United States        Office of Air Quality      EPA-453/R-99-008
   Environmental Protection    Planning and Standards     October 1999
   Agency          Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
      NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS
      FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
      (NESHAP): PUBLICLY OWNED
      TREATMENT WORKS -
      BACKGROUND INFORMATION FOR
      FINAL STANDARDS

SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS AND
RESPONSES

-------
                                            EPA-453/R-99-xxx
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
        (NESHAP):   Publicly Owned  Treatment Works
               Background Information for
              Final Standards - Summary of
              Public Comments  and Responses
               Emission  Standards  Division
         U.  S. Environmental  Protection Agency
              Office  of Air and Radiation
      Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
            Research Triangle Park,  NC 27711
                      October 1999
                           11

-------
                           Disclaimer

     This report is issued by the Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards,  U.  S.  Environmental Protection Agency.   Mention of
trade names and/or commercial products is not intended to
constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
                               111

-------
IV

-------
                 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

    National Emission  Standards  for Hazardous Air  Pollutants
            (NESHAP):  Publicly Owned Treatment Works
       Background Information for Promulgated Standards -
            Summary of Public Comments  and Responses

1.         The  standards regulate organic hazardous air pollutant
          (HAP)  emissions from Publicly Owned Treatment Works
          (POTW).   Publicly Owned Treatment Works include
          wastewater treatment units themselves, as well as
          intercepting sewers,  outfall sewers,  sewage collection
          systems,  pumping,  power,  and other equipment.  Any of
          these types  of facilities which are publicly owned may
          be a POTW.   Only those POTW treatment plants that are
          considered major sources under section 112(d) of the
          Clean Air Act  (Act)  will be regulated.

2.         For  additional information contact:

          Mr.  Robert B. Lucas
          Waste and Chemical Processes Group
          Emission Standards Division (MD-13)
          U. S.  Environmental Protection Agency
          Research Triangle Park, North Carolina  27711
          Telephone:  (919)  541-0884
          Facsimile:  (919)  541-0246
          e-mail:  lucas.bob@epamail.epa.gov

3.         Paper copies of this document may be obtained from:

          U. S.  Environmental Protection Agency Library (MD-35)
          Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
          Telephone:  (919)  541-2777

          National Technical Information Service (NTIS)
          5285 Port Royal Road
          Springfield,  VA 22161
          Telephone:  (703)  487-4650

4.         Electronic copies of this document may be obtained from
          the  EPA's OAR Technology Transfer Network web site
          (TTNWeb).

          The  TTNWeb is a collection of related web sites
          containing information about many areas of air
          pollution science, technology, regulation, measurement,
          and  prevention.  The TTNWeb is directly accessible from
          the  Internet via the World Wide Web at the following
          address:

                                v

-------
          http://www.epa.gov/ttn

                        TABLE  OF  CONTENTS



1.0  SUMMARY	1-1

2.0  SIGNIFICANT COMMENTS AND  CHANGES  SINCE PROPOSAL  .... 2-1

3.0  MAJOR SOURCE DETERMINATION  	 3-1
     3.1  MODELS AND DIRECT  SOURCE  TESTING  	 3-1
     3.2  TEST METHODS	3-4
     3.3  CO-LOCATION	3-5
     3.4  SPECIFICATION OF METHODOLOGY  	 3-7
     3.5  POTENTIAL TO EMIT	3-7

4.0 LEGAL ISSUES	4-1
     4.1  HAMMER DATE	4-1
     4.2  COMPLIANCE DATES   	 4-1
     4.3  ALLOWANCE FOR USE  OF ALTERNATIVE CONTROL METHODS   . 4-2

5.0  APPLICABILITY	5-1
     5.1  FEDERALLY OWNED TREATMENT WORKS 	 5-1
     5.2  STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS   	 5-1
     5.3  HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS  OF  CONCERN 	 5-2

6.0  MAXIMUM ACHIEVABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY FLOOR  	 6-1
     6.1  NUMBER OF MAJOR SOURCES	6-1
     6.2  MACT FLOOR	6-1

7.0  BEST-CONTROLLED SOURCES   	 7-1
     7.1  GENERAL PROVISIONS   	 7-1
     7.2  EQUIVALENT BEST-CONTROLLED SOURCE 	 7-1
     7.3  BASIS FOR NEW SOURCE CONTROLS	7-2

8.0  INDUSTRIAL SOURCES  	 8-1
     8.1  WRITTEN CERTIFICATION  	 8-1
     8.2  INDUSTRIAL POTW IDENTIFIED	8-1

9.0  NEW AND RECONSTRUCTED SOURCES	9-1

10.0  REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS  	  10-1

11.0  ECONOMIC IMPACTS   	  11-1
      11.1  RECORDKEEPING AND  REPORTING  	  11-1
      11.2  COSTS	11-1
      11.3  RECONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS  	  11-2
                                VI

-------
12.0  MAJOR SOURCE DECLASSIFICATION AND EXEMPTION  	   12-1
      12.1  DECLASSIFICATION	12-1
      12.2  EXEMPTION  FOR  INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER SOURCES  .  .   12-1
      12.3  REQUESTED  EXEMPTION FOR SOME INDUSTRIAL POTW   .   12-2

13.0  CLARIFICATIONS AND DEFINITIONS	13-1
      13.1  CLARIFICATIONS	13-1
      13.2  DEFINITIONS	13-3

14.0  NEW AND RECONSTRUCTED  SOURCES	14-1

15.0  INDUSTRIAL PUBLICLY-OWNED TREATMENT WORKS 	   15-1

16.0  SOLICITATION OF  COMMENTS	16-1

17.0  MISCELLANEOUS COMMENTS  	   17-1
                                VII

-------
                  ACRONYM AND ABBREVIATION LIST
ACRONYM

AMSA
CFR
FOTW
GAC
GACT
HAP
HON

MACT
NESHAP

POTW
PTE
VOC

ABBREVIATION
mgd
tpy
TERM
Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies
Code of Federal Regulations
Federally Owned Treatment Works
Granulated Activated Carbon
Generally Available Control Technology
Hazardous Air Pollutant(s)
Hazardous Organic National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants
Maximum Achievable Control Technology
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants
Publicly Owned Treatment Works
Potential To Emit
Volatile Organic Compounds

UNIT OF MEASURE
million gallons per day
tons per year
                               VI11

-------
                           1 . 0   SUMMARY

     The EPA proposed National Emission Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants  (NESHAP) from Publicly Owned Treatment Works
 (POTW)  in 40 CFR Part 63,  subpart VW on December 1, 1998.  The
purpose of this document is to present a summary of the public
comments received on the proposed NESHAP and the responses
developed by the EPA.  This summary of comments and responses
serves as the basis for revisions made to the standards between
proposal and promulgation.
     The EPA received 19 public comment letters on the proposed
rule.  The commenters represent the following affiliations:
Federal governent  (1), State government (2), local government
 (counties, cities, and sanitary districts)   (10), trade
associations  (3), universities  (1), and private citizens  (2).
This document incorporates all the comments in the docket.  Table
1-1 presents a listing of all persons submitting written
comments, their affiliation,  and their docket number.  No public
hearing was requested therefore no comments were received from a
public hearing.
                               1-1

-------
TABLE 1-1.  LIST OF COMMENTERS  ON THE PROPOSED SUBPART VW
Number3
IV-D-01
IV-D-02
IV-D-03
IV-D-04
IV-D-05
IV-D-06
IV-D-07
IV-D-08
IV-D-09
IV-D-10
IV-D-11
Commenter, Addressee, Title or Description, etc.
B. Mathur, Chief, Bureau of Air, Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency, Springfield, IL
T. Godar, Private Citizen, Woodbridge, VA
G. M. Adams, Assistant Departmental Engineer,
Office Engineering Department, County Sanitation
Districts of Los Angeles County, Whittier, CA
D. Brown, General Manager, Gulf Coast Waste
Disposal Authority, Houston, TX
J. D. Thornton, Section Manager, Major Facilities
Planning, Policy and Planning Division, Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency, St. Paul, MN
R. C. Steidel, Environmental Manager, Hopewell
Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility, The City
of Hopewell, VA
E. J. Campobenedetto, Deputy Director, Institute
of Clean Air Companies, Washington, DC
G. Garner, Executive Director, Louisville and
Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewerage District,
Louisville, KY
T. A. Pfeifer, Industrial Waste Coordinator and
R. A. Eich, Senior Industrial Waste Specialist,
Metro Wastewater Reclamation District, Denver, CO
J. A. Wilson, Director, Bureau of Sanitation,
Department of Public Works, City of Los Angeles,
CA
K. Kirk, Executive Director, Association of
Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies, Washington, DC
                               1-2

