1990 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 260, 261,264, 265, 270,€¦ · ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 260, 261,264, 265, 270, and 271 [FRL-3614-31 Hazardous Waste Treatment,

25454 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 1990 / Rules and Regulations

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENCY

40 CFR Parts 260, 261,264, 265, 270,

and 271

[FRL-3614-31

Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage,and Disposal Faciltes-Organic AirEmission Standards for Process Ventsand Equipment Leaks

AGENCY: Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA).ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The EPA is todaypromulgating standards that limitorganic air emissions as a class athazardous waste treatment, storage, anddisposal facilities (TSDF) requiring apermit under subtitle C of the ResourceConservation and Recovery Act(RCRA). Today's action is the first partof a multiphased regulatory effort tocontrol air emissions at new andexisting hazardous waste TSDF. Therule establishes final standards limitingorganic emissions from (1) process ventsassociated with distillation,fractionation, thin-film evaporation,solvent extraction, and air or steamstripping operations that managehazardous wastes with 10 parts permillion by weight (ppmw) or greatertotal organics concentration, and (2)leaks from equipment that contains orcontacts hazardous waste streams with10 percent by Weight or greater totalorganics. These standards wereproposed in the Federal Register onFebruary 5, 1987 (52 FR 3748).

The final standards are promulgatedunder the authority of section 3004 of theHazardous and Solid WasteAmendments (HSWA) to the RCRA. TheEPA is required by section 3004(n) ofRCRA to promulgate standards for themonitoring and control of air emissionsfrom hazardous waste TSDF asnecessary to protect human health andthe environment. The EPA plans topromulgate additional standards underthis section in two further phases. PhaseII will consist of air standards fororganic emissions from surfaceimpoundments, tanks, containers, andmiscellaneous units. These standardsare scheduled for proposal later thisyear. In Phase III, the residual risk fromthe first two phases will be assessedand, if necessary, EPA will developfurther regulations or guidance toprotect human health and theenvironment from the effects of TSDFair emissions.EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule iseffective on December 21, 1990. The

incorporation by reference of certainpublications listed in the regulations isapproved by the Director of the FederalRegister as of September 5 and October11, 1989.

ADDRESSF. The official record for thisfinal rulemaking is contained in DocketNo. F-90-AESF-FFFFF. This docket andthe proposal docket (Docket No. F-80-AESP-FFFFF) are available for publicinspection at the EPA RCRA DocketOffice (OS-300) in room 2427M of theU.S Environmental Protection Agency,401 M Street SW., Washington, DC20460. Additional informationconcerning the development of theequipment leak standards is containedin Docket No. A-79-27, which isavailable for public inspection at EPA'sCentral Docket Section, room 2903B,Waterside Mall, 401 M Street SW.,Washington, DC 20460. For furtherinformation, see the discussion ofsupporting documentation for the rulesunder section X of this preamble.

Background information document.The background information document(BID) for the final standards may beobtained from the U.S. EPA Library(MD-35), Research Triangle Park, NorthCarolina 27711, telephone (919) 541-2777. Please refer to "Hazardous WasteTreatment, Storage, and DisposalFacilities (TSDF)-BackgroundInformation for Promulgated OrganicEmission Standards for Process Ventsand Equipment Leaks" (EPA-450/3-89-009). The EPA has prepared a technicalguidance document to aid inimplementation of these rules. Thisdocument may also be obtained fromthe U.S. EPA Library (see aboveaddress). Please refer to "HazardousWaste TSDF-Technical GuidanceDocument for RCRA Air EmissionStandards for Process Vents andEquipment Leaks" (EPA-450/3-89--21).FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:The RCRA Hotline, toll-free at (800) 424-9346. For further information onregulatory aspects of these standards,contact Rick Colyer, StandardsDevelopment Branch, EmissionStandards Division (MD-13), U.S.Environmental Protection Agency,Research Triangle Park, North Carolina27711, telephone number (919) 541-5262.For further information on the technicalaspects of these standards, contactRobert Lucas, Chemicals and PetroleumBranch, telephone number (919) 541-0884, at the same address. For furtherinformation on test methods associatedwith these standards, contact TerryHarrison, Emission MeasurementBranch, telephone number (919) 541-5233, at the same address as above.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Thecontents of today's preamble are listedin the following outline:L AuthorityII. Summary of Final Standards

A. Vents on Hazardous WasteManagement Process Units

B. Equipment Leaks on Hazardous WasteManagement Process Units

EIL BackgroundA. Regulatory AuthorityB. Regulatory Scope of Today's StandardsC. Air Standards under RCRA Section

3004(n)D. Other RCRA Air StandardsE. Relationship of Air Standards to Other

Subtitle C RulesF. Relationship of Today's Final Standards

to the Comprehensive EnvironmentalResponse, Compensation, and LiabilityAct (CERCLA)

IV. Applicability and Requirements ofProposed Process Vent and EquipmentLeak Standards

V. Applicability and Requirements of Today'sFinal Standards

A. Scope of Final StandardsB. Standards for Process VentsC. Equipment Leak StandardsD. Summary of Changes from ProposalE. Relationship of RCRA Exemptions to

Final StandardsVI. Summary of Comments and Responses

A. Regulatory IssuesB. Standards and ApplicabilityC. Control TechnologyD. Impact Analyses MethodologiesE. Implementation and Compliance

VIL Summary of Impacts of Final StandardsA, Overview of the Source CategoryB. Use of Models in the Regulatory

Development ProcessC. Emission ImpactsD. Ozone ImpactsE. Health Risk ImpactsF. Cost Impacts

VIII. State AuthorizationA, Applicability of Rules in Authorized

StatesB. Effect on State Authorizations

IX. ImplementationX Administrative Requirements

A. Regulatory Impact AnalysisB. Regulatory Flexibility ActC. Paperwork Reduction ActD. Supporting DocumentationE. List of Subjects

I. Authority

These regulations are promulgatedunder the authority of sections 1006,2002, 3001-3007, 3010, 3014, and 7004 ofthe Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1970, asamended by RCRA, as amended (42U.S.C. 6905, 6912, 6921-6927, 6930, 6934,and 6974).II. Summary of Fimal Standards

The standards limit emissions oforganics from certain process vents andequipment leaks at new and existinghazardous waste TSDF requiring apermit under RCRA subtitle C (i.e..

HeinOnline -- 55 Fed. Reg. 25454 1990

This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline.

Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 1990 / Rules and Regulations

permitted TSDF and TSDF that needauthorization to operate under RCRAsection 3005(e)). This applicabilityincludes all hazardous wastemanagement units that require RCRADermits and recycling units that are notsubject to RCRA permit requirements, if,independent of today's final rules, aRCRA permit is needed for another partof the facility operations.

A. Vents on Hazardous WasteManagement Process Units

Today's final standards are applicableto vents on waste management unitsthat manage hazardous waste with anannual average total organicsconcentration of 10 ppmw or greater(hereafter referred to as "processvents") and specifically include (1)process vents on distillation,fractionation, thin-film evaporation,solvent extraction, and air or steamstripping operations and vents oncondensers serving these operations;and (2) process vents on tanks (e.g.,distillate receivers, bottoms receivers,s'urge control tanks, separator tanks, andhot wells) associated with distillation,fractionation, thin-film evaporation,solvent extraction, and air or steamstripping processes if emissions fromthese process operations are ventedthrough the tanks. Up-to-dateinformation and data used to determinewhether or not a hazardous wastemanagement unit and its associatedprocess vent(s) are subject to thesubpart AA standards must bemaintained in the facility operatingrecord (§ 264.1035(fo and § 265.1035(f)).For example, documentation of a wasteanalysis showing that the wastemanaged in the unit is less than the 10-ppmw applicability criterion must bekept in the facility operating record.

The final rules for process ventsrequire that owners or operators ofTSDF subject to the provisions of newsubpart AA: (1) Reduce total organicemissions from all affected processvents at the facility to below 1.4 kg/h (3lb/h) and 2.8 Mg/yr (3.1 ton/yr), or (2)install and operate a control device(s)that reduces total organic emissionsfrom all affected process vents at thefacility by 95 weight percent. The owneror operator of the facility mustdetermine through test data orengineering judgment and calculationsthat the facility is not expected toexceed the emission rate limit of 1.4 kg/h and 2.8 Mg/yr. Facilities with organicemissions from affected vents that neverexceed the emission rate limit will notbe required to install controls or monitorprocess vent emissions under this rule.For all other affected facilities, theowner or operator must install controls

to reduce total facility process ventemissions from all affected vents belowthe emission rate limit or to reduce totalfacility process vent organic emissionsafter primary recovery by 95 percent; ifenclosed combustion devices are used,the owner/operator has the option ofreducing the organic concentration ofeach affected vent stream at the facilityto no more than 20 parts per million bvvolume (ppmv). Selection of theemission rate limit is addressed furtherin section VI.B below and in chapters 4.0and 7.0 of the BID.

The final standards for process ventsdo not require the use of any specifictypes of equipment or add-on controldevices. Condensers, carbon adsorbers,incinerators, and flares aredemonstrated emission controlequipment for the regulated processes,although the choice of control is notlimited to these.

To demonstrate compliance with theprocess vent provisions, TSDF owners/operators must document process ventemissions and emission reductionsachieved by add-on control devices andcertify the emission reduction capabilityof the control equipment.Documentation must (1) identifyaffected process vents, provide thethroughput and operating hours of eachaffected unit, and provide emission ratedeterminations for each affected ventand for the overall facility (i.e., the totalemissions for all affected vents at thefacility); and (2) show whether installedadd-on control devices achieve theemission rate limit by design and duringoperation. Where the emission rate limitis not attained, documentation mustshow whether the add-on controldevices achieve a 95-percent reductionin organics or the 20-ppmv organicsconcentration limit by design and duringoperation. The documentation mustinclude the basis for determining thedesign emission reduction.

The rules for process vents requirethat specific control device operatingparameters be monitored continuouslyand the monitoring information berecorded in the facility operating recordto ensure that the devices performaccording to their design and areproperly operated and maintained. Forfacilities with final RCRA permits,periods when monitoring indicates thatcontrol device operating parametersexceed established tolerances for designspecifications must be reportedsemiannually. The records and reportsmust include dates, duration, cause, andcorrective measures taken. There are noreporting requirements for interim statusfacilities. These monitoring andrecordkeeping requirements are

discussed below in section V.B and inthe BID in chapter 11.0, section 11.4.

B. Equipment Leaks on HazardousWaste Management Process Units

The equipment leak standards applyto emissions from valves, pumps,compressors, pressure relief devices,sampling connection systems, and open-ended valves or lines. Under the finalstandards, controls for these sources arerequired at TSDF where the equipmentcontains or contacts hazardous wastestreams with organic concentrations of10 percent by weight or greater. Theowner or operator of a facility maychoose any of the applicable testmethods identified in the final rules fordetermining the organic content.

To comply with the equipment leakstandards, the facility owner/operatormust identify all affected equipment(i.e., pumps, valves, compressors, etc.,that contain or contact hazardous wastestreams with at least 10-percent-by-weight organics), establish which of theaffected equipment is in heavy liquidservice, and determine which valves areunsafe or difficult to monitor. By theeffective date of this regulation, thefacility owner/operator must conductthe initial monthly monitoring survey ofpumps and valves in gas/vapor or lightliquid service. A number of portablevolatile organic monitoring devices arecapable of detecting equipment leaks.Any analyzer can be used, provided itmeets the specifications andperformance criteria set forth in EPAReference Method 21 (contained inappendix A of 40 CFR part 60).

Affected compressors must have adual mechanical seal system thatincludes a barrier fluid system or mustbe designated as having "no detectableemissions," which means an instrumentreading of less than 500 ppm abovebackground using EPA ReferenceMethod 21. Sampling connections musthave a closed-purge system. Open-ended valves or lines must have a cap,blind flange, plug, or second valve.Pressure relief devices must operatewith "no detectable emissions."

Recordkeeping and monitoring arealso required by the equipment leakprovisions. For example, leakingequipment as determined by Method 21must be tagged as specified in the rule,and records of repair attempts, delay ofrepair, etc., must be recorded in a logand included as part of the facility'soperating record. Monitoring of controldevice operating parameters is alsorequired if a closed-vent system andcontrol device are installed as a result ofthe equipment leak standards. Thestandards and recordkeeping

2545525455




requirements are discussed below atsection V.C.

III. Background

A. Regulatory Authority

In 1984, Congress passed HSWA.amending RCRA. Section 3004(n) ofRCRA, as amended by HSWA, directsEPA to " * * promulgate suchregulations for the monitoring andcontrol of air emissions at hazardouswaste treatment, storage, and disposalfacilities, including but not limited toopen tanks, surface impoundments, andlandfills, as may be necessary to protecthuman health and the environment."The standards being promulgated todayaddress, in part, this congressionaldirective and are applicable to all TSDFthat require authorization to operateunder section 3005 of RCRA. Theseregulations are being promulgated underthe authority of sections 1006, 2002,3001-3007, 3010, 3014, and 7004 of theSolid Waste Disposal Act of 1970, asamended by RCRA, as amended (42U.S.C. 6905, 6912, 6921-6927, 6930, 6934,and 6974).

B. Regulatory Scope of Today'sStandards

Today's final rules apply to facilitiesthat treat, store, or dispose of hazardouswastes as defined in 40 CFR 261.3 and,specifically, to certain hazardous wastemanagement units at facilities requiringRCRA subtitle C permits. This includesfacilities with permits and thoseoperating under interim status. Today'srules, codified in new subparts AA andBB of 40 CFR parts 264 and 265, areapplicable to the following units atTSDF: (1) Hazardous waste managementunits subject to the permittingrequirements of part 270 (i.e., not 90-dayaccumulation tanks at TSDF), and (2)hazardous waste recycling units locatedon hazardous waste managementfacilities otherwise subject to thepermitting requirements of part 270.Under 40 CFR 260.10, the term "facility"means all contiguous land, andstructures, other appurtenances, andimprovements on the land, used fortreating, storing, or disposing ofhazardous waste. (Note: This definitiondiffers from the definition of "facility"for purposes of corrective action underRCRA section 3004(u). See 50 FR 28712,July 15, 1985.)

C. Air Standards Under RCRA Section3004(n)

Air emissions from hazardous wastesare generated or released fromnumerous sources at TSDF, includingdistillation and other organic separationunits, surface impoundments, tanks,

containers, landfills, land treatmentfacilities, wastepiles, and leaks fromequipment associated with theseoperations.

In considering the regulation of airemissions under RCRA section 3004(n)and within the RCRA regulatoryframework, EPA has concluded that airemissions from hazardous wastemanagement facilities that are subject toRCRA subtitle C should be regulatedunder the authority of RCRA section3004(n). Air emissions from facilities orunits that manage solid wastes that arenot regulated as hazardous wastespursuant to 40 CFR part 261 (e.g., cementkiln dust waste) and air emissions fromhazardous waste from units or facilitiesthat are exempt from the permittingprovisions of 40 CFR 270.1(c)(2) (e.g.,wastewater treatment units withNational Pollutant DischargeElimination System (NPDES) permits)will be subject to control techniquesguidelines or standards developed asneeded under either the Clean Air Act(CAA) or RCRA authority. Air emissionsfrom wastes managed in units subject tosubtitle D (nonhazardous solid wastessuch as those managed in municipallandfills) also will be subject toguidelines or standards issued underCAA or RCRA authority as appropriate.

Air emissions from hazardous wastesinclude photochemically reactive andnonphotochemically reactive organics,some of which are toxic or carcinogenic,and also may include toxic orcarcinogenic inorganic compounds.Depending on the source, particulates(including metals, aerosols of organics,dust, as well as toxics and carcinogens)also may be released or generated.These emissions, which are released tothe atmosphere from a wide variety ofsources within TSDF, present diversehealth and environmental risks.Therefore, EPA has developed amultiphased approach for regulatingTSDF organic air emissions. Thisapproach, described generally below,reflects EPA's understanding of theproblem and knowledge of applicable,effective controls at this time.

Organic emissions from TSDFmanaging hazardous wastes contributeto ambient ozone formation andincrease cancer and other health risks.Phases I and II of EPA's TSDFregulatory approach will significantlyreduce emissions of ozone precursorsand air toxics and carcinogens fromTSDF by controlling emissions oforganics as a class rather thancontrolling emissions of individualwaste constituents. The regulation oforganics as a class has the advantage ofbeing relatively straightforward because

it can be accomplished with a minimumnumber of standards, whereas thecontrol of individual toxic constituentswill require multiple standards.Regulating organics as a class alsomakes efficient use of EPA resource,avoids many of the complexities ofhaving multiple standards, and reduce.the number of constituents for whichseparate standards may be required.

The health and environmental effectsof ambient ozone are well documented-measured in terms of monetary losses,they total hundreds of millions of dollarseach year. Other health impacts of TSDForganic emissions are summarized insection VII.D of this preamble and arediscussed in more detail in the BID thataccompanies this final rule and in thedraft BID for Phase II organic standardstitled, "Hazardous Waste TSDF-Background Information for ProposedRCRA Air Emission Standards,"available in Docket F-90-CESP-FFFFF.The substantial reductions in organicemissions achievable throughimplementation of Phase I and Phase IIcontrols will reduce atmospheric ozonEformation as a result of reductions inTSDF emissions of ozone precursors andwill reduce nationwide cancer incidenceand maximum individual risk due toexposure to air toxics and carcinogensemitted from TSDF.

Specifically, Phase I (which is beingpromulgated as final rules today) entailsthe promulgation of standards for thecontrol of organic air emissions fromselected hazardous waste managementprocesses and equipment leaks. Asdiscussed in the February 1987 proposal,EPA chose to develop this portion of itsTSDF rulemaking first to preventuncontrolled air emissions from landdisposal restriction (LDR) treatmenttechnologies. The technologies used inlieu of land disposal include thedistillation/ separation processessubject to the Phase I rules. Publicationof today's final rules for air emissionsfrom hazardous waste management unitprocess vents from distillation,fractionation, thin-film evaporation,solvent extraction, and air or steamstripping processes and from leaks inpiping and associated equipmenthandling hazardous wastes marks thecompletion of this first phase.

In the second phase, EPA will propose(in 1990) additional standards undersection 3004(n) to control organic airemissions from other significant TSDFair emission sources not covered or notadequately controlled by existingstandards. These sources includesurface impoundments, tanks (includingvents on closed, vented tanks),containers, and miscellaneous units.




The analyses of impacts indicate that,at some facilities, residual cancer risk tothe most exposed individuals afterimplementing the first two phases ofregulation will remain outside the riskrange for other regulations promulgatedunder RCRA (which historically hasheen in the range of 1x 10 - 4 to 1X 10-).The EPA is therefore planning a thirdphase of the effort to control TSDFemissions in which various means forfurther reducing risk will be examined.In the interim, as explained in sectionVI.E, the omnibus permitting authorityof RCRA is an available option forrequiring additional emission and risk-eductions beyond that achieved bytoday's final rules if it is decided, on acase-by-case basis, that additionalcontrol is needed to protect humanhealth and the environment.

The EPA is currently involved in aneffort to improve the data used in thecurrent risk analyses and, in the thirdphase, will make use of any new dataobtained. If additional constituentcontrol is found to be necessary, thenumber of constituents for whichadditional control is needed is expectedto be significantly less than if aconstituent approach were used as theonly means of regulating TSDF airemissions. Therefore, the EPA isconvinced that the control of organics asa class followed by controls forindividual toxic constituents, asnecessary, will ultimately result incomprehensive standards that areprotective while providing effectiveinterim control.

Should additional regulation underPhase Ill be necessary, EPA isconsidering a variety of approaches forreducing residual risk associated withemissions from wastes managed atTSDF, and additional approaches maybe developed in the future. For example,EPA could require additional technologycontrol for toxic waste management(e.g., technology that ensures lowerrates of leakage from equipment, if suchtechnology can be developed for use atTSDF) or limit the quantities of specificconstituents that can be managed at aTSDF. The constituents to be evaluatedin Phase III will include those reportedas being present in hazardous wastesmanaged by existing TSDF for whichhealth effects have been establishedthrough the development of unit riskfactors for carcinogens and referencedoses for noncarcinogens.

D. Other RCRA Air Standards

The EPA has promulgated severalstandards under RCRA that reduce airemissions from TSDF. For example,several existing provisions in 40 CFRpart 264 (40 CFR 264.251(f), 264.301(i),

and 264.273(f) require theimplementation of general design andoperating practices at permittedwastepiles, landfills, and land treatmentoperations to limit the release ofparticulate air emissions. The EPA hasprepared a technical guidance documentto aid in the implementation of theseparticulate rules; the document("Hazardous Waste TSDF-FugitiveParticulate Matter Air EmissionsGuidance Document," EPA-450/3-89-019) provides information on the sourcesof, and control technology for,particulate air emissions at TSDF.Additionally, 40 CFR part 264, subpartX, contains provisions that requireprevention of air releases that may haveadverse effects on human health or theenvironment at miscellaneoushazardous waste management units.

Air standards also have beenpromulgated for the control of airemissions from permitted hazardouswaste incinerators (40 CFR part 264,subpart 0). These standards require thatincinerators be operated to achieve adestruction and removal efficiency(DRE) of at least 99.99 percent for thoseprimary organic hazardous constituentslisted in the facility permit. Higherefficiencies are required when theincinerator is burning certain specifiedwaste types. These standards also limitair emissions of organics, hydrochloricacid, and particulates from incineratorstacks.

Air standards for interim statushazardous waste incinerators (40 CFR265, subpart 0) require monitoring ofvisible emissions and operatingconditions. When burning specifiedwastes, these incinerators must receivea certification from the AssistantAdministrator stating that theincinerator can meet the performancestandards specified for permittedincinerators in 40 CFR 264, subpart 0.

Interim status standards for otherthermal treatment units are found in 40CFR part 265, subpart P. Thesestandards apply to facilities thatthermally treat hazardous waste indevices other than enclosed devicesusing controlled flame combustion. Thestandards require monitoring of visibleemissions and operating conditions ofthe combustion devices and prohibitopen burning except for open burningand detonation of waste explosives.

The EPA has also proposed standardscovering the burning of hazardous wastein boilers and industrial furnaces (52 FR16987; May 6, 1987). These standardswould require such burning to achieve aDRE of 99.99 percent for each principalorganic hazardous constituent identifiedin the facility permit. In addition, a DRE

of 99.99 percent must be achieved whenburning certain specified constituents.The proposed standards also haveprovisions for burning low-risk wastesthat allow an owner or operator todemonstrate that the burning ofhazardous waste will not result insignificant adverse health effects. Toqualify for the low-risk wasteexemption, an owner or operator wouldhave to use dispersion 'modeling todemonstrate that emissions ofcarcinogenic compounds would notresult in off-site ground-levelconcentrations that pose a risk to themost exposed individual of greater than1 X10 5. For noncarcinogenic compounds,the dispersion modeling woulddemonstrate that the resulting airconcentrations would not exceed thereference air concentration (RAC) ofindividual hazardous compounds. Theproposed standards would also limitemissions of carbon monoxide, metals,and hydrochloric acid from boilers andfurnaces burning hazardous wastes.

E. Relationship of Air Standards toOther Subtitle C Rules

In addition to the air emissionstandards discussed above, EPA hasongoing programs that indirectly affectair emissions from hazardous waste.Today's rules are designed tocomplement other air standards underRCRA and the rules that mightotherwise affect air emissions. ExistingRCRA regulations that have thepotential for affecting air emissions fromhazardous waste TSDF include: (1) TheLDR and (2] the corrective actionprogram.

The LDR, developed under section3004(m) of the HSWA, require thathazardous waste be treated to reduceconcentrations of specific chemicals orhazardous properties to certainperformance levels or by certainmethods before the waste may bedisposed of on land. Affected landdisposal units include surfaceimpoundments, wastepiles, landfills,and land treatment units. The EPAanticipates that LDR will substantiallyreduce the potential for air emissionsfrom these land disposal sources. Thefirst set of LDR, for certain dioxins andsolvent-containing hazardous wastes,was promulgated on November 7,1986(51 FR 40572); the second set ofrestrictions, the "California list," waspromulgated on July 8,1987 (52 FR25760): the "First Third" waspromulgated on August 17, 1988 (53 FR31138), and the "Second Third" on June23, 1989 154 FR 26597).

The treatment technologies evaluatedunder LDR for both wastewater and

25457




nonwastewater spent solvents includedistillation and other separationprocesses subject to the requirements ofthe Phase I rules. Today's standards aredesigned to protect human health andthe environment by reducing airemissions from technologies expected tobe used to treat wastes prior to landdisposal.

Under the authority of RCRA section3004(u), EPA is developing rules toaddress releases of hazardous waste orhazardous constituents from solid wastemanagement units [SWMU) that pose athreat to human health and theenvironment. Because this authorityapplies to contamination of soil, water,and air media, organic air emissionsfrom SWMU at some TSDF would beaddressed by the corrective actionprogram EPA intends to propose under aseparate rulemaking. The draft ruleswould establish health-based triggerlevels measured at the TSDF boundaryfor determining whether furtherremedial studies are required to assessair emissions from a particular SWMU.Health-based cleanup standards wouldthen be set for air emission levels thatexceed acceptable health-based levelsat the point at which actual exposureoccurs. When such exposure isdetermined either through monitoring ormodeling techniques, corrective actionwill be required to reduce suchemissions at the point of compliance.

The corrective action program isdesigned to achieve site-specificsolutions based on an examination of aparticular TSDF and its environmentalsetting. It is not intended to set nationalstandards that regulate organic airemissions from all TSDF. At sites wherethere are releases from SWMU to theatmosphere, organic emissions will becontrolled based on site-specificexposure concerns. Furthermore,releases from the SWMU that containhazardous solid wastes will also besubject to corrective action. Therefore,for air emissions, corrective action is inpart designed to expeditiously addressthreats to human health and theenvironment that are identified prior toimplementation of more comprehensiveair emission standards. In addition,because corrective action can address awider universe of SWMU, it willaddress, in some respects, exposureconcerns that today's final standards donot address.

F. Relationship of Today's FinalStandards to CERCLA

The CERCLA, as amended by theSuperfund Amendments andReauthorization Act (SARA), 42 U.S.C.9601 et seq., authorizes EPA toundertake removal and remedial actions

to clean up releases of hazardoussubstances, pollutants, or contaminants.Removal actions typically areimmediate or expedited activitiesnecessary to minimize exposure ordanger to human health and theenvironment from the release of ahazardous substance, pollutant, orcontaminant. Remedial actions arelonger term, planned activitiesperformed at sites listed on the NationalPriorities List to permanently clean uphazardous substances, pollutants, orcontaminants and any soils, surfacewaters, or ground waters contaminatedby these materials. On-site remedialactions are required by CERCLA section121(d)(2) to comply with therequirements of Federal and morestringent State public health andenvironmental laws that have beenidentified by EPA or the delegated Stateauthority as applicable or relevant andappropriate requirements (ARAR) to thespecific CERCLA site. In addition, theNational Contingency Plan (NCP)provides that on-site CERCLA removalactions "should comply with FederalARAR to the extent practicableconsidering the exigencies of thecircumstances" (40 CFR 300.65(f)).Today's final standards may beconsidered ARAR for certain on-siteremedial and removal actions.

A requirement under a Federal orState environmental law may either be"applicable" or "relevant andappropriate," but not both, to a remedialor removal action conducted at aCERCLA site. "Applicablerequirements," as defined in theproposed revisions to the NCP, meansthose cleanup standards, standards ofcontrol, and other substantiveenvironmental projection requirements,criteria, or limitations promulgatedunder Federal or State law thatspecifically address a hazardoussubstance, pollutant, contaminant,remedial action, location, or othercircumstance found at a CERCLA site(40 CFR 300.5 (proposed), 53 FR 51475(December 21, 1988)). "Relevant andappropriate requirements" means thoseFederal or State requirements that,while not applicable, address problemsor situations sufficiently similar to thoseencountered at the CERCLA site thattheir use is well suited to the particularsite (53 FR 51478).

Some waste management activitiesused for remedial and removal actionsto clean up hazardous organicsubstances use the distillation/separation operations regulated undersubpart AA of today's rules. Forexample, hazardous organic liquidwastes and ground and surface waters

contaminated with hazardous wastesmay be treated on site using airstripping processes. Therefore, theorganic emission control requirements oftoday's subpart AA rules may be"applicable" for on-site remedial andremoval action activities that usedistillation, fractionation, thin-filmevaporation, solvent extraction, or air orsteam stripping operations that treatsubstances that are identified or listedunder RCRA as hazardous wastes andhave a total organic concentration of 10ppmw or greater. In addition, off-sitestorage, treatment, and disposal of allwastes classified under RCRA ashazardous waste must be performed at aTSDF permitted under RCRA subtitle C.Thus, CERCLA wastes that are definedas hazardous under RCRA, contain morethan 10 ppmw of total organics, and areshipped off site for management indistillation, fractionation, thin-filmevaporation, solvent extraction, and airor steam stripping operations, would besubject to today's final standards likeany similar RCRA hazardous waste. Thenew subpart AA control requirementsfor process vents may also be "relevantand appropriate" to on-site CERCLAremoval and remedial actions that usedistillation, fractionation, thin-filmevaporation, solvent extraction, and airor steam stripping operations to managesubstances that contain organics thatare not covered by this rule (e.g.,organics less than 10 ppmw or organicsfrom nonhazardous wastes).

Today's final rules do not includecontrol requirements for process ventson operations not associated withorganics distillation/separation buttypically associated with CERCLAremedial or removal actions such as soilexcavation, in situ soil vapor extraction,in situ steam strippingof soil, soilwashing, stabilization, bioremediation(in situ or otherwise), dechlorination,and low temperature thermaldesorption. Therefore, the final rule forprocess vents would not be "applicable"to remedial or removal actions involvingthese processes at CERCLA sites. Also,the final process vent standards may notbe considered "relevant andappropriate" for these same activities atCERCLA sites. Waste managementoperations involving soil excavation, insitu soil vapor extraction, in situ steamstripping of soil, soil washing,bioremediation, dechlorination, and lowtemperature thermal desorption can beconsiderably different from the wastemanagement operations (i.e.,distillation/separation processes)regulated in subpart AA. Controltechnologies for reducing organicemissions from these types of processes




were not evaluated as part of today'srulemaking. However, the air emissionpotential of remedial and removalactions requiring excavation, landtreatment, land farming, in situtreatment activities, and other treatmentactivities involving landfills andwastepiles should be determined, and, ifnecessary, the proper emission controlsshould be applied to these activities.

The organic emission controlrequirements of subpart BB for TSDFequipment leaks may also be consideredas an ARAR for the equipmentcomponents (e.g., pumps and valves)installed at CERCLA cleanup sites thatcontain or contact substancescontaining 10 percent by weight or moretotal organics.

Although today's final standardswould not be ARAR for all types ofremedial and removal actions that arepotential sources of organic airemissions, other existing RCRA or CAAregulations may qualify as ARAR formany of these activities. For example.subpart 0 of 40 CFR part 264 establishesstandards of performance limitingorganic emissions from thermaldestruction processes (i.e., hazardouswaste incinerators).

IV. Applicability and Requirements ofProposed Process Vent and EquipmentLeak Standards

On February 5, 1987 (52 FR 3748), EPAproposed standards under RCRA section3004(n) for the control of'organic airemissions from certain equipment andprocess vents at hazardous waste TSDF.The proposed standards would haveapplied to equipment and process vents"in volatile hazardous air pollutant(VHAP) service" (i.e., containing orcontacting liquids, gases, or otherderivatives of hazardous waste inconcentrations greater than 10 percenttotal organics) located at TSDF requiredto have a RCRA permit. The decision asto whether equipment or process ventswould be covered by the rule (i.e., wouldever contain or contact wastes greaterthan 10 percent total organics) could bebased either on testing the waste andderivatives according to specified testprocedures or on engineering judgmentas to these materials, total organiccontent.

The proposed standards would haverequired a 95-percent reduction inorganic emissions from vents in VHAPservice on product accumulator vesselsaid on other process vent sources (e.g.,vents on closed accumulator tanks onother processes). The preamble for theproposed standard, at 52 FR 3753,described "product accumulatorvessels" as types of equipment thatgenerate process emissions and include

distillate receivers, surge controlvessels, product separators, or hot-wellsthat are vented to the atmosphere eitherdirectly or through a vacuum-producingsystem' Product accumulator vesselsincluded units used to distill and steamor air strip volatile components fromhazardous waste; examples includedistillation columns, steam strippingcolumns, air stripping units, and thin-film evaporation units at TSDF.

The proposed standards would haveregulated actual reclamation processesfor the first time. Only recyclingunits atTSDF already subject to RCRA permitrequirements (e.g., because of storageactivity on the facility) would have beensubject to the proposed air standards.Both new and existing units would havebeen required to have add-on controldevices designed to achieve a 95-percentreduction (based on the application ofsecondary condensers] and to operatewithin that design. Once in operation,the facilities would have demonstratedcompliance by monitoring the operationof the control device.

The proposed standards also wouldhave required implementation of amonthly leak detection and repair(LDAR] program for valves, pumps,compressors, pressure relief devices,and closed-vent systems used to handlehazardous wastes and their derivativesat TSDF. Control systems, leakdefinition methodology, leak definitions,and repair schedules were based onexisting equipment leak standardsdeveloped under sections III and 112 ofthe CAA.

Since proposal, EPA has made severalimportant changes to the standardsbased on the public comments receivedafter proposal and analyses resultingfrom these comments. The applicabilityand requirements of the final standards,including the changes made sinceproposal, are discussed in section V.The EPA's responses to the majorcomments are summarized in section Vi.Additional information is presented inthe BID for the final standards.V. Applicability and Requirements ofToday's Final Standards

This section provides a detailedsummary of the final standards as theyapply to the affected TSDF communityand to process vents and equipmentsubject to today's rule. Also summarizedis the relationship of the final standardsto existing exemptions under the RCRAregulatory program.A. Scope of Final Standards

Today's final standards limit organicair emissions as a class at TSDF that aresubject to regulation under subtitle C ofRCRA. This action is the first part of a

multiphased regulatory effort to controlair emissions at new and existinghazardous waste TSDF. These rulesestablish final standards limitingorganic emissions from (1) process ventsassociated with distillation,fractionation, thin-film evaporation,"solvent extraction, and air or steamstripping operations that managehazardous wastes with 10 ppmw orgreater total organics concentration onan annual average basis, and (2) leaksfrom equipment that contain or contacthazardous waste streams with 10percent by weight or greater totalorganics.

The final standards do not expand theRCRA-permitted community for thepurposes of air emissions control. Aspromulgated, the final standards controlorganic emissions only from processvents and equipment leaks at hazardouswaste TSDF that are subject topermitting requirements under RCRAsection 3005 and are applicable only tospecific hazardous waste managementunits. The rules apply to hazardouswaste management units that aresubject to the permitting requirements ofpart 270 and to hazardous wasterecycling units that are located atfacilities otherwise subject to thepermitting requirements of part 270.Exempt units, other than recycling units(e.g., 90-day accumulation tanks andwastewater treatment units as specifiedin § 270.1(c)(2)), are not subject to therules even when they are part of apermitted facility. Permitting aspects arefurther discussed in section IX.

The term "organics" is used in thefinal standards instead of "volatileorganics" to avoid confusion with"volatile organic compounds" (VOC)that are regulated as a class under theCAA. To be subject to the standards, aTSDF: (1) Must have equipment that!contains or contacts hazardous wastesthat are 10 percent or more by weighttotal organics, or (2) must havedistillation, fractionation, thin-filmevaporation, solvent extraction, or air orsteam stripping operations that treat orprocess hazardous wastes with totalorganics concentrations of 10 ppmw orgreater on a time-weighted annualaverage basis.

The final regulations require thefacility owners or operators todetermine whether their equipment issubject to the equipment leak rules,subpart BB of parts 264 and 265. Theowner or operator of a facility may relyon engineering judgment for thisdetermination, or, if the waste's organiccontent is questionable, the owner oroperator may choose any of the testmethods identified in the final rule for

25459



25460 Federal Register / Vol. 55, 'No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 1990 / Rules and Regulations

determining whether a piece ofequipment contains or contactshazardous wastes that are 10 percent ormore total organics by weight. Asproposed, these methods include: ASTMMethods D-2267-88, E 169-87, E 168-88,and E 260-85 and Methods 9060 and8240 of SW-846. The owner or operatoralso may use any other test method fordetermining total organic content that isdemonstrated to be equivalent to thetest methods identified in the rule usingthe petition process described in 40 CFR260.21. The test method selected shouldbe the one best suited for thecharacteristics of the waste stream.Regardless of the method chosen, thefinal standard requires the facilityowner or operator to determine that theorganic content is never expected toexceed 10 percent. The determination oforganic content of the waste must at alltimes be appropriate to the wastescurrently being managed in the relevantunits. If any action is taken that wouldresult in the determination no longerbeing appropriate to the facility's or aparticular unit's operations (e.g., anupstream process change that results ina change in-a waste's organic content),then a new determination is required.

To determine whether a particularhazardous waste management unit ofthe type specified in the rule (e.g.. asteam stripping or air stripping unit) issubject to the provisions of subpart AAof parts 264 and 265, the owner/operatoris required to determine the totalorganic concentration of the wastemanaged in the unit initially (by theeffective date of the standards or whenthe waste is first managed in the wastemanagement unit) and thereafter on aperiodic basis (for continuouslygenerated wastes). A wastedetermination for subpart AAapplicability would not be necessarywhen an owner/operator manages thewaste in a distillation, fractionation,thin-film evaporation, solventextraction, or air or steam stripping unitthat is controlled for organic emissionsand meets the substantive requirementsof subpart AA.

Determination that the time-weighted,annual average total organicconcentration of the waste managed inthe unit is less than 10 ppmw must beperformed by direct measurement or byknowledge of the waste as describedlater in this section. Direct measurementof the waste's total organicconcentration must be performed bycollecting individual grab samples of thewaste and analyzing the samples usingone of the approved reference methodsidentified in the rule.

The EPA is requiring that analyticalresults for a minimum of four samples beused to determine the total organicconcentration for each waste streammanaged in the unit. In setting theminimum number of samples at four,EPA will obtain sufficient data tocharacterize the total organicconcentration of a waste withoutimposing an unnecessary burden on theowner/operator to collect and analyzethe samples.

Waste determinations must beperformed under process conditionsexpected to result in the maximumwaste organic concentration. For wastegenerated on site, the samples must becollected at a point before the waste isexposed to the atmosphere such as in anenclosed pipe or other closed systemthat is used to transfer the waste aftergeneration to the first affecteddistillation/separation operation. Forwaste generated off site, the samplesmust be collected at the inlet to the firstwaste management unit that receivesthe waste, provided the waste has beentransferred to the facility in a closedsystem such as a tank truck, and thewaste is not diluted or mixed with otherwaste.

The location where the waste's totalorganic content is determined isimportant because sampling locationcan greatly affect the results of thedetermination. This effect occursbecause the concentration level candecrease significantly after generationas the waste is transferred to (andmanaged in) various waste managementunits.

If the waste is directly or indirectlyexposed to ambient air at any point, aportion of the organics in the waste willbe emitted to the atmosphere, and theconcentration of organics remaining inthe waste will decrease. For example,for highly volatile organic compoundssuch as butadiene, all of the compoundwould evaporate within a few secondsof exposure to air. To ensure that thedetermination of total organicconcentration is an accuraterepresentation of the emission potentialof a waste upon generation, it isessential that the waste determinationbe performed at a point as near aspossible to where the waste isgenerated, before any exposure to theatmosphere can occur.

For the reasons stated above, thewaste determination must be based onthe waste composition before the wasteis exposed, either directly or indirectly,to the ambient air. Direct exposure ofthe waste to the ambient air means thewaste surface interfaces with theambient air. Indirect exposure of the

waste to the ambient air means thewaste surface interfaces with a gasstream that subsequently is emitted tothe ambient air. If the wastedetermination is performed using directmeasurement, the standards wouldrequire that waste samples be collectedfrom an enclosed pipe or other closedsystem that is used to transfer the wasteafter generation to the first hazardouswaste management unit. If the wastedetermination is performed usingknowledge of the waste, the standardswould require that the owner oroperator have documentation attestingto the organic concentration of thewaste before any exposure to theambient air.

The location where the wastedetermination would be made for anyone facility will depend on severalfactors. One factor is whether the wasteis generated and managed at the samesite or generated at one site andtransferred to a commercial TSDF formanagement. Another important factoris the mechanism used to transfer thewaste from the location where the wasteis generated to the location of the firstwaste management unit (e.g., pipeline,sewer, tank truck). For example, if awaste is first accumulated in a tankusing a direct, enclosed pipeline totransfer the waste from its generationprocess, then the waste determinationcould be made based on waste samplescollected at the inlet to the tank. Incontrast, If the waste is firstaccumulated in a tank using an opensewer system to transfer the waste fromits generation process then the wastedetermination would need to be madebased on waste samples collected at thepoint where the waste enters the sewerbefore the waste is exposed to theambient air. Where the waste isgenerated off site, the owner or operatormay make the determination based onsamples collected at the inlet to the firstwaste management unit at the TSDFthat receives the waste, provided thewaste has been transferred to the TSDFin a closed system such as a tank truckand the waste is not diluted or mixedwith other waste. If a wastedetermination indicates that the totalorganic concentration is equal to orgreater than the applicability criterion.:then the owner or operator would berequired to comply with the standards.

As an alternative to using directmeasurement, an ownei/operator isallowed to-use knowledge of the wasteas a means of determining that the totalorganic concentration of the waste isless than 10 ppmw. Examples ofinformation that might be considered byEPA to constitute sufficient knowledge



Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 1990 / Rules and Regulations

include: (1) Documentation that organicsare not involved in the processgenerating the waste, (2) documentationthat the waste is generated by a processthat is identical to a process at the sameor another facility that has previouslybeen determined by direct measurementto generate a waste stream having atotal organic content less than 10 ppmw,or (3) previous speciation analysisresults from which the totalconcentration of organics in the wastecan be computed and it can bedocumented that no process changeshave occurred since the analysis thatcould affect the waste's total organicconcentration. The final standardsinclude the provision that EPA canrequire that the waste be analyzed usingMethod 8240 if EPA believes that thedocumentation is insufficient todetermine an exception by knowledge ofthe waste (§§ 264.1034(f) and265.1034(f)).

To address the temporal variabilitythat can occur both within a particularwaste stream and within the variouswaste streams managed in a hazardouswaste management unit, the final rulesrequire a time-weighted, annual averageconcentration to characterize the wastemanaged in the unit. The final rulesrequire that an owner/operator repeatthe waste determination whenever thereis a change in the waste being managedor a change in the process that generatesor treats the waste that may affect theregulatory status of the waste or, if thewaste and process remain constant, atleast annually. For example, Continuousprocesses are more likely to generate amore homogeneous waste than batchoperations; batch operations involveprocesses that may frequently involvechange in materials or processconditions. Batch operations, therefore,usually generate wastes with varyingcharacteristics, including suchcharacteristics as organics content.Ground water concentrations wouldalso be expected to show significantvariation if more than one well provides,influent to a waste management unitsuch as an air stripper and the wells thatfeed the unit are varied over time or ifthe proportions from the wells that makeup the influent are changed. This isbecause there is typically considerablespatial variability in contaminatedground water concentrations. Thesituation where feed wells are changedand the change is not accounted for inthe initial waste determination would beconsidered a process change or changein the waste being managed that wouldrequire a new determination.;

With the time-weighted, annualaverage applicability criterion, a

hazardous waste management unitwould not be subject to this rule if itoccasionally treats wastes that exceed10 ppmw if at other times the wastesbeing treated in the unit are such thatthe weighted annual average totalorganic concentration of all wastestreated is less than 10 ppmw. The time-weighted, annual average is calculatedusing the annual quantity of each wastestream managed in the unit and themean organic concentration of eachwaste stream.

Determining the applicability of thestandards to affected processes, units,and facilities is of paramountimportance to the TSDF owner oroperator in complying with the finalstandards. A mistake even aninadvertent one, will not excuse afacility owner or operator from theobligation to comply with either therequirements of the standards or withpotential enforcement actions. Accuratedeterminations of what equipment andvents must be controlled are crucial toensuring that all equipment and ventssubject to this rule are in fact controlled.When the facility owner/operator andthe Regional Administrator disagree onthe determination of emissions oremission reduction achieved, then aperformance test conducted as specifiedin the rules must be used to resolve thedisagreement. In situations where theowner/operator and RegionalAdministrator disagree on whether aunit manages a waste with 10 ppmw orgreater organics content or a piece ofequipment contains or contacts a wastewith 10 percent or more organicscontent, then procedures that conform tothe test methods referenced in the rulesmay be used to resolve thedisagreement.

Consistent with section 3010 of RCRA,the final standards for process vent andequipment leak control and monitoringbecome effective 6 months from today.Owners and operators must come intocompliance with these requirements bythe effective date; however, wherecompliance involves the installation of acontrol device, EPA is requiring thatinstallation be completed as soon aspossible but no later than 24 monthsfrom the date the regulatory actionaffecting the unit is published orpromulgated. To obtain the extendedtime for compliance (18 months beyondthe effective date), a facility must showthat installation cannot reasonably beexpected to be completed earlier. Inthese circumstances, an owner/operatormust develop an implementationschedule that indicates when theinstallation will be completed andshows that additional time is necessary.

The implementation schedule must beincluded in the operating record by theeffective date of the rules. Changes inthe implementation schedule areallowed within the 24-month time frameif the owner/operator documents thatthe change cannot reasonably beavoided.

B. Standards for Process Vents

Affected Equipment

A "process vent" is a pipe, stack, orother opening through Which emissionsfrom a hazardous waste managementunit are released to the atmosphereeither directly, through a vacuum-producing system, or indirectly, throughanother tank, The process vents thatwould have been covered by theproposed standard included ventsassociated with any hazardous wastemanagement process or wastemanagement unit.

Review of the hazardous waste TSDFindustry has shown that process ventsare most typically associated withprocesses related to distillation or otherseparation operations. Thesetechnologies were also the type beingevaluated under the LDR for spentsolvents. Therefore EPA concentratedits analysis of process vents on thosehazardous waste management units thatare involved in solvent or other organicchemical separation or reclamation bydistillation, fractionation, thin-filmevaporation, solvent extraction, or air orsteam stripping operations. This shouldinclude the largest segment of processvents at TSDF and address thosesources with the greatest emissionpotential. Vents on other types of wastemanagement units (e.g. vents on storagetanks) are being addressed in the PhaseII rulemaking.

Two basic changes have been madesince proposal that clarify theapplicability of the final vent standard.First, to avoid confusion with tanks notassociated with the processing of wastestreams, the term "product accumulatorvessel" has been deleted from the finalstandard and affected equipment ismore specifically defined. Theapplicability of the final standard forprocess vents also has been clarifiedsince proposal to exclude air emissionsfrom vents on other closed (covered)and vented tanks not associated Withthe specified distillation/separationprocesses to avoid regulatoryduplication of the Phase II standards asdiscussed above.

Thus, the final vent standards applyto: (1) Vents on distillation fractionation,thin-film evaporation, solventextraction, and air or steam stripping

25461




processes and vents on condensersserving these processes; and (2) vents ontanks (e.g, distillate receivers, bottomsreceivers, surge control tanks, separatortanks, and hot wells associated withdistillation, fractionation, thin-filmevaporation, solvent extraction, and airor steam stripping processes) ifemissions from these processes arevented through the tank. For example,uncondensed overhead emitted from a'distillate receiver (which fits thedefinition of a tank) serving a hazardouswaste distillation process unit is subjectto these Phase I air controls. On theother hand. emissions from vents ontanks or containers that do not derivefrom a process unit specified above arenot covered by these rules. For example,if the condensed (recovered) solvent ispumped to an intermediate holding tankfollowing the distillate receivermentioned in the above example, andthe intermediate storage tank has apressure-relief vent (e.g., a conservationvent) serving the tank, this vent will notbe subject to the process vent standards.Emissions from vents that are notcovered under today's rules will beaddressed by Phase I1 of the airstandards under section 3004(n).

