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

SUMMARY: This action promulgates National Emission Standards for

Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) under the authority of Section 112 of

the Clean Air Act for off-site waste and recovery operations that emit

hazardous air pollutants (HAP). The NESHAP applies to specific types of

facilities that are determined to be major sources of HAP emissions and

receive certain wastes, used oil, and used solvents from off-site

locations for storage, treatment, recovery, or disposal at the

facility. The rule requires use of maximum achievable control

technology (MACT) to reduce HAP emissions from tanks, surface

impoundments, containers, oil-water separators, individual drain

systems and other material conveyance systems, process vents, and

equipment leaks.

The final rule is estimated to reduce HAP emissions from the source

category by approximately 82 percent or 43,000 megagrams per year

(47,000 tons per year). In addition, application of MACT required by

this rule will achieve similar levels of reduction in volatile organic

compounds (VOC) emissions from the source category. The human health

effects associated with exposure to the HAP emissions can range from

mild to severe and may include reduction of lung function, respiratory

irritation, and neurotoxic effects. Similarly, emissions of VOC are

associated with a variety of adverse health and welfare impacts.

The HAP and VOC emissions reductions achieved by implementing this

rule in combination with similar rules will achieve the primary Clean

Air Act goal to ``enhance the quality of the Nation's air resources so

as to promote the public health and welfare and productive capacity of

its population.'' The intent of this final rule is to protect public

health by requiring the maximum degree of reduction of HAP emissions

from new and existing sources, taking into consideration the cost of

achieving such emission reduction; any non air quality, health, and

environmental impacts; and energy requirements.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 1, 1996. See the Supplementary Information section

concerning judicial review.

ADDRESSES: Docket. The docket for this rulemaking containing the

information considered by the EPA in development of the final rule is

Docket No. A-92-16. This docket is available for public inspection

between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday except for

Federal holidays, at the following address: U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (MC-

6102), 401 M Street SW, Washington, D.C. 20460; telephone: (202) 260-

7548. The docket is located at the above address in Room M-1500,

Waterside Mall (ground floor). A reasonable fee may be charged for

copying.

Basis and Support Document. A basis and support document, titled

``National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, Off-Site

Waste and Recovery Operations--Basis and Support for Final Standards,''

has been prepared summarizing the significant public comments made on

the proposed rule and the Administrator's response to those comments.

This document is available in the docket for this rulemaking, and also

is available for downloading from the Technology Transfer Network (see

below) under the Clean Air Act Amendments, Recently Signed Rules.

Technology Transfer Network. The Technology Transfer Network is one

of the EPA's electronic bulletin boards. The Technology Transfer

Network provides information and technology exchange in various areas

of air pollution control. The service is free except for the cost of a

phone call. Dial (919) 541-5472 for up to a 14,400 bps modem. If more

information on the Technology Transfer Network is needed call the HELP

line at (919) 541-5384.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning

applicability and rule determinations, contact the appropriate regional

representative:

Region I: Greg Rosco, Air Programs Compliance Branch Chief, U.S. EPA,

Region I, ASO, JFK Federal Building, Boston, MA 02203, (617) 565-3221

Region II: Kenneth Eng, Air Compliance Branch Chief, U.S. EPA, Region

II, 290 Broadway, New York, NY 10007-1866, (212) 637-4000

Region III: Bernard Turlinski, Air Enforcement Branch Chief, U.S. EPA,

Region III, 3AT10, 841 Chestnut Building, Philadelphia, PA 19107, (215)

597-3989

Region IV: Jewell A. Harper, Air Enforcement Branch, U.S. EPA, Region

IV, 345 Courtland Street, N.E., Atlanta, GA 30365, (404) 347-2904

Region V: George T. Czerniak, Jr., Air Enforcement Branch Chief, U.S.

EPA, Region V, 5AE-26, 77 West Jackson Street, Chicago, IL 60604, (312)

353-2088

Region VI: John R. Hepola, Air Enforcement Branch Chief, U.S. EPA,

Region VI, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, TX 75202-2733, (214)

655-7220

Region VII: Royan Teeter, Air Planning and Development Branch, U.S.

EPA, Region VII, 726 Minnesota Avenue, Kansas City, KS 66101, (913)

551-7609

Region VIII: Douglas M. Skie, Air and Technical Operations Branch

Chief, U.S. EPA, Region VIII, 999 18th Street, Suite 500, Denver, CO

80202-2466, (303) 312-6432

Region IX: Colleen W. McKaughan, Air Compliance Branch Chief, U.S. EPA,

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA, (415) 744-1198

Region X: Chris Hall, Air and Radiation Branch, U.S. EPA, Region X,

OAQ-107, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101, (206) 553-1949

For information concerning the analyses performed in developing

this rule, contact Ms. Michele Aston, Waste and Chemical Processes

Group, Emission Standards Division (MD-13), U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, 27711,

telephone number (919) 541-2363.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulated Entities

Entities potentially regulated by this action include the following

types of facilities if the facility receives off-site material, as

defined in the rule, and the facility is determined to be a major

source of HAP emissions as defined in 40 CFR 63.2.

[[Page 34141]]

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

Category Examples of regulated entities

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

Industry............................... Businesses that operate any of the following: hazardous waste

treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSDF); RCRA exempt

hazardous wastewater treatment facilities; nonhazardous wastewater

treatment facilities other than publicly-owned treatment works; used

solvent recovery plants; RCRA exempt hazardous waste recycling

operations; used oil re-refineries.

Federal Government..................... Federal agency facilities that operate any of the waste management or

recovery operations that meet the description of the entities listed

under the ``Industry'' category in this table.

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

This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a

guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this

action. This table lists the types of entities that the EPA is now

aware could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of

entities not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine

whether your facility is regulated by the action, you should carefully

examine the applicability criteria in Sec. 63.680 of the rule. If you

have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a

particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Judicial Review

The NESHAP for off-site waste and recovery operations was proposed

in the Federal Register on October 13, 1994 (59 FR 51913). This Federal

Register action announces the EPA's final decisions on the rule. Under

section 307(b)(1) of the Act, judicial review of the NESHAP is

available only by the petition for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals

for the District of Columbia Circuit within 60 days of today's

publication of this final rule. Under section 307(b)(2) of the Act, the

requirements that are the subject of today's notice may not be

challenged later in civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to

enforce these requirements.

The following outline is provided to aid in reading this preamble

to the final rule.

I. Background

A. Section 112 Statutory Requirements

B. Listing of Source Category

C. Public Participation in Rule Development

D. Relationship of Rule to Other EPA Regulatory Actions

II. Basis and Purpose

A. Purpose of Regulation

B. Source Category Description

C. Definition of Affected Sources

D. MACT Floor Determination

E. Format of Standards

F. Unit-Specific Subparts

G. Alternative Test Validation Method

III. Summary of Impacts

IV. Summary of Responses to Major Comments

V. Summary of Changes Since Proposal

VI. Administrative Requirements

A. Docket

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

C. Executive Order 12866

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act

E. Unfunded Mandates

F. Review

VII. Statutory Authority

I. Background

A. Section 112 Statutory Requirements

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

of hazardous air pollutants (HAP). This section of the Act was

comprehensively amended under Title III of the 1990 Amendments to the

Clean Air Act (1990 Amendments). In the 1990 Amendments, Congress

listed 189 chemicals, compounds, or groups of chemicals as HAP. The EPA

is directed by the 1990 Amendments to regulate the emission of these

HAP from stationary sources by establishing national emission standards

(i.e., National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants or

NESHAP).

Each NESHAP for a specific source category is technology-based and

is developed based on application of Maximum Achievable Control

Technology (MACT). Section 112(d)(2) of the 1990 Amendments defines

MACT as ``* * * the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of the HAP

* * * that the Administrator, taking into consideration the cost of

achieving such emission reduction, and any nonair quality health and

environmental impacts and energy requirements, determines is achievable

for new or existing sources in the category or subcategory to which

such emission standard applies * * *.''

B. Listing of Source Category

Section 112(c) of the 1990 Amendments required the EPA to develop

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

will be developed. This list is required under Section 112 to include

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

``major source'' is defined by the Act 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 published its initial list of HAP emission source

categories in the Federal Register on July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576). On

this list, the EPA included one source category which the Agency

intended to represent those waste management and recovery operations

that would not be subject to air standards under other listed NESHAP

source categories. This source category was titled on the initial list

as ``solid waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities.'' After

publication of the initial source category list, the EPA decided that

it was appropriate to change the title of the NESHAP source category to

better reflect the types of operations for which the EPA intended to

establish air standards under a NESHAP for the source category.

Therefore at proposal, the EPA changed the title of the source category

subject to ``off-site waste and recovery operations'' (see 59 FR 51918,

October 13, 1994).

For the purpose of developing the rules for this source category,

the term ``off-site'' is used in the context that the source category

represents those waste management and recovery operations which receive

material delivered, transferred, or otherwise moved to the plant or

facility where the operation is located from a separate site. In other

words, the material placed in the waste management or recovery

operation is not produced or generated at the same site where the

operation is located.

C. Summary of Public Participation in Rule Development

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

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

owners and operators of the potentially affected waste management and

recovery operations and the general public of the planned scope of this

NESHAP rulemaking. In the ANPR, the EPA requested information that

would aid the Agency in the development of the rule. 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 comments

received by the EPA were

[[Page 34142]]

considered in developing the proposed rule.

The EPA proposed the Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP

on October 13, 1994 (refer to 59 FR 51913). A proposed regulatory text

for the rule and the background information document (BID) (EPA-453/R-

94-070a) that presented information used in the development of the

proposed rule was made available to the public for review and comment.

A 90-day comment period from October 13, 1994 to January 11, 1995 (an

initial 60 days plus a 30-day extension) was provided to accept written

comments from the public on the proposed rule. The opportunity for a

public hearing was provided to allow interested persons to present oral

comments to the EPA on the rulemaking. However, the EPA did not receive

a request for a public hearing, so a public hearing was not held.

A total of 89 comment letters regarding the proposed Off-Site Waste

and Recovery Operations NESHAP were received by the EPA. A copy of each

comment letter is available for public inspection in the docket for the

rulemaking (Docket No. A-92-16; see the ADDRESSES section of this

notice for information on inspecting the docket). The EPA received 70

letters containing specific comments on the proposed Off-Site Waste and

Recovery Operations NESHAP. The other 19 letters were regarding

extension of the public comment period and requests for copies of the

regulatory text. The EPA has had extensive follow-up discussions with

various commenters regarding specific issues initially raised in their

written comments that were submitted to the Agency during the comment

period. Copies of correspondence and other information exchanged

between the EPA and the commenters during the post-comment period are

available for public inspection in the docket for the rulemaking.

All of the comments received by the EPA were reviewed and carefully

considered by the Agency. Changes to the rule were made when the EPA

determined it to be appropriate. A summary of the EPA's responses to

selected major comments on the proposed rule is presented in Section IV

of this notice. Additional responses to comments are presented in the

basis and support document described in the ADDRESSES section of this

notice.

D. Relationship of Rule to Other EPA Regulatory Actions

1. Clean Air Act

Owners and operators of sites at which are located waste management

and recovery operations that are subject to Off-Site Waste and Recovery

Operations NESHAP may also be subject to another NESHAP because of

other operations conducted at the site. For example, a waste management

or recovery operation receiving materials from off-site may be located

at a synthetic organic chemical manufacturing plant that is subject to

40 CFR 63 subparts F, G, and H--National Emission Standards for Organic

Hazardous Air Pollutants from the Synthetic Organic Chemical

Manufacturing Industry (referred to hereafter in this notice as the

``HON'') or at a petroleum refinery that is subject to 40 CFR 63

subpart CC--National Emission Standards for Organic Hazardous Air

Pollutants from Petroleum Refineries. At plants subject to both the

Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP and another NESHAP, the

Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP applies only to those

specific waste management or recovery operations listed in the rule

that receive off-site material. The Off-Site Waste and Recovery

Operations NESHAP does not apply to other units or equipment components

at the site that are not part of the waste management and recovery

operations specified in the rule.

Some NESHAP already regulate air emissions from the off-site

management of certain wastes containing HAP. To avoid duplication of

requirements in these cases, the Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations

NESHAP does not apply to waste management units that either receive

waste from units complying with all applicable regulations under the

HON, or receive waste from units complying with all applicable

requirements specified by Sec. 61.342(b) under 40 CFR 61 subpart FF--

National Emission Standards for Benzene Waste Operations for a plant at

which the total annual benzene quantity is greater than or equal to 10

Mg/yr.

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 in 40

CFR parts 260 through 271 regulating the management of solid wastes

determined to be hazardous waste. Municipal solid wastes and other

types of nonhazardous solid wastes are regulated by rules established

under authority of subtitle D of RCRA in 40 CFR Parts 257 and 258.

The Clean Air Act requires that the requirements of rules developed

under the Act be consistent, but avoid duplication, with requirements

of rules developed under RCRA. The final Off-Site Waste and Recovery

Operations NESHAP includes several provisions to ensure that this

directive of the Act is met. First, certain types of wastes regulated

under RCRA are excluded outright from the definition of ``off-site

material'' used to determine the applicability of the Off-Site Waste

and Recovery Operation NESHAP. These wastes include household waste as

defined in 40 CFR 258.2; waste that is generated by remedial activities

required under the RCRA corrective action authorities (RCRA section

3004(u), 3004(v), or 3008(h)), CERCLA authorities, or similar Federal

or State authorities; and radioactive mixed waste.

The EPA also is fully aware that at some sites managing hazardous

wastes not generated onsite, the owner and operator of a hazardous

waste treatment, storage, and disposal facility (TSDF) could be subject

to both the Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP and RCRA air

rules under subparts AA, BB, and CC of 40 CFR parts 264 and 265. At a

particular TSDF, some waste management units may be required to use air

emission controls under one or the other, but not both, the Off-Site

Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP and the RCRA rules. However, some

other waste management units could be subject to using air emission

controls to comply with both sets of rules. It is unnecessary for

owners and operators of those waste management units subject to air

standards under both sets of rules to perform duplicative testing and

monitoring, keep duplicate sets of records, or perform other

duplicative actions. The EPA has decided that the best way to eliminate

any regulatory overlap is to amend the RCRA rules to exempt units that

are using air emission controls in accordance with the requirements of

Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP or any other applicable

NESHAP. The EPA therefore plans to amend the RCRA rules this summer and

expects that these revisions will be finalized prior to the effective

dates of both rules.

