Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities and Hazardous Waste Generators; Organic Air Emission Standards for Tanks, Surface Impoundments, and Containers

SUMMARY: Under the authority of the Resource Conservation and Recovery

Act (RCRA), as amended, the EPA has published standards (59 FR 62896,

December 6, 1994) to reduce organic air emissions from certain

hazardous waste management activities to levels that are protective of

human health and the environment. (The standards are known colloquially

as the ``subpart CC'' standards due to their inclusion in subpart CC of

parts 264 and 265 of the RCRA subtitle C regulations). These air

standards apply to certain tanks, containers, and surface impoundments

(including tanks and containers at generators' facilities) used to

manage hazardous waste capable of releasing organic waste constituents

at levels which can harm human health and the environment.

The EPA previously has stayed the effective date of those rules

administratively in order to receive and evaluate comments and

ultimately to revise the rules in an appropriate manner. Today's action

amends and clarifies the regulatory text of the final standards,

clarifies certain language in the preamble to the final rule, and in

doing so provides additional options for compliance that give owners

and operators increased flexibility in meeting the requirements of the

rules while still providing sufficient controls to be protective of

human health and the environment. In addition, today's action suspends

the applicability and implementation of subpart CC of Parts 264 and 265

from October 6, 1996, to December 6, 1996.

DATES: These amendments are effective October 6, 1996. The

applicability and implementation of Subpart CC of Parts 264 and 265 is

suspended from October 6, 1996, to December 6, 1996.

ADDRESSES: This document is available on the EPA's Clean-up Information

Bulletin Board (CLU-IN). To access CLU-IN with a modem of up to 28,800

baud, dial (301) 589-8366. First time users will be asked to input some

initial registration information. Next, select ``D'' (download) from

the main menu. Input the file name ``RCRAAMEN.ZIP'' to download this

notice. Follow the on-line instructions to complete the download. More

information about the download procedure is located in Bulletin 104; to

read this type ``B 104'' from the main menu. For additional help with

these instructions, telephone the CLU-IN help line at (301) 589-8368.

Docket. The supporting information used for this rulemaking is

available for public inspection and copying in the RCRA docket. The

RCRA docket numbers pertaining to this rulemaking are F-91-CESP-FFFFF,

F-92-CESA-FFFFF, F-94-CESF-FFFFF, F-94-CE2A-FFFFF, F-95-CE3A-FFFFF and

F-96-CE4A-FFFFF. The RCRA docket is located at Crystal Gateway, 1235

Jefferson Davis Highway, First Floor, Arlington, Virginia. Hand

delivery of items and review of docket materials are made at the

Virginia address. The public must have an appointment to review docket

materials. Appointments can be scheduled by calling the Docket Office

at (703) 603-9230. The mailing address for the RCRA docket office is

RCRA Information Center (5305W), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

401 M Street SW, Washington, DC 20460.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning

applicability, permitting, enforcement and rule determinations, contact

the appropriate regional representative:

Region I:

Stephen Yee, (617) 565-3550, U.S. EPA, Region I, JFK Federal

Building, Boston, MA 02203-0001

Region II:

Abdool Jabar, (212) 637-4131, John Brogard, 637-4162, Jim Sullivan,

637-3812, U.S. EPA, Region II, 290 Broadway, New York, NY 10007-1866

Region III:

Linda Matyskiela,(215) 566-3420, U.S. EPA, Region III, 841 Chestnut

Building, Philadelphia, PA 19107

Region IV:

Denise Housley, (404) 562-8495, Rick Gillam, 562-8498, Judy

Sophianolpoulos, 562-8604, U.S. EPA, Region IV, 345 Courtland Street,

N.E., Atlanta, GA 30365

Region V:

Charles Slaustas, (312) 886-6190, Ros Del Rosario, 886-6195,

Uylaine McMahan, 886-4454, U.S. EPA, Region V, 5AE-26, 77 West Jackson

Street, Chicago, IL 60604

Region VI:

Michelle Peace, (214) 665-7430, David McQuiddy, 665-6722, U.S. EPA,

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

Region VII:

Don Lininger, (913) 551-7724, Ken Herstowski, 551-7631, U.S. EPA,

Region VII, 726 Minnesota Avenue, Kansas City, KS 66101

Region VIII:

Mindy Mohr, (303) 312-6525, U.S. EPA, Region VIII, 999 18th Street,

Suite 500, Denver, CO 80202-2466

Region IX:

Stacy Braye, (415) 774-2056, Jean Daniel, 774-2128, U.S. EPA,

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA

Region X:

Linda Liu, (206) 553-1447, David Bartus, 553-2804, U.S. EPA, Region

X, OAQ-107, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101

For general information about the RCRA Air Rules, or specific rule

requirements of RCRA rules, please contact the RCRA Hotline, toll-free

at (800) 424-9346. For questions about testing or analytical methods

mentioned in this notice, please contact the Emission Measurement

Center (MD-19), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle

Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone (919) 541-5374. For information

concerning the analyses performed in developing this rule, contact Ms.

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

Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711.

Note: The EPA notes that this published preamble differs in two

respects from that signed by the Administrator on October 4, 1996.

First, the EPA has altered the wording of the DATES section of the

rule to indicate that these amendments are suspended between the

period October 4, 1996, and December 6, 1996. The alteration is in

the use of the new term, ``suspend.'' The result of this alteration

is equivalent to that in the version of the rule signed October 4,

1996; namely, that the final regulations, as amended by the action

signed October 4, 1996, take effect on December 6, 1996. The reason

for the altered language is essentially due to conventions in

printing format. The EPA has also added an explanation in the

preamble to clarify that, in revising this terminology, the EPA is

not altering its intent that the effective date of the regulations

will be December 6, 1996.

Second, with respect to the issue of whether RCRA subpart AA and

BB standards apply to recycling units (i.e., units performing the

actual process of recycling) at 90-day generator facilities, the

October 4, 1996, preamble did not clearly reflect the text of the

regulation or the Agency's intention. The Agency's intent is that

recycling units which are exempt from RCRA under 40 CFR 261.6(c)(1)

are not subject to subpart AA and

[[Page 59933]]

BB standards under 40 CFR part 264 or 265, unless some other unit at

the facility has to obtain a RCRA permit. In addition, it is the

Agency's intent that units recycling waste that have permit-exempt

status by virtue of the provisions of 40 CFR 262.34 (the 90-day unit

provision), but are not exempt under the requirement of 40 CFR

261.6(c)(1), are subject to the 40 CFR part 265, subpart AA and BB

standards. The preamble discussion contained in the version of this

notice signed October 4, 1996, did not clearly distinguish between

these two populations, and thus could have easily been interpreted

to be contrary to this intent. The EPA has edited the preamble text

to clearly reflect its intent.

The EPA believes that making this clarifying change can be done

without re-proposing the edited preamble language. In promulgating the

October 4, 1996, signed amendments, the EPA did not voice any intention

to deviate from previous regulatory actions under this rulemaking that,

when applying to generator facilities, subpart AA and BB requirements

cover only 90-day tanks and containers (see December 6, 1994,

promulgated rule 59 FR at page 62909; final rule Background Information

Document, EPA-453/R-94-076b, at page 7-11; July 22, 1991, proposed rule

at 56 FR at page 33530; proposed rule Background Information Document,

EPA-450/3-89-023c, at page L-3). For this purpose, the EPA does not

consider a recycling unit which is exempt from permitting under 40 CFR

261.6(c)(1) to be a 90-day tank or container. Any suggestion in the

October 1996 preamble that these recycling units would all be covered

would have expanded the scope of the underlying rule, contrary to EPA's

stated intent.

The primary reason EPA is correcting the preamble language now (as

opposed to a later Federal Register notice, perhaps with a public

comment period) is to minimize any confusion on this issue. The best

way to do so is to have the Federal Register publication be accurate,

not to issue a later notice correcting and clarifying preamble

language. The EPA is therefore making changes to be incorporated into

this Federal Register notice, in an effort to correct any potentially

confusing preamble discussions before publication. This revised notice

will replace the version of the notice signed by the Administrator on

October 4, 1996, which was previously available on the EPA's CLU-IN

electronic bulletin board.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulated Entities

The entities potentially affected by this action include:

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

Category Examples of regulated entities

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

Industry............................ Businesses that treat, store, or

dispose of hazardous waste and

are subject to RCRA subtitle C

permitting requirements, or that

accumulate hazardous waste on-

site in RCRA permit-exempt tanks

or containers pursuant to 40 CFR

262.34(a).

Federal Government.................. Federal agencies that treat,

store, or dispose of hazardous

waste and are subject to RCRA

subtitle C permitting

requirements, or that accumulate

hazardous waste on-site in RCRA

permit-exempt tanks or containers

pursuant to 40 CFR 262.34(a).

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

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

guide for readers regarding entities likely to be interested in the

amendments to the regulation affected by this action. To determine

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

examine the applicability criteria in Sec. 264.1080 and Sec. 265.1080

of the RCRA subpart CC air rules. 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.

Background

Section 3004(n) of RCRA requires EPA to develop standards to

control air emissions from hazardous waste treatment, storage, and

disposal facilities as may be necessary to protect human health and the

environment. This requirement echoes the general requirement in section

3004(a) and section 3002(a)(3) to develop standards to control

hazardous waste management activities as may be necessary to protect

human health and the environment. The Agency has issued a series of

regulations to implement the section 3004(n) mandate; these regulations

control air emissions from certain process vents and equipment leaks

(part 264 and part 265 subparts AA and BB), and emissions from certain

tanks, containers, and surface impoundments (the subpart CC standards,

which are the primary subject of today's action).

The EPA is today amending the final subpart AA, BB, and CC

standards. Since the publication of the final subpart CC rule (59 FR

69826, December 4, 1994), the EPA has published three Federal Register

documents to delay the effective date of that rule. The first (60 FR

26828, May 19, 1995) revised the effective date of the standards to be

December 6, 1995. The second (60 FR 56952, November 13, 1995) revised

the effective date of the standards to be June 6, 1996. The third (61

FR 28508, June 5, 1996) further postponed the effective date for the

rule requirements until October 6, 1996. The EPA has also issued an

indefinite stay of the standards specific to units managing wastes

produced by certain organic peroxide manufacturing processes (60 FR

50426, September 29, 1995).

On August 14, 1995, the EPA published a Federal Register document

entitled, ``Proposed rule; data availability'' (60 FR 41870) and opened

RCRA Docket F-95-CE3A-FFFFF to accept comments on revisions that the

EPA was considering for the final subpart CC standards. The EPA

accepted public comments on the appropriateness of these revisions

through October 13, 1995. Throughout 1995 and into the present year,

the EPA also engaged in repeated discussions with representatives of

the groups filing petitions for review challenging the subpart CC

standards.

Sixty-four comment letters were received by the EPA in response to

the August 14, 1995 notice of ``Proposed rule; data availability;'' the

commenters included companies affected by the rules, trade

associations, consulting companies, and one State environmental agency.

Most comment letters contained multiple comments. Comments generally

supported the proposed amendments although many offered specific

criticisms and suggested changes. The EPA considered all comments on

the proposed rule amendments in developing the final amendments

published today.

In the August 14, 1995 notice of ``Proposed rule; data

availability,'' the EPA requested comment on specific revisions to the

final subpart CC tank, surface impoundment, and container standards

that the EPA was considering. The notice identified those provisions of

the final rule that the revisions would potentially affect which

included the waste determination procedures, the standards (or

technical requirements) for tanks and containers, and the applicability

of the final standards to units that operate with air emission controls

in accordance with certain Clean Air Act standards. In addition, it was

noted that the revisions would reduce the monitoring, inspection,

recordkeeping, and reporting requirements for affected tanks, surface

impoundments, and containers.

To further inform the affected public of the major clarifications,

compliance options, and technical amendments

[[Page 59934]]

being considered, the EPA conducted a series of seminars during August

and September of 1995. A total of six seminars were held nationally.

(Refer to EPA RCRA Docket No. F-95-CE3A-FFFFF, Item No. F-95-CE3A-

S0017.) During these seminars, additional comments were received on the

RCRA air rules for tanks, surface impoundments, and containers. These

comments were also considered by the EPA in developing these

amendments.

On February 9, 1996, the EPA published a Federal Register notice

(61 FR 4903), ``Final rule; technical amendment,'' which made

clarifying amendments in the regulatory text of the final standards,

corrected typographical and grammatical errors, and clarified certain

language in the preamble to the final rule to better convey the EPA's

original intent.

Today's action amends provisions of the final subparts AA, BB, CC

rules to better convey the EPA's original intent, to provide additional

flexibility to owners and operators who must comply with the rules, and

to change the effective date of the requirements contained in the

subpart CC rules. The amendments to subparts AA, BB, and CC that are

being promulgated today are discussed below in various sections of this

preamble. Comments received on the proposed amendments and the EPA's

responses to those comments are also discussed together with the

changes being made by today's action. Some commenters submitted

comments on aspects of the original rule that were unaffected by, and

not reopened by the proposed amendments. These comments are outside the

scope of the rulemaking for the proposed amendments and, therefore,

these comments, although perhaps mentioned, are not addressed in this

rulemaking.

In today's amendments, certain sections of the subpart CC rules are

reprinted in total; this accounts, in large part, for the lengthy

amendatory language contained in today's amendments. Reprinting of

entire sections of the rule is being done for two reasons. First, some

sections of the rule have been entirely redrafted to improve

organizational structure and drafting clarity and to avoid ambiguity

while only making minor revisions to the basic control requirements of

the rule. Second, in other sections of the rule, the technical

requirements have been changed significantly or options added to

increase flexibility for the source owner or operator. Therefore, to

ensure the rule is implemented as intended and for the convenience of

the public, the EPA decided to reprint these entire sections. In doing

so it was not intended to completely reopen these entire sections of

the rule for judicial review or legal challenge. As provided by section

7006(a), judicial review is not newly available for aspects of the

subparts AA, BB, and CC rules that were already finalized more than 90

days ago, and which are not substantively addressed by today's

amendments.

The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows:

I. Subpart I--Use and Management of Containers and Subpart J--Tank

Systems

II. Subpart AA--Air Emission Standards for Process Vents: Standards

for closed-Vent Systems and Control Devices

III. Subpart BB--Air Emission Standards for Equipment Leaks

IV. Subpart CC--Air Emission Standards for Tanks, Surface

Impoundments, and Containers

A. Suspension of Subpart CC Rule Requirements

B. Retention of Final Compliance Date

C. Applicability

D. Definitions

E. Standards: General

F. Waste Determination Procedures

G. Standards: Tanks

H. Standards: Surface impoundments

I. Standards: Containers

J. Standards: Closed-Vent Systems and Control Devices

K. Inspection and Monitoring Requirements

L. Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements

V. Administrative Requirements

A. Docket

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

C. Executive Order 12866 Review

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act

E. Unfunded Mandates

VI. Legal Authority

I. Subpart I--Use and Management of Containers and Subpart J--Tank

Systems

Under the existing RCRA regulations, hazardous waste generators who

accumulate waste on-site for up to 90 days in tanks and containers

(``90-day tanks and containers'' or ``90-day units'') may permissibly

do so without obtaining a storage permit provided the generator

complies with certain conditions specified in 40 CFR 262.34(a). The

conditions include compliance with the requirements of 40 CFR part 265,

subpart I when the waste is accumulated in a container and 40 CFR part

265, subpart J when the waste is accumulated in a tank.

