[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 197 (Thursday, October 13, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-25064]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: October 13, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[AD-FRL-5087-4]
RIN 2060-AE05
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for
Source Category: Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule and notice of public hearing.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Under the authority of the Clean Air Act, the EPA is proposing
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for
off-site waste and recovery operations. This rule would apply to owners
and operators of facilities, with certain exceptions, that manage
wastes or recoverable materials which have been generated off-site at
another facility and contain specific organic chemical compounds listed
as hazardous air pollutants (HAP). The NESHAP would require air
emission controls be implemented for tanks, containers, surface
impoundments, land disposal units, and certain other operations used to
manage, convey, or handle wastes or recoverable materials except when
the HAP content of a waste or recoverable material meets conditions
specified in the rule.
DATES: Comments. The EPA will accept comments on the proposed rule
until December 12, 1994.
Public Hearing. If requested, the EPA will hold a public hearing
concerning the proposed rule beginning at 10 a.m. on November 21, 1994.
Persons interested in presenting oral testimony to the EPA at a public
hearing must contact the person listed below (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT) no later than November 10, 1994. Persons
interested in attending the hearing should call the person listed below
(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) to verify that a hearing will be
held.
ADDRESSES: Comments. Interested parties may submit written comments
regarding the proposed rule (in duplicate, if possible) to the
following: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, Attention
Docket No. A-92-16, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street,
SW., Washington, DC 20460. The EPA requests that a separate copy of the
comments also be sent to the contact person listed below (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Public Hearing. If a hearing is requested it will be held at the
EPA Office of Administration Auditorium, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina.
Background Information Document. The background information
document (BID) may be obtained from the U.S. Environmental Protection
Library (MD-35), Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711,
telephone number (919) 541-2777. Please refer to ``National Emissions
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Category: Off-site
Waste and Recovery Operations--Background Information Document for
Proposed Standards,'' EPA document no. EPA-453/R-94-070a.
Docket. The proposed regulatory text, Background Information
Document (BID), and other supporting information used in developing the
proposed rule are available in the docket for public inspection and
copying. The docket for this rulemaking is Docket No. A-92-16 and 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 docket room is open to the public from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday. Telephone number (202) 260-7548. A reasonable
fee may be charged for copying docket materials.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Eric L. Crump, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, Chemicals and Petroleum Branch (MD-13),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina, 27711, telephone (919) 541-5032, telefax (919) 541-3470.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Organization of This Document
The information presented in this notice of proposed rule is
organized as follows:
I. Summary of Proposed Rule
A. Summary of Rule Requirements
B. Summary of Rule Impacts
II. Background
A. Section 112 Statutory Requirements
B. Listing of Source Category
C. Summary of Public Participation in Development of Proposed
Rule
D. Relationship of Proposed Rule to Other EPA Regulatory Actions
III. Source Category Description
A. Organic HAP Types
B. Facility Types
C. Nationwide Organic HAP Emissions
IV. Development of Regulatory Alternatives
A. Selection of Source Category and Pollutants for Control
B. Subcategorization
C. Selection of Emission Points
D. Definition of Source
E. Selection of MACT Floor
F. Regulatory Alternatives for Existing Sources
G. Regulatory Alternatives for New Sources
H. Regulatory Alternative Impacts
V. Selection of Basis for Proposed Standards
A. Selection of Regulatory Alternative for Existing Sources
B. Selection of Regulatory Alternative for New Sources
C. Selection of Format for Proposed Standards
D. Selection of Test Methods and Procedures
E. Selection of Monitoring and Inspection Requirements
F. Selection of Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements
G. Emissions Averaging
VI. Rule Implementation
A. Effective Date for Compliance
B. Modifications and Reconstruction
C. Relationship to Operating Permit Program
VII. Administrative Requirements
VIII. Statutory Authority
Additional Detailed Information
The proposed regulatory text is not included in this Federal
Register notice, but is available in Docket No. A-92-16 or by request
from the EPA's Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (see
ADDRESSES). This notice, the proposed regulatory text, and the BID are
also available on the Technology Transfer Network (TTN), one of the
EPA's electronic bulletin boards. The TTN provides information and
technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control. The
service is free, except for the cost of a telephone call. Dial (919)
541-5742 for up to a 14,400 bauds per second modem. If more information
on TTN is needed, call the HELP line at (919) 541-5384.
A limited number of copies of these documents are available on
diskette. They can be obtained by writing or faxing a request to the
EPA contact person designated earlier in this notice.
I. Summary of Proposed Rule
A. Summary of Rule Requirements
Today's proposed rule would amend title 40, chapter I, part 63 of
the Code of Federal Regulations by adding a new subpart DD--National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Off-site Waste and
Recovery Operations. The following is a summary of the requirements
proposed for the rule.
The EPA is proposing to define ``waste'' for the off-site waste and
recovery operations NESHAP as any material generated from industrial,
commercial, mining, or agricultural operations or from community
activities that is discarded, discharged, or is being accumulated,
stored, or physically, chemically, thermally, or biologically treated
prior to being discarded or discharged. This definition would include
all materials defined to be solid wastes under Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) rules including hazardous wastes. The EPA is
proposing to define ``recoverable material'' for this rulemaking as any
material generated from industrial, commercial, mining, or agricultural
operations or from community activities that is recycled, reprocessed,
reused, or is being accumulated, stored, or physically, chemically,
thermally, or biologically treated prior to being recycled,
reprocessed, or reused. Under this definition, secondary materials such
as used, surplus, and scrap materials that are recycled or reprocessed
to recover reusable materials or to create new products would be
considered by the EPA to be recoverable materials subject to this
NESHAP. Waste and recoverable material subject to the off-site waste
and recovery operations NESHAP are collectively referred to in the
proposed rule as ``regulated material.''
1. Applicability
The proposed rule would apply to owners and operators of
facilities, with certain exceptions listed below, where operations are
conducted to manage, convey, or handle wastes or recoverable materials
that are received from other facilities and contain hazardous air
pollutants. In other words, the waste or recoverable material has been
generated off-site at a separate location and, then, shipped or
transferred to the facility for subsequent management. Applicable
operations subject to the rule would include storage, treatment, and
disposal operations as well as recycling, recovery, and reprocessing
operations. All of these operations collectively are referred to
hereafter in this notice as ``off-site waste and recovery operations.''
The rule would apply to off-site waste and recovery operations
receiving regulated materials that contain one or more of the specific
organic chemicals listed in a table included as part of the proposed
rule. These organic chemicals have been designated as hazardous air
pollutants (HAP) under CAA section 112(b), and are referred to
collectively hereafter in this notice as ``organic HAP.'' Off-site
waste and recovery operations managing waste or recoverable material
that does not contain any of the organic chemicals listed in the rule
would not be ``regulated materials'' subject to the rule.
The EPA is proposing that the off-site waste and recovery
operations NESHAP only apply to ``major sources'' as defined in the
Part 63 general provisions (40 CFR 63.2). ``Area sources'' as defined
under 40 CFR 63.2 would not be subject to the rule.
The rule would not apply to certain types of waste or recovery
operations located at an affected facility because HAP emissions from
these operations are addressed by other EPA regulatory actions. The
following operations at an affected facility would be exempted from the
requirements of the off-site waste and recovery operations NESHAP: (1)
Units or equipment 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
or equipment located at a publicly-owned treatment works; or (6) units
or equipment used exclusively to manage waste that has been received
from remediation activities to cleanup wastes designated as hazardous
wastes under Resource, Conservation, and Recovery Act (RCRA) rules. In
addition, the off-site waste and recovery operations NESHAP would not
apply to underground components of injection wells used for disposal of
waste.
2. General Standards
The general standards proposed for the off-site waste and recovery
operations NESHAP apply to major sources. The standards would require
that the owner or operator of an affected facility control air
emissions from certain waste management units and equipment in which
regulated materials containing the organic HAP listed in the rule are
placed on or after the effective date of the rule. These air emission
control requirements would not apply to any affected facility for which
the owner or operator demonstrates that the total annual organic HAP
mass content of all regulated materials subject to the rule entering
the facility is less than 1 megagram per year (Mg/yr). The procedure to
be used by the owner or operator to calculate the total annual organic
HAP mass content of the regulated material is specified in the rule.
The EPA requests comment on the proposed 1 Mg/yr exemption, and
requests supporting information be provided with any recommendation for
an alternative exemption level.
Two other provisions are proposed for the off-site waste and
recovery operations NESHAP that would allow individual units at an
affected facility to be exempted from the air emission control
requirements of the rule. The first provision would exempt from the air
emission control requirements those units at major sources that
exclusively are used to manage regulated material received at the
facility with a volatile organic hazardous air pollutant (VOHAP)
concentration less than 100 parts per million by weight (ppmw) on a
mass-weighted average basis. The regulated material VOHAP concentration
would be determined based on the organic HAP content of the regulated
material at the point where the facility accepts delivery or takes
possession of the regulated material, using procedures specified in the
rule. The EPA requests comment on the definitiveness of the term
``point of entry'' as defined in the rule.
The second individual unit exemption provision proposed in the rule
would allow an owner or operator to selectively designate, on a site-
specific basis, certain individual units to be exempt from the air
emission control requirements regardless of the VOHAP concentration of
the regulated material placed in the unit. Application of this
discretionary exemption by the owner or operator would be limited based
on regulated material organic HAP content. Under this provision, the
total annual organic HAP mass content in the regulated materials placed
in all of the units designated by the owner or operator as exempt units
could not exceed 1 Mg/yr as determined in accordance with the
procedures specified in the rule. The EPA requests comment on the
structure of the proposed 1 Mg/yr exemption for individual units, as
well as supporting information for any recommendation for an
alternative exemption level.
For tanks, surface impoundments, containers, conveyance systems,
and certain treatment units required to use air emission controls under
the off-site waste and recovery operations NESHAP, the owner or
operator would be required to either: (1) Install and operate air
emission controls on the unit in accordance with standards specified in
the rule; or (2) treat the regulated material before the regulated
material is placed in the unit to remove or destroy organic HAP in
accordance with requirements specified in the rule. For land disposal
units and other miscellaneous units subject to the air emission control
requirements of the rule, the owner or operator would be required to
treat the regulated material before the regulated material is placed in
the unit to remove or destroy organic HAP in accordance with the
requirements specified in the rule. In addition to these requirements,
the rule would require that the owner or operator of an affected
facility control organic HAP emissions from leaks in certain ancillary
equipment (e.g., pumps, valves, flanges, etc.) used to handle regulated
material streams having a total organic HAP concentration equal to or
greater than 10 percent by weight.
Under the proposed rule, an owner or operator would be allowed to
use any type of treatment process to reduce the organic HAP content of
the regulated material that can continuously achieve the performance
requirements specified in the rule. Several alternative treatment
process performance standards are specified in the proposed rule from
which the owner or operator could choose to comply. These standards
would allow the use of a treatment process that achieves any of the
following conditions: (1) the actual VOHAP concentration of the
regulated material exiting the treatment process is less than 100 ppmw
or the VOHAP concentration limit established for the process, whichever
value is lower; (2) the HAP reduction efficiency for the treatment
process is equal to or greater than 95 percent, and the VOHAP
concentration of the regulated material exiting the treatment process
is less than 50 ppmw; or (3) the actual HAP mass removal for the
treatment process is greater than the required mass removal established
for the process.
3. Tank Standards
The tank standards proposed for the off-site waste and recovery
operations NESHAP would establish the requirements for tanks using air
emission controls to comply with the general standards of the rule. No
air emission controls would be required under the rule for a tank in
which all regulated material placed in the unit has been treated to
remove or destroy organic HAP in accordance with the requirements
specified in the general standards. Also, the tank standards would not
apply to a tank in which biological treatment of a regulated material
is performed under certain conditions specified in the rule; or to a
tank designated by the owner or operator to be exempted from using air
emission controls in accordance with the rule provisions.
The proposed air emission control requirements for tanks would be
applied based on the tank design capacity, the maximum HAP vapor
pressure of the regulated material in the tank, and whether the tank is
designated an ``existing tank'' or a ``new tank'' under the provisions
of 40 CFR part 63. Both existing tanks and new tanks in which the
maximum HAP vapor pressure of the regulated material in the tank is
equal to or greater than 76.6 kPa (approximately 11.1 psi), would be
required (regardless of tank design capacity) to manage the regulated
material in a tank using a cover that is connected through a closed-
vent system to a control device. For affected tanks in which the
maximum HAP vapor pressure of the regulated material in the tank is
less than 76.6 kPa, different standards are proposed for existing tanks
and for new tanks depending on the tank design capacity.
Under the proposed tank standards for existing tanks in which the
maximum HAP vapor pressure of the regulated material in the tank is
less than 76.6 kPa, use of air emission controls would be required on
tanks having a design capacity equal to or greater than 75 m\3\
(approximately 20,000 gallons). No air emission controls would be
required under the rule for an existing tank having a design capacity
less than 75 m\3\. For tanks having a design capacity equal to or
greater than 75 m\3\, an owner or operator would be required to install
and operate air emission controls in accordance with the rule
requirements. These requirements specify that, unless the maximum HAP
vapor pressure of the regulated material in the tank is less than
certain limits specified in the rule, the owner or operator install and
operate on the tank one of the following air emission control systems:
(1) A cover that is connected through a closed-vent system to a control
device; (2) a fixed-roof type cover with an internal floating roof that
is designed and operated in accordance with the requirements of the new
source performance standard (NSPS) for volatile organic liquid (VOL)
storage under 40 CFR 60.112b(a)(1); (3) an external floating roof that
is designed and operated in accordance with the requirements of the VOL
storage NSPS under 40 CFR 60.112b(a)(2); or (4) a pressure tank that is
designed to operate as a closed system. Under the proposed rule, an
owner or operator would be allowed to use a fixed-roof type cover
(without any additional controls) for existing tanks having a capacity
less than 151 m\3\ (approximately 40,000 gallons) when the maximum HAP
vapor pressure of the regulated material in the tank is less than 27.6
kPa (approximately 4.0 psi), and for larger capacity tanks when the
maximum HAP vapor pressure of the regulated material in the tank is
less than 5.2 kPa (approximately 0.75 psi).
