United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park NC 27711
May 1996
Air
o-EPA Basis and Purpose
Document for the
Development of Final
National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Off-Site Waste
and Recovery Operations
-------
X DISCLAIMER
•:~- This report has been reviewed by the Emission Standards Division
1.1 of the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, EPA, and
o approved for publication. Mention of trade names or commercial
products is not intended to constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use. Copies of this report are available from
National Technical Information Services, 5285 Port Royal Road,
Springfield, VA 22161.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5, Library (PL-12J)
77 West Jackson Boulevard, 12th Floor
Chicago, !L 60604-3590
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Basis and Purpose Document for the
Development of Final National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for
Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations
Prepared by:
//£ruce C. Jo/dan /(Dat€
Director,/Emission Standards Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
1. The final standards will reduce air toxic emissions from
facilities that receive waste and recoverable materials from
cff-site for treatment, storage, disposal, recovery, or
recycling. At affected facilities, the standards establish
control requirements for hazardous air pollutants (HAP)
emitted from tanks, surface impoundments, containers,
transfer systems, and equipment leaks. These are maximum
achievable control technology (MACT) standards, promulgated
under the authority of Section 112 of the Clean Air Act.
2. Copies of this document have been sent to the following
Federal Departments: Agriculture, Commerce, Defense,
Energy, Health and Human Services, Interior, Labor, and
Transportation; the Office of Management and Budget; the
National Science Foundation; and other interested parties.
3. Copies of this document may be obtained from:
National Technical Information Services
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
4. For additional information contact:
Ms. Michele Aston
Emission Standards Division (MD-13)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
RTP, NC 27711
in
-------
CONTENTS
Chapter Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1
1.1 SUMMARY OF RULE CHANGES SINCE PROPOSAL 1-2
1.1.1 Applicability 1-3
1.1.2. General Standards 1-8
1.1.3 Treatment Standards 1-9
1.1.4 Tank Standards 1-9
1.1.5 Oil-Water Separator Standards 1-10
1.1.6 Surface Impoundment Standards 1-11
1.1.7 Container Standards 1-11
1.1.8 Transfer System Standards 1-15
1.1.9 Process Vent Standards 1-15
1.1.10 Equipment Leak Air Standards 1-15
l.l.ll Control Device and Closed-Vent System
Standards . . 1-16
1.1.12 Test Methods and Procedures 1-16
1.1.13 Recordkeeping and Reporting 1-16
1.2 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS 1-17
2.0 COMMENTERS ON PROPOSED RULE 2-1
3.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON PROPOSED RULE 3-1
3.1 RULE APPLICABILITY 3-1
3.2 IMPACT ANALYSIS 3-16
3.3 SELECTION OF BASIS FOR PROPOSED RULE 3-21
3.4 RULE TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS 3-26
3.5 RULE IMPLEMENTATION REQUIREMENTS 3-33
-------
TABLES
Number
2-1. LIST OF PUBLIC COMMENTERS ON PROPOSED OFF-SITE
WASTE AND RECOVERY OPERATIONS NESHAP 2-3
VI
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is developing
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)
under the authority of Section 112 of the Clean Air Act for
off-site waste and recovery operations that emit hazardous air
pollutants (HAP). The NESHAP applies to specific types of
facilities that are determined to be major sources of HAP
emissions and receive certain wastes, used oil, and used solvents
from off-site locations for storage, treatment, recovery, or
disposal at the facility. The rule requires use of maximum
achievable control technology (MACT) to reduce HAP emissions from
tanks, surface impoundments, containers, oil-water separators,
individual drain systems and other material conveyance systems,
process vents, and equipment leaks. The purpose of this document
is to present the EPA's response to major public comments on the
proposed Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP.
The EPA proposed the Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations
NESHAP on October 13, 1994 (refer to 59 FR 51913). A proposed
regulatory text for the rule and the background information
document (BID) (EPA-453/R-94-070a) that presented information
used in the development of the proposed rule was made available
to the public for review and comment. A 90-day comment period
from October 13, 1994 to January 11, 1995 (an initial 60 days
plus a 30-day extension) was provided to accept written comments
from the public on the proposed rule. The opportunity for a
public hearing was provided to allow interested persons to
present oral comments to the EPA on the rulemaking. However, the
EPA did not receive a request for a public hearing, so a public
1-1
-------
hearing was not held.
The EPA had extensive follow-up discussions with various
commenters regarding specific issues initially raised in their
written comments that were submitted to the Agency during the
comment period. Copies of correspondence and other information
exchanged between the EPA and the commenters during the post-
comment period are available for public inspection in the docket
for the rulemaking.
All of the comments received by the EPA were reviewed and
carefully considered by the Agency. Changes to the? rule were
made when the EPA determined it to be appropriate.
1.1 SUMMARY OF RULE CHANGES SINCE PROPOSAL
The regulatory text that EPA proposed for the Off-Site Waste
and Recovery Operations NESHAP included all of the requirements
for the rule in a single subpart to be added to 40 CFR part 63.
The EPA decided to promulgate the final requirements for the Off-
Site Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP as a series of six new
subparts added to 40 CFR part 63. These subparts are Subpart DD
— National Emission Standards for Off-Site Waste and Recovery
Operations, Subpart 00 — National Emission Standards for Tanks -
Level 1, Subpart PP — National Emission Standardr for Containers,
Subpart QQ — National Emission Standards for Surface
Impoundments, Subpart RR — National Emission Standards for
Individual Drain Systems, and Subpart W — National Emission
Standards for Oil-Water Separators and Organic-Water Separators.
These six subparts are referred to collectively in this document
as the "Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP."
The final Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP has
been significantly revised in response to comments on the
proposed rule. Also, the EPA has made many changes to the
specific air emission control requirements in the Off-Site Waste
and Recovery Operations NESHAP to clarify the EPA's intent in the
application and implementation of these requirements and to make
these requirements consistent and up-to-date with EPA decisions
made for other related NESHAP and RCRA rules. The substantive
1-2
-------
changes to the Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP
since proposal are summarized below.
1.1.1 Applicability
The applicability of the Off-Site Waste and Recovery
Operations NESHAP has been revised to address comments on the
proposed rule and to clarify the specific waste management and
recovery operations that the EPA intends to be subject to the
rule. These changes to the applicability section of the rule
include: (l) deleting the proposed term "recoverable material"
and defining new terms "off-site material", "used oil", and "used
solvent" to explicitly specify the types of materials that the
EPA is regulating under the rule; (2) adding a list of the
specific wastes and other materials which can be received at a
plant site but not considered by the EPA to be off-site materials
for the purpose of implementing the rule; and (3) using an
inclusive format that limits the rule applicability to six
specific types of waste management and recovery operations. A
detailed description of each of these changes is presented in the
following paragraphs.
The Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP is
applicable to owners and operators of a plant site that meet both
of the following conditions: (1) the plant site is a major source
of HAP emissions as defined in the General Provisions to 40 CFR
part 63; and (2) at the plant site, the owner or operator manages
"off-site material", as defined in the rule, in one or more of
the specific waste management or recovery operations listed in
the rule. If either one (or both) of the conditions do not apply
to a plant site, then the owner and operator of the plant site is
not subject to the Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP
and no action is required by the owner or operator in regards to
this rule.
For the purpose of implementing the Off-Site Waste and
Recovery Operations NESHAP, a "plant site" is all contiguous or
adjoining property that is under common control including
properties that are separated only by a road or other public
right-of-way. Common control includes properties that are owned,
1-3
-------
leased, or operated by the same entity, parent entity,
subsidiary, or any combination thereof. A unit or group of units
within a contiguous property that are not under common control
(e.g., a wastewater treatment unit or solvent recovery unit
located at the site but is sold to a different company) is a
different plant site.
The first applicability condition for the Off-Site Waste and
Recovery Operations NESHAP is determined by whether or not the
plant-site is a major source of HAP emissions as defined in
40 CFR 63.2. In general, this would be a plant site that emits
or has the potential to emit considering controls, in total, 10
tons per year or more of any one HAP or 25 tons per year of more
of any combination of HAP. If the plant site is an area source,
then the owner and operator of the plant site is not subject to
the Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP regardless of
the types of materials received at from off-site.
The second applicability condition involves the combined
requirement that "off-site material" must be received at the
plant site and this material must be managed in one of the six
types of waste management or recovery operations specified in the
rule. The first part of the applicability condition involves
determining whether an "off-site material" as defined in the rule
is received at the plant site. The second part of the
applicability condition involves determining whether one or more
of the following types of waste management or recovery operations
is located at the plant site: (1) a hazardous waste treatment,
storage, and disposal facility (TSDF) regulated under 40 CFR part
264 or 265 that manages waste received from off-site; (2) a
wastewater treatment facility that manages wastewater received
from off-site and this facility is exempted from regulation as a
TSDF under 40 CFR 264.1(g) (6) or 40 CFR 265.1(c) (10); (3) a
wastewater treatment facility other than a publicly-owned
treatment works (POTW) that manages wastewaters received from
off-site and operation of this facility is the predominant
function performed at the plant site; (4) a facility that
recycles off-site material and this facility is exempted from
1-4
-------
regulation as a TSDF under 40 CFR 264.Kg)(2) or 40 CFR
265.l(c)(6); (5) a facility in which used solvents received from
off-site are reprocessed or recovered; and (6) a facility in
which used oil received from off-site is reprocessed or
re-refined and this facility is regulated under 40 CFR 279
subpart F - Standards for Used Oil Processors and Refiners.
For the purpose of implementing the rule, "off-site
material" is defined to be a material for which all three of the
following criteria apply: (1) the material is a "waste", "used
oil", or "used solvent" as defined in the rule; (2) this material
is delivered, transferred, or otherwise moved to the plant site
from another location; and (3) this material contains one or more
of the specific HAP constituents listed in Table 1 in the rule.
If the material received at the plant site does not meet any one
(or combination) of these criteria, then the material is not an
"off-site material" under the rule.
The term "waste" used for the final Off-Site Waste and
Recovery Operations NESHAP is the same definition proposed for
the rule. Waste types that EPA does not intend to be regulated
under the Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP are
specifically listed in the final rule. For the purpose of the
implementing the Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP,
none of the following wastes are "off-site materials": household
waste as defined in 40 CFR 258.2; radioactive mixed waste managed
in accordance with all applicable regulations under Atomic Energy
Act and Nuclear Waste Policy Act authorities; waste that is
generated by remedial activities required under the RCRA
corrective action authorities (RCRA sections 3004(u), 3004(v), or
3008(h)), CERCLA authorities, or similar Federal or State
authorities; waste containing HAP that is generated by
residential households (e.g., old paint, home garden pesticides)
and subsequently is collected as a community service by
government agencies, businesses, or other organizations for the
purpose of promoting the proper disposal of this waste; waste
that is generated by or transferred from units complying with all
applicable regulations under 40 CFR 63 subparts F and G -
1-5
-------
National Emission Standards for Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants
from the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry; waste
containing benzene that is generated by or transferred from units
complying with all applicable requirements specified by §
61.342(b) under 40 CFR 61 subpart FF - National Emission
Standards for Benzene Waste Operations for a facility at which
-he total annual benzene quantity from facility waste is equal to
or greater than 10 Mg/yr; and ship ballast water that is pumped
from a ship to an on-shore wastewater treatment facility.
"Used oil" means any oil refined from crude oil or any
synthetic oil that has been used and as a result of such use is
contaminated by physical or chemical impurities. This definition
is consistent with the definition used by the EPA for the RCRA
used oil management standards under 40 CFR 279 subpart F.
"Used solvent" means a solvent composed of mixtures of one
or more aliphatic hydrocarbons or aromatic hydrocarbons that has
been used and as a result of such use is contaminated by physical
or chemical impurities.
Based on the applicability conditions for the final Off-Site
Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP, an owner or operator is not
subject to the rule and no action is required by the rule for the
following cases. If a plant site is not a major source of HAP
emissions, then tue owner and operator of the plant site are not
subject to the Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP
regardless of whether the site receives off-site material. If at
a plant site is located one or more of the specific waste
management or recovery operations listed in the rule but off-site
material received at the plant site is not managed in these
operations, then the owner and operator of the plant site are not
subject to the Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP. In
a case when a plant site receives off-site material and is a
major source of HAP emissions but there is not one of the waste
management or recovery operations listed in the rule located at
the site, then owner and operator of the plant site are not
subject to the Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP.
At a plant site subject to the Off-Site Waste and Recovery
1-6
-------
Operations NESHAP, the rule only applies to the affected sources
used to manage off-site material in the waste management and
recovery operations specified in the rule that are located at the
plant site. Units and equipment used to manage off-site material
at the plant site but are not part of one of the waste management
or recovery operations specified in the rule are not affected
sources under the rule.
The first affected source for the Off-Site Waste and
Recovery Operations NESHAP is the group of tanks, surface
impoundments, oil-water and organic-water separators, transfer
systems, and containers used to manage off-site material in each
of the waste management and recovery operations specified in the
rule that are located at the plant site. The second affected
source for the rule is the group of process vents on units in
each of the waste management and recovery operations specified in
the rule that are located at the plant site. The third affected
source for the rule is the group of equipment components
consisting of pumps, compressors, agitators, pressure relief
devices, sampling connection systems, open-ended valves and
lines, valves, connectors, and instrumentation systems that
contain or contact off-site material in each of the waste
management and recovery operations specified in the rule that are
located at the plant site.
The compliance date for existing sources subject to the Off-
Site Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP (i.e., affected sources
that commenced construction or reconstruction before October 13,
1994) to meet the air emission control requirements of the rule
is beginning 3 years after the rule promulgation date. If
management of off-site material in the source is discontinued by
this date, then source would no longer subject to the rule. On
the other hand, if an existing waste management operation or
recovery operation does not presently receive off-site material
but begins receiving off-site materials for the first time
3 years after the rule promulgation date (and meets the other
applicability conditions in the rule), then the source is a new
source subject to the rule. In this case, the owner or operator
1-7
-------
of the source must achieve compliance with the provisions of the
rule upon the first date that the waste management operation or
recovery operation begins to manage the off-site material.
Finally, the list of the specific HAP constituents for the
Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP (Table 1 in Subpart
DD) was revised by the EPA for the final rule. The EPA decided
to delete eight chemicals from the proposed list because of the
low potential for these chemicals to be emitted from the waste
management and recovery operations subject to the rule. The
criterion used to characterize and evaluate emission potential
was based on a chemical constituent's Henry's law constant. The
following chemical compounds were deleted from the proposed list:
acrylic acid, aniline, o-cresol, dibutylphthalate,
1,1-dimethylhydrazine, formaldehyde, methyl hydrazine, and
n-nitrosodimethylamine.
1.1.2. General Standards
Several major changes have been made to the general
standards for the final rule. First, the average VOHAP
concentration action level for off-site material required to be
managed in the units using air emission controls under the rule
has been changed to 500 ppmw (as determined at the point-of-
delivery). Units- managing off-site materials determined by the
owner or operator to have average VOHAP concentrations that
remain less than 500 ppmw are not required to use air emission
controls under the rule.
The second change is land disposal units have been deleted
as an affected source. The final Off-Site Waste and Recovery
Operations NESHAP places no restrictions on the disposal of
wastes in land disposal units.
A third change is the addition of an exemption to the
general standards in the final Off-Site Waste and Recovery
Operations NESHAP that relates to the treatment of the off-site
material. This exemption provides that an off-site material
management unit is exempted from the air emission control
requirements if the off-site material placed in the unit is a
hazardous waste that meets the numerical concentration limits,
1-8
-------
applicable to the hazardous waste, as specified in 40 CFR part
268 - Land Disposal Restrictions under both of the following
tables: (1) Table "Treatment Standards for Hazardous Waste" in
40 CFR 268.40, and (2) Table UTS - "Universal Treatment
Standards" in 40 CFR 268.48.
1.1.3 Treatment Standards
The final Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP
provides owners or operators with a selection of alternative
provisions for determining when a treated off-site material is no
longer required to be managed in units meeting the air emission
control requirements of the rule. The proposed treatment
alternatives have been revised where appropriate to reflect the
new action level of 500 ppmw and additional alternatives have
been added to the rule to provide greater flexibility to the
owner or operator in the treatment of off-site materials.
1-1-4 Tank Standards
The tank standards have been revised to address comments on
the proposed requirements, to be consistent with tank standards
established for related NESHAP source categories, and to reduce
the inspection, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements. In general, the final Off-Site Waste and Recovery
Operations NESHAP establishes two levels of air emission control
for tanks managing off-site materials having a maximum HAP vapor
pressure less than 76.6 kilopascals [kPa]. The control level
applicable to a tank required to use air emission controls is
determined by the tank design capacity and the maximum organic
HAP vapor pressure of the off-site material in the tank.