The subpart CC regulations proposed by the EPA on July 22, 1991 (56

FR 33491) contained provisions to amend the conditions with which a

hazardous waste generator must comply to exempt 90-day tanks and

containers from RCRA subtitle C permitting requirements, namely to

comply with standards set out in subparts AA, BB, CC applicable to

tanks and containers. The EPA took comments on this proposed action and

responded to those comments in (among other places) the preamble to the

1994 final subpart CC regulations. The 1994 final rules regarding 90-

day tanks and containers were the same as those proposed.

As noted in Section VI.D of the preamble to the 1994 final subpart

CC RCRA air rules (59 FR 62910, December 6, 1994), the organic air

emissions from 90-day tanks and containers are sufficient to have an

adverse and significant effect upon human health and the environment

and therefore ``led the EPA to require that these units comply with the

appropriate air emission control requirements of the subpart AA, BB,

and CC standards to maintain an exemption from permitting.''

Commenters requested that EPA clarify precisely when 90-day units

are subject to the subpart AA, BB, and CC standards, and, in a related

question, requested clarification as to when these rules would apply to

units that are engaged in recycling. With respect to when the subpart

AA, BB, and CC rules apply to 90-day units that are not recycling units

(for example, tanks or containers that store hazardous waste before

recycling), the EPA intends that the subpart AA, BB, or CC standards

apply so long as the substantive applicability provisions of one or

more of these subparts is satisfied. This means, for example, that if

the 90-day units are receiving hazardous waste with organic

concentrations of at least 10 per cent by weight, the subpart BB

standards would apply to the associated equipment components; on the

other hand, if the units only receive hazardous waste below this

applicability threshold, the subpart BB requirements would not apply

(see Sec. 265.1050(b)). Similarly, the subpart CC air emission control

requirements would apply to a 90-day tank or container if the owner or

operator does not demonstrate that the hazardous waste stored in the

unit contains average volatile organic concentrations below 500 ppmw.

It should be noted that the fact that one of these subparts applies

does not automatically mean that the others apply as well. Thus, for

example, if a generator manages hazardous waste with organic

concentration of 500 ppmw in a tank

[[Page 59935]]

equipped with an open-ended valve, the unit would be subject to the

subpart CC standards (See Sec. 265.1080(a)). This does not mean that

the open-ended valve is also automatically subject to the subpart BB

standards; rather, the respective applicability section of those

provisions would have to be satisfied before they would apply.

The EPA notes further, however, that the applicability of the

subpart AA and BB standards, prior to publication of the final subpart

CC rule in December 1994, was conditioned on there being another unit

at the facility otherwise requiring a RCRA permit--the notion being

that the subpart AA and BB rules by themselves would not require a

facility to obtain a RCRA permit (see Section V of the preamble in 55

FR 25449, June 21, 1990, and Secs. 265.1030(b)(2) and

265.1050(b)(2)).1 This consideration does not apply to 90-day

units, since these units are not subject to RCRA permitting

requirements in any case. In addition, the risks posed by these units

is the same whether or not another unit at the plant has received a

RCRA permit; the EPA evaluated and discussed these risks when

promulgating the December 1994 final rule and found that substantive

controls were necessary to protect human health and the environment.

See 59 FR at 62910 and also Appendix L, 90-Day Tanks and Container

Impacts, in ``Hazardous Waste TSDF--Background Information for Proposed

RCRA Air Emission Standards'' (EPA-450/3-89-023c), June 1991.

Consequently, subparts AA and BB apply to 90-day tanks and containers

whether or not another unit at the facility has to obtain a RCRA permit

(assuming the other applicability criteria in the rule are satisfied,

as explained above). For this purpose, the EPA does not consider a

recycling unit which is exempt from permitting under 40 CFR 261.6(c) to

be a 90-day tank or container. The EPA is adding clarifying language as

a part of today's rule amendments to make clear that applicability of

subparts AA and BB to 90-day units is not conditioned on another unit

at the generator's facility obtaining a RCRA permit.

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

\1\ The subpart CC rules are not so conditioned.

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

With respect to the commenters' questions regarding applicability

of the subpart AA, BB, CC rules to recycling units (i.e., units

actually performing the recycling function, such as a solvent

distillation column), EPA notes the following principles. The revised

applicability sections to subparts AA and BB state that units that have

permit exempt status by virtue of 40 CFR 262.34, including recycling

units, will now be subject to subparts AA and BB. In practice, the EPA

does not believe that this will include many, if any, recycling units.

This is because such units typically are exempt from RCRA permitting by

virtue of 40 CFR 261.61(c)(1). Thus, the net effect of these

amendments, with respect to recycling units, is to preserve the status

quo of regulating those units which are located at a facility which

must obtain a RCRA permit for some other unit.

In addition, subpart CC does not apply to recycling units. Section

261.6(d), Requirements for recyclable materials, for example, does not

indicate that recycling units must comply with the subpart CC

provisions. The reason these provisions do not apply is that the

standards are not normally appropriate for recycling units handling

volatile hazardous wastes; rather, the subpart AA standards are the

appropriate standards. The emission mechanisms for traditional

hazardous waste storage tanks (e.g. circular above-ground units with

open tops or covered open tops) differ significantly from the emission

mechanism of the distillation-type unit used for recycling and certain

treatment operations (e.g. air strippers and thin-film evaporators)

regulated under subpart AA. Recycling units typically emit air

pollutants through some type of process vent, and consequently are

controlled under the subpart AA process vent standards. The

suppression-type controls (e.g. covers) prescribed for traditional

storage and treatment tanks in subpart CC simply are not suitable for

most distillation-type units.

Finally, EPA is slightly amending the applicability sections of

subparts AA and BB to make clear that these standards can apply to non-

recycling units that are located at either TSDF sites or generator

accumulation sites, assuming that the units otherwise satisfy the

subpart AA or BB applicability requirements. Thus, for example, a steam

stripper engaged in conventional hazardous waste treatment at a

permitted TSDF could be subject to the subpart AA standards. The risks

posed by the types of units enumerated in subparts AA and BB are the

same, whether or not they are recycling or non-recycling units, so any

distinction between them is unfounded. In fact, today's language merely

clarifies the coverage of the existing subpart AA and BB rules, since

those rules already cover all units (i.e. recycling and non-recycling)

that are subject to the permitting requirements of part 270, and thus

covers non-recycling units.

The following examples illustrate these principles.

1. Generator A stores volatile spent solvents (F001) in 90 day

tanks before recycling them in an on-site distillation column. The

facility has one other unit requiring a RCRA permit. The volatile

organic concentration of the waste exceeds the subpart AA, BB and CC

applicability thresholds.

In this case, the 90-day storage tanks and associated equipment

components are subject to the subpart BB and subpart CC standards,

since the substantive applicability standards of both subparts are

satisfied. Subpart AA does not apply to the spent solvent storage tanks

(assuming the tanks are not distillation, fractionation, thin-film

evaporation or other type of unit set out in Sec. 265.1030(b), the

subpart AA applicability section). The distillation column (and its

associated equipment) is subject to the subpart AA and BB standards,

but not the subpart CC standards since subpart CC does not apply to

recycling units.

2. Same facts as Example 1 except that the waste contains less than

10 percent total organics and greater than 500 ppmw volatile organics.

In this case, the spent solvent storage tank is subject to the

subpart CC standards but the associated equipment components are not

subject to the subpart BB standards (since subpart BB does not apply to

hazardous wastes with less than 10 percent total organic content). The

distillation column is subject to the subpart AA standards for the

reasons explained in Example 1. This example illustrates that

applicability of one of the subparts (AA, BB, or CC) does not

automatically mean that the standards from the other subparts also

apply. The substantive applicability provisions of each subpart still

must be satisfied.

II. Subpart AA--Air Emission Standards for Process Vents: Standards for

Closed-Vent Systems and Control Devices

On the subject of closed-vent systems and control devices,

commenters requested a provision for control device downtime to allow

for preventive, routine, or non-routine maintenance; an exemption for

control devices subject to 95 percent efficiency requirements in other

rules from performance test and design analysis requirements; an

exemption from monitoring requirements for closed-vent system

components that operate under negative pressure; a revision such that

only spent carbon removed from a carbon adsorption system that is a

hazardous waste must be managed in accordance with subpart CC

requirements; and a reduction in the closed-vent system and

[[Page 59936]]

control device inspection and monitoring requirements.

The EPA has decided to amend certain of the control device and

closed-vent system standards of subpart AA in 40 CFR parts 264 and 265

so that these requirements are consistent and up-to-date with the

general decisions the EPA has made regarding inspection, monitoring,

maintenance, repair, malfunctions, recordkeeping, and reporting

requirements for organic air emission control devices and associated

closed-vent systems installed and operated to meet requirements of

other regulations under the Clean Air Act or RCRA (e.g., National

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

Recovery Operations, 61 FR 34140, July 1, 1996). These revisions are

both consistent with the integration provisions of RCRA Section

1006(b), which require that RCRA standards be consistent and not

duplicative of Clean Air Act standards, and also are a part of the

EPA's overall approach of allowing unit-specific Clean Air Act

standards to be used in lieu of control requirements under RCRA subpart

CC. (See Sec. 265.1080(b)(7) in today's amended rule.) The changes to

the control device and closed-vent system standards in no way affect

the overall performance or emission reductions achieved by the control

devices and closed-vent systems. Therefore, the revised standards are

considered by the EPA to be equally protective to those already

adopted, and thus adequate to protect human health and the environment.

The revisions to the standards for closed-vent systems and control

devices in subpart AA of 40 CFR parts 265 and 264 include the changes

described below.

The monitoring requirement for a condenser in

Sec. 264.1033(f)(2)(vi)(B) and Sec. 265.1033(f)(2)(vi)(B) is being

revised such that only the temperature of the exhaust vent stream from

the condenser exit must be continuously monitored; the requirement to

monitor the coolant fluid temperature exiting the condenser is being

dropped. This revision reduces the owner's or operator's monitoring and

recordkeeping burden while maintaining the EPA's ability to ensure that

the emission control equipment is properly operated and maintained to

achieve the required emission reduction.

The closed-vent system requirements in Sec. 264.1033 and

Sec. 265.1033 are being revised such that a closed-vent system that is

designed to operate at a pressure below atmospheric pressure is not

required to be monitored by Method 21 procedures either initially or

annually. For these negative pressure systems, an initial visual

inspection and annual follow-on inspection is required; in addition, a

pressure gauge or other pressure measurement device is required to

verify that negative pressure is maintained in the closed-vent system

when the control device is operating. As noted in section 10 of the

preamble to the earlier subpart CC rule clarifications (61 FR 4910,

February 9, 1996), ``the EPA had intended to not require annual

monitoring of closed-vent system components which operate under

pressure such that all emissions are routed to a control device even if

a leak or hole exists in the component. A component that continuously

operates under negative pressure would satisfy this intent * * *'' In

today's action, the EPA is removing the requirement for the initial

leak detection monitoring for negative pressure systems; this change

reduces owner or operator burden resulting from any redundant or non-

productive monitoring.

Unsafe-to-monitor and delay of repair provisions for closed-vent

systems are being added. Corresponding recordkeeping requirements also

are being added. This common sense change is made to avoid creating any

unsafe conditions as a result of the monitoring requirements of subpart

AA, Sec. 264.1033 and Sec. 265.1033. This revision adds the same type

of unsafe-to-monitor and delay of repair provisions that are contained

for pumps and valves in the subpart BB--Air Emission Standards for

Equipment Leaks as well as in other equipment leak standards

promulgated under the Clean Air Act.

On April 23, 1996, the EPA published a notice of data availability

(61 FR 17863) addressing the narrow issue of whether ``Other Thermal

Treatment Facilities'' subject to regulation under subpart P of part

265 (40 CFR 265.370 through 265.383) are eligible to receive for

regeneration spent activated carbon which is a hazardous waste. In the

December 6, 1994 final subpart CC standards (59 FR 62896), the EPA

established a requirement that spent activated carbon removed from a

control device had to be managed at particular types of facilities,

namely regulated boilers or industrial furnaces, or ``thermal treatment

units that (are) permitted under subpart X of 40 CFR part 264 or

subpart P of (part 265).'' See 40 CFR 265.1033(l)(1) as promulgated at

59 FR 62935 (December 6, 1994). A parallel requirement was contained in

40 CFR 264.1033(m), but no reference to subpart P was included (59 FR

62927). In the February 9, 1996 technical correction notice, the EPA

amended these provisions to clarify that they apply only to activated

carbon which is a hazardous waste, and that interim status boilers and

industrial furnaces which had certified compliance and interim status

incinerators could treat such activated carbon. (See 61 FR 4910, 4911,

and 4913.) In doing so, the EPA removed the reference to subpart P

facilities in Sec. 265.1033(l)(1), thus removing such facilities from

eligibility to receive hazardous waste spent activated carbon.

As a part of today's amendments, EPA is restoring the eligibility

of subpart P facilities to treat hazardous waste spent activated

carbon. So long as the hazardous waste spent activated carbon is

managed safely by such facilities, there is no automatic reason to

preclude such facilities' eligibility to manage the spent carbon.

However, because the subpart P standards do not contain substantive air

emission control provisions that assure that any hazardous organic

constituents desorbed from the carbon are adequately controlled rather

than emitted to the atmosphere during regeneration or other treatment,

the EPA is requiring that units receiving such hazardous wastes meet

the control requirements of the subpart CC rules or are units which are

subject to emission control requirements under 40 CFR part 61 or part

63. With respect to this last point, this means that the actual unit

must meet a part 61 or 63 control standard for hazardous air

pollutants. If the standard is no control or if compliance with the

standard is determined on a plant-wide (viz. averaging among units)

basis, then it could not be used in place of the subpart CC standards.