The proposed standards for new tanks in which the maximum HAP vapor
pressure of the regulated material in the tank is less than 76.6 kPa
would require the use of air emission controls on tanks having a design
capacity equal to or greater than 38 m\3\ (approximately 10,000
gallons). The same types of air emission control systems specified in
the proposed rule for existing tanks (e.g., vent to control device, use
floating roof, pressure tank, or use of fixed-roof type covers under
certain conditions) would apply to new tanks with the exception that
the maximum HAP vapor pressure limits allowed for using fixed-roof type
covers without additional controls are lower for new tanks than
existing tanks. An owner or operator would be allowed to use a fixed-
roof type cover without additional controls for new tanks having a
capacity less than 151 m\3\ when the maximum HAP vapor pressure of the
regulated material in the tank is less than 13.1 kPa (approximately 1.9
psi), and for larger capacity tanks when the maximum HAP vapor pressure
of the regulated material in the tank is less than 0.7 kPa
(approximately 0.1 psi).
The proposed maximum HAP vapor pressure limits selected for
existing tanks that would be allowed to use fixed-roof type covers
without additional controls are based on the waste vapor pressure
limits established for tanks at hazardous waste treatment, storage, and
disposal facilities (TSDF) subject to air rules being developed by the
EPA under authority of RCRA section 3004(n) (refer to 56 FR 33490). For
today's proposed rulemaking, the EPA considered using the maximum vapor
pressure limits established for tanks under the NESHAP for the
synthetic organic chemical manufacturing (SOCMI) industry (40 CFR 63
subpart G). Because the sources subject to both the off-site waste and
recovery operations NESHAP and the RCRA air rules are similar, the EPA
believes it is appropriate to use the maximum vapor pressure limits
established for the RCRA air rules for today's proposed rulemaking
also. The EPA requests comment on the selection of the maximum HAP
vapor pressure limits proposed for the air emission control
requirements for tanks under the off-site waste and recovery operations
NESHAP.
4. Surface Impoundment Standards
The proposed air emission control requirements are the same for
existing surface impoundments and new surface impoundments. These
requirements would not apply to either: a surface impoundment in which
all regulated material placed in the unit has been treated to remove or
destroy organic HAP in accordance with the requirements specified in
the general standards; a surface impoundment in which biological
treatment of a regulated material is performed under certain conditions
specified in the rule; or a surface impoundment designated by the owner
or operator to be exempted from using air emission controls in
accordance with rule provisions. For each surface impoundment required
to use air emission controls, the owner or operator would be required
to use either: a cover that is connected to a closed-vent system vented
to a control device; or a floating membrane cover that is designed and
operated in accordance with requirements specified in the rule.
5. Container Standards
The proposed air emission control requirements are the same for
existing and new containers. These requirements would not apply to
either: a container having a design capacity less than or equal to 0.1
m\3\ (approximately 26 gallons); a container in which all regulated
material placed in the unit has been treated to remove or destroy
organic HAP in accordance with the requirements specified in the
general standards; or a container designated by the owner or operator
to be exempted from using air emission controls in accordance with rule
provisions.
For containers used for storage, treatment, and handling of
regulated material, the owner or operator would be required to use
either: (1) a container that is equipped with a vapor leak-tight cover;
(2) a container having a design capacity less than or equal to 0.42
m\3\ (approximately 110 gallons) that is equipped with a cover and
complies with all applicable U.S. Department of Transportation
regulations on packaging hazardous waste for transport under 49 CFR
part 178; or (3) a container that is attached to or forms a part of any
truck, trailer, or railcar and that has been demonstrated within the
preceding 12 months to be organic HAP vapor tight in accordance with
the procedure specified in the rule. For containers in which treatment
of regulated material is performed, the owner or operator would be
required to place the container inside an enclosure that is connected
through a closed-vent system to a control device at all times that the
container is completely or partially uncovered during the treatment
operation. Transfer of regulated material by pumping into a container
having a design capacity greater than 0.42 m\3\ would be required to be
performed using submerged fill loading.
6. Process Vent Standards
The proposed off-site waste and recovery operations NESHAP would
regulate organic HAP emissions from process vents on enclosed treatment
units. Under the proposed rule, an ``enclosed treatment unit'' would be
defined as a stationary, enclosed unit used for the purpose of treating
or processing a regulated material, and for which all materials only
enter or exit the unit through enclosed pipes or process vents while
the unit is operating. Examples of an enclosed treatment unit include a
distillation pot, distillation column, thin-film evaporator, solvent
extraction tower, steam stripping tower, and air stripping tower.
The proposed air emission control requirements are the same for
existing units and new units. These requirements would not apply to
either: an enclosed treatment unit in which all regulated material
placed in the unit has been treated to remove or destroy organic HAP in
accordance with the requirements specified in the general standards; or
an enclosed treatment unit designated by the owner or operator to be
exempted from using air emission controls in accordance with rule
provisions. For each enclosed treatment unit required to use air
emission controls, the owner or operator would be required to connect
each process vent on the unit to a closed-vent system vented to a
control device.
7. Conveyance System Standards
The proposed off-site waste and recovery operations NESHAP would
establish requirements for conveyance systems to control organic HAP
emissions occurring during the transfer of a regulated material
containing organic HAP between two regulated material management units
using air emission controls in accordance with the rule requirements.
Under the proposed rule, a ``conveyance system'' would be defined as a
device other than a container used to transfer material to or from
tanks, containers, surface impoundments, enclosed treatment units, or
other regulated material management units. Examples of a conveyance
system include a pipeline, individual drain system (with all associated
drains, junction boxes, and sewer lines), channel, flume, gravity-
operated conveyor (such as a chute), and mechanically-powered conveyor
(such as a belt or screw conveyor).
The proposed air emission control requirements are the same for
existing conveyance systems and new conveyance systems. These
requirements would not apply to either: a conveyance system in which
all regulated material placed in the unit has been treated to remove or
destroy organic HAP in accordance with the requirements specified in
the general standards; or a conveyance system designated by the owner
or operator to be exempted from using air emission controls in
accordance with rule provisions.
For each conveyance system required to use air emission controls,
the owner or operator would be required to use one of the following
systems: (1) a conveyance system which uses a cover that is connected
through a closed-vent system to a control device; (2) a conveyance
system which uses an enclosure that is connected through a closed-vent
system to a control device; (3) a conveyance system which is designed
and operated as an enclosed pipeline in which all joints or seams
between the pipe sections are permanently or semi-permanently sealed
(e.g., a welded joint between two sections of metal pipe or a bolted
and gasketed flange); (4) a conveyance system which is designed and
operated as an individual drain system in accordance with the
requirements of 40 CFR 61.346(a)(1) or 40 CFR 61.346 (b)(1) through
(b)(3); or (5) any other conveyance system which is designed to operate
as a closed system such that the conveyance system operates with no
detectable emissions (as determined by procedures specified under the
rule) at all times that regulated material is in the conveyance system
except under certain conditions.
8. Equipment Leak Standards
The proposed off-site waste and recovery operations NESHAP would
require owners and operators of affected facilities to control organic
HAP emissions from leaks in pumps, compressors, pressure relief
devices, sampling connection systems, open-ended valves or lines,
valves, flanges and other connectors, and product accumulator vessels
that either contain or contact a regulated material which is a fluid
(liquid or gas) and has a total organic HAP concentration equal to or
greater than 10 percent by weight. The equipment leak standards would
not apply to equipment that operates less than 300 hours per calendar
year, or equipment for which the owner or operator is already complying
with the requirements of 40 CFR 63 subpart H. For each equipment
component subject to this standard at either an existing source or a
new source, the owner or operator would be required to perform the leak
detection and repair program and implement the equipment modifications
required under 40 CFR 61.241 through 61.247.
9. Air Emission Control Equipment Requirements
Specific design, performance, and operating requirements are
proposed for each cover, closed-vent system, and control device
installed by the owner or operator to comply with the tank, surface
impoundment, container, conveyance system, enclosed treatment unit
standards of the rule.
The proposed requirements for covers are determined by the type of
cover used and the type of regulated material management unit on which
the cover is installed. Requirements are specified for vapor-leak tight
covers (i.e covers that operate with no detectable emissions as
determined by procedures specified under the rule), external and
internal floating roofs installed on tanks, floating membrane covers
installed on surface impoundments, and container enclosures requiring
continuous or frequent worker access.
Each closed-vent system would be required to operate with no
detectable emissions (as determined by procedures specified under the
rule). For the proposed rule, any control device could be used that
reduces the mass content of either total organic compounds (less
methane and ethane) or total HAP in the gases vented to the device by
95 percent by weight or greater. An owner or operator would be allowed
to comply with alternative performance requirements for enclosed
combustion devices (e.g., thermal vapor incinerators, catalytic vapor
incinerators, boilers, and process heaters) and for flares.
10. Test Methods and Compliance Procedures
For affected units using air emission controls in accordance with
the rule requirements, no regulated material determination would be
required under the proposed rule. An owner or operator would be
required to determine the VOHAP concentration or organic HAP vapor
pressure of the regulated material being managed in the unit not using
air emission controls in accordance with the requirements of the
standards. Either analysis of regulated material samples using
procedures specified in the rule or the owner's or operator's knowledge
of the regulated material could be used could be used for a regulated
material determination.
The owner or operator would determine that covers and closed-vent
system operates with no detectable emissions by visual inspection and
testing the equipment in accordance with the procedures specified in
Method 21 under 40 CFR 60 appendix A. Test procedures for control
devices would be consistent with procedures specified in existing
NESHAP.
11. Monitoring and Inspection Requirements
To ensure that the air emission control equipment is properly
operated and maintained, the proposed off-site waste and recovery
operations NESHAP would require that the owner or operator periodically
inspect and monitor this equipment. Visual inspections and leak
detection monitoring using Method 21 would be required for certain
types of covers to ensure gaskets and seals are in good condition, and
for closed-vent systems to ensure all fittings remain leak-tight. In
general, semi-annual inspection and leak detection monitoring of covers
is proposed. Annual inspection and leak detection monitoring would be
required for closed-vent systems.
Continuous monitoring of control device operation would be required
under the proposed rule. This would involve the use of automated
instrumentation to measure and record appropriate control device
operating parameters that indicate whether the control device is in
compliance with the applicable performance requirements of the rule. A
more detailed explanation of these proposed monitoring requirements for
control devices is presented in section V.E.1 of this notice.
In cases when an owner or operator complies with the off-site waste
and recovery operations NESHAP by treating a regulated material to
remove or destroy HAP before placing the regulated material in a unit,
the EPA is proposing that the owner or operator monitor appropriate
operating parameters for the treatment process as described in section
V.E.2 of this notice.
12. Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements
The proposed off-site waste and recovery operations NESHAP would
require that the owner or operator to maintain certain records and
submit to the EPA certain reports consistent with the recordkeeping and
reporting requirements for all NESHAP as specified in the Part 63
general provisions (40 CFR 63 subpart A).
B. Summary of Rule Impacts
Implementation of the proposed off-site waste and recovery
operations NESHAP would result in substantial reductions in organic HAP
emissions to the atmosphere from off-site waste and recovery operations
located in the United States. Furthermore, many of the organic HAP
emitted from the off-site waste and recovery operations source category
are also volatile organic compounds (VOC). These VOC react
photochemically with other chemical compounds in the atmosphere to form
ozone. Although the NESHAP proposed today would not specifically
require control of VOC emissions from off-site waste and recovery
operations, the organic emission control technologies upon which
today's rulemaking is based would also significantly reduce VOC
emissions from the source category. The EPA estimates that
implementation of the proposed off-site waste and recovery operations
NESHAP would reduce nationwide organic HAP emissions by approximately
43,000 Mg/yr and reduce nationwide VOC emissions by approximately
52,000 Mg/yr.
The EPA prepared estimates of the cost to owners and operators of
implementing the requirements of the proposed off-site waste and
recovery operations NESHAP at facilities expected to be subject to the
rule. The total nationwide capital investment cost to purchase and
install the air emission controls that would be required by the
proposed rule is estimated by the EPA to be approximately $49 million.
The total nationwide annual cost of the off-site waste and recovery
operations NESHAP, as proposed, is estimated to be approximately $24.5
million per year.
II. Background
A. Section 112 Statutory Requirements
Section 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) regulates stationary sources
of hazardous air pollutants (HAP). This section was comprehensively
amended under Title III of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. The term
``stationary source'' means any building, structure, facility, or
installation that emits or may emit air pollutants. Under the amended
CAA section 112(b), Congress listed 189 chemicals, compounds, or groups
of chemicals as HAP. The EPA is directed by the CAA section 112 to
regulate the emission of these HAP from stationary sources by
establishing national emission standards (i.e., NESHAP).
