[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 236 (Wednesday, December 9, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 67787-67794]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-32567]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[AD-FRL-6197-8]
RIN 2060-AC19
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for
Source Categories: Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants From the Synthetic
Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry and Other Processes Subject to
the Negotiated Regulation for Equipment Leaks; Rule Clarifications;
Correction
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule: Correction.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On January 17, 1997, the EPA amended certain portions of the
``National Emission Standards for
[[Page 67788]]
Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories: Organic Hazardous Air
Pollutants from the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry
and Other Processes Subject to the Negotiated Regulation for Equipment
Leaks.'' This rule is commonly known as the Hazardous Organic NESHAP or
the HON. Among the changes made to the rule in that action, the EPA
added a definition for ``enhanced biological treatment systems or
enhanced biological treatment processes'' to the rule and made
clarifying revisions to appendix C of part 63. On August 22, 1997, the
EPA proposed corrections to this definition in order to clarify its
meaning and proposed revisions to appendix C of part 63 to reflect the
clarification of the definition for ``enhanced biological treatment
systems or enhanced biological treatment processes.'' The August 22,
1997 document also proposed to revise the compliance demonstration
procedures for biological treatment units to remove restrictions on the
use of the batch test procedure. Today's action takes final action on
those proposed amendments.
These amendments to the rule will not change the basic control
requirements of the rule or the level of health protection it provides.
The rule requires new and existing major sources to control emissions
of hazardous air pollutants to the level reflecting application of the
maximum achievable control technology.
EFFECTIVE DATE: December 9, 1998.
ADDRESSES: Docket. Docket No. A-90-23, containing the supporting
information for the original NESHAP and this action, are available for
public inspection and copying between 8:00 a.m. and 5:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, at the EPA's Air and Radiation Docket and Information
Center, Waterside Mall, Room M-1500, first floor, 401 M Street, SW,
Washington, DC 20460, or by calling (202) 260-7548 or 260-7549. A
reasonable fee may be charged for copying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general questions, contact Dr.
Janet S. Meyer, Coatings and Consumer Products Group, at (919) 541-5254
(meyer.jan@epamail.epa.gov). For technical questions on appendix C and
wastewater provisions, contact Elaine Manning, Waste and Chemical
Processes Group, telephone number (919) 541-5499
(manning.elaine@epamail.epa.gov). The mailing address for the contacts
is Emission Standards Division (MD-13), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Regulated Entities and Background Information:
A. Regulated Entities
The regulated category and entities affected by this action
include:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Examples of regulated entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry....................... Synthetic organic chemical
manufacturing industry (SOCMI) units,
e.g., producers of benzene, toluene,
or any other chemical listed in table
1 of 40 CFR part 63, subpart F.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This table is not intended to be exhaustive but, rather, provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be interested in the
revisions to the regulation affected by this action. This action is
expected to be of interest to owners and operators subject to this rule
who plan to use biological treatment to comply with control
requirements for wastewater streams. Entities potentially regulated by
the HON are those which produce as primary intended products any of the
chemicals listed in table 1 of 40 CFR part 63, subpart F and are
located at facilities that are major sources as defined in section 112
of the Clean Air Act (the Act). Potentially regulated entities
generally are companies that manufacture industrial organic chemicals
and cyclic organic crude and intermediates. To determine whether your
facility is regulated by this action, you should carefully examine all
of the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 63.100. 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.
B. Background on the Rule
On April 22, 1994 (59 FR 19402), and June 6, 1994 (59 FR 29196),
the EPA published in the Federal Register the NESHAP for the SOCMI, and
for several other processes subject to the equipment leaks portion of
the rule. These regulations were promulgated as subparts F, G, H, and I
in 40 CFR part 63, and are commonly referred to as the hazardous
organic NESHAP, or the HON. Since the April 22, 1994 Federal Register
publication, there have been several amendments to clarify various
aspects of the rule. Readers should see the following Federal Register
documents for more information: September 20, 1994 (59 FR 48175);
October 24, 1994 (59 FR 53359); October 28, 1994 (59 FR 54131); January
27, 1995 (60 FR 5321); April 10, 1995 (60 FR 18020); April 10, 1995 (60
FR 18026); December 12, 1995 (60 FR 63624); February 29, 1996 (61 FR
7716); June 20, 1996 (61 FR 31435); August 26, 1996 (61 FR 43698);
December 5, 1996 (61 FR 64571); January 17, 1997 (62 FR 2721); and
August 22, 1997 (62 FR 44608).
In June 1994, the Chemical Manufacturers Association (CMA) and Dow
Chemical Company (Dow) filed petitions for review of the promulgated
rule in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit,
Chemical Manufacturers Association v. EPA, 94-1463 and 94-1464 (D.C.