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

[[Page 34143]]

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 treatment

to remove HAP (e.g., treatment of waste prior to its disposal). The

off-site waste and recovery operations source category consists only of

operations used to manage certain 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 HAP contained in

materials or to recycle the materials back to the process which can be

implemented once the material arrives at a site at which waste

management and recovery operations subject to the NESHAP are located.

The EPA has incorporated the pollution prevention policy into the

NESHAP by requiring off-site materials be treated to remove or destroy

HAP prior to management in units open directly to the environment.

Thus, to the extent possible, pollution prevention has been considered

in the development of this rulemaking. The Off-Site Waste and Recovery

Operations NESHAP is consistent with the pollution prevention policy.

II. Basis and Purpose

A. Purpose of Regulation

The Clean Air Act was created in part ``to protect and enhance the

quality of the Nation's air resources so as to promote the public

health and welfare and the productive capacity of its population'' [Act

section 101(b)(1)]. Title III of the 1990 Amendments establishes a

control technology-based program to reduce stationary source emissions

of HAP. The goal of section 112(d) of the 1990 Amendments is to apply

such control technology to reduce emissions and thereby reduce the

hazard of the HAP emitted from stationary sources.

This final rule is technology-based (i.e., based on application of

MACT to off-site waste and recovery operations). The Clean Air Act

strategy avoids the dependence on a risk-based approach which would be

limited by incomplete information on what HAP are emitted, what level

of emissions is occurring, what health and safety benchmarks are

available to assess risk, what health effects may be caused by certain

pollutants and how best to model these effects, among other things.

Because of these issues a quantitative risk assessment of the potential

effects from the HAP emitted from off-site waste and recovery

operations is not included in this rulemaking.

The EPA does recognize that the degree of adverse effects to health

can range from mild to severe. The extent and degree to which the

health effects may be experienced is dependent upon: (1) The ambient

concentrations observed in the area; (2) duration of exposures; and (3)

characteristics of exposed individuals (e.g., genetics, age,

preexisting health conditions, and lifestyle) which vary significantly

with the population. Some of these factors are also influenced by

source-specific characteristics (e.g., emission rates and local

meteorological conditions) as well as pollutant specific

characteristics such as toxicity.

On a nationwide basis, the off-site waste and recovery operations

at the facilities regulated by this rule emit significant quantities of

organic HAP. Implementation of Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations

NESHAP will result in substantial reductions of these organic HAP

emissions to the atmosphere. The final Off-Site Waste and Recovery

Operations NESHAP will require control of material streams containing 1

or more of 98 specified compounds listed in Table 1 of the rule. This

table is subset of the 189 HAP compounds listed in the Clean Air Act.

Following is a summary of the potential health and environmental

effects associated with exposures, at some level, to the emitted

pollutants that would be reduced by this NESHAP.

The range of potential human health effects associated with

exposure to organic HAP include cancer, aplastic anemia, pulmonary

(lung) structural changes, dyspnea (difficulty in breathing), upper

respiratory tract irritation with cough, conjunctivitis, and neurotoxic

effects (e.g., visual blurring, tremors, delirium, unconsciousness,

coma, convulsions). The EPA estimates that implementation of the Off-

Site Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP will reduce nationwide

organic HAP emissions by approximately 43,000 megagrams per year (Mg/

yr). Thus, this rule has the potential for providing both cancer and

noncancer related health benefits.

By requiring facilities to reduce organic HAP emitted from off-site

waste and recovery operations, today's rule will also reduce emissions

of volatile organic compounds (VOC). Many VOC react photochemically

with nitrogen oxides in the atmosphere to form tropospheric ozone. A

number of factors affect the degree to which VOC emission reductions

will reduce ambient ozone concentrations.

Human laboratory and community studies have shown that exposure to

tropospheric ozone levels that exceed the National Ambient Air Quality

Standards (NAAQS) can result in various adverse health impacts such as

alterations in lung capacity; eye, nose, and throat irritation; and

aggravation of existing respiratory disease. Animal studies have shown

increased susceptibility to respiratory infection and lung structure

changes.

Among the welfare impacts from exposure to tropospheric ozone

levels that exceed the ozone NAAQS are damage to selected commercial

timber species and economic losses for commercially valuable crops such

as soybeans and cotton. Studies have shown that exposure to ozone can

disrupt carbohydrate production and distribution in plants. The

reduction in carbohydrate production and allocation can lead to reduced

root growth, reduced biomass or yield, reduced plant vigor (which can

cause increased susceptibility to attack from insects and disease and

damage from cold) and diminished ability to successfully compete with

more tolerant species. These effects have been observed in native

vegetation in natural ecosystems as well as for selected number of

commercial trees and agricultural crops that have been studied.

Although the final Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP

does not specifically require control of VOC emissions, the organic

emission control technologies upon which the final rule is based also

significantly reduce VOC emissions from the source category. The EPA

conservatively estimates that implementation of the Off-Site Waste and

Recovery Operations NESHAP will reduce nationwide VOC emissions from

the source category by 52,000 Mg/yr. Therefore, it is anticipated that

additional health and welfare benefits will be associated with this

reduction in VOC emissions.

B. Source Category Description

The final Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP only

applies to certain waste management and recovery operations at those

sites determined to ``major sources'' as defined in section 112(a)(1)

of the 1990 Amendments. This means those plants or facilities where the

stationary sources located within a contiguous area and under common

control emit or have the potential to emit, considering controls, in

total 10 ton/yr or more of any single HAP or 25 ton/yr or more of any

combination of

[[Page 34144]]

HAP. Waste management and recovery operations receiving materials from

off-site that are located at plants or facilities which are area

sources are not being regulated at this time. These area sources could

be considered at a future date by the EPA for regulation as part of the

area source strategy authorized under section 112(k) of the Act.

At proposal, the EPA identified the types of waste management and

recovery operations the Agency was considering for inclusion in the

off-site waste and recovery operations source category. In response to

public comments on the proposed rule and considering decisions made by

the Agency since proposal regarding other related rulemakings, the EPA

has reconsidered the types of waste management and recovery operations

to be regulated under the Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations

NESHAP. The EPA reviewed information used for the source category

impact analysis at proposal and evaluated new information provided to

the Agency since proposal by commenters. As a result of this review,

the EPA decided that the final Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations

NESHAP should not apply to owners and operators of certain operations

originally considered to be in the scope of the rulemaking. The

rationale for including or excluding specific waste management or

recovery operations in the final rule applicability is presented below.

Facilities where operations are conducted to treat, store, and

dispose of wastes determined to be hazardous wastes under RCRA may be

subject to organic air emission standards under 40 CFR parts 264 and

265. At these facilities, referred to under the RCRA rules as a

hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facility (TSDF), a

RCRA hazardous waste may be generated at 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. At TSDF where RCRA hazardous waste is received

from off-site, certain types of waste management units such as

wastewater treatment tanks and hazardous waste recycling units can be

exempted from the air standards specified in 40 CFR parts 264 and 265.

Many (but not all) TSDF are expected by the EPA to be located at sites

that are major sources of HAP emissions. Therefore, the EPA decided

that the final Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP be

applicable to hazardous waste TSDF as well as to sites where waste or

recovery operations managing hazardous waste are performed and the

entire operation is exempted under RCRA from the air standards in

subparts AA, BB, and CC under 40 CFR parts 264 and 265.

Wastewater treatment facilities are operated by public entities and

private companies throughout the United States for the treatment of

wastewaters other than those that are RCRA hazardous wastewaters.

Publicly owned treatment works (POTW) are not included in the off-site

waste operations source category because POTW are listed as a separate

NESHAP source category. A review of nationwide survey data by the EPA

indicates that privately-owned wastewater treatment plants are operated

at some locations in the United States for which the predominate

function performed at the site is to treat wastewaters received from

off-site. Although a wastewater may not be a RCRA hazardous waste, this

wastewater can still contain significant quantities of HAP. The EPA

concluded this group of wastewater treatment plants would not be

subject to other NESHAP and would likely include some individual

facilities that are major sources of HAP emissions.

Used oils from motor vehicles and other sources can contain HAP.

While the management of used oils which are recycled is regulated by

separate rules promulgated by the EPA under section 3014 of RCRA, these

RCRA rules do not specifically establish air standards for used oil

management operations. A major portion of the used oil is processed for

sale as fuel for burning in boilers, furnaces, and space heaters. 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. The EPA determined that

some used oil re-refining facilities are likely to be major sources of

HAP emissions. Consequently, the EPA decided that the final Off-Site

Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP apply to operations that reprocess

or re-refine used oil and are subject to regulation under 40 CFR 279

subpart F-Standards for Used Oil Processors and Refiners.

Another recovery operation analogous to used oil re-refining

operations is solvent recovery operations. Organic solvents are used in

many types of businesses to clean oils, grease, dirt, or other foreign

matter from mechanical parts and like items. These used organic

solvents are often collected and reprocessed by a company for re-sale

as a product or for use by another company as a process feedstock. The

EPA expects that some solvent recovery operations could be major

sources of HAP emissions. Therefore, the EPA decided that the final

Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP be applicable to

operations that reprocess or re-refine used solvents except in

situations where the operation is not part of a chemical, petroleum, or

other manufacturing process that is required to use air emission

controls by another subpart of 40 CFR part 63.

Many landfill facilities operated in the United States are used for

disposal of waste received from off-site. Municipal solid waste (MSW)

landfills are not included in the off-site waste and recovery

operations source category because these facilities are listed as a

separate NESHAP source category. However, other landfill facilities

operate in the United States which are not MSW landfills and accept

only nonhazardous wastes. It is the EPA's understanding that landfills

used for disposal of construction/demolition debris do not accept

wastes containing significant amounts of organic HAP. One commeter

submitted to the EPA additional information regarding operations, waste

characterizations, and HAP emission estimates from industrial waste

landfills. The potential for some industrial waste landfills to be a

major source is possible due to special circumstances (e.g., accepting

predominately soils contaminated with organics). However, under current

operating practices, the EPA concluded that it is unlikely that any of

the existing industrial waste landfills nationwide is a major source of

HAP emissions. Therefore, the EPA decided that the final Off-Site Waste

and Recovery Operations NESHAP not be applicable to any landfill

facilities.

Some wastes generated during oil and gas exploration and production

(E&P) are subsequently transferred to operations at other locations for

centralized treatment or disposal. At proposal, the EPA identified

these centralized treatment and disposal operations as waste management

operations that would be subject to the Off-Site Waste and Recovery

Operations NESHAP. Additional information was received by the EPA from

commenters on the proposed rule regarding the nature of E&P operations

as presently practiced in oil and gas production fields. Upon further

consideration, the EPA decided it is not necessary to include E&P waste

operations under the final Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations

NESHAP. Instead, the EPA is planning to address these sources under the

Oil and Gas Production NESHAP currently being developed by the Agency.

[[Page 34145]]

C. Definition of Affected Source

For the purpose of implementing NESHAP under 40 CFR Part 63,

``affected source'' is defined to mean the stationary source, or

portion of a stationary source that is regulated by a relevant standard

or other requirement established pursuant to section 112 of the Act.

Each relevant standard is to designate the ``affected source'' for the

purposes of that standard. Within a source category, the EPA decides

which HAP emission sources (i.e., emission points or groupings of

emission points) are most appropriate for establishing separate

emission standards in the context of the Clean Air Act statutory

requirements and the industry operating practices for the particular

source category.

At proposal, the EPA considered different options for defining

``affected source'' for the Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations

NESHAP ranging from using a broad definition (e.g., the entire plant or

facility site) to narrow definitions (e.g., individual emission points)

(59 FR 51923). The EPA proposed using the narrowest definition of

affected source for the Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP

by defining the affected sources to be each of the individual emission

point types identified for the rule (e.g., each individual tank). The

EPA received comments that its proposed designation of affected source

for the Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP was too

restrictive and would complicate an owner's or operator's determination

of when reconstruction of a source has occurred triggering the

requirement to comply with the standards for new sources. Upon

consideration of these comments, the EPA decided that using a broader

definition is a more appropriate approach for defining the affected

sources for the Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP.

Designating the affected source for the Off-Site Waste and Recovery

Operations NESHAP as the entire plant site was rejected by the EPA.

This approach would allow the MACT floor to be established by the

plant-wide emission reduction indicative of the level that is achieved

by the best performing 12 percent of the existing sources. Application

of a single MACT floor to all of the emission points located at the

plant site and selected for control under the Off-Site Waste and

Recovery Operations NESHAP would be difficult, if not technically

infeasible, for several reasons. First, the EPA's data base for the

off-site waste and recovery operations NESHAP lacks sufficient data

regarding the type of information required to implement this approach

for the source category. Also, the mechanism by which organic HAP are

emitted to the atmosphere and the types of controls relevant for

reducing these air emissions is not the same for all of the emission

point types identified for off-site waste and recovery operation source

category. 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 waste

management and recovery operations at a particular plant site may be

subject to this rulemaking because they are not used to manage off-site

material, as defined in the rule.

A second approach is to designate several different affected

sources by grouping the similar emission points for each waste

management and recovery operation used at the plant site to manage off-

site materials. Under this approach, each affected source consists of

the group of similar emission point types for the entire sequence of

units or equipment components in which a particular off-site material

is managed at the site. An example of such a group of emission points

is the collection of tanks, containers, surface impoundments, and

similar units that are used at a site to manage a waste from the point

where the waste is received at the site to the point where the material

enters an on-site disposal unit not regulated under this rule (e.g.,

waste incinerator, landfill unit). An individual MACT floor is

established for the entire group of emission points comprising each

designated affected source.