A 1990 amendment to section 112(c) of the CAA requires 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 CAA 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
ton/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 each NESHAP source category listed by EPA, standards must be
developed to control HAP emissions from both new sources and existing
sources in accordance with specific statutory directives set out in CAA
section 112, as amended. The statute requires the EPA to establish
standards under a NESHAP to reflect the maximum degree of reduction in
HAP emissions through application of maximum achievable control
technology (MACT).
A statutory minimum or baseline to the level of HAP emission
control that the EPA can select to be MACT for a particular source
category is defined under CAA section 112(d)(3). This minimum HAP
emission control level is referred 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. 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 listed in CAA section 112(d)(2). All
owners and operators of sources within the source category must comply
with the promulgated NESHAP.
B. Listing of Source Category
On the EPA's initial list of HAP emission source categories
published in the Federal Register on July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576), the
EPA included one source category which the Agency intended to represent
those off-site waste and recovery operations that are not specifically
listed as a separate, distinct NESHAP source category such as hazardous
waste incineration or municipal solid waste landfills. This source
category was titled on the initial list as ``solid waste treatment,
storage, and disposal facilities.'' Since the initial source category
list was published, the EPA decided that it is appropriate to change
the title of this NESHAP source category.
Effective by this notice, the EPA is changing the title of the
NESHAP source category subject to today's proposed rule to ``off-site
waste and recovery operations.'' This change is appropriate for two
reasons: (1) To avoid confusion with the terms ``solid waste'' and
``treatment, storage, and disposal facilities'' which have specific
meanings within the context of statutory and regulatory requirements in
existing rules established by the EPA under authority of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA); and (2) to better distinguish the
types of air emission sources addressed by this NESHAP source category
from other NESHAP source categories.
C. Summary of Public Participation in Development of Proposed Rule
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. The purpose of the ANPR was to
inform owners and operators of affected industries and the general
public of the planned scope of the NESHAP rulemaking for the off-site
waste and recovery operations source category, and to solicit
information that would aid in the development of the rule.
To supplement the Agency's information regarding the off-site waste
and recovery operations source category, the EPA requested comments
from the public on the ANPR. The EPA specifically requested more
information on wastes and recoverable materials characteristics (types,
quantities, organic composition), waste management practices, and waste
and recoverable material operations emission points and air emission
data. A 30-day comment period, from December 20, 1993 to January 19,
1994, was provided for interested parties to submit comments on the
ANPR. The EPA received written comments from 16 commenters concerning
the ANPR. These comments were considered by the EPA in the development
of the proposed off-site waste and recovery operations NESHAP.
D. Relationship of Proposed Rule to Other EPA Regulatory Actions
1. Clean Air Act
a. Other NESHAP Rulemakings. Many industrial sectors that manage
wastes or recoverable materials containing HAP are listed as specific
NESHAP source categories on the initial EPA source category list (57 FR
31576, July 16, 1992). For example, plants and facilities in the NESHAP
source categories representing the synthetic organic chemical
manufacturing industry, the petroleum refining industry, the pesticide
manufacturing industry, and the pharmaceutical manufacturing industry
frequently manage some, if not all, of the wastes and recoverable
materials generated by the manufacturing processes operated at the
facilities at the same location where the materials are generated (i.e,
on-site). For NESHAP source categories in which operations to manage
waste or recoverable material may occur at the same facility where the
material is generated, the EPA is addressing HAP emissions from the
management operations as part of the NESHAP being developed for that
particular source category.
The NESHAP rule proposed today under 40 CFR 63 subpart DD would
apply only to those operations used to manage, convey, or handle waste
or recoverable material containing organic HAP which have been
generated at other facilities but are not specifically listed as a
NESHAP source category. On EPA's initial list of HAP emission source
categories, the following operations are listed as separate NESHAP
source categories: municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills; publicly-
owned treatment works (POTW); sewage sludge incinerators; hazardous
waste incineration units; boilers and industrial furnaces; and
hazardous waste remediation activities. For these source categories,
separate NESHAP under 40 CFR part 63 are being developed by EPA.
b. Municipal Solid Waste Combustion Units. Municipal solid waste
combustion units would not be subject to the off-site waste and
recovery operations NESHAP. Congress directed the EPA to address air
emissions from municipal solid waste combustion units under authority
of CAA section 129, as amended by the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments.
2. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
The EPA establishes rules for the management of solid wastes under
authority of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Under
authority of subtitle C of RCRA, the EPA has established rules
regulating the management of solid wastes determined to be hazardous
waste (refer to 40 CFR Parts 260 through 271). Municipal solid wastes
and other types of nonhazardous solid wastes are regulated by rules
established under authority of subtitle D of RCRA (e.g., refer to 40
CFR Parts 257 and 258).
a. Definition of Waste. For the off-site waste and recovery
operations NESHAP, the EPA is proposing definitions of ``waste'' and
``recoverable materials'' that are consistent with the definitions used
by the EPA for other air rules promulgated under the CAA (selection of
this definition is explained further in section IV.A of this notice).
These definitions define the types of materials considered to be a
``waste'' or ``recoverable material'' in a broader context than the
definition of ``solid waste'' that the EPA has historically used for
RCRA rulemakings. The proposed definition of ``waste'' for the off-site
waste and recovery operations NESHAP includes all materials defined to
be solid wastes under RCRA rules including hazardous wastes. In
addition, materials excluded from the RCRA definition of solid waste
such as recovered materials recycled back to a process unit and used
oil reprocessed for sale as a fuel are included in the definition of
``recoverable material'' proposed for the off-site waste and recovery
operations NESHAP. As a result, certain off-site waste and recovery
operations exempted from RCRA rules may be subject to the requirements
of the NESHAP rule proposed today.
b. Duplicative Requirements. At many facilities where hazardous
wastes are managed and wastes are received from off-site, both the off-
site waste and recovery operations NESHAP proposed today and existing
RCRA air rules under 40 CFR parts 264 and 265 would likely be
applicable to the facilities. At these facilities, some operations
would be subject to either air emission standards under the off-site
waste and recovery operations NESHAP or the air emissions standards
under the RCRA air rules. However, in certain situations, some
operations would be subject to air emission standards under both sets
of rules.
The CAA requires that the requirements of rules developed under the
Act be consistent, but avoid duplication, with requirements of rules
developed under RCRA. Certain testing, monitoring, inspection,
recordkeeping, and other requirements of the proposed off-site waste
and recovery operations NESHAP also would be required under the RCRA
air rules. The EPA believes that each of these requirements is
necessary to assure compliance with and enforce the rules. However, it
is unnecessary for owners and operators of those facilities subject to
both the off-site waste and recovery operations NESHAP and the RCRA air
rules to conduct duplicative waste testing, keep duplicate sets of
records, or perform other duplicative actions for the same waste or
recoverable material operation. Thus, the EPA requests comment on how
applicable requirements under the RCRA air rules should be incorporated
into the off-site waste and recovery operations NESHAP to allow owners
and operators to demonstrate compliance with both rules without having
to repeat duplicative requirements.
3. Pollution Prevention Act
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.
Opportunities for applying pollution prevention to the off-site
waste and recovery operations NESHAP are basically limited to pollution
treatment prior to disposal or release into the atmosphere. By
definition, the off-site waste and recovery operations source category
consists of operations used to manage materials that have already been
generated at other locations such as a manufacturing plant. Thus, there
are no pollution prevention practices such as modifying the
manufacturing process to reduce the quantity of materials containing
organic HAP generated or to recycle the materials back to the process
which can be implemented once the material arrives at an off-site waste
and recovery operations facility. The EPA has incorporated the
pollution prevention policy into the proposed rule by requiring wastes
and recoverable materials containing organic HAP be treated to remove
or destroy organic HAP prior to management in units open to the
environment. Thus, to the extent possible, pollution prevention has
been considered in the development of this rulemaking. Today's proposed
NESHAP for the off-site waste and recovery operations source category
is consistent with the pollution prevention policy.
III. Source Category Description
A. Hazardous Air Pollutant Types
The specific chemicals, compounds, or groups of compounds
designated by Congress to be HAP are listed in CAA section 112(b). Both
organic and inorganic chemical compounds are included on this HAP list.
The EPA noted in the ANPR for the off-site waste and recovery
operations source category its intent to regulate under this NESHAP
only organic compounds which have been listed as HAP (58 FR 66337).
The EPA decided not to regulate under the off-site waste and
recovery operations NESHAP proposed today emissions of the metals and
other inorganic chemical compounds listed as HAP. The primary source of
inorganic HAP emissions from off-site waste and recovery operations is
combustion units such as waste incinerators and boilers and industrial
furnaces burning wastes or recoverable materials for energy. As
explained in section II.D.1 of this notice, the EPA is addressing HAP
emissions from these combustion sources under separate regulatory
actions. Furthermore, the data available to the EPA do not suggest that
significant quantities of inorganic HAP are emitted to the air from the
off-site waste and recovery operations that would be subject to this
NESHAP.
Many different types of organic HAP potentially can be emitted from
off-site waste and recovery operations facilities because of the wide
variety of manufacturing processes and other sources which generate the
materials sent to these facilities. Selection of the specific organic
HAP chemicals for regulation under the off-site waste and recovery
operations NESHAP is explained further in section IV.A of this notice.
B. Facility Types
Off-site waste and recovery operations are conducted at many
different types of facilities. Some of these facility types are listed
as a specific NESHAP source category. The off-site waste and recovery
operations source category is intended to represent all of the other
facilities where off-waste and recovery operations are conducted but
are not specifically included under another NESHAP source category.
Based on this premise, the EPA identified the following types of
facilities described below to be included (but not limited to) in the
off-site waste and recovery operations source category.
1. Hazardous Waste TSDF
Under the RCRA rules regulating the management of wastes determined
to be hazardous waste, the EPA has established a permit system for
owners and operators of facilities where operations are conducted to
treat, store, or dispose of a RCRA hazardous waste. A facility subject
to RCRA permitting requirements is termed a treatment, storage, and
disposal facility (TSDF). A RCRA hazardous waste may be generated on
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. Wastes not
designated as RCRA hazardous waste are also managed at some TSDF.
Although a waste may not specifically designated as a RCRA hazardous
waste, this waste can still contain significant quantities of organic
constitutes listed as HAP under the CAA.
The EPA has conducted nationwide surveys to collect information
regarding hazardous waste management practices. Data from the most
recent surveys indicate that approximately 2,300 TSDF were operating in
the United States in 1986. At 710 of these TSDF, owners and operators
reported managing RCRA hazardous wastes that are generated off-site.
The EPA survey data indicate that approximately 240 of the 710 TSDF
that receive waste from off-site also manage wastes other than RCRA
hazardous waste.
2. Industrial Waste Landfill Facilities
Many landfill facilities throughout the Unites States are dedicated
to the disposal of solid wastes other than those defined as RCRA
hazardous wastes. Landfills accepting household wastes are defined
under RCRA rules to be municipal solid waste (MSW) landfill units. No
MSW landfill units are included in the off-site waste and recovery
operations source category because these units are listed as a separate
NESHAP source category. However, some other landfills are operated by
waste management companies that will accept only industrial
nonhazardous wastes (i.e., these landfills do not accept any household
waste or RCRA hazardous waste).
The EPA estimates that there are approximately 10 industrial
landfills currently operating that accept only nonhazardous industrial
process wastes. These landfills receive a wide range of wastes that may
contain significant amounts of organic HAP. Furthermore, the EPA
estimates that nationwide there are approximately an additional 1,800
construction and demolition debris landfills currently in operation
that can be included in this segment of the off-site waste and recovery
operations source category. However, the EPA does not expect wastes
received at construction and demolition debris landfills to contain
significant amounts of organic HAP.
3. Industrial Wastewater Treatment Facilities
Analogous to landfills, many waste treatment facilities are
operated by municipal governments and private companies throughout the
United States for the treatment of wastewaters. Wastewater treatment
facilities accepting residential and commercial wastewaters are
considered to be publicly owned-treatment works (POTW). No POTW are
included in the off-site waste and recovery operations source category
because POTW are listed as a separate NESHAP source category. In
addition to POTW, some privately-owned wastewater treatment facilities
process nonhazardous wastewaters received from off-site sources. A
nationwide survey was conducted by the EPA of wastewater treatment
facilities operating in 1989. Using these survey data, a data base
excluding POTW was created. The results of this survey indicate that 15
wastewater treatment facilities were operating nationwide which were
neither a POTW nor a hazardous waste TSDF but did process wastewaters
received from off-site sources that potentially could generate
wastewaters containing organic HAP.
4. Recycled Used Oil Management Facilities
Used oils from motor vehicles and other sources potentially can
contain organic chemicals, such as benzene, which have been listed as
HAP under CAA section 112(b). Although the management of used oils
which are recycled is regulated by separate rules promulgated by the
EPA under authority of RCRA section 3014, these rules do not address
air emissions from used oil management facilities.
The EPA gathered information regarding recycled used oil management
practices in the United States for the development of the RCRA
standards. This information indicates that approximately 2,800 million
liters of used oil enters the commercial used oil recycling market each
year. Approximately three-fourths of this recycled used oil is sent to
facilities categorized by EPA as ``used oil processors.'' Used oil
processors typically collect used motor oil and industrial lubricating
oils. These oils are processed to remove water and sediments from the
oils. The processors then sell the oil as a fuel for burning primarily
in boilers, furnaces, and space heaters. There were 182 used oil
processing facilities operating in the United States in 1991. The
remainder of the recycled used oil is sent to facilities categorized as
``used oil re-refiners.'' At these facilities the used oil is processed
into base lube oil stocks and other products. In 1991, there were four
used oil re-refining facilities operating in the United States. Several
companies have expressed interest in expanding used oil re-refining
capacity in the United States.