-------
TABLE 1-1.  LIST OF COMMENTERS ON THE PROPOSED SUBPART VW
Number6
 Commenter,  Addressee,  Title or Description,  etc.
IV-D-12
R. E. Adamski, Deputy Commissioner, New York City
Department of Environmental Protection, Director,
Bureau of Wastewater Pollution Control, New York,
NY
IV-D-13
G. A. Brinsko, Director, Pima County Wastewater
Management Department, Tucson, AZ
IV-D-14
R. L. Corsi, Associate Professor, University of
Texas at Austin, Austin, TX
IV-D-15
R. J. Flood, Manager, Environmental Compliance
Section, Environmental Planning and Evaluation
Department, Metropolitan Council Environmental
Services, Minneapolis-St.  Paul Metropolitan Area,
MN
IV-D-16
T. X. White, Associate Vice President,
Manufacturing and Quality Control, Scientific and
Regulatory Affairs, Pharmaceutical Research and
Manufacturers of America, Washington, DC
IV-D-17
E. L. Munsell, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the
Navy  (Environment and Safety),  Department of the
Navy, Washington, DC
IV-D-i:
B. H. Litzsinger, Civil Engineer, Department of
Environmental Compliance, Metropolitan St. Louis
Sewer District, St. Louis, MO
IV-D-19
Private Citizen, E-mail Received From
samm@homemail.com
     The  docket  number  for  this  rulemaking is  A-96-46
                               1-3

-------
  2.0   SIGNIFICANT  COMMENTS AND  CHANGES  SINCE  PROPOSAL

     In response to comments received on the proposed
standards for the POTW source category,  several changes have
been made to the final rule.   While several of these changes
are clarifications designed to make the EPA's intent
clearer, a number of them are significant changes to the
requirements of the proposed standards.
     A summary of the substantive comments and/or changes
made since the proposal are described in the following
sections.  Additional information on the final rule is
contained in the docket for this rule (Docket A-96-46).
                          2-1

-------
                 3.0  MAJOR SOURCE DETERMINATION

3.1  MODELS AND DIRECT SOURCE TESTING
     Comment:  A number of comments were received on the EPA's
reliance on the WATERS model in cases of ambiguity when
determining major source status.  In general, the commenters
believed that the WATERS model overestimates hazardous air
pollutant  (HAP)  emissions from POTW treatment processes, and that
other currently available models provide a more accurate
estimation of emissions.  Commenter IV-D-03 believed that use of
WATERS is problematic, and reiterated the Association of
Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies' (AMSA)  concerns, as set forth in
their letter to Bruce Jordan of the EPA on November 20, 1998.
Commenter IV-D-06 stated that section 63.1595 of the proposed
rule should be modified to delete the references to WATERS and
only use the term: "approved fate model".  Commenter IV-D-08
disagrees that WATERS be used exclusively to settle any ambiguity
concerning the POTW's status as a major source of HAP emissions,
and believes that other approved fate models such as TOXCHEM+ or
BASTE should also be considered equal to WATERS.  Commenter IV-D-
10 believed that modeling and emission factors should be used
only for conservative emissions estimates and that alternative
air models such as BASTE and TOXCHEM+ should be allowed for
conservative estimates.  Commenter IV-D-11 recommended that POTW
be allowed to use any of several methods to estimate HAP
emissions, including peer reviewed models such as TOXCHEM+ and
BASTE, and these models should not be limited for use as
screening tools only.  Commenter IV-D-11 believed the term
                               3-1

-------
"ambiguity" as used in section 63.1595(b)(3)  of the proposed rule
has the net effect of requiring that WATERS be used as the sole
basis of a major source determination.  Commenter IV-D-12
believed that the use of a conservative emissions model  (WATERS)
with very conservative wastewater analyses (Method 25D or 305)  to
estimate HAP emissions for the treatment plant is too
conservative and unrealistic and recommended that TOXCHEM+ and
BASTE be approved for use in estimating emissions for major
source determination.  Commenter IV-D-13 believed that the final
POTW maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standard should
allow the use of all appropriate, scientifically peer-reviewed
models, to predict HAP emissions from POTW.  Commenter IV-D-15
suggested expanding the list of models which can be used for
estimating facility emissions to include other models which have
already been approved by permitting authorities around the
country and have been used for permitting and emission
inventories.  Commenter IV-D-18 believed that exclusive reliance
on WATERS is more restrictive than allowed elsewhere in Part 63
regulations (e.g., in Appendix C to Part 63,  the BASTE model and
TOXCHEM models are approved for use).
     Commenters IV-D-03, IV-D-08, IV-D-10,  IV-D-11, and IV-D-18
believed that direct testing more accurately estimates HAP
emissions from POTW treatment processes and should be used as the
method of choice for determining major source status rather than
the use of WATERS modeling.
     Commenters IV-D-03 and IV-D-11 believed that the tiered
approach for determining major source status, as discussed in
section 63.1595(b) of the proposed rule, is confusing and
suggested that it may be more clear to just list the options.
     Commenters IV-D-03 and IV-D-11 questioned how the EPA plans
to address concerns by some local governments about emissions
models and testing used to determine area source status.
                               3-2

-------
     Commenter IV-D-11 believed that the only way to comply with
the requirements in section 63.1595(c)(1)  of the proposed rule
that requires POTW to collect samples of the influent waste
stream that represents the complete range of HAP concentrations
during the entire averaging period, would be by continuous
monitoring.  The commenter believed continuous monitoring to be
impossible, and requested that the word "complete" be deleted
from the sentence.
     Commenter IV-D-15 disagreed with the EPA specifying an
analytical method (Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste,
Physical/Chemical Methods, EPA Publication No. SW-846)  for POTW
that is not listed in 40 CFR 136  (contains the test methods
required under the NPDES program)  and suggested including the
methods of 40 CFR 136 as acceptable methods for determination of
the concentration of listed organics, rather than as additional
information under section 63.1595(c)(2)  of the proposed rule.
     Response:  The EPA continues to believe that the WATERS
model provides a reasonable estimation of emissions from
wastewater treatment processes.  The EPA also believes that due
to Title V, Part 70 determinations, a POTW and its local air
pollution regulatory authorities should have agreement on the
methods by which the POTW estimates emissions from wastewater
treatment operations.  Therefore,  the EPA has removed procedures
for major source determination, and has referred to 40 CFR Part
63, subpart A - General Provisions for the definition of a major
source.
     The procedures that were removed from the regulation, along
with additional guidance, will be included in a future document
on estimating emissions from POTW.  The EPA will continue to
provide assistance on the use of the WATERS model.  Requests for
guidance on emissions estimation for the purpose of major source
determination will be addressed on an "as-needed" basis, and may
                               3-3

-------
be obtained by consulting the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of the promulgated rule.
     Comment:  Commenter IV-D-16 believed that the proposed
regulation should address the situation where an existing POTW
may be a major source when the rule is promulgated, but would
lose that status when a new NESHAP rule is issued for the
industrial user(s)  that is causing it to exceed the HAP emission
thresholds.  This issue should be specifically addressed by
allowing a POTW to identify the major industrial contributors
that are causing them to be a major source, and to determine if
the contributors are to be regulated by an industrial MACT
regulation that will become effective after promulgation of the
POTW NESHAP.  If the industrial contributors that are causing
such POTW to be major sources are expected to reduce their HAP
loadings to the extent that the POTW would no longer be a major
source, the POTW should be exempted from Subpart VW and exempted
from obtaining a Title V permit.  To obtain this exemption, the
POTW would be required to obtain certifications from the
industrial users contributing the HAP that they will be in
compliance with their applicable MACT rule(s)  by the applicable
compliance deadline and estimating the reduction in HAP loadings
sent to the POTW.  The POTW would file with the State air
pollution control agency and/or the EPA its own certification
that it will be a minor source once its industrial contributors
are in compliance with their MACT regulations.
     Response:  The EPA disagrees with the commenter.  There are
no assurances that the industrial loadings will be effectively
reduced within a specific time frame in the future by the
promulgation of additional NESHAP.  In addition, the future MACT
rules may allow the industry to treat their regulated wastewater
at the POTW, and thus the POTW could be a major industrial POTW
treatment plant as a result of accepting those waste streams for
treatment.
                               3-4