This second approach offers several advantages for implementing the

Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP. Designating the affected

source to be a group of similar emission point types ensures that air

emission controls of equivalent performance are applied at the same

time to all of the units used to manage a particular off-site material

stream. In contrast, had the EPA maintained the proposed designation

for the affected sources (i.e., each individual emission point),

situations could have occurred where an owner or operator was required

to use controls on a new tank (or other newly installed unit)

downstream of existing tanks managing the same off-site material but

not required to use air emission controls under the rule. This would be

an inefficient application of air emission controls since a significant

portion of the HAP contained in the off-site material likely would have

escaped to the atmosphere before the material entered the controlled

unit. The approach also provides a logical grouping of equipment by

which an owner or operator readily can determine when reconstruction of

the affected source triggers the air emission control requirements

under the rule for new sources. Therefore, for the final off-site waste

and recovery operations NESHAP, the EPA decided to designate the

affected sources by three distinct groups of the emission point types

for the waste management and recovery operation subject to using air

emission controls under the rule.

The first group of similar emission points designated to be an

affected source for the Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP

is the group of tanks, containers, surface impoundments, oil-water and

organic-water separators, individual drain systems and other stationary

material conveyance systems used to manage off-site material in each of

the waste management and recovery operations specified in the rule that

are located at the plant site. The units regulated under this affected

source designation are collectively referred to hereafter in this

notice as ``off-site material management units.''

The second the group of similar emission points designated to be an

affected source for the Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP

is process vents on units used to manage off-site material in each of

the waste management and recovery operations specified in the rule that

are located at the plant site. As defined for the rule, a process vent

is an open-ended pipe, stack, or duct used for passage of gases,

vapors, or fumes to the atmosphere and this passage is caused by

mechanical means (such as compressors or vacuum-producing systems) or

by process-related means (such as volatilization produced by heating).

A stack or duct used to exhaust combustion products from an enclosed

combustion unit (e.g., boiler, furnace, heater, incinerator) is not a

process vent for this rulemaking.

The third group of similar emission points designated to be an

affected source for the Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP

is the group of equipment components prone to emitting HAP as a result

of equipment leaks. This group of equipment consists of pumps,

compressors, agitators, pressure relief devices, sampling connection

systems, open-ended valves and lines, valves, connectors, and

instrumentation systems that contain or contact off-site material in

each of the waste management and recovery operations specified in the

rule that are located at the plant site.

[[Page 34146]]

D. MACT Floor Determination

Specific statutory directives set out in section 112 of the 1990

Amendments require the EPA to establish standards under a NESHAP to

reflect application of maximum achievable control technology (MACT). A

statutory minimum or baseline level of HAP emission control that the

EPA can select to be MACT for a particular source category is defined

under section 112(d)(3) of the 1990 Amendments, and is referred to 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.

The off-site waste and recovery operations source category contains

more than 30 existing sources nationwide. 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.

1. MACT Floor for Existing Sources

a. Off-site Material Management Units. As discussed in Section II.C

of this notice, the EPA has revised the affected source designation for

the off-site material management units at a plant site subject to the

Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP. For the final rule, the

designated affected source is the group of off-site material management

units (e.g., tanks, surface impoundments, containers, oil-water and

organic-water separators, individual drain systems and other stationary

transfer systems) in each of the waste management and recovery

operations specified in the rule that are located at the plant site.

Because the MACT floor determination for these off-site material

management units used at proposal was based on the application of the

floor to individual units rather than the group of units, the EPA

reconsidered the MACT floor determination following revision of the

affected source designation for the rule.

The EPA reviewed site-specific information in the source category

data base regarding existing air emission control practices for off-

site material management units. In addition, the EPA considered the air

emission controls that off-site material management units could be

required to use by new air rules promulgated since the Off-Site Waste

and Recovery Operations NESHAP was proposed (e.g., air rules for

hazardous waste tanks, surface impoundments, and containers in subpart

CC under 40 CFR parts 264 and 265).

Based on the EPA's review of the air emission control information

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

category, the Agency concluded that most groups of off-site material

management units (significantly more than 12 percent) manage off-site

material, at a minimum, in covered units. A portion of these off-site

material management units use more effective air emission controls such

as venting the covered unit to a control device. However, based on the

information available to Agency, the EPA cannot definitively determine

whether the higher level of air emission control achieved by that

portion of units using controls in addition to covers is representative

of the average of the top 12 percent of all existing off-site material

management units. Thus, the EPA decided to establish the MACT floor

control technology for the existing off-site material managements as

use of a cover.

For other source categories, the EPA has established whether a

particular unit warrants the use of air emission controls under rules

for the source category on the basis of a characteristic parameter for

the materials placed in the unit (e.g., vapor pressure or organic

concentration). The EPA believes that using this approach provides an

effective and enforceable means for identifying the units that warrant

air emission controls while excluding those units for which

installation of controls is unnecessary because the units have no or

little potential for HAP emissions. Consequently, to complete the

definition of the MACT floor for this affected source, an applicability

cutoff provision (referred to hereafter in this notice as an ``action

level'') is needed to identify which off-site material management units

use the selected air emission controls.

Establishing an action level required first selecting an

appropriate format for the action level that allows the value to be

relatively simple to be determined by an owner or operator and

expeditiously checked by EPA or State enforcement personnel. For the

proposed rule, the EPA evaluated several possible action level formats

and decided that an action level based on the volatile organic HAP

concentration (VOHAP) of the off-site materials is appropriate for

identifying those units which emit HAP and warrant the application of

air emission controls.

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 off-site material management

units currently using air emission controls. From a qualitative

perspective, application of air emission controls under the Off-Site

Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP is not needed when a material

managed in an uncontrolled unit has little or no potential for HAP

emissions. In general, these off-site materials can be characterized as

materials having low VOHAP concentrations.

The EPA considered a range of possible values to establish the

VOHAP concentration limit for the Off-Site Waste and Recovery

Operations NESHAP. The EPA proposed a VOHAP concentration value of 100

ppmw to be used as the action level for the rule. However, in proposing

this value, the EPA acknowledged that some off-site material management

units subject to the Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP

could be subject to other NESHAP and NSPS with differing action levels.

The EPA therefore requested comment on establishing the VOHAP

concentration action level for the rule at 100 ppmw, as well as

information that could be used to support alternative action levels

such as 500 ppmw (59 FR 51924). The EPA received comments stating that

the 100 ppmw VOHAP concentration action level proposed by the EPA for

the Off-site Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP is inappropriate and

inconsistent with other applicable NSPS and NESHAP and recommending

that the EPA select a higher action level for the rule.

The EPA considered the comments received regarding the proposed

action level, other revisions to the final Off-Site Waste and Recovery

Operations NESHAP, and changes that the EPA anticipates making for

other waste and wastewater related rules. The EPA

[[Page 34147]]

concluded that a reexamination of the MACT floor action level

determination was appropriate. Based on consideration of the

information available to the Agency regarding HAP emissions from waste

management and recovery operations receiving off-site material, the EPA

has concluded that a VOHAP concentration value of 500 ppmw best

represents the MACT floor for existing off-site material management

units using covers.

Having established the MACT floor for existing off-site material

management units, the EPA consider control options that are more

stringent than the MACT floor based on the air emission control

requirements under existing EPA rules for HAP emission sources similar

to off-site material management units (e.g., air standards for tanks

under the HON, air standards for tanks, surface impoundments, and

containers at hazardous waste TSDF under 40 CFR parts 264 and 265).

These existing rules establish requirements for application of controls

more effective than covers on certain categories of tanks, containers,

and other units based on air emission potential related characteristics

such as the capacity of the unit and the vapor pressure of the material

managed in the unit. In the development of these other rules, the EPA

determined for these particular units that the more effective controls

are appropriate for control of the pollutants emitted from the units

and that implementing these controls is cost-effective. Therefore, for

the Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP the EPA concluded

that it is reasonable to establish standards for certain off-site waste

management units that are more stringent than the MACT floor when such

standards are determined by the EPA to be appropriate and consistent

with the control requirements for similar HAP emission sources under

other existing EPA rules.

b. Process Vents. The MACT floor for affected sources consisting of

process vents is the same MACT floor used at proposal with one revision

to the action level. As discussed in the proposal notice (59 FR 51925),

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

relevant to the Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP, the air

emission standards for process vents on hazardous waste management

units and recycling units under 40 CFR 264 subpart AA and 40 CFR 265

subpart AA. The action level identifying application of air emission

controls on process vents has been revised to be consistent with the

500 ppmw action level selected for MACT floor for off-site material

management units. The control technology selected for the floor is

connecting the process vents to appropriate control devices such that

an organic HAP emission control efficiency of 95 percent or more is

achieved.

c. Equipment Leaks. The same MACT floor selected at proposal is

used for affected sources consisting of the group of equipment

components consisting of pumps, compressors, agitators, pressure relief

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

valves, connectors, and instrumentation systems that contain or contact

off-site material in each of the waste management and recovery

operations specified in the rule that are located at the plant site.

The MACT floor requires control of HAP emissions from equipment leaks

by implementing leak detection and repair (LDAR) work practices and

equipment modifications for those equipment components containing or

contacting off-site material having a total organic HAP concentrations

equal to or greater than 10 percent. As discussed in the proposal

notice (59 FR 51925), the EPA selected this MACT floor based on the

existing equipment leak air standards applicable to waste management

operations to treat hazardous waste under 40 CFR 264 subpart BB and 40

CFR 265 subpart BB. The requirements of the MACT floor selected for the

Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP are also consistent with

existing NSPS equipment leak standards (e.g., 40 CFR 60 subparts VV,

GG, and KK) and for certain NESHAP equipment leak standards (e.g., 40

CFR 61 subpart V).

2. MACT Floor for New Sources

At proposal, the EPA concluded that the MACT floor determined for

existing sources also represents the HAP emission control that is

achieved in practice by the best controlled similar sources in the off-

site waste and recovery operation source category with the exception of

new tanks. The MACT floor for new tanks was established based on the

level of emission control that is required for new tanks under the HON

(i.e., 40 CFR 63 subpart G). The EPA still believes these are

appropriate decisions for establishing the MACT floor for new sources

under the revised affected source designations selected for the final

Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP.

E. Format of Standards

Section 112 of the Act requires promulgation of an emission

standard whenever it is feasible; section 112(h) states that ``if it is

not feasible in the judgment of the Administrator to prescribe or

enforce an emission standard for control of a hazardous air pollutant

or pollutants, the Administrator may, in lieu thereof, promulgate a

design, equipment, work practice, or operational standard, or

combination thereof * * *'' The term ``not feasible'' is applicable if

the emission cannot be captured and vented through a vent or stack

designed for that purpose, or if the application of a measurement

methodology is not practicable because of technical or economic

limitations. Alternative formats were considered for the three types of

affected sources defined for the Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations

NESHAP.

For off-site material management units, the EPA concluded that a

numerical emission standard would not be feasible because it would be

difficult to capture and measure emissions from these units for the

purpose of evaluating compliance. Therefore, the format of the rule for

these affected sources includes a combination of design, equipment,

work practice, and operational standards. For process vents, the EPA

considered two alternative numerical emission limitation formats. These

emission limitation formats are a mass percent reduction of HAP from

process vents and a mass limitation of HAP emission from process vents.

The percent reduction format was chosen for the Off-Site Waste and

Recovery Operations NESHAP because it is the best representation of

control technology performance, and provides flexibility to owners and

operators. This format is based on the HAP removal efficiency of

conventional air pollution control devices and any control technology

that can achieve the reduction efficiency can be applied to any

configuration of process vents to comply with the standards. For

equipment leak sources (i.e., pumps, valves, etc.), numerical emission

standards are not feasible and the final standards for equipment leaks

are in the format of work practice and equipment specifications.

F. Unit-Specific Subparts

The regulatory text that EPA proposed for the Off-Site Waste and

Recovery Operations NESHAP included all of the requirements for the

rule in a single subpart to be added to 40 CFR part 63. The EPA decided

to promulgate the final requirements for the Off-Site Waste and

Recovery Operations NESHAP as a series of six new subparts added to 40

CFR part 63. These subparts are Subpart DD--National Emission Standards

for Off-Site Waste and Recovery

[[Page 34148]]

Operations, Subpart OO--National Emission Standards for Tanks--Level 1,

Subpart PP--National Emission Standards for Containers, Subpart QQ--

National Emission Standards for Surface Impoundments, Subpart RR--

National Emission Standards for Individual Drain Systems, and Subpart

VV--National Emission Standards for Oil-Water Separators and Organic-

Water Separators.

The air emission control requirements promulgated in Subparts OO,

PP, QQ, and RR are derived from and incorporate public comments on the

air emission control requirements originally proposed in Subpart DD for

tanks, surface impoundments, containers, and individual drain systems.

In addition, an individual subpart (Subpart VV) has been added to the

final rule specifying air emission control requirements for oil-water

separators and organic-water separators (referred to collectively

hereafter as ``separators''). At proposal, the EPA assumed that if a

separator was subject to using air emission controls under the Off-Site

Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP it would be considered a type of

tank. As such, this separator would have been required to meet the air

emission control requirements specific in the rule for tanks. In actual

practice, application of these controls to a separator in strict

accordance with the requirements specified in the proposed rule may not

be practical given special design and operating characteristics for

separators. Therefore, the EPA concluded that it is appropriate to add

an individual subpart specifically for separators that will provide a

level of air emission control comparable to the control level

established for tanks yet address the special design and operating

features of separators.

The EPA decided to promulgate the air emission control requirements

for selected types of units in individual subparts for ease of

reference, administrative convenience, and as a step towards assuring

consistency of the air emission control requirements applied to similar

types of units under different rules. The EPA believes adopting the

format of codifying the air emission control requirements for specific

unit types in individual subparts will provide significant advantages

to both regulated industries and to the Agency.

By today's notice, the air emission control requirements

promulgated in Subparts OO, PP, QQ, RR, and VV presently are applicable

only to units in waste management and recovery operations regulated

under Subpart DD. For application of the unit-specific subparts to new

rules for other source categories, the EPA is planning to reference

these unit-specific subparts to specify the air emission control

requirements for the units subject to using controls under the rule.

