Thursday
June 21, 1990
Part ill
Environmental
Protection Agency
40 CFR Parts 260, 261, 264, 265, 270, 271
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage,
and Disposal FacilitiesOrganic Air
Emission Standards for Process Vents
Equipment Leaks; Final Rule
-------
25454 A. .'-Federal.Register / VoL 55. No. 120 / Thursday,"June 21, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 260,261,264,265,270,
and 271
[FHL-3614-3]
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage,
and Disposal FacilitiesOrganic Air
Emission Standards for Process Vents
and Equipment Leaks
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: The EPA is today
promulgating standards that limit
organic air emissions as a class at
hazardous waste treatment, storage, and
disposal facilities (TSDF) requiring a
permit under subtitle C of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act
[RCRA). Today's action is the first part
of a multiphased regulatory effort to
control air emissions at new and
existing hazardous waste TSDF. The
rule establishes final standards limiting
organic emissions from (1) process vents
associated witb distillation, :.,-,.'.'
fractionation, thin-film evaporation,
solvent extraction, and air or steam
stripping operations that manage
hazardous wastes with 10 parts per
million by weight (ppmw) or greater
total organics concentration, and (2)
leaks from equipment that contains or
contacts hazardous waste streams with
10 percent by weight or greater total
organics. These standards were .
proposed in the Federal Register on
February $, 1987 (52 FR 3748).
The final standards are promulgated
under the authority of section 3004 of the
Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments (HSWA) to the RCRA. The
EPA is required by section 3004(n) of
RCRA to promulgate standards for the
monitoring and control of air emissions
from hazardous waste TSDF as
necessary to protect human health and
the environment The EPA plans to
promulgate additional standards under
this section in two further phases. Phase
II will consist of air standards for
organic emissions from surface
impoundments, tanks, containers, and
miscellaneous units. These standards
are scheduled for proposal later this
year. In Phase ffl, the residual risk-from
the first two phases will be assessed
and, if necessary, EPA will develop
further regulations or guidance to
protect human health and the
environment from the effects of TSDF
air emissions.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is .
effective on December 21,1930. The
incorporation by .reference of certain ,
publications listed in the regulations is
approved by Hie Director of the Federal
Register as of September 5 and October
11,1989.
ADDRESSES: The official record for this
final rulemaking is contained in Docket
No. F-80-AESF-^FFFF. This docket and
the proposal docket (Docket No. F-88-
AESP^FFFFF) are available for public
inspection at the EPA RCRA Docket
Office (OS-300) in room 2427M of the
U.S Environmental Protection Agency,
401M Street SW.. Washington, DC
20460. Additional information
concerning the development of the
equipment leak standards is contained
in Docket No. A-79r-27, which is
available for public inspection at EPA's
Central Docket Section, room 2903B,
Waterside Mall, 401M Street SW,
Washington, DC 20460. For further
information, see the discussion of
supporting documentation for the rules
under section X of this preamble.
Background information document:
The background information document
(BID) for the final standards may be
obtainedffrom the U.S. EPA Library
(MD-35), Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711, telephone (919) 541-
2777. Please refer to "Hazardous Waste
Treatment, Storage, and Disposal
Facilities (TSDF)Background
Information for Promulgated Organic
Emission Standards for Process Vents
and Equipment Leaks" (EPA-450/3-89-
009). The EPA has prepared a technical
guidance document to aid in
implementation of these rules. This
document may also be obtained from
the U.S. EPA Library (see above
address). Please refer to "Hazardous
Waste TSDFTechnical Guidance
Document for RCRA Air Emission
Standards for Process Vents and
Equipment Leaks" (EPA-150/3-89-21}.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: ~
The RCRA Hotline, toll-free at (800) 424-
9346. For further information on
regulatory aspects of these standards,
contact Rick Colyer, Standards
Development Branch, Emission
Standards Division (MD-13), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711, telephone number (919) 541-5262.
For further information on the technical
aspects of these standards, contact
Robert Lucas, Chemicals and Petroleum
Branch, telephone number (919)-541-
0884, at the same address. For further
information on test methods associated
with these standards; contact Terry
Harrison, Emission Measurement
Branch, telephone number (919) 541-
5233. at the same address as above.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
contents of today's preamble are listed
in the following outline:
L Authority
EL Summary of Final Standards
A. Vents on Hazardous Waste
Management Process Units
B. Equipment Leaks on Hazardous Waste
Management Process Units
EL Background
A. Regulatory Authority
B. Regulatory Scope of Today's Standards
C. Air Standards under RCRA Section
3004(n)
D. Other RCRA Air Standards
E. Relationship of Air Standards to Other
Subtitle C Rules
F. Relationship of Today's Final Standards
to the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA)
IV. Applicability and Requirements of
Proposed Process Vent and Equipment
Leak Standards
V. Applicability and Requirements of Today's
Final Standards
A. Scope of Final Standards
B. Standards for Process Vents
C. Equipment Leak Standards
D. Summary of Changes from .Proposal
E. Relationship of RCRA Exemptions to
Final Standards
VL Summary of Comments and Responses
A. Regulatory Issues
B. Standards and Applicability
C. Control Technology
D. Impact Analyses Methodologies
E. Implementation and Compliance
VB. Summary of Impacts of Final Standards
A. Overview of the Source Category
B. Use of Models in the Regulatory
Development Process
C. Emission Impacts
D. Ozone Impacts
E. Health Risk Impacts ,.
F. Cost Impacts
Vm. State Authorization
A. Applicability of Rules in Authorized
States
B. Effect on State Authorizations
DC Implementation
X. Administrative Requirements
A. Regulatory Impact Analysis
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
D. Supporting Documentation
E. List of Subjects
L Authority
These regulations are promulgated
under the authority of sections 1006,
2002, 3001-3007, 3010, 3014, and 7004 of
the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1970, as
amended by RCRA, as amended (42
U.S.C. 6905, 6912,6921-6927, 6930. 6934,
and 6974).
H. Summary of Final Standards
The standards limit emissions of
organics from certain process vents .and
equipment leaks at new and existing
hazardous waste TSDF requiring a
permit under RCRA subtitle C P-e.,
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 1990 / Rules and Regulations 25455
permitted TSDF and TSDF that need
authorization to operate under RCRA
section 3005(e}). This applicability
includes all hazardous waste
management units that require RCRA
oermits and recycling units that are not
subject to RCRA permit requirements', if,
independent of today's final rules, a
RCRA permit is needed for another part
of the facility operations.
A. Vents on Hazardous- Waste
Management Process Units
. -Today's final standards are applicable
to vents on waste management units
that manage hazardous waste with an
annual average total organics
concentration of 10 ppmw or greater
(hereafter referred to as "process!
vents") and specifically include (1)
process vents on distillation,
fractionation, thin-film evaporation,
solvent extraction, and air or steam
stripping operations and vents on
condensers serving these operations;
and (2) process vents on tanks (e.g.,
distillate receivers, bottoms receivers,
surge control tanks, separator tanks, and
hot wells) associated with distillation,,
fractionation, thin-film evaporation,
solvent extraction, and air or steam
stripping processes if emissions from
these process operations are vented. '
through the tanks. Up-to-date
information and data used to determine
whether or not a hazardous waste
management unit and its associated '
process vent(s) are subject to the
subpart AA standards must be
maintained in the facility operating
record (§ 264.1035(f) and § 265.1035(f)).
For example, documentation of a waste
analysis showing that the waste
managed in the unit is less than the 10-
ppmw applicability criterion must be
kept in the facility operating record.
The final rules for process vents
require that owners or operators of
TSDF subject to the provisions of new
subpart AA: (1) Reduce total organic
emissions from all affected process
vents at the facility to below 1.4 kg/h (3
!fa/h) and 2.8 Mg/yr (3.1 ton/yr), or (2) .
install and operate a control devicefs)
that reduces total organic emissions
from all affected process vents at the
facility by 95 weight percent. The owner
or operator of the facility must
determine through test data or
engineering judgment and calculations
that the facility is not expected to
exceed the emission rate limit.of 1.4 kg/
h and 2.8 Mg/yr. Facilities with organic
emissions-from affected vents that never
exceed the emission rate limit will not
be required to install controls or monitor
process vent emissions under this rule.
For all other affected facilities, the
owner or operator must install controls
to reduce total facility process vent
emissions from all affected vents below.
the emission rate limit or to reduce total
facility process vent organic emissions
after primary recovery by 95 percent; If
enclosed combustion devices are used,.
the owner/operator has the option of
reducing the organic concentration of
each affected vent stream at the facility
to no more than 20 parts per million bv
volume (ppmv). Selection of the .
emission rate limit is addressed further
, in section VLB,below and in chapters 4.0
and 7.0 of the BID.
The final standards for process vents .
do not require the use of. any specific .
types of equipment or add-on control
devices. Condensers, carbon adsorbers,
incinerators, and flares are . ;
demonstrated emission control
equipment for the regulated processes,
although the choice of control is not
limited to these. .......
To.demonstrate compliance with the
process vent provisions, TSDF owners/
operators must document process vent
emissions and emission reductions
achieved by add-on control devices and
certify the emission reduction capability
of the control equipment.
Documentation must (1) identify
. affected process vents, provide-the
throughput and operating hours of each
affected unit, and provide emission rate
determinations for each affected vent
and for the overall facility (i.e., .the total
emissions for all affected vents .at the
facility); and (2) show whether installed.
add-on control devices achieve the
emission rate limit by desjgn and during.
operation. Where the emission rate limit
is not attained, documentation must
show whether the add-on control
devices achieve a 95-percent reduction
in organics or the 20-ppmv organics
concentration limit by design and during
operation. The documentation must
include the basis for determining the
design emission reduction.
The rules for process vents require
that specific control device operating
parameters be monitored continuously .
and the monitoring information be
recorded in the facility operating record
to ensure that the devices perform
according to their design and are
properly operated and maintained. For
facilities with final RCRA permits,
periods when monitoring indicates that
control device operating parameters
exceed established tolerances for design
specifications must be reported
semiannually. The records and reports
must include dates, duration, cause, and
corrective measures taken. There are no
reporting requirements for interim status
facilities.-These monitoring and
recordkeeping requirements are.
discussed below in section V.B and in
the BID in chapter 11.0, section .11.4.
B. Equipment Leaks on Hazardous
Waste Management Process Units
. The equipment leak standards apply
to emissions.from valves, pumps,
compressors, pressure relief devices,
sampling connection systems, and open-.
ended valves or lines. Under the final
standards, controls for these sources are
required at TSDF where the equipment .
contains or contacts hazardous waste
streams with organic concentrations of
10 percent by weight or greater. The
owner or operator of a facility may
choose any of the applicable test
methods identified in the final rules for
determining the organic content.
To comply with the equipment leak
Standards, the-.facility owner/operator
.must'identify all affected equipment
(i.e., pumps, valves, compressors, etc.,
that contain ;or contact hazardous waste
streams with at least 10-percent-by-
weight organics), establish which of the
affected equipment is in heavy liquid
service,,and determine which valves are
unsafe or difficult to monitor. By the
effective date of this regulation, the
facility owner/operator must conduct
the initial, monthly monitoring survey of
pumps and valves in gas/vapor or light
liquid service. A number of portable
volatile organic-monitoring devices are -
capable of detecting equipment.leaks..
Any analyzer can be used, provided it
meets the specifications and
performance criteria set forth in EPA
Reference Method 21 (contained in
appendix A of 40 CFR part 60).
Affected compressors must have a
dual mechanical seal system that .
includes a barrier fluid system or must
be designated as having "no detectable .
emissions," which means an instrument
reading of less than 500 ppm above
background using EPA Reference.
Method 21. Sampling connections must
have a closed-purge system. Open-
ended valves or .lines must have a cap, .
blind flange, plug, or second valve.
Pressure relief devices must operate
with "no detectable emissions."
Recordkeeping and monitoring are
also required by the equipment leak
provisions. For example, leaking
equipment as determined by Method 21
must be'tagged as specified in the rule,
and records of repair attempts, delay of .
repair, etc., must be recorded in a log
and included as part of the facility's
operating record. Monitoring of control
device operating parameters is also
required if a closed-vent system and
control device are installed as a result of
the equipment leak standards. The ,-
standards and recordkeeping
-------
25456 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
requirements are discussed below at
section V.C.
IH. Background
A. Regulatory Authority
In 1984, Congress passed HSWA,
amending RCRA. Section 3004(n) of
RCRA. as amended by HSWA, directs .
EPA to "* * * promulgate such
regulations for the monitoring and
control of air emissions at hazardous
waste treatment, storage, and disposal
facilities, including but not limited to
open tanks, surface impoundments, and
landfills, as may be necessary to protect
human health and the environment."
The standards being promulgated today
address, in part, this congressional
directive and are applicable to all TSDF
that require authorization to operate
under section 3005 of RCRA. These
regulations are being promulgated under
the authority of sections 1006,2002,
3001-3007,3010,3014, and 7004 of the
Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1970, as.
amended by RCRA, as amended (42
U.S.C. 6905,6912,6921-6927,6930, 6934,
and 6974).
B. Regulatory Scope of Today's
Standards
Today's final rules apply to facilities
that treat, store, or dispose of hazardous
wastes as defined in 40 CFR 261.3 and,
specifically, to certain hazardous waste
management units at facilities requiring
RCRA subtitle C permits. This includes
facilities with permits and those
operating under interim status. Today's
rules, codified in new subparts AA and
BB of 40 CFR parts 264 and 265, are
applicable to the following units at
TSDF: (1) Hazardous waste management
units subject to the permitting
requirements of part 270 (i.e., not 90-day
accumulation tanks at TSDF), and (2)
hazardous waste recycling units located
on hazardous waste management
facilities otherwise subject to the
' permitting requirements of part 270.
Under 40 CFR 260.10, the term "facility"
means all contiguous land, and
structures, other appurtenances, and
improvements on the land, used for
treating, storing, or disposing of
hazardous waste. (Note: This definition
differs from the definition of "facility"
for purposes of corrective action under
SCRAsecn>rL3004(u).,Sea50-EB-287a2,
July 15.1985.)
C. Air Standards Under RCRA Section
3004(n)
Air emissions from hazardous wastes
are generated or released from
numerous sources at TSDF, including
distillation and other organic separation
units, surface impoundments, tanks.
containers, landfills, land treatment
facilities, wastepiles. and leaks: from
equipment associated with these
operations.
In considering the regulation of air
emissions under RCRA section 3004(n)
and within the RCRA regulatory
framework, EPA has concluded that air
emissions from hazardous waste
management facilities that are subject to
RCRA subtitle C should be regulated
under the authority of RCRA section
3004(n). Air emissions from facilities or
units that manage solid wastes that are
not regulated as hazardous wastes
pursuant to 40 CFR part 261 (e.g., cement
kiln dust waste) and air emissions from
hazardous waste from units or facilities
that are exempt from the permitting
provisions of 40 CFR 270.1(c)(2) (e.g.,
wastewater treatment units with
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permits)
will be subject to control techniques
guidelines or standards developed as
needed under either the Clean Air Act
(CAA) or RCRA authority. Air emissions
from wastes managed in units subject to
subtitle D fnonhazardous solid wastes
such as those managed in municipal
landfills) also will be subject to
guidelines or standards issued under
CAA or RCRA authority as appropriate.
Air emissions from hazardous wastes
include photochemicaliy reactive and
nohphotochemically reactive organics,
some of which are toxic or carcinogenic,
and also may include toxic or
carcinogenic inorganic compounds.
Depending on the source, participates
(including metals, aerosols of organics,
dust, as well as toxics and carcinogens)
also may be released or generated.
These emissions, which are released to
the atmosphere from a wide variety of
sources within TSDF, present diverse
health and environmental risks.
Therefore.' EPA has developed a
multiphased approach for regulating
TSDF organic air emissions. This .
approach, described generally below,
reflects EPA's understanding of the
problem and knowledge of applicable,
effective controls at this time.
Organic emissions from TSDF
managing hazardous wastes contribute
to ambient ozone formation and
increase cancer and other health risks.
Phases I and ILol-EEA^ TSDF
regulatory approach will significantly
reduce emissions of ozone precursors
and air toxics and carcinogens from
TSDF by controlling emissions of
organics as a class rather than
controlling emissions of individual
waste constituents. The regulation of
organics as a class has the advantage of
being relatively straightforward because
it can be accomplished with a minimum
number of standards, whereas the
control of individual toxic constituents
will require multiple standards.
Regulating organics as a class also
makes efficient use of EPA resource,
avoids many of the complexities of
having multiple standards, and reduces
the number of constituents for which
separate standards may be required.
The health and environmental effects
of ambient ozone are well documented*
measured in terms of monetary losses,
they total hundreds of millions of dollars
each year. Other health impacts of TSDF
organic emissions are summarized in
section VII.D of this preamble and are
discussed hi more detail in the BID that
accompanies this final rule and in the
draft BID for Phase H organic standards
titled. "Hazardous Waste TSDF
Background Information for Proposed
RCRA Air Emission Standards,"
available in Docket F-90-CESP-FFFFF.
The substantial reductions in organic
emissions achievable through
implementation of Phase I and Phase II
controls will reduce atmospheric ozone
formation as a result of reductions in
TSDF emissions of ozone precursors and
will reduce nationwide cancer incidence
and maximum individual risk due to
exposure to air toxics and carcinogens
emitted from TSDF.
Specifically, Phase I (which is being
promulgated as final rules today) entails
the promulgation of standards for the
control of organic air emissions from
selected hazardous waste management
processes and equipment leaks. As
discussed in the February 1987 proposal,
EPA chose to develop this portion of its
TSDF rulemaking first to prevent
uncontrolled air emissions from land
disposal restriction (LDR) treatment
technologies. The technologies used in
lieu of land disposal include the
distillation/ separation processes
subject to the Phase I rules. Publication
of today's final rules for air emissions
from hazardous waste management unit
process vents from distillation,
fractionation, thin-film evaporation,
solvent extraction, and air or steam
stripping processes and from leaks in
piping and associated equipment
handling hazardous wastes marks the
completion of this first phase.
-In-theseGond-phase,-EPA-wJll .propose
(in 1990) additional standards under
section 3004(n) to control organic air
emissions from other significant TSDF
air emission sources not covered or not
adequately controlled by existing
standards. These sources include
surface impoundments, tanks (including
vents on closed, vented tanks),
containers, and miscellaneous units.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 120 / Thursday. June 21. 1990 /Rules and iRegulations 25457
The analyses of impacts indicate that,
at some facilities, residual cancer risk to
the most exposed individuals after
implementing the first two phases of
regulation will remain outside the risk
, range for other regulations promulgated
under RCRA (which historically has
been in the range of 1 X10~4 to 1X10~6).
The EPA is therefore planning a third
phase of the effort to control TSDF
emissions in which various means for
further reducing risk will be examined.
In the interim, as explained in section
VLB, the omnibus permitting authority
of RGRA is an available option for
requiring additional emission and risk
"eductions beyond that achieved by
today's final rules if it is decided; on a
case-by-case basis, that additional
control is needed to protect human
health and the environment
The EPA is currently involved in an
effort to improve .the data used in the
current risk analyses and, in the third
phase, will make use of any new data
obtained. If additional constituent
control is found to be necessary, the
number of constituents for which
additional control is needed is expected
to be significantly less than if a
constituent approach were used as the
only means of regulating TSDF air
emissions. Therefore, the EPA is
convinced that the control of organics as
a class followed by controls for
individual toxic constituents, as
necessary, will ultimately result in
comprehensive standards that are .
protective while providing effective
interim control.
Should additional regulation under
Phase III be necessary, EPA is
considering a variety of approaches for
reducing residual risk associated vrith
emissions from wastes managed at
TSDF, and additional approaches'may
be developed in the future. For example,
EPA could require additional technology
control for toxic waste management
(e.g., technology that ensures lower
rates of leakage from equipment, if such
technology can be developed for use at
TSDF) or limit the quantities of specific
constituents that can be managed at a
TSDF. The constituents to be evaluated
in Phase III will include those reported
as being present in hazardous wastes
managed by existing TSDF for which
health effects have been established
through the development of unit risk
factors for carcinogens and reference
doses for noncarcinogens.
D. Other RCRA Air Standards
The EPA has promulgated several
standards under RCRA that reduce air
emissions from TSDF; For example,
several existing provisions in 4O CFR
part 264 (40 CFR 264-251(f), 264.301(i),
and 264.273{f)) require the
implementation of general design and
operating practices at permitted
wastepiles, landfills, and land treatment
operations to limit the release of
particulate air emissions. The EPA has
prepared a technical guidance document
to aid in the implementation of these
particulate rules; the document
("Hazardous Waste TSDFFugitive
Particulate Matter Air Emissions
Guidance Document," EPA-450/3-89-
019) provides information on the sources
of, and control technology for,
particulate air emissions at TSDF.
Additionally, 40 CFR part 264, subpart
X, contains provisions that require
prevention of air releases that may have
adverse effects on human health or the
environment at miscellaneous
hazardous waste management units.
Air standards also have been
promulgated for the control of air
emissions from permitted hazardous
waste incinerators (40 CFR part 264,
subpart OJ. These standards require that
incinerators be operated to achieve a
destruction and removal efficiency
(DRE) of at least 99.99 percent for those
primary organic hazardous constituents
listed in the facility permit. Higher
efficiencies are required when the
incinerator is burning certain specified
waste types. These standards also limit
air emissions of organics, hydrochloric
acid, and particulates from incinerator
stacks.
Air standards for interim status
hazardous waste incinerators (40 CFR
265, subpart O) require monitoring of
visible emissions and operating
conditions. When burning specified
wastes, these incinerators must receive
a certification from the Assistant
Administrator stating that the
incinerator can meet the performance
standards specified for permitted
incinerators in 40 'CFR 264, subpart O.
Interim status standards for other
thermal treatment units are found in 40
CFR part 265, subpart P. These
standards apply to facilities that
thermally treat hazardous "waste in
devices other than enclosed devices
using controlled flame combustion. The
standards require monitoring of visible
emissions and operating conditions of
the combustion devices and prohibit
open burning except for open burning
and detonation of waste explosives.
The EPA has also proposed standards
covering the burning of hazardous waste
in boilers and industrial furnaces (52 FR
16987; May 6,1987). These standards
would require such burning to achieve a
DRE of 99.99 percent for each principal
organic hazardous constituent identified
in the facility permit. In addition, a DRE '
of 99.99 percent roust be achieved when
burning certain specified constituents.
The proposed standards also have
provisions for burning low-risk wastes
that allow an owner or operator to
demonstrate that the burning of
hazardous waste will not result in
significant adverse health effects. To
qualify for the low-risk waste
exemption; an owner or operator would
have to use dispersion modeling to
demonstrate that emissions of
carcinogenic compounds would not
result in off-site ground-level
concentrations that pose a risk to the
most exposed individual of greater than
1X105. For noncarcinogenic compounds,
the dispersion modeling would
demonstrate that the resulting air
concentrations would not exceed the
reference air concentration (RAC) of
individual hazardous compounds. The
proposed standards would also limit
emissions of carbon monoxide, metals,
and hydrochloric acid from boilers and
furnaces burning hazardous -wastes.
E. Relationship of Air Standards to
Other Subtitle C Rules
. In addition to the air emission
standards discussed above, EPA has
ongoing programs that indirectly affect
air emissions from hazardous waste.
Today's rules are designed to
complement other air standards under
RCRA and the rules that might
otherwise affect air emissions. Existing
RCRA regulations that have the
potential for affecting air emissions from
hazardous waste TSDF include: (1] The
LDR and (2) the corrective action
program.
The LDR, developed under section
3C04(mfof the HSWA, require that
hazardous waste be treated to reduce
concentrations of specific chemicals or
hazardous properties to certain
performance levels or by certain
methods before the waste may be
disposed of on land. Affected land
disposal units include surface
impoundments, wastepiles, landfills,
and land treatment units. The EPA .
anticipates that LDR will substantially
reduce the potential for air emissions
from these land disposal sources. The
first set of LDR, for certain dioxins and
solvent-containing hazardous wastes,
was promulgated on November 7.1S86
(51 FR 40572); the second set of
restrictions, the "California list," was
promulgated on July 8,1987 f 52 FR
25760); the "First Third" was
promulgated on August 17,1988 (53 FR
31138), and the "Second Third".on June
23,1989 (54 FR 26597).
The. .treatment technologies evaluated
under LDR for both wastewater and
-------
25458 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
nonwastewater spent solvents include
distillation and other separation
processes subject to the requirements of
the Phase I rules. Today's standards are
designed to protect human health and
the environment by reducing air
emissions from technologies expected to
be used to treat wastes prior to land
disposal.
Under the authority of RCRA section
3004 (u), EPA is developing rules to
address releases of hazardous waste or
hazardous constituents from solid waste
management units (SWMU) that pose a
threat to human health and the
environment Because this authority
applies to contamination of soil, water,
and air media, organic air emissions
from SWMU at some TSDF would be
addressed by the corrective action
program EPA intends to propose under a
separate rulemaking. The draft rules
would establish health-based trigger
levels measured at the TSDF boundary
for determining whether further
remedial studies are required to assess
air emissions from a particular SWMU.
Health-based cleanup standards would
then be set for air emission levels that
exceed acceptable health-based levels
at the point at which actual exposure
occurs. When such exposure is
determined either through monitoring or
modeling techniques, corrective action
will be required to reduce such
emissions at the point of compliance.
The corrective action program is
designed to achieve site-specific
solutions based on an examination of a
particular TSDF and its environmental
setting. It is not intended to set national
standards that regulate organic air
emissions from all TSDF. At sites where
there are releases from SWMU,to the
atmosphere, organic emissions will be
controlled based on site-specific
exposure concerns. Furthermore,
releases from the SWMU that contain
hazardous solid wastes will also be
subject to corrective action. Therefore,
for air emissions, corrective action is in
part designed to expeditiously address
threats to human health and the
environment that are Identified prior to
implementation of more comprehensive
air emission standards. In addition,
because corrective action can address a
wider universe of SWMU. it will
address, in some respects, exposure
concerns that today's .final standards do
not address.
F. Relationship of Today's Final
Standards to CERCLA
The CERCLA, as amended by the
Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act (SARA), 42 U.S.C.
9601 et seq., authorizes EPA to
undertake removal and remedial actions
to clean up releases of hazardous
substances, pollutants, or contaminants.
Removal actions typically are
immediate or expedited activities
necessary to minimize exposure or
danger to human health and the
environment from the release of a .
hazardous substance, pollutant, or
contaminant. Remedial actions are
longer term, planned activities
performed at sites listed on the National
Priorities List to permanently clean up,
hazardous substances, pollutants, or;
contaminants and any soils, surface ..
waters, or ground waters contaminated
by these materials. On-site remedial
actions are required by CERCLA section
121(d)(2) to comply with the
requirements of Federal and more
stringent State public health and
environmental laws that have been
identified by EPA or the delegated State
authority as applicable or relevant and
appropriate requirements (ARAR) to the
specific CERCLA site. In addition, the
National Contingency Plan (NCP)
provides that on-site CERCLA removal
actions "should comply with Federal
ARAR to the extent practicable
considering the exigencies of the
circumstances" (40 CFR 300.65(f)).
Today's final standards may be
considered ARAR for certain on-site
remedial and removal actions.
A requirement-under a Federal or
State environmental law may either be
"applicable" or "relevant and
appropriate,'-' but not both, to a remedial
or removal action conducted at a
CERCLA site. "Applicable
requirements," as defined in the
proposed revisions to the NCP, means
those cleanup standards, standards of
control, and other substantive
environmental protection requirements,
criteria, or limitations promulgated
under Federal or State law that
specifically address a hazardous.
substance, pollutant, contaminant,
remedial action; location, or other
circumstance'found at a CERCLA site .
(40 CFR 300.5 (proposed), 53 FR 51475
(December 21,1988)). "Relevant and
appropriate requirements" means those
Federal or State requirements that,
while not applicable, address problems
or situations sufficiently similar to those
encountered at the CERCLA site that .
their use is well suited to the particular
site (53 FR 51478).
Some waste management activities
used for remedial and removal actions
to clean up hazardous organic
substances use the distillation/
separation operations regulated under
subpart AA of today's rules. For
example, hazardous-organic liquid
wastes and ground and surface waters
contaminated with hazardous wastes
may be treated on site using air
stripping processes. Therefore, the
organic emission control requirements of
today's subpart AA rules may be
"applicable" for on-site remedial and
removal action activities that use
distillation, fractionation, thin-film
evaporation, solvent extraction, or air or
steam stripping operations that treat
substances that are identified or listed
under RCRA as hazardous wastes and
have a total organic concentration of 10
ppmw or greater, hi addition, off-site
storage, treatment, and disposal of all
wastes classified under RCRA as
hazardous waste must be performed at a'
TSDF permitted under RCRA subtitle C.
Thus, CERCLA wastes that are defined
as hazardous under RCRA, contain more
than 10 ppmw of total organics, and are
shipped off site for management in
distillation, fractionation, thin-film
evaporation, solvent extraction, and air
or steam stripping operations, would be
subject to today's final standards like
any similar RCRA hazardous waste. The
new subpart AA control requirements
for process vents may also be "relevant
and appropriate" to on-site CERCLA
removal and remedial actions that use
distillation, fractionation, thin-film
evaporation, solvent extraction, and air
or steam stripping operations' to manage
substances that contain organics that
are not covered by this rule (e.g.,
organics less than 10 ppmw or organics
from nonhazardous wastes).
Today's final rules do not include
. control requirements for process vents
on operations not associated with
organics distillation/separation but .
typically associated with CERCLA .
remedial or removal actions such as soil
, excavation, in situ soil vapor extraction,
in situ steam stripping of soil, soil
washing, stabilization, bioremediation
(in situ or otherwise), dechlorination,
and low temperature thermal
desorption. Therefore, the final rule for
process vents would not be "applicable" s
to remedial or removal actions involving
these processes at CERCLA sites. Also,
the final process vent standards may not
be considered "relevant and
appropriate" for these same activities at
CERCLA sites. Waste management
operations involving soil excavation, in
situ soil vapor extraction, in situ steam
stripping of soil, soil washing,
bioremediation, dechlorination, and low
temperature thermal desorption can be
considerably different from the waste .
management operations (i.e.,
. distillation/separation processes)
regulated in subpart AA. Control
technologies for reducing organic
emissions from these types of processes
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 1990 / Rules tod Regulations
25459
were not evaluated as part of today's
rulemaking. However, the air emission
potential of remedial and removal
actions requiring excavation, land
treatment, land farming, in situ
treatment activities, and other treatment
activities involving landfills and
' wastepiles should be determined, and, if
necessary, the proper emission controls
should be applied to these activities.
The organic emission control
requirements; of subpart BB for TSDF
equipment leaks may also be considered
as an ARAR for the equipment
components (e.g., pumps and valves)
installed at CERCLA cleanup sites that
contain or contact substances
containing 10 percent by weight or more
total organics.
Although today's final standards
would not be ARAR for all types of
remedial and removal actions that are
potential sources of organic air
emissions, other existing RCRA or CAA
regulations may qualify as ARAR for
many of these activities. For example,
subpart O of 40 CFR part 264 establishes
standards of performance limiting
organic emissions from thermal '
destruction processes (i.e., hazardous
waste incinerators).
IV. Applicability and Requirements of
Proposed Process Vent and Equipment
Leak Standards
On February 5,1987 {52 FR 3748), EPA
proposed standards under RCRA section
3004(n) for the control of organic air
emissions from certain equipment and '
process vents at hazardous waste TSDF.
The proposed standards would have
applied to equipment and process vents
"in volatile hazardous air pollutant
(VHAP) service" {i.e., containing or
contacting liquids, gases, or other :
derivatives of hazardous waste in
concentrations greater than 10 percent
total organics) located at TSDF required
to have a RCRA permit. The decision as
to whether equipment or process vents
would be covered by the rule {i.e., would
ever contain or contact wastes greater
than 10 percent total organics) could be
based either on testing the 'waste and
derivatives according to specified test
procedures or on engineering judgment
as to these materials, total organic .
content
The proposed standards would have
required a 95-percent reduction in
organic emissions from vents in VHAP
service on product accumulator vessels
and on other process vent sources {e.g.,
vents on closed accumulator tanks on
other processes). The preamble for the
proposed standard, at 52 FR 3753,
described "product accumulator
vessels" as types of equipment that
generate process emissions and include
distillate receivers, surge .control ". .
vessels, product separators, or hot-wells
that are vented to die atmosphere either
directly or through a vacuum-producing .
system. Product accumulator vessels
included units used to distill and steam
or air strip volatile components from
hazardous waste; examples include
distillation columns, steam snipping
columns, air stripping units, and thin-
film evaporation units at TSDF.
The proposed standards would have
regulated actual reclamation processes
for the first time. Only recycling units at
TSDF already subject to RCRA permit
requirements (e.g., because of storage
activity on the facility) would have been
subject to the proposed air standards.
Both new and existing units would have
been required to have add-on control
devices designed to achieve a 95-percent
reduction (based on the application of
secondary condensers) and to operate
within that design. Once in operation,
the facilities would have demonstrated
compliance by monitoring the operation
of the control device.
The proposed standards also would
have required implementation of a
monthly leak detection and repair
(LDAR) program for valves, pumps,
compressors, pressure relief devices,
and closed-vent systems used to handle
hazardous wastes and their derivatives
at TSDF. Control systems, leak
definition methodology, leak definitions,
and repair schedules were based on
.existing equipment leak standards
developed under sections 111 and 112 of
the CAA. :
Since proposal, EPA has made several
important changes to the standards
based on the public comments received
after proposal and analyses resulting
from these comments. The applicability
and requirements of the final standards,
including die changes made since .
proposal, are discussed in section V.
The EPA's responses to the major
comments are summarized in section VI.
Additional information is presented m
the BID for the final standards.
V. Applicability and Requirements of
Today's Final Standards
This section provides a detailed
summary of the final standards as they '
apply to the affected TSDF community
and to process vents and equipment
subject to today's rule. Also summarized
is the relationship of the final standards
to existing exemptions under the RCRA
regulatory program. .'
A. Scope of Final Standards
Today's final standards limit organic
air emissions as a class at TSDF that are
subject to regulation under-subtitle C of
RCRA. This action is the first part of a .
multiphased regulatory effort to control
air emissions at new and 'existing
hazardous waste TSDF. These roles
establish final standards limiting
organic emissions from {!) process vents
associated with distillation,
'fractionation; thin-film evaporation,
solvent extraction, and ah- or steam
stripping operations that manage
, hazardous wastes with 10 ppmw or
greater total organics concentration on
an annual average basis, and (2) leaks
from equipment that contain or contact
hazardous waste streams with 10
percent by weight or greater total
organics. ; '
The final standards do not expand the
RCRA-permitted community for the _
purposes of air emissions control. As
promulgated, the final standards control
organic emissions only from process
vents and equipment leaks at hazardous
waste TSDF that are subject to
permitting requirements under RCRA
section 3005 and are applicable only to
specific hazardous waste management
units. The rules apply to hazardous
' waste management units that are:
subject to the permitting requirements of
part 270 and to hazardous waste
recycling units that are located at
facilities otherwise subject to the
permitting requirements of part 270.
Exempt units, other than recycling units
{e.g., 90-day accumulation tanks and
wastewater treatment units as specified
in § 270.1{c){2)), are not subject to the .;
rules even when they are part of a
permitted facility. Permitting aspects are
further discussed in section EX.
The term "organics" is used in the
final standards instead of "volatile
organics" to avoid confusion with
"volatile organic compounds" {VOC)
that are regulated as .a class under the
CAA. To be subject to the standards, a'
TSDF: (1) Must have equipment that
contains or contacts hazardous wastes
that are 10 percent or more by weight
total organics, or (2) must have
distillation, fractionation, thin-film
evaporation, solvent extraction, or air or
steam stripping operations that treat or
process hazardous wastes with total
organics concentrations of 10 ppmw or "
greater on a time-weighted annual
average basis.
The final regulations require the
facility owners or operators to
determine whether their equipment is
subject to the equipment leak rules,
subpart BB of parts 264 and 265. The
owner or operator of a facility may rely
on engineering judgment for this -
determination, or, if the waste's .organic
content is questionable, the owner or
operator may choose any of the test
methods identified in the final rule for
-------
25460 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 120 / Thursday. June 21. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
determining whether a piece of
equipment contains or contacts
hazardous wastes that are 10 percent or
more total organics by weight As
proposed, these methods include: ASTM
Methods D-2267-88, E169-87. E168-88,
and E 260-65 and Methods 9060 and
8240 of SW-848. The owner or operator
also may use any other test method for
determining total organic content that is
demonstrated to be equivalent to the' '
test methods identified in the rule using '
the petition process described in 40 CFR
260.21. The test method selected should
be the one best suited for the
characteristics of the waste stream.
Regardless' of the method chosen, the
final standard requires the facility
owner or operator to determine that the
organic content is never expected to
exceed 10 percent The determination of
organic content of the waste must at all
times be appropriate to the wastes
currently being managed in the- relevant
units. If any action is taken that would
result in the determination no longer
being appropriate to the facility's or a
particular unit's operations (e.g.. an
upstream process change that results in
a change in a waste's organic content),
then a new determination is required.
To determine whether a particular
hazardous waste management unit of '.
the type specified in the rule (e.g., a
steam stripping or air stripping: unit) is
subject to the provisions of subpairt AA
of parts 264 and 265, the owner/operator
is required to determine the total
organic concentration of the waste
managed in the unit initially (by the
effective date of the standards or when
the waste is first managed in the waste
management unit) and thereafter on a
periodic basis (for continuously
generated wastes). A waste
determination for subpart AA
applicability would not be necessary
when an owner/operator manages .the
waste in a distillation, fractionation,
thin-film evaporation, solvent
extraction, or air or steam stripping, unit
that is controlled for organic emissions
and meets the substantive requirements
of subpart AA. . . .
Determination that the time-weighted,
annual average total organic
concentration of the waste managed in
the unit is less than 10 ppmw must be
performed by direct'measurement or by
knowledge of the waste as described
later in this section. Direct measurement
of the waste's total-organic : '
concentration must be performed by'
collecting individual grab samples of the
waste and analyzing the samples using
one of the approved reference methods
identified in the rule.
The EPA is requiring that analytical
results for a minimum of four samples be
used to determine the total .organic
concentration for each waste stream
managed in the unit. In setting the
minimum number of samples at four,
EPA will obtain sufficient data to
characterize the total organic ' .
concentration of a waste without
imposing an unnecessary burden on the
owner/operator-to collect and analyze
the samples. ' ' ; '
' Waste determinations must be
performed under process conditions
expected to result in the maximum
waste organic concentration. For waste
generated on site, the samples must be
collected at a point before the waste is
exposed to the atmosphere such as in an
enclosed pipe or other closed system
that is used to transfer the waste after
generation to the first affected
distillation/separation operation. For
waste generated off site, the samples
must be collected at the inlet to the first
waste management unit that receives
the waste, provided the waste has been
transferred to the facility in a closed
system such as a tank truck, and the
waste is hot diluted or mixed with other .
waste.' :>
The location where the waste's total
organic content is determined is ;
important because sampling location :
' can greatly- affect the results of the.
determination. This effect occurs
because the concentration level can
decrease significantly after generation
as the waste is transferred to (and
managed in) Various waste management
units. '.'
If the waste is directly or indirectly.
exposed to ambient air at any point, a
portion of the organics in the waste will
be emitted to the atmosphere, and the..
concentration of organics remaining in
the waste will decrease. For example,
for highly volatile organic compounds
such as butadiene, all of the .compound
would evaporate within a few" seconds
of exposure to air. To ensure that the
determination of total organic '
concentration is an accurate ~
representation of the emission potential
of a waste upon generation, it is
essential that the waste determination
be performed at a point as near as
possible to where the waste is
generated, before any exposure to the..
atmosphere can occur.
For-the reasons stated above, the .
waste determination must be based on
the waste composition before the waste
is exposed, either directly or indirectly,
to the ambient air. Direct exposure of
the .waste to the ambient air means the
waste surface interfaces with the
ambient air. Indirect exposure of the . '
waste to the ambient air means the
waste surface interfaces with a gas
stream that subsequently is emitted to
the ambient air. If the waste
determination is performed using direct'
measurement, the standards would
require that waste samples be collected
from an enclosed pipe or other closed
system that is used to transfer the waste
after generation to the first hazardous
waste management unit. If the waste
' determination is performed using '
knowledge of the waste, the standards
would require that the owner or
operator have documentation attesting
to the organic concentration of the -
waste before any exposure to the
ambient air.
The location where the waste
determination would be made for any
one facility will depend on several
factors. One factor is whether the waste
is generated and managed at the same
site or generated at one site and
transferred to a. commercial TSDF for
management. Another important factor -
is the mechanism used to transfer the
waste from the location .where the waste
is generated to the location of the. first
waste management unit (e.g., pipeline,
sewer, tank truck). For example, if a
' waste is first accumulated in a tank
. using a direct, enclosed pipeline to '
: transfer the waste from its generation
process, then the waste determination
could be made based on waste samples
collected at the inlet to the. tank. In.
contrast, if the waste is first
accumulated in a tank using an open
sewer system to transfer the waste from
its generation process then the waste
determination would need to be made
based on waste samples collected at the
point'where.the waste enters .the sewer
before the waste is exposed to the
ambient air. Where the waste is
generated off site,- the owner or operator
may make the determination based on
. samples collected at .the inlet to the first
waste management unit at the TSDF
that receives the waste,-provided the
waste has been transferred1 to :the TSDF-
in a closed system such as a tank truck
and the waste is not diluted or mixed
with other waste, if a waste -
determination indicates that the total
organic concentration is equal to or '
greater than the applicability-criterion,
then the owner or operator would be
required to comply with the standards.
As an alternative to using direct
measurement, an owner/operator is '
allowed to use knowledge of the waste
as a means of determining that the total
organic concentration of the waste is
less than 10 ppmw. Examples of - - -
information that might be considered by
EPA to constitute sufficient knowledge
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 120 / Thursday. June 21. 1990 / Rules and Regulations 25461
include: (1) Documentation that organics
are not involved in the process
generating the waste, (2) documentation
that the waste is generated by a process.
that is identical to a process at the same
or another facility'that has previously
been determined by direct measurement
to generate a waste stream' having a
total organic content-less than lo'ppmw,
or (3) previous speciation analysis
results from which the total '
concentration of organics in the waste
can be computed and it can be
"documented that no process changes
have occurred since the analysis "that
could affect the waste's total organic '
concentration. The final standards
include.the provision that EPA can - '
require that the waste be analyzed using
Method 8240 if EPA believes that the
documentation is insufficient to
determine an exception by knowledge of
the waste (§ §254.1034(f) and
265.1034(fj). :
To address the temporal variability
that can occur both within a particular
waste stream and within the various
waste streams managed in a hazardous
waste management unit, the final rules
require a time-weighted, annual average
concentration to characterize the waste
managed in the unit The final rules
require that an owner/operator repeat
. the waste determination whenever there
is a change in the waste being managed
or a change in the process that generates
or treats the waste that inay affect the
regulatory status of the waste or, if the
waste and process remain constant, at
least_annually. For example, continuous
processes are more likely ta generate a
more homogeneous waste than batch .
operations; batch operations involve
processes, that may frequently involve
change in materials or process
conditions. Batch operations, therefore,
usually generate wastes with varying
characteristics, including such '
characteristics as organics content.
Ground water concentrations would
also'be expected to show significant
variation if more than one well provides
influent to a waste management unit
such as an air stripper and the wells that
feed the unit are varied over time or if
the proportions from the wells that make
up the influent are changed. This is
because there is typically considerable
spatial variability in contaminated
ground water concentrations. The
situation where feed wells'are changed
and the change is not accounted for in
the initial waste determination would be
considered a process change or change
in the waste being managed that would
require a new determination.
With the-time-weighted, annual
average applicability criterion, a
hazardous waste management unit
would not be subject to this rule'if it
occasionally treats wastes that exceed
10 ppmw if at other times'the wastes'
being treated in the unit 'are such that,
the weighted'annual average total
organic concentration of all wastes
. treated is less than 10 ppmw. The time-.
weighted, annual average is calculated
using the annual quantity of each waste
stream managed in the unit and the
mean organic concentration of each :
waste stream. . -
Determining the applicability of the
standards to affected processes, units,
and facilities is of paramount
importance to the TSDF owner or
operator in complying with the final
standards. A mistake even ah
inadvertent one, will not excuse a
facility owner or operator from the
obligation to comply with either the
requirements of the standards or with
potential enforcement actions. Accurate
determinations of what equipment .and
vents must be controlled are crucial to
ensuring that all equipment and vents
subject to this rule are in fact controlled.
When the facility owner/operator and
the Regional Administrator disagree on
the determination of emissions or
emission reduction achieved, then a
performance test conducted as specified
in the rules must be used to resolve the
disagreement In situations where the
owner/operator and Regional
Administrator disagree on whether a
unit manages a waste with 10 ppmw or
greater organics-'conte'nt or a piece of
equipment contains or contacts a waste
with 10 percent or more organics '
content then procedures that conform to
. the test methods referenced hi the rules
may be used to resolve the
disagreement . - '
Consistent with section 3010 of RCRA,
the final standards for process vent and
equipment leak control and monitoring"
become effective 6 months from today.
Owners and operators must come into
compliance with these requirements by
the effective date; however, where
compliance involves the installation of a
control device, EPA is requiring that
installation be completed as soon as
possible but no later than 24. months
from the date the regulatory action
affecting the unit is published or
promulgated. To obtain the extended
time for compliance (18 months beyond
the effective date), a facility must show
that installation cannot reasonably be
expected to be completed earlier. In
these circumstances, an owner/operator
must develop an implementation
schedule that indicates when the'
installation will be completed and
shows that additional time is necessary.
The implementation schedule must be
included in the operating'record by the
effective date of the rules. Changes in'
the implementation schedule are '
allowed within the 24-month time frame
if the owner/operator documents that
the 'change cannot reasonably be
avoided.
B. Standards for Process.Vents
Affected Equipment .
A "process vent" is a pipe, ^tack, or
other opening through which emissions
from a hazardous waste management.
unit are released to the atmosphere
either directly, through a vacuum-
producing system, or indirectly, through
another tank. The process vents that .
would have been covered by the
proposed standard included vents
associated with any hazardous waste
management process or waste
management unit
Review of the hazardous waste TSDE
industry has shown that process vents .
are most typically associated 'with
processes related to distillation or other
separation operations. These
technologies were also the type being
evaluated under the LDR for spent
solvents. Therefore EPA concentrated .
its analysis of process vents on those .
hazardous waste management units that
are involved in solvent or other organic
chemical separation or reclamation by
distillation, fractionation, thin-film
evaporation, solvent extraction, or air or.
steam stripping operations. This should
include the largest segment of process
vents at TSDF and address, those :
sources with the greatest emission
potential. Vents on other types of waste
management units (e.g. vents on storage
tanks) are being addressed in the Phase
n rulemaking.
Two basic changes have been made
since proposal that clarify the ._.
applicability of the final vent standard.
First, to avoid confusion with tanks not
associated with the processing of waste
streams, the term "product accumulator-
vessel" has been deleted from the final
standard and affected equipment is
more specifically defined. The . ;
applicability of the final standard-for..
process-vents also has.been clarified'
since proposal to exclude air emissions
from vents on other closed (covered)
and vented tanks not associated with
the specified distillation/separation
processes to avoid regulatory
duplication of the Phase n standards as-
discussed above.
Thus, the final vent standards apply
to: (1) Vents on distillation fractionation,
thin-film evaporation, splve'nt ' ~ '
extraction, and air or steam stripping ;
-------
25462 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 120 / Thursday. June 21. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
processes and vents on condensers
serving these processes; and {2} vents on
tanks (645, distillate receivers, bottoms
receivers, surge control tanks, separator,
tanks, and hot wells associated with
distillation, fractionation, thin-film
evaporation, solvent extraction, and air
or steam stripping processes) if
emissions from these processes are
vented through the tank. For example,
uncondensed overhead emitted from a
distillate receiver (which fits the
definition of a tank) serving a hazardous
waste distillation process unit is subject
to these Phase I air controls. On fee
other hand, emissions from vents cut
tanks or containers that do not derive
from a process unit specified above are
not covered by these rules. For example.
if the condensed (recovered) solvent is
pumped to an intermediate holding: tank
following the distillate receiver
mentioned in the above example, and
the intermediate storage tank has a
pressure-relief vent (e^, a conservation
vent) serving the tank, this vent will not
be subject to the process vent standards.
Emissions'from vents that are not
covered "ft^pr today's- rules will be
addressed by Phase n of the air
standards under section 3D04(n}.