Second, the terms "VHAP" and "inVHAP service" have been deleted fromthe final rule in response to publiccomments. Commenters found the termsinappropriate for transfer fromequipment leak standards developedunder section 111 or 112 of the CAA toRCRA standards for organic emissionsfrom hazardous waste. The EPA agreeswith these commenters; these terms canbe, confusing and they are unnecessaryfor these rules. Therefore, the cross-reference to part 61 has been eliminatedand the wording of the final regulationhas been revised to reflect applicabilitybased on clearly specified hazardouswaste management processes or unitoperations that manage wastes with a10 ppmw or greater total organiccontent.Requirements of Final Standard forProcess Vents

In response to public comments,several changes have been made to theproposed standard for process vents.While the proposed 95-percent emissionreduction standard would have appliedto individual process vents emittingorganics with concentrations of 10percent or greater by weight, the finalprocess vent 95-percent emissionreduction standard applies to totalorganic emissions from the combinationof all affected vents (i.e., vents subjectto the provisions of subpart AA) at thefacility. As discussed in section VI ofthis preamble and in the BID for the

final rules, the term "facility" refers tothe entire site that is under control ofthe owner or operator engaged inhazardous waste management. Thus,organic emissions from affected processvents anywhere on the hazardous wastemanagement facility are subject to thestandards.

The 10-percent concentration criterionfor process vents has not been includedin the final rules because thepromulgated standards contain afacility-based emission rate limit of 1.4kg/h (3 lb/h) and 2.8 Mg/yr (3.1 ton/yr)that is more effective in controllingemissions from affected sources andexcluding facilities with little emissionreduction potential Based on emissionsand health risk analyses conducted inresponse to comments, this emissionrate limit represents an emission levelfrom process vents that is protective ofhuman health and the environment andbelow which additional meaningfulreductions in nationwide health risk andenvironmental impacts attributable toprocess vents cannot be achieved.Control of facilities with process ventemissions less than the emission ratelimit would not result in furtherreductions of either cancer risk orincidence on a nationwide basis.Facilities with organic emissions fromprocess vents that do not exceed theseemission rates will not have to installcontrols or monitor emissions fromaffected process vents. Selection of theemission rate limit is addressed insection VLB of this preamble and inchapters 4.0 and 7.0 of the BID.

Because the emission rate limits (3 lb/h and 3.1 ton/yr) provide health-basedlimits, EPA considered droppingcompletely the organic content criterion(i.e., at least 10 percent total organics).However, EPA decided not tocompletely eliminate the organic contentcriterion because it is not clear that thesame controls can be applied to verylow concentration streams as can beapplied to the higher concentrationstreams that generally are associatedwith emission rates greater than thelimits. For low-concentration streams,EPA questions whether controls areneeded on a national or generic basisbut is unable to resolve this question atthis time. Thus, EPA decided to defercontrolling very low concentrationstreams until it is better able tocharacterize and assess these streamsand the appropriate controls.

Once EPA decided to considerfacilities that manage very lowconcentration organic wastes'as aseparate category, there remained theproblem of determining the appropriatecriterion. The EPA examined existing

data on air strippers, the treatmentdevice most commonly used with low-concentration streams; it appeared thatthe quantity of emissions and the riskassociated with air strippers treatingstreams with concentrations below 10ppmw may be relatively small thusminimizing the potential harm ofdeferring control until a later time.Examples of facilities managing low-concentration wastes are sites whereground water is undergoing remedialaction under CERCLA or correctiveaction pursuant to RCRA. Given thelimited set of precise data available, andthe comments that the 10-percentcriterion was too high, EPA determinedthat an appropriate criterion would be10 parts per million (ppm) total organicsin the waste by weight

The 10-ppmw criterion is not anexemption from regulation; it is intendedonly as a way for EPA to divide the airregulations into phases. The EPA isdeferring action on very lowconcentration streams (i.e., ones withless than 10 ppmw total organic content)from the final rule today but willevaluate and announce a decision lateron whether to regulate these wastestreams.

To comply with the final standards forprocess vents, the TSDF owner oroperator is required to identify allprocess vents associated withdistillation, fractionation thin-filmevaporation solvent extraction, andstripping processes that are treatinghazardous waste with a 10-ppmw orgreater total organics concentration on atime-weighted annual average basis (i.e.,vents affected by the rules). Organicemission rates for each affected ventand for the entire facility from allaffected vents must be determined. Thefacility process vent emission rate mustthen be compared to the short- and long-term process vent emission rate limits (3lb/h or 3.1 ton/yr) to determine whetheradditional emission controls arerequired. If the process vent emissionrate limit is exceeded, the owner oroperator must take appropriate action toreduce total facility emissions fromaffected process vents to below thecutoff level or install additionalemission controls to reduce total facilityprocess vent organic emissions by 95weight percent. If an incinerator,process heater, or boiler is used as acontrol device, the volume concentrationstandard of 20 ppmv can be met insteadof the 95-weight-percent reduction(§§ 264.1033(c), 264.1060, 265.1033(c),and 265.1060).

Because the final rules could apply todilute process vent streams and the ruleis formatted in terms of a weight-percent




reduction standard, it is necessary toinclude the volume concentrationstandard in the final control devicestandards to account for thetechnological limitations of enclosedcombustion devices (48 FR 48933,October 21, 1983), one of the controltechnologies examined as part of therulemaking, treating dilute streams.Below a critical concentration level, themaximum achievable efficiency forenclosed combustion devices decreasesas inlet concentration decreases; thus,for streams with low organic vaporconcentrations, the 95-percent massreduction may not be technologicallyachievable in all cases. Available datashow that 20 ppmv is the lowest outletconcentration of total organiccompounds achievable with control.device inlet streams belowapproximately 2,000 ppmv totalorganics. Therefore, a concentrationlimit of 20 ppmv has been added as analternative standard for incinerators,process heaters, and boilers to allow forthe drop in achievable destructionefficiency with decreasing inlet organicsconcentration. For consistency, the 20-ppmv concentration is expressed as thesum of the actual individual compounds,not carbon equivalents, on a dry basiscorrected to 3 percent oxygen. Forfacilities that do not meet the emissionrate limit, the final process ventstandards require that control devicesachieve a 95-percent reduction in totalorganic emissions for the facility or, inthe case of enclosed combustiondevices, a reduction of each processvent stream to a concentration of nomore than each process vent stream to aconcentration of no more than 20 ppmvtotal organic compounds.

The final standards for process ventsdo not require the use of any specificequipment or add-on control device; thestandards can be met using severaltypes of controls. Depending on thecharacteristics of the process ventstream, either a condenser or a carbonadsorber will likely be the controltechnology of choice. However, othercontrol devices such as flares,incinerators, process heaters, andboilers, as well as any other device ofthe owner or operator's choice, also canbe used where applicable to achievecompliance.

Operating requirements for closed-vent systems and control devices areincluded in § § 264.1033 and 265.1033. Aclosed-vent system means a system notopen to the atmosphere and composedof piping, connections, and, if necessary,flow-inducing devices that transport gasor vapor from a piece or pieces ofequipment to a control device. If vapor

recovery systems such as condensersand adsorbers are used as controldevices, they must be designed andoperated to recover the organic vaporsvented to them with an efficiency of 95percent or more unless the total organicemission limits for affected processvents (§ § 264.1032 and 265.1032) can beattained at efficiencies less than 95percent. Vapor recovery systems whoseprimary function is the recovery oforganics for commercial or industrialuse or reuse (e.g., a primary condenseron a waste solvent distillation unit) arenot considered a control device andshould not be included in the 95-percentemission reduction determination.

If enclosed combustion devices suchas incinerators, boilers, or processheaters are used, they must be designedand operated to achieve a total organiccompound emission reduction efficiencyof 95 percent or more or must provide aminimum residence time of 0.5 s at aminimum temperature of 760 *C. Thelatter are general design criteriaestablished by EPA, and used innumerous rulemakings, that can be usedby facilities in lieu of conducting a site-specific design for enclosed combustiondevices. The operating requirements forclosed-vent systems and control devicesinclude a provision allowing enclosedcombustion devices to reduce organicemissions to a total organic compoundconcentration of 20 ppmv, by compound,rather than achieve the 95-weightpercent reduction.

If flares are used, they must bedesigned and operated with no visibleemissions as determined by theprocedures of Reference Method 22,except for periods not to exceed a totalof 5 min during any 2 consecutive hours.The final standard specifies that flaresmust be operated with a flame presentat all times and must be operated at alltimes when emissions may be vented tothem. In addition, flares must provide anet heating value of the gas beingcombusted of 11.2 megajoules perstandard cubic meter (MJ/scm) or more,be steam-assisted or air-assisted, orprovide a net heating value of 7.45 MJ/scm or more if the flare is nonassisted.Specific design and operatingrequirements for steam-assisted, air-assisted and nonassisted flares also areincluded in the final standard.Calculations and procedures fordetermining the net heating value of thegas being combusted the actual exitvelocity and the maximum allowedvelocity are included in the finalprovisions for closed-vent systems andcontrol devices (see §§ 264.1033(d) and265.1033(d)).

Facilities must maintaindocumentation in the operating recordsupporting waste determinations,identifying affected process vents,affected waste management unitthroughputs and operating hours,emission rates for each affected ventand for the overall facility, and the basisfor determining the emission rates(§ I 264.1035(b)(2) and 265.1035(b)(2)).Regardless of the type of control deviceused, the documentation must certifythat add-on control devices achieve theemission rate limit by design and duringoperation, or that add-on control devicesachieve a 95-percent reduction inorganics or achieve the 20-ppmvorganics concentration limit by designand during operation where theemission rate limit is not attained. Thedesign documentation must present thebasis for determining the designemission reduction and establish thebasic values for operating parametersused to monitor the control device soperation and maintenance. The designcontrol level (i.e., the emission reductionneeded to achieve the emission ratecutoff or 95-percent emission reduction)can be documented by vendor/manufacturer certifications, byengineering calculations, or throughsource tests to show that the controldevice removes the required percentageof organics entering the device. Allrequired information and documentationmust be kept in the facility s operatingrecord. The facility's wastedeterminations and process ventemission rate determinations must at alltimes reflect the facility's current wastemanagement unit designs and wastesmanaged. If the owner/ operator takesany action that would result in thedetermination no longer beingappropriate to the facility's operations(e.g., if a waste of different compositionis managed, the operating hours of theaffected management units areincreased beyond what was originallyconsidered, or a new affected unit isadded that may impact its regulatorystatus), then a new determination isrequired (§§ 264.1035(b)(2)(ii) and265.1035(b)(2)(ii)). In addition, certaininformation regarding the facility'semission determination and controldevice design must be included in thefacility's part B permit application.

The final rules require the continuousmonitoring of specific parameters on allcontrol devices needed to meet thestandards to ensure that the devicesperform according to their design(§§ 264.1033(f) and 265.1033(f)). The finalrules clarify the general parameterslisted in the proposal by describing therequirements in greater detail. Operating

25463[[11




parameters are specified for condensers,carbon adsorbers, flares, incinerators,and other enclosed combustion devices.Although minimum operating conditionsare identified for organic vapordestruction devices (e.g., Incineratorsand flares) to ensure 95-percentdestruction, values or ranges of valuesfor recovery device (i.e., condensers andcarbon adsorbersJ operating parameterscannot be specified on an industry-widebasis. Therefore, a recovery device mustbe designed for the particularapplication and monitored to ensure thatit is being operated within designspecifications. Proper design shall bedetermined through engineeringcalculations vendor certification, and/oremission testing.

The owner/operator is required torecord the control device monitoringinformation, including the basis for theoperating parameters used to monitorcontrol device performance, in thefacility operating record. Periods whenmonitoring indicates control deviceoperating parameters are outsideestablished tolerances on designspecifications must be recorded.Facilities with final permitsincorporating these standards (i.e.,facilities subject to the provisions of 40CFR part 264 subpart AA) must reportexceedances that are not correctedwithin 24 hours to the RegionalAdministrator on a semiannual basis.The records and reports must includethe dates, duration, cause, andcorrective measures taken. (See§ § 264.1036(a) and 264.1065(a)(4).)

The specific monitoring requirementsfor control device operating parametersinclude: (1) Continuous monitoring ofcoolant fluid temperature and exhaustgas temperatures or the concentrationlevel of organic compounds in the exitgas stream for condensers; (2)continuous monitoring of exhaust gasorganic breakthrough for carbonadsorbers; (3) continuous monitoring ofcombustion zone temperature forincinerators, boilers and processheaters: and (4) the presence of a pilotflame using a thermocouple or any otherequivalent device to detect the presenceof a flame for flares.

The final standards would require thatemission control equipment is properlydesigned. installed, operated, andmaintained. Also, as previouslydescribed, the standards would requirecontinuous monitoring of specificcontrol device operating parameters. Acontrol device monitor reading outsidethe operating range allowed by thestandards (referred to in this preambleas a "control device exceedance")indicates that the control device is not

operating normally or is malfunctioning(i.e., not operating at the design settingnecessary to achieve at least 95 percentorganic emission control efficiency).Action must be taken by the owner oroperator to return the control device tooperating at the design setting. When acontrol device exceedance cannot becorrected within 24 hours of detection.the final standards would require theowner or operator to record specificinformation concerning the controldevice exceedance. Facilities with finalRCRA permits must report thisinformation to EPA on a semiannualbasis; interim status facilities are notrequired to report control deviceexceedances. The exceedance reportwould need to describe the nature andperiod of each control deviceexceedance and to explain why thecontrol device could not be returned tonormal operation within 24 hours. Areport would need to be submitted toEPA only if control device exceedanceshave occurred during the past 6-monthreporting period. These reports wouldserve to aid EPA in determining theowner's or operator's ability to properlyoperate and maintain the control device.The EPA recognizes that a controldevice malfunction may occur due tocircumstances beyond the control of theowner or operator (e.g., defectiveequipment supplied by themanufacturer). Therefore, a singlecontrol device exceedance may notnecessarily be indicative of impropercontrol device operation ormaintenance.

C. Equipment Leak Standards

Affected Equipment

The final standards apply to eachvalve, pump. compressor, pressure reliefdevice, open-ended valve or line, flangeor other connector, and associated airemission control device or system thatcontains or contacts hazardous wastestreams with 10 percent or more totalorganics by weight.

In response to public comments, EPAhas changed the applicability of the finalLDAR standards for pumps and valvesto better relate to the volatility of thewastes managed and thus to airemission potential. The requirements forpumps and valves have been revised toinclude the heavy liquid provisionscontained In EPA's new sourceperformance standard (NSPS) forequipment leaks of VOC in the syntheticorganic chemicals manufacturingindustry (SOCMI) (40 CFR part 60, partVV). The heavy liquid provisions(§§ 264.1058 and 265.1058) exemptpumps and valves processing lowervapor pressure substances from the

routine leak detection monitoringrequirements of the standards. By theirnature, heavy liquids exhibit muchlower volatilities than do light liquids,and because equipment leak rates andemissions have been shown to vary withstream volatility, emissions from heavyliquids are less than those for lighter,more volatile streams. For example, EPAanalyses indicate that emissions fromvalves in heavy liquid service are morethan 30 times lower than the emissionsfrom valves in light liquid service.

Pumps and valves are in light liquidservice If the vapor pressure of one ormore or the components being handledby the piece of equipment is greater than0.3 kilopascal [kPa) at 20 *C. if the totalconcentration of the pure componentshaving a vapor pressure greater than 0.3kPa at 20 °C is equal to or greater than20 percent by weight, and if the fluid isliquid at operating conditions. Pumpsand valves not In light liquid service aredefined to be in heavy liquid service.

The regulations governing equipmentleaks also have been incorporated andreprinted in the final standards toeliminate cross-referencing to part 61regulations and to consolidate therequirements under RCRA.

Equipment Leak Control Requirements

The control requirements for valvesare based on WAR requirements.Valves in light liquid or gas/vaporservice (§ § 264.1057 and 265.1057) mustbe monitored using Reference Method21; an instrument reading at or above10,000 ppm indicates the presence of aleak. If a leak is detected, the valve mustbe repaired as soon as practicable butno later than 15 days after the leak isdetected. A first attempt to repair thevalve must be made no later than 5 daysafter the leak is detected. First attemptsat repair include, but are not limited to,tightening or replacing bonnet boltstightening packing gland nuts, orinjecting lubricant into the lubricatedpacking.

Monthly monitoring is required;however, any valve for which a leak isnot detected for 2 successive monthsmay be monitored the first month ofeach succeeding quarter until a leak isdetected (§§ 264.1057(c) and265.1057(c)). If a leak is detected thevalve must be monitored monthly until aleak is not detected for 2 successivemonths.

In addition, monthly monitoring is notrequired if: (1) A leakless valve, such asa sealed-bellows valve, is used toachieve a no-detectable-emissions limit(500 ppm above background, asmeasured by Method 21, with an annualperformance test;. §§ 264.1057() and



Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 120 / Thursday. June 21, 1990 / Rules and Regulations

265.1057(f)J (2) the owner or operatormeets a performance level of 2 percentof all valves leaking (§§ 264.1061 and265.1061); [3) the owner or operatorelects to comply with a skip-period leakdetection and repair program asdescribed for valves (§ § 264.1062 and265.1062); or (4) the valve is designatedby the owner or operator as unsafe-to-monitor or difficult-to-monitor(§§ 264.1057 (g) and (h) and 265.1057 (g)and (h)). A valve may be designated asunsafe-to-monitor if monitoringpersonnel would be exposed to animmediate danger as a consequence ofmonitoring and if the owner or operatoradheres to a written plan that requiresmonitoring of the valve as frequently aspracticable during safe-to-monitor times.A valve may be designated as difficult-to-monitor if the valve cannot bemonitored without elevating monitoringpersonnel more than 2 m above asupport surface, the valve is in anexisting hazardous waste managementunit and the owner or operator follows awritten plan that requires monitoring atleast once a year.

The EPA is continuing to study thestatus of new technology available forthe control of air emissions from valves.The EPA has issued a separate notice inthe Federal Register that discussesavailable information on leakless valvetechnology (54 FR 30228. July 19, 1989).Public comments were requested in thatnotice on several aspects of thetechnology to assist EPA in determiningapplications for which leakless valvetechnology would be appropriate athazardous waste TSDF.

The final standards also requiremonitoring for pumps at TSDFcontaining or contacting wastes withgreater than 10 percent organics(§§ 264.1052 and 265.1052). Each pump inlight liquid service must be monitoredmonthly with a portable vapor analyzerfollowing the EPA Reference Method 21protocol. In addition, each pump in lightliquid service must be checked weeklyby visual inspection for indications ofliquids dripping from the pump seal. Apump is determined to be leaking if aninstrument reading of 10,000 ppm orgreater is measured or there areindications of liquids dripping from thepump seal. When a leak is detected, itmust be repaired as soon as practicable,but not later than 15 days after it isdetected unless the delay-of-repairprovisions specified in the rule apply.The first attempt at repair must be madewithin 5 calendar days of the leak beingdetected.

Pumps in light liquid service areexempt from the monitoringreq'irements under §§ 264.1052 (d) and

(e) and 265.1052 (d) and (e) if: (1) Thepump is equipped with a dualmechanical seal system that includes abarrier fluid between the two seals, (2) amagnetically coupled or diaphragmpump is used to achieve a no-detectable-emissions limit (indicated by a portableorganic vapor analyzer reading of lessthan 500 ppm above background), or (3)the pump is equipped with a closed-ventsystem capable of transporting anyleakage from the seal or seals to a 95-percent efficient control device. Ifpumps are equipped with a dualmechanical seal system, emissions fromthe barrier fluid reservoir must bevented to a control device designed andoperated to achieve a 95-percent controlefficiency, the barrier fluid must bepurged and added to the hazardouswaste stream, or the pressure of thebarrier fluid must be maintained at alevel above the pressure in the pump orexhauster stuffing box. A pressure orlevel indicator to detect any failure ofthe seal system or the barrier fluidsystem is required, with the indicatorchecked daily or equipped with analarm to signal failure of the system. Ifleakless equipment is used, such asmagnetically coupled or diaphragmpumps, the standards require an annualperformance test by Method 21 to verifythe no-detectable-emissions status ofthe equipment.

Compressors must be equipped with aseal system that includes a barrier fluidsystem that prevents leakage of organicemissions to the atmosphere. The sealsystem must be operated with thebarrier fluid at a pressure that is greaterthan the compressor stuffing boxpressure, be equipped with a barrierfluid system that is connected by aclosed-vent system to a control devicethat meets the design and operatingrequirements established in § § 264.1060and 265.1060, or be equipped with asystem that purges the barrier fluid intoa hazardous waste stream with zerototal organic emissions to theatmosphere. In addition, the barrier fluidsystem must be equipped with a sensorthat detects failure of the seal system,barrier fluid system, or both. Acompressor is determined to be leakingif the sensor indicates failure of the sealsystem, the barrier fluid system, or both.When a leak is detected, it must berepaired as soon as practicable, but notlater than 15 calendar days after it isdetected; a first attempt at repair mustbe made within 5 calendar days.

Except during emergency pressurereleases, each pressure relief device ingas/vapor service must be operatedwith no detectable emissions (500 ppmabove background, as measured by

Reference Method 21) (§§ 264.1054 and265.1054). No later than 5 calendar daysafter any pressure release, the devicemust be returned to a condition of nodetectable emissions and be monitoredto confirm that status. Any pressurerelief device that is equipped with aclosed-vent system capable of capturingand transporting leakage to a controldevice that meets the requirements of§ § 264.1060 and 265.1060 is exempt fromthese requirements.

Each open-ended valve or line mustbe equipped with a cap, blind flange,plug, or second valve [i § 264.1056 and265.1056). The cap, blind flange, plug, orsecond valve must seal the open end atall times except during operationrequiring hazardous waste stream flowthrough the open-ended valve or line.Operational requirements for secondvalves and double block and bleedsystems also are specified in the finalregulation.

Pumps and valves in heavy-liquidservice, pressure relief devices in light-liquid or heavy-liquid service, andflanges and other connectors must bemonitored within 5 days by ReferenceMethod 21 if evidence of a potential leakis found by visual, audible, olfactory, orany other detection method (§ § 264.1058and 265.1058). A leak is detected if aninstrument reading-of 10,000 ppm orgreater is measured. When a leak isdetected, it shall be repaired as soon aspracticable but not later than 15calendar days after detection. The firstattempt at repair must be made within 5calendar days of the leak beingdetected.

The final standards also includeprovisions for delay of repair (§ §264.1059 and 265.1059). Delay of repairof leaking equipment is allowed if therepair is technically infeasible without ahazardous waste management unitshutdown (i.e., a work practice oroperational procedure that stopsoperation of a hazardous wastemanagement unit or part of a hazardouswaste management unit). However,repair-of the leak must be performedbefore the end of the next shutdown ofthat unit. Delay of repair also is allowedfor equipment (i.e., either pumps orvalves) that is isolated from thehazardous waste management unit andis prevented from containing orcontacting a hazardous waste with 10percent or more organic content. Forvalves, delay of repair is allowed if: (1)The owner or operator determines thatemissions of purged material resultingfrom immediate repair are greater thanthe emissions likely to result from delayof repair, and (2) when the valve isrepaired the purged materials are

25465




collected and destroyed or recovered ina control device complying with therequirements of the standards. Delay ofrepair beyond a hazardous wastemanagement unit shutdown is allowedonly if valve assembly replacement is,necessary during the next shutdown ofthe unit, valve assembly supplies havebeen depleted, and valve assemblysupplies had been sufficiently stockedbefore supplies were depleted (i.e., theowner/operator has made a good-faitheffort to maintain adequate spare parts).For pumps, delay of repair is allowed if:(1) Repair requires the use of a dualmechanical seal system that includes abarrier fluid system, and (2) repair iscompleted as soon as practicable, butnot later than 6 months after the leak isdetected.

The final standards also includedesign and operating requirements forclosed-vent systems that may be used tocomply with the equipment leakstandards (§ § 24.1060 and 265.1060).Closed-vent systems must be designedfor and operated with no detectableemissions, as indicated by an instrumentreading of less than 500 ppm abovebackground by Reference Method 21. Aleak on a closed-vent system, indicatedby an instrument reading of 500 ppm orby visual inspection, must be repairedwithin 15 calendar days after detection;a first attempt at repair must be madeno later than 5 calendar days afterdetection. Monitoring must beconducted initially, annually, and atother times as requested by the RegionalAdministrator, to confirm the no-detectable-emissions status of thesystem. Like other control devices,closed-vent systems must be operated atall times when any emissions may bevented to them.

The provisions of 40 CFR 61.244,subpart V, which provide a formalmechanism for applying for use of analternative means of emission limitation,were specifically not included in theproposed TSDF process vent andequipment leak rules and have not beenincluded in these final standards. Thealternative means of emission limitationprovisions are not considered self-implementing; i.e., these provisionscannot be satisfied without the need fordetailed explanation or negotiationbetween the facility owner/operator andEPA, and thus are not appropriate asrequirements for interim status facilitiesunder part 265. Therefore, thealternative means of emission limitationprovisions were not included in the finalsubpart AA and BB rules. An owner oroperator, however, may use analternative means of emission limitationto comply with the process vent or

equipment leak standards of part 264.The owner/operator can use part B ofthe permit application to provideinformation that demonstrates theeffectiveness of any alternative meansof emission limitation and can use thenegotiation process associated withissuance of a final permit to establishconditions for use of an alternativemeans of emission limitation. The owneror operator would be responsible forcollecting and verifying test data todocument that the emission reductionachieved by the alternative is equal toor greater than the emission reductionachieved by the equipment, design, oroperational requirements in thestandard.

Additional general recordkeepingrequirements include information onpump, valve, compressor, and pressurerelief device leak repair attempts;reasons for repair delays; and designcriteria for sampling connection systemsand closed-vent systems and controldevices. There are also recordkeepingand monitoring requirements for piecesof equipment covered by alternativerequirements.

Compliance with the equipment leakstandards will be assessed throughplant inspections and the review ofrecords that document implementationof the requirements as required by thefinal standards.

D. Summary of Changes from Proposal

Several changes have been made tothe standards since proposal as theresult of EPA's evaluation of commentsand of additional information gatheredin response to comments. These changesrespond primarily to commenters'concerns that additional controls areunnecessary for TSDF process vents andequipment with very low emissions andthat the applicability, implementation,and compliance provisions of thestandards should be clarified. The EPAhas addressed these problems in thefinal rules.

The proposed standards would haverequired that organic emissions from allprocess vents that emit organics inconcentrations of 10 percent or greateron all TSDF waste management units bereduced by 95 percent. The final rulesapply to process vents on specifichazardous waste management units thattreat wastes with total organicsconcentrations of 10 ppmw or greaterand include (1) process vents ondistillation, fractionation, thin-filmevaporation, solvent extraction, or air orsteam stripping operations and vents oncondensers serving these operations and(2) process vents on tanks associatedwith distillation, fractionation, thin-filmevaporation, solvent extraction, or air or

steam stripping operations if emissionsfrom these process operations arevented through the tanks.

While the proposed standard wouldhave required 95 percent emissionreduction from each affected vent, thefinal vent standard's weight-percentreduction applies to total emissions fromthe combination of all affected vents ateach facility. The final rules also addfacility-based emission rate limits for allaffected process vents of 1.4 kg/h (3 lb/h) and 2.8 Mg/yr (3.1 ton/yr {§ §264.1032(a)(1) and 265.1032(a)(1)).Facilities with organic emissions fromvents below the emission rate limits willnot have to reduce process vent organicemissions. The owner or operator of thefacility must determine and documentthat emissions from affected vents willnot exceed the emission rate limits. TheEPA estimates that baseline emissionswill be reduced by about 90 percent bycontrolling process vent emissions fromabout 55 percent of affected facilities,i.e., those with emissions above theemission rate limit.

Another major change affects theapplicability of the final standards forpumps and valves to better relate to thevolatility Of the wastes managed andthus to air emission LDAR potential. Theproposed LDAR requirements for pumpsand valves have been revised todistinguish between equipment in heavyliquid service and equipment in gas/light liquid service. The provisionsexempt pumps and valves processingrelatively low vapor pressuresubstances (heavy liquids) from theroutine instrument monitoringrequirements of the standards. Theseprovisions are included to avoidrequiring unnecessary controls onequipment that poses little emissionproblem even when leaking.

Because of commenters' concernswith the administrative problemsassociated with obtaining a majorpermit modification, the final standardsdo not require modifications of RCRApermits issued before the effective dateof these rules (§ § 264.1030(c) and264.1050(c)). In such cases, requirementsfor affected hazardous wastemanagement units and associatedrequirements for process vents andequipment must be added orincorporated into the facility's permit atreview under § 270.50 or at reissueunder § 124.15. However, in theforthcoming Phase II air rules, EPA willbe proposing to modify § § 264.1030(c)and 264.1050(c) as they apply to controlof air emissions under subparts AA andBB. This action, if adopted, would meanthat the air rules promulgated underRCRA section 3004(n) would be




applicable to all facilities as of theeffective date of the Phase II rules. Moredetails regarding implementation arepresented in section IX of this preamble.

The proposed air emission standardsfor process vents and equipment leakswould have added part 269, AirEmission Standards for Owners andOperators of Hazardous WasteTreatment, Storage. and DisposalFacilities. For consistency withstandards for other TSDF sources underRCRA. the final standards have beenincorporated into part 264, for permittedfacilities, and part 265, for interim statusfacilities. In addition, whereas atproposal the equipment leakrequirements of 40 CFR part 61, subpartV, were incorporated by reference, theseprovisions have been written intosubpart BB with editorial revisionsappropriate for a standard promulgatedunder RCRA authority rather than CAAauthority.

E. Relationship of RCRA Exemptions toFinal Standards

Under 40 CFR 261.4(c), hazardouswastes that are generated in process-related equipment such as product orraw material storage tanks or pipelinesare exempt from RCRA regulation. Thisexemption applies until the waste isphysically removed from the unit inwhich it was generated, unless the unitis a surface impoundment or unless thehazardous waste remains in the unitmore than 90 days after the unit ceasesto be operated for manufacturing, or forstorage or transportation of product orraw materials. This exemption is notaffected by this rule. Therefore, unitssuch as product (not hazardous waste)distillation columns generatinghazardous waste still bottomscontaining organics are not subject tothe standard while the wastes are in theproduct distillation column. However,distillation columns that receivehazardous wastes and that are used inhazardous waste treatment (i.e.,hazardous waste management units) aresubject to this standard if the waste'sorganic content exceeds the 10-ppmwapplicability criterion. As discussed inthe preamble to the proposed standard,only those recycling units that are partof a facility already subject to RCRApermit requirements are subject to theair standards. The EPA's authority tocontrol air emissions from solventreclamation operations not part ofclosed-loop systems is discussed furtherin section VI of this preamble and in theBID.

Totally enclosed treatment facilitiesalso are exempt from RCRA subtitle Crequirements under 40 CFR 264.1(g)(5),40 CFR 265.1(c)(9. and 270.1(c)(2). A

"totally enclosed treatment facility" is ahazardous waste treatment facility thatis "directly connected to an industrialproduction process and which isconstructed and operated in a mannerthat prevents the release of anyhazardous waste or any constituentthereof into the environment duringtreatment" (40 CFR 260.10).

Treatment facilities located off thesite of generation are not directlyconnected to an industrial process.Thus, commercial waste treatmentfacilities with equipment affected by thefinal standards, such as solventreclamation facilities, by definitionordinarily would not be totally enclosed.In addition, storage facilities, disposalfacilities, and ancillary equipment notused for treating hazardous waste donot fall within the definition of a totallyenclosed treatment facility.

The EPA believes that many on-sitetreatment facilities also are not totallyenclosed. Distillation columns and othertreatment technologies typically aredesigned to release emissions into theair. Therefore, by definition, these on-site technologies generally are nottotally enclosed. (See 45 FR 33218, May19, 1980 (no constituents released to airduring treatment).)

Two important characteristics definea totally enclosed treatment facility. Thekey characteristic of a totally enclosedtreatment facility is that it does notrelease any hazardous waste orconstituent of hazardous waste into theenvironment during treatment. Thus, if afacility leaks, spills, or discharges wasteor waste constituents, or emits waste orwaste constituents into the air duringtreatment, it is not a totally enclosedtreatment facility within the meaning ofthese regulations. The second importantcharacteristic is that it must be directlyconnected to an industrial productionprocess.

The EPA also excludes elementaryneutralization and wastewatertreatment tanks as defined by 40 CFR260.10 from regulation under thehazardous waste rules. The EPAamended these definitions (see 53 FR34080, September 2, 1988) to clarify thatthe scope of the exemptions applies tothe tank systems, not just the tank. Forexample, if a wastewater treatment orelementary neutralization unit is notsubject to RCRA subtitle C hazardouswaste management standards, neither isancillary equipment connected to theexempted unit. The amendments alsoclarify that, for a wastewater treatmentunit to be covered by the exemption, itmust be part of an onsite wastewatertreatment facility. Thus, emissions fromprocess vents associated with

distillation, fractionation thin-filmevaporation, solvent extraction, or air orsteam stripping operations and ancillaryequipment (piping. pumps, etc.) that areassociated with a tank that is part of thewastewater treatment system subject toregulation either under sections 402 or307(b) of the Clean Water Act are notsubject to these standards. However, airemissipn sources not subject to RCRAmay be subject to CAA guidance and/orstandards.

As noted in the preamble to theproposal, under 40 CFR 262.34,generators that accumulate hazardouswaste in tanks and containers for 90days or less are not subject to RCRApermitting requirements, provided theycomply with the provisions of 40 CFR

.262.34, which include the substantiverequirements for tanks and containersstoring hazardous waste, 40 CFR part265, subparts I and J. This remainsunchanged, and the final standards donot apply to generator tanks thataccumulate hazardous waste for 90 daysor less. However, as part of the Phase IITSDF air emission regulations, EPAintends to propose to modify theexemption conditions to require that 90-day tanks meet the control requirementsof the Phase I and Phase II standards.

Today's final rules regulate theactivity of reclamation at certain typesof RCRA facilities for the first time. TheEPA is amending 40 CFR 261.6 under itsRCRA authority over reclamation toallow covering reclamation of hazardouswastes in waste management unitsaffected by today's final rules. It shouldbe recognized, however, that these finalrules apply only at facilities otherwiseneeding a RCRA permit. In addition, theclosed-loop reclamation exemption in§ 261.4[a)(8) is not changed by theserules. Therefore, not all reclamationunits will necessarily be affected bythese rules.

VI. Summary of Comments andResponses

Numerous comments on the proposedrule were received that relate to nearlyall aspects of the RCRA standardsdevelopment process. The commentsummaries cover topics relating toregulatory issues, applicability of thestandards, control technologies impactanalyses and implementation andcompliance issues. Detailed responsesto these and other comments areincluded in the BID for the promulgatedstandards, which is available in thepublic docket for this rule.

25467




A. Regulatory Issues

Statutory Authority

Comment: Several commenters arguedthat TSDF air emissions should beregulated under the CAA rather thanRCRA because (1) CAA standards undersections 111 and 112 are already in placein the SOCMI and petroleum refiningindustries (2) air emissions at someTSDF have already been permittedunder State implementation plans (SIP),new source review programs, or underState regulations for VOC or air toxicscontrol; (3) VOC and ozone control arethe province of the CAA, not RCRA; and(4) a statutory mechanism already existsunder the CAA for evaluating the riskposed by air emissions.

Response: Congress has required EPAto promulgate air emission monitoringand control requirements at hazardouswaste TSDF, under section 3004(n) ofRCRA, as may be necessary to protecthuman health and the environment.Congress was aware of the existenceand scope of the CAA when it enactedsection 3004(n) of RCRA. There is noindication that Congress intended thatall air regulations be issued within theconfines of the CAA. On the contrary,when adding section 3004(n), Congressspecifically recognized EPA's dualauthority to regulate these air pollutants(S. Rep. 98-284, page 63).

The EPA has conducted an analysis ofcurrent State and Federal controls andconcluded that further regulation undersection 3004(n) is necessary to protecthuman health and the environment. TheEPA examined State regulations, as wellas existing Federal§tandards (and thoseunder development), to determine thepotential for overlapping rules andpermitting requirements. The EPA foundthat 6 States have established air toxicsprograms, 21 States have establishedgeneric standards for VOC independentof Federal regulations, and severalStates have extended control techniquesguidelines (CTG) for VOC to TSDF.However, the standards vary widely inscope and application and in manycases controls have not been requiredwhen emissions are below 40 ton/yr,even in the 37 States with ozonenonattainment areas. The EPA believesthat today's action will help alleviatethe nonuniformity among the States'efforts and will help achieve emissionreductions necessary to protect humanhealth and the environment.

A few commenters also argued thatthe standards would duplicate existingCAA standards that apply to the SOCMIand petroleum refineries. The EPAdisagrees because the standards beingpromulgated today apply to wastemanagement sources whereas the CAA

standards previously promulgated applyto the production process.

The EPA also disagrees withcontentions that it is outside theprovince of RCRA to address VOC andozone. As noted, section 3004(n)standards, like all RCRA subtitle Cstandards, are to protect "human healthand the environment." VOC and ozoneare threats to human health and theenvironment and thus are well withinthe regulatory scope of section 3004(n).

Organic emissions from TSDFcontribute to ambient ozone formation.In fact, TSDF are estimated to emitnearly 12 percent of all VOC fromstationary sources, and thus anyreductions in these emissions willcontribute to reducing ozone formationand associated health andenvironmental problems.

RCRA Authority Over Recycling

Comment: Several commenters arguedthat EPA does not have regulatoryauthority under RCRA to control solventreclamation operations or units orequipment managing materials destinedfor reclamation such as spent solventbecause they are producing or managingproducts and not wastes.

Response: The EPA disagrees with thecommenters regarding EPA's authorityto control solvent reclamationoperations. In response to a courtopinion (American Mining Congress v.EPA, 824 F.2d 1177, DC Circuit Court ofAppeals, July 31, 1987) concerning the,scope of EPA's RCRA authority, EPAproposed amendments to the RCRAdefinition of "solid waste" that wouldclarify when reclamation operations canbe considered to be managing solid andhazardous wastes (53 FR 519, January 8,1988). The EPA has accepted commentson its interpretation and proposedamendments. The EPA has not yet takenfinal action on this proposal. Thus, EPAis addressing the scope of its authorityover reclamation operations underRCRA in the context of that rulemaking.This rule is based on EPA's currentinterpretation of its RCRA authority, asdescribed in the January 1988 proposal.

The following summarizes EPA'sproposed position. In general, theproposed amendments would excludefrom RCRA control only those spentsolvents reclaimed as part of acontinuous, ongoing manufacturingprocess where the material to bereclaimed is piped (or moved by acomparably closed means ofconveyance) to a reclamation device,any storage preceding reclamation is ina tank, and the material is returned afterbeing reclaimed, to the original processwhere it was generated. (Otherconditions on this exclusion relate to

duration and purpose of the reclamationprocess. See proposed § 261.4(a)(8).)

However, processes (or other types ofrecycling) involving an element of"discard" are (or can be) within RCRAsubtitle C authority. When spentmaterials are being reclaimed, thiselement of discard can arise in twoprincipal ways. First, when spentmaterials are reclaimed by someoneother than the generator, normally in anoff-site operation, the generator of thespent material is getting rid of thematerial and so is discarding it. Inaddition, the spent material itself, bydefinition, is used up and unfit forfurther direct use; the spent materialmust first be restored to a usablecondition. This type of operation hasbeen characterized by some of the worstenvironmental damage incidentsinvolving recycling (50 FR 658-661,January 4, 1985). Moreover, storagepreceding such reclamation has beensubject to the part 264 and 265 standardssince November 19, 1980. (See generally53 FR 522 and underlying recordmaterials.) The American MiningCongress opinion itself indicates thatsuch materials are solid wastes (824F.2d at 1187).

When a spent material is reclaimedon site in something other than a closed-loop process, EPA also considers thatthe spent material is discarded (i.e.,spent solvents removed from theprocess, transferred to an on-sitedistillation unit, and regenerated havebeen removed from the productionprocess). The EPA's reasoning is thatthese materials are no longer availablefor use in an ongoing process and havebeen disposed of from that operation,even if the reclamation operation is onsite. Finally, EPA also considers thatwhen hazardous secondary materialsare reclaimed but then burned as fuels,the entire operation-culminating inthermal combustion-constitutesdiscarding via destructive combustion(53 FR 523). Consequently, under thisreading, any intermediate reclamationstep in these types of fuel productionoperations remains within EPA'ssubtitle C authority.

In summary, under EPA's currentinterpretation of the court's opinion, airemissions from distillation,fractionation, thin-film evaporation,solvent extraction, and strippingprocesses involving reclamation of spentsolvent and other spent hazardoussecondary materials can be regulatedunder RCRA subtitle C whenever thereclamation system is not part of thetype of closed-loop reclamation systemdescribed in proposed part 261.4(a)(8).Any changes to this interpretation as




part of the solid waste definition finalrule may affect the scope of this rule.

Selection of Source CategoryComment: Several commenters

disagreed with the selection of TSDFand Waste Solvent Treatment Facility(WSTF) process vents and equipmentleaks for regulation because theybelieved that (1) out-of-date data orextrapolated data were used in theanalysis and, as a result, the estimate ofthe number of affected facilitiesnationwide and the number affected bythe proposed rule is far too low; (2) therole of State regulations was notconsidered; (3) EPA should controllarger, more hazardous air emissionsources at TSDF, such as storage tanks,before controlling process vents andequipment leaks; and (4) air emissionsfrom waste solvent reclamationoperations do not pose a health riskwarranting control.

Response: The EPA generallydisagrees with the commenters that theselection of TSDF process vents andequipment leaks was inappropriate.However, EPA agrees that the standardswill affect more than the 100 WSTFestimated at proposal. To respond tothese and other comments, EPAconducted additional technicalanalyses. The EPA developed anindustry profile using results of the 1986National Screening Survey of HazardousWaste Treatment, Storage, Disposal,and Recycling Facilities (hereaftercalled the "Screener Survey"). TheScreener Survey data represent all ofthe TSDF active in 1985 with interimstatus or final RCRA permits, whichtotalled about 3,000 facilities. TheScreener Survey data are for operationsin 1985, the latest year for which suchcomprehensive data are available. Areview of the'Screener Survey datashows a total of about 450 facilities thatneed authorization to operate underRCRA section 3005 and report solventrecovery by operations such as batchdistillation, fractionation, thin-filmevaporation, or steam stripping at thefacility; i.e., operations that would haveprocess vents subject to the standards.The EPA used these facility countstogether with the reported 1985 wastesolvent throughputs as the basis for thefinal process vent standards impactsanalyses. In addition, EPA estimatesthat about 1,000 on site and off sitepermitted TSDF that do not practice'solvent recovery do manage hazardouswaste streams containing 10 percent ormore total organics and would besubject to the equipment leakrequirements. In total, about 1,400facilities are potentially subject to theprovisions of subpart BB.

State and Federal regulations alsowere reviewed to help EPA betterestimate baseline emission controllevels. Although a few States havecontrols in place, it appears that thereare no general control requirements forTSDF process vents. Moreover, becauseTSDF with solvent recycling generallyare small operations, any new wastemanagement units with process ventswould likely have potential VOCemissions of less than 40 ton/yr; thus,prevention of significant deterioration(PSD) permit requirements would notapply. In addition, EPA sent section 3007information requests to several largeand small TSDF; respondents to the EPAsection 3007 questionnaires did notindicate control requirements forprocess vents. Several of the facilitiesthat were asked to provide informationreported requirements for obtaining aircontaminant source operating permits,but they reported no permitrequirements for controlling processvent emissions. Therefore, the revisedemission estimates (that are based onsite-specific emission data) shouldreasonably reflect the current level ofcontrol of process vent emissions.

With respect to those commenterswho argued that other air emissionsources should be controlled instead ofprocess vents and equipment leaks, itshould be pointed out that section3004(n) of RCRA requires EPA topromulgate regulations for themonitoring and control of air emissionsfrom hazardous waste TSDF, includingbut not limited to open tanks, surfaceimpoundments, and landfills, as may benecessary to protect human health andthe environment. Organic emissions aregenerated from process vents ondistillation and separation units such asair strippers, steam strippers, thin-filmevaporators fractionation columns,batch distillation units, pot stills, andcondensers and distillate receiving.vessels that vent emissions from theseunits. Distillation and separationprocesses may be found in solventreclamation operations, wastewatertreatment systems, and in otherpretreatment processes. Organicemissions also are released from.equipment leaks associated with theseprocesses as well as from nearly allother hazardous waste managementunits.

As discussed in section II.D of thispreamble, the EPA chose to develop theprocess vent and equipment leak portionof'its TSDF rulemaking as the first phaseof the TSDF air emission rules partly toprevent uncontrolled air emissions fromLDR treatment technologies since thesetechnologies were likely to have

increased use. In addition, EPA alreadyhad control technology information tosupport these regulations, and thusearlier development of these rules waspossible. This is principally becauseeffective controls now in place under theCAA to control emissions from the sametypes of emission points in chemicalproduction facilities and petroleumrefineries can be applied to reduce thehealth risk posed by air emissions fromuncontrolled distillation, fractionation,thin-film evaporation, solventextraction, and stripping processes andequipment leaks at TSDF. The EPA haslimited the applicability of today's finalstandards to those types of processvents for which control techniques arewell developed, i.e., those associatedwith processes designed to drive theorganics from the waste, such asdistillation, fractionation, thin-filmevaporation, solvent extraction, andstripping operations.• Organic emissions also are generated

from numerous other sources at TSDF.Preliminary estimates indicate thatnationwide organic emissions (aftercontrol of process vents associated withdistillation/separation units andequipment leaks) are about 1.8 millionMg/yr. The EPA is in the process ofdeveloping standards for these sourcesunder section 3004(n) of RCRA, and thestandards are scheduled for proposal in1990. Source categories being examinedinclude tanks, surface impoundments,containers, and miscellaneous units.These other TSDF source categoriesrequire different data and engineeringevaluations; thus, standards for theseother sources are on a separaterulemaking schedule. The emissions andrisk analyses needed to supportextension of the process vent standardsto other closed (covered), vented tanksare also being developed in conjunctionwith this future rulemaking. Theseinclude vent emissions that areincidental to the process, such as,emissions caused by loading or by.,agitation/ aeration of the waste in atreatment tank.• The EPA has determined that organicemissions from TSDF/WSTF process'vents and equipment leaks pose asignificant risk to human health and theenvironment and that section 3004(n)provides authority to control TSDF airemissions from these sources. Therefore,EPA has decided to take measures toreduce the atmospheric release oforganic air pollutants from these sourcesas quickly as possible. The fact thatdistillation, fractionation, thin-filmevaporation, solvent extraction, andstripping processes and equipment leaksare regulated before other sources is not

25469



25470 Federal Register I Vol. 55, No. 120' / Thursday, June 21. 1990 / Rules and Regulations

germane. There is no reason to delaythese rules while others are underdevelopment.

Other commenters criticized theselection of the source category forregulation because their process ventemissions either are already controlledor are low enough so as not to pose athreat to human health and theenvironment. However. EPA's analysisof process vent emissions and impactsIndicates that for a large segment of the-industry, TSDF process vent emissionscan pose significant environmental andhealth risks. These facilities are thetarget of the subpart AA process ventstandards. As discussed in section LBof this preamble, the final standardsinclude facility process vent emissionrate limits designed to avoid control offacilities where meaningful reductions innationwide risk to human health and theenvironment cannot be achieved.

Several commenters also criticized thesource category for regulation becauseemissions from generators who conducton-site reclamation and off-sitereclaimers with no prior storage (i.e.,those recycling activities conducted atfacilities not requiring a RCRA permit)would not be controlled.