The applicability, action level, designation of which units are

required to use controls, treatment requirements, and any other

requirements specific to the source category will be in the regulatory

text under the source-specific subpart (i.e., the same format that is

being promulgated today for the Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations

NESHAP) Also, the EPA may, in the future, amend existing NSPS, NESHAP,

or other rules to reference the appropriate unit-specific subparts,

whether as a replacement for the air emission control requirements in

the existing rule or as an alternative means of compliance. In these

rulemaking cases, the EPA will first propose the Agency's intention of

applying the requirements of Subparts OO, PP, QQ, RR, and VV, as

applicable, to other rules. The public will have the opportunity to

comment on the appropriateness and application of using these unit-

specific subparts for the particular sources regulated by the new or

amended rule.

A major advantage for using the unit-specific subpart format for

NESHAP and other air rules is for those situations when more than one

rule applies to a particular source (e.g., a tank) and each of these

rules requires use of air emission controls on that source (e.g., a

fixed roof). By establishing unit-specific subparts, all of the rules

will reference a common set of design, operating, testing, inspection,

monitoring, repair, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements for air

emission controls. This eliminates the potential for duplicative or

conflicting air emission control requirements being placed on the unit

by the different rules, and assures consistency of the air emission

control requirements applied to the same types of units.

In the future, the EPA may decided it is appropriate to amend the

air emission control requirements for different types of units to

reflect improvements in control technologies or to add other control

alternatives. When this occurs, using a unit-specific subpart format

will simplify the amendment process and ensure that all source-specific

subparts are amended in a consistent and timely manner. To incorporate

the desired changes in the air emission control requirements, the EPA

will need to amend only one subpart instead of amending each of the

individual source category specific subparts. The identical amended

regulatory language will automatically apply to all of the source

category specific subparts that reference the amended unit-specific

subpart. The amendments will become effective for all of the source

category specific subparts at the same time.

G. Alternative Test Method Validation Procedure

As part of today's action, the EPA is promulgating a new validation

procedure titled ``Alternative Validation Procedure for EPA Waste

Methods'' that can be used as an alternative to Method 301 in Appendix

A under 40 CFR part 63 for the validation of a test method established

by the EPA Office of Water (OW) or the EPA Office of Solid Waste (OSW)

when this test method is used for air emission standards. The

alternative method is less rigorous than Method 301. A proposed version

of the alternative validation procedure was made available for public

review and comment on August 14, 1996 (60 FR 41870) as part of the

information placed in the public docket and being considered by the

Agency in revising air standards in the RCRA rules. Comments on the

information were accepted by the EPA through October 13, 1995. No

significant comments were received by the EPA regarding the proposed

alternative validation procedure.

For the Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP, the EPA

decided it is appropriate to allow organic concentration data test that

are validated in accordance with the alternative validation method to

be used as direct measurement data. Today's action promulgates

``Alternative Validation Procedure for EPA Waste and Wastewater

Methods'' as Appendix D in 40 CFR part 63. This final version of

Appendix D is the same as the proposed version. As promulgated, the

alternative validation procedure is to be applied exclusively to those

EPA methods developed by OW and OSW when the method is being applied to

EPA air emission standards. If an owner or operator wants to use a test

method not issued by either of these two EPA offices as an alternative

to the test methods specifically listed in the rule, this test method

must be validated according to the procedures in Sections 5.1 and 5.3

of Test Method 301.

III. Summary of Impacts

The EPA estimates that implementation of the Off-Site Waste and

Recovery Operations NESHAP will reduce HAP emissions from the source

category on a nationwide basis by approximately 82 percent, from 52,000

Mg/yr to 9,000 Mg/yr.

[[Page 34149]]

The EPA also estimated the reduction in VOC emissions from the

source category. The Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP is

estimated to reduce nationwide VOC emissions by approximately 52,000

Mg/yr. This value was calculated using the estimated nationwide HAP

emission value times a value of approximately 1.2 to represent the

ratio of VOC-to-HAP constituents in the off-site material regulated

under the rule. The value for this ratio was derived from information

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

category. This derived value is lower than VOC-to-HAP ratios indicated

for other HAP emission sources. Thus, the procedure used to estimate

nationwide VOC emissions for the source category is considered by the

EPA to be conservative and may understate the actual quantity of VOC

emission reduction that will occur from implementing the Off-Site Waste

and Recovery Operations NESHAP.

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

implementing the requirements of the final Off-Site Waste and Recovery

Operations NESHAP at plant sites the EPA expects are likely to be

subject to the rule. The total nationwide capital investment cost to

purchase and install the air emission controls that are required by the

rule is estimated by the EPA to be approximately $42 million. The total

nationwide annual cost of the Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations

NESHAP is estimated to be approximately $18 million per year. This

corresponds to an average cost of approximately $420 per megagram of

HAP controlled.

Price increases in affected markets are projected at less than 0.01

percent of baseline price, and decreases in production are projected at

less than 0.1 percent. No businesses or facilities are projected by the

EPA to close as a result of implementing the requirements of the final

rule. For more information regarding the economic analysis, consult the

Economic Impact Analysis of National Emissions Standards for Hazardous

Air Pollutants: Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations available in the

docket (Docket No. A-92-16).

IV. Summary of Responses to Major Comments

A summary of responses to selected major comments received on the

proposed rule is presented below. Additional discussion of the EPA's

responses to public comments is presented in the Basis and Support

Document (see ADDRESSES section of this preamble).

A. Rule Applicability

Comment: Many commenters stated that the proposed applicability of

the Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP would be too broad

and should be narrower. Major reasons presented by individual

commenters include: (1) the rule's applicability was expanded by the

EPA beyond the scope of the initial source category listing without

providing adequate notice to the public; (2) including operations

managing ``recoverable materials'' received from off-site in the rule's

applicability discourages recycling, provides a disincentive to

pollution prevention, and is inconsistent with the Pollution Prevention

Act; and (3) range of facility types subject to the rule is too broad

because many of these facility types have significantly different HAP

emission sources.

Response: The EPA proposed that the Off-Site Waste and Recovery

Operations NESHAP be applicable to owners and operators of facilities

that are ``major sources'' (as defined in 40 CFR 63.2) and at which

operations are conducted to manage, convey, or handle ``wastes'' or

``recoverable materials'' received from off-site and containing

specific organic HAP constituents (as specified in Table 1 of the

rule). Under the proposed rule, waste management and recovery

operations listed by the EPA as separate NESHAP source categories were

specifically exempted from the requirements of the rule.

The EPA has not expanded the applicability of the Off-Site Waste

and Recovery Operations NESHAP beyond the scope of the initial source

category listing without providing adequate notice to the public. 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. In the ANPR, the EPA provided a general

description of the types of facilities the EPA planned to regulate

under this rulemaking (see 58 FR 66337). The EPA further provided a

definition of ``waste'' that the Agency intended to be used for this

rulemaking which included materials managed prior to being recycled.

Thus, the Agency clearly expressed its intent in the ANPR to include

recovery operations in the scope of this rulemaking.

As described in Section II.D.3 of this notice, 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. The EPA believes that applying the Off-Site

Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP to units managing materials that

are collected and transported to a facility for subsequent reprocessing

or recycling is fully consistent with the Pollution Prevention Act. The

final rule neither discourages recycling nor provides a disincentive to

pollution prevention. The final rule does not prohibit or discourage an

owner or operator from continuing to use the recovery operation; the

rule only requires that the owner or operator control the organic HAP

emitted to the atmosphere from the operation. This is consistent with

the Pollution Prevention Act's declaration that operations to recycle

or reuse materials be performed in an environmentally-safe manner.

In proposed regulatory text, the EPA split the definition of

``waste'' the Agency stated in the ANPR, into two separate terms;

``waste'' being defined as materials managed prior to being discarded

or discharged, and ``recoverable materials'' being defined as materials

managed prior to being recycled, reprocessed, or reused. Based on the

comments received by the EPA, it appears that commenters interpreted

the proposed regulatory text using these terms to extend the

applicability of the rule to certain types of recycling and recovery

operations that the Agency never intended to be subject to this

rulemaking. To clarify the EPA's intent, the general term ``recoverable

material'' is not used in the final rule. Instead, the EPA has added to

the final rule the new terms ``used oil'' and ``used solvent'' to

define the specific types of recycled or reprocessed materials subject

to the rule. In each case where the final Off-Site Waste and Recovery

Operations NESHAP is applicable to a used oil or used solvent recovery

operation, the EPA has included this operation because the Agency has

concluded that the operation when uncontrolled can be a significant

source of HAP emissions and the operation will not be regulated by

another NESHAP.

The EPA disagrees that the applicability of the Off-Site Waste and

Recovery Operations NESHAP is too broad because many of the types of

waste management and recovery operations included in the source

category have significantly different HAP emission sources. In the

Federal Register notice for the proposed rule, the EPA provided

examples of specific types of facilities included in the off-site waste

and recovery operations source category (see 59 FR 51920). At all of

[[Page 34150]]

these facilities, similar types of units are used to manage wastes or

the other materials subject to the rule (e.g., tanks, containers,

surface impoundments). Organic HAP are emitted from each type of unit

by the same emission mechanisms regardless of the type of facility at

which the unit is located. Common organic HAP control technologies are

applicable to the units 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 the off-site waste and recovery

operations facility types subject to this rulemaking.

Many commenters mistakenly interpreted the regulatory language of

the proposed rule to extend the applicability of the Off-Site Waste and

Recovery Operations NESHAP to facilities that the Agency never intended

to be subject to this rulemaking. In response to the different

interpretation of the proposed rule's applicability by commenters

versus the Agency's intent for this rulemaking, the EPA reviewed the

proposed regulatory text for the rule. The EPA decided to revise the

format to be inclusive by specifically identifying those waste

management and recovery operations that are subject to the Off-Site

Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP. Owners and operators of waste and

recovery operations not explicitly included in the set of conditions

specified for the final Off-Site Waste and Recovery NESHAP are not

subject to the rule.

B. Data Base Used for Rule Development

Comment: Commenters stated that the data base used by the EPA to

develop the Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP is not

representative of all of the waste management recovery operations that

would be potentially subject to the rule; and the information in the

data base is not representative of current waste management and

recovery operation practices.

Response: In the development of the Off-Site Waste and Recovery

Operations NESHAP, the EPA used the best information available to the

Agency. Earlier in the development of the rule, the EPA recognized that

more up-to-date data and additional information would be beneficial for

evaluating the different types of waste management and recovery

operations included in the source category and for estimating the

impacts associated with this rulemaking. The EPA made several requests

for information from the public to supplement the Agency's information

regarding the off-site waste and recovery operations source category.

Prior to proposal of the Off-Site Waste and Recovery NESHAP, the

EPA announced in the ANPR the data bases the Agency was using for the

impact analyses and requested information from the public (see 58 FR

66338 and 66339). The EPA specifically requested more information on

off-site material characteristics (types, quantities, organic

composition), operating practices, and waste and recovery operation

emission points and air emission data. No additional information

regarding these topics was received by the EPA.

At proposal, the EPA requested additional information to improve

the Agency's understanding and profile of the waste management and

recovery operations intended to be addressed by this rulemaking (see 59

FR 51921). Additional information was provided to the EPA by commenters

regarding the following topics: (1) industrial waste landfill

operations, waste characterizations, and HAP emissions; (2) general

practices for waste management and recovery operations commonly used at

chemical manufacturing plants and petroleum refineries; and (3) general

waste management practices used at oil exploration and production

leases. In addition, the EPA obtained additional information regarding

used solvent collection and management practices for businesses that

reprocess used solvent for sale to other users.

The data base used for the impact analysis for the rulemaking was

compiled by collecting information related to off-site waste and

recovery operations from nationwide surveys of hazardous waste TSDF,

wastewater treatment facilities, and used oil management facilities

that the EPA conducted for other rulemakings. The EPA is fully aware

that off-site waste and recovery operations have changed since the

surveys were conducted. These changes are the result of multiple

factors including reductions in the quantities of certain wastes sent

to waste management facilities as waste minimization programs have been

implemented by generators; changes in waste disposal practices to

comply with RCRA land disposal restrictions and other rules; and

changes in ownership arrangements of waste management and recovery

operations located within large petrochemical and other manufacturing

complexes. In recognition of these changes, the EPA adjusted the data

base to reflect these changes to the extent possible using other

information available to the Agency.

The EPA reviewed the data base used to develop the Off-Site Waste

and Recovery Operations NESHAP with respect to the Agency's decisions

regarding the rule revisions made to the applicability of the final

rule. The EPA believes that the data base contains sufficient

information regarding the types of the waste management and recovery

operations that are subject to the final Off-Site Waste and Recovery

Operations NESHAP to support the Agency's decisions for this

rulemaking.

C. Land Disposal Unit Requirements

Comment: Commenters disagreed with the proposed requirement to

treat wastes prior to being placed in land disposal units because they

state that the requirement is inconsistent with the RCRA land disposal

restrictions and any solid waste land disposal restrictions should be

promulgated by the EPA's Office of Solid Waste.

Response: The EPA proposed that, prior to being placed in land

disposal units, owners and operators treat those off-site materials

having a VOHAP concentration equal to or greater than the action level.

Based on the EPA's decisions regarding applicability of the rule to

landfills and considering the existing requirements under RCRA land

disposal restrictions, the EPA concluded that the proposed requirement

is not needed for the Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP.

The final rule places no restrictions on the disposal of wastes in land

disposal units nor places any other air emission control requirements

on these units.

D. Off-Site Material Determination Test Methods

Comment: Commenters stated that proposed requirements for

determining the average VOHAP concentration of a off-site material use

inappropriate test methods and are excessive, impractical, and too

costly to implement at many facilities potentially subject to the rule.

Response: Under the Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP,

air emission controls are not required for those off-site material

management units located in the affected source when the unit manages

off-site material having a VOHAP concentration less than the action

level. As part of the procedure for determining the VOHAP concentration

of the off-site material, the EPA proposed that an owner or operator

could use either: (1) Direct measurement using Method 305 of samples of

the material collected in accordance with the procedures specified in

the rule; or (2) the owner's or operator's knowledge of the VOHAP

concentration in material

[[Page 34151]]

based on information, as specified in the rule.