Second, the terms "VHAP" and "in
VHAP service" have been deleted from
the final rule in response to public
comments. Commenters found the terms
inappropriate for transfer from
equipment leak standards developed
under section 111 or 112 of the CAA to
RCRA standards for organic emissions
from, hazardous waste. The EPA agrees
with these commenters; these terms can
be confusing and they are unnecessary
for these rules. Therefore, the cross-
reference to part 61 has been eliminated
and the wording of the final regulation
has been revised to reflect applicability
based on clearly specified hazardous
waste management processes or unit
operations that manage wastes with a
10 ppnw or greater total organic
content
Requirements of Final Standard for
Process Vents
In response to public comments,
several changes have been made to the
proposed standard for process vents.
While the proposed 95-percent emission
redaction standard would have applied
to individual process vents emitting
organics with concentrations of 10
percent or greater by weight, the final
process vent 95-percent emission
reduction standard applies to total
organic .emissions from the combination
of all affected vents (Le., vents subject
to the provisions of subpart AA) at the
facility. As discussed in section VI of
this preamble and in the BID for the
final rules, the term "facility", refers to
the entire site that is under control of
the owner or operator engaged in
hazardous waste management Thus,
organic emissions from affected process
vents anywhere-on the hazardous waste
management facility are subject to the
standards.
The 10-percent concentration criterion
for process vents has not been included
in the final rules because die
promulgated standards contain a
facility-based emission rate timit of 1.4
kg/h [3 Ib/h) and 2.8 Wfe/yr (3.1 ton/yr)
that is more effective in controlling
emissions from affected sources and
excluding facilities with little emission
reduction potential. Based on emissions
and health risk analyses conducted in <
response to comments, this emission
rate limit represents an emission level
from process vents that is protective of
human health and the environment and
below which additional meaningful
reductions in nationwide health risk and.
environmental impacts attributable to
process vents cannot be achieved.
Control of facilities with process, vent
emissions less than the emission rate
limit would not result in further
reductions of either cancer risk or
incidence on a nationwide basis.
Facilities with organic emissions from
process vents that do not exceed these
emission rates will not have to install
controls or monitor emissions from
affected process vents. Selection of the
emission rate limit is addressed in
section VLB of this preamble and in
chapters 4.0 and 7.0 of the BID.
Because the emission rate limits (3 lb/
h and 3.1 ton/yr} provide health-based
limits, EPA considered dropping
completely the organic content criterion
(i.e., at least 10 percent total organics).
However, EPA decided not to
completely eliminate the organic content
criterion because it is not clear that the
same controls can be applied to very
low concentration streams as can be
applied to the higher concentration
streams that generally are associated
with emission rates greater than the
limits. For low-concentration streams,
EPA questions whether controls are
needed on a national or generic basis
but is unable to resolve this question at
this time. Thus, EPA decided to defer
controlling very low concentration
streams until it is better able to
characterize and assess these streams
and the appropriate controls.
Once EPA decided to consider
facilities that manage very low
concentration organic wastes as a
separate category, there remained the
problem of determining the appropriate
criterion. The EPA examined existing
data on air strippers, the treatment
device most commonly used with low-
concentration streams; it appeared that
the quantity of emissions and the risk
associated with air strippers treating
streams with concentrations below 10
ppmw may be relatively small, thus
minimizing the potential harm of
deferring control .until a later time.
Examples of facilities managing low-
concentration wastes are sites where
ground water is undergoing remedial
action under CERCLA or corrective
action pursuant to RCRA. Given the
limited set of precise data available, and
the comments that -the 10-percent
criterion was too high, EPA determined
that an appropriate criterion would be
10 parts per million (ppm) total organics
in the waste by weight
The 10-ppmw criterion is not an
exemption from regulation; it is intended
only as a way for EPA to divide the air
regulations into phases. The EPA is
deferring action on very low
concentration streams (i.e., ones with
less than 10 ppmw total organic content)
from the final rule today but will
evaluate and announce a decision later
on whether to regulate these waste
streams.
To comply with the final standards for
process vents, the TSDF owner or
operator is required to identify all
process vents associated with
distillation, fractionation, thin-film
evaporation, solvent extraction, and
stripping processes that are treating
hazardous waste with a 10-ppmw or
greater total organics concentration on a
time-weighted annual average basis (ie.,
vents affected by die rules). .Organic
emission rates for each affected vent
and for the entire facility from all
affected vents must be determined. The
facility process vent emission rate must
then be compared to the short- and long-
term process vent emission rate limits (3
Ib/h or 3.1 ton/yr) to determine whether
additional emission controls are
required. If the process vent emission
rate limit is exceeded, the owner or
operator must take appropriate action to
reduce total facility emissions from
affected process vents to below the
cutoff level or install additional
emission controls to reduce total facility
process vent organic emissions by 95
weight percent If an incinerator,
process heater, or boiler is used as a
control device, tie volume concentration
standard of 20 ppmv can be met instead
of the 95-weight-percent redaction
(§§ 264.1033(c), 284.1060,265.1033(c),
and 265.1060).
Because the final rules could apply to
dilute process vent streams and the rule
is formatted in terms of a weight-percent
-------
Federal Register / VoL 55, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 1990 / Rules and Regulations 25463
reduction standard, it is necessary to
include the volume concentration
standard in the final control device
standards to account for the
technological limitations of enclosed
combustion devices (48 FR 48933,
October 21,1983), one of the control
technologies examined as part of the
rulemaking, treating dilute streams.
Below a critical concentration level, the
maximum achievable efficiency for
enclosed combustion devices decreases
as inlet concentration decreases; thus,
for streams with low organic vapor
concentrations, the 95-percent mass
reduction may not be technologically
achievable in all cases. Available data
show that 20 ppmv is the lowest outlet
concentration of total organic
compounds achievable with control
device inlet streams below
approximately 2,000 ppmv total
organics. Therefore, a concentration
limit of 20 ppmv has been added as an
alternative standard for incinerators,
process heaters, and boilers to allow for
the drop in achievable destruction.
efficiency with decreasing inlet organics
concentration. For consistency, the 20-
ppmv concentration is expressed as the
sum of the actual individual compounds,
not carbon equivalents,-on a dry basis
corrected to 3 percent oxygen. For
facilities that do not meet the emission
rate limit, the final process vent
standards require that control devices .
achieve a 95-percent reduction in total
organic emissions for the facility or, iii
the case of enclosed combustion
devices, a reduction of each process
vent stream to a concentration of no
more than each process vent stream to a
concentration of no more than 20 ppmv
total organic compounds.
The final standards for process vents
do not require the use of any specific
equipment or add-on control device; the
standards can be met using several
types of controls. Depending on the
characteristics of the process vent
stream, either a condenser or a carbon
adsorber will likely be the control
technology of choice. However, other
control devices such as flares,
incinerators, process heaters, and
boilers, as well as any other device of
the owner or operator's choice, also can
be used where applicable to achieve
compliance.
Operating requirements for closed-
vent systems and control devices are
included in §§ 264.1033 and 265.1033. A
closed-vent system means a system not
open to the atmosphere and composed
of piping, connections, anc£ if necessary,
flow-inducing devices that transport gas
or vapor from a piece or pieces of
equipment to a control device. If vapor
recovery systems such as condensers
and adsorbers are used as control
devices, they must be designed and
operated to recover the organic vapors
vented to them with an efficiency of 95
percent or more unless the total organic
emission limits for affected process
vents (§§ 264.1032 and 265.1032] can be
attained at efficiencies less than 95
percent Vapor recovery systems whose
primary function is the recovery of
organics for commercial or industrial
use or reuse (e.g., a primary condenser
on a waste-solvent distillation unit) are
not considered a control device and
should not be included in' the 95-percent
emission reduction determination.
If enclosed combustion devices such
as incinerators, boilers, or process
heaters are used, they must be designed
and operated to achieve a total organic
compound emission reduction efficiency
of 95 percent or more or must provide a
minimum residence time of 0.5 sat a
minimum temperature of 760 eC. The
latter are general design criteria
established by EPA, and used in
numerous rulemakings, that can be used
by facilities in lieu of conducting a site-
specific design for enclosed combustion
devices/The operating requirements for
closed-vent systems and control devices
include a provision allowing enclosed
combustion devices to reduce, organic
emissions to a total organic compound
concentration of 20 ppmv, by compound,
rather than achieve the 95-weight
percent reduction.
If flares are used, they must be
designed and operated with no visible
emissions as determined by the
procedures of Reference Method 22,
except for periods not to exceed a total
of 5 min during any 2 consecutive hours.
The final standard specifies that flares
must be operated with a Same present
at all times and must be operated at all
times when emissions may be vented to
them. In addition, flares must provide a
net heating value of the gas being
combusted of 11.2 megajoules per
standard cubic meter (MJ/scm) or more,
be steam-assisted or air-assisted, or
provide a net heating value of 7:45 MJ/
son or more if the flare is nonassisted.
Specific design and operating
requirements for steam-assisted, air-
assisted and nonassisted flares also are
included in the final standard.
Calculations and procedures for
determining the net heating value of the
gas being combusted the actual exit
velocity and the maximum allowed
velocity are included in the final
provisions for closed-vent systems and
control devices (see §§ 264.1033{d) and
265.1033(d)).
Facilities must maintain
documentation in the operating record
supporting waste determinations,
identifying affected process vents,
affected waste management unit
throughputs and operating hours,
emission rates for each affected vent
and for the overall facility, and the basis
for determining the emission rates
(15 264.103500(2) and 265.1035(b)(2)}.
Regardless of the type of control device
used, the documentation must certify.
that add-on control devices achieve the
emission rate limit by design and during
operation, or that add-on control devices
achieve a 95-percent reduction in
organics or achieve the 20-ppmv
organics concentration limit by design
and during operation where the
emission rate limit is not attained. The
design documentation must present the
basis for determining the design
emission reduction and establish the
basic values for operating parameters
used to monitor the control device s
operation and maintenance. The design
control level (i.e., the emission reduction
needed to achieve the emission rate
cutoff or 95-percent emission reduction)
can be documented by vendor/
manufacturer certifications, by
engineering calculations, or through '
source tests to show that the control
device removes the required percentage
of organics entering the device. All
required information and documentation
must be kept in the facility's operating .
record. The facility's waste
determinations and process vent
emission rate determinations must at all
times reflect the facility's current waste
management unit designs and wastes
managed. If the owner/ operator takes
any action that would result in the
determination no longer being
appropriate to the facility's operations
(e.g., if a waste of different composition
is managed, the operating hours of the
affected management units are
increased beyond what was originally
considered, or a new affected unit is
added that may impact its regulatory
status), then a new determination is
required {§§ 264.1035(b)(2)(ii) and
265.1035(b)(2)(ii)). fa addition, certain
information regarding the facility's
emission determination and control
device design must be included in the
facility's part B permit application.
The final rules require the continuous
monitoring of specific parameters on all
control devices needed to meet the
standards to ensure that the devices -
perform'according to their design
(§§ 264.1033(f) and 285.1033(f)). The final
rules clarify the general parameters.
listed in the proposal by describing the
requirements in greater detail. Operating
-------
25464
Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 120 / Thursday, June 21. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
parameters are specified for condensers,
carbon adsorbers, flares, incinerators,
and other enclosed combustion devices.
Although mfnimum operating conditions
are identified for organic vapor
destruction devices (e.g., incinerators
and flares) to ensure 95-percent
destruction, values or ranges of values
for recovery device p.e., condensers and.
carbon adsorbers) operating parameters
cannot be specified on an industry-wide
basis. Therefore, a recovery device must
be designed for the particular
application and monitored to ensure that
it is being operated within design
specifications. Proper design shall be
determined through engineering
calculations vendor certification, and/or
emission testing.
The owner/operator is required to
record the control device monitoring
information, including the basis for the
operating parameters used to monitor
control device performance, in the
facility operating record. Periods when
monitoring indicates control device
operating parameters are outside
established tolerances on design
specifications must be recorded.
Facilities with final permits
incorporating these standards (i.e.,
facilities subject to the provisions of 40
CFR part 264 snbpart AA) must report
exceedances that are not corrected
within 24 hours to the Regional
Administrator on a semiannual basis.
The records and reports must include
the dates, duration, cause, and
corrective measures taken. (See
§5 264.1036{a) and 264.1065(a)(4).)
The specific monitoring requirements
for control device operating parameters
include: (1) Continuous monitoring of
coolant fluid temperature and exhaust
gas temperatures or the concentration
level of organic compounds in the exit
gas stream for condensers; (2)
continuous monitoring of exhaust gas
organic breakthrough for carbon
adsorbers; (3) continuous monitoring of
combustion zone temperature for
incinerators, boilers and process
heaters; and (4) the presence of a pilot
flame using a thermocouple or any other
equivalent device to detect the presence
of a flame for flares.
The final standards would require that
emission control equipment is properly
designed, installed, operated, and
maintained. Also, as previously
described, the standards would require
continuous monitoring of specific
control device operating parameters. A
control device monitor reading outside
the operating range allowed by the
standards (referred to in this preamble
as a "control device exceedance")
indicates that the control device is not
operating normally or is malfunctioning
(i.e., not operating at the design setting
necessary to achieve at least 95 percent
organic emission control efficiency}.
Action must be taken by the owner or
operator to return fee control device to
operating at the design setting. When a
control device exceedance cannot be
corrected within 24 hours of detection,
the final standards would require the
owner or operator to record specific
information concerning the control
device exceedance. Facilities with final
RCRA permits must report this
information to EPA oa a semiannual
basis; interim status facilities are not
required to report control device
exceedances. The exceedance report
would need to describe the nature and
period of each control device
exceedance and to explain why the
control device could not be returned to
normal operation within 24 hours. A
report would need to be submitted to
EPA only if control device exceedances
have occurred during the past 6-month
reporting period. These reports would
serve to aid EPA in determining the
owner's or operator's ability to properly
operate and maintain the control device.
The EPA recognizes that a control
device malfunction may occur due to
circumstances beyond the control of the
owner or operator (e.g.. defective
equipment supplied by the
manufacturer). Therefore, a single
control device exceedance may not
necessarily be indicative of improper
control device operation or
maintenance.
C. Equipment Leak Standards
Affected Equipment
The final standards apply to each
valve, pump, compressor, pressure relief
device, open-ended valve or line, flange
or other connector, and associated air
emission control device or system that
contains or contacts hazardous waste
streams with 10 percent or more total
oiganics by weight
In response to public comments, EPA
has changed the applicability of the final
LDAR standards for pumps and valves
to better relate to the volatility of the
wastes managed and thus to air
emission potential. The requirements for
pumps and valves have been revised to
include the heavy liquid provisions
contained in EPA's new source
performance standard (NSPS) for
equipment leaks of VOC in the synthetic
organic chemicals manufacturing
industry (SOCMI) (40 CFR part 80, part
W). The heavy liquid provisions
(§ § 264.1058 and 265.1058) exempt
pumps and valves processing lower
vapor pressure substances from the
routine leak detection monitoring
requirements of the standards. By their
nature, heavy liquids exhibit much
lower volatilities than do light liquids,
and because equipment leak rates and
emissions have been shown to vary with
stream volatility, emissions from heavy
liquids are less than those for lighter,
more volatile streams. For example, EPA
analyses radicate that emissions from
valves in heavy liquid service are more
than 30 times lower than the emissions
from valves in light liquid service'.
Pumps and valves are in light liquid
service if the vapor pressure of one or.
more or the components being handled
by the piece of equipment is greater than
0.3 kilopascal (kPa) at 20 °C, if ihe total
concentration of the pure components
having a vapor pressure greater than 0.3
kPa at 20 *C is equal to or greater than
20 percent by weight, and if the fluid is ,.
liquid at operating conditions. Pumps
and valves not in light liquid service are
defined to be in heavy liquid service.
The regulations governing equipment
leaks also have been incorporated and
reprinted in the final standards to
eliminate cross-referencing to part 61
regulations and to consolidate the
requirements under RCRA.
Equipment Leak Control Requirements
The control requirements for valves
are based on LDAR requirements.
Valves in light liquid or gas/vapor
service (§§ 264.1057 and 265.1057) must
be monitored using Reference Method
21; an instrument reading at or above
10,000 ppm indicates the presence of a
leak. If a leak is detected, the valve must
be repaired as soon as practicable but
no later than 15 days .after the leak is
detected. A first attempt to repair the
valve must be-made no later than 5 days
after the leak is detected. First attempts
at repair include, but are not limited to,
tightening or replacing bonnet bolts
tightening packing gland nuts, or
injecting lubricant into the lubricated
packing.
Monthly monitoring is required;
however, any valve for which a leak is
not detected for 2 successive months
may be monitored the first month of
each succeeding quarter until a leak is
detected (§§ 264.1057(c) and
26S.I057(c}). If a leak is detected the
valve must be monitored monthly until a
leak is not detected for 2 successive
months.
In addition, monthly monitoring is not
required if. (1) A leakless valve, such as
a sealed-bellows valve, is used to
achieve a no-detectable-emissions limit
(500 ppm above background, as
measured by Method 21, with an annual
performance test §§ 264.1057(f) and
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 120 / Thursday. June 21, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
25465
265.1057(f); {2) .the owner or operator
meets a performance level of 2 percent
of all valves leaking (§ § 264.1081 and
265.1061); {3) the owner or operator
elects to comply with a skip-period leak
detection and repair program as
described for valves (§| 264.1082 and
265.1062); or (4) the valve is designated
by the owner or operator as unsafe-to-
raonltor or difScult-to-monitor
{§ § 264.1057 fe) and fh) and 265.1057 (g)
and (h)}. A valve may be designated as
unsafe-to-monitor if monitoring
personnel would be exposed to an
immediate danger as a consequence of
monitoring and if the owner or operator
adheres to a written .plan that requires
monitoring of the valve as frequently as
practicable during safe-to-monitor times.
A valve may be designated as difficult-
to-monitor if the valve cannot be
monitored without elevating monitoring
personnel more than 2 m above a
support surface, the valve is in an
existing hazardous waste management
unit and the owner or operator follows a
written plan that requires monitoring at
least once a .year.
The EPA is continuing to study the
status of new technology available for
the control of air emissions from valves.
The EPA has issued a separate notice in
the Federal Register that discusses
available information on leakless valve
technology {54 FR 30228, July 19,1989).
Public comments were requested in that
notice on several aspects of the
technology to assist EPA in determining
applications for which leakless valve
technology would be appropriate at
hazardous waste TSDF.
The final standards also require
monitoring for pumps at TSDF
containing or contacting wastes with
greater than 10 percent organics
(§§ 264.1052 and 265.1052). Each pump in
light liquid service must be monitored
monthly with a portable vapor analyzer
following the EPA Reference Method 21
protocol In addition, each pump in light
liquid .service must be checked weekly
by visual Inspection for indications of
liquids dripping from the pump seal. A
pump is determined to be leaking if an
instrument reading of 10,000 ppm or
greater is measured or there are
indications of liquids dripping from the
pump seal. When a leak is detected, it
must be repaired as soon as practicable,
but not later than 15 days after it is
detected unless the delay-of-repair
provisions specified in the rule apply.
The first attempt at repair must be made
within 5 calendar days of the leak being
detected.
Pumps in light liquid service are
exempt from the monitoring
requirements under || 264.1052 {d) and
(e) and 265.1052 (d) and (e) if: (1) The
pump is equipped with a dual
mechanical seal system tiiat includes a
barrier fluid between the two seals, (2) a
magnetically coupled or diaphragm
pump is used to .achieve a no-detectable-
emissions limit (indicated by a portable
organic vapor analyzer reading of less
than 500 ppm above background), or (3)
fee pump is equipped with a closed-vent
system capable of transporting any
leakage-from'the seal or-seals to a 95-
percent efficient control device. If
pumps are equipped with a dual
mechanical seal system, emissions from
the barrier fluid reservoir must be
vented to a control device designed and
operated to achieve a 95-percent control
efficiency, the barrier fluid must be
purged and added to the hazardous
waste stream, or fee pressure of the
barrier fluid most .be maintained at a
level above the .pressure in the pump or
exhauster stuf&ng box. A pressure or
level indicator to detect any failure of
the seal system or the barrier fluid
system is required, with the indicator
checked daily or equipped with an
alarm to signal failure of the system. If
leakless equipment is used, such as
magnetically coupled or diaphragm
pumps, the standards require an annual
performance test by Method 21 to verify
the no-detectable-emissions status of
the equipment.
Compressors must be equipped with a
seal system that includes a barrier fluid
system that prevents leakage of organic
emissions to the atmosphere. The seal
system must be operated with the
barrier fluid at a pressure that is greater
than the compressor stuffing box
pressure, be equipped with a barrier
fluid system that is connected by a
closed-vent system to a control device
that meets the design and operating
requirements established in §§ 264.1060
and 265.1060, or be equipped with a
system that purges the barrier fluid into
a hazardous waste stream with zero
total organic emissions to the
atmosphere. In addition, the barrier fluid
system must be equipped with a sensor
that detects failure of the seal system,
barrier fluid system, or both. A
compressor is determined to be leaking
if the sensor indicates failure of the seal
system, the barrier fluid system, or both.
When a leak is detected, it must be
repaired as soon as practicable, but not
later than 15 calendar days after it is
detected; a first attempt at repair must
be made within 5 calendar days.
Except during emergency pressure
releases, each pressure -relief device in
gas/vapor .service must be operated
with no detectable emissions {SOO ppm
above background, as measured by
Reference Method 21) (|§ 264.1054 and
265.1054). No later than 5 calendar days
after any pressure release, the device
must be returned -to a condition of no
detectable emissions and be monitored
to confirm that -status. Any pressure
relief device that is equipped with a
closed-vent system capable of capturing
and transporting leakage to a control
device that meets the requirements of
§ § 264.1060 and 265.1060 is exempt from
these requirements.
Each open-ended valve or line must
be equipped with a cap; blind flange,
plug, or second valve f § § 264.1056 and
265.1056). The cap, blind flange, plug, or
second valve must seal the open end at
all times except during operation
requiring hazardous waste stream flow
through the open-ended valve or line.
Operational requirements for second
valves and double block and bleed
systems also are specified in the final
regulation.
Pumps and valves in heavy-liquid
service, pressure relief devices in light-
liquid or heavy-liquid service, and
flanges and other connectors must be
monitored within 5 'days by Reference
Method 21 if evidence of a potential leak
is found by visual, audible, olfactory, or
any other detection method ,(§ § 264.1058
and 265.1058). A leak is detected if an
instrument reading of 10X100 ppm or
greater is measured. When a leak is
detected, it shall be repaired as soon as
practicable but not later than 15.
calendar days after detection. The first
attempt at repair must be made within 5
calendar days of -the leak being
detected.
The final standards also include "
provisions for delay of repair (f f
264.1059 and 265.1059), Delay of repair
of leaking equipment is allowed if the
repair is technically mfeasible without a
hazardous waste management unit
shutdown {i.e., a work .practice or
operational procedure that stops
operation of a hazardous waste
management unit or part of a hazardous
waste management unit). However,
repair of the leak must be performed
before the end of the next shutdown of
that unit Delay of repair also is allowed
for equipment (i.e., either pumps or
valves) that is isolated from the
hazardous waste management unit and
is prevented from containmg or
contacting a hazardous waste with 10
percent or more organic content. For
valves, delay of repair is allowed if: (1)
The owner or operator determines that
emissions of purged material resulting
from immediate repair are greater than
the emissions likely to result from delay
of repair, and (2) when the valve is
repaired the purged materials are
-------
25466 Federal Register /.Vol. 55. No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 1990 / Rules arid .Regulations
collected and destroyed or recovered in
a control device complying with the
requirements of the standards. Delay of
repair beyond a hazardous waste
management unit shutdown is allowed
only if valve assembly replacement is
necessary during the next shutdown of
the unit, valve assembly supplies have
been depleted, and valve assembly
supplies had been sufficiently stocked.
before supplies were depleted (i.e., the
owner/operator has made a good-faith
effort to maintain adequate spare parts].
For pumps, delay of repair is allowed if:
(1) Repair requires the use of a dual
mechanical seal system that includes a
barrier fluid system, and (2) repair is
completed as soon as practicable, but
not later than 6 months after the leak is
detected.
The final standards also include
design and operating requirements for
closed-vent systems that may be used to
comply with the equipment leak
standards (§§ 264.1060 and 285.1060).
Closed-vent systems must be designed
for and operated with no detectable
emissions, as indicated by an instrument
reading of less than 500 ppm above
background by Reference Method 21. A
leak on a closed-vent system, indicated
by an instrument reading of 500 ppm or
by visual inspection, must be repaired
within 15 calendar days after detection;
a first attempt at repair must be made
no later than 5 calendar days after -
detection. Monitoring must be,
conducted initially, annually, and at
other times as requested by the Regional
Administrator, to confirm the no-
detectable-emissions status of the
system. Like other control devices,
closed-vent systems must be operated at
all times when any emissions may be
vented to them.
The provisions of 40 CFR 61.244,
subpart V, which provide a formal
mechanism for applying for use of an
alternative means of emission limitation,
were specifically not included in the
proposed TSDF process vent and
equipment leak rales and have not been
included in these final standards. The
alternative means of emission limitation
provisions are not considered self-
implementing; i.e., these provisions
cannot be satisfied without the need for
detailed explanation or negotiation
between the facility owner/operator and
EPA, and thus are not appropriate as
requirements for interim status facilities
under part 265. Therefore, the
alternative means of emission limitation
provisions were not included in the final
subpart AA and BB rules. An owner, or
operator, however, may use an
alternative means of emission limitation
to comply with the process vent or
equipment leak standards of part 264.
The owner/operator can use part B of
the permit application to provide
information that demonstrates the
effectiveness of any alternative means
of emission limitation and can use the
negotiation process associated with
issuance of a final permit to establish
conditions for use of an alternative
means of emission limitation. The owner
or operator would be responsible for
collecting and verifying test data to
document that the emission reduction
achieved by the alternative is equal to
or greater than the emission reduction
achieved by the equipment design; or
operational requirements in the
standard.
Additional general recordkeeping
requirements include information on
pump, valve, compressor, and pressure
relief device leak repair attempts;
reasons for repair delays; and design
criteria for sampling connection systems
and closed-vent systems and control
devices. There are also recordkeeping
and monitoring requirements for pieces
of equipment covered by alternative
requirements.
Compliance with the equipment leak
standards will be assessed through
plant inspections and the review of
records that document implementation
of the requirements as required by the
final standards.
D. Summary of-Changes from Proposal
Several changes have been made to
the standards since proposal as the
result of EPA's evaluation of comments
and of additional information gathered
in response to comments. These changes
respond primarily to commenters'
concerns that additional controls are
unnecessary for TSDF process vents and
equipment with very low emissions and.
that the applicability, implementation,
and compliance provisions of the
standards should be clarified. The EPA
has addressed these problems in the
final rules.
The proposed standards would have
required that organic emissions from all
process vents that emit organics in
concentrations of 10 percent or greater
on all TSDF waste management units be
reduced by 95 percent. The final rules
apply to process vents on specific
hazardous waste management units that
treat wastes with total organics
concentrations of 10 ppmw or greater
and include (1) process vents on
distillation, fractionation, thin-film
evaporation, solvent extraction, or air or
steam stripping operations and vents on
condensers serving these operations and
(2) process vents on tanks associated
with distillation, fractionation, thin-film
evaporation, solvent extraction, or air or
steam stripping operations if emissions
from these process operations are
vented through the tanks. .
While the proposed standard would
have required 95 percent emission
reduction from each affected vent the
final vent standard's weight-percent
reduction applies to total emissions from
the combination of all affected vents at
each facility. The final rules also add
facility-based emission rate limits for all
affected process vents of 1.4 kg/h (3 lb/
h) arid 2.8 Mg/yr (3.1 ton/yr) (§§
264.1032(a)(l) arid 265.1032(a)(l}).
Facilities with organic emissions from
vents below the emission rate limits will
'not have to reduce process vent organic
emissions. The owner or operator of the
facility must determine arid document
that emissions from affected vents will
not exceed the emission rate limits. The
EPA estimates that baseline emissions
will be reduced by about 90 percent by
controlling process vent emissions from
about 55 percent of affected facilities,
i.e., those with emissions above the
emission rate limit
' Another major change affects the
applicability of the final standards for
pumps and valves to better relate to the
volatility of the wastes managed and
thus to air emission LDAR potential. The
proposed LDAR requirements for pumps
and valves have been revised to
distinguish between equipment in heavy
liquid service and equipment in gas/
light liquid service. The provisions
exempt pumps and valves processing
relatively low vapor pressure
substances (heavy liquids) from the
routine instrument monitoring
requirements of the standards. These
provisions are included to avoid '
requiring unnecessary controls on.
equipment that poses little emission
problem even when leaking.
Because of commenters' concerns
with the administrative problems
associated with obtaining a major
permit modification, the final standards
do not require modifications of RCRA
permits issued before the effective date
of these rules (§§ 264.1030fc) and
264.1050(c)). In such cases, requirements
for affected hazardous waste
management units and associated
requirements for process vents and
equipment must be added or
incorporated into the-facility's permit at
review under § 270.50 or at reissue
under § 124.15. However, in the
forthcoming Phase I! air rules, EPA will
be proposing to modify §§ 264.1030(c) '.
and 264.1050(c) as they apply to control
of air emissions under subparts AA and
BB. This action, if adopted, would mean
that the air rules promulgated under
RCRA section 3004(n) would be
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
25467
applicable to all facilities as of the
effective'date of the Phase II rales. More
details regarding implementation are
presented in section IX of: feis preamble.
"Hie proposed air emission standards
for process vents and equipment leaks
would have added part 269, Air
Emission Standards for Owners and
Operators of Hazardous Waste
Treatment Storage, and Disposal
Facilities. For consistency with '
standards for other TSDF sources under
RCRA, the final standards have been
incorporated into part 264, for p'ermitted
facilities, and part 265, for interim status
facilities. In addition, whereas at
proposal the equipment leak
requirements of 40 CFR part 61, subpart
V, were incorporated by reference, these
provisions have been written into
subpart BB with editorial revisions
appropriate fora standard promulgated
under RCRA authority rather than CAA
authority.
E. fielotioBsliipofRCRA Exemptions to
Final Standards
Under 40 CFR 261.4(c}, hazardous
wastes that are-generated in process-
related equipment such as prodnct or
raw material storage tanks or pipelines
are exempt from RGRA regulation. This
exemption applies until the waste is
physically removed from the unit in
which it was generated, unless -fee unit
is a surface Hnpoandment or unless fee
hazardous waste remains in the unit
more than 90 days after the unit ceases
to be operated for manufacturing, or for
storage or transportation of product or
raw materials. This exemption is not
affected by feis rule. Therefore, units
such as prodacit {not hazardous waste)
distillation columns generating
hazardous waste still bottoms
containing organics are not subject to
the standard while the wastes are in the
product distillation column. However,
-distillation columns that receive
hazardous wastes and that are used in
hazardous waste treatment (i.e.,
hazardoBS waste management units) are
subject to tins standard if the waste's
organic content exceeds the 10-ppmw
applicability criterion. As discussed in
the preamble to the proposed standard,.
only those recycling units that are part
of a facility already subject to RCRA
permit requirements are subject to the
air standards. The EPA's authority to
control air emissions from solvent '
reclamation operations not part of
closed-loop systems is discussed further
in section VI of this preamble and in the
BID. .
Totally enclosed treatment facilities
also are exempt irom RCRA subtitle C
requirements' under 40 CFR 264.1(g}(5J.
40 CFR 265.1{cX9), and 270.1(c)(2). A
"totally enclosed treatment facility" is a
hazardous waste treatment facility that
is "directly connected to an industrial
production process and which is
constructed and operated in a manner .-
that prevents the release of any .
hazardous waste or any constituent
thereof into the environment during
treatment" {40 CFR 260.10].
Treatment facilities located off -fee
site of 'generation are not directly
connected to an industrial process.
Thus, commercial waste treatment
facilities wife equipment affected by -foe
final standards, snch as solvent
reclamation facilities, by definition
ordinarily would not be totally enclosed.
In addition, storage faculties, disposal
facilities, and ancillary equipment not
used for treating hazardous waste do
not fall within the definition of a totally
enclosed treatment facility.
The EPA believes that many on-site
treatment facilities also are not totally
enclosed. Distillation columns and other
treatment technologies typically are
designed to release emissions into the
air. Therefore, by definition, these on-
site technologies generally are not
totally enclosed. (See 45 FR 33218, May
19.1980 (no constituents released to air
during treatment).)
Two important-characteristics-define
a totally enclosed treatment facility. The
key characteristic of a totally enclosed
treatment facility is that it does not
release any hazardous waste or
constituent of hazardous waste into the
environment during treatment Thus, if a
facility leaks, spills, or discharges waste
or waste constituents, or emits waste or
waste constituents into the air during
treatment it is not a totally enclosed
treatment facility within the meaning of
these regulations. The .second important
characteristic is that it must be directly
connected to an industrial production
process.
The EPA also excludes elementary
neutralization and wastewater
treatment tanks as defined by 40 CFR
260.10 from regulation under the
hazardous waste rales. The EPA
amended feese .definitions {see S3 FR
34080, September 2,1988) to clarify that
the scope of the exemptions applies to
the tank systems, not just the tank. For
example, if a wastewater treatment or
elementary neutralization unit is not
subject to RCRA subtitle C hazardous
waste management standards, neither is
ancillary equipment connected to the
exempted imit. The amendments also
clarify that, for a wastewater treatment
unit to be covered by the exemption, it
must be part of an onsite wastewater
treatment facility. Thus, emissions from
process vents associated with
distillation, fractionation fein-Hlm
evaporation, solvent extraction, -or air or
steam stripping operations and ancillary
equipment {piping, pumps, etc.] &at are
associated with a tank feat is part of the
wastewater treatment system subject to
regulation either under sections 402 or
307{b) of the Clean Water Act are not
subject to these standards. However, air
emission sources not subject to RCRA
may be subject to CAA guidance and/or
standards.
As noted in the .preamble to fee
proposal, under 40 CFR 262.34,
generators that accumulate hazardous
waste in tanks and -containers for 90
days or less are not subject to RCRA
permitting requirements, provided they
comply with fee provisions >of 40 CFR
262^4, which include the substantive
requirements for tanks and .containers
storing hazardous waste, 40 CFR .part
265, subparts land J.This remains
unchanged, and fee final standards do
not apply to generator tanks feat
accumulate hazardous 'waste for 90 days
or less. However, as part of fee Phase II
TSDF air emission regulations, EPA
intends to propose to modify the
exemption conditions to require feat 90-
day tanks meet fee control requirements
of fee Phase I and Phase H standards.
Today's final rales regulate fee
activity «f reclamation at certain types
of RCRA faciMes for The fast Bme. The
EPA is amending 40 CFR 261.6 -under its
RCRA authority over reclamation to
allow covering reclamation of hazardous
wastes hi waste management units
affected by today's final rules. It should
be recognized, however, feat these final
rules apply only at facilities otherwise
needing a RCRA permit IB addition, fee
closed-loop reclamation exemption in
§ 261.4(a}(8) is not changed by these
rules. Therefore, not ail reclamation
units will necessarily be affected by
these rules.
VI. Summary of Comments and
Numerous comments on fee proposed
rule were received feat relate to nearly
all aspects of the RCRA .standards
development process. Hie comment
summaries cover topics relating to
regulatory issues, applicability of fee
standards, control technologies impact
analyses and implementation and
compliance issues. Detailed responses
to these and other -comments are
included in the BID for Ihe promulgated
standards, which is available in fee
public docket for this rale. -
-------
25468 .Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 120 / Thursday. June 21, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
A. Regulatory Issues . -
Statutory Authority
Comment: Several commenters argued
that TSDF air emissions should be
regulated under the CAA rather than
RCRA because (1) CAA standards under
sections 111 and 112 are already in place
in the SOCMI and petroleum refining
industries; (2) air emissions at some
TSDF have already been permitted
under State implementation plans (SEP),
new source review programs, or .under
State regulations for VOC or air toxics
control; (3) VOC and ozone control are
the province of the CAA, not RCRA; and
.(4) a statutory mechanism already exists
under the CAA for evaluating the risk
posed by air emissions.
Response: Congress has required EPA
lo promulgate air emission monitoring
and control requirements at hazardous
waste TSDF, under section 3004(n) of
RCRA, as may be necessary to protect .
human health and the.environment.
Congress was aware of the existence
and scope of the CAA when it enacted
section 3004(n) of RCRA. There is no
indication that Congress intended that
all air regulations be issued within the
confines of the CAA. On the contrary,
when adding section 3004(n), Congress
specifically recognized EPA's dual
authority to regulate these air pollutants
(S. Rep. 98-284, page 63). ' .
The EPA has conducted an analysis of
current State and Federal controls and
concluded that further regulation under
section 3004(n) is necessary to protect
human health and the environment The
EPA examined State regulations, as well
as existing Federal standards (and those
under development), to determine the
potential for overlapping rules and
permitting requirements. The EPA found
that 6 States have established air toxics
programs, 21 States have established
generic standards for VOC independent
of Federal regulations, and several
States have extended control techniques
.guidelines (CTG) for VOC to TSDF.
However, the standards vary widely in
scope and application and in many
cases controls have not been required
svhen emissions are below 40 ton/yr,
aven in the 37 States with ozone
nonattainment areas. The EPA believes
that today's action will help'alleviate
the nonuniformity among the States'
efforts and will help achieve emission
reductions necessary to protect human
health and the environment.
A few commenters also argued that
the standards would duplicate existing
CAA standards that apply to the SOCMI
and petroleum refineries. The EPA
disagrees because the standards being :
promulgated today apply to waste
management sources whereas the CAA
standards previously promulgated apply
to the production process.
The EPA also disagrees with
contentions that it is outside the
province of RCRA to address VOC and
ozone. As noted, section 3004(n)
standards, like all RCRA subtitle C
standards, are to protect "human health
and the environment" VOC and ozone
are threats to human health and the
environment and thus are well within
the regulatory scope of section 3004(n).
Organic emissions from TSDF
contribute to ambient ozone formation.
In fact, TSDF are estimated to emit
nearly 12 percent of all VOC from
stationary sources, and thus any
reductions in.these emissions will
contribute to reducing ozone formation
and associated health and -
environmental problems.
RCRA Authority Over Recycling
Comment: Several commenters argued
that EPA does not have regulatory
authority under RCRA to control solvent
reclamation operations or units or
equipment managing materials destined
for reclamation such as spent solvent
because they are producing or managing
products and not wastes.
Response: The EPA disagrees with the
commenters regarding EPA's authority
to control solvent reclamation
operations; In response to a court
opinion (American Mining Congress v.
EPA, 824 F.2d 1177, DC Circuit Court of
Appeals, July 31,1987) concerning the
scope of EPA's RCRA authority, EPA
proposed amendments to the RCRA -
definition of "solid waste" that would
clarify when reclamation operations can
be considered to be managing solid and
hazardous wastes (53 FR 519, January 8,
1988). The EPA has accepted comments
on its interpretation and proposed
amendments. The EPA has not yet taken
final action on this proposal. Thus, EPA
is addressing the scope of its authority
over reclamation operations under
RCRA in the context of that rulemaking.
This rule is based on EPA's current
interpretation of itsRCRA-authority, as
described in the January 1988 proposal.
The following summarizes EPA's
proposed position. In general, the
proposed amendments would exclude
from RCRA control only those spent
solvents reclaimed as part of a
continuous, ongoing manufacturing
process where the material- to be
reclaimed is piped (or moved by a
comparably'closed means of ..
conveyance) to a reclamation device,
any storage preceding reclamation is in
a tank, and-.the material is returned after
being reclaimed, to the original process
where it was generated. (Other
conditions on this exclusion relate to
duration and purpose of the reclamation
process. See proposed § 261.4(a)(8).)
However, processes (or other types of
recycling) involving an element of
"discard" are (or can be) within RCRA
subtitle C authority. When spent
materials are being reclaimed, this
element of discard can arise in two
principal ways. First, when spent
materials are reclaimed by someone
other than the generator, normally in an
off-site operation, the generator of the
spent material is getting rid of the
material and so is discarding it. In
addition, the spent material itself, by
definition,-is-used up and unfit for
further direct use; the spent material
must first be restored to a usable
condition. This type of operation has
been characterized by some of the worst
environmental damage incidents
involving recycling (50 FR 658-661,
January 4,1985). Moreover, storage
preceding such reclamation has been
subject to the part 264 and 2B5 standards
since November 19,1980. (See generally
53 FR 522 and underlying record.
materials.) The American Mining
Congress opinion itself indicates that
such materials are solid wastes (824 .
F.2d at 1187). .
When a spent material is reclaimed .
on site in something other than a closed-
loop process, EPA also considers that
the spent material is discarded (i.e.,
spent solvents removed from the
process, transferred to an on-site
distillation unit, and regenerated have
been removed from the production
process). The EPA's reasoning is that
these materials are no longer available
for use in an ongoing process and have
been disposed of from that operation,
even if the reclamation operation is on
site. Finally,.EPA also considers that
when hazardous secondary materials
are reclaimed but then burned as fuels,
the entire operation-culminating in
thermal-combustion:constitutes
discarding via destructive combustion
(53 FR 523). Consequently, under this
reading,.any intermediate reclamation
step in these types of fuel production
operations remains within EPA's
subtitle C authority.
In summary, under EPA's current .
interpretation of the court's opinion, air
emissions from distillation,
fractionation, thin-film evaporation,
solvent extraction, and stripping
processes involving reclamation of spent
solvent and other spent hazardous
secondary materials can be regulated
under RCRA subtitle C whenever the
reclamation system is not part of the
type of closed-loop reclamation system
described in proposed part 261.4(a)(8).
Any changes to this interpretation as :
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 1990 / Rules and Regulations 25469
part of the solid waste definition final
rule may affect the scope-of this rule:
Selection of-Source Category
Comment: Several commenters
disagreed with the selection of TSDF
and Waste Solvent Treatment Facility
(WSTF) process vents and equipment
leaks for regulation because they
believed that (1) out-pf-date data or.
extrapolated data were used in the
analysis and, as a result, the estimate of.
the number pf affected.facilities
nationwide and the number affected by
the. proposed'rule is far too low; (2) the
role of State regulations was not .
considered; (3) EPA should control
larger, more hazardous air emission
sources at TSDF, such as storage tanks,
before controlling process vents and
equipment leaks; and (4) air emissions
from waste solvent reclamation
operations- do not pose a health risk
warranting control.
Response: The EPA generally
disagrees with the commenters that the
selection of TSDF process vents and
equipment leaks was inappropriate.
However, EPA agrees that the standards
will affect more than the 100 WSTF
. estimated at proposal. To respond to
these and other comments, EPA
conducted additional technical
analyses. The EPA developed an
industry profile using results of the 1986
National Screening Survey of Hazardous
Waste Treatment, Storage, Disposal,
and Recycling Facilities (hereafter
called the "Screener Survey"). The
Screener Survey data represent all of
the TSDF active in 1985 with interim
. status or final RCRA permits, which
totalled about 3,000 facilities. The
Screener Survey data are for operations
in 1985, the latest year for which, such
comprehensive data are available. A
review of the Screener Survey data
shows a total of about 450 facilities that
need authorization to operate under
RCRA section 3005 and report solvent
recovery by operations such as batch
distillation, fractioriation, -thin-film
evaporation, or steam stripping at the
facility; i.e., operations that would have
process vents subject to the standards.
The EPA used these facility counts
together with the reported 1985 waste
solvent throughputs as the basis for the
final process vent standards impacts
analyses. In addition, EPA estimates- - -
that about 1,000 on site and off site
permitted TSDF that do not practice
solvent recovery do-manage hazardous
waste-streams containing 10 percent or .
more total organics -and would be'
subject to the equipment leak
requirements. In total, about 1,400
facilities-are potentially subject to .the .-_'
provisions'of subpartBB.;: . ;- ' .
;State and Federal regulations also
were reviewed to help EPA better
estimate baseline emission control
levels. Although a few States have.
controls in place, it appears that there
are no general control requirements for
TSDF process vents. Moreover, because
TSDF with solvent recycling generally
are small operations, any new waste
management units with process, vents
would likely have potential VOC .
emissions of less than 40 ton/yr; thus-,
prevention of significant deterioration
(PSD) permit requirements would not
apply. Iii addition, EPA sent section 3007
information requests to several large
and small TSDF; respondents to the EPA
section 3007 questionnaires did not
indicate control requirements for
process vents. Several of the facilities ..,
that were asked to provide information
reported requirements for obtaining air
contaminant source operating permits,'
but they reported no permit
requirements for controlling process
vent emissions. Therefore, the revised
emission estimates (that are based on
siterspecific emission data} should
reasonably reflect the current level of
control of process vent emissions. :
With respect to those commenters .
who argued that other air emission
sources should be controlled instead of
proc'ess vents and equipment leaks, it
should be pointed out that section
3004(n) of RCRA requires EPA to
promulgate regulations for the
monitoring and control of air emissions
from hazardous waste TSDF, including
but not limited to open tanks, surface
impoundments, and landfills, as may be
necessary to protect human health and
the environment. Organic emissions are
generated from process vents on
distillation and separation units such as
: air strippers, steam strippers, thin-film
evaporators, fractionation columns,
batch distillation units, pot. stills, and
condensers and distillate receiving
' vessels that vent emissions from these .
units. Distillation and separation
processes may be found in solvent
.reclamation operations-, wastewater
treatment systems, and in other
pretreatment processes. Organic
emissions also are released from
equipment leaks associated with these
' processes as well as from nearly all
other hazardous waste management
units.
As discussed hi section OLD of this
preamble, the EPA chose to develop the
process vent and equipment leak portion
of its TSDF rulemaking as the first phase
of the TSDF air emission-rules partly to
: prevent uncontrolled air emissions from
LDR treatment, technologies since these
technologies were likely to have . -
increased use. In addition, EPA already
had control technology information to
support these regulations, and thus .
earlier development of these rules was .
possible. This is principally because
effective controls-now in place under the
CAA to control emissions from the same
types of emission points hi chemical
. production .facilities and petroleum
refineries .can be applied to reduce, the
health risk posed by .air emissions from
uncontrolled distillation, fractionation,
thin-film evaporation, solvent '-.
extraction, and stripping processes and
equipment leaks at TSDF. The EPA has
limited the applicability of .today's final
-standards to those types of process
vents' for which control techniques are
well developed, i.e., those associated .,_
with processes designed to drive the
organics from the waste, such as
distillation, fractionation, thin-film
evaporation, solvent-extraction, and
stripping operations.
Organic emissions also are generated
from numerous other sources at TSDF.
Preliminary estimates indicate that
nationwide organic emissions (after ..'
control of process vents.associated, with
distillation/separation units and .
equipment leaks) are about 1.8 million
"Mg/yr. The EPA is in the process of ..
developing standards for these-sources ..
under section'3004(n) of RCRA, and the...;.
standards are scheduled for proposal in .
1990. Source categories being examined
include tanks, surface impoundments,
containers, and miscellaneous units.
These other TSDF source categories .
require different data and engineering
evaluations; thus, standards for these
other sources are. On a-separate
rulemaking schedule. The emissions and
risk analyses needed to support
extension of the process vent standards
to other closed (covered), vented tanks
are also being developed in conjunction
with this future rulemaking.. These .
include vent emissions that are . . .
incidental to the process, such as - .
emissions caused by loading or by.
. agitation/-- aeration of the waste in a .
treatment tank. - .- - -.
The EPA has determined that organic.
emissions/from TSDF/ WSTF process -
vents and equipment leaks, pose a
significant risk to human health and the
environment and that section 3004(n)
provides authority to control TSDF-air
emissions-from these sources. Therefore,
EPA has decided to take measures to
reduce the atmospheric release of
organic air pollutants from these sources
as quickly, as possible. The-fact-that
distillation, fractionation, thin-film-
evaporation, solvent extraction, and ' -
stripping processes and equipment leaks
. are regulated before other sources is-not
-------
25470 ' Federal Register f VoL 55. No; 120 / Thursday. June 21, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
germane. There is no reasotf'to delay
these rules while others are under
, development
Other commenters criticized the
selection of the source category for
regulation because their process vent
emissions either are already controlled
or are Jow enough so as not to pose a
threat to human health and the , '
environment However, EPA's analysis
of process vent emissions and impacts
indicates that for a large segment of the
industry. TSDF process vent-emissions
can pose significant environmental and
health risks. These facilities are the
target of the subpart AA process vent
standards. As discussed in section VLB
of this preamble, the final standards
include facility process vent emission
rate limits designed to avoid control of
facilities where meaningful reductions in
nationwide risk to human health and the
environment cannot be achieved.
Several commenters'also criticized the
source category for regulation because
emissions from generators who conduct
on-site reclamation and off-site
reclaimers with no prior storage (i.e.,
those recycling activities conducted at
facilities not requiring a RCRA permit]
would not be controlled.