The standards being promulgatedtoday (under section 3004[nJ) apply onlyto waste management facilities thatneed authorization to operate undersection 3005 of RCRA. Air emissionsfrom subtitle C waste managementfacilities that are excluded from RCRApermit requirements will be subject toregulation under either the CAA orRCRA authority as appropriate. Wastemanagement facilities that fall under therequirements of subtitle D (i.e.,nonhazardous waste operations)' willalso be subject to regulation under theCAA. The EPA limited the scope of thestandards at proposal and in this finalrule to facilities required to have apermit under RCRA to minimizedisruption to the current permittingsystem (i.e.,. not expand the permituniverse) and not impose a permitburden on facilities not otherwisesubject to RCRA permits. Although EPAis controlling only some sources in thisrule, other sources of significant levelsof air emissions will also be controlled;,i.e., it is a matter of timing rather than adecision not to control these othersources. This phased regulatoryapproach is discussed in section IlM.C ofthis preamble.

RCRA Decision CriteriaComment: Several commenters

alleged that the standards do not meetthe mandate of RCRA section 3004(n)because, (11 the standards are notprotective in all cases; (2) the standards

are inconsistent with RCRA section3004(m) that'requires treatmentstandards based on best demonstratedavailable technology (BDATk and (3)neither the RCRA statute nor itslegislative history allows considerationof costs-

Response: The EPA believes that thestandards promulgated todayappreciably reduce, health risks that arepresented by air emissions at TSDF andprovide protection to human health andthe environment as required by section3004(n) of RCRA, for the vast majority ofthe air emissions affected by thesestandards. The EPA's analysis ofresidual cancer risk afterimplementation of the standards forprocess vents indicates that maximumindividuaLrisk. even at the upper-boundemission rate, is well within the residualrisk for other standards promulgatedunder RCRA, which historically hasbeen in the range of 1X,10 - 4 to, I XIO-

:.

On the other hand, the analysisindicates that residual cancer risk afterimplementing the equipment leakstandards is higher than the residualrisk for other standards promulgatedunder RCRA-. However, EPA believesthat the equipment leak standardsachieve significant reductions inemissions and risk and, that aftercontrol, the vast majority of facilities arewell within the risk range of other RCRAstandards.

As was already described. EPA willbe promulgating r'egulations to controlTSDF air emissions in phases. Thus, inPhase Ill, EPA will be evaluating theneed for additional control (e.g. controlof individual toxic constituents afterimplementation of these standards) forcases where the risk from air emissionsafter implementation of'the Phase I andII standards is higher than desirable.(This regulatory approach is discussedin section IILC of this preamble.) Duringthe interim, permit writers should useEPA's omnibus permitting authority torequire more stringent controls atfacilities where a high residual riskremains after implementation of thestandards for volatile organics. Thepermitting authority cited by section3005 of RCRA and codified in§ 270.32(b)f2) states that permits.. * * shall contain such terms andconditions as the Administrator or StateDirector determines necessary to protecthuman health and the environment."This section allows permit writers torequire emission controls that are morestringent than those specified by astandard.

As has been described above, theapproach that EPA is using to controlTSDF air.emissions is to proceed withpromulgation of regulations to control

organic emissions as a class (phases Iand 117 and to follow this withregulations that would require morestringent controls for cases where therisk after Implementing the organicstandards remains high. The EPAbelieves that this approach willultimately be protective of human healthand the environment for all TSDF airemissions on a nationwide basis.

The question of whether thesestandards implement the requirementsof RCRA section 3004(m) is irrelevant.Regulations implementing section3004(m), which is a pretreatment-basedprogram that defines when hazardouswastes can be land-disposed. hav e been(and will continue to be) separetelypromulgated by EPA. For example, see40 FR 268 (November 7,1980) and 52. FR25787 (July 8, 1987). In contrast today'sregulations under section 3004(n) ofRCRA do not specify technology-basedtreatment levels for hazardous wastesbut regulate air emissions fromtreatment units as necessary to protecthuman health and the environment.Therefore, in developing today's ruleEPA has focused or, achievingacceptable levels of health andenvironmental protection rather than onspecifying pretreatment levels forhazardous wastes. The two regulatoryefforts (i.e., 3004(m) and 3004(n) rules)are integrated and coordinated to theextent possible to reduce duplicate andconflicting regulations. Furthermore,today's rules are designed to ensure thattreatment required under 3004(m) isprotective of human health and theenvironment.

The role of costs as a decisioncriterion under RCRA in subtitle C is notexplicitly addressed in the statute. TheEPA's position is that it can considercost information as a basis for choosingamong alternatives either III when they.all achieve protection of human healthand the environment or (2Y foralternatives that are estimated toprovide substantial reductions In humanhealth and environmental risks but donot achieve the historically acceptablelevels of protection under RCRA, whenthey are equally protective. However,EPA does not believe that the costburden on industry is a basis forreducing the stringency of standardsEPA considers necessary to protecthuman health and the environment.

Total Organics Approach

Comment: Commenters argued thatapplicability should be limited to knownor suspected carcinogens, In addition,several commenters argued thatapplicability of the standards should bebased on volatility and not on total

25470 -Federa Reister / Vol 55, No. 120'/ Thursday, June 21. 1990 / Rules and Regulations




organic content because the relativeamount of organic content by weightdoes not determine potential airemissions'and subsequent health effects.

Response: First, it should be pointedout that ozone presents a threat tohuman health and the environment thatwarrants control under RCRA. The EPAagrees that total organic content maynot be a completely accurate gauge ofpotential environmental (e.g., ozone) orhealth (e.g., cancer) impacts for a sourcesuch as process vents, but it is a readilymeasurable indicator. In addition, thefinal rule's substantive controlrequirements do apply only to vents andequipment containing volatilecomponents.

The final vent standard applies tocertain process vents emitting organicsif the vent is associated with one of theprocesses specified in the rule. Aprocess vent is determined to beaffected by the standard if the vent ispart of a hazardous waste distillation,fractionation, thin-film evaporation,solvent extraction, or air or steamstripping unit that manages wastes with10 ppmw or more total organics; thisincludes vents on tanks (e.g., distillatereceivers or hot wells) if emissions fromthe process operations are ventedthrough the tank. Total organic contentof the vent stream (i.e., the emissions tothe atmosphere) is not a considerationin determining process ventapplicability. As public commenterspointed out, the 10-percent totalorganics concentration cutoff for thevent stream does not limit totalemissions or relate to emissions thatescape capture by existing controldevices and therefore was not includedin the final rules.

Furthermore, the process ventscovered by this rule are typicallyassociated with distillation/separationprocesses used to recycle spent solventsand other organic chemicals. Bydefinition, distillation is a process thatconsists of driving gas or vapor fromliquids or solids by heating and thencondensing the vapor(s) to liquidproducts. Wastes treated by distillationare expected to contain organics thatare driven off in the process. Thus, bytheir nature, process vent emissionscontain volatile organics.

Under the final standards, the term""organic emissions" is used in lieu of"volatile organic emissions" to avoidconfusion with "volatile organiccompounds." As at proposal, the finalrule applies to total organics. Because ofthe hundreds of hazardous constituentsthat could be contained in andcontacted by the equipment covered bytoday's rules, EPA recognizes thepotential for the residual risk at some

facilities to remain higher than theresidual risk for other standardspromulgated under RCRA. Regulationsbased only on specific constituents willtherefore be developed, as necessary, inPhase III of EPA's regulatory approach.The constituents to be evaluated willinclude those reported as being presentin hazardous wastes managed byexisting TSDF for which health effectshave been established through thedevelopment of unit risk factors forcarcinogens and reference doses fornoncarcinogens.

As is discussed in section VI.B of thispreamble, emission potential fromequipment leaks also was considered byincorporating the light-liquid definitionin the section 111 CAA standards. Lightliquids exhibit much higher volatilitiesthan do heavy liquids, which arerelatively nonvolatile. Equipment leakrates and emissions have been shown tovary with stream volatility; emissionsfrom heavy liquids are far less thanthose for lighter, more volatile streams.For example, EPA analyses indicate thatemissions from valves in heavy-liquidservice are more than 30 times lowerthan the emissions from valves in light-liquid service (see the BID, § 4.6). TheEPA examined the emissions and riskassociated with light- and heavy-liquidwaste streams and found that light-liquid streams are the overwhelmingcontributors to both emissions and risk.Thus, the final standards take intoaccount the volatility of emissions andthe subsequent impact on health and theenvironment.Application of CAA Equipment LeakStandards

Comment: Several commenters didnot agree that the standards should bebased on the transfer of technology fromthe section 112 standards for benzene(40 CFR, subpart V) because TSDFwaste streams and processes differ fromthe chemical plants and petroleumrefineries upon which the CAAstandards are based.

Response: Data used in establishingthe benzene fugitive standards underCAA section 112 are based on extensiveemission and process data collected at avariety of petroleum refinery andSOCMI operating units. Data wereobtained for equipment and chemicalcomponent mixtures that include manyof the same organic compounds that aretreated, stored, and disposed of inhazardous waste management units.Because hazardous waste managementunits such as distillation units have thesame sources of fugitive organicemissions (such as pumps and valves)and handle the same chemicals as dochemical manufacturing plants and

petroleum refineries, it is reasonable toexpect similar performance andefficiency of the technology forcontrolling organic emissions athazardous waste management units. TheEPA has no reason to believe that theequipment standards would not beapplicable to TSDF. Moreover, althoughEPA has not conducted actualequipment leak testing at TSDF,observations of equipment during plantvisits have confirmed that theassumptions and analyses used in otherequipment leak standards apply toTSDF as well.

Changes have been made in the finalstandards and analyses to incorporateprovisions included in the CAAstandards that reflect the effect ofvolatility on emissions. As is discussedin section V of this preamble, the LDARrequirements for pumps and valves havebeen revised to include the light-liquidprovisions in EPA's NSPS for VOCequipment leaks in the SOCMI.Correspondingly, the emission andhealth risk analyses have been revisedto reflect this change to the standards.Additional information on theappropriateness of the CAA data on theSOCMI and petroleum refineries ispresented in the next section.

B. Standards and Applicability

Standards for Accumulator Vessels

Comment: Commenters contendedthat the regulatory approach of applyinga single standard to the wide varieties ofaccumulator vessels irrespective of thechemical constituents that are presentand the size of the vessel is notappropriate because the proposedstandards result in the control ofalready low emission rates atdisproportionately high costs. Standardsfor tanks (whether accumulation orstorage tanks) should be conditioned bythe size of the vessel, the vapor pressureof the material being stored, and thetype of units that pose a risk to humanhealth and the environment. The EPA'sapproach should be similar to orconsistent with the CAA NSPS forpetrolem liquid storage vessels (40 CFRpart 60, subpart Ka). These standardsexempt vessels that store liquids lessthan 1.5 psia or that store less than40,000 gal.

Response: Commenters recommendingthat the air emission standards beconditioned by the size of the tank andthe vapor pressure of the material beingstored have misinterpreted theapplicability of the proposed standards.To clarify the applicability of thestandards, the term "productaccumulator vessel" has been dropped

25471



25472 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 120 1 Thursday, June Z1, 1990'1 Rules and Regulations

from the promulgated rule, including theequipment definition, and the processvent definition has been revised to bespecific to the applicable emissionsources. "Process vent" is defined tomean "any open-ended pipe or stackthat is vented to. the atmosphere eitherdirectly, through a vacuum-producingsystem, or through a tank (e.g., distillatereceiver, condenser, bottoms receiver,surge control tank, separator tank, orhot well) associated with distillationfractionation, thin-film evaporation,solvent extraction,, or air or steamstripping operations." Similarly, thedefinition of "vented" has been revisedto specifically exclude the passage ofliquids, gases, or fumes "caused by tankloading and unloading (workinglosses)." Because tank working andbreathing losses are not consideredprocess emissions, the commentsconcerning vapor pressure and tank sizeexemptions are not relevant. (It shouldbe noted, however, that EPA intends toregulate hazardous waste storage tanks,along with various other TSDF airemission sources in the Phase I. section3004(nr, TSDF air standards now beingdeveloped and evaluated by the,Agency.J

In conducting the impact analysis ofthe WSTF/TSDF process ventstandards, EPA considered and tookinto account the relative size of WSTFprocess units and the wide range ofchemicals processed in the WSTFindustry. For example, three sizes ofWSTF model units were defined foranalysis of emissions, health risks, andeconomic impacts in the finalrulemaking (see section VLD). Inaddition, thefinal standards for processvents promulgated by EPA containemission rate limits and require controlsonly at facilities whose, total processvent emissions are greater than 1.4 kgjh(3 lb/hI and 2.8 Mg/yr (31 ton/yrl. Moredetailed descriptions of the model unitsand the process vent emission ratelimits are provided in chapters 5.0 and7.0, respectively, of the BID.

Comment: Several commentersobjected to the proposed standard forprocess vents that requires a fixed 95-percent emission reduction. Theybelieve that the process vent standard isinequitable because some operations,could reduce emissions by 95 percentand still have higher emissions thansome small uncontrolled operations andbecause facilities would have to installcontrol devices on all condenser andstilt vents regardless of emissions or riskposed to human health or theenvironment. A few commenters askedEPA to consider exemptions for smallsolvent operations that have low

emissions and thus vose little healthrisk.

Response: In response to thesecomments, EPA estimated the TSDF/WSTF air quality and health impactsusing updated model unit, emission rate,and facility throughput data. Althoughtotal facility waste solvent throughputswere available, the data base did notcontain any information on the numberor capacities of process: units at eachsite. Therefore, the risk analysis is.based on overall facility operations andtotal facility process vent emissions asopposed to individual process ventemissions. The impacts analysis resultsshow that nationwide reductions inemissions,, maximum individual risk(MIR), and cancer incidence level off(i.e., yield only insubstantial incrementalreductions) at a facility emission rate ofabout 2.8 Mg/yr (31 ton/yrl. At a typicalrate of 2,080 h/yr of operation, thisannual emission rate corresponds to, 1.4kg/h (3 lb/h) of organic emissionsControl of facilities with process ventemissions less than these-values doesnot result in further reductions ofnationwide MIR or cancer incidence. Atthis emission level, larger facilities (Le.,those with uncontrolled emissionsabove the emission rate limit) that arecontrolled to a 95-percent emissionreduction result in MIR values higherthan the remaining uncontrolled smallfacilities (L., those with uncontrolledemissions below the limit). The sameholds true for nationwide cancerincidence. The reduction in cancerincidence achieved by controllingfacilities below the limit is notsignificant relative to the nationwidereductions achieved by controlling thelarger facilities.

Consequently,' the analysis resultsindicate that provision of small facilityemission rate limits of 1.4 kg/h (3 lb/hland 2.8 Mg/yr (3.1 ton/yr) for processvent emissions provides essentially thesame level of protection for humanhealth and the environment (in terms ofrisk, incidence, and emissionsl as doescovering all facilities. In addition. theMIR after control is within the range ofresidual risk for other standardspromulgated under RCRA. As a result,the final rule requires control of onlythose facilities emitting greater than 1.4kg/h (3 lb/h) and 2.8 Mg/yr (3.1 tontyrlorganic emissions from all processvents. A more detailed discussion of theprocess vent emission rate limits iscontained in chapter 7.0 of the BID.

Because the final standards containprocess vent emission rate limits, it isanticipated that small solvent recoveryoperations would not be substantiallyaffected by the final process "ient

standards. The EPA estimates, based onthe high emission rates and 1985 wastesolvent throughput data, indicate thatabout 45 percent of the WSTF identifiedin the industry profile will have processvent emissions of less than 2.8 Mg/yr(3.1 ton/yr}. Consequently, it is expectedthat a large number of small facilitieswould not be required to installadditional process vent controls.

Selection of 10-Percent Cutoff

Comment: Commenters believed thatthe 10-percent level proposed iscomparable to 100,000 ppm and may betoo high, particularly when compared tothe 10,000-ppm level that defines anequipment leak, and that EPA shouldevaluate the health and environmentalimpacts associated with the proposedlimit. The 10-percent limit will allowexcessive emissions from leakingequipment and is based on costs, nottechncal limitations. Commenters alsoargued that the 10-percent lim t does notadequately protect the environmentbecause emissions could be substantialif there are numerous leakingcomponents with relatively dilutestreams and that controls, such ascarbon adsorbers, are available tocapture emissions from dilute streams.

Response: First, for clarification, the10-percent organic content limit forequipment leaks in no way relates to the10,000-ppm leak definition. The leakdefinition, which is a Method Z2instrument reading used to define whena leak is detected, is discussed in a latercomment. As proposed, the 10-percenttotal organics cutoff level forapplicability of the standards coveredboth equipment leak (fugitive) emissionsand process vent emissions. Controltechnologies for fugitive emissionscomprise the use of control equipment,inspection of equipment, and repairprograms to limit or reduce emissionsfrom leaking equipment. These controltechnologies have been studied andevaluated for equipment containingfluids with more than 10) percentorganics (EPA-450/3-80--32b, EPA-450/3-80-33b, EPA-450/3-82--OIG, and EPA-450/3-486--00Z. The 10-percent criterionwas chosen in EPA's original benzene/SOCM! studies to focus the analyses onair emissions from equipment containingrelatively concentrated organics andpresumably having the' greatest potentialfor air emissions. Available data fromthe original benzene/SOCMI studies donot suggest that fugitive emissions fromleaking equipment (eg., pumps andvalves) handling streams containing lessthan 10 percent organics are significantor that the 10-percent cutoff allowsexcessive emissions from dilute streams




However, to reevaluate this wouldrequire several years to conduct fieldstudies to collect and analyze additionalemissions and control effectiveness datafor equipment leaks. Because availabledata support the need for, andeffectiveness of, standards forequipment handling streams containingat least 10 percent organics, the EPAdoes not believe that a delay inrulemaking to assess emissions andcontrols for equipment handling streamscontaining less than 10 percent organicsis warranted.

The effectiveness of fugitive emissioncontrol technologies has beenthoroughly evaluated for equipmentcontaining fluids with at least 10 percentorganics, and fugitive emissionstandards have been proposed orestablished under both sections .111 and112 of the CAA. (See 46 FR 1136, January5. 1981; 46 FR 1165, January 5, 1981: 48FR 279, January 4,1983; 48 FR 37598,August 18, 1983; 48 FR 48328, October 18,1983, 49 FR 22598, May 30, 1984; 49 FR23498, June 6, 1984; and 49 FR 23522,June 6, 1984.) As elaborated in theserulemakings, a 10-percent cutoff dealswith the air emissions from equipmentmost likely to cause significant humanhealth and environmental harm.

With regard to process ventemissions, EPA agrees with thecommenter. Emission test data showthat the 10-percent cutoff potentiallymay allow significant emissions fromprocess vents on a mass-per-unit-timebasis (e.g., kg per hour or Mg per yr). Aspublic commenters pointed out, the 10-percent cutoff for process vents does notlimit total emissions, nor does it relateto emissions that escape capture byexisting control devices. Therefore the10-percent cutoff may not beappropriate; as a result, EPA haseliminated the 10-percent cutoff as itapplies to process vents. The EPAbelieves that an emission rate limit moreeffectively relates to emissions,emission potential, and health risks thandoes a 10-percent organic concentrationcutoff. Accordingly, a health-risk-basedfacility process vent emission rate limithas been added to the final rules in lieuof the 10-percent cutoff.

Because the emission rate limits (3 lb/h and 3.1 ton/yr) provide health-basedlimits, EPA considered droppingcompletely the organic content criterion(i.e., at least 10 percent total organics).However, EPA decided not to eliminatecompletely the organic content criterionbecause it is not clear that the samecontrols can be applied to very lowconcentration streams as can be appliedto the higher concentration streams thatgenerally are associated with emission

rates greater than the limits. For low-concentration streams, EPA questionswhether controls are needed on anational or generic basis, but is unableto resolve this question at this time.Thus, EPA decided to defer controllingvery low concentration streams until itis able to better characterize and assessthese streams and the appropriatecontrols.

Once EPA decided to considerfacilities that manage very lowconcentration organic wastes as aseparate category, there remained theproblem of determining the appropriatecriterion. The EPA examined existingdata on air strippers, the treatmentdevice most commonly used with low-concentration streams; it appeared thatthe quantity of emissions and the riskassociated with air strippers treatingstreams with concentrations below 10ppmw may be relatively small, thusminimizing the potential harm ofdeferring control until a later time.Examples of facilities managing low-concentration wastes are sites whereground water is undergoing remedialaction under CERCLA or correctiveaction pursuant to RCRA. Based on thelimited set of precise data available, andthe comments that the 10-percentcriterion was too high, EPA determinedthat an appropriate criterion would be10 ppm total organics in the waste byweight.

The l0-ppmw criterion is not.anexemption from regulation; it is intendedonly as a way for EPA to divide the airregulations into phases. The EPA isdeferring action on very lowconcentration streams (i.e., ones withless than 10 ppmw total organic content)from the final rule today but willevaluate and announce a decision lateron whether to regulate these wastestreams.

Exemptions

Comment: Several commentersdisagreed with EPA's interpretation thatthe definition of "totally enclosedtreatment units" (which are exempt fromregulation) may in certain circumstancesinclude on-site treatment units that useengineered controls to prevent therelease of emissions. One commenterstated that on-site treatment facilitiesdirectly tied with process equipmenthave the same potential for emissions asdo other sources not exempted by theproposed regulation.

Response: This rule does not create ormodify any exemption for totallyenclosed treatment facilities; rather, theexisting definition of an exemption fortotally enclosed treatment facilitiesremains in effect, and existingregulatory interpretations remain in

effect as well. Although the preamble tothe proposed rule repeated the existingdefinition, it also contained a request forcomments on an interpretation of thetotally enclosed facility exemptionwhereby the "use of effective controlssuch as those required by the proposedstandards" would meet the criteria of 40CFR 260.10. Upon consideration of thecomments, EPA has determined that thisinterpretation would have conflictedwith the regulatory definition andprevious interpretations of theexemption and, therefore, has decided towithdraw it.

As presented in the preamble to theproposed rule, under 40 CFR 264.1(g)(5)and 40 CFR 265.1(c)(9). totally enclosedtreatment facilities are exempt fromRCRA regulation. A "totally enclosedtreatment facility" is a facility treatinghazardous waste that is "directlyconnected to an industrial productionprocess and which is constructed andoperated in a manner which preventsthe release of any hazardous waste orconstituent thereof into the environmentduring treatment" (40 CFR 260.10).Therefore, as stated in the proposalpreamble, process equipment designedto release air emissions are not "totallyenclosed."

The EPA agrees with the commenterthat on-site treatment facilitiesassociated with process equipmentgenerally are designed to release airemissions and, thus, are not "totallyenclosed." The EPA specifically statedthis in the preamble to the proposedrule. To be considered "totallyenclosed," units must meet the test ofpreventing the release of any hazardousconstituent from the unit not only on aroutine basis but also during a processupset. Thus, the risks from these unitsare expected to be less than from unitsthat are not totally enclosed.

Comment: Commenters stated that theexemption for tanks storing or treatinghazardous wastes that are emptiedevery 90 days and that meet the tankstandards of 40 CFR 262.34 is notjustified based on risk, as RCRArequires. The exclusion of less-than-90-day storage tanks from air emissioncontrol requirements will Increase theuse of the 90-day storage exemption andthe resultant air emissions.

Response: In 40 CFR part 270,hazardous waste generators whoaccumulate waste on site in containersor tanks for less than the time periodsprovided in § 262.34 are specificallyexcluded from RCRA permittingrequirements. To qualify for theexclusions in § 262.34, generators whoaccumulate hazardous waste on site forup to 90 days must comply with 40 CFR

25473



25474 Federal. Register / Vol. 55, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 1990 / Rules and Regulations

265, subpart I or J (depending onwhether the waste is accumulated incontainers or tanks) and with otherrequirements specified in § 262.34.Small-quantity generators (i.e.,generators who generate more than 100kilograms but less than 1,000 kilogramsper calendar month) are allowed toaccumulate waste on site for up to 180days or, if they must ship wasteoff sitefor a distance of 200 miles or more, andif they meet certain other requirementsset out in § 262.34, for up to 270 days.

The promulgated regulation does notcreate a new exemption for 90-dayaccumulation, nor does it modify theexisting iegulation. As the commenternotes, EPA is considering what changes(if any) should be made to § 262.34 (the"90-day rule") under a separaterulemaking (51 FR 25487, July 14, 1986).As part of that effort, EPA currently isevaluating whether air emissions fromthese and other accumulator tanks,mentioned above, at the generator siteshould be subject to additional controlrequirements. Preliminary analysisindicates that 90-day tanks andcontainers may have significant organicair emissions; consequently, as part ofthe second phase of TSDF air emissionregulations, EPA is consideringproposing to modify the exemption torequire that 90-day tanks meet thecontrol requirements of the Phase .1 and1I standards. (The multiphasedstandards development approach forregulating organic air emissions isdiscussed in section III.C of thispreamble.) Until a final decision is madeon regulating the emissions from theseunits, they will not be subject toadditional controls. However, EPA doesnot believe that more generators willuse the 90-day exemption if air emissioncontrols are not imposed on these units.Those generators who are eligible forinclusion under § 262.34 are probablyalready taking advantage of theprovision now by storing theirhazardous wastes for less than 90 days.

LDAR Program

Comment: Several commenterscriticized the incorporation of thenational emission standard forhazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) forbenzene because of differences in scopefrom the SOCMI NSPS in that (1) theNSPS distinguishes between light andheavy liquids and the proposedstandards based on the benzeneNESHAP do not; (2) the NSPS does notrequire testing of all SOCMI unitsbecause process fluid'vapor pressure isthe overriding consideration inpredicting leak frequencies and leakrates (the proposed standardsincorporating the NESHAP do not

recognize vapor pressure and requiretesting of all SOCMI units); and (3) theNSPS exempts facilities from routinefugitive emission monitoring, inspection,and repair provisions if a heavy-liquidproduct from a heavy-liquid rawmaterial is produced and limitsmonitoring of equipment in heavy-liquidservice only to where there is evidenceof a potential leak.

Response: The EPA agrees with thecommenters that the provisions for lightand heavy liquids in the SOCMI NSPSshould be incorporated in the section3004(n) standards, even though thesubpart V NESHAP does not contain thedistinction. No distinction was made forthe benzene NESHAP because benzeneis a light liquid. By their nature, heavyliquids exhibit much lower volatilitiesthan do light liquids and becauseequipment leak emissions have beenshown to vary with stream volatility,emissions for heavy liquids are less thanthose for lighter and more volatile ones.As previously noted, EPA analyses havedetermined that the emission rate for avalve in heavy-liquid service is morethan 30 times less than the emission ratefor a valve in light-liquid service. Inresponse to these comments, EPA.examined the emission and riskassociated with light- and heavy-liquidwaste streams and found that light-liquid streams are the overwhelmingcontributors to both emissions and risk.Therefore, a routine LDAR monthlyinspection is not necessary for heavyliquids.

Thus, the final regulations have beenchanged to incorporate the light/heavy-liquid service provisions for pumps andvalves (40 CFR parts 264 and 265,subpart BB, § § 264.1052, 264.1057265.1052, and 265.1057). Equipment is inlight-liquid service if the vapor pressureof one or more of the components isgreater than 0.3 kPa at 20 'C, if the totalconcentration of the pure componentshaving a vapor pressure greater than 0.3kPa at 20 °C is equal to or greater than20 percent by weight, and if the fluid is aliquid at operating conditions. The 0.3-kPa vapor pressure criterion is based onfugitive emission data gathered invarious EPA and industry studies (EPA-450/3-82-010). Equipment processingorganic liquids with vapor pressuresabove 0.3 kPa leaked at significantlyhigher rates and frequencies than didequipment processing streams withvapor pressures below 0.3 kPa.Therefore, EPA elected to exemptequipment processing lower vaporpressure substances (i.e., heavy liquids)from the routine LDAR requirements ofthe standards. In addition, monitoring ofequipment in heavy-liquid service is

required only where there is evidenceby visual audible olfactory, or any otherdetection method of a potential leak.

Comment: Several commenters askedEPA to consider exemptions fromfugitive emission monitoring for smallfacilities based on Volume (as was donein the benzene NESHAP and the SOCMINSPS), emission threshold, productapplicability threshold or equipmentcomponent count, or equipment size. Insupport, the commenters pointed tosimilar exemptions in the CAA rulesthat were in the proposed standards.

Response: The commenters suggestthat EPA consider other exemptions forfugitive emission monitoring that areapplied in the benzene NESHAP orSOCMI NSPS (e.g., small facilities withthe design capacity to produce less than1,000 Mg/yr). The EPA recognizes thatestimated emissions and health risks,from small facilities should beconsidered in the final rules. Withregard to the SOCMI NSPS small-facilityexemption, the cutoff was based on acost-effectiveness analysis. Undersection 111 of the CAA, EPA mayexempt units where costs of thestandards are unreasonably high incomparison to the emission reductionachievable. Under RCRA, the statutorycriterion is protection of human healthand the environment. Therefore, anycutoff for RCRA standards must be risk-based. Cost effectiveness is only arelevant factor for choosing amongalternatives either (1) when they allachieve protection of human health andthe environment or (2) for alternativesthat are estimated to provide substantialreductions in human health andenvironmental risks but do not achievethe historically acceptable levels ofprotection under RCRA, when they areequally protective.

In the benzene NESHAP (49 FR 23498,June 6, 1984), EPA concluded thatcontrol of units producing less than 1,000Mg/yr did not warrant control based onthe small health-risk potential. Thebenzene standards, however, did nothave to deal with the many differentpollutants covered by the TSDF processvent and equipment leak standards,some of which are much morecarcinogenic than benzene. In additionto unit size (or throughput), fugitiveemissions are also a function of thechemical characteristics of thehazardous wastes being handled.

Typically, TSDF have a variety ofhazardous waste management processes(e.g., container storage, tank storage,treatment tanks, incinerators, injectionwells, and terminal loading operations)located at the same facility, all of whichhave associated pumps, valves,



Federal Register I Vol. 55, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 1990 / Rules and Regulations

sampling connections, etc., andtherefore, fugitive emissions fromequipment leaks. Also, several differenttypes of hazardous waste typically aremanaged at a facility. Because of thevarious factors affecting facility fugitiveemissions from equipment leaks (e.g.,equipment leak emissions are a functionof component counts rather than wastethroughput), it would be very difficult todetermine a small-facility exemptionbased on risk but expressed as volumethroughput. For these reasons, EPA didnot include exemptions for fugitiveemission monitoring such as thoseapplied in the benzene NESHAP or,SOCMI NSPS (i.e., small process unitswith the design capacity to produce lessthan 1,000 Mg/yr).

Comment- Commenters stated that theTSDF fugitive emission standardsshould conform to the benzeneNESHAP, which allows exemptions forvacuum systems, systems with noemissions, and systems whose leakagerate is demonstrated to be below 2percent.

Response: The EPA has included inthe final TSDF standards (§ 1264.1050and 265.1050) the exemption forequipment "in vacuum service" found inthe benzene NESHAP (40 CFR part 61,subpart V, 61.242-1). Also included arethe identification requirementscontained in the regulation, "In vacuumservice" means that equipment isoperating at an internal pressure that isat least 5 kPa below ambient pressure.The EPA has concluded that it isunnecessary to cover equipment "invacuum service" because suchequipment has little if any potential foremissions and, therefore, does not posea threat to human health and theenvironment. Accordingly, thisequipment has been excluded from theequipment leak fugitive emissionrequirements.

The proposed standards stated thatowners and operators of facilitiessubject to the provisions of the rule mustcomply with the requirements of 40 CFRpart 61, subpart V (equipment leakstandards for hazardous air pollutants),except as provided in the rule itself. Theprovisions of the proposed rule did notexclude § § 61.243-1 and 61.243-2(alternative standards for valves inVHAP service), and the alternativestandards have been incorporated as§ 1 264.1061, 264.1062, 265.1061, and265.1062 of the final rule. Therefore, anowner or operator may elect to have allvalves within a TSDF hazardous wastemanagement unit comply with analternative standard that allows apercentage of valves leaking of equal toor less than 2 percent (§§ 264.1061 and

265.1061), or may elect for all valveswithin a hazardous waste managementunit to comply with one of thealternative work practices specified inparagraphs (b) (2) and (3) of § § 264.1062and 265.1062.

Comment- One commenter suggestedthat releases from pressure reliefdevices in gas service should bedirected to control equipment at leastequal in performance to those for otherprocess sources or an alternative meansprovided to prevent an uncontrolleddischarge. According to the commenter,rupture discs or closed-vent systemsrestrict small leaks but not majorreleases; a closed-vent systemconnected to a control device is neededto capture releases. The commenterconcluded that EPA has provided nodata to support exempting flanges andpressure relief devices in liquid servicefrom LDAR requirements and should notrely on operators to see, hear or smellleaks from this equipment.

Response: Pressure relief devicesallow the release of vapors or liquidsuntil system pressure is reduced to thenormal operating level. The standardsare geared toward control of routinelow-level equipment leaks that mayoccur independently of emergencydischarges. Pressure relief dischargesare an entirely different source ofemissions than equipment leaks orprocess vents and were not covered inthe original equipment leak standardsunder the CAA. The new subpart BBrules require that pressure relief devicesin gas service be tested annually byMethod 21 (and within 5 days of anyrelief discharge) to ensure that thedevice is maintained at no detectableemissions by means of a rupture disc. Inaddition, because a pressure dischargeconstitutes a process upset that in manycases can lead to hazardous wastemanagement unit downtime and mightalso pose a risk to workers, a facilityhas the incentive to minimize theoccurrence of these events.

The frequency, duration, and airemissions associated with suchemergency discharges at TSDF wastemanagement units currently cannot beestimated with any certainty on anationwide basis. However, if apressure discharge does occur, recordsand reports (maintained at the siteunder § § 264.1054, 264.1064, 265.1054,and 265.1064 of subpart BB) will indicatethe frequency of such discharges, theestimated volume of excess emissionsand other relevant information. Ifpressure discharges appear to be aproblem at any facility the RCRApermitting system provides State or EPApermit writers the flexibility to require

closed-vent systems for these dischargeson a site-specific basis.

The LDAR program transferred fromthe CAA standards does not exemptpressure relief devices in light liquid orheavy liquid service and flanges, butrequires formal monitoring of thesesources if operators see, smell, or heardischarges. The EPA considers that thisis the most practical way to managethese sources. Although scheduledroutine maintenance may be a way ofavoiding the need for formal monitoring,it may not be a successful method for allsites in eliminating leaks due to thenumerous variables affecting leakoccurrence. For example, flanges maybecome fugitive emission sources whenleakage occurs due to improperly chosengaskets, poorly assembled flanges, orthermal stress resulting in thedeformation of the seal between theflange faces. In these situations,operators will be able to detect suchleaks by sight, smell, or sound. Supportfor this approach was presented andevaluated in developing several CAArulemakings (EPA-450/3-83-016b. EPA-450/3-80-033b, and EPA-450/3-81-015b).

Comment; One commenter stated thatthe LDAR program should requirepreventive maintenance, such as theperiodic replacement of valve packings,before waiting for the valve to fail. Insupport, the commenter argued thatEPA's own data show that directedmaintenance could reduce leaks fromvalves to below 10,000 ppm. Thecommenter also criticized the 10,000-ppm leak definition as being too highand states that EPA must consider thelevel in terms of the health effects.

Response: The key criterion forselecting a leak definition is the overallmass emission reduction demonstratedto be achievable. The EPA has notconcluded that an effective lower leakdefinition has been demonstrated. Mostdata developed for current CAAstandards (EPA-450/3-82-010) on leakrepair effectiveness have applied 10,000ppm as the leak definition and thereforedo not indicate the effectiveness ofrepair for leak definitions between 1,000and 10,000 ppm. Even though limiteddata between these values werecollected for support of CAA standards,they are not sufficient to support a leakdefinition below 10,000 ppm. Data areinsufficient to determine at whatscreening value maintenance effortsbegin to result in increased emissions.

As the commenter noted, althoughthere is some evidence that directedmaintenance is more effective, availabledata are insufficient to serve as a basis

25475




for requiring directed maintenance forall sources.

(Note: In "directed maintenance" efforts,the tightening of the packing is monitoredsimultaneously and is continued only to theextent that it reduces emissions. In contrast,"undirected" repair means repairs such astightening valve packings withoutsimultaneously monitoring the result todetermine whether the repair is increasing ordecreasing emissions.)

The EPA's rationale for selecting the10,000-ppmv leak definition and for notrequiring directed maintenance underthe CAA LDAR program also has beendiscussed in the proposal andpromulgation BIDs for benzeneemissions from coke by-productrecovery plants (EPA-450/3-83-016 aand b), for SOCMI fugitive emissions(EPA-450/3-80-033 a and b), forpetroleum refinery fugitive emissions(EPA-450/3-81-015 a and b), and forbenzene fugitive emissions (EPA-450/3-80-032 a and b). (See also the "Responseto Public Comments on EPA's Listing ofBenzene Under section 112" (EPA-450/5-82-003) "Fugitive Emission Sources ofOrganic Compounds-AdditionalInformation on Emissions, EmissionReductions, and Costs" (EPA-450/3-82-010), and EPA's "Response to Petitionfor Reconsideration" (50 FR 34144,August 23, 1985).)

The commenter also criticizes EPA fornot reanalyzing the health effects of the10,000-ppmv level before applying thelimit to TSDF under RCRA. Becausesection 112 of the CAA and 3004(n) ofRCRA are comparable in theirrecognition of health risk as thepredominant decision factor, the EPAbelieves that the leak definition hasbeen adequately analyzed under theCAA and that further evaluation is notneeded prior to transferring it as part ofthe LDAR program under RCRA. It mustalso be pointed out that transfer of theCAA equipment leak standards is onlythe first phase of EPA's regulatoryactions related to control of TSDF airemissions. In thisphase, EPA transferreda known technology to reduceemissions. If new data show that alower leak definition is appropriate,EPA will then consider whether it isappropriate to change the rules.

C. Control Technology

Feasibility of CondensersComment: Several commenters did

not agree that condensers provide afeasible means of meeting the 95-percentemission reduction requirement foraffected process vents in the proposedstandard. Problems cited by thecommenters limiting the application ofcondensers included the presence of

water in the waste stream in the TSDFportion of the facility and the widevariety of waste solvents treated byWSTF. One commenter claimed that ahigher emission reduction efficiencycould be achieved through an increasedcondenser area or a different condenserrefrigerant with a lower boiling pointthan was used in the analysis for theproposal.

Response: In response to thiscomment, the feasibility of usingcondensers to achieve a 95-percentreduction of emissions from WSTFprocess vent streams was reexaminedusing a state-of-the-art chemicalengineering computerized processsimulator that includes a refrigerationunit capable of producing a coolant at atemperature as low as -29 °C (-20 °F)and a primary water-cooled heatexchanger to remove water vapor fromthe vent stream.

A variety of chemical constituentsand operating conditions wereexamined to determine the organicremoval efficiency achievable throughcondensation. The constituents selectedfor the condenser analysis (toluene,methyl ethyl ketone (MEK), 1,1,1trichloroethane (TCE), and methylenechloride) were judged to berepresentative of the solvents recycledby the WSTF industry, based on areview of a National Association ofSolvent Recyclers (NASR) survey,numerous site-specific plant trip reports,and responses to EPA section 3007information requests. Three of these foursolvents had been used in the proposalanalysis; methylene chloride, at thelower end of the solvent boiling pointrange (i.e., more difficult to condense),was added to provide a broader range ofvolatilities for the condenser analysis. Atotal of 40 WSTF model unit casesconsisting of combinations of organicemission rates, concentrations, andexhaust gas flows representing the widerange of operating conditions found atWSTF were included in the condenseranalysis.

The results of the condenser analysisindicate that condensers cannotuniversally achieve a 95-percentemission reduction when applied toWSTF process vents. With regard toincreasing organic removal efficiency byincreasing condenser area or changingthe condenser refrigerant, the analysisshows that there are technical limits oncondenser efficiency that go beyond thecondenser design and operatingparameters. Specifically, the physicalproperties of the solvents beingcondensed and the solventconcentration in the gas stream affectcondenser efficiency. In some situations,the partial pressure of the organic

constituent in the vapor phase was toolow to support a liquid phasethermodynamically regardless of therefrigerant used or condensation area;as a result, no appreciable condensationcould occur. Therefore, the analysisshows that condensers are notuniversally applicable to the control ofWSTF process vents. However, thefacility process vent emission reductionrequirements are not based'solely on theuse of condensers; carbon adsorptionand incinerators/flares are capable ofattaining a 95-percent control efficiencyfor all WSTF organics, including caseswhere condensation is not feasible. Insummary, although condensers may notby themselves achieve a 95-percentemission reduction at all process vents,condensers do provide a practical andeconomic means of reducing processvent emissions, and these devices willlikely be the initial choice of controltechnology for cases wherecondensation is feasible.

Feasibility of Carbon Adsorbers

Comment: Several commentersobjected to the identification of carbonadsorption as a control techniquebecause of technical and safetyconcerns related to the application ofcarbon adsorbers to low organicconcentration and multicomponentsolvent streams. However, onecommenter did cite authorities thatsupport a 98-percent removal for thistype of control device.

Response: First it should be noted thatcarbon adsorption is one of severalcontrol technologies that could be usedto attain the standards. Othertechnologies include condensers, flares,incinerators, and any other device thatthe owner or operator can show willmeet the standards.

Regarding carbon adsorptionapplications, EPA acknowledges thatsafety is an important consideration, butconcludes that any safety problems canbe avoided through proper design andsorbent selection. Multicomponentsystems potentially can lead toexcessive heat buildup (hot spots),particularly in large carbon beds withlow flow rates, which in turn can lead tofire and explosion hazards.Multicomponent vapor streams can alsolead to reduced removal efficiencies forparticular components. However, thesetechnical and efficiency problems canbe overcome through proper design,operation, and maintenance.

In general, coal-based carbons havefewer heat generation problems than dowood-based carbons, and smalldiameter beds promote good heattransfer. The bed must be designed with




consideration for the least heatadsorbent (or fastest) component in themix, as well as the componentconcentrations and overall flow rate.Other considerations include componentinteraction, gas stream relativehumidity, and close monitoring of thebed effluent for breakthrough.

In response to these comments, theEPA examined carbon adsorptiondesign, operation, and performance datafrom a number of plants in a widevariety of industries; in addition, theEPA has reexamined, with the help ofcarbon manufacturers and customcarbon adsorption equipment designers,the elements that affect carbonadsorption efficiency. This analysis hasreinforced EPA's original conclusionthat a well-designed, -operated, and -maintained adsorption system canachieve a 95-percent control efficiencyfor all organics under a wide variety ofstream conditions over both short-termand long-term averaging periods. Themajor factors affecting performance ofan adsorption unit are temperature,humidity, organics concentration,volumetric flow rate "channelling"(nonuniform flow through the carbonbed), regeneration practices, andchanges in the relative concentrations ofthe organics admitted to the adsorptionsystem. The WSTF/TSDF process ventstream characteristics are typically wellwithin design limits in terms of gastemperature, pressure, and velocity forcarbon adsorbers. For example, the bedadsorption rate decreases sharply whengas temperatures are above 38 °C (100°F); a review of plant field data showedno high-temperature streams in WSTF/TSDF process vents. If high-temperaturegas streams are encountered, the gasstream can be cooled prior to enteringthe carbon bed. Also, gas -velocityentering the carbon bed should be lowto allow time for adsorption to takeplace. The WSTF/TSDF stream flowsare typically quite low and, as a result.bed depth should not be excessive.

Therefore, EPA concluded that, forWSTF/TSDF process vent streams,carbon adsorption can reasonably beexpected to achieve a 95-percent controlefficiency provided the adsorber issupplied with an adequate quantity ofhigh-quality activated carbon, the gasstream receives appropriateconditioning (e.g., cooling or filtering)before entering the carbon bed, and thecarbon beds are regenerated or replacedbefore breakthrough. The data gatheredin the EPA carbon adsorptionperformance study do'not support ahigher control efficiency (i.e., 98 percentas opposed to 95 percent) for carbonadsorption units applied to WSTF/TSDF

process vents on an industrywide basis,particularly in light of the designconsiderations related to controllingmulticomponent vent streams when theorganic mix is subject to frequentchange.

When carbon adsorption is used toremove organics from a gas stream, thecarbon must periodically be replaced orregenerated when the capacity of thecarbon to adsorb organics is reached.When either regeneration or removal ofcarbon takes place, there is anopportunity for organics to be releasedto the atmosphere unless the carbonremoval or regeneration is carried outunder controlled conditions. Therewould be no environmental benefit inremoving organics from an exhaust gasstream using adsorption onto activatedcarbon if the organics are subsequentlyreleased to the atmosphere duringdesorption or during carbon disposal.The EPA therefore expects that ownersor operators of TSDF using carbonadsorption systems to control organicemissions take steps to ensure thatproper emission control of regeneratedor disposed carbon occurs. For on-siteregenerable carbon adsorption systems,the owner or operator must account forthe emission control of the desorptionand/or disposal process in the controlefficiency determination. In the case ofoff-site regeneration or disposal, theowner or operator Should supply acertification, to be placed in theoperating file of the TSDF, that allcarbon removed from a carbonadsorption system used to comply withsubparts AA and BB is either (1)regenerated or reactivated by a processthat prevents the release of organics tothe atmosphere. (Note: The EPAinterprets "prevents" as used in thisparagraph to include the application ofeffective control devices such as thoserequired by these rules) or (2)incinerated in a device that meets theperformance standards of subpart 0.Feasibility of Using Controls in Series

Comment: One commenter stated thatEPA should evaluate carbon adsorptionin series with a condenser becausecondensers work best with concentratedstreams and carbon adsorbers with lowconcentration streams. The two systemstogether could yield an overallefficiency of 99 percent, even if eachunit were only 90-percent effective.

Response: As discussed in sectionVII.E, the MIR from process vents aftercontrol (i.e., 4X10 "5 is within the rangeof what has been considered acceptableunder RCRA. Consequently, no furthercontrol for process vents wasconsidered necessary at this time.Nonetheless, in response to these

comments, EPA evaluated the feasibilityof using a carbon adsorber in series witha condenser to control WSTF/TSDFprocess vent emissions. The objective ofthe analysis was to determine if thecombination of control devices wouldyield an overall control efficiencygreater than the 95 percent that isachievable using a single device. Forexample, if a 99-percent overall controlefficiency is desired and it is assumedthat the carbon adsorber is capable ofachieving a 95-percent control efficiencyin all cases (a reasonable assumptionfor a properly designed, operated, andmaintained system), then a minimumefficiency of 80 percent would berequired for the condenser followed inseries by the 95-percent efficient carbonbed. However, in the EPA condenseranalysis conducted for the WSTF modelunit cases, an 80-percent control was notachieved for 16 of the 40 casesexamined. (See section 7.7 of the BID.)In 7 of the 40 cases, the analysis showedthat no appreciable condensation wouldoccur because of low solventconcentration and/or the high volatilityof some solvents. Because the modelunit cases are considered representativeof current WSTF operations, EPA doesnot believe that the use of carbonadsorption and condensation in series toachieve a 99-percent control is atechnically feasible control option on anindustrywide basis. Such controlstrategies will be considered further forPhase III standards for individualfacilities, if necessary, should additionalanalyses reveal unexpectedly high risksin specific situations.

Feasibility of Flares

Comment" Several commentersobjected to the use of flares at recyclingfacilities because of technical and safetyconcerns. A few commenters cite therequirement of a constant emissionsource for efficient flare operation, andother commenters contend that flaresare not suitable on intermittent sourcesor the low-level emissions typical ofrecycling operations. With regard tosafety, flares present the danger ofexplosion, especially if theymalfunction; according to onecommenter, many State laws prohibitthe use of flares at recycling facilities.