It should be noted that the EPA is imposing this requirement

regardless of the organic content of the carbon being regenerated, so

long as the activated carbon is a hazardous waste. This is because the

purpose of the carbon is to capture organic emissions, and it is the

Agency's judgment that in light of this purpose, the carbon will be

saturated with organics which would need to be captured or destroyed

and not released indiscriminately during the regeneration process (see

56 FR 7200, February 21, 1991).

Finally, in order to assure maximum flexibility for protective

compliance, the EPA is adding that permitted facilities (i.e., Part 264

facilities) complying with either the subpart CC standards, or a part

61 or 63 Clean Air Act standard, are also eligible to receive spent

carbon (which is a hazardous waste) for regeneration. Such facilities

certainly would be operating protectively and so should be eligible to

receive spent carbon. The EPA notes, however, that this provision may

be redundant in light

[[Page 59937]]

of the provision in the existing rule stating that units which have

received a subpart X permit are eligible to receive such activated

carbon (Sec. 265.1033(m)(1)(i)), but commenters indicated a preference

for this clarification of eligibility. In order that there be no

confusion, the EPA is adding it to the final rule.

III. Subpart BB--Air Emission Standards for Equipment Leaks

Commenters requested that the EPA incorporate into the subpart BB

standards recent changes that have been made to other national

standards that require equipment leak detection and repair programs. In

response, revisions to the emission standards for equipment leaks

consist of incorporating changes to the requirements so that the

subpart BB requirements in parts 264 and 265 are consistent and up-to-

date with the general decisions the EPA has made regarding leak

detection and repair program requirements for organic air emission

control in other regulations under the Clean Air Act (e.g., National

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP): Off-Site

Waste and Recovery Operations, 61 FR 34140, July 1, 1996, or the

National Emission Standards for Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants for

Equipment Leaks, 40 CFR part 63, subpart H, 59 FR 19402, April 22,

1994, i.e., the HON). These revisions are consistent with the

integration provisions of RCRA Section 1006(b) which require that RCRA

standards be consistent and not duplicative of Clean Air Act Standards

and are a part of the EPA's overall approach of allowing Clean Air Act

standards to be used in lieu of control requirements under RCRA TSDF

air rules. The changes to the subpart BB equipment leak standards in no

way affect the overall performance or emission reductions achieved.

Therefore, the revised standards are considered by the EPA to be

equally protective as those being replaced. The revisions to the

standards for equipment leaks in subpart BB of 40 CFR parts 265 and 264

include the changes described below.

The applicability provisions of subpart BB (Sec. 264.1050 and

Sec. 265.1050) are revised to exclude equipment that contains or

contacts affected hazardous waste for a period of less than 300 hours

per calendar year from the equipment leak control requirements. This

change parallels the applicability provisions in the Hazardous Organic

National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (``HON'').

(Supporting information for this decision is contained in the CAA

docket A-90-20, item II-B-5.)

The sampling connection system requirements of subpart BB are being

revised consistent with the HON such that gases displaced during

filling of the sample container are not required to be collected or

captured. In the context of the HON, EPA explained that it was not

necessary to require control of those vapors. Also, the requirement for

no detectable emissions to the atmosphere during return of the purged

hazardous waste stream to the hazardous waste management process line,

or during collection and recycling of the purged hazardous waste, is

being eliminated. Upon further review, the EPA has determined that the

emissions from these extremely small amounts of hazardous waste can be

adequately controlled if the owner or operator stores the sample waste

in a covered container, and ensures it is treated or disposed in a

manner consistent with the requirements for the waste stream from which

it was extracted.

Under today's amendments, any connector that is inaccessible or is

ceramic or ceramic-lined is exempt from the monitoring and

recordkeeping requirements of subpart BB as is the case in recent EPA

rules such as the HON. (See Section VI.C of the HON preamble for

further discussion regarding the rationale for these changes to EPA's

equipment leak standards, 59 FR 19445, April 22, 1994)

IV. Subpart CC--Air Emission Standards for Tanks, Surface Impoundments,

and Containers

A. Suspension of Subpart CC Rule Requirements

Today's rule is being signed on October 4, 1996, and the

substantive requirements of the rule take effect on December 6, 1996.

The EPA is clarifying here that, for all practical purposes, December

6, 1996, is the effective date of the rule. The EPA is further

clarifying that the December 6, 1994, rule, which was stayed until

October 6, 1996, is not taking effect during the two months between

October 6, 1996, and December 6, 1996, the reason being that it is

superseded by these October 4, 1996, amendments.

To accomplish this result, the EPA is indicating (in the DATES

block of this Federal Register document), that the applicability and

implementation of Subpart CC of Parts 264 and 265 is suspended until

December 6, 1996. The result, as just stated, is that: (1) The December

1994 rules are replaced by the amended rules as of October 4, 1996; and

(2) members of the regulated community are not subject to any of the

requirements in the October 4, 1996, amended rule between October 4,

1996, and December 6, 1996.

The EPA specified in the 1994 final rule a schedule that

established the compliance dates by which different requirements of the

final rule must be met. These requirements and compliance dates (all of

which are December 6, 1996, or later) are explained further in the

final rule (59 FR 62896, December 6, 1994) under SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION. Today's amendments do not change the dates by which

compliance with all the requirements must be achieved. Thus, all

compliance dates for the final rule, as amended today, remain as

published in the 1994 final rule (59 FR 62896).

Given that the EPA is amending the rule in ways that would increase

compliance flexibility and reduce certain regulatory requirements (and

in no cases would increase the stringency of the standards or eliminate

a previously existing compliance option), the EPA considers it

appropriate to suspend the requirements that became effective October

6, 1996, for two months to December 6, 1996. By December 6, 1996,

affected sources will have had ample time to make any necessary

alterations to their compliance plans in response to today's

amendments. Affected sources have been on notice of the final

regulations since they were published in December 1994. The EPA expects

that by early 1995, most facilities had begun preparing their

implementation strategies and planning for any necessary equipment

modifications, in anticipation of the originally scheduled

implementation date of June 6, 1995. Thus, the EPA considers a two-

month suspension to provide sufficient time for affected facilities to

become familiar with the revised requirements contained in the amended

standards, and to make any necessary revisions to their implementation

strategies.

B. Retention of Final Compliance Date

The December 6, 1994 published rule set a final compliance date of

December 8, 1997, by which time all required air emission control

equipment must be operating (59 FR 62897). The EPA does not believe

that suspending the rule requirements necessitates any postponement of

the December 8, 1997 compliance date. The final compliance date was

chosen to allow time for facility modifications that may be involved in

the compliance approach of certain facilities. The EPA believes that,

for many air emission control applications, the required control

devices can be installed and in operation within several months.

[[Page 59938]]

However, the EPA agrees that under some circumstances, the owner's or

operator's approach to complying with the air emission control

requirements under the subpart CC standards may involve a major design

and construction project which requires a longer time to complete. In

recognition of these cases, the EPA decided that it is reasonable to

allow up to December 8, 1997, for affected facilities to install and

begin operation of air emission controls required by the subpart CC

standards (See Hazardous Waste TSDF Background Information Document for

Promulgated Organic Air Emission Standards, EPA-453/R-94-076b, page 9-

7).

The final rule requirements that may necessitate a major

modification, as described above, for tanks are paragraphs (b) through

(d) of 40 CFR 264.1084 and 265.1085. These paragraphs specify air

emission control equipment that must be operated on tanks receiving

affected hazardous waste. Similarly, the requirements that may

necessitate such a major modification for surface impoundments are

paragraphs (b) through (e) of 40 CFR 264.1085 and 265.1086. These

paragraphs specify air emission control equipment that must be operated

on surface impoundments receiving affected hazardous waste. To comply

with these requirements for tanks and surface impoundments, facilities

may choose to construct new hazardous waste management units to replace

existing units, or may choose to modify existing hazardous waste

management units. Examples of facility equipment modifications that

could require an extended period of compliance would be replacing a

large open surface impoundment with a series of covered tanks, or

fitting an existing open tank with a fixed roof vented to a control

device. The EPA recognizes that such major modifications or new

construction can require several months or more, and therefore allows

until December 8, 1997, for facilities to comply with the air emission

control requirements of the final subpart CC standards.

In addition, certain States may require that a facility obtain a

permit modification prior to performing a major modification such as

those described above. The EPA recognizes that such a permit

modification can be a lengthy process, and therefore felt it was

appropriate to afford an extended compliance period to allow such

modifications to be obtained (59 FR 62919). The EPA does not expect

that such a lengthy period of implementation would be required in

circumstances other than those described above, although

Sec. 264.1082(c) allows that such a period is available if necessary.

The final rule provisions that justified a compliance date of

December 8, 1997, are not among those that are affected by the

revisions being made under today's action. Specifically, the EPA is not

considering either a broader applicability or more stringent control

requirements for covers and air emission controls on tanks and surface

impoundments. All affected facilities thus have been on notice of the

final rule air emission control requirements for these units since the

final CC rule publication on December 6, 1994. Therefore, the EPA does

not consider it appropriate to postpone the compliance date of December

8, 1997, by which all required air emission control equipment must be

operating.

It should be noted that the Regional Administrator may elect to

extend the implementation date for control equipment at a facility, on

a case by case basis, to a date later than December 8, 1997, when

special circumstances that are beyond the facility owner's or

operator's control delay installation or operation of control equipment

and the owner or operator has made all reasonable and prudent attempts

to comply with the requirements of the subpart CC rules (see

Sec. 265.1082).

C. Applicability

Numerous comments were received concerning overlap between the RCRA

subpart CC rules and Clean Air Act NESHAP, particularly the HON. Most

commenters argued that subpart CC requirements should not apply to

units, either 90-day generators or TSDF, meeting Clean Air Act control

requirements, including units meeting standards through emissions

averaging.

The EPA fully recognizes that in developing air standards to meet

congressional directives established by provisions in the Clean Air Act

and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the potential exists for

regulatory overlap. However, it is the EPA's intention to minimize, if

not eliminate, regulatory overlap to the extent that the Agency is

allowed under the different legislative acts. Section 1006(b) of RCRA

indeed requires that the air standards be consistent with and not

duplicative of Clean Air Act standards. Similarly, the Clean Air Act

voices a strong preference for consistency of CAA section 112 standards

and RCRA standards where practicable (see section 112(n)(7)).

The EPA is aware that at some sites managing hazardous wastes, the

owner or operator of the hazardous waste treatment, storage, and

disposal facility could be subject to the RCRA air rules under subparts

AA, BB, and CC and also subject to a Clean Air Act NESHAP standard such

as the Off-Site Waste rule or the HON. At a particular TSDF, some waste

management units may be required to use air emission controls under one

or the other, but not both, a Clean Air Act NESHAP and the RCRA air

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 duplicative sets of records,

or perform other duplicative actions.

In Section VI.A, Development of Air Standards Under RCRA, of the

preamble to the final rule (59 FR 62906, December 6, 1994), the EPA

discussed the potential for duplication between the RCRA air rules and

various rules being developed under the Clean Air Act maximum

achievable control technology (MACT) program but noted that the air

standards developed under RCRA section 3004(n) did not duplicate or

contradict existing NESHAP or new source performance standards (NSPS).

As the MACT program has matured and additional standards have been

developed, the EPA is now aware that the possibility for overlap is

greater than was originally thought.

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 applicable

Clean Air Act NESHAP or NSPS regulations. Therefore, the subpart CC

applicability is amended to exempt any hazardous waste management unit

that the owner or operator certifies is equipped with and operating air

emission controls in accordance with an applicable Clean Air Act

regulation codified under 40 CFR part 60, part 61, or part 63, with the

sole exception of tanks being controlled through the use of an

enclosure rather than a cover. (The EPA's rationale for placing

additional conditions on that control approach is explained in detail

in sections E and G of this preamble.) Providing this exemption

eliminates the possibility of duplicative or conflicting requirements

for those TSDF tanks, surface impoundments, or containers using organic

emission controls in compliance with a NESHAP but also subject to

requirements under the RCRA standards. It is important to note that

this exemption only applies to those

[[Page 59939]]

units using organic air emission controls. This seems to EPA to be the

best way to assure that air emissions from hazardous waste management

units are controlled to the extent necessary to protect human health

and the environment. A unit that does not use the required air emission

controls but is in compliance with a NESHAP through an ``emission

averaging'' or ``bubbling'' provision does not qualify for the

exemption since EPA lacks assurance that emissions from the unit are

controlled to the extent necessary to protect human health and the

environment.2

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

\2\ EPA believes it is both reasonable and legally permissible

to interpret section 3004(n) to apply to specific waste management

units. Section 3004(n) addresses specific unit types (``open tanks,

surface impoundments, and landfills''), and the overarching

requirement to control air emissions at hazardous waste management

``facilities'' can reasonably be construed as applying to individual

units. See Mobil Oil Corp. v. EPA, 871 F. 2d 149, 152-54 (D.C. Cir.

1989). On the other hand, ``facilities'' might also be construed to

apply to an entire plant, id. at 153. Consequently, EPA is not

indicating by the discussion in the text that an averaging approach

is legally foreclosed. Certain types of site-specific

demonstrations, for example, might indicate the appropriateness of

an averaging approach to demonstrating that air emissions from

hazardous waste management are sufficiently controlled. In such a

situation, EPA could interpret the term ``facility'' as applying to

an entire plant. What EPA is finding in this rule is that for this

national rule (i.e., in the absence of potential case-specific

demonstrations), the best way of assuring that emissions from

hazardous waste tanks, containers, and impoundments are sufficiently

controlled is to require control of each particular unit.

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

Similarly, if the Clean Air Act standard for the particular unit is

no control (for example, because the MACT floor for the source category

is no control and the Agency decided not to apply controls more

stringent than the floor), the exemption from the RCRA standards would

not apply since the unit would not actually be controlled under

provisions of the MACT standard. Again, as stated above, the EPA

believes the best way to assure protectiveness in this national rule is

to require controls on each particular unit.

Section 3004(n) of RCRA, of course, requires that EPA control

emissions from (among other things) tanks, surface impoundments, and

containers as may be necessary to protect human health and the

environment. Some of the Clean Air Act standards, in contrast, are

technology-based controls implementing the provisions of section 112(d)

of the Clean Air Act. The EPA, however, has found that under some

circumstances a technology-based standard may satisfy the RCRA

protectiveness requirement by adequately controlling air emissions and

thus adequately controlling risk or controlling risk sufficiently that

the Clean Air Act section 112(f) residual risk process need not be

interdicted. See 60 FR at 32593 (June 23, 1995), the preamble for final

MACT standards for the secondary lead source category, and 61 FR at

17369-370 (April 19, 1996), the preamble for proposed MACT standards

for hazardous waste combustion units.

The EPA is finding here that where there are MACT air emission

control requirements for a specific unit otherwise covered by subpart

CC, the MACT requires the same technical air emission controls as would

be required under subpart CC. Thus, it follows that compliance with the

MACT requirements would thus afford equal protectiveness as would be

achieved under subpart CC, and therefore can be considered to satisfy

the RCRA protectiveness requirements. This is a conscious effort on the

Agency's part to provide consistency of requirements where at all

possible in its rulemakings.3

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

\3\ For example, EPA, in promulgating the final requirements for

the Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP (61 FR 34147, July

1, 1996), added a series of new subparts to 40 CFR part 63. These

subparts included 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. These standards are

essentially identical to the requirements for tanks, containers, and

impoundments found in the RCRA subpart CC rule under discussion in

this notice.