Different capacity and vapor pressure limits have been
established for tanks determined to be part of an existing
affected source and those determined to be part of a new affected
source. Tanks used for waste stabilization processes regardless
of the tank design capacity are required to use Tank Level 2 air
emission controls. The designation of which tanks are required
to use controls and the required control level for the tank are
specified in 40 CFR 63 subpart DD — National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Off-Site Waste and Recovery
1-9
-------
Operations. The specific air emission control requirements for
Tank Level 1 controls are specified in 40 CFR 63 subpart 00 —
National Emission Standards for Tanks - Level l. The specific
air emission control requirements for Tank Level 2 controls
remain in 40 CFR 63 subpart DD.
The tank capacity limits for existing tanks in which the
maximum HAP vapor pressure of the off-site material in the tank
is less than 76.6 kPa have been corrected to be consistent with
the EPA's original intent to be compatible with other RCRA and
NESHAP air emission standards already promulgated by the Agency
which potentially could be applicable to the same tank. The
proposed rule was incorrectly drafted to exclude existing tanks
having a design capacity less than 75 m3 (approximately
20,000 gallons) from using any air emission controls. The EPA
never intended to exclude this group of tanks from the Off-Site
Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP. Under the final rule, when
applicable, use of Tank Level 1 air emission controls is required
for an existing tank having a design capacity less than 75 m3.
For a tank required to use Tank Level 1 controls, the final
rule specifies that the off-site material be managed in a tank
using a fixed-roof. For the Tank Level 2 controls, the final
rule requires that off-site material be managed in one of the
following: (1) a fixed roof tank equipped with an internal
floating roof; (2) a tank equipped with an external floating
roof; (3) a tank vented through a closed-vent system to a control
device; (4) a pressure tank; or (5) a tank located inside an
enclosure that is vented through a closed-vent system to an
enclosed combustion control device.
1.1.5 Oil-Water Separator Standards
Under the final Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations
NESHAP, individual air emission control requirements have been
established for oil-water separator or organic-waster separators
(referred to collectively hereafter in this document as
"separators"). For each separator required to use controls under
the rule, the owner or operator is required to control air
1-10
-------
emissions from the separator by installing and operating on each
section of the unit either a floating roof or a fixed-roof that
is vented through a closed-vent system to a control device. The
designation of which separators are required to use controls is
specified in 40 CFR 63 subpart DD — National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Off-Site Waste and Recovery
Operations. The specific air emission control requirements are
specified in 40 CFR 63 subpart W — National Emission Standards
for Oil-Water and Organic-Water Separators.
1.1.6 Surface Impoundment Standards
Revisions have been made to the surface impoundment
standards so that, where relevant and appropriate, the
inspection, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements
for surface impoundments are consistent with the requirements
established for tanks and separators. The designation of which
surface impoundments are required to use controls is specified in
40 CFR 63 subpart DD — National Emission Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants from Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations. The
specific air emission control requirements are specified in
40 CFR 63 subpart QQ — National Emission Standards for Surface
Impoundments.
1.1.7 Container Standards
The container standards have been significantly revised to
address comments on the proposed requirements, to make the Off-
Site Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP rule compatible with
the existing U.S. Department cxf Transportation (DOT) regulations
for transporting hazardous materials, and to reduce the
inspection, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements. The designation of which containers are required
to use controls and the required control level for the container
are specified in 40 CFR 63 subpart DD — National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Off-Site Waste and
Recovery Operations. The specific air emission control
requirements for each control level are specified in 40 CFR 63
subpart PP — National Emission Standards for Containers.
The revised container standards for the Off-Site Waste and
1-11
-------
Recovery Operations NESHAP establish three levels of air emission
control. The control level applicable to a container is
determined by the container design capacity, the organic content
of the material in the container, and use of the container. For
example, containers with a design capacity less than or equal to
O.lm3 (approximately 26 gallons) are not subject to any
requirements under the rule.
Under the final rule, Container Level 1 controls are
required for the following container categories (except when the
container remains uncovered for waste stabilization processes):
(1) containers having a design capacity greater than O.lm3 and
less than or equal to 0.46 m3 (approximately 119 gallons); and
(2) containers with a design capacity greater than 0.46 m3 and
used to manage off-site materials that do not meet the definition
of "light material service" as specified in the rule (i.e.,
off-site materials for which the vapor pressure of one or more of
the components in the material is greater than 0.3 kPa at 20 °C,
and 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). Container Level 2 controls are
required for containers with a design capacity greater than
0.46 m3 and used for "light material service", except when the
container remains uncovered for waste stabilization processes.
Container Level 3 controls are required for containers having a
design capacity greater than O.lm3 that must remain uncovered or
continuously vented for waste stabilization processes.
For the containers required to use Container Level 1
controls, the final rule requires that the off-site material be
managed either: (l) in a container that meets the relevant DOT
regulations on packaging hazardous materials for transportation
under 49 CFR parts 173, 178, 179, and 180; (2) a covered
container that meets the requirements specified in the final
rule. No additional requirements are specified by the final rule
for containers complying with the applicable DOT regulations. In
the case when an owner or operator elects to comply with the
1-12
-------
covered container requirements (i.e., non-DOT containers), the
container must be equipped with a tight-fitting cover that has no
visible gaps, spaces, holes, or other openings. The rule does
require a visual inspection when the cover is applied and,
thereafter, annually if the container remains in on-site storage
for a period longer than 1 year. No testing for detectable
organic emissions using Method 21 is required. No recordkeeping
and reporting are required under the final rule for containers
using Container Level 1 controls.
For the containers required to use Container Level 2
controls, the final rule requires that the off-site material be
managed in one of the following: (1) a container that meets the
relevant DOT regulations on packaging hazardous materials for
transportation under 49 CFR parts 173, 178, 179, and 180; or
(2) a container that has been demonstrated within the preceding
12 months to operate with no detectable organic emissions by
using Method 21; or (3) a container that has been demonstrated
within the preceding 12 months to be vapor-tight by using
Method 27. No additional requirements are specified by the final
rule for containers complying with the applicable DOT
regulations. Specific design, operating, inspection and
monitoring, repair, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements for
containers tested using either Method 21 or 27 are specified in
the rule.
For the containers required to use Container Level 3
controls, the final rule requires that an open container be
placed in an enclosure vented through a closed-vent system to a
control device or a covered container be vented directly to a
control device. If an enclosure is used, the enclosure is to be
designed in accordance with the criteria for a permanent total
enclosure as specified in 40 CFR 52.741, Appendix B, Procedure T
— Criteria for and Verification of a Permanent or Temporary Total
Enclosure.
Requirements for loading off-site material into a container
have been revised since proposal. Under the final rule there are
no requirements for loading off-site material into containers
1-13
-------
using Container Level 1 controls. For containers using Container
Level 2 controls, the loading requirements have been revised to
allow flexibility to use any appropriate loading method that will
minimize exposure of the off-site material to the atmosphere and
thereby reduce organic air emissions, to the extent practical
considering the physical properties of the off-site material and
good engineering and safety practices. Examples of container
loading procedures that the EPA considers to meet these
requirements include, but are not limited to, using a submerged-
rill pipe or other submerged-fill method to load liquids into the
container; a vapor-balancing system or a vapor-recovery system to
collect and control the vapors displaced from the container
during filling operations; or a fitted opening in the top of a
container through which the regulated-material is filled, with
subsequent purging of the transfer line before removing it from
the container opening.
The inspection, monitoring, reccrdkeeping, and reporting
requirements for containers have been significantly simplified
from those proposed. Owners and operators of containers using
either Container Level 1 or Container Level 2 controls in
accordance with the provisions of the rule are required to
visually inspect the container and its cover arid closure devices
to check for defeats at the time the owner or operator first
accepts possession of the container at the facility site with the
exception of those containers emptied within 24 hours of being
received. Also, in the case when a container used for managing
regulated-material remains at the facility site for a period of 1
year or more, the container and its cover and closure devices are
to be visually inspected to check for defects at least once every
12 months.
There are no requirements for periodic Method 21 leak
monitoring of containers. There are no recordkeeping nor
reporting requirements under this final rulemaking for containers
using either Container Level 1 or Container Level 2 controls.
1-14
-------
1.1.8 Transfer System Standards
The major change to the transfer system standards is the
addition of specific requirements for individual drain systems to
the final rule. The designation of which individual drain
systems are required to use controls is specified in 40 CFR 63
subpart DD — National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants from Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations. The
specific air emission control requirements are specified in
40 CFR 63 subpart RR — National Emission Standards for Individual
Drain systems. Other revisions have been made, where relevant and
appropriate, so that the requirements for transfer systems other
than an individual drain system are consistent with the
requirements established for the other types of off-site material
management units.
1.1.9 Process Vent Standards
In response to comments, several changes have been made to
the air emission control requirements for process vents under
the Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP. The term
"enclosed treatment unit" proposed for the rule has been deleted
from the final rule and replaced with a definition for the term
"process vent." The EPA decided to use this new term to clarify
which vents must connected to a control device under the rule.
The final rule has also been revised to require an average
emission reduction of at least 95 percent by weight in total HAP
emissions from the combination of all affected process vents at
the plant site (i.e., all process vents that are a part of the
affected sources subject to the Off-Site Waste and Recovery
Operations NESHAP).
1.1.10 Equipment Leak Air Standards
The EPA has not included in the final Off-Site Waste and
Recovery Operations NESHAP a definition for "ancillary equipment"
as was originally proposed. Instead, the specific equipment
types subject to equipment leak standards under the Off-Site
Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP are listed directly in the
applicability section of the rule (§63.690). These equipment
types are consistent with other NESHAP equipment leak standards.
1-15
-------
1.1.11 Control Device and Closed-Vent System Standards
Revisions to the control device and closed-vent system
standards consist of incorporating changes to the closed-vent
system and control device requirements so that these requirements
are consistent and up-to-date with the general decisions the EPA
has made regarding NESHAP inspection, monitoring, maintenance,
repair, malfunctions, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements
for organic emission control devices. Also, to improve the
readability and user understanding of the requirements, the
format used to present the standards has been revised. In the
final rule, all of the requirements for a particular type of
control device (e.g., vapor incinerator, carbon adsorber, or
condenser) are grouped together.
1.1.12 Test Methods and Procedures
For the final Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAF,
the EPA decided to allow an owner or operator to use any one of
several existing EPA test methods for direct measurement of the
VOHAP concentration of an off-site material. In addition, the
EPA has made certain other changes to the rule to facilitate the
use of organic concentration data obtained using other
alternative test methods not specifically listed in the rule.
The final rule allows an owner or operator to directly
measure the volatile organic concentration using any one of the
following methods: Method 305 in 40 CFR part 63, Appendix A;
Method 25D in 40 CFR part 60, Appendix A; or Method 624, Method
1624, or Method 1625 in 40 CFR part 136, Appendix A (when used in
accordance with the procedure specified in the rule). In
addition, an owner or operator may use any other alternative
method that has been validated in accordance with the procedures
specified in Sections 5.1 and 5.3 of Method 301 or specified in
the 40 CFR part 63 Appendix D - Alternative Validation Procedure
for EPA Waste Methods.
1.1.13 Recordkeeping and Reporting
The EPA has changed the recordkeeping and reporting
requirements for the final Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations
NESHAP to reflect the revisions to the rule applicability and
1-16
-------
technical requirements and reduce the burden of these
requirements on owners and operators.
1.2 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS
The EPA estimates that implementation of the Off-Site Waste
and Recovery Operations NESHAP will reduce HAP emissions from the
source category on a nationwide basis by approximately 82
percent, from 52,000 Mg/yr to 9,000 Mg/yr. The EPA also
estimated the reduction in volatile organic compounds (VOC)
emissions from the source category. The Off-Site Waste and
Recovery Operations NESHAP is estimated to reduce nationwide VOC
emissions by approximately 52,000 Mg/yr. This value was
calculated using the estimated nationwide HAP emission value
times a value of approximately 1.2 to represent the ratio of VOC-
to-HAP constituents in the off-site material regulated under the
rule. The value for this ratio was derived from information in
the data base for the off-site waste and recovery operations
source category. This derived value is lower than VOC-to-HAP
ratios indicated for other HAP emission sources. Thus, the
procedure used to estimate nationwide VOC emissions for the
source category is considered by the EPA to be conservative and
may understate the actual quantity of VOC emission reduction that
will occur from implementing the Off-Site Waste and Recovery
Operations NESHAP.
The EPA prepared estimates of the cost to owners and
operators of implementing the requirements of the final Off-Site
Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP at plant sites the EPA
expects are likely to be subject to the rule. The total
nationwide capital investment cost to purchase and install the
air emission controls that are required by the rule is estimated
by the EPA to be approximately $42 million. The total nationwide
annual cost of the Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP
is estimated to be approximately $18 million per year. This
corresponds to an average cost of approximately $420 per megagram
of HAP controlled.
Price increases in affected markets are projected at less
1-17
-------
than 0.01 percent of baseline price, and decreases in production
are projected at less than 0.1 percent. No businesses or
facilities are projected by the EPA to close as a result of
implementing the requirements of the final rule. For more
information regarding the economic analysis, consult the Economic
Impact Analysis of National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations available in
the docket (Docket No. A-92-16).
1-18
-------
2.0 COMMENTERS ON PROPOSED RULE
The EPA proposed the Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations
NESHAP on October 13, 1994 (59 FR 51913). The preamble to the
proposed rule discussed the availability of the proposed
regulatory text for the rule and the background information
document (BID) (EPA-453/R-94-070a) that presents information used
in the development of the proposed rule. Comments from the
public on the preamble, proposed regulatory text, and BID were
solicited at the time of proposal. A 90-day comment period from
October 13, 1994 to January 11, 1995 (an initial 60 days plus a
30-day extension) was provided to accept written comments from
the public on the proposed rule. The opportunity for a public
hearing was provided to allow interested persons to present oral
comments on the rulemaking. However, the EPA did not receive a
request for a public hearing, so a public hearing was not held.
A total of 89 comment letters regarding the proposed
Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP were received by
the EPA. A copy of each comment letter is available for public
inspection in the docket for the rulemaking (Docket No. A-92-16).
This docket is located at the EPA's Air and Radiation Docket and
Information Center, Waterside Mall, room 1500, 1st Floor, 401 M
Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460.
The commenters, their affiliations, and the EPA docket
number assigned to their correspondence is presented in Table 2-
1. Of the comment letters entered into the docket, 15 of the
letters are requests for extension of the public comment period,
two letters are requests for confirmation that the 30-day
extension was granted, one letter is a request for regulatory
text, and one letter is a duplicate entry (docket entries IV-D-34
and IV-D-68). A comment letter for another rulemaking was
incorrectly placed in the docket but has been subsequently
deleted (docket entry IV-D-69). Consequently, 70 letters were
received by the EPA containing specific comments on the proposed
2-1
-------
Operations NESHAP. The commenter affiliation distribution for
these letters is as follows: 47 individual companies, 14 trade
associations, 7 State and local air pollution regulatory agencies
(including one from STAPPA/ALAPCO), and 2 Federal agencies.