For the final Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP, the

EPA decided to add other appropriate test methods that an owner or

operator can choose to use for direct measurement of the VOHAP

concentration of an off-site material. In addition, the EPA has made

certain other changes to facilitate the use of organic concentration

data obtained using other alternative test methods not specifically

listed in the rule. The EPA believes that the changes incorporated into

waste determination requirements in conjunction with changes to the

applicability and action level for the final Off-Site Waste and

Recovery Operations NESHAP provide a range of options for determining

the VOHAP concentration of an off-site material such that every owner

and operator of facilities subject to the final rule has available

practical and inexpensive waste determination alternatives.

The EPA developed Method 305 to provide a relative measure of the

potential for specific volatile organic compounds to be emitted from

waste materials. In developing Method 305, the EPA solicited public

comments on a proposed version of the method and addressed these

comments in the final version of the method (59 FR 19402). Method 305

has been validated and the EPA considers Method 305 to be an

appropriate method for determining the VOHAP concentration of off-site

materials subject to the Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP.

Method 305 uses the same waste sample collection procedures and

sample recovery conditions established by Method 25D (40 CFR part 60,

Appendix A). When using Method 25D, the waste sample is analyzed to

determine the total concentration, by weight, of all organics recovered

from the waste sample. When using Method 305, the waste sample is

analyzed to determine the purged concentration, by weight, of only

those specific hazardous air pollutants in the waste sample which are

listed in Table 1 in the rule (i.e., the VOHAP concentration). Any

hazardous air pollutant or organic constituent that may be contained in

the sample but is not listed in Table 1 in the rule is not counted in

the VOHAP concentration determination. For the off-site materials

typically managed in the operations subject to the Off-Site Waste and

Recovery Operations NESHAP, the EPA concluded that using Method 25D is

a reasonable alternative to using Method 305 for the purpose of this

rulemaking. Therefore, the final Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations

NESHAP includes use of Method 25D as one of the test methods an owner

or operator may choose among for direct measurement of the VOHAP

concentration of an off-site material.

Other test methods have been developed by the EPA for use in

rulemakings under the Clean Water Act that measure the concentration of

organic pollutants in municipal and industrial wastewaters (see

Appendix A to 40 CFR part 136). Commenters suggested that certain of

these test methods are applicable to EPA air rulemakings affecting

wastewater management units. After extensive review, the EPA decided

that as alternatives to using Method 305 or Method 25D for direct

measurement of VOHAP concentration in an off-site material for the Off-

Site Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP it is appropriate to add

Methods 624, 1624, and 1625 (all contained in 40 CFR 136, Appendix A)

when used under certain specified conditions. Because these methods

measure the total concentration of the HAP constituents listed in Table

1 of the rule, owners and operators may choose to ``correct'' these

measured values to equate to the values that would be measured using

Method 305. This is accomplished by multiplying the total concentration

measured values times the appropriate ``f m factor'' presented in

Table 1 of the rule to obtain the Method 305 VOHAP concentration.

Sufficient recovery study results are available for Methods 1624

and 1625 to correct for possible bias, and therefore, these methods are

considered adequate by the EPA to characterize the concentration of a

off-site material sample. In addition, Method 624 is appropriate

provided the initial calibration of the analytical system is performed

with the target compounds to be measured. However, none of these

methods specifies a sample collection and handling procedure that is

considered by the EPA adequate to minimize the volatilization of

organics from the sample prior to analysis. Therefore, to ensure that

an adequately representative sample of an off-site material is analyzed

by the method, an owner or operator that chooses to use either Method

624, 1624, or 1625 for the Off-Site waste and Recovery Operations

NESHAP is required to develop and follow a written sampling plan. This

plan describes a step-by-step procedure for collecting representative

samples of the off-site materials such that material integrity is

maintained and minimal loss of organics from the sample occurs

throughout the collection and analysis process. An example of an

acceptable sampling plan is one that incorporates sample collection and

sample handing procedures similar to those specified in Method 25D. The

sampling plan is to be maintained on-site in the facility records.

The EPA proposed use of knowledge-of-the-waste, allowing a facility

owner or operator to use test data obtained using a test method other

than Method 305 provided that the method was validated in accordance

with Method 301 (40 CFR part 63, Appendix A). Under this application of

Method 301, the owner or operator would be validating the alternative

test method results as compared to test results obtained using Method

305. Since proposal, the EPA decided to allow organic concentration

data test that are validated in accordance specifically with Sections

5.1 and 5.3 of Method 301 to be used as direct measurement data. This

makes validation of the alternative test method a self-check of the

method being validated. Also, if appropriate, owners and operators may

choose to ``correct'' values measured by the alternative test method to

equate to the values that would be measured using Method 305 by

multiplying the measured values times the appropriate ``f m

factor'' presented for each hazardous air pollutant listed in Table 1

of the rule.

Finally, as discussed in Section II.G of this notice, the EPA is

promulgating today a less rigorous validation procedure, ``Alternative

Validation Procedure for EPA Waste Methods,'' in Appendix to 40 CFR

part 63 as an alternative to Method 301 for the validation of a test

method established by the EPA Office of Water (OW) or the EPA Office of

Solid Waste (OSW) when this test method is used for air emission

standards. The EPA decided it is appropriate to allow organic

concentration data test that are validated in accordance with this

method to be used as direct measurement data.

E. Container Air Emission Controls

Comment: Commenters stated that proposed air emission control

requirements for containers are commercially unavailable or impractical

to implement. Also, commenters stated that the requirements should be

consistent with the container air emission control requirements under

the RCRA rules.

Response: Since proposal, the EPA has obtained more information on

the practices and equipment currently used to manage waste and used

solvents in containers. Based on consideration of this information, the

EPA decided to

[[Page 34152]]

revise the air emission control requirements for containers to better

reflect the container organic HAP emission potential, the various

container types, and the common container management practices used for

off-site waste and recovery operations. The EPA believes that these

revised requirements are technically feasible and practical to

implement on all types of containers that the Agency expects to be

subject to the rule. These revisions are described in detail in Section

V.G of this notice.

The EPA is addressing consistency between the air emission control

requirements for containers (as well as the other affected units) in

the Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP and the RCRA rules by

amending the RCRA rules to include an exemption for those affected

units using organic emission controls in accordance with the

requirements of the Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP or

any other applicable NESHAP.

F. Recordkeeping and Reporting

Comment: Commenters stated that the recordkeeping and reporting

requirements proposed for the Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations

NESHAP would be excessive and inconsistent with other NSPS, NESHAP, and

RCRA rules that also may be applicable to a unit subject to the rule.

Response: Under section 114(a) of the Act, 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 or authorized State. Review by EPA and State

officials of appropriate information that is maintained in facility

records and is submitted in facility prepared reports provides one

means for checking the compliance status of the facility with the

NESHAP technical requirements. However, the EPA also recognizes that

excessive and duplicative recordkeeping and reporting requirements can

create a burden to facility owners and operators complying with a

NESHAP as well as to the EPA and State officials responsible for

assuring compliance with the NESHAP. Thus, it is the EPA's intention to

limit the amount of recordkeeping and reporting required for a

particular NESHAP to reasonable requirements which will provide the

appropriate information needed by EPA and State officials to enforce

the rule.

For the Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP, the EPA

proposed adopting the recordkeeping and reporting requirements as

specified in the Part 63 General Provisions. The EPA reviewed the

recordkeeping and reporting needed for the final rule considering the

revisions made to the rule applicability and technical requirements.

Based on this review, the EPA decided that certain changes to simplify

the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for the final Off-Site

Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP can be made without compromising

the enforceability of the rule.

VI. Summary of Changes Since Proposal

Changes have been incorporated into the final Off-Site Waste and

Recovery Operations NESHAP in response to comments on the proposed

rule. Also, the EPA has made many changes to the specific air emission

control requirements to clarify the EPA's intent in the application and

implementation of these requirements and to make these requirements

consistent and up-to-date with EPA decisions made for other related

NESHAP and RCRA rules. The substantive changes to the Off-Site Waste

and Recovery Operations NESHAP since proposal are summarized below.

A. Applicability

Several major changes have been made to the applicability of the

final Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP to address comments

on the proposed rule and to clarify the specific waste management and

recovery operations that the EPA intends to be subject to the Off-Site

Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP. These changes include: (1)

Deleting the proposed term ``recoverable material'' and defining new

terms ``off-site material'', ``used oil'', and ``used solvent'' to

explicitly specify the types of materials that the EPA is regulating

under this rule; (2) adding a list of the specific wastes and other

materials which can be received at a plant site but not considered by

the EPA to be off-site materials for the purpose of implementing the

rule; and (3) using an inclusive format to limit the rule applicability

to six specific types of waste management and recovery operations. A

detailed description of each of these changes is presented in the

following paragraphs.

The Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP is applicable to

owners and operators of a plant site that meet both of the following

conditions: (1) The plant site is a major source of HAP emissions as

defined in the General Provisions to 40 CFR part 63; and (2) at the

plant site, the owner or operator manages ``off-site material,'' as

defined in the rule, in one or more of the specific waste management or

recovery operations listed in the rule. If either one (or both) of the

conditions do not apply to a plant site, then the owner and operator of

the plant site is not subject to the Off-Site Waste and Recovery

Operations NESHAP, and no action is required by the owner or operator

in regards to this rule.

For the purpose of implementing the Off-Site Waste and Recovery

Operations NESHAP, a ``plant site'' is all contiguous or adjoining

property that is under common control including properties that are

separated only by a road or other public right-of-way. Common control

includes properties that are owned, leased, or operated by the same

entity, parent entity, subsidiary, or any combination thereof. A unit

or group of units within a contiguous property that are not under

common control (e.g., a wastewater treatment unit or solvent recovery

unit located at the site but is sold to a different company) is a

different plant site.

The first applicability condition for the Off-Site Waste and

Recovery Operations NESHAP is determined by whether or not the plant

site is a major source of HAP emissions as defined in 40 CFR 63.2. In

general, this would be a plant site that emits or has the potential to

emit considering controls, in total, 10 tons per year or more of any

one HAP or 25 tons per year or more of any combination of HAP. If the

plant site is not a major source, then the owner and operator of the

plant site is not subject to the Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations

NESHAP regardless of the types of materials received from off-site.

The second applicability condition involves the combined

requirement that ``off-site material'' must be received at the plant

site and this material must be managed in one of the six types of waste

management or recovery operations specified in the rule. The first part

of the applicability condition involves determining whether an ``off-

site material'' as defined in the rule is received at the plant site.

The second part of the applicability condition involves determining

whether one or more of the following types of waste management or

recovery operations is located at the plant site: (1) a hazardous waste

treatment, storage, and disposal facility (TSDF) regulated under 40 CFR

part 264 or 265 that manages waste received from off-site; (2) a

wastewater treatment facility that manages wastewater received from

off-site and this facility is exempted from regulation

[[Page 34153]]

as a TSDF under 40 CFR 264.1(g)(6) or 40 CFR 265.1(c)(10); (3) a

wastewater treatment facility other than a POTW that manages

wastewaters received from off-site and operation of this facility is

the predominant function performed at the plant site; (4) a facility

that recycles off-site material and this facility is exempted from

regulation as a TSDF under 40 CFR 264.1(g)(2) or 40 CFR 265.1(c)(6);

(5) a facility in which used solvents received from off-site are

reprocessed or recovered; and (6) a facility in which used oil received

from off-site is reprocessed or re-refined and this facility is

regulated under 40 CFR Part 279, subpart F--Standards for Used Oil

Processors and Refiners.

For the purpose of implementing the rule, ``off-site material'' is

defined to be a material for which all three of the following criteria

apply: (1) The material is a ``waste'', ``used oil'', or ``used

solvent'' as defined in the rule; (2) this material is delivered,

transferred, or otherwise moved to the plant site from another

location; and (3) this material contains one or more of the specific

HAP constituents listed in Table 1 in the rule. If the material

received at the plant site does not meet any one of these criteria,

then the material is not an ``off-site material'' under the rule.

The term ``waste'' used for the final rule is the same definition

proposed for the rule. Waste types that EPA does not intend to be

regulated under this rulemaking are specifically listed in the final

rule. For the purpose of the implementing the Off-Site Waste and

Recovery Operations NESHAP, none of the following wastes are ``off-site

materials'': household waste as defined in 40 CFR 258.2; radioactive

mixed waste managed in accordance with all applicable regulations under

Atomic Energy Act and Nuclear Waste Policy Act authorities; waste that

is generated by remedial activities required under the RCRA corrective

action authorities (RCRA sections 3004(u), 3004(v), or 3008(h)), CERCLA

authorities, or similar Federal or State authorities; waste containing

HAP that is generated by residential households (e.g., old paint, home

garden pesticides) and subsequently is collected as a community service

by government agencies, businesses, or other organizations for the

purpose of promoting the proper disposal of this waste; waste that is

generated by or transferred from units complying with all applicable

regulations under 40 CFR Part 63, subparts F and G--National Emission

Standards for Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants from the Synthetic

Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry; waste containing benzene that

is generated by or transferred from units complying with all applicable

requirements specified by Sec. 61.342(b) under 40 CFR Part 61, subpart

FF--National Emission Standards for Benzene Waste Operations for a

facility at which the total annual benzene quantity from facility waste

is equal to or greater than 10 Mg/yr; and ship ballast water that is

pumped from a ship to an onshore wastewater treatment facility.

``Used oil'' means any oil refined from crude oil or any synthetic

oil that has been used and as a result of such use is contaminated by

physical or chemical impurities. This definition is consistent with the

definition used by the EPA for the RCRA used oil management standards

under 40 CFR Part 279, subpart F.

``Used solvent'' means a solvent composed of mixtures of one or

more aliphatic hydrocarbons or aromatic hydrocarbons that has been used

and as a result of such use is contaminated by physical or chemical

impurities.

