# National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Off- Site Waste and Recovery Operations > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A96-16576 ## Record - **Collection:** Federal Register - **Document type:** Rule - **Published:** July 1, 1996 - **Citation:** 61 FR 34140 ## Text 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. Paper [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A96-16576. Public record. Not legal advice.