i 0*" /•-» fe^r'- r r r- r \
-07-007
Thursday
February 5, 1987
Part II
Environmental
Protection Agency
40 CFR Parts 261, 264, 265, 269, 270,
and 271
Hazardous Wast* Treatment, Storage,
and Disposal Facilities; Air Emission
Standards for VolatHe Organlcs Control:
Proposed Rule
-------
-------
3748
Federal Register / V0, 52. No. 24 , Thursda,
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
> 28Sl 269'270'
[FHL No. 3078-2]
.n^n?0"8 Wast* Tr«««wnt. Storage,
and Disposal Facilities; Air Emission
Standards for Volatile Organic*
Control
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule and notice of
public hearing.
SUMMARY: The proposed standards
would limit emissions of volatile
organics (VO) at hazardous waste
treatment, storage, and disposal
facilities (TSDF) where (a) equipment at
the facilities contain hazardous wastes
or derivatives of hazardous wastes and
(b) these wastes or their derivatives
contain 10 percent or more total
organics. The proposed standards
implement in part. Section 3004(n) of
the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA), as amended. The
intent of this proposed rule is to reduce
the threat to human health and the
environment posed by air emissions
from certain hazardous organic waste
management practices, e.g.. reclamation
and equipment associated with
incineration of organic hazardous
wastes. :
OATIK Comments. The EPA will accept
comments from the public on the
proposed standards untfl April«. 1987. A
public hearing will be held on this
proposed rulemaking to provide
interested parties an opportunity for oral
presentations of data or views
concerning the proposed standards. Sea
Section XI of this preamble for the
schedule and location of this public
hearing and a brief summary of how it
will be conducted.
Incorporation by reference. The
incorporation by reference of certain
publications in these standards will b*
approved by the Director of the Federal
Register as of the data of publication of
the final rule.
ADOMMtfc Comment*. Comments may
be mailed to the Docket dork (Docket
Number F-88-AESP. Air Emission
Standards for Volatile Organics
Control). Office of Solid Waste (WH-
562). U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. 401M Street SW. Washington.
DC 20460. Comments received by EPA
and all references used in this document
may be inspected in Room S-212. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. 401M
Street SW. Washington. DC, from 9*00
a.ni. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays.
Background information document.
The technical notes for the proposed
standards may be obtained from the
U.S. EPA Library (MD-35), Research
Triangle Park. North Carolina 27711,
telephone (919) 541-2777. Please refer to
"RCRA TSDF Air Emissions-
Background Technical Memoranda for
Proposed Standards" (EPA-450/3-66-
009).
FOB FUMTHM INFORMATION CONTACT:
RCRA Hotline, toll free at (800) 424-
9346. or at (202) 382-3000. or call
Cynthia Monroe at (919) 541-5578.
sumnwNTAMY INFORMATION: The
contents of today's preamble are listed
in the following outline:
I. Authority and Executive Summary
A. Authority
B. Executive Summary
II. Background
A- Existing Air Emission Regulations Under
RCRA
B. Role of Section 3004(n) in RCRA
C. Rationale for Accelerated Air Program
HI. Overview: Accelerated Regulation of Air
Emissions
A. Regulatory and Technical Approach
B. Need for Regulation
C. Types of Facilities That Would Be
Covered by Proposed Standards for Air
Emissions
D. Hazardous Wastes and Their
M, °«riv«tiv« Covered by Today's Proposal
IV, Proposed Air Standards For Waste,
Solvent Treatment Facilities
A. Background
B. Need and Basis For Proposed Standards
C. Summary of Proposed Standards
V. Applicability of Proposed Standard* to
Other TSDF Operations
VI. Permits and Other Aspects of
Implementation
A. Interim Status and Permitted Facilities
B. Additions to 40 CFR Part 270
„£•****** *° Similar CAA Requirements
VO. Raktton to Other RCRA Regilatory^
Provisions
A. Product Storage Exemption
a Totally Enclosed Treatment Facility
Exemption
C Eliminating the Exemption for the Act of
Reclamation
D. Wastewater Treatment Tank Exemption
E. Application of Air Emission Standards
to Equipment that Meets the Definition of
a Generator's Accumulation Tank
F. Applicability of Other Standards for
Tanks and Tank Systems
C. bnpacts on Small Quantity Generators
VTO State Authorization
A. Applicability of Rules in Authorized
States
B. Effect on State Authorization
IX. Impacts of Proposed Standards
A. Introduction
B. Air Impacts
C Health Impacts
D. Cost Impacts
X. Request for Further Information
XI. Administrative Requirements
A. Public Hearing
y
B. Docket
C. External Participation
D. Office of Management and Budget
Reviews
XII. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 261. 264
265. 289, 270. and 271
I. Authority and Executive Summary
A. Authority
These regulations are proposed under
. 2002.
,7> 30m 3014' 3015- 3017. 3018,
3019. and 7004 of the Solid Waste
Disposal Act of 1970. as amended by
RCRA. as amended (42 U.S.C.
B. Executive Summary
Today's proposal would establish new
nJISl8?1* under S661""! 3004{n) of
RCRA for the control of air emissions
from hazardous waste treatment
storage, and disposal facilities (TSDF1
*•* are already required to have a
RCRA permit. The standards would
reduce volatile organic (VO) emissions
from such facilities managing organic
hazardous waste by a combination of
performance, design, and operating
standards. The proposed standards
include requirements for installation.
operation, and maintenance of control
equipment teak detection and repair.
and recordkeeping and reporting.
Today's proposal also amends the
requirements; for facilities recycling
certain_"recydable materials" (i.e..
hazardous waste being recycled) to
include regulation of the process of
reclamation.
Facility owners or operators must
determine (based on the procedures in
the standards) which equipment at their
facilities is subject to these air emission
standards. The standards would cover
equipment containing or contacting
liquids, gases, or other emanations
(derivatives) from hazardous waste in
concentrations greater than 10 percent
total organics located at affected TSDF.
Total organics are a measure of whether
sources potentially emit the VO
emissions covered by the standards. The
decision as to whether equipment is
covered by the rule can be bat> J -'»;.=<•
on testing the wastes and derivatives
according to specified test procedures.
or on engineering judgment as to these
materials' total organic content In .
questionable cases, the test procedures
will be required to determine if
equipment is subject to this regulation.
The proposed standards contain two
major features. First the proposal
requires 95 percent reduction in VO
emissions from product accumulator
vessels, including process vents and
-------
surge control vessels. Both new and
existing units would be required to
operate systems designed to achieve 95
percent reduction and to operate within
this design. Once in operation, the
facilities would demonstrate compliance
with the requirements by monitoring the
operation of the system. Second, the
standards require leak detection and
repair programs for valves, pumps,
compressors, pressure relief devices
and closed-vent systems used to handle
»?«nSU?.W1ste8 and their de"vatives
at TSDF. Control systems, leak detection
methodology, leak definition, and repair
schedule are based on existing
standards developed under sections 111
and 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
Product accumulator vessels include
units used to distill and steam and air
strip volatile components from
hazardous waste: therefore, the
proposed regulations would regulate the
process of reclamation for the first time.
Only recycling facilities that are already
subject to RCRA permit requirements or
facilities that perform recycling and
need a permit for another part of their
operation would be subject to the
proposed air emission standards.
J« 5SSlorft> the Proposed rule would add
40 CFR 261.6(d) so that reclamation
activities at facilities subject to permit
requirements are subject to the air
emission standards.
These proposed air emission'
standards- would be effective fh all
States and territories-when promulgated.
regardless of authorization status.
f ec«on 3006(g) of the Hazardous and
rtSl!?.Waate Amendments of 1984
(HSWA) requires immediate
by EPA on December 18.1978,
m 40 CFR 250.42-3 (43 FR 58999). These
regulations would have required that
facilities be designed, constructed, and
operated to prevent emissions from
exceeding limits established under the
CAA. However, these regulations were
not promulgated by the Agency. On
January 12.1981 (46 FR 2867). tha interim
final regulations for permitted
hazardous waste tank systems were
promulgated under 40 CFR Part 264
HSSfr a.? acconipanymg proposal (46 FR
2895). all tanks would have been
required to have treatment process
controls "to protect human health and
the environment from toxic or otherwise
harmful fumes, wastes, or gases." The
tank regulations. whUe recently revised
(see 51 FR 25470. July 14.1988) to require
secondary containment controls for
ground water and surface water
protection, do not include standards for
air emission*.
Even though standards for air
emission monitoring under 40 CFR Part
264 were Dmnomarf in «.nn<
-------
3750
Federal Register / Vol. 52. No. 24 / Thursday. February 5. 1987 / Proposed Rules
action to address releases of hazardous
constituents from solid waste
management units at ail facilities
seeking a Subtitle C permit, as may be
necessary to protect human health and
the environment. This provision is
applicable to releases of hazardous
constituents to the air (50 FR 28713, July
15,1985). Permit writers under the
omnibus permit authority [Section
3005(c)(3)J may impose permit
conditions beyond those contained in
EPA regulations as may be necessary to
protect human health and the
environment from risks posed by that
particular facility. These provisions thus
provide additional authority to control
certain types of air emissions.
The EPA has a duty to act under all
three of these provisions. In considering
how best to implement each provision, it
appears clear that Congress envisioned
development of national air emission
standards, rather than exclusive
reliance on ad hoc mechanisms imposed
by other regulatory authorities on a
potentially uncertain timetable. At the
same time, there is a definite role for
corrective action and omnibus permit
authorities in controlling hazardous
waste air emissions. Because corrective
action decisions may precede
development of section 3004(n)
standards in certain instances, the
Agency intends to issue guidance and
order corrective action to control air
emissions at those facilities where air
emissions are clearly posing an
imminent threat. Where it is difficult to
pinpoint the extent of risk posed by a
facility's air emissions, the Agency may
order various types of monitoring. In
any case, facilities-issued permits are
not exempt from standards developed
under section 3004(n). Rather.
monitoring and other collected data
should assist in developing regulations
under Section 3004(n) for monitoring of
air emissions resulting from hazardous
waste management
The omnibus permit authority
likewise ties into the national standard-
setting process. The EPA intends to
develop national standards that protect
against the significant risks posed by
hazardous waste air emissions.
However, these standards in some cases
will not be the most protective possible
because this degree of control would
appear unnecessary for most facilities.
The omnibus permit authority allows
permit writers to impose more stringent
conditions where warranted at
individual facilities. In essence. EPA
envisions that the national emission
standards under 3004(n) will achieve
major across-the-board emission and
risk reductions that will be protective of
human health and the environment in
most cases. The omnibus permit
authority then provides a means of fine-
tuning these standards at individual
facilities where irieremental reduction
would be significant for protection of
human health and the environment. The
EPA. in fact, intends to issue guidance to
permit writers as to when the omnibus
permit authority may appropriately be
used to expand regulatory controls on
hazardous waste air emissions.
identifying such factors as particular
pollutants and meteorological conditions
warranting special controls, and
identifying particular additional control
options.
In addition, under section 3004(m) of
RCRA. EPA is setting standards that are
achievable by the best demonstrated
available technologies (BOAT] that
could be used to treat waste solvents
prior to their land disposal in Subtitle C
units. In these rules that were issued on
November 7,1988 (51 FR 40572), EPA did
not set limits on air emissions from
treatment units used to comply with the
BOAT standards. Rather. EPA will
establish limits controlling air emissions
under authority of section 3004(n).
Today's rulemaking proposes air
emission standards that would apply to
TSDF that employ certain treatment
technologies identified as BOAT for
waste solvents. .The EPA believes that.
this use of section 3004(n> isentirely
appropriate and will result in the
protection of human health and the
environment as may be necessary, for
all environmental pollution media
associated with TSDF.
C. Rationale for Accelerated Air
Program
Today's proposal would regulate air
emissions from certain types of
hazardous.waste treatment in advance
of the more comprehensive rules on air
emissions now under development The
EPA is acting to control these activities
on an accelerated basis for the following
reasons.
The 1984 amendments to Section 3004
of RCRA were designed to avoid
substantial risks to human health and
the environment from disposal, transfer.
and storage of hazardous wastes. These
amendments include provisions that
prohibit land disposal of all hazardous
wastes by specified dates if EPA has not
established treatment standards under
section 3004(m) that substantially
diminish the risks associated with land
disposal of wastes or granted a case-
specific petition demonstrating that
there will be no migration of hazardous
constituents from the disposal unit or
injection zone for as long as the wastes
remain hazardous. As previously
discussed, the 1984 amendments to
Section 3004 of RCRA also specifically
require EPA to establish standards for
the monitoring and control of air
emissions from hazardous waste TSDF.
The First group of wastes subject to
the statutory prohibition include
specified spent solvents (hazardous
wastes numbered F001-F005) and
dioxin-containing wastes (F020, F021.
F023. F028, F027, and F028). Treatment
standards for waste solvents and
dioxins were promulgated on November
7,1986 (SI FR 40572). based on
concentrations of constituents allowed
in disposal units after the application of
BOAT. These wastes would have been
prohibited from land disposal effective
November 8,1986. if EPA had not set
treatment standards under
Subsection(m) or granted a waiver
based on no migration from a unit for as
long as waste remains hazardous. Other
categories of hazardous wastes will
become subject to the land disposal
prohibition over a 68-month period from
enactment of the 1984 amendments. For
example, treatment standards are
required by July 1987 for halogenated
organic hazardous wastes, many of
which are treated in a way similar to the
way solvents are used.
Section 3004fn) requires EFft to
establish standards for air emissions at
TSDF by May 8.. 1987. If the land ban
regulations and the air emission
standards were both promulgated at the
deadlines specified in RCRA. the result
could be the construction or expansion
of waste solvent treatment facilities
(WSTF) without emission controls, and.
later. RCRA requirements that would
cause retrofit at extra costs in terms of
equipment and operation for those
WSTF and TSDF treating waste solvents
which are hazardous wastes. Recent
Congressional comments on the January
1988 proposed land disposal restrictions
indicated that treatments that replace
land disposal should not be allowed to
pose undue risks. The EPA's mandate is
to set standards for these technologies
to protect human health and the
environment adequately. Because the
first two groups of wastes scheduled for
land disposal restrictions include many
volatile compounds, today's accelerated
rule will reduce air emissions from
technologies expected to be used in lieu
of land disposal. In particular, air
emissions from solvent reclamation
currently are unregulated under Subtitle
C. Without today's early action by EPA.
the timing of these initial land disposal
restrictions could result in: (1) additional
sources of uncontrolled air emissions
from WSTF and (2) subsequent RCRA
requirements to retrofit air emission
-------
controls to WSTF {and TSDF in general).
Because EPA desires to minimize the
impact of the timing of these Section
3004 efforts. EPA accelerated the
schedule for a portion of its air emission
project.
The EPA has available data to
accelerate the portion of its air emission
project associated with certain emission
sources of total organics. in particular.
process vents and equipment leaks. The
proposed standards do not apply to
other emission sources' such as surface
impoundments, nor to other emissions.
such as particulates or toxic metals. The
standards do not apply to such sources
and emissions because EPA has not
completed its data collection and
technical and regulatory analyses that
would form the basis of such standards.
As discussed below. EPA focused its
analysis for today's proposed standards
on existing data based on (1) the need
for accelerated standards and (2) certain
treatment and control technologies
discussed in the following paragraphs.