Response: Available information onWSTF operations indicates thatcondensers, carbon adsorbers, and.incinerators are the most widely usedcontrol technologies; therefore, they areexpected to be the technologies ofchoice to reduce organic emissions atWSTF. The final technical analysesshow that a 95-percent control efficiency.can be achieved with secondary

25477'



25478 Federal, Register / Vol. 55, No. .120 / Thursday, June 21, 1990 1 Rules and Regulations

condensers for many WSTF processvents or with carbon adsorbers in caseswhere secondary condensers are notfeasible. Flares are not requiredcontrols, but are an available option forfacilities so equipped provided theymeet the criteria established in the finalrules. Where State laws prohibit the useof flares at recycling facilities, othertechnologies are available.

With regard to the safety of flares,EPA has determined that the use offlares to combust organic emissionsfrom TSDF process vents would notcreate safety problems if engineeringprecautions such as those used in theSOCMI are taken in the design andoperation of the system. The followingare typical engineering precautions.First, the flare should not be located insuch proximity to a process unit beingvented that ignition of vapors is a threatto safety. In the analysis conducted forthis standard at proposal, it wasassumed that the flare would be locatedas far as 122 meters from the processunit. Second, controls such as a fluidseal or flame arrestor are available thatwould prevent flashback. These safetyprecautions were considered in EPA'sanalysis for the proposed rule. Finally,the use of a purge gas, such as nitrogen,plant fuel gas, or natural gas and/or thecareful control of total volumetric flowto the flare would prevent flashback inthe flare stack caused by low off-gasflow.

Feasibility of LDAR Program

Comment. One commenter opposedthe fugitive standards as proposedbecause they failed to require the propertechnology to control releases frompumps and valves. The commenterclaimed that the standards shouldrequire a 100-percent control, based onwhat available technology (e.g., sealedbellows valves, sealless pumps, or dualmechanical seals for pumps) canachieve. According to the commenter,superior emission controls cannot berejected under RCRA solely on the basisof cost effectiveness.

Response: Control technologies forfugitive emissions from equipment leaks,as required by the proposed standards,include the use of control equipment,inspection of process equipment, andrepair programs to limit or reduceemissions from leaking equipment thathandle streams with total organicconcentrations of greater than 10percent. These control technologies havebeen studied and evaluated extensivelyby EPA for equipment containing fluidswith 10 percent or more organics andare similar to those required by nationalemission standards for chemical,

petrochemical, and refining facilitiesunder the CAA.

A monthly LDAR program wasproposed for WSTF/TSDF pumps andvalves. Based on results of the EPA'sLDAR model, once a monthly monitoringplan is in place, emission reductions of73 percent and 59 percent can beexpected for valves in gas and lightliquid service, respectively, and a 61-percent reduction in emissions can beachieved for pumps in light-liquidservice. For compressors, the use ofmechanical seals with barrier fluidsystems and control of degassing vents(95 percent) are required, althoughcompressors are not expected to becommonly used at WSTF/TSDF. Theuse of control equipment (rupture discsystems or closed-vent systems to flaresor incinerators) is the technical basis forcontrol of pressure relief devices. Closedpurge sampling is the required controlfor sampling connection systems and isthe most stringent feasible control. Foropen-ended valves or lines the use ofcaps, plugs, or any other equipment thatwill close the open end Is required; theseare the most stringent controls possible.Flanges and pressure relief devices inliquid service are excluded from theroutine WAR requirements but must bemonitored if leaks are indicated. Foroperations such as those expected atWSTF/TSDF, total reductions in fugitiveemissions from equipment leaks ofalmost 75 percent are estimated for theentire program.

The EPA agrees with the commenterthat the level of control required by theLDAR program does not result in thehighest level of control that could beachieved for fugitive emissions frompumps and valves in certainapplications. In some cases, there aremore stringent, technologically feasiblecontrols. For example, leaklessequipment for valves, such asdiaphragm and sealed bellows valves,when usable, eliminates the seals thatallow fugitive emissions; thus, controlefficiencies in such cases are virtually100 percent as long as the valve does notfail. In appropriate circumstances,pumps can be controlled by dualmechanical seals that would capturenearly all fugitive emissions. An overallcontrol efficiency of 95 percent could beachieved with dual mechanical sealsbased on venting of the degassingreservoir to a control device.

With regard to leakless valves, theapplicability of these types of valves islimited for TSDF. as noted by EPA in theproposal preamble. The design problemsassociated with diaphragm valves arethe temperature and pressure limitationsof the elastomer used for the diaphragm.

It has been found that both temperatureextremes and process liquids tend todamage or destroy the diaphragm in thevalve. Also, operating pressureconstraints will limit the application ofdiaphragm valves to low-pressureoperations such as pumping and productstorage facilities.

There are two main disadvantages tosealed bellows valves. First, they are,for the most part, only availablecommercially in configurations that areused for on/off valves rather than forflow control. As a result, they cannot beused in all situations. Second, the mainconcern associated with this type ofvalve is the uncertainty of the life of thebellows seal. The metal bellows aresubject to corrosion and fatigue undersevere operating conditions.

Over 150 types of industries areincluded in the TSDF community, andEPA does not believe that leaklessvalves can be used in anenvironmentally sound manner on thewide variety of operating conditions andchemical constituents found nationwidein TSDF waste streams, many of whichare highly corrosive. Corrosivity isinfluenced by temperature and suchfactors as the concentration of corrosiveconstituents and the presence ofinhibiting or accelerating agents.Corrosion rates can be difficult topredict accurately; underestimatingcorrosion can lead to premature andcatastrophic failures. Even smallamounts (trace quantities) of corrosivesin the stream can cause corrosionproblems for sealed bellows valves;these tend to aggressively attack themetal bellows at crevices and cracks(including welds) to promote rapidcorrosion. Sealed bellows valvesparticularly are subject to corrosionbecause the bellows is an extremely thinmetallic membrane.

At proposal, it was estimated that 20percent of all plants processhalogenated compounds, which tend tobe highly corrosive. The subsequentlyobtained 1986 Screener Survey datashow that, of the TSDF indicatingsolvent recovery operations, at least 33percent of the total handle halogenatedorganics. Furthermore, of the 12 majorchemicals determined from site-specificdata to be commonly occurring in wastesolvent streams, all of the chemicalsdetermined to be carcinogenic arehalogenated (i.e., methylene chloride,chloroform, and carbon tetrachloride).Similarly, of the 52 constituents in TSDFwaste streams contributing to theemission-weighted unit risk factor,about 50 percent are halogenated andaccount for the vast majority of theestimated nationwide emissions of




carcinogens. Thus, TSDF are known toroutinely handle and treat chemicalsthat may destroy sealed bellows anddiaphragm valves.

The durability of metal bellows ishighly questionable if the valve isoperated frequently; diaphragm andbellows valves are not recommended inthe technical literature for generalservice. The EPA does not believe thatthe application of sealed bellows anddiaphragm valves is technologicallyfeasible for all TSDF valve conditions orthat their application would lead to asignificant reduction in emissions andhealth risks. Valve sizes, configurations,operating temperatures and pressures,and service requirements are some ofthe areas in which diaphragm, pinch,and sealed bellows valves havelimitations that restrict service. Withregard to the emission reductionsachieved by sealed bellows, diaphragm,and pinch valve technologies, thesevalves are not totally leakless. Thetechnologies do eliminate theconventional seals that allow leaks fromaround the valve stem; however, thesevalves do fail in service from a varietyof causes and, when failure occurs,these valves can have significantleakage. This is because these valvesgenerally are not backed up withconventional stem seals or packing. TheEPA currently is reevaluating the controlefficiencies assigned to thesetechnologies. Because these leaklesstypes of equipment are limited in theirapplicability andin their potential forreducing health risks, EPA did notconsider their use as an applicablecontrol alternative at this time fornationwide TSDF standards. The EPAhas requested, in a separate FederalRegister notice (54 FR 30220, July 19,1989), additional information on theapplicability and use of leakless valvesat TSDF.

For pumps, the most effective controlsthat are technologically feasible (e.g.,'dual seals) in some cases also were notselected as the basis for equipment leakstandards. The impact analysisindicates that including LDAR results inless emission and risk reduction thandoes including equipment requirementsfor pumps. However, the difference inthe emission and health risk reductionsattributable to implementing a monthlyLDAR program rather than the morestringent equipment standards forpumps appears to be small incomparison to the results of the overallstandards (about 5 percent). The overallstandards, including a LDAR programfor pumps and valves, would achieve anexpected emission reduction for TSDFequipment leaks of about 19,000 Mg/yr

(21,000 ton/yr). The estimated MIR fromequipment leak emissions would bereduced to 1x 10- 3 from 5X10 - 3 basedon the TSDF equipment leak emission-weighted dnit risk factor, cancerincidence would be reduced to 0.32case/yr from 1.1 cases/yr. Incomparison, including dual seals forpumps could achieve an additionalfugitive emission reduction of about1,200 Mg/yr (1,320 ton/yr) and anadditional incidence reduction of about0.06 case/yr. The MIR, with leaklesscontrols for pumps, at 1X1o- wouldbe unchanged from that achieved by theLDAR program.

Given the small magnitude and theimprecise nature of the estimatedemission and risk reductions associatedwith including dual seals for pumps inthe overall standard, EPA considers thetwo control alternatives (i.e., LDAR anddual seals) as providing essentially thesame level of protection. The data andmodels on which the risk estimates arebased are not precise enough to quantifyrisk meaningfully to a more exact level.The data and models includeuncertainties from the emissionestimates, the air dispersion modeling,and the risk assessment that involvesunit risk factor, facility location,population, and meteorologicuncertainties (see section VII.E).

The EPA considered these factorswhen deciding whether to require TSDFto install dual seals on pumps to controlair emissions rather than to rely onmonthly LDAR. Considering the limitedapplicability of additional equipmentcontrols and the low potential foradditional reductions in health risks ofapplying equipment controls for valvesat TSDF and the estimated emissionsand risk reductions if leaklessequipment for pumps were required,EPA is not requiring leakless equipmentat this time.

In Phase III, EPA will further examinethe feasibility and impacts of applyingadditional control technology beyondthe level required by today's standards.For example, dual mechanical seals maybe an appropriate emission controlmethod when applied selectively towastes with high concentrations of toxicchemicals. In such applications, thereduction in toxic emissions (andconsequently the reduction in residualrisk) may be significant for selectsituations. A summary of the health -impacts is presented in section VILE ofthis preamble.

D. Impact Analyses Methodologies

Environmental Impacts Analysis

Comment: Numerous commenterscriticized the environmental impact

estimates for the proposed standardsbecause (1) no actual data fromoperating facilities were used; (2)emission estimates were not supportedby any technical data base; and (3) thewaste constituents used in the analyseswere not representative of waste solventrecycling operations and TSDFoperations in general. Commenters alsostated that the model plant solventreclamation rates (throughputs), ventflow rates, and emission rates used atproposal were not representative of theindustry.

Response: In response to thesecomments, EPA reviewed all availablesite-specific data on WSTF and TSDF,data submitted by commenters, andinformation generated through RCRAsection 3007 questionnaires mailed to alimited number of small and largefacilities. Based on all this information,EPA has revised both the TSDF modelunits and emission factors that serve asthe bases for the impacts analyses.

With regard to the model unitrevisions, the industry profile developedby EPA includes a frequencydistribution of the waste volumesprocessed during 1985. Of the 450facilities in the Screener Surveyreporting solvent recovery by operationssuch as batch distillation, fractionation,or steam stripping that involved someform of hazardous waste, 365 reportedthe total quantity of waste recycled in1985. The median facility throughputwas slightly more than 189,000 L/yr(50,000 gal/yr); the mean throughput wasabout 4.5X106 L/yr (1.2X10 6 gal/yr).Based on the industry profile, three sizesof model units (small, medium, andlarge) were defined to facilitate the post-proposal analyses for control costs,emission reductions, health risks, andeconomic impacts.

The organic emission rates also wererevised for the model units based onemission source testing conducted forEPA. The test data show that organicemission rates for primary condensersvaried from a few hundredths of akilogram (pound) to nearly 4.5 kg/h (10lb/h), with six of the nine measurementsless than 0.45 kg/h (1 lb/h). The twosecondary condensers tested showedemission rates of 0.9 and 2.3 kg/h (2 and5 lb/h), respectively.

The flow rate of 26 standard cubic feetper minute (scfm) used at proposal wasfound not to be generally valid forapplication to waste solvent recyclers.The flow rates specified for the revisedmodel units, 3.9, 0.6, and 0.3 L/s,equivalent to 8.3, 1.2. and 0.6 scfm forthe large, medium, and small modelunits, respectively, are based on areview of site-specific data from field

25479




tests documented in site visit reports.The large and medium TSDF processvent unit flow rates also agree withthose documented in the SOCMIDistillation NSPS BID (see Docket No.F-86--AESP, item S0008) ascharacterizing distillation units with lowoverhead gas flows. The revised impactanalyses are based on actual data fromthe industry and provide a reasonablecharacterization of the industry'soperations and environmental impacts.

The constituents selected for theanalysis of control technologies areconsidered to be representative of theindustry, based on a review of relevantinformation and literature, Including (1)a survey of member companiessubmitted by NASR, (2) 23 site-specificplant visit reports, (3) responses to theEPA section 3007 Questionnaires from 6small and 11 large facilities (tworespondents provided information for 4facilities each), (4) the Industrial StudiesData Base (ISDBI and (5) a data basecreated by the Illinois EPA. The NASRsurvey provided information on thetypes of solvents most frequentlyrecycled at member facilities; the site-specific information and EPA surveyresponses included waste compositiondata. The ISDB is a compilation of datafrom ongoing, in-depth surveys by EPA'sOffice of Solid Waste (OSW) ondesignated industries that are majorwaste generators. The Illinois EPA database contains information from about35,000 permit applications. Generatorsmust submit one application for eachhazardous and special nonhazardouswaste stream managed in the State ofIllinois. Each of these data basescontains waste stream characterizationdata for numerous generic spent solventwaste streams (EPA Hazardous WastesFool-FOOS) and DOM wastes (ignitable),which information from the ScreenerSurvey indicates also are recycled.

The three constituents used for themodel facilities in the proposal analysiswere toluene (with a boiling point (bp)of 110 °C), MEK (bp of 79 *C), and TCE(bp of 74 "C). Methylene chloride (bp of40 °C) was added to the list ofconstituents evaluated in the finalanalysis to provide an even greaterrange of solvent volatilities for theanalysis. Therefore, the technicalfeasibility and costs of applying therecommended control techniques wereevaluated for constituents representingthe range of characteristics andvolatilities of commonly recycledsolvents at TSDF.

Comment. Commenters also statedthat it is inappropriate to apply thefugitive emission factors to TSDF thatwere developed to estimate leaks from a

typical hydrocarbon plant because theydo not relate to the design, operatingconditions, maintenance practices, orcontrols associated with processing ofwaste solvents and other toxic wastes.According to the commenters, theemission factors and model units alsoneed adjustment to account for volatilitybecause not accounting for differencesin vapor pressure overestimates risk aswell as emissions and underestimatescosts for controls.

Response: The EPA disagrees; thedata used in establishing the fugitiveemission standards for TSDF are basedon emission and process data collectedat a variety of petroleum refinery andSOCMI operating units. The EPAIndustrial Environmental ResearchLaboratory (IERL) coordinated a studyto develop information on fugitiveemissions in the SOCMI. A total of 24chemical process units were tested;these data covered thousands ofscreened sources (pumps, valves,flanges, etc.) and included unitshandling such chemicals as acetone,phenol, MEK, ethylene dichloride, TCE,trichloroethylene, andperchloroethylene.

Refinery studies on fugitives alsoinclude tests on units handling bothtoluene and xylene. These samechemicals are included in those listed bythe NASR as solvents commonlyrecycled by member facilities and arefound in other sources of waste solventconstituent information that aredescribed in the BID. The chemicalscommonly recycled at TSDF are thoseproduced in SOCMI operating units andhandled in petroleum refineries, and theequipment involved in these industriesis typically the same (pumps, valves,etc.). Therefore, it is reasonable toconclude that the emissions associatedwith these chemicals and equipment aresimilar and to expect similar emissioncontrol performance and efficiencies athazardous waste management units.

The EPA agrees that the equipmentleak standards should take componentvolatility into consideration. PreviousEPA and industry studies have shownthat the volatility of stream components,as a process variable,does correlatewith fugitive emission and leak rates.An analysis of the vapor pressures andemission rates has shown thatsubstances with vapor pressures of 0.3kPa or higher had significantly higheremission and leak rates than did thosewith lower vapor pressures (EPA-450/3-82-010). This result led to the separationof equipment component emissions byservice: gas/vapor, light liquid, andheavy liquid. These classifications havebeen used in most CAA fugitive

emission standards to effectively directthe major effort toward equipment mostlikely to leak. Therefore the rules havebeen revised to account for volatility.For example, pumps and valves inheavy-liquid service must be monitoredonly if evidence of a potential leak isfound by visual, audible, olfactory, orany other detection method. Thedetermination of light- and heavy-liquidservice is based on the vapor pressureof the components in the stream (lessthan 0.3 kPa at 20 °C defines a heavyliquid).

All of the constituents used in themodel unit analysis, representing theranges of characteristics of commonlyrecycled solvents, are light liquids towhich the benzene and SOCMI fugitiveemission factors are applicable.Therefore, the revised risk and costanalyses for WSTF equipment leakfugitive emissions are based on thefugitive emission factors used in theproposal analysis. The analyses of riskand cost impacts on TSDF with affectedfugitive emission sources also wererevised after proposal to account for thedifferences in light and heavy liquids.

Health Risk Impacts Analysis

Comment- Several commentersobjected to the limited support providedfor selection and derivation of the unitrisk factors used in the analysis ofcancer risks and contend that the riskanalysis and unit risk factors are notrepresentative of the wide variety ofwastes handled. A few of thecommenters stated that the upper-boundrisk factor was too high, and othersstated it was too low.

Response: The selection of the rangeof unit risk factors (i.e., 2X10-1 and2X1O- 5 (1g/m) - 1 used at proposal toestimate the cancer risk resulting fromTSDF emissions was based on ananalysis of the organic chemicalsassociated with TSDF operations. Thisanalysis found that carbon tetrachlorideis the organic chemical with the mostindividual impact vis-a-vis emissionsand risk. Thus, it was used as the upperbound on the range of unit risk factorsused to calculate health impacts (i.e.,cancer risk) at proposal. However, thisrange of unit risk factors was not used inthe final analysis.

Based on public comments, EPArevised its health risk impacts analysis.To estimate the cancer potency of TSDFair emissions in the revised analysis, anemission-weighted composite unitcancer risk estimate approach was usedby EPA to address the problem ofdealing with the large number of toxicchemicals that are present at manyTSDF. Use of the emission-weighted




composite factor rather than individualcomponent unit 'cancer risk factorssimplifies the risk assessment so thatcalculations do not need to beperformed for each chemical emitted.The composite unit cancer risk factor iscombined with estimates of ambientconcentrations of total organics andpopulation exposure to estimate risk dueto nationwide TSDF emissions. Incalculating the emission-weightedaverage unit risk factor, the emissionestimate for a compound is firstmultiplied by the unit cancer risk factorfor that compound; then the emission-weighted average is computed bysumming these products and dividingthe sum by the total nationwide TSDFemission value, which includes bothcarcinogenic and noncarcinogenicorganic emissions. Using this type ofaverage would give the same results ascalculating the risk for each chemicalinvolved. However, only thosecarcinogens for which unit risk factorsare available were included in theanalysis of cancer risk under thisapproach.

Through use of the EPA's TSDF WasteCharacterization Data Base (WCDB)(discussed in appendix D of the BID)and a computerized model developed foranalysis of the regulatory options forTSDF emission sources, EPA estimatedtotal nationwide TSDF organicemissions by specific waste constituent.Thirty-nine chemicals were identified asTSDF organic air pollutant emissionconstituents emitted from equipmentleaks at all types of TSDF wastemanagement processes. Unit cancer riskfactors for these constituents were thenaveraged based on both individualconstituent and total nationwide TSDFequipment leak organic emissions tocalcilate an emission-weightedcomposite mean TSDF cancer unit riskfactor.

Numerous constituents with higherunit risk factors than carbontetrachloride (including acrylonitrile andethylene oxide) were included in thecalculation of the emission-weightedunit cancer risk factor for TSDFequipment leaks. This emission-weighted unit risk factor value wasdetermined to be 4.5 X 10- 6 (g/m - Iand was used to determine the health-related impacts associated with TSDFequipment leak (fugitive) emissionsrather than the range of the unit cancerrisk factors used at proposal thatrepresented a limited number ofchemical compounds emitted at WSTF.A more detailed discussion of thehazardous waste TSDF unit risk factordetermination is contained in appendixB of the BID.

Characterization of WSTF wastestreams in the final analysis indicatesthat the constituents used at proposal inthe risk analysis are appropriate andrepresentative of the waste solventrecycling industry. However, insufficientnationwide data on WSTF (a subset ofthe TSDF industry) waste streamchemical constituent quantities andconcentrations were available todevelop an emission-weighted,arithmetic mean cancer unit risk factorfor WSTF process vents. Whileinformation on a small number ofprocess vent streams was available forthe revised analysis, the data were toolimited to support the conclusion thatthe mix and percentage of constituentsfound were representative of the entireindustry.

The WSTF waste streams and theirassociated process vent emissions werefound to contain a variety of chemicalconstituents. Those constituents withestablished risk factors were, in allcases for the plant-specific data, thehalogenated organics; these halogenatedorganic constituent concentrationstended to be quite low, generally lessthan 1 percent of organics emitted.Therefore, EPA judged, based on thelimited data available, that use of amidrange unit risk factor would beappropriate in estimating nationwidehealth impacts associated With WSTFprocess vents. The unit cancer riskfactor assumed at proposal, 2X10- 6 ( g/m) - 1. was the geometric midrangebetween the highest and lowest unit riskfactor for the constituents found in theWSTF process vent streams. Thecomposite unit cancer risk factorcalculated for the equipment leakemissions agrees favorably with theprocess vent number used at proposal.Because it is not unreasonable toassume a similar mix of constituents inprocess vents as in equipment leaks,and because available data do notsuggest otherwise, for the purpose ofestimating impacts, the same unit cancerrisk factor was used for both processvents and equipment leaks, 4.5 X 10 . 6

({g/m -'.Comment: Several commenters also

stated that the failure to address theweight of evidence for carcinogenicity isinconsistent with EPA's risk assessmentguidelines and the principles forassessing cancer risk.

Response: Early in the rulemaking forTSDF, EPA looked at the contribution tototal estimated risk (annual incidence)by weight of evidence. At that time, "C"carcinogens accounted for about 5percent of the total risk, and "A"carcinogens about 10 percent. Thus, forall practical purposes, calculating

separate risk estimates for chemicals ineach weight of evidence category addslittle to the risk assessment. Moreover,EPA's Guidelines for Carcinogen RiskAssessment (51 FR 33992) andGuidelines for the Health RiskAssessment of Chemical Mixtures (51FR 34014) do not describe a means toquantitatively incorporate weight ofevidence into risk assessments. Thus,there is no inconsistency between therisk assessment guidelines and thepresentation of health risk in thisrulemaking.

Comment: Other commenters believedthat the risk assessment for theproposed standards was flawed becauseEPA did not consider noncancer healtheffects and because large uncertaintiesare introduced when the additive orsynergistic effects of carcinogens andthe interindividual variability inresponse are not factored in.

Response: The EPA does recognizethat health effects other than cancermay be associated with both short-termand long-term human exposure to theorganic chemicals emitted to the air atWSTF/TSDF. The EPA believes,however, that a risk assessment basedon cancer serves as the clearest basisfor evaluating the health effectsassociated with exposure to airemissions from TSDF. A quantitativeassessment of the potential nationwidenoncancer health impacts (e.g.,developmental, neurological,immunological, and respiratory effects)was not conducted due to deficiencies atthis time in the health data base forthese types of effects.

Although unable to numericallyquantify noncancer health risks, EPAdid conduct a screening analysis of thepotential adverse noncancer healtheffects associated with short-term andlong-term exposure to individual wasteconstituents emitted from TSDF. Thisanalysis was based on a comparison ofrelevant health data to the highest short-term or long-term modeled ambientconcentrations for chemicals at each oftwo selected TSDF. (A detailedpresentation of the screening analysis iscontained in the BID, appendix B.)

Results of this analysis suggest thatadverse noncancer health effects areunlikely to be associated with acute orchronic inhalation exposure to TSDForganic emissions. It should be notedthat the health data base for manychemicals was limited particularly forshort-term exposures. The conclusionsreached in this preliminary analysisshould be considered in the context ofthe limitations of the health data; theuncertainties associated with thecharacterization of wastes at the

25481




facilities: and the assumptions used inestimating emissions, ambientconcentrations, and the potential forhuman exposure. Additional evaluationof noncancer health effects may beundertaken as part of the third phase ofthe TSDF regulatory program. To thateffect, in the proposal preamble for thePhase II TSDF air rules, EPA isspecifically requesting comments fromthe public on methodologies and use ofhealth data for assessing the noncancerhealth effects of TSDF organicemissions. In addition, because there isa potential for cancer and noncancerhealth effects from TSDF chemicals fromindirect pathways such as ingestion offoods contaminated by air toxics thathave deposited in the soil, EPA willevaluate the need to include an indirectpathway element in the TSDF healthrisk analysis in the future.

The EPA is aware of the uncertaintiesinherent in predicting the magnitude andnature of toxicant interactions betweenindividual chemicals in chemicalmixtures. In the absence of toxicity dataon the specific mixtures of concern, andwith insufficient quantitativeinformation on the potential interactionamong the components (i.e., additivity,synergism, or antagonism), the EPA hasassumed additivity to-estimate thecarcinogenicity of the mixtures ofconcern. This is consistent withguidance provided in the 1986 "EPAGuidelines for the Health RiskAssessment of Chemical Mixtures" (51FR 34014).

The EPA also recognizes that thereare uncertainties associated with thevariability of individual humanresponses following exposures totoxicants. As stated in the 1986 "EPAGuidelines for Carcinogen RiskAssessment" (51 FR 33992) humanpopulations are variable with respect togenetic constitution, diet, occupationaland home environment, activitypatterns, and other cultural factors.Because of insufficient data, however,the EPA is unable to determine thepotential impact of these factors on theestimates of risk associated withexposure to carcinogens emitted fromTSDF.Cost Impacts Analysis

Comment: Various commentersquestioned the cost estimates used inthe analysis for carbon adsorbers andcondensers as well as the nationwiderecovery credits for WSTF and TSDF.Commenters contend that the costs forcarbon adsorbers estimated at proposalare low because a device is needed foreach vent if manifolding is not practicedas a result of (1) the potential for cross-contamination of new or recycled

materials and (2) additional incurredcosts when the carbon is regenerated ordisposed of.

Response: In response to thesecomments EPA evaluated controls for 40model unit cases representing rangesand combinations of solvent physicalproperties, total flow rates, and organicconcentrations in the vent stream. Bothcarbon canisters and fixed-bedregenerable carbon systems were costedfor process vent streams wherecondensers would not achieve a 95-percent reduction because of streamconditions. The analysis showed that,for a stream with an emission rategreater than 0.45 kg/h (1 lb/h), a carbonbed can achieve the same emissionreduction at lower cost than can acarbon canister. Thus, there is a level ofemissions at which the facility owner oroperator for economic reasons willswitch from the use of replaceablecarbon canisters to the use of a fixed-bed regenerable carbon adsorptionsystem. The capital costs (1986 $) of thefixed-bed regenerable carbon systemsranged from $97,300 up to $202,000, andannual operating costs ranged from$40,200 to $43,500 (from $33,100 to$43,100 when a recovery credit isincluded). The capital cost (1986 $) of acarbon canister was $1,050, and annualoperating costs ranged from $7,890 to$24,800 (carbon canisters are notregenerated on site and a recoverycredit is not included). The fixed-bed,regenerable carbon system operatingcosts include regeneration/disposal ofspent carbon; carbon canister operatingcosts include carbon replacement anddisposal. Thus, these costs were used inconducting the final impact analyses.

With regard to the requirement of acontrol device for each vent, EPAacknowledges that there are instanceswhere vent manifolding is not allowedbecause of potential productcontamination. However the producthas already been recovered from theprocess prior to exhaust gases passingto the vents, which are sources oforganic emissions to the atmosphere:therefore, manifolding of the ventstreams should not lead to a productcontamination problem.• In the absence of the site-specific

information needed to determine controldevice requirements, for the purposes ofestimating cost impacts, it was assumedin the revised analysis that one controldevice would be needed per WSTF.

- Although this assumption mayunderestimate the control cost for afacility that chooses to install carbonadsorbers on more than one vent, it ispotentially a very small underestimatebecause the total annual cost of a

carbon canister, for example, iscomprised almost totally of annual,operating costs, which are directlyproportional to the emissions removed.Thus the potential underestimate in totalannual cost resulting from assuming onecarbon adsorber per facility is notsignificant. Furthermore, the addition ofthe process vent emission limit to therules based on the total facility emissionrate lessens the likelihood that a facilitywill need to control multiple processvents to attain the allowable emissionrate of 1.4 kg/h (3 lb/h) and 2.8 Mg/yr(3.1 ton/yr).

Several commenters also questionedthe nationwide cost credit for secondarycondensers estimated at proposal,stating that secondary condensersactually would result in substantialcosts and that the cost estimates do notaccount for the more sophisticatedsystems needed in high-humidity areasto allow for equipment deicing or waterremoval. In response to concernsregarding the estimated condenseryields and the requirement for moresophisticated systems in high-humidityareas, EPA utilized a state-of-the-artcomputerized process simulator knownas the Advanced System for ProcessEngineering (ASPEN) for reevaluatinganalyses of condenser design and cosLThe ASPEN condenser configurationincluded an optional primary water-cooled heat exchanger to reduce the sizeof the refrigeration unit and to removewater vapor in order to avoid freezingproblems because the condensertemperature is low enough to cause icebuildup on heat transfer surfaces.Therefore, the revised cost estimatesaccount for water removal.

The model unit cases representIndustrywide ranges and combinationsof vent stream characteristics. For thelarge model unit cases (3.9 L/s total flowrate), total annual cost with recoverycredit ranged from a credit of $4,980 upto a net of no cost. For the mediummodel unit cases (0.6 L/s total flowrate), the total annual cost with recoverycredit ranged from $630 up to $2,000. Forthe small model unit cases (0.3 L/s totalflow rate), the total annual cost withrecovery credit ranged from $1,770 up to$2,000. Therefore, in many cases, the useof secondary condensers does result Inpositive costs; these costs, however donot result in adverse economic impacts.

The model unit control cost estimatesand the WSTF industry profile wereused to generate nationwide control costestimates of implementing the processvent regulations. The cost estimates arefor 73 large facilities and 167 mediumfacilities. The 208 small facilities (lessthan 189,000 L (50,000 gal) thrbughput/yr



Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 120 / Thursday, lune 21," 1990 / Rules and Regula'tions

as defined in the post-proposal analysis)would not have to install additionalcontrols because their emissions are lessthan the facility process vent cutoff.

Because there was insufficient site-specific information available todetermine which facilities could applycondensation rather than carbonadsorption, upper- and lower-boundestimates were generated. Theupperbound cost estimate is based onthe assumption that fixed-bed,regenerable carbon adsorption systemswould be required to control processvents at all facilities with emissionsabove the emission rate cutoff. Similarlythe lower-bound cost estimate is basedon the assumption that condenserscould be used to control process vents atall facilities with emissions above theemission rate cutoff. The range inestimates of nationwide total annual

.cost is from a credit of $68,000 up to acost of $12.9 million, assuming theinstallation of one control device perfacility.

Finally, EPA agrees that a recoverycredit is not applicable to TSDF ingeneral because most of the hazardouswastes handled at TSDF are destinedfor disposal. In contrast, at a WSTF, theair emissions resulting from equipmentleaks are potentially recyclablesolvents. Thus, no recovery credit wasapplied for TSDF other than WSTF inthe analyses for the final equipment leakstandards.

E. Implementation and Compliance

Test MethodsComment: Commenters argued that

the test methods proposed for use indetermining whether waste streamscontain more than 10 percent totalorganics are inappropriate primarilybecause they do not measure volatileorganics. One commenter objected tothe use of weight percent when defining"in VHAP service" based on liquidsample analyses.

Response: The EPA recognized thateach of the various test methodsproposed for determining the organiccontent uf waste streams had limitationsand that none was universallyapplicable. The determination of subpartBB applicability should not requireprecise measurement of the 10 percenttotal organics by weight in most cases.The EPA anticipates that most wastestreams will have an organic contentmuch lower or much higher than 10percent. Furthermore, because theregulation requires control if the organiccontent of the waste stream ever equalsor exceeds the 10-percent value. EPAbelieves that few owners or operatorswill claim that a waste stream is not

subject to the requirements of thestandard based on a sample analysiswith results near 10 percent. Therefore,a precise measurement of waste streamtotal organic content is not likely to beneeded to determine applicability of theequipment leak standards.

If the facility does decide to test thewaste, the choice of the appropriatemethod must be based on a knowledgeof the process and waste. The EPA hasprepared a guidance document thatincludes information to aid TSDFowners/operators and enforcement andpermitting personnel in implementingthe regulations. Additional detail isprovided in the guidance document toaid in choosing the most appropriate testmethod. (Refer to "Hazardous WasteTSDF-Technical Guidance Documentfor RCRA Air Emission Standards forProcess Vents and Equipment Leaks."EPA-450/3-89-21.)

In response to the commenters'concerns that volatility of the wastestream should be considered, the LDARprovisions of the regulation werechanged to establish two potentiallevels of required monitoring. Thoseprocesses with the greater emissionpotential are designated to be in light-liquid service and are required toimplement a more restrictive LDARprogram. Those processes with a lesseremission potential are designated to bein heavy-liquid service and are requiredto implement a less restrictive LDARprogram. The determination of being inlight-liquid service is based on theconcentration of organic components ina waste whose pure vapor pressureexceeds 0.3 kPa. This addresses thecommenters' concerns that volatility ofthe waste stream should be considered.For the process vent portion of theregulation, if an organic is present at thevent, it is presumed to be volatile.Therefore, volatility is considered byvirtue of where the determination ofapplicability is made.

With reference to the use of weightpercent when defining "in VHAPservice" (a term that has been droppedfrom the promulgated regu!ations), EPAbelieves that weight percentage is theunit of choice when the determination oforganic content is made on a solid,liquid, or sludge waste. It is alsocommonly associated with those typesof wastes. For gaseous streams thatexceed 10 percent organics by weight,'the commenter's point is well taken.Volume fractions are more commonlyreported for gaseous streams. However,it is not easier to calculate the volumepercent rather than weight percent.Additional information on thecalibration standard used, the carriergas in the standard, and both the

organic and other inorganic gases in thesample are required in both cases. Forsimplicity, the units of the standard areuniformly weight percent regardless ofwaste type.

Implementation Schedule

Comment: Several commentersobjected to the time periods containedin the proposed standards forImplementation schedules andrequested that EPA not dictate a step-by-step schedule.

Response: The EPA agrees with thecommenters that EPA should not dictatestep-by-step implementation schedulesfor installing the control devices andclosed-vent systems required to complywith these regulations because eachaffected facility needs some flexibilityto 'budget funds, perform engineeringevaluations, and complete construction.Therefore, EPA has dropped the interimdates in the schedule and retained onlythe final period of 2 years from thepromulgation for completing engineeringdesign and evaluation studies and forinstalling equipment. The final rulesrequire that all affected facilities complywith the standards on the effective date;however, the rules allow up to 24months from the promulgation date (i.e.,18 months after the effective date) forfacilities to comply if they are requiredto install a control device and they candocument that installation of theemission controls cannot reasonably beexpected to be completed earlier.Existing waste management units thatbecome newly regulated units subject tothe provisions of subpart AA or BBbecause of a new statutory or regulatoryamendment under RCRA (e.g., a newlisting or identification of a hazardouswaste) will have up to 18 months afterthe effective date of the statutory orregulatory amendments that render thefacility subject to the provisions ofsubparts AA or BB to completeinstallation of the control device. Newhazardous waste management unitsstarting operation after the effectivedate of subparts AA and BB must meetthe standards upon startup. This subjectis discussed further in section IX.Implementation, of this preamble. Thefinal standards require that bothpermitted and interim status facilitiesmaintain the schedules and theaccompanying documentation in theiroperating records. The implementationschedule must be in the operating recordon the effective date of today's rule,which is 6 months after promulgation.No provisions have been made in thestandards for extensions beyond 24months after promulgation.

.9ZAR I




Permitting Requirements

Comment: Several commenterssuggested that RCRA part B informationrequirements be limited to the unitsalready included in the part Bapplication. Units that must comply withthis regulation because the facility issubject to RCRA permit requirements forother reasons should not be required tobe added to the part B permitapplication. Other commenters objectedto statements in the preamble regardingthe role of the omnibus permittingauthority under RCRA section 3005(c)(3).The commenters questioned the absenceof criteria for establishing when suchauthority would be applied to requiremore stringent controls and argued thatauthorizing permit writers to imposemore stringent controls based onunenforceable guidance is not asubstitute for regulations.

Response: The EPA is aware thatextending specific part B informationrequirements to those hazardous wastemanagement units that are not subjectto RCRA permitting but are located atfacilities that are otherwise subject toRCRA permit requirements could resultin the need for those facilities to modifyRCRA permits or their part Bapplications. However, EPA believesthat extending the part B informationrequirements to hazardous wastemanagement units not subject to RCRApermitting is necessary to ensurecompliance with the subpart AA andsubpart BB standards.

The EPA also agrees that requiring amodification of RCRA permits (and partB applications) as part of this rule couldresult in delays in processing andissuing final RCRA permits. Therefore,the final rules do not require facilities tomodify permits issued before theeffective date of these rules. Consistentwith 40 CFR 270.4, a facility with a finalpermit issued prior to the effective dateis generally not required to comply withnew part 264 standards until its permitis reissued or reviewed by the RegionalAdministrator. Hazardous wastemanagement units and associatedprocess vents and equipment affectedby these standards must be added orincorporated into the facility permitwhen the permit comes up for reviewunder § 270.50 or reissue under § 124.15.As previously noted, EPA intends topropose to modify this policy in theforthcoming Phase II rules such thatpermitted facilities must comply withthe interim-status air rules.

Facilities that have obtained RCRAinterim status, as specified in 40 CFR270.70 (i.e., compliance with therequirements of section 3010(a) of RCRApertaining to notification of hazardous

waste activity and the requirements of40 CFR 270.10 governing submission ofpart A applications), will be subject tothe part 265 standards on the effectivedate. Interim status facilities that havesubmitted their part B application priorto the effective date of the regulationwill be required to modify their part Bapplications to incorporate today'srequirements.

The omnibus permitting authority of§ 270.32 allows permit writers to require,on a case-by-case basis, emissioncontrols that are more stringent thanthose specified by a standard. The EPAhas a mandate to use this authority forsituations in which regulations have notbeen developed or in which specialrequirements are needed to protecthuman health and the environment. Forexample, this authority could be used insituations where, in the permit writersjudgment, there is an unacceptably highrisk after application of controlsrequired by an emission standard. Thisaspect of the permitting process isdiscussed further in section IX of thispreamble. The EPA is currentlypreparing guidance to be used by permitwriters to help identify facilities thatwould potentially have high residualrisk due to air emissions. The guidancewill include procedures to be used toidentify potentially high-risk facilitiesand will include guidance for making aformal, site-specific risk assessment.

Recordkeeping and Reporting

Comment: Commenters asked EPA toinclude a provision in the finalstandards to provide for the eliminationof recordkeeping requirements that maybe duplicative of State or Federalrequirements for equipment leaks.Commenters also asked whether TSDFare subject to any notificationrequirements if their waste stream isless than 10 percent organics.

Response: The EPA agrees thatduplicative recordkeeping and reportingshould generally be eliminated to theextent possible. Because of thedifficulties in foreseeing all situations inwhich this could occur, a provision tothis effect has not been added to thefinal standards. However, when recordsand reports required by States aresubstantially similar, a copy of theinformation submitted to the State willgenerally be acceptable to EPA. Whensimilar records and reports are requiredby other EPA programs (such as thevisual observations required for pumpsand valves associated with storagetanks and incinerators), EPA suggeststhat owners or operators of TSDFcoordinate monitoring andrecordkeeping efforts to reduce laborand costs. One set of records should be

maintained with emphasis on the moredetailed monitoring records required bythese standards. The EPA considers thatthe monitoring required for equipmentleaks under these standards differssignificantly from the monitoringrequired for ground water protectionpurposes under other RCRA rules.However, the monitoring andrecordkeeping programs can becombined for efficiency.

There are no notification requirementsin the equipment leak rules for wastestreams that have been determinednever to exceed 10 percent totalorganics by weight.VII. Summary of Impacts of FinalStandards

A. Overview of the Source Category

Hazardous waste TSDF are facilitiesthat store, treat, or dispose of hazardouswastes. A TSDF may generate andmanage hazardous waste on the samesite, or it may receive and managehazardous waste generated by others.

The EPA has conducted a number ofsurveys to collect information about theTSDF industry. The most recent of thesesurveys, the 1986 National ScreeningSurvey of Hazardous Waste Treatment,Storage, Disposal, and RecyclingFacilities, lists more than 2,300 TSDFnationwide. Available survey datafurther indicate that the majority (96percent) of waste managed at TSDF isgenerated and managed on the same siteand identifies more than 150 differentindustries, primarily manufacturing, thatgenerate hazardous waste.Approximately 500 TSDF arecommercial facilities that managehazardous waste generated by others.

The types of wastes managed at TSDFand the waste management processesused are highly variable from onefacility to another. The physicalcharacteristics of wastes managed atTSDF include dilute wastewaters(representing more than 90 percent byweight of the total waste managed),organic and inorganic sludges, andorganic and inorganic solids. Wastemanagement processes differ accordingto waste type and include storage andtreatment in tanks, surfaceimpoundments, and wastepiles;handling or storage in containers suchas drums, tank trucks, tank cars, anddumpsters; and disposal of waste inlandfills, surface impoundments,injection wells, and by land treatment.In addition, hazardous waste may bemanaged in "miscellaneous units" thatdo not meet the RCRA definition of anyof the processes listed above.Hazardous waste may also be handled




in research, development, anddemonstration units as described in 40CFR 270.65.

The promulgated standards limitorganic emissions from (1] hazardouswaste management unit process ventsassociated with distillation,fractionation, thin-film evaporation,solvent extraction, and air and streamstripping operations that manage wastewith 10 ppmw or greater total organicsconcentration, and (2) leaks fromequipment at new and existinghazardous waste management units thatcontain or contact hazardous wastestreams with 10,percent or more totalorganics. The final equipment leakstandards apply to each pump valve,compressor, pressure relief device,sampling connection, open-ended valveor line, flange, or other connectora3sociated with the affected hazardouswaste management unit. About 1,400facilities are estimated to be potentiallysubject to the equipment leak standards(i.e., TSDF managing hazardous wastecontaining at least 10 percent organics).Of these, 450 are estimated to haveprocess vents subject to the ventstandards in subpart AA.

B. Use of Models in the RegulatoryDevelopment Process

In estimating baseline (i.e.,unregulated) emissions, emissionimpacts of the regulatory options, andcontrol costs for the options forequipment leaks, EPA made use of acombination of analytical and physicalmodels of waste management processes.This approach was selected becauseinsufficient facility-specific data areavailable to conduct a site-specificcharacterization of the entire TSDFiPdustry. For example, thephysicalmodels of waste managementprocesses (or units) were used as.simplified representations of theequipment component mix expected tobe associated with each particularhazardous waste management process.The model unit provides an estimate ofthe number of pumps, valves, open-ended lines, pressure relief valves, and-sampling connections that are used inthe waste management process.Although these models are not exact foreach type of process, they provide areasonable approximation of what canbe expected on average; preciseequipment counts for each unit at eachfacility are not available.

In the absence of sufficient site-specific data, EPA developed a model tocalculate nationwide health,environmental, and cost impactsassociated with hazardous waste TSDF.Details of the national impacts modelcan be found in the BID, appendix D.

This national impacts model was usedto estimate the nationwide impactsnecessary for comparison of the variousTSDF equipment leak emission controloptions. The national impacts model is acomplex computer program that uses awide variety of information and dataconcerning the TSDF industry tocalculate nationwide impacts throughsummation of approximate individualfacility results. Information processedby the model includes results of TSDFindustry surveys as well ascharacterizations and simulations ofTSDF processes and wastes, emissionfactors of each type of management unit,the efficiencies and costs of emissioncontrol technologies, and exposure andhealth impacts of TSDF pollutants. Thisinformation is contained in severalindependent data files developed byEPA for use as inputs to the model.These data files are briefly describedbelow.

Industry profile data identify the .name, location, primary standardindustrial classification (SIC) code,waste management processes, wastetypes, and waste volumes for eachTSDF. The industry data Were obtainedfrom three principal sources: A 1986National Screening Survey of HazardousWaste Treatment, Storage, Disposal,and Recycling Facilities; the HazardousWaste Data Management System'sRCRA part A permit applications; andthe 1981 National Survey of HazardousWaste Generators and Treatment,Storage, and Disposal FacilitiesRegulated Under RCRA. The industrydata are used in the model to define thelocation and the SIC code for eachfacility and to identify the wastemanagement units at each facility aswell as the types and quantities ofwaste managed in each unit.

The hazardous waste characterizationconsists of waste data representative of,,typical wastes handled by facilities ineach SIC code. The waste data arelinked to specific facilities by the SICcode and the RCRA waste codesidentified for that facility in the industryprofile. The waste characterization datainclude chemical properties informationthat consists of constituent-specific dataon the physical, chemical, and biologicalproperties of a group of surrogate wasteconstituents that were developed torepresent the more than 4,000 TSDFwaste constituents identified in the.waste data base. The surrogatecategories were defined to representactual organic compounds based on acombination of their vapor pressures,Henry's law constants, andbiodegradability. The use of surrogateproperties was instituted to compensate

for a lack of constituent-specificphysical and chemical property dataand to reduce the number of chemicalsto be assessed by the model.

The emission factors data consist ofemission factors, expressed asemissions per unit of waste throughput,for each combination of surrogate wasteconstituent and model wastemanagement process. Each model wastemanagement process was, in effect, a"national average model unit" thatrepresented a weighted average of theoperating parameters of existing wastemanagement units. The EPA's LDARmodel was used to develop emissioncontrol efficiencies and emissionreductions for the TSDF equipment leakemission factors used in the analysis.This LDAR model is based on theAgency's extensive experience withequipment leaks in the petrochemicaland synthetic organic chemicalmanufacturing industries.

Incidence data consist of estimates ofannual cancer incidence for thepopulation within 50 km of each TSDF.This information was developed usingEPA's Human Exposure Model, 1980census data, and local meteorologicaldata summaries. Because some of thedata used in the national impacts modelare based on national average valuesrather than-actual facility-specific data,maximum risk numbers generated by themodel are not considered to berepresentative of facility-specific risks.Maximum individual risk has meaningonly at the facility level. Therefore, EPAchose to use another methodology forestimating MIR for equipment leaks.This is discussed further in sectionVII.E.

Data related to emission controltechnologies and costs includeinformation that describes controlefficiencies, capital investment, andannual operating costs for each emissioncontrol option that is applicable to a.particular waste management process.These data were obtained throughengineering analyses of control deviceoperations and the development ofengineering cost estimates.

To make use of all of these data, the.national impadts-model containsprocedures that (1) identify TSDFfacilities, their waste managementprocesses, waste compositions, andannual waste throughputs; (2) assignchemical properties to wasteconstituents and assign control devicesto process units; and (3] calculateuncontrolled emissions, emissionsreductions, control costs, and healthimpacts. Results produced by the modelinclude, on a nationwide basis,uncontrolled emissions, controlled

25485



25486 Federal Register /-Vol. 55. No .120 / Thursday, June 21,' 1990 / Rules and Regulations

emissions, capital investment costs,annual operating costs, annualized costsfor controls, and annual cancerincidence. As previously stated, thesenationwide values are obtained bysumming the results of individualfacility analyses across-all facilities.

