, 00055.
                        that the
option inciuae
of hazardous waste (not
preamble).
                                                          in the

                                          proposed rule, the EPA
   generator
   hazardous
   areas.
                one
                      counter (F-91-CESP-00062) suggests that
    containers prior  to  lab packing).
                                  7-17

-------
                  As discussed in section 6.6.1 of this document,
  containers  with a design capacity less than 0.1 m3  (approximately
  26  gallons)  are exempted from all container control requirements
  required  by the subpart CC standards regardless of  the volatile
  organic concentration of the waste managed in the container.
  Containers  used for lab packing commonly have capacities  smaller
  than this size  cutoff and,  consequently,  in most cases the
  control requirements of the subpart CC standards would not apply.
        . «£          .   .   ' ,        i ' •   "  ",:L" ,        •'        i • ,    -')  I'"
      •Comroents   One  commenter (F-91-CESP-00055)  states  that the
 proposed provision  to subject 90-day accumulation tanks and
 containers to air emission  controls  will  penalize facilities in
 States whose State  regulations do  not allow  satellite
 accumulation areas.   Facilities  in these  States will either have
 to establish more satellite  accumulation  areas pursuant to
 Federal regulations, and consequently, have more  areas regulated
 by thS ^at6' °r they wil1 have few if any areas  that qualify for
 the satellite exemption.
      Fe^P?nsei   The EPA is not promulgating control  requirements
 under this rulemaking for containers used in satellite
 accumulation areas in compliance with 40 CFR 262.34(c). However,
 individual States have the right to establish standards for air
 emission sources within their jurisdiction that are  more
 stringenj:  than standards promulgated by the EPA.   Where multiple
 standards  apply  to the same  source, the owner/operator  must
 comply  with  the  most stringent requirements.

     C^a|ejj£:  One commenter (F-91-CESP-00049)  states that the
 EPA has confused satellite accumulation  areas with 90-day
 accumulation  areas  in reference to  point of generation.
     Response.;   Contrary to  the interpretation of  the commenter,
the EPA ?aintains  its  Position that 90-day tanks and containers'
are 10C*ffd near the Point where the waste is generated even if
satellite accumulation areas  exist at the facility.  A satellite
accumulation area is where containers are used initially to
                               7-18

-------
                           of hazardous waste at or near any
                              which the container is under the
some distance away fro. the gene
facility vhere the waste is generated.   It is also
therefore, the waste generator
Waste ^gea  in  a  en                                ntity of

"  f^ced  "n   -da  tin"  and  containers,  and RCRA-per,itted
waste placed in 90    Y                   unlimited  amounts  of
tanks  and centals at^TSDF  can  ha             rulemaKing, the
                                 7-19

-------

-------
                        8.0 TEST METHODS
       thoat.0 was  propose, as a part of  the  -part CC
             The  »ethod                         "
proposed as a part of m     y         proposed Method 25D that



 401 M  Street, SW, Washington  DC 20460.
               00076)  were received statin, that the proposed
        couection re,uire,ent to use          -
 pass through a static mi.er meeting the
  ! iarge nuBber of different wastes and there
                                 8-1

-------
        ',        •  .          ^     •• •      :: '         •   ,   _ '•   : .' r	"i
 cross-contamination of wastes  unless mixers dedicated  to certain
 waste qodes are used.
      Pejpponse;  The EPA proposed the use of static mixers for
 sample collection as a means of  obtaining well-mixed samples of a
 waste so that the samples analyzed are a true representation of
 all organic compounds contained  in the waste.  Mixing the waste
 prior to the sampling point avoids the potential for intentional
 or unintentional selective sampling of only a portion of the
 waste such as collecting all of  the samples from a stratified
 aqueous layer in a multiple-phase waste.  However, the EPA
 recognizes that some wastes will be tested using Method 25D for
 which mixing the waste using a static mixer is not necessary
 (e.g.,  a homogeneous waste stream)  or,  under certain conditions,
 is ^ot Jeaslble (e-9-/  a waste composed entirely of solid
 materia|s).   Therefore,  the EPA decided to delete the proposed
 requirement  for use of a static mixer and replace this
 requirement  with specific procedures  for sampling a single-phase
 or well-mixed waste,  a multiple-phase waste,  and solid materials.
 Also,  as included at proposal,  the  final Method  25D provides the
 alternative  of using a waste sampling technique  not specified in
 the test method upon approval  of  the  EPA Administrator.

     Comment;   Several comments were  received  on the  selection  of
 polyethylene glycol  (PEG)  as the  matrix  for collecting  a waste
 sample for analysis.  One  commenter (F-91-CESP-00008) believes
 •the retgntion  properties of PEG may prevent the  subsequent
 release  of certain organic compounds from the sample matrix  even
 at  the 75 °C purging temperature.  A second commenter  (F-91-CESP-
 00076) ^ates tha1^ the selection  of PEG as the sample collection
matrix seems reasonable, but expresses concern that the slightly
acidic nature of PEG could result in either a positive or a
negativebias in the determination of volatile organic
concentration of the sample when  organic acids or bases are
present in the sample.  A third commenter (F-91-CESP-00016)
states Ifa1: samPles should be collected using standard volatile
organic analysis (VOA) vials because these vials have been shown
         !             •   '  ,    8-2

-------
„ . .„.«,..




          r;:: rrrr
  of a pipe into a drain.  A re^cii                   PFSP
  fir emissions from wastewater collection systems  (F-93-CESP
  £,~    The results of this study indicate that organs

  Tissions fro, the «aste Wat er to the atmosph ere^an
        that
matrix provides an effective
                                                 ot organics
                                                  .     .
                              8-3

-------
  Sample 1° reduce high acidic or basic levels in the waste prior
  to analysis would alter the waste matrix artificially, thus
  biasing  the test results.  The EPA attempted to identify a buffer
  (or buffers)  that could be added to the waste to control pH.
  However,  the EPA found that the selection of a compatible buffer
  needs  to be determined on a case-by-case basis because
  information is  required regarding the specific organic
  constituents present  in the waste.   Collection of these
  constituent data for  each waste sample analyzed would be
.expensive and burdensome.
      In fdditTion to th? pH  of  the  waste'  the  effects  of .the we,ak
 acid chffacteris*ic of PEG  was studied by EPA.   This  study showed
 that tht PEG acidity Af a result 9^ the Inherent chemical
 structure of PEG and is not due to any impurity.  The EPA
 developed the parameters of Method 25D using  the PEG for the
 sample collection matrix (in conjunction  with the purge
 temperature of 75 °C, purge time of 30 minutes,  and other
 conditions specified in the test method).  Therefore, the pH
 characteristic of PEG was considered in the development of the
 test method and is one of the factors that defines the relative
 measure of emission potential of a waste as determined by
 Method 25D.
      The influence of pH on the blank level was considered by  the
 EPA*   The:  aff inity of PEG for organic compounds results  in a
 greater than zero  blank  response.   Because PEG contributes some
 volatile organics  to  the measurements  obtained with  the method,
 it  is  appropriate  to  specify an acceptable maximum blank level.'
 This option  is  allowed not due  to an  inherent  impurity in  the  PEG
 bUt dUG 1° the  di«iculty in storing cleaned PEG in  the
 atmosphere.   For the  final Method 25D, the EPA specified that  the
 maximum blank volatile organic  concentration be  less than or
 equal to 10 ppmw.  This value may be subtracted  from the results
 of  the  test sample analyses.
         " "ill I  1 1   " i'     ' „' '  '     ,       ,        , ' '        ,   ' '      ,,,,., ;|iii!|"'
     gOBUtient;  One commenter (F-91-CESP-00016)  submits that the
cleaning procedure for the PEG has  been found  to result in
        ::i!i        .  ' :|         • ':8_4        ':'         :   :        "  *•'