The EPA reviewed the treatment
technologies associated with TSDF to
decide which sources could be covered
by the accelerated effort for air
emissions. In reviewing the treatment
technologies expected to be used as
alternatives to land disposal of waste
solvents and hazardous organic
compounds. EPA considered whether
information was readily available to use
in setting air emission standards and
whether accelerated air emission
standards were needed for the
applicable treatment technologies. As
nnpAIalned,in Section m of thi» Preamble,
EPA decided to accelerate the standards
for air emissions associated with vents
from distillation and stripping [air and
steam) technologies used to treat waste
solvents and also fugitive emission»
from valves, pumps, and other
equipment associated with the handling
of rich organic streams (both wastes and
derivatives of these wastes).
As explained in Section III of this
preamble, technologies for the control of
air emissions from distillation and
sf/!P£i£3 Process« and equipment leak*
at WSTF currently are available and.
therefore, do not require further study
by EPA. These technologies have been
proven effective for reducing or
eliminating the health threat posed by
volatile air emissions based on EPA's •
extensive studies of similar sources
under the CAA. Thus. EPA has based its
regulatory approach for the accelerated
program on existing standards issued
under Section 112 of the CAA for control
of benzene emissions. Accordingly.
today's proposed standards are
intended to reduce the immediate health
and environmental threat posed by air
emissions from waste solvent treatment
operations that are similar to air
emissions regulated under the CAA.
The benzene standards can be
logically and technologically extended
to any facility managing total organics
with similar equipment to that affected
by the final benzene standards. Thus.
today's proposed standards also are
intended to reduce the health and
environmental threat posed by air
emissions from sources in other TSDF
similar to those in WSTF. For example.
these sources include equipment
associated with fugitive emissions
(valves, compressors, pressure relief
devices, sampling connection systems,
open-ended valves or lines, and pipeline
flanges) and product accumulator
vessels (certain process vents, distillate
receivers, surge control vessels, product
separators, and hot wells that are
vented to the atmosphere either directly
or through a vacuum-producing system).
The equipment covered by the proposed
standards is discussed further in Section
III of this preamble. The technologies for
controlling air emissions from spent
solvent distillation and separation and
for controlling fugitive emissions from
leaking equipment are equally suitable
for controlling sources- at TSDP •
performing-distillation of organic-rich •
hazardous warste and separation
techniques or generating fugitive
emissions. After reviewing the
engineering basis for thu standards and •
the regulatory approach for control of
the air emissions. EPA concluded that
the proposed approach would be
applicable to all RCRA waste streams
and derivatives from these wastes with
greater than 10 percent total organic
content in the specified equipment This
percent criterion is discussed in Section
IH.C of this preamble.
In summary, data currently are
available to estimate the emissions and
health impacts posed by these emissions
at WSTF and at certain other TSDF. Air
toxics from the numerous fugitive-
sources at these TSDF also pose risks
comparable on a facility basis to WSTF
and contribute to the ambient ozone
problem. For these reasons. EPA
subsequently broadened this rulemaking
to include emission controls for affected
TSDF. Therefore, although today's
proposal focuses primarily on WSTF
and the cross-media effects of land
disposal restrictions, the rulemaking
also is applicable to the TSDF
community as a whole.
Equipment leak controls can be
applied at WSTF and the larger TSDF
community now. based on the same
technology already required for other
similar industries under me CAA. The
EPA be ieves that proceeding with
available standards based on CAA
regulations is in the best interests of the
Section 3004(n) mandate—protection of
human health and the environment from
hazards posed by air emis ions. Data
currently are being collected and
analyzed to determine the air emission
impact from the many TSDF processes
apart from distillation and separation
operations that may be used at TSDF.
Standards for these and other air
sources are scheduled for later proposal.
HI. Overview: Accelerated Regulation of
Air Emissions
A. Regulatory and Technical Approach
Today's proposed standards are
baaed on EPA's 10-year study of air
emissions from the synthetic organic
chemical manufacturing industry
(SOCMI) and other major industrial
sources of benzene and VO emissions
(e.g.. petroleum refineries, coke by-
product plants, natural gas production
plants, and manufacturing and recovery
processes related to benzene and vinyl
chloride). Regulations established under
Sections 109.110, ill. and HZ of the
CAA that control certain process and
^tiv«»missions (I.e.. equipment leaks)
of VO:and benzene have been applied to
numerous industries that have
equipment in benzene or volatile
hazardous air pollutant service (see 40
CFR Part 60 Subpart W and 40 CFR
Part 81 Subpart V). In general these
industries handle organic liquid streams
substantially the same as those handled
at TSDF. Just as the organic liquid
streams are similar, the equipment.
sources of leakage, and applicable
repairs are the same. Thus the
regulatory approach used in developing
today's regulations is based on the same
technologies used to set these CAA
standards for hazardous air pollutants
and VO.
Today's proposed standards differ
from the CAA standards only in the
manner in which the standards are
expressed and the way their impacts are
characterized. The standards would
reduce total VO emissions from TSDF as
the basis for providing the protection
required by section 3004 of RCRA. The
EPA characterized the impacts of the
standards by estimating the effects of
the VO expected to be emitted by the
sources covered by the standards. That
is, VO is a surrogate or indicator for the
many individual hazardous organic
compounds, ambient ozone precursors,
and other chemicals listed as hazardous
under RCRA. By using VO as a
surrogate. EPA can identify the overall
-------
emissions. Standards limiting air
emissions from waste solvent treatment
and associated sources are appropriate
to reduce VO emissions that threaten
human health as well as contribute to
the formation of ambient ozone. One of
EPA's current goals is to improve the
nationwide program to help States and
mdustri«s reduce VO emissions from
major and minor sources. Today's
proposed standards will assist in that
goal.
The EPA currently is examining
certain chemicals that may be contained
in VO emissions and their role as
potential depleters of stratospheric
ozone. Stratospheric ozone depletion
may result in increased cases of skin
cancer in humans. The Agency is
continuing to study stratospheric ozone
depletion and its environmental and
health risk impacts. The reduction in VO
emissions provided by the proposed
standards also may reduce emissions of
potential ozone depieters. Any reduction
m these VO emissions containing
potential ozone deleters also may
assist in protecting stratospheric ozone.
There also have been several reported
damage incidents attributable to air
emissions from hazardous waste solvent
recycling operations (50 FR 659, January
4,1985. damage incidents numbers 30
and 32). These incidents point out that
harm to human health and the
environment from these operations is
not merely a potential occurrence but
has in fact occurred.
C. Types of Facilities That Would Be
Covered by Proposed Standards for Air
Emissions
Today's proposed rule would control
air emissions from certain equipment in
volatile hazardous air pollutant (VHAP)
service at RCRA facilities already
required to obtain a RCRA permit for
reasons other than those contained in
today's proposal. To be covered, (a) •
TSDF must have equipment, process
vents, or accumulator vessels affected
by the standards, (b) these sources must
be in VHAP service (i.e.. contain
hazardous wastes or their derivative*
with concentration* greater than 10
percent total organic*, and (cj the TSDF
is required to obtain a permit for an
independent reason; The EPA explain*
these concepts and the reason* for
structuring the rule in this way in the
following sections of the preamble.
1. Equipment That Would Be Covered
Today's proposed rule generally
would apply to facilities treating
organic-rich hazardous waste to recover
a usable product (e.g.. solvent
reclamation via distillation) or to
generate a disposable residue. The
standard affects ancillary equipment
within a TSDF coming into contact with
or containing fkiids in concentrations
greater than 10 percent total organics
^[either the wgstes or derivatives from
- these hazardou's' wastes). "Equipment"
is defined to include equipment
generating both process and nonprocess
(i.e., fugitive) air emissions. "Product
accumulator vessels" are the types of
equipment that generate process
emissions and include process vents.
distillate receivers, surge control
vessels, product separators, or hot-wells
that are vented to the atmosphere either
directly or through a vacuum-producing
system [proposed 40 CFR 269.30(b)J
Examples include most distillation
columns, steam stripping columns,
carbon adsorption vents, certain air
stripping vents, and thin-film
evaporation vents located in TSDF.
Types of equipment associated with
fugitive emissions are valves) pumps.
compressors, pressure relief devices.
sampling connection systems, open-
ended valves or lines, and pipeline
flanges.
The standards apply only to the
specifically enumerated types of
equipment. Devices such as piping or
open tanks thus would not be
"equipment" for purposes of today's rule
and so would not he covered by today'*
proposal. On the other hand, a closed
tank that otherwise satisfied the
definition of "product accumulator
vessel" would be ."equipment" for
purpose* of the rule, (The EPA is
investigating appropriate controls for air
emissions from devices not covered by
today's proposed rule in the context of
the broader section 3004(n) standards.]
It should be noted that facilities can
be covered by today's proposed rule if
any type of equipment (including
nonprocess equipment) is in VHAP
service. The equipment need not be
recovering solvents or other organics
from hazardous waste. For example.
hazardous waste incinerators use
valves, pump*, and other equipment to
transfer wastes or their derivatives to
the incinerator that equipment would be
covered by today's proposed rule.
2. Limitation of Applicability to
Facilities Requiring Permits for an
Independent Reason
3753
•—••
300S(c)(2). More importantly, EPA needs-
more time to study the implicationof
the rule for certain types of facilities.
particularly certain small quantity
generators and small businesses with
continuous reclamation processes that
would not qualify as 90-day
K^J?™*0* Jse,e « CFR 262.34,
Applicability of today's proposed
standards would be limited to facilities
required to obtain RCRA permits for
reasons independent of today's rule. The
pA is proposing this course to avoid
«£*« burdening an already stressed
RCRA permitting system at a time when
the Agency and authorized States are
attempting to issue final permits in the
timeframes mandated by RCRA Section
The EPA also believes that today's
proposed standards will apply to the
bulk of air enussions from facilities with
equipment in VHAP service. The EPA
moreover, believes that many of the '
production facilities with such
equipment not covered by today's
proposal are in fact subject to the same
standards under the CAA. The EPA
established identical standards under
the CAA for new and modified sources
covering production of all petroleum
Pr° ^^™lmo8t Or8anic chemicals
g^f CFR Part 60 Subparts VV and
GGG; Th« EPA also has established
guidelines for use by States to cover
similar existing production facilities. In
estimating the impacts of these
standards. EPA found that by about the
year 1990. almost all petroleum and
organic chemical production would be
affected by the CAA standards. Thus.
™?J?'ority °? P«>«ss equipment in
VHAP service associated «nth
production facilities is covered by CAA
standards. Consequently. EPA believes
that today's proposal covers a
significant part of the problem posed by
currently unregulated air emissions from
hazardous waste management facilities
with equipment in VHAP service.
The following examples illustrate how
coverage under today's proposal is
affected by the requirement that
facilities be required to obtain a RCRA
permit for a reason independent of this
proposal.
la. Facility A is an offsite reclaimer of
hazardous waste spent solvents by
distillation. The spent solvents are
stored in tanks before being reclaimed.
Facility A's distillation column and
associated equipment would be subject
to today's proposed rule (assuming the
spent solvents or their derivatives
contain greater than 10 percent organics:
see Section IU.C. of this preamble). This
is because Facility A s storage of spent
solvent before distillation already
requires a permit [40 CFR 281.6(c)J.
Ib. Same facts as Example la. except
that Facility A is able to distill solvent
without any prior storage.
Facility A's distillation activities are
not subject to today's proposal because
the facility is not already required to
obtain an RCRA permit The EPA
believes that this situation is unlikely to
-------
3754
Federal Register / Vol. 52. No. 24 / Thursday. February 5. 1987 / Pron^H Rules
^
occur nonetheless. EPA requests
specifically for comments on the number
of offsite recyclers who recycle without
storing the wastes
lc. Same facts as Example Ib. except
that Facility A stores its distillation
bottoms consisting of hazardous waste
in drums for more than 90days before
sending them offsite for disposal.
Facility A's distillation activities
would be subject to today's proposal
because the storage of distillation
bottoms requires a permit. Furthermore,
the result would be the same if the
hazardous waste storage resulted from a
process unrelated to the spent solvent
distillation.
2a. Facility B recycles hazardous
waste spent solvents generated on site.
storing the solvents and distilling the
spent solvents in tanks for a total of
fewer than 90 days from time of
generation. There is no other hazardous
waste management at the facility.
Facility B's distillation it not covered
by today's proposed rule because
Facility B is not required to obtain a
permit (4O CFR 282.34).
2b. Same facts as Example 2a, except
that the tank preceding distillation
stores for more than 90 days.
Facility B's distillation is covered by
today's proposed rule because Facility B
already requires a storage permit Note,
however, that this type of configuration
could potentially constitute an excluded
closed loop reclamation system if it
meets the conditions in 40 CFR
281.4{a)(8) (iHiv), July 14.1988.
2c. Same facts as Example 2a. except
that Facility B also operates a surface
impoundment managing a different
hazardous waste.
Facility B's distillation of a hazardous
waste is subject to today's proposal
because the facility requires a permit for
the impoundment
2d. Facility B generates hazardoas-
waste spent solvents and send* them to
onsite distillation without prior stoiese.
The distillation activities are not
subject to today's proposal. Tat* would
be covered if Facility Bhad an
independent unit reqoirfag a RCRA
permit, as in Example 2e.
3. Facility C operate* » wuranetarin*
process that distills cravac-rich-
feedstocks and gsnorata* • distillatioa
bottom that is a listed hazardous wast*.
The distillation column is not covered
by today's proposal because it processes
raw materials, not hazardous wastes
and so is not in VHAP service. In
addition, no storage permit is required
for the still bottom while it is in the
distillation column (40 CFR 2S1.4(c)L It
should be noted that this facility would
likely be covered under a CAA
requirement (e.g.. 40 CFR Part 60
Subpart W).
D. Hazardous Wastes and Their
Derivatives Covered by Today's
Proposal
1. Hazardous Waste Containing Greater
Than 10 Percent Organics
As noted above, today's proposed rule
is limited in applicability to equipment
"in VHAP service." defined as being
equipment associated with hazardous
waste treatment storage, or disposal.
The equipment must contain or be in
contact with organic hazardous wastes
or derivatives of hazardous wastes
containing greater than 10 percent total
organics by weight Percent total organic
content of these hazardous waste
process fluids is determined by using
Method 9060 of SW-848, Test Methods
for Evaluating Solid Waste; Physical/
Chemical Methods, or an appropriate
ASTM method such as ASTM Method D
2267-68. E 169-«3, E 168-«7, or E 280-73
{40 CFR 269.34{aKl}J. Owners or
operators also may use engineering
Judgment to determine percent total
organic content but they have the
burden of proof on the issue and are at
risk if their judgment is incorrect (4O
CFR 289 J4(aHZ)J. In addition, equipment
containing oc contacting wastes with r . •
fluctuating organic content axe
considered to be. in- VHAP service if the
wastes ever contain greater than to
percent total organics (40 CFR
269.34{aK1)). Even though EPA does not
believe owners or operators would
dilute wastes in an attempt to avoid die
need to comply with the standards, EPA
will not accept dilution as e means of
avoiding, compliance with the standards.