The standards being promulgated
today (under section 3004[n]} apply only
to waste management facilities that
need authorization to operate under
section 3005 of RCRA. Air emissions
from subtitle C waste management ;
facilities that are excluded from RCRA
permit requirements will be subject to
regulation under either the CAA or
RCRA authority as appropriate. Waste
management facilities that fafl under the
requirements of subtitle D (i.e.,
nonhazardous waste operations) will
also be subject to regulation under ;the
CAA. The EPA limited the scope of the
standards at proposal and in this final
rule to facilities required to have a
permit under RCRA to minimize
disruption to the current permitting
system (i.e^ not expand the permit
universe) and not impose a permit
burden on facilities not otherwise
subject to RCRA permits. Although EPA
is controlling only some sources in this
rule, other sources of significant levels
of ah- emissions .win also be controlled;
i.e., it is a. matter of timing rather than a
decision not to control these other
sources. This phased regulatory
approach is discussed in section m.C of
this preamble.
RCRA Decision Criteria
Comment: Several commenters
alleged that the standards do not meet
the mandate of RCRA section 3004(n)
because (1) the standards are not
protective in all cases; (2) the standards
are inconsistent with RCRA section
3004(m) that requires, treatment
. standards based on best demonstrated
available technology (BOAT); and {3}
neither the RCRA statute nor its
legislative history allows consideration
of costs. '.' , ' -
Respoas&TheEPA believes that the
standards promulgated today -., '
appreciably .reduce health' risks
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 1990 / Rules.and Regulations 25471
organic content because the relative
amount of organic content'by weight
does not determine potential air
emissions and subsequent health effects.
Response: First, it should be pointed
out that ozone presents a threat to
human health and the environment that
warrants control under RCRA. The EPA
agrees that total organic content may
not be a completely accurate gauge of
potential environmental (e.g., ozone) or
health (e.g., cancer) impacts for a source
such as process vents, but it is a readily
measurable indicator. In addition, the
final rule's substantive control
requirements do apply only to vents and
equipment containing volatile
components.
The final vent standard applies to
certain process vents emitting organics
if the vent is associated with one of the
processes specified in the rule. A
process vent is determined to be
affected by the standard if the vent is
part of a hazardous waste distillation,
fractionation, thin-film evaporation,
solvent extraction, or air or.steam
stripping unit that manages wastes with
10 ppmw or more total organics; this
includes vents on tanks (e.g., distillate
receivers or hot wells) if emissions from
the process operations are vented
through the tank. Total organic content
of the vent stream (i.e., the emissions to
the atmosphere] is not a consideration
in determining process vent
applicability. As public commenters
pointed out the 10-percent total
organics concentration cutoff for the
vent stream does not limit total
emissions or relate to emissions that
escape capture by existing control
devices and therefore was not included
in the final rules.
Furthermore, the process vents
covered by this rule are typically
associated with distillation/separation
processes used to recycle spent solvents
and other organic chemicals. By .
definition, distillation is a process that
consists of driving'gas or vapor from
liquids or solids by heating and then
condensing the vapor(s) to liquid
products. Wastes treated by distillation
are expected to contain organics that
are driven off in the process. Thus, by '
their nature, process vent emissions '
contain volatile organics.
Under the final standards, the term
"organic emissions" is used in lieu of
"volatile organic emissions" to avoid
confusion with "volatile organic
compounds." As at proposal, the final
rule, applies to total organics. Because of
the hundreds of hazardous constituents
that could be contained in and
contacted by the equipment covered by
today's rules, EPA recognizes the
potential for the residual risk at some
facilities to remain higher than the
residual risk for other standards
promulgated under RCRA. Regulations
based only on specific constituents will
therefore be developed, as necessary, in
Phase HI of EPA's regulatory approach.
The constituents to be evaluated will
include those reported as being present
in hazardous wastes.managed by
. existing TSDF for which health effects .
have been established through the
development of unit risk factors for
carcinogens and reference doses for
noncarcinogens.
As is discussed in section VLB of this
preamble, emission potential from
equipment leaks also'was considered by
incorporating the light-liquid definition
in the section 111 CAA standards. Light
liquids exhibit much higher volatilities
than, do heavy liquids, which are
relatively nonvolatile. Equipment leak
rates and emissions have been shown to
vary with stream volatility; emissions
from heavy liquids are far less than
those for lighter, more volatile streams.
For example, EPA analyses indicate that
emissions from valves in heavy-liquid
service are more than 30 times lower
than the emissions from valves hi light-
liquid service (see the BED, § 4.6). The
EPA examined the emissions and risk
associated with light- and heavy-liquid
waste .streams and found that light-
liquid streams are the overwhelming
contributors to both emissions and risk.
Thus, the final standards take into
account the volatility of emissions and
the subsequent impact on health and the
environment
Application of CAA Equipment Leak
Standards
Comment: Several commenters did
not agree that the standards should be
based on the transfer of technology from
the section 112 standards, for benzene
(40 CFR, subpart V) because TSDF
waste streams and processes differ from
the chemical plants and petroleum
refineries upon which the CAA
standards are based.
Response: Data used in establishing
the benzene fugitive standards under
CAA section 112 are based on extensive
emission ~and process data collected at a
variety of petroleum refinery and
SOCMI operating units. Data were
obtained for equipment and chemical
component mixtures that include many
of the same organic compounds that are
treated, stored, and disposed of in
hazardous waste management units.
Because hazardous waste management
units such as distillation units have the
same sources of fugitive organic
emissions (such as pumps and valves)
and handle the same chemicals as do
chemical manufacturing plants and
petroleum refineries, it is reasonable to
expect similar performance and
efficiency of the technology for
controlling organic emissions at
hazardous waste management units. The
EPA has no reason to believe that the
equipment standards would not be
applicable.to TSDF. Moreover, although
EPA has not conducted actual
equipment leak testing at TSDF,
observations of equipment during plant .
visits have confirmed that the
assumptions and analyses used in other
equipment leak standards apply to
TSDF as well. :
Changes have been made in the final
standards 'and analyses to incorporate
provisions included in the CAA
standards that reflect the effect of
volatility on emissions. As. is discussed
in section V of this preamble, the LDAR
requirements for pumps and valves have
been revised to include the light-liquid
provisions hi EPA's NSPS for VOC
equipment leaks in the SOCMI.
Correspondingly, the emission and
health risk analyses have been revised
to reflect this change to the standards.
Additional information on the
appropriateness of the CAA data on the
SOCMI and petroleum refineries is
presented in the next section.
B. Standards and Applicability
Standards for Accumulator Vessels
Comment: Commenters contended
that the regulatory approach of applying
a single standard to the wide varieties of
accumulator vessels irrespective of the
chemical constituents that are present
and the size of the .vessel is not
appropriate because the proposed
standards result in the control of
already low emission rates at
disproportionateljjjhigh costs. Standards
for tanks (whether accumulation or
storage tanks) should be conditioned by
the size of the vessel, the vapor pressure
of the material being stored, and the
type of units that pose a risk to human
health and the environment. The EPA's
approach should be similar to or
consistent with the CAA NSPS for
petroleum liquid storage vessels (4OCFR-
part 60, subpart Ka). These standards
exempt vessels that store liquids less
than 1.5 psia or that store less than
40,000 gal.
Response: Cdmmenters recommending
that the air emission standards be
conditioned by the size of the tank and
the vapor pressure of the material being
stored have misinterpreted the
applicability of the proposed standards.
To .clarify the applicability of the
standards, the term "product
accumulator vessel" has .been dropped
-------
25472 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No; 120 / Thursday. June 21, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
from the promulgated rule, including the
equipment definition, aad the process
vent definition has been revised lo be
specific to the applicable emission
sources. "Process vent" is defined to
mean "any open-ended pipe or stack
that is vented to the atmosphere either
directly, through a vacuum-producing
system, or through a tank (e-g., distillate
receiver, condenser, bottoms receiver,
surge control tank, separator tank, or
hot well) associated with distillation
fractionation, thin-film evaporation,
solvent extraction, or air or steam
stripping operations." Similarly, the
definition of "vented" has been revised
to specifically exclude the passage of
liquids, gases, or fumes "caused by tank
loading and unloading {working
losses)." Because lank working and
breathing losses are not considered
process emissions, the comments
concerning vapor pressure and tank size
exemptions are not relevant {It should -
be noted, however, that EPA intends to
regulate hazardous waste storage tanks,
along with various other TSDF air
emission sources in the Phase II, section
3004(n), TSDF air standards now being
developed and evaluated by the
Agency.)
In conducting the impact analysis of
the WSTF/TSDF process vent
standards, EPA considered and took
Into account the relative size of WSTF
process units and the wide range of
chemicals processed in the WSTF
industry. For example, three sizes of
WSTF model units were defined for
analysis of emissions, health risks, -and
economic impacts in the final
rulemaking {see section VLD). In
addition, the final standards for process
vents promulgated by EPA contain
emission rate limits and require controls
only at facilities whose total process
vent emissions are greater than 1.4 kg/h
(3 Jb/h) and 2& Mg/yr (3.1 ton/yr). More
detailed descriptions of the model units
and the process vent emission rate
limits are provided in chapters 5.0 and
7.0, respectively, of the BID.
Comment: Several commenters
objected to the proposed standard for
process,vents that requires a fixed 95-
percent emission reduction. They
believe that the process vent standard is
inequitable because some operations
could reduce emissions by 95 percent
and still have higher emissions than
some small uncontrolled operations and
because facilities would have to install
control devices on all condenser and
otill vents regardless of emissions or risk
posed Id human health or the
environment A few commenters asked "
EPA to consider exemptions for small
solvent operations that have,low
emissions and thus-pose little health
.risk.
Response: In response to these .
comments, EPA estimated the TSDF/
. WSTF air quality and health impacts
using updated model unit; emission rate,
and facility throughput data. Although
total facility waste solvent .throughputs
were available, the data base did not
contain any information on the number
or capacities of process units at each
site. Therefore, the risk.analysis is
based on overall facility operations and
total facility process vent emissions as
opposed to individual process vent . -
emissions. The impacts analysis results
show that nationwide reductions in
emissions, maximum individual risk
(MIR}, and cancer incidence level off
(i.e., yield only,insubstantial incremental
reductions) at a facility emission rate of
about Z8 Mg/yr. (3.1 ton/yr). At a typical
rate of 2,080 h/yr of .operation, this
annual emission rate corresponds to 1.4
kg/h (3 lb/h) of organic emissions.
Control of facilities with process vent
emissions less than these values does
not result in further reductions of
nationwide MIR or cancer incidence. At
this emission level larger facilities (i.e.,
those with uncontrolled emissions
above the emission rate limit) that are
controlled to a-95-percent emission
reduction result in MIR values higher
than the remaining uncontrolled small
facilities (Le., those with uncontrolled
emissions below the limit). The same
holds true for nationwide cancer
incidence. The reduction in cancer
incidence achieved by controlling
facilities below the limit is not
significant relative to the nationwide
reductions achieved by controlling the
larger facilities.
Consequently, the analysis results
indicate that provision of small facility
emission rate limits of 1.4 kg/h (3 lb/h)
and 2.8 Mg/yr (3.1 ton/yr) for process
vent emissions provides essentially the
same level of protection for human
health and the environment (in terms of
risk, incidence, and emissions) as does
covering all facilities. In addition, the
MER after control is within the range of
residual risk for other standards
promulgated under RCRA. As a result,
the final rule requires control of only
those facilities emitting greater than 1.4
kg/h (3 lb/h) and 2.8 Mg/yr (3.1 ton/yr)
organic emissions from all process
vents. A more detailed discussion of the
process vent emission rate limits is
contained in chapter 7.0 of the BID.
Because the final standards contain
process vent emission,rate limits, it is
anticipated that small solvent recovery
operations would not be substantially
affected by the final process vent
standards. The EPA estimates, based on
the high emission rates and 1985 waste
solvent throughput data, indicate that
about 45 percent of the WSTF identified
in the industry profile will have process
vent emissions of less .than 2.8 Mg/yr
(3.1 ton/yr). Consequently, it is expected
that a large number of small facilities
would not be required to install
additional process vent controls.
Selection of 10-Percent Cutoff
Comment: Commenters believed that
the 10-percent level proposed is
comparable to 100,000 ppm and raay be
too high, particularly when compared to
the 10,000-ppm level that defines an
equipment leak, and tK'at EPA should
evaluate the health and environmental
impacts associated with Ihe proposed
limit. The 10-percent limit will allow
excessive emissions from leaking
equipment and is based on costs, not
technical limitations. Commenters also
argued that the 10-percent limit does nol
adequately protect the environment
because emissions could be substantial
if there are numerous leaking
components with relatively dilute
streams and that controls, such as
carbon adsorbers, are available .to
capture emissions from dilute streams.
Response: First, for clarification, the
10-percent organic content limit for
equipment leaks in no way relates to the
10,000-ppm leak definition. The leak
definition, which is a Method 21
instrument reading used to define when
a leak is detected, is discussed in a later
comment. As proposed, the lO-percent
total organics cutoff level for
applicability of the standards covered
both equipment leak {fugitive) emissions
and process vent emissions. Control
technologies for fugitive emissions
comprise the use of control 'equipment,
inspection of equipment, and repair
programs tolimit or reduce emissions
from leaking equipment These control
technologies have been studied and
evaluated for equipment containing
fluids with more than 10 percent
organics (EPA-450/3-80-32b, EPA-J50/
3-80^33b, EPA-450/3-82-010, and EPA-
45073-86-002). The 10-percent criterion
was chosen in EPA's original benzene/
SOCMI studies to focus the analyses on
air emissions from -equipment containing
relatively concentrated organics and
presumably having the ,'greatest potential.
for air emissions. Available data from
the original benzene./SOCMI .studies do
not suggest that fugitive emissions from
leaking equipment {e.g., pumps and
valves) handling streams containing less
than 10 percent organics are significant
or that the 10-percent cutoff allows
excessive emissions from dilute streams
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 120 / Thursday. June 21, 1990 / Rules and Regulations 25473
However, to reevaluate this would
require several years to conduct field'
studies to collect and analyze additional
emissions and control effectiveness data
for equipment leaks. Because available
data support the need for, and
effectiveness of. standards for
. equipment handling streams containing
at least 10 percent organics, the EPA
does not believe that a delay in
rulemaking to assess emissions and
controls for equipment handling streams
containing less than 10 percent organics
is warranted.
The effectiveness of fugitive emission
control technologies has been
thoroughly evaluated for equipment
containing fluids with at least 10 percent
organics, and fugitive emission
standards have been proposed or
established under both sections 111 and
112 of the CAA. {See 46 FR1136, January
5,1981; 46 FR 1165, January 5,1981: 48
FR 279. January 4.1983; 48 FR 37598,
August 18,1983; 48 FR 48328, October 18,
1983; 49 FR 22598. May 30,1984; 49 FR
23498, June 6,1984; and 49 FR 23522,
June 6,1984.) As elaborated in these
rulemakings, a 10-percent cutoff deals
with the air emissions from equipment
most likely to cause significant human
health and environmental harm.
With regard to process vent
emissions, EPA agrees with the
conunenter. Emission test data show
that the 10-percent cutoff potentially
may allow significant emissions from
process vents on a mass-per-unit-time
basis (e.g., kg per hour or Mg per yr). As
public commenters pointed out, the 10-
percent cutoff for process vents does not
limit total emissions, nor does it relate
to emissions that escape capture by
existing control devices. Therefore the
10-percent cutoff may not be
appropriate; as a result, EPA has
eliminated the 10-percent cutoff as it
applies to process vents. The EPA
believes that an emission rate limit more
effectively relates to emissions,
emission potential, and health risks than
does a 10-percent organic concentration
cutoff. Accordingly, a health-risk-based
facility process vent emission rate limit
has been added to the final rules in lieu
of the 10-percent cutoff.
Because the emission rate limits (3 lb/
h and 3.1 ton/yr) provide health-based
limits. EPA considered dropping
completely the organic content criterion
(i.e.. at least 10 percent total organics].
However, EPA decided not to eliminate
completely the organic content criterion
because it is not clear that the same
controls can be applied to very low
concentration streams as can be applied
to the higher concentration streams that
generally are-associated with emission
rates greater than the limits. For low-
concentration streams, EPA questions
whether controls are needed on a
national or generic basis, but is unable
to resolve this question at this time.
Thus, EPA decided to defer controlling
very low concentration streams until it
is able to better characterize and assess
these streams and the appropriate
controls.
Once EPA decided to consider
facilities that manage very low
concentration organic wastes as a
separate category, there remained the
problem of determining the appropriate
criterion. The EPA examined existing
data on air strippers, the treatment
device most commonly used with low-
concentration streams; it appeared that
the quantity of emissions and the risk
associated with air strippers treating
streams with concentrations below 10
ppmw may be relatively small, thus
minimizing the potential harm of
deferring control until a later time.
Examples of facilities managing low-
concentration wastes are sites where
ground water is undergoing remedial
action under CERCLA or corrective
action pursuant to RCRA. Based on the
limited set of precise data available, and
the comments that the 10-percent
criterion was too high, EPA determined
.that an appropriate criterion would be
10 ppm total organics in the waste by
weight.
The 10-ppmw criterion is not an
exemption from regulation; it is intended
only as a way for EPA to divide the air
regulations into phases. The EPA is
deferring action on very low
concentration streams (i.e., ones 'with
less than 10 ppmw total organic content)
from the final rule today but will
evaluate and announce a decision later
on whether to regulate these waste
streams.
Exemptions
Comment: Several commenters
disagreed with EPA's interpretation that
the definition of "totally enclosed
treatment units" (which are exempt from
regulation) may in certain circumstances
include on-site treatment units that use
engineered controls to prevent the
release of emissions. One commenter
stated that on-site treatment facilities
directly tied with process equipment
have the same potential for emissions as
do other sources not exempted by the
proposed regulation.
Response: This rule does not create or
modify any exemption for totally
enclosed treatment facilities; rather, the
existing definition of an exemption for
totally enclosed treatment facilities
remains in effect, and existing
regulatory interpretations remain in
effect as well. Although the preamble to
' the proposed rule repeated the existing
definition, it also contained a request for
comments, on an interpretation of the
totally enclosed facility exemption
whereby the "use of effective controls
such as those required by the proposed
standards" would meet the criteria of 40 .
CFR 260.10. Upon consideration of the
comments, EPA has determined that this
interpretation would have conflicted
with the regulatory definition and
previous interpretations of the
exemption and. therefore, has decided to
withdraw it
As presented in the preamble to the
proposed rule, under 40 CFR 264.1{g)(5J
and 40 CFR 265.1(c)(9), totally enclosed
treatment facilities are exempt from
RCRA regulation. A "totally enclosed
treatment facility" is a facility treating
hazardous waste that is "directly
connected to an industrial production
process and which is constructed and
operated in a manner which prevents
the release of any hazardous waste or
constituent thereof into the environment
during treatment" (40 CFR 260.10). .
Therefore, as stated in the proposal
preamble, process equipment designed
to release air emissions are not "totally
enclosed." '
The EPA agrees with the commenter
that on-site treatment facilities -'
associated with process equipment
generally are designed to release air
emissions and, thus, are not "totally
enclosed." The EPA specifically stated
this in the preamble to the proposed
rule. To be considered "totally
enclosed," units must meet the test of
preventing the release of any hazardous
constituent from the unit not only on a
routine basis but also during a process
upset. Thus, the risks from these units
are expected to be less than from units
that are not totally enclosed.
Comment Comtnenters stated that the
exemption for tanks storing or treating
hazardous wastes that are emptied
every 90 days and that meet the tank
standards of 40 CFR 262.34 is not
justified based on risk, as RCRA
requires. The exclusion of less-than-90-
day storage tanks from air emission
control requirements will increase the
use of the 90-day storage exemption and
the resultant air emissions.
Response: In 40 CFR part 270,
hazardous waste generators who
accumulate waste on site in containers
or tanks for less than the time periods
provided in §262.34 are specifically
excluded from RCRA permitting
requirements. To qualify for the
exclusions in §26234, generators who
accumulate hazardous waste on site for
up to 90. days must comply with 40 CFR
-------
25474 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No.. 120 / Thursday, June 21. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
265. subpart I or J (depending on
whether the waste is accumulated in .
containers or tanks) and with other
requirements specified in §262.34.
Small-quantity generators (i.e.,
generators who generate more than 100
kilograms but less than 1,000 kilograms
per calendar month) are allowed to
accumulate waste on site,for up to 180
days or, if they must ship wasteoff site
for a distance of 200 miles or more, and
if they meet certain other requirements
set out in § 262.34, for up to 270 days.
The promulgated regulation does not ,
create a new exemption for 90-day
accumulation, nor does it modify the
existing regulation; As the commenter
notes. EPA is considering what changes
(if any) should be made to § 262.34 (the
"90-day rule") under a separate
rulemaking (51FR 25487, July 14.1986).
As part of that effort, EPA currently is
evaluating whether air emissions from
these and other accumulator tanks,
mentioned above, at the generator site
should be subject to additional control
requirements. Preliminary analysis
indicates that 90-day tanks and
containers may have significant organic.
air emissions; consequently, as part of
the second phase of TSDF air emission
regulations, EPA is considering
proposing to modify the exemption to
require that 90-day tanks meet the
control requirements of the Phase I and
II standards. (The multiphased
standards development approach for
regulating organic air emissions is
discussed in section m.C of this
preamble.) Until a final decision is made
on regulating the emissions from these
units, they will not be subject to
additional controls. However, EPA does
not believe that more generators will
use the 90-day exemption if air emission
controls are not imposed on these units.
Those generators who are eligible for
inclusion under §262.34 are probably
already taking advantage of the
provision now by storing (heir
hazardous wastes for less than'90 days.
JDAR Program
Comment: Several commenters
criticized the incorporation of the
national emission standard for
hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for
benzene because of differences in scope
from the SOCMINSPS in that (1) the
NSPS distinguishes between light and
heavy liquids and the proposed
standards based on the benzene
NESHAP do not; (2) the NSPS does not
require testing of afl SOCMI units
because process fluid vapor pressure is
the overriding consideration in
predicting leak frequencies and leak
rates (the proposed standards
incorporating the NESHAP do not
recognize-vapor pressure and require
testing of all SOCMI units); and (3) the
NSPS exempts facilities from routine
fugitive emission monitoring, inspection,
and repair provisions if a heavy-liquid
product from a heavy-liquid raw
material is produced and limits
monitoring of equipment in heavy-liquid
, service only to where there is evidence
of-a potential leak.
Response: The EPA agrees with the
commenters that the provisions for light
and heavy liquids in the SOCMI NSPS
should be incorporated in the section
3004(n) standards, even though the
subpart V NESHAP does not contain the
distinction. No distinction was made for
the benzene NESHAP.because benzene
is a light liquid. By their nature, heavy
liquids exhibit much lower volatilities
than do light liquids and because
equipment leak emissions have been
shown to vary with stream volatility, .
emissions for heavy liquids are less than
those for lighter and more volatile ones.
As previously noted, EPA analyses have
determined that the emission rate for a
valve in heavy-liquid service is more
than 30 times less than the emission rate
for a valve in light-liquid service. In
response to these comments, EPA
examined the emission and risk
associated with light- and heavy-liquid
waste'streams and found that light-
liquid streams are the overwhelming ..
contributors to both emissions and risk.'
Therefore, a routine LDAR monthly
inspection is not necessary for heavy
liquids.
Thus, the final regulations have been
changed to incorporate the light/heavy-
liquid service provisions for pumps and
valves (40 CFR parts 264 and 265,
subpart BB, §§264.1052,264.1057
265.1052, and 265.1057); Equipment is in
light-liquid service if the vapor pressure
of one or more of the components is
greater than 0.3 kPa at 20 °C, if the total
concentration of the pure components
having a vapor pressure greater than 0.3
kPa at 20 °C is equal to or greater than
20 percent by weight, and if the fluid is a
liquid at operating conditions. The 0.3-
kPa vapor pressure criterion is based on
fugitive emission data gathered in
various EPA and industry studies (EPA-
450/3-82-010). Equipment processing
organic liquids with vapor pressures
above 0^3 kPa leaked at significantly
higher rates and frequencies than did
equipment processing streams With
vapor pressures below 0.3 kPa.
Therefore, EPA elected to exempt
equipment processing lower vapor
pressure substances (i.e., heavy liquids)
from the routine LDAR requirements of
the standards. In addition, monitoring of
equipment in heavy-liquid service is
required only where there is evidence
fay visual audible olfactory, or any other
detection method of-a potential leak.
.Comment: Several commenters asked
EPA to consider exemptions from
fugitive emission monitoring for small
facilities based on volume (as was done
in the benzene NESHAP and the SOCMI
NSPS), emission threshold, product
applicability threshold or equipment
' component count, or equipment size. In
support, the commenters pointed to
similar exemptions in the CAA rules '
that were in the proposed standards.
Response: The commenters suggest
that EPA-consider other exemptions for
' fugitive emission monitoring that are
applied in the benzene NESHAP or
SOCMI NSPS (e.g., small facilities with
the design capacity to produce less than
1,000 Mg/yr). The EPA recognizes that
estimated emissions and'health risks
from small facilities should be
considered in the final rules. With
regard-to the SOCMI NSPS small-facility
exemption, the cutoff was based on a
cost-effectiveness analysis. Under
section 111 of the CAA; EPA may
exempt units where costs of the
standards are unreasonably high in
comparison to the emission reduction
achievable. Under RCRA, the statutory
criterion-is protection of human health
and the environment. Therefore, any
cutoff for RGRA standards must be risk-
based. Cost effectiveness is only a
relevant factor for choosing among
alternatives either (1) when they all
achieve protection of human health and
the environment or (2) for alternatives
that are estimated to provide substantial
reductions in human health and
environmental risks but do not achieve
the historically acceptable levels of
protection under RCRA, when they are '
equally protective.
In the benzene NESHAP (49 FR 23498,
June 6,1984), EPA concluded that
control of units producing less than 1,000
Mg/yr did not warrant control based on
the small health-risk potential. The
benzene standards; however, did not
have to deal, with the many different
pollutants covered by the TSDF process
vent and equipment, leak standards,
some of which are much more
carcinogenic than benzene. In addition
to unit size (or throughput), fugitive
emissions,, are also a function of the
chemical characteristics of the
hazardous wastes being handled.
Typically, TSDF have a variety of
hazardous waste management processes
(e.g., container storage, tank storage,
treatment tanks, incinerators, injection
wells, and terminal loading operations)
located at the same facility, all of which
have associated pumps, valves,
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 1990 / Rules and Regulations 25475
sampling connections, etc., and
therefore, fugitive emissions from
equipment leaks. Also, several different
types of hazardous waste typically are.
managed at a facility. Because of the
various factors affecting facility fugitive
emissions from equipment leaks (e.gV
equipment leak emissions are a function
of component counts'rather than waste
throughput), it would be very difficult to
determine a small-facility exemption
based on risk but expressed as volume
throughput For these reasons, EPA did
not include exemptions for fugitive
emission monitoring such as those
applied in the benzene NESHAP or
SOCMINSPS (Le.,small process units
with the design capacity to produce less
than 1,000 Mg/yr).
Comment: Commenters stated that the
TSDF fugitive emission standards
should conform to the benzene
NESHAP, which allows exemptions for
vacuum systems, systems with no
emissions, 'and systems whose leakage
rate is demonstrated to be below 2
percent
Response: The EPA has included in
the final TSDF standards (§§ 264.1050
and 265.1050) the exemption for
equipment "in vacuum service" found in
the benzene NESHAP (40 CFR part 61,
subpart V, 61.242-1). Also included are
the identification requirements
contained in the regulation, "In vacuum
service" means that equipment is
operating at an internal pressure that is
at least 5'kPa below ambient pressure.
The EPA has concluded that it is
unnecessary to cover equipment "in
vacuum service" because such
equipment has little if any potential for
emissions and, therefore, does not pose
a threat to human health and the
environment Accordingly, this
equipment has been excluded from the
equipment leak fugitive emission
requirements.
The proposed standards stated that
' owners and operators of facilities
subject to the provisions of the rule must
comply with the requirements of 40 CFR
part 61, subpart V (equipment leak
standards for hazardous air pollutants],
except as'provided in the rule itself. The
provisions of the proposed rule did.not
exclude §§ 61.243-1 and 81243-2
(alternative standards for valves in
VHAP service), and the alternative
standards have been incorporated as
§ § 264.1061,264.1062,285.1061, and
265.1062 of the final rule. Therefore, an
owner or operator may elect to have all
valves within a TSDF hazardous waste
management unit comply with an
alternative standard that allows a
percentage of valves leaking of equal to
or less than 2 percent (§§ 264.1061 and
., .-: fe. .
265.1061), or may elect for all valves
within a hazardous waste management
unit to comply with one of die
alternative work practices specified in
paragraphs (b) (2) and (3) of §§ 264.1062
and265.10S2.
Comment: One commenter suggested
that releases from pressure relief
devices in gas service should be
directed to control equipment at least
equal in performance to those for other
process sources or an alternative means
provided to prevent an uncontrolled .
discharge. According to the commenter,
rupture discs or closed-vent systems
restrict small leaks but not major
releases; a closed-vent system
connected .to a control device is needed
to capture releases. The commenter
concluded that EPA has provided no
data to support exempting flanges and
pressure relief devices in liquid service
from LDAR requirements and should not
rely on operators to see, hear or smell
leaks from this equipment.
Response: Pressure relief devices
allow the release of vapors or liquids
until system pressure is reduced to the
normal operating level. The standards
are geared toward control of routine
low-level equipment leaks that may
occur independently of emergency
discharges. Pressure relief discharges
are an entirely different source of
.emissions than equipment leaks or
process vents and were not covered hi
the original equipment leak standards
under the CAA. The new subpart BB
rules require that pressure relief devices
in gas service be tested annually by
Method 21 (and within 5 days of any
relief discharge) to ensure that the
device is maintained at no detectable
emissions by means of a rupture disc. In
addition, because a pressure discharge
constitutes a process upset mat in many
cases can lead to hazardous waste
management unit downtime and might
also pose a risk to workers, a facility
has the incentive to minimize the
occurrence of these events.
The frequency, duration, and air
emissions associated with such
emergency discharges at TSDF waste
management units currently cannot be.
estimated with any certainty on a
nationwide basis. However, if a
pressure discharge does occur, records
and reports (maintained at the site
under §§ 264.1054,264.1064,265.1054,
and 265.1064 of subpart BB) will indicate
the frequency of such discharges, the
estimated volume of excess emissions
and other relevant information. -If
pressure discharges appear to be a
problem at any facility the RCRA
permitting system provides State or EPA
permit writers the flexibility to require
closed-vent systems for these discharges
on a site-specific basis. .
The LDAR program transferred from
the CAA standards does not exempt
pressure relief devices in light liquid or
heavy liquid service .and Manges, but
requires formal monitoring of these
sources if operators see, 'smell, or hear
discharges. The EPA considers that this
is the most practical way to manage
these sources. Although scheduled
routine maintenance may be a way of
avoiding the need for formal monitoring,
it may not be a successful method for all
sites in eliminating leaks due to the
numerous variables affecting leak
occurrence. For example, flanges may
become fugitive emission sources when
leakage occurs due to improperly chosen
gaskets, poorly assembled flanges, or
thermal stress resulting in the
deformation of the seal between the
flange faces. In these situations,
operators will be able to detect such
leaks by sight, smell, or sound. Support
for mis approach was presented and
evaluated in developing several CAA
rulemakings (EPA~450/3-83-016b, EPA-
450/3-80-033b, and EPA-450/3-81-
015b).
Comment: One commenter stated mat
the LDAR program should require
preventive maintenance, such as the
periodic replacement of valve packings,
before waiting for the valve to fail. In
support, the commenter argued that
EPA's own data show that directed
maintenance could reduce leaks from
valves to below 10,000 ppm.The '
commenter also criticized the 10,000-
ppm leak definition as being too high
and states that EPA must consider the
level in terms of the health effects.
Response.-The key criterion for
selecting a leak definition is the overall
mass emission reduction demonstrated
to be achievable. The EPA has not
concluded that an effective lower leak
definition has been demonstrated. Most
data developed for current CAA
standards (EPA-450/3-82-010) on leak
repair effectiveness have applied 10,000
ppm.as the leak definition and therefore
do not indicate the effectiveness of
repair for leak definitions between 1,000
and 10,000 ppm. Even though limited
data between these values were
collected for support of CAA standards,
they are not sufficient to support a leak
definition below 10,000 ppm. Data are
insufficient to determihe.at what
screening value maintenance efforts
begin to result in increased emissions;
As the commenter noted, although
there is some evidence that directed.
maintenance is more effective, available
data are insufficient to serve as a basis
-------
25476 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 120 / Thursday. June 21. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
for requiring directed maintenance for
all sources.
(Note: In "directed maintenance" efforts,
the tightening of the packing is monitored
simultaneously and is continued only to the,
extent that it reduces emissions. In contrast
"undirected" repair means repairs such as
tightening valve packings without
simultaneously monitoring the result to
determine whether the repair is increasing or
decreasing emissions.)
The EPA's rationale for selecting the
10,000-ppmv leak definition and for not
requiring directed maintenance under
the CAA LDAR program also has been
discussed in the proposal and
promulgation BIDs for benzene
emissions from coke by-product
recovery plants (EPA-450/3-83-016 a
and b), for SOCMI fugitive emissions
(EPA-450/3-80-033 a and b). for
petroleum refinery fugitive emissions
(EPA-450/3-81-015 a and b), and for
benzene fugitive'emissions (EPA-450/3-
80-032 a and b). (See also the "Response
to Public Comments on EPA's Listing of
Benzene Under section 112" (EPA-450/
5-82-003) "Fugitive Emission Sources of
Organic CompoundsAdditional
Information on Emissions, Emission
Reductions, and Costs" (EPA-450/3-82-
010), and EPA's "Response to Petition
for Reconsideration" (50 FR 34144,
August 23,1985).) '
The commenter also criticizes EPA for
not reanalyzing the health effects of the
10,000-ppmv level before applying the
limit to TSDF under RCRA. Because
section 112 of the CAA and 3004(n) of
RCRA are* comparable in their
recognition of health risk as the
predominant decision factor, the EPA
believes that the leak definition has
been adequately analyzed under the
CAA and that further evaluation is not
needed prior to'transferring it as .part of
the LDAR program under RCRA. It must
also be pointed out that transfer of the
CAA equipment leak standards is only
the first phase of EPA's regulatory
actions related to control of TSDF air
emissions. In thisphase, EPA transferred
a known technology to reduce
emissions. If new data show that a
lower leak definition is appropriate,
EPA will then consider whether it is
appropriate to change the rules.
C. Control Technology
Feasibility of Condensers ,
Comment: Several commenters did
not agree that condensers provide a
feasible means of meeting the 95-percent
emission reduction requirement for*
affected process vents in the .proposed
standard. Problems cited by the
commenters limiting the application of
condensers included the presence of
water in the waste stream in the TSDF
portion of the facility and the wide
variety of waste solvents treated by
.WSTF. One commenter claimed that a '
higher emission reduction efficiency
could be achieved through an increased
condenser area or a different .condenser
refrigerant with a lower boiling point
than was used in the analysis for the
proposal.
Response: In response'to this
comment, the feasibility of using
condensers to achieve a 95-percent
reduction of emissions from WSTF
process vent streams was reexamined
using a state-of-the-art chemical
engineering computerized process'
simulator that includes a refrigeration
unit capable of producing a coolant at a
temperature as low as 29 °C (20 °F)
and a primary water-cooled heat
exchanger to remove water vapor from
the vent stream. - '
A variety of chemical constituents
and operating conditions were
examined to determine the organic
removal efficiency achievable through
condensation. The constituents selected
for the condenser analysis (toluene,
methyl ethyl ketone (MEK), 1,1,1
trichloroethane (TCE), and methylene
chloride) were judged to be
. representative of the solvents recycled
by the WSTF industry, based on a
review of a National Association of
Solvent Recyclers (NASR) survey, .
numerous site-specific plant trip reports,
and responses to EPA section 3007 '
information requests. Three of these four
solvents had been used in the .proposal
analysis; methylene chloride, at the
lower end of the solvent boiling point
range (i.e., more difficult to condense),
was added to provide a broader range of
volatilities for the condenser analysis.. A
total of 40 WSTF model unit cases
consisting of combinations of organic
, emission rates, concentrations, and
exhaust gas flows representing the wide
range of operating conditions found at
WSTF were included in the condenser
analysis.
The results of the condenser analysis
indicate that condensers cannot '
universally achieve a 95-percent
'emission reduction when applied to
WSTF process vents. With regard to
increasing organic removal efficiency by
increasing condenser area or changing
the condenser refrigerant, the analysis
shows that there are technical limits on
condenser efficiency that go beyond the
condenser design and operating
parameters. Specifically, the.physical
properties of die solvents being'
condensed and the solvent
concentration in the gas stream affect
condenser efficiency. In some situations,
the partial pressure of the organic .
constituent in the vapor phase was too
low to support a liquid phase
thermodynamically regardless of the"
refrigerant used or condensation area;
as a result, no appreciable condensation
could occur. Therefore, the analysis'
shows that condensers are. not
universally applicable to the control of
WSTF process vents. However, the
facility process vent emission reduction
requirements are not based solely on the
use of'condensers; carbon adsorption
and incinerators/flares are capable of
attaining a 95-percent control efficiency
for all WSTF organics, including cases
where condensation is not feasible. In
summary, although condensers may not
by themselves achieve a 95-percent
emission reduction at all process vents,
condensers do provide a practical and
economic means of reducing process
vent emissions, and these devices will
likely be the initial choice of control :
technology for cases where
condensation is feasible.
Feasibility 'of Carbon Adsorbers:
Comment; Several commenters
objected to the identification of carbon
adsorption as a control technique
because of technical and safety . .
concerns related to the application of
carbon adsorbers to low organic ,
concentration and multicpmponent
solvent streams. However, one
commenter did cite authorities that.
support a 98-percent removal for this
type of control device."-
Response: First it should be noted that
carbon adsorption is one of several
control technologies that could be used
to attain the standards. .Other
technologies include condensers, flares,
incinerators, and any other device that
the owner or. operator can show will
meet the standards.
Regarding carbon adsorption- .
applications, EPA acknowledges that
safety is an important consideration, but
concludes that any safety problems can
be avoided through proper design and! ,
sorbent selection. Multicomponent
systems potentially can lead to
excessive heat buildup (hot spots),
particularly in large carbon beds with
low flow rates,, which in turn can lead to
fire and explosion hazards.
Multicomponent vapor streams can also
lead to reduced removal efficiencies for
particular components. However, these
technical and efficiency problems can
be overcome through proper design,
operation, and maintenance.
In general, coal-based carbons have' .
fewer heat generation problems than do
wood-based carbons, and small
diameter beds promote good heat- .
transfer. The bed must be designed with
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21. 1990 / Rules and Regulations 25477
consideration for the least, heat
adsorbent (or fastest) component in the
mix, as well as the component
concentrations and overall flow rate.
Other considerations include component
interaction, gas stream relative .
humidity, and close monitoring of the .
bed effluent for breakthrough.
In response to these comments, the
EPA examined carbon adsorption .
design, operation, and performance data
from a number of plants in a wide '
variety of industries; in addition, the
EPA has reexamined, with the help of '
carbon manufacturers and custom
'carbon adsorption equipment designers,
the elements that affect carbon
adsorption efficiency. This analysis has
reinforced EPA's original conclusion
that a well-designed, -operated, and -
maintained adsorption system can
achieve a 95-percent control efficiency
for all organics under a wide variety of
stream conditions over both short-term
and long-term averaging periods. The
major factors affecting performance of
an adsorption unit are temperature,
humidity, organics concentration,
volumetric flow rate "channelling"
(nonuniform flow through the carbon
bed), regeneration practices, and > ,
changes in the relative concentrations of
the organics admitted to the adsorption
system. The WSTF/TSDF process vent
stream characteristics are typically well
within design limits in terms of gas
temperature, pressure, and velocity for
carbon adsorbers. For example, the bed
adsorption rate decreases sharply when
gas temperatures are above 38 °C (100
°F); a review of plant field data showed
no high-temperature streams in WSTF/
TSDF process vents. If high-temperature
gas streams are encountered, the gas
stream can'be cbole.d prior to entering
the carbon bed. Also, gas velocity
entering the carbon bed should be low
to allow time for adsorption to take :
place. The WSTF/TSDF stream flows
are typically quite low and, as a result,
bed depth should not be excessive.
Therefore, EPA concluded that for
WSTF/TSDF process vent streams,
carbon adsorption can reasonably be
expected to achieve a 95-percent control
efficiency provided the adsorber is
supplied with an adequate quantity of
high-quality activated carbon, the gas
stream receives appropriate . .
conditioning (e.g., cooling or filtering)
before entering the carbon bed, and the
carbon beds are regenerated, or replaced
before breakthrough. The data gathered .
in the EPA carbon adsorption '
performance study do not support a .-
higher control efficiency (i.e., 98 percent
as opposed to 95 percent) for carbon, .
adsorption units applied to WSTF/TSDF
process vents on an industrywide basis,
particularly in light of the design
considerations related to controlling
multicomponent vent streams when the
organic mix is subject to frequent
change.
When carbon adsorption is used to
remove organics from a gas stream, the
carbon must periodically be replaced or
regenerated when the capacity of the
carbon to adsorb organics is reached.
When either regeneration or removal of
carbon takes place, there is an
opportunity for organics to be released
to the atmosphere unless the carbon
removal or regeneration is carried out
under controlled conditions. There
would be no environmental benefit hi
removing organics from an exhaust gas
stream using adsorption onto activated
carbon if the organics are subsequently
released to the atmosphere during
desorption or during carbon disposal.
The EPA therefore expects that owners
or operators of TSDF using carbon .
adsorption systems to control organic
emissions take steps to ensure that
proper emission control of regenerated
or disposed carbon occurs. For on-site
regenerable carbon adsorption systems,
the owner or operator must account for
the emission control of the desorption
and/or disposal process in the control
efficiency determination. In the case of
off-site regeneration or disposal,-the *
owner or operator should supply a
certification, to be placed in the
operating file of the TSDF, that all
carbon removed from a carbon
adsorption system used to comply with
subparts AA and BB is either (1)
regenerated or reactivated by a process
that prevents the release of organics to
the atmosphere. (Note: The EPA
interprets "prevents" as used in this
paragraph to include the application of
effective control devices such as those
required by these rules) or (2)
incinerated in a device that meets the
performance standards of subpart 0.
Feasibility of Using Controls in Series
Comment: One commenter stated that
EPA should evaluate carbon adsorption
in series with a condenser because
condensers work best with concentrated.
streams and carbon adsorbers with low
concentration streams. The two systems
together could yield an. overall .
efficiency ,of 99 percent even if each
unit were only 90-percent effective.
Response: As discussed in section ,
VILE, the MIR from process vents after
control (i.e., 4X10'5) is within the range ,
of what has been considered acceptable
under. RCRA. Consequently; no.further
control for process vents was
considered necessary at this time.'
.Nonetheless, in response to these
comments, EPA evaluated the feasibility
of using'a carbon adsorber in series with
a condenser to control WSTF/TSDF
process vent emissions. The objective of
the analysis was to determine if the
combination of control devices would
yield an overall control efficiency
greater than the 95 percent that is
achievable using a single ^device. For
example, if a 99-percent overall, control
efficiency is desired and it is assumed
that the carbon adsorber is capable.of
achieving a 95-percent control efficiency
in all cases (a reasonable assumption
for a properly designed, operated, and
maintained system),'then a minimum
efficiency of 80 percent would be
required for the condenser followed hi
series by the 95-percent efficient carbon
bed. However, hi the EPA condenser
analysis conducted for the WSTF model
unit cases, an 80-percent control was not
achieved for 16 of the 40 cases
examined. (See section 7.7 of the BID.)
In 7 of the 40 cases, the analysis showed
that no appreciable condensation would
occur because of low solvent
concentration and/or the high volatility
of some solvents. Because the model
unit cases are considered representative
of current WSTF operations, EPA does
not believe that the use of carbon
adsorption and condensation in series to.
achieve a 99-percent control is a
technically feasible control option on an
industrywide basis. Such control
strategies will be considered further for
Phase in standards for individual
facilities, if necessary, should additional
analyses reveal unexpectedly high risks
hi specific situations.
Feasibility of Flares
Comment: Several commenters
objected to the use of flares at recycling
facilities because of technical and safety
concerns. A few commenters cite the .
requirement of a constant emission
source for efficient flare .operation, and
other commenters contend that flares
are not suitable on intermittent sources
or the low-level emissions typical of
recycling operations. With regard to, -
safety, flares present the danger of .
explosion, especially-if they
malfunction; according to one
commenter, many State laws prohibit
the use of flares at recycling facilities.
Response: Available information on
WSTF operations indicates that .
condensers, carbon adsorbers, and
incinerators are the most widely used
control technologies; therefore, they are .
expected to be the technologies of
choice to reduce organic emissions at
WSTF. The final technical analyses '.
.show that a 95-percent control efficiency
can be achieved with secondary
-------
25478 - Federal Register /. VoL 55. No.120 / Thursday. June 21. 1990./ Rules and Regulations
condensers for many WSTF process
.vents or with carbon adsorbers in cases
where secondary condensers are not
feasible. Flares are not required
controls, but are an available option for
facilities so equipped provided they
meet the criteria established in the final
rules. Where State laws prohibit the use
of flares at recycling facilities, other
technologies are available.
With regard to the safety of flares,
. EPA has determined that the use of .
flares to combust organic emissions
from TSDF process vents would not
create safety problems if engineering
precautions -such as those used in the
SOCMI are taken in the design and
operation of thesystem. The following
are typical engineering precautions.
First, the flare should not be located in
such proximity to a process unit being
vented that ignition of vapors is-a threat
to safety. In the analysis conducted for
this standard at proposal, it was
assumed that the Hare would be located
as far as 122 meters from the process
unit. Second, controls such as a fluid
seal or flame arrestor are available that
would prevent flashback. These safety
precautions were considered in EPA's
analysis for the proposed rule. Finally,
the use of a purge gas, such as nitrogen,
plant fuel gas, or natural gas and/or the
careful control of total volumetric flow
to the flare would prevent flashback in
the flare stack caused by low off-gas
flow. .
Feasibility.of LDAR Program
Comment: One commenter opposed
the fugitive standards as proposed
because they failed to require the proper
technology to control releases from
pumps and valves. The commenter
claimed that the standards should
require a 100-percent control, based on
what available technology (e.g^ sealed
, bellows valves, sealless pumps, or dual
mechanical seals for pumps} can
achieve. According to the commenter,
'superior emission- controls cannot be
rejected under RCRA solely on the basis
of cost effectiveness.
Response: Control technologies for
fugitive emissions from equipment leaks,
as required by the proposed standards,
include the use of control equipment,
inspection of process .equipment, and
repair programs to limit or reduce
emissions from leaking equipment that
handle streams with total organic
concentrations of greater than 10
percent These control technologies have
been studied and evaluated extensively
by EPA for equipment containing fluids
with 10 percent or more organics and
are similar to those required by national .
emission standards for chemical,
petrochemical, and refining facilities
under the CAA. . -.. '.'..'
A monthly LDAR program was
proposed for WSTF/.TSDF pumps and
valves. Based .on results of the EPA**
LDAR model, once a monthly monitoring
plan is in place, emission reductions of
73 percent and 59 percent can be
expected for valves in gas and light
liquid service, respectively, and a 61-
percent reduction in. emissions can be
achieved for pumps in light-liquid
service. For compressors, the use of
mechanical seals with barrier-fluid ;
systems and control of degassing vents
(95 percent) are required, although:
compressors are not expected to be
commonly used at WSTF/TSDF. The
use.of control equipment (rupture disc
systems or closed-vent systems to flares
or incinerators) is the technical basis for
control of pressure relief devices. Closed
purge sampling is the required control
for sampling connection systems and is
the most stringent feasible controLFor
open-ended valves or tines the use of
caps, plugs, or any other equipment that
will dose the open end is required; these
are the most stringent controls possible.
Flanges and pressure relief devices in
liquid service are excluded from the
routine LDAR requirements but must be
monitored if leaks are indicated. For
operations such as those expected at
WSTF/TSDF. total reductions in fugitive
emissions, from equipment leaks of
almost 75 percent are estimated for the
entire program.
The EPA agrees with the commenter
that the level of control required by the
LDAR program does not result in the
highest level of control that could be
achieved for fugitive emissions from
pumps and valves in certain
applications. In some cases, there are
more stringent, technologically feasible
controls. For example, leakless
equipment for valves, such as
diaphragm and sealed bellows valves,
when usable, eliminates the seals that
allow fugitive emissions; thus, control
efficiencies in such cases are virtually
100 percent as long as the valve does not
fail. In appropriate circumstances,
pumps can be controlled by dual
mechanical seals that would capture '
nearly all fugitive emissions. An overall
control efficiency of 95 percent could be
achieved with dual mechanical seals
based on venting of the degassing
reservoir to a control device.