-------
According to the counter, the upper

    400 in

                                                             n
              01  ppqp-S00485) to assess the precision and

         o  M^r 3D  hovel that PEC tended to degrade at a
accuracy of Method 25                  £pA lowered the cleaning

temperature of 200  C.  The      ,                ^ ^ ^ o

temperature for PEG specified in the rinax



     Comment-  One commenter (F-91-CESP-00060) states that the

                                  8-5

-------
  of the United States.   Also, the nitrogen purge at an extremely
  high velocity will physically strip organics that are not
  V0latile under normal  storage conditions.  The commenter also
  stated that this  situation creates a safety concern in the
  laboratory.
       Response;  The EPA's  objective in developing Method 25D  is
  to define a  Practical  screening procedure that provides a
  relative measure  of the  organic emission  potential of  a waste.
  The teSt meth°d is  not intended to be  an  actual measure of the
 .0rganiCemiss*ons from waste at 'the facility operating conditions
  (e'g*' Waste  Stora9e temperature,  retention  time  of the waste in
  a mana9iment  unit).  Defining the  test conditions  to simulate
  these actual  waste management field conditions  would result in a
  teSt roe|hod that is not reasonable  to perform quickly and
  inexpensively in a laboratory on a  routine basis.  Consequently,
 to achieve the desired objective for the test method, the EPA
 developed a set of test conditions so that most of the specific
 °rganic comP°unds  Purged from the PEG matrix are those compounds
             t0 be emitted from a waste under actual field
 conditions while most of those compounds remaining in the PEG
 matrix are less likely to be emitted.
      Method 25D can safely be performed in a laboratory provided
 the procedures specified in the test method are properly
 followed.   The oven containing the purge apparatus is to be
 placed inside a laboratory hood enclosure.   Only a small fraction
 °f  the SamP^e 9as  stream (less than 1  percent)  is carried by
 stainless  steel tubing outside of  the  hood  enclosure  to  the two
 detectors.   The majority of the waste  gas stream (more than
 99  percent)  is  captured by the hood.

      Comment;   Three commenters  (F-91-CESP-00027,  00049, 00066)
 state that any  test method  used to evaluate compliance should
measure organic compounds with similar properties to those that
were  evaluated  in the source emissions analysis used to support
the rule.  One commenter  (F-91-CESP-00049) notes that the 75  «c
temperature required in the Method 2 5D analysis does not simulate
                               8-6

-------
the conditions in the national impacts analysis performed by
EPA to select the regulatory action level and control
requirement.  For example, the temperature used in the
mathematical models used to estimate nationwide emissions was
"*c.  The counter requests that the proposed test method
temperature be revised downward to reflect ambient and waste unit
operating  temperatures.
      ESSB2MS'.   The  EPA developed Method 25D to provide  a
relative measure of  the organic emission potentia! of a  waste^
llr the national impacts  model, compound-specific factors were
applied to site-specific  waste stream data to  estimate the
concentration that would  be determined by «^\™S™'£n
   („„ Method 25D. The estimated  Method 250  results  were then
^determine which streams,  if measured by Method  250, would
 be regulated under each evaluated control option and action
 level   For each control option and action level,  the
 mathematical model to which the commenter refers (ChemDat,, was
 then used to estimate the nationwide emissions that would resuit
 if the required  controls were applied to those waste streams
                                                     "*""-*
      The EPA believes that these are practica!
  the Method  25D parameters and  of the che»Dat7 model.  The Method
  350 paramaters were used to model  the waste streams that would be
  controlled, which is consistent with the practical purpose of
  Method 25D, and  the chemDatv model was  used to  estimate national
  emissions,  which is consistent with the purpose of that model.
  The Method 2SD and the ChemDat7 are used  for  different purposes
  in the national impacts model, and it  is  not  necessary  for the
  parameters of the Method to match those of the ChemDat7.
                 one commenter (F-9X-CESP-00016) submits that the
  gas standard in the proposed method requires a propane
  Concentration that is too high and, therefore, the concentration
  value  should be lowered.  According to the commenter, the high
  propane  concentration  (25 percent) prevents the standard from
  being  prepared at pressures above  250 psi.  This  limits the
   lifetime of the gas  standard and increases the cost  of using the
                                  8-7

-------
»;: i	r
                                              nr; 'i
      test method.   The commenter also states that concentrations above
      1 percent propane are flammable and present a greater safety
      risk.  Also,  obtaining low-level calibration points using a high
      concentration of propane requires very low standard injection
      volumes,  which are difficult to make and prone to errors because
            jil'ill!  ,    '      '•',•'  .' , '       •'•.;  •'•"'••. :''';.    •  :..••(       •••;.. vu , ,/
      of dead volume in the standard introduction system.
           Response:  The EPA conducted two different interlaboratory
      studies to assess the precision and accuracy of the Method 25D
      obtained by "novice" laboratories (Docket Nos.  F-91-CESP-S00485,
      S00504) .   While conducting these studies,  the EPA learned that
      high-pressure cylinders containing  low-concentration propane
      could be  more easily obtained by these laboratories  than
      cylinders containing high concentrations of propane  at high
      pressure.   Department of Transportation regulations  restrict the
      shipment  of cylinders containing high concentrations of propane
      at high pressure.   The EPA does not want to limit the number of
      laboratories  capable of performing  Method 25D on  the basis of
      access |p the required calibration  gas.   Upon review of the test
      method, the EPA decided that the required  concentration of
      propane  in the calibration gas could be lowered without affecting
      the test  method performance.   For the final Method 25D,  the
      required  concentration of  propane in the gas standard is
      established at 10  percent.   The required concentration of
      !/1-dichloroethylene in the calibration gas remains  set at I
      percent.
          Comment;  One commenter  (F-91-CESP-00016) states that a
     ±5 °C temperature difference  in the purge conditions will have a
     large effect on the recovery  of a semivolatile compound over a
     30-minute period.  The commenter suggests that tighter
     specifications should be specified.
          Response:  The proposed  Method 25D specified that the
     temperature around the purging chamber and coalescing filter be
     maintained at 75 ± 5 °C.  For each of the two interlaboratory
     studies, gravity-convection ovens were used capable of
     maintaining a temperature of  75 ± 5 °C.  The gravity-convection
                                    8-8

-------
  ecision results  in more consistent implementation and
predsi.cn re           Therefore, based on the temperature
purging chamber  and coalescing fi
                                     be
                                                   at
            :  comments were received challenging the validity of
             Five commenters  (F-91-CESP-00008, 00033, 00060,
                                                       t us
        .0,, reer  o
 only  synthetic wastes and showed large variability
                          =



  sr
  study.   One counter (F-91-CESP-00063) submits that,
   1U pCJC"t^*s***•• *  ***^- *-» ** —  --  - -                           ^w  /a   *PV\o

   studies to assess the precision and accuracy of the "^ «»

   information acquired during these stud.es resulted „ the EPA

   modifying the test method procedures to improve the test  method
                                 8-9

-------
 performance.   For example,  the results of the first
 interlaboratory study (Docket No.  F-91-CESP-S00485) prompted the
 EPA  to modify the purge apparatus  and remove external moving
 parts  to make the apparatus less prone to leakage.   A second
 interlaboratory study (Docket No.  91-CESP-S00504)  was conducted
 among  seven laboratories using the modified purge  apparatus
 equipment.   The results of  this study showed a significant
 improvement in both  within-laboratory and between-laboratory
 variability.   With the addition of quality control sample
 analysis requirements,  the  precision within each laboratory
 should improve.   The EPA has conducted various .studies on the
 precision of  the method with various waste matrices,  both
 synthetic and real.   Most waste types,  including actual waste
      ", 'fliiijiji            i     :  i  ',   "  ,'" „,'.,'  i! „ ''il	       i       • '" '     ,!	'.•
 samples,  showed relative standard  deviations  below 10 percent.
     The replicate sampling analyses are required  by  Method 25D
 to account  for the variability in  composition of most wastes, not
 the variability in the  analytical  technique of the  test method.
 Because  it  is difficult to  obtain  a representative  waste  sample,
 replicate sampling is required to  better characterize the
 volatile organic concentration.
     Validation is the  comparison  of a  new test  method to an
 established,  accepted test  method.   Method 25D is the only test
method currently available  that the EPA is aware of that  provides
 a relative measure of the air  emission  potential of a waste.
 Consequently,  at this time  there are no other  test  methods with
which to correlate or compare  Method 25D in a  validation  study.
       •i S    ' ..   "I "'.      	'•'   • •  '  •'  ' 	 :  ,,".•.'•     •  '  :   .'' !' .  • ' I. .Li .'  •<	,',i V
However^  as previously  discussed,  Method25D has been reviewed
 extensively by  the EPA  and  outside laboratories  for precision,
recovery, and  interlaboratory  variability.