-------
3.2  TEST METHODS
     Comment:  Commenter IV-D-03, IV-D-11,  IV-D-12,  and IV-D-18
believed that use of the 600 and 8000 series methods are more
appropriate than Method 305 and requested their use be acceptable
without any corrections.
     Response:  The EPA has removed the language that provides
guidance for estimating emissions from POTW treatment processes.
Requests for guidance on emissions estimation will be addressed
on an "as-needed" basis, and may be obtained by consulting the
person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
the regulation.
3.3  CO-LOCATION
     Comment:  Commenter IV-D-10 recommended that the overall
emissions should be based on actual emissions from the wastewater
treatment portion of the POTW,  and should not include emissions
from co-located sources (e.g.,  portable internal combustion
engines).  Commenter IV-D-12 and IV-D-17 believed that if a POTW
treatment plant is not a major source, then it should not be
considered a major source if it is co-located with another major
source.  Commenter IV-D-13 requested that the EPA provide a means
for an area source of HAP emissions at a non-industrial POTW
treatment plant to not be inappropriately impacted by a major
source determination of unrelated HAP at the same site.
     Commenter IV-D-12 noted that a POTW may be a major source as
a result of emissions from sources other than wastewater
treatment processes  (e.g., internal combustion engines, boilers,
sludge incinerators)  at the facility even though emissions from
wastewater treatment processes are substantially less than 25
tons per year  (tpy).   Thus if parts of the facility other than
the wastewater treatment processes (e.g., internal combustion
engines,  secondary treatment, sludge handling processes)  were
reconstructed and exceed the 50% fixed capital cost threshold,
the covering/venting/controlling requirement in the proposed
                               3-5

-------
regulation would apply even though the headworks and primary
clarifiers were not involved in the reconstruction project and
were not significant sources of HAP emissions.  The commenter
believed that, in such cases,  implementation of the MACT proposed
in the regulation is not a logical and cost-effective solution.
The commenter believed that this regulation should provide
flexibility on MACT implementation where the major source
determination was primarily based on HAP emissions from sources
other than wastewater treatment processes.  This is especially
true when there will be forthcoming MACT standards for these
sources.
     Commenter IV-D-17 believed that the EPA intended the
proposed rule to apply only to POTW treatment plants and
ancillary sources the POTW treatment plant that are major
sources, as stated in section 63.1580(a)(2) of the rule "Major
source means the stationary sources at your POTW treatment plant
emit..."  This would limit the applicability of the proposed rule
to only POTW treatment plants and ancillary sources that are
themselves major sources,  and would not cause the POTW treatment
plant to be a major source due to co-location with another major
source.  However, in section 63.1595(a),  the EPA states that if a
POTW treatment plant is co-located with another major source of
HAP emissions then the POTW treatment plant (and the other
source) are subject to the rule.  Further, under section 112 of
the Clean Air Act as amended,  in the definition of major source,
if facility-wide HAP emissions exceed the thresholds, all sources
located at the facility (i.e., contiguous area under common
control) are considered and regulated as major sources of HAP.
The commenter believed that the EPA should clarify the language
in sections 63.1580(a)(2)  and 63.1595(a)  to ensure that the rule
applies to POTW that are,  in and of themselves, major sources.
     Response:  The EPA has removed procedures for major source
determination, and has referred to 40 CFR Part 63, subpart A -
                               3-6

-------
General Provisions for the definition of a major source.
Requests for guidance on emissions estimation will be addressed
on an "as-needed" basis, and may be made by consulting the person
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of the
final rule.
3.4  SPECIFICATION OF METHODOLOGY
     Comment:  Commenter IV-D-11 opposed incorporating language
specifying any methodology for major source determination; stated
that this approach is inconsistent with previous NESHAP where the
EPA has left this process up to the States; and requested that
section 63.1595 of the proposed rule be deleted.
     Response:  The EPA has removed procedures for major source
determination, and has referred to 40 CFR Part 63, subpart A -
General Provisions for the definition of a major source.
3.5  POTENTIAL TO EMIT
     Comment:  Commenter IV-D-17 recommended that the EPA modify
section 63.1595 of the proposed rule to clarify that potential to
emit (PTE)  is calculated based on actual emissions from
wastewater operations plus PTE from ancillary sources at the
plant.
     Response:  The EPA has removed procedures for major source
determination, and has referred to 40 CFR Part 63, subpart A -
General Provisions for the definition of a major source.
                               3-7

-------
                         4.0  LEGAL  ISSUES

4.1  HAMMER DATE
     Comment:  Commenter IV-D-03 believed that POTW are not
subject to a "hammer" date and that more time should be made
available to resolve outstanding technical issues.  The hammer
section, 112(j)(2) of the Act, references standards pursuant to
112(e)  (1)  and (3); POTW are referenced in 112(e)  (5), which is a
stand-alone section.
     Response:   The EPA disagrees with the commenter.  In a
Federal Register notice on May 14,  1999, Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Regulations Governing Equivalent Emission Limitations
by Permit, appearing in 64 FR 26311,  the EPA delayed the section
112(j)  permit application deadline for 7-year source categories
listed in the regulatory schedule until December 15, 1999.  The
POTW source category was included in the notice.
4.2  COMPLIANCE DATES
     Comment:  Commenter IV-D-06 stated that existing industrial
POTW treatment plants with wastewaters subject to either the
Hazardous Organic NESHAP (compliance date of April 22, 1999)  or
the Pulp and Paper NESHAP  (compliance date of April 16, 2001)
will have less than three years to comply with the applicable
requirements when the POTW NESHAP is final.  The commenter
proposes that the EPA modify section 63.1585(a)  of the proposed
rule to allow industrial POTW three years from the date of the
final NESHAP to comply with industrial users NESHAP with a
compliance date prior to three years from the promulgation date
                               4-1

-------
of the POTW NESHAP.  Existing industrial POTW must comply with
industrial user NESHAP on the compliance date when it is three
years or more after the final date of the POTW NESHAP.
     Response:  The EPA disagrees with the commenter.  Regardless
of the requirements in the POTW NESHAP,  the requirements of the
specific industrial NESHAP(s) (e.g., Hazardous Organic NESHAP)
regulating the treatment of the wastewater must be met by the
date(s)  specified in the industrial NESHAP(s).
4.3  ALLOWANCE FOR USE OF ALTERNATIVE CONTROL METHODS
     Comment:  Commenter IV-D-17 believed that section 63.1596(b)
of the proposed rule requiring the Administrator to amend the
subpart for every alternative means of controlling HAP will cause
unreasonable delays in the regulated community and discourage
development of new technologies to control emissions from POTW.
The commenter recommended the EPA modify section 63.1596(b)  of
the proposed rule to allow the Administrator to approve
alternative control methods without amending the regulation.
     Response:  The EPA has included in the final rule an
alternative performance standard in the form of an emission
limitation.  A POTW may use any combination of pretreatment,
wastewater treatment plant modifications, and control devices to
achieve this performance standard.
                               4-2

-------
                        5.0  APPLICABILITY

5.1  FEDERALLY OWNED TREATMENT WORKS
     Comment:  Commenter IV-D-17 believed that including
federally owned treatment works (FOTW)  in the list of potentially
regulated entities in the preamble of the proposed rule is not
consistent with the definition of POTW treatment plant in section
63.1597 of the proposed rule.   The definition states that "...a
treatment works...is owned by a State or municipality..."  FOTW
are not owned by a State or municipality, are not, by definition,
a POTW, and thus would not be subject to the proposed rule.   The
commenter recommended that the EPA revise the list of potentially
regulated entities in the preamble of the proposed rule to
eliminate the implication that FOTW are subject to this
regulation.
     Response:  The EPA believes that FOTW and POTW are
essentially the same in design, in operation, and in the types of
wastewater that are treated.  Regulations developed under the
Clean Water Act require FOTW to meet the same requirements as
POTW.  In addition, the EPA believes that the inclusion of FOTW
within the POTW source category is consistent with the intent of
the Federal Facility Compliance Act of 1992.  Therefore, the
definition of POTW has been revised to clarify that FOTW are
regulated by this rulemaking.
5.2  STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS
     Comment:  Commenter IV-D-07 believed that the proposed rule
did not meet the requirements of section 112 of the Clean Air Act
that requires "...standards to reflect the maximum degree of
                               5-1