5. Oil and Gas E&P Waste Management Facilities
There are a variety of wastes and recoverable materials generated
during oil and gas exploration and production (E&P). The majority of
these materials are managed on-site at the production site (i.e., at
the location of the well). However, some E&P wastes and recoverable
materials generated at the production site that may contain organic HAP
are subsequently sent to off-site crude oil reclamation and land
treatment facilities.
The EPA gathered information regarding E&P waste and recoverable
material management practices from EPA conducted site visits and
existing industry sponsored surveys. Nationwide, approximately 100,000
Mg/yr of E&P wastes and recoverable materials are sent to off-site
crude oil reclamation facilities. These materials consist mostly of
tank bottoms from crude oil storage tanks or produced water storage
tanks. In addition, approximately 135,000 Mg/yr of E&P waste sludges
are managed in off-site land treatment operations.
6. Other Facilities
In addition to facilities that are in business to manage wastes or
recoverable materials received from other generators, some facilities
that provide support services may indirectly receive wastes or
recoverable materials which are potential organic HAP emission sources.
Two types of such facilities have been identified by the EPA: (1)
Facilities where empty drums previously used to hold wastes or
recoverable containing organics are cleaned and reconditioned for
reuse; and (2) truck terminal facilities at which tank trucks used for
chemical waste or recoverable material transport are cleaned and rinsed
prior to being used to transport a new load. At both of these types of
facilities, organic HAP emissions can occur from the wastewater
treatment system operated at the facility to treat the wastes and
cleaning solutions drained from drums or truck tanks as a result of the
container cleaning operation. Wastewater treatment operations are
expected to be the primary source of organic HAP emissions at these
types of facilities.
The need for and frequency of cleaning a drum and tank truck
depends on the type of service in which the container is used. If drums
and tank trucks are reused for the same type of product or wastes
(i.e., dedicated service), the containers do not need to be cleaned
between each use. Only when a drum or tank truck is used for different
types of products or wastes (i.e, nondedicated service) is there
frequent cleaning of the containers. Of the approximately 45 million
drums used annually in the United States, about 5.6 million are
estimated to be in nondedicated service. Approximately 20,000 tank
trucks of the nationwide total of 91,000 are estimated to be in
nondedicated service.
C. Nationwide Organic HAP Emissions
The EPA estimated organic HAP emissions from typical or average
size facilities in each of the off-site waste and recovery operations
facility segments described in the previous section of this notice
using the best information available to the Agency at the time the
estimates were completed. The type, amount, and date of this
information varied for each of the different off-site waste and
recovery operation facility segments. The estimate results are
presented in the BID for this proposed rulemaking. Based on these
estimates, the EPA identified the following off-site waste and recovery
operations facility segments likely to include some individual
facilities that are major sources of HAP emissions as defined under CAA
section 112: (1) Hazardous waste TSDF; (2) industrial waste landfills
other than construction and demolition debris landfills; (3) industrial
wastewater treatment facilities; (4) crude oil reclamation facilities
and E&P waste land treatment facilities; and (5) used oil re-refining
facilities.
The EPA estimates that there are the following numbers of existing
off-site waste and recovery operations facilities in the United States:
710 hazardous waste TSDF receiving wastes from off-site; 10 industrial
waste landfills receiving nonhazardous industrial waste other than
construction and demolition debris from off-site; 15 privately-owned
industrial wastewater treatment facilities; 11 crude oil reclamation
facilities; 15 E&P waste land treatment facilities; and 4 used oil re-
refineries. Many but not all of these facilities would be designated as
major sources of HAP emissions as defined under CAA section 112.
Insufficient information is available the EPA to project numbers for
new off-site waste and recovery operations facilities. The EPA is
requesting information from affected industries and other interested
parties to improve the Agency's profile of existing and new off-site
waste and recovery operations in the United States.
The total nationwide organic HAP emissions from the off-site waste
and recovery operations source category are estimated by the EPA to be
approximately 51,500 megagrams of organic HAP per year (Mg/yr).
Approximately 90 percent of these organic HAP emissions (approximately
46,000 Mg/yr) are estimated to occur from the operations at hazardous
waste TSDF receiving waste or recoverable materials from off-site.
IV. Development of Regulatory Alternatives
A. Selection of Source Category and Pollutants for Control
Off-site waste and recovery operations were included as a source
category on the EPA's initial list of HAP source categories (refer to
section II.B of this notice). As previously explained, the EPA intends
this source category to address HAP emissions only from those waste and
recovery operations that are not included in another separate NESHAP
source category or are being addressed by other EPA regulatory actions.
Consequently, the following waste and recovery operations that receive
materials from other facilities are specifically excluded from the off-
site waste and recovery operations source category because these
operations have been listed by the EPA as separate NESHAP source
categories: hazardous waste incineration, municipal solid waste
landfills, publicly-owned treatment works, sewage sludge incinerators,
site remediation activities, and industrial boilers and process
heaters.
Wastes and recoverable materials sent to the facilities selected
for regulation under the off-site waste and recovery operations NESHAP
are generated by a wide variety of manufacturing and production
processes as well as other recycling, reprocessing, or waste management
operations. Consequently, many of the organic chemicals or groups of
chemicals listed as HAP under CAA section 112(b) may be present in the
wastes or recoverable materials sent to off-site waste and recovery
operations facilities.
It is not appropriate to select all organic HAP listed under CAA
section 112(b) for regulation under the off-site waste and recovery
operations NESHAP. Some specific organic chemicals that are designated
as HAP have no or minimal potential to be emitted to the atmosphere
from off-site waste and recovery operations. For other organic HAP
chemicals that may be emitted from off-site waste and recovery
operations, there are limits to the detectability of some of these
chemicals in wastes by the test methods currently available to
implement the off-site waste and recovery operations NESHAP because of
properties inherent in the sampling and analysis protocol.
Consequently, the EPA decided it is appropriate to develop a list of
the specific organic HAP chemicals to be regulated by this rulemaking.
To select which organic HAP chemicals would be regulated under the
off-site waste and recovery operations NESHAP, the EPA evaluated all
chemicals or groups of chemicals listed as HAP in CAA section 112(b).
Among the factors included in the EPA's evaluation was an assessment of
the aqueous and organic volatility characteristics of each HAP
chemical, the ability of the analytical test methods to quantitate a
HAP chemical, and the aqueous solubility of a HAP chemical. Based on
the evaluation, the EPA selected the specific organic HAP chemicals
listed in Table 1 to the proposed rule (to obtain a copy of this table
in the regulatory text of the proposed rule refer to the beginning of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this notice). The EPA requests
comment on the list of HAP chemicals that the Agency is proposing to be
regulated under the off-site waste and recovery operations NESHAP.
The list of organic HAP selected for regulation under the off-site
waste and recovery operations NESHAP contains many different types of
organic chemicals. The EPA decided to develop a single set of
regulatory alternatives for the off-site waste and recovery operations
source category to control organic HAP emissions as a class as opposed
to attempting to develop a series of regulatory alternatives to control
emissions of each individual organic HAP chemicals on the list.
Consequently, the control technologies considered for the regulatory
alternatives are directed towards the control total organic HAP
emissions.
It is EPA's intent that the NESHAP address waste and recovery
operations receiving from other facilities those materials that
potentially can emit significant quantities of the organic chemicals on
the HAP list for the rule. As explained in section II.D.2.a of this
notice, the EPA has developed definitions for different types of wastes
to implement the Agency's waste management rules promulgated under
authority of RCRA. However, certain wastes and recoverable materials
that have been specifically excluded from the definitions of waste
adopted for these RCRA rules may still contain organics listed as HAP
under CAA section 112(b). Consequently, simply adopting the definitions
already used by the EPA for wastes under the RCRA rules could allow
certain off-site waste and recovery operations that emit organic HAP to
remain unregulated. Therefore, the EPA decided that to fulfill the
congressional directives of CAA section 112, it is necessary to define
the types of materials to be regulated under this CAA rulemaking in a
broader context than the EPA has historically used for the RCRA rules.
For the off-site waste and recovery operations source category, the
EPA decided to adapt the definition of ``waste'' adopted for the
benzene waste operations NESHAP (40 CFR 60 subpart FF). Based on this
definition, the EPA created separate terms for ``waste'' and
``recoverable materials'' to be used for the off-site waste and
recovery operations NESHAP. For this rulemaking, the EPA is proposing
to define ``waste'' as any material generated from industrial,
commercial, mining, or agricultural operations or from community
activities that is discarded, discharged, or is being accumulated,
stored, or physically, chemically, thermally, or biologically treated
prior to being discarded or discharged. The EPA is proposing to define
``recoverable material'' for this rulemaking as any material generated
from industrial, commercial, mining, or agricultural operations or from
community activities that is recycled, reprocessed, reused, or is being
accumulated, stored, or physically, chemically, thermally, or
biologically treated prior to being recycled, reprocessed, or reused.
Based on these definitions, materials affected by this rulemaking
include those materials determined to be hazardous wastes under the
RCRA rules, solid wastes that are not hazardous wastes under RCRA
rules, and secondary materials such as used, surplus, and scrap
materials that are either recycled for recovery of reusable materials
or reprocessed for sale as new products.
B. Subcategorization
Subcategorization of a source category is sometimes appropriate for
a rulemaking when industrial segments within a source category require
application of different types of control techniques. In developing
today's proposed rule, the EPA considered subcategorization of the off-
site waste and recovery operations source category and decided not to
propose subcategories for the off-site waste and recovery operations
NESHAP.
As described in section III.B of this notice, the EPA identified
several different industrial segments to be included in the off-site
waste and recovery operations source category. Most of these off-site
waste and recovery operations facilities are also hazardous waste TSDF
(refer to section III.C of this notice). However, the quantity and type
of organic HAP emissions from an off-site waste and recovery operations
facility are not dependent upon whether a particular facility is
subject to RCRA hazardous waste management rules. As previously
described, off-site waste and recovery operations facilities can
receive materials that are not hazardous wastes under the RCRA rules
but still contain organics listed as HAP under CAA section 112(b).
Furthermore, common organic HAP control technologies are applicable to
the operations 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 any of the off-site waste and recovery
operations facility types. Thus, based upon these factors, the EPA
concluded that designation of separate subcategories for the purpose of
developing the off-site waste and recovery operations NESHAP is not
warranted.
C. Selection of Emission Points
For purpose of developing regulatory alternatives which could be
effectively compared in developing this rulemaking, the EPA identified
the predominate types of emissions points at off-site waste and
recovery operations facilities where organic HAP emissions occur. Five
emission point type classifications were designated as follows: tanks,
containers, land disposal units, process vents, and equipment leaks.
1. Tanks
The tank emission point type for the off-site waste and recovery
operations source category represents the organic HAP emissions from
wastes or recoverable materials containing organic HAP stored or
treated in tanks. These tanks include wastewater treatment tanks.
2. Containers
The container emission point type for the off-site waste and
recovery operations source category represents the organic HAP
emissions from wastes or recoverable materials containing organic HAP
stored, treated, or otherwise handled in drums, dumpsters, roll-off
boxes, trucks, and railcars.
3. Land Disposal Units
The land disposal unit emission point type for the off-site waste
and recovery operations source category represents the organic HAP
emissions from resulting from the disposal of wastes containing organic
HAP in surface impoundments, landfills, land treatment units, and waste
piles.
4. Process Vents
The process vent emission point type for the off-site waste and
recovery operations source category represents the organic HAP
emissions from process vents on enclosed treatment processes other than
processes which burn the waste or recoverable material (e.g.,
incinerators, boilers, furnaces). Examples of enclosed treatment
processes included in this emission point type are distillation units,
thin-film evaporators, solvent extraction units, air stripping units,
and steam stripping units.
5. Equipment Leaks
The equipment leak emission point type for the off-site waste and
recovery operations source category represents the organic HAP
emissions from gaseous and liquid leaks in ancillary equipment used to
operate units managing, conveying, or handling wastes or recoverable
materials. This ancillary equipment includes pumps, compressors,
pressure relief devices, sampling connection systems, open-ended valves
or lines, valves, flanges and other connectors, and product accumulator
vessels.
D. Definition of Source
To develop a NESHAP, the EPA first defines the source category and
determines the types of HAP emitted from this source category that are
to be controlled by establishing emission standards. Within a source
category, the EPA must next decide which of the sources of HAP
emissions (i.e., emission points or groupings of emission points) are
most appropriate for establishing separate emission standards in the
context of the CAA statutory requirements and the industry operating
practices for the particular source category. The EPA considered three
options for defining ``source'' for the off-site waste and recovery
operations NESHAP.
The first option is to define the source in a very broad context as
the entire facility. This option was rejected by the EPA for the off-
site waste and recovery operations NESHAP because it would be very
difficult to apply a single facility-wide emission limitation level for
MACT to all off-site waste and recovery operations facilities for
several reasons. First, the mechanism by which organic HAP are emitted
to the atmosphere and the types of air emission controls applicable to
reducing these emissions vary widely for the emission point types
identified for off-site waste and recovery operations. 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 off-site waste and recovery operations at a
particular facility may be subject to this rulemaking. As previously
explained, certain types of waste combustion units, landfill units, and
other operations are being addressed by separate EPA regulatory
actions. Finally, some waste and recovery operations at a particular
facility may be dedicated to managing only wastes or recoverable
materials generated on-site and, thus, would not be subject to this
rulemaking.
