National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Category: Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[AD-FRL-5087-4]

RIN 2060-AE05

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for

Source Category: Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule and notice of public hearing.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Under the authority of the Clean Air Act, the EPA is proposing

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for

off-site waste and recovery operations. This rule would apply to owners

and operators of facilities, with certain exceptions, that manage

wastes or recoverable materials which have been generated off-site at

another facility and contain specific organic chemical compounds listed

as hazardous air pollutants (HAP). The NESHAP would require air

emission controls be implemented for tanks, containers, surface

impoundments, land disposal units, and certain other operations used to

manage, convey, or handle wastes or recoverable materials except when

the HAP content of a waste or recoverable material meets conditions

specified in the rule.

DATES: Comments. The EPA will accept comments on the proposed rule

until December 12, 1994.

Public Hearing. If requested, the EPA will hold a public hearing

concerning the proposed rule beginning at 10 a.m. on November 21, 1994.

Persons interested in presenting oral testimony to the EPA at a public

hearing must contact the person listed below (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT) no later than November 10, 1994. Persons

interested in attending the hearing should call the person listed below

(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) to verify that a hearing will be

held.

ADDRESSES: Comments. Interested parties may submit written comments

regarding the proposed rule (in duplicate, if possible) to the

following: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, Attention

Docket No. A-92-16, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street,

SW., Washington, DC 20460. The EPA requests that a separate copy of the

comments also be sent to the contact person listed below (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Public Hearing. If a hearing is requested it will be held at the

EPA Office of Administration Auditorium, Research Triangle Park, North

Carolina.

Background Information Document. The background information

document (BID) may be obtained from the U.S. Environmental Protection

Library (MD-35), Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711,

telephone number (919) 541-2777. Please refer to ``National Emissions

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Category: Off-site

Waste and Recovery Operations--Background Information Document for

Proposed Standards,'' EPA document no. EPA-453/R-94-070a.

Docket. The proposed regulatory text, Background Information

Document (BID), and other supporting information used in developing the

proposed rule are available in the docket for public inspection and

copying. The docket for this rulemaking is Docket No. A-92-16 and is

located at the EPA's Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center,

Waterside Mall, room 1500, 1st Floor, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC

20460. The docket room is open to the public from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m.,

Monday through Friday. Telephone number (202) 260-7548. A reasonable

fee may be charged for copying docket materials.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Eric L. Crump, Office of Air

Quality Planning and Standards, Chemicals and Petroleum Branch (MD-13),

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North

Carolina, 27711, telephone (919) 541-5032, telefax (919) 541-3470.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Organization of This Document

The information presented in this notice of proposed rule is

organized as follows:

I. Summary of Proposed Rule

A. Summary of Rule Requirements

B. Summary of Rule Impacts

II. Background

A. Section 112 Statutory Requirements

B. Listing of Source Category

C. Summary of Public Participation in Development of Proposed

Rule

D. Relationship of Proposed Rule to Other EPA Regulatory Actions

III. Source Category Description

A. Organic HAP Types

B. Facility Types

C. Nationwide Organic HAP Emissions

IV. Development of Regulatory Alternatives

A. Selection of Source Category and Pollutants for Control

B. Subcategorization

C. Selection of Emission Points

D. Definition of Source

E. Selection of MACT Floor

F. Regulatory Alternatives for Existing Sources

G. Regulatory Alternatives for New Sources

H. Regulatory Alternative Impacts

V. Selection of Basis for Proposed Standards

A. Selection of Regulatory Alternative for Existing Sources

B. Selection of Regulatory Alternative for New Sources

C. Selection of Format for Proposed Standards

D. Selection of Test Methods and Procedures

E. Selection of Monitoring and Inspection Requirements

F. Selection of Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements

G. Emissions Averaging

VI. Rule Implementation

A. Effective Date for Compliance

B. Modifications and Reconstruction

C. Relationship to Operating Permit Program

VII. Administrative Requirements

VIII. Statutory Authority

Additional Detailed Information

The proposed regulatory text is not included in this Federal

Register notice, but is available in Docket No. A-92-16 or by request

from the EPA's Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (see

ADDRESSES). This notice, the proposed regulatory text, and the BID are

also available on the Technology Transfer Network (TTN), one of the

EPA's electronic bulletin boards. The TTN provides information and

technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control. The

service is free, except for the cost of a telephone call. Dial (919)

541-5742 for up to a 14,400 bauds per second modem. If more information

on TTN is needed, call the HELP line at (919) 541-5384.

A limited number of copies of these documents are available on

diskette. They can be obtained by writing or faxing a request to the

EPA contact person designated earlier in this notice.

I. Summary of Proposed Rule

A. Summary of Rule Requirements

Today's proposed rule would amend title 40, chapter I, part 63 of

the Code of Federal Regulations by adding a new subpart DD--National

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Off-site Waste and

Recovery Operations. The following is a summary of the requirements

proposed for the rule.

The EPA is proposing to define ``waste'' for the off-site waste and

recovery operations NESHAP as any material generated from industrial,

commercial, mining, or agricultural operations or from community

activities that is discarded, discharged, or is being accumulated,

stored, or physically, chemically, thermally, or biologically treated

prior to being discarded or discharged. This definition would include

all materials defined to be solid wastes under Resource Conservation

and Recovery Act (RCRA) rules including hazardous wastes. The EPA is

proposing to define ``recoverable material'' for this rulemaking as any

material generated from industrial, commercial, mining, or agricultural

operations or from community activities that is recycled, reprocessed,

reused, or is being accumulated, stored, or physically, chemically,

thermally, or biologically treated prior to being recycled,

reprocessed, or reused. Under this definition, secondary materials such

as used, surplus, and scrap materials that are recycled or reprocessed

to recover reusable materials or to create new products would be

considered by the EPA to be recoverable materials subject to this

NESHAP. Waste and recoverable material subject to the off-site waste

and recovery operations NESHAP are collectively referred to in the

proposed rule as ``regulated material.''

1. Applicability

The proposed rule would apply to owners and operators of

facilities, with certain exceptions listed below, where operations are

conducted to manage, convey, or handle wastes or recoverable materials

that are received from other facilities and contain hazardous air

pollutants. In other words, the waste or recoverable material has been

generated off-site at a separate location and, then, shipped or

transferred to the facility for subsequent management. Applicable

operations subject to the rule would include storage, treatment, and

disposal operations as well as recycling, recovery, and reprocessing

operations. All of these operations collectively are referred to

hereafter in this notice as ``off-site waste and recovery operations.''

The rule would apply to off-site waste and recovery operations

receiving regulated materials that contain one or more of the specific

organic chemicals listed in a table included as part of the proposed

rule. These organic chemicals have been designated as hazardous air

pollutants (HAP) under CAA section 112(b), and are referred to

collectively hereafter in this notice as ``organic HAP.'' Off-site

waste and recovery operations managing waste or recoverable material

that does not contain any of the organic chemicals listed in the rule

would not be ``regulated materials'' subject to the rule.

The EPA is proposing that the off-site waste and recovery

operations NESHAP only apply to ``major sources'' as defined in the

Part 63 general provisions (40 CFR 63.2). ``Area sources'' as defined

under 40 CFR 63.2 would not be subject to the rule.

The rule would not apply to certain types of waste or recovery

operations located at an affected facility because HAP emissions from

these operations are addressed by other EPA regulatory actions. The

following operations at an affected facility would be exempted from the

requirements of the off-site waste and recovery operations NESHAP: (1)

Units or equipment used exclusively to manage waste or recoverable

material generated at the affected facility site (i.e., waste or

recoverable material generated on-site); (2) municipal solid waste

landfill units; (3) incinerators used to burn waste; (4) boilers or

furnaces used to burn regulated material to produce energy; (5) units

or equipment located at a publicly-owned treatment works; or (6) units

or equipment used exclusively to manage waste that has been received

from remediation activities to cleanup wastes designated as hazardous

wastes under Resource, Conservation, and Recovery Act (RCRA) rules. In

addition, the off-site waste and recovery operations NESHAP would not

apply to underground components of injection wells used for disposal of

waste.

2. General Standards

The general standards proposed for the off-site waste and recovery

operations NESHAP apply to major sources. The standards would require

that the owner or operator of an affected facility control air

emissions from certain waste management units and equipment in which

regulated materials containing the organic HAP listed in the rule are

placed on or after the effective date of the rule. These air emission

control requirements would not apply to any affected facility for which

the owner or operator demonstrates that the total annual organic HAP

mass content of all regulated materials subject to the rule entering

the facility is less than 1 megagram per year (Mg/yr). The procedure to

be used by the owner or operator to calculate the total annual organic

HAP mass content of the regulated material is specified in the rule.

The EPA requests comment on the proposed 1 Mg/yr exemption, and

requests supporting information be provided with any recommendation for

an alternative exemption level.

Two other provisions are proposed for the off-site waste and

recovery operations NESHAP that would allow individual units at an

affected facility to be exempted from the air emission control

requirements of the rule. The first provision would exempt from the air

emission control requirements those units at major sources that

exclusively are used to manage regulated material received at the

facility with a volatile organic hazardous air pollutant (VOHAP)

concentration less than 100 parts per million by weight (ppmw) on a

mass-weighted average basis. The regulated material VOHAP concentration

would be determined based on the organic HAP content of the regulated

material at the point where the facility accepts delivery or takes

possession of the regulated material, using procedures specified in the

rule. The EPA requests comment on the definitiveness of the term

``point of entry'' as defined in the rule.

The second individual unit exemption provision proposed in the rule

would allow an owner or operator to selectively designate, on a site-

specific basis, certain individual units to be exempt from the air

emission control requirements regardless of the VOHAP concentration of

the regulated material placed in the unit. Application of this

discretionary exemption by the owner or operator would be limited based

on regulated material organic HAP content. Under this provision, the

total annual organic HAP mass content in the regulated materials placed

in all of the units designated by the owner or operator as exempt units

could not exceed 1 Mg/yr as determined in accordance with the

procedures specified in the rule. The EPA requests comment on the

structure of the proposed 1 Mg/yr exemption for individual units, as

well as supporting information for any recommendation for an

alternative exemption level.

For tanks, surface impoundments, containers, conveyance systems,

and certain treatment units required to use air emission controls under

the off-site waste and recovery operations NESHAP, the owner or

operator would be required to either: (1) Install and operate air

emission controls on the unit in accordance with standards specified in

the rule; or (2) treat the regulated material before the regulated

material is placed in the unit to remove or destroy organic HAP in

accordance with requirements specified in the rule. For land disposal

units and other miscellaneous units subject to the air emission control

requirements of the rule, the owner or operator would be required to

treat the regulated material before the regulated material is placed in

the unit to remove or destroy organic HAP in accordance with the

requirements specified in the rule. In addition to these requirements,

the rule would require that the owner or operator of an affected

facility control organic HAP emissions from leaks in certain ancillary

equipment (e.g., pumps, valves, flanges, etc.) used to handle regulated

material streams having a total organic HAP concentration equal to or

greater than 10 percent by weight.

Under the proposed rule, an owner or operator would be allowed to

use any type of treatment process to reduce the organic HAP content of

the regulated material that can continuously achieve the performance

requirements specified in the rule. Several alternative treatment

process performance standards are specified in the proposed rule from

which the owner or operator could choose to comply. These standards

would allow the use of a treatment process that achieves any of the

following conditions: (1) the actual VOHAP concentration of the

regulated material exiting the treatment process is less than 100 ppmw

or the VOHAP concentration limit established for the process, whichever

value is lower; (2) the HAP reduction efficiency for the treatment

process is equal to or greater than 95 percent, and the VOHAP

concentration of the regulated material exiting the treatment process

is less than 50 ppmw; or (3) the actual HAP mass removal for the

treatment process is greater than the required mass removal established

for the process.

3. Tank Standards

The tank standards proposed for the off-site waste and recovery

operations NESHAP would establish the requirements for tanks using air

emission controls to comply with the general standards of the rule. No

air emission controls would be required under the rule for a tank in

which all regulated material placed in the unit has been treated to

remove or destroy organic HAP in accordance with the requirements

specified in the general standards. Also, the tank standards would not

apply to a tank in which biological treatment of a regulated material

is performed under certain conditions specified in the rule; or to a

tank designated by the owner or operator to be exempted from using air

emission controls in accordance with the rule provisions.

The proposed air emission control requirements for tanks would be

applied based on the tank design capacity, the maximum HAP vapor

pressure of the regulated material in the tank, and whether the tank is

designated an ``existing tank'' or a ``new tank'' under the provisions

of 40 CFR part 63. Both existing tanks and new tanks in which the

maximum HAP vapor pressure of the regulated material in the tank is

equal to or greater than 76.6 kPa (approximately 11.1 psi), would be

required (regardless of tank design capacity) to manage the regulated

material in a tank using a cover that is connected through a closed-

vent system to a control device. For affected tanks in which the

maximum HAP vapor pressure of the regulated material in the tank is

less than 76.6 kPa, different standards are proposed for existing tanks

and for new tanks depending on the tank design capacity.

Under the proposed tank standards for existing tanks in which the

maximum HAP vapor pressure of the regulated material in the tank is

less than 76.6 kPa, use of air emission controls would be required on

tanks having a design capacity equal to or greater than 75 m\3\

(approximately 20,000 gallons). No air emission controls would be

required under the rule for an existing tank having a design capacity

less than 75 m\3\. For tanks having a design capacity equal to or

greater than 75 m\3\, an owner or operator would be required to install

and operate air emission controls in accordance with the rule

requirements. These requirements specify that, unless the maximum HAP

vapor pressure of the regulated material in the tank is less than

certain limits specified in the rule, the owner or operator install and

operate on the tank one of the following air emission control systems:

(1) A cover that is connected through a closed-vent system to a control

device; (2) a fixed-roof type cover with an internal floating roof that

is designed and operated in accordance with the requirements of the new

source performance standard (NSPS) for volatile organic liquid (VOL)

storage under 40 CFR 60.112b(a)(1); (3) an external floating roof that

is designed and operated in accordance with the requirements of the VOL

storage NSPS under 40 CFR 60.112b(a)(2); or (4) a pressure tank that is

designed to operate as a closed system. Under the proposed rule, an

owner or operator would be allowed to use a fixed-roof type cover

(without any additional controls) for existing tanks having a capacity

less than 151 m\3\ (approximately 40,000 gallons) when the maximum HAP

vapor pressure of the regulated material in the tank is less than 27.6

kPa (approximately 4.0 psi), and for larger capacity tanks when the

maximum HAP vapor pressure of the regulated material in the tank is

less than 5.2 kPa (approximately 0.75 psi).