2-2
-------
n
CO
o>
(H
S
"O
IB
•o
id
ID
E
IB
C
H
JJ
C
0)
5
6
O
1
(N
* tr
1 H
JJ W
0)
U rH
o
Q
JJ
to
-H
rH
IB
"rl C
H U 0 in
• 0) -rl O1
Oi ft JJ cn
co (B o
rl 1
U to 0 vo
-rl to U *
0 H
* rl C S
• -H -H
H o c
IB 0 U IB
S -H rH
£ Q) O-H
H W D S
VD
o
Q
*>
H
4
r*< I—
O O
-H fS
i-H OI
O r~i '
Q, C •*
IB CN
' pi rH
rH W E CO
rH -rl 0 C-- CT\
IB > U 0
i c t- ct,
E w tn dm 5
•H C C
* - 0 -H X -
rl -H 0) 0 0)
A 0) JJ 0 03 rH
IB Oi IB 03 JJ
C IB rl • JJ
C C 0) 0) O 03
IB IB ft.C • 0)
E S O E-< & co
r~
o
i
Q
>>
H
Oi
C o
•H CM
rl ^
0) H
J^ 1
U r-
-rl CO
Q. o
S o
i4 CO CM
rl -U
Ol 0) JJ Q
C rH Q)
-H JJ <1) -
^ 3 LJ G
U JJ 0
>i co jj
IB - Ol
•0 rl 2 C
0) -H
H E m.n
•H I-H TJ< tn
<1) -rl «*
M
1
iH S »
(U IB ID
3 iJ 3
IB C
*3j r>
CQ to rn
CO >i Q) O
3 Q) W 0
(C C -H CS
^| V4 ,C
JJ 0 to U
(1) CO JJ ft Q
rl JJ E
O - rf ID
0 ft E C
S E • 00
3 cu ^ o JJ
• O • 0) *• Ol
S r3 2 C
- » • 0) -H
C C T3 r3 rn JJ 43
J5 -H i— i n -ri tn
0 J^ 0) m 3 18
^0 «aj fc H co S
Ch
o
Q
j>
M
C
0
•rl
to
iH 0) 10
O U -rl t-
JJ iH E CO
0 3 E o
C 0) O O rn
O rl O U >
JJ -rl 0) H
H> Q (£ C rH
rH O r- t-
T3 >irH -H CO 00
C JJ IB JJ 0 t~-
0) 3 k IB m
CK ft 3 > H X
11) JJ rl H
• D IB ,jj x O tn
QUO) -3
D < EH 0. <
0
I—1
a
>
H
CO
m
o
w
2
*J
IB
TD
C
id
1
ID
C
» ,
M
a>
o
1
o
cs
T c
^ r*
JJ H
O
U rH
0
Q
ro
C*v
VO
W
3 "i
•H Q) O
A! rl rH
U IB C>.
IB 0 3 rH
OlCQ b1
B CO <
-M <4i a<
rH C
rH ffl IB -
O -r| Ol IB
U S O -H
tt) J J3
• >J ft
iJ 0) rH
•W C O T)
^ IB 1C
Q) OlO i-H
43 U 0 -H
0 0 0 ff.
u a CM a.
rH
O
i
D
K,
H
Vfl
T—1
Vi o
0) in co
Oi en cs
0) IB r-
•H C U
A IB C X Z
U S C O O
JJ 0 -H CQ -
-H rH -H tO >i
K IB JJ -ri - JJ
JJ IB > rl -H
• C rl -rl VD CJ
W Q) 0 Q H
«J 2 rl E S 0)
IH O 0 3 IB E
IB rl CJ -H S 0)
J3 -rl £ JS tfl
>H > U JJ Ol tO
1C C S -rl -rl Q)
OQ W fc J E CQ
cs
0
Q
^
H
£x.
c
P
g
o
C rl U
O Q) ^<
en OirH r-
t-> IB IB in VD
it) C U 0) co
JJ (B *rl JJ ^<
cn s £ C
3 Q) 0) M
O to £ CJ S
fl) U
S m S 0 tJ
to 0 Q C
t) M Q IB
-rl O rH
> iH Q) m T3
«B -H J3 0 -rl
Q < H cs S
m
o
i
Q
..!,
H
Ol
C o
•rl (N
^ *f
0) rH
O |
u r-
-rl CO
Pi ^3
s o
i« Z IN
rl -U
tt) JJ Q
OlrH 0)
C JJ 0) -
•H 3 rl C
« U JJ O
CO JJ
• - tn
^ rl g C
0) -rl
rn E in .C
•H rH T»" tn
(1) -rl ^< IB
!SS M S
1<
o
1
Q
J
H
o
C rn
0 rH
•rl CT\
JJ 1
(B r-
rl 0
0 m
&•«•
in
^1 O O
0) U rn M
c *""! »^
•rl "D C^l
01 iH rH -
a: IB >i
S X (C
• 0 0 OQ
CO E OQ
C
J^ JJ -0)
iH IH O 0)
« 0 • rl
S tu a O
in
o
Q
1^,
H
2-3
-------
01
n
s>
rl
•a
•o
a)
•a
c
a)
O
6
S
c
iH
CD
-U
G
0)
3
0
U
CN
T t?
1 W
< JJ
•JJ K
in tn
0 (1) ro (0
P CO H S
VD
H
1
P
>
hH
o
o
t-
•
U 0>
• 4J H
(X -H i-H
3 m
-CO ro
•O i
G -in
O S 0
T3 E Z o
C id o
id -H -CN
rH Q JJ
13 0) U
0) 13 0) P
-H G rl
rl Id 4J -
fc WC
> in to
id tt) ro id
p m H 3
p-
i-H
1
p
1
>
H
o
t-
l/l
H
0) O
JJ CN
rl -i-l **
-H 3 '
O
t-
in
C H
0 Q) o
-rl JJ CN
01 -H •*
to 3 '
•H CO VO
S ro
iH U -0
0 SO
C 4J 44 Z CN
O 0 0 •
GO) U -U
C rl U) O 4J P
•rl -H IH 0) tt)
!* P o> in 0) -
U rl fa! rl C
S rH 3 JJ 0
id 4J tn co 4J
• U U r-H Ol
iJ -rl Id O iJ C
C M-l iH -H
0) .c 3 JJ r- .c
r-H U C G O W
id a) id 0 t- id
P H S U rH 3
d
i-H
t
P
>
n
u
c
I-i
c~
rH O
id -in
JJ JJ
C id vo
CD -H S 0
rl S U Z 0
a) g o o
JJ O tQ -CN
0) rl ID JJ
-H -H d; tt> u
rl > (UP
4J C E rl
CO U 3 4J -
C CO C
• - -H O
a rl E -C 4J
O tn 3 4J 01
4J 4J tH i-H CTl G
SH U -H < rH -rl
0) 11) Id A
.Q i-l M-l 0) O TO
0 -H IH .c o (d
K P < E-i o\ S
o
CN
1
p
1
>
M
-o
0)
c
1-1
4J
0
u
CN
U
ij
g
03
rl
K"l
W
Tl
\J
(Q
Ti
U
e
g
ro
c
(,
M
4J
0)
g
r i
%j
?tr
jj
< c
4J»
0)
«s
0 rt
p
>,
4J
0)
4-1
(0
W
W
WC i-H
0) O 0
Q) U -H CO
JJ 0 4J 4J O
(ti rl Id 0) t-
in a IH a;
0 0 rl <
&TJ a4J rl
rH C iH CO
o (d ra o
u 4-i u id a)
.* c tn -o Oi
iH - 0) iH 0) -H 3
Id iH E -r» l-H rl O
ft 0 S J3 H JJ
• -rl G rH in Id
p p pq «; •* m
i-H
^
p
M
JJ
<4H e
0 Q)
E
r7 0 0
(d i-i o
JJ -rl O
>! 0) >• rH
> rl C
(0 U Cd 0
Z 0) Ul
W T3 C ro
Q) COO
rH £ JJ id OlfS
rH JJ C Id
w 4J C C P
C 0 to CO)
3 -H -H a -
a JJ in JJ ^ C
Cta id S O
• 0) (S, >,rH ^ 4J
rl i > rH Id Ol
jj >i id id z c
0) rl JJ Z JJ -H
•H Id 3 CO O £
m a a tt) C o eo
rH 0) 0) J3 M 0 Id
W P P JJ-' H S
cs
^^
p
H
i-l O
0) e
tt) M
C
-rl >, -
01 C rH
• e (0 '"-i
w w ao
• E
ft r-H O 13
id CJ C vo
- JJ Id rH
CO C rH rH CN
Q) 0) id J3 ro
> | CJ tO -*
id c -H < tr\
rl O E rH K
CD iH 0) >*H CN O
•rl JC O CN
• > U
O G C X id
U T3 0 0 -H
T3 C -H OQ A
W VH (d to g
R) M-l i-H -H -3
S Id Si > O rH
•O JJ 10 -rl -0
W CO < D D. O
ro
^
1
P
H
a
w
O °5
CT>
0
C °°
iH >i i
8C in
id 13 vo
j: vi a m IN
4J Q) £ O i-H
t-i a; o a vc
id c u
X -H 0) i-3
OTO rl I-H
• G C 0)
W H * 0) -
a D
0) M-l tt) G
U MH rl C -iH
5i id a) JC I-H
rl JJ 0) O O
CQ co P ^ S
•*
rH
p
rH
^
C7 4J
i-i o a)
n3 JJ CO)
4J rd O i-i
C rH -H JJ VO
0) 3 4J CO VO
S O) id in
CO) iH £ O
o ai o jj H
ri a 3
-rl l£ rl O >"
to > O co z
0) G Ol U
J3 W C rl -
Ol -rl rH tt) i-H
3 - rl rl > rH
K rl tt) Ol (0 0 -H
0) 0) rl tt) rl J, tn c -H a to
ri * -ri id t- y.
rl C O1MH 0) Ul 0)
0) id c >w £ o a)
H s U < E-i rH a
in
1^
P
M
2-4
-------
a
tn
CO
rl
•o
•a
0)
•a
a)
(D
S
rfl
C
Vi
0)
JJ
CD
a
O
i
CN
S
^ rl
e
JJ U
CD
,14 vo
U H
O
Q
^
en
Q) H
> 0
•rl 1
e ^ o
E 0 D oo
W jj £. m o
jj rd &o VD
to H rH r-
C O O r- J
rd &T3 co M
SMC
C rd X -
CJ Oi 0 0
>H CQ Dl
0) O H rd
JJ U • EJ
rH O O O -H
rd E o ' ȣ
s i5; CN a cj
vo
CN
Q
H
M-l O
0 Oi o
C o
1H -H i-H
0 rH •#
jj CD CJ 0) O
U U S JJ rH
(D C U -rl m
ri rd 0) 3 •
•H -H a co in
Q •-! 0
I-H E* rd So
CD O VH • 55 CN
in tn cj u O
Q) e co c -o
c 3 M H jj a
CD 0 rd tH a)
-H CJ JJ 0 -CD <•
S C to in C
JJ Q) CU CD JJ 0
• C E JJ -H co JJ
!*! rd 2 3 VH Di
JJ O JJ JJ O C
C to w -ri tn -H
•H -H -H JJ 3 in £
j3 co > to TJ CN tn
O CQ C C C rn rd
U ft, H M M i-l 3:
r-
CN
O
H
CQ
Vl
-H
fd
<4H
<
rH
rd ^
§VD
rH
CD C VD
E -H CS
>
rd V4 I-H S
.Q -H <
rd > C oo -
in C T) O en T3
O W 0 -H 0
0 JJ X 0
• !H S rd O £
S 0) to i-i CQ co
Di C O C
H rd CD a -CD
•H C > So >
n3 fd (d 0 * fO
u a a; cj Q. o:
co
(M
Q
H
CO
00
H
0 '
CJ in
ro
fco
f^
CS
•H CJ
rH i-H CJ
<1> rH t~ 2
3 CD 00
0 S 00 -
a, rH CD
CO rH
CD £ X rH
C Dl O -H
S 3 CQ >
rd 0 C
5 H • a, u < CN s
0
CO
1
O
H
•o
0)
3
C
-H
JJ
O
U
CN
a
W
03
I.
H
*rt
M
(w
Tl
\J
*-4
M
rt
i
i
.^
eu
2
S
9
6
y
CN
T &
1» H
J-> U
CD
M vo
U H
0
Q
jx,
c
rd
Q(N
E o
0 rH
T3 CJ C-
C CN
rd 0
CJ CJ
.C CJ g
CJ rd
in J2 -
rd OS
T3 CD E-i CD
VJ tO JJ rH
rd CD C ca rd
S Oi CD 73 CO
- E rH 1
• H ao c
U CD 0 C 0
to i-H S JJ
X C CD CD CO
r?3 > Oi C
rd O CD KO -H
S CJ Q Oi S
i-H
CN
Q
^
^
^
o
o
r-
0)
• JJ rH
• CJ -rt rH
in • 3 m
^D O< CO m
i
- - - in
C -O S o
o a z o
co 0 o
0) re! JJ
JJ -rl CD CJ
JJ Q CD D
rd in
Pi t^J ^J fc
CO C
• CD 0
1-3 DIM JJ
•O rji
•O-n C
r-i V4 -H
rd CD o £
C > in co
O CD m rd
Q CQ H S
CN
CN
i
a
^i
?*
r""
rH
0
Vi
JJ
^ C -*
0 O en
K CJ 2 rH
-rl C ^*
> 0 C - i
rH -HO T3 in
0) co -H rd in
ft -rH JJ O rH
3 JJ > 3 Oi in
co -H -H I-H in
C D rH CD
-D 0 JJ g
CJ SIX JJ S
CD CO JJ CD
a cj -H rd s -
iH -H rH JJ (0 rH
0) X rd 0 4H 3
O O 3 m S rd rd
H O CD U rJ 0<
rH C C
3 V4 lH C CD 0 •
rd -rl -H -rl Ol CN JJ
ft *H C
O rd en
S o
1— 1 rH
OS •*
VH JJ en
JJ -H
C rH rf
C O rd JJ CJ
•H U 3 0)
CD O CD -
jj c u o
to 0 in JJ CJ
T3 -H -H CO CO
rH JJ rtj -H
CD 3 CO CJ
b I-H rd JJ -H C
rH CD O rH CO
C O rJ -H r-H U
O Oi rtj V4 td Cb
JJ JJ
rH rt S CO 0\ C
-ri -H rd -H ro rd
S < PQ Q en co
i1
CN
i
Q
I
^
M
Vt
C *"H
0 >
•H C
co m
-H
> T3
-H C
O rd
CO J3
0) JJ
CJ i-H H
•H rd o
C > CD JJ CN
C in 33 CD en
3 CD CD CN
CD CO H-l V4
0 JJ U
• Dl CO CO
i-3 C JJ
•H C rH -
CD )H CD rH rd
O 0) E r-l 3 -H
C tt) JJ O CQ .Q
CD C H rl g
JH -H rd JJ O 3
S Ol Oi C O r-H
rd C CD O vo O
J W Q U CN CJ
in
CN
a
i
^
HH
2-5
-------
00
m
09
w
•d
•O
id
•O
c
H)
ID
B
R)
b
-H
C -H JJ >
-H JJ tD 0)
id u c 3
£ < H C
CJ CO *f
0) CJ > O
* JJ -H rt| 0
rH tn i-i o
o (C jj id cs
JJ 2 CJ -H
^ 0) C CJ
0)73 rH Id D
X -H Cd >
rH rH -
• O C >. C
a w o in o
tn c JJ
rH >, -H C 01
0) JJ T3 0) C
Id -H CUCd ft -ri
A rH 3 J3
U -H 0 O H CO
-H JJ r-l \ O Id
a D O cj r- 5
VO
ro
Q
>
H
0)
JJ
3
JJ
•H
JJ
tn
C
H in
o
M E 2 O
•^ 3 Z O
(1) o»
»rH -
>! 0 JJ CJ
0) t-i 0) O
rH JJ Q)
-H CO i-l -
id ft JJ c
oa co o
C JJ
• id • 01
CJ U hP C
-H -H
iH 1-1 0 J3
3 a) M tn
id E CN id
ft < H 2
r-
ro
CJ
>
M
O
O
(B O
k rH
CO
C 0)
•H JJ
M-l -H
Q) 3
K co vo
ro
• S ~o
Q 3 go
• d) Z CN
J3 rH
ft O -U
^ JJ O
- JJ 0)
0) Q) C tt) '
0) ft 0 H C
a -H jj o
rH JJ CO JJ
jj id id w
n c -H .-3 c
0) 0 U -rt
jq -H o en £
^i jj in m co
o id in co its
Z Z < H 2
00
ro
Q
>
M
.
u
c
H
>,
id rH
Qi-H
C O
Q
CJ -O
c
§id i"
rH H
+-( CT> fH
• -H a) o ro u;
2 CO ft
0) C X '
£ ^ T3 0 O T3
m ft c -H to c
M id co ns
0 0) rH -H • rH
ja u £ > o j;
0) -H CD -H -CO
Q > < Q ft <
0\
ro
D
M
O
0
•*
CN
JJ 0)
C JJ
0) -H
•a 3
H -H CO
n tn
HO)
^ JJ CN
C ft CO 0
0 • 0) O
jj o) u >-i r~
in u c JJ t~
t-l -H H CO
(0 > X
a -.c H
Q) C JJ
• > S -H -
^3 -H 0 S C
jj -O CO 0
H 3 J3 JJ
fU U JJ 0 ID
pi CO 3 o 3
•O X O IN O
W W CO in E
c
*f
D
>
K-l
•0
J
?&
1 H
4* \ \
*c
JJ H
0>
j«; vo
O H
0
Q
u
c
M
rH
-H
o
ST)
C C
id id cs
ttrH H
JJ 6 A in
JJ 0 CO O
rjj CJ < Tjt
rH 0
rH 0) t-l O >f
0 C 0 o ^
EH -H *»"
tH C H -
J l^-SxS
M in o JJ
id id -H m en
•o > > c
C -H • -H
0) 0) Q O X
^ £ • a;
CQ EH < ft ^
H
no
i
Q
>
H
O
<*
r-1
\J
0) 0)
C J-1
-H -H
US 3
JJ CO <<
a .