A second option is to define the source in a more narrow context as
the entire operation used to manage a particular waste or recoverable
material from the point where the material enters the facility through
the point where the material exits the facility or, if it is a waste,
disposed on-site. Under this definition, the source would consist of a
mix of different types of emission points representing the sequence of
units in which the waste or recoverable material is stored, conveyed,
treated, and, in some cases, disposed. Under this option, a single
emission limitation for MACT would be established for the entire group
of emission points comprising the management sequence used to handle
the waste or recoverable material. This second option for defining
sources under the off-site waste and recovery operations NESHAP was
also rejected by the EPA as inappropriate. Unlike manufacturing or
production processes that produce a specific product, the operations
used to manage a particular type of waste or recoverable material
cannot be readily characterized by one or even several standardized
process configurations which are used throughout the industrial segment
representing the source category. The types, configurations, and
sequencing of units used for operations handling a particular type of
waste or recoverable material are not consistent, but instead can vary
widely from one facility to the next. Therefore, the EPA concluded that
this option is not an appropriate approach for defining sources for the
off-site waste and recovery operations NESHAP.
The final option considered by the EPA is to further narrow the
definition of source to the individual emission points identified for
the source category (i.e., tanks, containers, land disposal units,
process vents, and equipment leaks). Under this option, an overall
emission limitation for MACT would be established for each emission
point type. The EPA believes that this option is the most appropriate
approach for defining sources for the off-site waste and recovery
operations NESHAP. This approach defines the source in terms of common
types of units used at off-site waste and recovery operations
facilities for handling all types of wastes and recoverable materials.
Also, this approach to defining sources is consistent with other EPA
air rules for waste and recovery operations. Therefore, for the off-
site waste and recovery operations NESHAP, the EPA is proposing to
define the source to be each of the individual emission point types.
E. Determination of MACT Floor
The statutory requirements under CAA section 112 for determination
of the MACT floor are explained in section II.A of this notice. As
explained in section III.C of this notice, the off-site waste and
recovery operations source category contains more than 30 existing
sources nationwide. Therefore, for the off-site waste and recovery
operations NESHAP, the MACT floor for existing sources is defined the
average emission limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent
of existing sources. The MACT floor for new sources is defined by the
emission control that is achieved in practice by the best controlled
similar source.
1. MACT Floor for Existing Sources
a. Existing Tanks. The MACT floor for existing tanks at off-site
waste and recovery operations facilities is determined to be use of
covers on tanks managing wastes or recoverable materials with a VOHAP
concentration equal to or greater than 100 ppmw. This floor
determination is based on consideration of data for site-specific tank
management practices reported at 540 of the 710 hazardous waste TSDF
and existing EPA air emission standards for tanks.
The EPA's review of its tank data base for the off-site waste and
recovery operations source category indicates that most tanks
(significantly more than 12 percent) managing waste or recoverable
materials containing organic HAP are covered tanks. A small portion of
these tanks also are reported to use more effective air emission
controls such as venting the tank to a control device or using a
floating roof on the tank. However, the higher level of air emission
control achieved by this segment of tanks does not represent the
average of the top 12 percent of tanks listed in the data base. Thus,
the EPA determined that the air emission control technology for the
existing tank MACT floor is use of a cover.
For other source categories, the EPA has established the need to
use a cover or other air emission controls on a tank based on a
characteristic parameter of the materials placed in the tank. The EPA
believes that using this approach provides an effective and enforceable
means for applying air emission controls to those tanks with the
potential for organic air emissions and not requiring the unnecessary
installation of controls on tanks with no or little potential for
organic air emissions. Consequently, to complete the definition of the
MACT floor for tanks at off-site waste and recovery operations
facilities, an applicability cutoff provision (referred to hereafter in
this notice as an ``action level'') is needed to distinguish the tanks
at off-site waste and recovery operations facilities that need to use
air emission controls.
Because of the need to periodically confirm that a material placed
in a tank remains below the action level selected to determine
applicability, the indicator parameter must be in a format that is
relatively simple to determine by an affected facility owner or
operator and can be expeditiously checked by EPA or State enforcement
personnel. Considering this requirement, the EPA evaluated possible
action level formats and decided that an action level format based on
the volatile organic HAP concentration of the materials as determined
using EPA Method 305 is appropriate for identifying those tanks used
for off-site waste and recovery operations that are expected to have
little or no potential for organic HAP emissions.
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 the purpose of establishing the
minimum VOHAP concentration value for the wastes or recoverable
materials managed in each of the tanks listed in the data base and
reported to use air emission controls. From a qualitative perspective,
application of tank air emission controls is not needed when the
material in the tank has little or no potential for organic HAP
emissions. In general, these wastes or recoverable materials can be
characterized as materials having low VOHAP concentrations. The EPA
considered a range of possible values to establish the VOHAP
concentration limit. Based on consideration of available information
regarding the potential for organic HAP emissions from off-site waste
and recovery operations, the EPA concluded that a VOHAP concentration
value of 100 ppmw would best represent the MACT floor for existing
tanks required to use air emission controls.
Using a VOHAP concentration value of 100 ppmw also allows owners
and operators to use several different methods for determining the
VOHAP concentration of a waste or recoverable material. This is an
important factor considering the diversity of wastes and recoverable
materials potentially subject to the off-site waste and recovery
operations NESHAP and the potential interferences of the quantitation
limits of certain analytical methods by non-HAP organic chemicals in
the material. Additionally, selection of 100 ppmw would require most
existing tanks managing wastes or recoverable materials having organic
HAP emissions to use air emission controls consistent with other EPA
regulatory actions related to off-site waste and recovery operations.
Many waste and recovery operations facilities subject to this
regulation will also be subject to other air emission standards. The
EPA is aware that being subject to several standards with differing
action levels may create confusion in the regulated community. To the
extent possible within the requirements of the Clean Air Act, the EPA
wishes to minimize discrepancies between the action level in the off-
site waste and recovery operations NESHAP and other emission standards
affecting waste and recovery operations. The EPA therefore requests
comment on the 100 ppmw VOHAP concentration action level, as well as
information that can be used to support alternative action levels, such
as 500 ppmw. Specifically, the EPA requests information on action
levels for surface impoundments and other land disposal units.
b. Existing Containers. The MACT floor for existing containers at
off-site waste and recovery operations facilities is determined to be
the use of covers on containers managing wastes or recoverable
materials with a VOHAP concentration equal to or greater than 100 ppmw.
The number and type of containers used to manage organic HAP containing
wastes or recoverable materials at off-site waste and recovery
operations vary from site-to-site. Furthermore, at any off-site waste
and recovery operations facility, the number of drums, roll-off boxes,
or other containers at the site can often fluctuate on a weekly or
monthly basis depending on the number and origin of new material
shipments received at the facility during a particular week or month.
Thus, no data are available to the EPA which allow a statistical
determination of the type of air emission controls used on the average
of the top 12 percent of containers located at off-site waste and
recovery operations facilities or the VOHAP concentration of wastes or
recoverable materials handled in containers. Based on existing RCRA
rules for containers handling hazardous waste and observations by EPA
representatives during site visits to facilities that manage wastes in
containers, the EPA concluded that the average emission limitation
achieved by the best performing 12 percent of containers used to handle
wastes and recoverable materials containing organic HAP is the level of
control achieved by the use of covers. Thus, the EPA determined that
the air emission control technology for existing container MACT floor
is the use of a cover.
The EPA selected a VOHAP concentration value of 100 ppmw to be the
action level for the MACT floor for existing containers consistent with
the level selected for existing tanks. Containers such as drums, tank
trucks, roll-off boxes, and tank rail cars are a primary means used to
ship materials to off-site waste and recovery operations facilities. In
many cases, these materials are temporarily stored at the off-site
waste and recovery operations facility directly in the shipping
containers or are transferred to tanks or other management units prior
to treatment and disposal, in the case of wastes, or prior to
reprocessing and shipment, in the case of recoverable materials. The
most volatile of the organic HAP in a waste or recoverable material
will be emitted soon after being exposed to the atmosphere. If
containers at the off-site waste and recovery operations facility are
not controlled to the same level required of tanks, a significant
portion of the organic HAP in the waste or recoverable material will be
emitted before the material is transferred to the controlled tanks or
other controlled management units. Consequently, the organic HAP
emission reduction effectiveness of applying air emission controls on
downstream tanks and other management units would be significantly
diminished since a significant portion of the organic HAP in the waste
or recoverable material had already escaped to the atmosphere from open
containers.
c. Existing Land Disposal Units. The MACT floor for existing land
disposal units at off-site waste and recovery operations facilities is
determined to be no disposal of wastes that contain equal to or greater
than 100 ppmw VOHAP concentration in open land disposal units. No data
are available to the EPA which allow a statistical determination of the
type of air emission controls used on the top 12 percent of land
disposal units located at off-site waste and recovery operations
facilities or the VOHAP concentration of the wastes disposed of in
these units. However, since most of the facilities operating land
disposal units included in the off-site waste and recovery operations
source category are also hazardous waste TSDF, many of the land
disposal units are subject to treatment standards under the RCRA land
disposal restrictions (LDR) codified in 40 CFR part 268.
The LDR treatment standards require hazardous waste TSDF owners and
operators to treat certain types of hazardous waste to reduce the
toxicity or mobility of specific chemicals contained in the waste
before the owner or operator can place the waste in a surface
impoundment, land treatment unit, landfill, or wastepile. The treatment
standards of the RCRA LDR are established by requiring treatment below
constituent specific concentration limits that vary by type of
hazardous waste or by requiring use of specific treatment processes.
Many of the chemicals for which LDR treatment standards have been
established are also listed as HAP. Thus, the EPA determined that the
air emission control technology for the existing land disposal unit
MACT floor is treatment of wastes to remove or destroy organic HAP in
the waste prior to placing the waste in the land disposal unit.
Treatment of the waste to reduce the organic HAP concentration to a
level of 100 ppmw was selected for the MACT floor for existing land
disposal units based on the same reasoning used in determining the MACT
floors determined for existing tanks and containers (i.e., to
distinguish those units with little or no potential to emit organic
HAP). The degree of air emission control achieved by placing a waste
with a VOHAP concentration above 100 ppmw in tanks and containers using
air emission controls would be lost if these wastes are ultimately
allowed to be placed in land disposal units without first removing or
destroying the organic HAP to a level consistent with the level used to
apply air emission controls to tanks and containers.
d. Existing Process Vents. The MACT floor for process vents used on
treatment processes subject to the off-site waste and recovery
operations NESHAP is determined to be application of air emission
controls on each affected process used to treat wastes or recoverable
materials with a VOHAP concentration equal to or greater than 100 ppmw
as determined at the point where the material enters the facility. All
process vents on an affected process are to be connected through a
closed-vent system to a control device with a minimum 95 percent
organic HAP emission control efficiency.
As previously explained, most facilities in the off-site waste and
recovery operations source category are also hazardous waste TSDF.
Distillation, fractionation, thin-film evaporation, solvent extraction,
and stripping processes that are treating hazardous waste at these TSDF
are subject to the existing RCRA air emission standards for process
vents under 40 CFR 264 subpart AA and 40 CFR 265 subpart AA (hereafter
referred to in this notice as the ``subpart AA rules''). The EPA
concluded that it is not appropriate to directly transfer the air
emission control requirements of the subpart AA rules to the MACT floor
for the off-site waste and recovery operations NESHAP. Instead, this
MACT floor is based on adapting, to the extent applicable and relevant,
the air emission control requirements of the subpart AA rules.
The subpart AA rules require a TSDF owner or operator to identify
all process vents associated with distillation, fractionation, thin-
film evaporation, solvent extraction, and stripping processes that are
treating hazardous waste having an annual average total organic
concentration equal to or greater than 10 ppmw (i.e., vents affected by
the subpart AA rules). Total organic emission rates for each affected
vent and for the entire facility from all affected vents must be
determined. The total facility process vent emission rate must then be
compared to two specified emission rate limits (3 pounds of total
organic emission per hour and 3.1 tons of total organic emission per
year) to determine whether the owner or operator must use additional
air emission controls for the affected vents. If the total facility
process vent emission rate exceeds either of the specified emission
limits, then the owner or operator is required to implement control
measures that will reduce total facility process vent organic emissions
to below both of the emission limit levels, or to install air emission
controls to reduce total facility process vent organic emissions by at
least 95 weight percent.
Adopting a 10 ppmw action level for the process vent MACT floor
corresponding to the 10 ppmw total organic concentration value used for
subpart AA rules was considered by the EPA but determined not to be
appropriate. The 10 ppmw value used for the subpart AA rule is not the
sole regulatory criterion (i.e., action level) by which the need to
apply air emission controls to affected vents is determined. The need
to apply controls under the subpart AA rules is determined by the total
organic emission rates for each affected vent and for the entire
facility from all affected vents. The data available to the EPA at this
time for the off-site waste and recovery operations source category are
insufficient to correlate a VOHAP concentration action level value
equivalent to the total organic emission rate limits used for the
subpart AA rules. Consequently, the EPA relied on a qualitative
assessment to select a VOHAP concentration action level which would
exclude those treatment processes having little or no potential for
organic HAP emissions. A VOHAP concentration action level of 100 ppmw
was selected for the MACT floor for existing process vents consistent
with the rationale used to select the action level for tanks,
containers, and land disposal units.
e. Existing Equipment Leaks. The MACT floor for equipment leaks is
determined to be control of emissions from leaks in ancillary equipment
containing or contacting wastes or recoverable materials with total
organic HAP concentrations equal to or greater than 10 percent by
implementing leak detection and repair (LDAR) work practices and
equipment modifications. Most off-site waste and recovery operations
facilities are also hazardous waste TSDF. Thus, ancillary equipment
operated at these facilities to treat hazardous waste are subject to
the existing RCRA organic air emission standards for TSDF equipment
leaks (40 CFR 264 subpart BB and 40 CFR 265 subpart BB). These
standards require implementation of a LDAR program and modifications to
certain types of ancillary equipment operated at the facility that
handle hazardous waste having a total organic concentration equal to or
greater than 10 percent. The LDAR and equipment requirements are
consistent with existing NSPS process equipment leak standards
promulgated by the EPA under CAA section 111 (i.e., 40 CFR 60 subparts
VV, GG, and KK) and for certain NESHAP process equipment leak standards
promulgated under CAA section 112 (i.e., 40 CFR 61 subpart V).