The proposed standards for new tanks in which the maximum HAP vapor

pressure of the regulated material in the tank is less than 76.6 kPa

would require the use of air emission controls on tanks having a design

capacity equal to or greater than 38 m\3\ (approximately 10,000

gallons). The same types of air emission control systems specified in

the proposed rule for existing tanks (e.g., vent to control device, use

floating roof, pressure tank, or use of fixed-roof type covers under

certain conditions) would apply to new tanks with the exception that

the maximum HAP vapor pressure limits allowed for using fixed-roof type

covers without additional controls are lower for new tanks than

existing tanks. An owner or operator would be allowed to use a fixed-

roof type cover without additional controls for new tanks having a

capacity less than 151 m\3\ when the maximum HAP vapor pressure of the

regulated material in the tank is less than 13.1 kPa (approximately 1.9

psi), and for larger capacity tanks when the maximum HAP vapor pressure

of the regulated material in the tank is less than 0.7 kPa

(approximately 0.1 psi).

The proposed maximum HAP vapor pressure limits selected for

existing tanks that would be allowed to use fixed-roof type covers

without additional controls are based on the waste vapor pressure

limits established for tanks at hazardous waste treatment, storage, and

disposal facilities (TSDF) subject to air rules being developed by the

EPA under authority of RCRA section 3004(n) (refer to 56 FR 33490). For

today's proposed rulemaking, the EPA considered using the maximum vapor

pressure limits established for tanks under the NESHAP for the

synthetic organic chemical manufacturing (SOCMI) industry (40 CFR 63

subpart G). Because the sources subject to both the off-site waste and

recovery operations NESHAP and the RCRA air rules are similar, the EPA

believes it is appropriate to use the maximum vapor pressure limits

established for the RCRA air rules for today's proposed rulemaking

also. The EPA requests comment on the selection of the maximum HAP

vapor pressure limits proposed for the air emission control

requirements for tanks under the off-site waste and recovery operations

NESHAP.

4. Surface Impoundment Standards

The proposed air emission control requirements are the same for

existing surface impoundments and new surface impoundments. These

requirements would not apply to either: a surface impoundment in which

all regulated material placed in the unit has been treated to remove or

destroy organic HAP in accordance with the requirements specified in

the general standards; a surface impoundment in which biological

treatment of a regulated material is performed under certain conditions

specified in the rule; or a surface impoundment designated by the owner

or operator to be exempted from using air emission controls in

accordance with rule provisions. For each surface impoundment required

to use air emission controls, the owner or operator would be required

to use either: a cover that is connected to a closed-vent system vented

to a control device; or a floating membrane cover that is designed and

operated in accordance with requirements specified in the rule.

5. Container Standards

The proposed air emission control requirements are the same for

existing and new containers. These requirements would not apply to

either: a container having a design capacity less than or equal to 0.1

m\3\ (approximately 26 gallons); a container in which all regulated

material placed in the unit has been treated to remove or destroy

organic HAP in accordance with the requirements specified in the

general standards; or a container designated by the owner or operator

to be exempted from using air emission controls in accordance with rule

provisions.

For containers used for storage, treatment, and handling of

regulated material, the owner or operator would be required to use

either: (1) a container that is equipped with a vapor leak-tight cover;

(2) a container having a design capacity less than or equal to 0.42

m\3\ (approximately 110 gallons) that is equipped with a cover and

complies with all applicable U.S. Department of Transportation

regulations on packaging hazardous waste for transport under 49 CFR

part 178; or (3) a container that is attached to or forms a part of any

truck, trailer, or railcar and that has been demonstrated within the

preceding 12 months to be organic HAP vapor tight in accordance with

the procedure specified in the rule. For containers in which treatment

of regulated material is performed, the owner or operator would be

required to place the container inside an enclosure that is connected

through a closed-vent system to a control device at all times that the

container is completely or partially uncovered during the treatment

operation. Transfer of regulated material by pumping into a container

having a design capacity greater than 0.42 m\3\ would be required to be

performed using submerged fill loading.

6. Process Vent Standards

The proposed off-site waste and recovery operations NESHAP would

regulate organic HAP emissions from process vents on enclosed treatment

units. Under the proposed rule, an ``enclosed treatment unit'' would be

defined as a stationary, enclosed unit used for the purpose of treating

or processing a regulated material, and for which all materials only

enter or exit the unit through enclosed pipes or process vents while

the unit is operating. Examples of an enclosed treatment unit include a

distillation pot, distillation column, thin-film evaporator, solvent

extraction tower, steam stripping tower, and air stripping tower.

The proposed air emission control requirements are the same for

existing units and new units. These requirements would not apply to

either: an enclosed treatment unit in which all regulated material

placed in the unit has been treated to remove or destroy organic HAP in

accordance with the requirements specified in the general standards; or

an enclosed treatment unit designated by the owner or operator to be

exempted from using air emission controls in accordance with rule

provisions. For each enclosed treatment unit required to use air

emission controls, the owner or operator would be required to connect

each process vent on the unit to a closed-vent system vented to a

control device.

7. Conveyance System Standards

The proposed off-site waste and recovery operations NESHAP would

establish requirements for conveyance systems to control organic HAP

emissions occurring during the transfer of a regulated material

containing organic HAP between two regulated material management units

using air emission controls in accordance with the rule requirements.

Under the proposed rule, a ``conveyance system'' would be defined as a

device other than a container used to transfer material to or from

tanks, containers, surface impoundments, enclosed treatment units, or

other regulated material management units. Examples of a conveyance

system include a pipeline, individual drain system (with all associated

drains, junction boxes, and sewer lines), channel, flume, gravity-

operated conveyor (such as a chute), and mechanically-powered conveyor

(such as a belt or screw conveyor).

The proposed air emission control requirements are the same for

existing conveyance systems and new conveyance systems. These

requirements would not apply to either: a conveyance system in which

all regulated material placed in the unit has been treated to remove or

destroy organic HAP in accordance with the requirements specified in

the general standards; or a conveyance system designated by the owner

or operator to be exempted from using air emission controls in

accordance with rule provisions.

For each conveyance system required to use air emission controls,

the owner or operator would be required to use one of the following

systems: (1) a conveyance system which uses a cover that is connected

through a closed-vent system to a control device; (2) a conveyance

system which uses an enclosure that is connected through a closed-vent

system to a control device; (3) a conveyance system which is designed

and operated as an enclosed pipeline in which all joints or seams

between the pipe sections are permanently or semi-permanently sealed

(e.g., a welded joint between two sections of metal pipe or a bolted

and gasketed flange); (4) a conveyance system which is designed and

operated as an individual drain system in accordance with the

requirements of 40 CFR 61.346(a)(1) or 40 CFR 61.346 (b)(1) through

(b)(3); or (5) any other conveyance system which is designed to operate

as a closed system such that the conveyance system operates with no

detectable emissions (as determined by procedures specified under the

rule) at all times that regulated material is in the conveyance system

except under certain conditions.

8. Equipment Leak Standards

The proposed off-site waste and recovery operations NESHAP would

require owners and operators of affected facilities to control organic

HAP emissions from leaks in pumps, compressors, pressure relief

devices, sampling connection systems, open-ended valves or lines,

valves, flanges and other connectors, and product accumulator vessels

that either contain or contact a regulated material which is a fluid

(liquid or gas) and has a total organic HAP concentration equal to or

greater than 10 percent by weight. The equipment leak standards would

not apply to equipment that operates less than 300 hours per calendar

year, or equipment for which the owner or operator is already complying

with the requirements of 40 CFR 63 subpart H. For each equipment

component subject to this standard at either an existing source or a

new source, the owner or operator would be required to perform the leak

detection and repair program and implement the equipment modifications

required under 40 CFR 61.241 through 61.247.

9. Air Emission Control Equipment Requirements

Specific design, performance, and operating requirements are

proposed for each cover, closed-vent system, and control device

installed by the owner or operator to comply with the tank, surface

impoundment, container, conveyance system, enclosed treatment unit

standards of the rule.

The proposed requirements for covers are determined by the type of

cover used and the type of regulated material management unit on which

the cover is installed. Requirements are specified for vapor-leak tight

covers (i.e covers that operate with no detectable emissions as

determined by procedures specified under the rule), external and

internal floating roofs installed on tanks, floating membrane covers

installed on surface impoundments, and container enclosures requiring

continuous or frequent worker access.

Each closed-vent system would be required to operate with no

detectable emissions (as determined by procedures specified under the

rule). For the proposed rule, any control device could be used that

reduces the mass content of either total organic compounds (less

methane and ethane) or total HAP in the gases vented to the device by

95 percent by weight or greater. An owner or operator would be allowed

to comply with alternative performance requirements for enclosed

combustion devices (e.g., thermal vapor incinerators, catalytic vapor

incinerators, boilers, and process heaters) and for flares.

10. Test Methods and Compliance Procedures

For affected units using air emission controls in accordance with

the rule requirements, no regulated material determination would be

required under the proposed rule. An owner or operator would be

required to determine the VOHAP concentration or organic HAP vapor

pressure of the regulated material being managed in the unit not using

air emission controls in accordance with the requirements of the

standards. Either analysis of regulated material samples using

procedures specified in the rule or the owner's or operator's knowledge

of the regulated material could be used could be used for a regulated

material determination.

The owner or operator would determine that covers and closed-vent

system operates with no detectable emissions by visual inspection and

testing the equipment in accordance with the procedures specified in

Method 21 under 40 CFR 60 appendix A. Test procedures for control

devices would be consistent with procedures specified in existing

NESHAP.

11. Monitoring and Inspection Requirements

To ensure that the air emission control equipment is properly

operated and maintained, the proposed off-site waste and recovery

operations NESHAP would require that the owner or operator periodically

inspect and monitor this equipment. Visual inspections and leak

detection monitoring using Method 21 would be required for certain

types of covers to ensure gaskets and seals are in good condition, and

for closed-vent systems to ensure all fittings remain leak-tight. In

general, semi-annual inspection and leak detection monitoring of covers

is proposed. Annual inspection and leak detection monitoring would be

required for closed-vent systems.

Continuous monitoring of control device operation would be required

under the proposed rule. This would involve the use of automated

instrumentation to measure and record appropriate control device

operating parameters that indicate whether the control device is in

compliance with the applicable performance requirements of the rule. A

more detailed explanation of these proposed monitoring requirements for

control devices is presented in section V.E.1 of this notice.

In cases when an owner or operator complies with the off-site waste

and recovery operations NESHAP by treating a regulated material to

remove or destroy HAP before placing the regulated material in a unit,

the EPA is proposing that the owner or operator monitor appropriate

operating parameters for the treatment process as described in section

V.E.2 of this notice.

12. Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements

The proposed off-site waste and recovery operations NESHAP would

require that the owner or operator to maintain certain records and

submit to the EPA certain reports consistent with the recordkeeping and

reporting requirements for all NESHAP as specified in the Part 63

general provisions (40 CFR 63 subpart A).

B. Summary of Rule Impacts

Implementation of the proposed off-site waste and recovery

operations NESHAP would result in substantial reductions in organic HAP

emissions to the atmosphere from off-site waste and recovery operations

located in the United States. Furthermore, many of the organic HAP

emitted from the off-site waste and recovery operations source category

are also volatile organic compounds (VOC). These VOC react

photochemically with other chemical compounds in the atmosphere to form

ozone. Although the NESHAP proposed today would not specifically

require control of VOC emissions from off-site waste and recovery

operations, the organic emission control technologies upon which

today's rulemaking is based would also significantly reduce VOC

emissions from the source category. The EPA estimates that

implementation of the proposed off-site waste and recovery operations

NESHAP would reduce nationwide organic HAP emissions by approximately

43,000 Mg/yr and reduce nationwide VOC emissions by approximately

52,000 Mg/yr.

The EPA prepared estimates of the cost to owners and operators of

implementing the requirements of the proposed off-site waste and

recovery operations NESHAP at facilities expected to be subject to the

rule. The total nationwide capital investment cost to purchase and

install the air emission controls that would be required by the

proposed rule is estimated by the EPA to be approximately $49 million.

The total nationwide annual cost of the off-site waste and recovery

operations NESHAP, as proposed, is estimated to be approximately $24.5

million per year.

II. Background

A. Section 112 Statutory Requirements

Section 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) regulates stationary sources

of hazardous air pollutants (HAP). This section was comprehensively

amended under Title III of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. The term

``stationary source'' means any building, structure, facility, or

installation that emits or may emit air pollutants. Under the amended

CAA section 112(b), Congress listed 189 chemicals, compounds, or groups

of chemicals as HAP. The EPA is directed by the CAA section 112 to

regulate the emission of these HAP from stationary sources by

establishing national emission standards (i.e., NESHAP).

A 1990 amendment to section 112(c) of the CAA requires the EPA to

develop and publish a list of source categories that emit HAP for which

NESHAP will be developed. The EPA is required to list all known

categories and subcategories of ``major sources.'' The term ``major

source'' is defined by the CAA to mean ``any stationary source or group

of stationary sources located within a contiguous area and under common

control that emits or has the potential to emit, considering controls,

in the aggregate 10 tons per year (ton/yr) or more of any HAP or 25

ton/yr or more of any combination of HAP.'' The EPA's initial list of

categories of major sources of HAP emissions was published in the

Federal Register on July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576).