     Comment;   Commenters (F-91-CESP-00016, 00057,   00066)   stated
that Method 25D  needs to have  acceptable quality
assurance/quality  control (QA/QC)  criteria.  One of the
commenters  (F-91-CESP-00016) suggests for QC measures using
either liquid calibration standards or  liquid QC check samples.
In contrast, another comroenter  (F-91-CESP-00008) believes that
                               8-10

-------
the operational checks and calibration procedures specified in
the test method are excessive.
     BesP^se'  The EPA believes that appropriate and reasonable
SA/aclequIrlments are included in Method 25D.  The test method
retires three-point calibration checKs and daily calibrates
with specific  linearity and precision requirements.  »
llerforLnce  audit requirement  consisting of a liquid sample »
also included  in the test  method.

     Cogent:   One  counter  (F-91-CESP-00010)  submits  that
'differences  in flame  ionization detector  (FID)  or  electrolyse
 conductivity detector (ELCD)  response of  simple pounds may
 bias  the results high or low.   A second commenter  (F-91-CESP
 00016)  states that the assumptions of the equal-per-carbon
 response of the FID and the egual-per-chlorine response of the
 ELCD are limited.
      gesppnse:  The EPA is aware that responses of the FID and
 ELCD to the calibration gas are parameters that affect the
 volatile organic concentration value determined by Method 25D
 ^e response  factors of these detectors were addressed ™ the
 development of the test method, and the EPA determined that  the ,r
 effect  on the Method 25D  results  is not significant enough to
 change  the  compliance status  of most wastes.   However, an
 owner/operator has the  option to  use other waste  ^termination
 techniques  or knowledge of their  waste as an alternative to  a
 Method 25D  analysis.

       Comment:  One commenter (F-91-CESP-00048) believes  that
  inserting the purging lance into solid,  semisolid,  or highly
  viscous samples is likely to damage or plug the lance.
                  The EPA disagrees that the purging lance
       ResEonse.
  susceptible to damage or plugging when the sample is prepared as
  specified  in Method 25D.  The test method specifies that the
  sample matrix placed in the purging chamber consist of 10 grams
  of waste and 100 mL of PEG/water.  The EPA's experience analyzing
  samples with the test method has  shown that solid, semisolid, and
                                 8-11

-------
 highly viscous samples prepared  in  this  manner do  not  damage  or
 plug the purge lance.

      Comment;  One commenter  (F-91-CESP-00033) states  the  audit
 supple requirement may be unworkable.  The commenter submits  that
 *n.c use of audit samples is appropriate  for quality assurance,
 however, the requirement that the audit  samples be obtained from
 a regulatory agency has not been demonstrated to be workable.
      Response;  The EPA has provided audit service with other
 methods to regulatory agencies for many  years.  The program
 provides,  free of charge, performance audit samples to sources
  Jiy .   .    .' -  ;i"  ,  '  ' I-      .       •   c   •  : "  ':';,.    , -   	,	.• -.:,,	• j. .1
 wi^h the appropriate regulatory agency acting as requestor.  The
 auciit requirement in Method 25D requires the analysis of an audit
 sainple only if it is available (at this time,  audit samples are
 noj: available) .

      .Comment;  One commenter (F-91-CESP-00016) notes that,  in the
 calculation of mass of  carbon, the molecular weight of methane is
 u^fd instead  of  the molecular weight of carbon.   According  to  the
 commenter,  this  results in  a positive error for  all hydrocarbons
 e>?c:ept methane,  with as much as a 22 percent overprediction for
 benzene.  The  commenter states that such a  large  source of
 inherent error in the method should be  discussed  in the
 applicability  of  the method  and allowances  provided so  that a
 mole accurate  Value could be used for sources  where the average
 molecular weight  of the volatile  fraction is known.
      Response•  Method  25D is  not intended  to  be a  definitive
 tef t method for measuring the  concentration of the  specific
 organic compounds  in  the  waste.   The sample purge stream is
 aniii'^zed Usin9 an  FID | to  measure  carbon and an ELCD to  measure
 chlorine-   Hydrogen,  oxygen, sulfur,  and  nitrogen are not
ffie|fured by these detectors.   In  addition, oxygenated organic
 compounds (e.gl, formaldehyde) producea  smaller FID response per
cailx:>n  atom than Other organics.  Therefore, it was necessary to
devflop a method to account for these fffects.
     The EPA calculated a weighted average equivalent molecular
                               8-12
                                      iiil! Sli;
                                                            ; :• IJi'iHril:!	Pi i

-------



comparisons of Method 25E us g       F.93.CESp.s00506) using

sr^'-sr^rrj^",-"--. - — «
on organic mixtures with known vapor pressures.

                 4. ~ iv Qi-CESP-00070) states that in
          One commenter (F-91 CESP ou
           sa,Ple is to ^ t-nri. to en e ^ **
            be use, to determine the or^nic vapor pressure


                     8-13

-------
 of a waste that  potentially must be managed in accordance with
 regulatory requirements to use a floating roof or other
 equivalent air emission controls.   Consequently,  EPA did not
 in|end t:he test  method be used for solid materials nor materials
 that are not loaded  into a tank by a pipeline.
      Cpmment;  One commenter  (F-91-CESP-00076)  states  the term
 "billanced pressure"  in  the  description  of  the vapor  sampling
   •, :|ijjii '  '     • •     '„'"', " »i;' .,.:„ '•  '':; ' „ i lln1' • ,j ,,   ,11,1	•. ' / , , ,   *^   , „  r  „,  •*;.	, :	.,
 technique refers to  the procedure employed by a single
 -ffia^facturer of head space  sampling  equipment.  The  commenter
 no1iies that there are other  suitable  methods  for head space  vapor
 sampling that use slightly  different techniques.
      Response;  Mention of  trade names or specific products  in
 the test method does not constitute  endorsement by the  EPA.   It
 is not the EPA's intention  to precludeequivalent products
 available from other manufacturers from being used to perform a
 te^l method.  Any alternative head space sampling equipment  can
 *** used to perform Method 25E provided that the user demonstrates
'.,tne, d*fferences in the equipment design are not significant when
 compared to the specific equipment models cited in the test
 ffiethod.   "Not significant" in this case means that the
 di^Ierences in equipmen,t desi9n wil1 not affect the accuracy and
 precision of the test results.