2. MACT Floor for New Sources
The MACT floor for new sources is identical to the MACT floors
determined by the EPA for existing sources with the exception of the
MACT floor for new tanks and new containers. For the emission point
types other than tanks or containers, the MACT floor determined for
existing sources also represents the emission control that is achieved
in practice by the best controlled similar source.
a. New Tanks. The MACT floor for new tanks is determined to be use
of a cover vented to a control device that reduces organic HAP
emissions by 95 percent (or equivalent floating roof technology) for
those new tanks in which the organic HAP vapor pressure of the waste in
the tank is equal to or greater than 0.1 kPa (approximately 0.07 psi).
This is the level of emission control that is required for new tanks
under the Hazardous Organic NESHAP (40 CFR 63 subpart G). The EPA
concluded that these types of emission controls represent the emission
control level achieved in practice by the best controlled sources
similar to the types of new tanks anticipated by the EPA to be built at
off-site waste and recovery operations facilities and used for
management of wastes or recoverable materials containing organic HAP.
b. New Containers. The MACT floor for new containers is determined
to be the use of covers and submerged loading for containers in which
waste or recoverable material is placed having a VOHAP concentration
equal to or greater than 100 ppmw. The EPA's review of its container
data base for the off-site waste and recovery operations source
category indicates that some existing TSDF owners and operators (but
significantly less than 12 percent) reported using submerged fill to
load material containing organic HAP into containers.
F. Selection of Regulatory Alternatives
1. Regulatory Alternatives for Existing Sources
Different regulatory alternatives for control of organic HAP
emissions from existing sources at off-site waste and recovery
operations facilities were defined. One regulatory alternative was
defined by combining the MACT floor determinations for each of the five
emission point types (labeled ``Regulatory Alternative 1''). Four
additional regulatory alternatives for the off-site waste and recovery
operations source category were defined which would provide
increasingly greater amounts of total organic HAP emission reduction
from the baseline level of organic HAP emissions (labeled ``Regulatory
Alternative 2'' through ``Regulatory Alternative 5''). Additional
organic HAP emission control requirements were added to the controls
defined for Regulatory Alternative 1 in order of increasing emission
control incremental cost effectiveness.
Regulatory Alternative 1 requires application of air emission
controls on tanks, containers, and treatment processes managing waste
or recoverable material with a VOHAP concentration equal to or greater
than 100 ppmw as determined at the point of where the material first
enters the facility. For tank and container emission points, Regulatory
Alternative 1 requires use of a cover on each unit. For process vent
emission points, Regulatory Alternative 1 requires connecting the
process vent to a control device that reduces organic HAP emissions by
95 percent. For land disposal unit emission points, Regulatory
Alternative 1 requires treatment of the wastes prior to disposal to
reduce the waste VOHAP concentration to less than 100 ppmw. For
equipment leak emission points, Regulatory Alternative 1 requires for
equipment handling waste or recoverable material streams with a total
organic HAP concentration equal to or greater than 10 percent
implementation of a leak detection and repair (LDAR) program and
certain equipment modifications. The requirements of the LDAR program
and equipment modifications are consistent with the existing NSPS
process equipment leak standards promulgated by the EPA under CAA
section 111 (i.e., 40 CFR 60 subparts VV, GG, and KK) and for certain
NESHAP process equipment leak standards promulgated under CAA section
112 (i.e., 40 CFR 61 subpart V).
Regulatory Alternative 2 adds additional control requirements for
containers. The control requirements for the other emission points
remain the same as for Regulatory Alternative 1. In addition to using
covers on containers, Regulatory Alternative 2 requires use of
submerged fill when wastes or recoverable materials are transferred
into containers by pumping.
Regulatory Alternative 3 adds additional control requirements for
tanks. The control requirements for the other emission points remain
the same as for Regulatory Alternative 2. Tanks in which the organic
HAP vapor pressure of the waste or recoverable material in the tank is
equal to or greater than 5.2 kPa (approximately 0.75 psi) are required
to use a cover and be vented to a control device that reduces organic
HAP emissions by 95 percent. Tanks in which the organic HAP vapor
pressure of the waste or recoverable material in the tank is less than
5.2 kPa use a cover without additional controls (i.e., a cover only
without being vented to a control device).
Regulatory Alternative 4 changes the LDAR program requirements for
the equipment leak emission point category. The control requirements
for the other emission points remain the same as for Regulatory
Alternative 3. For Regulatory Alternative 4, the LDAR program would be
conducted in accordance with procedures consistent with the Hazardous
Organic NESHAP (HON) promulgated by the EPA under 40 CFR 63 subpart H.
Regulatory Alternative 5 lowers the organic HAP vapor pressure
level for tanks required to be vented to a control device. The control
requirements for the other emission points remain the same as for
Regulatory Alterative 4. Tanks in which the organic HAP vapor pressure
of the waste or recoverable material in the tank is equal to or greater
than 0.7 kPa (approximately 0.1 psi) use a cover and are vented to a
control device that reduces organic HAP emissions by 95 percent. Tanks
in which the organic HAP vapor pressure of the waste or recoverable
material in the tank is less than 0.7 kPa use a cover without
additional controls.
2. Regulatory Alternatives for New Sources
Based on current waste management trends, the EPA expects very few,
if any, new off-site waste and recovery operations facilities to be
built in the foreseeable future. A more likely scenario is construction
of new units (such as tanks or treatment units) at existing off-site
waste and recovery operations facilities to expand facility capacity,
replace existing surface impoundments, or add new treatment capability
or expand treatment capacity. However, the available information to the
EPA is insufficient to make projections of the numbers or types of new
sources to be built during the next 5 years.
A regulatory alternative representing the MACT floor for new
sources at off-site waste and recovery operations facilities was
defined by combining the MACT floor determinations for new sources. No
regulatory alternatives beyond the MACT floor were identified for new
sources.
The regulatory alternative for new sources requires application of
air emission controls on tanks, containers, and treatment processes
managing waste or recoverable material with a VOHAP concentration equal
to or greater than 100 ppmw as determined at the point where the
material first enters the facility. For tank emission points, tanks in
which the organic HAP vapor pressure of the waste or recoverable
material in the tank is equal to or greater than 0.7 kPa are required
to use a cover and be vented to a control device that reduces organic
HAP emissions by 95 percent (or equivalent floating roof technology).
Tanks in which the organic HAP vapor pressure of the waste or
recoverable material in the tank is less than 0.7 kPa use a cover
without additional controls (i.e., a cover only without being vented to
a control device). For container emission points, the regulatory
alternative requires use of a cover on each unit and use of submerged
fill when wastes or recoverable materials are transferred into
containers by pumping. For process vent emission points, the regulatory
alternative requires connecting the process vent to a control device
that reduces organic HAP emissions by 95 percent. For land disposal
unit emission points, the regulatory alternative requires treatment of
the wastes prior to disposal to reduce the waste VOHAP concentration to
less than 100 ppmw. For equipment leak emission points, the regulatory
alternative requires a implementation of a LDAR program and certain
equipment modifications specified under the existing for ancillary
equipment handling waste or recoverable material streams with a total
organic HAP concentration equal to or greater than 10 percent. The
equipment leak requirements are consistent with the existing NSPS
process equipment leak standards.
G. Regulatory Alternative Impacts
The EPA developed estimates of the impacts associated with each of
the regulatory alternatives for existing sources. As explained in the
preceding section, no impacts were estimated for the regulatory
alternatives for new sources because of difficulty in projecting the
numbers and types of new sources likely to be built over the next 5
years.
1. Overview of Impacts Estimation Methodology
In developing NESHAP and other air standards, the EPA frequently
uses a model plant approach for comparing alternative control options.
However, for the off-site waste and recovery operations source
category, it is difficult to adequately characterize the source
category using a selection of several representative model plants
because, for many of the facilities in the source category, the
quantities and characteristics of wastes and recoverable materials
received at the facility are highly variable and can change often (as
frequently as on a day-to-day basis). In addition, many different waste
management unit and recoverable material reprocessing unit
configurations are used at off-site waste and recovery operations
facilities to manage these ever changing materials. Consequently, the
EPA decided a model plant approach is not appropriate for estimating
control option impacts for the off-site waste and recovery operations
source category.
Instead of using a model plant approach for the off-site waste and
recovery operations source category, the EPA decided to adapt a
computer model developed by the Agency to estimate nationwide organic
air emission impacts from RCRA hazardous waste treatment, storage, and
disposal facilities (TSDF). As explained in section III of this notice,
the EPA estimates that approximately 90 percent of the nationwide
organic HAP emissions for the off-site waste and recovery operations
source category occur from hazardous waste TSDF. Consequently, the EPA
considers adapting this computer model to be appropriate for evaluating
alternative control options for the off-site waste and recovery
operations source category.
The primary sources of site-specific waste data used as input to
the computer model are two comprehensive nationwide surveys that the
EPA Office of Solid Waste (OSW) conducted in 1987: the National Survey
of Hazardous Waste Generators (referred to hereafter as the
``GENSUR''); and the National Survey of Hazardous Waste Treatment,
Storage, Disposal, and Recycling Facilities (referred to hereafter as
the ``TSDR Survey''). These data represent waste quantities, waste
compositions, and waste management practices at hazardous waste TSDF in
1986, and are the most recent nationwide TSDF waste data available to
the EPA on a consistent, industry-wide basis.
The data base indicates that 710 TSDF received wastes and
recoverable materials from off-site waste generators in 1986. The EPA
adapted its computer model to simulate the waste management processes
reported in the TSDR Survey to be operating at each of these TSDF.
Organic HAP emission factors and emission control cost factors are
assigned to each waste management process using one (or in many cases a
combination of several) of the model units developed for the TSDF RCRA
air rule projects. Further details regarding the emission estimation
methodology are provided in the BID for this proposed rulemaking.
The EPA is aware that some waste management practices have changed
since the data were collected for the GENSUR and TSDR Survey because of
new EPA regulations promulgated since 1986 (e.g., the RCRA land
disposal restrictions) as well as changes implemented by the waste
management industry. To address these changes in the definition of the
baseline used for this rulemaking, assumptions were applied in the
computer model to better reflect current industry-wide waste management
trends (e.g., conversion of surface impoundments to tanks, treatment of
certain wastes prior to or as an alternative to land disposal).
Additional assumptions were made to simulate the implementation of the
different regulatory alternatives in the computer model. These
assumptions are described in further detail in the BID for this
proposed rulemaking.
2. Regulatory Baseline
For the purpose of evaluating the relative organic emission
reduction effectiveness of different regulatory alternatives, the EPA
defines a ``baseline'' as a reference point from which each regulatory
alternative can be compared. The baseline represents the estimated
level of organic emissions from the source category that would occur in
the absence of implementing any of the regulatory alternatives. For the
off-site waste and recovery operations source category, the EPA chose a
baseline which would reflect the level of organic emissions for each
emission point type following implementation of air emission controls
required by federally enforceable air regulations in effective as of
July 1991. The EPA defined the baseline to consist of the following
regulations: (1) RCRA organic air emission standards for TSDF process
vents (40 CFR 264 subpart AA and 40 CFR 265 subpart AA); (2) RCRA
organic air emission standards for TSDF equipment leaks (40 CFR 264
subpart BB and 40 CFR 265 subpart BB); (3) RCRA land disposal
restrictions (40 CFR part 268); and (4) NESHAP for benzene waste
operations (40 CFR 61 subpart FF).
3. Organic Emissions Impacts
The EPA estimated organic HAP emission reductions that would be
achieved if air rules based on each of the five regulatory alternatives
were implemented. Baseline organic HAP emissions are estimated to be
approximately 52,000 Mg/yr. The organic HAP emissions assuming
implementation of the individual regulatory alternatives are estimated
to be approximately: 28,000 Mg/yr for Regulatory Alternative 1, 23,000
Mg/yr for Regulatory Alternative 2, 9,000 Mg/yr for Regulatory
Alternative 3, 9,000 Mg/yr for Regulatory Alternative 4, and 8,000 Mg/
yr for Regulatory Alternative 5.
4. Other Environmental and Energy Impacts
The primary source of other environmental and energy impacts is
expected to result from the operation of control devices used to remove
or destroy organics in captured vapor streams. Electric motor-driven
fans, blowers, or pumps, depending on the type of control device, are
used for operations such as moving the captured organic vapors to the
control device, circulating cooling water through a condenser, or
pumping recovered liquids to an accumulation tank. Generation of the
electricity to operate the control device often requires burning of
fuel in an electric utility power plant which produces air emissions,
wastewater discharges, and solid wastes. When carbon adsorption systems
are used, the organic HAP removed from the vapor stream are adsorbed on
the activated carbon in the control device. Once the carbon becomes
saturated with organics, it must be regenerated or disposed of in a
landfill. Regeneration of the carbon requires steam. Producing this
steam in a boiler creates both secondary air and energy impacts.