-------
reduction in HAP emissions."  It did not reflect a strategy to
meet maximum achievable control and basically disregarded the
entire POTW source category comprised of about 15,600 facilities,
many of which are located in or near densely populated urban
areas.  The commenter believed that any rule establishing MACT
requirements for the POTW source category should also consider
the requirements of, and the impact on, the overall Urban Air
Toxics Strategy also currently under development.
     Response:  The EPA believes that the requirements of section
112 of the Clean Air Act were met.  Based on "data available to
the Administrator" the EPA determined the average of the best
controlled sources, that average being no control.  Further, the
EPA recognizes that POTW are listed as a category for regulation
under the Urban Air Toxics Strategy, and will be addressed under
that authority.
5.3  HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN
     Comment:  Commenters IV-D-10 and IV-D-11 stated that the 76
HAP of concern, listed in Table 1 of the proposed rule,  should be
determined on a case-by-case basis, and the EPA should defer to
the local implementing agencies to establish the list of HAP of
concern.  In addition, Commenter IV-D-10 opposed the inclusion of
naphthalene in the list of 76 HAP of concern and request that it
be deleted.  Commenter IV-D-18 believed that the list of 76 HAP
of concern for POTW is excessive and contains many chemicals
(e.g., PCBs, heptaclor) which do not contribute significantly to
air emissions and believed that the AMSA list of 29 HAP of
concern, identified in their analysis of the EPA's Presumptive
MACT for POTW, dated June 8, 1995, should be the HAP of concern
in the rule.  Commenter IV-D-16 believed that regulation is
potentially confusing for POTW that agree to accept
pharmaceutical affected wastewater containing methanol for
treatment as authorized by section 63.1256(a) (5)  of the
pharmaceutical production NESHAP.  Because methanol is not
                               5-2

-------
included in Table 1 of the proposed POTW MACT,  the commenter
believes that even if the POTWs potential to emit methanol is
greater than 10 tpy,  Subpart VW would not apply to the plant at
all.  However,  the description of an industrial POTW in the
proposed rule,  (section 63.1583(a))  states that "Your POTW
treatment plant is an industrial POTW treatment plant if
wastewater treatment at your POTW treatment plant enables an
industrial user to comply with the treatment requirements of its
own NESHAP."  Thus, a POTW accepting an affected pharmaceutical
wastewater to provide treatment of methanol could mistakenly
believe that it was subject to Subpart VW because the definition
of an industrial POTW appears to be all-encompassing.
     Response:   The EPA believes that due to Title V, Part 70
determinations, a POTW and its local air pollution regulatory
authorities should have agreement on the methods by which the
POTW estimates emissions from wastewater treatment operations
including identification of HAP of concern for a POTW.
Therefore, the EPA has removed the list of HAP of concern from
the rule.
     Comment:  Commenter IV-D-07 believed that in the final
regulation, the EPA should consider the application of covers and
vents by segmenting the various stages of treatment at the
facility to evaluate the feasibility and cost effectiveness of
HAP control on an individual process basis.  The commenter
believed that it is also possible that the final HAP control
equipment could be designed to treat multiple streams coming from
the various vents within the treatment facility.
     Response:   No supporting data or information were provided
with the comments, therefore the EPA is unable to address the
comments at this time.
     Comment:  Commenter IV-D-08 believed the proposed rule is
not clear regarding what existing POTW's must do if they are
determined to be a major source.
                               5-3

-------
     Response:  The EPA believes that the requirements for
existing major sources are clear.  If a POTW is unclear of its
responsibilities under this rule they should contact their
regulatory authority for technical guidance, as described in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of the preamble to this
rule.
     Comment:   Commenter IV-D-17 believed that since the EPA
stated, in Note 2 to section 63.1580(a)  of the proposed rule,
that a POTW which treats mostly high-strength industrial
wastewater can be a major source with a daily flow rate as low as
4.0 million gallons per day, then the EPA is thus suggesting that
POTW with an average flow as low as 4.0 million gallons per day
are not likely to have sufficient emissions to trigger major
source status.  The commenter suggested amending section
63.1580(a)(1)  of the proposed rule to state "You own or operate a
new or existing publicly owned treatment works (POTW)  that has an
average permitted capacity of more than 4.0 million gallons per
day; and..."
     Response:  The EPA limited the applicability criteria in the
final  rule to POTW that are required to develop and implement a
pretreatment program as defined by 40 CFR 403.8.   This
effectively eliminates all POTW with a total design flow greater
than 5 million gallons per day  (mgd), unless special
circumstances, as defined in 40 CFR 403.8, require a POTW with a
total  design flow of 5 mgd or less to implement a pretreatment
program.
     Comment:   Commenter IV-D-19 believed that the proposed POTW
NESHAP, as written, would achieve no HAP emissions reduction, and
that the EPA should re-evaluate the rulemaking process for the
proposed POTW NESHAP.  The commenter believed that if POTW
emissions are insignificant, then no standards are needed, but if
POTW emissions are significant enough to promulgate a standard,
                               5-4

-------
then the standard should achieve a measurable HAP emissions
reduction.
     Response:  The EPA believes that the rule,  as written, will
achieve emissions reductions from new and reconstructed sources.
These emissions reductions may be achieved by pollution
prevention, by the addition of control devices,  or by the design
and operation of a POTW to keep it under the major source
criteria.
                               5-5

-------
         6.0  MAXIMUM ACHIEVABLE  CONTROL  TECHNOLOGY  FLOOR

6.1  NUMBER OF MAJOR SOURCES
     Comment:  Two Commenters, IV-D-03 and IV-D-11 questioned the
EPA's conclusion that there are 6 major sources.  The commenters
requested deletion of the sentence stating that only 6 POTW
facilities have been identified as potential major sources
because they believe the statement is incorrect.
     Response:   The EPA based its determination of the 6 major
sources on information available to the Administrator,
engineering judgement,  and methodologies described in the
preamble of the proposed rule.  The EPA acknowledged that there
were uncertainties in the estimation of emissions from POTW, and
thus the determination of major sources.  In addition, the EPA
has never disputed the likelihood of additional major sources.
However, the EPA maintains that its determination was correct,
given the information available.
6.2  MACT FLOOR
     Comment:  Commenter IV-D-19 believed that most POTW in
metropolitan areas have covers and vent the undercover air
through air pollution control systems that, although are in place
for odor control,  reduce HAP emissions, especially if operated
correctly.  The commenter believed these cover and odor control
systems could be considered as a generally available control
technology (GACT), applicable to POTW area sources as stipulated
in subsection 112(d)(5)  of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, and
questioned why the proposed MACT is less stringent than the GACT.
                               6-1

-------
     Response:  Based on data available to the Administrator the
EPA determined the average of the best controlled sources to be
no control.  The average was based on emissions control in place
at the best performing facilities.  Further,  the EPA was unable
to identify any information that indicated that covers vented at
a high airflow to odor control devices (including granulated
activated carbon adsorbers operated as odor control devices) were
effective at HAP emissions reduction.  On the contrary, all the
information available to the Administrator indicated that such
control devices were not effective at HAP emissions reduction.
No additional information was provided by the commenter to
indicate that such control devices are effective at HAP emissions
reduction.  Therefore, the EPA maintains that their determination
of the MACT floor of no additional control for existing POTW
treatment facilities was correct.
     Comment:  Commenters IV-D-08 and IV-D-17 believed that since
there are "no control requirements for an existing non-industrial
POTW treatment plant" (section 63.1587 of the proposed rule),
then the EPA should exclude them from the proposed regulation.
Commenter IV-D-01 supported the EPA's conclusion that control
measures for existing non-industrial POTW are not appropriate.
     Response:  The EPA believes that it is necessary to include
existing, non-industrial POTW treatment plants in the regulation.
Existing POTW that reconstruct must comply with the control
requirements for new and reconstructed sources.
                               6-2

-------
                   7.0   BEST-CONTROLLED  SOURCES

7.1  GENERAL PROVISIONS
     Comment:  Commenter IV-D-03 and IV-D-13 believed it is
inappropriate to cause carbon adsorption systems used at POTW to
be subject to sections 63.693 through 63.697, since the best-
controlled facility in the proposed NESHAP on which the EPA based
its MACT floor for new and reconstructed facilities can not
comply with these standards  (e.g.,  95% recovery of total organic
HAP,  continuous monitoring, tight-fitting covers).
     Response:  The EPA has included in the final rule an
alternative performance standard in the form of an emission
limitation.  A POTW may use any combination of pretreatment,
wastewater treatment plant modifications,  and control devices to
achieve this performance standard.
7.2  EQUIVALENT BEST-CONTROLLED SOURCE
     Comment:  Commenter IV-D-04 believed that the emissions
control system (biological) at its facility should be recognized
as equivalent to the emission control system at the POTW the EPA
has selected as the best-controlled non-industrial facility, and
should be noted in the preamble and included in the description
of the new source MACT floor.
     Response:  Based on the information submitted by the
commenter, their facility provides treatment necessary to comply
with the Hazardous Organic NESHAP for several industrial
customers in the synthetic organic chemicals manufacturing
industry.  As such, the commenter's facility meets the definition
of an industrial POTW,  and would not be considered a non-
                               7-1