Based on the applicability conditions for the final Off-Site Waste

and Recovery Operations NESHAP, an owner or operator is not subject to

the rule and no action is required by the rule for the following cases.

If a plant site is not a major source of HAP emissions, then the owner

and operator of the plant site are not subject to the Off Site Waste

and Recovery Operations NESHAP regardless of whether the site receives

off-site material. If at a plant site is located one or more of the

specific waste management or recovery operations listed in the rule but

off-site material received at the plant site is not managed in these

operations, then the owner and operator of the plant site are not

subject to the Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP. In a case

when a plant site receives off-site material and is a major source of

HAP emissions but there is not one of the waste management or recovery

operations listed in the rule located at the site, then owner and

operator of the plant site are not subject to the Off-Site Waste and

Recovery Operations NESHAP.

At a plant site subject to the Off-Site Waste and Recovery

Operations NESHAP, the rule only applies to the affected sources used

to manage off-site material in the waste management and recovery

operations specified in the rule that are located at the plant site.

Units and equipment used to manage off-site material at the plant site

but are not part of one of the waste management or recovery operations

specified in the rule are not affected sources under the rule.

The first affected source for the Off-Site Waste and Recovery

Operations NESHAP is the group of tanks, surface impoundments,

separators, transfer systems, and containers used to manage off-site

material in each of the waste management and recovery operations

specified in the rule that are located at the plant site. The second

affected source for the rule is the group of process vents on units in

each of the waste management and recovery operations specified in the

rule that are located at the plant site.

The third affected source for the rule is the group of equipment

components consisting of pumps, compressors, agitators, pressure relief

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

valves, connectors, and instrumentation systems that contain or contact

off-site material in each of the waste management and recovery

operations specified in the rule that are located at the plant site.

The compliance date for existing sources subject to the Off-Site

Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP (i.e., affected sources that

commenced construction or reconstruction before October 13, 1994) to

meet the air emission control requirements of the rule is beginning 3

years after today's date. If management of off-site material in the

source is discontinued by this date, then source would no longer

subject to the rule. On the other hand, if an existing waste management

operation or recovery operation does not presently receive off-site

material but begins receiving off-site materials for the first time 3

years after today's date (and meets the other applicability conditions

in the rule), then the source is a new source subject to the rule. In

this case, the owner or operator of the source must achieve compliance

with the provisions of the rule upon the first date that the waste

management operation or recovery operation begins to manage the off-

site material.

Finally, the list of the specific HAP constituents for the Off-Site

Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP (Table 1 in Subpart DD) was

revised by the EPA for the final rule. The EPA decided to delete eight

chemicals from the proposed list because of the low potential for these

chemicals to be emitted from the waste management and recovery

operations subject to the rule. The criterion used to characterize and

evaluate emission potential was based on a chemical constituent's

Henry's law constant. The following chemical compounds were deleted

from the proposed list: acrylic acid, aniline, o-cresol,

dibutylphthalate, 1,1-

[[Page 34154]]

dimethylhydrazine, formaldehyde, methyl hydrazine, and n-

nitrosodimethylamine.

B. General Standards

Several major changes have been made to the general standards for

the final rule. First, the average VOHAP concentration action level for

off-site material required to be managed in the units using air

emission controls under the rule has been changed to 500 ppmw (as

determined at the point-of-delivery). Units managing off-site materials

determined by the owner or operator to have average VOHAP

concentrations that remain less than 500 ppmw are not required to use

air emission controls under the rule. The second change is land

disposal units have been deleted as an affected source and the final

rule places no restrictions on the disposal of wastes in land disposal

units.

A third change is the addition of an exemption to the general

standards in the final Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP

that relates to the treatment of the off-site material. This exemption

provides that an off-site material management unit is exempted from the

air emission control requirements if the off-site material placed in

the unit is a hazardous waste that meets the numerical concentration

limits, applicable to the hazardous waste, as specified in 40 CFR part

268--Land Disposal Restrictions under both of the following tables: (1)

Table ``Treatment Standards for Hazardous Waste'' in 40 CFR 268.40, and

(2) Table UTS--``Universal Treatment Standards'' in 40 CFR 268.48.

C. Treatment Standards

The final Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP provides

owners or operators with a selection of alternative provisions for

determining when a treated off-site material is no longer required to

be managed in units meeting the air emission control requirements of

the rule. The proposed treatment alternatives have been revised where

appropriate to reflect the new action level of 500 ppmw and additional

alternatives have been added to the rule to provide greater flexibility

to the owner or operator in the treatment of off-site materials.

D. Tank Standards

The tank standards have been revised to address comments on the

proposed requirements, to be consistent with tank standards established

for related NESHAP source categories, and to reduce the inspection,

monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements. In general, the

final Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP establishes two

levels of air emission control for tanks managing off-site materials

having a maximum HAP vapor pressure less than 76.6 kPa. The control

level applicable to a tank required to use controls is determined by

the tank design capacity and the maximum organic HAP vapor pressure of

the off-site material in the tank. Different capacity and vapor

pressure limits have been established for tanks determined to be part

of an existing affected source and those determined to be part of a new

affected source. Tanks used for waste stabilization processes are

required to use Tank Level 2 air emission controls. The designation of

which tanks are required to use controls and the required control level

for the tank are specified in 40 CFR part 63, subpart DD--National

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Off-Site Waste and

Recovery Operations. The specific air emission control requirements for

Tank Level 1 controls are specified in 40 CFR part 63, subpart OO--

National Emission Standards for Tanks-Level 1. The specific air

emission control requirements for Tank Level 2 controls remain in 40

CFR part 63, subpart DD.

The tank capacity limits for existing tanks in which the maximum

HAP vapor pressure of the off-site material in the tank is less than

76.6 kPa have been corrected to be consistent with the EPA's original

intent to be compatible with other RCRA and NESHAP air emission

standards already promulgated by the Agency which potentially could be

applicable to the same tank. The proposed rule was incorrectly drafted

to exclude existing tanks having a design capacity less than 75 m\3\

(approximately 20,000 gallons) from using any air emission controls.

The EPA never intended to exclude this group of tanks from this

rulemaking. Under the final rule, when applicable, use of Tank Level 1

air emission controls is required for an existing tank having a design

capacity less than 75 m\3\.

For a tank required to use Level 1 controls, the final rule

specifies that the off-site material be managed in a tank using a

fixed-roof. For the Level 2 controls, the final rule requires that off-

site material be managed in one of the following: (1) a fixed roof tank

equipped with an internal floating roof; (2) a tank equipped with an

external floating roof; (3) a tank vented through a closed-vent system

to a control device; (4) a pressure tank; or (5) a tank located inside

an enclosure that is vented through a closed-vent system to an enclosed

combustion control device.

E. Oil-Water Separator and Organic-Water Standards

Under the final Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP,

individual air emission control requirements have been established for

oil-water separator or organic-waster separators. For each separator

required to use controls under the rule, the owner or operator is

required to control air emissions from the separator by installing and

operating on each section of the unit either a floating roof or a

fixed-roof that is vented through a closed-vent system to a control

device. The designation of which separators are required to use

controls is specified in 40 CFR part 63, subpart DD--National Emission

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Off-Site Waste and Recovery

Operations. The specific air emission control requirements are

specified in 40 CFR part 63, subpart VV--National Emission Standards

for Oil-Water and Organic-Water Separators.

F. Surface Impoundment Standards

Revisions have been made to the surface impoundment standards so

that, where relevant and appropriate, the inspection, monitoring,

recordkeeping, and reporting requirements for surface impoundments are

consistent with the requirements established for tanks and separators.

The designation of which surface impoundments are required to use

controls is specified in 40 CFR 63 subpart DD--National Emission

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Off-Site Waste and Recovery

Operations. The specific air emission control requirements are

specified in 40 CFR part 63, subpart QQ--National Emission Standards

for Surface Impoundments.

G. Container Standards

The container standards have been significantly revised to address

comments on the proposed requirements, to make this rule compatible

with the existing U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations

for transporting hazardous materials, and to reduce the inspection,

monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements. The designation

of which containers are required to use controls and the required

control level for the container are specified in 40 CFR 63 subpart DD--

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Off-Site

Waste and Recovery Operations. The specific air emission control

requirements for each control level are specified in 40 CFR Part 63

[[Page 34155]]

subpart PP--National Emission Standards for Containers.

The revised container standards for the Off-Site Waste and Recovery

Operations NESHAP establish three levels of air emission control. The

control level applicable to a container is determined by the container

design capacity, the total organic content of the material in the

container, and use of the container. For example, containers with a

design capacity less than or equal to 0.1 m3 (approximately 26

gallons) are not subject to any requirements under the rule.

Under the final rule, Level 1 controls are required for the

following container categories (except when the container remains

uncovered for waste stabilization processes): (1) containers having a

design capacity greater than 0.1 m3 and less than or equal to 0.46

m3 (approximately 119 gallons); and (2) containers with a design

capacity greater than 0.46 m3 and used to manage off-site

materials that do not meet the definition of ``light material.'' Level

2 controls are required for containers with a design capacity greater

than 0.46 m3 and used to handle ``light materials'' (i.e., off-

site materials where the vapor pressure of one or more of the

components in the material is greater than 0.3 kilopascals [kPa] at 20

deg.C, and the total concentration of the pure components having a

vapor pressure greater than 0.3 kPa at 20 deg.C is equal to or greater

than 20 percent by weight), except when the container remains uncovered

for waste stabilization processes. Level 3 controls are required for

containers having a design capacity greater than 0.1 m3 that must

remain uncovered for waste stabilization processes.

For the containers required to use Level 1 controls, the final rule

requires that the off-site material be managed either: (1) in a

container that meets the relevant DOT regulations on packaging

hazardous materials for transportation under 49 CFR parts 173, 178,

179, and 180; or (2) a covered container that meets the requirements

specified in the final rule. No additional requirements are specified

by the final rule for containers complying with the applicable DOT

regulations. In the case when an owner or operator elects to comply

with the covered container requirements (i.e., non-DOT containers), the

container must be equipped with a tight-fitting cover that has no

visible gaps, spaces, holes, or other openings. The rule does require a

visual inspection when the cover is applied and, thereafter, annually

if the container remains in on-site storage for a period longer than 1

year. No testing for detectable organic emissions using Method 21 is

required. No recordkeeping and reporting are required under the final

rule for containers using Level 1 controls.

For the containers required to use Level 2 controls, the final rule

requires that the off-site material be managed in one of the following:

(1) a container that meets the relevant DOT regulations on packaging

hazardous materials for transportation under 49 CFR parts 173, 178,

179, and 180; or (2) a container that has been demonstrated within the

preceding 12 months to operate with no detectable organic emissions by

using Method 21; or (3) a container that has been demonstrated within

the preceding 12 months to be vapor-tight by using Method 27. No

additional requirements are specified by the final rule for containers

complying with the applicable DOT regulations. Specific design,

operating, inspection and monitoring, repair, recordkeeping, and

reporting requirements for containers tested using either Method 21 or

27 are specified in the rule.

For the containers required to use Level 3 controls, the final rule

requires that an open container be placed in an enclosure vented

through a closed-vent system to a control device or a covered container

be vented directly to a control device. If an enclosure is used, the

enclosure is to be designed in accordance with the criteria for a

permanent total enclosure as specified in 40 CFR 52.741, Appendix B,

Procedure T--Criteria for and Verification of a Permanent or Temporary

Total Enclosure.

Requirements for loading off-site material into a container have

been revised since proposal. Under the final rule there are no

requirements for loading off-site material into containers using Level

1 controls. For containers using Level 2 controls, the loading

requirements have been revised to allow flexibility to use any

appropriate loading method that will minimize exposure of the off-site

material to the atmosphere and thereby reduce organic air emissions, to

the extent practical considering the physical properties of the off-

site material and good engineering and safety practices. Examples of

container loading procedures that the EPA considers to meet these

requirements include, but are not limited to, using a submerged-fill

pipe or other submerged-fill method to load liquids into the container;

or using a vapor-balancing or a vapor-recovery system to collect and

control the vapors displaced from the container during filling

operations.

The inspection, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting

requirements for containers have been significantly simplified from

those proposed. Owners and operators of containers using either

Container Level 1 or Container Level 2 controls in accordance with the

provisions of the rule are required to visually inspect the container

and its cover and closure devices to check for defects at the time the

owner or operator first accepts possession of the container at the

facility site with the exception of those containers emptied within 24

hours of being received. Also, in the case when a container used for

managing regulated-material remains at the facility site for a period

of 1 year or more, the container and its cover and closure devices are

to be visually inspected to check for defects at least once every 12

months.

There are no requirements for periodic Method 21 leak monitoring of

containers. There are no recordkeeping nor reporting requirements under

this final rulemaking for containers using either Container Level 1 or

Container Level 2 controls.

H. Transfer System Standards

The major change to the transfer system standards is the addition

of specific requirements for individual drain systems to the final

rule. The designation of which individual drain systems are required to

use controls is specified in 40 CFR 63 subpart DD--National Emission

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Off-Site Waste and Recovery

Operations. The specific air emission control requirements are

specified in 40 CFR 63 subpart RR--National Emission Standards for

Individual Drain systems. Other revisions have been made, where

relevant and appropriate, so that the requirements for transfer systems

other than an individual drain system are consistent with the

requirements established for the other types of off-site material

management units.

I. Process Vent Standards

In response to comments, several changes have been made to the air

emission control requirements for process vents under the Off-Site

Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP. The term ``enclosed treatment

unit'' proposed for the rule has been deleted from the final rule and

replaced with a definition for the term ``process vent.'' The EPA

decided to use this new term to clarify the process vents that must use

air emission controls under the rule. The final rule has also been

revised to require an average emission reduction of

[[Page 34156]]

at least 95 percent by weight in total HAP emissions from the

combination of all affected process vents at the plant site (i.e., all

process vents that are a part of the affected sources subject to the

Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP).

J. Equipment Leak Air Standards

The EPA has not included in the final Off-Site Waste and Recovery

Operations NESHAP a definition for ``ancillary equipment'' as was

originally proposed. Instead, the specific equipment types subject to

equipment leak standards under the Off-Site Waste and Recovery

Operations NESHAP are listed directly in the applicability section of

the rule (Sec. 63.690). These equipment types are consistent with other

NESHAP equipment leak standards.