Disposal of the spent carbon produces a solid waste impact.
5. Control Cost Impacts
Total capital investment (TCI) cost represents the cost to facility
owners and operators to purchase and install air emission control
equipment. The TCI costs in 1991 dollars to implement each of the
regulatory alternatives is estimated to be approximately: $11 million
for Regulatory Alternative 1, $14 million for Regulatory Alternative 2,
$49 million for Regulatory Alternative 3, $57 million for Regulatory
Alternative 4, and $78 million for Regulatory Alternative 5.
Total annual cost represents the total cost to facility owners and
operators each year to: Operate and maintain the air emission controls
required by the proposed rule; perform the inspection, monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting required by the proposed rule; and repay
the capital investment for the air emission controls. The capital
recovery was estimated using an interest rate of 7 percent applied over
a period ranging from 10 to 20 years depending on the expected service
life for each type of air emission control equipment. The total annual
cost to implement each of the regulatory alternatives is estimated to
be approximately: $4.7 million per year for Regulatory Alternative 1,
$5.2 million per year for Regulatory Alternative 2, $24.5 million per
year for Regulatory Alternative 3, $26.1 million per year for
Regulatory Alternative 4, and $36.3 million per year for Regulatory
Alternative 5.
6. Economic Impact Analysis
The EPA performed an economic impact analysis using a model that
simulates 60 separate waste disposal markets and then estimates
facility and market responses to the costs of implementing the
requirements of the proposed rule. All dollar amounts for prices and
costs were adjusted to reflect 1991 dollars. The EPA made no
projections of new off-site waste and recovery operations that would be
affected by the proposed rule.
Complying with the proposed rule will increase the costs of
providing services at off-site waste and recovery operations
facilities. The magnitude of the cost increases would vary from
facility to facility depending on factors such as the types of wastes
or recoverable materials received, the types of waste or recovery
operations performed, the number and types of emission points for each
of these operations, and the level of emission control already in place
at the facility. Cost increases would lead to some price increases, and
possibly reduced profits for some firms in the business.
The proposed rule is likely to affect prices charged in almost all
of the 60 markets studied, although many markets are likely to
experience very small changes or none at all. The most severely
affected market (in percentage terms) may experience a price increase
in excess of 70 percent. The greatest absolute increase in price would
be an increase of $500 per Mg of waste, which would be a 30 percent
increase. The greatest decrease in quantity would be 375 Mg of waste.
Overall, the quantity of off-site waste managed at the 700-plus
facilities in the data base used for the economic impact analysis would
decrease by slightly over 1,600 Mg, or about 0.009 percent of the
estimated 19 million Mg of waste managed.
The EPA's analysis assumed that owners of affected facilities would
respond to this rule by either installing and operating the required
air emission control equipment, discontinuing specific individual waste
or recovery operations affected by the rule, or closing the entire
facility. The EPA projects that although 100 individual waste and
recovery operations located at a number of facilities could shut down
as a result of this proposed rule, only about 10 entire facilities
would close.
A number of decisions made by the EPA regarding the off-site waste
and recovery operations NESHAP rulemaking since the completion of the
economic impact analysis change the costs to comply with the rule for
some individual waste or recovery operations at a particular facility
from the costs used for the economic impact analysis. The compliance
costs for some of these individual operations would increase while for
other individual operations the costs would decrease depending on site-
specific factors. However on a facility-wide basis, the EPA expects
that the total cost to comply with the requirements of the proposed
rule for most of individual off-site waste and recovery operations
facilities listed in the data base to be about the same as the total
individual facility compliance costs used for the economic impact
analysis described above. Thus, the EPA believes that the results of
this analysis are representative of the overall economic impacts of the
proposed rule.
V. Selection of Basis for Proposed Rule
A. Selection of Regulatory Alternative for Existing Sources
To select one of the five regulatory alternatives to serve as the
basis for the proposed standards for existing sources, the EPA
evaluated the organic HAP emission reductions, control costs, economic
impacts, and other environmental and energy impacts associated with
implementing the air emission controls under each regulatory
alternative. Based on this evaluation, the EPA selected Regulatory
Alternative 3 as the basis for the standards proposed for existing
sources.
Regulatory Alternative 1, the MACT floor, is estimated to reduce
nationwide organic HAP emissions by approximately 24,000 Mg/yr.
Regulatory Alternative 2 is estimated to reduce nationwide organic HAP
emissions by approximately 29,000 Mg/yr. Substantially higher organic
HAP emission reductions beyond those estimated for Regulatory
Alternatives 1 and 2 are estimated to be achieved by either Regulatory
Alternative 3, 4, or 5. All three of these regulatory alternatives are
estimated to achieve similar levels of organic HAP emission reduction
from the regulatory baseline. Nationwide organic HAP emission
reductions are estimated to be 43,000 Mg/yr for Regulatory Alternative
3, 43,000 Mg/yr for Regulatory Alternative 4, and 44,000 Mg/yr for
Regulatory Alternative 5.
The highest level of nationwide organic HAP emission reduction
would be achieved by selecting either Regulatory Alternative 3, 4, or 5
as the basis for the standards for existing sources. The estimated
control cost estimates for Regulatory Alternatives 4 and 5 are higher
than the estimated costs for Regulatory Alternative 3. Because
Regulatory Alternative 3 would provide essentially the same level of
nationwide organic HAP emission reduction for a lower cost, Regulatory
Alternatives 4 and 5 were eliminated from further consideration as the
basis for the proposed standards.
The EPA may set standards that are more stringent than the MACT
floor if such standards are achievable considering the cost,
environmental, and other impacts listed in CAA section 112(d)(2). Based
on the information available to the EPA at this time, the only
difference in these cost, environmental, and other impacts that the EPA
can distinguish between Regulatory Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 is related
to the estimated nationwide costs of controls required by each of these
regulatory alternatives.
The total nationwide annual cost estimated to implement controls
under either Regulatory Alternative 1 or 2 is approximately the same
($4.7 million per year for Regulatory Alternative 1 versus $5.2 million
per year for Regulatory Alternative 2). The total nationwide annual
cost estimated to implement controls under Regulatory Alternative 3 is
significantly higher ($24.5 million per year). However, given the
additional 19,000 Mg/yr of nationwide organic HAP emission reduction
that is estimated to be achieved over Regulatory Alternative 1 and the
additional 14,000 Mg/yr of nationwide organic HAP emission reduction
that is estimated to be achieved over Regulatory Alternative 2, the EPA
concluded that the additional cost of implementing controls under
Regulatory Alternative 3 is reasonable and justifiable. Thus, the EPA
selected Regulatory Alternative 3 as the basis for the proposed
standards for existing sources.
B. Selection of Regulatory Alternative for New Sources
No regulatory alternatives beyond the MACT floor were identified
for new sources. Thus, the MACT floor for new sources is the basis for
the control requirements proposed for new sources.
C. Selection of Format for Proposed Rule
Section 112 of the CAA requires that emission standards for control
of HAP be established unless it is the Administrator's judgement that
emission standards cannot be established or enforced for a particular
type of source. Formats for emission standards include percent
reduction, concentration limits, or a mass emission limit. Section
112(h)(2) identifies two conditions under which it is not feasible to
establish an emission standard: (1) If the pollutants cannot be emitted
through a conveyance designed and constructed to emit or capture the
pollutant; or (2) if the application of measurement technology to a
particular class of sources is not practicable because of technology
and economic limitations. In these cases, the EPA may instead establish
design, equipment, work practice, or operational standards, or a
combination thereof.
The NESHAP proposed today for the off-site waste and recovery
operations source category are a combination of emission standards and
equipment, design, work practice, and operational standards. Whenever
feasible, emission standards have been proposed. However, in some
cases, emission limitations would not adequately ensure that the
maximum emission reductions required by the standards are achieved. In
those cases, a combination of equipment, design, work practice, and
operational standards have been determined by the EPA to be equivalent
to the emission standards proposed today.
D. Selection of Test Procedures and Compliance Procedures
Under the proposed rule, determination of the VOHAP concentration
would not be required for materials placed in units that use air
emission controls in accordance with the requirements of the rule. To
determine whether a particular waste or recoverable material may be
placed in a unit subject to the rule but not using the required air
emission controls, the owner or operator would be required to conduct
initial and periodic determinations of the material VOHAP
concentration. The proposed rule would allow the owner or operator to
directly measure the VOHAP concentration by analyzing samples of the
material or to use knowledge of the waste or recoverable material.
E. Selection of Monitoring and Inspection Requirements
1. Air Emission Control Equipment
Control devices used to comply with the proposed percent reduction
or concentration limit need to be properly operated and maintained if
the standards are to be achieved on a long term basis. Continuous
monitoring of the control device operation provides a means to help
ensure that the control device remains in compliance with the
applicable emission standard. The EPA considered two monitoring options
for this NESHAP; (1) the use of continuous emissions monitoring (CEM)
systems; and (2) the use of monitors that measure operating parameters
which can be directly related to the emission control performance of a
particular control device.
The organic HAP emissions from off-site waste and recovery
operations which would be vented to control devices under this NESHAP
typically are not composed of a single or a few specific organic HAP
chemicals. Rather, these emissions are more likely to be composed of a
mixture of many different organic HAP chemicals because of the varying
compositions of the wastes or recoverable materials received at off-
site waste and recovery operations facilities. As a general rule, CEM
systems that uses gas chromatography to measure individual gaseous
organic HAP compound chemicals are not practical for applications where
the number of organic HAP chemicals to be monitored exceeds five (see
proposed PS 101 and 102, Appendix A of 40 CFR part 64, October 22, 1993
at 58 FR 54648). Therefore for many off-site waste and recovery
operations applications, a CEM system is not currently commercially
available which can measure total organic HAP for the specific set of
organic HAP chemicals selected for regulation under the off-site waste
and recovery operations NESHAP.
A possible alternative would be to use a CEM system to measure
total VOC or total hydrocarbons (THC) as surrogate for total organic
HAP. However, the EPA concluded that requiring monitoring based on this
alternative is not appropriate for this rulemaking. Current CEM systems
that measure VOC emissions operate by flame ionization detection (FID),
photoionization detection (PID), non-dispersive infrared (NDIR)
absorption, or other detection principles that respond to VOC levels.
These CEM systems provide a measure of the relative concentration level
of a mixture of organic chemicals, rather than a quantification of the
organic species present (i.e., the total VOC measurement device will
have a different instrument response for different organic chemicals).
While CEM systems would provide an adequate measure of compliance,
monitoring control device operating parameters (as described below) is
common practice and provides at least an equivalent measure of control
device performance.
Based on the reasons explained above, the EPA rejected requiring
the use of CEM systems for the off-site waste and recovery operations
NESHAP. Instead, the EPA selected monitoring of control device
operating parameters indicative of air emission control performance as
the most appropriate approach to monitoring for the off-site waste and
recovery operations NESHAP source category. However, the proposed rule
would not preclude owners or operators choosing to use a CEM system to
comply with the rule's monitoring requirements for those cases where it
is possible to do so.
The proposed off-site waste and recovery operations NESHAP
specifies the types of parameters that can be monitored for common
types of control devices. These parameters were selected because they
are good indicators of control device performance and instrumentation
is available at a reasonable cost to monitor these parameters
continuously. The proposed rule also would provide provisions under
which an owner or operator could be approved, on a case-by-case basis,
to monitor parameters not specifically listed in the rule.
Under the proposed rule, each individual owner or operator would
establish on a site-specific basis minimum or maximum operating
parameter values, as appropriate for the type of parameter monitored,
that the control device must not exceed to remain in compliance with
the emission standards. These site-specific operating parameter values
could be established through either performance tests, control device
design analysis, or manufacturer's recommendations. The established
operating parameter values for each control device would be
incorporated in the operating permit issued for a facility (or, in the
absence of an operating permit, the established levels would be
directly enforceable) and would be used to determine a facility's
compliance status. Excursions outside the established operating
parameter values would be considered violations of the applicable
emission standard except when the excursion is caused by a startup,
shutdown, or malfunction that meets the criteria specified in the Part
63 general provisions (40 CFR 63 subpart A).
The proposed NESHAP does not require monitoring of any of the
following boilers or process heaters when used as a control device to
comply with the requirements of the rule: (1) Boilers and process
heaters with a heat capacity equal to or greater than 44 megawatts
(approximately 150 million Btu/hr); (2) boilers or process heaters with
a heat capacity less than 44 MW that introduces the vent stream as a
primary fuel or mixes it with the primary fuel; or (3) boilers or
process heaters with a heat capacity less than 44 MW that introduces
the vent stream through the same burner. The EPA concluded that the
specific range of temperatures and residence times for these types of
combustion units which facility operators must continuously maintain to
meet their facility process heat or steam demands will ensure
compliance with the control device standards without the need for
monitoring.
Continuous monitoring is not feasible for those emission points
required to comply with certain equipment standards and work practice
standards (e.g., tanks equipped with only covers, pumps and valves
subject to LDAR programs). In such cases, failure to install and
maintain the required equipment or properly implement the LDAR program
would constitute a violation of the applicable equipment or work
practice standard.
The EPA request comments on the proposed approach for determination
of control device compliance based on continuous operating parameter
monitoring.