With regard to leakless valves, the
applicability of these types of valves is
limited for TSDF. as noted by EPA in the .
proposal preamble. The design problems
associated with diaphragm valves are
the temperature and pressure limitations
of the elastomer used for the diaphragm.
It has been found that both, temperature
extremes and process liquids tend to .
damage or destroy the diaphragm in the
valve. Also, operating pressure
constraints will limit the application of
diaphragm valves to low-pressure
operations such as pumping and product
storage facilities. .
There are two mam disadvantages to
sealed bellows valves. First, they are,
for the" most part, only available
commercially in configurations that are
used for on/off valves rather than for
flow control As a result, they cannot be
used in all situations. Second, the main
concern associated with this type of
valve is the uncertainty of the life of the
bellows seal. The metal bellows are
subject to corrosion and fatigue under
severe operating conditions.
Over 150 types, of industries'are
included in the TSDF community, and
EPA does not beb'eve that leakless
valves can be used in an
environmentally sound manner on the
wide variety of operating conditions and
chemical constituents found nationwide
in TSDF waste streams, many of which
are highly corrosive. Corrosivity is
influenced by temperature and such
factors as the concentration of corrosive
constituents and the presence of
inhibiting or accelerating agents.
Corrosion rates can be difficult to
predict accurately; underestimating
corrosion can lead to premature and
catastrophic failures. Even small
amounts (trace quantities) of corrosives
in the stream can cause corrosion
problems for sealed bellows valves;
these tend to aggressively attack the ' .
metal bellows at crevices and cracks
(including welds} to promote rapid
corrosion. Sealed bellows valves
particularly are subject to corrosion
because the bellows is an extremely thin
metallic membrane.
At proposal, it was estimated that 20
percent of all plants process
halogenated compounds, which tend to
be highly corrosive. The subsequently
obtained 1986 Screener Survey data
show that, of the TSDF indicating
solvent recovery operations, at least 33
percent of the total handle halogenated
organics. Furthermore, of the 12 major
chemicals determined from site-specific
data to be commonly occurring in waste
solvent streams, all of the chemicals
determined to be carcinogenic are
halogenated (i-e., methylene chloride, .
chloroform, and carbon tetrachloride).
Similarly, of the 52-constituents in TSDF
waste streams contributing to the
emission-weighted unit risk factor,
about 50 percent are halogenated and
account for the vast majority of the
estimated nationwide emissions of
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 120 / Thursday. June 21, 1990 / Rules and Regulations 25479
carcinogens. Thus. TSDF are known to
routinely handle and treat chemicals
that may destroy sealed bellows and
diaphragm valves.
The durability of metal bellows is
highly questionable if the valve is
operated frequently; diaphragm and
bellows valves are not recommended in
the technical literature for general
service. The EPA does not believe that
the application of sealed bellows and
diaphragm valves is technologically
feasible for all TSDF valve conditions or
that their application would lead to a
significant reduction in emissions and
health risks. Valve sizes, configurations,
operating temperatures and pressures,
and service requirements are some of
the areas in which diaphragm, pinch,
and sealed tellows valves have
limitations that restrict service. With
regard to the emission reductions
achieved by sealed bellows, diaphragm,
and pinch valve technologies, these
valves are not totally leakless. The
technologies do eliminate the
conventional seals that allow leaks from
around the valve stem; however, these
valves do fail in service from a variety
of causes and, when failure occurs,
these valves can have significant
leakage. This is because these valves
generally are not backed up with.
conventional stem seals or packing. The
EPA currently is reeyaluating the control
efficiencies assigned to these
technologies. Because these leakless
types of equipment are limited in their
applicability and in their potential for
reducing health risks, EPA did not
consider their use as an applicable
control alternative at this time for
nationwide TSDF standards. The EPA
has requested, in a separate Federal
Register notice (54 FR 30220, July 19,
1989), additional information on the
applicability and use of leakless valves
at TSDF.
For pumps, the most effective controls
that are technologically feasible (e.g.,
dual seals) in some cases also were hot
selected as the basis for equipment leak
standards. The impact analysis
indicates that including LDAR results in
less emission and risk reduction than
does including equipment requirements
for pumps. However, the difference in
the emission and health risk reductions
attributable to implementing a monthly
LDAR program rather than the more
stringent equipment standards for
pumps appears to be small in
comparison to the results of the overall
standards (about 5 percent). The overall
standards, including a LDAR program
for pumps and valves, would achieve an
expected emission reduction for TSDF
equipment leaks of about 19,000 Mg/yr
(21,000 ton/yr). The estimated MIR from
equipment leak emissions would be
reduced to 1X10~S from 5X10"3 based
on the TSDF equipment leak emission-
weighted unit risk factor; cancer
incidence would be reduced to 0.32
case/yr from 1.1 cases/yr. In
comparison, including dual seals for
pumps could achieve an additional
fugitive emission reduction of about
1,200 Mg/yr (1,320 ton/yr) and an
. additional incidence reduction of about
0.06 case/yr. The MIR, with leakless
controls for pumps, at lxlO~s would
be unchanged from that achieved by the
LDAR program. '
Given the small magnitude and the
imprecise nature of the estimated
emission and risk .reductions associated
with including dual seals for pumps in
the overall standard, EPA considers the
two control alternatives-fi.e., LDAR and
dual seals) as providing essentially the'
same level of protection. The data and
models on which the risk estimates are
based are not precise enough to quantify
risk meaningfully to a more exact level
The data and models include
uncertainties from the emission
estimates, the air dispersion modeling,
and the risk assessment that involves
unit risk factor,'facility location,
population, and meteorologic
uncertainties (see section VILE).
The EPA considered these factors
when deciding whether to require TSDF
to install dual seals on pumps to control
air emissions rather than to rely on
monthly LDAR. Considering the limited
applicability of additional equipment
controls and the low potential for
additional reductions.in health risks of
applying equipment controls for valves
at TSDF and the estimated emissions
and risk reductions if leakless
equipment for pumps were required,
EPA is not requiring leakless equipment
at this. time.
In Phase m, EPA will further examine.
the feasibility and impacts of applying
additional control technology beyond
the level required by today's standards..
For example, dual mechanical seals: may
be an appropriate emission control
method when applied selectively to
wastes with high concentrations of toxic
chemicals. In such .applications, the
reduction in toxic emissions (and
consequently the reduction in residual
risk) may.be.significant for select
situations. A summary of the health
impacts is presented in section VII.E of
this preamble.
D. Impact Analyses Methodologies
Environmental Impacts Analysis
Comment: Numerous'commenters
criticized the environmental impact
estimates for the proposed standards
because (1) no actual data'from
operating facilities were used; (2)
emission estimates were not supported
by any technical data base; and (3) the
waste constituents used in the analyses
were hot representative of waste solvent
recycling operations and TSDF .'
operations in general. Commenters also
stated that the model plant solvent
reclamation rates (throughputs), vent
flow rates, and emission rates used at
proposal were not representative of the
industry. '
Response: In response to these
comments, EPA reviewed all available-
site-specific data on WSTF and TSDF,
data submitted by commenters, and
information generated through RCRA
section 3007 questionnaires mailed to a
limited number of small and large
facilities. Based on all this information,
EPA has revised both the TSDF model
units and emission factors that serve as
the bases for the impacts analyses.
With regard to the? model .unit
revisions, the industry profile developed
by EPA includes a frequency
distribution of the waste volumes
processed during 1985. Of the 450
facilities hi the Screener Survey
reporting solvent recovery by operations
such as batch distillation, fractionation,
or steam stripping that involved some
form of hazardous waste,.365 reported
the total quantity of waste recycled'in
1985. The median facility throughput
was slightly more than 189,000 L/yr
(50,000 gal/yr); the mean throughput was
about 4.5X106 L/yr (1.2X106 gal/yr).
Based on the industry profile, three sizes
of model units (small, medium, and'
large) were, defined to facilitate the post-
proposal analyses for control costs,
emission reductions, health risks, and
economic impacts.
The organic emission rates also were
revised for the model units based oh
emission source testing conducted for
EPA. The test data show that organic
emission rates for primary condensers
varied from a few hundredths of a
kilogram (pound) to nearly 4.5 kg/h (10
Ib/h), with six of the nine measurements
less than 0.45 kg/h (1 Ib/h). the two
secondary condensers tested showed
emission rates of 0.9 and 2.3 kg/h (2 and
5 Ib/h), respectively.
The flow rate of 26 standard cubic feet
per minute (scfm) used at proposal was
found not to be generally valid, for
application to waste solvent recyclers.
The flow rates specified for the revised
model units, 3.9,0.6, and 0.3 L/s,
equivalent to 8.3,1.2, .and 0.6 scfm for
the large, medium, and small model
units, respectively, are based on a
review of site-specific data from field
-------
25480 Federal Register / VoL 55. No. 120 / Thursday. June 21, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
tests documented in site visit reports.
The large and medium TSDF process
vent unit flow rates also agree with
those documented in the SOCMI
Distillation NSPS BID (see Docket No.
F-88-AESP, item S0008) as
characterizing distillation units with low
overhead gas flows. The revised impact
analyses are based on actual data from
the industry and provide a reasonable
characterization of the industry's
operations and environmental impacts.
The constituents selected for the
analysis of control technologies are
consideredio be representative of the
industry, based on a review of relevant
information and literature, including (1)' .
a survey of member companies. '
submitted by NASR, (2) 23 site-specific
plant visit reports, (3) responses to the
EPA section 3007 Questionnaires from 6
small and 11 large facilities (two
respondents provided information for 4
facilities each), (4} the Industrial Studies
Data Base (ISDB) and (5) a data base
created by the Illinois EPA. The NASR
survey provided information on the
types of solvents most frequently
recycled at member facilities; the site-
specific information and EPA survey
responses included waste composition
data. The ISDB is a compilation of data -
from ongoing, in-depth surveys by EPA's
Office of Solid Waste (OSW) on
designated industries that are major
waste generators. The Illinois EPA data
base contains information from about
35,000 permit applications. Generators
must submit one application for each-
hazardous and special nonhazardous
waste stream managed in -the State of .
Illinois. Each of these data bases
contains waste stream characterization
data for numerous generic spent solvent
waste streams (EPA Hazardous V/astes
F001-F005) and D001 wastes (ignitable),
which information from the Screener
Survey indicates also are recycled.
The three constituents used for the
model facilities in the proposal analysis
were toluene (with a boiling point (bp)
of 110 "C), MEK (bp of 79 °C), and TCE
(bp of 74 *C). Methylene chloride (bp of
40 *C) was added to the list of
constituents evaluated in the final
analysis to provide an even greater
range of solvent volatilities for the
analysis. Therefore, the technical
feasibility and costs of applying the
recommended control techniques were
evaluated for constituents representing
the range of characteristics and
volatilities of commonly recycled
solvents at TSDF.
Comment: Commenters also stated
that it is inappropriate to apply the
fugitive emission factors to TSDF that
were developed to estimate leaks from a
typical hydrocarbon plant because they
do not relate to the design, operating
conditions, maintenance practices, or
controls associated with processing of
waste solvents and other toxic wastes.
According to the commenters, the
emission factors and model units also
need adjustment to account for-volatility
because not accounting for differences
in vapor pressure overestimates risk as
well as emissions and underestimates
costs for controls.
Response: The EPA disagrees; the
data used in establishing the fugitive
emission standards for TSDF are based
on emission and process data collected
at a variety of petroleum refinery and
SOCMI operating units. The EPA
Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory .(IERL) coordinated a study
to develop information on fugitive
emissions in the SOCML A total of 24
chemical process units were tested;
these data covered thousands of
screened sources (pumps, valves,
flanges, etc.) and included units
handling such chemicals as acetone,
phenol, MEK, ethylene dichloride, TCE,
trichloroethyiene, and
perchloroethylene.
Refinery studies on fugitives also
include tests on units handling both
toluene and xylene. These same
chemicals are included in those listed by
the NASR as solvents commonly
recycled by member facilities and are.
found in other sources of waste solvent
constituent information that are
described in the BID. The chemicals
commonly recycled at TSDF are those
produced in SOCMI operating units and
handled in petroleum refineries, and the.
equipment involved in these industries
is typically the same (pumps, valves,
etc.). Therefore, it is reasonable to
conclude that the emissions associated
with these chemicals and equipment are
similar and to expect similar emission '
control performance and efficiencies at
hazardous waste management units.
The EPA agrees that the equipment
leak standards should take component
volatility into consideration. Previous
EPA and industry studies have shown
that the volatility of stream components,
as a process variable, does correlate
with fugitive emission and leak rates.
An analysis-of the vapor pressures and
emission rates has shown that
substances with vapor pressures of 0.3
kPa -or higher had significantly higher
emission and leak rates than did those
with lower vapor pressures (EPA-450/3-
82-010). This result led to the separation
of equipment component emissions by
service: gas/vapor, light liquid, and
heavy liquid. These classifications have
been used in most CAA fugitive -
emission standards to effectively direct
the major effort toward equipment most
likely to leak. Therefore the rules have
been revised to account for volatility.
For example, pumps and valves in
heavy-liquid service must be monitored
only if evidence of a potential leak is
found by visual, audible, olfactory, or
any other detection method. The
determination of light- and heavy-liquid
service is based on the vapor pressure
of the components hi the stream (less
than 0.3 kPa at 20 °C defines a heavy
liquid).
All of the constituents used in the
model unit analysis, representing the
ranges of characteristics of commonly
recycled solvents, are light liquids to
which the benzene and SOCMI fugitive
emission factors are applicable.
Therefore, the revised risk and cost
analyses for WSTF equipment leak
fugitive emissions are based on the
fugitive emission factors used in the
proposal analysis. The analyses of risk
and cost impacts on TSDF with affected
fugitive emission sources also were
revised after proposal to account for the
differences in light and heavy liquids.
Health Risk Impacts Analysis
Comment-Several commenters '
objected to the limited support provided
for selection and derivation of the unit
risk factors used in the analysis of .
cancer risks and contend that the risk
analysis and unit risk factors are not
representative of the wide variety of
wastes handled. A few of the
commenters stated that the upper-bound
risk factor was too high, and others
stated it was too low..
Response: The selection of the range
of unit risk factors (i.e., 2xlO~7 and
2 X 10~s foig/m^}~ * used at proposal to
estimate the cancer risk resulting from
TSDF emissions was based on an
analysis of the organic chemicals
associated with TSDF operations. This .
analysis found that carbon tetrachloride
is the organic chemical with the most
individual impact vis-a-vis emissions
and risk. Thus, it was used as the upper
bound on the range of unit risk factors
used to calculate health impacts (i.e.,
cancer risk) at proposal. However, this
range of unit risk factors was not used in
the final analysis.
Based on public comments, EPA
revised it3 health risk impacts analysis.
To estimate the cancer potency of TSDF
air emissions in the revised analysis, an
emission-weighted composite unit
cancer risk estimate approach was used
by EPA to address the problem of
dealing with the large number of toxic
chemicals that are present at many
TSDF. Use of the emission-weighted
-------
Federal Register / Vol. S5, No. 120 / Thursday. June 21, 1990 / Rules -and Regulations 25481
composite factor rather than individual
component unit cancer risk factors
simplifies the risk assessment so that
calculations do not need to be'
performed for each chemical emitted.
The composite unit cancer risk factor is
combined with estimates of ambient
concentrations of total organics and
population exposure to estimate risk due
to nationwide TSDF emissions. In
calculating the emission-weighted
. average unit risk factor, the emission
. estimate for a compound is first
multiplied by the unit cancer risk factor
for that compound; then the emission-
weighted average is computed by
. summing these products and dividing
the sum by the total nationwide TSDF
emission value, which includes both
carcinogenic and noncartinogenis
organic emissions. Using this type of
average would give the same results as
calculating the risk for each chemical
involved. However, only those
carcinogens for which unit risk factors
are available were included in the
analysis of cancer risk under this
approach.
Through use of the EPA's TSDF Waste
Characterization Data Base (WCDB)
(discussed in appendix D of the BID)
and a computerized .model developed for
. analysis of the regulatory options for
TSDF emission sources, EPA estimated
total nationwide TSDF organic
emissions by specific waste constituent.
Thirty-nine chemicals were identified as
TSDE organic air pollutant emission
constituents emitted from equipment
leaks at.all types of TSDF waste
management processes. Unit cancer risk
factors for these constituents were then
averaged based on both individual
. constituent and total nationwide TSDF
equipment leak organic emissions to
calculate an emission-weighted
.composite mean TSDF cancer unit risk
factor. .
.Numerous constituents with higher
unit risk factors than carbon
tetrachloride (including acrylonitrile and
ethylene oxide) were included in the
calculation of the emission-weighted
unit cancer risk factor for TSDF
equipment leaks. This emission-
weighted unit risk factor value was
determined to be 4.5X10"* (jtg/m3)"1
.and was used to determine the health-
related impacts associated with TSDF
.equipment leak (fugitive) emissions
rather than the range of the unit cancer
risk factors used at proposal that
represented a limited number of
chemical compounds emitted at WSTF. .
A more detailed discussion of the
hazardous waste TSDF unit risk factor
determination-is contained in appendix
B of the BID.
Characterization of WSTF waste
streams in the final analysis indicates
that the constituents used at proposal in
the risk analysis are appropriate and
representative of the waste solvent
recycling industry. However, insufficient
nationwide data on WSTF (a subset of
the TSDF industry) waste stream
chemical constituent quantities and
concentrations were available to
develop an emission-weighted, .
arithmetic mean cancer unit risk factor
for WSTF process vents. While
information on a small number of
process vent streams was available for
the revised analysis, the data were too
limited to support the conclusion that
the mix and percentage of constituents
found were representative of the entire
industry.
The WSTF waste streams and their
associated process vent emissions were
found to contain a variety of chemical
constituents. Those constituents with
established risk factors were, in all
cases for the plant-specific data, the
halogenated organics; these halogenated
organic constituent concentrations
tended to be quite low, generally less
than 1 percent of organics emitted.
Therefore; EPA judged, based on the
limited data available, that use of a
midrange unit risk factor would be
appropriate in estimating nationwide
health impacts associated with WSTF
process vents. The unit cancer risk
factor assumed at proposal, 2xiO~* (fig/
m3)"1, was the geometric midrange
between the highest and lowest unit risk
factor for the constituents found hi the
WSTF process vent streams. The
composite unit cancer risk factor ' .
calculated for the equipment leak
emissions agrees favorably with the
process vent number used at proposal.
Because it is not unreasonable to
assume a similar mix of constituents in
process vents as in equipment leaks,
and because available data do not
suggest otherwise, for the purpose of
estimating impacts, the same unit cancer "
risk factor was used for both process
vents and equipment leaks, 4.5X 1O~ e
Comment: Several commenters also
stated that the failure to address the
weight of-evidence for carcinogenicity is
inconsistent with EPA's risk assessment
guidelines and the principles for
assessing cancer risk.
Response: Early in the ndemaking for
TSDF, EPA looked at the contribution to
total estimated risk (annual incidence)
fay .weight of evidence. At that time, "C"
carcinogens accounted for about 5
percent of .the total risk, and "A"
carcinogens about 10 percent Thus, for
all practical purposes, calculating
separate risk estimates for chemicals in
each weight of evidence category adds
little to-tfeeTisk assessmeafc-Moreover.
EPA's Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk
Assessment"{51 FR 33992) and'
Guidelines for the Health Risk
Assessment of Chemical Mixtures (51
FR 34014) do not describe a means to
quantitatively incorporate weight of
evidence into risk assessments. Thus,
there is no inconsistency between the
risk assessment guidelines and the
presentation of health risk in this
rulemaking.
Comment: Other commenters believed
that the risk, assessment for the
proposed standards was flawed because
EPA did not consider noncancer health
effects and because large uncertainties
are introduced when the additive or
synergistic effects of carcinogens and
the interindividual variability in
response are not factored hi.
Response: The EPA does recognize
that health effects other than cancer
may be associated with both short-term
and long-term human exposure to the
organic chemicals emitted to the air at
WSTF/TSDF. The EPA believes,
however, that a risk assessment based
on cancer serves as the clearest basis
for evaluating the health effects
associated with exposure to air.
emissions from TSDF. A quantitative
assessment of the potential nationwide
noncancer health impacts (e.g,
developmental, neurological,
immunological, and respiratory effects)
was not conducted due to deficiencies at
this time in. the health data base for
these types of effects.
Although unable to numerically
quantify noncancer health risks, EPA
did conduct a screening analysis of the
potential adverse noncancer health
effects associated with short-term and
long-term exposure to individual waste
constituents emitted from TSDF. This
analysis was based on a comparison of
relevant health data to the highest short-
term or long-term modeled ambient
concentrations for chemicals at each of
two selected TSDF. (A detailed
presentation of the screening analysis is
contained in the BID, appendix B.)
Results of this analysis suggest that
adverse noncancer health effects are '
unlikely to be associated with acute or
chronic inhalation exposure to TSDF
organic emissions. It should be noted
that the health data base for many.
chemicals was limited particularly for
short-term exposures. The conclusions
reached in this preliminary analysis
should be considered in the context of
the limitations of the health data; the
uncertainties associated with the
characterization of wastes at- the
-------
'25482 Federal/Register /Vol. 55, No. -120 / Thursday June 21. 1990 / Rules ahd Regulaitioris
facilities; and the assumptions used in
estimating emissions, ambient
concentrations, and the potential for
human exposure. Additional evaluation
of noncancer health effects may be
undertaken as part of the third phase of
the TSDF regulatory program. To that
effect, in the proposal preamble for the .
Phase H TSDF air rules, EPA is
specifically requesting comments from
the public on methodologies and use of
health data for assessing the noncancer
health effects of TSDF organic
emissions. In addition, because there is
a potential for cancer and noncancer
health effects from TSDF chemicals from
indirect pathways such as ingestion of
foods contaminated by air toxics that
have deposited in the soil, EPA will
evaluate the need to include an indirect
pathway element in the TSDF health
risk analysis in the future.
The
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No; 120 I Thursday. June 21. 1990 / Rules and Regulations 254153
as defined in the post-proposal analysis)
would not have to install additional ;: .
controls because their emissions are less
than the facility process vent cutoff.
Because there was insufficient site-
specific information available to
determine which facilities could apply
condensation rather than carbon
adsorption, upper- and lower-bound
estimates were generated. The
iipperbound cost estimate is based on
the assumption that fixed-bed,
regenerable carbon adsorption systems
would be required to control process
vents at all facilities with emissions
above the emission rate cutoff. Similarly
the lower-bound cost estimate is based
on the assumption that condensers
could be used to control process vents at
all facilities with emissions above the
emission rate cutoff. The range in
estimates of nationwide total annual
cost is from a credit of $38,000 up to a
cost of $12.9 million, assuming the
installation of one control device per
facility.
Finally, EPA agrees that a recovery
credit is not applicable to TSDF in
general because most of the hazardous
wastes handled at TSDF are destined
for disposal. In contrast, at a WSTF, .the
air emissions resulting from equipment
leaks are potentially recyclable
solvents. Thus, no-recovery credit was
applied for TSDF other than WSTF in
the analyses for the final equipment leak
standards. .
E. Implementation ar.d Compliance
Test Methods
Comment Commenters argued that
the test methods proposed for use in
determining whether waste streams
contain more than 10 percent total
organics are inappropriate primarily
because they do not measure volatile
organics. One commenter objected to
the use of weight percent when defining
"in VHAP service" based on liquid
sample analyses.
Response: The EPA recognized that
each of the various test methods-
proposed for determining the organic
content of waste streams had limitations
and that none was universally
applicable. The determination of subpart
BB applicability should not require
precise measurement of the 10 percent
total organics by weight in most cases.
The EPA anticipates that most waste
streams will have an organic content
much lower or much higher than 10
percent Furthermore, because the
regulation requires control if the organic
content of the waste stream ever equals
or exceeds the 10-perceat value. EPA
believes that few owners or operators .
will claim that a waste stream is not
subject to.th'e requirements of the
standard based on a sample analysis
with results near 10 percent Therefore,'
a precise measurement-of waste stream
total organic content is not likely to be
needed to determine applicability of the
equipment leak standards.
If .the facility does decide to test the
waste, the choice of the appropriate
method must be based on a knowledge
of the process and waste. The EPA has
prepared a guidance document that
includes information to aid TSDF
owners/operators and enforcement and
permitting personnel in implementing
the regulations. Additional detail is
provided in the guidance document to ' .
aid in choosing the most appropriate test
method. (Refer to "Hazardous Waste
- TSDFTechnical Guidance Document
for RCRA Air Emission Standards for
Process Vents and Equipment Leaks."
EPA-450/3-89-21.)
In response to the commenters'
concerns that volatility of the waste
stream should be considered, the LDAR
provisions of the regulation were
changed to establish two potential
levels of required monitoring. Those
processes with the greater emission
potential are designated to be in light-
liquid service and are required to
Implement a more restrictive LDAR
program. Those processes with a lesser
emission potential are designated to be
in heavy-liquid service and are required
to implement a less restrictive LDAR
program. The determination ofbeing in
light-liquid service is based on the
concentration of organic components in'
a waste whose pure vapor pressure
exceeds 0.3 kPa. This addresses the
commenters' concerns that volatility of
the waste stream should be considered.
For the-process vent portion of the
regulation, if an organic is present at the
vent it is presumed to be volatile.
Therefore, volatility is considered by
virtue of where the determination of
applicability is made. '
With reference to the use of weight
percent when defining "in VHAP
service" {a term that has been dropped
from the promulgated regulations), EPA
believes that weight percentage is the
unit of choice when the determination of
organic content is made on a solid,
liquid, or sludge waste. It is also
commonly associated with those types
of wastes. For gaseous streams that
exceed 10 percent organics by weight,
the commenter's point is well -taken.
Volume fractions are more commonly
reported for gaseous streams. However,
it is not easier to calculate the volume
percent rather than weight percent.; . '
Additional information on" the
calibration standard used, the carrier ;
gas in the standard, and both the
organic and other inorganic-gases ;in the
sample are required in both cases. For
simplicity, the units of the standard are
.uniformly weight percent regardless of
waste type. -,-
Implementation Schedule
Comment: Several commenters
objected to the time periods contained
in the proposed standards for
implementation schedules and
requested that EPA not dictate a step-
by-step schedule.
Response: The EPA agrees with the
commenters that EPA should not dictate
step-by-step implementation schedules
for installing the control devices and
closed-vent systems required to comply
with these regulations because each
affected facility needs some flexibility
to budget funds, perform engineering
evaluations, and complete construction.
Therefore, EPA has dropped the interim
dates in the schedule and retained only
the final period of 2 years' from the'
promulgation for completing engineering
design and evaluation studies and for
installing equipment The final rules
require that all affected facilities comply
with the standards on the effective date;
however, the rules allow up to 24
months from the promulgation date (i.e.,
18 months after the effective date) for
facilities to comply if they are required
to install a control'device and they can
document that installation of the
emission controls cannot reasonably be
expected to be completed earlier.
Existing waste management units that
become newly regulated units subject to
the provisions of subpart AA or BB
because of a new statutory or regulatory
amendment under RCRA (e.g^ a new
listing or identification of a hazardous
waste) wiD have up to 18 months after
the" effective date of the statutory or .
regulatory amendments that render the
facility subject to the provisions of
subparts AA or BB to complete .
installation of the control device. New
hazardous waste management units
starting operation after the effective
date of subparts AA and BB must meet
the standards upon startup. This subject
is discussed further in section IX.
Implementation, of this preamble. The
final standards require that both
permitted and interim status facilities
maintain the schedules and the
accompanying documentation in their
operating records. The implementation
schedule must be in the operating record
on the effective date of todayVrulei ' >
which is 6 months after promulgation.
No provisions have been made in the =
standards,for extensions.beyond 24. ..;
months after promulgation. ; .; .-:-
-------
25484 Federal .Register.,/. Vol. 55, ;No. 120; / Thursday.; June. 21, 19.90 ./ Rules, and Regulations
Permitting Requirements
Comment: Several commenters '
suggested that RCRA part B information
requirements be limited to the units
already included in the part B
application. Units that must comply with
this regulation because the-facility is '
subject to RCRA. permit requirements for
other reasons should not be required to
be added to the part B permit
application. Other commenters objected
to statements in the preamble regarding
the role of the omnibus permitting
authority under RCRA section 3005(c)(3).
The commenters questioned the absence
of criteria for establishing when such
authority would be applied to require
more stringent controls and argued that '
authorizing permit writers to impose.
more stringent controls based on
unenforceable guidance is not a
substitute for regulations.'
Response: The EPA is aware that '
extending specific part B information
requirements to those hazardous waste
management units that are not-subject
to RCRA permitting but are located at
facilities that are otherwise subject to
RCRA permit requirements could result
in the need for those facilities to modify
RCRA permits or their part B
applications. However, EPA believes
that extending the part B information
requirements to hazardous waste
management units not subject to RCRA
permitting is necessary to ensure
compliance with the subpart AA and
subpart BB standards. ' ' '
The EPA also agrees that requiring a '
modification of RCRA permits (and part
B applications) as part of this rule could
result in delays in-processing and
issuing final RCRA permits. Therefore.
the final rules dp not require facilities to
modify permits issued before the .
effective date of these rules. Consistent
with 40 CFR 270.4, a facility with a final
permit issued prior to the effective date
is generally not required to comply with
new part 264 standards until its permit
is reissued or reviewed by the Regional
Administrator. Hazardous waste
management units and associated
process vents and equipment affected
by these standards must be added or
incorporated into the facility permit
when the permit comes up for .review
under § 270.50 or reissue under § ,124.15.
As previously noted, EPA intends to
propose to modify this policy in the
forthcoming Phase n rules such that
permitted facilities must comply with
the interim-status air rules.
Facilities that have obtained RCRA
interim status, as specified in 40 CFR
270.70 (i.e., compliance with the
requirements of section 3010(a) of RCRA
pertaining to notification of hazardous .
waste activity and the requirements of
40 CFR 270.10 governing submission of
part A applications), will be subject to
the part 265 standards on the effective
date. Interim status facilities that have .
submitted their part B application prior
to the effective date of the regulation .
will be! required to modify th.eitp.art B
applications to incorporate today's
requirements. - -
The omnibus permitting authority of
§ 270.32- allows permit writers to require,
on a case-by-case basis, emission
controls that are more stringent than
those specified by a standard. .The EPA
' has a mandate to use this authority for
situations in which regulations have not
been developed or in which special
requirements are needed to protect
human health and the environment. For
example, this authority could be used in
situations where, in the permit writers
judgment, .there is an unacceptably high
risk after application of controls
required by an emission standard. This
aspect of the permitting process is '
discussed further in section IX of this
preamble. The EPA is currently
preparing'guidance to be used by permit
writers to help identify facilities that
would potentially have high residual .
risk due to air emissions. The guidance
will include procedures to be used'to
identify potentially high-risk facilities
arid will include guidance for making a
formal, site-specific risk assessment
Recordkeeping: and Reporting
'Comment: Commenters asked EPA to
include a provision in the final
standards to provide for the elimination
of recordkeeping requirements that may
be duplicative of State or Federal .
requirements for equipment leaks.
Commenters also asked whether TSDF
are subject to any notification
' requirements if their waste stream is
less than 10 percent organics. ' '
Response: The EPA agrees that
duplicative recordkeeping and reporting
should generally be eliminated to the '
extent possible. Because of the
difficulties in foreseeing all situations in
which this could occur, a. provision to
this effect has not been added to the
final standards. However, when records
and repprts.required by States'are
substantially similar, a copy of the
information submitted to the State will
generally be acceptable to EPA. When
similar records and reports are required
by other EPA programs (such as the
visual observations required for. pumps
and valves associated with storage
tanks and incinerators), EPA suggests
that owners .or operators of TSDF.
coordinate monitoring and
recprdkeeping efforts to reduce labor
and costs; One set of records should be
maintained with emphasis on the more
detailed monitoring records required, by
these standards. The EPA considers .that
. the monitoring required for equipment .
leaks under these standards differs :.
significantly from the monitoring
required for ground water protection .
purposes under other RCRA rules.
However, the monitoring and. .
recordkeeping programs can be
combined-for efficiency. . . .
There are no notification requirements
in the equipment leak rules for waste
streams that have been determined
never to' exceed 10 percent total
organics.by weight. . .
VH. Summary of Impacts of Final
Standards '
A. Overview of the Source Category
Hazardous waste TSDF are facilities
that store, treat,- or dispose of hazardous
wastes. A TSDF may generate and:
manage hazardous waste on the same
site, or it may receive and manage
hazardous waste generated by others.
The EPA has conducted a number of
surveys to collect information about the'
TSDF industry. The most recent of these
surveys, the 1986 National Screening
Survey of Hazardous Waste Treatment,
Storage, Disposal, arid Recycling
Facilities, lists more than 2,300 TSDF.
nationwide; Available survey data
. further indicate that the majority (96
percent) of waste managed at TSDF is
generated and managed on the same site
and identifies more than 150 different
industries, primarily manufacturing, that
generate hazardous waste.
Approximately 500 TSDF are. .... : '.
commercial facilities that manage. .
hazardous waste generated by others.
The .types of wastes managed at TSDF
and the waste management processes
used are highly variable from one .
facility-to another. The physical
characteristics of wastes managed at,
TSDF include dilute wastewaters ;
(representing more than 90 percent by-
weight of .the .total waste managed),
organic and inorganic sludges, and
organic and inorganic solids.-.Waste
management processes differ according
to waste type and include storage and
treatment in tanks, surface
impoundments, and wastepiles;
handling or storage in containers-such
as drums, tank trucks, tank cars, and
dumpsters; and disposal of waste in
landfills, surface impoundments, -
injection wells, and by land treatment.
In addition, hazardous waste may be
managed in "miscellaneous units" that
do not .meet, the RCRA definition of any
of the processes-listed above.
Hazardous .waste may also be handled
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
25485
ir; research, development, and
demonstration units as>.described in 40
CFR 270.65. ' ',
the promulgated standards limit
organic emissions from (1) hazardous
waste management unit process vents
associated with distillation, :
fractionation, thin-film evaporation,
solvent extraction, and .air and stream
stripping operations that manage waste
with 10 ppmw or greater total organics
concentration, and (2) leaks from
- equipment at new and existing ,
hazardous waste management units that
contain or contact hazardous waste
streams with 10 percent or-more total
organics. The final equipment leak
standards apply to each.pump X'alve,
compressor,- pressure relief device,
sampling, connection, open-ended valve
or line, flange, or other c.onnector
associated with the affected hazardous
waste management unit. About 1,400
facilities are estimated to be potentially
subject to the equipment leak.standards
(i.e.. TSDF managing hazardous waste
containing at least 10 percent organics).
Of these, 450 are estimated to have
process vents subject to the vent
standards in subpart AA. ' :
B. Use of Models in: the Regulatory
. Development Process \
In estimating baseline (i.e.,
. unregulated) emissions; emission
impacts of the regulatory options; and
control costs'for the options-for '
equipment leaks, EPA made use of a "
: combination'of 'analytical and:physical
models of waste management.processes.
This -approach -was selected because
insufficient facility-specific data are '
available to conduct a site-specific
: characterization of the entire TSDF
industry.Jorexample,.the. ; .. '
physicalmodels of waste-management
. processes (or units) were used as .
simplified representations of the
equipment componenfmix expected to -
be associated with'each particular
hazardous waste management- process.
The model unit provides an estimate of
the number sf: pumps, valves, open-
ended lines, pressure relief valves, and
sampling.connections that are used in
the^waste management process. .
Although these models.are not exact for
each type of process, they provide, a
reaspnable approximation..of what can
be expected on average; precise ....
equipment counts for eachkunit at .each
facility are not available.
In the absence of sufficient site-
specific data, EPA developed a model to
. calculate, nationwide health, '
environmental, and cost impacts
.associated with hazardous waste TSDF.
Details of the.na'tional.inipacts model
can be found in the BID, appendix D. .
This national impacts model was used
to estimate the nationwide impacts
necessary for comparison of the various
TSDF equipment leak emission control
options. The national-impacts mode} is a
' complex computer program that usas a
wide variety of information and data
concerning the TSDF industry fo
calculate nationwide impacts through
summation of approximate individual
facility results. Information processed
by the model includes results of TSDF
industry surveys as well as
characterizations and simulations of
TSDF processes and wastes, emission
factors of each. type- of management unit,
the efficiencies and costs of emission ,-
control technologies, and exposure and
health impacts of TSDF pollutants. This
information is contained in several :
independent data files developed by
EPA for use as inputs to the model.
These data files are briefly described
below.
Industry profile data identify-the
name, location, primary standard
industrial classification (SIC) code, ;
waste management processes, waste.
types, and waste, volumes for each
TSDF. The industry data were obtained
from three principal sources: A1986
National Screening Survey of Hazardous
Waste Treatment, Storage, Disposal,
and Recycling Facilities; the Hazardous
Waste Data Management System's
RGRA-part A permit applications; and -
the ,1981 National.Survey .ofHazardous
Waste Generators and Treatment^
Storage, andDisposalFacilities
Regulated Under RCRA. The industry '
data are .used in the model to define-the
location and .the SIC code for each -
facility and to identify the waste
management units at each facility as :
well as the-rypes and quantities of '
waste managed in each unit . .
The hazardous waste characterization
consists of waste data representative of
typical wastes handled by facilities in
each SIC code. The waste data are
linked to specific facilities by the SIC
code and the RCRA waste codes
identified for that facility in the industry
profile: The waste characterization data
include chemical properties information
that consists, of constituent-specific data .
on the physical, chemical, and biological
properties ofa group of surrogate' waste .
constituents that were developed to- -
represent the more than 4,000 TSDF
waste constituents identified in the
waste data base. The surrogate
categories were defined to represent
actual organic compounds based on a
combination- of their vapor pressures.
Henry's law constants; and
biodegradabilrty. The use of surrogate'
properties-was instituted to compensate
for a lack of constituent-specific
physical and chemical property data
and to reduce the number of chemicals
to be assessed fay the model. :
The emission factors data- consist of
emission factors, expressed as
emissions per unit of waste throughput,
for each combination of surrogate waste
constituent and model waste
management process. Each model waste
management process was,' in effect, a
"national average model unit" that , .
represented a weighted average of the
operating parameters of existing waste
management units. The EPA's LDAR
modal was used to develop emission ' '
control efficiencies and emission
reductions for the TSDF equipment leak
emission.factors used in the analysis.
This LDAR model is based on the
Agency's extensive experience with .
equipment leaks in the petrochemical
and synthetic organic chemical- .
manufacturing industries. -. - '
Incidence data consist of estimates of-
annual cancer incidence for the
population within 50 km of each TSDF.
This information was developed using
EPA's Human-Exposure Model, 1980
census data, and local meteorological;
data summaries. Because some of the
data used in the national impacts model
are based on national average values
rather than actujal facility-specific data,
maximum risk numbers generated byrthe
model are not considered to be - '
. representative, of facility-specific risks.'
Maximum individual risk, has meaning
only-at the facility level. Therefore, EPA .
ehose to use another methodologyfor . :
estimating MIR for equipment leaks.
This is discussed further in section
- VH.E. . : .<<. '...... : .-.
Data related to emission: control
technologies and costs include
information that describes control;:
efficiencies, capital investment; and '
annual operating costs for'each emission
control option -that is applicable to a
particular waste management process.
These data were obtained through
engineering analyses of control device
operations and the development of .
engineering cost estimates. -. . .
To. make-use of all of these data; the : :
national impacts model contains . .
procedures that (1) identify TSDF ,
facilities, their-waste management:
-processes, waste compositions.-and' . '-.
.annual-waste throughputs; (2) assign
chemical properties to waste ' - . ' ' '
constituents and assign control-devices
to process units; and (3) calculate. '.
uncontrolled emissions, emissions
reductions, control costs, and health
impacts. Results produced by the model
include, 'on a nationwide basis, '';''. ...
uncontrolled. emissions, controlled
-------
25486 Federal Register / V61.'55, No.: 120 / Thursday, June 21, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
emissions, capital investment costs, '
annual operating costs, annualized costs
for controls, and annual cancer
incidence. As previously stated, these,
nationwide values are obtained by
summing the results of individual ' .
facility analyses across all facilities.
The primary objective and intended
use of the national impacts model are to
provide reasonable estimates of TSDF
impacts on a nationwide basis. Because
of the complexity of the hazardous
waste management industry and the
current lack of detailed information for
individual TSDF. the model was
developed to utilize national average
data where site-specific data are not
available. As a result the estimated
emissions and cancer incidence from the
model do not represent the impacts for a
specific individual facility. However.
with national average data values used
where site-specific data were missing.
EPA believes that the estimates are
reasonable oh a'nationwide basis and'
are adequate for deciaionmakmg.
C. Emission Impacts .
Since proposal in February 1987, EPA
has. reviewed all available site-specific
information and data on WSTF and
TSDF. much of which has only become
available since proposal. For example,
EPA is conducting a multiyear project to
collect information on the Nation's
generation of hazardous waste and the
capacity available to treat, store,
dispose of, and recycle-that waste. The
initial phase of the project was the 1986
National Screening Survey of Hazardous
Waste Treatment, Storage, Disposal and
Recycling Facilities, which identified
and collected summary information from
all hazardous waste treatment, storage.
disposal, and recycling faculties in the
United States. The results of this
"Screener Survey" together with data
from other existing data bases (such as
the Hazardous Waste Data Management
System's RCRA part A applications; the
National Survey of Hazardous Waste
Generators and Treatment. Storage, and
Disposal Facilities Regulated Under
RCRA in 1981; the Industry Studies"
Database; a data base of 40 CFR 261.32
hazardous wastes from specific sources;
the WET Model Hazardous Waste Data
Base; and a data base created by the
Illinois EPA) were used to support the
development and analysis of these air
emission regulations for hazardous
waste TSDF. Additional sources of data
on TSDF and waste.solvent recycling
operations included EPA field reports on
hazardous waste facilities and
responses to RCRA section 3007 .
information requests sent to a limited
number of both large and small , ,,
facilities. Based on all of this
information, EPA has .revised and
expanded the impact analyses, including
estimates of emissions, risks, costs, and
the economic impact on small
businesses and on the industry as a
whole. . : r. .
Using the revised impact analyses.
nationwide (unregulated] baseline
equipment leak organic emissions from
TSDF waste streams of 10 percent or
greater total organics are estimated at
2&200 Mg/yr. This estimate includes
equipment leak emissions from waste
solvent treatment facilities and from
.other TSDF with hazardous waste
management processes handling wastes
with organic concentrations of 10 '
percent or greater, a total of about 1,400
facilities. The bases for these estimates
are contained in the BID; appendix D.
Nationwide (unregulated) organic
emissions from process vents at about .
450 TSDF with solvent recovery
operations range from' 300 Mg/yr (based
on lower-bound emission rates) to 8,100
Mg/yr (based on upper-bound emission
rates). This wide emission range occurs
because of variations'in primary
condenser recovery efficiencies and the
use of secondary condensers at some .
sites. The lower-bound rate represents
high recovery efficiencies at all
facilities, and the upper-bound rate
represents low recovery efficiencies at
all facilities. Actual nationwide
, emissions should fall-between these
values.
With the implementation of die
standards, nationwide TSDFequipment
leak emissions will be reduced to about
7,200 Mg/yr; nationwide organic
emissions from process vents will be
reduced to a range from 270 Mg/yr
(lower-bound emission rates) to 900 Mg/
yr (upper-bound emission rates).
D. Ozone Impacts
Reductions in organic emissions from
TSDF sources will- have a positive
impact on human health and the
environment by reducing atmospheric
ozone formation as a result of
reductions in emissions of ozone
precursors, primarily organic
compounds. Ozone is a major problem
in most larger cities, and EPA has
estimated that more than 100 million
people live in areas that are in violation
of the ambient ozone standards. Ozone
is a pulmonary irritant that can impair
the normal functions of human lungs,
may increase susceptibility to bacterial
infections, and can result in other .
detrimental health effects.-In addition. .
ozone can reduce the yields of citrus,
cotton, potatoes, soybeans, wheat
spinach, and other crops,'-and can cause
damage to conifer forests and a . - .- .
reduction, in the fruit and seed diets of
. wildlife. Because TSDF organic -
emissions account for about 12 percent
of total nationwide organic emissions
from stationary sources, today's rules .
will- contribute to a reduction in ozone- .
induced health and environmental :..
effects and-will assist in attainment and
maintenance of-the ambient air quality
standards for ozone. Table 1
summarizes the emissions and health ,
risk impact estimates.
Ozone precursors and
chlorofluorocarbons, whose emissions
will be reduced by this rulemaking, are
both considered greenhouse gases (i.e..
gases whose accumulation in the
atmosphere has been related to global
.warming). Although the regulation's
direct impact on global wanning has not
been quantified, the direction being .
taken is a positive one. Implementation
of these rules will reduce tropospheric
ozone, which: contributes to global ;
wanning.
E. Health Risk Impacts
Human health risks posed by
exposure to TSDF air emissions are
typically quantified in two forms:
Annual cancer incidence and MIR.
Annual .cancer incidence is the
estimated number of .cancer cases per
year due to exposure to TSDF emissions
nationwide. The.MIR. on the other hand.
represents the potential risk to the one
hypothetical individual who lives
closest to a reasonable worst-case TSDF
for a lifetime of 70 years. The MIR is
'derived from modeling a reasonable
worst-case scenario and is not based on
actual measurement of risk. It is not
representative of the entire industry,
and, in fact may be experienced by few.
if any, individuals. As explained in
appendix B of the BID, there are great.
uncertainties -hi both these types of
health risk estimates. These two health
risk forms were used as an index to
quantify health impacts related to TSDF
emissions and emission controls. As
discussed in section YLD., an
equipment-leak-specific, emission- -
weighted unit risk factor of 4.5 X 10-«
(jig/m3)"1 was used to estimate the
nationwide annual cancer incidence and
the MIR of contracting cancer
associated with TSDF equipment leak
organic emissions. See appendix B of the
BID for a detailed analysis of the health
risk impacts.
. At proposal, order-of-magnitude
health impacts were estimated for .
cancer risks from exposure to organic .
air emissions from WSTF and TSDF.
The Human Exposure Model (HEM), was
used to calculate the magnitude of risks
posed by WSTF at both-typical and . - .
maximum emission rates. Based oh ah -
-------
-Federal.Register /.Vol. Sfr No. 120..-/ Thursday. June;21,. 199Q,/ Rules and Regulations
25487
esti;nated:urban/rural.distributioh, EPA
selected- six WSTF to Tepreserit the
nationwide WSTF industry" in
performing the risk assessment.. Using
the results of the analysis of these
"typicar.faciHties,. health impacts .were
extrapolated .to all .WSTF arid TSDF in
general to provide nationwide estimates.
In the revised.health.&npaqts Analysis
. for. the.final rules, annual .cancer .
incidence, arid MIR were again used to
quantify, healtJi impacts for the control
alternatives.for process vents and
equipment leaks. However, in, this
followiip .analysis; the HEM .was run
using site-specific'data em facility waste'
throughputs, emission: rates, '..'': .
' meteorology, and population density for
each WSTF and TSDF nationwide
, identified in the various data bases.
-The facility-specific information was
obtained frorii three principal sources.
Waste, quantity and solvent recycling
data were taken from the 1986 National
Screener Survey; wastemanagement
processing schemes and waste types
managed in each facility wjere based on .:
the Hazardous Waste Data Management
System's (HWDMS) R&RA part A " ",' "".
applications; the National Surveyof
'Hazardous Waste Generators and
Treatment, Storage, and Disposal ;
Facilities Regulated Under RCRA in: "
1981 fWestat.Survey); and the 1936
National Screener Survey. ' .
In revising the methodology applied in
assessing cancer risks; EPA conducted
facility-specific HEM computer runs for
nearly all of the 448 WSTF. that : ;
reported; in the'1986 NatipnaL Screener
Survey,.recycling and/or reuse of
solvents and other organic compounds
(i.e., TSDF expected to have the
specified process vents) and for each of .
the more than 1,400 TSDF in the industry
profile of 2,300 TSDF that were .'...'
determined to manage wastes with at'
least 1& percent organic content These
HEM results were used to Estimate
nationwide cancer incidence for both.
TSDF equipment leaks and process ..
vents. .; .- -. ..;;. !"';' ; ''
. The nationwide annual incidence:
resulting from uncontrolled TSDF '.'