K. Control Device and Closed-Vent System Standards

Revisions to the control device and closed-vent system standards

consist of incorporating changes to the closed-vent system and control

device requirements so that these requirements are consistent and up-

to-date with the general decisions the EPA has made regarding NESHAP

inspection, monitoring, maintenance, repair, malfunctions,

recordkeeping, and reporting requirements for organic emission control

devices. Also, to improve the readability and user understanding of the

requirements, the format used to present the standards has been

revised. In the final rule, all of the requirements for a particular

type of control device (e.g., vapor incinerator, carbon adsorber, or

condenser) are grouped together.

L. Test Methods and Procedures

For the final Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP, the

EPA decided to allow an owner or operator to use any one of several

existing EPA test methods for direct measurement of the VOHAP

concentration of an off-site material. In addition, the EPA has made

certain other changes to the rule to facilitate the use of organic

concentration data obtained using other alternative test methods not

specifically listed in the rule.

The final rule allows an owner or operator to directly measure the

volatile organic concentration using any one of the following methods:

Method 305 in 40 CFR part 63, Appendix A; Method 25D in 40 CFR part 60,

Appendix A; or Method 624, Method 1624, or Method 1625 in 40 CFR part

136, Appendix A (when used in accordance with the procedure specified

in the rule). In addition, an owner or operator may use any other

alternative method that has been validated in accordance with the

procedures specified in Sections 5.1 and 5.3 of Method 301 or specified

in the Appendix D--Alternative Validation Procedure for EPA Waste

Methods promulgated by this action in 40 CFR part 63.

M. Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements

The EPA has changed the recordkeeping and reporting requirements

for the final Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP to reflect

the revisions to the rule applicability and technical requirements and

reduce the burden of these requirements on owners and operators.

VII. Administrative Requirements

A. 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 the proposed and final

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).

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection requirements for this 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. 1717.02), and a copy may be obtained from Sandy Farmer,

OPPE Regulatory Information Division (2137), U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, 401 M Street, S.W.; Washington, DC 20460, or by

calling (202) 260-2740.

The public recordkeeping and reporting burden for this collection

of information is estimated to average approximately 830 hours per

respondent for each of the first 3 years following promulgation of the

rule. 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 (2137), 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.''

C. Executive Order 12866

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 5173, October 4, 1993), the

Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant''

and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the

Executive Order. The Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as

one that is likely to result in a rule 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,

user 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.), the EPA Regulatory Flexibility guidelines (April, 1992), and

the Small Business Regulatory Fairness Act of 1996 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,

the EPA guidelines, and the Small Business Fairness Act is to keep

paperwork and regulatory requirements

[[Page 34157]]

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 waste management and recovery operations

subject to this rule, 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 the types of waste management and recovery operations

that will be subject to the rule. The EPA, based on its initial

Regulatory Flexibility analysis, therefore assumed that the rule may

have a significant impact on a substantial number of small businesses,

and conducted a final regulatory flexibility analysis. This analysis is

part of the economic impact analysis (titled Economic Impact Analysis

of 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 facilities at which are located waste management

and recovery operations receiving off-site materials are expected to be

area sources and would not be subject to this NESHAP, the EPA assumed

for the regulatory flexibility analysis that all facilities listed in

the source category data base are collocated at major sources. Also,

the analysis did not exclude those facilities that are major sources

but would not be subject to the air emission control requirements under

the Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP because the facility

qualifies for the rule exemption for a facility at which the total

annual organic HAP mass content of all off-site material is less than 1

Mg/yr.

From the source category data base, the EPA identified for the

analysis 110 small businesses that own 112 facilities subject to the

Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP. As a result of

exemptions allowed by the final rule, none of these small businesses

would incur costs beyond costs for recordkeeping and reporting. All of

these small businesses would meet at least one of the exemption

criteria in the rule and, therefore, would not need to use the air

emission controls required by the rule. The small costs for

recordkeeping and reporting are required to document compliance with

the rule exemptions. For a median small business, the same costs come

to less than 0.1 percent of salescompared with about 0.01 percent for

the median large business. Since there are no capital costs to small

businesses, none of the small businesses would exceed the capital cost

retained earning breakpoints (the maximum amount of new capital a

business can raise without issuing new stock and without changing its

existing capital structure). By way of comparison, 30 percent of large

businesses would have capital costs of compliance exceeding their

breakpoints. None of these large businesses are expected to receive

significant economic impacts.

Finally, the EPA evaluated the possibility that the final rule

might cause a small business to close. Based on this review, no small

businesses are expected to close as a result of having to comply with

the requirements of the final rule.

Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the

Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

E. Unfunded Mandates

Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, the EPA

must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or

final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated

costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to

the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, the EPA

must select the most cost effective and least burdensome alternative

that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with

statutory requirements. Section 203 requires the EPA to establish a

plan for informing and advising any small governments that may be

significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.

The EPA has determined that the action promulgated today does not

include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100

million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate, or to the private sector. Therefore, the requirements of the

Unfunded Mandates Act do not apply to this action.

F. Review

The off-site waste and recovery operations NESHAP will be reviewed

8 years from today's date of promulgation. This review will 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.

VII. 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,

Equipment leaks, Hazardous air pollutants, Individual drain systems,

NESHAP, Off-site waste and recovery operations, Oil-water separators,

Process vents, Tanks, Surface impoundments, Used oil, Used solvents,

Waste.

Dated: May 28, 1996.

Carol M. Browner,

The Administrator.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part

63 of the Code of Federal Regulations are amended as follows:

PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS

FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES

1-3. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as

follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.

4. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart DD consisting of

Secs. 63.680 through 63.698 to read as follows:

[[Page 34158]]

Subpart DD--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

from Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations

Sec.

63.680 Applicability and designation of affected sources.

63.681 Definitions.

63.682 [Reserved]

63.683 Standards: General.

63.684 Standards: Off-site material treatment.

63.685 Standards: Tanks.

63.686 Standards: Oil-water and organic-water separators.

63.687 Standards: Surface impoundments.

63.688 Standards: Containers.

63.689 Standards: Transfer systems..

63.690 Standards: Process vents.

63.691 Standards: Equipment leaks.

63.692 [Reserved]

63.693 Standards: Closed-vent systems and control devices.

63.694 Testing methods and procedures.

63.695 Inspection and monitoring requirements.

63.696 Recordkeeping requirements.

63.697 Reporting requirements.

63.698 Delegation of Authority.

Table 1 to Subpart DD--List of Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAP) for

Subpart DD.

Table 2 to Subpart DD--Applciability of paragraphs in 40 CFR Subpart

A, General Provisions, to Subpart DD.

Table 3 to Subpart DD--Tank Control Levels for Tanks at Existing

Affected Sources as Required by 40 CFR 63.685(b)(1).

Table 4 to Subpart DD--Tank Control Levels for Tanks at New Affected

Sources as Required by 40 CFR 63.685(b)(2).

Subpart DD--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air

Pollutants from Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations

Sec. 63.680 Applicability and designation of affected sources.

(a) The provisions of this subpart apply to the owner and operator

of a plant site for which both of the conditions specified in

paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this section are applicable. If either

one of these conditions does not apply to the plant site, then the

owner and operator of the plant site are not subject to the provisions

of this subpart.

(1) The plant site is a major source of hazardous air pollutant

(HAP) emissions as defined in 40 CFR 63.2.

(2) At the plant site is located one or more of operations that

receives off-site materials as specified in paragraph (b) of this

section and the operations is one of the following waste management

operations or recovery operations as specified in paragraphs (a)(2)(i)

through (a)(2)(vi) of this section.

(i) A waste management operation that receives off-site material

and the operation is regulated as a hazardous waste treatment, storage,

and disposal facility (TSDF) under either 40 CFR part 264 or part 265.

(ii) A waste management operation that treats wastewater which is

an off-site material and the operation is exempted from regulation as a

hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facility under 40 CFR

264.1(g)(6) or 40 CFR 265.1(c)(10).

(iii) A waste management operation that treats wastewater which is

an off-site material and the operation meets both of the following

conditions:

(A) The operation is subject to regulation under either section 402

or 307(b) of the Clean Water Act but is not owned by a ``state'' or

``municipality'' as defined by section 502(3) and 502(4), respectively,

of the Clean Water Act; and

(B) The treatment of wastewater received from off-site is the

predominant activity performed at the plant site.

(iv) A recovery operation that recycles or reprocesses hazardous

waste which is an off-site material and the operation is exempted from

regulation as a hazardous waste treatment, disposal, and storage

facility under 40 CFR 264.1(g)(2) or 40 CFR 265.1(c)(6).

(v) A recovery operation that recycles or reprocesses used solvent

which is an off-site material and the operation is not part of a

chemical, petroleum, or other manufacturing process that is required to

use air emission controls by another subpart of 40 CFR part 63.

(vi) A recovery operation that re-refines or reprocesses used oil

which is an off-site material and the operation is regulated under 40

CFR 279 subpart F--Standards for Used Oil Processors and Refiners.

(b) For the purpose of implementing this subpart, an off-site

material is a material that meets all of the criteria specified in

paragraph (b)(1) of this section but is not one of the materials

specified in paragraph (b)(2) of this section.

(1) An off-site material is a material that meets all of the

criteria specified in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (b)(1)(iii) of this

section. If any one of these criteria do not apply to the material,

then the material is not an off-site material subject to this subpart.

(i) The material is a waste, used oil, or used solvent as defined

in Sec. 63.681 of this subpart;

(ii) The material is not produced or generated within the plant

site, but the material is delivered, transferred, or otherwise moved to

the plant site from a location outside the boundaries of the plant

site; and

(iii) The material contains one or more of the hazardous air

pollutants (HAP) listed in Table 1 of this subpart based on the

composition of the material at the point-of-delivery, as defined in

Sec. 63.681 of this subpart.

(2) For the purpose of implementing this subpart, the following

materials are not off-site materials:

(i) Household waste as defined in 40 CFR 258.2.

(ii) Radioactive mixed waste managed in accordance with all

applicable regulations under Atomic Energy Act and Nuclear Waste Policy

Act authorities.

(iii) Waste that is generated as a result of implementing remedial

activities required under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

(RCRA) corrective action authorities (RCRA sections 3004(u), 3004(v),

or 3008(h)), Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and

Liability Act (CERCLA) authorities, or similar Federal or State

authorities.

(iv) Waste containing HAP that is generated by residential

households (e.g., old paint, home garden pesticides) and subsequently

is collected as a community service by government agencies, businesses,

or other organizations for the purpose of promoting the proper disposal

of this waste.

(v) Waste that is generated by or transferred from units complying

with all applicable regulations under 40 CFR 63 subparts F and G--

National Emission Standards for Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants from

the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry.

(vi) Waste that is generated by or transferred from units complying

with all applicable requirements specified by Sec. 61.342(b) under 40

CFR 61 subpart FF--National Emission Standards for Benzene Waste

Operations for a facility at which the total annual benzene quantity

from the facility waste is equal to or greater than 10 megagrams per

year.

(vii) Ship ballast water pumped from a ship to an onshore

wastewater treatment facility.

(c) For the purpose of implementing this subpart, the affected

sources at a plant site subject to this subpart are as follows:

(1) Off-site material management units. The affected source is the

group of tanks, containers, oil-water or organic-water separators,

surface impoundments, and transfer systems used to manage off-site

material in each of the waste management operations and recovery

operations specified in paragraphs (a)(2)(i) through (a)(2)(vi) of this

section that is located at the plant site.

[[Page 34159]]

(2) Process vents. The affected source is the group of process

vents on units used to manage off-site material in each of the waste

management operations and recovery operations specified in paragraphs

(a)(2)(i) through (a)(2)(vi) of this section that is located at the

plant site.

(3) Equipment leaks. The affected source is the group of equipment

specified in Sec. 63.683(b)(2)(i) through (b)(2)(iii) of this subpart

that is used to handle off-site material in each of the waste

management operations and recovery operations specified in paragraphs

(a)(2)(i) through (a)(2)(vi) of this section that is located at the

plant site.

(d) Owners and operators of plant sites at which are located

affected sources subject to this subpart are exempted from the

requirements of Secs. 63.682 through 63.699 of this subpart in

situations when the total annual quantity of the HAP that is contained

in the off-site material received at the plant site is less than 1

megagram per year. This total annual HAP quantity for the off-site

material shall be based on the total quantity of the HAP listed in

Table 1 of this subpart as determined at the point-of-delivery for each

off-site material stream. Documentation shall be prepared by the owner

or operator and maintained at the plant site to support the initial

determination of the total annual HAP quantity for the off-site

material. The owner or operator shall perform a new determination when

the extent of changes to the quantity or composition of the off-site

material received at the plant site could cause the total annual HAP

quantity in the off-site material to the exceed limit of 1 megagram per

year.

(e) Compliance dates.

(1) Existing sources. The owner or operator of an affected source

that commenced construction or reconstruction before October 13, 1994,

shall achieve compliance with the provisions of the subpart no later

than July 1, 1999 unless an extension has been granted by the

Administrator as provided in 40 CFR 63.6(i).

(2) New sources. The owner or operator of an affected source for

which construction or reconstruction commences on or after October 13,

1994, shall achieve compliance with the provisions of this subpart by

July 1, 1996 or upon initial startup of operations, whichever date is

later as provided in 40 CFR 63.6(b). For the purpose of implementing

this subpart, a waste management operation or recovery operation that

commenced construction or reconstruction before October 13, 1994, and

receives off-site material for the first time after July 1, 1999 is a

new source, and the owner or operator of this affected source shall

achieve compliance with the provisions of this subpart upon the first

date that the waste management operation or recovery operation begins

to manage the off-site material.

(f) The provisions of 40 CFR part 63, subpart A--General Provisions

that apply and those that do not apply to this subpart are specified in

Table 2 of this subpart.

Sec. 63.681 Definitions.