For each NESHAP source category listed by EPA, standards must be

developed to control HAP emissions from both new sources and existing

sources in accordance with specific statutory directives set out in CAA

section 112, as amended. The statute requires the EPA to establish

standards under a NESHAP to reflect the maximum degree of reduction in

HAP emissions through application of maximum achievable control

technology (MACT).

A statutory minimum or baseline to the level of HAP emission

control that the EPA can select to be MACT for a particular source

category is defined under CAA section 112(d)(3). This minimum HAP

emission control level is referred as the ``MACT floor.'' For new

sources, the MACT floor is the level of HAP emission control that is

achieved in practice by the best controlled similar source. The statute

allows standards under a NESHAP for existing sources to be less

stringent than standards for new sources. The determination of MACT

floor for existing sources is dependent on the nationwide number of

existing sources within the source category. For a source category with

30 or more existing sources, the MACT floor is the average emission

limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of the existing

sources.

Once the MACT floors are determined for new and existing sources in

a source category, the EPA must establish standards under a NESHAP that

are no less stringent than the applicable MACT floors. The

Administrator may promulgate standards that are more stringent than the

MACT floor when such standards are determined by the EPA to be

achievable taking into consideration the cost of implementing the

standards as well as any non-air quality health and environmental

impacts and energy requirements listed in CAA section 112(d)(2). All

owners and operators of sources within the source category must comply

with the promulgated NESHAP.

B. Listing of Source Category

On the EPA's initial list of HAP emission source categories

published in the Federal Register on July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576), the

EPA included one source category which the Agency intended to represent

those off-site waste and recovery operations that are not specifically

listed as a separate, distinct NESHAP source category such as hazardous

waste incineration or municipal solid waste landfills. This source

category was titled on the initial list as ``solid waste treatment,

storage, and disposal facilities.'' Since the initial source category

list was published, the EPA decided that it is appropriate to change

the title of this NESHAP source category.

Effective by this notice, the EPA is changing the title of the

NESHAP source category subject to today's proposed rule to ``off-site

waste and recovery operations.'' This change is appropriate for two

reasons: (1) To avoid confusion with the terms ``solid waste'' and

``treatment, storage, and disposal facilities'' which have specific

meanings within the context of statutory and regulatory requirements in

existing rules established by the EPA under authority of the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA); and (2) to better distinguish the

types of air emission sources addressed by this NESHAP source category

from other NESHAP source categories.

C. Summary of Public Participation in Development of Proposed Rule

The EPA published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR)

in the Federal Register on December 20, 1993 (58 FR 66336) announcing

the EPA's intent to develop a NESHAP for the off-site waste and

recovery operations source category. The purpose of the ANPR was to

inform owners and operators of affected industries and the general

public of the planned scope of the NESHAP rulemaking for the off-site

waste and recovery operations source category, and to solicit

information that would aid in the development of the rule.

To supplement the Agency's information regarding the off-site waste

and recovery operations source category, the EPA requested comments

from the public on the ANPR. The EPA specifically requested more

information on wastes and recoverable materials characteristics (types,

quantities, organic composition), waste management practices, and waste

and recoverable material operations emission points and air emission

data. A 30-day comment period, from December 20, 1993 to January 19,

1994, was provided for interested parties to submit comments on the

ANPR. The EPA received written comments from 16 commenters concerning

the ANPR. These comments were considered by the EPA in the development

of the proposed off-site waste and recovery operations NESHAP.

D. Relationship of Proposed Rule to Other EPA Regulatory Actions

1. Clean Air Act

a. Other NESHAP Rulemakings. Many industrial sectors that manage

wastes or recoverable materials containing HAP are listed as specific

NESHAP source categories on the initial EPA source category list (57 FR

31576, July 16, 1992). For example, plants and facilities in the NESHAP

source categories representing the synthetic organic chemical

manufacturing industry, the petroleum refining industry, the pesticide

manufacturing industry, and the pharmaceutical manufacturing industry

frequently manage some, if not all, of the wastes and recoverable

materials generated by the manufacturing processes operated at the

facilities at the same location where the materials are generated (i.e,

on-site). For NESHAP source categories in which operations to manage

waste or recoverable material may occur at the same facility where the

material is generated, the EPA is addressing HAP emissions from the

management operations as part of the NESHAP being developed for that

particular source category.

The NESHAP rule proposed today under 40 CFR 63 subpart DD would

apply only to those operations used to manage, convey, or handle waste

or recoverable material containing organic HAP which have been

generated at other facilities but are not specifically listed as a

NESHAP source category. On EPA's initial list of HAP emission source

categories, the following operations are listed as separate NESHAP

source categories: municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills; publicly-

owned treatment works (POTW); sewage sludge incinerators; hazardous

waste incineration units; boilers and industrial furnaces; and

hazardous waste remediation activities. For these source categories,

separate NESHAP under 40 CFR part 63 are being developed by EPA.

b. Municipal Solid Waste Combustion Units. Municipal solid waste

combustion units would not be subject to the off-site waste and

recovery operations NESHAP. Congress directed the EPA to address air

emissions from municipal solid waste combustion units under authority

of CAA section 129, as amended by the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments.

2. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

The EPA establishes rules for the management of solid wastes under

authority of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Under

authority of subtitle C of RCRA, the EPA has established rules

regulating the management of solid wastes determined to be hazardous

waste (refer to 40 CFR Parts 260 through 271). Municipal solid wastes

and other types of nonhazardous solid wastes are regulated by rules

established under authority of subtitle D of RCRA (e.g., refer to 40

CFR Parts 257 and 258).

a. Definition of Waste. For the off-site waste and recovery

operations NESHAP, the EPA is proposing definitions of ``waste'' and

``recoverable materials'' that are consistent with the definitions used

by the EPA for other air rules promulgated under the CAA (selection of

this definition is explained further in section IV.A of this notice).

These definitions define the types of materials considered to be a

``waste'' or ``recoverable material'' in a broader context than the

definition of ``solid waste'' that the EPA has historically used for

RCRA rulemakings. The proposed definition of ``waste'' for the off-site

waste and recovery operations NESHAP includes all materials defined to

be solid wastes under RCRA rules including hazardous wastes. In

addition, materials excluded from the RCRA definition of solid waste

such as recovered materials recycled back to a process unit and used

oil reprocessed for sale as a fuel are included in the definition of

``recoverable material'' proposed for the off-site waste and recovery

operations NESHAP. As a result, certain off-site waste and recovery

operations exempted from RCRA rules may be subject to the requirements

of the NESHAP rule proposed today.

b. Duplicative Requirements. At many facilities where hazardous

wastes are managed and wastes are received from off-site, both the off-

site waste and recovery operations NESHAP proposed today and existing

RCRA air rules under 40 CFR parts 264 and 265 would likely be

applicable to the facilities. At these facilities, some operations

would be subject to either air emission standards under the off-site

waste and recovery operations NESHAP or the air emissions standards

under the RCRA air rules. However, in certain situations, some

operations would be subject to air emission standards under both sets

of rules.

The CAA requires that the requirements of rules developed under the

Act be consistent, but avoid duplication, with requirements of rules

developed under RCRA. Certain testing, monitoring, inspection,

recordkeeping, and other requirements of the proposed off-site waste

and recovery operations NESHAP also would be required under the RCRA

air rules. The EPA believes that each of these requirements is

necessary to assure compliance with and enforce the rules. However, it

is unnecessary for owners and operators of those facilities subject to

both the off-site waste and recovery operations NESHAP and the RCRA air

rules to conduct duplicative waste testing, keep duplicate sets of

records, or perform other duplicative actions for the same waste or

recoverable material operation. Thus, the EPA requests comment on how

applicable requirements under the RCRA air rules should be incorporated

into the off-site waste and recovery operations NESHAP to allow owners

and operators to demonstrate compliance with both rules without having

to repeat duplicative requirements.

3. Pollution Prevention Act

The Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 13101 et seq., Pub.

L. 101-508, November 5, 1990) establishes the national policy of the

United States for pollution prevention. This act declares that: (1)

pollution should be prevented or reduced whenever feasible; (2)

pollution that cannot be prevented or reduced should be recycled or

reused in an environmentally-safe manner wherever feasible; (3)

pollution that cannot be recycled or reused should be treated; and (4)

disposal or release into the atmosphere should be chosen only as a last

resort.

Opportunities for applying pollution prevention to the off-site

waste and recovery operations NESHAP are basically limited to pollution

treatment prior to disposal or release into the atmosphere. By

definition, the off-site waste and recovery operations source category

consists of operations used to manage materials that have already been

generated at other locations such as a manufacturing plant. Thus, there

are no pollution prevention practices such as modifying the

manufacturing process to reduce the quantity of materials containing

organic HAP generated or to recycle the materials back to the process

which can be implemented once the material arrives at an off-site waste

and recovery operations facility. The EPA has incorporated the

pollution prevention policy into the proposed rule by requiring wastes

and recoverable materials containing organic HAP be treated to remove

or destroy organic HAP prior to management in units open to the

environment. Thus, to the extent possible, pollution prevention has

been considered in the development of this rulemaking. Today's proposed

NESHAP for the off-site waste and recovery operations source category

is consistent with the pollution prevention policy.

III. Source Category Description

A. Hazardous Air Pollutant Types

The specific chemicals, compounds, or groups of compounds

designated by Congress to be HAP are listed in CAA section 112(b). Both

organic and inorganic chemical compounds are included on this HAP list.

The EPA noted in the ANPR for the off-site waste and recovery

operations source category its intent to regulate under this NESHAP

only organic compounds which have been listed as HAP (58 FR 66337).

The EPA decided not to regulate under the off-site waste and

recovery operations NESHAP proposed today emissions of the metals and

other inorganic chemical compounds listed as HAP. The primary source of

inorganic HAP emissions from off-site waste and recovery operations is

combustion units such as waste incinerators and boilers and industrial

furnaces burning wastes or recoverable materials for energy. As

explained in section II.D.1 of this notice, the EPA is addressing HAP

emissions from these combustion sources under separate regulatory

actions. Furthermore, the data available to the EPA do not suggest that

significant quantities of inorganic HAP are emitted to the air from the

off-site waste and recovery operations that would be subject to this

NESHAP.

Many different types of organic HAP potentially can be emitted from

off-site waste and recovery operations facilities because of the wide

variety of manufacturing processes and other sources which generate the

materials sent to these facilities. Selection of the specific organic

HAP chemicals for regulation under the off-site waste and recovery

operations NESHAP is explained further in section IV.A of this notice.

B. Facility Types

Off-site waste and recovery operations are conducted at many

different types of facilities. Some of these facility types are listed

as a specific NESHAP source category. The off-site waste and recovery

operations source category is intended to represent all of the other

facilities where off-waste and recovery operations are conducted but

are not specifically included under another NESHAP source category.

Based on this premise, the EPA identified the following types of

facilities described below to be included (but not limited to) in the

off-site waste and recovery operations source category.

1. Hazardous Waste TSDF

Under the RCRA rules regulating the management of wastes determined

to be hazardous waste, the EPA has established a permit system for

owners and operators of facilities where operations are conducted to

treat, store, or dispose of a RCRA hazardous waste. A facility subject

to RCRA permitting requirements is termed a treatment, storage, and

disposal facility (TSDF). A RCRA hazardous waste may be generated on

the same site where a TSDF is located, or may be generated at one site

and then transported to a TSDF at a separate location. Wastes not

designated as RCRA hazardous waste are also managed at some TSDF.

Although a waste may not specifically designated as a RCRA hazardous

waste, this waste can still contain significant quantities of organic

constitutes listed as HAP under the CAA.

The EPA has conducted nationwide surveys to collect information

regarding hazardous waste management practices. Data from the most

recent surveys indicate that approximately 2,300 TSDF were operating in

the United States in 1986. At 710 of these TSDF, owners and operators

reported managing RCRA hazardous wastes that are generated off-site.

The EPA survey data indicate that approximately 240 of the 710 TSDF

that receive waste from off-site also manage wastes other than RCRA

hazardous waste.

2. Industrial Waste Landfill Facilities

Many landfill facilities throughout the Unites States are dedicated

to the disposal of solid wastes other than those defined as RCRA

hazardous wastes. Landfills accepting household wastes are defined

under RCRA rules to be municipal solid waste (MSW) landfill units. No

MSW landfill units are included in the off-site waste and recovery

operations source category because these units are listed as a separate

NESHAP source category. However, some other landfills are operated by

waste management companies that will accept only industrial

nonhazardous wastes (i.e., these landfills do not accept any household

waste or RCRA hazardous waste).

The EPA estimates that there are approximately 10 industrial

landfills currently operating that accept only nonhazardous industrial

process wastes. These landfills receive a wide range of wastes that may

contain significant amounts of organic HAP. Furthermore, the EPA

estimates that nationwide there are approximately an additional 1,800

construction and demolition debris landfills currently in operation

that can be included in this segment of the off-site waste and recovery

operations source category. However, the EPA does not expect wastes

received at construction and demolition debris landfills to contain

significant amounts of organic HAP.

3. Industrial Wastewater Treatment Facilities

Analogous to landfills, many waste treatment facilities are

operated by municipal governments and private companies throughout the

United States for the treatment of wastewaters. Wastewater treatment

facilities accepting residential and commercial wastewaters are

considered to be publicly owned-treatment works (POTW). No POTW are

included in the off-site waste and recovery operations source category

because POTW are listed as a separate NESHAP source category. In

addition to POTW, some privately-owned wastewater treatment facilities

process nonhazardous wastewaters received from off-site sources. A

nationwide survey was conducted by the EPA of wastewater treatment

facilities operating in 1989. Using these survey data, a data base

excluding POTW was created. The results of this survey indicate that 15

wastewater treatment facilities were operating nationwide which were

neither a POTW nor a hazardous waste TSDF but did process wastewaters

received from off-site sources that potentially could generate

wastewaters containing organic HAP.