-------
industrial POTW.  Maximum achievable control technology floor
determinations are made separately for each subcategory, and the
EPA does not consider equivalency between subcategories.  Thus
the emissions control system at the commenter's industrial POTW
treatment plant would not be considered as equivalent to the
emission control system at the POTW the EPA has selected as the
best-controlled non-industrial facility.
7.3  BASIS FOR NEW SOURCE CONTROLS
     Comment:  Commenters IV-D-08, IV-D-10, IV-D-11, and IV-D-12
believed that it is inappropriate for the one treatment plant in
California that has installed controls to reduce benzene
emissions to be used as the basis for the new or reconstructed
source standard.  They believed that the plant is unique in its
operation, is financed by the refineries that discharge the
benzene-containing wastewater, and is not representative of other
plants in the industry.  They further believed that GAC
adsorption units as used at POTW are not effective at reducing
HAP emissions and should never become the MACT floor for HAP
control.
     Response:  The controls in place at the best-controlled
facility are the MACT floor for new and reconstructed sources,
regardless of the reason that the controls were installed.  The
controls at the one identified best-controlled facility are
effective at HAP emissions reduction, as evidenced by the fact
that they are monitored for benzene breakthrough, and changed out
(or regenerated) when breakthrough occurs.  Therefore,  the EPA
maintains that this facility is the best-controlled facility, and
that new and reconstructed facilities must be covered and vented
to an equivalent control device.  In addition, the EPA has
included in the final rule an alternative performance standard in
the form of an emission limitation, and allows a POTW to use any
combination of pretreatment, wastewater treatment plant
                               7-2

-------
modifications, and control devices to achieve this performance
standard.
                               7-3

-------
                     8.0  INDUSTRIAL SOURCES

8.1  WRITTEN CERTIFICATION
     Comment:  Several commenters expressed a concern that it is
important for the proposed rule to contain a requirement for
industries intending to discharge wastewater, regulated under
another NESHAP,  to a POTW for treatment to provide a written
certification of their intent to use the POTW to comply with the
wastewater treatment requirements of their industrial NESHAP.
This formal certified agreement would prevent regulated POTW
treatment plants from being designated as industrial POTW without
their knowledge.  In addition, Commenter IV-D-05 suggested the
EPA amend existing and future NESHAP with wastewater provisions
to require the industry to notify the affected POTW of their
plans to discharge to the POTW.
     Response:  Most NESHAP  (e.g., the Hazardous Organic NESHAP)
regulating wastewater emissions contain, or will contain,
requirements that the industries notify the POTW if they intend
to use them for compliance.  The Benzene Waste Operations NESHAP,
the first NESHAP to address off-site emissions,  does not require
notification.  Though the EPA is aware of only one POTW providing
off-site treatment of benzene wastes, if the EPA dedides to amend
the Benzene Waste Operations NESHAP, the EPA will consider adding
a notification requirement.
8.2  INDUSTRIAL POTW IDENTIFIED
     Comment:  In the preamble of the proposed rule, the first
sentence of the fourth paragraph under section III states that
"...the EPA is not at this time aware of any instance where an
                                5-1

-------
industrial user uses a POTW treatment plant to comply with
emission reductions required by any other NESHAP..."  Commenter
IV-D-04 identified their facility as an industrial POTW providing
treatment necessary to comply with the Hazardous Organic NESHAP
(HON)  for several customers.  The regulated wastewater is
conveyed to the facility in a closed sewer system and the
facility uses enhanced biological treatment to provide removal of
HAP.
     Response:  No response necessary.
                               5-2

-------
                9.0  NEW AND  RECONSTRUCTED  SOURCES

     Comment:  Commenter IV-D-11 believed that the term "new
source" as used in the definition of "reconstruction" in section
63.1597 of the proposed rule could be interpreted to mean a new
process unit rather than an entire new plant.  Thus, if a POTW
reconstructs or replaces a process unit and the cost exceeds 50%
of the cost to construct a new comparable process unit then the
facility would be required to implement new source MACT.   The
commenter suggested that reconstruction be viewed from a
facility-wide basis rather than an equipment or a process unit
basis.
     Response:  The term "new source" is not defined in this
rule, rather the rule references 63.1(a) (1) of the General
Provisions to define terms not defined in this rule, including
"new source."  In 40 CFR 63 "new source" means "any affected
source the construction or reconstruction of which is commenced
after the Administrator first proposes a relevant emission
standard under this part."  The term "affected source" is defined
in this rule as "the group of all equipment that comprise the
POTW treatment plant."  Thus by definition new source means the
POTW treatment plant rather than an individual process unit.
                               9-1

-------
          10.0   REPORTING AND  RECORDKEEPING  REQUIREMENTS

     Comment:  Commenter IV-D-01 recommended that the EPA amend
the NESHAP for POTW and corresponding provisions in regulations
promulgated under the Clean Water Act (e.g., NPDES, Combined
Sewer Overflow and Pretreatment programs)  to allow existing major
source POTW to incorporate their Title V reporting requirements
with their reporting requirements pursuant to the Clean Water
Act, leaving it up to the States to coordinate the necessary
exchange of information internally.
     Response:   Though the comment appears to have merit,
revisions to the Title V permit program are outside the scope of
this rulemaking.
     Comment:  Commenter IV-D-03 requested clarification of
whether the notification of compliance status, in section
63.1591(a) of the proposed rule, applies to all major source
POTW, just to those whose major source status is determined by
means other than WATERS, or just to those whose major source
status is determined solely by WATERS.
     Response:   The notification of compliance status applies to
all major sources of HAP emissions.
     Comment:  Commenter IV-D-08 believed that, although it is
clear that a POTW must notify the State or the EPA that it is a
major source, it is not clear how this information would be used.
     Response:   No response is necessary.
     Comment:  Commenter IV-D-10 believed that the statement in
the preamble of the proposed rule "You do not have to apply for a
title V permit..."  is not universally correct.  A facility may
                               10-1

-------
be a title V facility because of criteria pollutant emissions.
     Response:   The referenced statement has been removed from
the regulation.
                               10-2

-------
                      11.0   ECONOMIC  IMPACTS

11.1  RECORDKEEPING AND REPORTING
     Comment:  Commenters IV-D-01 and IV-D-03 believed that the
cost of reporting and recordkeeping would exceed the EPA's
estimate of 41 hours per year per facility.
     Response:  There are no reporting or recordkeeping
requirements for existing non-industrial POTW treatment plants.
Any reporting and recordkeeping requirements for industrial POTW
treatment plants are those that are required by the industrial
NESHAP, thus this rule requires no additional reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.  Based on information available to
the Administrator,  it is likely that no new or reconstructed POTW
treatment plants will meet the definition of major source, thus,
it is likely that there will be no reporting or recordkeeping
requirements for new or reconstructed sources.  Further,  the
commenters did not provide any additional information that
supports their claim that the cost of reporting and recordkeeping
would exceed 41 hours per year per facility.  Thus the EPA
believes that its reporting and recordkeeping cost estimates are
correct.
11.2  COSTS OF CONTROL
     Comment:  Commenter IV-D-03 stated that the benzene control
program at the facility in the proposed NESHAP on which the EPA
based its MACT floor for new and reconstructed facilities costs
$750,000 per year shared among multiple refineries.  Costs per
ton of benzene controlled range between 1.2 and 1.5 million
                               11-1

-------
dollars per ton removed.  Commenter IV-D-03 is concerned that the
MACT analysis for non-industrial new or reconstructed POTW never
considered the cost of control using GAC,  potentially in excess
of 1 million dollars per ton HAP removed.   Commenter IV-D-10
stated that investigations regarding more cost-effective
alternative control options must address the benefits and costs
of the potential MACT standards being considered for the
wastewater collection system, including review and consideration
of consumer products.  Commenter IV-D-10 stated that to install
and operate GAC for the purpose of reducing HAP emissions would
cause the technology to be cost-prohibitive for reducing HAP.
     Response:  The EPA is bound by section 112(d)(3) of the
Clean Air Act that states "The maximum degree of reduction in
emissions that is deemed achievable for new sources in a category
or subcategory shall not be less stringent than the emission
control that is achieved in practice by the best controlled
similar source, as determined by the Administrator."  In
addition, the EPA has provided an alternative control means in
the final rule that allows the POTW to use any means available to
achieve the required emissions reduction.
11.3  RECONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS
     Comment:  Commenter IV-D-12 believed that the aggregate
reconstruction requirements for one of its POTW may well exceed
the $100 million threshold for triggering the requirements of the
Unfunded Mandates Act.  The commenter's consultants have
preliminarily estimated the cost of reconstruction of one of its
POTW to be in tens of millions of dollars if the plant is
required to implement the proposed MACT requirement.
     Response:  The commenter did not provide sufficient
supporting data to substantiate their claim that the cost of
reconstruction as a result of the requirements of this rule would
exceed the threshold for triggering the requirements of the
                               11-2