The EPA set out at length in the Off-Site Waste rule preamble

(59 FR 62908) the Agency's goal as to integration of these various

air standards, ``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.''

``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.''

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

The technical requirements for the RCRA air rules in subpart CC as

amended are essentially the same as those published by the EPA under

the MACT program (e.g., those in subparts OO, PP, and QQ of part 63). A

unit controlled under one or the other set of requirements would

achieve the same emission reduction and performance level; and the

various requirements thus provide the same level of protection.

D. Definitions

Definitions are being added for closure device, continuous seal,

enclosure, hard-piping, in light material service, malfunction,

metallic shoe seal, no detectable organic emissions, safety device, and

single-seal system and other definitions are being revised consistent

with their use in the amended regulation. These amended or added

definitions do not directly affect the substance of the subpart CC

standards, but rather, serve to clarify the 1994 final provisions, or

today's amended provisions, of the final regulations.

E. Standards: General

1. Action Level

Several major changes are being made to the general standards for

the final subpart CC rule. First, the average VO concentration action

level for hazardous waste required to be managed in the units using air

emission controls under the rule is being changed to 500 ppmw (as

determined at the point of waste origination). Units managing hazardous

wastes determined by the owner or operator to have average VO

concentrations that remain less than 500 ppmw are not required to use

air emission controls under the rule.

The EPA considered a range of possible values to establish the VO

concentration limit for the Subpart CC RCRA air rules. The EPA proposed

a VO concentration value of 500 ppmw to be used as the action level for

the rule (56 FR 33491, July 22, 1991) and promulgated an action level

of 100 ppmw in the 1994 final subpart CC rule (59 FR 62897). However,

in promulgating this value, the EPA acknowledged that some hazardous

waste management units subject to the subpart CC RCRA air rules could

be subject to other Clean Air Act NESHAP and NSPS with differing action

levels (59 FR 62903, 62906, and 62907).

The EPA received comments in response to the August 14, 1995

Federal Register notice, stating that the 100 ppmw VO concentration

action level promulgated by the EPA for the subpart CC RCRA air rules

is inappropriate (e.g., the action level cannot be justified on the

basis of risk and the action level is too close to the detection limit

of method 25D; this results in numerous waste determination errors such

as false positives) and is inconsistent with other applicable Clean Air

Act NSPS and NESHAP (i.e, the Off-Site Waste rule,

[[Page 59940]]

the HON, and the proposed new source performance standard (NSPS) for

volatile organic compound emissions from the synthetic organic chemical

manufacturing industry wastewater (59 FR 46780, September 12, 1994),

all apply to wastes and/or wastewaters and all have higher action

levels). The commenters recommended that the EPA select a higher action

level of 500 ppmw for the rule, consistent with the above noted Clean

Air Act rules.

The EPA considered the comments received regarding the action

level, other revisions being considered for the final subpart CC RCRA

air rules, and changes that the EPA anticipates making for other waste

and wastewater related rules. The EPA concluded that a reexamination of

the action level determination was appropriate. Based on consideration

of the information available to the Agency regarding emissions from

hazardous waste management TSDF operations, the EPA has concluded that

an average VO concentration value of 500 ppmw is reasonable and

accomplishes an adequate general level of protection, as compared with

the 100 ppmw action level of the 1994 published rule. As was discussed

in Section V.C. of the preamble published on December 6, 1994 (59 FR

62905), all five of the control options considered for the final rule

are estimated to achieve similar levels of substantial reductions in

nationwide organic emissions from TSDF and in annual cancer incidence.

Under the new action level of 500 ppmw, the MIR for most of the 2,300

TSDF nationwide are estimated to be below the target MIR range of

between 1 x 10-4 and 1 x 10-6.

Thus, while the action levels at 100 ppmw and 500 ppmw are not

equally protective of human health and the environment to the extent

ascertainable by the modeling methodology used, these action levels do

achieve the same general range of protection and were in the zone of

reasonable values being considered by EPA for selection as the action

level for the final rule. After further consideration, the EPA has

concluded that the degree of incremental risk reduction at the 500 ppmw

action level is so small as to not warrant the inconsistency and

attendant disruption with other air rules applicable to hazardous waste

TSDF. This incremental risk reduction is made less relevant by the fact

that the EPA has already stated in the preamble to the final rule (59

FR 62905) that (even at the 100 ppmw action level), ``the EPA is

further evaluating the waste management practices and the specific

chemical compounds composing the organic emissions from those

individual TSDF for which the MIR values are estimated to be greater

than the historical RCRA target MIR levels. Following this evaluation,

the EPA will determine what other actions, such as the use of section

3005(c)(3) omnibus permitting authority or additional rulemaking, are

necessary to attain the health-based goals of RCRA section 3004(n).''

2. Treatment Alternatives

The treatment alternatives in the General Standards (Sec. 264.1083

and Sec. 265.1083) are being revised where appropriate to reflect the

new action level of 500 ppmw. The treatment alternatives contained in

the General Standards of the subpart CC RCRA air rules provide owners

or operators with a selection of alternative provisions for determining

when a treated hazardous waste is no longer required to be managed in

units meeting the air emission control requirements of the rule. The

alternatives contained in the final CC rules published December 6, 1994

are being revised as a result of the change in the action level. The

volatile organic concentration criteria contained in some of the

alternatives are being revised upward to reflect the higher action

level of 500 ppmw. Additional alternatives also are being added to the

rule to provide greater flexibility to the owner or operator in the

treatment of hazardous waste. The changes being made to the General

Standards by today's action are described below.

For the treatment option that requires an organic reduction

efficiency for the process of at least 95 percent and an average VO

concentration of the waste at the point of waste treatment of less than

50 ppmw (Sec. 264.1082(c)(2)(ii)), the criteria for the average VO

concentration of the treated waste is raised to 100 ppmw in direct

response to the change in the action level. The value of 50 ppmw was

chosen for the 1994 final rule to provide some added level of

demonstration that co-mingled wastes streams had achieved a level of

organic reduction through treatment, rather than through dilution (see

59 FR 62915, December 6, 1994). The selection of 50 ppmw in the 1994

final rule guaranteed that hazardous waste streams with VO

concentrations of 2,000 ppmw or less at their point of waste

origination were being reduced by 95% organics through treatment, as

opposed to dilution. For today's final rule, EPA considers it

appropriate to modify that 50 ppmw value to be 100 ppmw. In part, EPA

is making this modification in response to comments that the value of

50 ppmw was too close to the level of detection for the test method

25D, and was therefore a very difficult and costly demonstration for

the facility. After further consideration, the EPA feels that an exit

concentration value of 100 ppmw is much less difficult and costly for a

facility to make. Further, when combined with the revised action level

of 500 ppmw for the overall rule, an exit value of 100 ppmw will ensure

that the majority of hazardous waste streams are achieving the 95%

reduction through treatment, as opposed to dilution that may occur

through commingling.

For the treatment option that allows mixed hazardous waste to be

treated by an organic destruction or removal process that reduces the

VO concentration of the hazardous waste to meet a site-specific

treatment process exit concentration limit (Sec. 264.1082(c)(2)(v));

the requirement that only hazardous waste enter the process is being

removed. The exit concentration limit is being revised to be the lowest

average VO concentration at the point of waste origination for each

individual waste stream entering the process or 500 ppmw, whichever

value is lower (this latter change is consistent with the revised

action level for the standards also contained in today's action). Upon

evaluation of this option, the EPA agreed with commenters that making

these revisions will allow operators to use this option with a greater

number of waste management systems, while still ensuring that

reductions in VO concentrations are achieved through organic treatment

or removal, as opposed to dilution.

A treatment option (Sec. 264.1082(c)(2)(vi)) is being added that

requires an organic reduction efficiency for the process equal to or

greater than 95 percent, and the average VO concentration of each

individual waste stream entering the process is certified by the owner

or operator to be less than 10,000 ppmw at the point of waste

origination. This option is being added in response to commenters'

concerns that many waste treatment operations have a multitude of waste

streams being co-mingled early in the treatment process, and it would

be infeasible for an operator to evaluate each waste stream. Further,

the commenters stated that for these same treatment systems, the

concentration of the hazardous waste streams at their point of waste

origination is relatively low (e.g. 600 ppmw), and the exit

concentration that would be required to demonstrate a 95% removal

efficiency (in this example 30 ppmw) is below the level of detection of

many organic test methods. Therefore, the EPA considered it reasonable

to allow the owner or

[[Page 59941]]

operator to document the 95% organic removal efficiency of the control

device, and certify that no waste streams greater than 10,000 ppmw at

their point of origination were entering the centralized treatment

process. The EPA chose the upper value of 10,000 ppmw because any waste

stream with less than 10,000 volatile organic concentration, when

treated with a 95% efficient organic control device, would be reduced

to below 500 ppmw (and thus would not require further control under the

subpart CC regulations. The EPA considers the combination of these two

criteria (95% efficient organic control device, and waste streams below

10,000 ppmw VO concentration at their point of waste origination) to be

adequate to ensure that any waste stream entering the treatment process

is adequately treated for the purpose of the subpart CC standards.

3. Exemptions

An exemption from subpart CC control requirements is added to the

General Standards to further clarify that a tank or surface impoundment

used for biological treatment of hazardous waste in accordance with

provisions in the subpart CC General Standards (Sec. 265.1082(c)(2)(vi)

or Sec. 264.1082(c)(2)(vi)) is exempt from the control device

requirements under the rule. This was the Agency's intent in the 1994

promulgated rule, but several commenters advised the EPA that this

intent was not evident. Therefore, the EPA is making this addition to

the General Standards to more clearly describe this intent.

The following two exemptions are being added to the subpart CC

General Standards in order to avoid the potential overlap of the

subpart CC rules with RCRA standards established as part of the Land

Disposal Restrictions (LDR) and to avoid overlap with the recently

promulgated Benzene Waste Operations NESHAP.

In response to commenters' requests that compliance with applicable

LDR treatment standards be reinstated as a subpart CC treatment

alternative, an exemption from the subpart CC control requirements is

being added for a tank, surface impoundment, or container if the

material placed in the unit is a hazardous waste that meets the

numerical concentration limits for organics applicable to the hazardous

waste, as specified in 40 CFR part 268 (Land Disposal Restrictions)

under Table--``Treatment Standards for Hazardous Waste'' in 40 CFR

268.40, or has been treated by the treatment technology established by

EPA for the waste in 40 CFR 268.42(a), or treated by an equivalent

method of treatment approved by EPA pursuant to 40 CFR 268.42(b).

The EPA in fact originally proposed such a provision (see 56 FR

33491, July 22, 1991), and commenters stressed again that wastes

meeting LDR requirements for organics would have reduced organic

concentrations sufficiently so that there need not be air emission

controls on the units receiving the wastes. Upon reflection, EPA now

agrees with these comments. The LDR treatment standards are based on

the performance of Best Demonstrated Available Technology and are

deemed sufficient to minimize threats to human health and the

environment posed by land disposal of the waste. See 51 FR 40572,

November 7, 1986 and RCRA section 3004(m)(1). In fact, the standards

for most organics reflect the performance of combustion technology,

which destroys organics to non-detectable levels, so that the treatment

standard is actually the analytic detection limit for the organic times

a factor which reflects technological variability. Consequently, it is

EPA's finding here that units receiving wastes that satisfy these

standards for organics need not be controlled further, since the

organics in the wastes are already reduced to levels where threats

posed by release of the organics have been minimized.

The EPA notes that, to be exempt from the subpart CC standards, the

waste must meet the LDR treatment standards for that waste whether or

not the waste actually is prohibited (or restricted) from land

disposal, i.e., whether or not the waste is going to be ultimately land

disposed. Thus, for example, if an organic ignitable waste is going to

be managed in tanks and ultimately disposed of in a manner not

involving land disposal, in order for the tanks to be exempt from

subpart CC (assuming the subpart CC rules otherwise apply), the waste

would have to meet the treatment standards for D001 wastes. It should

be clear from this example that the treatment standards are being used

here as a means of demonstrating that further control of air emissions

from the waste is not necessary to protect human health and the

environment. This determination does not hinge on whether the waste is

being land disposed (i.e., on whether the waste would otherwise have to

be treated to meet the standard as a precondition to land disposal).

The EPA is amending the 1994 final rule to address certain of the

commenters' concerns regarding applicability of the subpart CC rules to

incinerator bulk feed tanks (that is, tanks used for bulk feed of

hazardous waste to an incinerator). A standard industry practice is to

control the air emissions from these tanks by enclosing the tank and

feed operation, and venting emissions for the enclosure through a

closed-vent system to an organic emission control device. The EPA has

received comments stating that some industry members have alternate

designs which allow them to effectively operate bulk incinerator feed

systems using a tight-fitting cover on the tank and enclosing the feed

line, with all emissions vented to a control device.

The EPA is addressing two issues with respect to those former bulk

feed operations. The first is the efficiency of the organic control

device, and whether existing facilities must replace those devices

previously installed to comply with the Benzene Waste Operations

NESHAP. The second issue is whether an enclosure can provide adequate

capture and control of organic emissions from an open tank, when

compared with a tight-fitting cover on that tank.

The subpart CC rules require 95% reduction of total organics in

vapor streams, by weight. The Benzene Waste Operations NESHAP (40 CFR

part 61, subpart FF) requires 98% reduction of benzene in vapor

streams. This distinction is appropriate, given the Benzene Waste

Operations NESHAP's purpose to control benzene specifically, and the

subpart CC rule's purpose to control total organics (including

benzene). However, incinerator bulk feed operators have installed non-

combustion control devices (such as activated carbon systems and

condensers) which achieve 98% reduction of benzene, but do not

effectively achieve 95% reduction of total organics. (This is because

benzene is more amenable to certain reduction technologies than other

organic compounds.)

The EPA has decided that it is not justified to require owners and

operators to replace these relatively new control devices, which were

installed pursuant to EPA regulation, and is therefore adding an

exemption for control devices installed on such systems.4 The EPA

is making this decision chiefly due to the high replacement cost,

action in reliance on EPA's Benzene Waste Operations

[[Page 59942]]

NESHAP, and the desire for consistency among the various standards

controlling organic constituents.

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

\4\ Although there is probably some degree of decrease in

protectiveness between these control devices and the proscribed 95%

total organic control device requirements, EPA considers that

difference to be not significant enough to warrant the substantial

dislocations noted above. With respect to newly constructed control

devices, there would be obviously, no such dislocations, and EPA

therefore, does not believe there is any reason to forego the full

protection provided by the 95% total organic control device

efficiency requirements.