4. Recycled Used Oil Management Facilities

Used oils from motor vehicles and other sources potentially can

contain organic chemicals, such as benzene, which have been listed as

HAP under CAA section 112(b). Although the management of used oils

which are recycled is regulated by separate rules promulgated by the

EPA under authority of RCRA section 3014, these rules do not address

air emissions from used oil management facilities.

The EPA gathered information regarding recycled used oil management

practices in the United States for the development of the RCRA

standards. This information indicates that approximately 2,800 million

liters of used oil enters the commercial used oil recycling market each

year. Approximately three-fourths of this recycled used oil is sent to

facilities categorized by EPA as ``used oil processors.'' Used oil

processors typically collect used motor oil and industrial lubricating

oils. These oils are processed to remove water and sediments from the

oils. The processors then sell the oil as a fuel for burning primarily

in boilers, furnaces, and space heaters. There were 182 used oil

processing facilities operating in the United States in 1991. The

remainder of the recycled used oil is sent to facilities categorized as

``used oil re-refiners.'' At these facilities the used oil is processed

into base lube oil stocks and other products. In 1991, there were four

used oil re-refining facilities operating in the United States. Several

companies have expressed interest in expanding used oil re-refining

capacity in the United States.

5. Oil and Gas E&P Waste Management Facilities

There are a variety of wastes and recoverable materials generated

during oil and gas exploration and production (E&P). The majority of

these materials are managed on-site at the production site (i.e., at

the location of the well). However, some E&P wastes and recoverable

materials generated at the production site that may contain organic HAP

are subsequently sent to off-site crude oil reclamation and land

treatment facilities.

The EPA gathered information regarding E&P waste and recoverable

material management practices from EPA conducted site visits and

existing industry sponsored surveys. Nationwide, approximately 100,000

Mg/yr of E&P wastes and recoverable materials are sent to off-site

crude oil reclamation facilities. These materials consist mostly of

tank bottoms from crude oil storage tanks or produced water storage

tanks. In addition, approximately 135,000 Mg/yr of E&P waste sludges

are managed in off-site land treatment operations.

6. Other Facilities

In addition to facilities that are in business to manage wastes or

recoverable materials received from other generators, some facilities

that provide support services may indirectly receive wastes or

recoverable materials which are potential organic HAP emission sources.

Two types of such facilities have been identified by the EPA: (1)

Facilities where empty drums previously used to hold wastes or

recoverable containing organics are cleaned and reconditioned for

reuse; and (2) truck terminal facilities at which tank trucks used for

chemical waste or recoverable material transport are cleaned and rinsed

prior to being used to transport a new load. At both of these types of

facilities, organic HAP emissions can occur from the wastewater

treatment system operated at the facility to treat the wastes and

cleaning solutions drained from drums or truck tanks as a result of the

container cleaning operation. Wastewater treatment operations are

expected to be the primary source of organic HAP emissions at these

types of facilities.

The need for and frequency of cleaning a drum and tank truck

depends on the type of service in which the container is used. If drums

and tank trucks are reused for the same type of product or wastes

(i.e., dedicated service), the containers do not need to be cleaned

between each use. Only when a drum or tank truck is used for different

types of products or wastes (i.e, nondedicated service) is there

frequent cleaning of the containers. Of the approximately 45 million

drums used annually in the United States, about 5.6 million are

estimated to be in nondedicated service. Approximately 20,000 tank

trucks of the nationwide total of 91,000 are estimated to be in

nondedicated service.

C. Nationwide Organic HAP Emissions

The EPA estimated organic HAP emissions from typical or average

size facilities in each of the off-site waste and recovery operations

facility segments described in the previous section of this notice

using the best information available to the Agency at the time the

estimates were completed. The type, amount, and date of this

information varied for each of the different off-site waste and

recovery operation facility segments. The estimate results are

presented in the BID for this proposed rulemaking. Based on these

estimates, the EPA identified the following off-site waste and recovery

operations facility segments likely to include some individual

facilities that are major sources of HAP emissions as defined under CAA

section 112: (1) Hazardous waste TSDF; (2) industrial waste landfills

other than construction and demolition debris landfills; (3) industrial

wastewater treatment facilities; (4) crude oil reclamation facilities

and E&P waste land treatment facilities; and (5) used oil re-refining

facilities.

The EPA estimates that there are the following numbers of existing

off-site waste and recovery operations facilities in the United States:

710 hazardous waste TSDF receiving wastes from off-site; 10 industrial

waste landfills receiving nonhazardous industrial waste other than

construction and demolition debris from off-site; 15 privately-owned

industrial wastewater treatment facilities; 11 crude oil reclamation

facilities; 15 E&P waste land treatment facilities; and 4 used oil re-

refineries. Many but not all of these facilities would be designated as

major sources of HAP emissions as defined under CAA section 112.

Insufficient information is available the EPA to project numbers for

new off-site waste and recovery operations facilities. The EPA is

requesting information from affected industries and other interested

parties to improve the Agency's profile of existing and new off-site

waste and recovery operations in the United States.

The total nationwide organic HAP emissions from the off-site waste

and recovery operations source category are estimated by the EPA to be

approximately 51,500 megagrams of organic HAP per year (Mg/yr).

Approximately 90 percent of these organic HAP emissions (approximately

46,000 Mg/yr) are estimated to occur from the operations at hazardous

waste TSDF receiving waste or recoverable materials from off-site.

IV. Development of Regulatory Alternatives

A. Selection of Source Category and Pollutants for Control

Off-site waste and recovery operations were included as a source

category on the EPA's initial list of HAP source categories (refer to

section II.B of this notice). As previously explained, the EPA intends

this source category to address HAP emissions only from those waste and

recovery operations that are not included in another separate NESHAP

source category or are being addressed by other EPA regulatory actions.

Consequently, the following waste and recovery operations that receive

materials from other facilities are specifically excluded from the off-

site waste and recovery operations source category because these

operations have been listed by the EPA as separate NESHAP source

categories: hazardous waste incineration, municipal solid waste

landfills, publicly-owned treatment works, sewage sludge incinerators,

site remediation activities, and industrial boilers and process

heaters.

Wastes and recoverable materials sent to the facilities selected

for regulation under the off-site waste and recovery operations NESHAP

are generated by a wide variety of manufacturing and production

processes as well as other recycling, reprocessing, or waste management

operations. Consequently, many of the organic chemicals or groups of

chemicals listed as HAP under CAA section 112(b) may be present in the

wastes or recoverable materials sent to off-site waste and recovery

operations facilities.

It is not appropriate to select all organic HAP listed under CAA

section 112(b) for regulation under the off-site waste and recovery

operations NESHAP. Some specific organic chemicals that are designated

as HAP have no or minimal potential to be emitted to the atmosphere

from off-site waste and recovery operations. For other organic HAP

chemicals that may be emitted from off-site waste and recovery

operations, there are limits to the detectability of some of these

chemicals in wastes by the test methods currently available to

implement the off-site waste and recovery operations NESHAP because of

properties inherent in the sampling and analysis protocol.

Consequently, the EPA decided it is appropriate to develop a list of

the specific organic HAP chemicals to be regulated by this rulemaking.

To select which organic HAP chemicals would be regulated under the

off-site waste and recovery operations NESHAP, the EPA evaluated all

chemicals or groups of chemicals listed as HAP in CAA section 112(b).

Among the factors included in the EPA's evaluation was an assessment of

the aqueous and organic volatility characteristics of each HAP

chemical, the ability of the analytical test methods to quantitate a

HAP chemical, and the aqueous solubility of a HAP chemical. Based on

the evaluation, the EPA selected the specific organic HAP chemicals

listed in Table 1 to the proposed rule (to obtain a copy of this table

in the regulatory text of the proposed rule refer to the beginning of

the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this notice). The EPA requests

comment on the list of HAP chemicals that the Agency is proposing to be

regulated under the off-site waste and recovery operations NESHAP.

The list of organic HAP selected for regulation under the off-site

waste and recovery operations NESHAP contains many different types of

organic chemicals. The EPA decided to develop a single set of

regulatory alternatives for the off-site waste and recovery operations

source category to control organic HAP emissions as a class as opposed

to attempting to develop a series of regulatory alternatives to control

emissions of each individual organic HAP chemicals on the list.

Consequently, the control technologies considered for the regulatory

alternatives are directed towards the control total organic HAP

emissions.

It is EPA's intent that the NESHAP address waste and recovery

operations receiving from other facilities those materials that

potentially can emit significant quantities of the organic chemicals on

the HAP list for the rule. As explained in section II.D.2.a of this

notice, the EPA has developed definitions for different types of wastes

to implement the Agency's waste management rules promulgated under

authority of RCRA. However, certain wastes and recoverable materials

that have been specifically excluded from the definitions of waste

adopted for these RCRA rules may still contain organics listed as HAP

under CAA section 112(b). Consequently, simply adopting the definitions

already used by the EPA for wastes under the RCRA rules could allow

certain off-site waste and recovery operations that emit organic HAP to

remain unregulated. Therefore, the EPA decided that to fulfill the

congressional directives of CAA section 112, it is necessary to define

the types of materials to be regulated under this CAA rulemaking in a

broader context than the EPA has historically used for the RCRA rules.

For the off-site waste and recovery operations source category, the

EPA decided to adapt the definition of ``waste'' adopted for the

benzene waste operations NESHAP (40 CFR 60 subpart FF). Based on this

definition, the EPA created separate terms for ``waste'' and

``recoverable materials'' to be used for the off-site waste and

recovery operations NESHAP. For this rulemaking, the EPA is proposing

to define ``waste'' as any material generated from industrial,

commercial, mining, or agricultural operations or from community

activities that is discarded, discharged, or is being accumulated,

stored, or physically, chemically, thermally, or biologically treated

prior to being discarded or discharged. The EPA is proposing to define

``recoverable material'' for this rulemaking as any material generated

from industrial, commercial, mining, or agricultural operations or from

community activities that is recycled, reprocessed, reused, or is being

accumulated, stored, or physically, chemically, thermally, or

biologically treated prior to being recycled, reprocessed, or reused.

Based on these definitions, materials affected by this rulemaking

include those materials determined to be hazardous wastes under the

RCRA rules, solid wastes that are not hazardous wastes under RCRA

rules, and secondary materials such as used, surplus, and scrap

materials that are either recycled for recovery of reusable materials

or reprocessed for sale as new products.

B. Subcategorization

Subcategorization of a source category is sometimes appropriate for

a rulemaking when industrial segments within a source category require

application of different types of control techniques. In developing

today's proposed rule, the EPA considered subcategorization of the off-

site waste and recovery operations source category and decided not to

propose subcategories for the off-site waste and recovery operations

NESHAP.

As described in section III.B of this notice, the EPA identified

several different industrial segments to be included in the off-site

waste and recovery operations source category. Most of these off-site

waste and recovery operations facilities are also hazardous waste TSDF

(refer to section III.C of this notice). However, the quantity and type

of organic HAP emissions from an off-site waste and recovery operations

facility are not dependent upon whether a particular facility is

subject to RCRA hazardous waste management rules. As previously

described, off-site waste and recovery operations facilities can

receive materials that are not hazardous wastes under the RCRA rules

but still contain organics listed as HAP under CAA section 112(b).

Furthermore, common organic HAP control technologies are applicable to

the operations used at all of the off-site waste and recovery

operations facility types. There are no significant differences in the

organic HAP emissions or the control technologies applicable to

controlling these emissions from any of the off-site waste and recovery

operations facility types. Thus, based upon these factors, the EPA

concluded that designation of separate subcategories for the purpose of

developing the off-site waste and recovery operations NESHAP is not

warranted.

C. Selection of Emission Points

For purpose of developing regulatory alternatives which could be

effectively compared in developing this rulemaking, the EPA identified

the predominate types of emissions points at off-site waste and

recovery operations facilities where organic HAP emissions occur. Five

emission point type classifications were designated as follows: tanks,

containers, land disposal units, process vents, and equipment leaks.

1. Tanks

The tank emission point type for the off-site waste and recovery

operations source category represents the organic HAP emissions from

wastes or recoverable materials containing organic HAP stored or

treated in tanks. These tanks include wastewater treatment tanks.

2. Containers

The container emission point type for the off-site waste and

recovery operations source category represents the organic HAP

emissions from wastes or recoverable materials containing organic HAP

stored, treated, or otherwise handled in drums, dumpsters, roll-off

boxes, trucks, and railcars.

3. Land Disposal Units

The land disposal unit emission point type for the off-site waste

and recovery operations source category represents the organic HAP

emissions from resulting from the disposal of wastes containing organic

HAP in surface impoundments, landfills, land treatment units, and waste

piles.

4. Process Vents

The process vent emission point type for the off-site waste and

recovery operations source category represents the organic HAP

emissions from process vents on enclosed treatment processes other than

processes which burn the waste or recoverable material (e.g.,

incinerators, boilers, furnaces). Examples of enclosed treatment

processes included in this emission point type are distillation units,

thin-film evaporators, solvent extraction units, air stripping units,

and steam stripping units.

5. Equipment Leaks

The equipment leak emission point type for the off-site waste and

recovery operations source category represents the organic HAP

emissions from gaseous and liquid leaks in ancillary equipment used to

operate units managing, conveying, or handling wastes or recoverable

materials. This ancillary equipment includes pumps, compressors,

pressure relief devices, sampling connection systems, open-ended valves

or lines, valves, flanges and other connectors, and product accumulator

vessels.

D. Definition of Source

To develop a NESHAP, the EPA first defines the source category and

determines the types of HAP emitted from this source category that are

to be controlled by establishing emission standards. Within a source

category, the EPA must next decide which of the sources of HAP

emissions (i.e., emission points or groupings of emission points) are

most appropriate for establishing separate emission standards in the

context of the CAA statutory requirements and the industry operating

practices for the particular source category. The EPA considered three

options for defining ``source'' for the off-site waste and recovery

operations NESHAP.