The Agency expects that hazardous
spent selvente an a principal example
of such wastes covered by the
standard*
The Agency ie proposing ttae 10>
percent cutoff £ot a number of reasons.
As elaborated is the ralemaki
• •* ***«M»»»«IWM ac mv iHTTimBipj on
CAA bemtane standards; a tfrpercent
cutoff deals with the air emission* from
equipment most likely to cause
significant human health and
environmental harm. In addition. EPA
has not yet determined whether the
control technologies for organic-rich
waste streams are suitable for low
organic streams, how effective these
technologies would be. or whether
regulation of these streams is necessary
to protect human health and the
environment. The EPA is continuing to
investigate these questions at part of its
overall rulemaking activities to
implement Section 3004fn) of RCRA.
The determination associated with
whether equipment are in VHAP service
is based on total organics. The
standards cover VO emissions and are
intended to reduce impacts on human
health and the environment associated
with total organics. The basic reason for
measuring total organics is that the
original collection of data used to
support the proposed standards
measured total organics. In practice.
most organic wastes and their
derivatives affected by the proposed
standards are considered volatile even
though some may be relatively
nonvolatile. The standards have been.
drafted to distinguish between sources
containing or coming into contact with
wastes or their derivatives which are
more or less volatile. For example, the
standards for pressure relief devices in
gaseous service require no detectable
emissions and the standards for
pressure relief devices in liquid service
only require gaseous leak detection if
indications of liquid leaks are detected
or otherwise sensed Since the
standards are based on volatile
organics. however, the Agency solicits
comment on the use of total volatile
organics (e.g_ as determined by Method
8240 of SW-446). rather than total
organics. in determining the
applicability of today's rule. -
IV. Proposed Air Standards for Waste
Solvent Treatment Facilities
A. Background'
Some of the restrictions on land
disposal of waste solvents, specifically
spent solvents, will be effective in
November 1988. Applicable treatment
processes for these solvent wastes
include: incineration, use as a fuel.
distillation (which includes thin-film
evaporation and simple and fractional
distillation), and sometimes stripping
(steam and air). Other treatment
processes that may be used, such as
biological treatment carbon/resin
adsorption, and chemical oxidation
applied to solvent-water mixtures, are
not considered expressly in this
rulemaking because EPA is not prepared
to address air emissions from treatment
technologies used for most solvent-
water mixtures at this time. Ir •:ildit?--s.
EPA is not prepared to address eir
emissions from treatment technologies
for waste solvents containing less than
10 percent total organics. Stack
emissions from facilities burning waste
solvents in incinerators and reusing
waste solvents as fuel are being
considered under separate standards for
air emissions. Consequently, the
development of air standards for WSTF
(and TSDF) was limited to air
evaluation of emissions of VO from
-------
Federal Re^etTv^fi;?. \o.
distillation and stripping (steam and air)
treatment technologies. The evaluation
of emissions and controls was limited to
V O because other pollutants such as
metals or toxic particulate matter are
not likely to be released to the
atmosphere by these processes. The
I-.PA has not evaluated emissions and
controls for highly volatile
organometallics such as tetraethyl lead
or dimethyl mercury and requests
comments on these emissions and
controls for them.
Distillation and stripping (air and
steam) treatment processes separate
organic components through
volatilization and condensation of the
more volatile components in the waste
stream. The equipment used by these
processes are similar when treating anv
type of spent solvent (indeed, any
organic liquids) and embody the icurcei
of fugitive and process air emissions.
The organic liquids and sources are
f^JlSSf'JS.*8 9ame aa SPA ha» f°«»nd
m SOCMI. The wastes affected by the
proposed standards are generally
?°rera'ed £ S°CM1- For example, the
solvents affected by the proposed
/' -ri. -T '
/ Thursday. February 5.
I p^.,.-.. . ,
—— — -— f»w*«uuvu Qiiu U3
—„.,... Generally, process air
emissions are associated with enclosed
tanks that vent to the atmosphere aa
part of the treatment process. Fugitive
air emissions are associated with
ancillary equipment (e*. pumps and
valves) used in handlingthe spent
solvents. The EPA studied^i^eteurces
across several industries and found that
their emissions are independent of
industry This is documented in an EPA
information document covering these
sources (EPA 450/3-81-002). The»
treatment processes use tanks and
ancillary equipment to separate solvents
from the waste stream.
Fugitive emissions from distillation
and stripping treatment processes are
those that escape directly to the
atmosphere from leakage of gases.
vapors, and liquids through faulty or
inadequate seals in ancillary equipment
used in the processes. This equipment is
used to move and to control th*
movement of process fluids throuth
these processes. In EPA and industry
studies on fugitive emissions front
ancillary equipment in various refining
and organic chemical manufacturing
industries. EPA has found that U»
quantity of fugitive emissions from
facilities varies with the number of
equipment components (e.g.. pumps and
valves used in the processes). the*
materials being handled, and the
specific operation and maintenance
practices applied to the equipment.
Because the ancillary equipment used in
WSTF (and certain TSDF) contain the
same organic liquids found in these
industries. EPA believes that fugitive
emissions from WSTF ancillary
equipment can be estimated using these
Studies. The studies include similar
processes (distillation and stripping for
product recovery) and identical
ancillary equipment
Control technologies for fugitive
emissions comprise the use of control
equipment, inspection of equipment, and
repair programs to limit or reduce
emissions from leaking equipment.
These control technologies have been
studied and evaluated for equipment
containing fluids with more than 10
percent organics. The 10-percent
criterion was used in EPA's original
benzene/SOCMI studies to focus on air
emissions from equipment containing
relatively concentrated organics and
presumably having the greatest potential
for air emissions. The EPA hss not
decided at this time whether to set
standards for equipment containing
fluids with less than 10 percent organics.
Fugiuve emission controls and test
methodology for equipment leaks have
been proposed or established under
both Sections 111 and 112 of the CAA.
(See 46 FR lisa, January 5,1981:48FR
3755
operatmgcyde. with higher emission
rates occurring at the start of the cycle
The EPA has carried out studies of air
emission control technologies for
as°d3Vimilar l° th°3e in WSTF such
as distillation operations (EPA-450/J-
83-005a. EPA-*SO/3-«0-032a.b).
Rational emission standards also have
been established for equipment
containing or contacting streams with a
benzene content of 10 percent or more
by weight (40 CFR 81 Subparts J and VI
Air emission control technologies for
process emissions include secondary
condensers, flares, thermal afterburners,
incinerators, scrubbers' and carton
: adsorbers. The emission reduction
potentially achievable by these control
technologies depends on physical
parameters associated with the process
vent stream and the design and
operation of the control technologies.
For example, the efficiency of
SS2T" l* ******* on Ae physical
properties of the solvents being
condensed and the temperature of the
, une 6.1984.) Emission
reductions achievable with such
programs-are limited primarily by the
number of components used in the
SSfTJte ?• fr»'u«ney of monitoring.
he ability to repair leaks, and the
volatility of the organic waste (solvent).
wwLW?" iu«l»o are found at other
TSDF. As explained previously. EPA
believes that emissions from TSDF with
waste streams containing more than 10
percent organics are significant The
EPA has determined that these
emissions warrant control for protection
of human health and the environment
and are wholly appropriate for inclusion
in this accelerated rulemaking. Emission
controls for other TSDF processes, area
sources, and waste categories are under
development and will be proposed
under a separate rulemaking. This
inclusion of emission controls for TSDF
with waste streams containing 10
percent or more organics treated by the
designated types of equipment is
discussed later in this preamble.
-------
3756
Federal Register / Vol. 52. No. 24 / Thursday, February 5. 1987 / Proposed Rules
8. Need and Basis for Proposed
Standards
The proposed air emission standards
are based on the control technologies
discussed in this preamble and provide
emission reductions that are needed to
protect the public health and the
environment. These technologies have
been demonstrated to achieve
reductions in VO emissions for the
ancillary equipment like those used in
TSDF. Control technologies for process
emissions that can be applied now are
secondary condensers, carbon
adsorbers, flares, and incinerators; these
techniques can be designed and
operated to achieve at least 95 percent
VO emission reduction. Control
technologies for fugitive emissions
consist of inspection and maintenance
programs like those currently required
by national emission standards for
petrochemical facilities under the CAA.
The control technologies discussed
above for process emissions and fugitive
emissions were used as the engineering
and regulatory basis of the national
emission standard for benzene
equipment leaks (40 CFR Part 61 Subpart
V). These technologies were selected as
candidates for the reduction of air
emissions in view of the need to develop
accelerated air emission standard!
under RCRA section 30M(n). Further
information on the selection and
application of these control techniques
is available in the Federal Register
notices cited previously for proposal
and promulgation of related standard*
under Sections 111 and 112 of the CAA.
In this and the next section of the
preamble, EPA summarizes the selection
and application of these control
techniques to WSTF and other TSDF.
The EPA considered the impacts of
the control techniques as applied to
WSTF when selecting the basis of the
proposed standard. The EPA considered
these impacts because they represented
a complete and well-analyzed data
collection for the air emission sources
affected by this proposed rule. These
control techniques result in an emission
reduction of about 85 percent overall
and at least 95 percent for process
emissions. As indicated in the "Impacts
of Proposed Standards" section of this
preamble (Section DC), EPA mad«
estimates on the basis of • rang* of
impacts, which indicated that WSTF
typically would emit about &660 Mg/yr
of VO nationally without the proposed
standards. This estimate of emissions is
based on about 95 WSTF processing.
about 440 million gallons of spent
solvents. (See 51FR1727 concerning the
recycling capacity of organic liquids.)
Based on a scoping analysis, the
nationwide annual incidence of cancer
in the population living within 50
kilometers (km) of WSTF is estimated to
be about 0.34 case/yr without the
proposed standards. The nationwide
maximum lifetime risk (MLR) to the
most exposed individuals is estimated at
3.7x 10-3. or almost 41n 1.000. With the
proposed standards in place, WSTF
typically would emit about 700 Mg/yr
nationally with a corresponding
nationwide incidence of about 0.028
case/yr. The estimated MLR would be
reduced by the proposed standards to
approximately 2.6 x 10"4 with WSTF
process and fugitive controls. The
estimated MLR is considered a
reasonable indicator of the health risk
posed by WSTF emissions. These
impacts indicate the need to establish.
and the protection provided by, the
proposed air emission standards.
The proposed rules generally are
based on the most stringent
technologically feasible controls for
industry-wide application at new and
existing sites. In certain cases, however,
EPA did not select the highest level of
control that could be achieved. For
example, application of sealed bellows
valves could achieve 100 percent control
for certain manufacturing process
streams but is generally not feasible for
WSTF or TSDF because of. the
likelihood of corrosion due to contact
with waste chemicals. (The EPA solicits
comments on whether WSTF or TSDF
routinely treat chemicals that would not
destroy sealed bellows valves.) For
certain other sources, htfwever. the most
effective controls that also are
technologically feasible were not
selected. These include dual seals for
pumps and flaring or incinerating
process vent emissions. (Note that the
standards automatically allow the use of
any controls equally or more effective
than the prescribed controls; the rule
includes provisions allowing for
alternative controls. For example.
pressure relief devices can be controlled
by rupture discs or by venting emissions
to flares via a closed system.) The EPA's
reasons for not selecting the highest
level of control available for pumps cud
product accumulator/process vents are
discussed below.
Pumps are an air emission source for
which additional emission reductions
are feasible. Pumps can be controlled
either by the use of dual seals to capture
essentially all the fugitive emissions or
by the use of the leak detection and
repair program (contained in the
proposed standards) that reduces the
fugitive emissions by about 75 percent.
The overall standard for WSTF.
including leak detection and repair.
would achieve an expected VO emission ,
reduction of about 7.960 Mg/yr at an
expected annualized cost of about Si .3
million/yr. The estimated MLR would be
reduced from 3.7 xlO'3 to about
2.6 ,< tO"3. In comparison, including dual
seals would achieve an overall emission
reduction of about 8.010 Mg/yr at a cost
of S1.9 million/yr. The overall standard
reduces the nationwide incidence from
about 0.34 case/yr to about 0.028 or
0.023 case/yr based on including leak
detection and repair or dual seals.
respectively. With dual mechanical
seals, the estimated MLR would be
reduced to about 2.4 x 10'4—an
incremental MLR reduction of about
2X10-*-
The EPA considered these impacts
when deciding whether to require WSTF
to install dual seals on pumps to control
air emissions rather than to rely on
monthly leak detection and repair.
These impacts indicate that including
leak detection and repair results in less
emission reductions than including dual
seals for pumps. However, the
incremental decrease in emission
reductions attributable to implementing
a monthly leak detection program rather
than more stringent dual seal* appears
to be small in comparison to the results
of the overall standards: thedecrease
amounts to less than 1 percent; of the
overall emission reduction. In addition.
this small incremental emission
reduction does not clearly lead to a
quantifiable reduction in risk because
the data and models on which the risk
estimates are based are not precise '
enough to quantify risk meaningfully to
this exact a level. These data and
models include the emission estimates.
the air dispersion modeling, and the risk
assessment, including location.
population, and meteorologic
uncertainties. If EPA were to present the
risk estimates based on the number of
significant digits in these estimates, they
would include one digit and the
difference between the risk estimates
would be zero.
Given the smallness and the imprecise
nature of the emission and risk
reductions associated with including
dual seals in the overall standard. EPA
believes the costs of achieving these
reductions may not be warranted. More
important. EPA cannot attribute a
meaningful reduction in risk to use of
the more expensive dual seals and;
therefore, is proposing to select the less
expensive control technology of monthly
leak detection and repair for pumps. The
EPA believes the use of leak detection
and repair for pumps would provide the
protection that is needed and that the
use of the more expensive dual seals is
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 52.
not warranted by the emissions and risk
reductions [see 45 FR 33089. May 19
1980 (cost effectiveness is a relevant
factor under RCRA in selecting among
equally effective control technologies)].
rurthermore. EPA intends to prepare*
guidance to permit writers as to when '"'"'"
imposition of dual seal pumps (through
exercise of omnibus permit authority)
may be appropriate (provided that it is
technologically feasible). Through
exerc.se of this authority, a means exists
to impose the extra control if a
significant reduction in risk would
result.
The EPA also reviewed the
application of flares and incinerators
achieving 98 percent control in
comparison to 95 percent control for
™?,TF Process emission control.
Although flares and incinerators may
ach.eve 98 percent efficiency (or more)
tor many waste solvent streams. EPA
cannot conclude, based on information
and data currently available, when
Flares or incinerators rather than
condensers or other 95-percent control
devices should be applied to WSTF
processes. (It should be noted that EPA
has established requirements for
hazardous waste incinerators that
combust wastes very similarly to the
way fuel oil furnaces combust oil. The
incinerators and flares discussed in this
preamble are different in that the air
pollutants are combusted in »lean air
?£lanL ,tatnd by a flame rather than
through he flame as is the case with
combustion in fuel oil furnaces.)
