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
------- |