The primary objective and intendeduse of the national impacts model are toprovide reasonable estimates of TSDFimpacts on a nationwide basis. Becauseof the complexity of the hazardouswaste management industry and thecurrent lack of detailed information forindividual TSDF, the model wasdeveloped to utilize national averagedata where site-specific data are notavailable. As a result, the estimatedemissions and cancer incidence from themodel do not represent the impacts for aspecific individual facility. However,with national average data values usedwhere site-specific data were missing,EPA believes that the estimates are

reasonable on a nationwide basis andare adequate for decisionmaking.

C. Emission Impacts

Since proposal in February 1987, EPAhas reviewed- all available site-specificinformation and data on. WSTF andTSDF, much of which hasonly becomeavailable since proposal. For example.EPA is conducting a multiyear project tocollect information on the Nation'sgeneration of hazardous waste and thecapacity available to treat, store,dispose of, and recycle that waste. Theinitial phase of the project was the 1986National Screening Survey of HazardousWaste Treatment. Storage, Disposal andRecycling Facilities, which identifiedand collected summary information fromall hazardous waste treatment, storage,disposal, and recycling facilities In theUnited States. The results of this"Screener Survey" together with datafrom other existing data bases (such asthe Hazardous Waste Data ManagementSystem's RCRA part A applications; theNational Survey of Hazardous WasteGenerators and Treatment. Storage, andDisposal Facilities Regulated UnderRCRA in 1981; the Industry StudiesDatabase; a data base of 40 CFR 261.32hazardous wastes from specific sources;the WET Model Hazardous Waste DataBase; and a data base created by theIllinois EPA) were used to support thedevelopment and analysis of these airemission regulations for hazardouswaste TSDF. Additional sources of dataon TSDF and waste solvent recyclingoperations included EPA field reports onhazardous waste facilities andresponses to RCRA section 3007information requests sent to a limitednumber of both large and smallfacilities. Based on all of this

information. EPA has revised andexpanded the impact analyses; includingestimates of emissions, risks, costs, andthe economic impact on smallbusinesses and on the industry as awhole.

Using the revised impact analyses,nationwide (unregulated) baselineequipment leak organic emissions fromTSDF waste streams of 10 percent orgreater total organics are estimated at26,200 Mg/yr. This estimate includesequipment leak emissions from wastesolvent treatment facilities and fromother TSDF with hazardous wastemanagement processes handling wasteswith organic concentrations of 10percent or greater, a total of about 1.400facilities. The bases for these estimatesare contained in the BID, appendix D.

Nationwide (unregulated) organicemissions from process vents at about450 TSDF with'solvent recoveryoperations range from 300 Mg/yr (basedon lower-bound emission rates) to 8,100Mg/yr (based on upper-bound emissionrates). This wide emission range occursbecause of variations in primarycondenser recovery efficiencies and theuse of secondary condensers at somesites. The lower-bound rate representshigh recovery efficiencies at allfacilities, and the upper-bound raterepresents low recovery efficiencies atall facilities. Actual nationwideemissions should fall between thesevalues.

With the implementation of thestandards, nationwide TSDF equipmentleak emissions will be reduced to about7,200 Mg/yr; nationwide organicemissions from process vents will bereduced to a range from 270 Mg/yr(lower-bound emission rates) to 900 Mg/yr (upper-bound emission rates).

D. Ozone ImpactsReductions In organic emissions from

TSDF sources will have a positiveimpact on human health and theenvironment by reducing atmosphericozone formation as a result ofreductions in emissions of ozoneprecursors, primarily organiccompounds. Ozone is a major problemin most larger cities, and EPA hasestimated that more than 100 millionpeople live in areas that are In violationof the ambient ozone standards. Ozoneis a pulmonary irritant.that can impairthe normal functions of human lungs,may increase susceptibility to bacterial.infections, and can result'in otherdetrimental health effects. In addition.ozone can reduce the yields of citrus,cotton, potatoes, soybeans, wheat,.spinach, and other crops, and can causedamage to conifer forests and areduction In the fruit and seed diets of

wildlife. Because TSDF organicemissions account for about 12 percentof total nationwide organic emissionsfrom stationary sources, today's ruleswill contribute to a reduction in ozone-,induced health and environmentaleffects and will assist in attainment andmaintenance of the ambient air qualitystandards for ozone. Table 1summarizes the emissions and healthrisk impact estimates.

Ozone precursors andchlorofluorocarbons, whose emissionswill be reduced by this rulemaking, areboth considered greenhouse gases (i.e..gases whose accumulation in theatmosphere has been related to globalwarming). Although the regulation'sdirect impact on global warming has notbeen quantified, the direction beingtaken is a positive one. Implementationof these rules will reduce troposphericozone, which contributes to globalwarming.

E. Health Risk Impacts

Human health risks posed byexposure to TSDF air emissions aretypically quantified in two forms:

'Annual cancer incidence and -MIR.Annual cancer incidence is theestimated number of cancer cases peryear due to exposure to TSDF emissionsnationwide. The MIR, on the other hand,represents the potential risk to the onehypothetical individual who livesclosest to a reasonable worst-case TSDFfor a lifetime of 70 years. The MIR isderived from modeling a reasonableworst-case scenario and is not based onactual measurement of risk. It is notrepresentative of the entire industry.and, in fact, may be experienced by few.if any, individuals. As explained inappendix B of the BID. there are greatuncertainties in both these types ofhealth risk estimates. These two healthrisk forms were used as an index toquantify health Impacts related to TSDFemissions and emission controls. Asdiscussed in section VI.D., anequipment-leak-specific, emission-weilghted unit risk factor of 4.5 X 10-6(1.g/m3)-' was used to estimate thenationwide annual cancer incidence andthe MIR of contracting cancerassociated with TSDF equipment leakorganic emissions. See appendix B of theBID for a detailed analysisof the healthrisk impacts.

At proposal, order-of-magnitudehealth impacts were estimated forcancerrisks from exposure to organicair emissions from WSTF and TSDF.The Human Exposure Model (HEM) wasused to calculate the magnitude of risksposed by WSTF at both typical and..maximum emission rates. Based on an



Federal Register / Vol.' 55, No. 120 /:Thursday, June 21, 1990'/ Rules and Regulations

estimated urban/rural distribution, EPAselected six WSTF to represent thenationwide WSTF industry in ! 'performing the risk assessment..Usingthe results of the analysis of these"typical" facilities, health impacts wereextrapolated to all WSTF and TSDF ingeneral to provide nationwide estimates.

In the revised health impacts analysisfor the final rules, annual cancerincidence and MIR were again used toquantify health impacts for the controlalternatives-for process vents andequipment leaks. However, in thisfollowup analysis, the HEM was runusing site-specific data on facility wastethroughputs, emission rates,meteorology, and population density foreach WSTF and TSDF nationwideidentified in the various data bases.

The facility-specific information wasobtained from three principal sources.Waste quantity and solvent recyclingdata were taken from the 1986 NationalScreener Survey; waste management

processing schemes and waste typesmanaged in each facility were based onthe Hazardous Waste Data ManagementSystem's (HWDMS) RCRA part Aapplications; the National Survey ofHazardous Waste Generators andTreatment, Storage, and DisposalFacilities Regulated Under RCRA in1981 (Westat Survey); and the 1986National Screener Survey.

In revising the methodology applied inassessing cancer risks, EPA conductedfacility-specific HEM computer runs fornearly all of the 448 WSTF thatreported, in the 1986 National ScreenerSurvey, recycling and/or reuse ofsolvents and other organic compounds(i.e., TSDF expected to have thespecified process vents) and for each ofthe more than 1,400 TSDF in the industryprofile of 2,300 TSDF that weredetermined to manage wastes with atleast 10 percent organic content. TheseHEM results were used to estimatenationwide cancer incidence for both

TSDF equipment leaks and processvents.

The nationwide annual incidenceresulting from uncontrolled TSDFequipment leaks is estimated at 1.1cases of cancer per year. Based on theestimated lower-bound emission rates,the nationwide cancer incidence fromuncontrolled process vents is 0.015 case/yr. Based on the upper-bound emissionrate, the incidence from process vents is0.38 case/yr. With the application of thefinal process vent standards, based onlower-bound emission rates, the annualcancer incidence will be reduced to0.001 from 0.015 case/yr. Based onupper-bound emission rates, annualincidence will be reduced to 0.027 case/yr from 0.38 case/yr. With theimplementation of the LDAR programsfor equipment leak emissions, theannual cancer incidence associated withfugitive emissions will be reduced toabout 0.32 case/yr.

TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF NATIONWIDE ENVIRONMENTAL AND HEALTH RISK IMPACTS OF TSDF AIR EMISSION REGULATIONS

Nationwide emissions, Mg/ Annual incidence *, cases/ Maximum individual risk.yr yr_ _

ESDF source categorY yr..... UnonUncon- Controlled uncon- Controlled trolledtrolled trolled

Process vents b

Lower bound ........................................................................................ .. . 300 270 0.015 0.001 3x×10 " 2x 10-Upper bound .................................................................. . ............................ 8,100 900 0.38 0.027 8X10 - 4 4X10"

Equipment leaks ....................................... ....... 26,200 7,200 . 1.1 0.32 5X 10-

1 10"

Annual incidence and MIR are based on an emission-weighted average Unit risk factor for TSDF.The lower- and upper-bound process vent emission estimates reflect the range of primary condensers' removal efficiencies and the use of secondary

condensers on some primary condenser vents.

The HEM results were also used toestimate the MIR for process vents. Forestimates of MIR associated with TSDFequipment leaks, a separatemethodology was used for reasonsdiscussed below.

There are three major problems inapplying the methodology used toestimate cancer incidence, a nationwideValue, to estimate MIR from equipmentleaks, a site-specific value. The firstproblem concerns the emissionestimation technique. Equipment count,and not the' amount of waste handled, isthe major determining factor foremission estimates from equipmentleaks. Equipment counts do not double'or triple'accordingly as throughput isincreased. Because the size of the model

.plant (and thus the equipment count)assigned to a waste management,process was based on' the amount ofwaste handled, emissions fromequipment leaks will be overstated forlarger facilities- and understated forsmaller facilities. This averages out on anationwide, basis, but individual facility

estimates are not considered accuratefor estimates of MIR.

The second problem deals with thewaste compositions and forms (e.g.,wastewater and concentrated'organics)attributed to each RCRA waste code(e.g., F601). A waste code may involve'wastes in several forms. Thedetermination-of impacts was based onthe national average waste. formdistribution for each particular wastecode occurring at each facility. Forexample, if on average across theNation, a particular organic wastesolvent appears as an aqueous waste(very dilute organics) 20 percent of thetime, as a sludge 50 percent of the time,and as an organic liquid 30 percent ofthe time. those percentages were appliedto every facility that was identified tohandle that type of waste regardless ofthe actual percentages of waste formfound at the facility. In some cases, this,resulted in larger facilities being*assigned a much greater percentage of ,an organic liquid form than would'actually be the case. Again, this

averages out on a nationwide basis, butfor site-specific estimates such as MIRmore refined determinations arerequired.

The third problem with using the HEMfor equipment leaks is that the HEMdoes not model area sources directly; it

,collocates all emission sources at onecentral point and models the emissionsas point sources. This is appropriate forestimates' for process vents that areactual point sources, but not forequipment leaks. A typical TSDF wouldhave several hundred equipmentcomponents with the potential for leaksthat could be located over thle entirefacility area.

In estimating MIR for equipmentleaks, EPA based its hypothetical,reasonable worst-case facility, in large.part, on an actual facility. The EPA wasable to characterize the facility in 'sufficient detail that dispersionestimates could be: generated using a'true area Source dispersion model. Thiswas possible because more detailedsite-specific information has become

| I I . ...

25407



25488 Federal Register ' Vol. 55, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 1990 / Rules and Regulations

available on a limited basis sinceproposal. The preliminary results of amultiyear project to collect informationon the Nation's generation of hazardouswaste and the capacity available totreat store, dispose of, and recycle thatwaste were used as the basis of theanalysis. In the survey, all activetreatment, storage, disposal, andrecycling facilities (TSDR) were sent adetailed package of questionnairesappropriate to the processes theyoperate. The completed questionnaireswere reviewed for technical accuracy:after independent verification, theinformation collected was entered into acomplex data base. The TSDR surveyquestionnaire responses contain themost detailed up-to-date nationwideinformation regarding the hazardouswaste management technologies eachfacility has on site. For each facility,detailed information is available in thedata base, including facility area,numbers of hazardous wastemanagement units by process type (i.e.,number of surface impoundments,incinerators, recycling units), annualthroughput by process unit. and types ofwaste (i.e., RCRA waste codes)managed by each unit at the facility.The availability of this information incomputerized format made it possible touse the TSDR survey data base toidentify facilities that represent thepopulation of worst-case facilities withregard to equipment leak emissions andthe potential for high MIR values. Adetailed discussion of the health Impactsmethodologies is presented in appendixB of the BID.

The MIR estimate was made first byscreening detailed TSDRSurvey data formore than 1,400 TSDF to identify thefacility that has the highest potentialequipment leak emissions and thehighest potential for these emissions toresult in high ambient air concentrations.(i.e., high emissions on a small facilityarea). Next, it was assumed that thisfacility handles hazardous wastes thathave carcinogens with an emission-weighted potency equal to that of thenationwide average and that anindividual was residing at the shortest,distance from the TSDF managementunits to the nearest apparent residence.The highest annual-average ambientconcentration, resulting from this highemission-rate facility, predicted to occurat the residence nearest the facility wasthen determined by dispersion modeling.The Industrial Source Complex Long-Term (ISCLT) dispersion model wasused in the equipment leak MIR analysisto,model the worst-case facility as a truearea source with the actual facility area

.of about 1 acre as input. The highest

annual average out of the results of 5years of meteorological data modeledfor each of the eight cities used tocharacterize nationwide meteorologywas selected for use in the MIRcalculation. Thus, this MIR estimate isconsidered a reasonable worst-caseestimate for the industry and shouldnotbe interpreted to represent a known riskposed by any actual facility in theIndustry.

The MIR resulting from TSDF baseline(or uncontrolled) equipment leakemissions is estimated at 5x10- , i.e., 5chances in 1,000. Based on the estimatedlower-bound emission rates for processvents, the MIR for uncontrolled processvents is about 3 chances in 100,000(3X 10)-; based on the upper-boundemission rate, the MIR is 8X10-'.Because of the uncertainties inherent innationwide emission and risk estimatesthat must characterize the manydifferent constituents present in avariety of TSDF operations, EPAconsidered the upper-bound estimates Inits decisionmaking.

With the application of the finalprocess vent standards, based on lower-bound emission rates, the MIR will bereduced to 2 X 10- 6 from 3 x 10-. Basedon the upper-bound emission rates, theMIR will be reduced to 4X10 - 5 from8X 10- 4. With the implementation ofcontrol requirements for equipment leakemissions that include monthly LDARrequirements for pumps and valves,caps for open-ended lines, closed-purgesampling, and rupture discs for pressurerelief devices, the MIR associated withfugitive emissions will be reduced.to .about 1 X×10 -

3 from 5 X 10 - . Appendix Bof the BID, EPA 450/3-89-009, presents adetailed explanation of the derivation ofthese risk estimates.

The MIR estimate for equipment leaksis: sensitive to several factors. Emissions.are the most obvious factor controllingrisk. The facility associated with thereported MIR for equipment leaks is oneof the highest emitting TSDF in terms ofequipment leaks, in the upper 99.5percent for potential equipment leak

* emissions. If the analysis were to usethe,85-percentile emissions (i.e.. 85'percent of the TSDF nationwide havelower equipment leak emissions thanthis value), then MIR would drop fromI X 1 0 -3 to 5 X 10-' with all other factorsheld constant.

Another factor affecting the MIRestimates is area of the emitting source.For these types of sources, risk isinversely proportional to the area of theemitting source. For example, givenequal emissions, a facility located over10 acres generally poses less risk than afacility on T acre. For the facility

presenting the highest risk In this rule,the MIR would drop from 1X 10-

3 to2x10- 4 if 10 acres were used in theestimate rather than 1 acre. It shouldalso be pointed out that for the morethan 1,400 TSDF surveyed in the EPA1987 TSDR Survey, the median facilityarea was greater than 50 acres.

Distance to the nearest resident isanother key variable in the riskestimate. The actual distance to thenearest residence (i.e., 250 ft) for theworst-case facility was used incalculating the reported MIR value:however, the median distance in arandom sample of distances to thenearest residence reported in a surveyof the hazardous waste generators was1,000 ft. If this median distance wereused in the estimate, even with the highemissions and the small area, themaximum risk value would drop from1I10-8 to 2x10- . Meteorology is also afactor, the worst-case dispersion wasused in the reported estimate. If anaverage case were used, then risk woulddrop to 8X10- 4 with all other factorsheld constant.

As the above examples show,facilities with anything other than thecombined worst-case factors wouldpose significantly less risk than the MIRreported for equipment leaks. The MIRestimates presented are, for the mostpart based on worst-case orconservative assumptions; the oneexception is the weighted-averagecancer potency value, or unit risk factor(URF), used. The EPA believes it isunreasonable to make all worst-caseassumptions for a single facility.However, because of the overallconservative nature of the analysis, forthe Industry as a whole, the vast-majority of TSDF would posesignificantly lower risk from.equipmentleak emissions than the reportedreasonable, worst-case value.

F. Cost Impacts

The EPA developed a detailedestimate of the total capital investment,annual operating costs, and total annualcosts of each emission controltechnology applied to each affectedwaste management unit. Total capitalinvestment represents the total originalcost of the Installed control device.Total annual cost represents the totalpayment each year to repay the capitalinvestment for the control device as wellas to pay for the control device (or workpractice) operating and maintenanceexpenses. The costs of attaining the 95-percent control or emission reduction forprocess vents are based on the use ofcondensers to control process ventstreams for which condensation is



Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 1990 ./ Rules and Regulations

technically feasible and on the use ofcarbon adsorption systems to controlthe remaining process vent streamssubject to the regulations. Because site-specific information was insufficient todetermine which facilities could applycondensers rather than carbonadsorbers industry-wide, upper- andlower-bound cost estimates weregenerated for process vent controls. Theupper-bound cost estimates are basedon the assumption that fixed-bed,regenerable carbon adsorption systemswould be required to control processvents at all facilities with emissionsabove the emission rate limit. Similarly,the lower-bound cost estimate is basedon the assumption that condenserscould be used to control process vents atall facilities with emissions above theemission rate limit.

The nationwide capital investmentand total annual cost of implementingthe requirements of today's rule forprocess vent controls are estimated at$24.6 million and $12.9 million/year,respectively, for the upper-bound case.For the lower-bound case, capitalinvestment is $1.5 million and totalannual costs represent a small savingsof $70,000/yr. These costs are based onan industry profile that includes 73 largerecycling facilities and 167 medium-sized recycling facilities. The more than200 small recycling facilities are notincluded in the cost estimates becausethey are projected not to have to installadditional controls to meet the facilityemission rate limit.

The capital investment and totalannual costs of controlling TSDFequipment leak emissions with theLDAR program together with someequipment specifications are estimatedat $126.6 million and $32.9 million/yr.respectively. Table 2 summarizes capitaland annual costs associated with thefinal rules.

Further information on the economicimpacts of the final standards fororganic control from TSDF process ventsand equipment leaks is presented insection VIII of this preamble. Details ofthe analysis are presented in the BID,chapter 9.0.

TABLE 2.-SUMMARY OF NATIONWIDECOST IMPACTS OF TSDF AIR EMISSIONREGULATIONS

Nation- Nation-wide wide

TSDF source category capital annua-cost,$ lizedmillions cost "

(1986) millions/

Process vents'Lower bound ........................ 1.5 (0.1)

TABLE 2.-Sumb*RY OF NAT!ONWDECOST IMPACTS OF TSDF AIR EMISSIONREGULATIONS-Continued

' Nation-Nation- widewide annua-

TSDF source category capital lizedcost $ iemillions cost , $(1986) millions/

yr

Upper bound .. ................. 24.6 12.9'Equipment leaks ............ 126.6 32.9

indicates a cost credit.Includes a recovery credit for recycling. No re-

covery credit was applied for TSDF without recyclingprocesses.

b The lower-bound cost estimates assume thatcondensers could be used to control process ventsat all facilities with emissions above the emissionrate limit; the upper-bound cost estimates assumethat carbon adsorbers would be required to controlprocess vents at all facilities with emissions abovethe emission rate limit.

VIII. State Authorization

A. Applicability of Rules in AuthorizedStates

Under section 3006 of RCRA, EPAmay authorize qualified States toadminister and enforce the RCRAprogram within the State. (See 40 CFRpart 271 for the standards andrequirements for authorization.)Following authorization, EPA retainsenforcement authority under sections3008, 7003, and 3013 of RCRA, althoughauthorized States have primaryenforcement responsibility undersection 7002.

Prior to the HSWA of 1984, a Statewith final authorization administered itshazardous waste program entirely inlieu of EPA administering the Federalprogram in that State. The Federalrequirements no longer applied in theauthorized State, and EPA could notissue permits for any facilities in theState that the State was authorized topermit. When new, more stringentFederal requirements were promulgatedor enacted, the State was obliged toenact equivalent authority withinspecified timeframes. New Federalrequirements did not take effect in anauthorized State until the State adoptedthe requirements as State law.

In contrast, under section 3006(g)(1) ofRCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6926(g), newrequirements and prohibitions imposedby HSWA take effect in authorizedStates at the same time that they takeeffect in nonauthorized States. The EPAis directed to carry out thoserequirements and prohibitions inauthorized States, including the issuanceof permits, until the State is grantedauthorization to do so. While Statesmust still adopt HSWA-relatedprovisions as State law to retain final

authorization, the HSWA requirementsapply in authorized States in the interim.

B. Effect on State Authorizations

Today's rule is promulgated pursuantto section 3004(n) of RCRA, a provisionadded by HSWA. Therefore, EPA isadding the requirements to Table I in 40CFR 271.1(j), which identifies theFederal program requirements that arepromulgated pursuant to HSWA andtake effect in all States, regardless ofauthorization status. States may applyfor either interim or final authorizationfor the HSWA provisions identified inTable 1, as discussed in this section ofthe preamble.

The EPA will implement today's rulein authorized States until (1) theymodify their programs to adopt theserules and receive final authorization forthe modification or (2) they receiveinterim authorization as describedbelow. Because this rule is promulgatedpursuant to HSWA, a State submitting aprogram modification may apply toreceive either interim or finalauthorization under section 3006(g)(2) orsection 3006(b), respectively, on thebasis of requirements that aresubstantially equivalent or equivalent toEPA's. The procedures and schedule forState program modifications for eitherinterim or final authorization aredescribed in 40 CFR 271.21. It should benoted that all HSWA interimauthorizations will expire automaticallyon January 1, 1993 (see 40 CFR271.24(c)).

Section 271.21(e)(2) requires thatauthorized States must modify theirprograms to reflect Federal programchanges and must subsequently submitthe modifications to EPA for approval.The deadline for State programmodifications for this rule is July 1, 1991(or July 1, 1992, if a State statutorychange is needed). These deadlines canbe extended in certain cases [40 CFR271.21(e)(3)). Once EPA approves themodification, the State requirementsbecome subtitle C RCRA requirements.

A State that submits its officialapplication for final authorization lessthan 12 months after theeffective dateof these standards is not required toinclude standards equivalent to thesestandards in its application. However,the State must modify its program by thedeadlines set forth in 40 CFR 271.21(e).States that submit official applicationsfor final authorization 12 months afterthe effective date of these standardsmust include standards equivalent tothese standards in their applications.Section 271.3 sets forth the requirementsa State must meet when submitting itsfinal authorization application.

25489



25490 Federal Register / Vol.5,N.10ITusaJn 2,19 ue n euain

States that are authorized for RCRAmay already have requirements underState law similar to those in today'srules. These State regulations have notbeen assessed against the Federalregulations being promulgated today todetermine whether they meet the testsfor authorization. Thus, a State is notauthorized to implement theserequirements in lieu of EPA until theState program modification is approved.Of course, States with existingstandards may continue to administerand enforce their standards as a matterof State law. In implementing theFederal program, EPA will work withStates under cooperative agreements tominimize duplication of efforts. In manycases, EPA will be able to defer to theStates in their efforts to implement theirprograms rather than take separateactions under Federal authority.

IX. Implementation

As proposed, the air emissionstandards for process vents andequipment leaks were included assubpart C of part 269, Air EmissionStandards for Owners and Operators ofHazardous Waste Treatment, Storage,and Disposal Facilities. Part 269 was tobe added to the CFR with thepromulgation of these standards. Forconsistency with standards for otherTSDF sources under RCRA, the finalstandards have been incorporated intoparts 264 and 265. Subpart AA applies toprocess vents and subpart BB toequipment leaks. In addition, whereas atproposal the equipment leakrequirements of 40 CFR part 61, subpartV, were incorporated by reference, theseprovisions have been included insubpart BB with revisions appropriatefor a standard promulgated under RCRAauthority rather than CAA authority.

Under the current RCRA permittingsystem, a facility that has received afinal permit must comply with all of thefollowing requirements as specified in 40.CFR 270.4: (1) The specific conditionswritten into the permit (includingconditions that demonstrate compliancewith part 264 regulations); (2) self-implementing statutory requirements;and (3) regulations promulgated under40 CFR part 268 restricting theplacement of hazardous waste in or onthe land. When new regulations arepromulgated after the issuance of apermit, EPA may reopen the permit toincorporate the new requirements asstated in § 270.41. Otherwise, the newregulatory requirements areincorporated into a facility's permit atthe time of permit reissuance, or at the5-year review for land disposalfacilities.

Facilities that have not been issued afinal permit and that have fullycomplied with the requirements forinterim status must comply with theregulations specified in CFR part 265.New regulations that are added to part265 become applicable to interim statusfacilities on their effective dates.

Although EPA has the authority toreopen permits to incorporate therequirements of new standards, EPA isconcerned about the resource burdens ofthis approach. To reopen permits foreach new regulation at the time it ispromulgated would impose a largeadministrative burden on both EPA andthe regulated community because amajor permit modification wouldgenerally require the sameadministrative procedures as arerequired for initial permits (e.g.,development of a draft permit, publicnotice, and opportunity for publichearing). As a consequence, therequirements of new standards areusually incorporated into a permit whenit is renewed. For standardsimplemented through the RCRA permitsystem, the effect of this policy is to"shield" facilities that have been issueda final permit from any requirementspromulgated after the issuance of thepermit until the time that the permitmust be renewed and the newrequirements are written into the permit.Thus, this policy is often referred to asthe "permit-as-a-shield" policy.Although this policy is generallyapplied, EPA may evaluate the need toaccelerate the implementation ofstandards developed under RCRA and,if warranted, make exceptions to thepermit-as-a-shield policy. In today'srules, the permit-as-a-shield provisionapplies to control of air emissions fromprocess vents and equipment leaksregulated under section 3004(n).However, as previously noted, In thePhase 11 TSDF air rules, EPA intends topropose modifications to permit-as-a-shield provisions as they apply tocontrol of air emissions under these newsubparts. With this proposed action, airrules promulgated under RCRA section3004(n) would be applicable to allfacilities, regardless of permit status.

Both interim status and permitted-facilities must comply with thesubstantive control requirements of thefinal standards. However, facilities thathave already been issued a final permitprior to the effective date of today'sfinal rules are not required to complywith the rules until such time as thepermit is reviewed or is reissued.-Interim status facilities that havesubmitted their part B permit applicationare required to modify their part B

applications~to incorporate therequirements of today's rules.

The EPA considers that the part 265standards promulgated here can besatisfied without the need for detailedexplanation or negotiation between thefacility owner/operator and EPA andtherefore, interim status facilities cancomply without awaiting permit action.The self-implementing nature of theserules is achieved by including specificcriteria for facility owners or operatorsto identify waste management units thatare subject to the regulation and byclearly specifying the emission controland administrative requirements of therules.

The criteria for applicability are thatcertain hazardous waste managementunits at new and existing TSDF thatneed authorization to operate underRCRA section 3005 are covered by therules. The applicability Includes allhazardous waste management units andrecycling units at facilities that requireRCRA permits. For the equipment leakstandards to apply, the equipment mustcontain or contact hazardous wasteswith a 10-percent-or-more total organicsconcentration. For the process ventstandards to apply, the vents must beassociated with specific hazardouswaste management units, i.e.,distillation, fractionation, thin-filmevaporation, solvent extraction, or air orsteam stripping operations,'that managewastes with 10 ppmw or greater totalorganics concentration.

Control requirements in the finalregulation include specific designrequirements for equipment and specificperformance criteria (i.e., a weight-percent reduction and a volumeconcentration limit) for emission controldevices. Provisions of the finalstandards also list specific types ofequipment required. Owners andoperators who use one of the listedtypes of equipment within the specifieddesign and operational parameterswould therefore be in compliance withthe regulation as long as the requireddesign, inspection, monitoring, andmaintenance provisions were met.Specifications for emission controls thatachieve at least a 95-weight-percentreduction in volatile organic emissionsare somewhat less specific, butengineering design practices aresufficiently established that thecombination of a good control devicedesign and subsequent monitoring ofoperating parameters, as required by thefinal regulation, would offer reasonableassurance that the specified emissionreduction is being achieved. Regardlessof the type of control selected, ownersand. operators must maintain their own

55, No. 120 /Thursday, June 21, 1990 1 Rules and Regulations25490 Federal Register /Vol.



Federal Register / Vol.,. 55, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 1990 / Rules and Regulations

records of control device design,installation, and monitoring and must'submit reports identifying exceeders ofmonitored control device parameters.Periodic review of the required reportsand records by EPA may be used toensure compliance.

Because today's rules are promulgatedunder HSWA, all affected facilities mustcomply with these requirements on theeffective date of the rule, regardless ofthe authorization status of the State inwhich they are located. In addition,because EPA will implement these rulesin every State on the effective date, allreports should be sent to the EPARegional Offices until the State receivesauthorization to implement these rules.Therefore, owners and operators ofTSDF with existing waste managementunits subject to the provisions ofsubparts AA and BB must achievecompliance with the process vent andequipment leak control and monitoringrequirements on the effective date ofthese rules (i.e., 6 months followingpromulgation) except where compliancewould require the installation of aclosed-vent system and control device.Information developed under other EPAregulations has sh6wn that in somecases, the design, construction, andinstallation of a closed-vent system andcontrol device can take as long as 24months to complete. As a result, EPA isallowing up to 24 months from thepromulgation date of the regulation forexisting facilities to completeinstallation if they are required to installa closed-vent system and control deviceand if they can document thatinstallation of the emission controlscannot reasonably be expected to becompleted earlier. In thesecircumstances, owners/operators arerequired to develop an implementationschedule that indicates dates by whichthe design, construction, and operationof the necessary emission controls willbe completed. This implementationschedule must document thatinstallation of closed-vent systems andcontrol devices required by the finalstandards would be achieved within aperiod of no more than 2 years fromtoday and must be included as part ofthe facility's operating record on theeffective date of these final rules (i.e., 6months after promulgation). Changes inthe implementation schedule areallowed within the 24-month timeframeif the owner or operator documents thatthe change cannot reasonably beavoided.

This extension would also apply tothose existing facilities that are broughtunder regulation because of newstatutory or regulatory amendments

under RCRA that render the facilitysubject to the provisions of subpart AAor BB (e.g., units handling wastes newlylisted or identified as hazardous byEPA). That is, the owner or operatormay be allowed up to 18 months fromthe effective date of the statutory orregulatory amendment to completeinstallation of a control device.However, for facilities adding newwaste management units, EPA believesthat the lead time involved in suchactions provides adequate time forowners and operators to design, procure,and install the required controls.Therefore, all new units must complywith the rules immediately (i.e., musthave control equipment installed andoperating upon startup of the unit),

Under the approach discussed above,the standards promulgated today forprocess vents and equipment leakswould be implemented on the followingschedule for existing TSDF:-180 days following promulgation, the

new subparts AA and Bt standardsbecome effective; all facilities becomesubject to the new standards.

-On the effective date of the standards,compliance with the standards isrequired. Each facility that does nothave the control devices required bythe standards in place and operatingmust have one of the following in thefacility's operating record: (1) Animplementation schedule indicatingwhen the controls will be installed, or(2) a process vent emission ratedetermination that documents that theemission rate limit is not exceeded(therefore, controls are not required).

-No later than 18 months following theeffective date (2 years followingpromulgation), any control devicesrequired by the standards for processvents and equipment leaks must beinstalled at all facilities.

-All permits issued after the effectivedate must incorporate the standards.An existing solid waste management

unit may become a hazardous wastemanagement unit requiring a RCRApermit when a waste becomes newlylisted or identified as hazardous.Owners and operators of facilities notpreviously requiring a RCRA permit whohave existing units handling newlylisted or identified hazardous waste cansubmit a part A application and obtaininterim status. The air emissionstandards promulgated today would be.implemented at these newly regulatedfacilities on the following schedule:-180 days following the date the

managed waste is listed or identifiedas hazardous, the standards becomeeffective; facilities become subject.tothe subpart AA and/or BB standards.

-On the effective date of the standards,'each facility.that does not have thecontrol devices required by theprocess and/or equipment leakstandards in place must have one ofthe following in the facility's operatingrecord: (1) An implementationschedule indicating when the controlswill be installed, or (2) a process ventemission rate determination thatdocuments that the emission rate limitis not exceeded (therefore, controls-are not required).

-No later than 18 months following theeffective date (2 years followingpromulgation), the controls requiredby the standards must be installed atall facilities.Newly constructed TSDF are required

to submit part A and part B permitapplications and to receive a finalpermit prior to construction as requiredby § 270.10. Following the effective dateof the standards promulgated today, apart B application for a new facilitymust demonstrate compliance with thestandards as contained in part 264, ifapplicable. Therefore, all controlsrequired by the standards would have tobe in place and operating upon startup.

Similarly, new waste manageientunits added to existing facilities wouldhave to be equipped with the requiredcontrols prior to startup. For a new unitadded to an existing permitted facility, apermit modification would be necessary.Where a new unit is added to a facilityin interim status, the owner or operatormust submit a revised part A application(§ 270.72[c]), including an explanation ofthe need for the new unit, and thenreceive approval from the permittingauthority.

For facilities with hazardous wastemanagement units that previously werenot subject to control requirementsbecause the wastes in the units did notcontain organics in concentrationsgreater than the applicability criterion of10Ippmw or 10 percent, the owner oroperator would be required to complywith all subpart AA or BB requirementson the date that the facility or wastemanagement unit becomes affected bythe rules (i.e., the date the facility beginsto manage wastes in the units withorganic concentrations greater than 10ppmw for subpart AA or greater than 10percent for subpart BB) irrespective ofany change in permit status that isrequired by the change in wasteconcentration. In this situation, shouldthe facility owner or operator elect touse a control device to complywith the:process vent or equipment leakprovisions, the control device must beinstalled and operating on the datewhen the unit becomes subject to the

25491




rules; the 24-month extension Is notapplicable in this case. For the processvent emission rate limit, the situation issomewhat different. TSDF process ventsassociated with the distillation/separation operations specified in therule that manage wastes with organicsconcentrations of 10 ppmw or greaterare affected by the regulation regardlessof whether the facility emissions are'above or below the emission rate limit.Therefore, any change in the facilityoperations that results in a TSDF goingabove or below the emission rate limitdoes not cause a change in theapplicability of the facility to subpartAA. The rules require that affectedTSDF reduce total process vent organicemissions from all affected vents by 95percent or reduce the facility's totalprocess vent emissions to or below 1.4kg/h and 2.8 Mg/yr. One of theseconditions must be met at all times; thefacility's emission rate determination,which documents the facility's statusregarding compliance with the processvent standards, must also at all timesreflect current design and operation andwastes managed in the affected units.

The permitting authority cited bysection 3005 of RCRA and codified in§ 270.32(b)(2) states that permits issuedunder this section "* * * shall containsuch terms and conditions as theAdministrator or State Directordetermines necessary to protect humanhealth and the environment." Thissection, in effect, allows permit writersto require, on a case-by-case basis,emission controls that are morestringent than those specified by astandard. This omnibus authority couldbe used in situations where,in the permitwriter's judgment, there is anunacceptably high residual risk afterapplication of controls required by an.emission standard. As has been stated,the approach that EPA is using Intoday's regulatory action is to proceedwith promulgation of regulations tocontrol organic emissions and to followthis with regulations that would requiremore stringent controls for individualhazardous constituents or wouldotherwise reduce risk where necessary.Until then, permit writers should usetheir omnibus permitting authority torequire more stringent controls atfacilities where a high residual riskremains after implementation of thestandards for volatile organics.

X. Administrative Requirements

A ''Regulatory Impact Analysis

Executive Order No. 12291 (E.O.12291) requires each Federal agency todetermine whether a regulation is a

$major" rule as defined by the order --and, "to the extent permitted by law," toprepare and consider a RegulatoryImpact Analysis (RIA) in connectionwith every major rule. Major rules aredefined as those likely to result in:

1. An annual cost to the economy of$100 million or more; or

2. A major increase in costs or pricesfor consumers or individual industries:or

3. Significant adverse effects oncompetition, employment, investment,.productivity, innovation, orinternational trade.

The final rule establishes the specificemission levels and emission controlprograms that facilities must meet inreducing air emissions from hazardouswaste management units. A completeassessment of the costs,impacts, andbenefits of these rules has beenconducted by, EPA. This analysisindicates that the requirements of therules for TSDF equipment leaks andprocess vents result in none of theeconomic effects set forth in section 1 ofthe E.O. 12291 as grounds for finding aregulation to be major. The industry-wide annualized costs of the standardsare estimated to be $46 million, which isless than the $100 million established asthe first criterion for a major regulationin E.O. 12291. Price increases associated

'with the final standards are notconsidered a "major increase in costs orprices" specified as the second criterionin E.O. 12291. The final standard's effecton the Industry would not result in anysignificant adverse effects oncompetition, investment, productivity,employment, innovation, or the ability ofU.S. firms to compete with foreign firms(the third criterion in E.O. 12291).

The final rule was submitted to theOffice of Management and Budget(OMB) for review as required by E.O'12291.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,whenever an Agency publishes anyproposed or final rule in the FederalRegister, it must prepare a RegulatoryFlexibility Analysis (RFA) thatdescribes the impact of the rule on smallentities (i.e., small businesses,organizations, and governmentaljurisdictions). This analysis is notnecessary, however, if the Agency'sAdministrator certifies that the rule willnot have a significant economic impacton a substantial number of smallentities. The EPA has establishedguidelines for determining whether anRFA is required tolaccompany arulemaking package. The guidelines'state that if at leas-t 20 percent of theuniverse of "small entities" is affected

by the rule, then an RFA is required. Inaddition, the EPA criteria are used toevaluate if a regulation will have a"significant impact" on small entities. Ifany one of the following four criteria ismet, the regulation should be assumedto have a "significant impact:"

1. Annual compliance costs increasethe relevant production costs for smallentities by more than 5 percent.

2. The ratio of compliance costs tosales will be 10 percent higher for smallentities than for large entities.

3. Capital costs of compliance willrepresent a significant portion of thecapital available to small entities, takinginto account internal cash flow plusexternal financing capabilities.

4. The costs of the regulation willlikely result in closures of small entities.

At proposal, EPA's Administratorcertified that the rule would not have asignificant impact on small businessesbecause the only entities subject to therule are those required to have a permitfor treatment, storage, and disposal ofhazardous waste. Few, if any, of thesefacilities are small entities. Based oncomments received at proposal, EPAreviewed this conclusion in light of therevisions made to the proposedstandards and closely examined thepotential impacts on the industrysegment comprised primarily of smallcommercial recyclers. As a result of therevisions made to exempt smallfacilities from having to install controldevices, EPA again concluded that theeconomic impact on small businesseswill be minimal and did not prepare aformal RFA in support of the rule.I Accordingly, I hereby certify that this

regulation will not have a significantimpact on a substantial number of smallentities. Therefore, this regulation doesnot require an RFA.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collectionrequirements contained in this rule havebeen approved by OMB under theprovisions of the Paperwork ReductionAct, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and havebeen assigned OMB control number2060-0195.

Public reporting burden resulting fromthis rulemaking is estimated to be about9 hours per response (on average),including time for reviewinginstructions, searching existing datasources, gathering and maintaining thedata needed, and completing andreviewing the collection of information.Recordkeeping requirements areestimated to require 180 hours a year foreach facility.

Send comments regarding the burdenestimate or any other aspect of this




collection of information, includingsuggestions for reducing this burden, toChief, Information Policy Branch, PM-223, U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, 401 M Street SW., Washington,DC 20460; and to the Office ofInformation and Regulatory Affairs(Paperwork Reduction Project (2060-0195)), Office of Management andBudget, Washington, DC 20503, marked"Attention: Desk Officer for EPA."

D. Supporting Documentation

The dockets for this rulemaking(Docket No. F-86-AESP-FFFFF, whichcovers the development of the rules upto proposal, and Docket No. F-90-AESF-FFFFF, which coversdevelopment of the final rules fromproposal to promulgation) are availablefor public inspection at, the EPA RCRADocket Office (OS-300) in room 2427Mof the U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, 401 M Street SW., Washington,DC 20460. The docket room is open from9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday'through Friday,except for Federal holidays. The publicmust make an appointment to reviewdocket materials and should call (202)475-9327 for appointments. Docket A-79--27, containing support informationused In developing the NationalEmission Standard for Hazardous AirPollutants; Benzene Fugitive Emissions,is available for public inspection and

.,copying between 8 a.m. and 4p.m .. ,Monday through Friday, at EPA'sCentral Docket Section, room 2903B,Waterside Mall, 401 M Street SW.,Washington, DC 20460. The public maycopy a maximum of 50 pages of materialfrom any one regulatory docket at-nocost. Additional copies cost $0.20/page.The docket contains a copy of allreferences cited in the BID for theproposed and final rules. as well asother relevant reports and

- correspondence.

E. List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 260

Air stripping.operation, Closed-ventsystem, Condenser, Control device,Distillation operation, Equipment,Fractionation operation, Process vent,Solvent extraction operation, Steamstripping operation, Thin-filmevaporation operation, Vapor -incinerator, Vented, Incorporation byreference.-

40 CFR.Part 261

Hazardous waste, Recyclablematerials, Recycling, Hazardous wastemanagement units.

40 CFR Parts 264 and 265 Materials, 1916 Race Street,

Hazardous waste, Treatment, storage, Philadelphia, PA 19103.

and disposal facilities, Air emission "ASTM Standard Practices for

standards for process vents, Air General Techniques of Infrared

emission standards for equipment leaks, Quantitative Analysis," ASTM Standard

Incorporation by reference, Process E 168-88, available from American

vents, Closed-vent systems, Control Society for Testing and Materials, 1916devices' Pumps, Valves, Pressure relief Race Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103.devices, Sampling connection systems, "ASTM Standard Practice for PackedOpen-ended lines, Alternative Column Gas Chromatography," ASTMstandards, Test methods, Recordkeeping Standard E 260-85, available fromrequirements, Reporting requirements. American Society for Testing and

Materials, 1916 Race Street,40 CFR Part 270 Philadelphia, PA 19103.

Administrative practices and "ASTM Standard Test Method forprocedures, Hazardous waste permit Aromatics in Light Naphthas andprogram, Process vents, Equipment Aviation Gasolines by Gasleaks, Reporting and recordkeeping Chromatography," ASTM Standard Drequirements. 2267-88, available from American

40 CFR Part 271 - Society for Testing and Materials, 1916Race Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103.

Hazardous waste, State hazardous "ASTM Standard Test Method forwaste programs, Process vent and Vapor Pressure-Temperatureequipment leak air emission standards Relationship and Initial Decomposition'for TSDF. Temperature of Liquids by Isoteriscope,"

Dated June 13,1990. ASTM Standard D 2879-86, availableWilliam K. Reilly, from American Society for Testing andAdministrator. Materials, 1916 Race Street,

For the reasons set out in the Philadelphia, PA 19103.

preamble, chapter 1, title 40, of the Code "APTI Course 415: Control of Gaseousof Federal Regulations, parts 260, 261, Emissions," EPA Publication EPA-450/264, 265, 270, and 271, are amended as 2-81-005, December 1981, available fromfollows. National Technical Information Service,

5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VAPART 260-HAZARDOUS WASTE "22161.MANAGEMENT SYSTEM: GENERAL

1. The authority citation for part 260 PART 261-IDENTIFICATION ANDcontinues toread as follows: . LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921 -.through 6927, 6930, 6934, 6935, 6937, 6938, and 3. The authority citation for part 2616939. continues.to read as follows:

2. Section 260.11'is amended by Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912, 6921. 6922,

adding the following references to and 6937.paragraph (a): Subpart A-General

§ 260.11 References. 4. In § 261.6, paragraph (c)(1) is(a) * * revised and paragraphs (c)(2)(iii) and (d)

. .. . ... *are added to read as follows:"ASTM Standard Method for Analysis § 261.0 Requirements for recyclable

of Reformed Gas by Gas materials.Chromatography," ASTM Standard D1946-82, available from AmericanSociety for Testing and Materials, 1916 (c)(1) Owners or operators of facilitiesRace Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103. that store recyclable materials before

"ASTM Standard Test Method for they are recycled are regulated under allHeat of Combustion of Hydrocarbon applicable provisions of subparts A -Fuels by Bomb Calorimeter (High- through L, AA, and BB of parts 264 andPrecision Method)," ASTM Standard D 265, and under parts 124, 266, 268, and2382-83, available from American 270 of this chapter and the notificationSociety for Testing and Materials, 1916 requirements under section 3010 ofRace Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103. RCRA, except as provided in paragraph

"ASTM Standard Practices for (a) of this section. (The recyclingGeneral Techniques of Ultraviolet- process itself is exempt from regulationVisible Quantitative Analysis," ASTM except as provided in § 261.6(d).)Standard E 169-87, available from (2) *

American Society for Testing and (iii) Section 261.6(d) of this chapter.

25493



25494 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21; 1990 / Rules end Regulations

(d) Owners or operators of facilitiessubject to RCRA permittingrequirements with hazardous wastemanagement units that recyclehazardous wastes are subject to therequirements of subparts AA and BB ofpart 264 or 265 of this chapter.

PART 264-STANDARDS FOROWNERS AND OPERATORS OFHAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT,STORAGE, AND DISPOSALFACILITIES

5. The authority citation for part 264continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905. 6912(a), 6924. and6925.

Subpart 8-General facility Standards

6. Section 264.13 is amended byrevising paragraph (ib)(6) to read asfollows:

.§ 264.13 General waste analysis.

t6) Where applicable, the methodsthat will be used to meet the additionalwaste analysis requirements for specificwaste management methods asspecified in J§ 264.17, 264.314, 264.341,264.1034(d), 264.1063(d), and 268.7 of thischapter.

7. Section 264.15 is amended byrevising the last sentence of paragraph(b)(4) to read as follows:

§ 264.15 GeneralInspectionrequirements.

(4] * * * At a minimum, the

inspection schedule must include theterms and frequencies called for in§ § 264.174, 264.194, 24.226, 264.253,264.254, 264.303, 264.347,264.602,264.1033, 264.1052. 264.1053, and264.1058, wbere applicable.

Subpart E-Manifest System,Recordkeeping, and Reporting

8. Section 264.73 is amended 'byrevising paragraphs 1.b)(3) and (b)(6) toread as follows:

§ 264.73 Operation record.