 8'3  APPLICATION OF TEST  METHODS TO SUBPART  CC STANDARDS
      Comment?   Four commenters (F-91-CESP-00008, 00048, 00053,
 000?°>  submit  that Method 25D is inappropriate  for the
 subpart  CC standards  because the method  is  expensive, time
 consuming,  and labor  intensive to perform.
      Response;  The EPA  believes that Method  25D provides  an
 analytical method for a  direct measurement waste determination
 tha| ^S  nei:ther unus«al!y expensive nor  time-consuming  for a
 laboratory analytical technique.  The EPA estimates that
 per!orining Method 25D currently costs approximately $250 per
 sample-  However, the EPA expects that the costs to perform
 Method 25D wiH become substantially  lower as more laboratories
                               8-14

-------
technique.

     ssmssi,  counters  
-------
 temporarily deferred for reasons not related to the waste
 determination procedures required for the subpart CC standards.
 The EPA acknowledges that sampling and analysis of radioactive
 aixed wastes will require special handling and procedures.  For
 situations where performing a waste determination using direct
 measurement is not practical or possible, the subpart CC
 standards  allow the TSDF owner or operator to use knowledge of
 the waste,  which does not require samples of the waste to be
 collected.
      Comment;   One commenter (F-91-CESP-00033)  states that the
analysis temperature in Method 25E is undefined.   According to
  K\  '.••.•;•          *    ' • '"•?  -, '. is:,;   ',  >' ,.	, , , .;.:; •' • s...v  :-	 ':„ i
the  commenter,  Method 25E,  section 5.2.1,  states  "...headspace
vials to equilibrate at the temperature  specified in the
regulation."  The  proposed  subpart CC standards do not contain
  ,,|, i     .      •            .   ".',',, !' >.' •  :.! •   * „ !   •. "  • •' I- • ,  •   • '•  	 ' i1 in ' .'.• ,  v , I
this  information.   The commenter notes that the preamble states
that  measurements  would be  required to be  taken at the maximum
temperature reasonably expected to occur.  The commenter submits
that  the analytical laboratory will need to reset the temperature
of the headspace unit,  depending on the  source of the sample,
requiring time  for the unit  to equilibrate at each setting and
introducing a source of variation affecting the analytical
results.
      Response;   The user of  Method 25E is referred to the
  S'ti   '    ' I .     '   '    •     ,.       .:.'..'.'    '  .   . '         I I ,li	 "!-
regulation for  the headspace vials equilibration  temperature
value.  For application of Method 25E to the  subpart  CC
standards, the  maximum  organic  vapor pressure is defined in the
rule  to be "the equilibrium  partial pressure  exerted  by the
hazardous waste contained in a  tank determined at  the, temperature
equal to:  (1) the  local  maximum monthly average temperature as
reported by the  National Weather  Service when the hazardous waste
is stored or treated at  ambient temperature; or (2) the highest
calendar-month  average temperature of the hazardous waste when
thl hazardous waste is stored at temperatures above the ambient
temperature or when the  hazardous waste is stored or treated at
temperatures below the ambient  temperature."  In most
                               8-16

-------


be significant
                                  8-17
                                                                         1

-------

-------
                    9.0 RULE IMPLEMENTATION


  facilities
of
                                           a modif ication.  The
                         „-.._. ,F-91-CESP-00029,  00040,
              Three co.enters(F 9            t  to r
                                                          00065)
                           „-.._.   --
      S2BSEDi:   Three co.enters          authority to resoind the
 argued that the EPA « without the 19                ^ oontrary

 »Pe»it-a ----- hieM" ^^^.^^°t ^e BP, cites no
 to congressional intent   They <*        reasoning why a practice
derived from an exercxse of the EPA .
was first codified -
RCRA permit program  (45 FR
provision of RCRA and is
mandate by Congress  to manage
 Shell  Oil v.  EPA,  950 F.2d at  741,

                                9-1
                                          (D.
                                                      ons of the

                                                      - <- a
                                                     statutory
                                                       wastes.
                                                            Because

-------
  i| is a regulatory and not a statutory provision, the EPA can
  nodify the "permit-as-a-shield" practice in any situation where
  ^ determines that the Practice does not serve the EPA' s mandate
  fc| Pr°tect human health and the environment.  For the final
  SUbPart CC standards' the EpA estimates that baseline nationwide
  excess cancer incidence resulting from exposure to TSDF organic
  ®Sissi°ns are 48 cases Per year-   m addition,  total nationwide
  Or.ganic emissions from TSDF are estimated to be approximately 1
  million Mg/yr and,  thus,  contribute significantly to the
 -f°?ination °f  atmospheric  ozone.    These health  and environmental
          are very high relative  to the impacts of  emissions  from
        SOUr9es regulated under RC*A and  the  Clean  Air  Act.
              *he EPA has  determined that  the  health  and
 e"lir0nmental imPacts resulting from organic  air emissions  from
 T5°F are °f a magnitude to warrant narrowly rescinding the
 "perrait-as-a-shield" practice for this limited case.
            , '  '• j       ,      • '.     .      !
-------
        ana that,  by -a large,  c-Pli-n- with  the
       constitute compliance with the RCHA program   To  date,
    has rescinaea -permit-as-a-shieM" in oniy t» other
              The first ru!eBaXing is the .ana ax.po-1
fictions, which prohibit the


                                                             land
              requirea that .11 TSDF compiy with the new

  equ         ^ar^ess  o, their per.it  status   ^






 p ogra, or o£ the -per.it ------- hieM" practice   Insteaa,  the

 EPA is making a distinction between a provision that is
 sufficient* protective in most cases ana one that „ not „
  the subpart CC stanaards rules  into permits by way of
  moaifications would require a significant and unreasonable
                                 9-3
                                                                       1

-------
 resource commitment.  Furthermore, the fact that existing permits
     'be modified to incorporate new regulatory requirements  [per
 40 CFR 270.41(a)(3), which implements RCRA section 3005(c)(3)]
 shows that permit-as-a-shield is hardiy an inviolate principle.
 The rulemaking simply accomplishes nationally what a modification
 would accomplish individually.  Accordingly, the EPA developed
 thg subpart AA, BB, and CC standards to be "self-implementing" so
 that State and Regional permit writers will not be required to
 reopen and rewrite permits to incorporate the provisions.
 Permitted facilities will be able to comply directly with the
 regulatory standards in the same way that interim-status
 facilities must comply.  Modifying "permit-as-a-shield" for these
 rules eliminates any confusion or ambiguity as to whether the
 requirements are applicable to a particular TSDF.

      Comment:   Three commenters (F-91-CESP-00037,  00045,  00077)
 claim that the removal of the permit shield will violate  the
 EPA'S previous practice expressed in 45  FR 33290 (May 19,  1980)
 whereby the EPA binds itself  to the principle of using "permit-
 as-r'a-shield"." '   .       "     ' .  ..,,... ','„    ,         '    ,'    '"'"\[	^
      Response;   These commenters correctly state the  commitment
 that  the  EPA adopted a "permit-as-a-shield"  in the  May 19,  1980
   lll'iKEil  1   , '   i. ,	 'I'   , "   ,,    :   , "   ,  :, '   !.'.,.!'   . •' • '  , ,i „. ."'  ,:•'•*  ..  /  	  . ii
 final rules (the so-called consolidated  permit regulations).
      does  not  mean  that the 1980 rule can  never be  amended.   The
   V has never  agreed to "bind"  itself to any  particular policy  or
 Pr°Yision-   In?tead,  the EPA  may adhere  to a  general practice or
 policy with the  understanding that,  if the circumstances warrant
 an<| the EPA provides  a rational  explanation,  it  can modify  or
 ressind a  particular  provision.   It should be  noted, for example,
 that  Congress has since  amended  RCRA  to require  that air
 emissions  from TSDF be controlled,  and in  the  same amendments
provide that the EPA  may reopen  permits to add conditions
re|IePting new control practices and  to redress  potential risks
P°||d  by the facility.   [RCRA section 3005(c)(3) and S. Rep. No.
284^  98th Cong. 1st Sess. at 31].  Here,  the EPA is determining
     there are excessively high risks from these facilities, and
                               9-4

-------
Before that these more protective provisions should beco,e
                             r.
                                                              ..
 00065)  state -- — ;-r pive - T-       ana operator
 implementation will be ais  P                         an adverse
 Plannin9, ,e -aenso.e to o-*^*-^, equipBent.