The first option is to define the source in a very broad context as

the entire facility. This option was rejected by the EPA for the off-

site waste and recovery operations NESHAP because it would be very

difficult to apply a single facility-wide emission limitation level for

MACT to all off-site waste and recovery operations facilities for

several reasons. First, the mechanism by which organic HAP are emitted

to the atmosphere and the types of air emission controls applicable to

reducing these emissions vary widely for the emission point types

identified for off-site waste and recovery operations. For example,

covers frequently are installed on tanks to control air emissions while

work practice programs are used to control air emissions from equipment

leaks. Furthermore, not all off-site waste and recovery operations at a

particular facility may be subject to this rulemaking. As previously

explained, certain types of waste combustion units, landfill units, and

other operations are being addressed by separate EPA regulatory

actions. Finally, some waste and recovery operations at a particular

facility may be dedicated to managing only wastes or recoverable

materials generated on-site and, thus, would not be subject to this

rulemaking.

A second option is to define the source in a more narrow context as

the entire operation used to manage a particular waste or recoverable

material from the point where the material enters the facility through

the point where the material exits the facility or, if it is a waste,

disposed on-site. Under this definition, the source would consist of a

mix of different types of emission points representing the sequence of

units in which the waste or recoverable material is stored, conveyed,

treated, and, in some cases, disposed. Under this option, a single

emission limitation for MACT would be established for the entire group

of emission points comprising the management sequence used to handle

the waste or recoverable material. This second option for defining

sources under the off-site waste and recovery operations NESHAP was

also rejected by the EPA as inappropriate. Unlike manufacturing or

production processes that produce a specific product, the operations

used to manage a particular type of waste or recoverable material

cannot be readily characterized by one or even several standardized

process configurations which are used throughout the industrial segment

representing the source category. The types, configurations, and

sequencing of units used for operations handling a particular type of

waste or recoverable material are not consistent, but instead can vary

widely from one facility to the next. Therefore, the EPA concluded that

this option is not an appropriate approach for defining sources for the

off-site waste and recovery operations NESHAP.

The final option considered by the EPA is to further narrow the

definition of source to the individual emission points identified for

the source category (i.e., tanks, containers, land disposal units,

process vents, and equipment leaks). Under this option, an overall

emission limitation for MACT would be established for each emission

point type. The EPA believes that this option is the most appropriate

approach for defining sources for the off-site waste and recovery

operations NESHAP. This approach defines the source in terms of common

types of units used at off-site waste and recovery operations

facilities for handling all types of wastes and recoverable materials.

Also, this approach to defining sources is consistent with other EPA

air rules for waste and recovery operations. Therefore, for the off-

site waste and recovery operations NESHAP, the EPA is proposing to

define the source to be each of the individual emission point types.

E. Determination of MACT Floor

The statutory requirements under CAA section 112 for determination

of the MACT floor are explained in section II.A of this notice. As

explained in section III.C of this notice, the off-site waste and

recovery operations source category contains more than 30 existing

sources nationwide. Therefore, for the off-site waste and recovery

operations NESHAP, the MACT floor for existing sources is defined the

average emission limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent

of existing sources. The MACT floor for new sources is defined by the

emission control that is achieved in practice by the best controlled

similar source.

1. MACT Floor for Existing Sources

a. Existing Tanks. The MACT floor for existing tanks at off-site

waste and recovery operations facilities is determined to be use of

covers on tanks managing wastes or recoverable materials with a VOHAP

concentration equal to or greater than 100 ppmw. This floor

determination is based on consideration of data for site-specific tank

management practices reported at 540 of the 710 hazardous waste TSDF

and existing EPA air emission standards for tanks.

The EPA's review of its tank data base for the off-site waste and

recovery operations source category indicates that most tanks

(significantly more than 12 percent) managing waste or recoverable

materials containing organic HAP are covered tanks. A small portion of

these tanks also are reported to use more effective air emission

controls such as venting the tank to a control device or using a

floating roof on the tank. However, the higher level of air emission

control achieved by this segment of tanks does not represent the

average of the top 12 percent of tanks listed in the data base. Thus,

the EPA determined that the air emission control technology for the

existing tank MACT floor is use of a cover.

For other source categories, the EPA has established the need to

use a cover or other air emission controls on a tank based on a

characteristic parameter of the materials placed in the tank. The EPA

believes that using this approach provides an effective and enforceable

means for applying air emission controls to those tanks with the

potential for organic air emissions and not requiring the unnecessary

installation of controls on tanks with no or little potential for

organic air emissions. Consequently, to complete the definition of the

MACT floor for tanks at off-site waste and recovery operations

facilities, an applicability cutoff provision (referred to hereafter in

this notice as an ``action level'') is needed to distinguish the tanks

at off-site waste and recovery operations facilities that need to use

air emission controls.

Because of the need to periodically confirm that a material placed

in a tank remains below the action level selected to determine

applicability, the indicator parameter must be in a format that is

relatively simple to determine by an affected facility owner or

operator and can be expeditiously checked by EPA or State enforcement

personnel. Considering this requirement, the EPA evaluated possible

action level formats and decided that an action level format based on

the volatile organic HAP concentration of the materials as determined

using EPA Method 305 is appropriate for identifying those tanks used

for off-site waste and recovery operations that are expected to have

little or no potential for organic HAP emissions.

The data available to the EPA at this time for the off-site waste

and recovery operations source category are insufficient to perform a

rigorous statistical analysis for the purpose of establishing the

minimum VOHAP concentration value for the wastes or recoverable

materials managed in each of the tanks listed in the data base and

reported to use air emission controls. From a qualitative perspective,

application of tank air emission controls is not needed when the

material in the tank has little or no potential for organic HAP

emissions. In general, these wastes or recoverable materials can be

characterized as materials having low VOHAP concentrations. The EPA

considered a range of possible values to establish the VOHAP

concentration limit. Based on consideration of available information

regarding the potential for organic HAP emissions from off-site waste

and recovery operations, the EPA concluded that a VOHAP concentration

value of 100 ppmw would best represent the MACT floor for existing

tanks required to use air emission controls.

Using a VOHAP concentration value of 100 ppmw also allows owners

and operators to use several different methods for determining the

VOHAP concentration of a waste or recoverable material. This is an

important factor considering the diversity of wastes and recoverable

materials potentially subject to the off-site waste and recovery

operations NESHAP and the potential interferences of the quantitation

limits of certain analytical methods by non-HAP organic chemicals in

the material. Additionally, selection of 100 ppmw would require most

existing tanks managing wastes or recoverable materials having organic

HAP emissions to use air emission controls consistent with other EPA

regulatory actions related to off-site waste and recovery operations.

Many waste and recovery operations facilities subject to this

regulation will also be subject to other air emission standards. The

EPA is aware that being subject to several standards with differing

action levels may create confusion in the regulated community. To the

extent possible within the requirements of the Clean Air Act, the EPA

wishes to minimize discrepancies between the action level in the off-

site waste and recovery operations NESHAP and other emission standards

affecting waste and recovery operations. The EPA therefore requests

comment on the 100 ppmw VOHAP concentration action level, as well as

information that can be used to support alternative action levels, such

as 500 ppmw. Specifically, the EPA requests information on action

levels for surface impoundments and other land disposal units.

b. Existing Containers. The MACT floor for existing containers at

off-site waste and recovery operations facilities is determined to be

the use of covers on containers managing wastes or recoverable

materials with a VOHAP concentration equal to or greater than 100 ppmw.

The number and type of containers used to manage organic HAP containing

wastes or recoverable materials at off-site waste and recovery

operations vary from site-to-site. Furthermore, at any off-site waste

and recovery operations facility, the number of drums, roll-off boxes,

or other containers at the site can often fluctuate on a weekly or

monthly basis depending on the number and origin of new material

shipments received at the facility during a particular week or month.

Thus, no data are available to the EPA which allow a statistical

determination of the type of air emission controls used on the average

of the top 12 percent of containers located at off-site waste and

recovery operations facilities or the VOHAP concentration of wastes or

recoverable materials handled in containers. Based on existing RCRA

rules for containers handling hazardous waste and observations by EPA

representatives during site visits to facilities that manage wastes in

containers, the EPA concluded that the average emission limitation

achieved by the best performing 12 percent of containers used to handle

wastes and recoverable materials containing organic HAP is the level of

control achieved by the use of covers. Thus, the EPA determined that

the air emission control technology for existing container MACT floor

is the use of a cover.

The EPA selected a VOHAP concentration value of 100 ppmw to be the

action level for the MACT floor for existing containers consistent with

the level selected for existing tanks. Containers such as drums, tank

trucks, roll-off boxes, and tank rail cars are a primary means used to

ship materials to off-site waste and recovery operations facilities. In

many cases, these materials are temporarily stored at the off-site

waste and recovery operations facility directly in the shipping

containers or are transferred to tanks or other management units prior

to treatment and disposal, in the case of wastes, or prior to

reprocessing and shipment, in the case of recoverable materials. The

most volatile of the organic HAP in a waste or recoverable material

will be emitted soon after being exposed to the atmosphere. If

containers at the off-site waste and recovery operations facility are

not controlled to the same level required of tanks, a significant

portion of the organic HAP in the waste or recoverable material will be

emitted before the material is transferred to the controlled tanks or

other controlled management units. Consequently, the organic HAP

emission reduction effectiveness of applying air emission controls on

downstream tanks and other management units would be significantly

diminished since a significant portion of the organic HAP in the waste

or recoverable material had already escaped to the atmosphere from open

containers.

c. Existing Land Disposal Units. The MACT floor for existing land

disposal units at off-site waste and recovery operations facilities is

determined to be no disposal of wastes that contain equal to or greater

than 100 ppmw VOHAP concentration in open land disposal units. No data

are available to the EPA which allow a statistical determination of the

type of air emission controls used on the top 12 percent of land

disposal units located at off-site waste and recovery operations

facilities or the VOHAP concentration of the wastes disposed of in

these units. However, since most of the facilities operating land

disposal units included in the off-site waste and recovery operations

source category are also hazardous waste TSDF, many of the land

disposal units are subject to treatment standards under the RCRA land

disposal restrictions (LDR) codified in 40 CFR part 268.

The LDR treatment standards require hazardous waste TSDF owners and

operators to treat certain types of hazardous waste to reduce the

toxicity or mobility of specific chemicals contained in the waste

before the owner or operator can place the waste in a surface

impoundment, land treatment unit, landfill, or wastepile. The treatment

standards of the RCRA LDR are established by requiring treatment below

constituent specific concentration limits that vary by type of

hazardous waste or by requiring use of specific treatment processes.

Many of the chemicals for which LDR treatment standards have been

established are also listed as HAP. Thus, the EPA determined that the

air emission control technology for the existing land disposal unit

MACT floor is treatment of wastes to remove or destroy organic HAP in

the waste prior to placing the waste in the land disposal unit.

Treatment of the waste to reduce the organic HAP concentration to a

level of 100 ppmw was selected for the MACT floor for existing land

disposal units based on the same reasoning used in determining the MACT

floors determined for existing tanks and containers (i.e., to

distinguish those units with little or no potential to emit organic

HAP). The degree of air emission control achieved by placing a waste

with a VOHAP concentration above 100 ppmw in tanks and containers using

air emission controls would be lost if these wastes are ultimately

allowed to be placed in land disposal units without first removing or

destroying the organic HAP to a level consistent with the level used to

apply air emission controls to tanks and containers.

d. Existing Process Vents. The MACT floor for process vents used on

treatment processes subject to the off-site waste and recovery

operations NESHAP is determined to be application of air emission

controls on each affected process used to treat wastes or recoverable

materials with a VOHAP concentration equal to or greater than 100 ppmw

as determined at the point where the material enters the facility. All

process vents on an affected process are to be connected through a

closed-vent system to a control device with a minimum 95 percent

organic HAP emission control efficiency.

As previously explained, most facilities in the off-site waste and

recovery operations source category are also hazardous waste TSDF.

Distillation, fractionation, thin-film evaporation, solvent extraction,

and stripping processes that are treating hazardous waste at these TSDF

are subject to the existing RCRA air emission standards for process

vents under 40 CFR 264 subpart AA and 40 CFR 265 subpart AA (hereafter

referred to in this notice as the ``subpart AA rules''). The EPA

concluded that it is not appropriate to directly transfer the air

emission control requirements of the subpart AA rules to the MACT floor

for the off-site waste and recovery operations NESHAP. Instead, this

MACT floor is based on adapting, to the extent applicable and relevant,

the air emission control requirements of the subpart AA rules.

The subpart AA rules require a TSDF owner or operator to identify

all process vents associated with distillation, fractionation, thin-

film evaporation, solvent extraction, and stripping processes that are

treating hazardous waste having an annual average total organic

concentration equal to or greater than 10 ppmw (i.e., vents affected by

the subpart AA rules). Total organic emission rates for each affected

vent and for the entire facility from all affected vents must be

determined. The total facility process vent emission rate must then be

compared to two specified emission rate limits (3 pounds of total

organic emission per hour and 3.1 tons of total organic emission per

year) to determine whether the owner or operator must use additional

air emission controls for the affected vents. If the total facility

process vent emission rate exceeds either of the specified emission

limits, then the owner or operator is required to implement control

measures that will reduce total facility process vent organic emissions

to below both of the emission limit levels, or to install air emission

controls to reduce total facility process vent organic emissions by at

least 95 weight percent.