(b). -

13) Records and results of wasteanalyses performed as specified in§§ 264.13, 264.17, 264.314, 264:341.264.1034; 264.1063, 268.41a), and 268.7 ofthis chapter.• * 4' ' t '4 4

(6).Monitoring, testing or analyticaldata,' and corrective action where

required by subpart Fend §§ 264.226,264.253, 264.254, 264.271,264.278 264280,264.303, 264.309. 264.347. 284.602,264.1034(c)-264.10341f0, 264.1035,264.1063d)-264.1083(i). and 264.1064.

9. Section 26477 is amended byrevising paragraph (c) to read asfollows:

§264.77 Additional reports.

(c) As otherwise required by subpartsF, K through N, AA, and BB.

10. 40 CFR part 264 is amended byadding subpartAA -to read as follows:

Subpart AA-Air'Emission Standards forProcess Vents264.1030 Applicability.264.1031 Definitions.264.1032 Standards: Process vents.264.1033 Standards: Closed-vent systems

and control devices.264.1034 Test methods and procedures.264.1035 Recordkeeping requirements.264.1036 Reporting requirements.264.1037-264.1049 [Reserved]

Subpart AA-Alr Emission Standards

for Process Vents

§ 264.1030 Applicability.(a) The regulations In this subpart

apply to owners and operators offacilities that treat, store, or dispose ofhazardous .wastes (except as providedin § 2641).

(b) Except for § § 264.1034(d) and264.1035(e), this subpart applies toprocess vents associated withdistillation, fractionation, thin-filmevaporation, solvent extraction, 'or air orsteam stripping operations that managehazardous wastes with organicconcentrations of at least 10-ppmw. ifthese operations are conducted in:

(1) Units that are subject to thepermitting requirements of part 270, or

(2) Hazardous waste recycling unitsthat are located on hazardous wastemanagement facilities otherwise subjectto the permitting requirements of part270.

(c) If the owner or operator of processvents subject to the requirements of§ § 204.1032 through 264.1036 hasreceived a permit under section 3005 ofRCRA prior to December 211990 therequirements of §I§ 264.1032 through264.1036 must be incorporated when thepermit Is reissued under J 124.15 orreviewed under § 270.50.

Note- The requirements of I § 264.1032through 264.1036 aply, to process vents onhazardous waste recycling units previouslyexempt under paragraph 261.6(c)(11. Other.exemptions under §1 261.4. 26234, and264.1(g} are not affected by theserequirementsi

§ 264.1031 Definition.As used in this subpart, all terms not

defined herein shall have the meaninggiven -them in the Act and parts' 250-266.

Air stripping operation is a desorptionoperation employed to transfer one ormore volatile components from a liquidmixture into a gas (air) either with orwithout the application of heat to theliquid. Packed towers, spray towers, andbubble-cap. sieve, or valve-type platetowers are among the processconfigurations used for contacting theair and a liquid.

Bottoms receiver means a containeror tank used to receive and collect theheavier bottoms fractions of thedistillation feed stream that remain inthe liquid phase.

Closed-vent'system means a system'that Is not open to the atmosphere andthat is composed of piping, connections,and, if necessary. flow-inducing devicesthat transport gas or vapor from a pieceor pieces of equipment to a controldevice.

Condenser means a heat-transferdevice that reduces a thermodynamicfluid from its vapor phase to its liquidphase.

Connector means flanged, 'screwed,welded, or other joined fittings used toconnect two pipelines or a pipeline anda piece of equipment. For the purposesof reporting and recordkeepngconnector means flanged fittings thatare not covered by insulation -or othermaterials that prevent location of thefittings.

Continuo .s recorder means a data-recording device recording aninstantaneous data value at least onceevery 15 minutes.

Control device means an enclosedcombustion device, vapor recoverysystem. or flare. Any device the primaryfunction of which is the recovery orcapture of solvents or other organics foruse, reuse, or sale (e.g., a primarycondenser on a solvent recovery unit) isnot a control device.

Control device shutdown means thecessation of operation of a controldevice for any purpose.

Distillate receiver means a containeror tank used to receive and collect liquidmaterial (condensed) from the overheadcondenser of a distillation unit and fromwhich the condensed liquid is pumpedto larger storage tanks or other processunits.

Distillation operation means anoperation, either batch or continuous,separating one or more feed stream(s)into two or more exit streams, each exitstream having componentconcentrations different from those inthe feed stream(s). The separation is*



Federal Register/ Vol. 55, No. 120' Thursday June 21, 1990. / Rules and Regulations

achieved by the redistribution of thecomponents between the liquid andvapor phase as they approachequilibrium within the distillation unit.

Double block and bleed system meanstwo block valves connected in serieswith a bleed valve or line that can ventthe line between the two block valves.

Equipment means each valve, pump,compressor, pressure relief device,sampling connection system, open-ended valve or line, or flange, and anycontrol devices or systems required bythis subpart.'Flame zone means the portion of the

combustion chamber in a boileroccupied by the flame envelope.

Flow indicator means a device thatindicates whether gas flow is present ina vent stream.

First attempt at repair means to takerapid action for the purpose of stoppingor reducing leakage of organic materialto the atmosphere using best practices.

Fractionation operation means adistillation operation or method used toseparate a mixture of several volatilecomponents of different boiling points insuccessive stages, each stage removingfrom the mixture some proportion of oneof the components.

.Hazardous waste management unitshutdown means a work practice oroperational procedure that stopsoperation of a hazardous wastemanagement unit or part of a hazardouswaste management unit. Anunscheduled vork practi'ce oroperational procedure that .stopsoperation of a hazardous wastemanagement unit or part of a hazardouswaste management unit for less than 24hours is not a hazardous wastemanagement unit shutdown. The use ofspare equipment and technicallyfeasible bypassing of equipment withoutstopping operation are not hazardouswaste management unit shutdowns.

Hot well means a container forcollecting condensate as in a steamcondenser:serving a vacuum-jet orsteam-jet ejector.

In gas/vapor service means that thepiece-of equipment contains "or contactsa hazardous waste stream that is in thegaseous state at operating conditions.

In heavy liquid service means that thepiece of equipment is not in gas/vaporservice or in light liquid service.

In liqht liquid service means that thepiece of equipment contains or contactsa waste stream where the vaporpressure'of one or more of the

' components in the strearn is greater than0.3 kilopascals (kPa) at 20 C, the totalconcentration of the pure componentshaving a vapor pressure greater than.0.3kPa at 20 °C is equal to or greater than

20 percent by weight, and the fluid isaliquid at operating conditions.

In situ sampling systems meansnonextractive samplers or in-linesamplers.

In vacuum service means thatequipment is operating at an internalpressure that is at least 5 kPa belowambient pressure.

Malfunction means any suddenfailure of a control device or ahazardous waste management unit orfailure of a hazardous wastemanagement unit to operate in a normalor usual manner, so that organicemissions are increased.

Open-ended valve or line means anyvalve, except pressure relief valves,having one side of the valve seat incontact with process fluid and one sideopen to the atmosphere, either directlyor through open piping.

Pressure release means the emissionof materials resulting from the systempressure being greater than the setpressure of the pressure relief device.

Process heater means a device thattransfers heat liberated by burning fuelto fluids contained in tubes, including allfluids except water that are heated toproduce steam.

Process vent means any open-endedpipe or stack that is vented to theatmosphere either directly, through avacuum-producing system, or through atank (e.g., distillate receiver, condenser,bottoms receiver, surge control tank,separator tank, or hot well) associatedwith hazardous waste distillation,fractionation, thin-film evaporation,solvent extraction, or air or steamstripping operations.

Repaired means; that equipment isadjusted, or otherwise altered, toeliminate a leak.

Sensor means a device that measuresa physical quantity or the change in aphysical quantity, such as temperature,pressure, flow rate, pH, or liquid level.

Separator tank means a device usedfor separation of two immiscible liquids.. Solvent extraction operation means

an operation or method of separation inwhich a solid or solution is contactedwith a liquid solvent (the two beingmutually insoluble) to preferentiallydissolve and transfer one or morecomponents into the solvent.. Startup means the setting in operation

of a hazardous waste management unitor control device for any purpose.:

Steam stripping operation means a.distillation operation In whichvaporization of the volatile constituentsof a liquid mixture takes place by theintroduction of steam directly into thecharge.

Surge control tank means a large-sized pipe or storage reservoir sufficient

to contain the' surging liquid discharge ofthe process tank to which it isconnected.

Thin-film evaporation operationmeans a distillation operation thatemploys a heating surface consisting of.a large diameter tube that may be eitherstraight or tapered, horizontal orvertical. Liquid is spread on the tubewall by a rotating assembly of bladesthat maintain a close clearance from thewall or actually ride on the film of liquidon the wall.

Vapor incinerator means anyenclosed combustion device that is usedfor destroying organic compounds anddoes not extract energy in the form ofsteam or process heat.

Vented means discharged through anopening, typically an open-ended pipe orstack, allowing the passage of a streamof liquids, gases, or fumes into theatmosphere. The passage of liquids,gases, or fumes is caused by mechanicalmeans such as compressors or vacuum-producing systems or by process-relatedmeans such as evaporation produced byheating and not caused by tank loadingand unloading (working losses) or bynatural means such as diurnaltemperature changes.

§ 264.1032 Standards: Process vents.(a) The owner or operator of a facility

with process vents associated withdistillation, fractionation, thin-filmevaporation, solvent extraction, or air orsteam stripping operations managinghazardous wastes with organicconcentrations of at least 10 ppmw shalleither:

(1) Reduce total organic emissionsfrom all affected process vents at thefacility below 1.4 kg/h (3 lb/h) and 2.8Mg/yr (3.1 tons/yr), or

(2) Reduce, by use of a control device,total organic emissions from all affectedprocess vents at the facility by 95 weightpercent.

(b) If the owner or operator, installs aclosed-vent system and control device

* to comply with the provisions ofparagraph (a) of this section the closed-vent system and control device mustmeet the requirements of§ 264.1033.

(c) Determinations of vent emissionsand emission reductions or total organiccompound concentrations achieved byadd-on control devices may be based onengineering calculations or performancetests. If performance tests are used todetermine vent emissions, emissionreductions, or total organic compoundc concenirations achieved by add-oncontrol devices, the performance testsmust conform with the requirements of§ 264.1034(c).

'25495I



25496 Federal Register I Vol. 55. No. 120 / Thursday, June 2L 1990 / Rules and Regulations

-id) When an owper or operator andthe Regional Administrator do not agreeon determinations of vent emissionsand/or emission reductions or totalorganic compound concentrationsachieved by add-on control devicesbased on engineering calculations, theprocedures in § 264.10341c) shall be usedto resolve the disagreement.

§ 264.1033 Standards: Closed-ventsystemsand control devices.

(a)[1) Owners or operators of closed-vent systems and control devices usedto comply with provisions of this partshall comply with the provisions of thisQection.

(2) The owner or operator of anexisting facility Who cannot install aclosed-vent system and control deviceto comply with the provisions of thissubpart on the effective date that thefacility becomes subject to theprovisions of this subpart must preparean implementation schedule thatincludes dates by which the closed-ventsystem and control device will beInstalled and in operation. The controlsmust be Installed as soon as possible,but the implementation schedule mayallow up to 18 months after the effectivedate that the facility becomes subject tothis subpart for installation and startup.All units that begin ,opera tion afterDecember 21, 1990, must comply withthe rules immediately (i.e.. must havecontrol devices installed and operatingon startup of the affected unit); the 2-year implementation schedule does notapply to these units.

(b) A control device Involving vaporrecovery (e.g., a -condenser or adsorber)shall be designed and operated torecover the organic vapors vented to itwith an efficiency, of 95 weight percentor greater unless the total organicemission limits of § 254.1032(a)(1) for allaffected process vents can 'be attainedat einefficiency less than 95 weightpercent.

(c) An enclosed combustion device(eg. a vapor Incinerator. boiler, orprocess heater) shall be designed andoperated to reduce the organicemissions vented to It by 95 weightpercent or greater. to achieve a totalorganic compound concentration of 20ppmv. expressed as the sum of theactual compounds, not carbonequivalents, on a dry basis corrected to3 percent oxygen; or to provide aminimum residence time of 0.50 secondsat a minimum temperature of 760 'C. If aboiler or process heater is used as thecontrol device, then the vent streamshall be introduced into the flame zoneof the boiler or process heater.

Idll) A flare shall be .designed forand operated with no visible emissions

as determined by the methods specifiedin paragraph {e)(1) of this section,except for periods not to exceed a totalof 5 minutes during any 2 consecutivehours.

(2) A flare shall be operated with aflame present at all times, as determinedby the methods specified in paragraph(f)(2)(iii) of this section.

(3) A flare shall be used only if the netheating value of the gas beingcombusted is 11.2 MI/scm ,(300 Btu/scf)or greater if the flare is steam-assistedor air-assisted; or if the net heatingvalue of the gas being combusted is 7.45MI/scm (200 Btu/sc or greater if theflare -is nonassisted. The net heatingvalue of the gas being combusted shallbe determined by the methods specifiedin paragraph [e)(2) of this section.

(4)(i) A steam-assisted or nonassistedflare shall be designed for and 'operatedwith an exit velocity, as determined bythe methods specified in paragraph(e)(3) of this -section. less than 18.3 m/s(60 ft/s). except as provided inparagraphs (d)(4) ,(i) and (iii) of thissection.

(ii) A steamassisted or nonassistedflare designed for and operated with anexit velocity, as determined by themethods specified In paragraph (e)(3) ofthis section, equal to or greater than 18.3m/s 480 ft/s) but less than'122 m/s 4400fit/s is allowed if he net heating valueof the gas being combusted is greaterthan 37-3 Mfscm 1,000 Btu/scf).Ifil) A steam-assisted or nonassisted

flare designed for and operated with anexit velocity, as determied by themethods specified In paragraph (e)(3) ofthis section, less than the velocity, V..as determined by the method specifiedin paragraph (e)(4) of this section andless than 122 m/s (400 ft/a) is allowed.

(5) An air-assisted flare shall bedesigned and operated 'with an exitvelocity less than the velocity, V,,., asdetermined by the method specified inparagraph (e)(5) 'of this section.(6) A flare used to comply with this

section shall be steam-assisted, air-'assisted, or nonassisted.

(e)ff) Reference Method 22 In 40 CFRpart 60 shall be used to determine thecompliance ofa flare with the visibleemission provisions of this subpart. Theobservation 'period is 2 hours and shallbe used according to Method 22.

J2) The net heating value of the gasbeing combusted in a flare shall becalculated using the following equation:

( m,

where:He=Net heating value of the sample. MJ]

scm; where the net enthalpy per mole ofoffgas is based, on combustion at 25 Cend 760 mm HS, but the standardtemperature for determining the volumecorresponding to Imol Is 20 'C

K =Constant, 1.74 x 10" -'(1pp J f molls-)(MJ/kcal) where standard temperaturefor (g mol/scm) Is 20 *(-

C,= Concentration of sample component I inppm on a wet basis, as measured fororganics by Reference Method 18 in 40CFR part 60 and measured for hydrogenand carbon monoxide by ASTM D 1946-82 (incorporated by reference asspecified in # 260.1) and

H,= Net heat ci combustion of samplecomponent I, kcai9 tool at 25 C and 760mm Hg. The heats of combustion may bedetermined using ASTM D 2382-83(incorporated by reference as specifiedin § 260.11) if published values are notavailable or cannot be calculated.

(3) 'The actual exit velocity of a flareshall be determined by dividing thevolumetric flow rate (in units ofstandard temperature and pressure. asdetermined by Reference Methods 2, 2A,2C or 2D in 40 CFR part 80 asappropriate, by the unobstructed Ifree]cross-sectional area of the flare tip.

t4).The maximum allowed velocity inms. V., for a flare complying withparagraph [d)[4)[iii) of this section shallbe determined by the followingequation:

Log,ofV,.uJ =f(H,+28.a)/3L7where:28.8 = Constnt.31.7=Constant.HT=The net beating raluess'determined in.

paragraph 4eMJ2)of this section.

(5) The maximum allowed velocity inm/is, V... for an air-assisted flare shallbe determined by the following'equation.

V -. =3.70o +O.7,o (HT)where:8.706 = Constant0.7084 =ConstantHT=Vhe net beating value as determined in

paragrapb (e)(2) of this section.

(f) The owner or operator shallmonitor and inspect each control devicerequired to comply with this section toensure proper operation andmaintenance of the control device byImplementing the followingrequirements:

4I Install, calbrate, maintain, andoperate according to the manufacturer'sspecifications a flow indicator thatprovides a record of vent stream flowfrom each affected process vent to thecontrol device at least once every hour.The flow Indicator sensor shall beInstalled In the vent stream at thenearest feasible point to the ontrol



Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 1990 / Rules and. Regulations

device inlet but before the point atwhich the vent streams are combined.

(2) Install, calibrate, maintain, andoperate according to the manufacturer'sspecifications a device to continuouslymonitor control device operation asspecified below:

(i) For a thermal vapor incinerator, atemperature monitoring device equippedwith a continuous recorder. The deviceshall have an accuracy of ±:F1 percent ofthe temperature being monitored in °Cor ±0.5 °C, whichever is greater. Thetemperature sensor shall be installed ata location in the combustion chamberdownstream of the combustion zone.

(ii) For a catalytic vapor incinerator, atemperature monitoring device equippedwith a continuous recorder. The deviceshall be capable of monitoringtemperature at two locations and havean accuracy of ±1 percent of thetemperature being monitored in °C or-0.5 °C, whichever is greater. One

temperature sensor-shall be installed inthe vent stream at the nearest feasiblepoint to the catalyst bed inlet and a.second temperature sensor shall beinstalled in the vent stream at thenearest feasible point to the catalyst bedoutlet.

(iii) For a flare, a heat sensingmonitoring device equipped with acontinuous recorder that indicates thecontinuous ignition of the pilot flame.

(iv) For a boiler or process heaterhaving a design heat input capacity lessthan 44 MW, a temperature monitoringdevice equipped with a continuousrecorder. The device shall have anaccuracy of ±1 percent of thetemperature being monitored in °C or±1:0.5 °C, whichever is greater. Thetemperature sensor shall be installed ata location in the furnace downstream ofthe combustion zone.

(v) For a boiler or process heaterhaving a design heat input capacitygreater than or equal to 44 MW. amonitoring device equipped with acontinuous recorder to measure aparameter(s) that indicates goodcombustion operating practices arebeing used.

(vi) For a condenser, either.(A) A monitoring device equipped

with a continuous recorder to measurethe concentration level of the organiccompounds in the exhaust vent streamfrom the condenser, or

(B) A temperature monitoring deviceequipped with a continuous recorder.The device shall be capable ofmonitoring temperature at two locationsand have an accuracy of -+1 percent ofthe temperature being monitored in "Cor :±0.5 °C, whichever is greater. Onetemperatue sensor shall be installed ata location in the exhaust vent stream

from the condenser, and a secondtemperature sensor shall be installed ata location in the coolant fluid exiting thecondenser.

(vii) For a carbon adsorption systemthat regenerates the carbon bed directlyin the control device such as a fixed-bedcarbon adsorber. either

(A) A monitoring device equippedwith a continuous recorder to measurethe concentration level of the organiccompounds in the exhaust vent streamfrom the carbon bed, or

(B) A monitoring device equipped witha continuous recorder to measure aparameter that indicates the carbon bedis regenerated on a regular.predetermined time cycle.

(3) Inspect the readings from eachmonitoring device required byparagraphs (1) and (2) of this section atleast once each operating day to checkcontrol device operation and, ifnecessary, immediately implement thecorrective measures necessary to ensurethe control device operates incompliance with the requirements of thissection.

(g) An owner or operator using acarbon adsorption system such as afixed-bed carbon adsorber thatregenerates the carbon bed directlyonsite in the control device shall replacethe existing carbon in the control devicewith fresh carbon at a regular,predetermined time interval that is nolonger than the carbon service lifeestablished as a requirement of§ 264.1035(b)(4)(iii)(F).

(h) An owner or operator using acarbon adsorption system such as acarbon canister that does not regeneratethe carbon bed directly onsite in thecontrol device shall replace the existingcarbon in the control device with freshcarbon on a regular basis by using oneof the following procedures:

(1) Monitor the concentration level ofthe organic compounds in the exhaustvent stream from the carbon adsorptionsystem on a regular schedule, andreplace the existing carbon with freshcarbon Immediately when carbonbreakthrough is Indicated. Themonitoring frequency shall be daily or atan interval no greater than 20 percent ofthe time required to consume the total.carbon working capacity established asa requirement of § 264.1035(b)(4)(iii)(G),whichever is longer.

(2) Replace the existing carbon withfresh carbon at a regular, predeterminedtime Interval that is less than the designcarbon replacement interval establishedas a requirement ofI 264.1035(b)(4)(iii)(G).

(I) An alternative operational orprocess parameter may be monitored ifit can be demonstrated that another

parameter will ensure that the controldevice is operated in conformance withthese standards and the control device'sdesign specifications.

(j) An owner or operator of anaffected facility seeking to comply withthe provisions of this part by using acontrol device other than a thermalvapor incinerator, catalytic vaporincinerator, flare, boiler, process heater,condenser, or carbon adsorption systemis required to develop documentationincluding sufficient information todescribe the control device operationand Identify the process parameter orparameters that indicate properoperation and maintenance of thecontrol device.

(k)(1) Closed-vent systems shall bedesigned for and operated with nodetectable emissions, as indicated by aninstrument reading of less than 500 ppmabove background and by visualinspections, as determined by themethods specified as § 264.1034(b).

(2) Closed-vent systems shall bemonitored to determine compliance withthis section during the initial leakdetection monitoring, which shall beconducted by the date that the facilitybecomes subject to the provisions of thissection, annually, and at other times asrequested by the RegionalAdministrator.

(3) Detectable emissions, as indicatedby an Instrument reading greater than500 ppm and visual Inspections, shall becontrolled as soon as practicable, butnot later than 15 calendar days after theemission is detected.

(4) A first attempt at repair shall bemade no later than 5 calendar days afterthe emission is detected.

(1) Closed-vent systems and control'devices used to comply with provisionsof this subpart shall be operated at alltimes when emissions may be vented tothem.

§ 264.1034 Test methods and procedures.(a) Each owner or operator subject to

the provisions of this subpart shallcomply with the test methods andprocedures requirements provided inthis section.

(b) When a closed-vent system Istested for compliance with no detectableemissions, as required in § 264.1033(k),the test shall comply with the followingrequirements:

(1) Monitoring shall comply withReference Method 21 in 40 CFR part 60.

(2) The detection instrument shallmeet the performance criteria ofReference Method 21.

(3) The Instrument shall be calibratedbefore use on each day of. its use by the

25497



25498 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 120 /. Thursday, June. 21, 1990

procedures specified in ReferenceMethod 21.

(4) Calibration gases shall be:(i) Zero air (less than.10 ppm of

hydrocarbon in air).(ii) A mixture of methane or n-hexane

and air at a concentration ofapproximately, but less than, 10,000 ppmmethane or n-hexane.

(5) The background level shall bedetermined as set forth in ReferenceMethod 21.

(6) The instrument probe shall betraversed around all potential leakinterfaces as close to the interface aspossible as described in ReferenceMethod 21.

(7) The arithmetic difference between

where:Eh=Total organic mass flow rate, kg/h;Qd=Volumetric flow rate of gases entering

or exiting control device, as determinedby Method 2, dscm/h:

n - Number of organic compounds in the ventgas;

C, =Organic concentration in ppm, dry basis,* of compound i in the vent gas, asdetermined.by Method 18; •

MW,= Molecular weight of organiccompound i in the vent gas, kg/kg-mol;

0.0416=Conversion factor for molar volume,kg-mol/m 3 (@ 293 K and 760 mm Hg);

10- =Conversion from ppmppm- .

(v) The annual total organic emissionrate shall be determined by thefollowing equation:

EA= (Eh)(IH)where:EA=Total organic mass emission rate, kg/y:E1 -Total organic mass flow rate for the

process vent, kg/h;I I,-=Total annual hours of operations for the

affected unit, h.

(vi) Total organic emissions from allaffected process vents at the facility.shall be determined by summing thehourly total organic mass emission rates(Eh as determined in paragraph (c)(1)(iv)of this section) and by summing theannual total organic mass emission rates(EA, as determined in paragraph (c)(1)(v)of this section) for all affected processvents at the facility.

(2) The owner or operator shall recordsuch process, information. as may benecessary to determine the conditions ofthe performance tests. Operationsduring periods of startup, shutdown, andmalfunction shall, not constitute

the maximum concentration indicatedby the instrument and the backgroundlevel is compared with 500 ppm fordetermining compliance.

(c) Performance tests to determinecompliance with § 264.1032(a) and withthe total organic compound.concentration limit of §.264.1033(c) shallcomply with the following:

(1) Performance tests to determinetotal organic compound concentrationsand mass flow rates entering and exitingcontrol devices shall be conducted anddata reduced in accordance with thefollowing reference methods and.calculation procedures:

(i) Method 2 in 40 CFR part 60 forvelocity and volumetric flow rate.

n

Eh=Q2 I I CMW,] 10.0416] 1106 ]

1=1

representative conditions for thepurpose of a performance test.

(3) The owner or operator of anaffected facility shall provide, or causeto be provided, performance'testingfacilities as follows:

(i) Sampling ports adequate for thetest methods specified in paragraph(c)(1) of this section.

(ii) Safe sampling platform(s).(iii) Safe access to sampling

platform(s).(iv) Utilities for sampling and testing

equipment.(4) For the purpose of making

compliance determinations, the time-weighted average of the results of thethree runs shall apply. In the event thata sample is accidentally lost orconditions occur in which one of thethree runs must be discontinued becauseof forced shutdown, failure ofanirreplaceable pbrtibn of the sampletrain, extreme meteorologicalconditions, or other circumstancesbeyond the owner or operator's control,compliance may, upon the RegionalAdministrator's approval, be determinedusing the average of the results of thetwo other runs.

(d) To show that a process ventassociated with a hazardous wastedistillation, fractionation, thin-filmevaporation, solvent extraction, or air orsteam stripping operation is not subjectto the requirements of this subpart, theowner or operator must make an initialdetermination that the time-weighted,annual average total organicconcentration of the waste managed bythe waste management unit is less than

(ii) Method 18 in 40 CFR part 60 fororganic content.

(ill) Each performance test shallconsist of three separate runs; each runconducted for at least 1 hour under theconditions that exist when thehazardous waste management unit isoperating at the highest load or capacitylevel reasonably expected to occur. Forthe purpose of determining total organiccompound concentrations and massflow rates, the average of results of allruns shall apply. The average shall becomputed: on a time-weighted basis.

(iv) Total organic mass flow ratesshall be determined by the followingequation:

10 ppmw using one 'of the following twomethods:

(1) Direct measurement of the organicconcentration of the waste using thefollowing procedures:

,(i) The owner or operator must take aminimum of four grab samples ,of wastefor each waste stream managed in theaffected unit under process conditionsexpected.to cause the maximum wasteorganic concentration.

(ii) For-waste generated onsite, thegrab samples must be collected at apoint before the waste is exposed to theatmosphere such as in an enclosed pipeor other closed system that is used totransfer the waste after generation tothe first affected distillation,fractionation, thin-film evaporation,solvent extraction, or air or steamstripping operation. For waste generatedoffsite, the grab samples must becollected at the inlet to the first wastemanagement unit that receives thewaste provided .the waste has beentransferred to the facility in a closedsystem such as a tank truck and thewaste is not diluted or mixed with otherwaste.(iii) Each sample shall be analyzedand the total. organic concentration ofthe sample shall be computed usingMethod 9060 or 8240 of SW-846(incorporated by reference under§ 26011).

S(iv) The arithmetic mean of the resultsof the analyses of the four samples shallapply for each.waste stream managed inthe unit'in determining the time-weighted, annual average total'organicconcentration of the waste; The time-

/Rules an d Regulations



Federal Register I Vol. 55, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 1990 / Rules and Regulations

weighted-aveiage is to be calculatedusing the annual quantity of each wastestreamprocessed and the mean organicconcentration of each waste streammanaged in the unit.

(2) Using knowledge of the waste todetermine that its total organicconcentration is less than10 ppmw.Documentation of the wastedetermination is required. Examples ofdocumentation that shall be used tosupport a determination under thisprovision include production processinformation documenting that no organiccompounds are used, information thatthe waste is generated by a process thatis Identical to a process at the same oranother facility that has previously beendemonstrated by direct measurement togenerate a waste stream having a totalorganic content less than 10 ppmw, orprior speciation analysis results on thesame waste stream where it can also bedocumented that no process changeshave occurred since that analysis thatcould affect the waste total organicconcentration.

(e) The determination that distillation.fractionation, thin-film evaporation,solvent extraction, or air or steamstripping operations manage hazardouswastes with time-weighted, annualaverage total organic concentrationsless than 10 ppmw shall be made asfollows:

(1) By the effective date that thefacility becomes subject to theprovisions of this subpart or by the datewhen the waste is first managed in awaste management unit, whichever islater, and

(2) For continuously generated waste,annually, or

(3) Whenever there is a change in thewaste being managed or a change in'theprocess that generates or treats thewaste.

(f) When an owner or operator andthe Regional Administrator do not agreeon whether a distillation, fractionation.thin-film evaporation, solventextraction, or air or steam strippingoperation manages a hazardous wastewith organic concentrations of at least10 ppmw based on knowledge of thewaste, the procedures in Method 8240may be used to resolve the dispute.

§ 264.1035 Recordkeeping requirements.[a)(1) Each owner or operator subject

to the provisions of this subpart shallcomply withthe recordkeepingrequirements of this section.

(2) An owner or operator of more thanone hazardous waste management unitsubject to the proVisins' of this subpartmay comply with the recordkeeping "requirements for these hazardous wastemanagement units in one recordkeeping

system if the system identifies eachrecord by each hazardous wastemanagement unit.

(b) Owners and operators must recordthe following information in the facilityoperating record:

(1) For facilities that comply with theprovisions of § 264.1033(a)(2), animplementation schedule that includesdates by which the closed-vent systemand control device will be installed andin operation. The schedule must alsoinclude a rationale of why theinstallation cannot be completed at anearlier date. The implementationschedule must be in the facilityoperating record by the effective datethat the facility becomes subject to theprovisions of this subpart.

(2) Up-to-date documentation ofcompliance with the process ventstandards in § 264.1032 including:

(i) Information and data identifying allaffected process vents, annualthroughput and operating hours of eachaffected unit, estimated emission ratesfor each affected vent and for theoverall facility (i.e., the total emissionsfor all affected vents at the facility), andthe approximate location within thefacility of each affected unit (e.g.,identify the hazardous wastemanagement units on a facility plotplan).

(ii) Information and data supportingdeterminations of vent emissions andemission reductions achieved by add-oncontrol devices based on engineeringcalculations or source tests. For thepurpose of determining compliance,determinations of vent emissions andemission reductions must be made usingoperating parameter values (e.g.,..temperatures, flow rates, or vent streamorganic compounds and concentrations)that represent the conditions that resultin maximum organic emissions, such aswhen the waste management unit isoperating at the highest load or capacitylevel reasonably expected to occur. Ifthe owner or operator takes any action(e.g., managing a waste of differentcomposition or increasing operatinghours of affected waste managementunits) that would result in an increase intotal organic emissions from affectedprocess vents at the facility, then a newdetermination is required.

(3) Where an owner or operatorchooses to use test data to determine theorganic removal efficiency or totalorganic compound concentrationachieved by the control device, aperfurniance test plan. The test planmust'include:

.() A descripilon of how it is.determined that the planned test is goingto be conducted when the hazardouswaste management unit is operating at

the highest load or capacity levelreasonably expected to occur. This shallinclude the estimaled or design flow rateand organic content of each vent streamand define the acceptable operatingranges of key process and control deviceparameters during th6 test program.

(ii) A detailed engineering descriptionof the closed-vent system and controldevice including:

(A) Manufacturer's name and modelnumber of control device.

(B) Type of control device.(C) Dimensions of the control device.(D) Capacity.{E) Construction materials.(III) A detailed description of sampling

and monitoring procedures, includingsampling and monitoring locations in thesystem, the equipment to be used.sampling and monitoring frequency, andplanned analytical procedures forsample analysis.

(4) Documentation of compliance with§ 264.1033 shall include the followinginformation:

(i) A list of all information referencesand sources used In preparing thedocumentation.

(ii) Records including the dates ofeach compliance test required by§ 264.1033(k).

(iii) If engineering calculations areused. a design analysis. specifications.drawings, schematics, and piping andinstrumentation diagrams based on theappropriate sections of "AP'I1 Course415: Control of Gaseous Emissions"(incorporated by reference as specifiedin § 260.11) or other engineering textsacceptable to the RegionalAdministrator that present basic controldevice design information.Documentation provided by the controldevice manufacturer or vendor thatdescribes the control device design inaccordance with paragraphs(b)(4)(iii)(A) through (b)(4)(iii)(G) of thissection may be used to comply with thisrequirement. The design analysis shalladdress the vent stream characteristicsand control device operation parametersas specified below.

(A) For a thermal vapor incinerator,the design analysis shall consider thevent stream composition, constituentconcentrations, and flow rate. Thedesign analysis shall also establish thedesign minimum and averagetemperature in the combustion zone andthe combustion zone residence time.

(B) For a catalytic vapor incinerator,the design analysis shall: consider thevent stream composition, constituentconcentrations, and flow rate.. Thedesign analysis shall also establish thedesign minimum and average

25499




temperatures across the catalyst bedinlet and outlet.

(C) For a boiler or process heater, thedesign analysis shall consider the ventstream composition, constituentconcentrations, and flow rate. Thedesign analysis shall also establish thedesign minimum and average flame zonetemperatures, combustion zoneresidence time, and description ofmethod and location where the ventstream is introduced into thecombustion zone.

(D) For a flare, the design analysisshall consider the vent streamcomposition, constituent concentrations,and flow rate. The design analysis shallalso consider the requirements specifiedin § 264.1033(d).

(E) For a condenser, the designanalysis shall consider the vent streamcomposition, constituent concentrations,flow rate, relative humidity, andtemperature. The design analysis shallalso establish the design outlet organiccompound concentrationlevel, designaverage temperature of the condenserexhaust vent stream, and design averagetemperatures of the coolant fluid at thecondenser inlet and outlet.

(F) For a carbon adsorption systemsuch as a fixed-bed adsorber that "

regenerates the carbon bed directly 'onsite in the control device, the designanalysis shall consider the vent streamcomposition, constituent concentrations,flow rate, relative humidity, and ,temperature. The design analysis shallalso establish the design exhaust ventstream organic compound concentrationlevel, number and capacity of carbonbeds, type and working capacity ofactivated carbon used for carbon beds,design total steam flow over the periodof each complete carbon bedregeneration cycle, duration of thecarbon bed steaming and cooling/dryingcycles, design carbon bed temperatureafter regeneration, design carbon bed-regeneration time, and design servicelife of carbon.

(G) For a carbon adsorption systemsuch as a carbon canister that does notregenerate the carbon bed directlyonsite in the control device, the designanalysis shall consider the vent stream,composition, constituent concentrations,flow rate, relative humidity, andtemperature. The design analysis shallalso establish the design outlet organicconcentration level, capacity of carbonbed, type and working capacity ofactivated carbon used for carbon bed.and design carbon replacement Interval,based on the total carbon workingcapacity of the control device andsource operating schedule.

(iv) A statement signed and dated bythe owner or operator certifying that the

operating parameters used in the designanalysis reasonably represent theconditions that exist when thehazardous waste management unit is orwould be operating at the highest loador capacity level reasonably expected tooccur.

(v) A statement signed and dated bythe owner or operator certifying that thecontrol device is designed to operate atan efficiency of 95 percent or greaterunless the total organic concentrationlimit of § 264.1032(a) is achieved at anefficiency less than 95 weight percent orthe total organic emission limits of§ 264.1032(a) for affected process ventsat the facility can be attained by acontrol device involving vapor recoveryat an efficiency less than 95 weightpercent. A statement provided by thecontrol device manufacturer or vendorcertifying that the control equipmentmeets the design specifications may beused to comply with this requirement.

(vi) If performance tests are used todemonstrate compliance, all test results.

(c) Design documentation andmonitoring, operating, and inspectioninformation for each closed-vent systemand control device required to complywith the provisions of this part shall berecorded and kept up-to-date in thefacility operating record. The'information shall include:: (1) Description and date of each

modification that is made to the closed-vent system or control device design.

(2) Identification of operating* parameter, description of monitoring

device, and diagram of monitoringsensor location or locations used tocomply with § 264.1033 (fl(!) and (f)(2).

(3) Monitoring, operating, andinspection information required byparagraphs (f) through (k) of § 264.1033.

(4) Date, time, and duration of eachperiod that occurs while the controldevice is operating when any monitoredparameter exceeds the value establishedin the control device design analysis asspecified below:

(i) For a thermal vapor incinhratordesigned to operate with a minimumresidence time of 0.50 second at aminimum temperature of 760."C. period'when the combustion temperature isbelow 760 *C.

(ii) For a thermal vapor incineratordesigned to operate with an organicemission reduction efficiency of 95weight percent or greater period whenthe combustion zone temperature ismore than 28 °C below the designaverage combustion zone temperatureestablished as a requirement ofparagraph (b)(4)(iii)(A) of this section.

(iii) For a catalytic vapor incinerator,period when:

-(A) Temperature of the vent stream atthe catalyst bed inlet is more than 28 °Cbelow the average temperature of theinlet vent stream established as arequirement of paragraph (b)(4)(iii)[B) ofthis section, or

(B) Temperature difference across thecatalyst bed is less than 80 percent ofthe design average temperaturedifference established as a requirementof paragraph (b)(4)(iii)(B) of this section.

(iv) For a boiler or process heater,period when:

(A) Flame zone temperature is morethan 28 °C below the design averageflame zone temperature established'as arequirement of paragraph (b)(4)(iii)[C) ofthis section, or

(B) Position changes where the ventstream is introduced to the combustionzone from the location established as arequirement of paragraph (b)(4)(iii){C) ofthis section.

(v) For a flare, period when the pilotflame is not ignited.

(vi) For a condenser that complies-with § 264.1033(f)(2)(vi)(A), period whenthe organic compound concentrationlevel or readings of organic compoundsin the exhaust vent streamfrom thecondenser are more than 20 percentgreater than the design outlet organiccompound concentration levelestablished as a requirement ofparagraph (b)(4)(iii)(E) of this section.,

, (vii) For a condenser that complieswith § 264.1033(f){2)(vi)(B), period when:

(A) Temperature of the exhaust ventstream from the condenser is more than6 'C above the design average exhaustvent stream temperature established asa requirement of paragraph (b)(4)(iii)(Eof this section; or

(B) Temperature.of the coolant fluidexiting the condenser is more than 6 °Cabove the design average coolant fluidtemperature at the condenser outletestablished as a requirement ofparagraph (b)(4)(iii)(E) of this section.

(viii) For a carbon adsorption systemsuch as a fixed-bed carbon adsorberthat regenerates the carbon bed directlyonsite in the control device andcomplies with § 264.1033(f}(2)(vii)(A),period when the organic compoundconcentration level or readings oforganic compounds in the exhaust ventstream from the carbon bed are morethan.20 percent greater than the designexhaust vent stream organic compoundconcentration level established as arequirement of paragraph (b)(4)(iii)(F) ofthis section.

(ix) For a carbon adsorption systemsuch as a fixed-bed carbon adsorberthat regenerates the carbon bed directlyonsite in the control device andcomplies with § 264.1033(f)(2)(vii)(B),



Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 1990 / Rules and Regulations 25501

period when the vent stream continuesto flow through the control devicebeyond the predetermined carbon bedregeneration time established as- arequirement of paragraph (b)(4)(iii)(F) ofthis section.

(5) Explanation for each periodrecorded under paragraph (4) of thecause for control device operatingparameter exceeding the design valueand the measures implemented tocorrect the control device operation.

(6) For a carbon adsorption systemoperated subject to requirementsspecified in § 264.1033(g) or§ 264.1033(h)(2), date when existingcarbon in the control device is replacedwith fresh carbon.

(7) For a carbon adsorption systemoperated subject to requirementsspecified in § 264.1033(h)(1), a log thatrecords:

(i) Date and time when control deviceis monitored for carbon breakthroughand the monitoring device reading.

(ii) Date when existing carbon in thecontrol device is replaced with freshcarbon.

(8) Date of each control device startupand shutdown.

(d) Records of the monitoring,operating, and inspection informationrequired by paragraphs (c)(3)-(c)(8) ofthis section need be kept only 3 years.

(e) For a control device other than athermal vapor incinerator, catalyticvapor incinerator, flare, boiler, processheater, condenser, or carbon adsorptionsystem, the Regional Administrator willspecify the appropriate recordkeepingrequirements.

(1) Up-to-date information and dataused to determine whether or not aprocess vent is subject to therequirements in § 264.1032 includingsupporting documentation as requiredby § 264.1034(d)(2) when application ofthe knowledge of the nature of thehazardous waste stream or the processby which it was produced is used, shallbe recorded in a log that is kept in thefacility 'operating record.

(Approved by the Office of Management andBudget under control number 2060-0195)

§ 264.1036 Reporting requirements.(a) A semiannual report shall be

submitted by owners and operatorssubject to the requirements of thissubpart to the Regional Administratorby dates specified by the. RegionalAdministrator. The report shall includethe following information:

(1).The Environmental Protection.Agency identification number, name,and address of the facility.

(2) For each month during thesemiannual reporting period; dates

when the control device exceeded oroperated outside of the designspecifications as defined in§ 264.1035(c)(4) and as indicated by thecontrol device monitoring required by§ 264.1033(f) and such exceedanceswere not corrected within 24 hours, orthat a flare operated with visibleemissions as defined in § 264.1033(d)and as determined by Method 22monitoring, the duration and cause ofeach exceedance or visible emissions,and any corrective measures taken.

(b) If, during the semiannual reportingperiod, the control device does notexceed or operate outside of the designspecifications as defined in§ 264.1035(c)(4) for more than 24 hoursor a flare does not operate with visibleemissions as definedlin § 264.1033(d), areport to the Regional Administrator isnot required.


§§ 264.1037-264.1049 [Reserved].

11. 40 CFR part 264 is amended byadding subpart BB to read as follows:

Subpart BB-Air Emission Standards forEquipment Leaks264.1050 Applicability.264.1051 Definitions.264.1052 Standards: Pumps in light liquid

service.264.1053 Standards: Compressors.264.1054 Standards: Pressure relief devices

in gas/vapor service.264.1055 Standards: Sampling connecting

systems.264.1056 Standards: Open-ended valves or

lines.264.1057 Standards: Valves in gas/vapor

service or in light liquid service.264.1058 Standards: Pumps and valves in

heavy liquid servic , pressure reliefdevices in light liquid or heavy liquidservice, and flanges and otherconnectors.

264.1059 Standards: Delay of repair.264.1060 Standards: Closed-vent systems

and control devices.264.1061 Alternative standards for valves in

gas/vapor service or in light liquidservice: percentage of valves allowed toleak.

264.1062 Alternative standards for valves ingas/vapor service or in light liquidservice: skip period leak detection andrepair.

264.1063 Test methods and procedures.264.1064 Recordkeeping requirements.264.1065 Reporting requirements.264.1066-264.1079 [Reserved)

Subpart BB-Air'Emission Standardsfor Equipment Leaks'

§ 264.1050 Applicability.(a),The regulations in this subpart

apply to owners and operators offacilities that treat, store, or dispose of

hazardous wastes (except as providedin § 264.1).

(b) Except as provided in§ 264.1064(k), this subpart applies toequipment that contains or contactshazardous wastes with organic -concentrations of at least 10 percent byweight that are managed in:



(c) If the owner or operator ofequipment subject to the requirementsof § § 264.1052 through 264.1065 hasreceived a permit under section 3005 ofRCRA prior to December 21, 1990, therequirements of § § 264.1052 through264.1065 must be incorporated when thepermit is reissued under § 124.15 orreviewed under § 270.50.

(d) Each piece of equipment to whichthis subpart applies shall be marked insuch a manner that it can bedistinguished readily from other piecesof equipment.

(e) Equipment that is in vacuumservice is excluded from therequirements of § 264.1052 to § 264.1060if it is identified as required in§ 264.1064(g)(5).

[Note: The requirements of § § 264.1052through 264.1065 apply to equipmentassociated with hazardous waste recyclingunits previously exempt under § 261.6(c)(1).Other exemptions under §§ 261.4, 262.34, and264.1(g) are not affected by theserequirements.]

§ 264.1051 Definitions.As used in this subpart, all terms shall

have the meaning given them in§ 264.1031, the Act, and parts 260-266.

§ 264.1052 Standards: Pumps in light liquidservice.

(a)(1) Each pump in light liquid serviceshall be monitored monthly to detectleaks by the methods specified in§ 264.1063(b), except as provided inparagraphs (d), (e), and (f) of thissection.

(2) Each pump in light liquid serviceshall be checked by visual inspectioneach calendar week for indications ofliquids dripping from the pump seal.

(b)(1) If a instrument reading of 10,000ppm or greater is measured, a leak isdetected.

(2) If there are indications of liquidsdripping from the pump seal, a leak isdetected.

(c)(1) When a leak is detected, it shallbe repaired as soon as practicable, butnot later than 15 calendar days after it is



25502. Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 1990 / Rules and Regulations

detected, except as provided in§ 264.1059.

(2) A first attempt at repair (e.g.,tightening the packing gland) shall bemade no later than 5 calendar days aftereach leak is detected.

(d) Each pump equipped with a dualmechanical seal system that includes abarrier fluid system is exempt from therequirements of paragraph (a) of thissection, provided the followingrequirements are met:

(1) Each dual mechanical seal systemmust be:

(i) Operated with the barrier fluid at apressure that is at all times greater thanthe pump stuffing box pressure, or

(ii) Equipped with a barrier fluiddegassing reservoir that is connected bya closed-vent system to a control devicethat complies with the requirements of§ 264.1060, or

(iii) Equipped with a system thatpurges the barrier fluid into a hazardouswaste stream with no detectableemissions to the atmosphere.

(2) The barrier fluid system must notbe a hazardous waste with organicconcentrations 10 percent or greater byweight.

(3) Each barrier fluid system must beequipped with a sensor that will detectfailure of the seal system, the barrierfluid system, or both.

(4) Each pump must be checked byvisual inspection, each calendar week,for indications of liquids dripping fromthe pump seals'.

(5)(i) Each sensor as described inparagraph (d](3) of this section must bechecked daily or be equipped with anaudible alarm that must be checkedmonthly to ensure that it is functioningproperly.

(ii) The owner or operator mustdetermine, based on design,considerations and operatingexperience, a criterion that indicatesfailure of the seal system, the barrierfluid system, or both.

(6)(i) If there are indications of liquidsdripping from the pump seal or thesensor indicates failure of the sealsystem, the barrier fluid system, or bothbased on the criterion determined Inparagraph (d)(5)(ii) of this section, a leakis detected.

(ii) When a leak is detected, it shall berepaired as soon as practicable, but notlater than 15 calendar days after it isdetected, except as provided in§ 264.1059.

(iii) A first attempt at repair (e.g.,relapping the seal) shall be made nolater than 5 calendar days after eachleak is detected.

(e) Any pump that is designated, asdescribed in § 264.1064(g)(2), for nodetectable emissions, as indicated by an

instrument reading of less than 500 ppmabove background, is exempt from therequirements of paragraphs (a), (c), and(d) of this section if the pump-meets thefollowing requirements:

(1) Must have no externally actuatedshaft penetrating the pump housing.

(2) Must operate with no detectableemissions as indicated by an instrumentreading of less than 500 ppm abovebackground as measured by themethods specified in § 264.1063(c).

(3) Must be tested for compliance withparagraph (e)(2) of this section initiallyupon designation, annually, and at othertimes as requested by the RegionalAdministrator.

