[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