-------
unfunded mandates.  The EPA continues to believe the Unfunded
Mandates Act do not apply to this action.
     Comment:  Commenter IV-D-12 stated that it is likely that
reconstructions (exceeding the EPA's 50% capital cost threshold)
of several of the commenter's POTW will occur over the next 5
years.  The commenter is planning a major upgrade to one of its
plants that may likely fall under this category.  Moreover, it
has been the commenter's experience, over the last 30 years, that
every 15-20 years major reconstruction of POTW has been necessary
to keep up with population, community, and industrial demands as
well as federal Clean Water Act requirements.  The statement that
industrial user fees would likely cover the costs of the air
pollution controls presumes that the major source of the HAP are
from industrial users.  In New York City, the majority of HAP is
not the result of industrial sources.  Thus, at least with
respect to New York City,  the commenter believed that charging a
small number of industrial users who are not the primary source
of HAP millions of dollars to recover the cost of the MACT is not
a reasonable proposal.
     Response:  The EPA has removed the language that refers to
user fees from the regulation.
                               11-3

-------
        12.0  MAJOR SOURCE DECLASSIFICATION AND EXEMPTION

12.1  DECLASSIFICATION
     Comment:  Commenter IV-D-11 stated that there are no
provisions in the proposed rule that would allow a POTW to seek
declassification as a major source if its HAP emissions potential
fell below the major source threshold.  The commenter believed
that the potential to be declassified as a major source would be
a powerful incentive to reduce HAP emissions.  Commenter IV-D-11
recommended that the final rule provide a mechanism for a major
source to apply for declassification as a major source once the
facility's emissions fall below the major source criteria.
     Response:  The criteria for major source determination is
very clear in 40 CFR 63, subpart A - General Provisions.  If a
POTW that is a major source falls below the major source
threshold, then it is,  by definition, no longer a major source.
12.2  EXEMPTION FOR INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER SOURCES
     Comment:  Commenter IV-D-04 requested that the EPA include a
provision that will exempt a POTW from the POTW MACT standards if
the POTW's industrial users are achieving the applicable MACT
standards at their plants and the contributions from these
controlled sources are the reason that the POTW is a major
source.  The commenter noted that Part 63 Subpart DD (Off-site
Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP) incorporates provisions for
these facilities that are identical to those the commenter is
requesting for the POTW MACT rule.  The commenter requested that
not only should similar language be included in the POTW MACT,
but that it should be extended to include other applicable MACT
                               12-1

-------
rules with wastewater provisions including Part 63 Subparts S,
CC, DD, JJJ, and GGG.  The commenter requested that the exemption
should be more generic than what is currently in Subpart DD
because of the forthcoming miscellaneous organic chemicals NESHAP
and other similar rules so that it does not have to be amended in
the future.
     Response:  The EPA disagrees.  If a POTW has HAP emissions
sufficient to cause it to be a major source,  regardless of the
origin of the HAP that are emitted, then it must meet the
requirements of this rule.
12.3  REQUESTED EXEMPTION FOR SOME INDUSTRIAL POTW
     Comment:  Section 63.1584(b)  of the proposed rule states
that "The emission points and control requirements for a new or
reconstructed industrial POTW treatment plant... are ... specifled
in the appropriate NESHAP(s)  for the industrial user(s), or in
section 63.1587 of the proposed rule, whichever is more
stringent."   Commenter IV-D-04 requested that the POTW MACT
regulation include provisions for control options for new or
reconstructed industrial POTW that either have no primary
treatment units or that bypass such units  (e.g., by piping
directly to  the activated sludge units in closed sewers) with
industrial wastewater regulated by another NESHAP, rather than
require cover and control of primary treatment units which do not
receive or treat the HAP-containing wastes and therefore are not
the potential major source emission sources at the facility.  The
commenter proposed an addition to the POTW MACT that would exempt
a POTW from the cover and control requirements of section 63.1587
of the proposed rule "if the wastewaters that are the cause for
the POTW being a major source of HAP are sent directly to
biological treatment."
     Response:  The EPA has included in the regulation
alternatives to the requirements for new industrial POTW
treatment plants.  These alternatives allow a POTW to comply by
                               12-2

-------
demonstrating, for all units up to the secondary influent pumping
station, or the secondary treatment units, that the overall
fraction emitted does not exceed 0.014.  The POTW may use any
combination of pretreatment, wastewater treatment plant
modifications and control devices to achieve this performance
standard.  One wastewater treatment plant modification could be
to bypass the primary treatment units so that the HAP-bearing
wastewater is introduced directly into the secondary treatment
units.
                               12-3

-------
               13.0   CLARIFICATIONS AND  DEFINITIONS

13.1  CLARIFICATIONS
     Comment:  The preamble of the proposed rule states that
"...volatilization of HAP may occur in the wastewater collection
system prior to reaching the POTW treatment plant."  Commenter
IV-D-03 advised that, in addition to volatilization of HAP in the
wastewater collection system, biodegradation and adsorption of
organics onto solid particles in sewage also occurs, albeit to a
lesser degree due to the lower biota concentrations.
     Response:  The referenced language has been removed from
the preamble to the regulation.
     Comment:  Commenter IV-D-02 believed that in section
63.1595(a)(1) of the proposed rule the parenthetical statement
"e.g., a sewage sludge incinerator" incorrectly implies that all
sewage sludge incinerators are major sources of HAP.
     Response:  The referenced statement has been removed from
the regulation.
     Comment:  Commenters IV-D-03 and IV-D-11 stated that the
word "waste" in sections 63.1587(a)  and (b) of the proposed rule
should be changed to "wastewater".
     Response:  The term "waste" has been removed from the
referenced sections.
     Comment:  Commenter IV-D-03 stated that in addition to
processes that remove nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorous,
as stated in the description of POTW in the preamble of the
proposed rule, "advanced treatment" can also refer to enhanced
solids removal.
                               13-1

-------
     Response:  The referenced language has been removed from the
regulation.
     Comment:  Commenter IV-D-10 stated that rather than "The HAP
emitted by POTW originate in wastewater streams discharged by
industrial, commercial,  and other facilities to the POTW for
treatment," as stated in the preamble of the proposed rule,  the
statement "The primary function of a POTW is to treat suspended
solids, BOD,  etc. in wastewater.  Any beneficial removal of HAP
is incidental." should be used.
     Response:  The EPA disagrees with the commenter.  The
referenced language in the preamble describes the origins of HAP
that may eventually be emitted from POTW, not the function of a
POTW.
     Comment:  Commenter IV-D-02 stated that "POTW" should not be
followed by the words "treatment plant", as it is redundant.
Conversely, Commenter IV-D-03 believed that the definitions
contained in section 63.1597 of the proposed rule for POTW
Treatment Plant and POTW are clear, and indicated that the focus
of the proposed regulation was on emissions from the confines of
the sewage treatment plant.
     Response:  The EPA disagrees with the belief that the term
"POTW treatment plant" is inappropriate.  The term was
specifically crafted to provide a distinction between a specific
set of wastewater treatment processes at a POTW and the entire
POTW.  The terms "POTW" and "POTW treatment plant" are clearly
defined in the regulation.
     Comment:  Commenters IV-D-03 and IV-D-11 stated that the
term "separator wall" in section 63.1587(a)  of the proposed rule
has no meaning in the wastewater industry.
     Response:  The regulation now uses the term "supporting
wall" rather than "separator wall."
     Comment:  Commenter IV-D-05 suggested eliminating the term
"secondary influent pumping station" and replacing it with the
                               13-2

-------
term "through primary treatment" which may be a more generally
understandable equivalent description.
     Response:  The regulation now reads "for all units up to the
secondary influent pumping station, or the secondary treatment
units . "
     Comment:  Commenter IV-D-11 requested that the EPA clarify
its intentions on whether the headworks of a new plant would have
to be similar to the best-controlled plant, identified in the
proposed rule, in order to incorporate covering of bar screens,
wet wells,  etc.
     Response:  The EPA did not define headworks in the proposed
rule.  The regulation specifies that the "emission points are
treatment units that include, but are not limited to,  influent
waste stream conveyance channels, bar screens, grit chambers,
grinders, pump stations, aerated feeder channels, primary
clarifiers,  primary effluent channels, and primary screening
channels."  It is the EPA's intention that the preliminary waste
water treatment and handling processes  (typically grit chambers,
bar screens,  wet wells, etc.) are covered and controlled in the
same manner as the best-controlled plant.  The EPA does not
believe any further clarification is necessary in the regulation.
13.2  DEFINITIONS
     Comment:  Commenter IV-D-01 recommended that pass-through be
redefined in the regulations promulgated pursuant to the Clean
Water Act,  particularly in the Pretreatment program, to include
air emissions as well as impacts on POTW and effluent.
     Response:  The General Pretreatment Regulations for Existing
and New Sources of Pollution (40 CFR 403) define the term "Pass
Through" to mean "a discharge which exits the POTW into waters of
the United States in quantities or concentrations which, alone or
in conjunction with a discharge or discharges from other sources,
is a cause of a violation of any requirement of the POTW's NPDES
permit  (including an increase in the magnitude or duration of a
                               13-3