Adopting a 10 ppmw action level for the process vent MACT floor

corresponding to the 10 ppmw total organic concentration value used for

subpart AA rules was considered by the EPA but determined not to be

appropriate. The 10 ppmw value used for the subpart AA rule is not the

sole regulatory criterion (i.e., action level) by which the need to

apply air emission controls to affected vents is determined. The need

to apply controls under the subpart AA rules is determined by the total

organic emission rates for each affected vent and for the entire

facility from all affected vents. The data available to the EPA at this

time for the off-site waste and recovery operations source category are

insufficient to correlate a VOHAP concentration action level value

equivalent to the total organic emission rate limits used for the

subpart AA rules. Consequently, the EPA relied on a qualitative

assessment to select a VOHAP concentration action level which would

exclude those treatment processes having little or no potential for

organic HAP emissions. A VOHAP concentration action level of 100 ppmw

was selected for the MACT floor for existing process vents consistent

with the rationale used to select the action level for tanks,

containers, and land disposal units.

e. Existing Equipment Leaks. The MACT floor for equipment leaks is

determined to be control of emissions from leaks in ancillary equipment

containing or contacting wastes or recoverable materials with total

organic HAP concentrations equal to or greater than 10 percent by

implementing leak detection and repair (LDAR) work practices and

equipment modifications. Most off-site waste and recovery operations

facilities are also hazardous waste TSDF. Thus, ancillary equipment

operated at these facilities to treat hazardous waste are subject to

the existing RCRA organic air emission standards for TSDF equipment

leaks (40 CFR 264 subpart BB and 40 CFR 265 subpart BB). These

standards require implementation of a LDAR program and modifications to

certain types of ancillary equipment operated at the facility that

handle hazardous waste having a total organic concentration equal to or

greater than 10 percent. The LDAR and equipment requirements are

consistent with existing NSPS process equipment leak standards

promulgated by the EPA under CAA section 111 (i.e., 40 CFR 60 subparts

VV, GG, and KK) and for certain NESHAP process equipment leak standards

promulgated under CAA section 112 (i.e., 40 CFR 61 subpart V).

2. MACT Floor for New Sources

The MACT floor for new sources is identical to the MACT floors

determined by the EPA for existing sources with the exception of the

MACT floor for new tanks and new containers. For the emission point

types other than tanks or containers, the MACT floor determined for

existing sources also represents the emission control that is achieved

in practice by the best controlled similar source.

a. New Tanks. The MACT floor for new tanks is determined to be use

of a cover vented to a control device that reduces organic HAP

emissions by 95 percent (or equivalent floating roof technology) for

those new tanks in which the organic HAP vapor pressure of the waste in

the tank is equal to or greater than 0.1 kPa (approximately 0.07 psi).

This is the level of emission control that is required for new tanks

under the Hazardous Organic NESHAP (40 CFR 63 subpart G). The EPA

concluded that these types of emission controls represent the emission

control level achieved in practice by the best controlled sources

similar to the types of new tanks anticipated by the EPA to be built at

off-site waste and recovery operations facilities and used for

management of wastes or recoverable materials containing organic HAP.

b. New Containers. The MACT floor for new containers is determined

to be the use of covers and submerged loading for containers in which

waste or recoverable material is placed having a VOHAP concentration

equal to or greater than 100 ppmw. The EPA's review of its container

data base for the off-site waste and recovery operations source

category indicates that some existing TSDF owners and operators (but

significantly less than 12 percent) reported using submerged fill to

load material containing organic HAP into containers.

F. Selection of Regulatory Alternatives

1. Regulatory Alternatives for Existing Sources

Different regulatory alternatives for control of organic HAP

emissions from existing sources at off-site waste and recovery

operations facilities were defined. One regulatory alternative was

defined by combining the MACT floor determinations for each of the five

emission point types (labeled ``Regulatory Alternative 1''). Four

additional regulatory alternatives for the off-site waste and recovery

operations source category were defined which would provide

increasingly greater amounts of total organic HAP emission reduction

from the baseline level of organic HAP emissions (labeled ``Regulatory

Alternative 2'' through ``Regulatory Alternative 5''). Additional

organic HAP emission control requirements were added to the controls

defined for Regulatory Alternative 1 in order of increasing emission

control incremental cost effectiveness.

Regulatory Alternative 1 requires application of air emission

controls on tanks, containers, and treatment processes managing waste

or recoverable material with a VOHAP concentration equal to or greater

than 100 ppmw as determined at the point of where the material first

enters the facility. For tank and container emission points, Regulatory

Alternative 1 requires use of a cover on each unit. For process vent

emission points, Regulatory Alternative 1 requires connecting the

process vent to a control device that reduces organic HAP emissions by

95 percent. For land disposal unit emission points, Regulatory

Alternative 1 requires treatment of the wastes prior to disposal to

reduce the waste VOHAP concentration to less than 100 ppmw. For

equipment leak emission points, Regulatory Alternative 1 requires for

equipment handling waste or recoverable material streams with a total

organic HAP concentration equal to or greater than 10 percent

implementation of a leak detection and repair (LDAR) program and

certain equipment modifications. The requirements of the LDAR program

and equipment modifications are consistent with the existing NSPS

process equipment leak standards promulgated by the EPA under CAA

section 111 (i.e., 40 CFR 60 subparts VV, GG, and KK) and for certain

NESHAP process equipment leak standards promulgated under CAA section

112 (i.e., 40 CFR 61 subpart V).

Regulatory Alternative 2 adds additional control requirements for

containers. The control requirements for the other emission points

remain the same as for Regulatory Alternative 1. In addition to using

covers on containers, Regulatory Alternative 2 requires use of

submerged fill when wastes or recoverable materials are transferred

into containers by pumping.

Regulatory Alternative 3 adds additional control requirements for

tanks. The control requirements for the other emission points remain

the same as for Regulatory Alternative 2. Tanks in which the organic

HAP vapor pressure of the waste or recoverable material in the tank is

equal to or greater than 5.2 kPa (approximately 0.75 psi) are required

to use a cover and be vented to a control device that reduces organic

HAP emissions by 95 percent. Tanks in which the organic HAP vapor

pressure of the waste or recoverable material in the tank is less than

5.2 kPa use a cover without additional controls (i.e., a cover only

without being vented to a control device).

Regulatory Alternative 4 changes the LDAR program requirements for

the equipment leak emission point category. The control requirements

for the other emission points remain the same as for Regulatory

Alternative 3. For Regulatory Alternative 4, the LDAR program would be

conducted in accordance with procedures consistent with the Hazardous

Organic NESHAP (HON) promulgated by the EPA under 40 CFR 63 subpart H.

Regulatory Alternative 5 lowers the organic HAP vapor pressure

level for tanks required to be vented to a control device. The control

requirements for the other emission points remain the same as for

Regulatory Alterative 4. Tanks in which the organic HAP vapor pressure

of the waste or recoverable material in the tank is equal to or greater

than 0.7 kPa (approximately 0.1 psi) use a cover and are vented to a

control device that reduces organic HAP emissions by 95 percent. Tanks

in which the organic HAP vapor pressure of the waste or recoverable

material in the tank is less than 0.7 kPa use a cover without

additional controls.

2. Regulatory Alternatives for New Sources

Based on current waste management trends, the EPA expects very few,

if any, new off-site waste and recovery operations facilities to be

built in the foreseeable future. A more likely scenario is construction

of new units (such as tanks or treatment units) at existing off-site

waste and recovery operations facilities to expand facility capacity,

replace existing surface impoundments, or add new treatment capability

or expand treatment capacity. However, the available information to the

EPA is insufficient to make projections of the numbers or types of new

sources to be built during the next 5 years.

A regulatory alternative representing the MACT floor for new

sources at off-site waste and recovery operations facilities was

defined by combining the MACT floor determinations for new sources. No

regulatory alternatives beyond the MACT floor were identified for new

sources.

The regulatory alternative for new sources requires application of

air emission controls on tanks, containers, and treatment processes

managing waste or recoverable material with a VOHAP concentration equal

to or greater than 100 ppmw as determined at the point where the

material first enters the facility. For tank emission points, tanks in

which the organic HAP vapor pressure of the waste or recoverable

material in the tank is equal to or greater than 0.7 kPa are required

to use a cover and be vented to a control device that reduces organic

HAP emissions by 95 percent (or equivalent floating roof technology).

Tanks in which the organic HAP vapor pressure of the waste or

recoverable material in the tank is less than 0.7 kPa use a cover

without additional controls (i.e., a cover only without being vented to

a control device). For container emission points, the regulatory

alternative requires use of a cover on each unit and use of submerged

fill when wastes or recoverable materials are transferred into

containers by pumping. For process vent emission points, the regulatory

alternative requires connecting the process vent to a control device

that reduces organic HAP emissions by 95 percent. For land disposal

unit emission points, the regulatory alternative requires treatment of

the wastes prior to disposal to reduce the waste VOHAP concentration to

less than 100 ppmw. For equipment leak emission points, the regulatory

alternative requires a implementation of a LDAR program and certain

equipment modifications specified under the existing for ancillary

equipment handling waste or recoverable material streams with a total

organic HAP concentration equal to or greater than 10 percent. The

equipment leak requirements are consistent with the existing NSPS

process equipment leak standards.

G. Regulatory Alternative Impacts

The EPA developed estimates of the impacts associated with each of

the regulatory alternatives for existing sources. As explained in the

preceding section, no impacts were estimated for the regulatory

alternatives for new sources because of difficulty in projecting the

numbers and types of new sources likely to be built over the next 5

years.

1. Overview of Impacts Estimation Methodology

In developing NESHAP and other air standards, the EPA frequently

uses a model plant approach for comparing alternative control options.

However, for the off-site waste and recovery operations source

category, it is difficult to adequately characterize the source

category using a selection of several representative model plants

because, for many of the facilities in the source category, the

quantities and characteristics of wastes and recoverable materials

received at the facility are highly variable and can change often (as

frequently as on a day-to-day basis). In addition, many different waste

management unit and recoverable material reprocessing unit

configurations are used at off-site waste and recovery operations

facilities to manage these ever changing materials. Consequently, the

EPA decided a model plant approach is not appropriate for estimating

control option impacts for the off-site waste and recovery operations

source category.

Instead of using a model plant approach for the off-site waste and

recovery operations source category, the EPA decided to adapt a

computer model developed by the Agency to estimate nationwide organic

air emission impacts from RCRA hazardous waste treatment, storage, and

disposal facilities (TSDF). As explained in section III of this notice,

the EPA estimates that approximately 90 percent of the nationwide

organic HAP emissions for the off-site waste and recovery operations

source category occur from hazardous waste TSDF. Consequently, the EPA

considers adapting this computer model to be appropriate for evaluating

alternative control options for the off-site waste and recovery

operations source category.

The primary sources of site-specific waste data used as input to

the computer model are two comprehensive nationwide surveys that the

EPA Office of Solid Waste (OSW) conducted in 1987: the National Survey

of Hazardous Waste Generators (referred to hereafter as the

``GENSUR''); and the National Survey of Hazardous Waste Treatment,

Storage, Disposal, and Recycling Facilities (referred to hereafter as

the ``TSDR Survey''). These data represent waste quantities, waste

compositions, and waste management practices at hazardous waste TSDF in

1986, and are the most recent nationwide TSDF waste data available to

the EPA on a consistent, industry-wide basis.

The data base indicates that 710 TSDF received wastes and

recoverable materials from off-site waste generators in 1986. The EPA

adapted its computer model to simulate the waste management processes

reported in the TSDR Survey to be operating at each of these TSDF.

Organic HAP emission factors and emission control cost factors are

assigned to each waste management process using one (or in many cases a

combination of several) of the model units developed for the TSDF RCRA

air rule projects. Further details regarding the emission estimation

methodology are provided in the BID for this proposed rulemaking.

The EPA is aware that some waste management practices have changed

since the data were collected for the GENSUR and TSDR Survey because of

new EPA regulations promulgated since 1986 (e.g., the RCRA land

disposal restrictions) as well as changes implemented by the waste

management industry. To address these changes in the definition of the

baseline used for this rulemaking, assumptions were applied in the

computer model to better reflect current industry-wide waste management

trends (e.g., conversion of surface impoundments to tanks, treatment of

certain wastes prior to or as an alternative to land disposal).

Additional assumptions were made to simulate the implementation of the

different regulatory alternatives in the computer model. These

assumptions are described in further detail in the BID for this

proposed rulemaking.

2. Regulatory Baseline

For the purpose of evaluating the relative organic emission

reduction effectiveness of different regulatory alternatives, the EPA

defines a ``baseline'' as a reference point from which each regulatory

alternative can be compared. The baseline represents the estimated

level of organic emissions from the source category that would occur in

the absence of implementing any of the regulatory alternatives. For the

off-site waste and recovery operations source category, the EPA chose a

baseline which would reflect the level of organic emissions for each

emission point type following implementation of air emission controls

required by federally enforceable air regulations in effective as of

July 1991. The EPA defined the baseline to consist of the following

regulations: (1) RCRA organic air emission standards for TSDF process

vents (40 CFR 264 subpart AA and 40 CFR 265 subpart AA); (2) RCRA

organic air emission standards for TSDF equipment leaks (40 CFR 264

subpart BB and 40 CFR 265 subpart BB); (3) RCRA land disposal

restrictions (40 CFR part 268); and (4) NESHAP for benzene waste

operations (40 CFR 61 subpart FF).

3. Organic Emissions Impacts

The EPA estimated organic HAP emission reductions that would be

achieved if air rules based on each of the five regulatory alternatives

were implemented. Baseline organic HAP emissions are estimated to be

approximately 52,000 Mg/yr. The organic HAP emissions assuming

implementation of the individual regulatory alternatives are estimated

to be approximately: 28,000 Mg/yr for Regulatory Alternative 1, 23,000

Mg/yr for Regulatory Alternative 2, 9,000 Mg/yr for Regulatory

Alternative 3, 9,000 Mg/yr for Regulatory Alternative 4, and 8,000 Mg/

yr for Regulatory Alternative 5.