In addition to the question of
technical applicability. EPA reviewed
trie health, environmental, and cost
impacts of secondary condensers
reflecting 95 percent control) compared
to flares and incinerators (reflectinV«
fnercent F°ntrol) as further information
m deciding whether to require W
percent control. Application of flares or
incinerators for WSTF process
emissions would be expected to reduce
nationwide emissions from about 8,860
Mg/yr to about 470 Mg/yr. Condenser.
would reduce the en**jon* to abouT^OO
Mg/yr. Thus, an incremental emission
reduction of about 230 Mg/yr result.
witn tiares. Even though the models
upon which the risk estimates are based
are not sufficiently precise to quantify
risk meaningfully to an exact level EPA
estimates that including flares or
incinerators in the overall proposed
standard would reduce annuafcancer
incidence from about 044 case/yr to
about 0.018 case/yr in comparison to
ao28 case/yr for including condenser.
estim^M grop08^8tandard-T1»
estimated MLR associated with WSTF
emissions would be reduced from about
February
,
,.,
3.7.x1.0"1 fo about 2.0x 10-' with flares
or incinerators and 2.8xiQ-« with
condensers, an incremental MLR
.reduction of axlO'5-
H ^as*d %5vailable information and
rdata. 95 percent control appears to
provide essentially the same level of
protection for public health as 98
percent control. This level of control is
achievable to WSTF processes and. as
explained below, can be achieved at
significantly less cost. In addition, if the
Agency discovered that emissions from
a faci ity resulted in an unacceptable
»S impa,Ct to human health and the
environment, section 3005(c)(3) of RCRA
may be used to require the additional
ntrol. For these reasons. EPA selected
percent control over 98 percent
ntrol as the basis of the proposed
^ ..... ^ „ ,
As discussed above, a secondary
point is that the coats of flares or
!hf I??8'0? d° notLaPP«« to warrant
tneir selection as the basis of the
standard for process vents in WSTF
The net annual cost of secondary
condensers is estimated at an overall
credit of $820.000 nationwide.
considering the recovery credit
achievable. In comparison, the
incremental nationwide annual net cost
of flare* or incinerator, over condenser,
Ueston.ted.a4 abott S7.2 ™*
This equipment is used to move wast
solvents and recycled solvents through
va"°"srff cycling operations at WSTF
and TSDF. The proposed standards
apply to the ancillary equipment
containing or contacting fluids with
more than 10 percen- total organics tha
are hazardous wasteu or derived from
Hazardous wastes wi:hin a facility The
approach of covering total organics as
the basis for providing the protection as
rsedeS3ary l?der RCRA »««««aSfn?
is discussed in Section IIA of this
preamble. Also, as discussed before the
10-percent criterion was selected
because EPA has not studied and
evaluated control technologies for
equipment containing less than 10
percent total organics.
The details associated with the
Proposed standards can be found at 40
ZSSSSsssftEsf -
sssssss?****
1. Valves
A monthly leak detection and repair
Program is required by the proposed
standard for valve* TWtjir^grW^
should not be confused with the
this is
C. Summary of Proposed Standards
The proposed standards apply to
certain equipment at facilities treating
waste solvents (i.e.. WSTF) and. as
discussed later, at TSDF in general.
sSSSSSSi
or related chemical engineering
processes to allow: (i) the use or reuse
of the waste solvent or chemical or (2)
disposal of the residual waste. (See
discussion later in this notice on EPA's
reasons for eliminating the current
regulatory exemption for reclamation
units and the proposal to cov- TSDF
handling organic hazardous wastes or
their derivatives in concentrations
•jSMST"*0 pere«n*iTh8 equipment
affected by the proposed standard*
contains organic concentrations greater
than w percent: this equipment includes
valves, pumps, compressors pressure
relief devices, sampling connection
systems, open-ended valves or lines.
pipeline flanges, product accumulator
vessels, and closed-vent systems and
c°ntrolidevices used to comply with th*
standard.
* • onne
portable organic vapor analyzer
according [to Method 21 (seVAppentor
A £« CFR Part W). If a readteiof
10.000 parts per million (ppm) or greater
?forganicj materials is obtained, aleak
is detected. Initial repair of the leak
must be attempted within S days, and
U»e repair must be completed within 15
days. Delay of repair is allowed if repair
is not technically feasible without a
process unit shutdown; repair must
occur at the next process unit shutdown.
Delays an allowed for other specific
reasons: all delays must be recorded
and explained by the operator. The EPA
expects few delays of repair and
anticipates that no repairs would be
delayed for more than 1 year. The
standard also includes provisions that
(1) exempt unsafe-to-monitor or difflcult-
to-raonitor valves from the monthly
monitoring program and that (2) allow
use of alternative programs (e.g., skip
period monitoring) if certain conditions
aremet (see 40 CFR 61.243-2 and 40 CFR
The EPA concluded that the
technological feasibility of control
technologies for equipment leaks is
limited by several factors including the
-------
3758
Federal Register / Vol. 52. No. 24 / Thursday. February 5, 1987 / Proposed Rules
10.000-ppm reading, the frequency of
monitoring, and the ability to repair a
leak. The 10.000-ppm reading is
measured at the equipment-atmosphere
interface. For this reason, this reading
should not be compared to
concentration readings from area-wide
monitoring systems or personnel
monitoring systems where lower
readings are technologically feasible. In
addition, the 10.000-ppm reading should
not be confused with the 500-ppm
reading that is used to confirm that no
leakage is present at a leakless
technology source (e.g.. sealless valves):
see 40 CFR 81.242-7(f). no detectable
emissions for valves. The 10.000-ppm
reading reflects the most restrictive level
of control technologically feasible; EPA
has not concluded that repairs are
feasible or effective for concentration
levels less than 10.000 ppm. The
monitoring and repair frequencies
reflect the most restrictive frequencies
considered technologically feasible by
EPA and are based on studies of
existing, effective leak detection and
repair programs.
These monitoring frequencies should
not be confused with spill or leak
detection and retponM requirements for
hazardous waste tank system* or
secondary containment systems [e.g., 40
CFR 284.1S(b)(4}|; those frequencies of
detection and response address soil and
ground/surface water pollution, and are-
based on the application of visual
inspection techniques.
The delay of repair provisions it
required to make the program
technologically achievable and to
eliminate situations in which resulting
emissions could be greater than
allowing a delay in repair (e.g., during a
process unit shutdown). Likewise. EPA
included provisions that address the
practical limitation associated with
valves that are located in elevated pipe
racks (e.g., difficult to monitor) and
alternative leak detection and repair -
programs that are as effective as the
required program. These alternative
programs are based on never exceeding
2 percent of the valves leaking within a
TSDF process unit which reflects the
performance of the best leak detection
and repair programs within SQCMfc
these programs allow TSDF operators to
continue effective programs such as
routine replacement of valve seals
without the need to perform the required
inspection program. Effective alternative
programs (as measured by the 2-percent
criterion) result in the same impacts as
the required program.
2. Pumps
A monthly leak detection and repair
program Is required by the proposed
standard for pumps. Leak detection is to
be performed with a portable organic
vapor analyzer according to Method 21.
If a reading of 10.000 ppm or greater of
total organic materials is obtained, a
leak is detected. Initial repair of the leak
must be attempted within 5 days, and
the repair must be completed within 15
days. Delay of repair will be allowed for
pumps that cannot be repaired without a
process unit shutdown because
emissions from a shutdown could easily
exceed those from delaying a repair.
Delay of repair, up to a months after
detecting a leak, also is allowed when
the plant owner or operator determines
that repair of the pump requires using a
dual mechanical seal system. Delay of
repair is not expected to be needed for
most situations, however, because
pumps commonly are spared.
3. Compressors
The proposed standard for
compressors requires the use of
mechanical seals with barrier fluid
systems and controlling degassing vents.
The controlling degassing vents must
use a closed-vent system and a control
device that complies with the
requirements as discussed in the
"Product Accumulator Vessels. Closed-
Vent Systems, and Control Devices"
section of this preamble. The standard
also would allow the use of alternative
control systems (i.e.. enclosed and
leakless compressors) that provide,
equivalent emission reductions. [See 40
CFR 61.242-4f h) and fl« Although these
systems provid» equivalent emission
reductions, they cannot be used as the
sole basis for this proposed standard
because they are not technologically
feasible in all situations. Compliance
with these alternatives would be
determined by review of records and
inspection.
4. Pressure Relief Devices
The use of control equipment (rupture
disc systems or closed-vent systems to
flares) is the basis for the proposed
standard for pressure relief devices in
gas service. These requirements address
leaks from pressure relief devices; they
do not regulate discharges of air
emissions through these devices. (The
EPA notes that such discharges may be
subject to the reportable quantity
requirements of 40 CFR Part 302 and
that these discharges will be considered
further in setting air emission standards
for TSDF.) For control techniques that
eliminate equipment leaks, such as the
use of rupture disc systems, an emission
limit measurement for "no detectable
emissions" can be established. An
instrument reading of less than 500 parts
per million volume (ppmv) above a
background concentration based on
Method 21 will be used to indicate
whether equipment leaks are not
detectable.
The "no detectable emission" limit
will not apply to discharges through the
pressure relief device during
overpressure relief because the function
of relief devices is to discharge process
fluid, thereby reducing dangerously high
pressures within the equipment. The
standard specifies, however, that the
relief device be returned to a "no
detectable emission" status within 5
days after such a discharge. Plant
owners or operators also may comply .
with this standard by connecting
pressure relief devices in gas service to.
a system that complies with the
requirements as discussed in the
"Product Accumulator Vessels. Closed-
Vent Systems, and Control Devices"
portion of this section.
5. Sampling Connection Systems
Closed-purge sampling is the required
standard for sampling connection
systems and is the most stringent
feasible control. Closed-purge sampling
connection systems eliminate emissions
due to purging by either retumingjhe
purge material directly to the process or
by collecting the purge in a collection
system that is not open to the •" •
atmosphere. Collected purge material
must be destroyed or recovered in a
system that complies with requirements
discussed in the "Product Accumulator
Vessels, Closed-Vent Systems, and
Control Devices" portion of this section.
8. Open-Ended Valves or Lines
The standard for open-ended valves
or lines requires the use of caps, plugs.
or any other equipment that will effect
enclosure of the open end. These are the
most stringent controls possible. If a
second valve is used, the standard
requires the upstream valve to be closed
first. After the upstream valve is closed
completely, the downstream valve must
be closed. This operational requirement
is necessary to prevent trapping process
fluid between the two valves, which
could result in a situation equivalent to
the uncontrolled open-ended valve or
line.
7. Pipeline Flanges and Pressure Relief
Devices in Liquid Service
Flanges and pressure relief devices in
liquid service will be excluded from the
routine leak detection and repair
requirements. The EPA has not
completely evaluated these sources at
TSDF and may regulate them further in '
setting future emission standards. Even
though these sources appear not to
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 52. .Vo. 24 / Thursday. February
warrant routine leak detection and
repair requirements at this time, they do
warrant certain inspection requirements
similar to those practiced by prudent
operators. Thus, if indications of leaks
are seen, heard, orsmelled from these
sources when operators perform routine
inspection or other work practices, the
operators must determine if a leak is
detected based on Method 21. The same
allowable repair interval that applies to
valves and pumps will apply to leaks
detected through this procedure.
8. Product Accumulator Vessels, Closed-
Vent Systems, and Control Devices
The proposed standards affect
product accumulator vessels and other
process vent sources containing total
organics in concentrations greater than
10 percent. Product accumulator vessels
generally include overhead and bottoms
receiver vessels used with
fractionalization or stripping columns
and product separator vessels used in
series with reactor vessels to separate
reaction products. Specifically, a
product accumulator vessel includes any
distillate receiver, condenser, bottoms
receiver, surge control vessel, product
separator, or hot well. Typically,
accumulator vessels are vented directly
to the atmosphere or indirectly to the
atmosphere through a blowdown drum
or through vacuum systems. Process
vents are covered under the proposed
rule only if they are in VHAP service or
are associated with another type of
product accumulator vessel, e.g.. a
distillate receiver in VHAP service.
Surge control vessels .and other vessels
do not include equalization basins
unless they are in VHAP service and are
vented to the atmosphere. Venting
occurs because mechanical or process-
related effects cause the gases in an
accumulator vessel to move through the
vessel; tanks such as fixed or floating
roof storage tanks are not accumulator
vessels unless they vent VO emissions
to the atmosphere. When an
accumulator vessel contains VO
(including toxics) and vents to the
atmosphere, emissions are released The
EPA requests comment on whether the
definitions of process vents and surge
control vessels are defined clearly.
The proposed standards for product
accumulator vessels would require that
each vessel be equipped with a closed-
vent system capable of capturing and
transporting any leakage to a control
device that is designed and operated to
recover the organic vapors at an
efficiency of 95 percent or greater. The
efficiency of 95 percent or greater will
be determined by estimating the mass of
organics entering the control device and
by estimating the mass of organics
exiting the control device. Operational
parameters (such as temperature of
condenser cooling fluids and
temperature of incinerators) then will be
monitored tp.jerjsure that the mass
-•recovery (or destruction) of 95 percent is
maintained during operation of the
control device. Method 21 will be used
to verify that a closed-vent system has
been designed and installed properly.
The standards for control devices are
design and operation requirements that
ensure continuous effective removal of
the emissions. Although EPA expects
that TSDF sites will choose condensers
to comply with the standards, approved
alternatives to condensers are flares.
incinerators, and adsorbers that achieve
95 percent control (or greater). Permit
requirements relating to these design
and operational (monitoring)
requirements are discussed in Section
VI. "Permits and Other Aspects of
Implementation." of this preamble.
If an enclosed combustion device is
used, the unit must be designed and
operated for an efficiency of 95 percent
or more. Alternatively, a minimum
residence time of 0.5 second at a
minimum temperature of 760 *C is
required under Subpart V (40 CFR
61.242-11). If flares are used the owner
or operator must meet the design and
operational provisions of 40 CFR 60.18.
Subpart V also requires the monitoring
of control devices to ensure that they
are operated and maintained in
confprmance with their design.
Additionally, closed-vent systems and
control devices must be operated at all
times when emissions may be vented to
them.
Leak detection requirements for
closed-vent systems are similar to those
for fugitive sources. That is. all closed-
vent systems must be designed and
operated with no detectable emissions
(i.e., 500 ppm above background by
instrument reading using Method 21).
The closed-vent system must be
monitored initially to determine
compliance. FoIIowup monitoring is
required annually and at any other time
requested by EPA. If a leak is detected
(by instrument reading or visible
inspection), it must be repaired no later
than 15 calendar days after detection.
However, a first attempt at repair must
be made within 5 days of detection.
V. Applicability of Proposed Standards
to Other TSDF Operations
After selecting the proposed
standards for WSTF. EPA considered
the applicability of the standards to
WSTF that could be applied to other
RCRA facilities treating organic-rich
hazardous waste with equipment
identical to those for WSTF. Based on a
review of the engineering basis for the
proposed standard and the regulatory
approach taken under RCRA for WSTF
as discussed above. EPA concluded that
the proposed standard for WSTF could
be broadened to cover all TSDF process
streams with greater than 10 percent
organics. Simply put. there is no
technical basis for limiting the proposed
controls on equipment in VHAP service
at solvent treatment operations. The
control technologies control VO
emissions uniformly and indeed are
already applicable under the CAA to
many nonsolvent-emitting sources. In
addition, there do not appear to be
differences in emissions and risks that
W°i/l?Ai«8UfJr not "^tog equipment
in VHAP service at TSDF.