 .„ «t on the "^^^ that these counters «.
      ESSE2nsS:  The EPA o          disruptive effects that an
 greatly  overstating the adverse - ^srupt^       ^      ^

 accelerated i-Pl—*"*"         ".l,.! technologies for the
  economic impacts of the var.ous control                  ESp.
  impact analysis for the proposed rules  Docket       ^ ^^ ^
  S00494).  Based on this analyse, the EPA               required
  installinc and operating '"^^^^^L x percent of
  by the control options are projected to



                                                             -
   rurthermore, TSDF owners and operators «^e        cc
   emission control eguip-nt to -£££ ^months after the
   standards are allowed u, .to an add t onal^
         choose to treat their hazardous waste

                                   9-5
                                                         the

-------
 management sequence  than they now do  to reduce the volatile
  f.jy1!  ' "1|L,    •   ,   !     .  !     ,  '  ,., ,  ' 'i ti , 'I1'  >   ' ' •     ,    , ,   „,,",; "ii:,i' .n,1! ,p
 oircfahic concentration  in accordance with one of the treatment
 requirements allowed for in  the  final subpart  CC standards,  and
 thus avoid the cost  of installing andoperating the control
 equipment on the downstream  tanks, surface  impoundments,  and
 containers.  The EPA also encourages  the  use of pollution
 prevention techniques  as  a means  of reducing the quantity of
 wa,|te generated, the organic concentration  of  the waste,  or  the
 toxicity of constituents  in  the waste.

 9.2 IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE  (COMPLIANCE DATES)
      Comment;   A total of 22 commenters  (F-91-CESP-00010,  00019,
 00021,  00024,   00026,  00027, 00029,  00038,   00043,  00046,  00048,
 °PQ51/  00057,  00061,  00062,   00066, 00067, 00069,  00071, 00075,
 00078,  00082)  request the deadline for compliance with the rule
 b®fxtended,  citing various reasons and suggesting  alternative
 compliance schedules ranging from site-specific deadlines to
 9ranting^a 5-year extension for any TSDF. Many of these
 commenters expect widespread noncompliance if the proposed
 implementation  times  are promulgated.   One of these commenters
 adds  that  hazardous waste generators required to install controls
 on90-day  tanks and containers should  be given  more time to
 comply with the rules than permitted or interim-status TSDF.
      Response;Under RCRA regulatory  requirements, when a new
 RCS|  rule  is Promulgated for  TSDF,  the owners and operators of
 infPim~status  TSDF are required  to comply with the rule on the
 eflective. date,,of the re9ulations.  For the  subpart CC standards,
 owners and operators  of permitted  TSDF will  have to comply with
 the subpart CC  standards  in the same manner  that owners  and
 °P
-------
r:: "crrrr::To —   -—— -
                           t
     CC
                      to 9o-day
                 9-7

-------
 containers.  The  effective date of the subpart CC standards is 6
 ro°nths after the  d^te°?  Promulgation.   Furthermore,  as discussed
 above, facilities that must install control devices to comply
 with the requirements  of  the standards are allowed up to 30
 mc^ths af ter the  effective date to complete the design and
 installation of this equipment  if  they can document that
 installation of emission  controls  cannot be completed by the
 effective date.
      The EPA is aware  that some hazardous  waste generators  do not
 have on-site laboratory analysis capability and must  rely on
 ccfnmercial ^boratpries to analyze  their waste.   However, the
  ii	lp.,1!    ,',   ' "• •:' •    '    i '' ,,'•"••' I1 •;:	 	• ir,  , ii,:!1;1:'!"    • ' , i .   '""   :.,. ,• ,,    f   >» „	   .
 additional time required for a  commercial  laboratory  to  analyze
 samples and return the results  to the generator does  not  justify
 th| need for «?ore.tiiae to  comply with the  rules.  The rules
 provide sufficient time for owners and operators  of all affected
 units to  achieve compliance.

      Cpmment;   Eight commenters  (F-91-CESP-00010, 00026, 00029{
        °0048'  90067' 00069, 00078)  believe that timely compliance
      the  accelerated implementation resulting from removal of
        38"3"8*1161*1 wil1 ^ impossible.   The commenters claim that
 there will  be extensive delays in obtaining both RCRA and air
 Permits due to  lengthy  permit review periods required by state or
 Regional  authorities.   These commenters envision that the EPA
 Wii1  *** inundated  by permit modifications and extensive delays
 will  result.
      Response;  The  commenters who  expressed concern about permit
 reviews or  unmanageable work loads  may  be interpreting the rule
 Proposal  to mean that each RCRA  permitwould have to be modified
 or reopened to  include  the  subpart  CC standards.   The  EPA has
 designated the  subpart  CC  standards  tobe self-implementing  rules
 be°aUSe * TSDF  owner or operator can determine the applicability
 of |he standards and the means /tP implement them without
 interpretation  or  intervention by the permitting authority.
Furthermore, the EPA has been successful  in applying the emission
C°"!:rols re9uired  by the subpart  CC standards to  similar air
  ',::'        ,                   9-8

-------
EP  believes that self-»entation of the subpart CO standards
will likewise be a successful implementation strategy.

                                                                .
final rules is reasonable.
     Al.of the EPA disagrees that, in rnost cases,
compliance with the subpart CC standards will be impossible.

~s = =: =                              "
                                                               The
   :;.<—         -                        .
 owner or operator can directly measure and calculate the
                           --


  are also contained in the  standards.   In the case of
  leaxs,  the leaX  detection  and repair  program that must be
  implemented is also specified in the  standards.
       The EP» does recognize that, in  many  cases. compUance with
  the subpart CC emission control requirements will rec^re  state
  permit modifications.  The TSDF owner or operator may need to
  obtain a state permit modification before emission  control
  equipment installation or process changes can be implemented.  In
  such a case, the Regional Administrator may extend the
  ^mentation date beyond , years after the date of publication.
  TO obtain an  implementation  schedule  extension, the «*»«'«
  operator must demonstrate that the situation is beyond the owner
                                  9-9

-------
 or bperator's control and that  the owner or operator has made all
 , i   jijVi!   '  '•' "'' /  , '• '•   i   , ',ii     :  '  ".  '". '•''• ' -It.   '"  ..:"••'  '    '" i  ,  ;" '' vll ,ji;
 reasonable and prudent attempts to meet the compliance date.
 '     '                                      '  ''             "'
 9.3 HSWA INTERIM STATE AUTHORIZATION EXTENSION
      Comment:   One commenter  (F-91-CESP-00062)  requests guidance
 on fehen the EPA will need to modify  a permit  as a  result of the
 EPA's retained authority for the  subpart  CC standards.
      Response;  The subpart CC rule  removes the
 "permit-as-a-shield" provision as it applies  to the  control of
 i   | || |     	i,,,,;!,!1 n^ , 1,11^  '   ' , ' " '  !  ,' ,  i , I  ,, ,,, i . , ' ,:jj'|jiiijj 1|,    '      i   «' 	   ' 'i  ,,' |l, iv .' il,^ |
 organic emissions under RCRA section 3004(n).   This  provision
 generally shields owners and operators  of RCRA-permitted TSDF
 from having to comply with new RCRA  standards  promulgated in 40
 CFR part 264 until the facility permit  is renewed, modified, or
 reviewed under 40 CFR 270.50.  However, under  the  provisions of
." ;  . Jill •• . ,  ,  ; V  ;'!  p • ;•'   ";,   •    ' • "  '"•'.(,. :. •i'l,-.  ' ••,' '  : •.:    r  ., »•  •  i!  ..••)•:	-,
 this rulemaking,  this rule does not  apply.  The  owners  and
 operators of RCRA-permitted TSDF  must comply with  the subpart  CC
 standards promulgated under 40 CFR part 265 until  the facility
 permit  is renewed,  modified,  or reviewed under  40  CFR 270.50.
 Thus, the EPA  does not need to modify permits  to incorporate
 these standards.   However,  the EPA does have authority  pursuant
 to 40 CFR 270.41  to reopen a permit  to include new standards
 promulgated in 40 CFR part 264 before the permit is reissued or
 reviewed.
». i	
HI
9.4 OPTIONS FOR PART B APPLICATION INFORMATION
   ' 'Li1          ' •    ' :   •         ,.',„• ii1,  i: , "'.     ' •        '      . • i:  i .,,
      Comment;   Two commenters responded to the EPA's request in
the preamble of the  proposed rule regarding the alternatives
provided  in the preamble for submittal of Part B permit
application information.  One commenter (F-91-CESP-00062)
suggests  the EPA use the option that would establish no specific
deadline  for modification of Part B and that the EPA request the
information under  S  270.10(e)(4)  of the regulations on a case-by-
casebasis.  Another commenter (F-91-CESP-00060)  believes that
once  a proposed Part B permit has been issued, the permit
 . . ,	m •  •   •  , •  ,  .  •'   •  •..,•.   • , t   ...,.'• ••	      ' 	r  	  •      . ,••
application process  should not be reopened by a requirement to
submit a  modification to the application.
   ';;i       .               • .,   ••;  •   -  .'j •          '      i  .'  ,   .•(
                               9-10

-------
               the
               "
                 proposal preamble, the EPA requested
   lt application, to reflect new
= srt.
conditions that ensure
    lations taXe effect before
                               ™  '
r
  ir standards
air

  facilities necessary to
                               th»
                                             that the
                                               is not
                                                and flo
                           9-11

-------
 review, the  EPA will incorporate conditions corresponding to the
 subpart CC requirements into the permit.