4. Other Environmental and Energy Impacts

The primary source of other environmental and energy impacts is

expected to result from the operation of control devices used to remove

or destroy organics in captured vapor streams. Electric motor-driven

fans, blowers, or pumps, depending on the type of control device, are

used for operations such as moving the captured organic vapors to the

control device, circulating cooling water through a condenser, or

pumping recovered liquids to an accumulation tank. Generation of the

electricity to operate the control device often requires burning of

fuel in an electric utility power plant which produces air emissions,

wastewater discharges, and solid wastes. When carbon adsorption systems

are used, the organic HAP removed from the vapor stream are adsorbed on

the activated carbon in the control device. Once the carbon becomes

saturated with organics, it must be regenerated or disposed of in a

landfill. Regeneration of the carbon requires steam. Producing this

steam in a boiler creates both secondary air and energy impacts.

Disposal of the spent carbon produces a solid waste impact.

5. Control Cost Impacts

Total capital investment (TCI) cost represents the cost to facility

owners and operators to purchase and install air emission control

equipment. The TCI costs in 1991 dollars to implement each of the

regulatory alternatives is estimated to be approximately: $11 million

for Regulatory Alternative 1, $14 million for Regulatory Alternative 2,

$49 million for Regulatory Alternative 3, $57 million for Regulatory

Alternative 4, and $78 million for Regulatory Alternative 5.

Total annual cost represents the total cost to facility owners and

operators each year to: Operate and maintain the air emission controls

required by the proposed rule; perform the inspection, monitoring,

recordkeeping, and reporting required by the proposed rule; and repay

the capital investment for the air emission controls. The capital

recovery was estimated using an interest rate of 7 percent applied over

a period ranging from 10 to 20 years depending on the expected service

life for each type of air emission control equipment. The total annual

cost to implement each of the regulatory alternatives is estimated to

be approximately: $4.7 million per year for Regulatory Alternative 1,

$5.2 million per year for Regulatory Alternative 2, $24.5 million per

year for Regulatory Alternative 3, $26.1 million per year for

Regulatory Alternative 4, and $36.3 million per year for Regulatory

Alternative 5.

6. Economic Impact Analysis

The EPA performed an economic impact analysis using a model that

simulates 60 separate waste disposal markets and then estimates

facility and market responses to the costs of implementing the

requirements of the proposed rule. All dollar amounts for prices and

costs were adjusted to reflect 1991 dollars. The EPA made no

projections of new off-site waste and recovery operations that would be

affected by the proposed rule.

Complying with the proposed rule will increase the costs of

providing services at off-site waste and recovery operations

facilities. The magnitude of the cost increases would vary from

facility to facility depending on factors such as the types of wastes

or recoverable materials received, the types of waste or recovery

operations performed, the number and types of emission points for each

of these operations, and the level of emission control already in place

at the facility. Cost increases would lead to some price increases, and

possibly reduced profits for some firms in the business.

The proposed rule is likely to affect prices charged in almost all

of the 60 markets studied, although many markets are likely to

experience very small changes or none at all. The most severely

affected market (in percentage terms) may experience a price increase

in excess of 70 percent. The greatest absolute increase in price would

be an increase of $500 per Mg of waste, which would be a 30 percent

increase. The greatest decrease in quantity would be 375 Mg of waste.

Overall, the quantity of off-site waste managed at the 700-plus

facilities in the data base used for the economic impact analysis would

decrease by slightly over 1,600 Mg, or about 0.009 percent of the

estimated 19 million Mg of waste managed.

The EPA's analysis assumed that owners of affected facilities would

respond to this rule by either installing and operating the required

air emission control equipment, discontinuing specific individual waste

or recovery operations affected by the rule, or closing the entire

facility. The EPA projects that although 100 individual waste and

recovery operations located at a number of facilities could shut down

as a result of this proposed rule, only about 10 entire facilities

would close.

A number of decisions made by the EPA regarding the off-site waste

and recovery operations NESHAP rulemaking since the completion of the

economic impact analysis change the costs to comply with the rule for

some individual waste or recovery operations at a particular facility

from the costs used for the economic impact analysis. The compliance

costs for some of these individual operations would increase while for

other individual operations the costs would decrease depending on site-

specific factors. However on a facility-wide basis, the EPA expects

that the total cost to comply with the requirements of the proposed

rule for most of individual off-site waste and recovery operations

facilities listed in the data base to be about the same as the total

individual facility compliance costs used for the economic impact

analysis described above. Thus, the EPA believes that the results of

this analysis are representative of the overall economic impacts of the

proposed rule.

V. Selection of Basis for Proposed Rule

A. Selection of Regulatory Alternative for Existing Sources

To select one of the five regulatory alternatives to serve as the

basis for the proposed standards for existing sources, the EPA

evaluated the organic HAP emission reductions, control costs, economic

impacts, and other environmental and energy impacts associated with

implementing the air emission controls under each regulatory

alternative. Based on this evaluation, the EPA selected Regulatory

Alternative 3 as the basis for the standards proposed for existing

sources.

Regulatory Alternative 1, the MACT floor, is estimated to reduce

nationwide organic HAP emissions by approximately 24,000 Mg/yr.

Regulatory Alternative 2 is estimated to reduce nationwide organic HAP

emissions by approximately 29,000 Mg/yr. Substantially higher organic

HAP emission reductions beyond those estimated for Regulatory

Alternatives 1 and 2 are estimated to be achieved by either Regulatory

Alternative 3, 4, or 5. All three of these regulatory alternatives are

estimated to achieve similar levels of organic HAP emission reduction

from the regulatory baseline. Nationwide organic HAP emission

reductions are estimated to be 43,000 Mg/yr for Regulatory Alternative

3, 43,000 Mg/yr for Regulatory Alternative 4, and 44,000 Mg/yr for

Regulatory Alternative 5.

The highest level of nationwide organic HAP emission reduction

would be achieved by selecting either Regulatory Alternative 3, 4, or 5

as the basis for the standards for existing sources. The estimated

control cost estimates for Regulatory Alternatives 4 and 5 are higher

than the estimated costs for Regulatory Alternative 3. Because

Regulatory Alternative 3 would provide essentially the same level of

nationwide organic HAP emission reduction for a lower cost, Regulatory

Alternatives 4 and 5 were eliminated from further consideration as the

basis for the proposed standards.

The EPA may set standards that are more stringent than the MACT

floor if such standards are achievable considering the cost,

environmental, and other impacts listed in CAA section 112(d)(2). Based

on the information available to the EPA at this time, the only

difference in these cost, environmental, and other impacts that the EPA

can distinguish between Regulatory Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 is related

to the estimated nationwide costs of controls required by each of these

regulatory alternatives.

The total nationwide annual cost estimated to implement controls

under either Regulatory Alternative 1 or 2 is approximately the same

($4.7 million per year for Regulatory Alternative 1 versus $5.2 million

per year for Regulatory Alternative 2). The total nationwide annual

cost estimated to implement controls under Regulatory Alternative 3 is

significantly higher ($24.5 million per year). However, given the

additional 19,000 Mg/yr of nationwide organic HAP emission reduction

that is estimated to be achieved over Regulatory Alternative 1 and the

additional 14,000 Mg/yr of nationwide organic HAP emission reduction

that is estimated to be achieved over Regulatory Alternative 2, the EPA

concluded that the additional cost of implementing controls under

Regulatory Alternative 3 is reasonable and justifiable. Thus, the EPA

selected Regulatory Alternative 3 as the basis for the proposed

standards for existing sources.

B. Selection of Regulatory Alternative for New Sources

No regulatory alternatives beyond the MACT floor were identified

for new sources. Thus, the MACT floor for new sources is the basis for

the control requirements proposed for new sources.

C. Selection of Format for Proposed Rule

Section 112 of the CAA requires that emission standards for control

of HAP be established unless it is the Administrator's judgement that

emission standards cannot be established or enforced for a particular

type of source. Formats for emission standards include percent

reduction, concentration limits, or a mass emission limit. Section

112(h)(2) identifies two conditions under which it is not feasible to

establish an emission standard: (1) If the pollutants cannot be emitted

through a conveyance designed and constructed to emit or capture the

pollutant; or (2) if the application of measurement technology to a

particular class of sources is not practicable because of technology

and economic limitations. In these cases, the EPA may instead establish

design, equipment, work practice, or operational standards, or a

combination thereof.

The NESHAP proposed today for the off-site waste and recovery

operations source category are a combination of emission standards and

equipment, design, work practice, and operational standards. Whenever

feasible, emission standards have been proposed. However, in some

cases, emission limitations would not adequately ensure that the

maximum emission reductions required by the standards are achieved. In

those cases, a combination of equipment, design, work practice, and

operational standards have been determined by the EPA to be equivalent

to the emission standards proposed today.

D. Selection of Test Procedures and Compliance Procedures

Under the proposed rule, determination of the VOHAP concentration

would not be required for materials placed in units that use air

emission controls in accordance with the requirements of the rule. To

determine whether a particular waste or recoverable material may be

placed in a unit subject to the rule but not using the required air

emission controls, the owner or operator would be required to conduct

initial and periodic determinations of the material VOHAP

concentration. The proposed rule would allow the owner or operator to

directly measure the VOHAP concentration by analyzing samples of the

material or to use knowledge of the waste or recoverable material.

E. Selection of Monitoring and Inspection Requirements

1. Air Emission Control Equipment

Control devices used to comply with the proposed percent reduction

or concentration limit need to be properly operated and maintained if

the standards are to be achieved on a long term basis. Continuous

monitoring of the control device operation provides a means to help

ensure that the control device remains in compliance with the

applicable emission standard. The EPA considered two monitoring options

for this NESHAP; (1) the use of continuous emissions monitoring (CEM)

systems; and (2) the use of monitors that measure operating parameters

which can be directly related to the emission control performance of a

particular control device.

The organic HAP emissions from off-site waste and recovery

operations which would be vented to control devices under this NESHAP

typically are not composed of a single or a few specific organic HAP

chemicals. Rather, these emissions are more likely to be composed of a

mixture of many different organic HAP chemicals because of the varying

compositions of the wastes or recoverable materials received at off-

site waste and recovery operations facilities. As a general rule, CEM

systems that uses gas chromatography to measure individual gaseous

organic HAP compound chemicals are not practical for applications where

the number of organic HAP chemicals to be monitored exceeds five (see

proposed PS 101 and 102, Appendix A of 40 CFR part 64, October 22, 1993

at 58 FR 54648). Therefore for many off-site waste and recovery

operations applications, a CEM system is not currently commercially

available which can measure total organic HAP for the specific set of

organic HAP chemicals selected for regulation under the off-site waste

and recovery operations NESHAP.

A possible alternative would be to use a CEM system to measure

total VOC or total hydrocarbons (THC) as surrogate for total organic

HAP. However, the EPA concluded that requiring monitoring based on this

alternative is not appropriate for this rulemaking. Current CEM systems

that measure VOC emissions operate by flame ionization detection (FID),

photoionization detection (PID), non-dispersive infrared (NDIR)

absorption, or other detection principles that respond to VOC levels.

These CEM systems provide a measure of the relative concentration level

of a mixture of organic chemicals, rather than a quantification of the

organic species present (i.e., the total VOC measurement device will

have a different instrument response for different organic chemicals).

While CEM systems would provide an adequate measure of compliance,

monitoring control device operating parameters (as described below) is

common practice and provides at least an equivalent measure of control

device performance.

Based on the reasons explained above, the EPA rejected requiring

the use of CEM systems for the off-site waste and recovery operations

NESHAP. Instead, the EPA selected monitoring of control device

operating parameters indicative of air emission control performance as

the most appropriate approach to monitoring for the off-site waste and

recovery operations NESHAP source category. However, the proposed rule

would not preclude owners or operators choosing to use a CEM system to

comply with the rule's monitoring requirements for those cases where it

is possible to do so.

The proposed off-site waste and recovery operations NESHAP

specifies the types of parameters that can be monitored for common

types of control devices. These parameters were selected because they

are good indicators of control device performance and instrumentation

is available at a reasonable cost to monitor these parameters

continuously. The proposed rule also would provide provisions under

which an owner or operator could be approved, on a case-by-case basis,

to monitor parameters not specifically listed in the rule.

Under the proposed rule, each individual owner or operator would

establish on a site-specific basis minimum or maximum operating

parameter values, as appropriate for the type of parameter monitored,

that the control device must not exceed to remain in compliance with

the emission standards. These site-specific operating parameter values

could be established through either performance tests, control device

design analysis, or manufacturer's recommendations. The established

operating parameter values for each control device would be

incorporated in the operating permit issued for a facility (or, in the

absence of an operating permit, the established levels would be

directly enforceable) and would be used to determine a facility's

compliance status. Excursions outside the established operating

parameter values would be considered violations of the applicable

emission standard except when the excursion is caused by a startup,

shutdown, or malfunction that meets the criteria specified in the Part

63 general provisions (40 CFR 63 subpart A).

The proposed NESHAP does not require monitoring of any of the

following boilers or process heaters when used as a control device to

comply with the requirements of the rule: (1) Boilers and process

heaters with a heat capacity equal to or greater than 44 megawatts

(approximately 150 million Btu/hr); (2) boilers or process heaters with

a heat capacity less than 44 MW that introduces the vent stream as a

primary fuel or mixes it with the primary fuel; or (3) boilers or

process heaters with a heat capacity less than 44 MW that introduces

the vent stream through the same burner. The EPA concluded that the

specific range of temperatures and residence times for these types of

combustion units which facility operators must continuously maintain to

meet their facility process heat or steam demands will ensure

compliance with the control device standards without the need for

monitoring.

Continuous monitoring is not feasible for those emission points

required to comply with certain equipment standards and work practice

standards (e.g., tanks equipped with only covers, pumps and valves

subject to LDAR programs). In such cases, failure to install and

maintain the required equipment or properly implement the LDAR program

would constitute a violation of the applicable equipment or work

practice standard.

The EPA request comments on the proposed approach for determination

of control device compliance based on continuous operating parameter

monitoring.