(f) If any pump is equipped with aclosed-vent system capable of capturingand transporting any leakage from theseal or seals to a control device thatcomplies with the requirements of§ 264.1060, it is exempt from therequirements of paragraphs (a) through(e) of this section.

§ 264.1053 Standards: Compressors.(a) Each compressor shall be equipped

with a seal system that includes abarrier fluid system and that preventsleakage of total organic emissions to theatmosphere, except as provided inparagraphs (h) and (i) of this section.

(b) Each compressor seal system asrequired in paragraph (a) of this sectionshall be:

(1) Operated with the barrier fluid at apressure that is at all times greater thanthe compressor stuffing box pressure, or

(2) Equipped with a barrier fluidsystem that is connected by a closed-vent system to a control device thatcomplies with the requirements of§ 264.1060, or

(3) Equipped with a system thatpurges the barrier fluid into a hazardouswaste stream with no detectableemissions to atmosphere.

(c) The barrier fluid must not be ahazardous waste with organicconcentrations 10 percent or greater byweight.

(d) Each barrier fluid system asdescribed in paragraphs (a) through (c)of this section shall be equipped with asensor that will detect failure of the sealsystem, barrier fluid system, or both.

(e)(1) Each sensor as required inparagraph (d) of this section shall bechecked daily or shall be equipped withan audible alarm that must be checkedmonthly to ensure that it is functioningproperly unless the compressor islocated within the boundary of anunmanned plant site, in which case thesensor must be checked daily.

(2) The owner or operator shalldetermine, based on designconsiderations and operating

experience, a criterion that indicatesfailure of the seal system, the barrierfluid system, or both.

(f) If the sensor indicates failure of theseal system, the barrier fluid system, orboth based on the criterion determinedunder paragraph (e)(2) of this section, aleak is detected.

(g](1) When a leak is detected, it shallbe repaired as soon as practicable, butnot later than 15 calendar days after it isdetected, except as provided in§ 264.1059.


(h) A compressor is exempt from therequirements of paragraphs (a) and (b)of this section if it is equipped with aclosed-vent system capable of capturingand transporting any leakage from theseal to a control device that complieswith the requirements of § 264.1060,except as provided in paragraph (i) ofthis section.

(i) Any compressor that is designated,as described in § 264.1064(g)(2), for nodetectable emissions as indicated by aninstrument reading of less than 500 ppmabove background is exempt from therequirements of paragraphs (a) through(h) of this section if the compressor.

(1) Is determined to be operating withno detectable emissions, as indicated byan instrument reading of less than 500ppm above background, as measured bythe method specified in § 264.1063(c).

(2) Is tested for compliance withparagraph (i)(1) of this section initiallyupon designation, annually, and at othertimes as requested by the RegionalAdministrator.

§ 264.1054 Standards: Pressure reliefdevices In gas/vapor service.

(a) Except during pressure releases,each pressure relief device in gas/vaporservice shall be operated with nodetectable emissions, as indicated by anInstrument reading of less than 500 ppmabove background, as measured by themethod specified in § 264.1063(c).

(b)(1) After each pressure release, thepressure relief device shall be returnedto a condition of no detectableemissions, as indicated by an instrumentreading of less than 500 ppm abovebackground, as soon as practicable, butno later than 5 calendar days after eachpressure release, except as provided in§ 264.1059.

(2) No later than 5 calendar days afterthe pressure release, the pressure reliefdevice shall be monitored to confirm thecondition of no detectable emissions, asindicated by an instrument reading ofless than 500 ppm above background, as



Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 1990 /'Rules and Regulations

measured by the method specified in§ 264.1063(c).

(c) Any pressure relief device that isequipped with a closed-vent systemcapable of capturing and transportingleakage from the pressure relief deviceto a control device as described in§ 264.1060 is exempt from therequirements of paragraphs (a) and (b)of this section.

§ 264.1055 Standards: Samplingconnecting systems.

(a) Each sampling connection systemshall be equipped with a closed purgesystem or closed-vent system.

(b) Each closed-purge system orclosed-vent system as required inparagraph (a) shall:

(1) Return the purged hazardous wastestream directly to the hazardous wastemanagement process line with nodetectable emissions to atmosphere, or

(2) Collect and recycle the purgedhazardous waste stream with nodetectable emissions to atmosphere, or

(3) Be designed and operated tocapture and transport all the purgedhazardous waste stream to a controldevice that complies with therequirements of § 264.1060.

(c) In situ sampling systems areexempt from the requirements ofparagraphs (a) and (b) of this section.

§ 264.1056 Standards: Open-ended valvesor lines.

(a)(1) Each open-ended valve or lineshall be equipped with a cap, blindflange, plug, or a second valve.

(2) The cap, blind flange, plug, orsecond valve shall seal the open end atall times except during operationsrequiring hazardous waste stream flowthrough the open-ended valve or line.

(b) Each open-ended valve or lineequipped with a second valve shall beoperated in a manner such that thevalve on the hazardous waste streamend is closed before the second valve Isclosed.

(c) When a double block and bleedsystem is being used, the bleed valve orline may remain open during operationsthat require venting the line between theblock valves but shall comply withparagraph (a) of this section at all othertimes.

§ 264.1057 Standards: Valves In gas/vaporservice or In light liquid service.

(a) Each valve in gas/vapor or lightliquid service shall be monitoredmonthly to detect leaks by the methods,specified in § 264.1063(b) and shallcomply with paragraphs (b) through (e)of this section, except as provided inparagraphs (f), (g), and (h) of thissection, and § § 264.1061 and 264.1062.

(b) If an instrument reading of 10,000ppm or greater is measured, a leak isdetected.

(c)(1) Any valve for which a leak isnot detected for two successive monthsmay be monitored the first month ofevery succeeding quarter, beginningwith the next quarter, until a leak isdetected.

(2) If a leak is detected, the valve shallbe monitored monthly until a leak is notdetected for two successive months,

(d)(1) When a leak is detected, it shallbe repaired as soon as practicable, butno later than 15 calendar days after theleak is detected, except as provided in§ 264.1059.

(2) A first attempt at repair shall bemade no later than 5 calendar days aftereach leak is detected.

(e) First attempts at repair include.,butare not limited to, the following bestpractices where practicable:

(1) Tightening of bonnet bolts.(2) Replacement of bonnet bolts.(3) Tightening of packing gland nuts.(4) Injection of lubricant into

lubricated packing.(f) Any valve that is designated, as

described in § 264.1064(g)(2), for nodetectable emissions, as indicated by aninstrument reading of less than 500 ppmabove background, is exempt from therequirements of paragraph (a) of thissection if the valve:

(1) Has no external actuatingmechanism in contact with thehazardous waste stream.

(2) Is operated with emissions lessthan 500 ppm above background asdetermined by the method specified in§ 264.1063(c).

(3) Is tested for compliance withparagraph (f)(2) of this section initiallyupon designation, annually, and at othertimes as requested by the RegionalAdministrator.

(g) Any valve that is designated, asdescribed in § 264.1064(h)(1), as anunsafe-to-monitor valve is exempt fromthe requirements of paragraph (a) of thissection if:

(1) The owner or operator of the valvedetermines that the valve is unsafe tomonitor because monitoring personnelwould be exposed to an immediatedanger as a consequence of complyingwith paragraph (a) of this section.

(2) The owner or operator of the valveadheres to a written plan that requiresmonitoring of the valve as frequently aspracticable during safe-to-monitor times.

(h) Any valve that is designated, asdescribed in § 264.1064(h)(2), as adifficult-to-monitor valve is exempt fromthe requirements of paragraph (a) of thissection if:

(1) The owner or operator of the valvedetermines that the valve cannot be

monitored without elevating themonitoring personnel more than 2meters above a support surface.

(2) The hazardous waste managementunit within which the valve Is locatedwas in operation before June 21, 1990.

(3) The owner or operator of the valvefollows a written plan that requiresmonitoring of the valve at least once percalendar year.

§ 264.1058 Standards: Pumps and valvesIn heavy liquid service, pressure reliefdevices In light liquid or heavy liquidservice, and flanges and other connectors.

(a) Pumps and valves in heavy liquidservice, pressure relief devices in lightliquid or heavy liquid service, andflanges and other connectors shall bemonitored within 5 days by the methodspecified in § 264.1063(b) if evidence ofa potential leak is found by visual,audible, olfactory, or any otherdetection method.


(c)(1) When a leak is detected, It shallbe repaired as soon as practicable, butnot later than 15 calendar days after it isdetected. except as provided in§ 264.1059.

(2) The first attempt at repair shall bemade no later than 5 calendar days aftereach leak is detected.

(d) First attempts at repair include,but are not limited to, the best practicesdescribed under § 264.1057(e).

§ 264.1059 Standards: Delay of repair.(a) Delay of repair of equipment for

which leaks have been detected will beallowed if the repair is technicallyinfeasible without a hazardous wastemanagement unit shutdown. In such acase, repair of this equipment shalloccur before the end of the nexthazardous waste management unitshutdown.

(b) Delay of repair of equipment forwhich leaks have been detected will beallowed for equipment that is isolatedfrom the hazardous waste managementunit and that does not continue tocontain or contact hazardous waste withorganic concentrations at least 10percent by weight.

(c) Delay of repair for valves will beallowed if:

(1) The owner or operator determinesthat emissions of purged materialresulting from immediate repair aregreater than the emissions likely toresult from delay of repair.

(2) When repair procedures areeffected, the purged material is collectedand destroyed or recovered in a controldevice complying with § 264.1060.

25503




(d) Delay of repair for pumps will beallowed if:

(1) Repair requires the use of a dualmechanical seal system that includes abarrier fluid system.

(2) Repair is completed as soon aspracticable, but not later than 6 monthsafter the leak was detected.

(e) Delay of repair beyond ahazardous waste management unitshutdown will be allowed for a valve ifvalve assembly replacement isnecessary during the hazardous wastemanagement unit shutdown, valveassembly supplies have been depleted,and valve assembly supplies had beensufficiently stocked before the supplieswere depleted. Delay of repair beyondthe next hazardous waste managementunit shutdown will not be allowedunless the next hazardous wastemanagement unit shutdown occurssooner than 6 months after the firsthazardous waste management unitshutdown.

§ 264.1060 Standards: Closed-ventsystems and control devices.

Owners or operators of closed-vent systems and control devices shallcomply with the provisions of§ 264.1033.

§ 264.1061 Alternative standards forvalves In gas/vapor service or In light liquidservice: percentage of valves allowed toleak..

(a) An owner or operator subject tothe requirements of § 264.1057 may electto have all valves within a hazardouswaste management unit comply with analternative standard that allows nogreater than 2 percent of the valves toleak.

(b) The following requirements shallbe met if an owner or operator decidesto comply with the alternative standardof allowing 2 percent of valves to leak:

(1) An owner or operator must notifythe Regional Administrator that theowner or operator has elected to complywith the requirements of this section.

(2) A performance test as specified inparagraph (c) of this section shall beconducted initially upon designation,annually, and at other times requestedby the Regional Administrator.

(3) If a valve leak is detected, it shallbe repaired in accordance with§ 264.1057(d) and (e).

(c) Performance tests shall beconducted in the following manner

(1) All valves subject to therequirements in § 264.1057 within thehazardous waste management unit shallbe monitored within 1 week by themethods specified in § 264.1063(b).

(2) If an instrument reading of 10,000ppm or greater is measured, a leak isdetected.

(3) The leak percentage shall bedetermined by dividing the number ofvalves subject to the requirements in§ 264.1057 for which leaks are detectedby the total number of valves subject tothe requirements in § 264.1057 within thehazardous waste management unit.I (d) If an owner or operator decides tocomply with this section no longer, theowner or operator must notify theRegional Administrator in writing thatthe work practice standard described in§ 264.1057(a) through (e) will befollowed.

§ 264.1062 Alternative standards forvalves in gas/vapor service or In light liquidservice: skip period leak detection andrepair.

(a)(1) An owner or operator subject tothe requirements of § 264.1057 may electfor all valves within a hazardous wastemanagement unit to comply with one ofthe alternative work practices specifiedin paragraphs (b) (2) and (3) of thissection.

(2) An owner or operator must notifythe Regional Administrator beforeimplementing one of the alternativework practices.

(b)(1) An owner or operator shallcomply with the requirements forvalves, as described in § 264.1057,except as described in paragraphs (b)(2)and (b)(3) of this section.

(2) After two consecutive quarterlyleak detection periods with thepercentage of valves leaking equal to orless than 2 percent, an owner oroperator may begin to skip one of thequarterly leak detection periods for thevalves subject to the requirements in§ 264.1057.

(3) After five consecutive quarterlyleak detection periods with thepercentage of valves leaking equal to orless than 2 percent, an owner oroperator may begin to skip three of thequarterly leak detection periods for thevalves subject to the requirements in§ 264.1057.

(4) If the percentage of valves leakingis greater than 2 percent, the owner oroperator shall monitor monthly incompliance with the requirements in§ 264.1057, but may again elect to usethis section after meeting therequirements of § 264.1057(c)(1).

(Approved by the Office of Management andBudget under control number 2060--0195)

§ 264.1063 Test methods and procedures.

(a) Each owner or operator subject tothe provisions of this subpart shallcomply with the test methods andprocedures requirements provided inthis section.

(b Leak detection monitoring, asrequired in §§ 264.1052-264.1062. shallcomply with the following requirements:



(3) The instrument shall be calibratedbefore use on each day of its use by theprocedures specified in ReferenceMethod 21.

(4) Calibration gases shall be:(i) Zero air (less than 10 ppm of

hydrocarbon in air).(i) A mixture of methane or n-hexane

and air at a concentration ofapproximately, but less than, 10,000 ppmmethane or n-hexane.


(c) When equipment is tested forcompliance with no detectableemissions. as required in § § 264.1052(e),264.1053(i), 264.1054, and 264.1057(fn, thetest shall comply with the followingrequirements:

(1) The requirements of paragraphs(b)(1) through (4) of this section shallapply.



(4) The arithmetic difference betweenthe maximum concentration indicatedby the instrument and the backgroundlevel is compared with 500 ppm fordetermining compliance.

(d) In accordance with the wasteanalysis plan required by § 264.13(b). anowner or operator of a facility mustdetermine, for each piece of equipment,whether the equipment contains orcontacts a hazardous waste withorganic concentration that equals orexceeds 10 percent by weight using thefollowing: -

(1) Methods described in ASTMMethods D 2267-88, E 169-87, E 168-88,E 260-85 (incorporated by referenceunder § 260.11);

(2) Method 9060 or 8240 of SW-846 -(incorporated by reference under§ 260.11); or

(3) Application of the knowledge ofthe nature of the hazardous wastestream or the process by which it wasproduced. Documentation of a wastedetermination by knowledge is required.Examples of documentation that shall




be used to support a determinationunder this provision include productionprocess information documenting thatno organic compounds are used.Information that the waste is generatedby a process that is identical to aprocess at the same or another facilitythat has previously been demonstratedby direct measurement to have a totalorganic content less than 10 percent, orprior speciation analysis results on thesame waste stream where it can also bedocumented that no process changeshave occurred since that analysis thatcould affect the waste total organicconcentration.

(e) If an owner or operator determinesthat a piece of equipment contains orcontacts a hazardous waste withorganic concentrations at least 10percent by weight, the determinationcan be revised only after following theprocedures in paragraph (d)(1) or (d)(2)of this section.

(f) When an owner or operator andthe Regional Administrator do not agreeon whether a piece of equipmentcontains or contacts a hazardous wastewith organic concentrations at least 10percent by weight, the procedures inparagraph (d)(1) or (d)(2) of this sectioncan be used to resolve the dispute.

(g) Samples used in determining thepercent organic content shall berepresentative of the highest totalorganic content hazardous waste that isexpected to be contained in or contactthe equipment.

(h) To determine if pumps or valvesare in light liquid service, the vaporpressures of constituents may beobtained from standard reference textsor may be determined by ASTM D-2879-86 (incorporated- by referenceunder § 260.11).

(i) Performance tests to determine If acontrol device achieves 95 weightpercent organic emission reduction shallcomply with the procedures of§ 264.1034(c)(1) through (c)(4).§ 264.1064 Recordkeeplng requirements.

(a)(1) Each owner or operator subjectto the provisions of this subpart shallcomply with the recordkeepingrequirements of this section.

(2) An owner or operator of more thanone hazardous waste management unitsubject to the provisions of this subpartmay comply with the recordkeepingrequirements for these hazardous wastemanagement units in one recordkeepingsystem if the system identifies eachrecord by each hazardous waste.management unit.


(1) For each piece of equipment towhich Subpart BB of Part 264 applies:

(i) Equipment identification numberand hazardous waste management unitidentification.

(ii) Approximate locations within thefacility (e.g., identify the hazardouswaste management unit on a facility plotplan).

(iii) Type of equipment (e.g.. a pump orpipeline valve).

(iv) Percent-by-weight total organicsin the hazardous waste stream at theequipment.

(v) Hazardous waste state at theequipment (e.g., gas/vapor or liquid).

(vi) Method of compliance with thestandard [e.g., "monthly leak detectionand repair" or "equipped with dualmechanical seals").

(2)For facilities that comply with theprovisions of § 284.1033(a)(2), animplementation schedule as specified in§ 264.1033(a)(2).,

(3) Where an owner or operatorchooses to use test data to demonstratethe organic removal efficiency or totalorganic compound concentr.o:ionachieved by the control device, aperformance test plan as specified in§ 264.1035(bj(3).

(4) Documentation of compliance with§ 264.1060, including the detailed designdocumentation or performance testresults specified in § 264.1035(b)(4).

(c) When each leak is detected asspecified in § § 264.1052, 264.1053,264.1057, and 264.1058, the followingrequirements apply-

(1) A weatherproof and readily visibleidentification, marked with theequipment identification number, thedate evidence of a potential leak wasfound in accordance with § 264.1058(a),and the date the leak was detected,shall be attached to the leakingequipment.

(2) The identification on equipment,except on a valve, may be removed afterit has been repaired.

.(3) The identification on a valve maybe removed after it has been monitoredfor 2 successive months as specified In§ § 264.1057(c) and no leak has beendetected during those 2 months.

(d) When each leak is detected asspecified in §§ 264.1052, 264.1053,264.1057, and 264.1058, the followinginformation shall be recorded in aninspection log and shall be kept in thefacility operating record:

(1) The instrument and operatoridentification numbers and theequipment identification number.

(2) The date evidence of.a potentialleak was found in accordance with§ 264.1058(a).

(3) The date the leak was detectedand the dates of each attempt to repairthe leak.

(4) Repair methods applied in eachattempt to repair the leak.

(5) "Above 10,000" if the maximuminstrument reading measured by themethods specified in § 264.1063(b) aftereach repair attempt is equal to or greaterthan 10,000 ppm.

(6) "Repair delayed" and the reasonfor the delay if a leak is not repairedwithin 15 calendar days after discoveryof the leak.

'(7) Documentation supporting thedelay of repair of a valve in compliancewith § 264.1059(c).

(8) The signature of the owner oroperator (or designate) whose decisionit was that repair could not be effectedwithout a hazardous waste managementunit shutdown.

(9) The expected date of successfulrepair of the leak if a leak is notrepaired within 15 calendar days..

(10) The date of successful repair ofthe leak.

(e) Design documentation andmonitoring, operating, and inspectioninformation for each closed-vent systemand control device-required to complywith the provisions of § 264.1060 shallbe recorded and kept up-to-date In thefacility operating record as specified in§ 264.1035(c). Design, documentation isspecified in § 264.1035 (c)(1) and (c)(2)and monitoring, operating, andinspection Information inI 264.1035(c)(3)-(c)[8)..

(f0 For a control device other than-atheimal vapor incinerator, catalyticvapor incinerator, flare, boiler, processheater, condenser, or carbon adsorptionsystem, the Regional Administrator wil lspecify the appropriate, recordkeepingrequirements.

(g) The following informationpertaining to all equipment subject tothe requirements in § § 264.1052 through264,1060 shall be recorded In a log thatis kept in the facility operating record:

(1) A list of identification numbers forequipment (except welded fittings)-subject to the requirements of this.subparL

(2)(i) A list of identification numbersfor equipment that the owner oroperator elects to designate for no.detectable emissions, as indicated by aninstrument reading of less than 500 ppmabove background, under the provisionsof § § 264.1052(e). 264.1053(i), and264.1057(o.

(ii) The designation of this equipmentas subject to the requirements of§ § 264.1052(e), 264A053(i), or 24.1057(0.shall be signed by the owner oroperator.

25505-



25506 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. '120 / Thursday" June 21, 1990 / Rules and Regulations

(3) A list of equipment identificationnumbers for pressure relief devicesrequired to comply witk § 264.1054(a).

(4)(i) The dates of each compliancetest required in § § 264.1052(e),264.1053(i), 264.1054, and 264.1057(f).

(ii) The background level measuredduring each compliance test.

(iii) The maximum instrument readingmeasured at the equipment during eachcompliance test.

(5) A list of identification numbers forequipment in vacuum service.

(h) The following informationpertaining to all valves subject to therequirements of § 264.1057 (g) and (h)shall be recorded in a log that is kept inthe facility operating record:

(1) A list of identification numbers forvalves that are designated as unsafe tomonitor, an explanation for each valvestating why the valve is unsafe tomonitor, and the plan for monitoringeach valve.

(2) A list of identification numbers forvalves that are designated as difficult tomonitor, an explanation for each valvestating why the valve is difficult tomonitor, and the planned schedule formonitoring each valve.

(i) The following information shall berecorded in the facility operating recordfor valves complying with § 264.1062:

(1) A schedule of monitoring.(2) The percent of valves found

leaking during each monitoring period.(j) The following information shall be

recorded in a log that is kept in thefacility operating record:

(1) Criteria required in§ 264.1052(d)(5)(ii) and § 264.1053(e)(2)and an explanation of the designcriteria.

(2) Any changes to these criteria andthe reasons for the changes.

(k) The following information shall berecorded in a log that is kept in thefacility operating record for use indetermining exemptions as provided inthe applicability section of this subpartand other specific subparts:

(1) An analysis determining the designcapacity of the hazardous wastemanagement unit.

(2) A statement listing the hazardouswaste influent to and effluent from.eachhazardous waste management unitsubject to the requirements in§ § 264.1052 through 264.1060 and ananalysis determining whether thesehazardous wastes are heavy liquids.

(3) An up-to-date analysis and thesupporting information and data used todetermine whether or not equipment issubject to the requirements in§ § 264.1052 through 264.1060. The recordshall include supporting documentationas required by J 264.1063(d)(3) whenapplication of the knowledge of the

nature of the hazardous waste stream orthe process by which it was produced isused. If the owner or operator takes anyaction (e.g., changing the process thatproduced the waste) that could result inan increase in the total organic contentof the waste contained in or contactedby equipment determined not to besubject to the requirements in§ § 264.1052 through 264.1060, then a newdetermination is required.

(i) Records of the equipment leakinformation required by paragraph (d) ofthis section and the operatinginformation required by paragraph (e) ofthis section need be kept only 3 years.

(in) The owner or operator of anyfacility that is subject to this subpartand to regulations at 40 CFR part 60,subpart VV, or 40 CFR part 61, subpartV, may elect to determine compliancewith this subpart by documentationeither pursuant to § 264.1064 of thissubpart, or pursuant to those provisionsof 40 CFR part 60 or 61, to the extentthat the documentation under theregulation at 40 CFR part 60 or part 61duplicates the documentation requiredunder this subpart. The documentationunder the regulation at 40 CFR part 60 orpart 61 shall be kept with or madereadily available with the facilityoperating record.(Approved by the Office of Management andBudget under control number 2060-0195)

§ 264.1065 Reporting requirements.(a) A semiannual report shall be

submitted by owners and operatorssubject to the requirements of thissubpart to the Regional Administratorby dates specified by the RegionalAdministrator. The report shall includethe following information:

(1) The Environmental ProtectionAgency identification number, name,and address of the facility.

(2) For each month during thesemiannual reporting period:

(i) The equipment identificationnumber of each valve for which a leakwas not repaired as required inJ 264.1057(d).

(ii) The equipment identificationnumber of each pump for which a leakwas not repaired as required in§ 264.1052 (c) and (d)(6).

(iii) The equipment identificationnumber of each compressor for which aleak was not repaired as required in§ 264.1053(g).

(3) Dates of hazardous wastemanagement unit shutdowns thatoccurred within the semiannualreporting period.

(4) For each month during thesemiannual reporting period, dates.when the control device installed asrequired by § 264.1052, 264.1053,

264.1054, or 264.1055 exceeded oroperated outside of the designspecifications as defined in § 264.1064(e)and as indicated by the control devicemonitoring required by § 264.1060 andwas not corrected.within 24 hours, theduration and cause of each exceedance,and any corrective measures taken.

(b] If, during the semiannual reportingperiod, leaks from valves, pumps, andcompressors are repaired as required in§ § 264.1057 (d), 264.1052 (c) and (d)(6),and 264.1053 (g), respectively, and thecontrol device does not exceed oroperate outside of the designspecifications as defined in § 264.1064(e)for more than 24 hours, a report to theRegional Administrator is not required.


§§ 264.1066-264.1079 [Reserved]

PART 265-INTERIM STATUSSTANDARDSFOR OWNERS ANDOPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTETREATMENT, STORAGE, ANDDISPOSAL FACILITIES

.12. The authority citation for part 265continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6095, 6912(a), 6924,6925, and 6935.

Subpart B-General Facility Standards

13, Section 265.13 is amended byrevising paragraph (b)(6) to read asfollows:

§ 265.13 General waste analysis.* * * * *

(b) * * *

(6) Where applicable, the methodsthat will be used to meet the additionalwaste analysis requirements for specificwaste management methods asspecified in § § 265.193, 265.225, 265.252,265.273, 265.314, 265.341, 265.375, 265.402,265.1034(d), 265.1063(d), and 268.7 of thischapter.

14. Section 265.15 is amended byrevising the last sentence of paragraph(b)(4) to read as follows:

§ 265.15 General Inspection requirements.

(b) ...(4) * * At a minimum, the inspection

* schedule must include the terms andfrequencies called for in §§ 265.174, -265.193, 265.195, 265.226, 265.347, 265.377,265.403,:265.1033, 265.1052, 265.1053, and265.1058.



Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 120 / Thursday. June *21, 1990 RueadRelton 250

Subpart E-Manifest System.Recordkeeplng, and Reporting

15. Section 265.73 is amended byrevising paragraphs (b)(3) and (b)(6) toread as follows:

1265.73 Operating. record.* * * * *

(b) ***

(3) Records and results of wasteanalyses and trial tests performed asspecified in 1§ § 265.13, 265.193, 265.225,265.252, 265.273, 265.314, 265.341, 265.375,285.402 265.1034, 265.1063, 268.4(a). and268.7 of this chapter.

(6) Monitoring, testing or analyticaldata when required by § § 265.90, 265.94,265.191. 265.193, 265.195, 265.276, 265.278,265.280(d)(1), 265.347, 265.377,265.1034(c)-265.1034(f), 265.1035.265.1063(d)-265.1063(i), and 265.1064.* • • • a

16. Section 265.77 is amended byadding paragraph (d) as follows:

1265.77 Additional reports.

(d) As otherwise required by SubpartsAA and BB.

17. 40 CFR part 265 is amended byadding Subpart AA to read as follows:

Subpart AA-A r Emission Standards forProcess Vents265.1030 Applicability.265.1031 Definitions.285.1032 Standards: Process vents.265.1033 Standards: Closed-vent systems and

control devices.265.1034 Test methods and procedures.265.1035 Recordkeeping requirements.265.1030-265.1049 [Reserved]

Subpart AA-Alr Emission Standards

for Process Vents

§ 265.1030 Applicability.(a) The regulations In this subpart

apply to owners and operators offacilities that treat store, or dispose ofhazardous wastes (except as providedin -265.1).

(b) Except for 1 § 265.1034(d) and265.1035(d), this subpart applies toprocess vents associated withdistillation, fractionation, thin-filmevaporation, solvent extraction, or air orsteam stripping operations that managehazardous wastes with organicconcentrations of at least 10 ppmw, ifthese operations are conducted in:


(2) Hazardous waste recycling unitsthat are located on hazardous wastemanagement facilities otherwise subjectto the per'mitting requirements of part270,

[Note: The requirements of If 264.1032through 265.1038 apply to! process vents onhazardous waste recycling units previouslyexempt under paragraph 261.8(c)(1). Otherexemptions under 1.1 281A, 282.34. and265.1(c) are not affected by theserequirements.]

1 265.1031 Definition*.As used in this subpart all terms shall

have the meaning given them inJ 264.1031, the Act, and parts 260-266.

§ 265.1032 Standards& Process vents.(a) The owner or operator of a facility

with process vents associated withdistillation, fractionation, thin-filmevaporation, solvent extraction or air orsteam stripping operations managinghazardous wastes with organicconcentrations at least 10 ppmw shalleither:

(1) Reduce total organic emissionsfrom all affected process vents at thefacility below 1.4 kg/h (3 lb/h] and 2.8Mg/yr (3.1 tons/yr), or

(2) Reduce, by use of a control device,total organic emissions from all affectedprocess vents at the facility by 95 weightpercent.

(b) If the owner or operator installs aclosed-vent system and control deviceto comply with the provisions ofparagraph (a) of this section, the closed-vent system and control device mustmeetthe requirements of 1 265.1033.

(c) Determinations of vent emissionsand emission reductions or total organiccompound concentrations achieved byadd-on control devices may be based onengineering calculations or performancetests. If performance tests are .used todetermine vent emissions, emissionreductions, or total organic compoundconcentrations achieved by add-oncontrol devices, the performance testsmust conform with the requirements ofI 265.1034(c).

(d) Wihen an owner or operator andthe Regional Administrator do not agreeon determinations of vent emissionsand/or emission reductions or totalorganic compound concentrationsachieved by add-on control devicesbased on engineering calculations, thetest methods in § 265.1034(c) shall beused to resolve the disagreement.


(a)(1) Owners or operators of closed-vent systems and control devices usedto comply with provisions of this partshall comply with'the provisions of thissection.'

(2) The owner or operator of anexisting facility who cannot install aclosed-vent system and control deviceto comply with the provisions of thjssubpart on the effective date that the

facility becomes subject totheprovisions of this subpart must preparean implementation schedule thatincludes dates by which the closed-ventsystem and control device will beinstalled and in operation. The controlsmust be installed as soon as possible,but the Implementation schedule mayallow up to 18 months after the effectivedate that the facility becomes subject tothis subpart for installation and startup.All units that begin operation afterDecember 21, 1990 must comply with therules immediately (i.e., must havecontrol devices installed and operatingon startup of the affected unit); the 2-year implementation schedule does notapply to these units.

(b) A control device involving vaporrecovery (e.g., a condenser or adsorber)shall be designed and operated torecover the organic vapors-vented to itwith an efficiency of 95 weight percentor greater unless the total organicemission limits of'i 265.1032(a)(1) for allaffected process vents can be attainedat an efficiency less than 95 weightpercent.

(c) An enclosed combustion device(e.g., a vapor incinerator, boiler, orprocess heater) shall be designed andoperated to reduce the organicemissions vented to it by 95 weightpercent or greater:, to achieve a totalorganic compound concentration of 20ppmv, expressed as the sum of theactual compounds. not carbonequivalents, on a dry basis corrected to3 percent oxygen: or to provide aminimum residence time of 0.50 secondsat a minimum temperature of 760 *C. If aboiler or process heater is used as thecontrol device, then the vent streamshall be introduced into the flamecombustion zone of the boiler or processheater.

(d)(1) A flare shall be designed forand operated with no visible emissionsas determined by the methods specifiedin paragraph (e)(1) of this section,except for periods not to exceed a totalof 5 minutes during any 2 consecutivehours.

(2) A flare shall, be operated with aflame present at all times, as determinedby the methods specified in paragraph(f)(2)(iii) of this section.

(3) A flare shall be used only if the netheating value of the gas beingcombusted Is 11.2 MJ/scm (300 Btu/scf)or greater, if the flare is steam-assistedor air-assisted; or if the net heatingvalue of the gas being combusted is 7.45MJ/scm (200 Bltu/scf) or greater if theflare is nonassisted. The net heatingvalue of the gas being combusted shallbe determined by the methods specifiedin paragraph (e)(2) of tils section.

Federal Re2ister / VoL'55, No. 120 [ Thursday. |une 21. 1990 / Rules and Regulations ' 25507




(4)(i) A steam-assisted or nonassistedfire shall be designed for and operatedwith an exit velocity, as determined bythe methods specified in paragraph(e)(3) of this section, of less than 18.3 m/s (60 ft/s), except as provided inparagraphs (d)(4) (ii) and (iii) of thissection.

(ii) A steam-assisted or nonassistedflare designed for and operated with anexit velocity, as determined by themethods specified in paragraph (e)(3) ofthis section, equal to or greater than 18.3m/s (60 ft/s) but less than 122 m/s (400ft/s) is allowed if the net heating valueof the gas being combusted is greaterthan 37.3 MJ/scm (1,000 Btu/scf).

(iii) A steam-assisted or nonassistedflare designed for and operated with anexit velocity, as determined by themethods speified in paragraph (e)(3) ofthis section, less than the velocity, Vnam,'as determined by the method specifiedin paragraph (e)(4) of this section, andless than 122 m/s (400 ft/s) is allowed.

(5) An air-assisted flare shall bedesigned and operated with an exitvelocity less than the velocity, V.,, asdetermined by the method specified inparagraph (e)(5) of this section.

(6) A flare used to comply with thissection shall be steam-assisted. air-assisted, or nonassisted.

(e)(1) Reference Method 22 in 40 CFRpart 60 shall be used to determine thecompliance of a flare with the visibleemission provisions of this subpart. Theobservation period is 2 hours and shallbe used according to Method 22.• (2) The net heating value of the gasbeing combusted in a flare shall becalculated using the following equation:

n

HT1=K[ I CH,-~

where:!IT=Net heating value of the sample, Ml/

scm: where the net enthalpy per mole ofoffgas is based on combustion at 25 °Cand 760 mm Fig, but the standardtemperature for determining the volumecorresponding to 1 mol is 20 'C;

K=Constaht, 1.74 X10-1 (1/ppm) (g mol/scm)(MJ/kcal) where standard temperaturefor (g mol/scm) is 20 °C:

C=Concentration of sample component i inppm on a wet basis, as measured fororganics by Reference Method 18 in 40CFR part 60 and measured for hydrogenand carbon monoxide by ASTM D 1946-82 (incorporated by reference asspecified in § 260.11): and

Ii,=Net heat of combustion of samplecomponent i, kcal/g mol at 25 'C and 700mm Fig. The heats of combustion may bedetermined using ASTM D 2382-83(incorporated by reference as specifiedin § 260.11) if published values are notavailable or cannot be calculated.

(3) The actual exit velocity of a flareshall be determined by dividing thevolumetric flow rate (in units ofstandard temperature and pressure), asdetermined byReference Methods 2, 2A,2C, or 2D in 40 CFR part 60 asappropriate, by the unobstructed (free)cross-sectional area of the flare tip.

(4) The maximum allowed velocity inm/s, V,., for a flare complying withparagraph (d)(4)(iii) of this section shallbe determined by the followingequation:Log.o(V.,,)= (HT+-28.8J/31.7where:HT=The net heating value as determined in

paragraph (e)(2) of this section.28.8= Constant,31.7 = Constant.

(5) The maximum allowed velocity inm/s, V,.... for an air-assisted flare shallbe determined by the followingequation:

Vm" = 8.706 + 0.7084 (ii,r)where:8.706 = Constant.0.7084 = Constant.HT = The net heating value as determined in

paragraph (e)(2) of this section.

(f) The owner or operator shallmonitor and inspect each control devicerequired to comply with this section toensure proper operation andmaintenance of the control device byimplementing the followingrequirements:

(1) Install, calibrate, maintain, andoperate according to the manufacturer'sspecifications a flow indicator thatprovides a record of vent stream flowfrom each affected process vent to thecontrol device at least onceevery hour.The flow indicator sensor shall beinstalled in the vent stream at thenearest feasible point.to the controldevice inlet, but before being combinedwith other vent streams.

(2) Install, calibrate, maintain, andoperate according to the manufacturer'sspecifications a device to continuouslymonitor control device operation asspecified below:

(i) For a thermal vapor incinerator, atemperatu re monitoring device equippedwith a continuous recorder. The deviceshall have an accuracy of ±1 percent ofthe temperature being monitored in °Cor ±0.5 'C. whichever is greater. The.temperature sensor shall be installed ata location in the combustion chamberdownstream of the combustion zone.

' (ii) For a catalytic vapor incinerator, atemperature monitoring device equippedwith a continuous recorder. The deviceshall be capable of monitoringtemperature at two locations and havean accuracy of :1 percent of thetemperature being monitored in °C or±0.5 *C. whichever is greater. Onetemperature sensor shall be installed inthe vent stream at the nearest feasiblepoint to the catalyst bed inlet and asecond temperature sensor shall beinstalled in the vent stream at thenearest feasible point to the catalyst bedoutlet. '

(iii) For a flare, a heat sensingmonitoring device equipped with acontinuous recorder that indicates thecontinuous ignition of the pilot flame.

(iv) For a boiler or process heaterhaving a design heat input capacity lessthan 44 MW, a temperature monitoringdevice equipped with a continuousrecorder. The device shall have anaccuracy of _L1 percent of thetemperature being monitored in °C or±0.5 °C, whichever is greater. Thetemperature sensor shall be installed ata location in the furnace downstream ofthe combustion zone.

(v) For a boiler or process heaterhaving a design heat input capacitygreater than or equal to 44 MW, amonitoring device equipped with acontinuous recorder to measure a,parameter(s) that indicates goodcombustion operating practices arebeing used.

(vi) For a condenser, either:.(A) A monitoring device equipped

with a continuous recorder to measurethe concentration level of the organiccompounds in the exhaust vent streamfrom the condenser, or

(B) A temperature monitoring device.equipped with a.continuous recorder..The device shall be capable ofmonitoring temperature at two locationsand have an accuracy of ±1 percent ofthe temperature being monitored in °Cor ±0.5 °C, whichever Is greater. Onetemperature sensor shall be installed ata location in the exhaust vent streamfrom the condenser, and a secondtemperature sensor shall .be installed ata location in the coolant fluid exiting thecondenser.. (vii) For a carbon adsorption system

such as a fixed-bed carbon adsorberthat regenerates the carbon bed directlyin the control device, either.,

(A) A monitoring device equippedwith a continuous recorder to measurethe concentration level of the organiccompounds in the exhaust vent streamfrom the carbon bed, or

(B) A monitoring device equipped witha continuous recorder to measure a :




parameter that indicates the carbon bedis regenerated on a regular,predetermined time cycle.

(3) Inspect the readings from eachmonitoring device required byparagraphs (f) (1) and (2) of this sectionat least once each operating day tocheck control device operation and, ifnecessary, immediately implement thecorrective measures necessary to ensurethe control device operates incompliance with the requirements of thissection.

(g) An owner or operator using acarbon adsorption system such as afixed-bed carbon adsorber thatregenerates the carbon bed directlyonsite in the control device, shallreplace the existing carbon in thecontrol device with fresh carbon at aregular, predetermined time interval thatis no longer than the carbon service lifeestablished as a requirement of§ 265.1035(b)(4)(iii)(F).

(h) An owner or operator using acarbon adsorption system such as acarbon canister that does not regeneratethe carbon bed directly onsite in thecontrol device shall replace the existingcarbon in the control device with freshcarbon on a regular basis by using oneof the following procedures:

(1) Monitor the concentration level ofthe organic compounds in the exhaustvent stream from the carbon adsorptionsystem on a regular schedule andreplace the existing carbon with freshcarbon immediately when carbonbreakthrough is indicated. Themonitoring frequency shall be daily or atan interval no greater than 20 percent ofthe time required to consume the totalcarbon working capacity established asa requirement of § 265.1035(b)(4)(iii)(G).whichever is longer.

(2) Replace the existing carbon withfresh carbon at a regular. predeterminedtime interval that is less than the designcarbon replacement interval establishedas a requirement of§ 265.1035(b)(4)(iii)(G).

(i) An owner or operator of anaffected facility seeking to comply withthe provisions of this part by using acontrol device other than a thermalvapor incinerator, catalytic vapor

where:Eh,=Total organic mass flow rate, kg/h:

incinerator, flare, boiler, process heater,condenser, or carbon adsorption systemis required to develop documentationincluding sufficient information todescribe the control device operationand identify the process parameter orparameters that indicate properoperation and maintenance of thecontrol device.

(j)(1) Closed-vent systems shall bedesigned for and operated with nodetectable emissions, as indicated by aninstrument reading of less than 500 ppmabove background and by visualinspections, as determined-by themethods specified as § 265.1034(b).

(2) Closed-vent systems shall bemonitored to determine compliance withthis section during the initial leakdetection monitoring which shall beconducted by the date that the facilitybecomes subject to the provisions of thissection, annually, and at other times asrequested by the RegionalAdministrator.

(3) Detectable emissions, as indicatedby an instrument reading greater than500 ppm and visual inspections, shall becontrolled as soon as practicable, butnot later than 15 calendar days after theemission is detected.

(4) A first attempt at repair shall bemade no later than 5 calendar days afterthe emission is detected.

(k) Closed-vent systems and controldevices used to comply with provisionsof this subpart shall be operated at alltimes when emissions may be vented tothem.



(b) When a closed-vent system istested for compliance with no detectableemissions, as required in § 265.1033(j),the test shall comply with the followingrequirements:



Eh Q14 Y C1MW, 10.04161 [101i= 1

Qw=Volumetric flow rate of gases entering'or exiting control device, as determinedby Method 2..dscm/h;

n =Number of organic compounds in the ventgas:


(4) Calibration gases shall be.(i) Zero air (less than 10 ppm of

hydrocarbon in air).(ii). A mixture of methane or n-hexane

and air at a concentration ofapproximately, but lss than, 10,000 ppmmethane or n-hexane.



(7) The arithmetic difference betweenthe maximum concentration indicatedby the 'instrument and the backgroundlevel is compared with 500 ppm fordetermining compliance.

(c) Performance tests to determinecompliance with § 265.1032(a) and withthe total organic compoundconcentration limit of § 265.1033(c) shallcomply with the following:

(1) Performance tests to determinetotal organic compound concentrationsand mass flow rates entering and exitingcontrol devices shall be conducted anddata reduced in accordance with thefollowing reference methods andcalculation procedures:

(i) Method 2 in 40 CFR part 60 forvelocity and volumetric flow rate.

(ii) Method 18 in 40 CFR part 60.f6rorganic content.

(iii) Each performance test shallconsist of three separate runs; each runconducted for at least 1 hour under theconditions that exist when thehazardous waste management unit isoperating at the highest load or capacitylevel reasonably expected to occur. Forthe purpose of determining total organiccompound concentrations and massflow rates, the average of results of allruns shall apply. The average shall becomputed on a time-weighted basis.. (iv) Total organic mass flow ratesshall be determined by the followingequation:

Ci=Organic concentration in ppm, dry basis,of compound i in the vent gas, asdetermined by Method 18;

MW 1= Molecular weight of organiccompound i in the vent gas, kg/kg-mol:

25509



255:10 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 120. / Thursday, June 21, 1990 / Rules and Regulations

0.0416=Conversion factor for molar volume,kg-mol/m 3 (@ 293 K and 760 mm Hg);

10-6= Conversion from ppm, ppm-1.

(v) The annual total organic emissionrate shall be determined by thefollowing equation:

EA= (Eh) (H)where:

EA=Total organic mass emission rate, kgfy;Eh=Total organic mass flow rate for the

process vent, kg/h:H=Total annual hours of operations for the

affected unit, h.

(vi) Total organic emissions from allaffected process vents at the facilityshall be determined by summing thehourly total organic mass emission rates(Eh, as determined in paragraph (c)(1)(v)of this section) and by summing theannual total organic mass emission rates(EA, as determined in paragraph (c)(1)(v)of this section) for all affected processvents at the facility.

(2) The owner or operator shall recordsuch process information as may benecessary to determine the conditions ofthe performance tests. Operationsduring periods of startup, shutdown, andmalfunction shall not constituterepresentative conditions for thepurpose of a performance test.

(3) The owner or operator of anaffected facility shall provide, or causeto be provided, performance testingfacilities as follows:

(i) Samplihg ports adequate for thetest methods specified in paragraph(c)(1) of this section.

(ii) Safe sampling platform(s).(iii) Safe access to sampling

platform(s).(iv) Utilities for sampling and testing

equipment.(4) For the purpose of making

compliance determinations, the time-weighted average of the results of thethree runs shall apply. In the event thata sample is accidentally lost orconditions occur in which one of thethree runs must be discontinued becauseof forced shutdown, failure of anirreplaceable portion of the sampletrain, extreme meteorologicalconditions, or other circumstancesbeyond the owner or operator's control,compliance may, upon the RegionalAdministrator's approval, be determinedusing the average of the results of thetwo other runs.

(d) To show that a process ventassociated with a hazardous wastedistillation, fractionation, thin-filmevaporation, solvent extraction, or air orsteam stripping operation is not subjectto the requirements of this subpart, theowncr or operator must make an initialdetermination that the time-weighted,annual average total organic

concentration of the waste managed bythe waste management unit is less than10 ppmw using one of the following twomethods:

(1) Direct measurement of the organicconcentration of the waste using thefollowing procedures:

(i) The owner or operator must take aminimum of four grab samples of wastefor each waste stream managed in theaffected unit under process conditionsexpected to cause the maximum wasteorganic concentration.

(ii) For waste generated onsite, thegrab samples must be collected at apoint before the waste is exposed to theatmosphere such as in an enclosed pipeor-other closed system that is used totransfer the waste after generation tothe first affected distillationfractionation, thin-film evaporation,solvent extraction, or air or steamstripping operation. For waste generatedoffsjte, the grab samples must becollected at the inlet to the first wastemanagement unit that receives thewaste provided the waste has beentransferred to the facility in a closed "system such as a tank truck and thewaste is not diluted or mixed with otherwaste.

(iii) Each Sample shall be analyzedand the total organic concentration ofthe sample shall be computed usingMethod 9060 or 8240 of SW-846(incorporated by reference under§ 260.11).

(iv) The arithmetic mean of the resultsof the analyses of the four samples shallapply for each waste stream managed inthe unit in determining the time-weighted, annual average total organicconcentration of the waste. The time-weighted average is to be calculatedusing the annual quantity of each wastestream processed and the mean organicconcentration of each waste streammanaged in the unit.

(2) Using knowledge of the waste todetermine that its total organicconcentration is less than 10 ppmw.Documentation of the wastedetermination is required. Examples ofdocumentation that shall be used tosupport a determination under thisprovision include production processinformation documenting that no organiccompounds are used, information thatthe waste is generated by a process thatis identical to a process at the same oranother facility that has previously beendemonstrated by direct measurement togenerate a waste stream having a totalorganic content less than 10 ppmw, orprior speciation analysis results on thesame waste stream where it can also bedocumented that no process changeshave occurred since that analysis that

could affect the waste total organicconcentration.

(e) The determination that distillationfractionation, thin-film evaporation,solvent extraction, or air or steamstripping operations manage hazardouswastes with time-weighted annualaverage total organic concentrationsless than 10 ppmw shall be made asfollows:

(1) By the effective date that thefacility becomes subject to theprovisions of this subpart or by the datewhen the waste is first managed in awaste management unit, whichever islater; and

(2) For continuously generated waste,annually; or

(3) Whenever there is a change in thewaste being managed or a change in theprocess that generates or treats thewaste.(f) When an owner or operator andthe Regional Administrator do not agreeon whether a distillation, fractionation,thin-film evaporation, solventextraction, or air or steam strippingoperation manages a hazardous wastewith organic concentrations of at least10 ppmw based on knowledge of thewaste, the procedures in Method 8240can be used to resolve the dispute.

§ 265.1035 Recordkeeping requirements.(a)(1) Each owner or operator subject

to the provisions of this subpart shallcomply with the recordkeepingrequirements of this section.