0) <4-i -H in
rH O i-l 00
H Q r-
0) rH C 0
-H a) o m a) 01
CQ tn -H Wi jj
C JJ 0) id Q
• 3 id c ^ a
a o -H o o
CJ CJ -H Q, >
0) O JJ H M
U rH ID -H O 0)
c id o-ou >
Oi co J
rs
ro
i
Q
>
M
0)
JJ
-H
co
CQ
3c
JJ Z
)-i
3 U
X C CO vo
H > ro
T3 CO « O
a - w o
Id CQ -iH JJ 0]
Q) Id 3
>, -H IM u cj
0) O)i*-l-H Q
c o <; JJ
(3 r-, U -
a> o jj o c
tt C C C 0
J3 0) C JJ
CJ g O O)
CQ C U C
m H i-i -H
-H 3 Q) in j:
•O id X > in o m
c js a o H o id
ri, EH S U i-t co 2
ro
m
i
Q
>
M
<
ft
8ft
<
ft E-<
rf CO JS iH
a, - o
^ -0
» 0) JJ M
>irH CO
jq-H u
rH CU O rH Q
0 J2 CJ O
CJ E-" ft JJ -
4-H C
• • 3 Q, °
as & a, id JJ
"^-U W
JJ"O < C
k rH ft Z -H
0) id ft X
.Q a < -j. n
O O EH * Id
U D en •» 2
^
m
i
Q
;>
H
JJ
T3
H Vj
'O id >i Q)
C £ C JJ
iB! id 0 Z
,Sa,>,&H
C rH O -
rH -H rH CJ R)
, id
J2 J3 rH -H
U JJ -H rH -O
•rt Id rH -H C
3 U W r4 M
in
i"O
Q
>
H
2-6
-------
n
a
0
^4
•o
•o
n)
•0
C
10
0
g
10
rl
0
fj
0
°
1
CN
a\ ^,
' i
4J [fl
O
b' in
>X \47
U H
O
Q
*o
c
CO
rH
rfl
C H
>1 0) 0) CN
JJ E • 3 in
rl 2 U C rH
0)0 CO!
x! ri c H > <
(0 -H 0 rt, Qi
h C JJ JJ X -
U cfl m JJ £
M 3
0) 0) -H IH Q) X!
-H Dl C 0> W CQ
H Cfl -H N JJ
rH C g (0 VD JJ
-H 10 'D 0) ^ -rl
pr| ^r| jd| rn ** CL
VO
*j<
i
Q
j>
H
rH
CO 10
10 JJ CN
u c t-
-HO) CN
ME •*>
D 6 JJ '
1 0 C r*i
3 < ri 0> in
0 -H E CN
W rH > JJ t-
W cd c in CN r-
O CJ W rd r-
g -H aw «
E T3 0) m EH
• 0) C Q
J Xi rfl X .
U CQ 0 C
C >, rl OQ 0
rfl C JJ -H JJ
E 0 0) cO • CQ
ft x m m O 3
O X cfl HH • O
2 H W ($. D< E
r-
*i*
Q
^
M
00
o
in
CN
• CTl rH
U 0
0) C m |H
0) H Z
r3 X
. 0 -
rl O CO C
3 U 0
XI cfl • CJ
JJ X O <0
3 0) • 0)
< H P< OQ
co
Tjt
D
>
M
U
c
H
.
^,
Ol
o
rH
0
C
u in
0) rH
EH T3 CN
§0
o cfl a. d
JJ JJ S
CQ 0) iH
C S 0) .
rj 0) (0 J5
JJ CO 4J
C rH rH
CTl
^
i
D
1
>
M
• ^
w c <*
(0 >*•
Di tt) D< ^
jj E r*
.(00 '
JJ-H u r-
rl U 0
0) O rH VO
XI to iO m
IH to u r-
8< -H T»i
£•*>
H
•0
0)
S
•rH
JJ
0
u
n
CO
0
rl
•a
A
•o
CO
o
H
a
n
0
jj
c
0
o
?&
43 H
0
^ vo
O H
O
a
S
•H
rd >,
«4H C
UH (fl
< Qi
rH§
rfl U
JJ
C CQ
0) rH
i rt
0 0)
iH C
Ol-H -H
C > 2
•H C
-H W X
in rfl
cfl . E
O rl ^
O
• JJ CO
(t: U 3
0) rl
ca ri a
0) -H S
rH- Q 0
H
i
D
i
*^
0)
JJ
ro
rl
0
0 >i m
U C o
rfl o
>i ft t-
jj E '
XI -H 0 rH
JJ i-H U VD
•H (0 CN
E 3 co ro
W Ol >irH m CN
JJ rfl o
• IH -H JJ o <
U -H rH 0) r~ >
tt, tO g CM
JJ . Ol CQ X "C
a) IH -a o c
XI 4) • rH OQ O
(0 Ol rl O E
N (0 -H C • £
-H c > so u
rH CO C 0) • -H
r^ ^* fvj PI Pi fX
CM
1
Q
i
r*
CQ
-H
CQ
£>,
rH
1C
•5
Q in
• 1.8 JJ CTl
x! ?>! tt) CN
DJ >i C tt) n
tj 10 rl 1
.-H a JJ o
0) rH c CO ^
rH O O 00
>,& U C in
O -H ^
D en I-H ro
W-H S ffi
•SO 0
. C 4J -
E rl 0 3 >1
S 4) XI 0 cfl
-H Ol JJ CO rH
rH (0 (0 'O
rH C rl CTl C
-H flj (0 PO *H
» S S in fc
rn
t
Q
i
^
*"•
jJ
C
0)
c i
C -HO
CO JJ VH rH
JJ CQ Cfl -rl T3 0
CQ iH iH > CO 0
•H -H O C O 0
Q) rd fXU tt i
to t»-i ti r^
iC(! UH^ 0 *^J S 'H
< U rl CO
S 3 vo
CD rH 0) JJ X) 0
3 rfl Tl 0) Q)
0 JJ -H <*-! Ol EH
-H C XI (0 T3 U
> 0 iH CO -H
0 IH i rd a. .
ac o S u - s
JJ 0 J3 T3 ri
• U in C JJ rH 3
U Ol-H 0 rH O X)
rl >-H (0 C
• -H C C tt) CTl (0
rj Q BJ D K <*) Q
,
Q
'
^
^
rH U
rfl C
-H H
U
0)
a 4J
MM C
0 0)
JJ T3 E
U C 0) T3
0) (0 Ol cfl
in cfl O H
•H CQ C U CN
Q in (0 in
•H S "O O
.10 rH VD
0) 1-1 0) 0)
X3 VM JJ -H iJ
3 < CQ MH H
0 (0 rl
DO S SO).
rfl rl JJ Je
J O CO rH JJ O
JJ jJ (0 3 O
JJ 16 U U PQ rl
iH rH 0) -H 03
0) 3 -m E H
XI & 0 tt) 0 >!
O CD in £ 0 rd
« tf a o n o
in
i
Q
1
^
M
CQ
IS
2-7
-------
n
n
0
rt
•O
•O
•O
B
n
(0
§
B
CD
4J
i
tC JJ
JJ W
CD
JX vo
O H
O
Q
E
0
•rl
JJ CO
id M
tn r-
O 0
0 o
U ro
rH rH
id co
U £
"rl T3 ri
T3 Q) rH -
gx: PO to
U rH
rH 3 i-H
0) rH 0 fd
O. id XI b
0 JJ C
U E -H (d
tt) id >-i
•a T3 o: id
-H -H 01
> u o m
Id U VO -rl
D O ro a
VD
if,
D
>
E
0
-H
JJ
id
rl
0
&
0
u
0)
U ro
-H O
> CN
U VO
0) tt) cr\ vo
jj tn ^
-H oi en
£ rH ro [Ki
5 id
•n X -
§rl O 0)
JJ 03 tt)
tt) 10 B
•o o id
• E -XI
Q HI & M
r-
LT>
Q
H
>,
§
C
•0 0
E U
I-H r-
E id V* vo
0 JJ U tt) oo
to a) -H jj i O i-t
JJ 0) ro T3
• 0 XI 0 -H
Q E-i H CM g
CO
in
Q
>
O
O
OJ
rH
0)
-iH
3
to
0) >in
-H a o
§z o
o
a -N
Cn O r) 0
(d > tt) J->
U 0) >i CD
Xi W E
• U -H
EH HX1
0) O tO
a H H 1
en
LO
D
>
•.
to s
0) Z
r-l 0)
4J 3
to B
30) vo
•0 > d
Cn B fl, o
IH H o
tt) JJ Ol
jq tt 3
B-H O u
0) Vi -H o
tt) J-i JJ
^ tt) U
O b< a) H E
• E o 0
Sen C H JJ
B O 1-1 Ol
Xi -H U E
jj B oo -H
id ? o u xi
B 0 in -H to
0 !H ro 3 «
1-3 cQ r-i tn S
0
vo
Q
LJ
T3
0)
3
•rl
JJ
O
u
CN
U
01
d
Q)
*j
,2
«
nj
•rt
10
a
0)
jj
B
B
u
i
O\ pi
< 4J
^S
a>
O H
0
Q
r-
•a m
m oo
Ot-
T3 « '
^-i ro
O rH 0)
U rH rH
sS-SS
0) B
0) rH Id r?
E !*J a! H
-H i
tt) 4J E*
XI tt) O-rl
JJ MH o Ol
Id Id O rH
U W rH M
r-l
in
Q
M
^,
JJ
-H
rH
id
3 en
O ro
!—(
rH rH
Id
JJ CN
E vo
D • 01
§0 1-
E o
O HI
H ra
Vl > rH ro
8-filsg
O V^-H X O
u 0 en 0 4J
^ *O CQ OD
• O tt) -rl
U tt)-H • fc
)H rH O fc
• -H rH -0
Hj Q (t, 0. g
O»
in
D
H
ro
O
tt) r-
O *rl '
Vl E rl 0
jj O Q co
CO -H VO
§4J X! 0
id Q* vo
SV4 rH
O 0 A
0. -DM
• w E
tf 0
u ^
-H 0)
E en
3 en
E id r-
O 4J o
U E H rH
Q) Ol CN
tt) E CN
U 5 X tt) CO
C & C U
3 O MH (d
u: o >-i s MH -H
ai to o i
JJ • OlrH ^
JJ Pi id 73 • JJ 3
0 57 E -H U CO rH
u o id id E o o
en u g r4 M cu u
Tl<
in
1
Q
i
H
•o
^_]
id
0)
rH P~
XI 3 VO
U OH
0 >i« ro
rH B VO
rH Id X!
id ft Coo
0 tt)
• U T3 >
D ^ E ffl
0 -H -rl
CQ JJ iJ 3
rH (d !S r-3
rl tO
id E o •
x! o o jj
U g co tn
in
in
Q
1
M
2-8
-------
n
B
0)
*o
•a
(0
•0
a
§
IB
C
^
01
JJ
C
o
g
Q
u
i
°^ fr
< jj
4J W
0)
0 i-l
0
Q
tn
in
-H
id
MH
< rH
*n -•
10 ^
^ jj in
rl C CO
00) "0 en
JJ E C Q) •"»"
a c o I-H
W -H H K
W • JJ (B O
rl £ (B >
W Q) U rl
(8 Ol 0) O 2 (B
§lB JJ d -rl
C W in IT C
JT,
H
C
O
-rl
JJ CD
•rl JJ
rH -rl
IB 3
O CO
u
Oi Ee
C Z tn
-H 0
rH - 0
rH U <1) 0
•-!>,> CN
a; u H C
-H 0
° ^ 5 JJ
co a) Oi
jj a c
Ol C -rl
•H 0) CN J3
(d E rH O CO
iH 0) CN O fB
U U H in EE
^
vo
1
Q
>
rH
<
CXi
O a.
a E-<
3 o
W - o
- 0) JJ CN
>"irH CO
JQ-H U
r-H
ft -n C
• ' r] tt 0
K fc •* (B
tt Q co <* EE
CO
vc
a
>
M
.
er>
rH
•
§S
H^ m
Bt3
0)
73
1 1 r^
a) a>
j^ jj
u c
O-H
a jj
jj CD
O 0) U
^•j E 0
m Q Q
Q
Tl U rl
CD (U
JJ * J-4
0) TC JJ
rH CTl O
0) cn C
D H (8
en
VD
Q
>
H
V4
0)
JJ
0)
u
CD
U CO
C CTl
Q) JJ CO
i-H 0) CT\
rH Q) i-l
0) rl
U JJ W
X CO Q
0) U
Ol JJ -
CD Cd CD C
P W ^ 0
CO W JJ
IB Ol
E
J3 D- 0 rH
0 3 o -H
i^ Q H EE
0
r-
a
>
H
-H
JJ
g
to
s
*rt
Tl
W
(0
Tl
\J
it
M
a>
a
g
9
u
i
? b
L H
e
4J fjg
CD
O H
0
Q
0)
3
ta
CQ
M 01
VD
rH CN
(B >,VD
JJ C '
C tB CN
-H cu din
§vo
•31
» 0 U H
CU SH
N -H A; b-i
W > IB Z
•H C T3
^WSJ
• . Q)
^ >H C JJ
ID id to
IB Oi E 0)
•a IB jj £
C C tn u
•rl (8 IB O
iJ s w o;
H
vo
a
K,
H
in
o
CN
r>
0) en
jj in
-H CN
3 '
CO CO
o
- CO
Q) 0
3 f
C
3 ^ "
JJ C <
C -H
SIBSi
C rH JJ 3
•H < rH O
> -H EC
rl E
• 0) C
EC tn in O
-H in JJ
• IB in IB
1-3 X in co
CN
vo
1
Q
1
M
O
O
CO
0)
4-4 JJ
C -H
D
C co in
0 o
rH -rl 0) -O
cu jj ri EE o
JQ *8 Q} Z CN
CU -H rH
o u u -u
O 0 >i JJ Q
ID U CU
rl tO Q) 0) -
to «; « ri c
£ JJ 0
&rH rH CO JJ
id fd 01
jj c u o c
tO O -H -rl
-H -H E 0 J3
ri jj cu o in
5 id £ CN id
Z U rH EE
m
vo
i
a
t
H
CQ
IB
X
rl CU
0 EH
JJ
CJ CQ MH
d) 0 -H CN
rl -H tn >
- d) m -H tn rH
>iCO 0) r> m rH
!H -ri -H cu r>
0) rH g Q )H CO
.Q id E Oi r>
C JJ 0 CQ C
0) C U IB O X
JJ 0) OUh
o i -a
rl 2 Id T3 • -
S 0 0 C 2 C
rl rl Id -H
•H -rl rH i-l JJ
iH > -H rH O CQ
0 C <8 -n r> 3
r3 W EC O rH <
•*
vo
1
Q
1
H
*c
4J
in
s^
en
0 <
rH
O in
C E» o
rC Z 0
U 0
CU CN
E" JJ
JJ CU U
JJ rH 0) Q
0 IB rl
J3 JJ JJ
rH C CO C
-rl Q) 0
2 rH JJ 01
• 0 -H in c
D rl CJ rH In -H
•H C O £
-H > 3 in O tO
rH C O rH rH IB
W w U
-------
n
n
o
H
•O
•O
id
•O
id
«
«
a
M
H
0
o
1
CN
Tfr
1 H
^i jj
C
•U H
9
M V3
U H
O
Q
•
V4
•H
> *<
C in
U (N
m
4H i
0 ro
r*i
W • (N
• JJ fS
G< & I-H
0)
-Q Ji
C H
0) 0) O
rH JJ (H
rH Id C T)
fiC JJ 0 1C £
CO -H O 0)
• JJtt 2
2 .* id
>H > ,
(0 !x 0) 0 C
§W S (C
S C .Q
£ 0> O o I-H
H S U in <
U)
r-
t
Q
>
H
CO
>H
d) r-
)H n
3 o
JJ So
10 U 20*
ri id
0) MH -U
C 3 JJ Q
id C d)
> id c -
N S 0 rl C
•H JJ 0
• rH JJ W JJ
M id id 01
U -H g C
(B -H U -H
E E 0 H.C
CO 0) 10 0 CO
id £ m in (d
Oi U < (N S
r~
t~-
1
Q
>
H
CO
>,
0)
g
o
jj
jj
a.