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

With respect to enclosures used in lieu of a discreet tank cover,

the issue is the same as that which EPA is addressing for all tank

systems (see Section G of this Preamble.)

F. Waste Determination Procedures

Under the subpart CC RCRA air rules, air emission controls are not

required for a hazardous waste management unit when the unit manages

hazardous waste having an average VO concentration less than the action

level (i.e., 500 ppmw at the point of waste origination). As part of

the procedure for determining the VO concentration of the hazardous

waste, the EPA allowed that an owner or operator could use either: (1)

Direct measurement using Method 25D for preparation and analysis of

samples of the waste collected in accordance with the procedures

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

the VO concentration in the waste based on information, as specified in

the rule.

In response to comments received concerning Method 25D relating to

aggressiveness, expense, and repeatability of the method, the EPA

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

can choose to use for direct measurement of the VO concentration of a

hazardous waste (see discussion below). In addition, the EPA is making

certain other changes to facilitate the use of organic concentration

data obtained using other test methods not specifically listed in the

rule. The EPA believes that the changes being incorporated into the

waste determination requirements in conjunction with changes to the

applicability and action level for the subpart CC RCRA air rules for

tanks, surface impoundments, and containers provide a range of options

for determining the VO concentration of a hazardous waste such that

every owner and operator of a facility subject to the final rule has

available practical and inexpensive waste determination alternatives.

The EPA developed Method 25D to provide a relative measure of the

potential for specific volatile organic compounds to be emitted from

waste materials. When using Method 25D, the waste is analyzed to

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

from the waste sample. However, some commenters stated that measuring

all organics resulted in an overly aggressive method. Commenters

suggested that there is some universe of organic compounds which

usually do not volatilize, but which some test methods would measure.

In a practical sense, the EPA does not consider it equitable to require

air emission controls for wastes that do not contain organic compounds

which are likely to volatilize. In response to these comments, the EPA

is amending the waste determination procedures to allow the owner or

operator to discount any contribution to the total volatile organic

concentration that is a result of including a compound with a Henry's

law constant of less than 0.1 mole-fraction-in-the-gas-phase/mole-

fraction-in-the-liquid-phase (0.1 Y/X) [which can also be expressed as

1.8 x 10-6 atmospheres/gram-mole/m3] at 25 degrees Celsius.

The Henry's law constant of a compound is one indication that is

commonly used to predict the potential of a compound to volatilize.

If the waste contains compounds with Henry's law constants below

the cutoff level, the VO concentration for the waste can be adjusted to

exclude the VO concentration of these compounds from the total VO

concentration for the waste stream. The contribution to the measured

total VO concentration for the waste that is made by a specific

compound can be determined by multiplying the actual concentration of

the compound in the waste times the appropriate compound-specific

adjustment ``fm factor'' to obtain the Method 25D VO

concentration. The VO concentration for the compound, with a Henry's

law constant of less than 0.1 Y/X, can then be subtracted from the

total VO concentration measured for the waste. In order to identify

those compounds with a Henry's law constant below the cutoff level, the

EPA has published a table listing the known compounds as part of

today's amendments. The Henry's law constant value used as the cutoff

in determining the VO concentration of a waste has been used in other

EPA regulations (e.g., the Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations

NESHAP and the HON) and was selected based on modeling studies to

identify and classify compounds with a significant potential for air

emissions when present in a waste/wastewater system. With this

amendment to the waste determination procedures, the EPA considers

Method 25D to be an appropriate method for determining the VO

concentration of hazardous wastes subject to the subpart CC RCRA air

rules. Therefore, Method 25D continues to be an approved test method

for determining the VO concentration of a waste, although other methods

are allowed as direct measurement under today's amendment. This is

discussed in greater detail below.

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

hazardous waste and wastewater management units. After extensive

review, the EPA decided that as alternatives to using Method 25D for

direct measurement of VO concentration in a hazardous waste for the

subpart CC RCRA air rules it is appropriate to add Methods 624, 625,

1624, and 1625 (all contained in 40 CFR part 136, appendix A) and

Methods 8260(B) and 8270(C) (both in ``Test Methods for Evaluating

Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods'' in EPA Publication SW-846)

when these methods are used under certain specified conditions. It is

important to note that for each of these methods there is a published

list of chemical compounds which the EPA considers the method

appropriate to measure. The owner or operator may only use these

methods to measure compounds that are contained on the list associated

with that method, unless specified validation procedures are also

performed. Further, for the purpose of a waste determination, the owner

or operator must evaluate the mass of all VO compounds in a waste that

have a Henry's Law value above the 0.1 Y/X cutoff. Therefore, the owner

or operator is responsible for determining that the analytical method

being used for a waste determination is sufficient to evaluate all of

the applicable organic compounds that are contained in the waste. If an

owner or operator chooses to use a method other than Method 25D to

analyze a waste that contains unknown compounds or many different

compounds, it may be necessary to perform screening analyses to verify

that the alternate analytical method chosen is, in fact, appropriate to

evaluate all the necessary compounds.

Because these methods measure the total concentration of various

constituents, owners and operators may choose to ``correct'' these

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

Method 25D. This is accomplished by multiplying the total concentration

measured values times the appropriate compound-specific adjustment

``fm factor'' to obtain the Method 25D VO concentration. The EPA

has published lists of the compound-specific adjustment factors

[[Page 59943]]

in other rulemakings; see Table 1 in the Off-Site Waste and Recovery

Operations NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart DD) and Table 34 in the HON

(40 CFR part 63, subpart G). Compound specific adjustment factors

(fm factors) for additional compounds can be obtained by

contacting the Waste and Chemical Processes Group, Office of Air

Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711.

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

hazardous waste sample. In addition, Methods 624 and 625 are

appropriate provided the initial calibration of the analytical system

is performed with the target compounds to be measured. Methods 8260(B)

and 8270(C) are also considered appropriate provided that formal

quality assurance procedures are established, followed, and records are

maintained to cover those elements of the methods considered relevant

to measuring the actual concentration of organic compounds. The quality

assurance program must address procedures to minimize the loss of

compounds due to volatilization, biodegradation, reaction, or sorption

during the sample collection, storage, and preparation steps as well as

addressing the overall accuracy and precision of the specific method

used.

Sample collection procedures and sample recovery conditions are

established by Method 25D (40 CFR part 60, Appendix A). For the

hazardous wastes typically managed in the operations subject to the

RCRA air rules, the EPA has concluded that using Method 25D sample

collection procedures and sample recovery conditions for other analysis

methods is reasonable for the purpose of this rulemaking. However, none

of the other methods discussed above specifies a sample collection and

handling procedure that the EPA considers adequate to minimize the

volatilization of organics from the sample prior to analysis.

Therefore, to ensure that an adequately representative sample of a

hazardous waste is analyzed by the method, an owner or operator that

chooses to use either Method 624, 625, 1624, 1625, 8260(B) or 8270(C)

for the subpart CC RCRA air rules is required to develop and follow a

written sampling plan. Similarly, such a plan is required for

alternative methods validated by EPA Method 301 in appendix A of 40 CFR

part 63, or the ``Alternative Validation Procedure for EPA Waste and

Wastewater Methods'' in appendix D of 40 CFR part 63. This plan must

describe a step-by-step procedure for collecting representative samples

of the hazardous waste 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 handling

procedures similar to those specified in Method 25D. The sampling plan

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

It should be noted that as long as one of the allowable test

methods is being used for direct measurement of the VO concentration of

a hazardous waste, the EPA would only enforce against the facility on

that basis (i.e., using the same test method), unless the method used

is not appropriate for the hazardous waste managed in the unit. For

example, if the method is not suitable for use on semi-volatile organic

compounds and the waste is known to contain organic compounds that are

classified as semi-volatile, then the method is not appropriate.

In the published rule, the EPA allows use of knowledge-of-the-waste

as the basis for a waste determination (Sec. 265.1084(a)(2)). Among the

waste determination techniques that would have been considered

knowledge, was analysis by methods other than 25D, if the alternate

method had been validated using Test Method 301, from appendix A of

part 63. Certain commenters indicated that it was not clear in the 1994

final rule that data from non-validated methods could be used to make a

waste determination, with those results being again, considered

knowledge-of-the-waste (as opposed to direct measurement). Today EPA is

clarifying that, and, also in response to comments, the EPA has decided

to allow organic concentration test data that are validated in

accordance specifically with Sections 5.1 and 5.3 and the corresponding

calculations in Section 6.1 or 6.3 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 25D by multiplying the measured values times the

appropriate compound-specific adjustment ``fM factor.''

In addition, as discussed in Section II.G of the preamble to the

final Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP (61 FR 34140, July

1, 1996), the EPA promulgated a less rigorous validation procedure,

``Alternative Validation Procedure for EPA Waste and Wastewater

Methods,'' in Appendix D 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 EPA test

method is used for air emission standards. The EPA decided it is

appropriate to allow organic concentration test data that are validated

in accordance with this method to be used as direct measurement data

because it is considered to produce equally reliable validation

results. Other test methods not previously mentioned that are used to

measure organic concentrations in the waste shall be validated

according to section 5.1 or 5.3, and the corresponding calculations in

section 6.1 or 6.3, or Method 301 of Appendix A of 40 CFR part 63.

The main point that must be reemphasized regarding direct

measurement of VO concentration is that, although the EPA is amending

the rule to allow various test methods other than Method 25D to be used

in a waste determination, the owner or operator must use a test

method(s) that is appropriate for the compounds contained in the waste.

The method(s) used for the waste determination must be suitable for and

must reflect or account for all compounds in the waste with a Henry's

Law constant equal to or greater than 0.1 Y/X at 25 degrees Celsius.

In a further clarification, today's action is revising the waste

determination procedures such that for both point of waste origination

and point of waste treatment, no distinction is made for batch or

continuous processes or for whether the owner or operator is the

generator or receives the waste from off-site. The owner or operator

chooses an averaging period appropriate for the hazardous waste stream

of not more than 1 year. As has been noted previously, a site sampling

plan is required that describes the procedure for collecting

representative samples of the hazardous waste stream such that a

minimum loss of organics occurs throughout the sample collection and

handling process and by which sample integrity is maintained.

As was originally promulgated in the 1994 final rule, in the event

that the Regional Administrator and the owner or operator disagree on a

determination of the average VO concentration of a hazardous waste

stream at the point of waste origination using knowledge, then direct

measurement shall be used to establish compliance. As noted above,

[[Page 59944]]

because of the expansion of analysis methods in today's amendments,

direct measurement to establish compliance is not limited to Method

25D, but can be performed using any of the methods specified in the

rule or any test method validated as specified in the rule, as

appropriate for the waste managed in the unit. Because of the expansion

of analysis methods, the rule has been revised such that, if the

Regional Administrator determines that the method used by the owner or

operator for a waste determination using direct measurement was not

appropriate for the waste managed in the unit, then the Regional

Administrator may choose an appropriate method to verify the waste

determination.

G. Standards: Tanks

The subpart CC tank standards have been revised to address comments

on the proposed technical amendments, to be consistent with tank

standards established for related Clean Air Act NESHAP, and to reduce

the inspection, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.

In general, the amendments published today establish two levels of air

emission control (referred to as Level 1 and Level 2 controls) for

tanks managing hazardous waste having a maximum organic vapor pressure

less than 76.6 kilopascals (kPa). The control level applicable to a

tank required to use controls is determined by the tank design capacity

and the maximum organic vapor pressure of the material in the tank.

Ranges of capacity and vapor pressure limits or criteria have been

established for tanks. However, tanks used for waste stabilization

processes are required to use specific air emission controls.

For a tank to meet Level 1 controls, the revised final rule

specifies that the hazardous waste be managed in a tank using a fixed-

roof. For the Level 2 controls, the revised final rule requires that

hazardous waste 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.

A tank is allowed to use the Level 1 controls if it meets the

conditions that were in the 1994 final subpart CC rule to qualify for

control by only a fixed roof, with several revisions to the conditions.

In response to comments, the condition that the waste is neither mixed,

stirred, agitated, nor circulated within the tank is being dropped; the

condition on heating the waste is being revised to require that the

hazardous waste in the tank not be heated to a temperature that is

greater than the temperature at which the maximum organic vapor

pressure of the waste was determined; and the condition that the

hazardous waste not be treated by a process that produces an exothermic

reaction is being dropped. The EPA agrees with commenters that these

conditions are redundant given the criteria based on determination of a

maximum organic vapor pressure. The conditions that are being dropped

from the rule thus are adequately accounted for in the maximum organic

vapor pressure criteria.

The owner or operator of a tank that qualifies for the Level 1

controls may choose to use Level 2 controls. A tank that does not

qualify for the Level 1 controls is subject to the Level 2 controls.

Tank Level 1 control requirements consist of a fixed roof meeting

the design, operation, inspection, and recordkeeping requirements

specified in the rule. Because of commenters' concerns with the safety

of workers during tank cleaning, the operating requirements are being

clarified to explicitly include the removal of accumulated sludge or

other residues from the bottom of the tank as a time when the opening

of closure devices or removal of the fixed roof is allowed. In response

to commenters' concerns that the subpart 1994 CC rules (inadvertently)

required that a conservation vent must discharge through a closed-vent

system to a control device, the revised rule states that a pressure

relief device, such as a conservation vent which vents to the

atmosphere, is allowed for the purpose of maintaining the tank internal

pressure in accordance with the tank design specifications. Normal

operating conditions that might require a pressure relief device to

open include internal pressure buildup as a result of loading

operations or diurnal ambient temperature fluctuations.

To reduce the inspection, monitoring, and recordkeeping burden of

the rule, a number of rule revisions are being made in response to

comments. The semiannual inspection requirement for the fixed roof and

closure devices is being changed to an annual inspection requirement.

The EPA considers this change to greatly reduce the requirements placed

on the tank operators, while not affecting the protectiveness of the

rules. The regulations still require tanks to be operated with covers

that do not have visible openings or gaps; therefore, any openings or

gaps will still need to be immediately repaired. The instrument

monitoring requirements are being dropped, EPA's rationale being that

the fixed roofs are allowed to operate with a conservation vent, and

thus, leaks detectable only by an instrument are relatively

insignificant. The time during which repair of a defect must be

completed is being extended from 15 to 45 calendar days. The delay of

repair provisions are being clarified to indicate that repair of a

defect on a fixed roof or closure device may be delayed beyond 45

calendar days if repair would require the tank to be emptied or removed

from service and no alternative capacity is available at the facility

to accept the hazardous waste normally managed in the tank. The

recordkeeping requirements are being clarified to explicitly define the

information required for the annual inspection.