      Cpmroent:   One conunenter (F-91-CESP-00047) requests that
 modifications required for air emission standards be considered a
         modification to avoid lengthy permitting processes.  The
           also  asks for a clarification of what the EPA would
 consider to  be  a class 1,  2,  or 3 modification.
   ltM?i . '•• • ', i.     '• ,:;  '••';  ,-•' .'. ii:   •'.','    •. .;ci :':;•,'  .ft:, i .•• i •! .  :•  ,-.„  •••••.,  , \ ,; .1 i -'I	,1! ir 1
      Response;   The EPA is not classifying air emission standards
   1 llllii'l    ',:,,'   • ,   •      ,„  r      'I"   »•',", iffi , •  ,  •   	 ,  • .,, 	• •".!,  • , •	h,,. i
 in Appendix  I to 40 CFR 270.42, since these modifications will
 prl?arilv be initiated by the EPA under 40 CFR 270.41.   If
 facilities wish  to  initiate permit changes to  incorporate the air
 emission standards  in  their permits,  the procedures for "other
 modifications" under 40  CFR 270.42(d) may be used.
   1  •;.:• '•; ,.;.;  •    '  !;;   v  '} ,. ••'..;  $    .   ;;,j  ;.     ;.vrM
 9*CRELATIONSH:P T0 COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE
   ;|;COMPENSATION AND LIABILITY  ACT (CERCLA)
      g,Qfflpent;  Several comments were  received  concerning the
 relj|ti°nshiP  of the proposed  subpart  CC  standards to CERCLA,  One
 C01||enter  (F-91-CESP-00b33)| disagrees that the [EPA  has  authority "'""
 to ixtend. cqntrol requirements  under RCRA section 3004(n) as
 "applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements"  ("ARARs")
 to CERCLA.  The  commenter states that:   (l) no statutory
 authority  has *>*en  given for the inclusion of the proposed
 standar<3 as ARARs under CERCLA as required under the
 Adm!Lnistrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C.  553(b)(2);  (2)  the EPA's
 renewed definitior»  of ARARs and its new action levels are not
 biding; and  (3)  CERCLA release reporting should be implemented
 undeiF ,the-  CAA'   A second commenter (F-91-CESP-00065) states that
 th^Preamble  language does not address how and  whether  these
 requirements  will apply to onsite removal and remedial  actions
under CERCLA  or  comparable programs.
     Another  commenter  (F-91-CESP-00069)  states that:   (1)  it is
not appropriate  for  ARARs to be established in  this  rulemaking as
they are covered  in  detail  in  the  proposed revised National
Contingency Plan  and in the EPA guidance  documents,  and
                               9-12

-------
(2)
  determinations retrain, AKARs should be


                                                      sone
      in

              standards as
                                 .iU ha^er exped.txous
 •
not cost effective.

                The EPA has decided to temporarily defer
applicaoof the subpart CC standards to tuft., conta.ners, and
surface impcund»ents which are bein, used onsite to treat or
store hazardous wastes containing organics generated fro.
remedial  activities required under RCRA correctwe action or
CERCL*  response authorities, or  si»Uar state remediation
 outside the facility boundary  
-------
  .., f|t|J|
,,;•;;i . ::ii!Vir:;;F;!||f
          .             '      '     "      ,-i	 ' .       •             il!" '•.•!, f .(
       As the D.C. Circuit  recently explained, a temporary deferral
  su5h as the deferral described here is permissible if the Agency
  legitimately needs further time to ascertain the best means  of
  integrating concurrent statutory-and regulatory schemes to avoid
  potential interference with  the objectives of both schemes,  and
  where Congress has not expressly forbidden a temporary deferral.
  Ed|son Electric Inst. v.  EPA.  2 F.  3d 438, 451-53 (D.C. Cir.
   '! it1 I'M I      ,  • "„'',. i,.1!1! ,    '      '."         ! .. ''.,. * •  ilb!  .  ,  ..•!"!..."" i , V     ,  , ,   ,..,  i
          See aiso RCRA section  1006,  requiring the EPA to
   1 	•     .   '   •    I,  ''  n 'ii , i  ''      ,.,'•'., ''• ' "''" ,   • • i IP!   ,,,,,,      ,    ,,,,.,  ,,. ,
  integrate all provisions of RCRA for purposes of administration
   . il j      •.      "   •  .  "   '   '• ' .     '    	T   :	  ' •  •'.•'• . -  ' '-  . ii '• . "••	 .1
  and  enforcement, and to avoid  duplication to the maximum extent
  practicable in doing so.
       This situation is presented here.   Control of air emissions
  frpai. units at remediation sites  implicates the  overlapping and
  P°J:entially competing concerns of RCRA section  3004 (n)  and the
i,   lyl S'lil     '    '   i1     ,    » "      '   ,1 '' h,, " '•'. if1 , .'  i itf'! , I'l   ' ,   ''. '1    ii ',   i'i,   	 i, r, ill  ii i
  complex statutory provisions under RCRA,  CERCLA, and State laws
   iiL:1!]  i ,'»„ ,,!'•„  - '  ,"„!•: ,i   ,            •'' - '•. '' ...  • ''".ir*.  '*' •.  •, pi i•',,,„  " •  •.  ",i::  , •. " 	iir,  • i
  relating  to remediation.  The EPA's primary  goal in  the  subpart
  c   56  FR at 33497-98  (July 22, 1991).
      The EPA agrees with the  commenters that these are important
 is!u
-------
those complexities.  In addition, compliance with the air
emission regulations may be problematic for certain types of
remediation treatment technologies (such as pug mills) that could
be regulated as tanks under RCRA, and thus subject to subpart CC
standards.  Further, subpart CC specifies certain requirements
for transportation of hazardous wastes that may be unnecessarily
stringent for on-site transport of wastes during cleanup
activities.
     The EPA notes further that some measure of control of air
emissions from remediation tanks, containers, and impoundments
will be assured during  the deferral period.  Remediation
authorities of RCRA  and CERCLA and similar State authorities
allow  overseeing  officials to  impose on  a site-specific basis
appropriate air emission controls on these types of  units, as
well as on other  waste  management units  and handling operations.
In addition,  hazardous  wastes  containing organics that are
managed off-site  (i.e., outside  a RCRA facility's boundary,  or
outside a  CERCLA  site)  would be  subject to  the  subpart CC
management standards.
      Finally,  the Agency emphasizes  that the  deferral is  indeed
temporary.   The issue of appropriate air emission controls for
remediation units is likely to be addressed in the context of the
Hazardous Waste Identification Rules which are currently being
 developed by the EPA.  The issue is also potentially part of the
 third phase of the RCRA section 3004(n) implementation rules.  In
 addition,  waste remediation sites are on the initial list of
 source categories under section 112 of the Clean Air Act
 (57 FR 31576, July  16, 1992), and the EPA currently is scheduled
 to issue technology-based standards to control emissions of
 hazardous air pollutants from this source (See 57 FR 31576,
 July  16, 1992).  Consequently, the EPA will be addressing this
 issue in the reasonably near  future.
       After the temporary deferral has been lifted,  the subpart CC
 standards may be considered ARARs for certain types of remedial
 and removal  actions.   The Comprehensive Environmental Response,
 Compensation,  and Liability Act (CERCLA), authorizes the EPA to
                                9-15