Data currently are too limited to
perform a detailed analysis of the
IjEPfcts of the proposed standards on
TSDF process streams greater than 10
percent organics. Specifically, the
number of TSDP affected by the
proposed standards cannot be
determined accurately. However. EPA
performed a rough analysis of these
impacts as discussed below. Additional
TSDF controls for other process
emissions and area sources are
currently under study and will be
proposed in a later rulemaking.
Roughly speaking, extension of the
proposedstandards to TSDF with
hazardous waste streams or other
derivative* containing greater than 10
percent organics would affect from 289
to 2,332 sites, with a midrange estimate
of 1.300 facilities. Using this midrange
estimate, fugitive emissions of VO at
these sites are expected to be in the area
of 17.800 Mg/yr and result in an annual
cancer incidence of approximately 0.65
case/yr nationwide. These estimates do
not include estimated emissions or
health risks associated with process
vents at TSDF because data are
insufficient at this time to provide such
estimates. The EPA believes, however.
that few. if any. of these vents (except
those found at WSTF) are found at other
TSDF: and. if they do exist they would
be appropriately covered by the
proposed standards. The EPA requests
comments on the types of process
equipment and number 01 ve~ *» ths*
would be regulated by these standards.
(As noted earlier. TSDF with any
equipment in VHAP service already
required to obtain an RCRA permit
would be covered by this proposal. They
need not be engaged in distillation or
other activities using product
accumulation vessels or otherwise have
process vents. TSDF with valves or
pumps in VHAP service and otherwise
required to obtain a permit would be
-------
3760
Federal Register / Vol. 53. No. 24 / Thursday. February 5. 1987 / Proposed Rales
covered by the proposal.) Further
information on this topic is requested as
described elsewhere in this preamble.
Controls proposed for WSTF are
applicable, available, and would
achieve the same reductions—about 75
percent overall—at TSDF. Based on this
overall control efficiency, nationwide
emissions and risks would be reduced to
about 4.SOO Mg/yr. with residual annual
cancer incidence of about 0.13 case/yr.
The nationwide, annual net cost of this
action would be roughly S9.6 million/yr.
VI. Permits and Other Aspects of
Implementation
The EPA considered the proposed
standards for WSTF and TSDF in light
of the permitting process, the
requirements for final permits, and the
relation of these standards to similar
CAA regulatory requirements.
A. Interim Status and Permitted
Facilities
After selecting the standards for
affected.TSDF. EPA considered how to
implement the standards with respect to
interim status and final compliance. In
doing so. EPA considered the overall
burden for TSDF owners and operators
and Agency personnel in preparing,
reviewing, and approving final permits
or modifications to permits. Although
the administrative burden associated
with the proposed standards would add
to this overall burden. EPA believes that
the incremental effort will be small
Because air emissions from these
facilities are currently unregulated
under RCRA and. as discussed above.
the Agency believes these emissions an
capable of posing significant risk to
human health and the environment the
Agency believes it important to move to
control these emissions expeditiously.
The EPA, therefore, has examined the
appropriateness of applying air emission
standards to interim status facilities.
[See. e.g., 50 FR 26484. June 28.1985
(similar considerations justify adoption
of 40 CFR Part 265 standards for tanW»
similar or identical to 40 CFR Part 264
standards).] In addition, because EPA
needs to assign higher petaittin*
priority to land disposal and treatment
technologies. EPA considered whether
the proposed standard* eeaiaT be self*
implementing, i.e.. without the burden
associated with negotiations between
the TSDF owner/operator and a porraH
writer.
The proposed standards, as discussed
above, are based on the standards, tot
equipment leaks, of benzene which were
established under a regulatory program
that inherently uses standard* that an
self-implemented. The standards for
equipment leaks of benzene an self-
implementable because either the
specifications for a requirement are
explicit (e.g. the leak definition of 10,000
ppm is explicitly specified in the
standards) or. to the extent they are not
explicit, the specifications include
specific design criteria (e.g. the 95-
percent design criterion) that can serve
as the primary basis for determining
compliance with the standards. All the
requirements are set out explicitly in the
rule except the design and operation
requirements for control devices.
The requirements for control devices
are not as completely explained in the
rule because the proposed standards
provide for many types of control
devices that can be used to comply with
the standards. However, engineering
design practices for the control devices
customarily used to comply with air
emission standards are well enough
established to provide the necessary
documentation to show the ultimate
levels of performance are achieved.
Essentially, one can determine that a
control device is achieving 95 percent
reduction of VO by evaluating device
design and—to ensure that the device is
operating to achieve the designed level
of performance—by monitoring certain
parameters during operations.
Appropriate parameters are discussed
faelowand are basedtm monitoring
performance of control device rather
than measuring emission* directly. The
parameters utilized are related to-the
'physical and chemical nature of the
removal or destruction mechanisms
used as the basis for the control devices.
design. For example, condensers use
cooling fluids to reduce the temperature
of an exhaust gas stream low enough to
condense the organics in the stream. By
designing a system to remove 95 percent
of the organics entering the system, an
exhaust gas temperature, along with
other factors, such as the temperature of
the cooling fluids, is estimated. Based on
such parameters, the control device can
be monitored to ensure it is operated as
designed. The EPA considers these
requirements reasonably self-
implementable.
Compliance (for interim stabi*
facilities) with the standards, for
equipment leaks can be accomplished
within a relatively short period of time.
(6 months) after the promulgation date
of the standard*. However, compliance
with the standards requiring closed-vent
systems and control devices could take
longer. Baaed on EPA'* experience
under the benzene standard, compliance
can be achieved within 24 month* after
the promulgation date of these
standards. Thus. EPA is proposing to
allow TSDF owners and operators «• to
24 months to comply with the proposed
standards requiring closed-vent systems
and control devices. The EPA also is
proposing that design of these systems
and devices occur within 6 months and
that construction begin within 9 months
after promulgation of the standard to
ensure that steady progress toward
compliance with the standards occurs.
Compliance determinations (for
interim status facilities) with the
standards would occur through
inspections and review of records and
reports. The records are mainly
associated with documenting the
ongoing efforts of the leak detection and
repair associated with equipment leaks
and with demonstrating that add-on -
control devices achieve 95 percent
reduction in organics by design and
during operation.. The design of these
devices must show the basis for
estimating the 95-percent control and
the basis for the operating parameters
used to monitor compliance with the
device's design. The 95-percent control
would be indicated by showing on a
mass balance basis that the control
device removes 95 percent of the
organics entering the device. Specific
operating or monitoring parameter* are
(1) coolant fluid temperature and exit
gas temperature for condensersv-(2} exit
gas breakthrough of organics and-
carbon bed temperature for carbon
adsorbers. (3) flue gas temperature for
incinerators, and (4) pilot light flame
detection and visible emission readings
for flows. These general requirements
are found at 40 CFR 81.242-11 and 61.245
Subpart V; EPA is proposing to add
specific requirements at 40 CFR 269.33.
These parameters would be monitored
to ensure that the control device is
performing according to its design. A
review of these records and an
inspection would serve to confirm
whether a facility complies with the
standards.
The final permit standards are the
same as those for interim status
facilities. The final permit requirements
would include submitting
documentation that the control
equipment satisfying the interim status
standards has been installed and that
interim status standards are being
achieved. A review of compliance with
the interim status- standards could occur.
The EPA may request information to
help determine if EPA should invoke the
provisions of RCRA Section 3Q05(c)(3> to
require control beyond that required in
the standards. Most oi this information
(such as population distributions.
facility location, waste* handled, and
other specifics^ will be available in
other required RCSA information or in
-------
existing EPA data bases, so EPA does
not anticipate the need to request
additional data very often.
B. Additions to 40 CFR Part 270
Based on the approach used in
implementing interim status and final
permit standards. EPA decided to
specify particular permitting
requirements in 40 CFR Part 270 to help
reduce the burden associated with
preparing, reviewing, and approving
Part B RCRA permits. The regulations
and associated records and reports are
detailed enough for the proposed
standards to require the Part B permit
application to document compliance
with the standards. However, EPA
concluded that further specific
documentation would be helpful to
demonstrate compliance with the
standards for process vents.
Documentation is needed when
demonstrating compliance with the
standards for process vents and other
product accumulator vessels because
these standards require the operator to
design and operate the control device to
achieve 95 percent emission reduction.
Although documentation can only be
done on a case-by-case basis, it would
be helpful for TSDF owners or operators
and permit review personnel to follow
^lm ™ 8Hidel"»«- Thus, in 40 CFR Part
270, EPA is proposing a requirement that
the operators compare their control
devices, design and operation against a
textbook analysis. This analysis would
be used to determine whether the
operator's approach appears to comply
reasonably with the requirements of the
standard. The textbook currently under
consideration is the EPA Air Pollution
Training Institute's Control of Gaseous
Air Pollutants. Based on this
comparison. EPA can decide if the
operator's design and operation
achieves the standards for process
vents/accumulator vessels.
C. Relation to Similar CAA
Requirements
The proposed standard* contain e
provision to ensure that no duplicative
recordkeeping and reporting are
required for any TSDF governed by the
proposed rule and by existing CAA
regulations (i.e., 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart
V V and Part 81 Subpart V). For such
facilities, proposed Section 289.33(e)
provides that the owner or operator may
elect to continue keeping records and
reports pursuant to CAA requirements
m order to comply with the
recordkeeping and reporting
requirements of the proposed rule. For
facilities covered by RCRA only, the
owner or operator must comply with the
requirements in the proposed rule at
Section 270.22.
;, The recordkeeping and reporting
Requirements under the proposed rule
/and the CAA'are identical except for the
documents described by proposed
Section 270.22(a)(2)(iHii), (3). Section
269>33;!l of,the Proposed rule, applicable
5 I™F facility 8°vemed under CAA
and RCRA, allows the owner or
operator to keep only one set of records
and reports regarding operation and
maintenance. It should be noted
however, that additional reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, which are
contained at Section 270.22. for example,
and are required to obtain a final RCRA
permit, apply to all TSDF. even those
that are governed under the CAA.
RCRA Section I008(b) allows the
Administrator to eliminate duplicative
regulation under RCRA and other
Federal laws including the CAA. EPA
L Relation to Other RCRA Regulator?
Provision* J
T?day's proposal relates to other
RCRA regulatory exemptions and these
exemptions merit discussion. These
provisions are discussed below in turn.
-------"•— ««•» «/ oner me appllcaDIUH
of CAA regulations to TSDF affected by
today s proposed rule. As discussed
above, a duplicative recordkeeping or
reporting burden is not imposed on any
TSDF by today's proposal. Other
provisions under RCRA [e.g.. omnibus
etti
and the CAA (e.g, detemunationof
attainment of any applicable NAAQS)
wUl continue to apply to TSDF already
subject to both regulatory schemes.
Because the CAA standards were
adapted for the accelerated rule, the
recordkeeping and reporting
requirements differ from existing
requirement* in RCRA standards.
Leaking equipment is flagged with label*
indicating it* identification number.
until repair* are achieved, except that
valve* are marked until repaired for 2
successive month*. Record* of leak* are
kept for 2 yean, rather than maintained
for a 3-year inspection record.
Reporting requirement* for air
emissions include the leak detection
schedule and twice-a-year reporting of
leak* and unrepaired leaks {which are
record* kept at the facility under 40 CFR
284.15(0) (2) and 28S.15(bj | (2)1. to
contrast. 40 CFR 284.56(j) and 285.56(1)
require written report* within 15 day* of
event* that demand use of a facility
contingency plan, which will, however,
usually show more significant release*
than those detected during leak
monitoring.
The EPA request* comment* on the
integration of these recordkeeping and
reporting requirement* in the RCRA
program. A* proposed, the reporting and
recordkeeping requirements of 40 CFR
Part 270 apply to air emissions, along
with the circumstances that implement
use of the contingency plan.
A. Product Storage Exemption
Paragraph 261.4(c) of the RCRA
regulations exempts from regulation
hazardous wastes that are generated in
process-related equipment such as
product or raw material storage tanks.
or product or raw material pipelines.
The exemption applies until the waste is
physically removed from the unit in
which it was generated.
This exemption would not be affected
by today s proposal. Thus, such units as
product distillation columns generating
organic hazardous waste still bottoms
containing greater than 10 percent
organics would not be subject to today's
P,roP08«j regulation while they are in
tne distillation column unit. A* EPA
noted in promulgating the exemption.
» li? Pfu by thw unit» "• incidental
to the risk posed by the contained
product or raw materiaL.(See 45 PR
72025, October 30.1980V and 45 FR 80288.
December 4.1980.) fa addition, direct
regutation of these unit* under RCRA
could interfere impermissibly with the
act of production and. therefore, would
be beyond the Agency'* RCRA
authority. (See 51 FR 25487, July 14. I960.
and 50 FR 817.837-38, January 4,1985.)
B. Totally Enclosed Treatment Facility
Exemption
Under 40 CFR 264.1(g}(5) and 40 CFR
285.1(c)(9). totally enclosed treatment
facilities are exempt from RCRA
regulation. A "totally enclosed
treatment facility" is a facility treating
hazardous waste that I* "directly
connected to an industrial production
process and which is constructed and
operated in a manner which prevent*
the release of any hazardous wast* or
constituent thereof into the environment
during treatment" (40 CFR 280.10).
Treatment facilities located off the
site of generation are not directly
connected to an industrial process.
Thus, commercial waste treatment
facilities with equipment affected by the
proposed standard*, such as solvent
reclamation facilities, by definition
ordinarily would not be totally enclosed.
In addition, storage facilities, disposal
facilities, and ancillary equipment not
used for treating hazardous waste do
not fall within the definition of a totally
enclosed treatment facility.
The EPA believes that many onsite
treatment facilities also are not totally
enclosed. Process emissions from
-------
3762
Federal Register / Vol. 52. No. 24 / Thursday, February 5. 1987 / Proposed Rules
recovery distillation, columns and other
treatment technologies generally are
designed to release air emissions of the
hazardous waste or constituent into the
air environment. Therefor*, by
definition, these onaite technologies are
generally not totally enclosed. [See 45
FR 33218. May 19,1980 (no constituents
released to air during treatment).]
However, it is possible to construct a
product accumulator vessel or
distillation column that prevents the
release of air emissions or is otherwise
totally enclosed. Generally. EPA
interprets "prevents" to include the use
of effective controls such as those
required by the proposed standard. In
addition, the ancillary equipment
affected by these proposed standards
can be designed and operated/
maintained to prevent releases. As a
consequence. EPA believes that some
onsite treatment would be totally
enclosed. The EPA requests comments
on this interpretation of the totally
enclosed facility exemption and the
number and type of onsite totally
enclosed facilities with descriptions of
the control device* and monitoring used
to meet the totally enclosed treatment
exemption.
C. Eliminating the Exemption for the
Act of Reclamation
Today'! proposal would regulate the
activity of reclamation at certain type*
of RCRA facilities for the first tin*. Thi*.
exemption dates front May 19,1980 (45
FR 33034), and was continued when the
Agency amended its regulations relating'
to hazardous waste recycling [40 CFR
261.8{c)(l). August 20.1985}. The basis
for this exemption was the Agency's
initial uncertainty as to an appropriate
regulatory regime for the act of any type
of recycling (45 FR 33084). As the
Agency began studying these question*
EPA began revoking the exemption bjr
promulgating standards for various
types of recycling activities. beginning;
with those most closely resembling
classic types of hazardous, wassst
management [see 40 CFR wn. Jsaaaij
4.1985 (uses constituting disposal.
analogous to land disposal): 40 CFR
266.31. November 2& 19*ft(Dr**ihitio*t
on burning hazardous wast* fuel la
nonindustriai boilers, snslnfjma to
incineration)].