The revised Tank Level 2 air emission control requirements include

options that were available in the 1994 final subpart CC rule, i.e., a

tank equipped with a fixed roof and internal floating roof, a tank

equipped with an external floating roof, a fixed roof vented through a

closed-vent system to a control device, and a pressure tank. In

addition, an option is being provided allowing the use of an enclosure

vented through a closed-vent system to an enclosed combustion device or

a control device designed and operated to reduce the total organic

content of the inlet vapor stream by at least 95 percent by weight.

For a tank equipped with a fixed roof and internal floating roof,

an operating requirement is being revised, such that, when the floating

roof is resting on the leg supports, the process of filling, emptying,

or refilling must be accomplished as soon as practical rather than as

rapidly as possible. The rationale for this is explained in the

preamble of the February 9, 1996 technical amendments (see 61 FR 4910).

Internal floating roof and external floating roof design,

operating, inspection, and monitoring requirements are revised to

reflect current technology and to be consistent with requirements of

Clean Air Act standards for the same equipment (e.g. the off-site waste

and recovery operations NESHAP, promulgated July 1, 1996). Again, this

is part of the EPA's effort to promote consistency between requirements

for similar types of units. Overall performance and emission reductions

are effectively unchanged.

For a tank with a fixed roof that is vented through a closed-vent

system to a control device, the operating, monitoring, and inspection

requirements are being revised

[[Page 59945]]

consistent with the Tank Level 1 control requirements described

previously. In summary, the times when opening of closure devices or

removal of the fixed roof are allowed are being clarified, the rule is

being clarified to allow the opening of a safety device, the semiannual

inspection required for the fixed-roof and closure devices is changed

to an annual inspection requirement, monitoring requirements are

dropped, the time during which repair of a defect must be completed is

extended from 15 to 45 calendar days, the delay of repair provisions

are being clarified to indicate that repair of a defect on a fixed roof

or closure device may be delayed beyond 45 calendar days, and the

recordkeeping requirements are being clarified to explicitly define the

information required for the annual inspection.

In response to the numerous comments regarding establishment of

criteria to identify or define a pressure tank, the pressure tank

requirements are being clarified to state that the tank shall be

designed to operate with no detectable organic emissions during filling

to the tank design capacity and the subsequent compression of the vapor

headspace in the tank.

For the control option being added as a part of these amendments

that allows the use of an enclosure vented through a closed-vent system

to an enclosed combustion device or alternative control device, the

enclosure must be designed and operated 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. The EPA is adding this control option in

response to comments from, among others, members of the hazardous waste

stabilization industry and the incineration industry, who maintain that

certain waste handling or treatment operations (e.g. incinerator bulk

feed systems and stabilization) can not feasibly be conducted in

covered tanks.

The EPA has made a number of revisions to the regulations that

address this concern. As noted earlier, the increased VO concentration

action level (from 100 ppmw to 500 ppmw) plus the inapplicability of

the rule to hazardous wastes that meet the LDR standard for organic

hazardous constituents should sharply reduce the number of situations

where a metal-bearing waste undergoing stabilization would also be

subject to the subpart CC standards.

In addition, the EPA reexamined the data in the record for those

wastes that may undergo stabilization and still be subject to the

Subpart CC requirements; this includes data supplied by waste

management companies after promulgation of the 1994 final CC rule, in

response to EPA's solicitation (see 59 FR 62912, December 6, 1994).

However, the data currently available to the EPA do not support the

commenters' assertions that no controls at all are needed for these

wastes undergoing stabilization. All currently available data indicate

that a significant fraction, by mass, of organics in waste are

volatilized during stabilization processes.5

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

\5\ Recent data supplied to EPA (including information contained

in docket F-94-CE3A-FFFFF, and information submitted by subpart CC

rule commenters to the EPA's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency

Response) do not lead the Agency to conclude otherwise. Rather, the

data submitted indicate that numerical quantification methods, or

test methods, used to measure the mass of organics emitted during

stabilization do not yield consistent or precise results when waste

streams below 500 ppmw VO concentration are evaluated. These data,

among other factors, prompted the Agency to raise the action level

to 500 ppmw. However, the data submitted did not support any

revision to the Agency's policy of requiring stabilization of

organics to be performed in units with air emission controls. The

Agency maintains that stabilization, and other operations that raise

the temperature of the waste or agitate the waste, increase the rate

of volatilization or organics in the waste. Therefore, it follows

that a regulation that considers it appropriate to control the

organic emissions from storage of hazardous waste would consider it

at least as important to control the organic emissions during

treatment of hazardous waste.

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

The EPA recognizes that certain stabilization and waste handling

operations can only be feasibly conducted in open tanks (and

containers). For such operations, where a cover is impractical, the

most practical alternative is a permanent total enclosure that achieves

high capture efficiency of the organic compounds emitted from the open

tank (or container) and routes them through a closed-vent system to an

organic control device. The EPA defines a permanent total enclosure as

a ``permanently installed enclosure that completely surrounds a source

of emissions such that all (VOC) emissions are captured and contained

for discharge through a control device.'' The EPA has developed a set

of criteria (in 40 CFR 52.741, appendix B) to ensure high capture

efficiencies through proper design and operation of an enclosure and to

eliminate the need for expensive and disruptive capture efficiency

performance tests. The EPA method states that if a facility meets the

criteria for a permanent total enclosure and all emissions are directed

to a control device, the capture efficiency may be assumed to be 100

percent and measurement requirements are waived. The EPA has concluded

that these enclosure criteria are appropriate for application to waste

stabilization operations, bulk feed tank operations, and other waste

handling situations where an owner or operator may deem a covered tank

impractical; the design and operational criteria allow for necessary

worker access to perform necessary operations, while assuring a high

capture efficiency. Therefore, in this limited situation, use of an

enclosure and control device that meets the criteria specified in the

rule, for both the enclosure and the control device, is considered to

provide the same level of emission reduction performance as does the

other control options provided in the rule for tanks and thus achieves

the same level of protection.

One commenter argued that the permanent enclosure criteria are

inappropriate because they were originally developed for use in another

industry (the paint and coating industry). However, the EPA considers

these criteria appropriate for ensuring adequate design and operation

of any enclosure used to capture organic emissions. The criteria are

not prescriptive, that is, they do not specified detailed design and

operation conditions. Rather, the criteria are just that: Parameters

that must be evaluated, and minimum or maximum values that must be met

for each parameter. These criteria are the only description known to

the Agency that ensure an enclosure is effective in: (1) Preventing

significant volumes of organics from escaping to the atmosphere, (2)

capturing the organics from within the enclosure, and (3) routing the

organics from within the enclosure to a control device.

The permanent total enclosure criteria specifies: (1) Maximum total

area for natural draft openings, or NDO (which are holes in the

enclosure that allow passage of organics through to the atmosphere),

(2) minimum distance from emission points to NDO, (3) minimum face

velocity to ensure sufficient negative pressure, (4) closure of any

accesses that were not open for the purpose of performing the criteria

calculations, and (5) routing of all emissions to a control device. All

of these are parameters that would require consideration in the

evaluation of any enclosure's effectiveness. Further, the minimum and

maximum values specified in the permanent total enclosure criteria were

chosen by EPA specifically for the purposes of ensuring adequate

capture of organic emissions from industrial operations, such as paint

and coating operations. The paint and coating industry operations are

similar enough to other industrial operations, including waste

treatment, that it is appropriate to use the permanent total

[[Page 59946]]

enclosure criteria for specifying enclosure integrity elsewhere.

One commenter remarked that the costs to retrofit two particular

existing enclosures to the permanent total enclosure criteria would be

prohibitive. The EPA does not agree with that remark. After reviewing

that data, the EPA estimates that it would be less costly for that

facility to upgrade those enclosures than it would be for any facility

to retrofit an existing tank with an air-tight cover, which is the

requirement for other tanks subject to the subpart CC standards.6

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

\6\ The EPA further notes that one of the two enclosures

described in this commenter's submission would require only the

sealing of a natural draft opening which is too close to an emission

point. The other enclosure would require an increase in the face

velocity, which could possibly be achieved by closing some of the

natural draft openings in the enclosure. The cost to close a natural

draft opening is not at all prohibitive; in many instances it can be

accomplished with a patch and some air-tight caulk or foam. However,

it is conceivable that the facility may need to increase the

capacity of the control device for this second enclosure, in order

to be able to effectively handle the resulting increased air flow.

However, the EPA considers it highly relevant to note that the

commenter states that his permitting authority has confirmed the

tank inside this enclosure is not subject to the subpart CC

standards; therefore, the enclosure would not be required to meet

the permanent total enclosure criteria referenced by the subpart CC

standards. It should be noted that costs associated with achieving a

level of protectiveness required under RCRA 3004(n) are not a

consideration in the selection of standards.

The EPA considers it also noteworthy to mention that a hazardous

waste treatment industry group polled its members that operate

incinerator bulk feed tanks, and was informed that all the member

companies polled either: (1) Currently perform the bulk feed

operations using covered tanks, (2) currently perform the bulk feed

operations inside enclosures which already meet all of the permanent

total enclosure criteria, or (3) would consider it reasonable to

(and are willing to) upgrade or modify their existing enclosures to

meet the permanent total enclosure criteria.

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

Safety devices, as defined in the rule, may be installed on the

enclosure, as needed. The closed-vent system and enclosed combustion

device or alternative control device must be designed and operated in

accordance with standards in subpart CC. The enclosure is required to

be inspected initially and annually thereafter. When defects are

detected, the owner or operator must make first attempts at repair no

later than 5 calendar days after detection and complete repair within

45 days.

Finally, in response to commenters' concerns with the feasibility

of transferring solids and sludges between containers and tanks in a

``closed system'' as required by the final rules, the closed system

transfer requirements for hazardous wastes transferred to or from a

tank and another waste management unit subject to subpart CC control

requirements are being revised such that transfer of hazardous waste

between a tank and container is not required to be done in a closed

system.

H. Standards: Surface Impoundments

Revisions are being made to the subpart CC 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

in subpart CC and for surface impoundments under the Clean Air Act

NESHAP. A discussion of these revisions is presented below.

More design and installation information is being included for

rigid covers. A provision is being added that clarifies the intent of

the 1994 final subpart CC rule, that venting to a control device is not

required and that opening of closure devices or removal of the cover is

allowed to remove accumulated sludge or other residues from the bottom

of the surface impoundment. A provision is being added that explicitly

allows opening of a safety device installed on the cover, closed-vent

system, or control device at any time conditions require it to do so to

avoid an unsafe condition. Also under the technical amendments

published today, visual inspection of the rigid cover and closure

devices is required initially and annually thereafter, rather than

semiannually; leak detection monitoring is only required initially; and

there are no requirements for periodic monitoring (as discussed above,

the EPA does not consider it warranted to survey for non-visible leaks,

while allowing conservation vents to route emissions to the

atmosphere). The repair period for a defect also is being extended from

15 to 45 days to be consistent with other CAA regulations (e.g. the

HON).

The floating membrane cover design and installation requirements

are being clarified, e.g., language is being added to clarify that the

``floating membrane cover shall be designed to float during normal

operations on the surface of the liquid contained in the surface

impoundment.'' A provision is being added that allows the floating

membrane cover to be equipped with emergency cover drains for removal

of storm water. Opening of a safety device installed on the cover is

allowed at any time conditions require it to do so to avoid an unsafe

condition. Visual inspection of the floating membrane cover and closure

devices is required initially and annually, rather than semiannually.

The leak detection monitoring requirements for floating membrane covers

are being dropped. The repair period for a defect is being extended

from 15 to 45 days.

The closed system transfer requirements for hazardous wastes

transferred to or from a surface impoundment and another waste

management unit subject to subpart CC control requirements are being

revised such that transfer of hazardous waste between a surface

impoundment and container is not required to be done in a closed

system. This change is being made to provide consistency within the

subpart CC rules; containers are not subject to transfer requirements

among other containers; therefore, the EPA does not consider it

necessary to require closed transfer between containers and surface

impoundments.

I. Standards: Containers

The subpart CC container standards are being significantly revised

under today's amendments to address comments on the proposed changes to

the container requirements, to make this rule compatible with the

existing U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations for

transporting hazardous materials, and to reduce any unnecessary

inspection, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.

1. Control Requirements

Commenters stated that promulgated air emission control

requirements for containers are impractical to implement or require

equipment that is commercially unavailable. Also, commenters stated

that the requirements should be consistent with the container air

emission control requirements under the Clean Air Act rules.

Since promulgation in December 1994, the EPA has obtained more

information on the practices and equipment currently used to manage

hazardous waste in containers. Based on consideration of this

information, the EPA decided to revise the air emission control

requirements for containers to better reflect the container organic

emission potential, the various container types, and the common

container management practices used for hazardous waste 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 later in this section of today's notice.

The EPA is addressing consistency between the air emission control

requirements for containers (as well as

[[Page 59947]]

the other affected waste management units) in the RCRA rules and those

contained in Clean Air Act NESHAP or NSPS by amending the RCRA rules to

include an exemption for those affected units using organic emission

controls in accordance with the requirements of any applicable NESHAP

or NSPS. Because the Clean Air Act controls for containers are

essentially the same as those required under the RCRA air rules, they

are considered to provide the same level of protection. In addition,

allowing the use of DOT containers is also consistent with the EPA's

general objective of avoiding duplication and promoting consistency.

The EPA has thoroughly evaluated the control requirements for DOT

containers and has worked with DOT in developing these revisions. The

EPA concluded that containers that meet applicable DOT requirements

under 49 CFR parts 173, 178, 179, and 180 are equivalent in their

overall emission reduction performance and therefore provide the same

level of protection as do the initial requirements of the final subpart

CC rules.

The revised container standards for the subpart CC RCRA air rules

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 hazardous waste 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, as was the

case in the 1994 promulgated CC rule.

Under today's revised subpart CC rule, Level 1 controls are allowed

for the following container categories (except when the container

remains uncovered for waste stabilization or certain other treatment

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 hazardous wastes that do not meet the

definition of ``in light material service'' (i.e., used to manage a

hazardous waste where the vapor pressure of one or more of the

components in the material is greater than 0.3 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). Level 2 controls are required for containers with a

design capacity greater than 0.46 m3 and used ``in light material

service,'' except when the container remains uncovered for waste

stabilization or certain other treatment 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 allowed to use Level 1 controls, the amended

rule requires that the hazardous waste 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 1994 final CC rule (40 CFR parts 264 and 265). No

additional requirements are specified by today's revised 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 annually thereafter, 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 revised final rule

for containers using Level 1 controls. The EPA has agreed with

commenters' suggestions that any increases in enforceability of the

subpart CC standards does not justify the expense and time required by

an owner or operator to make and maintain records for the subpart CC

regulations for hazardous waste in containers. The vast majority of

containers subject to the subpart CC standards are not at a given site

for more than 90 days; therefore, the burden associated with

maintaining additional records (that is, in addition to existing

records required under other applicable regulations, such as the RCRA

subpart I, or DOT container requirements) for all containers used to

store hazardous waste was deemed to be considerably greater than the

recordkeeping requirements for tanks or surface impoundments

(particularly when compared with the relatively low volume of hazardous

waste, nationwide, that is managed in containers versus tanks and

surface impoundments).