All terms used in this subpart shall have the meaning given to them

in this section, 40 CFR 63.2 of this part, and the Act.

Boiler means an enclosed combustion device that extracts useful

energy in the form of steam and is not an incinerator or a process

heater.

Closed-vent system means a system that is not open to the

atmosphere and is composed of hard-piping, ductwork, connections, and,

if necessary, fans, blowers, or other flow-inducing devices that

conveys gas or vapor from an emission point to a control device.

Closure device means a cap, hatch, lid, plug, seal, valve, or other

type of fitting that prevents or reduces air pollutant emissions to the

atmosphere by blocking an opening in a cover when the device is secured

in the closed position. Closure devices include devices that are

detachable from the cover (e.g., a sampling port cap), manually

operated (e.g., a hinged access lid or hatch), or automatically

operated (e.g., a spring-loaded pressure relief valve).

Container means a portable unit used to hold material. Examples of

containers include but are not limited to drums, dumpsters, roll-off

boxes, bulk cargo containers commonly known as ``portable tanks'' or

``totes'', cargo tank trucks, and tank rail cars.

Continuous record means documentation of data values measured at

least once every 15 minutes and recorded at the frequency specified in

this subpart.

Continuous recorder means a data recording device that either

records an instantaneous data value at least once every 15 minutes or

records 15-minutes or more frequent block averages.

Continuous seal means a seal that forms a continuous closure that

completely covers the space between the edge of the floating roof and

the wall of a tank. A continuous seal may be a vapor-mounted seal,

liquid-mounted seal, or metallic shoe seal. A continuous seal may be

constructed of fastened segments so as to form a continuous seal.

Control device means equipment used for recovering or oxidizing

organic vapors. Examples of such equipment include but are not limited

to carbon adsorbers, condensers, vapor incinerators, flares, boilers,

and process heaters.

Cover means a device that prevents or reduces air pollutant

emissions to the atmosphere by forming a continuous barrier over the

off-site material managed in a unit. A cover may have openings (such as

access hatches, sampling ports, gauge wells) that are necessary for

operation, inspection, maintenance, and repair of the unit on which the

cover is used. A cover may be a separate piece of equipment which can

be detached and removed from the unit or a cover may be formed by

structural features permanently integrated into the design of the unit.

Emission point means an individual tank, surface impoundment,

container, oil-water or organic-water separator, transfer system,

process vent, or enclosure.

Enclosure means a structure that surrounds a tank or container,

captures organic vapors emitted from the tank or container, and vents

the captured vapor through a closed vent system to a control device.

External floating roof means a pontoon-type or double-deck type

cover that rests on the liquid surface in a tank with no fixed roof.

Fixed roof means a cover that is mounted on a unit in a stationary

position and does not move with fluctuations in the level of the liquid

managed in the unit.

Flame zone means the portion of the combustion chamber in a boiler

or process heater occupied by the flame envelope.

Floating roof means a cover consisting of a double deck, pontoon

single deck, or internal floating cover which rests upon and is

supported by the liquid being contained, and is equipped with a

continuous seal.

HAP means hazardous air pollutants.

Hard-piping means pipe or tubing that is manufactured and properly

installed in accordance with relevant standards and good engineering

practices.

Hazardous waste means a waste that is determined to be hazardous

under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (PL 94-580) (RCRA), as

implemented by 40 CFR parts 260 and 261.

Individual drain system means a stationary system used to convey

wastewater streams or residuals to a waste management unit or to

discharge

[[Page 34160]]

or disposal. The term includes hard-piping, all drains and junction

boxes, together with their associated sewer lines and other junction

boxes (e.g., manholes, sumps, and lift stations) conveying wastewater

streams or residuals. For the purpose of this subpart, an individual

drain system is not a drain and collection system that is designed and

operated for the sole purpose of collecting rainfall runoff (e.g.,

stormwater sewer system) and is segregated from all other individual

drain systems.

Internal floating roof means a cover that rests or floats on the

liquid surface (but not necessarily in complete contact with it inside

a tank that has a fixed roof).

Light-material service means the container is used to manage an

off-site material for which both of the following conditions apply: the

vapor pressure of one or more of the organic constituents in the off-

site material is greater than 0.3 kilopascals (kPa) at 20 deg.C; and

the total concentration of the pure organic constituents having a vapor

pressure greater than 0.3 kPa at 20 deg.C is equal to or greater than

20 percent by weight.

Liquid-mounted seal means a foam- or liquid-filled continuous seal

mounted in contact with the liquid in a unit.

Maximum HAP vapor pressure means the sum of the individual HAP

equilibrium partial pressure exerted by an off-site material at the

temperature equal to either: the local maximum monthly average

temperature as reported by the National Weather Service when the off-

site material is stored or treated at ambient temperature; or the

highest calendar-month average temperature of the off-site material

when the off-site material is stored at temperatures above the ambient

temperature or when the off-site material is stored or treated at

temperatures below the ambient temperature. For the purpose of this

subpart, maximum HAP vapor pressure is determined using the procedures

specified in Sec. 63.694(j) of this subpart.

Metallic shoe seal means a continuous seal that is constructed of

metal sheets which are held vertically against the wall of the tank by

springs, weighted levers, or other mechanisms and is connected to the

floating roof by braces or other means. A flexible coated fabric

(envelope) spans the annular space between the metal sheet and the

floating roof.

No detectable organic emissions means no escape of organics to the

atmosphere as determined using the procedure specified in

Sec. 63.694(k) of this subpart.

Off-site material means a material that meets all of the criteria

specified in paragraph Sec. 63.680(b)(1) of this subpart but is not one

of the materials specified in Sec. 63.680(b)(2) of this subpart.

Off-site material management unit means a tank, container, surface

impoundment, oil-water separator, organic-water separator, or transfer

system used to manage off-site material.

Off-site material stream means an off-site material produced or

generated by a particular process or source such that the composition

and form of the material comprising the stream remain consistent. An

off-site material stream may be delivered, transferred, or otherwise

moved to the plant site in a continuous flow of material (e.g.,

wastewater flowing through a pipeline) or in a series of discrete

batches of material (e.g., a truckload of drums all containing the same

off-site material or multiple bulk truck loads of an off-site material

produced by the same process).

Oil-water separator means a separator as defined for this subpart

that is used to separate oil from water.

Operating parameter value means a minimum or maximum value

established for a control device or treatment process parameter which,

if achieved by itself or in combination with one or more other

operating parameter values, determines that an owner or operator has

complied with an applicable emission limitation or standard.

Organic-water separator means a separator as defined for this

subpart that is used to separate organics from water.

Plant site means all contiguous or adjoining property that is under

common control including properties that are separated only by a road

or other public right-of-way. Common control includes properties that

are owned, leased, or operated by the same entity, parent entity,

subsidiary, or any combination thereof. A unit or group of units within

a contiguous property that are not under common control (e.g., a

wastewater treatment unit or solvent recovery unit located at the site

but is sold to a different company) is a different plant site.

Point-of-delivery means the point at the boundary or within the

plant site where the owner or operator first accepts custody, takes

possession, or assumes responsibility for the management of an off-site

material stream managed in a waste management operation or recovery

operation specified in Sec. 63.680 (a)(2)(i) through (a)(2)(vi) of this

subpart. The characteristics of an off-site material stream are

determined prior to combining the off-site material stream with other

off-site material streams or with any other materials.

Point-of-treatment means a point where the off-site material to be

treated in accordance with Sec. 63.683(b)(1)(ii) of this subpart exits

the treatment process. The characteristics shall be determined before

this material is conveyed, handled, or otherwise managed in such a

manner that the material has the potential to volatilize to the

atmosphere.

Process heater means an enclosed combustion device that transfers

heat released by burning fuel directly to process streams or to heat

transfer liquids other than water.

Process vent means any open-ended pipe, stack, or duct that allows

the passage of gases, vapors, or fumes to the atmosphere and this

passage is caused by mechanical means (such as compressors or vacuum-

producing systems) or by process-related means (such as volatilization

produced by heating). For the purpose of this subpart, a process vent

is not a stack or duct used to exhaust combustion products from a

boiler, furnace, process heater, incinerator, or other combustion

device.

Recovery operation means the collection of off-site material

management units, process vents, and equipment components used at a

plant site to manage an off-site material stream from the point-of-

delivery through the point where the material has been recycled,

reprocessed, or re-refined to obtain the intended product or to remove

the physical and chemical impurities of concern.

Safety device means a closure device such as a pressure relief

valve, frangible disc, fusible plug, or any other type of device which

functions exclusively to prevent physical damage or permanent

deformation to a unit or its air emission control equipment by venting

gases or vapors directly to the atmosphere during unsafe conditions

resulting from an unplanned, accidental, or emergency event. For the

purpose of this subpart, a safety device is not used for routine

venting of gases or vapors from the vapor headspace underneath a cover

such as during filling of the unit or to adjust the pressure in this

vapor headspace in response to normal daily diurnal ambient temperature

fluctuations. A safety device is designed to remain in a closed

position during normal operations and open only when the internal

pressure, or another relevant parameter, exceeds the device threshold

setting applicable to the air emission control equipment as determined

by the owner or operator based on manufacturer recommendations,

applicable

[[Page 34161]]

regulations, fire protection and prevention codes, standard engineering

codes and practices, or other requirements for the safe handling of

flammable, combustible, explosive, reactive, or hazardous materials.

Separator means a waste management unit, generally a tank, used to

separate oil or organics from water. A separator consists of not only

the separation unit but also the forebay and other separator basins,

skimmers, weirs, grit chambers, sludge hoppers, and bar screens that

are located directly after the individual drain system and prior to any

additional treatment units such as an air flotation unit clarifier or

biological treatment unit. Examples of a separator include, but are not

limited to, an API separator, parallel-plate interceptor, and

corrugated-plate interceptor with the associated ancillary equipment.

Single-seal system means a floating roof having one continuous

seal. This seal may be vapor-mounted, liquid-mounted, or a metallic

shoe seal.

Surface impoundment means a unit that is a natural topographical

depression, man-made excavation, or diked area formed primarily of

earthen materials (although it may be lined with man-made materials),

which is designed to hold an accumulation of liquids. Examples of

surface impoundments include holding, storage, settling, and aeration

pits, ponds, and lagoons.

Tank means a stationary unit that is constructed primarily of

nonearthen materials (such as wood, concrete, steel, fiberglass, or

plastic) which provide structural support and is designed to hold an

accumulation of liquids or other materials.

Transfer system means a stationary system for which the predominant

function is to convey liquids or solid materials from one point to

another point within a waste management operation or recovery

operation. For the purpose of this subpart, the conveyance of material

using a container (as defined for this subpart) or a self-propelled

vehicle (e.g., a front-end loader) is not a transfer system. Examples

of a transfer system include but are not limited to a pipeline, an

individual drain system, a gravity-operated conveyor (such as a chute),

and a mechanically-powered conveyor (such as a belt or screw conveyor).

Temperature monitoring device means a piece of equipment used to

monitor temperature and having an accuracy of 1 percent of

the temperature being monitored expressed in degrees Celsius ( deg.C)

or 1.2 degrees deg.C, whichever value is greater.

Treatment process means a process in which an off-site material

stream is physically, chemically, thermally, or biologically treated to

destroy, degrade, or remove hazardous air pollutants contained in the

off-site material. A treatment process can be composed of a single unit

(e.g., a steam stripper) or a series of units (e.g., a wastewater

treatment system). A treatment process can be used to treat one or more

off-site material streams at the same time.

Used oil means any oil refined from crude oil or any synthetic oil

that has been used and as a result of such use is contaminated by

physical or chemical impurities. This definition is the same definition

of ``used oil'' in 40 CFR 279.1.

Used solvent means a solvent composed of a mixture of aliphatic

hydrocarbons or a mixture of one and two ring aromatic hydrocarbons

that has been used and as a result of such use is contaminated by

physical or chemical impurities.

Vapor-mounted seal means a continuous seal that is mounted such

that there is a vapor space between the liquid in the unit and the

bottom of the seal.

Volatile organic hazardous air pollutant concentration or VOHAP

concentration means the fraction by weight of the HAP listed in Table 1

of this subpart that are contained in an off-site material. For the

purpose of this subpart, VOHAP concentration is determined in

accordance with the test methods and procedures specified in

Sec. 63.694 (b) and (c) of this subpart.

Waste means a 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.

Waste management operation means the collection of off-site

material management units, process vents, and equipment components used

at a plant site to manage an off-site material stream from the point-

of-delivery to the point where the waste exits or is discharged from

the plant site or the waste is placed for on-site disposal in a unit

not subject to this subpart (e.g., a waste incinerator, a land disposal

unit).

Waste stabilization process means any physical or chemical process

used to either reduce the mobility of hazardous constituents in a waste

or eliminate free liquids as determined by Test Method 9095--Paint

Filter Liquids Test in ``Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste,

Physical/Chemical Methods,'' EPA Publication No. SW-846, Third Edition,

September 1986, as amended by Update I, November 15, 1992. A waste

stabilization process includes mixing the waste with binders or other

materials, and curing the resulting waste and binder mixture. Other

synonymous terms used to refer to this process are ``waste fixation''

or ``waste solidification.'' A waste stabilization process does not

include the adding of absorbent materials to the surface of a waste,

without mixing, agitation, or subsequent curing, to absorb free liquid.

Sec. 63.682 [Reserved]

Sec. 63.683 Standards: General.

(a) This section applies to owners and operators of affected

sources as defined in Sec. 63.680(c) of this subpart.

(b) The owner or operator shall control the air emissions from each

affected source in accordance with the following requirements:

(1) For each off-site material management unit that is part of an

affected source, the owner or operator shall perform one of the

following except when the unit is exempted under provisions of

paragraph (c) of this section:

(i) Install and operate air emission controls on the off-site

material management unit in accordance with the standards specified in

Secs. 63.685 through 63.689 of this subpart, as applicable to the unit;

(ii) Treat the off-site material to remove or destroy the HAP in

accordance with the treatment standards specified in Sec. 63.684 of

this subpart before placing the material in the off-site material

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.