Today's proposal marks* further step
in this process. After studying the
environmental problems associated with
reclamation of organic-rich hnTiido**i
wastes. EPA believes there ts a
substantial problem requiring redress.
Further, after studying various means of
controlling air emissions from
reclamation units and associated
conveyance systems, the Agency
believes that the controls proposed
today provide an appropriate and
protective regulatory regime.
Consequently, the existing regulatory
exemption for the process of
reclamation is no longer appropriate.
Accordingly, EPA is proposing to amend
40 CFR 261.6 to allow covering
reclamation of hazardous wastes
affected by today's proposal. It should
be recognized, however, that today's
proposed rule only applies at facilities
otherwise needing a permit Therefore.
not all reclamation units will necessarily
be affected by this rule.
Today's proposal does not consider
whether to extend coverage of air
emission controls to waste-handling
generators with onsite recycling or
recovery operations for waste solvents
who do not store the spent solvents. The
EPA believes that most generators with
onsite recycling perform this operation
in tanks and are exempt from regulation
based on the provisions of 40 CFR
262.34, which allows accumulation of
hazardous wastes onsite for 90 days* or
less without requiring a TSDF permit
Although EPA has the statutory
authority to require controls for these
operations. EPA has not completed a
technical and administrative assessment
at this time. The EPA is concerned about
the impact of regulating uuuimenilel •
recyden more than regulating
generators with onsite recycling. The
extent of this discontinuity is unclear
however, EPA ha* some reason to
believe that it is insignificant
Generator* with omit* recycling of
solvents generally are covered under air
emission standards associated' with
Section* 111 and 112 of the CAA.
Although CAA standard* would cover
all onsite recycling of benzene and
newly constructed onsite recycling of
many organic sol vent chemicals (many
of which an affected by today's
proposaTfc-BPA does not know how
many existing oasft* recycling
operation* would resuia """ffif.-^ by
either CAA or RCRA standard* for air
emission*; Therefore. EPA is requesting
data on the number of onsite recycling
operation* and any comments on the
impact of regulating commercial
recycler* and not generator* with onsite
recycling. The EPA will study this is***;
and decide oa an appropriate strategy
for public review and comment a* more
information becomes available.
D. Wastewater Treatment Tank
Exemption
Paragraphs 2841(g](e> and 265.1(c)(9>
exempt wastawater treatment tanks and
elementary neutralization units (defined
in 40 CFR 20X10) from Subtitle C
regulation. Today's action does not
affect the scope of that exemption. Thus.
recovery devices such as steam
strippers treating organic-rich hazardous
wastes that would otherwise qualify for
the wastewater treatment exemption are
not covered by today's rule. The Agency
believes there are few or no such units
because wastewater streams ar
invariably more dilute than 10 percent
organics. Because so few units would be
covered. EPA does not regard the
present proposal as the appropriate
instrument to examine the scope of the
wastewater treatment exemption. The
Agency is considering the question in
other contexts, including the
comprehensive Section 3004(n)
standards now under development.
E. Application of Air Emission
Standards to Equipment that Meets the
Definition of a Generator's
Accumulation Tank
Section 282.34 of the RCRA
regulations states that generator tanks
that accumulate hazardous wastes for 90
days or less are not subject to interim
status or final permit standards.
provided they comply with most of the
substantive standards for tanks storing
hazardous wastes. Certain of the -
product accumulator vessels affected by
today's proposed rule would be 90-day
accumulation tanks, namely those that
store or treat (51 FR 25422. July 14; 1986)
hazardous wastes, are emptied every 90
days (51 FR 25427. July 14.1986). and
otherwise meet the substantive tank
standard* enumarated in 40 CFR
26Z34(a) (1) and (4).
The Agency expects that there will be
comparatively few of these tanks
affected by today's proposed rule
because most distillation columns and
other recovery-type tank* are not
operated on a continuous basis and thus
are not physically emptied within a 90-
day timeframe. (As explained, such
tanks would be subject to today's
regulation if the facility needed a RCRA
permit for some independent reason.)
However, certain columns involved in
batch operations may be so emptied and
meet other conditions as well and so
qualify as accumulation tanks. For these
tanks, the question is whether they
should meet today's proposed air
emissions standards as part of the
conditioned exemption from permitting
an interim status.
The EPA has tentatively determined
not to apply the proposed air emission
standards to these tanks at the present
time. The EPA is concerned that many
of the batch columns involved are
extremely small so that the technical
controls proposed today might not be
appropriate. In addition, these columns
-------
may be located at small quantity
generator or small business facilities.
and the Agency needs more time to
study the impacts of imposing controls
on these types of entities.
The EPA specifically requests data on
the following pertinent issues:
• Physical dimensions of these
columns.
• Types of facilities having such
columns.
• Types and volumes of hazardous
wastes treated by these columns.
The EPA should note that it is
currently reassessing the exemption
from permitting an interim status for
accumulation tanks (51 FR 25487).
Today's proposal does not represent any
departure from the issues raised in that
advance notice of proposed rulemaking.
F. Applicability of Other Standards for
Tanks and Tank Systems
Today's proposal for controlling air
emissions would apply standards to
product accumulator vessels and
associated ancillary equipment, as well
as eliminate (for air emission!) the
exemption for the act of recycling
contained in 40 CFR 281.6{c). This
equipment meets the definitions of
"tf"*" and "tank system" found in 40
CFR 260.10 (e.g., distillation columns are
stationary devices containing an
accumulation of hazardous waste, and
they are constructed of nonearthen
materials and would be self-supporting
if- waste is removed);' wu«mg
Tflejquestibh is. thus" presented
whetfwr these tanfts and. tank'systems
should be'corered by the same
standards as other hazardous waste
tanks and tank systems. The fact that
tnere has been at least one instance of
ground water contamination directly
attributable to a leaking distillation
column distilling spent solvents
heightens the Agency's concern. (See
Florida Ground Water Contamination
Sites, Florida Department of
Environmental Regulation. September
1982: Spent solvent contamination of
wells at Pratt and Whitney Aircraft.
West Palm Beach.) The EPA is currently
studying whether then it any difference
m design or other structural features or
waste-handling practice* that would
make imposition of the normally
applicable tank standards inapproDriate
!Ehe EPA solicit, comment on SCjSn?-
The EPA also request* information on
the number of tanks potentially affected.
on the types and nature of the tank
systems of which they are part, and on
the types of controls already in place for
the tanks and tank systems (e.g, do
most distillation columns already have
secondary containment). The EPA
emphasizes that it may decide to require
,;ts ori-Srna/I Quantity
Generators:^''
Under RCRA Section 3001(d), in
drafting regulations affecting generators
of greater than 100 kilograms (kg) and
less than 1.000 kg a month of hazardous
waste. EPA must weigh the impacts of
regulation against the need to protect
human health and the environment
(although any regulations must
adequately protect human health and
the environment). See generally 50 FR
31283-288. August 1.1985: 51 FR 10148,
March 24.1986. The EPA does not
believe the present proposal affects such
small quantity generators. Today's
proposed rules apply only to facilities
already required to obtain an RCRA
permit. The EPA knows of no such small
quantity generator facilities. In addition,
as noted above. EPA is not proposing to
apply the standards to any generators'
90-day accumulation tanks.
Consequently. EPA sees no impacts on
small quantity generators as a result of
today s proposal.
VTIL State Authorization
A. Applicability of Ruin ia Authorised
state*
Under Section 3008 of RCRA, EPA
may authorize qualified States to
administer andenforce the RCRA
Program within the State, (See 40 CFR
Part 271 for the standards and
requirements for authorization.)
Following authorization. EPA retains
enforcement authority under Sections
3008.7003. and 3013 of RCRA. although
authorized States have primary
enforcement responsibility.
Prior to th* HSWA. a State with final
authorization administered its
hazardous wast* program entirely in
lieu of EPA administering the Federal
program in that State. The Federal
requirements no longer applied in the
authorized State, and EPA could not
issue permits for any facilities in the
State that the State was'authorized to
permit. When new, more stringent
Federal requirements were promulgated
or enacted, the State was obliged to
enact equivalent authority within
specified timeframes. New Federal
requirements did not take effect in an
authorized State until the State adopted
the requirements a* State law.
In contrast under the newly enacted
Section 3008fg) of RCRA. 42 U.S.C.
6928fe). new requirements and
prohibitions imposed by the HSWA take
effect in authorized States at the same
time that they take effect in
nonauthorized States. The EPA is
directed to carry out those requirements
and prohibitions in authorized States
including the issuance of permits, until
r!a,te is granted authorization to da
??• Although States must still adopt
HSWA-related provisions as State law
to retain final authorization, the HSWA
applies in authorized States in the
interim.
Today's proposed rule would be
promulgated pursuant to Section 3004(n)
frVJfr?*1 with Provisions added by
HSWA. Thus, it would be added to
Table 1 in 40 CFR 271.i(j). which
identifies the Federal program
requirements that are promulgated
pursuant to HSWA and that take effect
m all States, regardless of their
authorization status. States may apply
for the HSWA provisionsldennSm"
Table l. as discussed in the following
section of this preamble.
3. Effect on State Authorization
As noted above. EPA will implement
today's proposed rule, when
promulgated, in authorized States until
they modify their program* to adopt
these rules and the modification is
approved by EPA. Because therule will
be promulgated pursuant to HSWA, a
State submitting a program modification
may apply to receive either interim or
«"«,a«;*orlzation under RCRA Section
3006{gM2ior 3006(b). respectively, on the
basis of requirements that are
substantially equivalent or equivalent to
EPA s. The procedures and schedule for
State program modifications under
RC5A Section 3008(b) are described in
4° CFR 271.21. The same procedures
should be followed for RCRA Section
3006(g)(2).
Applying 40 CFR 271.21(e)(2), States
that have final authorization must
modify their programs within a year of
promulgation of EPA's regulations if
only regulatory changes are necessary.
or within 2 years of promulgation if
statutory changes are necessary. These
deadlines can be extended in
exceptional cases [40 CFR 271.21(e)(3)f.
States with authorized RCRA
programs may already have
requirements similar to those in today's
proposed rule. These State regulations
have not been assessed against the
Federal regulations being proposed
today to determine whether they meet
the tests for authorization. Thus, a State
is not authorized to carry out these
requirements in lieu of EPA until the
State program modification is approved..
States with existing rules may continue
to administer and enforce their
-------
3764
Federal Register / Vol. 52. No. 24 / Thursday. February 5. 1987 / Proposed Rules
standards as a matter of State law. In
implementing the Federal program. EPA
will work with States under cooperative
agreements to minimize duplication of
efforts.
States that submit official applications
for final authorization in fewer than 12
months after promulgation of EPA's
regulations may be approved without
including standards equivalent to those
promulgated. Once authorized, however,
a Slate must modify its program to
include standards that are substantially
equivalent or equivalent to EPA's within
the time periods discussed above.
IX. Impacts of Proposed Standards
A. Introduction
To evaluate the need for the
requirements to reduce emissions. EPA
developed order-of-magnitude estimates
of the air emissions from and control
costs for WSTF and TSDF. These
estimates were derived using available
information and judgment to develop
best estimates of parameters needed to
characterize emissions, operating
parameters of WSTF and TSDF with
fluids containing organic concentrations
greater than 10 percent and health risks.
Because insufficient information was
available to characterize the
composition of the organic wastes
beyond the total VO content the
uncontrolled emission rate could not be
quantified precisely. Thus, to provide a
broad overview of potential impacts of
air standards, estimates were developed
of the maximum emission rate expected
for highly volatile solvents and of a
likely small emission rate from a WSTF
and from a TSDF with waste streams
containing 10 percent or more organics.
The emission rates for a single WSTF
were projected based on a January 1986
nationwide estimate [assuming 436
million gal (i.e., the sum of the 428
million gal currently distilled and &3
million gallons potentially requiring
treatment)] for waste solvents treated
by distillation processes. The emission
rates for a single affected TSDF wen
projected based on 1.300 TSDF affected
nationally, reflecting a range of 280 to
2.300 potentially affected TSDF. Control
costs and health effects alto wera
estimated for the expected emission
rates and wen projected to a
nationwide basic.
Although these estimates wen
developed from the best available
information, they must be viewed with
considerable uncertainty because then
is a paucity of information on operations
of WSTF and other affected TSDF. The
EPA believes these estimates will serve
to guide discussion on the problem and
to solicit additional information.
The facility and nationwide estimates
of air impacts and control costs are
presented below with expected lower
values and with upper bound estimates
indicated in parentheses to provide an
indication of the potential variation in
impacts of the proposed air standards.
The health impact estimates (which
focus on cancer risks and do not include
other plausible health effects) are
presented as overall nationwide
estimates that consolidate the effects of
variations in populations (rural and
urban population densities),
meteorology, and expected emission
rates. Accordingly, the impacts of any
individual TSDF may differ from the
impacts presented in the preamble.
B. Air Impacts
It is estimated that the proposed
standard will reduce VO emissions to
the atmosphere from WSTF and other
TSDF by approximately 85 and 75
percent, respectively, from the
uncontrolled level at plants with typical
emission rates (93 percent for WSTF
facilities with maximum emission rates).
For the model WSTF used in the impact
analysis' this control represents an
emission reduction from at least 27 Mg/
yr (based on a range of 27 to 155 Mg/yr)
to about 4 Mg/yr (based on-a range of 4
to 11 Mg/yr). Because about 100 model
WSTF would be needed to treat the
estimated 438 million gal of waste
solvents recycled annually, nationwide
emissions would bvreduced from a
minimum level of 2.550 Mg/yr
(maximum level of 14,700 Mg/yr) befon
control to a minimum level of 400 Mg/yr
(a maximum level of 1,000 Mg/yr) after
control. Nationwide fugitive emissions
from other TSDF would be reduced from
about 17,800 Mg/yr to about 4.SOO Mg/
yr. Together, the standards proposed for
WSTF and TSDF are expected to reduce
nationwide emissions from about 28.460
Mg/yr to about 5.460 Mg/yr after
control—an overall reduction of nearly
80 percent
The magnitude of the estimated
emission reductions for TSDF and
WSTF are uncertain because of
differences in volatility of solvents.
uncertainties in waste stream
composition, and difficulties in
developing emission factors for
operations that vary widely. However.
this overall reduction in VO emissions
will assist in the attainment of the
National Ambient Air Quality Standard
for Ozone by reduction in ozone
precursors, and it will reduce the risks
to human health and the environment
from hazardous waste management.