(2) An owner or operator of more thanone hazardous waste management unitsubject to the provisions of this subpartmay comply with the recordkeepingrequirements for these hazardous wastemanagement units in one recordkeepingsystem if the system identifies eachrecord by each hazardous wastemanagement unit.


(1) For facilities that comply with theprovisions of § 265.1033(a)(2), animplementation schedule that includesdates by which the closed-vent systemand control device will be installed andin operation. The schedule must alsoinclude a rationale of why theinstallation cannot be completed at anearlier date. The implementationschedule must be in the facilityoperating record by the effective datethat the facility becomes subject to theprovisions of this subpart.

(2) Up-to-date documentation ofcompliance with the process ventstandards in § 265.1032. including:(i] Information and data identifying all

affected process vents, annual




throughput end operating hours of eachaffected unit, estimated emission ratesfor each affected vent and for theoverall facility (i.e., the total emissionsfor all affected vents at the facility), andthe approximate location within thefacility of each affected unit (e.g.,identify the hazardous wastemanagement units on a facility plotplan); and

(ii) Information and data supportingdeterminations of vent emissions andemission reductions achieved by add-oncontrol devices based on engineeringcalculations or source tests. For thepurpose of determining compliance,determinations of vent emissions andemission reductions must be made usingoperating parameter values (e.g.,temperatures, flow rates or vent streamorganip compounds and concentrations)that represent the conditions that resultin maximum organic emissions, such aswhen the waste management unit isoperating at the highest load or capacitylevel reasonably expected to occur. Ifthe owner or operator takes any action(e.g., managing a waste of differentcomposition or increasing operatinghours of affected waste managementunits) that would result in an increase intotal organic emissions from affectedprocess vents at the facility, then a newdetermination is required.

(3] Where an owner or operatorchooses to use test data to determine theorganic removal efficiency or totalorganic compound concentrationachieved by the control device, aperformance test plan. The test planmust include:

(i) A description of how it isdetermined that the planned test is goingto be conducted when the hazardouswaste management unit is operating atthe highest load or capacity levelreasonably expected to occur. This shallinclude the estimated or design flow rateand organic content of each vent streamand define the acceptable operatingranges of key process and control deviceparameters during the test program.'

(ii) A detailed engineering descriptionof the closed-vent system and controldevice including:

(A) Manufacturer's name and modelnumber of control device.

(B).Type of control device.(C) Dimensions of the control device.(D) Capacity.E) Construction materials.(iii) A detailed description of sampling

and monitoring procedures, includingsampling and monitoring locations in thesystem, the equipment to be used,sampling and monitoring frequency, andplanned analytical procedures forsample analysis.

(4) Documentation of compliance with§ 265.1033 shall include the followinginformation:

(i) A list of all information referencesand sources used in preparing thedocumentation.

(ii) Records including the dates ofeach compliance test required by§ 265.1033(j).

(iii) If engineering calculations areused, a design analysis, specifications,drawings, schematics, and piping andinstrumentation diagrams based on theappropriate sections of "APTI Course415: Control of Gaseous Emissions"(incorporated by reference as specifiedin § 260.11) or other engineering textsacceptable to the RegionalAdministrator that present basic controldevice design information.Documentation provided by the controldevice manufacturer or vendor thatdescribes the control device design inaccordance with paragraphs(b](4)(iii)(A) through (b)(4l(iii)(G) of thissection may be used to comply with thisrequirement. The design analysis shalladdress the vent stream characteristicsand control device operation parametersas specified below.

(A) For a thermal vapor incinerator,the'design analysis shall consider thevent stream composition, constituentconcentrations, and flow rate. Thedesign analysis shall also establish thedesign minimum and averagetemperature in the combustion zone andthe combustion zone residence time.. (B) For a catalytic vapor incinerator,the design analysis shall consider thevent stream composition, constituentconcentrations, and flow rate. Thedesign analysis shall also establish thedesign minimum and averagetemperatures across the catalyst bedinlet and outlet.

(C] For a boiler or process heater, thedesign analysis shall consider the ventstream composition, constituentconcentrations, and flow rate. Thedesign analysis shall also establish thedesign minimum and average flame zonetemperatures, combustion zoneresidence time, and description ofmethod and location where the ventstream is introduced into thecombustion zone.

(D) For a flare, the design analysisshall consider the vent streamcomposition, constituent concentrations,and flow rate. The design analysis shallalso consider the requirements specifiedin § 265.1033(d).. (E) For a condenser, the designanalysis shall consider the vent streamcomposition, constituent concentrations,flow rate, relative humidity, andtemperature. The design analysis shallalso establish the design outlet organic

compound concentration level, designaverage temperature of the condenserexhaust vent stream, and design averagetemperatures of the coolant fluid at thecondenser inlet and outlet.

(F) For a carbon adsorption systemsuch as a fixed-bed adsorber thatregenerates the carbon bed directlyonsite in the control device, the designanalysis shall consider the vent streamcomposition, constituent concentrations,flow rate, relative humidity, andtemperature. The design analysis shallalso establish the design exhaust ventstream organic compound concentrationlevel, number and capacity of carbonbeds, type and working capacity ofactivated carbon used for carbon beds,design total steam flow over the periodof each complete carbon bedregeneration cycle, duration of thecarbon bed steaming and cooling/dryingcycles, design carbon bed temperatureafter regeneration, design carbon bedregeneration time, and design servicelife of carbon.

(G) For a carbon adsorption systemsuch as a carbon canister that does notregenerate the carbon bed directlyonsite in the control device, the designanalysis shall consider the vent streamcomposition, constituent concentrations,flow rate, relative humidity, andtemperature. The design analysis shallalso establish the design outlet organicconcentration level, capacity of carbonbed, type and working capacity ofactivated carbon used for carbon bed,and design carbon replacement intervalbased on the total carbon workingcapacity of the control device andsource operating schedule.

(iv) A statement signed and dated bythe owner or operator certifying that theoperating parameters used in the designanalysis reasonably represent theconditions that exist when thehazardous waste management unit is orwould be operating at the highest loador capacity level reasonably expected tooccur.

(v) A statement signed and dated bythe owner or operator certifying that thecontrol device is designed to operate atan efficiency of 95 percent or greaterunless the total organic concentrationlimit of § 265.1032(a) is achieved at anefficiency less than 95 weight percent orthe total organic emission limits of§ 265.1032(a) for affected process ventsat the facility can be attained by acontrol device involving vapor recoveryat an efficiency less than 95 weightpercent. A statement provided by thecontrol device manufacturer or vendorcertifying that the control equipment.meets the design specifications may beused to comply with this requirement.

25511




(vi) If performance tests are used todemonstrate compliance, all test results.

(c) Design documentation andmonitoring, operating, and inspectioninformation for each closed-vent systemand control device required to complywith the provisions of this part shall berecorded and kept up-to-date in thefacility operating record. Theinformation shall include:

(1) Description and date of eachmodification that is made to the closed-vent system or control device design.

(2) Identification of operatingparameter, description of monitoringdevice, and diagram of monitoringsensor location or locations used tocomply with § 265.1033(f(1) and (f)(2).

(3) Monitoring, operating andinspection information required byparagraphs (0 through (j) of § 265.1033.

(4) Date, time, and duration of eachperiod that occurs while the controldevice is operating when any monitoredparameter exceeds the value establishedin the control device design analysis asspecified below:

(i) For a thermal vapor incineratordesigned to operate with a minimumresidence time of 0.50 seconds at aminimum temperature of 760 *C. periodwhen the combustion temperature isbelow 760 *C.

(ii) For a thermal vapor incineratordesigned' to operate with an organicemission reduction efficiency of 95percent or greater, period when thecombustion zone temperature is morethan 28 °C below the design averagecombustion zone temperatureestablished as a requirement ofparagraph (b)(4)(iii)(A) of this section.

(iii) For a catalytic vapor incinerator,period when:

(A) Temperature of the vent stream atthe catalyst bed inlet is more than 28 °Cbelow the average temperature of theinlet vent stream established as' arequirement of paragraph (b)(4)(iii)(B) ofthis section; or

(B) Temperature difference across thecatalyst bed is less than 80 percent ofthe design average temperaturedifference established as a requirementof paragraph (b)(4)(iii)(B) of this section.

(iv) For a boiler or process heater,period when:

(A) Flame zone temperature is morethan 28 'C below the design averageflame zone temperature established as arequirement of paragraph (b)(4)(iii)(C) ofthis section; or

(B) Position changes where the ventstream is introduced to the combustionzone from the location established as arequirement of paragraph (b)(4)(iii)(C) ofthis section.

(v) For a flare, period when the pilotflame is not ignited.

(vi) For a condenser that complieswith § 265.1033(f)(2)(vi)(A), period whenthe organic compound concentrationlevel or readings of organic compoundsin the exhaust vent stream from thecondenser are more than 20 percentgreater than the design outlet organiccompound concentration levelestablished as a requirement ofparagraph (b](4)(iii)(E) of this section.

(vii) For a condenser that complieswith § 265.1033(f)(2)(vi)(B), period when:

(A) Temperature of the exhaust ventstream from the condenser is more than6 °C above the design average exhaustvent stream temperature established asa requirement of paragraph (b)(4)(iii)(E)of this section; or

(B) Temperature of the coolant fluidexiting the pondenser is more than 6 °Cabove the design average coolant fluidtemperature at the condenser outletestablished as a requirement ofparagraph (b)(4)(iii)(E) of this section.

(viii) For a carbon adsorption systemsuch as a fixed-bed carbon adsorberthat regenerates the carbon bed directlyonsite in the control device andcomplies with § 265.1033(f)(2)(vii)(A),period when the organic compoundconcentration level or readings oforganic compounds in the exhaust ventstream from the carbon bed are morethan 20 percent greater than the designexhaust vent stream organic compoundconcentration level established as arequirement of paragraph (b)(4)(iii)(F) ofthis section.

(ix) For a carbon adsorption systemsuch as a fixed-bed carbon adsorberthat regenerates the carbon bed directlyonsite in the control device andcomplies with § 265.1033(0(2)(vii)(B),period when the vent stream continuesto flow through the control devicebeyond the predetermined carbon bedregeneration time established as arequirement of paragraph (b)[4)(iii)(F) ofthis section

(5) Explanation for each periodrecorded under paragraph (3) of thecause for control device operatingparameter exceeding the design valueand the measures implemented tocorrect the control device operation.

(6) For carbon adsorption systemsoperated subject to requirementsspecified in § 265.1033(g) or§ 265.1033(h)(2), date when existingcarbon in the control device is replacedwith fresh carbon.

(7) For carbon adsorption systemsoperated subject to requirementsspecified in §,265.1033(h)(1), a log thatrecords:

(i) Date and time when control deviceis monitored for carbon breakthroughand the monitoring device reading.

(ii) Date when existing carbon in thecontrol device is replaced with freshcarbon.

(8) Date of each control device startupand shutdown.

(d) Records of the monitoring,operating, and inspection informationrequired by paragraphs (c)(3) through(c)(8) of this section need be kept only 3years.

(e) For a control device other than athermal vapor incinerator, catalyticvapor incinerator, flare, boiler, processheater, condenser, or carbon adsorptionsystem, monitoring and inspectioninformation indicating proper operationand maintenance of the control devicemust be recorded in the facilityoperating record.

(f) Up-to-date information and dataused to determine.whether or not aprocess vent is subject to therequirements in § 265.1032 includingsupporting documentation as requiredby § 265.1034(d)(2) when application ofthe knowledge of the nature of thehazardous waste stream or the processby which it was produced is used, shallbe recorded in a log that is kept in thefacility operating record.


§§ 265.1036-265.1049 (Reserved]

18. 40 CFR part 265 is amended byadding subpart BB to read as follows:

Subpart 95-Air Emission Standards forEquipment Leaks265.1050 Applicability.265.1051 Definitions.265.1052 Standards: Pumps in light liquid

service.265.1053 Standards: Compressors.265.1054 Standards: Pressure relief devices In

gas/vapor service.265.1055 Standards: Sampling connecting

systems.265.1056 Standards: Open-ended valves or

lines.265.1057 Standards: Valves in gas/vapor

service or in light liquid service.265.1058 Standards: Pumps and valves in

heavy liquid service, pressure relief devicesin light liquid or heavy liquid service, andflanges and other connectors.

265.1059 Standards: Delay of repair.265.1060 Standards: Closed-vent systems and

control devices.265.1061 Alternative standards for valves in

gas/vapor service or in light liquid service:percentage of valves allowed to leak.

265.1062 Alternative standards for valves ingas/vapor service or in light liquid service:skip period leak detection and repair.

265.1063 Test methods and procedures.265.1064 Recordkeeping requirements.265.1065-265.1079 [Reservedl




Subpart BB-Alr Emission Standardsfor Equipment Leaks

§ 265.1050 Applicability.(a) The regulations in this subpart

apply to owners and operators offacilities that treat, store, or dispose ofhazardous wastes (except as providedin § 265.1).

(b) Except as provided in § 265.1064(j),this subpart applies to equipment thatcontains or contacts hazardous wasteswith organic concentrations of at least10 percent by weight that are managedin:



(c) Each piece of equipment to whichthis subpart applies shall be marked insuch a manner that it can bedistinguished readily from other piecesof equipment.

(d) Equipment that is in vacuumservice is excluded from therequirements of § 265.1052 to § 265.1060if it is identified as required in§ 265.1064(g)(5).

[Note: -The requirements of §1 265.1052through 265.1064 apply to equipmentassociated with hazardous waste recyclingunits previously exempt under paragraph.261.6(c)(1). Other exemptions'under § § 261.4,262.34. and 265.1(c) are not-affected by theserequirements.),

§ 265.1051 Definitions.As used in this subpart, all terms shall

have the meaning given them in§ 264.1031, the Act, and parts 260-266.

§ 265.1052 Standards: Pumps In light liquidservice.

(a)(1) Each pump In light liquid serviceshall be monitored monthly to detectleaks by the methods specified in§ 265.1063(b), except as provided inparagraphs (d), (e), and (f) of thissection.

(2) Each pump in light liquid serviceshall be checked by visual inspectioneach calendar week for indications ofliquids dripping from the pump seal.

(b)(1) If an instrument reading of10,000 ppm or greater is measured, aleak is detected.

(2) If there are indications of liquidsdripping from the pump seal, a leak isdetected

(c)(1) When a leak is detected, it shallbe repaired as soon as practicable, butnot later than 15 calendar days after it isdetected, except as provided in§ 265.1059.


(d) Each pump equipped with a dualmechanical seal system that includes abarrier fluid system is exempt from therequirements of paragraph (a), providedthe following requirements are met:

(1) Each dual mechanical seal systemmust be:

(i) Operated with the barrier fluid at apressure that is at all times greater thanthe pump stuffing box pressure, or

(ii) Equipped with a barrier fluiddegassing reservoir that is connected bya closed-vent system to a control devicethat complies with the requirements of§ 265.1060, or

(iii) Equipped with a system thatpurges the barrier fluid into a hazardouswaste stream with no detectableemissions to the atmosphere.

(2) The barrier fluid system must not,be a hazardous waste with organicconcentrations 10 percent or greater byweight.

. (3) Each barrier fluid system must beequipped with a sensor that will detectfailure of the seal system, the barrierfluid system or both.

(4) Each pump must be checked byvisual inspection, each calendar week,for indications of liquids dripping fromthe pump seals.

(5)(i) Each sensor as described inparagraph (d)(3) of this section must bechecked daily or be equipped with anaudible alarm that must-be-checkedmonthly to ensure that it is functioningproperly.

(ii) The owner or operator mustdetermine, based on designconsiderations and operatingexperience, a criterion that indicatesfailure of the seal system, the barrierfluid system, or both.

(6)(i) If there are indications of liquidsdripping from the pump seal or thesensor indicates failure of the sealsystem, the barrier fluid system, or bothbased on the criterion determined inparagraph (d)(5)(ii) of this section, a leakis detected.- (ii) When a leak is detected, it shall berepaired as soon as practicable, but not

-later than 15 calendar days after it isdetected, except as provided in§ 265.1059.

(ii!) A first attempt at repair (e.g.,relapping the seal) shall be made nolater than 5 calendar days after eachleak is detected.

(e) Any pump that is designated, asdescribed in § 265.1064(g)(2), for nodetectable emissions, as indicated by aninstrument reading of less than 500 ppmabove background, is exempt from therequirements of paragraphs (a), (c), and

(d) of this section if the pump meets thefollowing requirements:

(1) Must have no externally actuatedshaft penetrating the pump housing.(2) Must operate with no detectableemissions as indicated by an instrumentreading of less than 500 ppm abovebackground as measured by themethods specified in § 265.1063(c).

(3) Must be tested for compliance withparagraph (a)(2) of this section initiallyupon designation, annually, and at othertimes as requested by the RegionalAdministrator.

If) If any pump is equipped with aclosed-vent system capable of capturingand transporting any leakage from theseal or seals to a control device thatcomplies with the requirements of§ 265.1060, it is exempt from therequirements of paragraphs (a) through'(e) of this section.

§ 265.1053 Standards: Compressors.(a) Each compressor shall be equipped

with a seal system that includes abarrier fluid system and that preventsleakage of total organic emissions to theatmosphere, except as provided inparagraphs (h) and (i) of this section.

(b) Each compressor seal system asrequired in paragraph (a) of this sectionshall be:

(1) Operated with the barrier fluid at apressure that is at all times greater than,the compressor stuffing box pressure, or

(2) Equipped with a barrier fluidsystem that is connected by a closed-vent system to a control device thatcomplies with the requirements of§ 265.1060, or

(3) Equipped with a system thatpurges the barrier fluid into a hazardouswaste stream with no detectableemissions to atmosphere.

(c) The barrier fluid must not be ahazardous waste with organicconcentrations 10 percent or greater byweight.

(d) Each barrier fluid system asdescribed in paragraphs (a) through (c)of this section shall be equipped with asensor that will detect failure of the sealsystem, barrier fluid system, or both.

(e)(1) Each sensor as required inparagraph (d) of this section shall bechecked daily or shall be equipped withan audible alarm that must be checkedmonthly to ensure that it is functioningproperly unless the compressor islocated within the boundary of anunmanned plant site, in which case thesensor must be checked daily.

(21 The owner or operator shalldetermine, based on designconsiderations and operatingexperience, a criterion that indicates

2S513




failure of the seal system, the barrierfluid system or both.

(f) If the sensor indicates failure of theseal system, the barrier fluid system, orboth based on the criterion determinedunder paragraph (e)(2) of this section, aleak is detected.

(g)(1) When a leak is detected, it shallbe repaired as soon as practicable, butnot later than 15 calendar days after it isdetected, except as provided in§ 265.1059.


(h) A compressor is exempt from therequirements of paragraphs (a) and (b)of this section if it is equipped with aclosed-vent system capable of capturingand transporting any leakage from theseal to a control device that complieswith the requirements of § 265.1060,except as provided in paragraph (i) offhis'section.

(i) Any compressor that is designated,as described in § 265.1064(g)(2), for nodetectable emission as indicated by aninstrument reading of less than 500 ppmabove background is exempt from therequirements of paragraphs (a) through(h) of this'section if the compressor:

(1) Is determined to be operating withno detectable emissions, as indicated byan instrument reading of less than 500ppm above background, as measured bythe method specified in § 265.1063(c).

(2) Is tested for compliance withparagraph (i)(1) of this section initiallyupon designation, annually, and at othertimes as requested by the RegionalAdministrator.

§ 265.1054 Standards: Pressure reliefdevices in gas/vapor service.

(a) Except during pressure releases,each pressure relief device in gas/vaporservice shall be operated with nodetectable emissions, as indicated by aninstrument reading of less than 500 ppmabove background, as measured by themethod specified in § 265.1063(c).

(b)(1) After each pressure release, thepressure relief device shall be returnedto a condition of no detectableemissions, as indicated by an instrumentreading of less than 500 ppm abovebackground, as soon as practicable, butno later than 5 calendar days after eachpressure release, except as provided in§ 265.1059.

(2) No later than 5 calendar days-afterthe pressure release, the pressure reliefdevice shall be monitored to confirm thecondition of no detectable emissions, asindicated by an instrument reading ofless than 500 ppm above background, asmeasured by the method specified in§ 265.1063(c).

(c) Any pressure relief device that isequipped with a closed-vent systemcapable of capturing and transportingleakage from the pressure relief deviceto a control device as described in§ 265.1060 is exempt from therequirements of paragraphs (a) and (b)of this section.

§ 265.1055 Standards: Samplingconnecting systems.

(a) Each sampling connection systemshall be equipped with a closed-purgesystem or closed-vent system.

(b) Each closed-purge system orclosed-vent system as required inparagraph (a) shall:

(1) Return the purged hazardous wastestream directly to the hazardous wastemanagement process line with nodetectable emissions to atmosphere, or

(2) Collect and recycle the purgedhazardous waste stream with nodetectable emissions to atmosphere, or

(3) Be designed and operated tocapture and transport all the purgedhazardous waste stream to a controldevice that complies with therequirements of § 265.1060.

(c) In situ sampling systems areexempt fronrthe requirements ofparagraphs (a) and (b) of this section.

§ 265.1056 Standards: Open-ended valvesor lines.

(a)(i) Each open-ended valve or line* shall be equipped with a cap, blind

flange, plug, or a second valve.(2) The cap, blind flange, plug, or

second valve shall seal the open end atall times except during operationsrequiring hazardous waste stream flowthrough the open-ended valve or line.

(b) Each open-ended valve or lineequipped with a second valve shall beoperated in a manner such that thevalve on the hazardous waste streamend is closed before the second valve isclosed.

(c) When a double block and bleedsystem is being used, the bleed valve orline may remain open during operationsthat require venting the line between theblock valves but shall comply withparagraph (a) of this section at all othertimes.

§ 265.1057 Standards: Valves In gas/vaporservice or In light liquid service.

(a) Each valve in gas/vapor or lightliquid service shall be monitoredmonthly to detect leaks by the methodsspecified in § 265.1063(b) and shallcomply with paragraphs (b) through (e)of this section, except as provided inparagraphs (0, (g), and (h) of thissection' and § § 265.1061 and 265.1062.


(c)(1) Any valve for which a leak isnot detected for two successive monthsmay be monitored the first month ofevery succeeding quarter, beginningwith the next quarter, until a leak isdetected.

(2) If a leak is detected, the valve shallbe monitored monthly until a leak is notdetected for 2 successive months. I.

(d)(1) When a leak is detected, it shallbe repaired as soon as practicable, butno later than 15 calendar days after theleak is detected, except as provided in§ 265.1059.

(2) A first attempt at repair shall bemade no later than 5 calendar days aftereach leak is detected.

(e) First attempts at repair include, butare not limited to, the following bestpractices where practicable:

(1) Tightening of bonnet bolts.(2) Replacement of bonnet bolts.(3) Tightening of packing gland nuts.(4) Injection of lubricant into

lubricated packing.(f) Any valve that is designated, as

described in § 265.1064(g)(2), for nodetectable emissions, as indicated by aninstrument reading of less than 500 ppmabove background, is exempt from therequirements of paragraph (a) of thissection if the valve:

(1) Has no external actuatingmechanism in contact with the 'hazardous waste stream.

(2) Is operated with emissions lessthan 500 ppm above background asdetermined by the method specified in§ 265.1063(c).

(3) Is tested for compliance withparagraph (f)(2) of this section initiallyupon designation. annually, and at othertimes as requested by the RegionalAdministrator.

(g) Any valve that is designated, asdescribed in § 265.1064(h)(1), as anunsafe-to-monitor valve is exempt fromthe requirements of paragraph (a) of thissection if:

(1) The owner or operator of the valvedetermines that the valve is unsafe tomonitor because monitoring personnelwould be exposed to an immediatedanger as a consequence of complyingwith paragraph (a) of this section.

(2) The owner or operator of the valveadheres to a written plan that requiresmonitoring of the valve as frequently aspracticable during safe-to-monitor times.

(h) Any valve that is designated, asdescribed in § 265.1064(h)(2), as adifficult-to-monitor valve is exempt fromthe requirements of paragraph (a) of thissection if:. (1) The owner or operator of the valve

determines that the valve cannot be'monitored without elevating the




monitoring personnel more than 2meters above a support surface.

(2) The hazardous waste managementunit within which the valve is locatedwas in operation before June 21, 1990.

(3) The owner or operator of the valvefollows a written plan that requiresmonitoring of the valve at least once percalendar year.

§ 265.1058 Standards: Pumps and valvesin heavy liquid service, pressure reliefdevices In light liquid or heavy liquidservice, and flanges and other connectors.

(a) Pumps and valves in heavy liquidservice, pressure relief devices in lightliquid or heavy liquid service, andflanges and other connectors shall bemonitored within 5 days by the methodspecified in § 265.1063(b) if evidence ofa potential leak is found by visual,audible, olfactory, or any otherdetection method.


(c)(1) When a leak is detected, it shallbe repaired as soon as practicable, butnot later than 15 calendar days after it isdetected, except as provided in§ 265.1059.

(2) The first attempt at repair shall bemade no later than 5 calendar days aftereach leak is detected.

(d) First attempts at repair include,but are not limited to, the best practicesdescribed under § 265.1057(e).

§ 265.1059 Standards: Delay of repair.(a] Delay of repair of equipment for

which leaks have been detected will beallowed if the repair is technicallyinfeasible without a hazardous wastemanagement unit shutdown. In such acase, repair of this equipment shalloccur before the end of the nexthazardous waste management unitshutdown.

(b) Delay of repair of equipment forwhich leaks have been detected will beallowed for equipment that is isolatedfrom the hazardous waste managementunit and that does not continue tocontain or contact hazardous waste withorganic concentrations at least 10percent by weight.

(c) Delay of repair for valves will beallowed if.

(1) The owner or operator determinesthat emissions of purged materialresulting from immediate repair aregreater than the emissions likely toresult from delay of repair.

(2) When repair procedures areeffected, the purged material is collectedand destroyed or recovered in a controldevice complying with § 265.1060.

(d) Delay of repair for pumps will be.allowed if:

(1) Repair requires the use of a dualmechanical seal system that includes abarrier fluid system.

(2) Repair is completed as soon aspracticable, but not later than 6 monthsafter the leak was detected.

(e) Delay of repair beyond ahazardous waste management unitshutdown will be allowed for a valve ifvalve assembly replacement isnecessary during the hazardous wastemanagement unit shutdown, valveassembly supplies have been depleted,and valve assembly supplies had beensufficiently stocked before the supplieswere depleted. Delay of repair beyondthe next hazardous waste managementunit shutdown will not be allowedunless the next hazardous wastemanagement unit shutdown occurssooner than 6 months after the firsthazardous waste management unitshutdown.


Owners or operators of closed-vent systems and control devices shallcomply with the provisions of§ 265.1033.

§ 265.1061- Alternative standards forvalves In gas/vapor service or In light liquidservice: percentage of valves allowed toleak.

(a) An owner or operator subject tothe requirements of § 265.1057 may electto have all valves within a hazardouswaste management unit comply with analternative standard which allows nogreater than 2 percent of the valves toleak.

(b) The following requirements shallbe met if an owner or operator decidesto comply with the alternative standardof allowing 2 percent of valves to leak:

(1) An owner or operator must notifythe Regional Administrator that theowner or operator has elected to complywith the requirements of this section.

(2) A performance test as specified inparagraph (c) of this section shall beconducted initially upon designation,annually, and at other times requestedby the Regional Administrator.

(3) If a valve leak is detected, it shallbe repaired in accordance with§ 265.1057 (d) and (e).

(c) Performance tests shall beconducted in the following manner:

(1) All valves subject to therequirements in § 265.1057 within thehazardous waste management unit shallbe monitored within 1 week by themethods specified in § 265.1063(b).

(2) If an instrument reading of 10,000ppm or greater is measured, a leak isdetected.

(3) The leak percentage shall bedetermined by dividing the number of'

valves subject to the requirements in§ 265.1057 for which leaks are detectedby the total number of valves subject tothe requirements in § 265.1057 within thehazardous waste management unit.

(d) If an owner or operator decides nolonger to comply with this section, theowner or operator must notify theRegional Administrator in writing thatthe work practice standard described in§ 265.1057 (a) through (e) will b,followed.

§ 265.1062 Alternative standards forvalves In gas/vapor service or In light liquidservice: skip period leak detection andrepair.

(a)(1) An owner or operator subject tothe requirements of § 265.1057 may electfor all valves within a hazardous wastemanagement unit to comply with one ofthe alternative work practices specifiedin paragraphs (b) (2) and (3) of thissection.

(2] An owner or operator must notifythe Regional Administrator beforeimplementing one of the alternativework practices.

(b](1) An owner or operator shallcomply with the requirements forvalves,'as described in § 265.1057,except as described in paragraphs (b)(2)and (b)(3) of this section.

(2) After two consecutive quarterlyleak detection periods with thepercentage of valves leaking equal to orless than 2 percent, an owner oroperator may begin to skip one of thequarterly leak detection periods for thevalves subject to the requirements in§ 265.1057.

(3) After five consecutive quarterlyleak detection periods with thepercentage of valves leaking equal to orless than 2 percent, an owner oroperator may begin to skip three of thequarterly leak detection periods for thevalves subject to the requirements in§ 265.1057.

(4) If the percentage of valves leakingis greater than 2 percent, the owner oroperators hall monitor monthly incompliance with the requirements in§ 265.1057, but may again elect to usethis section after meeting therequirements of § 265.1057(c)(1).



(b) Leak detection monitoring, atrequired in §§ 265.1052-265.1062, shallcomply with the following requirements:

(1) Monitoring shall comply with ,Reference Method 21 in 40 CFR Part 60.

25515






(4) Calibration gases shall be:(i) Zero air (less than 10 ppm of

hydrocarbon in air). '(ii) A mixture of methane or n-hexane

and air at a concentration of.approximately, but less than, 10.000 ppmmethane or n-hexane.


(c) When equipment is tested forcompliance with no detectableemissions, as required in §§ 265.1052(e),265.1053(i), 265.1054, and 265.1057(f), thetest shall comply with the followingrequirements:

(1) The requirements of paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section shall apply.

(2) The background level shall bedetermined, as set forth in ReferenceMethod 21.

(3) The instrument probe shall betraversed around all potential leakinterfaces as close to the interface as'possible as described in ReferenceMethod 21.

(4).The arithmetic difference betweenthe maximum concentration indicated-by the instrument and the backgroundlevel is compared with 500 ppm fordetermining compliance.

(d) In accordance with the wasteanalysis plan required by § 265.13(b), anowner or operator of a facility mustdetermine, for each piece of equipment,whether the equipment contains orcontacts a hazardous waste withorganic concentration that equals orexceeds 10 percent by weight using thefollowing:

(1) Methods described in ASTMMethods D 2267-88, E 169-87, E 168--88,E 260-85 (incorporated by referenceunder § 260.11);

(2) Method 9060 or 8240 of SW-846(incorporated by reference under§ 260.11); or

(3) Application of the knowledge ofthe nature of the hazardous wastestream or the process by which it wasproduced. Documentation of a wastedetermination by knowledge is required.Examples of documentation that shallbe used to support a determinationunder this provision include productionprocess information documenting thatno organic compounds are used,information that the waste is generatedby a process that is identical to aprocess at the same or another facility

that has previously been demonstratedby direct measurement to have a totalorganic content less than 10 percent, orprior speciation analysis results on thesame waste stream where it can also bedocumented that no process changeshave occurred since that analysis thatcould affect the waste total organicconcentration.

(e) If an owner or operator determinesthat a piece of equipment contains orcontacts a hazardous waste withorganic concentrations at least 10percent by weight, the determinationcan be revised only after following theprocedures in paragraph (d)(1) or (d)(2)of this section.

(f) When an owner or operator andthe Regional Administrator do not agreeon whether a piece of equipmentcontains or contacts a hazardous wastewith-organic concentrations at least 10percent by weight, the procedures in.paragraph (d)(1) or (d)(2) of this sectioncan be used to resolve the dispute. :

(g) Samples used in determining thepercent organic content shall berepresentative of the highest totalorganic content hazardous waste that isexpected to be contained in or contactthe equipment.

(h) To determine if pumps or valvesare in light liquid service,'the vaporpressures of constituents may beobtained from standard reference textsor may be determined by ASTM D-2879-86 (incorporated by referenceunder § 260.11).

( {i) Performance tests to determine if acontrol device achieves 95 weightpercent organic emission reduction shallcomply with the procedures of§ 265.1034 (c)(1) through (c)(4).

§265.1064 Recordkeeping requirements.(a)(1) Each owner or operator subject

to the provisions of this subpart shallcomply with the recordkeepingrequirements of this section.

(2) An owner or operator of more thanone hazardous waste management unitsubject to the provisions of this subpartmay comply with the recordkeepingrequirements for these hazardous wastemanagement units in one recordkeepingsystem if the system identifies eachrecord by each hazardous wastemanagement unit.


(1) For each piece of equipment towhich subpart BB of part 265 applies:

(i) Equipment identification numberand hazardous waste management unitidentification.

(ii) Approximate locations within thefacility (e.g., identify the hazardous

waste management unit on a facility plotplan).

(iii) Type of equipment (e.g., a pump orpipeline valve).

(iv) Percent-by-weight total organicsin the hazardous waste stream at theequipment.

(v) Hazardous waste state at theequipment (e.g., gas/vapor or liquid).

(vi) Method of compliance with thestandard (e.g., "monthly leak detectionand repair" or "equipped with dualmechanical seals").

(2) For facilities that comply with theprovisions of § 265.1033(a)(2), animplementation schedule as specified in§ 265.1033(a)(2).

(3) Where an owner or operatorchooses to use test data to demonstratethe organic removal efficiency or totalorganic compound concentrationachieved by the control device, aperformance test plan as Specified in§ 265.1035(b)(3).

(4) Documentation of compliance with§ 265.1060, including the detailed designdocumentation or performance testresults specified in § 265.1035(b)(4).

(c) When each leak is detected asspecified in " § 265.1052; 265.1953,265.1057, and 265.1058, the following'requirements apply:(•{) A Weatherproof and readily visible

identification, marked with theequipment identification number, thedate evidence of a potential leak wasfound in accordance with § 265.1058(a),and the date the leak was detected,shall be attached to the leakingequipment..

(2).The identification on equipment,except on a valve, may be removed afterit has been repaired.

(3) The identification on a valve maybe removed after it has been monitoredfor 2 successive months as specified in§ 265.1057(c) and no leak has beendetected during those 2 months.

(d) When each leak is detected asspecified in § § 265.1052, 265.1053,265.1057, and 265.1058, the followinginformation shall be recorded in aninspection log and shall be kept in thefacility operating record:

(1) The instrument and operatoridentification numbers and theequipment identification number.

(2) The date evidence of a potentialleak was found in accordance with§ 265.1058(a).

(3) The date the leak was detectedand the dates of each attempt to repairthe leak.. (4) Repair methods applied in each

attempt to repair the leak. •(5) "Above 10,000" if the maximum

instrument reading measured by themethods specified in § 265.1063(b) after




each repair attempt is equal to or greaterthan 10,000 ppm.

(6) "Repair delayed" and the reasonfor the delay if a leak is not repairedwithin 15 calendar days after discoveryof the leak.

(7) Documentation supporting thedelay of repair of a valve in compliancewith § 265.1059(c).

(8) The signature. of the owner oroperator (or designate) whose decisionit.was that repair could not be effectedwithout a hazardous waste managementunit shutdown.

(9) The expected date of successfulrepair of the leak if a leak is notrepaired within 15 calendar days.

(10) The date of successful repair ofthe leak.

(e) Design documentation andmonitoring, operating, and inspectioninfomation for each closed-vent systemand control device required to complywith the provisions of § 265.1060 shallbe recorded and kept up-to-date in thefacility operating record as specified in.§ 265.1035(c). Design documentation isspecified in. § 265.1035 (c)(1) and (6)(2)and monitoring, operating, andinspection information in § 265.1035(c)(3)-(c)(8).

(f) For a control device other than athermal vapor incinerator, catalyticvapor incinerator, flare, boiler, processheater, condenser, or carbon adsorptionsystem, monitoring and inspection -information indicating proper operationand maintenance of the control-devicemust be recorded in the facilityoperating record.

(g) The following informationpertaining to all equipment subject tothe requirements in § § 265.1052 through265.1060 shall be recorded in a log thatis kept in the facility operating record:

(1) A list of identification numbers forequipment (except welded fittings)subject to the requirements of thissubpart.

(2)(i) A list of identification numbersfor equipment that the owner oroperator elects to designate for nodetectable emissions, as indicated by aninstrument reading of less than 500 ppmabove background, under the provisionsof § § 265.1052(e), 265.1053(i), and265.1057(f).

(ii) The designation of this equipmentas subject to the requirements of§ § 265.1052(e), 265.1053(i), or 265.1057(f)shall be signed by the owner oroperator.

(3) A list of equipment identificationnumbers for pressure relief devices"required to comply with § 265.1054(a).

(4)(i) The dates of each compliancetest required in § § 265.1052(e),265.1053(i)..265.1054, and 265.1057(f).

(ii) The background level measuredduring each compliance test.

(iii) The maximum instrument readingmeasured at the equipment during eachcompliance test.

(5) A list of identification numbers forequipment in vacuum service.

(h) The following informationpertaining to all valves subject to therequirements of § 265.1057 (g) and (h)shall be recorded in a log that is kept inthe facility operating record:

(1) A list of identification numbers forvalves that are designated as unsafe tomonitor, an explanation for each valvestaling why the valve is.unsafe tomonitor, and the plan for monitoringeach valve.

(2) A list of identification numbers forvalves that are designated as difficult tomonitor, an explanation for each valvestating why the valve is difficult tomonitor, and the planned schedule formonitoring each valve.

(i) The following information shall berecorded in the facility operating recordfor valves complying with § 265.1062:

(1) A schedule of monitoring.(2) The percent of valves found

leaking during each monitoring period.(j) The following information shall be

recorded in a log that is kept in thefacility operating record:

( (1) Criteria required in§ § 265.1052(d)(5)(ii) and 265.1053(e)(2)and an explanation of the criteria.

(2) Any changes to these criteria andthe reasons for the changes.

(k) The following information shall berecorded in a log that is kept in thefacility operating record for use indetermining exemptions as provided inthe applicability section of this subpartand other specific subparts:

(1) An a'nalysis determining the designcapacity of the hazardous wastemanagement unit.

(2) A statement listing the hazardouswaste influent to and effluent from eachhazardous waste management unitsubject to the requirements in§ § 265.1052 through 265.1060 and ananalysis determining whether thesehazardous wastes are heavy liquids.

(3) An up-to-date analysis and thesupporting information and data used todetermine whether or not equipment issubject to the requirements, in§ § 265.1052 through 265.1060. The recordshall include supporting documentationas required by § 265.1063(d)(3) whenapplication of the knowledge of thenature of the hazardous waste stream orthe process by which it was produced isused. If the owner or operator takes anyaction (e.g., changing the process thatproduced the waste) that could result inan increase in the total organic contentof the waste contained in or contacted

by equipment determined not to besubject to the requirements in§ § 265.1052 through 265.1060, then a newdetermination is required.

(1) Records of the equipment leakinformation required by paragraph (d) of,this section and the operatinginformation required by paragraph (e) ofthis section need be kept only 3 years.

(in) The owner or operator of anyfacility that is subject-to this subpartand to regulations at 40 CFR part 60,subpart VV, or 40 CFR part 61, subpartV, may elect to determine compliancewith this subpart by documentationeither pursuant to § 265.1064 of thissubpart, or pursuant to those provisionsof 40 CFR part 60 'or 61, to the extentthat the documentation under theregulation at 40 CFRpart 60 or part 61duplicates the documentation requiredunder this subpart. The documentationunder the regulation at 40 CFR part 60 orpart 61 shall be kept with or madereadily available with the facilityoperating record.(Approved by the Office of Management andBudget under control number 2060-0195)

§§ 265.1065-265.1079. [Reserved)

PART 270-EPA-ADMINISTEREDPERMIT PROGRAMS: THEHAZARDOUS WASTE PERMITPROGRAM


Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912. 6921-,927,6930, 6934, 6935, 6937-6939. and 6974.

Subpart B-Permit Application

20. Section 270.14 is amended byrevising the last sentence of paragraph(b)(5) and by revising paragraphs (b)(8)(iv), (v), and by adding paragraph(b)(8)(vi) to read as follows:

§ 270.14 Contents of Part B: Generalrequirements*b .....(b)***(5):* * * Include, where applicable,

as part of the inspection schedule,specific requirements in § § 264.174,264.193(i), 264.195, 264.226, 264.254,264.273, 264.303, 264.602, 264.1033,264.1052, 264.1053, and 264.1058.

]* * * *

(8) *

(iv) Mitigate effects of equipmentfailure and power outages;

(v) Prevent undue exposure ofpersonnel to hazardous waste (forexample, protective clothing); and •

(vi) Prevent releases to atmosphere.

25517



25518 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 120 ,/ Thursday, June :21, '1990 / Rules and Regulations

Section 270.24 is added to read asfollows:§ 270.24 Specific Part 8 Informationrequirements for process vents.

Except as otherwise provided in§ 264.1. owners and operators offacilities that have process vents towhich subpart AA of part 264 appliesmust provide the following additionalinformation:

(a) For facilities that cannot install aclosed-vent system and control deviceto comply with the provisions of 40 CFR264 subpart AA on the effective datethat the facility becomes Subject to theprovisions of 40 CFR 264 or 265 subpartAA, an implementation schedule asspecified in § 264.1033(a)(2).

(b) Documentation of compliance withthe process vent standards in § 264.1032,including:

(1) Information and data identifyingall affected process vents, annual'throughput and operating hours of eachaffected unit. estimated emission ratesfor each affected vent and for theoverall facility (i.e., the total emissionsfor all affected vents at the facility), andthe approximate location within thefacility of each affected unit (e.g.,identify the hazardous waste

, management units on a facility plotplan).

(2) Information and data supportingestimates of vent emissions andemission reduction achieved by add-oncontrol devices based onengineering.calculations or source tests. For thepurpose of determining compliance,estimates of vent emissions andemission reductions must be made usingoperating parameter values (e.g..temperatures. flow rates, orconcentrations) that represent theconditions that exist when the waste

• management unit is operating at. thehighest load or capacity levelreasonably expected to occur.

(3) Information and data used todetermine whether or not a process ventis subject to the requirements of§ 264.1032.

(c) Where an owner or operatorapplies for permission to use a controldevice other than a thermal vaporincinerator, catalytic vapor incinerator,flare, boiler, process heater, condenser.or carbon adsorption system to complywith the requirements of § 264.1032, andchooses to use test data' to determine theorganic removal efficiency or the totalbrganic compound concentrationachieved by the control device, aperformance test plan as specified in§ 264.1035(b)(3).

(d) Documentation of compliance with§ 264.1033, including:

(1) A list of all information referencesand sources used in preparing thedocumentation.

(2) Records including the dates ofeach compliance test required by§ 264.103(k).

(3) A design analysis, specifications,drawings, schematics, and piping andinstrumentation diagrams based on theappropriate sections of "APTI Course415: Control of Gaseous Emissions"(incorporated by reference as specifiedin § 260.11) or other engineering textsacceptable to the RegionalAdministrator that present basic controldevice design information. The designanalysis shall address the vent streamcharacteristics and control deviceoperation parameters as specified in§ 264.1035(b)(4)(iii).

(4) A statement signed and dated bythe owner 'or operator certifying that theoperating parameters used in the designanalysis reasonably represent theconditions that exist when thehazardous waste management unit-is orwould be operating at the highest loador capacity level reasonably expected tooccur.

(5) A statement signed and, dated bythe owner.or operator certifying-that the

,control device is designed to operate atan efficiency of 95 weight percent orgreater unless the total organic emissionlimits of § 264.1032(a) for affectedprocess vents at the facility can-beatfained by a control device involvingvapor recovery at an efficiency less than95 weight percent.(Approved by the Office of Management andBudget under control number 2060-195)

22. Section 270.25 is added as follows:

§ 270.25 Specific part 1 Informationrequirements for equipment.

Except as otherwise provided in§ 264.1, owners and operators offacilities that have equipment to whichsubpart BB of part 264 applies mustprovide the following additionalinformation:

(a) For each piece of equipment to •which subpart BB of part 264 applies:

(1) Equipment identification numberand hazardous waste management unitidentification.

(2) Approximate locations within thefacility (e.g.. identify the hazardouswaste management unit on a facility plot -plan).

(3) Type of equipment (e.g., a pump orpipeline valve).

(4) Percent by weight total organics inthe hazardous waste stream at theequipment.

(5) Hazardous waste state at the'equipment (e.g., gas/vapor or liquid).

(6) Method of compliance with thestandard (e.g., "monthly leak detectionand repair" or "equipped with dualmechanical seals").

(b) For facilities that cannot install aclosed-vent system and control deviceto comply with the provisions of 40 CFR264 subpart BB on the effective date thatthe facility becomes subject to theprovisions of 40 CFR 264 or 265 subpartBB, an implementation schedule asspecified in § 264.1033(a)(2).

(c) Where an owner or operatorapplies for permission to use a controldevice other than ea thermal vaporincinerator, catalytic vapor incinerator,flare, boiler, process heater, condenser,or carbon adsorption system andchooses to use test data to determine theorganic removal efficiency or the totalorganic compound concentrationachieved by the control device, aperformance test plan as specified in§ 264.1035(b)(3).

(d) Documentation that demonstrates-compliance with the equipmentstandards in § § 264.1052 to 264.1059.This documentation shall contain therecords required under § 264.1064. TheRegional Administrator may requestfurther documentation befor'e deciding ifcompliance has been demonstrated.

(e) Documentation to demonstratecompliance With § 264.1060 shall includethe following information: .-..

(1) A list of all information referencesand sources used in preparing -the 'documentation..

(2) Records including the dates ofeach compliance test required by§ 264.1033(j).- f3) A design analysis, specifications,drawings, schematics, and piping andinstrumentation diagrams based on theappropriate sections of"ATPI Course415: Control of Gaseous Emissions"(incorporated by reference as specifiedin § 260.11) or other engineering textsacceptable to the Regional

, Administrator that present basic controldevice design information. The designanalysis shall address the vent streamcharacteristics and control deviceoperation parameters as specified in§ 264.1035(b)(4)(iii)

(4) A statement signed and dated bythe owner or operatorcertifying that theoperating parameters used in the designanalysis reasonably represent theconditions that exist when thehazardous waste management unit- isoperating 'at the highest load or capacitylevel reasonably expected to occur.

(5) A statement signed and dated bythe owner or operator certifying that thecontrol device is designed to operate atan efficiency of 95 weight percent or

-greater.



Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 120 / Thursday, June, 21, 1990 / Rules and Regulations


PART 271-REQUIREMENTS FORAUTHORIZATION OF STATEHAZARDOUS WASTE PROGRAMS


Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), and 6926.

Subpart A-Requirements for FinalAuthorization

24. Section 271.1(j),is amended byadding the following entry to Table 1 inchronological order by date ofpublication:

.§ 271.1. Purpose and scope.

(J* ....

TABLE 1. REGULATIONS IMPLEMENTINGTHE HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE

* AMENDMENTS OF 1984

FederalPromul- Title of Register Effectivegationdate 'regulation refer- dateence

(Insert Process Vent [Insert [Insertdate of and Equipment FR elfec-publi- Leak Organic ref: tivecation]. Air Emission erence date.]

Standards for onOwners and date ofOperators of publi-Hazardous cation].WasteTreatment,Storage, andDisposalFacilities.

[FR Doc. 90-14260 Filed 6-20-90; 8:45 aml

BILLING CODE 6560-50-U

I 25519.



Documents

1990 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 260, 261,264, 265, 270,€¦ · ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 260, 261,264, 265, 270, and 271 [FRL-3614-31 Hazardous Waste Treatment,