:.. equipment leaks, is estimated at 1.1
cases qf cancer per year. Based on.the
estimated lower-bound emission .rates,
the. nationwide cancer incidence from
uncontrolled process ventsis 0.015 case/
yr. Based on the. upper-bound emission
rate, the incidence from process vents is '
0.38 case/yr..With the application of the :
final process vent standards, based on
. lower-bourid emission rates, the annual :
cancer incidence .will be reduced to '
0.001 from 0.015.case/yr. Based on
upper-bound emission rates,'annual' '.. "
incidence will be reduced to 0.027 case/
yr from 0.38 case/yr. With the
impleirientationof 'the. LDAR programs
for equipmerit teak' emissions, the
annual cancer incidence associated with
fugitive emissions will be.reduced to
about 0.32 case/yr. .. . .
TABLE 1, SUMMARY OF NATIONWIDE ENVIRONMENTAL AND.HEALTH RISK IMPACTS OF TSDF AIR EMISSION REGULATIONS
... .-.'. '.-.- ESDF source category '.: '. ',. ' ' '.
Process-vents''" - ''.' ' ' : ': i v ' .' ' ..'-..'
Lower bound L^.._:.....^__: J;. '.:. .
Upper boand./_.;^_^. ^. ~ ~ " ~~" ;'
Equipment leaks'..u.^..:..__:.. , ~ '""' . ':":"' -----
« A- ' 7~- --i.-^-,.. '~^ '.. ' .. ' . '
Nationwide 'crrjisstons, Mg/
'.YT ..,' '
- Uricon-
trolled
':-.' : -300
8;100
26^00
' Controlled
-.:. ; .'- 270
.-'. 900
, 7,200
Annual inciderice', cases/-
. . . ' yr ' - ;
Uricon-
' tro8ed '
- 0.015
.0:38
Controlled
'''- 0.001 .
0.027.
. . . 032
. Maximum individual risk *
Uncon- ..
' trolled '
3xio-».
. 8x10-1
Controlled
. : 2xio:-'
The HEM results were also used to
estimate the MIR for process vents. For
estimates of MIR associated with TSDF
equipment leaks, a separate
methodology was used for reasons
discussed below. '.
There are three major problems in
a pplying the methodology used to'
estimate cancer incidence, a nationwide
value, to estimate MIR front equipment
leaks, a site-specific value. The first
problem concerns the emission -.''
estimation technique. Equipment count,
and not the amount of waste handled, is
the major determining factor for; '
emission estimates from equipment
leaks. Equipment counts dp not double
cr triple accordingly as throughput is
increased. Because the'size of theino'del
plant (and thus the equipment count)
assigned to a waste management :
process was based on the amount of
wa'ste; handled, emissions from
equipment leaks will be overstated for
larger facilities and understated for
smaller facilities.' This averages but on a
nationwide basis, but individual facility
estimates are not considered accurate
for estimates ofMIR. .;
The second problem deals with the. .
waste compositions and forms (s.g.,
wastewater and concentrated organics)
attributed to each RCRA waste code
(e.g., FOOl). A waste code may involve
wastes in several forms. The -.'.'
.determination of impacts was based on
the national average waste form '
distribution for each particular waste
code occurring at each facility. For
example, if on average across the
Nation, a particular organic waste '
solvent appears as an aqueous waste
(very dilute organics) 20 percent of the
time, as a sludge 50 percent of the. time,
and as an organic liquid 30 percent of
the time, those percentages were applied
to every facility that was identified to '
handle that type of waste regardless of
the actual percentages of waste form
found at the facility. In some 'cases, 'this
resulted in larger facilities being.
assigned a much greater percentage of -'
an organib.liquid form than would
actually be the case. Again, this " ';''
and .the of :Secondary
' 'averages out on a riationwide-basis,.but
for site-specific estimates such as MIR
more refined determinations are
required. . '''. . ; . ,
. ' The third problem with using the HEM
for equipment leaks is that the-HEM ' '
doesiriot model area sources directly; it '
collocates all emission sources at one
; central point and models the emissions
' as point sources. This is appropriate for
estimates for process vents that are
actual point sources, but not for
equipmerit leaks. A typical TSDF would
have several hundred equipment "" .' .
components with the potential for leaks
; :that could be located over the entire - - '
'facilify afe'a'.. '. ' '
In estimating MIR for equipment
leaks, EPA based its hypothetical,
reasonable worst-case facility, in large
part, on an actual facility. The EPA-was
able to charaqterize the,facility in
sufficient detail that dispersion . : .
estimates could be generated using a- " -
true area source dispersion model. This
was possible because more detailed
. site-specific information has become ' \- '
-------
25488 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 120 / Thursday, June 121, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
available on a limited basis since
proposal. The. preliminary results of a
multiyear project to collect information
on the Nation's generation of hazardous
waste and the capacity available to
treat, store, dispose of, and recycle that
wasteavere used as the basis of the
analysis. In the survey, all active '
treatment, storage, disposal, and,
recycling facilities (TSDR) were sent a
detailed package, of questionnaires
appropriate to the processes they
operate. The completed questionnaires
were reviewed for technical accuracy;
after independent verification, the
information collected was entered into a
complex data base. The TSDR survey
questionnaire responses contain the
most detailed up-to-date nationwide
information regarding the hazardous
waste management technologies each
facility has on-site. For each facility,
detailed information is available in the
data base, including facility area,
numbers of hazardous waste
management units by process type (i.e.,
number of surface impoundments,
incinerators, recycling units), annual
throughput by process unit, and types of
waste (i.e., RCRA waste codes)
managed by each unit at the facility.
The availability of this information in
computerized format made it possible to
use the TSDR survey data base to.
identify facilities that represent the
population of worst-case facilities with
regard to equipment leak emissions and
the potential for high MIR values. A
detailed discussion of the health impacts
methodologies is presented in appendix
BoftheBID. -
The MIR estimate was made first by
screening detailed TSDR Survey data for
more than 1,400 TSDF to identify the
facility that has the highest potential,
equipment leak emissions and the
highest potential for these emissions to '
result in high ambient air concentrations
(i.e., high emissions on a small facility
area). Next, it was assumed that this
facility handles hazardous wastes that
have carcinogens with an emission-
weighted potency equal to that of the
nationwide average and that an
individual was residing at the -shortest
distance from the TSDF management
units to the nearest apparent residence.
The highest annual-average ambient
concentration, resulting from this high
emission-rate facility, predicted to occur
at the residence nearest the facility was
then determined by dispersion modeling.
The Industrial Source Complex Long-
Term flSCLT) dispersion model was
used in the equipment leak MIR analysis
to model the worst-case facility as a true
area source with the actual facility area
of about 1 acre as input. The highest'
annual average out of the results of 5
years of meteorological data'modeled
for each of the eight cities used to
characterize nationwide meteorology
was selected for use in the MIR
calculation. Thus, this MIR estimate is
considered a reasonable worst-case
estimate for the industry and should not
be interpreted to represent a known risk
posed by any actual facility in the
industry.
The MIR resulting from TSDF baseline
(or uncontrolled) equipment leak
emissions is estimated at 5X10~S, i.e., 5 '
chances in'1,000. Based on the estimated
lower-bound emission rates for process
vents, the MIR for uncontrolled process
vents is about 3 chances in 100,000
(3X10"*); based on the upper-bound
emission rate, the MIR is 8X10~*.
Because of the uncertainties inherent in
nationwide emission and risk estimates
that must characterize the many
different constituents present in a
variety of TSDF operations, EPA
considered the upper-bound estimates in
its decisionmaking.
With the application of the final
process vent standards, based on lower-
bound emission rates, the MIR will be
reduced to 2X10~sfrom SXIO"5. Based
on the upper-bound emission rates, the
MIR will be reduced to 4X10"6 from
8X10"4. With the implementation of
control requirements for equipment leak
emissions that include monthly LDAR
requirements for pumps and valves,
caps for open-ended lines, closed-purge
sampling, and rupture discs for pressure
relief devices, the MIR associated with
fugitive emissions will be reduced to
about lX10~sfrom 5X10-*. Appendix B
of the BID, EPA 450/3-89-009, present* a
detailed explanation of the derivation of
these risk estimate's. . '
The MIR estimate for equipment leaks
is sensitive to several factors. Emissions
are the most obvious factor, controlling
risk. The facility associated with the
reported MIR for equipment leaks is one
of the highest emitting TSDF in terms of
equipment leaks/in the upper 99.5
percent for potential equipment leak
emissions. If the analysis were to use
the 85-percentile emissions (i.e., 85
percent of the TSDF nationwide have
lower equipment leak emissions than
this value), then MIR would drop from
IXlO-'to 5X10~*with all other factors
held constant.
Another factor affecting the MIR
estimates is 'area of the emitting source.
For these'types of sources, risk is
inversely proportional to the area of the
emitting source. For example, given
equal emissions, a facility located over
10 acres generally poses less risk'than a
facility on 1 acre. For the facility . .
presenting the highest risk in this rule,
the MIR would drop from 1X10"3 to
2X10~* if 10 acres were used in.the
estimate rather than 1 acre; It should
also be pointed out that for the more
than 1,400 TSDF surveyed in the EPA
1987 TSDR Survey, the median facility
area was.greater than 50 acres.
Distance to the nearest resident is
another key variable in the risk
estimate. The actual distance to the
nearest residence (i.e., 250 ft) for the
worst-case facility was used in
calculating the reported MIR value;
however, the median distance in a
random sample of distances to the
nearest residence reported in a Survey
of the hazardous waste generators was
1,000 ft. If this median distance were
used in the estimate, even with the high
emissions and the small area, the
maximum risk value would drop from
1X10~3 to 2X10~4. Meteorology is also a
factor; the worst-case dispersion was
used in the reported estimate. If an
average case were used, then risk would
drop to 6X10~* with all other factors
held constant.
As the above examples show,
facilities with anything other than the
combined worst-case factors would
pose significantly less risk than the MIR
reported for equipment leaks. The MIR
estimates presented are, for the most
part, based on worst-case or
conservative assumptions;-the one
exception is the weighted-average
cancer potency value, or unit risk factor
(URF), used. The EPA believes it is
unreasonable to make all worst-case
assumptions-for a single facility.
However, because of the overall
conservative nature of the analysis, for
the industry as a whole, the vast
majority of TSDF would pose
significantly lower risk from equipment
leak emissions than the reported
reasonable, worst-case value.
F. Cost Impacts
The EPA developed a detailed
estimate of the total capital investment
annual operating costs, and total annual
costs of each emission control
technology applied to each affected
waste management unit. Total capital
investment represents the total original
cost of the installed control device.
Total annual -cost represents the total
payment each year to repay the capital
investment for the control device as well
as to pay for the control device (or work
practice) operating and maintenance
expenses. The costs of attaining the 95-
percent control or emission reduction for
process vents are based on the use of
condensers to control process vent
streams for which condensation is
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 120 / Thursday. June 21. 1990 J Rules and Regulations
25489
technically feasible and on the use of
carbon adsorption systems to control .'
the -remaining process vent streams
subject to the regulations. Because site-
specific information was insufficient to
determine which facilities could apply
condensers rather than carbon
adsorbers industry-wide, upper- and
.lower-bound cost estimates were
generated for process vent controls. The
upper-bound cost estimates are based
on the assumption that fixed-bed,
regenerable carbon adsorption systems
would be required to control process
vents at all facilities with emissions
above the emission rate limit Similarly,
the lower-bound cost estimate is based
on the assumption that condensers
could be used to control process vents at
all facilities with emissions above the
emission rate limit.
The nationwide capital investment
and total annual cost of implementing
the requirements of today's rule for
process vent controls are estimated at '
$24.6 million and $12.9 million/year,
respectively, for the upperrbound case.
For the.lower-bound case, capital
investment is $1.5 million and total
annual costs represent a small savings
of $70,000/yr. These costs are based on
an industry profile that includes 73 large
recycling facilities and 167 medium-
sized recycling facilities. The more than
200 small recycling facilities are not
included, in the cost estimates because
they are projected not to have to install
additional controls to meet the facility
emission rate limit
The capital investment and total
annual costs of controlling TSDF
equipment leak emissions with the
LDAR program together with some
equipment specifications are estimated
at $126.6 million and $32.9 million/yr.
respectively. Table 2 summarizes capital
and-annual costs associated with the
final rules.
Further information on the economic
impacts of the final standards for
organic control from TSDF process vents
and equipment leaks is presented in
section Vm of this preamble. Details of
the analysis are presented in the BID,
chapter 9.0.'
TABLE 2.SUMMARY OF NATIONWIDE
COST IMPACTS OF TSDF AIR EMISSION
REGULATIONS
TABLE 2.SUMMARY OF NATIONWIDE
COST IMPACTS OF TSDfJ AIR EMISSION
REGULATIONSContinued
TSDF source category
Process vents"
Lower bound :
Natfon-
wide
capital
cost$
millions
(1986)
1.5
Nation-
wide
armua-
lized
cost', $
millions/
yr
(0.1)
TSDF source category
-
Upper bound
Equipment leaks ,
Nation-
wide
capital
cost, $
millions
(1986)
246
126.6
Nation-
wide
annua-
Szed
millions/
yr
32J5
( ) indicates a cost credit
Includes a recovery credrt for recycling. No re-
covery credit was applied for TSDF without recycling
processes.
"The lower-bound cost estimates assume that
condensers could be used to control process vents
at all facilities with emissions above the emission
rate limit; the upper-bound cost estimates assume
that carbon adsorbers would be required to control
process vents at all facilities with emissions above
the emission rate limit
VIII. State Authorization
A. Applicability of Rules in Authorized
States
Under section 3006 of RCRA, EPA
may authorize qualified States to
administer and enforce the RCRA
program within the State..(See 40 CFR
part 271 for the standards and
requirements for authorization.}
Following authorization, EPA retains
enforcement authority under sections
30JJ8,7003, and 3013 of RCRA, although
authorized States have primary
enforcement responsibility under
section 7002.
Prior to the HSWA of 1984, a State
with final authorization administered its
hazardous waste program entirely in
lieu of EPA administering the Federal
program in that State. The Federal
requirements no longer applied in the
authorized State, and EPA could not
issue permits for any facilities in the
.State that the State was authorized'to
permit When new, more stringent
Federal requirements were promulgated
or enacted, the State was obliged to
enact equivalent authority within
specified timeframes. New Federal
requirements did not take effect in an
authorized State until the State adopted
the requirements as State law.
In contrast under section 3006(g){l} of
RCRA, 42 U.S.C, 6926{g), new
requirements and prohibitions imposed '
by HSWA take effect in authorized
States at the same time that they take
effect in nonauthorized States; The EPA
is directed to carry out those
requirements and prohibitions in "
authorized States, including the issuance
of permits, until the State is granted
authorization to do so. While States
must still adopt HSWA-related
provisions as State law to retain final
authorization, the HSWA requirements
apply in authorized States in the interim.
B. Effect on State Authorizations
Today's rule is promulgated pursuant
to section 3C04(n) of RCRA, a provision
added by HSWA. Therefore, EPA is
adding the requirements to Table 1 in 40
CFR 271.l(j), which identifies the
Federal program requirements that are
promulgated pursuant to HSWA and
take effect in all States, regardless of
authorization status. States may apply
for either interim or final authorization
for the HSWA provisions identified in
Table 1,'as discussed in this section of
the preamble.
The EPA will implement today's rule
in authorized States until (1) they
modify-their programs to adopt these
rules and receive final authorization for
the modification or (2) they receive
interim authorization as described
below. Because this rule is promulgated
pursuant to HSWA, a State submitting a
program modification may apply to
receive either interim or final
authorization under section 3006(g)(2) or
section 3006(b), respectively, on the
basis of requirements that are
, substantially equivalent orequivalent to
EPA's. The procedures and schedule for
State program modifications for either
interim or final authorization are
described in 40 CFR 271.21. It should be
noted that all HSWA interim
authorizations will expire automatically
on January 1,1993 (see 40 CFR
271-24{cj).
Section 271.21(e}(2} requires that
authorized States must modify their
programs to reflect Federal program
changes and must subsequently submit
the modifications to EPA for approval.
The deadline for State program
modifications for this rule is July 1,1991
(or July 1,1992, if a State statutory
change is needed]. These deadlines can
be extended in certain cases [40 CFR
271.21(e)(3)). Once EPA approves the
modification, the State requirements
become subtitle C RCRA requirements.
A State that submits its official
application for final authorization less
than 12 months after the effective date .
of these standards is not required to,
include standards equivalent to these
standards in its application. However,
the State must modify its program by the
deadlines set forth in 40 CER 271.21(e).
States that submit official applications
for final authorization 12 months after
the effective date of these standards
must include standards equivalent to '
these standards in their applications;
Section 2713 sets forth the requirements
a State must meet when submitting its
final authorization application.
-------
2549ft ' T^e^al*RefflstteYiV6i.f55;^N6;-t20/'-Thi^lr8day..''Tiine21. 1990 /Rules and-Remilafions
States that are authorized for RGRA
may already have requirements under
State law similar to those in today's' '
rules. These State regulations have not
been assessed against the Federal
regulations being promulgated today to
determine whether they meet the tests
for authorization. Thus, a State is not
authorized to implement these
requirements in lieu of EPA until the
State program modification is approved.
Of course, States with existing
standards may continue to administer
and enforce their standards as a matter
of State law. In implementing the .
Federal program, EPA will work with
States under cooperative, agreements to
minimize duplication of efforts. In many
cases, EPA will be able to defer to the
States in their efforts to implement their
programs rather than take separate
actions under Federal authority.
IX. Implementation
As proposed, the air emission
standards for process vents and
equipment leaks were included as
subpart C of part 269, Air Emission
Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage,
and Disposal Facilities. Part 269 was to
be added to the CFR with the
promulgation of these standards. For
consistency with'Standards for other
TSDF sources under RCRA, the final
standards have -been incorporated into
parts 264 and 265. Subpart AA applies to
process vents and subpart BB to
equipment leaks. In addition, whereas at
proposal the equipment leak
requirements of 40 CFR part 61, subpart
V, were incorporated by reference! these
provisions have been included in
subpart BB: with revisions appropriate
for a.standard promulgated under RCRA
authority rather than CAA authority.
, Under the current RCRA permitting
system, a facility that has received a
finalBennit must comply with all of the.
following requirements as specified in 40
CFR 270.4: (1) The specific conditions
written into the permit (including
conditions that demonstrate compliance
with part 264" regulations); (2) self-
; implementing statutory requirements;'
and (3) regulations promulgated under
40 CFR part 268 restricting the -
placement of hazardous waste in or on
the land. When new regulations are'
promulgated after the issuance of a . '
permit, EPA may-reopen the permit to
incorporate the new requirements as
staled^n § 270.41. Otherwise, the new
regulatory requirements are * .- . -. -
Incorporated-into a'facility's permit at'; -
the time of.permit reissuance, or at'the
S-yearjeview for land disposal - :-.-,: :... '
facilities." ' .",'';:'":-*.'» '-' ,1-':
Facilities' that have not been issued a
final-permit and that have fully
complied with> the requirements for
. interim status must comply with the -
regulations specified in CFR part 265.
New regulations that are added to part
265 become applicable to interim status
facilities on their effective dates.
Although EPA has the authority to
reopen permits to incorporate the
requirements of new standards, EPA is
concerned about the resource burdens of
this approach. To reopen permits for
each new regulation at the time it is
promulgated would impose a large
administrative burden on both EPA and
the regulated community because a
major permit modification'would
generally require the same
administrative procedures as are
required for initial permits [e.g.,
development of a draft permit, public
notice, and-opportunity for public
hearing). As'a consequence, the
requirements of new standards are
usually incorporated into a permit when
it is renewed. For standards
implemented through the RCRA permit
system, the effect of this policy is to
"shield" facilities that have been issued
a final permit from any requirements
promulgated after the issuance of the
permit until the time that the permit
must be renewed and the new
requirements are written into the permit
Thus,' this policy is often referred to as
the "permit-as-a-shield" policy.
' Although this policy is generally.
applied, EPA may evaluate the need to
accelerate the implementation of
standards developed under RCRA and, .
if warranted, make-exceptions to the
permit-as-a-shield policy. In today's
rules, the permit-as-a-shield provision
applies to control of air emissions from
process yents and equipment leaks
regulated under section 3004(n).
However, as previously noted, in the
Phase-it TSDF air rules, EPA intends to
propose modifications to permit-as-a-
shield provisions as they apply to .
control of air emissions under these new
subparts. With this proposed action,-air "
rules promulgated under RCRA section
3004(n) would-be applicable to all
facilities; regardless of permit status;
'' Both interim status and permitted
' facilities-must comply with the < '
substantive control requirements of the
final standards. However, facilities that
-.have already been issued a final permit
priorto-the effective date of today's
final rules- are not-required to comply
with flie rules until such time as ihe
permit is reviewed or is reissued. : ' . .
Interim status facilities that have -.
submitted their part fi permit application
aife-Tequtred:t6 modify their part B".' - "
applications to incorporate the
requirements of today's rule's.' "
The EPA considers that the part 265
standards promulgated here can be
satisfied without the need for detailed '
explanation or negotiation between the
facility owner/operator and EPA and
therefore, interim status facilities can
comply without awaiting permit action.
The self-implementing nature of these
rules is achieved by including specific
criteria for facility owners or operators.
to identify waste management units that
are subject to the regulation arid by
clearly specifying the emission control
and administrative requirements of the
rules.
The criteria for applicability are that
certain hazardous waste management
units at hew and existing TSDF that
need authorization to operate under
RCRA section 3005 are covered by the
rules. The applicability includes all
hazardous waste management units and
recycling units at facilities that require
RCRA permits. For the equipment leak
standards to apply, the equipment must
contain or contact hazardous wastes
with a 10-percent-or-more total organics
concentration. For the proces.s vent'
standards to apply, the vents must be
associated with specific hazardous
waste management units, i.e.,
distillation, fractionation, thin-film
evaporation, solvent extraction, or air or
steam stripping operations, that manage
wastes with 10 ppmw or greater total
organics concentration.
Control requirements in the final
regulation include .specific design '
requirements for equipment and specific
performance criteria, (i.e., a weight-
percent reduction and a volume ; '
concentration limit) for emission control
devices. Provisions of the final
standards also list specific types of
equipment required. Owners and
operators who use one of the listed
types of equipment within the specified
design and operational parameters
would therefore be in compliance With
the regulation as long as the required
design, inspection, monitoring, and
maintenance provisions were"met.' ' "
Specifications for emission controls that
achieve at least a 95-weight-percent
reduction in volatile organic emissions
are somewhat less specific, but ,
engineering design practices are''' "'
sufficiently established that the
combination of a good control device
design arid subsequent monitoring of '
operating parameters, as required by the
final regulation, would offer reasonable :'
assurance mat the specified emission
reduction is being achieved. Regardless > "
of the type of control selected; owners '
and operators must maintain their own
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 120 / Tfoirsday, June 21. 1990 / Rules and Regulations 25491
records of control device design,.
installation, and monitoring and must,...
submit reports identifying exeeeders of
monitored control device parameters.
Periodic review of the required reports.
and records by EPA may be used to
ensure compliance.
Because today's rules are promulgated
under HSWA, all affected facilities must
comply with these requirements on the
effective date of the rnje, regardless of
the authorization status of the State in
which they are located. In addition,
because EPA will implement these rules
in every State on the effective date, all
reports should be sent to the EPA
Regional Offices until the State receives
authorization to implement these rules.
.Therefore, owners and operators of
TSDF with existing waste management
units subject to the provisions of
subparts AA and BE must achieve
compliance with the process vent and
equipment leak control and monitoring
requirements on the effective date of
these rules (i.e., 6 months following
promulgation) except where compliance
would require the installation of a
closed-vent system and control device.
Information developed under other EPA
regulations has shown that in some
cases, the design, construction, and
installation of a closed-vent system and
control device can take as long as 24
months to complete. As a result, EPA is
allowing up to 24 months from the
promulgation date of the regulation for
existing facilities to complete
installation if they are required to install .
a closed-vent system .and control device
and if they can document that
installation of the emission controls
cannot reasonably be expected to be
completed earlier. -In these .
circumstances, owners/operators are
required to develop an implementation
schedule that indicates dates by which
the design, construction, and operation
of the necessary emission controls will
be completed. This implementation
schedule must document that
installation of closed-vent systems and
control devices required by "the final
standards would be achieved within a
period of no more than 2 years from
today and must be included as part of -
the facility's operating record on the
effective date of these final rules (i-e., 6
months after promulgation). Changes in
the implementation schedule are
allowed within the 24-month timeframe
if the owner or operator documents that
the change cannot reasonably be ,
avoided. . . :
This extension would also apply to
those existing facilities that are brought
under regulation because of new
statutory or regulatory amendments
under RCRA that render the facility
subject to thte provisions of .subpart AA
or BB (e.g^Snits; handling wastes newly
listed or identified as hazardous by
EPA). That is, the owner or operator
may be allowed up to 18 months from
the effective date of the statutory or
regulatory amendment to complete
installation of a control device.
However, for facilities adding new
waste management units, EPA believes
that the lead time involved in such
actions provides adequate time for
owners and operators to design, procure,
and install the required controls.
Therefore, all new units must comply
'with the rules immediately (i.e., must
have control equipment installed and
operating upon startup of the unit).
Under the approach discussed above,
the standards promulgated today for
process vents and equipment leaks
would be implemented on the following
schedule for existing TSDF:
180 days following promulgation, the
new subparts AA and BB standards
become effective; all facilities become
subject to the new standards.
On the effective date of the standards,
compliance with the standards is
required. Each facility that does not
have the control devices required by
the standards in place and operating
mast have one of the following in the
facility's operating record: (1) An .
implementation' schedule indicating
when the-controls will be installed, or
(2) a process vent emission rate
determination that documents that the
emission rate limit is not exceeded
(therefore, controls are not required).
No later than 18 months following the
effective date (2 years following
promulgation), any control devices
required by the standards for process
vents and equipment leaks must be
installed at all facilities..
All permits issued after the effective
date must incorporate the standards.
An existing solid .waste management
unit may become a hazardous waste
management unit requiring a RCRA
permit when a waste becomes newly
listed or identified as hazardous.
Owners and operators of facilities not
previously requiring a RCRA permit who
have existing units handling newly
listed or identified hazardous waste can
submit a part A application and obtain
interim status. The air emission
standards promulgated today would be
implemented at these newly regulated
facilities on the following schedule:
180 days following the date the .......
managed waste is listed or identified
as hazardous, the standards become
effective; facilities become subject to
the subpart AA and/or BB standards.
On the effective date of the standards,
each facility, that- does not have the .
control devices required by the -
process and/or equipment leak
standards in .place must have one of
the following in the facility's operating
record: (1) An implementation
schedule indicating when the controls
will be installed, or (2) a process vent
emission rate determination that
documents that the emission rate limit
is not exceeded (therefore, controls
are not required).
No later than 18 months following the
effective date (2 years following
promulgation), the controls required
by the standards must be installed at
all facilities.
Newly constructed TSDF are required
to submit part A and part B permit
applications and to receive a-final
permit prior to construction as required
by § 270.10. Following the effective date
of the standards promulgated today, a
part B application for a new facility
must demonstrate compliance with the
standards as contained in part 264, if
applicable. Therefore, all controls
. required by the standards would have to
be hi place and operating upon startup.
Similarly, new waste management
units added to existing facilities would
have to be equipped with the required
controls prior to startup. For a new unit
added to an existing permitted facility, a
permit modification would be necessary.
Where a new unit is added to a facility
in interim, status,' the owner or operator
must submit a revised part A application
. (§ 270.72[c]), including an explanation of
the need for the new unit, and then
receive approval from the permitting
authority. : -
For facilities with hazardous waste
management units that previously were
not subject to control requirements
because the wastes in the units did not
contain organics in concentrations
greater than the applicability criterion of
10 ppmw or 10 percent, the owner or
operator would be required to comply
with all subpart AA or BB requirements
on the date that the facility or waste
management unit becomes affected by
the rules (i.e., the date the facility begins
to manage wastes in the units with
organic concentrations greater than 10
ppmw for subpart AA or greater than 10
percent for subpart BB) irrespective of
any change in permit status that is
required by the change in waste
concentration. In this situation, should
the facility owner or operator elect, to ,
use a control device to comply with the
process vent or equipment leak
provisions, the control device must be.
installed and operating on the datej
when the unit becomes subject to the
-------
25492 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 120 /: Thursday, June 21. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
rules; the 24-month extension is not
'applicable in this case. For the process
vent emission rate limit, the situation is
somewhat different TSDF process vents
associated with the distillation/
separation operations specified in the
rule that manage wastes with organics
concentrations of 10 ppmw or greater
are affected by the regulation regardless
of whether the facility emissions are
above or below the emission rate limit.
Therefore, any change in the facility
operations that results in a TSDF going
above .or below the emission rate limit
does not cause a change in the,
applicability of the facility to subpart
AA. The rules require that affected
TSDF reduce total process vent organic
emissions from all affected vents by 95
percent or reduce the facility's total
process vent emissions to or below 1.4
kg/h and 2.8 Mg/yr. One of.these
conditions must be met at all times; the
facility's emission rate determination,
which documents the facility's status
regarding compliance with the process
vent standards, must also at all times
reflect current design and operation and
wastes managed in the affected units.
The permitting authority cited by
section 3005 of RCRA and codified in
S 270.32(b)(2) states that permits issued
under this .section"* ** shall contain .
such terms and conditions as the
Administrator or State-Director .
determines necessary to protect human
health and the environment" .This .
section, in effect allows permit writers >
to require, on a case-by-case basis,
emission controls that are more
stringent than those specified by a
standard. This omnibus authority, could
be used in situations where.in the permit
writer's judgment there is an
unacceptably high residual risk after
application of controls required by an
emission standard. As has been stated,
the approach that EPA is using in
today's regulatory action is to proceed
with promulgation of regulations to.
control organic emissions and to follow-
this with regulations that would require
more stringent controls for individual
hazardous constituents or would.
otherwise reduce risk where necessary.
Until then, permit writers should use
their omnibus permitting authority to.
require more stringent controls at
facilities where a high residual risk
remains after implementation of the
standards for volatile organics.
X. Administrative Requirements
A. Regulatory Impact Analysis . ,
Executive Order No. 12291 [E.O.
12291) requires each Federal agency to
determine whether a regulation is a "
"major" rule as defined by the order
and, "to the extent permitted by law," to
prepare and consider a Regulatory
Impact Analysis (RIA) in connection
with every major rule. Major rules are -
defined as those likely to result in:
1. An annual cost to the economy of
$100 million or more; or . : :
2. A major increase in costs or prices .
'for consumers or individual industries; ..
or ,- .. ' - . -
3. Significant adverse effects on .
competition, employment investment,
productivity, innovation, or
international trade. . .
. The final rule establishes the specific
emission levels and emission control
programs that facilities must meet, in
reducing air emissions from hazardous
waste management units. A complete
assessment of the costs.impacts, and
benefits of these rules has been
conducted by EPA. This analysis
indicates that the requirements of the
rules for TSDF equipment leaks and
process vents result in none of the
economic effects set forth in section 1 of
the E.O. 12291 as grounds for finding a
regulation to be major. The industry-
wide annualized costs of the standards
are estimated to be $46 million, which is
less than the $100 million established as
the first, criterion for a major regulation
in E.O. 12291. Price increases associated
with, the final standards are not'
considered a "major increase in costs or
prices"-specified as the second criterion
in E.0.12291. the final standard's effect
on the industry, would not result in any
significant adverse effects on
competition, investment productivity,
employment innovation, or the ability of
U.S. firms to compete with foreign firms
[the third criterion in E.0.12291).
The final rule was submitted to the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review as required by E.O.
12291.
B, Regulatory Flexibility Act
, Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act .
whenever an'Agency publishes any
proposed or final rule in the Federal
Register, it must prepare a. Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (RFA) that
describes the impact of the ride on small
entities (i.e., small businesses,
organizations, and governmental
jurisdictions). This analysis is not
necessary; however, if the Agency's >
Administrator certifies that the rule will
not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small
entities. The EPA has established
guidelines for determining whether an
RFA is required to accompany" a
mlemaking package. The guidelines
state that if at least 20 percent of the .
universe of "small entities" is affected
by'the rule/then an RFA is required: In
addition, the EPA criteria are used to
evaluate if a regulation will have a ,
"significant impact" on small entities. If
any. one of the following four criteria is
met the regulation should be assumed
to have a "significant impact:"
1. Annual compliance costs increase
the relevant production costs for small
' entities by more than 5 percent
2. The ratio of compliance costs to '
sales will be 10 percent higher for small
entities than for large entities.
'3. Capital costs of compliance will
represent a significant portion of the
capital available to small entities; taking
into' account internal cash flow plus
external financing capabilities. ':
4. The costs of the regulation will
likely result in closures of small entities.
At proposal, EPA's Administrator
certified that the rule would not have a
significant impact on small businesses
because the only entities subject to the
rule are those required to have a permit
for treatment, storage, and disposal of
hazardous waste. Few, if any, of these
facilities are small entities. Based on
comments received at proposal, EPA
reviewed this conclusion in light of the
revisions made to, the proposed
standards and closely examined the
potential impacts on the industry
segment comprised primarily of small
commercial recyclers. As a result of the
revisions made to exempt small
facilities from having to install control
devices, EPA again concluded that the-
economic impact oh small businesses .
will be minimal and did not prepare a
formal RFA-in'support of the rule.
Accordingly, I hereby certify that this
regulation will'not have a significant' ;.
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Therefore", this regulation does
not require an RFA.'
C. Paperwork Reduction Act .-
The information collection
requirements contained in this rule have
been approved by OMB under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction
Act 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and have
been assigned OMB control number ' '
2060-0195.
Public reporting burden resulting from
this rulemaking is estimated to be about
9 hours per response (on average), .
including time for reviewing
instructions, searching existing data
sources, gathering and maintaining the
data needed, and completing and .
reviewing the collection of information.
Recordkeeping requirements are
estimated to require 180 hours a year'for
each facility. :
' Send comments regarding the. burden
estimate or any other aspect of this
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 1990 / Rules and Regulations 25493
collection of information, including
suggestions for reducing this burden, to
Chief, Information Policy Branch, PM-
223, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency,' 401M Street SW,, Washington,
DC 20460; and to the Office .of
Information and. Regulatory Affairs
(Paperwork Reduction Project (2060-
0195)3, Office of Management and .
Budget, Washington, DC 20503, marked
"Attention: Desk Officer for EPA."
L). Supporting Documentation
The dockets for this rulemaking
(Docket No. FT-8&-AESP-FFFFF, which
covers the development of the rules up
to proposal, and Docket No. FMJO-
AESF-FFFFF, which covers
development of the final rules from
proposal to promulgation} are available
for public inspection at the EPA RCRA
Docket Office (OS-30Q) in room 2427M
of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 401 M Street SW., Washington,.
DC 20460. The docket room is open from
9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except for Federal holidays. The'public '
must make an appointment to review
docket materials and should call (202)
575-9327 for appointments. Docket A-
79-27, containing support information
used in developing the National
Emission Standard for Hazardous Air
Pollutants; Benzene.Fugitive Emissions,-
is. available for .public inspection and- .
copying between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., .'
Monday through Friday, at EPA's
. Central Docket Section,.rpom 2903B,
Waterside Mall, .401M Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20460. The public may
.copy a maximum of 50 pages of material
; from any. one regulatory docket at'no
cost. Additional copies.cost $0.20/page.
The'docket contains a copy of all
references cited in the BID for the
proposed and final rules, as well as -
other relevant reports and - ' '
correspondence. ,,....:
E. List of Subjects . ,
40CFRPart260 ' " .
. Air stripping operation, Glosed-vent
system. Condenser, .Control device.
Distillation operation, Equipment ' .-
Fraetionation operation, Process vent,
. Solvent extraction'operation. Steam
stripping operation; ThhiTfilm :
evaporation operation, Vapor.
incinerator. Vented, Incorporation by
reference. ..'".-
40CFRPart261 . : '. .' ...' .."..
Hazardous waste. Recyclable '
materials. Recycling, Hazardous waste.
management units. '!:.''
40 CFR Parts 264 and 265
Hazardous waste, Treatment storage,
and disposal facilities, Air emission
standards for process vents, Air .
emission standards, for equipment leaks,
Incorporation by reference, Process
vents. Closed-vent systems. Control
devices' Pumps, Valves, Pressure relief
. devices. Sampling connection systems,
Open-ended lines, Alternative
standards. Test methods, Recordkeeping
requirements, Reporting requirements.
40 CFR Part 2?a
Administrative practices and
procedures, Hazardous waste permit
program, Process vents, Equipment
leaks. Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
40 CFR. Part 271
Hazardous .waste. State hazardous
waste programs, Process-vent and
equipment leak air emission standards
forTSDF.
Dated June 13,1990.
William ICReffly, .
Administrator. -
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, chapter I, title .40, of the Code
of Federal Regulations,' parts 260; 261,
264, 265, 270, and 271, are amended as
follows.
PART 250HAZARDOUS WASTE
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM: GENERAL
1~ The authority citation for payt .260
continues to. read as follpwst. ... .
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 69I2(a}, 6921
through 6927, 6930,6934,6935,6937,6938, and
6939,--,:.., .'.''. - .....,.'. - . .,
2. Section 260.11 is amended by
adding the following references to
paragraph (a):' ''" :
§260.11 References. .
(a)* * *
"ASTM Standard Method for Analysis
of Reformed Gas by Gas
Chromatography," ASTM Standard D
1946-32, available from American
Society for Testing "arid Materials; 1916
Race Street Philadelphia; PA 19103.
"ASTM Standard Test Method for
Heat of Combustion of Hydrocarbon
Fuels by Bomb Calorimeter (High-
Precision Method)," ASTM Standard D
2332-83, available from'American
Society for Testirig'and Materials, 1913
Race Street. Philadelphia,. PA 19103.
"ASTM Standard Practices for s
General Techniques of Ultraviolet- ...
Visible Quantitative Analysis," ASTM
Standard E169-87, available from' ,
American Society for Testing and
Materials, 1916 Race Street,
Philadelphia, PA 19103. ' :
"ASTM Standard Practices for . ,
General Techniques of Infrared . .
Quantitative Analysis," ASTM Standard
E 168-8.8, available from American
Society for Testing and Materials, 1916
Race Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103.
"ASTM Standard Practice for Packed
Column Gas Chromatography," ASTM
Standard.E 260-85, available from
American Society for Testing .and
Materials, 1916 Race Street, -
Philadelphia, PA 19103.
"ASTM Standard Test Method for
Aromatics in Light Naphthas and .
Aviation Gasolines.by Gas
Chromatography," ASTM Standard D
2267-88, available from American
Society for Testing and Materials, 1916
Race Street Philadelphia, PA 19103.
"ASTM Standard Test Method for
Vapor Pressure-Temperature '
Relationship and Initial Decomposition
Temperature of Liquids by Isoteriscope,"
ASTM Standard D 2879-86, available
from American Society for Testing and.
Materials, 1916 Race Street
PhSladelphia,.PA 19103.
"APTI Course 415: Control of Gaseous
Emissions," EPA Publication EPA-450/
2-81-005, December 1981, -available from
National Technical Information Service;
5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield. VA
2216T. ; . - "- ' '' "" ' "
PART 261IDENTIFICATION AND
LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
. 3. The authority- citation for part;261 -
continues to read, as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905,. 6912,6921.6922;
. and 6937, '.
Siibpart AGeneral '
4. In §261.6, paragraph (c)(l) is
revised and paragraphs (c)(2)(iii) and {d}
are added to read as follows:
§261.6 Requirements for recyclable
materials. . .
(c)fl) Owners or operators of facilities
that 'store recyclable materials before
they are recycled are regulated under all
applicable provisions of subparts. A
through L, AA, and BB of parts 264 and .
' 265, and under parts 124,266, 268; and .
270 of this chapter and the notification
requirements under section 3010 of
RCRAi except as provided'in paragraph
(a) of this section; (The recycling
process itself is exempt from regUlatidn
except as provided in § 261.6(d).) '
(2)* * * -:
(iii) .Section 261.6(d) of this chapter.
-------
J
25494 federal Register / Vol. 55/NO/120 / Thursday. June 21. 1990 /Rules and Regulations
, , (d) Owners or operators of facilities
subject to RCRAnermitting . , ',, '.
requirements wife hazardous waste
management units that recycle
hazardous wastes 'are anbject' to the
requirements of snbparts AA and BB of
part 264 or 265 of this chapter.
PAHT264 STANDARDSFOR
OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF
HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT,
STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL
FACILITIES
5. The authority citation for part 264
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 8912(a). 6924. and
6925.
Subpart B General Facility, Standards
: 6. Section 284.13 is amended by
revising paragraph {b)(6) to read as
followsr
5264.13 Oenera) waste anaJysi*. .
(6) Where applicable, the methods
that will be used to meet the additional
waste analysis, requirements for specific
waste management methods as
specified in § § 284.17, 264.314. 264.341.
285.1034{d), 264.1063fdJ, and 268.7 of this
chapter.
7. Section 264.15 .is amended by
revising the last sentence of paragraph
(b)(4) to read as follows:
§264.15 Gen«*sl inspection requirements.
(4)* * * At a minimum, the
inspection schedule must include the
terms and frequencies called for hi
§§ 284.174. 264.194, 264.228, 264,253,
284^54. 284.303, 284547. 264.602,
284.1033, 264:1052, 264.1053, and
284.1058, where applicable.
Subpart £ Manifest System,
Recordkeeplng, and Reporting
8. Section 26473 is amended by'
revising paragraphs {b)(3J and [bj{6] to
read as follows:
§264.73 Operation record.
{3) Records and results of waste
analyses performed as specified in
§S 264.13. 264:i7. 264-314. 264.341,
264.1034, 264.1083. 268.4la). and 268.7 of
this chapter. ... _ .
(8] Monitoring, testing or analytical.
data, and corrective action where
required by subpart F and |§ 264.226,'
264.253,264^54.264.27S. 264278,264280.
264.383,264.309.264^47,264.602. .. '
264.1034(c)-264.1034{fj. 264.1035,
264.1063{d}-264.1063Ci3. and 264.1064, '
9. Section 264.77 is amended by
revising paragraph {c} to read as
follows:
§264J7 Additional reports.
(c) As otherwise required by subparts
F. K through N, AA, and B3.
10.40 CFR part 284 is amended by
adding subpart AA to read as follows:
Subpart AAAir Emission Standards for
Process Vents
264.1030 Applicability.
264.1031 Definitions.
264.1032 Standards: Process vents. , .
264.1033 Standards: Closed-vent systems
and control devices.
264.1034 Test methods and procedures.
264.1035 Recordkeepihg requirements.
264.1036 Reporting requirements. .
264.1037-264.1049 [Reserved]
Subpart AAAir Emission Standards
for Process Vents .
§264.1030 Applicability, . _ '
(a) The regulations in this subpart
apply to owners and operators of
facilities that treat store, or dispose of
hazardous wastes (except as provided
in 52641].
[b) Exceptfor §| 264.1034[d) and
264.1035{e),.this snbpart applies to
process vents associated with
distillation, fraetionaiion, thin-film
evaporation, solvent extraction, or air.or
steam stripping operations that manage
hazardous wastes with organic
concentrations of at least IQ-ppmw, if
these operations are conducted in:
(1) Units that are subject to the
permitting requirements of part 270, or
(2) Hazardous waste recycling units
that, are located on hazardous waste
management facilities otherwise subject
to the permitting requirements of part
270.
' (c) If the owner or operator of process
vents subject to the requirements of
§ § 264.1032 through 264.1036 has
received a permit under section 3005 of
RCRA prior to December 21.1990 the
requirements of i§ 264.1032 through
264.1036 must be incorporated when the
permit is reissued under § 124.15 or
reviewed under £270.50.. .
[Note: Tie requiremente of §5 252.1032
through 264.1836 Sfjiiy I«>'proces8 rants on
hazardous waste recycling uniis previously
exempt under paragraph ZKLBfeUQ Other'
exemptions under 5§ 2614.262.34. and
. 264:i(g> are. not affected by these. ... .-.
requirements.] . ' .
§264.1031 (Definitions.
As .used hi this snbpart, .all terms not
defined herein-istoll have the meaning .
given them in. thie Act' and parts 260-266.
Air stripping operation is a desorption
. operation employed to transfer pne or
more volatile components from a liquid
mixture mto a gas (air], either with or
without the application of heat to .the
liquid. Packed towers, spray towers, and
bubble-cap,, sieve, or valve-type plate
towers are among the process
. configurations used for contacting the
air and a liquid. . ; .
Bottoms raeezVermeans a container
or tank used to receive and collect the
heavier bottoms fractions of the
' distillation feed stream that remain in
the liquid phase.
Closed-vent system means a system
that is not open to* the atmosphere and
that is composed of piping, connections,
and, if necessary, flow-inducing devices
that transport gas or vapor from a piece
or pieces of equipment to a control
device. "
C0ndenser means a heat-transfer
device that reduces a thermodynamic
fluid from' its vapor phase to its liquid
phase. '.."'. ' ' ':
Connector means flanged, screwed,
welded, or cither joined fittings used to
connect two pipelines or a pipeline and
a piece of equipment For tfee purposes
of reporting and reoordkeeping,
connector-means flanged fittings that
are'not covered by insulation or other
materials that prevent location of fee
fitting's.: ' '.'-
Continuous TecOfderTEueans a dgta-
recoiding device recbrdiiog aa "
mstantaneous-data value at least once
. every 15 minutes.
- Control device means an enclosed
combustion device, vapor recovery
system, or flare. Any device the primary
function of which is the recovery or
capture of solvents or ofher-organics' for
use, reuse, or sale (e.g., a primary
condenser on a -solvent recovery unit) is
not a control device.
Control device shutdown means the
cessation of operation of a control
device-for any purpose.
Distillate Jteceiver means a.contaiaer
or tank used to receive and-collect liquid
material (condensed) from the overhead
condenser of a distillation unit and from
which the condensed liquid is pumped
to larger storage tanks or other process
units. '. ...
Distillation operation-means an
operation, either batch or continuous,
separating one or more feed s*ream(s]
into two or more exit streams, each exit
stream having component .
concentrations different from those in
the feed stream(s). The separation is
-------
':/-.VoL 55.: Nb.; 120 /. Thursday.
I achieved by the redistribution of the
. components- between.the liquid irid '
; vapor phase as they. approach': V
equilibrium. within the distillation unit.
. .. Double block and bleed system means
two; block valves cpnnected;in series
with a bleed valve or line .that can vent
the line between Jhe two block valves.
. : Equipment means each valve, "pump,
compressor,, pressure/relief device, ' ' '=.
. sampling- connection system,' open-
ended valve or line; pr flange, and any
control devices or systems required by
this subpart .' .
; . Flame. zone means the portion of .the'.
: ;comb.ustioh-chainber.ih' a, boiler
'occupied by'the flame envelope.. ;
''.'" Floyif indicator meatis a device 'that
indicates whether gas flo'w is' present in
.. a vent stream. / '-. .'.'. '.; '.: . : -'.':.. -.
first attempt at-repair means to take
rapid action for the purpose of stopping
; orredueing leakage of organic material
s to the atmosphere using best practices.
Fractionation operation means ''a
- distillation operation or method used to
separate a mixture of several volatile
'. Components 6f different boiling points in
' successive stages,' each stage removing
-
. ...
,;\' of me" com'porients. ;'". .... - -..
: ' , . Hazardous, waste management unit
shutdown {^aeaaa a workjrictice or
, operational procedure that stpps :
pperatipn-of a: hazardous .waste '
: management -unit or. part bfia hazardous-
waste management .unit An'. .
Unscheduled work practice oi .'.':. '.. ''..
operational procedure that-stops -
. operation' of a hazardous waste
management unit or part of a hazardous
waste management unit for less than 24
. hours is not a hazardous waste
i management unit shutdown. The use of
' spare equipment and technically
feasible bypassing of equipment without
. . stopping operation are not hazardous
waste management unit shutdowns.
Hot well means, a container for
collecting condensate as in .a steam
condenser serving a vacuum-jet pr
steam-jet ejector.
In gas/yapor,service means that the
piece of equipment contains or contacts
a hazardous waste stream that is' in the
gaseous state at operating conditions.
. -In heavy, liquid service means that the
piece of .equipment is not in gas/va'par .
sen-ice or in light liquid service.
;. In light liquid service -means that the.
piece of.equipment contains or contacts
. a waste stream jvhere the vapor
pressure of one or more of the
. components iri the stream is- greater than
0.3 kilopascals (kPa) at 20 "C, the total
concentration of the pure components
having a vapor pressure greater than 0.3
kPa at 20 °C is equal to or greater than
20 percent by weight, and^the fluid is, a
liquid at operating conditipijs.v "' -
' . In situ sampling systems means ', '"''
.nonextriactivesamplers 'br in-line ':-" "-
samplers. : .'.' ' , '
In vacuum service means that
equipment is operating at an internal
pressure that is at least 5 kPa below
ambient pressure. :
:Maifunctiori means- any: sudden
. failure of a control device' or a : . :
hazardous waste management unit or
failure of a hazardous waste :
management unit to operate iira"normal
or usual manner, so that organic' " '
emissions 'are increased. .:. -:. .