C .* •*
0 C U H
to O 0 t-
C to U en
£ C X) in
O.C id
rj o n h
^3 S
jj
j ^s to -
cu c
id co s id
c -H e
C H en i >
fe 1
rH
0 JJ in
C 0) 0
£ 0) 0
U JH 0
0) JJ CS
H M
JJ CJ
JJrj J3 0
0 id jj
XI ^ C
rH C 0) C
-HO) a) 0
td e jj jj
2 rH W 01
• O -rl -rt C
Q iH U fc JH -rl
-H c o si
•H > 3 in O to
rH C O H rH (d
H W U 01 EL, IS
CA
r~
1
Q
>
H
(U
JJ
•H
3
w
^
^
.2
o »
CO) vo
ca H > n
-rl < O
H - O
O m *J cs
SO) 3
-rl U U
CO Ol-H Q
J* O JJ
W rH U
O 0) C
• C C 0
b Jl C JJ
U 0 01
•c a) u c
C E-i -H
Jin J3
M in o CQ
S rH O Id
H S H CO S
C3
OD
i
Q
>
H
T)
ffl
C
•H
4J
0
u
CS
w
h3
I
m
n
CO
n
•O
•o
ID
T3
B
M
CO
id
c
M
0)
JJ
C
0)
i
o
o
0» .
? &
i H
**«
JJ H
H r~
CO 3 0) 0
C O JJ r-
tn 0 co co m
fl) u co X) in
rH ca K co
-rH -H S H
Q) S rH S
J3 id x:
E-l M-l Wl JJ -
0 3 3 C
•O JJ O O
rH a) id co m
Id JJ 2 -rl
C id H -o
0 JJ <*-! O Id
O CO 0 H S
H
t~
1
Q
1
>
H
• C
W O in
• -rl 01
ft JJ CT\
id o
- w i
u o «>
•H Q, 00
u CTvc
id 0 oo
> u •*
o
*£§
• -r)
< C *
S-o
CO O C
id u «
E rH
o » -o
JC O-H
H D S
CN
r~
i
Q
>
M
^
0) S
JJ Z
w
id
S 0)
2
rH C
IB Q) 00
U > 0
•rl < O
H £ O
JJ CD JJ (N
"» U 0 U
0 -H Q
J«i UH JJ
co o u
O 4J (U C
S 0) C C 0 O
JJ Q) C O JJ
*D 3 6 0 m Oi
rl JJ 0) O C
(d -H Oi a) -H
£ JJ (fl rH JJ &
U CO C 0 -rl CO
-ri C S m 3 id
OS M 2 Tf co S
m
t-
a
i
>
H
fe
ry
^
§JJ
• 0) U>
Q) H i D. U -H
!H 0) O rH £
in *O co o CO
id B ca H id
ca H < H s
•*
t^
i
Q
1
>
H
^
CO
)H
(D
-rl P~
Vi r~
^1 VO
,s c o
rl id B; -
H id
rH -H
(X rH rH iH
id -H TJ
$g ^g
§-rl -OX
JJ U O Q)
J! Id C MrH
IH 2 H (N <
in
IS
1
Q
1
>
M
2-10
-------
n
n
0)
n
•O
•O
m
•0
G
10
I
c
M
0)
c
0>
o
^
I
cs
Tb
1 H
< jj
JJ H
0)
.* vo
O rH
O
O
in
jj cn
>, Q) CM
C 0) m
Id rl 1
0) g CO •<*•
rH 0 00
SO C in
0 -H •*
Q rH Id
•H s a
• o o
C JJ -
g 0 3 S
id £ o id
•H JJ 00 rH
rH (d TJ
rH rl Cn C
•rl Id m -rl
S S m fc
k£>
co
D
^
^
^
^
to s
0) Z
•H
rl 0)
JJ 3
to C
30) «>
•O > m
OiC< o
rl H O
0) JJ (N
XJ in 3
C-H U U
0) rl -H D
, *: m
rl U U rH
>H 0) O P-
id tf U en
X XJ in
rH 1C
r4 -rl C CQ fH
0) C O 0 S
SO -H JJ
Q, ID rH JJ tD -
0 c id id a) c
jj j3 C -H S *
tn o 0 u g
•rl 1-3 -rl O (TV 0)
rl JJ Q) CO N
5- id tn «* 0
J S3 < H ffl
C^l
CO
|
D
w
r\
ri Sin
0) en co
•rl rl Ul
jj a> o
Q) C CM
i-H W
rH U
0) 4-1 Q
a< o
«
• JJ C
b. C 0
0) jJ
'O g Oi
C JJ C
£i (d rC
s a tn
m o> id
K Q S
0
1
Q
1
£\
"
•o
0)
ti
•H
4J
O
U
fM
U
CQ
CO
t,
•0
Tl
w
(0
13
g
0)
§
0
i
t£ ^
H
JJ «-4 "^
j? »
o
o
Q
to
0)
u
-rl
£>
^|
0)
CO
•o
rH >
JJ CQ
C o
0) 0) rH
6 JJ CM
2 C en
O -H CM
rl 0
-H D- a
> CO
C C JJ
JS W
0
o
CO
0)
JJ
IM -H
0 D
CO
0 '0
rH -H tn s o
0) JJ rl 2 0
J3 Id 0) CM
S-rl i— 1 -
U U JJ U
C5 0 >. 0) Q
CQ U (D
rl CQ (!) rl »
0) H
0) Q) Z
^ i o -
rl O 0 CQ C
3 U rl O
JC id -H • u
jj x > o id
3 Q) C • 0)
d, H W Oi CQ
n
00
i
D
I
^
Ss,
c
• id
W. §*
a o
CJ VO
H
01 rH CM
0) BJ rn
> u •*
id -H cn
>H E rH K
CD 0) CM O
• u M
U -O 0 3
T3 C CQ XJ
* rH -3
S Si O rH
*C tn -o
H < a a
00
i
Q
1
n
0)
JJ
3
jj
-H
JJ
in
C
H in
0
c s o
3 Z o
0) CM
rH -
O JJ C.)
rl 0) C
JJ 0)
N 0) rl -
a) a. jj c
rH CO 0
•H C JJ
* id • tn
CQ U J C
-rl -H
•-H rl 0 £
3 a> CM n
(d g CM id
Oi < rH S
in
00
1
Q
1
rH
2-11
-------
3.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON PROPOSED RULE
3.1 RULE APPLICABILITY
Comment: Many commenters stated that the proposed
applicability of the proposed Off-Site Waste and Recovery
Operations NESHAP is too broad and should be narrower. Major
reasons presented by individual commenters include: (1) rule's
applicability was expanded by the EPA beyond the scope of the
initial source category listing without providing adequate
notice to the public; (2) including operations managing
"recoverable materials" received from off-site in the rule's
applicability discourages recycling, provides a disincentive
to pollution prevention, and is inconsistent with the
Pollution Prevention Act; and (3) range of facility types
subject to the rule is too broad because many of these
facility types have significantly different HAP emission
sources. Recommendations suggested by commenters to narrow
the rule's applicability include: (1) eliminate the rule's
applicability to "recoverable materials"; (2) limit the rule's
applicability to the seven industry sectors specifically
identified in the proposal preamble and included in the BID
impact analysis; (3) limit the rule's applicability to
facilities that are "predominantly" in the business of
commercial waste management; (4) add more facility-specific
exemptions to address the concerns as raised by individual
commenters; and (5) delay development of the NESHAP for the
source category until after the NESHAP for other MACT source
categories have been promulgated.
Response: The EPA proposed that the Off-Site Waste and
Recovery Operations NESHAP be applicable to owners and
3-1
-------
operators of facilities, with certain specific exceptions,
that are "major sources" (as defined in 40 CFR 63.2) and at
which operations are conducted to manage, convey, or handle
"wastes" or "recoverable materials" generated off-site and
containing organic HAP (as specified in Table 1 of the rule).
Under the proposed rule, the following waste and recovery
operations were specifically exempted from the requirements of
the Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP: (1) units
used exclusively to manage waste or recoverable material
generated at the affected facility site (i.e., waste or
recoverable material generated on-site); (2) municipal solid
waste landfill units; (3) incinerators used to burn waste;
(4) boilers or furnaces used to burn regulated material to
produce energy; (5) units at a publicly-owned treatment works;
and (6) units used exclusively to manage waste that has been
received from remediation activities to cleanup wastes
designated as hazardous wastes under RCRA.
The EPA has not expanded the applicability of the Off-
Site Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP beyond the scope of
the initial source category listing without providing adequate
notice to the public. The EPA published an advance notice of
proposed rulemaking (ANPR) in the Federal Register on
December 20, 1993 (58 FR 66336) announcing the EPA's intent to
develop a NESHAP for the off-site waste and recovery
operations source category. In the ANPR, the; EPA provided a
general description of the types of facilities the EPA planned
to regulate under this rulemaking (see 58 FR 66337). The EPA
further provided a definition of "waste" that: the Agency
intended to be used for this rulemaking which included
materials managed prior to being recycled. Thus, the Agency
clearly expressed its intent in the ANPR to include recovery
operations in the scope of this rulemaking.
The EPA believes that applying the Off-Site Waste and
Recovery Operations NESHAP to those organic-containing
materials that are collected for subsequent reprocessing or
recycling, as defined in the final rule, is fully consistent
3-2
-------
with the Pollution Prevention Act and the rule neither
discourages recycling nor provides a disincentive to pollution
prevention. The Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C.
13101 et seq., Pub. L. 101-508, November 5, 1990) establishes
the national policy of the United States for pollution
prevention. This act declares that: (1) pollution should be
prevented or reduced whenever feasible; (2) pollution that
cannot be prevented or reduced should be recycled or reused in
an environmentally-safe manner wherever feasible; (3)
pollution that cannot be recycled or reused should be treated;
and (4) disposal or release into the atmosphere should be
chosen only as a last resort. For the proposed rule, the EPA
split the definition of waste, as expressed in the ANPR, into
two terms; "waste" being defined as materials managed prior to
being discarded or discharged, and "recoverable materials"
being defined as materials managed prior to being recycled,
reprocessed, or reused. It appears that commenters
interpreted th>' regulatory language of the proposed rule using
these terms to extend the applicability of the rule to types
of recycling and pollution prevention operations for which the
Agency never intended to be subject to this rulemaking. To
clarify the EPA's intent, the general term "recoverable
material" is not used in the final rule. Instead, the EPA has
added to the final rule new terms which define the specific
types of recycled or reprocessed organic-containing materials
subject to the rule. In each case where the final Off-Site
Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP is applicable to a
particular operation that recycles or reuses these specified
materials, the EPA has included this operation because the
Agency has concluded that the operation can be a significant
source of organic HAP emissions. The final rule does not
prohibit or discourage an owner or operator from continuing to
use the recovery operation; the rule only requires that the
owner or operator control the organic HAP emitted to the
atmosphere from the operation. This is consistent with the
Pollution Prevention Act's declaration that operations to
3-3
-------
recycle or reuse materials be performed in an
environmentally-safe manner.
The EPA disagrees that the applicability of the Off-Site
Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP is too broad because many
of the facility types have significantly different HAP
emission sources. In the Federal Register notice for the
proposed rule, the EPA provided examples of specific types of
facilities included in the off-site waste and recovery
operations source category (see 59 FR 51920). At all of these
facilities, similar types of units (e.g., tanks, containers,
surface impoundments) are used to manage wastes or the other
materials subject to the rule. Organic HAP are emitted from
each type of unit by the same emission mechanisms regardless
of the type of facility at which the unit is located. Common
organic HAP control technologies are applicable to the units
used at all of the off-site waste and recovery operations
facility types. There are no significant differences in the
organic HAP emissions or the control technologies applicable
to controlling these emissions from the off-site waste and
recovery operations facility types subject to this rulemaking.
Many commenters wrongly interpreted the regulatory
language of the proposed rule to extend the applicability of
the Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP to
facilities for which the Agency never intended to be subject
to this rulemaking. In response to the different
interpretation of the proposed rule's applicability by
commenters versus the Agency's intent for this rulemaking, the
EPA reviewed the regulatory language in the applicability
section for the proposed rule. The EPA decided to revise the
structure used for the rule applicability section to
specifically define each of the facility types that is subject
to the Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP. As a
result, waste and recovery operations at facilities not
explicitly included in the applicability section of the final
Off-Site Waste and Recovery NESHAP are not subject to the
rule.
3-4
-------
At proposal, the EPA identified the types of waste
management and recovery operations the Agency was considering
for inclusion in the off-site waste and recovery operations
source category. In response to public comments on the
proposed rule and considering decisions made by the Agency
since proposal regarding other related rulemakings, the EPA
has reconsidered the types of waste management and recovery
operations to be regulated under the Off-Site Waste and
Recovery Operations NESHAP. The EPA reviewed information used
for the source category impact analysis at proposal and
evaluated new information provided to the Agency since
proposal by- commenters. As a result of this review, the EPA
decided that the final Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations
NESHAP should not apply to owners and operators of certain
operations originally considered to be in the scope of the
rulemaking. The rationale for including or excluding specific
waste management or recovery operations in the final rule
applicability .'.s presented below.
Facilities where operations are conducted to treat,
store, and dispose of wastes determined to be hazardous wastes
under RCRA may be subject to organic air emission standards
under 40 CFR parts 264 and 265. At these facilities, referred
to under the RCRA rules as a hazardous waste treatment,
storage., and disposal facility (TSDF) , a RCRA hazardous waste
may be generated at the same site where a TSDF is located, or
may be generated at one site and then transported to a TSDF at
a separate location. At TSDF where RCRA hazardous waste is
received from off-site, certain types of waste management
units such as wastewater treatment tanks and hazardous waste
recycling units can be exempted from the air standards
specified in 40 CFR parts 264 and 265. Many (but not alii
TSDF are expected by the EPA to be located at sites that are
major sources of HAP emissions. Therefore, the EPA decided
that the final Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP
be applicable to hazardous waste TSDF as well as to sites
where waste or recovery operations managing hazardous waste
3-5
-------
are performed and the entire operation is exempted under RCRA
from the air standards in subparts AA, BB, and CC under 40 CFR
parts 264 and 265.
Wastewater treatment facilities are operated by public
entities and private companies throughout,the United States
for the treatment of wastewaters other than those that are
RCRA hazardous wastewaters. Publicly owned treatment works
(POTW) are not included in the off-site waste operations
source category because POTW are listed as a separate NESHAP
source category. A review of nationwide survey data by the
EPA indicates that privately-owned wastewater treatment plants
are operated at some locations in the United States for which
the predominate function performed at the site is to treat
wastewaters received from off-site. Although a wastewater may
not be a RCRA hazardous waste, this wastewater can still
contain significant quantities of HAP. The EPA concluded this
group of wastewater treatment plants would not be subject to
other NESHAP and would likely include some individual
facilities that are major sources of HAP emissions.
Used oils from motor vehicles and other sources can
contain HAP. While the management of used oils which are
recycled is regulated by separate rules promulgated by the EPA
under section 3014 of RCRA, these RCRA rules do not
specifically establish air standards for used oil management
operations. A major portion of the used oil is processed for
sale as fuel for burning in boilers, furnaces, and space
heaters. The remainder of the recycled used oil is sent to
facilities categorized as "used oil re-ref iners.." At these
facilities the used oil is processed into base lube oil stocks
and other products. The EPA determined that some used oil
re-refining facilities are likely to be major sources of HAP
emissions. Consequently, the EPA decided that the final Off-
Site Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP apply to operations
that reprocess or re-refine used oil and are subject to
regulation under 40 CFR 279 subpart F — Standards for Used Oil
Processors and Refiners.
3-6
-------
Another recovery operation analogous to used oil
re-refining operations is solvent recovery operations.
Organic solvents are used in many types of businesses to clean
oils, grease, dirt, or other foreign matter from mechanical
parts and like items. These used organic solvents are often
collected and reprocessed by a company for re-sale as a
product or for use by another company as a process feedstock.
The EPA expects that some solvent recovery operations could be
major sources of HAP emissions. Therefore, the EPA decided
that the final Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP
be applicable to operations that reprocess or re-refine used
solvents except in situations where the operation is not part
of a chemical, petroleum, or other manufacturing process that
is required to use air emission controls by another subpart of
40 CFR part 63.
Many landfill facilities operated in the United States
are used for disposal of waste received from off-site.
Municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills are not included in the
off-site waste and recovery operations source category because
these facilities are listed as a separate NESHAP source
category. However, other landfill facilities operate in the
United States which are not MSW landfills and accept only
nonhazardous wastes. It is the EPA's understanding that
landfills used for disposal of construction/demolition debris
do not accept wastes containing significant amounts of organic
HAP. One commeter submitted to the EPA additional information
regarding operations, waste characterizations, and HAP
emission estimates from industrial waste landfills. The
potential for some industrial waste landfills to be a major
source is possible due to special circumstances (e.g.,
accepting predominately soils contaminated with organics).
However, under current operating practices, the EPA concluded
that it is unlikely that any of the existing industrial waste
landfills nationwide is a major source of HAP emissions.
Therefore, the EPA decided that the final Off-Site Waste and
Recovery Operations NESHAP not be applicable to any landfill
3-7
-------
facilities.
Some wastes generated during oil and gas exploration and
production (E&P) are subsequently transferred to operations at
other locations for centralized treatment or disposal. At
proposal, the EPA identified these centralized treatment and
disposal operations as waste management operations that would
be subject to the Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations
NESHAP. Additional information was received by the EPA from
commenters on the proposed rule regarding the nature of E&P
operations as presently practiced in oil and gas production
fields. Upon further consideration, the EPA decided it is not
necessary to include E&P waste operations under the final Off-
Site Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP. Instead, the EPA
is planning to address these sources under the Oil and Gas
Production NESHAP currently being developed by the Agency.
Comment: Many commenters stated that the requirements
for the proposed Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP
overlap with other Clean Air Act and Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) air standards and should be eliminated or,
at least, minimized to the extent possible. Commenters stated
that the proposed rule would be applicable to facilities now
(or soon to be) subject to other NESHAP or RCRA air standards.
As a result, individual emission points at facilities would be
subject to meeting air emission control requirements under
multiple Federal air standards. Commenters concluded that
this places unnecessary implementation costs on facility
owners and operators and potentially could subject a facility
owner or operator to multiple EPA enforcement penalties if a
single violation occurs at a facility. Recommendations made
by individual commenters to eliminate the rule overlap
include: (1) the proposed rule is duplicative of other EPA air
standards and therefore is not needed; (2) expand the
exemptions under the rule's applicability to include all
sources that are addressed by other NESHAP (including source
categories for which standards are planned but not yet
3-8
-------
promulgated) or are already using air emission controls under
other existing Federal air standards (e.g., RCRA subpart CC
rules); (3) integrate the requirements of RCRA and the Act
(i.e., compliance with RCRA air standards should be sufficient
for the Act); (4) instead of promulgating a separate rule
incorporate the requirements of the proposed rule into the
RCRA permit; and (5) add a table to the rule listing, for each
emission point, the requirements that the EPA considers the
most stringent in cases where multiple EPA air standards apply
to a facility (e.g., when are the control requirements for
RCRA acceptable, and exactly what additional control or
reporting requirements are imposed by the Off-site and
Recovery Operations NESHAP).
Response: The EPA fully recognizes that in developing
air standards to meet the Congressional directives established
by provisions in the Clean Air Act and Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA), the potential exists for regulatory
overlap. However, it is the EPA's intention to minimize, if
not eliminate, regulatory overlap to the extent that the
Agency is allowed under the different legislative acts. For
the Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP, the EPA
specifically requested comment regarding how potential
regulatory overlap at facilities subject to the rule as well
as other air rules can be addressed (59 FR 51919).
The EPA establishes rules for the management of solid
wastes under authority of the RCRA. Under authority of
subtitle C of RCRA, the EPA has established rules in 40 CFR
parts 260 through 271 regulating the management of solid
wastes determined to be hazardous waste. Municipal solid
wastes and other types of nonhazardous" solid wastes are
regulated by rules established under authority of subtitle D
of RCRA in 40 CFR Parts 257 and 258.
The Clean Air Act requires that the requirements of rules
developed under the Act be consistent, but avoid duplication,
with requirements of rules developed under RCRA. The final
Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP includes several
3-9
-------
provisions to ensure that this directive of the Act is met.
First, certain types of wastes regulated under RCRA are
excluded outright from the definition of "off-site material"
used to determine the applicability of the Off-Site Waste and
Recovery Operation NESHAP. These wastes include household
waste as defined in 40 CFR 258.2; waste that is generated by
remedial activities required under the RCRA corrective action
authorities (RCRA sections 3004(u), 3004(v), or 3008(h)),
CERCLA authorities, or similar Federal or State authorities;
and radioactiv- mixed waste.
The EPA also is aware that at some sites managing
hazardous wastes not generated onsite, the owner and operator
of a hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facility
(TSDF) could be subject to both the Off-Site Waste and
Recovery Operations NESHAP and RCRA air rules; under subparts
AA, BB, and CC of 40 CFR parts 264 and 265. At a particular
TSDF, some waste management units may be required to use air
emission controls under one or the other, but: not both, the
Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP and the RCRA
rules. However, some other waste management units could be
subject to using air emission controls to comply with both
sets of rules. It is unnecessary for owners and operators of
those waste management units subject to air standards under
both sets of rules to perform duplicative testing and
monitoring, keep duplicate sets of records, or perform other
duplicative actions. The EPA has decided that the best way to
eliminate any regulatory overlap is to amend the RCRA rules to
exempt units that are using air emission controls in
accordance with the requirements of Off-Site Waste and
Recovery Operations NESHAP or any other applicable NESHAP.
Providing this exemption eliminates the possibility of
duplicative or conflicting requirements for those TSDF tanks,
surface impoundments, or containers using organic emission
controls in compliance with the Off-Site Waste and Recovery
Operations NESHAP but also subject to requirements under the
RCRA standards. It is important to note that this exemption
3-10
-------
only applies to those units using organic air emission
controls. A unit that does not use the required air emission
controls but is in compliance with a NESHAP through an
"emissions averaging" or "bubbling" provision does not qualify
for the exemption.
Analogous to the potential for overlap of the Off-Site
Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP with RCRA air rules,
owners and operators of sites at which are located waste
management and recovery operations that are subject to Off-
Site Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP may also be subject
to another NESHAP because of other operations conducted at the
site. For example, a waste management or recovery operation
receiving materials from off-site may be located at a
synthetic organic chemical manufacturing plant that is subject
to 40 CFR 63 subparts F, G, and H - National Emission
Standards for Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants from the
Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry (referred to
hereafter in this notice as the "HON") or at a petroleum
refinery that is subject to 40 CFR 63 subpart CC - National
Emission Standards for Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants from
Petroleum Refineries. At plants subject to both the Off-Site
Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP and another NESHAP, the
Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP applies only to
those specific waste management or recovery operations listed
in the rule that receive off-site material. The Off-Site
Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP does not apply to other
units or equipment components at the site that are not part of
the waste management and recovery operations specified in the
rule.
Some NESHAP already regulate air emissions from the off-
site management of certain wastes containing HAP. To avoid
duplication of requirements in these cases, the Off-Site Waste
and Recovery Operations NESHAP does not apply to waste
management units that either receive waste from units
complying with all applicable regulations under the HON, or
receive waste from units complying with all applicable
3-11
-------
requirements specified by § 61.342(b) under 40 CFR 61
subpart FF - National Emission Standards for Benzene Waste
Operations for a plant at which the total annual benzene
quantity is greater than or equal to 10 Mg/yr.
Comment: Several commenters requested that the EPA
define the terms "stationary source", "major source", and
"affected source" as used in determining the applicability of
the rule to a facility. Commenters provided a variety of
recommendations regarding the definition of these terms.
Response: Section 112 of the Clean Air Act regulates
stationary sources of HAP. The term "stationary source" is
defined under § 63.2 in 40 CFR 63 subpart A - General
Provisions to mean "... any building, structure, facility,
or installation that emits or may emit any air pollutant."
The EPA is directed by the Act section 112 to regulate the
emission of these HAP from stationary sources by establishing
national emission standards (i.e., NESHAP).
The 1990 amendments to section 112(c) of the Act require
the EPA to develop and publish a list of source categories
that emit HAP for which NESHAP will be developed. The EPA is
required to list all known categories and subcategories of
"major sources." The term "major source" is defined by the
Clean Air Act to mean "any stationary source or group of
stationary sources located within a contiguous area and under
common control that emits or has the potential to emit,
considering controls, in the aggregate 10 tons per year
(ton/yr) or more of any HAP or 25 tons/yr or more of any
combination of HAP." The EPA's initial list of categories of
major sources of HAP emissions was published in the Federal
Register on July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576).
For the purpose of implementing NESHAP under 40 CFR
Part 63, "affected source" is defined to mean "the stationary
source, or portion of a stationary source that is regulated by
a relevant standard or other requirement established pursuant
to section 112 of the Act." Each relevant standard is to
3-12
-------
designate the "affected source" for the purposes of that
standard. Within a source category, the EPA decides which HAP
emission sources (i.e., emission points or groupings of
emission points) are most appropriate for establishing
separate emission standards in the context of the Clean Air
Act statutory requirements and the industry operating
practices for the particular source category.
At proposal, the EPA considered different options for
defining "affected source" for the Off-Site Waste and Recovery
Operations NESHAP ranging from using a broad definition (e.g.,
the entire plant or facility site) to narrow definitions
(e.g., individual emission points)(59 FR 51923). The EPA
proposed using the narrowest definition of affected source for
the Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP by defining
the affected sources to be each of the individual emission
point types identified for the rule (e.g., each individual
tank). The EPA received comments that its proposed
designation of affected source for the Off-Site Waste and
Recovery Operations NESHAP was too restrictive and would
complicate an owner's or operators's determination of when
reconstruction of a source has occurred triggering the
requirement to comply with the standards for new sources.
Upon consideration of these comments, the EPA decided that
using a broader definition is a more appropriate approach for
defining the affected sources for the Off-Site Waste and
Recovery Operations NESHAP.
Designating the affected source for the Off-Site Waste
and Recovery Operations NESHAP as the entire plant site was
rejected by the EPA. This approach would allow the MACT floor
to be established by the plant-wide emission reduction
indicative of the level that is achieved by the best
performing 12 percent of the existing sources. Application of
a single MACT floor to all of the emission points located at
the plant site and selected for control under the Off-Site
Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP would be difficult, if
not technically infeasible, for several reasons. First, the
3-13
-------
EPA's data base for the off-site waste and recovery operations
NESHAP lacks sufficient data regarding the type of information
required to implement this approach for the source category.
Also, the mechanism by which organic HAP are emitted to the
atmosphere and the types of controls relevant for reducing
these air emissions is not the same for all of the emission
point types identified for off-site waste and recovery
operation source category. For example, covers frequently are
installed on tanks to control air emissions while work
practice programs are used to control air emissions from
equipment leaks. Furthermore, not all waste management and
recovery operations at a particular plant site may be subject
to this rulemaking because they are not used to manage off-
site material, as defined in the rule.
A second approach is to designate several different
affected sources by grouping the similar emission points for
each waste management and recovery operation used at the plant
site to manage off-site materials. Under this approach, each
affected source consists of the group of similar emission
point types for the entire sequence of units or equipment
components in which a particular off-site material is managed
at the site. An example of such a group of emission points is
the collection of tanks, containers, surface impoundments, and
similar units that are used at a site to manag? a waste from
the point where the waste is received at the site to the point
where the material enters an on-site disposal unit not
regulated under this rule (e.g., waste incinerator, landfill
unit). An individual MACT floor is established for the entire
group of emission points comprising each designated affected
source.
This second approach offers several advantages for
implementing the Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations
NESHAP. Designating the affected source to be a group of
similar emission point types ensures that air emission
controls of equivalent performance are applied at the same
time to all of the units used to manage a particular off-site
3-14
-------
material stream. In contrast, had the EPA maintained the
proposed designation for the affected sources (i.e., each
individual emission point), situations could have occurred
where an owner or operator was required to use controls on a
new tank (or other newly installed unit) downstream of
existing tanks managing the same off-site material but not
required to use air emission controls under the rule. This
would be an inefficient application of air emission controls
since a significant portion of the HAP contained in the off-
site material likely would have escaped to the atmosphere
before the material entered the controlled unit. The approach
also provides a logical grouping of equipment by which an
owner or operator readily can determine when reconstruction of
the affected source triggers the air emission control
requirements under the rule for new sources. Therefore, for
the final off-site waste and recovery operations NESHAP, the
EPA decided to designate the affected sources by three
distinct groups of the emission point types for the waste
management and recovery operation subject to using air
emission controls under the rule.
The first group of similar emission points designated to
be an affected source for the Off-Site Waste and Recovery
Operations NESHAP is the group of tanks, containers, surface
impoundments, oil-water and organic-water separators,
individual drain systems and other stationary material
conveyance systems used to manage off-site material in each of
the waste management and recovery operations specified in the
rule that are located at the plant site. The units regulated
under this affected source designation are collectively
referred to hereafter in this notice as "off-site material
management units."
The second the group of similar emission points
designated to be an affected source for the Off-Site Waste and
Recovery Operations NESHAP is process vents on units used to
manage off-site material in each of the waste management and
recovery operations specified in the rule that are located at
3-15
-------
the plant site. As defined for the rule, a process vent is an
open-ended pipe, stack, or duct used for passage of gases,
vapors, or fumes to the atmosphere and this passage is caused
by mechanical means (such as compressors or vacuum-producing
systems) or by process-related means (such as volatilization
produced by heating). A stack or duct used to exhaust
combustion products from an enclosed combustion unit (e.g.,
boiler, furnace, heater, incinerator) is not a process vent
for this rulemaking.
The third group of similar emission points designated to
be an affected source for the Off-Site Waste and Recovery
Operations NESHAP is the group of equipment components prone
to emitting HAP as a result of equipment leaks. This group of
equipment consists of pumps, compressors, agitators, pressure
relief devices, sampling connection systems, open-ended valves
and lines, valves, connectors, and instrumentcition systems
that contain or contact off-site material in each of the waste
management and recovery operations specified in the rule that
are located at the plant site.
3.2 IMPACT ANALYSIS
Comment: Several commenters stated that the data base
used by the EPA for the impact analysis is incomplete and out-
of-date. Specific reasons stated by individual commenters
include: (1) the data base is not representative of all of
the facilities in the United States affected by the rule
(e.g., does not include recovery operations that could be
subject to the rule); and (2) the 1986 waste quantity and
composition information in the data base used by the EPA is
not representative of current waste management practices.
Response: In the development of the Off-Site Waste and
Recovery Operations NESHAP, the EPA used the best information
available to the Agency. Earlier in the development of the
rule, the EPA recognized that more up-to-date data and
additional information would be beneficial for evaluating the
different types of waste management and recovery operations
3-16
-------
included in the source category and for estimating the impacts
associated with this rulemaking. The EPA made several
requests for information from the public to supplement the
Agency's information regarding the off-site waste and recovery
operations source category.
Prior to proposal of the Off-Site Waste and Recovery
NESHAP, the EPA announced in the ANPR the data bases the
Agency was using for the impact analyses and requested
information from the public (see 58 FR 66338 and 66339) . The
EPA specifically requested more information on off-site
material characteristics (types, quantities, organic
composition), operating practices, and waste and recovery
operation emission points and air emission data. No
additional information regarding these topics was received by
the EPA.
At proposal, the EPA requested additional information to
improve the Agency's understanding and profile of the waste
management and recovery operations intended to be addressed by
this rulemakinc (see 59 FR 51921). Additional information was
provided to the EPA by commenters regarding the following
topics: (1) industrial waste landfill operations, waste
characterizations, and HAP emissions; (2) general practices
for waste management and recovery operations commonly used at
chemical manufacturing plants and petroleum refineries; and
(3) general waste management practices used at oil exploration
and production leases. In addition, the EPA obtained
additional information regarding used solvent collection and
management practices for businesses that reprocess used
solvent for sale to other users.
The data base used for the impact analysis for the
rulemaking was compiled by collecting information related to
off-site waste and recovery operations from nationwide surveys
of hazardous waste TSDF, wastewater treatment facilities, and
used oil management facilities that the EPA conducted for
other rulemakings. The EPA is fully aware that off-site waste
and recovery operations have changed since the surveys were
3-17
-------
conducted. These changes are the result of multiple factors
including reductions in the quantities of certain wastes sent
to waste management facilities as waste minimization programs
have been implemented by generators; changes in waste disposal
practices to comply with RCRA land .disposal restrictions and
other rules; and changes in ownership arrangements of waste
management and recovery operations located within large
petrochemical and other manufacturing complexes. In
recognition of these changes, the EPA adjusted the data base
to reflect these changes to the extent possible using other
information available to the Agency.