For the containers required to use Level 2 controls, today's

revised final rule requires that the hazardous waste 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 operates

with ``no detectable organic emissions''; or (3) a container that has

been demonstrated within the preceding 12 months to be vapor-tight by

using Method 27. 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.

No additional requirements are specified in the final rule for

containers complying with the applicable DOT regulations. However, for

compliance with the subpart CC rules, no exceptions under the 40 CFR

parts 178 or 179 regulations are allowed for DOT containers except for

lab packs meeting the exceptions for combination packaging specified in

40 CFR 173.12(b). In addition, the EPA based its decision to allow use

of DOT containers for compliance with the subpart CC rules on the

specifications, testing, maintenance, and other requirements for

containers that can be reused or refilled under DOT regulations (the

typical practice at hazardous waste TSDF). For the purpose of complying

with the subpart CC rules, the EPA does not consider it appropriate

that a container which is a ``non-reusable container (NRC)'' or

``single-trip container (STC)'' according to DOT requirements, be

repeatedly used while at the facility site (i.e., emptied and refilled)

for the handling of hazardous waste subject to subpart CC rules. Before

a DOT container can be reused, even within the boundaries of a facility

site, it must comply with the DOT reconditioning and reuse provisions

of the hazardous materials regulations in 49 CFR 173.28.

For the containers required to use Level 3 controls, the revised

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. The use of a permanent total enclosure and

the design and operating criteria for these enclosures are discussed

further in Section G of this preamble.

2. Loading Operations

Requirements for loading hazardous waste into a container are also

being revised by today's action in response to the numerous comments

received by EPA on this topic. Under the revised final rule there are

no requirements for

[[Page 59948]]

loading hazardous waste into containers using Level 1 controls. The

rationale for this is explained in the preamble to the February 9, 1996

technical amendments (see 61 FR 4909). For containers using Level 2

controls, the loading requirements have been revised to allow the owner

or operator the flexibility to use any appropriate loading method that

will minimize exposure of the hazardous waste to the atmosphere and

thereby reduce organic air emissions, to the extent practical

considering the physical properties of the hazardous waste 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.

3. Inspection, Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting

After consideration of the comments regarding the burden associated

with certain aspects of the inspection, monitoring, recordkeeping, and

reporting requirements for containers, and review of the effect of

these requirements on the emission reduction achieved by these

standards, the EPA has determined that it is appropriate to simplify

these requirements in today's amendments. 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 manages a hazardous

waste in the container or accepts possession of the container at the

facility with the exception of those containers emptied within 24 hours

of being received. Also, in the case when a container used for managing

hazardous waste remains at the facility 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.

Under the revisions published here, there are no requirements for

periodic Method 21 leak monitoring of containers. The EPA considers

this revision appropriate, in light of the relatively low volume of

hazardous waste managed in containers (as compared to that volume

managed in tanks and surface impoundments) and the transitory nature of

containers (i.e. the vast majority of containers, nationwide, do not

remain on a given site longer than 90 days). The time and expense

required by operators to perform periodic Method 21 monitoring on

containers does not seem to be warranted by any anticipated increase in

emission reductions or enforceability of the subpart CC standards.

There is only one recordkeeping requirement and no reporting

requirements under this rulemaking for containers using either

Container Level 1 or Container Level 2 controls. The recordkeeping

requirement is to maintain in the facility record a copy of the

procedure used to determine that containers with capacities equal to or

greater than 0.46 m3 and do not meet the applicable DOT

regulations are not managing hazardous waste in ``light material

service.''

Information is also being added to the rule concerning the duration

of time that the cover or closure devices can be open for the purpose

of adding hazardous waste to or removing hazardous waste from the

container or performing other routine activities, such as sampling the

hazardous waste in the container. Opening of a spring-loaded pressure-

vacuum relief valve, conservation vent, or similar type of pressure-

relief device that vents to the atmosphere is allowed to maintain

container internal pressure within design specifications during normal

operating conditions, e.g., to release pressure resulting from loading

operations or diurnal temperature changes. Opening of a safety device,

as defined in the rule, is allowed at any time conditions require it to

do so to avoid an unsafe condition.

J. Standards: Closed-Vent Systems and Control Devices

As previously discussed in this preamble under the revisions to the

subpart AA provisions for control devices and closed-vent systems, the

subpart CC control device and closed-vent system standards are being

revised by today's technical amendments to incorporate changes so that

these requirements are consistent and up-to-date with the general

decisions the EPA has made regarding the inspection, monitoring,

maintenance, repair, malfunctions, recordkeeping, and reporting

requirements for organic emission control devices and which have been

published in other related standards.

In the subpart CC standards for control devices and closed vent

systems, provisions are being added to allow up to 240 hours per year

for periods of planned routine maintenance of a control device during

which time the control device is not required to meet the performance

requirements for emission reductions specified in the rule and to

exempt control devices from the substantive requirements of this

section during a control device system malfunction. Recordkeeping

requirements for these provisions are also being added. This change is

being made in response to commenters' statements that good engineering

and air pollution control practices include maintenance of air

pollution control equipment, and that it is reasonable to assume that

all such equipment will require either maintenance or repair at some

time during the life of the equipment. The EPA is adding this allowance

in an attempt to encourage good maintenance of such equipment, and in

recognition that if maintenance periods are not allowed, repair periods

will be unavoidable; it seems more reasonable to encourage the former,

while accepting that both are realities. The value of 240 hours has

been selected to be consistent with other air regulations developed

under the CAA, such as the HON.

K. Inspection and Monitoring Requirements

The EPA is making revisions to the inspection and monitoring

requirements for the final subpart CC RCRA air rules to reflect the

revisions to the rule applicability and technical requirements and

reduce the burden of these requirements on owners and operators. These

revisions are explained in more detail throughout the preamble, above.

L. Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements

The EPA is changing the recordkeeping and reporting requirements

for the final subpart CC RCRA air rules to reflect the revisions to the

rule applicability and technical requirements and reduce the burden of

these requirements on owners and operators. These revisions are

explained in more detail throughout the preamble, above.

V. Administrative Requirements

A. Docket

Six RCRA dockets contain information pertaining to today's

rulemaking: (1) RCRA docket number F-91-CESP-FFFFF, which contains

copies of all BID references and other information related to the

development of the rule up through proposal; (2) RCRA docket number F-

92-CESA-FFFFF, which contains copies of the supplemental data made

available for public comment prior to promulgation;

[[Page 59949]]

(3) RCRA docket number F-94-CESF-FFFFF, which contains copies of all

BID references and other information related to development of the

final rule following proposal; (4) RCRA docket number F-94-CE2A-FFFFF,

which contains information pertaining to waste stabilization operations

performed in tanks; (5) RCRA docket number F-95-CE3A-FFFFF, which

contains information about potential final rule revisions made

available for public comment; and (6) RCRA docket number F-96-CE4A-

FFFFF, which contains a copy of each of the comment letters submitted

in regard to the revisions that the EPA was considering for the final

subpart CC standards. The public may review all materials in these

dockets at the EPA RCRA Docket Office.

The EPA RCRA Docket Office is located at Crystal Gateway, 1235

Jefferson Davis Highway, First Floor, Arlington, Virginia. Hand

delivery of items and review of docket materials are made at the

Virginia address. The public must have an appointment to review docket

materials. Appointments can be scheduled by calling the Docket Office

at (703) 603-9230. The mailing address for the RCRA Docket Office is

RCRA Information Center (5305W), 401 M Street SW, Washington, DC 20460.

The Docket Office is open from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except for Federal holidays.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection requirements of the previously

promulgated RCRA air rules were submitted to and approved by the Office

of Management and Budget (OMB). A copy of this Information Collection

Request (ICR) document (OMB control number 1593.02) may be obtained

from Sandy Farmer, Information Policy Branch (2136); U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency; 401 M Street, SW; Washington, DC 20460 or by calling

(202) 260-2740.

Today's amendments to the RCRA air rules should have only a minor

impact on the information collection burden estimates made previously,

and that impact is expected to be a reduction. The changes consist of

new definitions, alternative test procedures, clarifications of

requirements, and additional compliance options. The changes are not

additional requirements, but rather, are reductions in previously

published requirements. The overall information-keeping requirements in

the rule are being reduced. Consequently, the ICR has not been revised.

C. Executive Order 12866 Review

Under Executive Order 12866, the EPA must determine whether the

proposed regulatory action is ``significant'' and, therefore, subject

to the OMB review and the requirements of the Executive Order. The

Order defines ``significant'' regulatory action as one that is likely

to lead to a rule that may:

(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or

adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the

economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public

health or safety in State, local, or tribal governments or communities;

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an

action taken or planned by another agency;

(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,

user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of

recipients thereof; or

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal

mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in

the Executive Order.

The RCRA Subpart CC air rules published on December 6, 1994, were

considered significant under Executive Order 12866, and a regulatory

impact analysis (RIA) was prepared. The amendments published today

clarify the rule, provide more compliance alternatives, make certain

regulatory provisions more lenient, and correct structural problems

with the drafting of some sections. The OMB has evaluated this action,

and determined it to be non-significant; thus it did not require their

review.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5

U.S.C. 605(b), as amended, Pub. L. 104-121, 110 Stat. 847, the EPA

certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities and therefore no initial

regulatory flexibility analysis under section 604(a) of the Act is

required. For the reasons discussed in the December 6, 1994 Federal

Register (59 FR 62923), this rule does not have a significant impact on

a substantial number of small entities. The changes to the rule do not

add new control requirements to the December 1994 rule. The amendments

in fact reduce the already-existing requirements. Therefore, the

amendments are also not considered significant.

Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) as added by the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, EPA submitted a report

containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate,

the U.S. House of Representatives and the Comptroller General of the

General Accounting Office prior to publication of the rule in today's

Federal Register. This rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5

U.S.C. 804(2) given that it amends the rule published in 1994 to reduce

the extent of regulation.

E. Unfunded Mandates

Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), the EPA must prepare a budgetary impact

statement to accompany any proposed or final rule that includes a

Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs to State, local, or

tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100

million or more. Under section 205, the EPA must select the most cost-

effective and least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives

of the rule and is consistent with statutory requirements. Section 203

requires the EPA to establish a plan for informing and advising any

small governments that may be significantly or uniquely impacted by the

rule.

The EPA has determined that the action promulgated today does not

include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100

million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate or to the private sector. Therefore, the requirements of the

Unfunded Mandates Act do not apply to this action.

VI. Legal Authority

These regulations are amended under the authority of sections 2002,

3001-3007, 3010, and 7004 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1970, as

amended by RCRA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6921-6927, 6930, and 6974).

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 261

Environmental protection, Air pollution control.

40 CFR Part 262

Air pollution control, Packaging and containers, Tank.

40 CFR Parts 264 and 265

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Control device,

Hazardous waste, Inspection, Monitoring, Packaging and containers,

Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Surface impoundment, Tank,

TSDF, Waste determination.

[[Page 59950]]

40 CFR Part 270

Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution, Confidential

business information, Hazardous waste, Permit modification, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: October 4, 1996.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, parts

261, 262, 264, 265, 270, and 271 of the Code of Federal Regulations are

amended as follows:

PART 261--IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE

1a. The authority citation for part 261 continues to read as

follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921, 6922, and 6938.

1b. Section 261.6 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(1) to read

as follows:

Sec. 261.6 Requirements for recyclable materials.

* * * * *

(c)(1) Owners and operators of facilities that store recyclable

materials before they are recycled are regulated under all applicable

provisions of subparts A though L, AA, BB, and CC of parts 264 and 265,

and under parts 124, 266, 268, and 270 of this chapter and the

notification requirements under section 3010 of RCRA, except as

provided in paragraph (a) of this section. (The recycling process

itself is exempt from regulation except as provided in Sec. 261.6(d).)

* * * * *

PART 262--STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO GENERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE

1c. The authority citation for part 262 continues to read as

follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6906, 6912, 6922, 6923, 6925, 6937 and

6938, unless otherwise noted.

2. Section 262.34 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and

(a)(1)(ii) to read as follows:

Sec. 262.34 Accumulation time.

(a) * * *

(1) * * *

(i) In containers and the generator complies with subpart I of 40

CFR part 265; and/or

(ii) In tanks and the generator complies with subpart J of 40 CFR

part 265, except Secs. 265.197(c) and 265.200; and/or

* * * * *

PART 264--STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE

TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES

3. The authority citation for part 264 continues to read as

follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6924 and 6925.

Subpart I--Use and Management of Containers

4. Section 264.179 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 264.179 Air emission standards.

The owner or operator shall manage all hazardous waste placed in a

container in accordance with the applicable requirements of subparts

AA, BB, and CC of this part.

Subpart J--Tank Systems

5. Section 264.200 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 264.200 Air emission standards.

The owner or operator shall manage all hazardous waste placed in a

tank in accordance with the applicable requirements of subparts AA, BB,

and CC of this part.

Subpart K--Surface Impoundments

6. Section 264.232 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 264.232 Air emission standards.

The owner or operator shall manage all hazardous waste placed in a

surface impoundment in accordance with the applicable requirements of

subparts BB and CC of this part.

Subpart AA--Air Emission Standards for Process Vents

7. Section 264.1030 is amended by revising paragraph (b); and

removing the refererence ``262.34'' from the note at the end of the

section to read as follows:

Sec. 264.1030 Applicability.

* * * * *

(b) Except for Sec. 264.1034, paragraphs (d) and (e), this subpart

applies to process vents associated with distillation, fractionation,

thin-film evaporation, solvent extraction, or air or steam stripping

operations that manage hazardous wastes with organic concentrations of

at least 10 ppmw, if these operations are conducted in one of the

following:

(1) A unit that is subject to the permitting requirements of 40 CFR

part 270, or

(2) A unit (including a hazardous waste recycling unit) that is not

exempt from permitting under the provisions of 40 CFR 262.34(a) (i.e.,

a hazardous waste recycling unit that is not a 90-day tank or

container) and that is located at a hazardous waste management facility

otherwise subject to the permitting requirements of 40 CFR part 270, or

(3) A unit that is exempt from permitting under the provisions of

40 CFR 262.34(a) (i.e., a 90-day tank or container).

* * * * *

8. Section 264.1033 is amended by revising paragraph (f)(2)(vi)(B);

redesignating paragraphs (l) and (m) as paragraphs (m) and (n) and

revising the newly designated paragraph (n); by revising paragraph (k);

and by adding paragraphs (l) and (o) to read as follows:

Sec. 264.1033 Standards: Closed-vent systems and control devices

* * * * *

(f) * * *

(2) * * *

(vi) * * *

(B) A temperature monitoring device equipped with a continuous

recorder. The device shall be capable of monitoring temperature with an

accuracy of 1 percent of the temperature being monitored in

degrees Celsius ( deg.C) or 0.5 deg.C, whichever is

greater. The temperature sensor shall be installed at a location in the

exhaust vent stream from the condenser exit (i.e., product side).