Open-ended valve or line means any
valve, Except pressure relief valves,-
having one side of the valve seat-in
contact with process fluid and one side
.open to the atmosphere, either directly-
or through open piping. .-..-
Pressure release means the emission
of materials resulting from the system
pressure being greater than; die se;t
pressure of the pressure relief .device.
Process heater means a^ device fliat
transfers heat liberated by burrJng fuel
to fluids contained in tubes^ including all
fluids except water that are heated to
produce steam. . ' >">.. ./.- ..
Process vent means any open-ended
pipe or stack that is vented 19 the
atmosphere either directly,- through a
vacuum-producing system, or through a
tank fe:g., distillate receiver,'condeiiser,
bottdms.Tebeiver, surge cbntrol.tank,
; separator- tank; or hot well); associated
with hazardous waste'distiMtion, ' . '
fractionation, thin-film evaporation,
solvent extraction, or air or steam
stripping operations. '.-'--.
Repaired means that equipment is
adjusted, or otherwise altered, to
eliminate a leak. ; .
Sensor means a device that measures
a physical quantity or. the change in a
physical quantity, such as temperature,
pressure, flow rate, pH, or liquid level.
Separator tank 'means a device used
for separation of two.immiscible liquids.
Solvent extraction operation means
an operation or method of separation in '
which a.solid or solution is contacted
with a liquid, solvent (the two being .
mutually insoluble) to.prefejrentially
dissolve aad transfer one or .more
components .into the solvent. ... '
Startup, means the. setting in. operation
of a hazardous waste management unit
or control device for any purpose.
Steam stripping operation means a
distillation operation in ;which
vaporization of the volatile constituents
of a liquid mixture takes place by the
introduction of steam directly into the
chargel ' ' ' !'.
Surge control tank means a large- '
sized pipe or storage reservoir sufficient
to-'cpntain ihe surging liquid discharge of .
the process tank to which it is " ' '
connected, r .'" . . ;'/' "
oration operation . ,- .
means a distillation ^operation that. ,
employs .a heating surface consisting of .
a la^ge diameter tube that maybe either
straight or. tapered, horizontal or
vertical. Liquid is spread on the tube
wall by a rotating assembly of lalades :
: that maintain a close clearance from the '
, waD or actually ride on the fflin of liquid
onthe wall; . ' - ;
. Vapor 'incinerator means:any ~ . :
enclosed combustion device that is used
for destroying organic compounds and .
. does not extract energy in the form of t. ".
steam or process heat .
Vented- means discharged through an
. opening, typically an open-ended pipe or
stack, allowing the passage of a stream
of liquids, gases, or fumes into the
atmosphere. The passage of liquids, -." ,
gases, pr fumes is caused by mechanical
mean's such as compressors or vacuum-
producing systems, or by process-related
means such as. evaporation produced by
heating arid not caused by tank loadmg
and unloading (working losses) or by .
r natural means such as diurnal' .
temperature changes. . ' .
§ 264.1032 . Standards: Process vents.
(a) The owner or operator Pf a facility
with prorass vents associa' ted with.
distillation, fractionation, thin-film'' :
evaporation, solvent extraction, or air or
steam stripping operations managing
hazardous wastes wili organic -:"
concentrations of at.least 10 ppmw shall .
' JBithien ' ; :.' :....-,
(1) Reduce total organic emissions
from all affected process vents at the
facility below i.4 kg/h (3 lb/h) and 2.8
Mg/yr (3.1 tohs/yr), or
(2) Reduce, by use of a control device,
total organic emissions from all affected
process vents at the facility by 95 weight
percent. ' .' .- ' . - '.
(b) If ffie owner or operator installs a
closed-vent system and control device
to comply with the. provisions of. .
paragraph (a) of this section the closed-
vent system and control device must
meet the requirements of §264.1033.
(c) Determinations of vent emissions
and emission reductions or total organic
compound concentrations achieved by.
add-on, control devices may be based on
engineering calculations or performance .
tests. If performance tests are used to ,
determine vent emissions, emission
reductions, or total organic compound .
concentrations achieved by add-on '','
control devices, the performance tests
must conform with the requirements of '
5 264.1034[c). : ; "'
-------
25496 Federal Register / VoL 55. No. 120 / Thursday. June-21. 1990 / Rules,and Regulations
(d) When an owner or operator and
the Regional Administrator do not agree
on determinations of vent emissions
and/or emission reductions or total
organic compound concentrations
achieved by add-on control devices
based on engineering calculations, the
procedures in § 284.1034fc) shall tie used
to resolve the disagreement
§ 264.1033 Standards: Cicwed-vent
system* and control devices.
(a){l) Owners or operators of closed-
vent systems and control devices -used
to comply with provisions of this part
shall complywiih the provisions of this
section.
(2) The owner or operator of an
existing facility who cannot install a
closed-vent system and control device
to comply with the provisions of this
subpart on the effective date that the
facility becomes subject to the
provisions of this subpart must prepare
an implementation schedule that
Includes dates by which the closed-vent
system and control device will be
installed and in operation. The controls
must be installed as soon as possible,
but the implementation schedule may
allow up to 18 months after the effective
date that the facility becomes subject to
this subpart for installation and startup.
All units that begin operation after
December 21,1990, must comply, with
the rules immediately {i.e.; must have
control devices installed and operating
on'startup of the affected unitf, the 2-
year implementation schedule^does not
apply to these units.
(b) A control device involving.vapor
recovery {e.g., a condenser or adsorber)
shall be designed and operated to
recover th« organic vapors vented to it
with an efficiency of 95 weight percent
or greater unless the total organic
emission limits of 5 264 J032{aKl) for all
affected process vents can be attained
at an efficiency less than 95 weight
percent.
(c) An enclosed combustion device
(e&, a vapor incinerator, boiler, or
process heater] shall be designed and
operated to reduce the organic
emissions vented to it by 95 weight
percent or greater; to achieve a total
organic compound concentration of 20
ppmv. expressed as the sum of the
actual compounds, not carbon
equivalents, on a dry basis corrected to
3 percent oxygen: or to provide a .
minimum residence time of CL50 seconds
at & minimum temperature of 760 °C. If a
boiler or process heater is used as the
control device, the" the vent stream
shall be introduced Into the flame zone
of the hotter or process heater.
(d)fl) A Bare shall be designed for
and operated'with no visible emissions
as determined by the methods specified
in paragraph {fi){l) of this section,
except for periods not .to exceed a total
of 5 minutes diking any 2 consecutive
hours.
(2) A flare shall be operated with a
flame present at all times, as determined
by the methods specified in paragraph
(f)(2)(iii) of this section.
(3) A flare shall be used only if the net
heating value of the gas being ,
combusted is 112. MJ/scm (30Q Btu/scfJ
or greater if the flare is steam-assisted
or air-assisted; or if the net heating
value of the gas being combusted is 7.45
MJ/scm (200 Btu/scfj or.greater if the
flare is nonassisted. The net heating
value of the gas being combusted shall .
be determined by the methods specified
in paragraph (e](2) of this section.
(4){i) A steam-assisted or nonassisted
flare shall be designed for and operated
with an exit velocity, as determined by
the methods specified in paragraph
(e)(3) of this section, less than 18-3 m/s
(60 ft/s), except as provided in
paragraphs {d}(4) (ii) and (iii) of this
section.
(ii) A steam-assisted or nonassisted
flare designed for and operated with an
exit velocity, as determined'by the
methods specified in paragraph {e](3) of
this section, equal to or greater than 18.3
m/s {60 ft/s] but less than 122 m/s {400
ft/s)is allowed if the set heating value
of the gas being combusted is greater
than 37.3 MJ/scm (1,000i Btu/scfj.
{iii) A steam-assisted or npnassisted
flare designed for and operated with an
exit velocity, as determined by the ;
methods specified in paragraph (eX3) of
this section, less than/the-velocity, Ym«i
as determined by.the method specified
in paragraph (e)(4) of this section and
less than 122 m/s (400 ft/s) is allowed.
{5] An air^assisted flare shall be
designed and operated with an exit.
velocity less man the velocity, Vnm, as
determined by the method-specified in
paragraph (e){5) of this section.
(6) A flare used to comply with this
section shall be steam-assisted, air-
assisted, or nonassisted.
{e){l) Reference Method 22 In 40 CFR
part 60 shall be used to determine the
compliance of a flare with the visible
emission provisions of this subpart. The
observation period is 2 hours and shall
be used according to Method 22.
(2) The net heating valuVof the gas
being combusted ma flare shall be
calculated using the following equation:
where: .'
HT=Net heating value of the sample. MJ/
scm; where the net enthalpy per mole of
offgas is based on combustion at 25 *C
and 780 mm Hg, but the standard
temperature for-determining the volume
corresponding to 1 mol is 20 °C;
KConstant, 1.74X10~Ml/ppm) {g mol/scm)
(MJ/kcalj where standard temperature
for (g mol/scm] is 20 "C;
"Ci=Concentrationof sample component i in
ppm on a wet basis, as measured for
organics by Reference Method 18 in 40
CFR part 60 and measured for hydrogen
and carbon monoxide by ASTM D1946-
82 (incorp'orated by reference as
specified in § 260.11); and
HI=Net heat of combustion of sample
component i. kcal/9 mol at 25 °C and 7flO -
mm Hg- The heats of combustion may be '
determined using ASTM D 2382-83
(incorporated by reference as specified
in 5 260.11} if published values are not
available or cannot be calculated.
(3) The actual exit velocity of a flare
shall be determined by dividing Hie
volumetric flow rate {in units of
standard temperature and pressure), as
determined by Reference Methods 2,2A,
2C. or 2D in 40 CFR part 60 as
appropriate, by the unobstructed {free)
cross-sectional area of the flare tip.
{4) The maximum allowed velocity in
m/s. Vzaml, for a flare complying with
paragraph (d)(4]{iii] of this section shall
be determined by the following
equation:
where: ".
28.8=Constant,
31.7=C
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
25497
device inlet but before the point at
which the vent streams are combined.
(2) Install, calibrate, maintain, and
operate according to the manufacturer's
specifications a device to continuously
monitor control device.operation as
specified below:
(i) For a thermal vapor incinerator, a
temperature monitoring device, equipped
with a continuous recorder. The device
shall have an accuracy of ±1 percent of
the temperature being monitored in °C
or ±0.5 "C, whichever is greater. The
temperature sensor shall be installed at
a location in the combustion chamber
downstream of the combustion zone. -
(ii) For a catalytic vapor incinerator, a
temperature monitoring device equipped
with a continuous recorder. The device
shall be capable of monitoring
temperature at two locations and have
an accuracy of ±1 percent of the
temperature being monitored in °C or
±0.5 °C, whichever is greater. One
temperature sensor shall be installed in
the vent stream at the nearest feasible
point to the catalyst bed inlet and a
second temperature sensor shall be
installed in the vent stream at the
nearest feasible point to the catalyst bed
outlet .
(Hi) For a flare, a heat sensing
monitoring device equipped with a
continuous recorder that indicates the
continuous ignition of the pilot flame.
(iv) For a boiler or process heater
having a design heat input capacity less
than 44 MW, a temperature monitoring
device-equipped with a 'continuous
recorder. Tie device shall have an
accuracy of ±1 percent of the
temperature being monitored in °C or
±0.5 °C, whichever is greater. The
temperature sensor shall be installed at
a location in the furnace downstream of
the combustion zone.
(v) For a boiler or process heater
having a design heat input capacity
greater than or equal to 44 MW. a
monitoring device equipped with a
continuous recorder to measure a
parameters) that indicates good
combustion operating practices are
being used. .
(vij For a condenser, either:
(A) A monitoring device equipped
with a continuous recorder to measure
. the concentration level of the organic
compounds in the exhaust vent stream
from the condenser, or
(B) A temperature monitoring device
equipped with a continuous recorder.
TKe device shall be capable of
monitoring temperature at two locations
and have an accuracy of:±l percent of
the temperature being monitored in °C
or ±0.5 °C, whichever is greater. One
temperature sensor shall be installed at
a location in the exhaust vent stream
from the condenser, and a second
temperature, sensor shallvbe installed at
a location ffi the coolant'fluid exiting the
condenser.
(vii) For ,a carbon adsorption system
that regenerates the carbon bed directly.
in the control device such as a fixed-bed
carbon adsorber, either:
(A) A monitoring device equipped
with a continuous recorder to measure
. the concentration level of the organic
compounds in the exhaustvent stream
from the carbon bed, or
(B) A monitoring device equipped with
a continuous recorder to measure a
parameter that indicates the carbon bed
is regenerated on a regular.
predetermined time cycle.
(3) Inspect the readings from each
monitoring device required by
paragraphs (1) and (2) of this section at
least once each operating day to check
control device operation and, if
necessary, immediately implement the
corrective measures necessary to ensure
the control device operates in
compliance -with the requirements of this
section.
fg) An owner or operator using a
carbon adsorption system such as a
fixed-bed carbon adsorber that
regenerates the carbon bed directly
onsite in the control device shall replace
the existing carbon in the control device
With fresh carbon at a regular,
predetermined time interval that is no
longer than the carbon service-life'
established as a requirement of -
§ 264.1035[b)(4)(ffi)[F).
(h) An owner or operator using a --
carbon adsorption system such as a
carbon canister thai does not-regenerate
the carbon bed direcfly onsite in the
control device shaH replace the existing
carbon in the control device with fresh
carbon on a regular basis by using one
of the following procedures:
(1) Monitor the concentration level of
the organic compounds in the exhaust
vent stream .from the carbon adsorption
system on a regular schedule, and
replace the existing carbon with fresh,
carbon immediately when carbon
breakthrough is indicated. The
monitoring frequency shall be'daily or at'
an interval no greater than 20 percent of
the time required to consume the total
carbon working capacity established as
a requirement of § 264.1035(b](4){iif){G).
whichever is longer.
(2) Replace the existing carbon with
fresh carbon at a regular, predetermined
time interval that is less than the design
carbon replacement interval established
as a requirement of
§ 264JL035[b]f4Kiii)(G).
(i) An alternative operational or
process parameter may be monitored if
it can be demonstrated that another
parameter, will ensure that the control
device is operated in conformance with
these standards and the control device's
design specifications.
(j). An owner or operator of an
affected facility seeking to comply with
the provisions of this part by using a
control device other than a thermal
vapor incinerator, catalytic vapor
incinerator, flare, boiler, process heater,
condenser, or carbon adsorption system
is required to develop documentation
including sufficient information to ' '
describe the control device operation
and identify the process parameter or '
parameters that indicate proper
operation and maintenance- of the
control device.
(k)[l) Closed-vent systems shall be
designed for and operated with no
detectable emissions, as indicated by an
instrument reading of less than 500 ppm
above background and by visual
inspections, as determined by the
methods specified as § 264.1034(b).
(2) Closed-vent systems shall be
monitored to determine compliance with
this section during fee initial leak
detection monitoring, which shall be
conducted by the date that the facility
becomes subject to the provisions of this
section, annually, and at other times as
requested by the Regional
Administrator. ' . .
(3) Detectable emissions; as indicated
by an instrument reading greater than
500 ppm and visual inspections, shall be
controlled as soon as practicable, but
not later than 15 calendar days after the
emission is detected.
(4)" A first attempt at repair shall be
made no later than 5 calendar days after
the emission is detected. . '
. (1) 'Closed-vent systems and control.
' devices used to comply with provisions
of this subpart shall be operated at aH
times when emissions may be vented to
them.
§ 264.1034 Test methods and procedures.
fa) Each owner or operator subject to
the provisions of this subpart shall
comply with the test methods and
procedures requirements provided in
' this section.. '
(b) When a'closed-vent system is
tested for compliance with no detectable'
emissions, as required in § 264,1033{k),
the test shall comply with the following
requirements:
(1) Monitoring shall comply with
Reference Method 21 in 40 CFR part 60.
(2) The detection instrument shall
meet the performance criteria of '
Reference Method 21.
(3) The instrument .shall be calibrated
before use on each day of its use by the
-------
254&S Federal RefflSterr/.,Vol.; 55.:No.'.120 / Thursday,.;)une,21vl99q;l.Rules and Regulations
procedures specified in Reference- , --'.
Method 21. , ' . . ' ' .-:. '"
(4) Calibration gases shall be:
(i)Zero.air (less than 10,ppm of '
hydrocarbon in air); ' ' " '
(iij A mixture of methane or ri-hexane
and air at a 'concentration of. ' ' '
a'pproximately, but less thani iO,000:ppm
methane or n-hexane.i / -V . . .
(5) The.bacKgrbund level shall be :
determined as set forth in Reference :;
MethodZl. ' . ': ' .-.
(6) The instrument probe shall be .' .
traversed around all potential leak
interfaces'as !close to the interface as
possible as described'in Reference. ;'.
Method 21. , .= . ..:/...
(7),The arithmetic difference between
where: , ' , '* '' " *' ':'
£iTotal organic mass flow rate, kgVhf
Q«j=« Volumetric flow rate of gases'entering
or exiting control device, as determined
by Method 2, dscm/h: ':' ' '
n-^Number of .organic compounds -in the vent
. ,,gasi/ > ... .;'-
CiOigan5c concentration in ppm; dry basis,
of compound i in the vent gas, as -
determined by Method 18; ,
MWi«Molecular weight of organic : ' ,
' .compound i in the ; vent-gas, kg/fcg-mo'l;:
0.0416»>ConversIon factor for molar'vphune,
kg-mol/m' (@ 293 K and 760 mm Hg); .
lb"'«"Cbnversfon from ppm, ppm'1. , ; . .
(v) The annual total organic emission
rate shall be determined by the . .
following equation: . .
.
where: :
EA=Total organic mass emissionrat'e,' kg/y;
Eh=Totcrdrganic mass flow ra'te" for the
process vent, kg/h': ' .'
ll^ToS.-tl annual hours of operations for the
affected unit. h. " , .
(vi) Total organic emissions from.'all. .'
affected process vents at the facility
shall be determined by-.summing the . .
hourly total organic- mass .emission rates
(B», as determined in paragraph (c](l)(iv)
of this section) and by summing .the. : ..
annual total organic mass emission rates
(EA, as determined in paragrap'h (c)[i)(vj
of this section) for all affected process ,
vents at the facility. : :":..
(2) The owner or operator shall record
such process jinformation-as may be '
necessary to determine the conditions of
: the performance tests.'Operations .
during periods of startup, shutdown, and
malfunction shall not constitute
the maximum.cpricentration indicated-: ..
' by the instrument and fee packgroun.d ..
level is compared with 500 ppm for- ...
determining.compliance. ;* ..'.- /;:, , .,,
(c) Performance tests tpTdetennine;
compliance with § 264.1032(a) and with
fte total'organic compound, .-.. . ... ,
concentration limit of § 264Jip33(c) shall
, comply with the following: . . . ,.,.
(i). Performance tests to determine. .
' total organic -compound concentrations f
and.masis. flow rates entering .and-.exiting
control devices shall'be cpiiducted-and :.
data reduced-in accordance .with'the;
following reference methods and. .. -. .
. calculation procedures:..'... ' ':,
(i) Method^ in49 CFRpart60 for ,
, velocity .'and yoiunietric flow-rate;;, ,:'.
(ii)i4ethpdl8m40CFRpart60for . .
orgahic.content. .."..->. -. - - -.
',.,'. (iii)Eacjiperformanceitestshall... '
!cons,ist.of ftaree separate runs; each fun .
conducted for at least 1 hour .under the
conditions.that exist when the.- : .
hazardous: waste management unit is .;..
. operating at the highest load or capacity
.level reasonably .expected to occur. For
> the purpose of determining -total:orgahic
.compound' concentrations -and mass ;
flow rates, the average of results of all
r: rims shall a'jiply. The average shall be
computed on a'time-weighted basis. -
.(iy) Total organic mass flowTates
shalibe detgnniiied.by the following
equation:'....... .-...'; .'.' ..'
" representative conditions for the-.- .
purpose of a performance test.'''" .
" (3) The Owner or operator of an...'
affected .facility shall; provide, or cause .
to be provided; performance'.jesting ;.
facilities'as'fqllpws: .'._ ..!..-'. : . :.'
.' (i) Sampling ports adegwate for ithe ...;: :
test methods specified in paragraph..:. *..:
(c)(l) of this s.ection. : ., . , . . -; ;-.-, .i-
,, (iij Safe sampling.platforjn(s):.- ::;.-.-.,;:
(iii) Safe access to -sampling; " '. ' i
platform(s).-' ' ';' ''. '' *'. ;':./"'.: -;. ';''
.., (iv) Utilities for sampling and testing ..
. equipment. .. ';. ''".''..''-:
(4) For the purpose of making : :
compliance determinations,' the time-
- weighted average of the results of the
three runs shall apply. In the event that -
a sample is accidentally .lost or
conditions occur in which one of the
three runs must be discontinued because
'of forced shutdown, failure of an ' ';'
irreplaceable portion of the sample
train, extreme meteorological '..
conditions', or other'circumstances '.
beyond this owner or opera tor's, control,
compliance niay; upon'the Regicinal -; '
Administrator's approval, be determined
using'the average of the results;of the '
two other runs; ' . '' ' ',
(d) To show that a 'process vent ' .' ''
associated with a hazardous wabte ;. '
distillation, fractionation, -thin-film . ,
evaporation, solvent extraction, "or air of
steam stripping operation is nptisubject
to .the requirements of this sabpart, the
owner or. operator.must make an initial..
determination that the time-weighted,
annual Average total organic ' ,. " .
concentration of the waste managed by.
the waste management unit iis less; than
10 ppmw us ng.phe of the following t*?o'.'
methods: ,'..''.'."" . '.-'..-.. V.
(1) fiirect measurement of tlie organic',';
concenti;atibn of ;the waste using the.. ..]
followi'iigprbcedur.es:' . .,.' :1. .,,._..
(i) The owner orroperatorjnust take a ..
minimum, of- four^rab samples; of waste.,;,
for each- waste stream managed, in the-.
..affected unit under process conditions- .
expected-'to cause the maximum -waste'
organic Concentration.. . , -'._-..-. .
'.. ' (»i);Fof waste generated oiis.ite-, the '".
'grab samples must be-collected at.a r
''point :beforethe:waste is exposed.to the
atmosphere such as in an.enclosed pipe ' -
. or other closed system- that ;is -used to .
- transfer the. waste after generation to .'.-
the first affected distillation, . .-
fractionation, thinTfilm evaporation,
solvent extraction, or air or^steam
stripping operation. For waste generated
'offsite, me grab samples must be
collected at the inlet to the-first waste
management unit that receives the
waste provided the -waste has been
transferred to the facility in a closed
.system-such- as a tank truck and. the
waste is-not diluted or mixed with other
waste. : ' - " . '
(iii) Each sample shall be1 analyzed
and the total organic concentration of
r.the' sample shall be computed using
Method 9060 or 8240 of SW-846 :
(incorporated by reference under
§260.11): "'-.= , "
(iv) The arithmetic mean of the results
of the. analyses otithe four sample's shall'
apply for each waste stream managed in
; the unit in determining the time- .
weighted, annual average total: organic
' concentration of the waste. The time,-
-------
Federal Register / Voj 55. No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 1990 / Rules and; Regulations
25499
weighted'average is to be calculated
using the annual quantity of each waste
stream.processed and'th'e mean organic
conceh'ttiation of each waste stream \' "
manage^ In'fee-unit'" . .
(2) Using knowledge of the waste to
determine that its total organic
concentration is less than 10 ppmw.
Documentation of the waste
determination is required. Examples of
documentation that shall be used to
support a determination under this
provision include production process
information documenting that no .organic
compounds are used, information that
the waste is generated by a process that
is identical to a process at the same or
another facility that has previously been
demonstrated by direct measurement to
generate a waste stream having a total
organic content less than 10 ppmw. or
prior speciation analysis results on the
same waste stream where it can also be
documented that no process changes
have occurred since that analysis that -
could affect the waste total organic
concentration. ' .
' (e) The determination that distillation.
fractiohation, thin-filzB. evaporation,
solvent extraction, or air or steam "
stripping operations-manage hazardous ;
wastes with lime-weighted, .annual
average total organic concentrations
less than 10 ppmw shall -be made as
follows: . -
(1) By the effective:daie that the
facility becomes subject to the . ..
provisions of this subpart or by the date .
when the waste; is first managed in a
waste management unit, whichever is
later,and'": . " : ' ' '-
12) For continuously generated waste,'
.annually; or ' '-' ''.'
(3) Whenever there is a change in the'
waste being managed or a change in fee
process that generates or treats the
waste. _ ' '
(f) When an-6wner or operator and
the Regional Administrator, do not agree
on whether a distillation,.fractionation.
thin-film evaporation, solvent
.extraction, or air or steam stripping
operation manages a hazardous waste
with organic concentrations of at least
10 ppmw based on knowledge of the
waste, the procedures in Method 8240
may be used to resolve the dispute.
§264.1035 Recordkeeping requirements.
(a)(l) Each owner or operator subject
to the provisions of this subpart shall .
comply with the recbrdkeeping
requirements of this! section.
(2) .An owner or. operator of more than
one hazardous waste management unit
subject to the provisions of this subpart.
may comply with the recordkeeping
requirements for these hazardous waste
management units in one recordkeeping
system if the system identifies each
record by each hazardous waste
management unit- ' . ' '. '
(b) Owners and- operators mast record
the following information in the'facility
operating record: ' .
(1) For facilities that comply with the
provisions of § 264.1033{a){2). an
implementation schedule that includes
dates by which the closed-vent system
and control device will be installed and
in operation. The schedule must also
include a rationale of why the
installation cannot be completed at an
earlier date. The. implementation
schedule must be in the facility
operating record by th.e effective date
that the facility becomes subject to the
provisions of this subpart. ' .
(2) Up-to-date documentation of.
compliance with the process vent
standards in § 264.1032, including:
(ij Information and data identifying all
affected process vents, annual
throughput and .operating hours of each .
affected unit estimated emission rates
for each affected vent and-for the
overalHacflily {Le., the total emissions
for all affected'vents at the facility), and
the approximate location within the .
facility of.each affected.unit (e.g..
identify the hazardous waste .
management units on a facility plot
plan). '.' - :'
(ii) Information and data supporting
determinations of vent emissions and
emission reductions achieved by add-on
control devices based oh engineering
"calculations or source Jests. For fee
purpose of determining compliance,
determinations of vent emissions and
emission reductions must he-made using
operating parameter values (e.g.,
temperatures; Sow rates,-or vent stream
organic compounds and concentrations)
that represent the conditions that result
in-maximum organic emissions, such as
when the waste management unit is
operating at the highest load or capacity
level reasonably expected to occur; If
the owner or operator takes any action
(e.g., managing a-waste of different , '
composition or increasing operating
hours of affected waste management .
units] that would result in an increase in
' total organic emissions from affected
process vents at the facility, then a new
determination is required. .
(3) Where an owner or operator
chooses to use test data to determine the
- organic removal efficiency or total
organic compound concentration
achieved by the control device, a
performance test plan.. The test plan
must include: .. t' . . ' . . '.'
(i) A description of how it is .
determined mat the planned test is going
to be conducted when the hazardous
waste management unit is operating at
. the highest load or capacity level
reasonably expected to occur. This shall
include the estimated of design flow rate
and 'organic'content'of each vent stream
and define the acceptable .operating "
'ranges of-key process and control device
parameters-during the'test program.
(ii) A detailed engineering description '
of the closed-vent system and control
device, including:.
(A) Manufacturer's name and model
number of control device.
(B) Type of control device,.
(C) Dimensions of the control device.
(D) Capacity.
{£) Construction materials. .
(iii) A detailed description of sampling
and monitoring procedures, including
sampling and monitoring locations in the
system, the equipment to be used,
sampling and monitoring frequency, and
. planned analytical procedures for ..
sample analysis.
(45 Documentation of compliance with
§ 264.1033 shall include the following
information: - ' . ,
(i) A Hst of all information references
and sources used in preparing thei.
documentation. .
(ii) Records including the dates of .
each compliance test required by '
§ 264.1033{kJ.
(iii) If engineering calculations are
used, a design .analysis, specifications,
drawings, schematics, and piping and ..
instrumentation diagrams based on the
appropriate sections of "APTi Course
415: Control of Gaseous Emissions"
(incorporated by reference as specified
in § 260.11) or other engineering texts .
acceptable to the Regional ' -
Administrator that present basic control
device design information. ' '
Documentation provided by the-control.
device manufacturer or vendor that
describes the control device design in .
accordance with paragraphs
(b)(4){iii)(A)&rough{b)(4)(ffi}(G) of this
section, may be used to. comply with this
requirement The design analysis shall .
address the vent stream characteristics
and control device operation parameters
as specified below..
(A) For a thermal -vapor incinerator,
the design analysts shall consider the
vent stream composition,-constituent
concentrations, and flow rate. The
design -analysis shall also establish the
design minimum and average .
temperature in the combustion zone and
the combustion zone residence time.
(B) For. a catalytic vapor incinerator,.
the design analysis shall consider the
vent stream composition, constituent.
concentrations, and flow rate. The
design analysis shall also establish the
design minimum and average '
-------
25503 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
temperatures across the catalyst .bed
inlet and outlet.
(C) For a boiler or process heater, the,
design analysis shall consider the ver.t
stream composition, constituent' ' <
concentrations, and flow rate. The ,
design analysis shall also establish the
design minimum and average' flame zone
temperatures, combustion zone
residence time, and description of
method and location where the vent
stream is introduced into the
combustion zone.
(D) For a flare, the design analysis
shall consider the vent stream
composition, constituent concentrations,
and flow rate. The design analysis shall
also consider the requirements specified
in § 264.1033(d).
(E) For a condenser, the design
analysis shall consider the vent stream
composition, constituent concentrations,
flow rate, relative humidity, and
temperature. The design analysis shall
also establish the design outlet organic
compound concentration'level, design
average temperature of the condenser
exhaust vent stream, and design'average
temperatures of the coolant fluid at the
condenser inlet and outlet
(F) For a carbon adsorption system
such as a fixed-bed adsorber that
regenerates the carbon bed directly
onsite in the control device, the design
analysis shall consider'the vent stream
composition, constituent concentrations,
flow rate, relative humidity, and
temperature. The design analysis shall
also establish the design exhaust vent '"
< stream organic-compound concentration
level, number and capacity of carbon
beds, type and working capacity of
activated carbon used for carbon'beds,
design total steam flow over the period
of each complete carbon bed-
regeneration cycle, duration of the
carbon bed steaming and cooling/drying
cycles, design carbon bed temperature
after regeneration, design carbon bed <
regeneration time, and design service
life of carbon.
(G) For a carbon adsorption system
such as a carbon canister that does not
regenerate the carbon bed directly
, onsite in the control device, the design
analysis-shall consider the vent stream
composition, constituent concentrations,
flow rate, relative humidity, and .
temperature. The design analysis shall <
also establish the design outlet organic,
concentration level, capacity of carbon .
bed, type and working capacity of .
activated carbon used for carbon bed, ,
and design carbon replacement interval
based on the total carbon working
capacity of the control device and * -
source operating schedule.
(iv) A statement signed and dated by
the owner or operator certifying that the
operating parameters used in the design
analysis reasonably represent the -
conditions that exist when the
hazardous waste management unit is or
would be operating at the highest load
or capacity level reasonably expected to
occur.
(v) A statement signed and dated by
the owner or operator certifying that the
control device is designed to operate at
an efficiency of 95 percent or greater
unless the total organic concentration
limit of § 264.1032(a) is achieved at an
efficiency less than 95 weight percent or
the total organic emission limits of
§ 264.1032(a) for affected process vents
at the facility can be attained by a
control device involving vapor recovery
st an efficiency less'than 95 weight '
percent. A statement provided by the
control device manufacturer or vendor '
certifying that the control equipment
meets the design specifications may be
used to comply with this requirement.
(vi) If performance tests are used to
demonstrate compliance, all test results.
(c) Design documentation and
monitoring, operating, and inspection
information for each closed-vent system
and control device required to comply
with the provisions of this part shall be
recorded and kept up-to-date in the
facility operating record. The
information shall include:'
[1] Description and date of each
modification that is made to the closed-
vent system or control device design.-
(2) Identification of operating.
.parameter, description-of monitoring.
device, and diagram of monitoring
sensor location or locations used to
comply with § 264.1033 (f)(lj and (f)(2).
(3) Monitoring, operating, and' .
inspection information required by
paragraphs (fj through (k) of § 264.1033.
(4) Date, time, and duration of each .
period that occurs while the control
device is operating when any monitored
parameter exceeds the value.established
in the control.device design analysis as
specified below:
(i) For a thermal vapor incinerator- -
designed to operate with a minimum
residence time of 0.50 second at a
minimum temperature of 760 °G. period ,<
when the combustion temperature is
below 760 °C.
(ii) For a thermal vapor incinerator
designed to operate with an organic -.
emission reduction efficiency of 95
weight percent or greater period when
the combustion zone, temperature is
more than 28 °C below the design .
average combustion zone temperature
established as a requirement of ; '
paragraph (b)(4}(iii)(A) of this section.
. (iii) For a-catalytic vapor incinerator,
period when: '. ; : ' - .
(A) Temperature of the vent stream at
the catalyst bed inlet is more than 28 °C
below the average temperature of the
' inlet vent stream established as-a
requirement of paragraph (b)(4)(iii)(B) of
this section, or
(B) Temperature difference across the
catalyst bed is less than 80 percent of
the design average temperature
difference established as a requirement
of paragraph (b)(4)(iii)(B) of this section.
(iv) For a boiler or process heater,
period when: ...
(A) Flame zone temperature is more
than- 28 "C below the design average
flame zone temperature established as a
requirement of paragraph (b)(4)(iii)(C) of
this section, or
(3) Position changes where the vent
stream is introduced to the combustion
zone from the location established as a
requirement of paragraph (b)(4)(iii)(C) of
this section. '
(v) Fora flare, period when the pilot
flame is not ignited.
(vi) For a condenser that complies
with § 264.1033ffl(2)(vi)(A), period when
the organic compound concentration
level or readings of organic compounds
in the exhaust vent stream from the
condenser are more than 20. percent
greater than the design outlet organic
compound concentration level
established as a requirement of
paragraph fb)(4)(iii)(E) of this section.
(vii) For a condenser that complies'
with § 264.1033(f)(2}{vi)(B); period when:
(A) Temperature of the exhaust vent
stream from the condenser is more than
6 °C above the design average exhaust
vent stream temperature established, as
a requirement of paragraph (b)(4)(iii)(E)
of this section; or '-.-
{B) Temperature of the coolant fluid'
exiting the condenser is more than 6 °C
above the design average coolant fluid
temperature at the' condenser outlet
established as a requirement of
paragraph (b)(4)(iii)(E) of this section.
(viii} For a carbon adsorption system
such as a fixed-bed carbon adsorber
that regenerates the carbon bed directly
onsite in the'control device and
complies with § 264.1033(f)(2)(yii}(A),
- period when the organic compound
concentration level or readings of '
organic compounds in the exhaust vent
stream from the carbon bed are more .
.than 20 percent greater than the design
exhaust vent stream organic compound
concentration level established as a .
requirement of .paragraph {b}(4)(iii)(F) of
this'section.' .--
(ix) For a carboivadsorption system
such as a fixed-bed carbon adsorber
that regenerates the carbon bed directly
onsite in the control device and-
complies with § 264.1033(f](2)fvii)(B),
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55. No.! 120 ;/ Thursday, June 21.'1990 / Rules and Regulations' 25501"
period when the vent stream continues
to flow through-the control device
beyond the predetermined'carbon-bed
regeneration time established as a '
requirement of paragraph (b)(4)(iii)(FJ of
this section.
(5) Explanation for each period-
recorded under paragraph (4) of the
cause for control device operating.
parameter exceeding the design value
and the measures; implemented-to
correct the control device operation.
(6) For a carbon adsorption system
operated subject to requirements
specified in § 264.1033(g) or
§ 264.1033(h)(2), date when existing
carbon in the control device is replaced
with fresh carbon. :
(7) For a carbon adsorption system
operated subject to requirements
specified in | 264.1033{h)(l), a log that
records:
(i) Date and time when control device
is monitored for carbon breakthrough
and the monitoring device reading.
(ii) Date when existing carbon in the
control device is replaced with fresh
.carbon.
(8) Date of each control device startup
and shutdown. , - .
(d) Records of the monitoring,
operating, and inspection information
required by paragraphs (c)[3)-(c)(8) of
this section-need be kept only 3 years.
(e) For a control device other, than a
thermal vapor incinerator, catalytic - -
vapor incinerator; flare, boiler, process
heater, condenser, or carbon adsorption
system', the Regional Administratbrwill
specify- the appropriate recordkeeping
requirements. ' . : '
{fj Up-to-date information :and data
used, to determine whether or not a
process vent is subject to the
requirements in § 264.1032 including
supporting documentation as required
by § 264.1034(d)(2) when application of
the knowledge of the nature of the
hazardous waste stream or the process
by which it was-produced is used, shall
be recorded in a log that is.kept in the
facility, opera ting record.
(Approved by the Office of Management and
Budget under control number 2060-0195)
§264.1036 Reporting requirements.
. (a) A semiannual report shall be
' submitted by owners and operators .
subject to the requirements of this
subpart to the Regional Administrator
by dates specified by the Regional
Administrator. The report shall include .
.the following information:
(1) The Environmental Protection ,.
Agency identification number, name.
and address of the facility.- . \. .
(2) For each month during the'
semiannual reporting period,:dates :
when the control device exceeded or
operated outride of the design
specification's as defined :ih" :
§ 264.1035(c)(4) and as indicated by the
control device'monitoring required by
§ 264.1033(f) and such'exceedances
were not corrected within 24 hours, or
that a flare operated with visible
emissions as defined in § 264.i.033{d)'
and as determined by Method 22
monitoring, the duration and cause of
each exceedance or visible emissions,
and any corrective measures taken.
(b) If, during the semiannual reporting
period, the control'device does not
exceed or operate outside of the design
specifications as defined in
§ 264.1035(c)(4) for more than 24 hours
or a flare does riot operate with visible
emissions as defined in § 264.1033(d), a
report to the Regional Administrator is
not required. . .
(Approved by the; Office of Management and
Budget under control number 2060-0195}
§§ 264.1037-264.1049 [Reserved].
11.40 CFR part 264 is amended by
adding subpart BB to read as follows:
Subpart BBAir Emission Standards for
Equipment Leaks '
264.1050 Applicability. . :
264.1051 Definitions. . ' . -
264.1052 Standards: Pumps in light liquid
service.
264.1053 Standards: Compressors.
264.1054 , .Standards: Pressure relief devices
in gas/vapor service.
264.1055 Standards: Sampling connecting
systems, ' " . "
264.1056 Standards: Open-ended valves or
lines. - . . j , .'
264.1057 Standards: Valves in gas/vapor. .
service or in light liquid service.
264.1058 . Standards: Pumps and valves in
.heayy.liquid service,-pressure relief
devices in light liquid or heavy liquid
service, and flanges and other
connectors.
264.1059 Standards: Delay of repair.
264.1060 - Standards: Closed-vent systems
and control-devices. ' -.-
264.1061 Alternative standards for valves in
.gas/vapor service or in light liquid
service: percentage of valves allowed to
leak. . .-
264.1062 Alternative standards for valves in
gas/vapor service or in light liquid
service: skip period leak detection and
repair.
264.1063 '-Test methods and procedures.
264.'1064 Recordkeeping requirements.
264.1065 Reporting requirements.
264.1066r-264.1079 . {Reserved],
Subpart BBAir Emission Standards
for Equipment Leaks ' '
§264.1050 Applicability.
(a) The-regulations hi -this subpart
apply to owners and operators of '
facilities that -treat, store, or dispose of '
hazardous wastes (except as provided
in §264.1).
(b) Except as provided in
§ 264.1064(k), this subpart applies to
equipment that contains orcbhtacts
hazardous wastes with organic" ' .
concentrations of at least 10 percent by
weight that are managed in: ' " ' "
(i) Units' that are subject to the
permitting requirements of part 270, or
(2) Hazardous waste recycling units'
that are located on hazardous waste
management facilities otherwise subject
to the permitting requirements of part
270;
(c) If the owner or operator of -. . -
equipment subject to the requirements -
of § § 264.1052 through 264.1065 has
received a permit under section 3005 of
RCRA prior to December 21,1990, the
requirements of § § 264.1052 through
264.1065 must be incorporated when the
permit is reissued under § 124.15 or ';
reviewed under § 270.50.
(d) Each piece of equipment to which ,
this subpart applies shall be marked in
such a manner that it can be
distinguished readily from other pieces
of equipment.
(e) Equipment, that is in vacuum
service is excluded from the
requirements of § 264.1052 to § 264.1060
if it is identified as'required in
§ 264.1064(g)(5). ,
[Note: The requirements of§§ 264.1052
through 264.1065/apply to equipment-
associated with hazardous .waste recycling .
units previously exempt under 1261.6{c)(l).
Other exemptions under §§ 261.4, .262134, and
264.1(g) are not affected by these
requirements.] .'"
§264.1051 Definitions.
- As used in this subpart all terms shall
have the meaning given them in '
§ 284,1031, the Act, and parts 260-266.
§ 26411052 Standards: Pumps in light liquid
service. ' ' _ '
,(a)(!) Each pump in light liquid-service
shall be monitored monthly to.detect
leaks by the methods specified in .
§ 264.1063f.b), except as provided hi .
paragraphs (d), (e], and (f) of this-'
section. ' .
(2) Each pump in light liquid service
shall be checked by visual inspection
each calendar week for indications of
liquids-dripping from the pump seal.
(b)(l) If a instrument reading of 10,000
ppm or greater is measured, a leak is.: .
detected. -.;-..
- (2) If there- are indications 'of liquids
dripping from the pump seal, a leak is
detected. ' ' -
(c)(l) When a leak is detected, ft shall
be'repaired'as'soon as practicable," but
not later than 15'calendar days after it is
-------
25502 . Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21,. 1990 / Rides and Regulations
detected, except as provided in ".
§284.1059. '
(2) A first attempt at repair (e.g.,
tightening the packing gland) shall be'
made no later than 5 calendar days after
each leak is detected.
(d) Each pump equipped with a dual
mechanical seal system that includes a
barrier fluid system is exempt from the
requirements of paragraph (a) of this
section, provided the following
requirements are met:
(1) Each dual mechanical seal system
must be:
(i) Operated with the barrier Quid at a
pressure that is at all times greater than
the pump stuffing box pressure, or
(ii) Equipped with a barrier fluid
degassing reservoir that is connected by
a closed-vent system to a control device
that complies with the requirements of
§ 264.1060, or
(iii) Equipped with a system that
purges the barrier fluid into a hazardous
waste stream with no detectable
emissions to the atmosphere.
(2) The barrier fluid system must not
be a hazardous waste with organic
concentrations 10 percent or greater by
weight
(3) Each barrier fluid system must be
equipped with a sensor that will detect
failure of the seal system, the barrier
fluid system, or both.
(4) Each pump must be checked by
visual inspection, each calendar week,
for, indications of liquids dripping from
the pump seals.
(5)(i) Each sensor as described in
paragraph (d)(3) of this section must be
checked daily or be equipped with an
audible alarm that must be checked
monthly to ensure that it is functioning
properly.
(ii) The owner or operator must
determine, based on design
considerations and operating
experience, a criterion that indicates
failure of the seal system, the barrier
fluid system, or both.
(6)(i) If there are indications of liquids
dripping from the pump seal or the
sensor indicates failure of the seal
system, the barrier fluid system, or both
based on the criterion determined in
paragraph (d)(5)(ii) of this section, a leak
is detected.
(ii) When a leak is detected, it shall be
repaired as soon as practicable, but not
later than 15 calendar days after it is
detected, except as provided in
§ 264.1059.
(iii) A first attempt at repair (e.g.,.
relapping the seal) shall be made no
later than 5 calendar days after each
leak is detected.
(e) Any pump that is designated, as ,
described in § 264.1064(g)(2}, for ho
detectable emissions, as .indicated by an
instrument reading of less than 500 ppm
above background,-is exempt from the -
requirements of paragraphs (a), (c), and
(d) of this section if the pump meets the
following requirements: .
(i) Must have no externally actuated
shaft penetrating the pump housing.
(2) Must operate with no detectable
emissions as indicated by an instrument
reading of less than 500 ppm above
background as measured by the
methods specified in § 264.1063(c).
(3) Must be tested for compliance with
paragraph (e)(2) of this section initially
upon designation, annually, and at other
times as requested by the Regional
Administrator.
(f) If any pump is 'equipped with a
closed-vent system capable of capturing
and transporting any leakage from the
seal or seals to a control device that
complies with the requirements of
§ 264.1060, it is exempt from the
requirements of paragraphs (a) through
(e) of this section.
§ 264.1053 Standards: Compressor*.
(a) Each compressor shall be equipped
with a seal system that includes a
barrier fluid system and that prevents
leakage of total organic emissions to the
atmosphere, except as provided in
paragraphs (h) and (i) of this section.
(b) Each compressor seal system as
required in paragraph (a) of this section
shall be:
(1) Operated with the barrier fluid at a
pressure that is at all times greater than
the compressor stuffing box pressure, or
(2) Equipped with a barrier fluid
system that is connected by a closed-
vent system to a control device that
complies with the requirements of
5264.1060, or
(3) Equipped with a system that
purges the barrier fluid into a hazardous
waste' stream with no detectable
emissions to atmosphere. '-
(c) The barrier fluid must not be a,
hazardous waste with organic
concentrations 10 percent or greater by
weight
(d) Each barrier fluid system as
described in paragraphs (a) through, (c)
of this section shall be equipped with a
sensor that will detect failure of the seal
system, barrier fluid system, or both.
(e)(l) Each sensor as required .in
paragraph (d) of this section shall be
checked daily or shall be equipped with
an audible alarm that must be checked
monthly to ensure that it -is functioning
properly unless the compressor is
located within the boundary of an
unmanned plant site, in which case the
sensor-must be checked daily.
(2) The owner or operator shall
determine, based on design
considerations and operating
experience, a criterion that indicates .
- failure of the seal system, the barrier
fluid system, or both. ,
(f) If the. sensor indicates failure of the
.seal system, the barrier fluid system, or
both based on the criterion determined
under paragraph (e)(2j of this section, a
leak is detected.
(g)(l) When a leak is detected, it shall
be repaired as scon as practicable, but
not later than 15 calendar days after it ia
detected, except as provided in
§ 264.1059.
(2) A first attempt at repair (e.g.,
tightening the packing gland) shall be
made no later than 5 calendar days after
each leak is detected.
(h) A compressor is exempt from the
requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b)
of this section if it is equipped with a .
closed-vent system capable of capturing
and transporting any leakage from the
seal to a control device that complies
with the requirements of § 264.1060,
except as provided in paragraph (i) of
this section.
(i) Any compressor that is designated,
as described in 5 264.1064(g)(2). for no
detectable emissions as indicated by an
instrument reading of less than 500 ppm
above background is exempt from the-
.requirements of paragraphs (a) through
(h) of this section if the compressor:
(1) Is determined to be operating with
no detectable emissions, as indicated by
an instrument reading of less than 500
ppm above background, as measured by
die method specified in § 264.1063(c).
(2) Is tested for compliance with
paragraph'(i)(l) of this section initially
upon.designation, annually, and at other
times as requested by the Regional
Administrator.
§264.1054 Standards: Pressure reliet
devices in gas/vapor service.
(a) Except during pressure releases,
each pressure relief device in gas/vapor
service shall be operated with no
detectable emissions, as indicated by an
instrument reading of less than 500 ppm
above background, as measured by the
method specified in § 264.1063(4.
(b)(l) After each pressure release, the
pressure relief device shall be returned
to a condition of no detectable
emissions, as indicated by an instrument
reading of less than 500 ppm above
background, as soon as practicable, but
no later than 5 calendar days after each
pressure release, except as'provided in
§264:1059.
. (2) No later than S calendar days after
the pressure release, the pressure relief
device shall be monitored to confirm the
condition of no detectable emissions, as
indicated by an instrument reading of
less than 500 ppm, above background, as
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55,-i No. %2O~/ .Thursday. June 21. 1990 /Rules and Regulations 25503
measured by the method specified in
8 264.1063(c).
(c) Any pressure relief device that is
equipped with a closed-vent system
capable of capturing and transporting
leakage from the pressure relief device
to a control device as described in
§ 264.1060 is exempt from the
requirements of paragraphs (a)'and (b)
of this section.
§ 264.1055 Standards: Sampling
connecting systems.
(a) Each sampling connection system
shall be equipped with a closed purge
system or closed-vent system.