2. Treatment Processes
Under the proposed off-site waste and recovery operations NESHAP,
wastes or recoverable materials having VOHAP concentrations of 100 ppmw
or more must be treated to remove or destroy organic HAP in accordance
with standards specified in the rule before the material can be placed
in certain management units. Like the control devices used for organic
HAP emission control, the treatment processes used to comply with these
standards (i.e., minimum percent HAP reduction, VOHAP concentration
limits, required HAP mass removal levels) need to be properly operated
and maintained if the standards are to be achieved on a long-term
basis. Therefore, the EPA is proposing to require monitoring of
operating parameters for the treatment processes used to comply with
the rule requirements.
Analogous to the monitoring approach that the EPA is proposing for
control devices, the EPA would prefer that each owner or operator
establish on a site-specific basis minimum or maximum operating
parameter values, as appropriate, for the treatment process that the
owner or operator must not exceed to remain in compliance with the
standards. To implement this approach for treatment processes,
monitoring methods are needed that will be sufficiently representative,
accurate, precise, reliable, frequent, and timely to determine whether
a deviation occurs and therefore to certify whether compliance is
continuous or intermittent. The EPA has identified for some types of
treatment process, such as steam stripping, operating parameters that
can be continuously monitored and recorded which directly relate to the
treatment process performance. The EPA requests comments on
establishing monitoring requirements for treatment processes that can
be used to determine compliance with the proposed standards based on
continuous operating parameter monitoring. The EPA further requests
comment on establishing an option within the regulation for specific
default values for treatment process operating parameters, in the event
that owners or operators would rather not establish their own minimum
or maximum operating parameter values.
F. Selection of Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements
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.
General recordkeeping and reporting requirements for all NESHAP are
specified in the Part 63 general provisions (40 CFR 63.9 and 40 CFR
63.10). All recordkeeping and reporting requirements were selected for
the off-site waste and recovery operations NESHAP to be consistent with
these Part 63 general provisions requirements.
G. Emissions Averaging
Emissions averaging is an approach used by the EPA for certain
other NESHAP rulemakings when the average level of emissions from
individual facilities in the source category remains relatively
predictable over extended periods of time. Application of this approach
allows a facility owner or operator to obtain emission credits by
reducing emissions from specific emission points at the facility to a
level less than that required by the rule. These emission credits can
then be used to offset emission debits created at those emission points
at the facility that are not controlled to the level required by the
rule. Under the EPA's emissions averaging policy, a facility owner or
operator must demonstrate that the overall emissions average determined
for the facility will not result in greater risk or hazard to human
health or the environment than would occur by complying with the rule
requirements at each individual emission point.
During the development of the proposed rule for the off-site waste
and recovery operations source category, the EPA considered including
an emissions averaging approach. However, the statutory requirements of
the CAA do not allow emissions averaging between different sources. As
explained in section II.D of this notice, the EPA is proposing the
source for the off-site waste and recovery operations NESHAP to be each
emission point type (e.g., each tank, container). Thus, using a
facility-wide emissions averaging approach (i.e., establishing a single
average organic HAP emission level for the entire facility) is not
appropriate for the off-site waste and recovery operations NESHAP.
Furthermore, independent of the definition of source that the EPA
selects for this rulemaking, the nature of day-to-day operations at
off-site waste and recovery operations facilities complicates and
discourages the application of an emissions averaging approach to this
NESHAP. At an off-site waste and recovery operations facility, wastes
or recoverable materials are often received from many different
generators. The quantities of materials received from these generators
can vary from very small amounts (e.g., a single 55-gallon drum of a
particular waste or recoverable material) to very large amounts (e.g.,
multiple truck or railcar loads of a single material type).
Consequently, the quantities of waste or recoverable material received
as well as the compositions and concentrations of organic HAP in these
materials are constantly changing over short periods of time (i.e.,
daily, weekly). On a given day an off-site waste and recovery
operations facility can receive wastes or recoverable materials from
one group of generators and the next day the facility can receive new
wastes or recoverable materials from a completely different group of
generators. Because of this operating mode, it is difficult to predict
the quantities and organic HAP characteristics of the waste or
recoverable materials that will be received at an off-site waste and
recovery operations facility over a future period of time. Thus,
operating the off-site waste and recovery operations facility so not to
exceed a specific overall average organic HAP emissions level would
require the owner or operator to rigorously monitor and regulate the
flow of wastes and recoverable materials into the facility throughout
the entire averaging period used to determine the specified average
emissions limit. This would require sampling each load of incoming
material, updating the emissions averaging calculations, and possibly
restricting quantities of waste or recoverable material with certain
organic HAP compositions that enter the facility during the remainder
of the averaging period to ensure the facility does not exceed the
specific average organic HAP emissions limit. The EPA believes this
would be a complex and resource intensive task for off-site waste and
recovery operations facility owners and operators to implement and for
regulatory agency personnel to monitor and enforce.
The EPA decided not to allow emissions averaging in the proposed
rule for the off-site waste and recovery operations source category
because such an approach is not appropriate for this source category.
The EPA requests comments on the feasibility of applying emissions
averaging to the off-site waste and recovery operations source category
and requests information and data that would be necessary to support
development and implementation of an emissions averaging approach.
VI. Rule Implementation
A. Effective Date for Compliance
In accordance with CAA section 112(i)(3), owners and operators of
existing sources would be required to comply with the requirements of
this NESHAP within 3 years after promulgation of the rule unless a
compliance extension is granted to a particular source. Owners and
operators of sources that begin operation on or after October 13, 1994
would be required to comply with all provisions of the NESHAP upon
startup.
B. Modifications and Reconstruction
Owners and operators of newly constructed or reconstructed off-site
waste and recovery operations must comply with the requirements
specified in the Part 63 general provisions (40 CFR 63.5). For modified
sources, the EPA has proposed guidance under the authority of CAA
section 112(g) (refer to 59 FR 15504, April 1, 1994). The EPA
anticipates that the final promulgated guidance will apply to off-site
waste and recovery operations.
C. Relationship to Title V Operating Permit Program
Under title V of the CAA, the EPA has established a program the
requires all owners and operators of HAP-emitting sources to obtain an
operating permit (57 FR 32251, July 21, 1992). The EPA's operating
permit program establishes a single document that includes all of the
requirements which pertain to a single source. Each permit will contain
federally enforceable conditions with which the source owner and
operator must comply. Under this program, all applicable requirements
of the off-site waste and recovery operations NESHAP would ultimately
be included in a source's title V operating permit.
State operating permit programs must be approved by the EPA. Once a
State's permit program has been approved, each off-site waste and
recovery operations facility within that State must apply for and
obtain an operating permit. If the State where the facility is located
does not have an approved permitting program, the owner or operator of
a facility must submit the application to the EPA Regional office in
accordance with the requirements of the Part 63 general provisions (40
CFR 63 subpart A).
VII. Administrative Requirements
A. Public Hearing
A public hearing will be held, if requested, to discuss the
proposed rule in accordance with CAA section 307(d)(5). Persons wishing
to make an oral presentation regarding the proposed off-site waste and
recovery operations NESHAP should contact the EPA contact person listed
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section at the beginning of this
notice. Oral presentations will be limited to 15 minutes each. Any
member of the public may file a written statement before, during, or
within 30 days after the hearing. Written statements should be sent the
attention of Docket No. A-92-16 at EPA's Air and Radiation Docket and
Information Center (see ADDRESSES section of this notice).
A verbatim transcript of the hearing and written comments received
by the EPA regarding the proposed off-site waste and recovery
operations NESHAP will be placed in Docket No. A-92-16.
B. Docket
The docket is an organized and complete file of information
considered by the EPA in the development of a rulemaking. The docket
pertaining to the off-site waste and recovery operations NESHAP is
Docket No. A-92-16. This docket contains a copy of the regulatory text
of the proposed rule, the BID, and copies of all BID references and
other information related to the development of this proposed rule. The
public may review all materials in this docket at the EPA's Air and
Radiation Docket and Information Center (see the ADDRESSES section at
the beginning of this notice).
C. Executive Order 12866
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) imposes
procedural requirements on the development of significant regulatory
actions. The EPA must therefore determine whether a regulatory action
is significant. The Executive Order defines a significant regulatory
action as one that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of
$100 million or more, or adversely affect in a material way the
economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the
environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal
governments or communities; (2) create a serious inconsistency or
otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
users fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of
recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising
out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles
set forth in the Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of the Executive Order 12866, it has been
determined that this action will be treated as a ``significant
regulatory action'' within the meaning of the Executive Order. As such,
this action was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review. Changes made in response to OMB suggestions or
recommendations are documented in the docket pertaining to the off-site
waste and recovery operations NESHAP rulemaking (Docket No. A-92-16).
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Section 605 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601
et seq.) requires Federal agencies to give special consideration to the
impacts of regulations on small entities, which are small businesses,
small organizations, and small governments. The major purpose of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act is to keep paperwork and regulatory
requirements from being out of proportion to the scale of the entities
being regulated, without compromising the objectives of, in this case,
the Clean Air Act.
A small business with establishments in Standard Industrial
Classification 4953, Refuse Systems, is defined by the Small Business
Administration as one receiving less than $6 million per year, averaged
over the most recent three fiscal years. A small organization is a not-
for-profit enterprise that is independently owned and operated and is
not dominant in the waste disposal industry. A small government is one
that serves a population of less than 50,000 people. The EPA may use
other definitions, but elects to use these. The EPA believes that small
organizations and small governments have at most a very minor
involvement with the types of off-site waste and recovery operations
subject to this rulemaking, and therefore would not be significantly
affected by the off-site waste and recovery operations NESHAP. Hence,
the EPA has concentrated its attention on small businesses.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act specifies that Federal agencies must
prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis if a proposed
regulatory action would have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. The data bases available to the
EPA reflect the state of the hazardous waste TSDF industry in 1986, and
provide limited basis for updating the economic factors. Furthermore,
the EPA does not have reliable projections of construction of new
facilities with off-site waste and recovery operations that would be
subject to the proposed rule. The EPA therefore assumes the proposed
rule may have a significant impact on a substantial number of small
businesses, and has conducted a regulatory flexibility analysis. This
analysis is part of the economic impact analysis (titled Economic
Impact Analysis of Proposed National Emission Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants: Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations) prepared for
the rulemaking and available in the docket (Docket No. A-92-16).
Even though many off-site waste and recovery operations facilities
are expected to be area sources and would not be subject to the
proposed NESHAP, the EPA assumed for the regulatory flexibility
analysis that all facilities listed in the data base are colocated at
major sources. Also, the analysis did not exclude those off-site waste
and recovery operations facilities that would not be subject to the
NESHAP under the proposed applicability exemption for facilities at
which the total annual organic HAP mass content of all wastes and
recoverable materials subject to the rule entering the facility is less
than 1 Mg/yr. From its data base, the EPA has identified 110 small
businesses that own 112 affected facilities. About 90 of these small
businesses would incur compliance costs associated with using air
emission control equipment. For about one-third of the 90 businesses,
the annual compliance costs would exceed 5 percent of normal production
or waste treatment costs. For the median small business, the same costs
come to less than 0.4 percent of sales `` compared with about 0.01
percent for the median large business. Excluding the costs of
monitoring and recordkeeping costs, the capital costs would exceed the
retained earnings breakpoints (the maximum amount of new capital a
business can raise without issuing new stock and without changing its
existing capital structure) of about 40 percent of the 90 small
businesses. Only about 30 percent of large businesses would have
capital costs of compliance exceeding their breakpoints.
Finally, the EPA evaluated the possibility that the proposed rule
might cause a small business to close. Although the rule may cause
specific waste treatment processes to be shut down at many off-site
waste and recovery operations facilities, only about 10 facilities are
projected to close outright. Of these, the EPA can single out only
three small businesses, each of which has only one facility. Limiting
the analysis, to the extent possible with the information available in
the data base, to only those facilities which are major sources and
would not qualify for the 1 Mg of HAP applicability exemption does not
change this number of potential closures.
Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the
Administrator certifies that this rule may have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
E. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements for the proposed NESHAP
have been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An
Information Collection Request (ICR) document has been prepared by the
EPA (ICR No. 1717.01), and a copy may be obtained from Sandy Farmer,
Information Policy Branch (2136), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460, or by calling (202) 260-2740.
The public recordkeeping and reporting burden for this collection
of information is estimated to average 1,200 hours per respondent the
first year following promulgation of the rule. Thereafter, the
recordkeeping and reporting burden is estimated to average 700 hours
per respondent. These estimates include time for reviewing
instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the
collection of information.
Send comments regarding the recordkeeping and reporting burden
estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information,
including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Chief, Information
Policy Branch (2136), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M
Street, S.W.; Washington, DC 20460; and to the Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC
20503, marked ``Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.'' The final rule will
respond to any OMB or public comments on the information collection
requirements contained in this proposal.
F. Review
The off-site waste and recovery operations NESHAP would be
reviewed 8 years from the date of promulgation. This review would
include an assessment of such factors as evaluation of the residual
health risks, any duplication with other air programs, the existence of
alternative methods, enforceability, improvements in air emission
control technology and health data, and the recordkeeping and reporting
requirements.
VIII. Statutory Authority
The statutory authority for this proposal is provided by section
101, 112, 114, 116, and 301 of the Clean Air Act, as amended; 42.
U.S.C., 7401, 7412, 7414, 7416, and 7601.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Containers,
Hazardous air pollutants, Off-site waste and recovery operations, Land
disposal units, Process vents, Recoverable materials, Tanks, Surface
impoundments, Waste.
Dated: September 30, 1994.
Carol M. Browner,
The Administrator.
[FR Doc. 94-25064 Filed 10-12-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P