-------
violation)."  The EPA does not believe it is necessary to
redefine the term.
     Comment:  Commenter IV-D-02 believed the term "Industrial
POTW" should be replaced with the term "a POTW which treats waste
for an industry which would be subject to a Part 63 Standard is
also subject to that (the Part 63)  standard."
     Response:   The EPA disagrees with the commenter and believes
that the term "Industrial POTW" as defined in the regulation
sufficiently and accurately describes an industrial POTW.
                               13-4

-------
               14.0  NEW AND RECONSTRUCTED SOURCES

     Comment:  Commenter IV-D-19 believed that it is unlikely
that any new POTW would be large enough to trigger the major
source thresholds or that any expansion of existing POTW would
trigger the reconstruction threshold, since POTW typically start
small and then expand gradually as the population in their
service area grows.  The commenter believed that the standard for
a new source should be applicable to any addition of new
trains/tanks in the existing major POTW and should include some
numerical performance requirements.
     Response:  The definition of reconstruction is consistent
with the 40 CFR 63 Subpart A General Provisions.  In addition,
section 63.693, which applies to new and reconstructed sources,
requires specific numerical performance requirements for control
devices at new and reconstructed sources.  The EPA has also added
an alternative, performance-based, numerical standard by which a
POTW may demonstrate compliance with the standards.
     Comment:  Commenter IV-D-07 agrees with the EPA's finding
that the granulated activated carbon (GAC)  adsorption units
currently in use at POTW for odor control are ineffective at HAP
emissions reduction, and that they could be properly designed and
operated to serve a multiple function of both odor and HAP
control.  Further, commenter IV-D-07 believed that within the air
pollution control industry, the technology exists to collect,
concentrate, and oxidize HAP emissions from POTW facilities, and
that the EPA acknowledged this in the preamble of the proposed
                               14-1

-------
rule by stating that properly designed and operated GAC are
effective at HAP emissions reduction.
     Response:  No response necessary.
     Comment:  Commenter IV-D-19 believed that the proposed
standard would not result in any HAP emissions reduction from new
or reconstructed facilities because it only required them to
install some covers and control system and does not impose any
performance requirements.
     Response:  The regulation requires that control devices used
to control HAP emissions from new or reconstructed non-industrial
POTW treatment plant comply with section 63.693,  which places
performance requirements on the control device.
     Comment:  Commenter IV-D-18 stated that,  with regard to the
MACT and covering of the primary clarifiers, their modeling
determined that the primary clarifiers represented a small
percentage of the total emissions.  At their facilities where
trickling filters are present, those units are the highest single
source of emissions.  Due to the high cost and minimal
effectiveness associated with covering primary clarifiers, the
commenter stated that the EPA should make provisions to control
HAP emissions from areas which are most effective and most
economical.
     Response:  The commenter did not provide sufficient data for
the EPA to address the comment.  During the MACT floor
determination, no controls were identified at trickling filters
at major source POTW.
     Comment:  Commenter IV-D-08 believed the treatment method
should depend specifically on whether a plant is dealing with a
single HAP or a combination of HAP, because the effectiveness of
treatment or control technologies  (e.g., activated sludge
diffusion, biofilters, ozone scrubbers, pretreatment at the
source, or GAC)  will depend on the physical/chemical
characteristics of the specific HAP.  Commenter IV-D-10 requested
                               14-2

-------
that the EPA continue to investigate the factors which result in
substantial differences between facilities, such as discharge
profiles, benefits of existing environmental regulations  (i.e.,
air quality controls, pretreatment programs, water quality
regulations, etc.), treatment capacity, etc., in establishing a
MACT floor.
     Response:  The MACT floor was based on information available
to the Administrator at the time of this rulemaking.  The
information was provided by the primary organization representing
the POTW industry  (AMSA).   The commenter provided no data to
suggest the MACT floor would be different.
     Comment:  Commenter IV-D-12 believed that the use of
granulated activated carbon adsorption devices to achieve a 95%
control efficiency for the low concentrations of organic
compounds will not be cost-effective and technologically
feasible.  If GAC adsorption control devices are required as a
MACT floor for new and reconstructed POTW, the commenter
recommended that the EPA allow, as an alternative to the 95%
total HAP removal requirements, a site-specific operation-based
standard and/or a technologically achievable total HAP emissions
standard.
     Response:  The EPA has included in the regulation an
alternative performance standard in the form of an emission
limitation.  A POTW may use any combination of pretreatment,
wastewater treatment plant modifications,  and control devices to
achieve this performance standard.
     Comment:  Commenters IV-D-03 and IV-D-11 stated the
requirement for minimal ventilation (e.g., at or near zero)  at
new and reconstructed POTW treatment plants, as stated in section
63.1587(c)  of the proposed rule, was contrary to the way many
POTW are designed and operated.  Routine maintenance requires
frequent personnel entry and, if the units were not highly
ventilated, entry by personnel would constitute a confined space
                               14-3

-------
entry.  The commenters believed that section 63.1587(c)  of the
proposed rule should be removed or changed to read:  "If a
treatment unit is not equipped with a closed-vent system and
control device,  it must be designed to operate with minimal
ventilation of the air space under the cover to reduce air
emissions while still providing adequate ventilation to comply
with other regulatory requirements that govern ventilation of the
process and provide safe access to the process for plant
personnel."
     Response:  The referenced language has been removed from the
regulation.
     Comment:  Commenter IV-D-12 believed that the definition of
a reconstructed source is not clear and that the rule should
specify what constitutes the beginning of construction.   The
definition does not establish a time frame in which the 50%
replacement cost must occur  (e.g., 0-5 years after promulgation
of the rule)  and the criteria to be used to evaluate technical
and economic feasibility.  Also, if the reconstruction consists
of various phases and tasks over several years, how is the 50%
replacement cost determined?  Are different phases of
construction on different emission sources considered separate
reconstruction projects subject to the 50% replacement cost
determination?  The commenter believed that the time frame and
feasibility must be clearly defined so that a POTW can determine
whether MACT is applicable for present and future upgrades at its
POTW treatment plants.
     Response:  Reconstruction is clearly defined in 40 CFR 63
General Provisions which are incorporated by reference in the
regulation.
                               14-4

-------
         15.0  INDUSTRIAL PUBLICLY-OWNED TREATMENT WORKS

     Comment:  Commenter IV-D-11 stated that section 63.1584 of
the proposed rule states that the emission points and control
requirements for an existing industrial POTW treatment plant are
those specified in the appropriate NESHAP(s) for the industrial
user, and questioned what happens if the emissions points which
are defined in the specific NESHAP are not comparable to the
emission points in the POTW treatment plant, and recommended that
the issue be clarified by the EPA.
     Response:  The EPA believes that the emission points and
control requirements specified in industrial NESHAP allowing off-
site treatment of wastewater will be conducive to comparison to
treatment processes at POTW.  In the event they are not, the
local regulatory agency will have the authority to determine the
appropriate emissions points and control requirements.
                               15-1

-------
                  16.0   SOLICITATION  OF COMMENTS

     Comment:  Commenter IV-D-01 noted that the definition of
POTW does not include the collection system where the collection
system is a combined system,  and recommended that some language
qualifying that the exclusion applies only where the definition
includes the collection system.
     Response:   The definition of POTW does not exclude combined
collection systems.
     Comment:  Commenter IV-D-03 submitted information on the
design of sewers.  The commenter also believed that if the EPA
considers including collection systems in the final regulation,
then the EPA should be aware that in many cases the POTW and the
associated collection systems may not be owned by the same
political entity.  Commenter IV-D-03 also believed that the
selective absorption of the volatile organic compounds (VOC)  into
the oils and greases that are an integral part of sewage and the
resulting attenuation of VOC emissions are significant and should
be subject to further evaluation.  Commenter IV-D-06 provided
information on industry trends to reduce or eliminate HAP
emissions and Commenters IV-D-06 and IV-D-09 provided information
on industry trends in industrial HAP discharges via wastewater.
Commenter IV-D-10 believed that it is premature for the EPA to
propose MACT standards for wastewater collection systems due to a
lack of HAP emissions data and evaluation of the feasibility and
cost-effectiveness of controlling HAP emissions from collection
systems.  The commenter believed that the EPA must investigate
the benefits of regional environmental regulations, such as
                               16-1