(b) Each closed-purge system or
closed-vent system as required hi
paragraph (a) shall:
(1) Return the purged hazardous waste
stream directly to the hazardous waste
management process line with no
detectable emissions to atmosphere, or
(2) Collect and recycle the purged
hazardous waste stream with no
detectable emissions to atmosphere,'or
(3) Be designed and operated to
capture and transport all the purged
'hazardous waste stream to a control
device that complies with the .
requirements of § 264.1060.
(c]In situ sampling systems are
exempt from the requirements of
paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section.
§264.1056 Standards: Open-ended valves
or lines. , - , '-.-
(a)(l) Each open-ended valve or line
shall be equipped with a cap, blind
flange, plug, or a second valve.
(2) The cap, blind flange, plug, or
second valve shall seal the open end at
all times except during operations ;
requiring hazardous waste stream flow'
through the open-ended valve or line.
(b) Each open-ended valve or line
equipped with a second valve shall be
operated in a manner such that the
valve on the hazardous waste stream
. end is closed before the second valve is
closed.' :
(c) When a double block and bleed
system is being used, the bleed valve or
line may remain open during operations
that require venting the Ifee between the
block valves but shall comply with
paragraph (a) of this section at all other
' times.: '' .:...,-- .. . .. ,-. .: .:, .
§ 264.1057 . Standards: Valves In gas/vapor
service or in Bght liquid service. -
. (a) Each valve in gas/ vapor or light
liquid service shall be monitored
monthly to detect leaks by the methods
specified, in | 264.1063(b) and shall
comply with paragraphs (bj through (e)
of-this section, except as. provided in
paragraphs (f), (g), and (hj of this ; -
;' sectioivand il264.1061-andi264.J062;
(b) If an'instrument reading of 10,000
ppm or greater is measured; a leak is
detected. *-.. ...
(c)(l) Any valve for which a leak is
not detected for two successive months
may be monitored the first month of
every succeeding quarter, beginning
with the next quarter, until a leak is
detected.
(2) If a leak is detected, the valve shall
be monitored monthly until a leak is not
detected for two successive months,
(d)(l) When a leak is detected, it shall
be repaired as soon as practicable, but
no later than 15 calendar days after the
leak is detected, except as provided in
§ 264.1059. . .
(2) A first attempt at repair shall be
made no later than 5 calendar days after
each leak is detected.
(e) First attempts at repair include, but
ate not limited to, the following best
practices where practicable:
(1) Tightening of bonnet bolts.
(2) Replacement of bonnet bolts.
(3) Tightening of packing gland nuts.
(4) Injection of lubricant into
lubricated packing.
(f) Any valve that is designated, as
described in § 264.1064(g)(2], for no
detectable emissions, as indicated by an
instrument reading of less than 500 ppm
above background, is exempt from the
requirements .of paragraph (a) of this
section if the valve: . '. :
(1] Has no external actuating
mechanism in contact with the
hazardous waste stream."
(2) Is operated with emissions less
. than 500 ppm above background as
determined by the method specified in
§264.1063(6).
(3) Is tested for compliance with
paragraph (0(2) of this section initially
upon designation, annually, and at other
times as. requested by the Regional '
Administrator. -
(g) Any valve that is designated, as
described in § 264.1064{h)(l), as an
. unsafe-to-mpnitor -valve is exempt from
the requirements of paragraph (a) of this
section if:
(1) The owner or operator of the valve
determines that the valve is unsafe to
monitor because monitoring personnel
would be exposed to an immediate'
danger as a consequence of complying
with paragraph (a) of this section;
(2) The owner or operator of the valve
adheres- to a written plan that requires
monitoring of the valve as frequently as
practicable during safe-to^monitor times.
(h) Any valve that is designated, as
described in § 264.1064(h](2). as a
difiBcultrtd^mohitbr valve is exempt from
: the requirements of paragraph (a) of this
. section it-: '; '.' .' -
(l).-The owner or operator of the valve
. determines that the valve cannot be .
monitored without elevating the:
monitoring personnel more than 2
meters above a support surface.
(2) The hazardous waste management
unit within which the valve is located
was in operation before June 21,1390.
(3) The owner or operator of the valve
follows a written plan that requires
monitoring of the valve at least once per
calendar year. '
§ 264.1058 Standards: Pumps and valves
In heavy liquid service, pressure relief
devices In light liquid or heavy liquid
service, and flanges and other connectors.
(a) Pumps and valves hi heavy liquid'
service, pressure relief devices in light
liquid or heavy liquid service, and
flanges and other connectors shall be
monitored, within 5 days by the method
specified in § 264.1063(b) if evidence of
a potential leak is. found by visual,
audible, olfactory, or any other
detection method.
(b) If an instrument reading of 10,000
ppm or greater is measured, a leak is
detected.
(c)(l) When a leak is detected, it shall
be repaired as soon as practicable, but
not later than 15 calendar days after it is
detected, except as provided in
§264.1059.
(2) The first attempt at repair shall be
made no later than 5 calendar days after
each leak is detected..
(d) First attempts at repair include,
but are not limited to, the best practices
described under § 264.1057(e). '
§264.1059 Standards: Delay of repair.
[a] Delay of repair of equipment for
which leaks have been detected will be
allowed if the repair is technically
infeasible without a hazardous waste
management unit shutdown. In such a
case, repair of this equipment, shall :.
occur before the end of the next
hazardous waste management unit
shutdown. : .
(b) Delay-of repair of equipment for . ,,
which leaks have been detected will be
allowed for equipment that is isolated
from the hazardous waste management .
unit and that does not continue to
contain or contact hazardous waste.with
organic concentrations at least 10 . .
percent, by weight- : ....',.
(c) Delay of repair.for valves will be
allowed if:- -- - .- - .; .
(1) The owner or operator determines
that emissions of purged material ,
resulting from immediate repair are
greater than the emissions likely to:
result from delay of repair. -.':'-'.
(2) When repair procedures;are '. '
effected,-the purged material is collected
and destroyed or recovered in a control
device complying with 5 264.1060. . '
-------
25504 Federal Register / Vol., 55, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
(d) Delay of repair for pumps will be
allowed i£
(1) Repair requires the use of .a dual
mechanical seal system that includes a
barrier fluid system. .
(2) Repair is completed as soon as
practicable, but not later than 6 months
after the leak was detected.
(e) Delay of repair beyond a
hazardous waste management unit
shutdown will be allowed for a valve if
valve assembly replacement is
necessary during the hazardous waste
management unit shutdown, valve
assembly supplies have been depleted,
and valve assembly supplies had been
sufficiently stocked before the supplies
were depleted. Delay of repair beyond
the next hazardous waste management
unit shutdown will not be allowed
unless the next hazardous waste
management unit shutdown occurs
sooner than 6 months after the first
hazardous Waste management unit
shutdown.
§264.1060 Standards: Closed-vent
systems and control devices.
Owners or operators of closed-
vent systems and control devices shall
comply with the provisions of
| 264.1033.
§264.1061 Alternative standards for
vatvres bt gas/vapor service or In tight liquid
service: percentage of valves allowed to
leak.
(a) An owner or operator subject to
the requirements of § 264.1057 may elect
to have all valves within a hazardous
waste management unit comply with an
alternative standard that allows no
greater than 2 percent of the valves to
leak.
(b) The following requirements shall
be met if an owner or operator decides
to comply with the alternative standard
of allowing 2 percent'of valves to leak:
(1) An owner of operator must notify
the Regional Administrator that the
owner or operator has elected to comply
with the requirements of this section.
(2} A performance test as specified hi
paragraph (c) of this section shall be
conducted initially upon designation,
annually, and at other times requested
by the Regional Administrator.
(3) If a valve leak is detected, it shall
be repaired in accordance with
§ 2G4.1057(d) and (e).
(c) Performance tests shall be
conducted in the following manner:
(1) All valves subject to the
requirements in § 264.1057 within the
hazardous waste management unit shall
be monitored within 1 week by the
methods specified in § 264.1063(b).
(2} If an instrument reading of 10,000
ppm or greater is measured, a leak is
detected.
(3} The leak percentage shall be
determined by dividing the number of
valves subject to the requirements in
§ 264.1057 for which leaks are detected
by the total number of valves subject to
the requirements in § 264.1057 within the
hazardous waste management unit.
[d) If an owner or operator decides to
comply with this section no longer, the
owner or operator must notify the
Regional Administrator in writing that
the work practice standard described in
§ 264.1057(a) through (e} will be
followed.
§264.1062 Alternative standards for
valves In gas/vapor service or in light liquid
service: skip period teak detection and
repair.
(a)(l) An owner or operator subject to
the requirements of § 264.1057 may elect
for all valves within a hazardous waste
management unit to comply with one of
the alternative work practices specified
in paragraphs (b) (2) and (3) of this
section.
(2) An owner or operator must notify
the Regional Administrator before
implementing one of the alternative
work practices.
(b)(l) An owner or operator shall
comply with the requirements for
valves, as described in § 264.1057,
except as described in paragraphs (b)(2)
and (b)(3) of this section.
(2) After two consecutive quarterly
leak detection periods with the
percentage of valves leaking equal to or
less than 2 percent, an owner or
operator may begin to skip one of the
quarterly leak detection periods for the
valves subject to the requirements in -
§ 264.1057.
(3) After five consecutive quarterly
leak detection periods with the .
percentage of valves leaking equal to or
less than 2 percent, an owner or
operator may begin to skip three of the
quarterly leak detection periods for the
valves subject to the requirements in
§ 264.1057.
(4) If the percentage of valves leaking
is greater than 2 percent, the owner or
operator shall monitor monthly hi
compliance with the requirements in
§ 264.1057, but may again elect to use
tills section after meeting the
requirements of § 264.1057(c}(l).
(Approved by the Office of Management and
Budget under control number 2060-0195}
§ 264.1063 Test methods and procedures.
(a) Each owner or operator subject to
the provisions of this siibpart shall '
comply with the test methods and
procedures requirements provided hi
this section. . '
(b) Leak detection-monitoring, as
required in §§ 264.1052-264.1062, shall
comply with the following requirements:
(1) Monitoring shall comply with
Reference Method 21 in 40 CFR part 60.
(2) The detection instrument shall
meet the performance criteria of
Reference Method 21.,
(3) The instrument shall be calibrated
before use on each day of its use by the
procedures specified in Reference
Method 21.
(4) Calibration gases shall be:
(i) Zero air (less than 10 ppm of
' hydrocarbon in air).
(ii) A mixture of methane orn-hexane
and air at a concentration of
approximately, but less than, 10,000 ppm
methane or n-hexane.
(5) The instrument probe shall be
traversed around all potential leak
interfaces as close to the interface as
possible as described in Reference
Method 21.
(c) When equipment is tested for
compliance with no detectable
emissions, as required in §§ 264.1052(e),
264.1053{i), 264.1054, and 264.1057(1), the
test shall comply with the following
requirements:
(1) The requirements of paragraphs
(b)(l) through (4) of this section shall
apply.
(2) The background level shall be
determined as set forth in Reference
Method 21.
(3) The instrument probe shall be
. traversed around all potential leak
interfaces as close to the interface as
possible as described in Reference
Method 21.
(4) The arithmetic difference between
the maximum concentration indicated
by the instrument and the background
level is compared with 500 ppm for
determining compliance.
(d) In accordance with the waste
analysis plan required by § 264.13(b), an
owner or operator of a facility must
determine, for each piece of equipment,
whether the equipment contains or
contacts a hazardous waste with
organic concentration that equals-or
exceeds 10 percent by weight using the
following: .
(1) Methods described in ASTM
Methods D 2267-88. E169-87, E168-88,-
E 260-85 (incorporated by reference
under § 260.11);
(2) Method 9060 or 8240 of SW-846
(incorporated by reference under
§ 260.11); or
(3) Application of the knowledge of
the nature of the hazardous waste
stream or the process by which it was
produced. Documentation of-a waste
determination by knowledge is required.
Examples of documentation that shall
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 1990 / Rules and Regulations 25505
be used to support a determination
under this provision include production
process information documenting that
no organic compounds are -used,
information that the waste is generated
by a process that is identical to a
process at the same or another facility
. that has previously been demonstrated
by direct measurement to have a total
organic content less than 10 percent or
prior speciation analysis results on the
same waste stream where it can also be
documented that no process changes
have occurred since that analysis that
could affect the waste total organic
concentration.
(e) If an owner or operator determines
that a piece of equipment contains or
contacts a hazardous waste with
organic concentrations at least 10
percent by weight the determination
can be revised only after foDowing the
procedures in paragraph (d)(l) or (d)(2)
of this section.
(f) When an owner or operator and
the Regional Administrator do not agree
on whether a piece of equipment
contains or contacts a hazardous waste
with organic concentrations at least 10
percent by weight the procedures in
paragraph (d)(l) or (d)(2) of this section
can be used to resolve the dispute.
(g) Samples used in determining the
percent organic content shall be
representative of .the highest total
organic content hazardous waste that is
expected to be contained in or. contact
the equipment.
(h) To determine if pumps or valves
are in light liquid service, the vapor
pressures of constituents may be
obtained from standard.reference texts
or may be determined by ASTM D-
2879-86 (incorporated by reference
under § 260.11).
(i) Performance tests, to determine if a
control device achieves 95 weight
percent organic emission reduction shall
comply with the procedures of
§ 264.1034(1:3(1) through (c)(4).
§ 264.1064 Recordkeeping requirements.
(a)(l) Each owner or operator subject
to the provisions of this subpart shall
comply with the recordkeeping
requirements of this section.
(2) An owner or operator of more than
one hazardous waste management unit
subject to the provisions of this subpart
may comply with the recordkeeping
requirements for these hazardous waste
management units in one recordkeeping
system if the system identifies each
record by each hazardous waste
management unit. ;
(bj Owners and operators must record
the following information in the facility.
operating record:
(1) For each piece of equipment to
which Subpart BB of Part 264 applies:
(i) Equipment identification number-
and hazardous waste management unit
identification.
(ii) Approximate locations within the
facility (e.g., identify the hazardous
waste management unit on a facility plot
plan). . ''
(Hi) Type of equipment (e.g.; a pump or
pipeline valve).
., (iv) Percent-by-weight total organics
in the hazardous waste stream at the
equipment.
(y) Hazardous waste state at the
equipment ,(e.g.. gas/vapor or liquid).
(vi) Method of compliance with the
standard (e.g., "monthly leak detection
and repair" or "equipped with dual
mechanical seals").
(2) For facilities that comply with the
provisions of $ 264.1033(a){2), an
implementation schedule as specified in
§ 264.1033{a){2).
(3) Where an owner or operator
chooses to use test data to demonstrate
the organic removal efficiency or total
organic compound concentration
achieved by the control device, a
performance test plan as specified in
§ 264.1035{b)(3).
(4) Documentation of compliance with
§ 264.1060, including the detailed design
documentation or performance test
results specified in § 264.1035(b)(4).
(c) When each leak is detected as"
specified in f § 264.1052.264.1053,
264.1057, and 264.1058, the following
requirements apply:
(1) A weatherproof and readily visible
identification, marked with the
equipment identification number, the
date evidence of a potential leak was
found in accordance with § 264.1058(a),
and the date the leak was detected,
shall be attached to the leaking
equipment.
(2) The identification on equipment,
except on a valve, may.be removed after
it has been repaired. . .
(3) The identification on a-valve may
be removed after it has been monitored
for 2 successive months as specified in
§§ 264.1057(c) and no leak has been
detected during those 2 months.
(d) When each leak is detected as
specified in §§264.1052,264.1053,
264.1057, and 264.1058, the following
information shall be recorded in an
inspection log and shall be kept in the
facility operating record:
(1) The instrument and operator
identification numbers and the
equipment identification number..
(2) The date evidence of a potential
leak was found in accordance with
§ 264.1058(a).
(3) The date the leak was detected
and the dates of each attempt to repair
the leak.
(4) Repair methods applied in each
attempt to repair-the leak.
(5) "Above 10,000" if the maximum
instrument reading measured by the
methods specified in § 264.1063(b) after.
each repair attempt is equal to or greater
than 10,000 ppm.
(6) "Repair delayed" and the reason
for the delay if a leak is not repaired
within 15 calendar days after discovery
of the leak,
(7) Documentation supporting the
delay of repair of a valve in compliance
with § 264.1059(c).
(8) The signature of the owner or
operator (or designate) whose decision
it was that repair could not be effected
without a hazardous waste management
unit shutdown.
(9) The expected date of successful
repair of the leak if a leak is not
repaired within IS calendar days.
(10) The date of successful repair of
the leak.
(e) Design documentation and
monitoring, operating, and inspection
information for each closed-vent system
and control device required to comply
with flie provisions of § 264.1060 shaft
be recorded and kept up-to-date in the'
facility operating record as specified in
1264.1035(c). Design documentation is
specified rn § 264.1035 (c)(l) and (c)(2)
and monitoring, operating, and
inspection information in
§ 264.1035(c)(3)-(c){8). . .
(f) For a control device other than a
thermal vapor incinerator, catalytic
vapor incinerator, flare, boiler, process
heater, condenser, or carbon adsorption
system, the Regional Administrator will
specify the appropriate recordkeeping
requirements. , :
(g) The following information
pertaining to all equipment subject to
the requirements in §§264.1052 through
264.1060 shall be recorded in a log that
. is kept in the facility operating record:
(1) A list of identification numbers for
equipment (except welded fittings)
subject to die requirements of this
subpart .
(2)(i) A list of identification numbers
for equipment that the owner or
operator elects to designate for no.
detectable emissions, as indicated by an
instrument reading of less than 500 ppm
above background, under the provisions -
of § § 264.1052(e). 264.1053(1). and
264.1057{f).
(ii) The designation of this equipment
as subject to .the requirements of
§§ 264.1052(e). 264;1053(i). or 264.1057(f>
shall be signed by me owner or ,
operator. .
-------
25506''" * Federal Kfegister / Vol: 55,-No. 120 /'thufsdaV. ftine 21,: 19W'/: Rules ^ndRegulations/:
(3) A Ifst of equipment identification
numbers for pressure relief devices
required to-comply with § 264.1054(a).
(4)(i) The dates of each compliance '
test required in 5 § 264.1052(e).
284.1053(5); 264.1054, and 264.1057{f).
{ii) The background-level measured
during each compliance test.
(iii) The maximum instrument reading
measured at the equipment during each
compliance-test. . . <"' .
(5) A list of identification numbers for
equipment in vacuum service.,-. . : '
(h) The following information , '.-
pertaining to all valves subject to the
requirements of § -264.1057 (g) and pi)
shall be recorded in a log that is kept in
the facility operating record:'' '
(1) A list of identification numbers for
valves that are'designated as unsafe to <
monitor, an explanation for'each valve
stating why the valve is unsafe to
monitor, and the plan for monitoring
each valve. ! !
(2) A list of identification numbers.for
valves that are'designated as difficult to
monitor, an explanation for.each valve '
stating why. the valve is difficult to ,
monitor, and tK«? planned schedule for
monitoring each valve. . - .
(i) The following informatipn shall be
recorded in the. facility'operating record
for valves complying with § 264.1062:
(1) A schedule of monitoring.
(2) The percent of valves foun'd '.-.'
: leaking during each-monitoring period: ;
tj) The following information shall be
rpcorded ina log that is kept in the.
facility operating record:
(1) Criteria required in
§ 264.1052(d)(5)(ii) and §. 264.1053(e}(2).
and an explanation of the design
criteria. ,' , .
(2) Any changes to these criteria and
the reasons,for the changes.
(k) The following information shall be
recorded in a log that is kept in the
facility operating record for use in
determining exemptions as provided in
the applicability section of this subpart
and other specific subparts:
(1) An analysis determining the design
capacity of the hazardous waste
management unit.
. (2) A statement h'sting the hazardous .
waste influent to and effluent from«ach
hazardous waste management unit .
subject to the requirements in
§ § 264.1052 through 264.1060 and an
analysis determining whether these
hazardous wastes are heavy liquids.
(3) An up-to-date analysis and the
supporting information and data used to
determine whether or not equipment is
subject to.the requirenients.in
§ § 264.1052 through 264.1060. The record
shall include supporting documentation
as required by § 264.1083(d)(3) when
application'of the knowledge of the'
nature of the hazardous waste stream or
the process by which it was produced is
used. If the owner or operatbr takes any
action (exchanging the process that ,^
produced the waste) that could result in
an increase in the total organic content .
of the waste contained in or contacted ,
by equipment determined "not to be''
subject to the requirements in .... .
§§.264.1052 through 264.1060, then a new
determination is required.]
(1) Records-of the equipment leak
information required by paragraphed) of
this section and the operating .'.'...
information required by paragraph (e) of
this section heed be kept only 3 years.,
" (m}The owner of operator of any''. "
'facility that is subject to this subpart :
and to regulations at 40 CFR part 60,
subpart W, or 40 CFR part 61, subpart '
V, may elect to determine compliance'
with this subpart by documentation
either pursuant to § 264.1064 of this
subpart, or pursuant to those provisions
of 40 CFR part 60 or 61, to the extent
that the documentation under the. .;
regulation at 40 CFR part 60 or part 61
duplicates-the documentation required .
under this subpart.. The documentation-
under'the regulation at 40 CFR part 60 or
part 61 shall be kept with or made =
readft>available with the-facility ' i:
operating' record. .
(Approved by the. Office of.Managementland
Budget under control number 2060-0195):; :
f 264.1065 Reporting requirements. . ; \
(a) A semiannual report shall'be '-..
, submitted by:owners and operators ;"'
subject to the requirements' of-this
subpart to the Regional Administrator'
by dates specified by the Regional
Administrator. -The report shall include
the following information: - . "
(1) The Environmental Protection
Agency identification number, name,
and address of the facility. ' '.
(2) For each month during the
semiannual reporting period:
(i) The equipment identification
number of each valve for which a leak
was not repaired as required.in
§ 264.1057(d).
(ii) The equipment identification
number of each pump for which a leak.
was not repaired as required in ' . '
§ 264.1052 (c) and (d}(6). .
. (iii) The equipmentideritification
number of each compressor for which a
leak was not-repaired as.required in
§ 264.1053{g). .
(3) Dates of hazardous waste .
.management unit shutdowns that. ...
occurred within-the semiannual . ;,
reporting period. . . =
(4) For each month during the .. .
semiannual reporting period, dates'
when the control device installed as
required by 1264.1052,264.1053,
' '264.1054, or 264.1055 exceeded or;' . -. /,
operated outside of the design;"
specSfications as defined in §.264.1064(e)
and as indicated by the control device
monitoring required by § 264.1060 and
was not corrected within 24 hours, the
duration and cause of each fixceedance,
and any corrective measures taken.
(b) If, during the semiannual reporting:
- period; leaks from valves, pumps, and .. .
compressors are repaired as inquired in
§§264.1057 (d), 264.1052 (c) and (d)(6),
and 264.1053 (g), respectively, arid the
control device does not exceed or
operate outside of the design '
specifications as defined in § 264.1064(e)
for more than 24 hours, a .report to the' :
Regional Administrator is not required.
(Approved by the Office of Management.and .
Budget under control number 2060-0195)'.
.§§264.1066-264.1079 [Reserved]
PART 265-rlNTERIM STATU5
STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AMP
OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND
DISPOSAL FACILITIES .......
12. The authority citation for-part265
continues to read as follows: ' ;
. Authority. 42 U.S.C. 6095,6912(3); .6924,
6925,and6935. '', " ." ' :
Subpart BGeneral Facility Standards
13. Section 265.13 is amended by
.revising paragraph (b)(6) to read as
follows:
§ 265.13 General waste analysis.
* ' * **.'*.,'* : ' '
' (fa)>*.* ' :..'
(6) Where applicable, the methods
that will be used to meet the additional
waste analysis requirements for specific
waste management methods as
specified in §§ 265.193, 265:225, 265.252.
265.273, 265.314, 265.341, 265.375, 265.402,
265.1034(d), 265.1063(d), and 268.7 of this
chapter.
14. Section 265.15 is amended'by
revising the last sentence of paragraph
(b)(4> to read as follows:
§ 265.15 Genera! Inspection requirements.
-' * .* . * * ..**.. ' .
(b)* ' * ' . -.
: [4] * * * At .a minimum, the inspection
schedule must include the terms and' .
frequencies called for in' §§ 265.174,
265.193,' 265.195,265:226, 265.347,265.377,
265.403, 265.1033, 265.1052, 265.1053, and
265.1058. ...'.' '
-------
Federal Register / VoL 55. No. 120 / Thursday. June 21. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
25507
SubpartEManifest System,
Recordkeepjng, and Reporting
15. Section 265.73 is amended by
revising paragraphs (b)(3) and (b)(6) to
read as follows: '. . ,
§265.73 Operating record. .
(fa)***
(3) Records and results of waste
analyses and trial tests performed as
specified in || 265.13, 265.193, 265.225,
265.252. 265.273, 265.314, 265.341, 265.375.
265.402.265.1034. 265.1063.268.4{a). and
268.7 of this chapter.'
(6j Monitoring, testing or analytical
data when required.by §5 26&9Q, 26554,
265.191,265.193. 265.195,285.276,265^78,
265.280(d3{l), 26oi347, 265.377.
265.1034fc}-265.1034(f), 265.1035.
265.1063{d3-?65.1063(i3. and 265.1064.
16. Section 265.77 is amended by .
adding paragraph (d) as follows:
§265.77 Additional reports.
* * *" ' - *
(d) As otherwise required by Subparts
AAandBB.
17.40 CFR part 265 is amended by
adding Subpart AA to read as follows:
SubpartAAAir Emission Standards for
Process Vents
265.1030. Applicability. .
265.1031 Definitions. '-...
265.1032 Standards: Process vents.
265.1033 Standards: Closed-vent systems and
control devices.
265.1034 "feat methods and procedures.
265.1035 Recordkeeping requirements.
265.1038265.1049 {Reserved]
Subpart AAAir Emission Standards
for Process Vents
§265.1030 Applicability.
(a) The regulations in this subpart
apply to owners and operators of
facilities that treat, store, or dispose of
hazardous wastes (except as/provided
in J 265.1).
(b) Except for § § 265.1034{d) and
265.1035(d), this subpart applies to
process vents associated with
distillation, fractionation, thin-film
evaporation, solvent extraction, or air or
steam stripping operations that manage
hazardous wastes with organic
concentrations of at least 10 ppmw, if
these operations are conducted in:
(1) Units that are subject to the
permitting requirements -of part 270, or
(2) Hazardous waste recycling units:
that are located on hazardous waste
management .facilities otherwise subject.
to the permitting requirements of part
270. ' ' . .
[Note: The requirements of J 5 265.1032 .
through 265.1036 apply to process vents on '
hazardous waste recycling units previously
exempt under paragraph 2Sl£(c}(i\. Other
exemptions tinder § 12614 262J4. and
265.1(c) are not affected by these
requirements.] -.
§ 265.1831 Definition*.
As used in this subpart, all terms shall
have the meaning given them in
§264.1031. the Act and parts 260-266. .
§ 265.1032 Standards: Process vents.
(a) The owner or operator of a facility
with process vents associated with
distillation, fractionation, thin-film
evaporation, solvent extraction or air or
steam stripping operations managing
hazardous wastes with organic
concentrations at least 10 ppmw shall.
* either .,'.'. :
(1) Reduce total organic emissions. .
from all affected process vents at the
facility below 1.4 kg/h. (3 Ib/h) and 2.8
Mg/yr (3.1 tons/yr), or .
(2) Reduce, by use of a control device,
total organic emissions from all affected
process vents at the facility by 95 weight
percent.
(b) If the owner or operator installs a
closed-vent system and control device
to comply with the provisions of
paragraph (a) of this section, the closed-
vent system and control device must
meet the requirements of § 285.1033,
(c) Determinations of vent emissions
and emission reductions or total organic
compound concentrations achieved by
add-on control devices may be based on
engineering: calculations or performance
tests. If performance tests are used to ,
determine vent emissions, emission
reductions) or total organic compound
concentrations achieved by add-on
control devices, the performance tests
must conform with the requirements of
§ 265.1034{c}.
(d) When an owner or operator and
the Regional Administrator do not agree
on determinations of vent emissions
and/or emission reductions or total
organic compound concentrations
achieved by add-on control devices
based on engineering calculations, the
test methods in § 265.1034[c) shall be..
used to resolve the disagreement.
§265.1033 Standards: Closed-vent
systems and control devices.
(a)fl) Owners or operators of closed-
vent systems and control devices used
to comply with provisions of this part
shall comply with the provisions, of this
section. '
(2j The owner'or operator of an
existing facility-who cannot install a .
closed-ye.nt system and control device .
to .comply .with the provisions, pf this .
subpart on the effective date that the
facility becomes subject to the ;
provisions of this subpart must prepare
an implementation schedule that
includes dates, by, which the closed-vent
system and control device will be
installed and in operation. The control*
must be installed as soon as possible,
but the implementation schedule may
allow up to 18 months after the-effective
date that the facility becomes subject to
this subpart for installation and startup.
All units that begin operation after
December 21,1990 must comply with the
rules immediately (i.e., must have '
control devices installed and operating.
on startup of the affected unit); the 2-
year implementation schedule does not
apply to these units.
{b} A control device involving vapor
recovery (e.g., a condenser or adsorber}
shall be designed and operated to .
recover the organic vapors vented to it
with an efficiency of 95 weight percent
or greater unless the total organic
emission limits of § 265.1032(a)(l) for all
affected process vents can be attained
at an efficiency less than 95 weight.
percent - ' . ' : .'- ,',;
(c) An enclosed combustion device
(e.g.. a vapor incinerator,' boiler, or;
process heater) shall be designed and
operated to reduce the organic
emissions vented to it by 95 weight
percent or greater; to achieve a total
organic compound concentration of 20
ppmv, expressed as the sum of the
actual compounds, not carbon
equivalents, on a dry basis corrected to '
3 percent oxygen; or .to provide a
minimum residence time of O.50 seconds
at a minimum temperature of 760 °C If a
boiler or process heater Is used as the
control device, then.the vent stream'
shall be introduced into the flame
combustion zone of the boiler or process
heater. ' .
(d)(l) A flare shall be designed for
and operated with no visible emissions
as determined by the methods specified
in paragraph (e)(l) of this section,
except for periods not to exceed a total
of 5 minutes during any 2 consecutive .
hours.
(2) A flare shall be operated with a
flame present at all times, as determined
by the methods specified in paragraph
(fj(2){iii} of this section.
(3) A flare shall be used only if the net
heating value of the gas being
combusted is 11.2 MJ/scm (300 Btu/scf)
or greater, if the flare is steam-assisted
or air-assisted; or if the net .heating
value of die gas being combusted is 7."45
MJ/scm (200 Btu/scf) or greater if the
flare is.noaassisied. The net heating
value of the gas being combusted shall :
be determined .by the methods specified .
in paragraph (e)(2) of this section.
-------
25508 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 120 / Thursday. June 21. 1990 / ** and Regulations
[4](i] A steam-assisted or honassisted
Hare shall be designed for and operated
with an exit velocity, as determined by
the methods specified in paragraph
(e)(3) of this section, of less than 18.3 m/
s (60 ft/s), except as provided in
paragraphs (d)(4) (ii) and (iii) of this
section.
(ii) A steam-assisted or nonassisted
flare designed for and operated with' an
exit velocity, as determined by the
methods specified in paragraph (e)(3) of
this section, equal to or greater than 18.3
m/s (60 ft/s) but less than 122 m/s (400
ft/s) is allowed if the net heating value
of the gas being combusted is greater
than 37.3 MJ/scm (1,000 Btu/scf). :,
(iii) A steam-assisted or nonassisted
flare designed for and operated with an
exit velocity, as determined by the
methods specified in paragraph;(e)(3) of
this section, less than the velocity, V^^,
as determined by the method specified
in paragraph (e){4) of this section, and
less than 122 m/s (400 ft/s) is allowed.
(5) An air-assisted flare shall be
designed and operated with an exit
velocity less 1han the velocity, Vmax, as
determined by the method specified in
paragraph (e)(5) of this section.
(6) A flare used to'comply with this
section shall be steam.-assisted. air-
assisted, or nonassisted. .....
(e}(l) Reference Method 22 in.40 CER .
part 60 shall be.used to determine the
compliance of a flare with the visible , .-
emission provisions of this subpart. The
observation period is 2 hours and shall
be used according to Method 22.
(2) The net heating value of the gas
being combusted in a flare shall be
calculated using the following equation:
HT=K
c,H,
where:
I IT --Net heating value of the sample, MJ/
son; where, the net enthalpy per mole ..of
. ofTgas is based on combustion at 25 "C
and 700 mm Hg, but the standard
temperature for determining the volume '
corresponding to 1 mol is 20 °C;
K«Constaflt. 1.74X10-' (1/ppm) (g mol/scm)
(MJ/kcal) where standard temperature '
for (g mol/scm) is 20 'C: ' ' ' ' '
C, -Concentration of sample component i in
ppm on a wet basis, as measured for
organics by Reference Method 18 in 40
CFR part 60 and measured for hydrogen
and carbon monoxide by ASTM D 1946-
= 82 (incorporated by reference as
specified in § 260.11); arid
H,=Net heat of combustion of sample
component i, kcal/g mol at 25 °C and 760
mm Hg. The heats of combustion irjay be
determined using ASTM D 23S2-83
(incorporated by reference as'specified
in § 260.11) if published values are not
available or cannot be calculated.
(3) The. actual exit velocity of a.flare
shall be determined by dividing the .
volumetric flow rate (in units of
standard temperature arid pressure), as
determined by Reference Methods 2, 2A..
2C, or 2D in 40 GFR part 60 as
appropriate, by the unobstructed (free)
cross-sectional area of the flare tip.
(4) The maximum allowed velocity in
m/s, V^a, for a flare complying with
paragraph (d)(4)(iii) of this section shall
be determined by the following
equation: . .
Log,o(VK«<)=(KT+28.3)/31.7 ...
where: ' .'"".
HT=The net heating value as determined in
paragraph (e)(2) of this section.
2P,.8=Constant, .
31.7=Constant.
(5) The maximum allowed velocity in
m/s, VralK, for an air-assisted flare .shall
ba determined by the following
equation:. . .... ' ..
V» = 8.706 + 0.7084 (HT)
where:
8.708 = Constant. .
0.7084 = Constant. . . . .
HT = The net heating value as determined in
. paragraph (e)(2) of this, section.' . .
(f)'The owner or operator shall '
monitor and-inspect each control device
required to comply--with this section to
ensiire proper operation and . ' .
maintenance of the control device-by
implementing the following
requirements:
(1) Install, calibrate, maintain, and
operate according to the manufacturer's -
specifications a flow indicator that .
provides a record of vent stream flow ..
from each affected process vent to the .
control device at least once every hour.
The flow indicator sensor shall be
installed in the vent stream at the
nearest feasible point to the.control
device inlet but before being combined
with other vent streams. .-.--
. . (2) Install, calibrate, maintain, and-
operate according to the manufacturer's
specifications a device to continuously
monitor control device operation as :
specified below: ,
(i) For a thermal vapor incinerator, a
temperature monitoring device equipped
with a continuous recorder. The device
shall have an accuracy of ±1 percent of
the temperature being monitored in"C
or ±0.5 °C. whichever is greater. The
temperature sensor shall be installed at
a location in the combustion chamber. .
downstream of the combustion zone.
(ii) For a catalytic vapor incinerator, a
temperature monitoring device equipped
with a continuous recorder. The^evice
shall be capable of monitoring
temperature at two.locations and have .
an accuracy of ±1 percent of the
temperature being monitored in °C or
±0.5 °C. whichever is greater. One '
temperature sensor shall be installed in
the vent stream at the nearest feasible
point to the catalystbed inlet arid a
second temperature sensor shall be
installed in the vent stream at the
nearest feasible point to the catalyst bed
outlet.
(iii) For a flare, a heat sensing .
monitoring device equipped with a
continuous recorder that indicates the .
continuous ignition .of the pilot flame.
(iv) For a boiler or process heater
having a design heat input capacity less
than 44 MW; a temperature monitoring-
device equipped with a continuous
recorder. The device shall have an
accuracy of ±1 percent of the
temperature being monitored in °C or ;
±0.5°C, whichever is greater. The.
temperature-sensor shall be installed at
a location in the furnace downstream of
the 'combustion zone..
(v) For a .boiler or process heater
having a design heat input capacity
greater than or equal to 44 MW, a
monitoring device equipped with a .
continuous recorder to measure a '. .
parameter(s) that indicates good /
. combustion operating practices are.
.being used: ' .'..''
(vi) For a condenser, either:
(A) Amonitoring device, equipped
with a continuous recorder to measure :...
the concentration: level of the organic
compounds in the exhaust vent stream
from the condenser; or ": -.
(B) A temperature monitoring device .
equipped with a continuous recorder..
The device, shall be capable of .
monitoring temperature at. two locations
and have an accuracy of ±1. percent of-
the temperature being monitored in °C ..
or ±0.5 °C, whichever is greater. One
temperature sensor shall be installed at
a location.in the exhaust vent stream
from the condenser, and a second
temperature, sensor shall be installed at
a location in the coolant fluid exiting .the
condenser. "
(vii) For a carbon adsorption system.
such as a-fixed-bed carbon adsorber
that regenerates the carbon bed directly
in the control device, either:
(A) A monitoring device equipped
with a continuous recorder to measure
the concentration level of the organic .
compounds in the exhaust vent stream
from the carbon bed, or ; .
(B) A-monitoring device equipped with
a continuous recorder to measure.a
-------
Federal Register /. Vol. 55; No. 120 / -Thursday. June 21..1990 /-'-.Rules.and.Regulations 25509
parameter that indicates the carbon bed
is regenerated on a regular. .-,
predetermined time cycle.. .
(3) Inspect the readings from each
. monitoring device required by- .
paragraphs (f) (1) and. (2) of this section
at. least once each operating day to
check control device operation and, if .
necessary, immediately implement the
corrective measures necessary to ensure
the control.device operates in
compliance with the requirements of this
section. . - .
. (g) An owner or operator using a
carbon adsorption system such as a
fixed-bed carbon adsorber that
regenerates the carbon bed directly ..
onsite in the control device, shall
replace the existing carbon in the
control device with fresh carbon.at a
regular, predetermined time interval that
is no longer than the carbon service life
established as a requirement of
§ 265.1035(b)(4)(iii){F).
(h) An owner or operator using a
carbon adsorption system such as a
carbon canister that does not regenerate
the carbon bed directly onsite in the
control device shall replace the existing
carbon in the control device with fresh
carbon on a regular basis by using one
of the following procedures: ' .
(1) Monitor the concentration level of
the organic compounds in the exhaust
vent stream from the .carbon adsorption
system on a regular schedule and . ...
replace the existing .carbon with fresh ,
carbon immediately, when carbon. '
breakthrough is indicated. The \ .
monitoring frequency shall be daily or .at
an interval no greater than 20 percent of
the time.r.equired to consume the total .
. carbon ivorking. capacity established as
a requirement of § 265.a035(b)(4}p5i)tG).
whichever is longer. ,.' .
(2) Replace the existing carbon with
fresh carbon at a regular, predetermined
time interval that' is less than the design
carbon replacement interval established
as a requirement of
i 265.1035(b)(4)(iii)(G). ^. "
(i) An owner or operator of an
affected facility seeking to comply with-
the provisions of this part by using a
control device other than a thermal
vapor incinerator, catalytic vapor
incinerator, flare, boiler, process heater,
condenser, or carbon adsorption, system
is required-.to develop documentation'
including sufficient information to
describe the control device operation
and identify the process parameter or
parameters that indicate proper ...
operation and maintenance of the'
control device.
(j)fl) Closed-vent systems shall be
designed for and operated with no
detectable emissions, as indicated by an
instrument reading of less than 500 ppm
above background and by visual
inspections, as determined by the
methods specified as § 265.1034(b).
[2) Closed-vent systems shall be
monitored to determine compliance with
this section during the initial leak
detection monitoring which shall be
conducted by the date that the facility
becomes subject to the provisions of this
section,1 annually, and at other times as
requested by the Regional
Administrator.
(3) Detectable emissions, as indicated
by an instrument reading greater than
500 ppm and visual inspections, shall be'
controlled as soon as practicable, but
not later than 15 calendar days after the
emission is detected.
" (4} A first attempt at repair shall be
made no later than 5 calendar days after
the emission is detected. . ;
(k) Closed-vent systems and-.control
devices used to comply, with provisions
of this subpart shall-be operated at all ;
times when emissions may be vepted to
them.; ... .i .-:'.- :..'-.
§265.1034 Test methods and procedures.
(a); Each, owner or operator subject to
the provisions of-this subpart shall ' '
comply with the test methods and .
procedures requirements provided in ;
this sectioii. ' ,-..:.
(b) When a closed-vent system is
tested for compliance with no detectable
emissions, as required in § 265.1033Q),
the test shall comply with the following
requirements: . ;
(1) Monitoring shall comply with
Reference Method 21 in 40 CFR part 60.
[2) The detection instrument shall
meet .the performance criteria of
Reference Method 21.
(3) The instrument-shall-be calibrated
before use on each day of its use .by the
procedures specified-ih. Reference .. .
Method 21, , , ..'..-..".
(4) Calibration .gases shall ;be.;.
(i) Zero air (less than 10 ppm of .
hydrocarbon in air).
(ii) A mixture of methane or n-hexane
and air at a concentration-of .:..
approximately, but less, than, 10,000 ppm
methane or n-hexane.
(5) The background level shall be
determined as set forth in Reference
Method 21. ,.. ....
(6) The instrument probe shall be '
traversed around all potential leak-
interfaces as close to the interface as
, possible as described in Reference :."
Method 21. .
.(7)'The arithmetic difference between
the maximum concentration indicated
by the instrument and the background
level is compared with 500 ppm for
determining compliance.
. (c) Performance tests to determine
compliance with § 265.1032(a) and with
the total organic compound
concentration limit of § 265.1033(c) shall
comply with the following: . ,: ', .
(1) Performance tests to determine .
total organic compound concentrations'
and mass flow rates entering and-exiting
control devices shall be conducted and :
data reduced in accordance .with the
following referehce'methods and '' -.
calculation procedures: ":"' ''=:'; '. '
(i)''Method-2 HI 40 CFR part'60 for :
.'velocity andrvolumetric flow rate: ' .
(ii) Method 18 iri40 CFR part 60 for
organic content'": ' '' - : " '
(iii) Each performance' test shall' -' ' "
consist of three separate runs; each run
conducted for at least 1 hour under the
conditions that exist when: the ' -
hazardous waste management unit is
operating at the highest load or capacity
level reasonably expected to occur. For
the purpose of determining total organic
compound concentrations knd mass
flow rates, 'the average of results' of all
runs shall apply. The average shall be
computed on a time-weighted basis.
(iv) Total organic mass flow rates
shall be determined by the following
equation: ' . .
Eh=Qsa f. 2 dMW, ] [0.0416] [KT
where: ' ; .' '
Eh=Total organic mass flow rate, kg/h:
Qs,i=Volametric flow rate of gases entering
or exiting control Sevice.-as determined
' by Method 2, dscm/h: .-.'-.
- n=Number of organic compounds in the vent--
. gas: . - .-....:-'
Ci=Organic concentration in ppm, dry basis,
. of compound i in the vent gas, as
determined by Method 18; , "
MWi=:Moleculaf weight of organic ;
compound i in .the vent gas, kg/kgrmol;
-------
.25510 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
0.0»6=Conversion factor for molar volume,
kg-mol/ma(@293Kand760mmHg); ' .
l
-------
throughput end operating hours of each
affected unit, estimated emission rates
for each affected vent and for the
overall facility (i.e., .the total emissions
for all affected .vents at the facility), and
the approximate location within the
facility of each affected unit (e.g.,.
identify the hazardous waste
management units on a facility plot
plan); and
pi) Information and-data supporting
determinations of vent emissions and .
emission reductions achieved by add-on
control devices based on engineering
calculations or source tests. For the
purpose of determining compliance,
. determinations of vent emissions and
emission reductions must be made using
operating parameter values (e.g.,
temperatures, flow rates or vent stream
organic compounds and concentrations)
that represent .the conditions that result
in maximum organic emissions, such as
when the waste management unit is
operating at the highest load or capacity
level reasonably expected to occur. If
the owner or operator takes any action
(e.g., managing a waste of different
composition or increasing operating
hours of affected waste management
units) that would result in an increase in
total organic emissions from affected
process vents at the facility, then a new
determination is required.
(3) Where an owner or operator
chooses to use test data to determine the
organic removal efficiency or total
organic compound concentration
achieved by the control device, a . . '.
performance test plan. The test plan
must include:
(i) A description of how it is
determined that the planned test is going
to be conducted when the hazardous
waste management unit is operating at
the highest load or capacity level
reasonably expected to occur. This shall
include the estimated or design flpw. rate
and organic content of each vent stream
and define the'acceptable operating
ranges of key. process and control device
parameters-during the test program. .
(ii) A detailed engineering description
of the closed4vent system and control
device including: .
(A) Manufacturer's name and model
number of control device.. ..'.'!'"
(B)Typeofcontrol.deyice. ./ "
(C) Dimensions of the control device.
(D) Capacity. '....'""."
(E) Construction materials. ." , ."/ ,
(iii) A detailed description.of sampling:.
and monitoring procedures, including
sampling and monitoring locations in the
system, the equipment to be used,
sampling and monitQring^rrequ.ency>,and
planned analytical proceduresior.;: : '..
sample analysis, .,".''. [ " -' ... ;.'.- '..."
(4) Documentation of compliance with
§ 265.1033 shall include thefollowing
information:-1;5 - -. yf .
p). A.list. of all. information references
and sources used in preparing the
documentation.
(ii) Records including the dates of
each compliance test required by
§ 265.10330),
(iii) If engineering calculations are .
used, a design analysis, specifications,
drawings, schematics, and piping and
instrumentation diagrams based on the
appropriate sections of "APTI Course
415: Control of Gaseous Emissions"
(incorporated by reference as specified
.in § 260.11) or other engineering texts
acceptable to the Regional
Administrator that present basic control
device design information.
Documentation provided by the. control
device manufacturer or vendor that
describes the control device design in
accordance with paragraphs
(b)(4)(iii)(A) through (b)(4)pii)(G) of this
section may be used to comply with this
requirement The design analysis shall
address the vent stream characteristics
and control device operation parameters
as specified below;
(A) Fora thermal vapor incinerator,.
the design analysis shall consider the
vent stream composition, constituent
concentrations, and flow rate. The
design analysis shall also establish the
design minimum and average
temperature'in the combustion zone and
the combustion zone residence time.
[B) For a catalytic vapor incinerator,
the design analysis shall consider the
vent stream composition, constituent
concentrations, and flow rate. The
design analysis shall also establish the
design minimum and average
temperatures across the catalyst bed
inlet, and outlet' ' '
(C) Fora boiler or process heater, the
design analysis shall consider the vent
stream composition, constituent
concentrations, and flow rate. The
design analysis shall also establish the
designminimum and average flame zone
temperatures, combustion zone
residence time; and description of
method and location where the vent -
stream is introduced into the - -
combustion zone/ ; . .
(D) For a flare, the design analysis
shall consider-the vent stream. . .
comppsition,-x:onstituent concentrations,
i and flow rate. The design, analysis shall
. also consider the requirements -specified
.in§-265.1033(d). . . .
(E) For a. condenser, the design
analysis shall consider the vent stream
composition, constituent concentrations,
flow ratg,;jelatii?e-humidity, and ,.-.- :
teinperatjjre^ The design analysis, shall
also establish the design" outlet organic >
. compound .concentration level; design ; '
average temperature of the condenser
exhaust vent stream, and design average
temperatures of the coolant:fluid-at'the
condenser inlet and outlet. '
(F) For a.carbon adsorption system
such as a fixed-bed adsorber that
regenerates the carbon-bed directly
onsite in the control device, the design
analysis shall consider the vent stream
composition, constituent 'concentrations,
flow rate, relative humidity, and
temperature. The design analysis shall
also establish the design exhaust vent
stream'organic compound concentration
level, number and capacity of carbon:
beds, type and working capacity of
activated carbon used for carbon beds,
design total steam flow over the period
of each complete carbon bed .
regeneration cycle, duration of the
carbon bed steaming and cooling/drying
cycles, design carbon bed temperature
after regeneration, design carbon bed
regeneration time, and design service
life, of carbon. . .
(GJ For a carbon adsorption system
such as a carbon canister that does not
regenerate the carbon bed directly
onsite in the control device, the design
analysis shall consider the vent stream
composition, constituent concentrations,
flow rate, relative humidity, .and
temperature. The design-analysis shall
also establish the design outlet organic
concentration.level, capacity of carbon
bed, .type and working capacity of- .
activated carbon used for carbon, bed, .
and design carbon replacement interval
based on the total carbon working.
capacity of the control device and; :
source operating schedule. , ....