The EPA reviewed the data base used to develop the Off-
Site Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP with respect to the
Agency's decisions regarding the rule revisions made to the
applicability of the final rule. The EPA believes that the
data base contains sufficient information regarding the types
of the waste management and recovery operations that are
subject to the final Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations
NESHAP to support the Agency's decisions for the rulemaking.
Comment: Several commenters stated that the organic HAP
emission reductions estimated by the EPA to be achieved by the
proposed rule are overstated. Specific reasons stated by
individual commenters include: (I) the emission models
selected and the assumptions used to update and consolidate
the data used to represent the emission points overestimates
the emissions from affected sources; and (2) the analysis did
not consider the organic HAP emission reductions from
implementation of the RCRA air standards under subpart CC in
40 CFR parts 264 and 265.
Response; The EPA reviewed the assumptions and emission
models used to estimate HAP emissions for this source
category. The emission models in CHEMDAT8 reflect
improvements and revisions that the EPA has made in response
to extensive industry review of the models. The Agency not
find nor receive any new information from commenters that
3-18
-------
suggests that the EPA's assumptions and emission models used
for the emission estimates are not representative of the types
of off-site waste and recovery operations expected to be
subject to the rule.
At certain facilities managing hazardous wastes and also
receiving wastes from off-site, air emission control
requirements under both the Off-Site Waste and Recovery
Operations NESHAP as well as air standards applied under RCRA
in 40 CFR parts 264 or 265 may be applicable to the same units
at the facilities. The RCRA subpart CC air standards
establishes air emission control requirements for certain
tanks, surface impoundments, and containers managing hazardous
waste. At the time that the impact analysis for the proposed
Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP was being
prepared, it was not appropriate to include the RCRA
subpart CC standards in the regulatory baseline defined for
the impact analysis because the subpart CC standards were not
promulgated. The RCRA subpart CC standards were subsequently
promulgated on December 6, 1994 (59 FR 62896). However, since
this date, the EPA has proposed revising certain provisions of
the RCRA subpart CC standards. Because the requirements of
the RCRA subpart CC standards are likely to change from those
promulgated, the EPA decided not to attempt to adjust the
nationwide impact estimates to reduce the lower nationwide
emission reduction and lower nationwide costs for the Off-Site
Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP if the RCRA subpart CC
standards are included in the regulatory baseline.
Comment; Several commenters stated that the EPA's
estimates of the costs of implementing the proposed rule
requirements are understated. Specific reasons stated by
individual commenters include: (1) waste determination
analytical costs for complying with the proposed rule
requirements are underestimated; (2) costs of applying air
emission controls to bulk solids storage tanks, waste
stabilization tanks, and wastewater treatment tanks are
3-19
-------
underestimated; and (3) costs are not included for modifying
RCRA permits when additional controls are required at RCRA
permitted facilities and for upgrading containers for "legacy"
wastes (i.e., waste generated and stored prior to the
effective date of a rule).
Response: The EPA reviewed the cost estimates used for
the rule impacts with respect to the Agency's decisions
regarding the applicability and technical requirements of the
final rule. Based on this review, the EPA concluded that it
is reasonable to use cost estimates as prepared at proposal
with two revisions for the purpose of evaluating nationwide
impacts of the final rule. The first revision involved
deleting costs for applying air emission controls to land
disposal units because the final Off-Site Waste and Recovery
Operations NESHAP places no air emission control requirements
on the disposal of wastes in land disposal units. The second
revision involves adding costs for performing VOHAP
concentration determination for off-site materials not placed
in units using air emission controls.
The air emission control requirements for tanks under the
final Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP have been
significantly revised as described further in section 3.2.4 of
this chapter. The EPA reviewed the air emission control cost
estimates for r.anks considering these revisions to the final
rule. With the numerous changes made to the rule air emission
control requirements for tanks, the EPA believes that the
actual costs of applying air emission controls to the tanks
listed in the source category data base will be lower the
those estimated at proposal. Therefore, for the purposes of
this rulemaking, the cost algorithms used at proposal for
estimating tank air emission controls provide should provide
at least reasonable, if not conservative, estimates of
applying the required air emission controls to all tanks
subject to the rule including bulk solids storage tanks, waste
stabilization tanks, and wastewater treatment tanks.
Under the Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP,
3-20
-------
the need to use air emission controls on containers (or any
other affected unit) is determined based on the VOHAP
concentration of off-site materials placed in the container
3 years after the promulgation date of the final rule. In
situations where an existing container currently holds off-
site material (as of the date 3 years from the date of rule
promulgation) but no more off-site material is added to the
container the Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP
does not apply. Thus, there are no costs incurred to retrofit
or "upgrade" containers holding "legacy" wastes.
3.3 SELECTION OF BASIS FOR PROPOSED RULE
Comment: A number of commenters stated that the EPA's
MACT floor determination for the source category is incorrect
or inadequate for a variety of reasons. Reasons presented by
individual commenters include: (1) the EPA did not follow the
Clean Air Act requirements in developing the MACT floor for
this rulemaking; (2) the MACT floor determination did not
include recovery operations; (3) the air emission control data
used for the MACT floor determination do not represent the
controls currently in use at drum reconditioning facilities,
oil and gas E&P waste management facilities, or facilities
that manage small quantities of off-site waste; and (4) it is
inappropriate for the EPA to group all tanks together in a
single emission point category and, instead, separate MACT
floor determinations should be performed for tanks managing
solid wastes (e.g., bulk storage bins) and for wastewater
treatment tanks.
Response: The EPA did follow the requirements the Clean
Air Act in developing the MACT floor for this rulemaking.
Specific statutory directives set out in section 112 of the
1990 Amendments require the EPA to establish standards under a
NESHAP to reflect application of maximum achievable control
technology (MACT). A statutory minimum or baseline level of
HAP emission control that the EPA can select to be MACT for a
particular source category is defined under section 112(d)(3)
3-21
-------
of the 1990 Amendments, and is referred to as the "MACT
floor." For new sources, the MACT floor is the level of HAP
emission control that is achieved in practice by the best
controlled similar source. The statute allows standards under
a NESHAP for existing sources to be less stringent than
standards for new sources. The determination of MACT floor
for existing sources is dependent on the nationwide number of
existing sources within the source category. The off-site
waste and recovery operations source category contains more
than 30 existing sources nationwide. For a source category
with 30 or more existing sources, the MACT floor is the
average emission limitation achieved by the best performing
12 percent of the existing sources.
Once the MACT floors are determined for new and existing
sources in a source category, the EPA must establish standards
under a NESHAP that are no less stringent than the applicable
MACT floors. The Administrator may promulgate standards that
are more stringent than the MACT floor when such standards are
determined by the EPA to be achievable taking into
consideration the cost of implementing the standards as well
as any non-air quality health and environmental impacts and
energy requirements.
The EPA included in the data base used for the MACT floor
determination ail of the information available to the Agency.
This information reflected air emission control practices used
for tanks, containers, and other emission points handling
wastes. However, the EPA does not believe the existing air
emission control practices used for units handling used oil or
used solvent to be less stringent than those applied to units
handling wastes.
Drum reconditioning facilities and oil and gas E&P waste
management facilities are not subject to the final Off-Site
Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP. Also, under the final
rule, facilities that manage small quantities of off-site
materials containing organic HAP (less than 1 Mg per year of
organic HAP) are not to required to install and operate air
3-22
-------
emission controls. Thus, air emission control practices at
these types of facilities should not be included in the MACT
floor determination.
As previously discussed in this section, the EPA has
revised the affected source designation for the off-site
material management units at a plant site subject to the Off-
Site Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP. For the final
rule, the designated affected source is the group of off-site
material management units (e.g., tanks, surface impoundments,
containers, oil-water and organic-water separators, individual
drain systems and other stationary transfer systems) in each
of the waste management and recovery operations specified in
the rule that are located at the plant site. Because the MACT
floor determination for these off-site material management
units used at proposal was based on the application of the
floor to individual units rather than the group of units, the
EPA reconsidered the MACT floor determination following
revision of the affected source designation for the rule.
The EPA reviewed site-specific information in the source
category data base regarding existing air emission control
practices for off-site material management units. In
addition, the EPA considered the air emission controls that
off-site material management units could be required to use by
new air rules promulgated since the Off-Site Waste and
Recovery Operations NESHAP was proposed (e.g., air rules for
hazardous waste tanks, surface impoundments, and containers in
subpart CC under 40 CFR parts 264 and 265}.
Based on the EPA's review of the air emission control
information in the data base for the off-site waste and
recovery operations source category, the Agency concluded that
most groups of off-site material management units
(significantly more than 12 percent) manage off-site material,
at a minimum, in covered units. A portion of these off-site
material management units use more effective air emission
controls such as venting the covered unit to a control device.
However, based on the information available to Agency, the EPA
3-23
-------
cannot definitively determine whether the higher level of air
emission control achieved by that portion of units using
controls in addition to covers is representative of the
average of the top 12 percent of all existing off-site
material management units. Thus, the EPA decided to establish
the MACT floor control technology for the existing off-site
material managements as use of a cover.
For other source categories, the EPA has established
whether a particular unit warrants the use of air emission
controls under rules for the source category on the basis of a
characteristic parameter for the materials placed in the unit
(e.g., vapor pressure or organic concentration). The EPA
believes that using this approach provides an effective and
enforceable means for identifying the units that warrant air
emission controls while excluding those units for which
installation of controls is unnecessary because the units have
no or little potential for HAP emissions. Consequently, to
complete the definition of the MACT floor for this affected
source, an applicability cutoff provision (referred to
hereafter in this notice as an "action level") is needed to
identify which off-site material management units use the
selected air emission controls.
Establishing an action level required first selecting an
appropriate format for the action level that allows the value
to be relatively simple to determined by an owner or operator
and expeditiously checked by EPA or State enforcement
personnel. For the proposed rule, the EPA evaluated several
possible action level formats and decided that an action level
based on the volatile organic HAP concentration (VOHAP) of the
off-site materials is appropriate for identifying those units
which emit HAP and warrant the application of air emission
controls. The selection of the value for the VOHAP
concentration action level established for the final Off-Site
Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP is discussed in the
response to the next comment.
3-24
-------
Comment: Several commenters state that the 100 ppmw
VOHAP concentration action level selected by the EPA for the
Off-site Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP is inappropriate
and inconsistent with other applicable NSPS and NESHAP.
Individual commenters recommend that the EPA select a higher
action level for the rule. Levels suggested by commenters
include: (1) 500 ppmw consistent with the proposed SOCMI NSPS;
and (2) 1,000 ppmw consistent with the HON.
Response: The EPA proposed a VOHAP concentration value of
100 ppmw to be used as the action level for the rule.
However, in proposing this value, the EPA acknowledged that
some off-site material management units subject to the Off-
Site Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP could be subject to
other NESHAP and NSPS with differing action levels. The EPA
therefore requested comment on establishing the VOHAP
concentration action level for the rule at 100 ppmw, as well
as information that could be used to support alternative
action levels such as 500 ppmw (59 FR 51924). The EPA
received comments stating that the 100 ppmw VOHAP
concentration action level proposed by the EPA for the Off-
site Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP is inappropriate and
inconsistent with other applicable NSPS and NESHAP and
recommending that the EPA select a higher action level for the
rule.
As noted above, the EPA received from commenters several
suggestions for higher action levels; although, the commenters
provided no technical information to support selection of
these higher action levels as the MACT floor. However, in
view of the changes the EPA has made to the final Off-site
Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP in areas such as
applicability of the rule, the EPA considered it appropriate
to reexamine the MACT floor determination and the selection of
the VOHAP concentration action level.
The data available to the EPA at this time for the
off-site waste and recovery operations source category are
insufficient to perform a rigorous statistical analysis for
3-25
-------
the purpose of establishing the minimum VOHAP concentration
value for off-site material management units currently using
air emission controls. From a qualitative perspective,
application of air emission controls under the Off-Site Waste
and Recovery Operations NESHAP is not needed when a material
managed in an uncontrolled unit has little or no potential for
HAP emissions. In general, these off-site materials can be
characterized as materials having low VOHAP concentrations.
The EPA considered the comments received regarding the
proposed action level, other revisions to the final Off-Site
Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP, and changes that the EPA
anticipates making for other waste and wastewater related
rules. The EPA concluded that a reexamination of the MACT
floor action level determination was appropriate. Based on
consideration of the information available to the Agency
regarding HAP emissions from waste management and recovery
operations receiving off-site material, the EPA has concluded
that a VOHAP concentration value of 500 ppmw best represents
the MACT floor for existing off-site material management units
using covers.
3,4 RULE TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS
Comment: Several commenters stated that air emission
controls that would be required by the proposed rule for
certain tank types are either technically infeasible,
commercially unavailable, impractical, or too costly to
implement. Comments stated by individual commenters include:
(1) the vapor pressure and tank size categories should be
revised to better relate to tank air emission potential;
(2) allow use of "flexible liner tops" as closed covers for
tanks; and (3) allow use of conservation vents on tanks using
fixed-roof covers; and (4) proposed control requirements are
not technically feasible for bulk solids storage tanks and for
waste stabilization tanks.
Response: Since proposal, the EPA has obtained more
information on the use of tanks to manage off-site materials.
3-26
-------
Based on consideration of this information, the EPA decided
that certain revisions were appropriate to the air emission
control requirements for tanks under the final Off-site Waste
and Recovery Operations NESHAP. Additional air emission
control alternatives have been added for certain types of
tanks. The inspection, monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements for air emission controls applied to
all tanks subject to the rule have been significantly
simplified from those proposed. The specific revisions are
described in detail in Sections 1.1.4 and 1.1.5 of this
document. The EPA believes with that, with these revisions,
the air emission control requirements under the Off-Site Waste
and Recovery Operations NESHAP are technically feasible and
practical to implement on all of the tanks types expected to
be subject to the rule.
The tank capacity and vapor pressure categories limits
for existing tanks required to use air emission controls under
the Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP have been
corrected to be consistent with the EPA's original intent to
be compatible with other RCRA and NESHAP air emission
standards already promulgated by the Agency which potentially
could be applicable to the same tank. The proposed rule was
incorrectly drafted to exclude existing tanks having a design
capacity less than 75 m3 (approximately 20,000 gallons) from
using any air emission controls. The EPA never intended to
exclude this group of tanks from the Off-Site Waste and
Recovery Operations NESHAP. Under the final rule, when
applicable, use of Tank Level 1 air emission controls is
required for an existing tank having a design capacity less
than 75 m3.
For the tanks required to use Tank Level 1 controls, the
final Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP specifies
that the off-site material be managed in a tank equipped with
a fixed-roof. This roof can be a cover fabricated from a
flexible material provided that the cover meets the rule
3-27
-------
requirements regarding general design criteria (e.g., no
visible holes or gaps) and operating requirements (e.g., the
cover remains in place except at those times access to the
tank is required for the conditions specified in the rule).
Also, the final rule allows a tank using Tank Level 1
controls to be equipped with a conservation vent or similar
type of pressure relief device which vents to the atmosphere
during normal tank operations for the purpose of maintaining
the tank internal pressure in accordance with the tank design
specifications. Examples of normal operating conditions that
may require these devices to open are during those times when
the container internal pressure exceeds the internal pressure
operating range for the tank as a result of loading operations
or diurnal ambient temperature fluctuations.
Two revisions have been made to the rule regarding tanks
used for waste stabilization processes to address comments.
First, waste stabilization tanks (as well as any other
affected waste management unit) are exempted from the air
emission control requirements of the rule if hazardous waste
is placed in the tank and this waste meets the applicable
numerical concentration limits specified in 40 CFR part 268 -
Land Disposal Restrictions under both of the following tables:
Table "Treatment Standards for Hazardous Waste" in
40 CFR 268.40; and Table UTS - "Universal Treatment Standards"
in 40 CFR 268.48. Second, for those waste stabilization tanks
that are required to use air emission controls under the rule,
the final Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP allows
a waste stabilization tank to be controlled by locating the
tank inside an enclosure vented to an enclosed combustion
control device (e.g., vapor incinerator, boiler, process
heater). With these revisions to the final rule, the EPA
believes that requirements of the Off-Site Waste and Recovery
Operations are not only technically feasible but appropriate
for waste stabilization tanks used to treat off-site materials
and required to use air emission controls under the rule.