-------
   fii
 undertake removal and remedial actions toclean  up hazardous
 suBstance releases.   Under CERCtA. on-site  remedial actions are
   il.lj   _ " ',   _"'	 .. .'	 ; , : : '   	:'" " ; » ' , -,•   " • i. i|" ,1; • f .-W '   ::  *•  •, t ' •   ; ;••  ,   '  • ', j ; ?>; y :
 required to comply with the requirements of Federal and more
 stringent State environmental laws that are "applicable or
 relevant and appropriate to the remedial action  unless certain
 statutory waivers apply.   In addition, the National Oil and
   iifi!;     T     «    ,'. ,   '.:  • . . ,    ,   <,,	..* v a,,' ." ",  '.. A v .-'•	:   .•  • , i • •• . i „. >: <•	•• «•
 Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan  (NCP)  provides that removal
 actions shall attain ARARs to the extent practicable considering
   ; y;>i    • ,.,,  ,• • . . ":   •;. i  " , r"; -,: ,      •• .;..:: ;• > . •	 >. :• ••: ••	 .••..   •,  ..,   . ,  , • ;  I1:;,n JIM,
 the exigencies  of the situation.  [40  CFR  300.415(i)].
      A requirement under a Federal orState environmental law may
 be either "applicable" or "relevant  and appropriate,"  but not
 both, to a  remedial or removal actionconducted  at a CERCLA site.
 An ARAR is  identified on a site-specific basis in  a two-part
   '"iplj!  ' • .1.'  ', "•:•: !i ;;. • Is' !'.: . ; "'•:!;' ' •••' :.,;i .• ;••:• - *'<• '••. '•, •;,• '"lii:"  :,  ':, •,!"!;:,',.•' -i,  i/i's •   -  i",sii:i.;.•«• "J
 analysis that considers first, whether a given requirement is
 applicable; then, if it is not applicable,  whether it is
 nevertheless both relevant and appropriate.  "Applicable"
 requirements as defined in the NCP are those that  specifically
;.. address a hazardous substance, /pollutant,'  contaminant,  remedial
 action, location, or other circumstance found at a CERCLA site.
   ; 11 ' ;   •  ••  i1'.. • .   •,• - .,,'••. •  ,    T: ••'  •!-" 1|i:,. \ i\ ' • .;•.."'.'• ; •>  •	• c ;• ./ .• '  -..^.i.''./^! -tab
 [40 CFR 300.415(i)].   "Relevant and  appropriate" requirements are
 those that, while not "applicable" ata CERCLA site,  address
 problems or situations sufficiently  similar to those encountered
 atthe CERCLA  site that their use is well  suited to the
 particular  site.  [40 CFR 300.415(i)].
      Some waste management activities  used for remedial and
 removal actions in cleaning up hazardous organic substances
 require the use of tanks, 'surface impoundments,  and containers.
 Fqr example, a  TSDF may treat hazardous organic  liquids and
 surface wat,er  contaminated with hazardous  organic  waste on site
 using  destruction, detoxification, ororganic removal processes
 that occur  in  tanks or surface imP°undments.  The  facility may
 perform on-site solvent washing of soils contaminated with
 hazardous  organic sludges in a tank  or container.   At a TSDF,
 hazardous waste in leaking drums may be repacked in new
 containers  for treatment and disposal  at another site.
      The  air  emission control requirements of the  subpart CC
   ;;,:;;   '      •.•  I   .    /  ' '•    . 9-ie

-------
standards are liJ»ly to be at least "relevant" to on-.it.
remedial and removal actions that use tanks, sur£ace
Impoundments, and containers to manaae substances
characteristics or listed J^^^

                 ppm   "  otlr cases. the standards may be
              appropriate";  this determination must be made on a
                        the subpart CO standards do not specify
 control requirements for vastepiles, iandfills
similar
                               .=: ;:
              to these types  of units at CERCLA sites,  remedial
             actions performed  in vastepiles may **^£?
            nature and scale  to the waste management activities
 pformen surface impoundments; and waste fixation may involve
 the basic process and air emission mechanism regardless of
 Tether th?e mixing of the waste  and  binder is -ducted in a
 tank,  surface  impoundment, container, wastepile,  landfill,
  land  treatment unit.  Thus,  in some  cases  the subpart CC
  standards may  be  - relevant and appropriate" for
  again, this  determination must be made on a site

       comment:   One  commenter  (F-91-CESP-00075)  requested
  clarification regarding  the applicability of the  subpart  CC
  standards to mobile treatment units owned and operated by
  independent contractors  when  used for temporary on-site
  remediation activities at TSDF  (e.g., soil washing, filter
  pressing) .  The commenter is  concerned that TSDF owners and
  operators are required to obtain RCR* permit modifications for
  equipment which they neither own nor operate.
                  Under RCRA regulations, the site owner and the
                                9-17

-------
                                                             '11' ,!il' II "i.'!?'!"'. .IS1,/", I,,; '
       and operator of a mobile  treatment unit  are  both  equally
 subject to RCRA subtitle  C permitting requirements for  each
 location where the unit remains on-site for more than 90  days.
            to the situation describedby the commenter, if the
      (or TSDF) owner is not willing to participate in the
 permitting or permit modification process necessary to  allow the
 aot)ile treatment unit to  operate, then the unit cannot  operate at
 that site.
                Three commenters (F-91-CESP-00039, 00033, 00069}
 state that the proposed standard should not apply as ARAR's at
 CERCLA or corrective action sites when applied to wastes
 b°'l|:ainin9 vo^atile organics in concentrations less than the
 act|cm level.   A fourth commenter (F-91-CESP-00046) believes the
 nature of the  waste may change frequently during remediation and
 removal actions,  therefore the requirement of performing a waste
 determination  for each change may be difficult.
 /^Ilj/Regppns'e;^  First it should be noted that as is stated in the
 response to the first comment in this section of the BID,  the EPA
 has decided to temporarily defer application of  the subpart CC
 staBdards.  The deferral applies to tanks,  containers,  and
 surface impoundments which are being used onsite to treat  or
 St9*e  hazardous wastes containing organics  generated from
 remedial  activities  required under RCRA  corrective  action  or
 ^jSF1* resP°nse authorities,  or similar  State  remediation
 authorities.   For the deferral to apply, the  wastes must  be
 managed  in units that do not also manage  as-generated hazardous
 washes containing organics.
     After the temporary deferral has been  lifted, the subpart CC
 standards requirements would not  be  "applicable" to  CERCLA wastes
   H mass-wei9hted average volatile organic concentration less
     10° ppmw  *the mass-weighted average volatile organic
C4n|pntratipn action  level in the final standards) .   However,
      °" site~fPecific health risk considerations, the standards
       "relevant and appropriate" to onsite CERCLA removal and
         actions ^hat use tanks, surface impoundments, and
              ',        v:   ,    9-18
   Ul

-------
           to »ana,e stances
100
a waste
               the counter's concern with performs

                  each chan,e. once a -ananas *een


deter*inea to >e ""-                     '"ions .1X1
site-specific basis
       must be done  on  a  site-specific  basxs.
      cogent'   One counter (F-91-CESP-00033)  states that covers
      S
-------
  I!  ' .•).(   |  i)


 '",   ,	I	-1
           fj;
 	,.   H
,/  i :i	I'   vj

-------
                 10.0 OTHER COMMENTS
                  4- v    -         asserts that the
.. ,=-, s—r-sr: r  -

  requirements, crxfrxa, or limitation p                that
  environmental or State environmental or facility
                        10-1