(iv) A statement signed and dated by
the owner or operator certifying that the
operating parameters used to the design
analysis reasonably represent the. '
conditions that exist when the . .
hazardous waste management unit is or
would be operating at the highest load
or capacity level reasonably expected to
occur.
(v) A statement signed and dated by
the.owner; or operator certifying that'-the
control device is designed to operate at- ~
an efficiency of-95 percent or greater - .:
unless .the total organic concentration .-
limit of § 265;1032(a) is achieved at an
.efficiencyrless than 95 weight percent or '.
the total organic emission limits of -. .
§ 265.1032(a) for affected process vents:
at-the facility can be attained by a; i -" '
contrbl:.device involving vapor'recovery
at an efficiency less than 95 weight -.:' !
percent-A statement providM.by the .:
control device -manufacturer.of vendor
certifying that -the control equipment .";
meets the,-design specifications may be. '..f
used 'to comply with this requirement- ':.
-------
25512
Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 120 / Thursday. June 21. 1990 / Rules and .Regulations
(vi} If performance tests are used to
demonstrate compliance, all test results.
(c) Design documentation and
. monitoring, operating, and inspection
information for each closed-vent system
and control device required to comply .
with the provisions of this part shall be
recorded and kept up-to-date in the
facility operating record. The
information shall include:
(1) Description and date of each
modification that is made to the closed-
vent system or control device design.
(2) Identification of operating
parameter, description of monitoring
device, and diagram of monitoring
sensor location or locations used to
comply with § 265Jl033(f)(l} and (f)(2).
(3) Monitoring, operating and
inspection information required by
paragraphs (f) through (i) of § 265.1033.
(4) Date, time, and duration of each -
period that occurs while the control
device is operating when any monitored
parameter exceeds the value established
in the control device design analysis as
specified below:
(i) For a thermal vapor incinerator
designed to operate with a minimum
residence time of 0.50 seconds at a
minimum temperature of 760 "C. period
when the combustion temperature is
below 760 *C.
(ii) For a thermal vapor incinerator
designed to operate with an organic
emission reduction efficiency of 95
percent or greater, period when the
combustion zone temperature is more
than 28 *C below the design average
combustion zone temperature
established as a requirement of '
paragraph (b)(4){iii)(A) of this section.
(iiij For a catalytic vapor incinerator,
period when:
(A) Temperature of the vent stream at
the catalyst bed inlet is more than 28 °C
below the average temperature of the .
inlet vent stream established as a
requirement of paragraph {b)(4)(iii)(B) of
this section: or
(B) Temperature difference across the
catalyst bed is less than 80 percent of
the design average temperature
difference established as a requirement
of paragraph (b)(4)(iii)(B) of this section.
(iv) For a boiler or process heater,
period when:
(A) Flame zone temperature is more
than 28 *C below the design average
flame zone temperature established as a
requirement of paragraph (b)(4)(iii)(e) of
this section; or
(B) Position changes where the vent
stream is introduced to the combustion
zone from the location established as a
requirement of paragraph (b){4)(iii)(C) of
this section.
(y) For a flare, period when the pilot
flame is not ignited.
(vi} For a condenser that complies-
with § 265.1033(f){2){vi)(A), period when
the organic compound concentration
level or readings of organic compounds
in the exhaust vent stream from the
condenser are more than 20 percent
greater than the design outlet organic
compound concentration level
established as a requirement of
' paragraph fb)(4)(ui)(E) of this section.
(vii) For a condenser that complies
with § 265.1033(f)(2)(vi)(B), period when:
(A) Temperature of the exhaust vent
stream from the condenser is more than
6 °C above the design average exhaust
vent, stream temperature established as
a requirement of paragraph (b}(4)(iii)[E)
of this section; or
(B) Temperature of the coolant fluid
exiting the condenser is more than 6 °C
above the design average coolanffluid
temperature at the condenser outlet
established as a requirement of
paragraph (b)(4)(iii)(E} of this section.
(viii) For a carbon adsorption system
such as a fixed-bed carbon adsorber
that regenerates the carbon bed directly
onsite in the control device and
complies with § 265.1033(f](2)(vii}(A),
period when the organic compound
concentration level or readings of
organic compounds in the exhaust vent
stream from the carbon bed are more
than 20 percent greater than the design
exhaust vent stream organic compound
concentration level established as a
requirement of paragraph (b)(4}(iii}(F) of
this section. .. .
(ix) For a carbon adsorption system
such as a fixed-bed carbon adsorber
that regenerates the carbon bed directly
onsite hi the control device and
complies with § 265.1033(f)(2)(vii)(B),
period when the ventstream continues
to flow through the control device
beyond the predetermined carbon bed
regeneration time established as a
requirement of paragraph (b)(4)pu){F) of
this section. ' :
[5} Explanation for each period
recorded under paragraph (3) of the
cause for control device operating
parameter exceeding the design value
and the measures implemented to
correct the control device operation.
(6) For carbon adsorption'systems
operated subject to requirements
specified in f 265.1033(g) or
§ 265,1033(h)[2), date when existing
carbon in the control device is replaced
with fresh carbon.
(7) For carbon adsorption systems
operated subject to requirements
specified in § 265.1033(h)fl), a tog that
records: ~
(i) Date and time when control device
is monitored for carbon breakthrough
and the monitoring device reading.
(ii) Date when existing carbon in the'
control device is replaced with fresh
carbon.
(8) Date of each control device startup
and shutdown.
(d) Records of the monitoring,
operating, and inspection information
required by paragraphs (c}(3) through
(c)(8) of this section need be kept only 3
years.
(e) For a control device other than a .
thermal vapor incinerator, catalytic
vapor incinerator, flare, boiler, process
heater, condenser, or carbon adsorption
system, monitoring and inspection
information indicating proper operation
and maintenance of the control device
must be recorded in the facility .
operating record.
(f) Up-to-date information and data
used to determine whether or not a
process vent is subject to the
requirements in § 265.1032 including
supporting documentation as required
by § 265.1034(d)(2) when application of
the knowledge of the nature of the
hazardous waste stream or the process
by which .it was produced is used, shall
be recorded in a log that is kept in the
facility operating record.
(Approved by the Office of Management and
Budget under control number 2060-0195)
§§ 265.1036-265.1049 [Reserved]
18.40 CFR part 265 is amended by .
adding subpart BB to read as follows:
Subpart BBAir Emission Standards for
Equipment Leaks
265.1050 Applicability.
265.1051 Definitions.
265.1052 Standards: Pumps in light liquid
' service.
265.1053 Standards: Compressors.
265.1054 Standards: Pressure relief devices in
gas/vapor service.
265.1055 Standards: Sampling connecting
systems.
265.1056 Standards: Open-ended valves or
lines.
265.1057 Standards: Valves in gas/vapor
service or in light liquid service.
265.1058 Standards: Pumps and valves in .
heavy liquid service, pressure relief devices
in light liquid or heavy liquid service, and
flanges and other connectors.
265.1059 Standards: Delay of repair.
265.1060 Standards: Closed-vent systems and
control devices. , .
265.1061 Alternative standards for valves in
gas/vapor service or in light liquid service:
percentage of valves allowed to leak;
265.1062 Alternative standards for valves in
gas/vapor service or in light liquid service:
skip period leak detection and repair.
265.1063 Test methods and procedures.
265.1064 Recordkeeping requirements.
265.1065-265.1079 [Reserved} ' -. ' ,
-------
Federal Register / VoL 55. No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 1990 / Rules and Regulations 25513
Subpart BBAir Emission Standards
for Equipment Leaks
§265.1050 Applicability.
(a) The regulations in this subpart
apply to owners and operators of
facilities that treat,-store, or dispose of
hazardous wastes (except as provided
in § 265.1).
(b) Except as provided in § 265.1064(j),
this subpart applies to equipment that
contains or contacts .hazardous wastes
with organic concentrations of at least
10 percent by weight that are managed
in:
(1) Units that are subject to the
permitting requirements -of part 270, or
(2) Hazardous waste recycling units,
that are located on hazardous waste
management facilities otherwise subject
to the permitting requirements of part
270.
(c) Each piece of equipment to which
this subpart applies shall be marked in
such a manner that it can be
distinguished'readily from other pieces
of equipment.
(d) Equipment that is in vacuum
service is excluded from the
requirements of § 265.1052 to § 265.1060
if it is identified as required in
I 265.1064(g)(5).
[Note: The requirements of §5 265.1052
through 265.1064 apply to equipment
associated with hazardous waste recycling
units previously exempt .under paragraph "
261.6{c){l). Other exemptions under §$261.4,
262.34, and 26S.l(c) are not affected by these
requirements.]
§265.1051 Definitions.
As used in this snbpart, all terms shall
have the meaning given them in
§ 264.1031, the Act and parts 260-266.
§265.1052 Standards: Pumps In light liquid
service.
(a){l) Each .pump in light liquid service
shall be monitored monthly to detect
leaks by the methods specified.in
§ 265.1063(b), except as provided in
paragraphs (d), (e), and (f) of this
section..
(2) Each pump .in light liquid service
shall be checked by visual inspection
each calendar week for indications of
liquids dripping from the pump seal.
(b}pL) If an instrument reading of
10,000 ppm or greater is measured, a
leak is detected.
(2) If there are indications of liquids
dripping from the pump seal, a leak is
detected.
(c)(l) When a leak is detected, it shall
be repaired as soon, as practicable, but
not later than 15 calendar days after it is
detected, except as provided in ,
§ 265.1059. .
(2) A first attempt at repair (e.g.,
tightening the packing gland) shall be
made no later flian 5 calendar'days after
each leak is detected.
(d) Each pump equipped with a dual
mechanical seal system that includes a
barrier fluid system is exempt from the
requirements of paragraph (a), provided
the following requirements are met:
(1) Each dual mechanical seal system
must be:
(i) Operated with the barrier fluid at a
pressure that is at all times greater than
the pump stuffing box pressure, or
(ii) Equipped with a barrier fluid
degassing reservoir that is connected by
a closed-vent system to a control device
that complies with the requirements of
§ 265.1060, or
(iii) Equipped with a system that
purges the barrier fluid into a hazardous
waste stream with no detectable
emissions to the atmosphere.
(2) The barrier fluid system must not
be a hazardous waste with organic
concentrations 10 percent or greater by
weight
(3) Each barrier fluid system must be
equipped with a sensor that will detect
failure of the seal system, the barrier
fluid system or both.
(4) Each pump must be checked by
visual inspection, each calendar week,
for indications of liquids dripping from
'the pump seals.
(5)(i) Each sensor as described in
paragraph (d}(3) of this section must be"
checked daily or be-equipped with an
audible alarm that must be checked
monthly to ensure that it is-functioning
properly.
(ii) The owner or operator must
determine, based on design
considerations and operating
experience, a criterion that indicates
failure of the seal system, the barrier
fluid system, or bo&.
(6)(i) If there are indications of liquids
dripping from the pump seal or the
sensor indicates failure of the seal.
system, the barrier fluid system, or both
based on the criterion determined in
paragraph (d)(5)(ii) of this section, a leak
is detected.
(ii) When a leak is detected, it shall be
repaired as soon as practicable, but not
later than 15 calendar days after it is
detected, except as provided in
§ 265.1059.
(iii) A first attempt at repair (e.g.,
relapping the seal) shall be made no
later than 5 calendar days after each
leak is detected.
(e) Any pump that is designated, as
described in § 265.1054(g)(2), for no
detectable emissions, as indicated by an
instrument reading of less than 500 ppm
above background, is exempt from the
requirements of paragraphs (a), (c), and
(d) of this section if the pump meets the
following requirements:
(1) Must have no externally actuated
shaft penetrating the pump housing.
(2) Must operate with no detectable ,
emissions as indicated by an instrument
.reading of less than 500 ppm above
background as measured by the
methods specified in § 265.1063(c).
(3) Must be tested for compliance with
paragraph (a)(2) of this section initially
upon designation, annually, and at other
times as requested by the Regional
Administrator.
(f) If any pump is equipped with a
closed-vent system capable of capturing
and transporting any leakage from, the
seal or seals to a control device that
complies with the requirements of
§ 265.1060, it is exempt from the
requirements of paragraphs (a) through _
(e) of this section.
§ 265.1053 Standards: Compressors.
(a) Each compressor shall be equipped
with a seal system that includes a
barrier fluid system and that prevents
leakage of total organic emissions to the
atmosphere, except as provided in
paragraphs (h) and (i) of this section.
(b) Each compressor seal system as
required in paragraph (a) of this section
shall be:
(1) Operated with the barrier fluid at a
pressure that is at all times greater than
the compressor stuffing box pressure, or
(2) Equipped with a barrier fluid
system that is connected by a closed-
vent system to a control device that
complies with the requirements of
§265.1060, or
(3) Equipped with a system that
purges the'barrier fluid into a hazardous
waste stream with no detectable
emissions to atmosphere.
(c) The barrier fluid must not be a
hazardous waste with organic
concentrations 10 percent or greater fay
weight.
(d) Each barrier fluid system as
described in paragraphs (a) through (c)
of this section shall be equipped with a
sensor that will detect failure of the seal
system, barrier fluid system, or both.
(e)(l) Each sensor as required in
paragraph" (d) of this section shall be
checked daily or shall be equipped with
an audible alarm that must be checked
monthly to ensure that it is functioning
properly unless the compressor is
located within the boundary of an
unmanned plant site, in which case the
sensor must be checked daily.
..(2) The owner or operator shall
determine, based on design
considerations and operating
experience, a criterion that indicates .
-------
25514 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No: 120 / Thursday; June] 21, 1990 /Rules -and Regulatiorfa
failure of the seal system, the barrier, .
fluid system or both.
(f) If the sensor indicates failure of the
seal system, the barrier fluid system, or
both based on the criterion determined
under paragraph (e)(2) of this section, a
leak is detected.
(g)(l) When a leak is detected, it shall ,
be repaired as soon as practicable, but
not later than 15 calendar, days after it is
detected, except as provided in
§285.1059. ,
(2) A first attempt at repair (e.g.,.
tightening the packing gland) shall be ,
made no later than 5 calendar days after.
each leak is detected. . . ,
(h) A compressor is exempt from the
requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b)
of this section if it is equipped with a
closed-vent system capable of capturing
and transporting any leakage' from the
seal to a control device that complies
with the requirements of § 265.1060,
except as provided in paragraph; p) of .
fhis section.
(i) Any compressor that is designated,
as described in § 265.1064[gX2), for no
detectable emission as.indicate.d by an
instrument reading of less than 500 ppm.
above background is^exempt from the *
requirements of paragraphs (a) through
(h) of this section if the compressor: ' .
(1) Is determined to be operating with
no detectable emissions, as indicated by
an instrument reading of less than 500
ppm above background, as measured by
the method specified in § 265.1063(c),
(2) Is tested for compliance with
paragraph (i](l) of this section initially ,
upon designation, annually, and at other'
times as requested by the Regional*
Administrator.
, i
§ 265.1054 Standards: Pressure relief ; '
devices In gas/vapor service:
(a) Except during pressure releases,
Backpressure relief device in gas/vapor
service shall be operated with no
detectable emissions, as indicated by an
instrument reading of less than 500 ppm
-above background, as measured by the
method specified in § 265.1063(c).
(b){l) After each pressure release, the
pressure relief device shall be returned
to a condition of no detectable
emissions, as indicated by an instrument
reading of less -than 500 ppm above
background, as soon as practicable, but
no later than 5 calendar days after each
, pressure release, except as provided in
§ 265.1059. -
(2) No later than 5 calendar days after
the pressure release, the pressure relief,
device shaU be monitored to confirm the
condition of no detectable emissions, as
indicated by an instrument reading of
less than 500 ppm above background,, as
measured by the method specified in ..
§265.1063{c).
(c) Any pressure relief device that is
equipped with a closed-vent system
capable of capturing and transporting.
, leakage from the pressure relief, device
to a control device as described in . "
§265.1060 is exempt from the. . ".,
requirements of paragraphs, (a) arid (b) '
of this section. . . . ' '. '-']
§ 265.1055 Standards: Sampling
connecting systems. '
(a) Each sampling connection system
shall be equipped with a closed-purge
system o.r closed-vent system. - - .
(b) Each closed-purge system or
closed-vent system as required in .
paragraph (a) shall: , -.'/:.
(1) Return the purged hazardous waste
stream directly to the hazardous waste
management process line with no
detectable emissions to atmosphere, or
' (2) Collect and recycle the purged
hazardous waste stream with no
detectable emissions to atmosphere, or
(3) Be designed and operated to . ;
capture arid transport all the purged
hazardous waste stream to a control .
device that complies with the
requirements of § 265.1060. ;
. (c) In situ sampling systems are
exempt from the requirement's of ,. ,
paragraphs.(a) and (b);of this section;
§ 26slio56 Standards: Open-ended valves
or Dries. '. ' ' .._'. .''''
(a)(l).Each open-ended valve or line
shall be equipped with a cap, blind .. .
flange, plug,.or-a second valve. '.
(2) The cap, .blind flange, plug, o.r
second valve shall seal the open end:at
all tunes except during operations
requiring hazardous waste: stream flow
.through the'open-ended valve or line.
(b) Each open-ended valve or line
equipped with- a second valve shall be
operated in a manner such that the
valve on the hazardous waste stream
end is closed before the.second valve is
closed.
' {c) When a double block and bleed
system is being used, the bleed valve or
line may. remain open during operations
that require venting the line between the
block valves but shall comply with
paragraph .(a) of this section at all other.
'times.;." ' . ' ' .
§ 265.1057 Standards: Valves in gas/vapor
service or In light liquid service.
(a) Each- valve in gas/vapor or light
liquid service shall be monitored' '
monthly, to detect leaks by the methods
specified in § 265.1063(b) and shall .
comply with paragraphs (b) through (e)
of this section,, except as provided in
paragraphs (f), (g), and (h) of this
section' and §§ 265.1061 and.265.1062.
(b) If an instrument reading of 10,000
ppm or greater is measured, a leak is
detected.'
(c)(l) Any valve for which a leak is
notdetectediortwo'successive-months--
may be monitored the first month of. ;.
every- succeeding quarter; . beginning ;;
with the next-quarter, until -a :leak:is .;'
detected; ' '" "' " '
.
be mohitored-Tnonthly. until ;a leSk- is not '
detected for- 2 successive mph&s." .;i'v " "
(d)(l):W*en a leakis de'tected, it shaii
be repaired as soon as practicable, but
no later than 15 calendar days Rafter the
leak is detected,' .expept as provided in' '
§265.1059:' -' T:'!'- ' ^-'.r.':' ''"T1'"''!'!!'
(2) A first attetopt at repair shall be '
made no later than 5. calendar days after
each leak is detected. ' ''
(e) First -attempts at-repair include, but
are not limited to, the following best
practices where practicable: . -. '
. (1) Tightening of bonnet bolts. ' ' . :'
. (2) Replacement of bonnet bolts. . .J'
(3) Tightenfefe of packing gland hiitsj '
(4) Injection, of lubricant into '.-.'; - ;
lubricated packing. , : .'_ .
(f) Any valve that is designated, as-
described in § 265.1064(g)(2), for no
detectable1 emissions, as indicated by .an
nistrument readiiig ^'less:thaa5CK).ppin;
above baclcgrouridi-is; exempt from -the "'-.
requiremente. of paragraph;|ai.9ftii>s;f ! !
sectiqn'ifthe valve: .'','"1'' " ' ' ; ;
. (1) Has no external actuating .. ; .
mechanism in cdhtact with the1 ' ' -
hazardous waste streain. -;:, ;...;" .':',..
(2) Is pp'erated'iwtii ^emissioiis.'les's ;
than 500 ppm above 'background; as;
determined ^ by the m'eihod:spe'cified:in: ,
' ' ' ' ' ' '
(3) Is tested for compliance- with.:: -. *>.-,
paragraph (f)(2)-pf this "section initially ...
upon designation, annually, and at-other
times a^ requested by the Regional '- . .
Administrator.' ' " ,
(g) Any valve that is designated, as .
described in § 265.1064(h)(l), as an!
unsafe-to-monitor valve is exempt- from
the requirements of paragraph .(a) of this
section if: , ..,.,. ; , .
(1) The ovyner or operator, of the valve
determines tiiat iQie valve is unsafe to '
monitor because monitoring personnel
would be exposed to an immediate. . .
danger as^a consequence of complying-
with paragraph'(a) of this section. -.
[2] The. owner or operator of'the valve
adheres'to.a written plan that requires .
monitoring of the valve as frequently :as
practicable during safe-.tp-monitor times*
(h) Any valve that is designated, as -
. described in § 265.1064(h)(2). as a - .
difficult-to-monitor valve is exempt-from
. the requirements of'paragraph (a) of:this
sectionifc./. :, ! '. :; " . ' :
(1) The owner or operator of the valve
determines* that the valve canriotbe '
monitored without elevating the
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 120 / Thursday. June 21. 1990 / Rules and Regulations 25515
monitoring personnel more .than 2
meters above a support surface.
(2) The hazardous waste management.
unit within which the valve is located
was in operation before June.21,1990.
(3] The owner or operator of the valve
follows a written plan that requires '.
monitoring of the valve at least .once per
calendar year. . .
§ 265.1058 Standards: Pumps and valves
in heavy liquid service, pressure relief
devices in light Hquid or heavy liquid
service, and flanges and other connectors.
(a) Pumps and valves in heavy liquid
service, pressure relief devices in light
liquid or heavy liquid service, and
flanges and other connectors shall he
monitored within 5 days by the method
specified in § 265.1063(b) if evidence of
a potential leak is found by visual,
audible, olfactory, or any other
detection method. .
(b) If an instrument reading of 10,000
ppm or greater is measured, a leak is
detected. . .. ',
(c)(l) When a leak is detected, it shall
be repaired as soon as practicable, but
not later than 15 calendar days after it is
detected, except as provided in
§ 265.1059.
(2) The first attempt at repair shall be
made no later than 5 calendar days after
each leak is detected.
(d) First attempts at repair include, -
but are not limited-to, the best practices
described under § 265.1p5?(e).
§265.1059 Standards: Delay of repair.
[a) Delay of repair of equipment for
which leaks have been detected will be
allowed if the repair is technically
infeasible without a hazardous waste
management unit shutdown. In such a
case, repair of this equipment shall
occur before the end of the next
hazardous waste management unit
shutdown. . . . .. .
(b) Delay of repair of equipment for
which leaks have been detected will be
allowed for equipment that is isolated
from the hazardous waste management
unit and that does not continue'to
contain or contact hazardous waste with
organic concentrations at least 10
percent by weight. '
(c) Delay of repair for valves will be
allowed if:
(1) The owner or operator determines
that emissions of purged material '
resulting from immediate repair are
greater than the emissions likely to
result from delay of repair.
(2) When repair procedures are :
effected, the purged material is collected
and destroyed or recovered in a control
device complying with § 265.1060. .
(d) Delay of repair for pumps, will be
allowed if:
(1) Repair requires the use of a dual
mechanical sea,l,system that includes a
barrier fluid system. \ Jtj'
(2) Repair is completed as soon as
practicable, but not later than 6 months
after the leak was detected.
(e) Delay of repair beyond a.
hazardous waste management unit ;
shutdown will be allowed for a valve if
valve assembly replacement is
necessary during the hazardous waste
management unit shutdown, valve
assembly supplies have been depleted,
and valve assembly supplies had been
sufficiently stocked before the supplies
were depleted. Delay of repair beyond
the next hazardous waste management
unit shutdown will not be allowed
unless the next hazardous waste
management unit shutdown occurs
sooner than 6 months after the first
hazardous waste management unit
shutdown.
§ 2S5.1060 Standards: Closed-vent
systems and. control devices.
Owners or operators of closed-
vent systems and control devices shall
comply with the provisions of
§ 265.1033.
§ 265.1061 Alternative standards for
valves in gas/vapor service or In light liquid
service: percentage of vaives allowed to
leak.
(a) An owner or operator subject to
the requirements of § 265.1057 may elect
to have all valves within a hazardous
waste management-unit comply with an
alternative standard which allows no
greater than 2 percent of the valves to
leak.
(b) The following requirements shall
. be met if an owner or operator decides
to comply with the alternative standard
of allowing 2 percent of valves to leak:
(!) An owner or operator must notify
the Regional Administrator that the
owner or operator has elected to comply
with the requirements of this section.
(2) A performance test as specified in
paragraph (c) of this section shall be
conducted initially upon designation,
annually, and at other times requested
by the Regional Administrator.
(3) If a valve leak is detected, it shall
be repaired in accordance with
§ 265.1057 (d) and (e).
(c).Performance tests shall be
conducted in th'e following manner:
(1) All valves subject to the
requirements in § 265.1057 within the
hazardous waste management unit shall
be monitored within 1 week by the
' methods specified in § 265.1063(b).
(2) If an instrument reading of 10,000
ppm or greater is measured, a leak is
detected. . . ...--.'
(3) The leak percentage shall be--
determined by dividing the number of
valves subject to the requirements in.
§ 265.1057 for which leaks are detected
by the total number of valves subject to
the requirements in § 265.1057 within the
hazardous waste management unit. -.;'
(d) If an owner or operator decides no
longer to comply with this section, the
owner or operator must notify the :
Regional Administrator in writing that
the work practice standard described in
§ 265.1057 (a] through Ce) will bs
followed. .
§ 2S5.1082 Alternative standards for
valves in gas/vapor service or In light Efquid
service: skip period leak detection and
repair.
(a)(l] An owner or operator subject to.
the requirements of § 265.1057 may elect
for all valves within a hazardous waste
management unit to comply-with one of
the alternative work practices specified.
in paragraphs (b) (2) and (3) of this
section.
(2) An owner or operator must notify. '
the Regional Administrator before ' ..'
implementing one of the alternative
work practices.
(b)(l) An owner or operator shall
comply with the requirements for
valves, as described in § 265.1057,
except as described in paragraphs (b)(2)
and (b}(3) of this section.
(2) After two consecutive quarterly
leak detection periods with the
percentage of valves leaking equal to or
less than 2 percent, an owner or
operator may begin to skip one of the
quarterly leak detection periods for the
valves subject to the requirements in
§ 265.1057. v
. (3) After five'consecutive quarterly
leak detection periods with the
percentage of valves leaking equal to or
less than 2 percent, an owner or
operator may begin to skip three of the
quarterly leak detection periods for the
valves subject to the requirements- in ,
§265.1057. .
(4) If the percentage of valves leaking
is greater than 2 percent, the owner or .
operators hall monitor monthly in
compliance with the requirements in
§ 265.1057, but may again elect to use
this section after meeting the
requirements of § 265.1057(c)(l).
§ 265.1063 Test methods and procedures.
(a) Each owner or operator subject to
the provisions of this subpart shall
comply with the test methods and
procedures requirements provided in
this section.- .' . -.
(b) Leak detection -monitoring, as : .
required in §§ 265.1052-265.1062, shall -
comply with the following requirements:
(1) Monitoring shaU-comply with
Reference Method 21 in 40 CFR Parf-60;
-------
25516
Federal Register / Vol; .55. No. 120 /. Thursday, June, 21. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
(2) The detection instrument shall.,
meet the performance criteria of
Reference Method 21.
(3) The instrument shall be calibrated
before use on each day of its use by the
procedures specified in Reference
Method 21. ' ' . ..
(4) Calibration gases shall be: '
- (i) Zero air (less than 10 ppm of ,
hydrocarbon in air).
(ii) A mixture of methane or n-hexane
and air at a concentration of
approximately, but less than. 10.000 ppm
methane or n-hexane. ,
(5) The instrument probe shall be
traversed around all potential leak
interfaces as close to the interface as
.possible as described in Reference
Method21.
(c) When equipment is tested for
compliance with no detectable
emissions, as required in §§ 265.1052(e),
26S.1053(i). 265.1054. and 265.1057(f); the
test shall comply with the following
requirements: .
(1) The requirements of paragraphs (b)
(1) through (4) of this section shall apply.
(2) The background level shall be
determined, as set forth in Reference '
,Method21. ' .
(3) The instrument probe shall be
traversed around all potential leak'
interfaces as close to the interface .as .
possible as described in Reference
Method 21*'<- ' ' '">"..;.
(4) The arithmetic difference between
the maximum concentration indicated
by the instrument and the background .
level is compared with 500 ppm for ;
determining compliance.
(d) In accordance with the waste
analysis plan required by § 265.13(b), an
owner or op erator of a facility must
determine, for each piece of equipment;
whether the equipment contains or'
contacts a,hazardous waste with
organic concentration that equals or
exceeds 10 percent by weight using the
following:
(1) Methods described in ASTM
Methods D 2267-88, E 163-87. E168-88. ;
E 260-85 (incorporated by reference
under § 260.11); '.
(2) Method 9060.or 8240 of SW-846, .
(incorporated by reference under
§260.11): or ,
(3) Application of the knowledge of
the nature of the hazardous waste
stream or the process by which it was
produced. Documentation of a waste
determination by knowledge is required.
Examples of documentation that shall .'
be used to support a determination
under this provision include production
process information documenting that.' .
no prganic.compounds are used,
information that the waste is generated.
by a process-that is identical.to a ; . ...
process at the same or another facility
that has previously been demonstrated
by direct measurement to have a total
organic content less than 10 percent, or
prior speciation analysis-results on the
same waste stream where it can also be
documented that no process changes
have occurred since that analysis that
could affect the waste total organic .
concentration.
(e) If an owner or operator determines
that a piece of equipment contains or
contacts a hazardous waste with
organic concentrations at least 10
percent by weight, the determination
can be revised only after following the
procedures in paragraph (d)(l) or (d)(2)
of this section. " ' .
(f) When an owner or operator and
the Regional Administrator do not agree
on whether a piece of equipment
contains or contacts a hazardous waste
with.organic concentrations at least 10
percent by weight, the procedures in
paragraph (d)(l) or (d)(2) of this section
can be used to resolve the dispute. -
(g) Samples used m determining the
percent organic content shall be.
representative of the highest total
organic content hazardous Waste that is
expected'to-be contained in or contact
the equipment.. -'. . '': " ... "..
(hj To determine if pumps or valves '
are ui'light liquid service, the vapor " '
pressures of constituents may be
obtained .from standard reference texts
or may be determined.by ASTM D-.. .
2879-86 (incorporated by reference
under § 260.11). . ;.
.(i) Performance tests to determine if a
control device achieves 95 weight.
percent organic emission reduction shall
comply with the procedures of .. . .;
§ 2654034 (c)(i) through (c)(4).
§ 265.1064 Recoitf keeping requirements.
(a)(l) Each owner or operator subject
to the provisions of this subpart shall
comply with the.recordkeeping
requirements.of this section.
(2) An owner or. operator of more than"
one. hazardous waste management unit .
subject to the provisions of .this subpart
may, comply with the recordkeeping
requirements for these hazardous waste
management-.units in-one recordkeeping f
system.if the system identifies each ..-.
record by each hazardous waste. . ;
management unit. ...... .. ..
(b) Owners.ahd operators must record
the following information in the facility
operating record:' . -
(1) For.each-piece of equipment to <
which subpart BB of part 265;applies:
, (i) Equipment identification number
; .and hazardous waste management unit
(identification. , . .. '. ' -. ' ?...
' (ii) Approximate locations within the
facility .(e^g., identify the hazardous -. .
waste management unit on a facility plot
plan).
(Hi) Type of equipment-(e.g.. a pump or
pipeline valve).
(iv) Percent-by-weight total organics
in the. hazardous waste stream at the
equipment.,
(v) Hazardous waste state at the
equipment (e.g., gas/vapor or liquid).
(vi) Method of- compliance with the'
standard (e.g., "monthly leak detection
and repair"' or "equipped-with dual
mechanical seals").
" (2) For facilities that comply with the
provisions of §265i033(a)(2), an ;
implementation schedule as specified in :
§ 265.1033(a)(2).. .' ; .-"'.... :
(3) Where an owner or operator , .
chooses to use test data to demonstrate
the organic removal efficiency or total
organic compound concentration . ;
achieved by the control device'i a ' ' '
performance te^t plan as specified, in .- .
§ 265,lp35(b)(3J. i '.,"/ , ;..-;
(4) Documentation .of compliance with;
§ 265.1060, including the'detailed design
documentatioh.or performance test . .
results specified^ § 265.1035(bM4).: ,
(c) When each leak is detected as . -.
specified in.:§§ 265.1052,265.1953, " . .
. 265.1057,and:265.1t$8, the-following '._
requirements' applyi . p -. .'.'." - - ;.
(1) A, weatherproof and readily visible
identification, marked with the; - ,,. .-
equipment ideritification.number,.the
date evidence of a-potential leak was...
found in accordance with I 265.1058(a),
arid'tiiedaie the'leak was detected,
shall be attached to the leaking
equipment -.-.'- ...-'.-
,(2) The identification on equipment
except on a valve, may. be removed after .
it has been repaired: - . :
(3) The idientification on-a valve may
be removed after it has been mpnitored.
for 2: successive -months as specified in ;;
§ 265.1057(c) and no leak has been
detected;during those 2 months.
(d) WJbien each leak is detected:as
- specified in i§.265.1052, 265.1053, -
'2654Q57, and :265.105a the following
information-shalL be recorded in an: ~
. . inspection Ipg-and shall be kept in-the
facility operating record: .-..
(1) The instrument and.operator.
-identification numbers and the . ' - :.
equipment identification number.
(2) The-date evidence of a potential ::
leak was found in accordance with v
§265.1058(a).- : ;
(3) TKe.date the leak was detected
and the dates of each attempt to repair
the'leak. . .-.- .--.;
(4) Repair methods applied in each
attempt to repair .the leak. . . ;
(5) '?Aboye l6,000';' if,the maximum
instrument reading measured by.'.the
methods specified in § 265;1063(b) after
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 120 / Thursday. June 21. 1990 /Rules and Regulations 25517
each repair attempt is equal to, or greater
. than 10,000 ppm. ' -
(6);"Repair delayed" and the reason
. for the delay if a leak is not repaired
within- 15' calendar days after discovery
of the leak. . ;.
- (7) Documentation -supporting1 th£
delay of repair of a valve in compliance
with § 265.1059(c).
(8) The signature of the owner or
opera tor , (or designate] whose decision
it was that repair could not be effected;
without, a hazardous waste -management
. unit-shutdown. ' '. .-.-.
(9.) The expected date of successful
: repair of the leak if a leak is not
: repaired within 15 calendaf.days.
(10) The date of successful repair of
the leak.- ' - - -.-..-
(e) Design 'documeritatipn'and '
monitoring, operating, and inspection
irifom>.atiqn for each closed-vent system
and control device required to coniply
with the provisions of § 265.1060 shall
. .be recorded, and kept- up-to-date in- the
facility- operating record ,as: specified' in :
§-265.l035(c). Design documentation is
specified in'3 -265,1035 (c)(l) and (c)(2)
and monitoring, operating, -and " : '
; mspectibri^Mpfmation iri'§.265.1035 -
c3c8;- - -:..-^ .:-. -. .- .
(ii) The background level measured
: .. . .
(f) For a contrbl dev|ce;6ther .than a
th.ermat vappr iricme.!;aior., 'catalytic .:
viapor 'incinerator,, flare, boiler, ^process
heater, condenseji-or. carbon-adsorption
system,.mQmtbrrag.aHd ; inspection.-.;
;information.'mdicatiBg proper operation '
and maintenance of the control device
must be recorded in" the facility :-'
operating record.' -; .
; (g) The fpllpwing-infonhatibh
pertaining to all equipment subject to
. the requirements in §§ 265.1052 'through
' . 265.1060 shall be recorded' in » log that
. is kept -in the facility operating record:'
(1) A.list; of identification numbers; for
equipment,(exeept welded fittings)
subject to me requirements of this
subpart. - : . -,. .
(2){i) A list of identification numbers
for equipment that the owner or, .
.operator elects to designate for no
. detectable-emissions,, as indicated by an
. instrument reading of less- than 500 ppm
, -above-background, under -the- provisions
of § § 265.1052(e), 265.1053{i), and
265.1057(f). . : . .. - :.
' (ii) The designation of this equipment
-. as subject to the requirements of : '" ' -.
§§ 265:1052(e),.265.1p53(i), or 265.1057(f)
shall be signed-by tne:ownerbr ' ;.
operator." '"' ' .. ..... .
(3) A list.of equipment identification ' '
numbers for pressure relief devices . ' '
required to comply with i^265.1054(aj. ' '
(4)'(i) -The dates of each 'compliance
test required in .§'§ 265.1052(e),:
:' 26o.ip53(i),:265.1054i'and 265;1057(f). ,
, . . . , _ieht' reading
measured at the":equipmeht during each.
compliance test.
(5) A list of identification numbers for
equipment in vacuum service.
. (h) The following information.
pertaining to all valves subject to the
requirements of § 265.1057 (g) and (h) .
.shall be recorded in a log that is kept hi
- the facility operating record:
(1) A list of identification numbers for
valves that are designated as unsafe to ,
mofu'tor, an explanation for each yalve.
stating why the valve is unsafe to .
monitor,, and the plan for monitoring ..
each valve.
(2) A list of identification numbers for
valves that are designated as difficult, to
monitor, an explanation for each valve
stating why the valve is difficult to
monitor, and the planned schedule for
monitoring each valve. '.
(i) The following information shall be
recorded in the facility, operating record
for valves complying" with § 265.1062: .
(1) A schedule of monitoring, .
(2) The percent of valves fourid :
leaking during each monitoring period.
0] The following information* shall be'
recorded in a log that is kept in the
'.. facility'operating,record:. .''': ,
(1).Criteria required in ,:-.::; ;
§§ 265:1052(d)(5)(ii) and 265.1053(e)(2)
and.an explanation of the criteria.-
: .(2) Any changes to-these criteria-and
the reasons for the changes..'.':- . ..
(k) The .following information shall be-'.
recorded in a log that is kept in the :
facility operating record for use in':' :
determining.exemptibns as provided In
the applicability sectionbf this subpart'.
and other specific subparts:
(1) An analysis determining-'the design
capacity of the hazardous waste
management unit. " . - , ..--.<
. (2) A statement listing the hazardous :
waste influent to and effluent from each
hazardous waste management unit .
subject to the requirements hi
§ i 265.1052 through 265.1060 and ah
analysis determining whether these
hazardous wastes are heavy liquids.
{33 An up-to-date analysis and the '
supporting information and data used to
determine whether or not equipment is
subject to the'requirements'in -'
§§ 265.1052 through 265.1060. The record
shall include supporting documentation
as required by § 265.1063'(d)(3) when-' :
application of the knowledge of the
nature of the hazardous waste stream or
the process: by which it was produced is '
usedMf the owner or operator takes ahy
action (e.g.; changing the process.fhat '-' '
produced the waste) that couid resuli in ' :
an increase in the total organic content"' ;
of the waste contained in or contacted - .
by equiphient determined not to be
. subject to-the requirements in:
§§ 265.1052 through 265.1060, then a hew
determination is..required.
(1) Records of the equipment leak " " '
mformationrequh-ed by paragraph (d) of"
this section and .the operating .,; : ' '
information, required by paragraph (e) of
: this section need be kept only 3 years. .-
(m) The.owner or operator of any
facility that is subject to this .subpart .- .
: and to regulations at 40 CFR part 60, '
subpart VV, or 40 GFR part 61, subpart .
V, may elect to 'determine compliance "
with this subpart by documentation
either pursuant to'§ 265.1064 of this '.'.
subpart, or pursuant to those provisions
: of 40 CER part 60 or 61, to the extent :
: that the documentation tinder the
: regulation at 40 CFR part 60 or part 61 . :
duplicates the documentation required . ;
under, this subpart. The documentation
; under the regulation at 40 CFR part 60=or
part 61 shall be kept with or made .- :
readily available with the facility > ,
operating record. - ''-: . ^ .
(Approved by the Office' of Management and -
.Budget under' control number. 2060-0195) . .
§§265,1065-265.1079 {Reserved] ^ ."';'. -:
PART 270 EPA-ADMINISTERED
PERMIT PROGRAMS: THE
HAZARDOUS WASTE PERMIT .
PROGRAM -, .
19. The authority citation for part 270
continues to. read as follows: '/_'. ''
Authority: 42 U.JS.C. 6905, 6^12, 6921^6927;
6930, 6934, 6935,.^937-6i939. and 6974. '. . :.
Subpart B Permit Application
20. Section 270.14 is amended/by ;
revisuig the last sentence of paragraph ' '
(b)(5) and by revising paraigraphs (b)(8)
(iv), (v), and by adding paragraph ' "
(b)(6)(vi) to read as follows: " :
§ 270.14 Contents of Part a- General .
requirements : . . . .
. . .
(5) * * * Include; where applicable",
as part of the inspection schedule,
specific requirements in §§ 264.174, .
264.193(i), 264.195, 264.226, 264.254,
264:273, 264.303, 264.602, 264.1033,
264.1052, 264.1053, and 264.1058.
. . . . .
(iv) Mitigate, effects of equipment .'.
failure and.power outages; ..-..
(v) Prevent undue rexposure of '
personnel. to hazardous -waste (for
example,;protective clothing);:and . . r : :
(yij Prevent'releases to-'atmbsph'ere."-
-------
,25538 Federal Register / .,Vol.'*55. No. .-120 / .Thursday, June 21,, 1990 ./ Rules aad .Regulations
Section 27CX24 is added to read as
follows: .
§ 270.24 Specific Part B informaffon
requirements for process vents.
Except as otherwise provided in
§ 264.1. owners and operators of , '.
facilities that have process vents to
which subpart AA of part 264 applies
must provide the following additional,
information: , .
(a) For facilities that cannot install a
closed-vent system and control device
to comply with the provisions of 4O-CFR
264 subpart AA on "the effective date
that the facility becomes subject to the
provisions- oF40 CFR 264 or 2%S subpart
AA. an implementation'schedule as
specified in § 264.1033fa)(2).
(b) Documentation of compliance with
the process vent standards in § 264.1032.
including:
(1) Information and data identifying
alt affected process vents, annual
throughput and operating hours of each
affected unit, estimated emission rates
for each affected vent and for the
overall facility (i.e., the total emissions
for all affected vents at the facility}, and
the approximate location; within- the,
facility of each affected unit.(e.g., .
identify .the hazardous waste, .. .
management units on a facility plot-
plan). , ' . .-.
(2} Information and data supporting -
. estimates of vent emissions and ',
emission'reduction achieved by add-on.'
control devices based on engineering-,
calculations or source tests. For the;
purpose of determining compliance.
estimates of vent emissions and ;. -
emission reductions must be made using
operating parameter values (e.g~
temperatures, flow rates, or
concentrations) that represent the
conditions that exist when the waste
management-unit is operating af. trie .,
highest load or capacity level
reasonably expected to occur.
(3) Information and data used to
determine whether or not a process vent
is subject to the requirements of
§264.1032.
(c) Where'an owner or operator
applies for permission to use a control
device other than a thermal vapor
incinerator, catalytic vapor incinerator.
flare, boiler, process heater, condenser,
or carbon adsorption system to comply
with the requirements of § 264.1032, and
chooses to use test data to determine the
organic removal efficiency or the total
organic compound concentration '
achieved by the control device, a
performance test plan, as specified in
§.284.103S[b){3). ' . - .
(d) Documentation of compliance with
§ 264.1033. including: . -
(1) A list of aH. information references "
and sources used in preparing the
documentation.
(2) Records including the dates of
each compliance test required by
§264.103{k}- -
(3) A design analysis, specifications,
drawings, schematics, and piping and
instrumentation diagrams based on the
appropriate sections of "APTI Course .
415: Control of Gaseous Emissions"
(incorporated by reference as specified
in § 260.11} or other engineering texts
acceptable to this Regional .
Administrator that present basic control
. device design information. The design
analysis shall address the vent stream
characteristics and control device -
operation parameters as specified in
§ 26il035{b)f4)(ni}.
(4) A statement signed and dated by
the owner or operator certifying'that me
operating parameters used in the design
analysis reasonably represent the
conditions that exist when the
hazardous waste management unit is or
would be operating at the highest load
or capacity-level reasonably expected to
occur. , '-'... .....
(5) A statement signed and dated by
'the Downer ODOperator certifying that the
control device is designed to operate-at
an efficiency of 95 weight percent or
greater unless the total organic emission
limits of § 264J.032Ca) for affected
process vents at the facility can be
attained by a control device involving ,
v. vapor recovery at an efficiency less than'
95 weight percent, '..-..-
(Approved by the Office of Management and
Budget under confrot number 2Q60-0195J '
22..Section 270.25 is added as follows:
§27025 SpecHfcpartBftrformafion
. requirements for equipment. .
Except as-otherwise provided in. .
§ 264.1, owners and operators of
facilities that have equipment to which
subpart BB of part -264 applies must ' ,
provide the fo&owmg additional
information: .
(a) For each piece of equipment to
which subpart BB of part 264 applies:
(1) Equipment identification number
and-hazardous waste management" unit
identification. . . -.
(2) Approximate locations wifcin- the
.facility (e-g^. identity, the hazardous
waste management unit on a'facility plot
. plan)..
(a) Type of equipment (e.g, a pump .or
pipeline valve). . .
(4) Percent by weight total organics in
the hazardous waste stream at the
equipment.. . .
(5}.Hazardous waste state at the
equipment [e.g.,-gas/vapor or liquid).
(6} Method of compliance with the -
standard (e.g., "monthly leak detection
and repair" or "equipped with, dual
mechanical seals"). ".'.
(b) For facilities that cannot install a
closed-vent system and control device
to comply with the provisions of 48 CFR
264- subpart BB on the effective date that
the. .facility becomes subject to the
provisions of 40 CFR 264 or 265 subpart
BB. an implementation schedule as
specified in § 264.1033(a)(2).
(e) Where an owner or operator
applies for permission to use a coated
device ether, than a thermal vapor
incinerator, catalytic vapor incinerator.
flare, boiler, process heater, condenser.-
or carbon adsorption system and-
chooses to use test data to determine the
organic removal efficiency or the total
organic compound concentration'
achieved by the control device, a
performance test plan as specified in '
§ 264.1035{b)(3).
(d) Documentation that demonstrates
compliance with the equipment
standards in §1264.1052 to 264.1059.
. This- documentation shall contain the
records required under § 264.1064. The
Regional Administrator may request
further documentation before deciding if
compliance has been, demonstrated.
(e) Documentation to demonstrate .
compliance with J 264.1060 shall include
the following information:,
- (1) A list o£ all information, references .
and sources used in preparihg-the
documentation. -
(2) Records including the dates of .
. each compliance test required b>y
§264.10330); - ' - -
(3) A design-analysis, specifications.
drawings, schematics, and piping and
instrumentation diagrams based on the
appropriate sections of "ATPI Course
415: Control of Gaseous Emissions"
(incorporated by -'ref ereace as specified
in § 26O11) or other engineering texts -
acceptable to the Regional
Administrator that present basic control
device design information. The design
analysis shall address the vent stream
characteristics and control device
operation, parameters as specified in
& 264.1035{bX4}tiH).
(4) A statement signed and dated by
. the owner or operator certifying that the
operating-parameters used in the design
analysis reasonably represent the
conditions that exist when the
hazardous waste management unit is
operating at the highest load or capacity
level reasonably expected to occur.
(5) A statement signed and dated by
the owner or operator certifying that the
control device is designed to operate at
,an efficiency of 95 weight percent or ... -.
greater.-. . - -...-..-
-------
Federal Register /Vol. 55, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 1990 /.Rules and Regulations .25519:
(Approved by the Office of Management and
Budget under control number 2060-0915)
PART 271REQUIREMENTS FOR
AUTHORIZATION OF STATE
HAZARDOUS WASTE PROGRAMS
: 23. The authority citation for part 271
continues to read as follows:'
Authority: 42 U.S.C.: 6905, 6912(a), and 6926.
Subpart ARequirements for Final
Authorization
24..Section 271.1(j) is amended by
adding the following entry to Table 1 in
chrpnologica! order by date of
publication:
§ 271.1 Purpose and scope.
ffl''*'* ' -
TABLE 1: REGULATIONS IMPLEMENTING
THE HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE
AMENDMENTS OF 1984 .
Promul-
gation
date .
tlnsert
date of
publi-'
cation].
Title of '
.regulation
. , .# . *
. Process Vent.
and Equipment
- Leak. Organic
Air Emission .
; Standards for
Owners and
Operators of
Hazardous
Waste- .
Treatment,
Storage, and ', .
Disposal
Facilities.
Federal
Register
refer- '
i C6_. ''
(Insert
FR.
ref-
erence
on
date of
publi-
cation].
'Effective
' date
[Insert
effec-
tive
date.]
[FR Doc. 90-14260 Filed 6-20-90; 8:45 am)
BiLLINS CODE 6560-50-M
-------
sr
------- |