The EPA believes that the Tank Level 1 air emission
3-28
-------
control requirements as specified in the final rule (i.e., a
cover with no visible hole or gaps) can be readily applied to
those tanks that manage bulk solids and qualify to use Tank
Level 1 controls. For those tanks required to use Tank Level
2 controls, the EPA has revised the Off-Site Waste and
Recovery Operations NESHAP to address the specific situation
raised by commenters regarding the technical feasibility of
applying air emission controls to a tank used for bulk feed of
off-site material to a waste incinerator. The EPA added to
the final rule an air emission control alternative to the Tank
Level 2 air emission control requirements for existing
incinerator bulk feed tanks. For these tanks, the tank is
exempted from the Tank Level 2 air emission control
requirements ii" all of the following conditions are met:
(1) the tank is located inside an enclosure vented to a
control device that is designed and operated in accordance
with all applicable requirements specified under 40 CFR 61
subpart FF - National Emission Standards for Benzene Waste
Operations for a facility at which the total annual benzene
quantity from the facility waste is equal to or greater than
10 megagrams per year; (2) these controls were installed and
began operation prior to the rule promulgation date; and
(3) the enclosure is designed and operated in accordance with
the criteria for a permanent total enclosure as specified in
"Procedure T - Criteria for and Verification of a Permanent or
Temporary Total Enclosure" under 40 CFR 52.741, Appendix B.
Finally, at proposal the EPA assumed that if an oil-water
or organic-water separator was subject to using air emission
controls under che Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations
NESHAP it would be considered a type of tank. As such, this
separator would have been required to meet the air emission
control requirements specific in the rule for tanks. In
actual practice, application of these controls to a separator
in strict accordance with the requirements specified in the
proposed rule may not be practical given special design and
operating characteristics for separators. Therefore, the EPA
3-29
-------
concluded that it is appropriate to add individual air
emission control requirements for oil-water separators and
organic-water separators that will provide a level of air
emission control comparable to the control level established
for tanks yet address the special design and operating
features of separators.
Comment: Several comments stated that air emission
controls that would be required by the proposed rule for
containers are commercially unavailable or impractical to
implement. Comments stated by individual commenters include:
(1) allow use of vapor-reducing foam and a tarp on containers
(especially roll-off boxes); (2) container requirements under
the rule should be consistent with the container requirements
under the RCRA subpart CC standards.
Response: Since proposal, the EPA has obtained more
information on the practices and equipment currently used to
manage waste and used solvents in containers. Based on
consideration of this information, the EPA decided to revise
the air emission control requirements for containers to better
reflect the container organic HAP emission potential, the
various container types, and the common container management
practices used for off-site waste and recovery operations.
These revisions are described in detail in Section 1.1.7 of
this document.
The EPA believes that the revised requirements are
technically feasible and practical to implement on all types
of containers that the Agency expects to be subject to the
Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP. The air
emission control requirements for either Container Level 1 or
Container Level 2 controls allow an owner or operator to use a
container that meets the relevant U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT) regulations on packaging hazardous
materials for transportation under 49 CFR parts 173, 178, 179,
and 180. Containers that meet these DOT regulations are
readily available from many suppliers. The requirements allow
3-30
-------
the use of allow use of vapor-reducing foam and a tarp on
containers required to use Container Level 1 controls.
The EPA is addressing consistency between the air
emission control requirements for containers (as well as the
other affected off-site material management units) in the Off-
Site Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP and the RCRA rules
by amending the RCRA rules to include an exemption for those
affected units using organic emission controls in accordance
with the requirements of the Off-Site Waste and Recovery
Operations NESHAP or any other applicable NESHAP.
Comment: Several commenters interpret the proposed
requirements in Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP
for treatment cf wastes prior to being placed in land disposal
units to be land disposal restrictions. Specific comments
stated by individual commenters include: (1) proposed
requirements are inconsistent with RCRA land disposal
restrictions; and (2) any solid waste land disposal
restrictions should be promulgated by the EPA's Office of
Solid Waste (OSW).
Response: The EPA proposed that prior to being placed in
land disposal units owners and operators treat regulated
materials having a VOHAP concentration equal to or greater
than 100 ppmw to remove or destroy organic HAP. Based on the
Agency's decisions regarding the rule applicability and
considering the existing requirements under RCRA land disposal
restrictions, the EPA concluded that the proposed requirement
is not need for the Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations
NESHAP. The final rule places no restrictions on the disposal
of wastes in land disposal units.
Comment: Several commenters stated that, as proposed,
the leak detection and repair (LDAR) standards are duplicative
or inconsistent with other EPA LDAR standards that also may be
applicable to a unit subject to the rule. Specific comments
stated by individual commenters include: (1) rule should be
3-31
-------
consistent with RON equipment leak standards (40 CFR 63
subpart H); (2) proposed definition of "ancillary equipment"
is inconsistent with the RCRA subpart BB definition and
proposed definition of "conveyance systems" includes RCRA
ancillary equipment; and (3) "product accumulator vessel" in
the definition of "ancillary equipment" is inappropriate.
Response: As discussed in section 3.1, the EPA
recognizes that che Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations
NESHAP could be applicable to owners and operators of
facilities now (or sometime in the future) subject to other
CAA or RCRA air standards. It is the EPA's intention that
leak detection and repair (LDAR) standards specified under the
Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP not require an
owner or operator to perform duplicative activities or
inconsistent activities in those cases when standards are
applicable to equipment for which the owner or operator is
already conducting a LDAR program to comply with another EPA
rule.
The EPA proposed that the equipment leak standards under
the Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations would not apply to
equipment for -'hich the owner or operator is already complying
with the HON equipment leak standards (40 CFR 63 subpart H).
This provision remains in the final rule. Thus, in the case
when equipment at a synthetic organic chemical manufacturing
facility that is subject to a LDAR program under both the Off-
site Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP and the HON, by
implementing a LDAR program in accordance with the
requirements of 40 CFR 63 subpart H the facility owner or
operator is in compliance with Off-Site Waste and Recovery
NESHAP.
The EPA reviewed the definitions of "ancillary equipment"
proposed for the Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations
NESHAP. Considering the EPA's intention to have consistent
requirements for facilities subject to implementing equipment
leak standards under more than one rule and the potential for
confusion with terminology used for other existing rules, the
3-32
-------
EPA decided not to include a definition for "ancillary
equipment" in the final Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations
NESHAP. Instead, the specific equipment types subject to
equipment leak standards under the Off-Site Waste and Recovery
Operations NESHAP are listed directly under the rule
applicability.
3.5 RULE IMPLEMENTATION REQUIREMENTS
Comment; A number of commenters stated that proposed
requirements for determining the average VOHAP concentration
of a waste or recovered material either use inappropriate test
methods or are impractical and too costly to implement at many
facilities potentially subject to the rule. Specific comments
stated by individual commenters include: (1) analytical costs
for testing wastes will be too high, and will discourage
reclamation; (2) requirements are difficult to implement at
commercial landfill facilities because of the nature of the
facility operations (e.g., wastes received from many sources);
(3) requirements for testing wastes in containers are
excessive and rule should provide for less frequent testing
requirements or exemptions should be provided; (4) rule should
provide a criteria for identifying wastes which need to be
tested (e.g., use data from material safety data sheets (MODS)
or provide exemptions for certain types of waste material,
such as glass, paper, cardboard, etc.); (5) Method 305 is not
validated and does not directly relate to potential to emit;
(6) allow use of Method 25D results or TOC measurements;
(7) allow use of results for testing required by the RCRA LDR;
and (8) process knowledge should not need measurement
validation by Method 301.
Response: Under the Off-Site Waste and Recovery
Operations NESHAP, air emission controls are not required for
those off-site material management units located in the
affected source when the unit manages off-site material having
a VOHAP concentration less than the action level. As part of
the procedure for determining the VOHAP concentration of the
3-33
-------
off-site material, the EPA proposed that an owner or operator
could use either: (1) direct measurement using Method 305 of
samples of the material collected in accordance with the
procedures specified in the rule; or (2) the owner's or
operator's knowledge of the VOHAP concentration in material
based on information, as specified in the rule.
For the final Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations
NESHAP, the EPA decided to add other appropriate test methods
that an owner or operator can choose to use for direct
measurement of the VOHAP concentration of an off-site
material. In addition, the EPA has made certain other changes
to facilitate the use of organic concentration data obtained
using other alternative test methods not specifically listed
in the rule. The EPA believes that the changes incorporated
into waste determination requirements in conjunction with
changes to the applicability and action level for the final
Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP provide a range
of options for determining the VOHAP concentration of an off-
site material such that every owner and operator of facilities
subject to the final rule has available practical and
inexpensive waste determination alternatives.
The EPA developed Method 305 to provide a relative
measure of the potential for specific volatile organic
compounds to be emitted from waste materials. In developing
Method 305, the EPA solicited public comments on a proposed
version of the method and addressed these comments in the
final version of the method (59 FR 19402). Method 305 has
been validated and the EPA considers Method 305 to be an
appropriate method for determining the VOHAP concentration of
off-site materials subject to the Off-Site Waste and Recovery
Operations NESHAP.
Method 305 uses the same waste sample collection
procedures and sample recovery conditions established by
Method 25D (40 CFR part 60, Appendix A) . When using Method
25D, the waste sample is analyzed to determine the total
concentration, by weight, of all organics recovered from the
3-34
-------
waste sample. When using Method 305, the waste sample is
analyzed to determine the purged concentration, by weight, of
only those specific hazardous air pollutants in the waste
sample which are listed in Table 1 in the rule (i.e., the
VOHAP concentration). Any hazardous air pollutant or organic
constituent that may be contained in the sample but is not
listed in Table 1 in the rule is not counted in the VOHAP
concentration determination. For the off-site materials
typically managed in the operations subject to the Off-Site
Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP, the EPA concluded that
using Method 25D is a reasonable alternative to using
Method 305 for the purpose of this rulemaking. Therefore, the
final Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP includes
use of Method 25D as one of the test methods an owner or
operator may choose among for direct measurement of the VOHAP
concentration of an off-site material.
Other test methods have been developed by the EPA for use
in rulemakings under the Clean Water Act that measure the
concentration of organic pollutants in municipal and
industrial wastewaters (see Appendix A to 40 CFR part 136).
Commenters suggested that certain of these test methods are
applicable to EPA air rulemakings affecting wastewater
management units. After extensive review, the EPA decided
that as alternatives to using Method 305 or Method 25D for
direct measurement of VOHAP concentration in an off-site
material for the Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP
it is appropriate to add Methods 624, 1624, and 1625 (all
contained in 40 CFR 136, Appendix A) when used under certain
specified conditions. Because these methods measure the total
concentration of the HAP constituents listed in Table 1 of the
rule, owners and operators may choose to "correct" these
measured values to equate to the values that would be measured
using Method 305. This is accomplished by multiplying the
total concentration measured values times the appropriate
"fm factor" presented in Table 1 of the rule to obtain the
3-35
-------
Method 305 VOHAP concentration.
Sufficient recovery study results are available for
Methods 1624 and 1625 to correct for possible bias, and
therefore, these methods are considered adequate by the EPA to
characterize the concentration of a off-site material sample.
In addition, Method 624 is appropriate provided the initial
calibration of the analytical system is performed with the
target compounds to be measured. However, none of these
methods specifies a sample collection and handling procedure
that is considered by the EPA adequate to minimize the
volatilization of organics from the sample prior to analysis.
Therefore, to ensure that an adequately representative sample
of an off-site material is analyzed by the method, an owner or
operator that chooses to use either Method 624, 1624, or 1625
for the Off-Site waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP is
required to develop and follow a written sampling plan. This
plan describes a step-by-step procedure for collecting
representative samples of the off-site materials such that
material integrity is maintained and minimal loss of organics
from the sample occurs throughout the collection and analysis
process. An example of an acceptable sampling plan is one
that incorporates sample collection and sample handing
procedures similar to those specified in Method 25D. The
sampling plan is to be maintained on-site in the facility
records.
The EPA proposed use of knowledge-of-the-waste, allowing
a facility owner or operator to use test data obtained using a
test method other than Method 305 provided that the method was
validated in accordance with Method 301 (40 CFR part 63,
Appendix A) . Under this application of Method 301, the owner
or operator would be validating the alternative test method
results as compared to test results obtained using Method 305.
Since proposal, the EPA decided to allow organic concentration
data test that are validated in accordance specifically with
Sections 5.1 and 5.3 of Method 301 to be used as direct
measurement data. This makes validation of the alternative
3-36
-------
test method a self-check of the method being validated. Also,
if appropriate, owners and operators may choose to "correct"
values measured by the alternative test method to equate to
the values that would be measured using Method 305 by
multiplying the measured values times the appropriate
"fm factor" presented for each hazardous air pollutant listed
in Table 1 of the rule.
Finally, the EPA is promulgated a less rigorous
validation procedure, "Alternative Validation Procedure for
EPA Waste Methods," in Appendix to 40 CFR part 63 as an
alternative to Method 301 for the validation of a test method
established by the EPA Office of Water (OW) or the EPA Office
of Solid Waste (OSW) when this test method is used for air
emission standards. The EPA decided it is appropriate to
allow organic concentration data test that are validated in
accordance with this method to be used as direct measurement
data.
In summary, procedures for determining the VOHAP
concentration of a waste or recovered for the purpose of
implementing Off-Site Waste and recovery Operations NESHAP
have been revised. Under the final rule, air emission
controls are not required for those affected units that manage
off-site materials having a VOHAP concentration less than
500 ppmw on a mass-weighted average basis as directly measured
using any one of the following methods: Method 305 in 40 CFR
part 63, Appendix A: Method 25D in 40 CFR part 63, Appendix A;
or Method 624, Method 1624, or Method 1625 in 40 CFR part 136,
Appendix A (when used in accordance with the procedure
specified in the rule). In addition, an owner or operator may
used any other alternative method that has been validated in
accordance with the procedures specified in Sections 5.1 and
5.3 of Method 301 or specified in "Alternative Validation
Procedure for EPA Waste Methods."
Comment: A number of commenters stated that the
3-37
-------
recordkeeping and reporting requirements of the proposed rule
are excessive and inconsistent with other EPA air standards
that also may be applicable to a unit subject to the proposed
rule. One commenter requests additional recordkeeping and
reporting requirements be included in the final rule.
Specific comments stated by individual commenters include:
(l) use the HON reporting and recordkeeping requirements;
(2) add compliance recordkeeping and reporting requirements
for air emission control devices and documentation of operator
education; (3) recordkeeping and reporting requirements of the
Part 63 general provision are not appropriate for containers;
(4) the recordkeeping and reporting requirements are excessive
for facilities or units exempted under the rule provisions;
(5) schedule for initial notification should be increases to
120 days (rather than 90 days as proposed), and schedule for
notification of compliance should be increased to 150 days
(rather than 60 days as proposed); and (6) summary report
should be submitted semi-annually (not quarterly as proposed).
Response: Under CAA section 114(a), the EPA may require
any owner or operator of a source subject to a NESHAP to
establish and maintain records as well as prepare and submit
notifications and reports to the EPA or authorized State.
Review by EPA and State officials of appropriate information
that is maintained in facility records and is submitted in
facility prepared reports provides one means for checking the
compliance status of the facility with the NESHAP technical
requirements. However, the EPA also recognizes that excessive
and duplicative recordkeeping and reporting requirements can
create a burden to facility owners and operators complying
with a NESHAP as well as to the EPA and State officials
responsible for assuring compliance with the NESHAP. Thus, it
is the EPA's intention to limit the amount of recordkeeping
and reporting required for a particular NESHAP to reasonable
requirements which will provide the appropriate information
needed by EPA and State officials to enforce the rule.
For the Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP,
3-38
-------
the EPA proposed adopting the recordkeeping and reporting
requirements as specified in the Part 63 general provisions.
Since proposal, as discussed previously in this chapter, the
EPA has revised the applicability and technical requirements
for the final Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP.
The EPA reviewed the recordkeeping and reporting needed for
the final rule considering the revisions made since proposal.
Based on this review, the EPA decided that certain changes
from the recordkeeping and reporting requirements specified in
the Part 63 general provisions which will effectively reduce
recordkeeping and reporting requirements for the final Off-
Site Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP can be made without
compromising the enforceability of the rule.
3-39
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5, Library (PL-12J)
77 West Jackson Boulevard, 12th Floor
Chicago, 1L 60604-3590
------- |