C. Health Impacts
A health impact analysis was
conducted to assess the magnitude of
cancer risk from exposure to air
emissions from WSTF with extrapolated
results applied to TSDF. Although
cancer risks are not the only health
impacts associated with air emissions
from WSTF and TSDF. they are the most
available measure of direct health
effects associated with chronic low-
level exposures to organic solvents. It
should be noted that uncertainties
associated with possible additive
effects, synergism. antagonism, and
heightened susceptibilities cannot be
overemphasized. The health impacts
were estimated using a representative
range of unit risk factors (e.g., 2X10"7 to
2x 10"s cases per microgram per cubic
meter per person) to estimate the
magnitude of risks posed by WSTF at
both typical and maximum emissions
rates. The nationwide maximum
individual lifetime risk was assumed to
be the highest individual risk calculated
for the model cases analyzed. The
Human Exposure Model (HEM) was
used to predict nationwide health
effects of exposure to suspected
carcinogens in the VO emissions from
WSTF. It is considered a reasonable
indicator for this screening evaluation.
The HEM has been used successfully in
many EPA risk assessments, but it does
add an additional element of
uncertainty because of the inherent
assumptions of the model. However, a
more detailed risk assessment cannot be
performed until further information and
data are available. Consequently, the
nationwide annual incidence was
calculated as the average annual
incidence considering the projected
number of WSTF and the range in
emission rates, geographic location, and
urban/rural sites expected for WSTF.
This scoping analysis showed that the
standard will reduce the maximum
individual lifetime risk of cancer from
WSTF operating at the upper bound
emission rate from about 3.7x10"' to
2.6X10*'. The nationwide annual
incidence of cancer in the population
living within 50 km of uncontrolled
WSTF is estimated to be abov.. 0.34
case/yr assuming the midpoint of the
unit risk factor range. The proposed
standard will reduce this nationwide
incidence rate to about 0.028 case/yr.
The proposed standard for TSDF would
reduce annual incidence from about 0.65
case/yr to about 0.13 case/yr.
Nationwide annual incidence from
TSDF and WSTF together would be
reduced from about 1 case/yr to about
0.16 case/yr.
-------
Because of the assumptions that were
made in estimating emissions and in
calculating these maximum lifetime risk
and annual incidence estimates, there is
considerable uncertainty associated
with these risk estimates. These
uncertainties are the result of the
uncertainties in the emission estimates
and to a number of simplifying
assumptions made in the health risk
analysis and in extrapolation of the
estimates to a nationwide basis. In
particular, there are uncertainties
regarding the appropriate magnitude of
the individual pollutant unit risk factors
for this analysis. This sort of uncertainty
is exacerbated because unit risk factors
nave been developed for only a few of
the Appendix VD compounds that might
be emitted by WSTF and TSDF. There
are also uncertainties concerning
possible additive effects of multiple
pollutants, synergistic or antagonistic
health effects, and heightened
susceptibilities to some cancers by some
population subgroups. Although
exposure to ozone may be related to a
variety of both health and
environmental effects, it is unclear how
ozone-related impacts will be quantified
until some ongoing analyses an
completed. These factors make it
difficult to determine the absolute
magnitude of the risk to human health.
D, Cost Impacts
Upper and lower bound estimates of
control costs for a model WSTF were
developed for process emission control
using add-on control devices (such at
secondary condensers, incinerators, or
flares) and for fugitive emission control
These estimates were extrapolated to a
nationwide basis assuming that
approximately 100 model WSTF would
be controlled and two basic
combinations of control devices would
be used. Depending on the process
control device assumed in the
estimation, the nationwide capital cost
for the standard is estimated to rant*
from approximately$24 million totMU
million, and the 1980 annualized cost it
estimated to rang* from approximately
$1.3 million/yr to til million/yr without
recovery credit or from SUOOOO/w ta
$10.6 million/yr with the .Mumpa3^ of
a recovery credit (It* average capital
cost/model plant is estimated to ranoe
from $30,200 to 8174.500, and the ^^
annual i^Mi MM*** «M<*|UM.*
Consequently, it is expected that the
actual cost of the standard will be closer
to the lower, which reflects use of
secondary condensers, than the upper
;s post estimate, which reflects use of'add-
-on combustion control devices.
-^Annual net costs are estimated at
about S7,400/yr for the TSDF model
facility, considering recovery credits
Assuming a midpoint estimate of 1,300
facilities, the estimated nationwide
annual cost of control under the
proposed standards is about $9.6
million/yr. Combined nationwide net
"""Hi1 and capital costs for TSDF and
today's proposed standards. If
commenters believe a particular
standard is unsuitable for their
equipment1 they should document why
he s andard should not apply in light of
he standards' widespread applicability
and $35.3 million/yr. respectively.
X. Request for Further Information
As discussed in Section IX of this
preamble, order-of-magnitude estimates
of air emissions, health risks, and
control costs were developed for WSTF
These estimates were developed using
the best available information but
contain considerable uncertainties
because the available information was
not comprehensive. To refine these
assessments of potential impact* and
benefit* of emission control. EPA is
specifically requesting comments in
several area*.
. T^EPA requests comment*.
including data, on factor* that may
affect the feasibility of complying with
the proposed standards for WSTF and
TSDF or of achieving the proposed
emission reductions. In particular. EPA
requests that commenters submit data
on emission rates, including information
on composition and content of the
waste* being processed: factor*
affecting emissions, including the effect
of batch operation* on process end
{$£$£* "?!2J22 ***** *• number of
WSTF and TSDF currently controlling
process and fugitive emission*; and the
number of procese vent*, accumulator
vessel* and other tank* affected by the
proposedstandard*. The EPA request*
information that would help reduce th*
uncertainty with the number of TSDF.
including recyclers. covered by the
•'•"d*"* *nd date on the number of
offsite recyclers who reryr^ wSthcut
prior storage. Th* EPA requests
comments on the number of totally
enclosed treatment unite currently
iTH<» ananHnn nt >k...
oased on assumptions that may
represent significant overestimate* of
control cost* compared to what actually
may be experienced, particularly if th«
facilities us* existing boiler* or nnace*
to control process-vent VO emission*.
——•—•— —•!••«• l^«l» VI
excluded from coverage nnoerfCCKA.
The EPA also requests comment* on the
public health and environmental effect*
of VO emissions from these WSTF
operation* and TSDF operation* in
general. The EPA also requests
comment* on the approach based on
~»UUUBUI* vu UIB •pjmwa oesea on
using VO as measured by total organic*
in comparison to an approach based on
using specific chemical constituents in
regulating the air pollution affected by
uuiueu u me URA standards, which
are used as the oasi* for the proposed
•tandards. The EPA believes thisis a
reasonable approach because studies of
these devices used in many industries
and applications indicate that their
design can be documented with
sufficient and precis* detail to allow the
pA to decide whether the device ha*
been designed to achieve the proposed
standards. The engineering involved in
designing these devices is
straightforward and well understood by
practicing professionals in the air
pollution control field. The monitoring of
these device*, in contrast to performing
emission tests, to determine proper
operation of these devices is also
straightforward and understood by
practicing professionals in th* air
pollution control field. The monitoring of
these devices is done to ensure that they
are operated within their design and
therefore that they achieve the intended
results of the standards. Th* EPA is
requesting comments on this approach
and the decision to us* design and
monitoring requirements rather than
performance testing as the basis for
determining compliance with these
standards.
-------
3766
Federal Register / Vol. 52. N'o. 34 / Thursday. February 5. 1987 / Proposed R
In order to estimate the potential cost.
economic, and risk impacts associated
with requiring waste solvent recovery
units to comply with the 40 CFR Part 61
Subpart) hazardous waste tank
regulations, the Agency must
characterize the solvent recovery unit
and facility population. At this time, the
Agency has limited data available to
conduct such impact analyses. As a
result, the Agency today requests
comments that provide the specific
information necessary to decide
whether the waste solvent recovery
units should comply with the 40 CFR
Part 61 Subpart) requirements.
The EPA's Office of Solid Waste
(OSW) has conducted a 1986 TSDF
screening survey that, once final, will
provide a current estimate of the
number of TSDF with waste solvent
recovery operations. However, the
survey will not provide information on
the number of waste solvent recovery
units per TSDF. Other needed waste
solvent recovery unit characteristic!
include design capacity, dimensions.
length of ancillary piping, types of
ancillary equipment such as pumps.
material of construction, age, and waste
solvent throughput (e.g.. gal/day, gal/
mo). In addition to waste solvent
recovery unit characteristics. EPA needs
waste solvent characteristic data. Such
information includes waste constituents
and constituent concentrations.
Moreover, the Agency needs
information on the facilities that have
waste solvent recovery operations such
as the number of waste solvent recovery
units per facility, types of industries.
number of employees, net income, or
sales.
If EPA does not receive adequate
information from public comments, the
Agency must rely on waste solvent
recovery or distillation unit
characteristic information from a 1961
TSDF survey. These survey data provide
such information for a sample of about
11 waste solvent recovery or distillation
units. The 1981 survey data, include
Information on design capacity, material
of construction, and age. Other
important factors such u extent of
ancillary equipment or wast*
characteristics must be estimated using
best professional judgment. Because the
Agency prefer* to base the decision of
how to regulate waste solvent recovery
tanks on the most current thorough, and
reliable data. EPA is today requesting
detailed Information on the potentially
regulated waste solvent recovery unit
and facility population.
The EPA is proposing in today's
notice to add a new part to 40 CFR. The
EPA had the option of adding the
proposed standards to 40 CFR Parts 264
and 265, or possibly Part 266. However.
because the proposed standards cover
several units regulated under 40 CFR
Parts 264 and 26S and. therefore, would
have been added to several subparts
within these parts, EPA decided to add a
separate part that concerned air
emission standards. In addition. EPA is
considering which program office should
implement the air emission standards. If
EPA Regional or State air program
offices implement RCRA air emission
standards, then a separate part would
allow these offices to implement the
standards without first learning the
entire RCRA regulatory framework. The
EPA requests comments on adding a
new 40 CFR Part 269 to contain air
emission standards under RCRA.
The EPA will base the final standards
on the evaluation used as the basis for
the proposed standards and
consideration of comments on and data
concerning the proposed standards. In
particular, the final standards will
reflect appropriate reconsideration of
the proposed standards based on
revisions to the analysis resulting from
significant comments on the feasibility.
the effectiveness, and costs of process
and fugitive emission controls.
Comments on the regulatory approach
used to establish the proposed
standards and to cover recyclable
materials and TSDF in general also an
requested.
XL Administrative Requirement*
A. Public Hearing
The Agency will hold a public hearing
on March 23,1987. The hearing will be
held at EPA's Office of Administration
Auditorium. Research Triangle Park.
North Carolina, beginning at 104)0 a.m.
Anyone wishing to make a statement at
the hearing should notify, hi writing, Ms.
Geraldine Wyer. Public Participation
Officer. Office of Solid Waste (WH-
562). U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. 401M Street SW, Washington.
DC204«X
Oral and written statement* may be
submitted at the public hearing. Person*
who wish to make oral presentations
must restrict them to 15 minutes and are
encouraged to have written copies of
their complete comments for inclusion in
the public record.
& Docket
The docket is an organized and
complete file of all the information
submitted to or otherwise considered by
EPA in the development of this proposed
rulemaking. The principal purpose* of
the docket.are: (1) to allow interested
parties to identify and locate documents
so they can effectively participate in the
rulemaking process and (2) to serve as
the record in case of judicial review.
Additional information on the basis
for the emissions, contract cost, and
health risk estimates is presented in
"RCRA TSDF Air Emission Standards-
Background Technical Memoranda for
Proposed Standards" EPA^tsO/3-86-
009). Other technical information
considered in the development of the
estimates also is presented in Docket F-
86-AESP. The docket is available for
public inspection between 9:00 a.m. and
4:00 p.m.. Monday through Friday.
excluding holidays, in room S-212 U.S. •
Environmental Agency, 401M Street.
SW, Washington. DC 20460.
C. External Participation
Development of the basic background
information included consultation with
appropriate advisory committees.
independent experts, and Federal
departments and agencies. The EPA will
welcome comments on all aspects of the
proposed regulation, including economic
and technological issues.
D. Office of Management and Budgat
Reviews - ••
1. Impact* of Reporting and
Recordkeeping Requirements ./
The proposed standard includes
provisions that require semiannual
reports of leak detection and repair
efforts within a process unit. The EPA
believes that the required reporting and
recordkeeping requirements are
necessary to assist EPA in (1)
identifying sources, (2) determining
initial compliance, and (3) enforcing the
standard*.
The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
of 1980 (P. L. 98-811) requires that the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) approve reporting and
recordkeeping requirements that qualify
as an "Information collection request"
(ICR). To accommodate OMB review.
EPA uses 3-year periods in its impact
analysis procedures for estimating the
'abor-hour burden of reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
. The average annual burden on WSTF
and TSDF to comply with the reporting
and recordkeeping requirements of the
proposed standard* over the first 3
years after the effective date is
estimated to be about 230 person-years.
This amounts to about ftS person-hours
per week per affected WSTF and TSDF.
Most of this burden is already included
in the annualized cost of the proposed
standards.
-------
Federal Register / VoL 52. .V0. 24 / Thurs^y. February 5. 1987 ;
2. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection
requirements in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to the OMB
under the PRA of 1980. 44 U.S.C. 3S01 et
seq. Comments on these requirements
should be submitted to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs of
OMB, marked "Attention: Desk Officer
for EPA." as well as to EPA. The final
rule will respond to any OMB or public
comments on the information collection
requirements.
3. Executive Order 12291 Review
Under Executive Order (E.O.) 12291,
EPA must judge whether a regulation is
"major" and therefore subject to the
requirement of a Regulatory Impact
Analysis (RIA). This proposed
regulation is not major because it would
result in none of the adverse economic
effects set forth in Section 1 of E.O.
12291 as grounds for finding a regulation
to be major. The industry-wide
annualized costs in the 5th year after the
standards would go into effect would be
less than $10 million, which is less than
the $100 million established as the first
criterion for a major regulation in E.O.
12291. Price increases associated with
the proposed standards would not be -•
considered a "major increase in costsjor
prices" specified as the second criterion
in E.O.12291. The proposed standards.
effect on the industry would not result in
any significant adverse effects^
competition, investment. prodiicuvHjh -
employment, innovation, or the ability of
US. f.rms to compete with foreign firms
(the third criterion in E.0.12291).
This proposed regulation was
submitted to OMB for review as
required by E.0.12291. Any written
comments from OMB to EPA and any
EPA responses to those comments will
be included in Docket F-86-AESP. This
docket is available for public inspection
at the address indicated under the
ADOMISM* section in this notice.
4. Regulatory Flexibility Act Compliance
* ^"/S,1 to the Re8«latory Flexibility
Act (U.S.C. 601 etseq.). whenever an
Agency is required to publish a general
notice of rulemaking for any proposed or
final rule, it must prepare and make
available for public comment a
regulatory flexibility analysis (RFA) that
describes the impact of the rules on
small entities (i.e.. small business, small
organizations, and small governmental
jurisdictions). No RFA is required.
however, if the head of the Agency
certifies that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. The
EPA considered the impacts on small
businesses for this proposed rulemaking.
jf The EPA has established guidelines
|pr determining whether an RFA is
jStrequired'tpiaecompany a rulemaking
package. .The guidelines state that if at
least 20 percent of the universe of "small
entities" is affected by the rule, then an
RFA is required. In addition. EPA
criteria should be applied to evaluate if
a regulation will have a "significant
impact" on small entities. If any one of
the following four criteria is met. the
regulation should be assumed to have a
"significant impact":
(1) Annual compliance costs will
increase the relevant production costs
for small entities by more than 5
percent.