* * * * *

(k) A closed-vent system shall meet either of the following design

requirements:

(1) A closed-vent system shall be designed to operate with no

detectable emissions, as indicated by an instrument reading of less

than 500 ppmv above background as determined by the procedure in

Sec. 264.1034(b) of this subpart, and by visual inspections; or

(2) A closed-vent system shall be designed to operate at a pressure

below atmospheric pressure. The system shall be equipped with at least

one pressure gauge or other pressure measurement device that can be

read from a readily accessible location to verify that negative

pressure is being maintained in the closed-vent system when the control

device is operating.

(l) The owner or operator shall monitor and inspect each closed-

vent system required to comply with this section to ensure proper

operation and maintenance of the closed-vent system by implementing the

following requirements:

(1) Each closed-vent system that is used to comply with paragraph

(k)(1) of

[[Page 59951]]

this section shall be inspected and monitored in accordance with the

following requirements:

(i) An initial leak detection monitoring of the closed-vent system

shall be conducted by the owner or operator on or before the date that

the system becomes subject to this section. The owner or operator shall

monitor the closed-vent system components and connections using the

procedures specified in Sec. 264.1034(b) of this subpart to demonstrate

that the closed-vent system operates with no detectable emissions, as

indicated by an instrument reading of less than 500 ppmv above

background.

(ii) After initial leak detection monitoring required in paragraph

(l)(1)(i) of this section, the owner or operator shall inspect and

monitor the closed-vent system as follows:

(A) Closed-vent system joints, seams, or other connections that are

permanently or semi-permanently sealed (e.g., a welded joint between

two sections of hard piping or a bolted and gasketed ducting flange)

shall be visually inspected at least once per year to check for defects

that could result in air pollutant emissions. The owner or operator

shall monitor a component or connection using the procedures specified

in Sec. 264.1034(b) of this subpart to demonstrate that it operates

with no detectable emissions following any time the component is

repaired or replaced (e.g., a section of damaged hard piping is

replaced with new hard piping) or the connection is unsealed (e.g., a

flange is unbolted).

(B) Closed-vent system components or connections other than those

specified in paragraph (l)(1)(ii)(A) of this section shall be monitored

annually and at other times as requested by the Regional Administrator,

except as provided for in paragraph (o) of this section, using the

procedures specified in Sec. 264.1034(b) of this subpart to demonstrate

that the components or connections operate with no detectable

emissions.

(iii) In the event that a defect or leak is detected, the owner or

operator shall repair the defect or leak in accordance with the

requirements of paragraph (l)(3) of this section.

(iv) The owner or operator shall maintain a record of the

inspection and monitoring in accordance with the requirements specified

in Sec. 264.1035 of this subpart.

(2) Each closed-vent system that is used to comply with paragraph

(k)(2) of this section shall be inspected and monitored in accordance

with the following requirements:

(i) The closed-vent system shall be visually inspected by the owner

or operator to check for defects that could result in air pollutant

emissions. Defects include, but are not limited to, visible cracks,

holes, or gaps in ductwork or piping or loose connections.

(ii) The owner or operator shall perform an initial inspection of

the closed-vent system on or before the date that the system becomes

subject to this section. Thereafter, the owner or operator shall

perform the inspections at least once every year.

(iii) In the event that a defect or leak is detected, the owner or

operator shall repair the defect in accordance with the requirements of

paragraph (l)(3) of this section.

(iv) The owner or operator shall maintain a record of the

inspection and monitoring in accordance with the requirements specified

in Sec. 264.1035 of this subpart.

(3) The owner or operator shall repair all detected defects as

follows:

(i) Detectable emissions, as indicated by visual inspection, or by

an instrument reading greater than 500 ppmv above background, shall be

controlled as soon as practicable, but not later than 15 calendar days

after the emission is detected, except as provided for in paragraph

(l)(3)(iii) of this section.

(ii) A first attempt at repair shall be made no later than 5

calendar days after the emission is detected.

(iii) Delay of repair of a closed-vent system for which leaks have

been detected is allowed if the repair is technically infeasible

without a process unit shutdown, or if the owner or operator determines

that emissions resulting from immediate repair would be greater than

the fugitive emissions likely to result from delay of repair. Repair of

such equipment shall be completed by the end of the next process unit

shutdown.

(iv) The owner or operator shall maintain a record of the defect

repair in accordance with the requirements specified in Sec. 264.1035

of this subpart.

(m) Closed-vent systems and control devices used to comply with

provisions of this subpart shall be operated at all times when

emissions may be vented to them.

(n) The owner or operator using a carbon adsorption system to

control air pollutant emissions shall document that all carbon that is

a hazardous waste and that is removed from the control device is

managed in one of the following manners, regardless of the average

volatile organic concentration of the carbon:

(1) Regenerated or reactivated in a thermal treatment unit that

meets one of the following:

(i) The owner or operator of the unit has been issued a final

permit under 40 CFR part 270 which implements the requirements of

subpart X of this part; or

(ii) The unit is equipped with and operating air emission controls

in accordance with the applicable requirements of subparts AA and CC of

either this part or of 40 CFR part 265; or

(iii) The unit is equipped with and operating air emission controls

in accordance with a national emission standard for hazardous air

pollutants under 40 CFR part 61 or 40 CFR part 63.

(2) Incinerated in a hazardous waste incinerator for which the

owner or operator either:

(i) Has been issued a final permit under 40 CFR part 270 which

implements the requirements of subpart O of this part; or

(ii) Has designed and operates the incinerator in accordance with

the interim status requirements of 40 CFR part 265, subpart O.

(3) Burned in a boiler or industrial furnace for which the owner or

operator either:

(i) Has been issued a final permit under 40 CFR part 270 which

implements the requirements of 40 CFR part 266, subpart H; or

(ii) Has designed and operates the boiler or industrial furnace in

accordance with the interim status requirements of 40 CFR part 266,

subpart H.

(o) Any components of a closed-vent system that are designated, as

described in Sec. 264.1035(c)(9) of this subpart, as unsafe to monitor

are exempt from the requirements of paragraph (l)(1)(ii)(B) of this

section if:

(1) The owner or operator of the closed-vent system determines that

the components of the closed-vent system are unsafe to monitor because

monitoring personnel would be exposed to an immediate danger as a

consequence of complying with paragraph (l)(1)(ii)(B) of this section;

and

(2) The owner or operator of the closed-vent system adheres to a

written plan that requires monitoring the closed-vent system components

using the procedure specified in paragraph (l)(1)(ii)(B) of this

section as frequently as practicable during safe-to-monitor times.

9. Section 264.1034 is amended by revising paragraph (b),

introductory text, to read as follows:

Sec. 264.1034 Test methods and procedures.

* * * * *

(b) When a closed-vent system is tested for compliance with no

detectable

[[Page 59952]]

emissions, as required in Sec. 264.1033(l) of this subpart, the test

shall comply with the following requirements:

* * * * *

10. Section 264.1035 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(9) and

(c)(10) and revising paragraph (d) to read as follows:

Sec. 264.1035 Recordkeeping requirements.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(9) An owner or operator designating any components of a closed-

vent system as unsafe to monitor pursuant to Sec. 264.1033(o) of this

subpart shall record in a log that is kept in the facility operating

record the identification of closed-vent system components that are

designated as unsafe to monitor in accordance with the requirements of

Sec. 264.1033(o) of this subpart, an explanation for each closed-vent

system component stating why the closed-vent system component is unsafe

to monitor, and the plan for monitoring each closed-vent system

component.

(10) When each leak is detected as specified in Sec. 264.1033(l) of

this subpart, the following information shall be recorded:

(i) The instrument identification number, the closed-vent system

component identification number, and the operator name, initials, or

identification number.

(ii) The date the leak was detected and the date of first attempt

to repair the leak.

(iii) The date of successful repair of the leak.

(iv) Maximum instrument reading measured by Method 21 of 40 CFR

part 60, appendix A after it is successfully repaired or determined to

be nonrepairable.

(v) ``Repair delayed'' and the reason for the delay if a leak is

not repaired within 15 calendar days after discovery of the leak.

(A) The owner or operator may develop a written procedure that

identifies the conditions that justify a delay of repair. In such

cases, reasons for delay of repair may be documented by citing the

relevant sections of the written procedure.

(B) If delay of repair was caused by depletion of stocked parts,

there must be documentation that the spare parts were sufficiently

stocked on-site before depletion and the reason for depletion.

(d) Records of the monitoring, operating, and inspection

information required by paragraphs (c)(3) through (c)(10) of this

section shall be maintained by the owner or operator for at least 3

years following the date of each occurrence, measurement, maintenance,

corrective action, or record.

* * * * *

Subpart BB--Air Emission Standards for Equipment Leaks

11. Section 264.1050 is amended by revising paragraph (b), adding

paragraph (f), and by removing the reference ``262.34'' from the note

at the end of the section to read as follows:

Sec. 264.1050 Applicability.

* * * * *

(b) Except as provided in Sec. 264.1064(k), this subpart applies to

equipment that contains or contacts hazardous wastes with organic

concentrations of at least 10 percent by weight that are managed in one

of the following:

(1) A unit that is subject to the permitting requirements of 40 CFR

part 270, or

(2) A unit (including a hazardous waste recycling unit) that is not

exempt from permitting under the provisions of 40 CFR 262.34(a) (i.e.,

a hazardous waste recycling unit that is not a ``90-day'' tank or

container) and that is located at a hazardous waste management facility

otherwise subject to the permitting requirements of 40 CFR part 270, or

(3) A unit that is exempt from permitting under the provisions of

40 CFR 262.34(a) (i.e., a ``90-day'' tank or container).

* * * * *

(f) Equipment that contains or contacts hazardous waste with an

organic concentration of at least 10 percent by weight for a period of

less than 300 hours per calendar year is excluded from the requirements

of Secs. 264.1052 through 264.1060 of this subpart if it is identified

as required in Sec. 264.1064(g)(6) of this subpart.

12. Section 264.1055 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 264.1055 Standards: Sampling connection systems.

(a) Each sampling connection system shall be equipped with a

closed-purge, closed-loop, or closed-vent system. This system shall

collect the sample purge for return to the process or for routing to

the appropriate treatment system. Gases displaced during filling of the

sample container are not required to be collected or captured.

(b) Each closed-purge, closed-loop, or closed-vent system as

required in paragraph (a) of this section shall meet one of the

following requirements:

(1) Return the purged process fluid directly to the process line;

(2) Collect and recycle the purged process fluid; or

(3) Be designed and operated to capture and transport all the

purged process fluid to a waste management unit that complies with the

applicable requirements of Sec. 264.1084 through Sec. 264.1086 of this

subpart or a control device that complies with the requirements of

Sec. 264.1060 of this subpart.

(c) In-situ sampling systems and sampling systems without purges

are exempt from the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this

section.

13. Section 264.1058 is amended by adding paragraph (e) to read as

follows:

Sec. 264.1058 Standards: Pumps and valves in heavy liquid service,

pressure relief devices in light liquid or heavy liquid service, and

flanges and other connectors.

* * * * *

(e) Any connector that is inaccessible or is ceramic or ceramic-

lined (e.g., porcelain, glass, or glass-lined) is exempt from the

monitoring requirements of paragraph (a) of this section and from the

recordkeeping requirements of Sec. 264.1064 of this subpart.

14. Section 264.1064 is amended by adding paragraph (g)(6) to read

as follows:

Sec. 264.1064 Recordkeeping requirements.

* * * * *

(g) * * *

(6) Identification, either by list or location (area or group) of

equipment that contains or contacts hazardous waste with an organic

concentration of at least 10 percent by weight for a period of less

than 300 hours per year.

* * * * *

Subpart CC--Air Emission Standards for Tanks, Surface Impoundments,

and Containers

15. Section 264.1080 is amended by adding paragraphs (b)(7) and

(b)(8) to read as follows:

Sec. 264.1080 Applicability.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(7) A hazardous waste management unit that the owner or operator

certifies is equipped with and operating air emission controls in

accordance with the requirements of an applicable Clean Air Act

regulation codified under 40 CFR part 60, part 61, or part 63. For the

purpose of complying with this paragraph, a tank for which the air

emission control includes an enclosure, as opposed to a cover, must be

in compliance with the enclosure and control device requirements of

[[Page 59953]]

Sec. 264.1084(i), except as provided in Sec. 264.1082(c)(5).

(8) A tank that has a process vent as defined in 40 CFR 264.1031.

* * * * *

16. Section 264.1082 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 264.1082 Standards: General.

(a) This section applies to the management of hazardous waste in

tanks, surface impoundments, and containers subject to this subpart.

(b) The owner or operator shall control air pollutant emissions

from each waste management unit in accordance with standards specified

in Sec. 264.1084 through Sec. 264.1087 of this subpart, as applicable

to the waste management unit, except as provided for in paragraph (c)

of this section.

(c) A tank, surface impoundment, or container is exempt from

standards specified in Sec. 264.1084 through Sec. 264.1087 of this

subpart, as applicable, provided that the waste management unit is one

of the following:

(1) A tank, surface impoundment, or container for which all

hazardous waste entering the unit has an average VO concentration at

the point of waste origination of less than 500 parts per million by

weight (ppmw). The average VO concentration shall be determined using

the procedures specified in Sec. 264.1083(a) of this subpart. The owner

or operator shall review and update, as necessary, this determination

at least once every 12 months following the date of the initial

determination for the hazardous waste streams entering the unit.

(2) A tank, surface impoundment, or container for which the organic

content of all the hazardous waste entering the waste management unit

has been reduced by an organic destruction or removal process that

achieves any one of the following conditions:

(i) A process that removes or destroys the organics contained in

the hazardous waste to a level such that the average VO concentration

of the hazardous waste at the point of waste treatment is less than the

exit concentration limit (Ct) established for the process. The

average VO concentration of the hazardous waste at the point of waste

treatment and the exit concentration limit for the process shall be

determined using the procedures specified in Sec. 264.1083(b) of this

subpart.

(ii) A process that removes or destroys the organics contained in

the hazardous waste to a level such that the organic reduction

efficiency (R) for the process is equal to or greater than 95 percent,

and the average VO concentration of the hazardous waste at the point of

waste treatment is less than 100 ppmw. The organic reduction efficiency

for the process and the average VO concentration of the hazardous waste

at the point of waste treatment shall be determined using the

procedures specified in Sec. 264.1083(b) of this subpart.

(iii) A process that removes or destroys the organics containe

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.