-------
 specifically address  a hazardous substance, pollutant,
 contaminant, remedial action,  location,  or other circumstance
 fPlund at a CERCLA  site."   "Relevant and  appropriate requirements"
 ar-e defined in 40  CFR 300.5  as "those cleanup standards,
 standards of control,  and other substantive requirements,
  ', ,il , II     '    ' '  ' '   '   "  "    .         , '  "I,, !',,'!   ' ~ ,.         "     .....
 criteria, or limitations  promulgated under Federal environmental
 0rUS*a£e environmentai °,r facility siting laws that,  while not
 'applicable' . . . address problems or situations sufficiently
         to ..those. . encountered at the CERCLA site that  their use is
      suited to the particular  site."  After the temporary
      'i '     ,', ,    " t , !i, '  ''" ; .«i „ ,! ..... ,'  , „ "i "V ill?:, i „ ,;  ;!,:.,..„ •  ,, , , X • :„ j,  , •;   *^,, -  „  4 ,  „   ihl .......
, suspart .CC ,. standards, are potentially ARARs  in  that  the  applicable
    relevant and appropriate requirements contained  in the  rule
 itil®lf ' which was properly promulgated pursuant to  the  APA,  apply
 in appropriate circumstances to CERCLA onsite  remedial  actions as
 a »atter of law [CERCLA 121 (d) (2)].  The EPA does not,  and need
 not,  promulgate a separate rule identifying which standards  or
 requirements operate as ARARs in particular circumstances.   The
 EPA'S discussion in the preamble to the proposal for the subpart
 cc standards was not,  in itself, the promulgation of ARARs;  it
 Wa? tterelv a statement of 'the. EPA's 'view pf the status  of  the
 proposed  standards as  ARARs.
   ,i ilnhi!  ' ,  "   ' i1,,, ' ' ....... , . ,;,;,'  •  if ,!• ' ' '•  ,     . ,, ' "i  ' ''''Si' ,,  • ,    "    '   „    •> • ' ' ! ",; . ''•. • 'ir1!1 • , • i'1'1
      With respect to the commenter's concern that the EPA had
   -jB1! '       •  ' "«i  •   •"   i i1 .. • ', '  •    -. , ., . • 41. •• •   .  ' ...... ' '  ," ' :'" '   '; ..... <'•*.:•: , -1 ,i" "
 at|p»Pted to promulgate a new definition of "applicable
 requirements" through  preamble discussion by referencing a
proposed  rule,  the concern is moot because the proposed
de^inition was  Pron>ulgated in final form on March 8, 1990,
 55 F^ 8§66 and  is  now  cpdified (as quoted  above)  at 40  CFR 300,5.
zt was  never the EPA's intent to incorporate as binding a
proposed  definition.
     The  EPA agrees with the  propositions  in the  cases  cited by
the commenter,  such as the fundamental  notion that  the  EPA  must
identify  the  data  and methodology that  support  its  rules and must
explain its thinking and the data relied on.  See,  e.g., Lloyd
yplan HQspjtal  and Clinic v. Heckler. 762 F.2d  1561  (llth Cir.
1985>  • Home Box  Office. Tnc. v. FCC. 567 F.2d 9, 35  (D.C. Cir.),
   '.'!        '           ,        10-2
  n	I!)

-------
                                The  EPA promulgated the
                       ooo MQ7
-tt-MH*' «' U-S' " J"  o'these principles; as explained
subpart CC standards according to thes e p                ^ ^

above, the »x 7d^:so  ,r ssump^ns and  inferences, it
methodology, including reasona        fl    Nothing ln these oases
used  to develop  the  subpart CC **«**               reasonable
or  any other authority preven ts  the  B»Jr^  ^_ ^  ^ ^

assumptions and  *»*•""""•  "^J  c(OTplexity  of  the regulatory
 fully explained.  Indeed, given the  o JP             RCRA and
 50he»es that the EPA is -*«^«* ^Jj £. :irtually
 th. other statutes it Clements  it «o              recognlzed
 impossible to ^^\^ ^^ termination point in the
 that  "there must exist •°">r"'C"£    at some point,  "rulemaXing
 process of  data collection," and that  at     ^^^
 Ly  cease  and compliance must commence.
 780  F.2d 445, 449,  451  (4th  Cir.  19«^
       Finally, the commenter's  belief that the
  established from ~
  based on the results of the
  described further in section
  surface impoundment control r
  of these controls at ""
  under CEHCI*.  The EP&
  impoundments will  be required  to
  the subpart CC standards  as many
  converting existing surface impoundmen t. *™
                                       docu!Bent.  Aiso, the
                                            based  on application
                                       >«  »            t-

                                       TSDF surface
                                        emission controls  under
                                     own
                 tonage wastes with
                                            organic

                                                         are
appropriate.
               one commenter (
              rule is unXnown
                                                            is
                               10-3

-------
  °*|anic concentrations  above  the  rule  action  level.   it  is
  suggested that the EPA's proposed rules  be based on established
  analytical.test procedures to enable facilities to calculate
  impacts of rules prior  to their promulgation.
      Two commenters state that Method  25D should be promulgated
  before the subpart CC standards are promulgated.  One commenter
  (F:?1~CESp-00P97) states that Method 25D is a proposed new method
 tha* should become effective  before the proposed air emission
 ru*es ^oo™6 final to avoid delays in  implementing the proposed
 ru|fs-   A second commenter (F-91-CESP-00025)  recommends that the
 EP* accelerate the Promulgation of the new test methods to allow
 SU^icient time for laboratory certification (which may take 6
 mon"fhs)  and subsequent determination by the regulated community
 to the  applicability of the new standards.   If promulgation of
 thetest methods  cannot be  accelerated, it  is  suggested that the
 EPA extend the effective date  of the proposed  standards.
      ResP°nse:  Method 25D  was promulgated  in  a separate
 rule,makin9 (59  FR 19402,  April 22, 1994)  before the promulgation
 °f *he fubpart  cc standardsv   Therefore,  the regulated community
 hashad the opportunity  to  assess  the impact of the air emissions
 rulef before the  rules become  final.
     With regard to the  recommendation  that the promulgation of
 nSW ?est metnods be accelerated t° allow  sufficient time  for
 labo,ratory certification, the  EPA  currently does not require
 labosratorv certification.  Rather  than  requiring that waste
 ana^ySeS be Per^9raed by a certified laboratory, Reference Method
 250 requires ^e analysis of an audit sample,  if available, and
 lt: a!S° in°ludes daily quality  control  checks.   The EPA is
currently studying the issue of certifying laboratories to
perform the EPA reference method analyses.

    i|Comments   One commenter (F-91-CESP-00062)  suggests that the
         Reference Method 21,  Determination  of  Volatile Organic
         Leaks,  be added to  SW-846 sp that all  required RCRA test
        will be located in one  document,
     Response!   The EPA decided that Reference  Method  21  is
                     ,  ,.   '      , •  '  . .•'   "-•  •  •' i   '   '  ' '''   :    • ,'!S t!(
                               10-4

-------

                                               any
through a modem by dialing


system) .


                          *- v  tv  Qi-CESP-00050)  recommends that
             :  one commenter  (F-91 CESP  OO    ,          repOrted

   ,„
                                  10-5

-------
    quantity  of  each hazardous waste received by the  facility
    Ln9 the yearv  In addition, under |S 264.77 and  265.77,  owners
and operators are  required to report to the Regional
Ad|inistrator any  releases, fires, and explosions as  specified
U*l$irr Sect"i°ns 264/56(3)'  which governs emergency procedures.
Th| EpA believes thatf such reporting procedures are sufficient
for TSDF.
                             p:11- ' '1', ..'•:•	 ',;;   •  ;
                              	 ' ifi, ;
                              - ,*""!'f:	,   . '  f
  •it
                              10-6

-------