(2) The ratio of compliance costs to
sales will be 10 percent higher for small
entities than for large entities.
(3) Capital costs of compliance will
represent a significant portion of the
capital available to small entities, taking
into account internal cash flow plus
external financing capabilities.
(4) The costs of the regulation will
likely result in closures of small entities.
--. *" considering whether an RFA was
ttgOflVd. EPA first consjdtmd whether
smaffintities would be affected By the
rule. The only entities affected by the
rule are those required to have a permit
for treatment storage and disposal of a
-ms waste. FewrlflBfcfebf Atff j
. a are "small entities." Thus, EW
has concluded that the proposed rule
would not have a substantial impact on
small entities and. therefore, did not
prepare an RFA.
Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C
60S(b). I hereby certify that this rule, if
promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small business entities
because the economic impact of the
proposed rule is not significant.
Dated: January 13. 1967.
Lee M. Thomas,
AJminfstrator.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble. Chapter I. Title 40. of the
Code of Federal Regulations, is
proposed to be amenc jd as follows.
PART 261—IDENTIFICATION AND
LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
1. The authority citalion for Part 26t
continues to read as follows:
y: Sections 1008. 2002(a). 3C
-017. of the Solid Waste Disposal
._ro. as amended by the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 as
amended {42 U.S.C. 6905. 6912.6921. 6922.
and 6937.
2. Section 261.6 would be amended as
follows:
a. By revising the parenthetical text at
the end of paragraph (c)(l) to read as
follows:
(c)(l) * * * (The recycling process
itself is exempt from regulation except
as provided in 281.6(d)).
b. By adding new paragraph (c)(2)(iii)
and new paragraph (d) to read as
follows: - -
* » . » . '
(c) • ' -
(2) ...
(iii) Section 281.6(d) of this chapter.
3 * £ (nUPWB&PVperators of facilities
mafWore^atKRHat recyclable materials
are subject fo the requirements of 4O
CFR Part 269 Subpart A and C, except
as provided in paragraph (a) of this
section, if they must obtain a permit
under Part 270 of this chapter for a
reason inrfemmrfan* nf Da>* ion «r «i
unapier, ana u tney own or operate
equipment in VHAP service (as defined
in Subpart C of Part 269).
PART 264—STANDARDS FOR
OWNERS AND OPERATORS Of
HA7ARIWIO UlagTB VBVAW»>
Administrative practice and
procedure. Air pollution control.
Confidential business information.
Hazardous materials. Hazardous
materials transportation. Hazardous
waste. Incorporation by reference.
Intergovernmental relations. Packaging
and containers. Recycling, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
Security measures. Surety bonds.
Treatment storage, and disposal
facilities. Waste treatment and disposal
Water pollution control. Water supply.
FACILITIES
1. The authority citation for Part 264
continues to read as follows:
^ Authority: Sections 1008,2002(a). 3004. and
3005 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1970,
as amended by the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act of 1976 a« amended (42
U.S.C. 6905.6912(a). 6924. and 8925).
2. Section 264.1 is amended by adding
paragraph (h) as follows:
§264.1 Purpose, scop*, and appNcabiHty.
.....
(h) The regulations of Part 269 apply
to owners and operators for all
-------
3788
Federal Register / Vol. 52. No. 24 / Thursday, February 5. 1987 / Proposed Rules
hazardous waste facilities, except as
provided in § 264.1(b) and in Part 269.
PART 265— INTERIM STATUS
STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND
OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND
DISPOSAL FACILITIES
I. The authority citation for Part 265
continues to read as follows:
Authority: Sections 1006.2002(a). 3004.
3005. and 3015 of the Solid Waste Disposal
Act as amended by the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976. as
amended (42 U.S.C. 6095.6912(a), 6924. 6925.
and 6935).
2. Section 265.1 is amended by adding
paragraph (d) as follows:
§285.1 Purpose, scope and appMcaMny.
• » • • •
(d) The regulations of Part 269 apply
to owners and operators of all
hazardous waste facilities, except as
provided in § 265.1 and in 40 CFR Part
269.
PART 269—AIR EMISSION
STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND
OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
TREATMENT. STORAGE; AND
DISPOSAL FACILITIES
1. Part 289. is added to read as follows!
PART 289—AIR EMISSION
STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND
OPERATORS OP HAZARDOUS WASTE
TREATMENT. STORAGE. AND
DISPOSAL FACILITIES
Subpart A—General
S«c.
269.1 Purpose, scope, and applicability.
269.2 Incorporation by reference.
Subpart B tneeecvedl
Subpart C—equipment leaks and
accumulator vessel*
269.30 Applicability.
269.31 Definition*.
269.32 Standards for facilities with final
permit
269.33 Standards for facilities during intariim
status.
259,34 Special requireoaflts.
Authority: Section* 100ft SMB. 3001-3007.
3010. 3014.3015. 3017. 3018. 3019, and 7004 of
the Solid Waste Olspotal Act of 1970. aa
amended by the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act of 1970 as amended (42 U.S.C.
6905.8012.8021-00Z7.8830.8934.6833.8937.
693S. 6939. and 0074).
Subpart A—General
§2*9.1 Purpoe*. scope, and appUcabMMy.
(a) The purpose of this part ia to
establish minimum national standards
that define acceptable air pollution
control management of hazardous
wastes.
(b) The standards of this part apply to
owners and operators of all facilities
that treat, store and dispose of
hazardous waste, except as specifically
provided otherwise in this part or Parts
261. 262. 264. 265. and 270 of this
chapter.
§289.2 Incorporation by reference.
The materials listed below are
incorporated by reference in the
corresponding sections noted. These
incorporations by reference were
approved by the Director of the Federal
Register on the date listed. These
materials are incorporated as they exist
on the date of the approval and a notice
of any change in these materials will be
published in the Federal Register. The
materials are available for purchase at
the corresponding address noted below,
and all are available for inspection at
the Office of the Federal Register. Room
8401.1100 L Street NW., Washington.
DC. and at the Library (MD-35). U.S.
EPA. Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina.
(a) The following materials are
available for purchase from at least one
of the following addresses: American
Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM). 1916 Race Street. Philadelphia.
Pennsylvania 19103: or the University
Microfilms international. 300 North Zeeb
Road. Aim Arbor, Michigan 48108.
(1) ASTM. E189-83 (reapproved 1977).
General Techniques of Ultraviolet
Quantitative Analysis, IBR approved for
§ 269.34(a).
(2) ASTM E158-67 (reapproved 1977),
General Techniques of Infrared
Quantitative Analysis. IBR approved for
! 269.34(a).
(3) ASTM E 280-73. General Gas
Chromatography Procedures. IBR
approved for 1269.34{a).
(4) ASTM 0 2287-68 (reapproved
1978), Aramatics in Light Naphthas and
Aviation Gasoline by Gas
Chromatography, IBR approved for
f 269.34(a).
(b) The following materials are
available for purchase from the
following address: National Technical
Information Service, 5285 Port Royal
Road, Springfield, Virginia 22181.
(1) Control of Gaseous Air Pollutants.
IBR approved for 127O22(a).
(2) SW-848. Test Methods for
Evaluating Solid Waata: Physical/
Chemical Methods. IBR approved for
5269.34{a).
Subpart B—{Reservedl
Subpart C—Equipment Leaks and
Accumulator Vessels
§269.30 ApeiicabiWy.
(a) The regulations in this subpart
apply to owners or operators of facilities
that treat, store, or dispose hazardous
wastes except as provided in S 269.1. if
they must obtain a permit under Part 270
for a reason independent of Part 269.
(b) The regulations in this subpart
control and monitor air emissions
associated with equipment, process
vents, and accumulator vessels in
volatile hazardous air pollutant (VHAPJ
service.
S 269.31 Definition*.
As used in this subpart all terms not
defined herein shall have the meaning
given them in the Act Parts 260,261.
262,283,264,285. or 288; and Subpart V
of Part 81:
(a) "Equipment" means each valve.
pump, compressor, pressure relief
device, sampling connection system,
open-ended valve or line, flange, or
product accumulator vessel in VHAP
service, and any control devices or
systems required by this subpartT;
(b) "Process vent" means any open*
ended pip* or stack that is vented to the
atmosphere either directly or through a
vacuum-producing system. A process
vent is In VHAP service if the vapor is
at least 10 percent by weight VHAP.
(c) "Product accumulator vessel"
means any distillate receiver.
condenser, bottoms receiver, surge
control vessel, product separator, or hot
well (i.e.. container holding unvolatilized
process stream) that is vented to the
atmosphere either directly or through a
vacuum-producing system. A product
accumulator vessel is in VHAP service if
the liquid or the vapor is at least 10
percent by weight VHAP.
(d) "Vented" means discharged
through an opening, typically an
openended pipe or stack, permitting the
passage of liquids, gases, or fumes into
the atmosphere. The passage of liquids.
gases, or fumes is caused by mechanical
means such as compressors or process-
related means such as evaporation
produced by heating and not by natural:
means such as diurnal temperature
changes.
(e) "In VHAP service" means that a
piece of equipment either contains or
contacts an organic fluid (slurry, liquid
or gas or other emanation) associated
with management of a hazardous waste.
hazardous wastes, or their derivatives in
concentrations greater than 10 percent
by weight "In VHAP service" is
-------
determined according to the provisions
of § 269.34(a). The provisions of
§ 269.34(a) also specify how to
determine that a piece of equipment is
not in VHAP service.
ff) "Surge control vessel" means any
tank used to control or equalize the flow
of process fluids within a process unit
that is vented.
(g) "VHAP" means organic liquids or
gases (1) that are either hazardous
wastes or derivatives of these
hazardous wastes and (2) that are
associated with hazardous waste
management.
§ 269.32 Standards for facilities with final
permit
(a) Owners and operators of facilities
subject to the provisions of this subpart
shall comply with the requirements of 40
CFR Part 61 Subpart V, except as
provided in this subpart.
(b) Each process vent shall be
equipped with a closed-vent system
capable of capturing and transporting
any emissions from the vent to a control
device as described in § 61.242-11.
(c) The provisions of 40 CFR 61.244
Subpart V do not apply in this
regulation.
§269.33 Standard* for facilities durina
Interim status.
(aj Owners and operators of facilities
subject to the provisions of this subpart
shall comply with the requirements of 4d
CFR Part 81 Subpart V during interim
status, except as provided in this
subpart.
(b) Each process vent shall be
equipped with a closed-vent system
capable of capturing and transporting
any emissions from the vent to a control
device as described in $ 61.242-11.
{c) The provisions of 40 CFR 61.242-11
Subpart V apply during interim status on
the following basis:
(l) The owner and operator shall
comply with this paragraph within 24
months after (date of
promulgation in Federal Register).
(2) The owner and operator shall
complete construction of the control
device and closed-vent system used to
comply with this paragraph within 21
months after (date of
promulgation hi Federal Register).
(3) The owner and operator shall
commence construction of the control
device and closed-vent system used to
comply with this paragraph within 9
months after (date of
promulation in Federal Register).
(4) The owner and operator shall
complete the design of the control
device and closed-vent system used to
comply with this paragraph within 0
months of the effective date.
(5) The owner or operator shall
monitor the control device using the
following parameters in conjunction
with the Requirements of § 61.242-11:
•*%.(') For/condensers, coolant fluid
temperature and exhaust aas
temperature.
- (ii) For carbon adsorbers, carbon bed
temperatures and exhaust gas organic-
breakthrough.
(iii) For incinerators, exhaust gas
temperature.
(iv) For flares, visible emissions and
pilot flame detection.
(v) For any recovery system, annual
material balances.
(d) The provisions of 40 CFR 61.244
Subpart V do not apply in this
regulation.
(e) The owner or operator of any
facility that is subject to this subpart
and to regulations at 40 CFR Part 60
Subpart W or 40 CFR Part 61 Subpart V
may elect to demonstrate compliance
with this subpart by documentation
either pursuant to 3 270.22 of this
subpart. or pursuant to those provisions
of 40 CFR Part 60 or 61, to the extent the
documentation under the regulation at
40 CFR Part 60 or Part 61 duplicates the
documentation required under this
subpart
S26f.3* Special requirements;
[a)(lj Each-piece of equipment within
a facility that can conceivably be in
VHAP service is presumed to be in
.VHAP service unless an owner or
operator demonstrates that the piece of
equipment is not in VHAP service. For a
piece of equipment to be considered not
in VHAP service, it must be determined
that the percent organic content of the
process fluid can be reasonably
expected never to exceed 10 percent by
weight For purposes of determining the
percent organic content of the process
fluid that is contained in or contacts
equipment procedures that conform to
the methods described in ASTM Method
D-2287-68, E169-63. E168-07, E 260-73
or Method 9060 of SW-848 (incorporated
by reference as specified in $ 269.2)
shall be used.
(2) An owner or operator may use
engineering judgment rather than the
procedures in paragraph (a)(l) of this
section to demonstrate that the percent
organic content of the process fluid does
not exceed 10 percent by weight.
provided that the engineering judgment
demonstrates that the organic content
clearly does not exceed 10 percent by
weight. When an owner or operator and
the Administrator do not agree on
whether a piece of equipment is not in
VHAP service, however, the procedures
in paragraph (a)(l) of this section shall
be used to resolve the disagreement.
(3) If an owner or operator determines
that a piece of equipment is in VHAP
service, the determination can be
revised only after following the
procedures in paragraph (a)(l) of this
section.
(4) Samples used in determining the
percent organic content shall be
representative of the process fluid that
is contained in or contacts the
equipment.
PART 270-EPA ADMINISTERED
PERMIT PROGRAMS: THE
HAZARDOUS WASTE PERMIT
PROGRAM
1. The authority citation for Part 270
continues to read as follows:
Authority: Section* 1006.2002. 3005.3007
3019. and 7004 of the Solid Waste Disposal
Act of 1970, as amended by the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act of 1978 as
amended [42 U.S.C. 6905.6912,6921-6927.
6930, 6934. 6935,6937. 6938.693ft and 9974}.
2. Section 270.22 is added as follows:
§270.22 Specific Part 8 Information
retirements for air emIsslsmtaiiaM Us.
under Part 260. ;
Except as otherwise provided in
5 289.1. owners^ operators of faculties
. affected by the requirements of Part 269
must provide the following information:
(a) For Subpart C of Part 269.
(1) Documentation that demonstrates
compliance with the provisions of 40
CFR Part 61 Subpart V. excluding
9 61.242-11. This documentation shall
contain the reports and records required
under 5 J 61.245.81.248, and 61.247. The
Administrator may request further
documentation before deciding if
compliance with the interim status
standards has been demonstrated.
(2) Documentation that demonstrates
compliance with 3 61.242-11. In addition
to the reports and records required
under §5 61.245 and 61.246. the
documentation shall include the
following information:
(i) A listing of the background
information material used
-------
3770
Federal Register / Vol. 52. No. 24 / Thursday. February 5. 1987 / Proposed Rules
PART 271—REQUIREMENTS FOR
AUTHORIZATION OF STATE
HAZARDOUS WASTE PROGRAMS
1 The authority citation for Part 271
<:"!ilinuos to read as follows:
Authority: Sections 1006. 2002(d|. and 3006
>
------- |