-------
aggressive pretreatment programs or the California South Coast
Air Basis's transition to water-based solvents as an air quality
control measure, on reducing HAP emissions from wastewater
collection systems.  The commenter urged the EPA to work with
AMSA to assess the technical feasibility and cost-effectiveness
of available control technologies.  Commenter IV-D-11 believed
that it is premature for the EPA to propose MACT emissions
standards for wastewater collection systems due to a lack of HAP
emissions data and evaluation of the practicality of such
standards.  Commenter IV-D-11 stated that source control is the
best method for reducing HAP emissions from sewers.  Commenter
IV-D-11 also made the following points concerning pretreatment:
(1) since the proposed MACT for existing sources is no control,
pretreatment should not be considered as a control for existing
sources but could be used as a control option in lieu of covers
at new sources; (2) pretreatment is a pollution prevention
measure,  and as such, is a higher order control technology than
add-on control devices;  (3)  the estimated efficacy and cost of
pretreatment can vary significantly among facilities due to
facility-specific conditions; and  (4)  many facilities'
pretreatment programs are advanced and very effective, thus there
may be little or no potential for further emissions reduction.
Commenter IV-D-14 agreed with the EPA that HAP emissions from
wastewater collection systems could be significant, and that for
certain POTW, pretreatment could reduce HAP emissions from both
the collection system and the POTW treatment plant.  Commenters
IV-D-12 and IV-D-18, although unable to provide sufficient data
to demonstrate the effectiveness of pretreatment as an
alternative control for HAP emissions supported the pretreatment
concept and believed that it could be an additional means of
control to reduce HAP emissions from POTW.  In addition,
Commenter IV-D-08 believed that pretreatment or pollution
prevention at the source are the preferred methods for reducing
                               16-2

-------
HAP emissions from POTW treatment plants.  Commenter IV-D-14
believed there is more evidence regarding HAP emissions from
sewers than is reflected in the proposed rule package,  and that
the evidence indicates that large fractions of volatile HAP are
emitted from wastewater upstream of treatment plants.  Commenter
IV-D-14 provided a list of publications generated by his research
team to support any future assessment of municipal sewers as
sources of HAP emissions.
     Several commenters provided information on pretreatment,  as
requested in the proposal.  Commenter IV-D-09, IV-D-11, and IV-D-
15 supplied quantitative data and/or qualitative information on
their pretreatment programs.  This information included
historical HAP influent monitoring data; details of pretreatment
programs that were successful at reducing HAP loadings  to POTW;
actual costs of implementing and operating effective pretreatment
programs; data on observed trends in industrial HAP discharges
via wastewater; and estimated costs of controlling HAP  emissions
through pretreatment.   This information generally indicated that
pretreatment programs  were effective at reducing HAP loading to,
and presumably HAP emissions from, POTW.  In addition,  Commenter
IV-D-03 expressed interest in designing, with the EPA's
cooperation, a pilot study to gauge the effectiveness of
additional pretreatment so that measurable parameters can be
obtained.
     Response:  Sufficient information is not currently available
to the Administrator to require MACT controls on HAP emissions
from collection systems.  The information supplied by the
commenters has been placed in the docket, and will be considered
at such time as the EPA decides to develop regulations  for
collection systems.
     Comment:  Commenter IV-D-05 recommended that the EPA adopt
pretreatment limits to reduce HAP emissions at POTW and believed
that by using the existing pretreatment program of the  Clean
                               16-3

-------
Water Act the EPA could direct its efforts upstream at the
original source of the HAP and more effectively reduce HAP
emissions from POTW.  Commenter IV-D-05 urged the EPA to add this
objective to the current list of objectives found in the General
Pretreatment Regulations (40 CFR 403).   Commenter IV-D-09 stated
that the responsibility for HAP emissions should remain with the
industrial discharger by NESHAP requiring zero or minimal
discharge of HAP to the sanitary sewer system, and not regulated
by the industrial pretreatment programs at POTW.
     Response:  Sufficient information is not currently available
to the Administrator to require pretreatment as a HAP emissions
control method for POTW.  Information submitted in response to
solicitation in the POTW proposal has not provided sufficient
data to allow promulgation of a rule requiring pretreatment as a
control method.
     Comment:  Commenter IV-D-07 believed that, although the EPA
stated in the preamble to the proposed regulation that AMSA
recommended pretreatment as the preferred method for reducing HAP
emissions from POTW, the EPA should develop cost analysis
information to create guidelines for determining the economic
viability of add-on control technology vs. pretreatment for
facilities within this source category.
     Response:  The EPA is not requiring pretreatment to control
HAP emissions from POTW treatment plants, rather it is mentioned
as an example of a possible alternative control methodology.  The
EPA does not develop cost analyses for all possible control
alternatives.
     Comment:  Commenter IV-D-10 provided general examples of
pretreatment programs that they have instituted and, although the
overall effectiveness of these programs in reducing HAP loading
to POTW has not been evaluated, they believe such programs are
effective at HAP emissions reduction.   The commenter believed
that the benefits associated with existing programs such as these
                               16-4

-------
should be recognized and accommodated by any MACT standard
proposed for collection systems.  Further,  commenter IV-D-10
(1)  recommended that the EPA investigate HAP source reduction
programs at the consumer level,  such as educating the public
about consumer products which contain HAP and reducing their
uses; (2) requested that the regulation of VOC content of
products discharged into the collection system be considered as
an alternative control strategy to establishing a MACT standard
for wastewater collection systems; and  (3)  recommended that the
EPA consult with the California Air Resources Board which has
promulgated regulations for consumer products.
     Response: Under the alternative performance standard, new or
reconstructed POTW can reduce emissions using source reduction.
     Comment:  Commenter IV-D-19 believed pretreatment of
industrial wastewater to minimize HAP prior to discharging to the
sewer would be the most sensible and effective measure for
controlling toxic emissions from both sewer collection systems
and POTW treatment plants.   However the commenter did not believe
that the industry would provide sufficient data on pretreatment,
and that the EPA should request all POTW to report their existing
pretreatment limitations on industrial dischargers of any of 118
HAP.  The commenter believed that, from these data, the EPA could
establish the MACT floor and emissions standards for the POTW
pretreatment program.
     Response:  The EPA agrees with the commenter that
pretreatment would be an effective means for controlling HAP
emissions from both collection systems and POTW treatment plants.
The EPA has reviewed all available data and was unable to
determine a MACT floor based on pretreatment permit limitations.
If sufficient data characterizing HAP emissions reduction as a
result of pretreatment programs become available, the EPA will
review the data and amend the rule as necessary and appropriate.
                               16-5

-------
16-6

-------
                   17.0  MISCELLANEOUS COMMENTS

     Comment:   Commenter IV-D-02 liked the "plain language"
format of the  proposed rule.
     Response:  No response necessary.
     Comment:   Commenter IV-D-10 recommended that the rule use
the units "Ib/yr" or "ton/yr" rather than "megagrams/year".
     Response:  The EPA is required to use metric units.
                               17-1

-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO. 2.
EPA-453/R-99-XXX
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP):
Publicly Owned Treatment Works - Background Information for Final
Standards: Summary of Public Comments and Responses
7. AUTHOR(S)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Emission Standards Division (Mail Drop 13)
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 2771 1
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Director
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Office of Air and Radiation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 2771 1
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
5. REPORT DATE
October 1999
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/200/04
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
This document contains a summary of public comments received on the NESHAP for Publicly Owned
Treatment Works (40 CFR 63, subpart VVV). This document also provides the EPA's response to comments,
and outlines the changes made to the regulation in response to comments received.
17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
a. DESCRIPTORS
Environmental Protection, Air Pollution Control, Air
Emissions Control, Federally Owned Treatment Works,
Hazardous Air Pollutants, Hazardous Substances,
Industrial Publicly Owned Treatment Works, Publicly
Owned Treatment Works, Reporting and Recordkeeping
Requirements
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release Unlimited
b. IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS c. COSATT
Field/Group
Hazardous air pollutants
19. SECURITY CLASS (Report) 21. NO. OF PAGES
Unclassified 55
20. SECURITY CLASS (Page) 22. PRICE
Unclassified

-------