2. Treatment Processes

Under the proposed off-site waste and recovery operations NESHAP,

wastes or recoverable materials having VOHAP concentrations of 100 ppmw

or more must be treated to remove or destroy organic HAP in accordance

with standards specified in the rule before the material can be placed

in certain management units. Like the control devices used for organic

HAP emission control, the treatment processes used to comply with these

standards (i.e., minimum percent HAP reduction, VOHAP concentration

limits, required HAP mass removal levels) need to be properly operated

and maintained if the standards are to be achieved on a long-term

basis. Therefore, the EPA is proposing to require monitoring of

operating parameters for the treatment processes used to comply with

the rule requirements.

Analogous to the monitoring approach that the EPA is proposing for

control devices, the EPA would prefer that each owner or operator

establish on a site-specific basis minimum or maximum operating

parameter values, as appropriate, for the treatment process that the

owner or operator must not exceed to remain in compliance with the

standards. To implement this approach for treatment processes,

monitoring methods are needed that will be sufficiently representative,

accurate, precise, reliable, frequent, and timely to determine whether

a deviation occurs and therefore to certify whether compliance is

continuous or intermittent. The EPA has identified for some types of

treatment process, such as steam stripping, operating parameters that

can be continuously monitored and recorded which directly relate to the

treatment process performance. The EPA requests comments on

establishing monitoring requirements for treatment processes that can

be used to determine compliance with the proposed standards based on

continuous operating parameter monitoring. The EPA further requests

comment on establishing an option within the regulation for specific

default values for treatment process operating parameters, in the event

that owners or operators would rather not establish their own minimum

or maximum operating parameter values.

F. Selection of Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements

Under CAA section 114(a), the EPA may require any owner or operator

of a source subject to a NESHAP to establish and maintain records as

well as prepare and submit notifications and reports to the EPA.

General recordkeeping and reporting requirements for all NESHAP are

specified in the Part 63 general provisions (40 CFR 63.9 and 40 CFR

63.10). All recordkeeping and reporting requirements were selected for

the off-site waste and recovery operations NESHAP to be consistent with

these Part 63 general provisions requirements.

G. Emissions Averaging

Emissions averaging is an approach used by the EPA for certain

other NESHAP rulemakings when the average level of emissions from

individual facilities in the source category remains relatively

predictable over extended periods of time. Application of this approach

allows a facility owner or operator to obtain emission credits by

reducing emissions from specific emission points at the facility to a

level less than that required by the rule. These emission credits can

then be used to offset emission debits created at those emission points

at the facility that are not controlled to the level required by the

rule. Under the EPA's emissions averaging policy, a facility owner or

operator must demonstrate that the overall emissions average determined

for the facility will not result in greater risk or hazard to human

health or the environment than would occur by complying with the rule

requirements at each individual emission point.

During the development of the proposed rule for the off-site waste

and recovery operations source category, the EPA considered including

an emissions averaging approach. However, the statutory requirements of

the CAA do not allow emissions averaging between different sources. As

explained in section II.D of this notice, the EPA is proposing the

source for the off-site waste and recovery operations NESHAP to be each

emission point type (e.g., each tank, container). Thus, using a

facility-wide emissions averaging approach (i.e., establishing a single

average organic HAP emission level for the entire facility) is not

appropriate for the off-site waste and recovery operations NESHAP.

Furthermore, independent of the definition of source that the EPA

selects for this rulemaking, the nature of day-to-day operations at

off-site waste and recovery operations facilities complicates and

discourages the application of an emissions averaging approach to this

NESHAP. At an off-site waste and recovery operations facility, wastes

or recoverable materials are often received from many different

generators. The quantities of materials received from these generators

can vary from very small amounts (e.g., a single 55-gallon drum of a

particular waste or recoverable material) to very large amounts (e.g.,

multiple truck or railcar loads of a single material type).

Consequently, the quantities of waste or recoverable material received

as well as the compositions and concentrations of organic HAP in these

materials are constantly changing over short periods of time (i.e.,

daily, weekly). On a given day an off-site waste and recovery

operations facility can receive wastes or recoverable materials from

one group of generators and the next day the facility can receive new

wastes or recoverable materials from a completely different group of

generators. Because of this operating mode, it is difficult to predict

the quantities and organic HAP characteristics of the waste or

recoverable materials that will be received at an off-site waste and

recovery operations facility over a future period of time. Thus,

operating the off-site waste and recovery operations facility so not to

exceed a specific overall average organic HAP emissions level would

require the owner or operator to rigorously monitor and regulate the

flow of wastes and recoverable materials into the facility throughout

the entire averaging period used to determine the specified average

emissions limit. This would require sampling each load of incoming

material, updating the emissions averaging calculations, and possibly

restricting quantities of waste or recoverable material with certain

organic HAP compositions that enter the facility during the remainder

of the averaging period to ensure the facility does not exceed the

specific average organic HAP emissions limit. The EPA believes this

would be a complex and resource intensive task for off-site waste and

recovery operations facility owners and operators to implement and for

regulatory agency personnel to monitor and enforce.

The EPA decided not to allow emissions averaging in the proposed

rule for the off-site waste and recovery operations source category

because such an approach is not appropriate for this source category.

The EPA requests comments on the feasibility of applying emissions

averaging to the off-site waste and recovery operations source category

and requests information and data that would be necessary to support

development and implementation of an emissions averaging approach.

VI. Rule Implementation

A. Effective Date for Compliance

In accordance with CAA section 112(i)(3), owners and operators of

existing sources would be required to comply with the requirements of

this NESHAP within 3 years after promulgation of the rule unless a

compliance extension is granted to a particular source. Owners and

operators of sources that begin operation on or after October 13, 1994

would be required to comply with all provisions of the NESHAP upon

startup.

B. Modifications and Reconstruction

Owners and operators of newly constructed or reconstructed off-site

waste and recovery operations must comply with the requirements

specified in the Part 63 general provisions (40 CFR 63.5). For modified

sources, the EPA has proposed guidance under the authority of CAA

section 112(g) (refer to 59 FR 15504, April 1, 1994). The EPA

anticipates that the final promulgated guidance will apply to off-site

waste and recovery operations.

C. Relationship to Title V Operating Permit Program

Under title V of the CAA, the EPA has established a program the

requires all owners and operators of HAP-emitting sources to obtain an

operating permit (57 FR 32251, July 21, 1992). The EPA's operating

permit program establishes a single document that includes all of the

requirements which pertain to a single source. Each permit will contain

federally enforceable conditions with which the source owner and

operator must comply. Under this program, all applicable requirements

of the off-site waste and recovery operations NESHAP would ultimately

be included in a source's title V operating permit.

State operating permit programs must be approved by the EPA. Once a

State's permit program has been approved, each off-site waste and

recovery operations facility within that State must apply for and

obtain an operating permit. If the State where the facility is located

does not have an approved permitting program, the owner or operator of

a facility must submit the application to the EPA Regional office in

accordance with the requirements of the Part 63 general provisions (40

CFR 63 subpart A).

VII. Administrative Requirements

A. Public Hearing

A public hearing will be held, if requested, to discuss the

proposed rule in accordance with CAA section 307(d)(5). Persons wishing

to make an oral presentation regarding the proposed off-site waste and

recovery operations NESHAP should contact the EPA contact person listed

in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section at the beginning of this

notice. Oral presentations will be limited to 15 minutes each. Any

member of the public may file a written statement before, during, or

within 30 days after the hearing. Written statements should be sent the

attention of Docket No. A-92-16 at EPA's Air and Radiation Docket and

Information Center (see ADDRESSES section of this notice).

A verbatim transcript of the hearing and written comments received

by the EPA regarding the proposed off-site waste and recovery

operations NESHAP will be placed in Docket No. A-92-16.

B. Docket

The docket is an organized and complete file of information

considered by the EPA in the development of a rulemaking. The docket

pertaining to the off-site waste and recovery operations NESHAP is

Docket No. A-92-16. This docket contains a copy of the regulatory text

of the proposed rule, the BID, and copies of all BID references and

other information related to the development of this proposed rule. The

public may review all materials in this docket at the EPA's Air and

Radiation Docket and Information Center (see the ADDRESSES section at

the beginning of this notice).

C. Executive Order 12866

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) imposes

procedural requirements on the development of significant regulatory

actions. The EPA must therefore determine whether a regulatory action

is significant. The Executive Order defines a significant regulatory

action as one that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of

$100 million or more, or adversely affect in a material way the

economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the

environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal

governments or communities; (2) create a serious inconsistency or

otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;

(3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,

users fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of

recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising

out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles

set forth in the Executive Order.

Pursuant to the terms of the Executive Order 12866, it has been

determined that this action will be treated as a ``significant

regulatory action'' within the meaning of the Executive Order. As such,

this action was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)

for review. Changes made in response to OMB suggestions or

recommendations are documented in the docket pertaining to the off-site

waste and recovery operations NESHAP rulemaking (Docket No. A-92-16).

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Section 605 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601

et seq.) requires Federal agencies to give special consideration to the

impacts of regulations on small entities, which are small businesses,

small organizations, and small governments. The major purpose of the

Regulatory Flexibility Act is to keep paperwork and regulatory

requirements from being out of proportion to the scale of the entities

being regulated, without compromising the objectives of, in this case,

the Clean Air Act.

A small business with establishments in Standard Industrial

Classification 4953, Refuse Systems, is defined by the Small Business

Administration as one receiving less than $6 million per year, averaged

over the most recent three fiscal years. A small organization is a not-

for-profit enterprise that is independently owned and operated and is

not dominant in the waste disposal industry. A small government is one

that serves a population of less than 50,000 people. The EPA may use

other definitions, but elects to use these. The EPA believes that small

organizations and small governments have at most a very minor

involvement with the types of off-site waste and recovery operations

subject to this rulemaking, and therefore would not be significantly

affected by the off-site waste and recovery operations NESHAP. Hence,

the EPA has concentrated its attention on small businesses.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act specifies that Federal agencies must

prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis if a proposed

regulatory action would have a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities. The data bases available to the

EPA reflect the state of the hazardous waste TSDF industry in 1986, and

provide limited basis for updating the economic factors. Furthermore,

the EPA does not have reliable projections of construction of new

facilities with off-site waste and recovery operations that would be

subject to the proposed rule. The EPA therefore assumes the proposed

rule may have a significant impact on a substantial number of small

businesses, and has conducted a regulatory flexibility analysis. This

analysis is part of the economic impact analysis (titled Economic

Impact Analysis of Proposed National Emission Standards for Hazardous

Air Pollutants: Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations) prepared for

the rulemaking and available in the docket (Docket No. A-92-16).

Even though many off-site waste and recovery operations facilities

are expected to be area sources and would not be subject to the

proposed NESHAP, the EPA assumed for the regulatory flexibility

analysis that all facilities listed in the data base are colocated at

major sources. Also, the analysis did not exclude those off-site waste

and recovery operations facilities that would not be subject to the

NESHAP under the proposed applicability exemption for facilities at

which the total annual organic HAP mass content of all wastes and

recoverable materials subject to the rule entering the facility is less

than 1 Mg/yr. From its data base, the EPA has identified 110 small

businesses that own 112 affected facilities. About 90 of these small

businesses would incur compliance costs associated with using air

emission control equipment. For about one-third of the 90 businesses,

the annual compliance costs would exceed 5 percent of normal production

or waste treatment costs. For the median small business, the same costs

come to less than 0.4 percent of sales `` compared with about 0.01

percent for the median large business. Excluding the costs of

monitoring and recordkeeping costs, the capital costs would exceed the

retained earnings breakpoints (the maximum amount of new capital a

business can raise without issuing new stock and without changing its

existing capital structure) of about 40 percent of the 90 small

businesses. Only about 30 percent of large businesses would have

capital costs of compliance exceeding their breakpoints.

Finally, the EPA evaluated the possibility that the proposed rule

might cause a small business to close. Although the rule may cause

specific waste treatment processes to be shut down at many off-site

waste and recovery operations facilities, only about 10 facilities are

projected to close outright. Of these, the EPA can single out only

three small businesses, each of which has only one facility. Limiting

the analysis, to the extent possible with the information available in

the data base, to only those facilities which are major sources and

would not qualify for the 1 Mg of HAP applicability exemption does not

change this number of potential closures.

Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the

Administrator certifies that this rule may have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small entities.

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection requirements for the proposed NESHAP

have been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An

Information Collection Request (ICR) document has been prepared by the

EPA (ICR No. 1717.01), and a copy may be obtained from Sandy Farmer,

Information Policy Branch (2136), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460, or by calling (202) 260-2740.

The public recordkeeping and reporting burden for this collection

of information is estimated to average 1,200 hours per respondent the

first year following promulgation of the rule. Thereafter, the

recordkeeping and reporting burden is estimated to average 700 hours

per respondent. These estimates include time for reviewing

instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and

maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the

collection of information.

Send comments regarding the recordkeeping and reporting burden

estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information,

including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Chief, Information

Policy Branch (2136), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M

Street, S.W.; Washington, DC 20460; and to the Office of Information

and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC

20503, marked ``Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.'' The final rule will

respond to any OMB or public comments on the information collection

requirements contained in this proposal.

F. Review

The off-site waste and recovery operations NESHAP would be

reviewed 8 years from the date of promulgation. This review would

include an assessment of such factors as evaluation of the residual

health risks, any duplication with other air programs, the existence of

alternative methods, enforceability, improvements in air emission

control technology and health data, and the recordkeeping and reporting

requirements.

VIII. Statutory Authority

The statutory authority for this proposal is provided by section

101, 112, 114, 116, and 301 of the Clean Air Act, as amended; 42.

U.S.C., 7401, 7412, 7414, 7416, and 7601.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Containers,

Hazardous air pollutants, Off-site waste and recovery operations, Land

disposal units, Process vents, Recoverable materials, Tanks, Surface

impoundments, Waste.

Dated: September 30, 1994.

Carol M. Browner,

The Administrator.

[FR Doc. 94-25064 Filed 10-12-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P