Cir.) and Dow Chemical Company v. EPA, 94-1465 (D.C. Cir). The
petitioners raised over 75 technical issues on the rule's structure and
applicability. Issues were raised regarding details of the technical
requirements, drafting clarity, and structural errors in the drafting
of certain sections of the rule. On August 26, 1996, the EPA proposed
clarifying and correcting amendments to subparts F, G, H, and I of part
63 to address the issues raised by CMA and Dow on the April 1994 rule.
On December 5, 1996 and January 17, 1997, the EPA took final action on
the amendments proposed on August 26, 1996. Subsequently, the EPA
determined that some revisions to the definition of ``enhanced
biological treatment systems or enhanced biological treatment
processes'' and to appendix C of part 63 might be appropriate. These
revisions were proposed on August 22, 1997 at 62 FR 44608.
C. Public Comment on the August 22, 1997 Proposal
Three comment letters were received on the August 22, 1997 Federal
Register document that proposed changes to the rule. All comment
letters received were from industry representatives and trade
associations. While the commenters were supportive of the proposed rule
amendments, they also expressed concerns with the clarity of the
examples used in the preamble to describe systems that do and systems
that do not meet the intent of the definition. The EPA has considered
these suggestions and, where appropriate, has provided clarification of
these examples in this document. The EPA has also developed a technical
support document to provide additional information for use in
evaluating whether a biological treatment unit meets the definition of
``enhanced biological treatment system or enhanced biological treatment
process.'' This document may be obtained from the Air and Radiation
Docket and Information Center. It may also be obtained over the
Internet at ``http://www.epa.gov/ttn/
[[Page 67789]]
oarpg/ramain.html.'' The Technology Transfer Network (TTN) provides
information and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution
control, including copies of rules and supporting documents. If more
information on TTN is needed, contact the systems operator at (919)
541-5384.
D. Judicial Review
Under Section 307(b)(1) of the Act, judicial review of this final
action is available only on the filing of a petition for review in the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit within 60
days of today's publication of this final rule. Under Section 307(b)(2)
of the Act, the requirements that are subject to today's publication
may not be challenged later in civil or criminal proceedings brought by
the EPA to enforce these requirements.
II. Clarification of Definition of Enhanced Biological Treatment
System or Enhanced Biological Treatment Process
The August 26, 1996 proposed changes to the wastewater treatment
provisions of the HON included provisions that provided easier
compliance demonstration options for well-mixed activated sludge
systems that are used to control readily biodegraded compounds. In that
proposed change to the April 1994 final rule, the compounds listed in
table 9 of subpart G were divided into three lists; these lists were
presented in table 36 of subpart G. In the proposal, a performance
evaluation would not have been required for an activated sludge system
if it met the definition of ``enhanced biological treatment system or
enhanced biological treatment process'' and if the unit was controlling
wastewater streams that contained only list 1 compounds. The August
1996 proposed revisions to the rule also required a performance
demonstration for activated sludge systems used to treat a combination
of list 1 and list 2 and/or list 3 compounds.
The August 1996 proposal defined an enhanced biological treatment
system as
an aerated treatment unit(s) that contains biomass suspended in
water followed by a clarifier that removes biomass from the treated
water and recycles recovered biomass to the aeration unit. The mixed
liquor volatile suspended solids (biomass) is greater than 1
kilogram per cubic meter throughout each aeration unit. The biomass
is suspended and aerated in the water of the aeration unit(s) by
either submerged air flow or mechanical agitation.
This definition of ``enhanced biological treatment system or enhanced
biological treatment process'' was intended to reflect the basis for
the simplified compliance approach for some systems. The three lists of
compounds in table 36 of subpart G were developed by modeling
performance of an activated sludge system that was a thoroughly mixed
biological treatment unit. (A thoroughly mixed or completely mixed
system is a biological treatment unit where biomass and wastewater
entering the tank are dispersed quickly throughout the tank such that
the system achieves or approaches uniform characteristics throughout
the tank (Docket number A-90-23, item VII-B-8).) After the August 1996
proposal, the EPA learned that some were interpreting the proposed
definition of ``enhanced biological treatment system or biological
treatment process'' to apply more broadly than intended. In the January
17, 1997 final rule, the phrase ``homogeneously distributed'' was added
to the second sentence of the definition to clarify the EPA's intent to
define a well-mixed biological treatment unit. The EPA thought that
this revision would better reflect the modeling and clarify the EPA's
intent to limit the types of biological treatment units that could use
the simplified compliance option to systems that were completely back
mixed. The EPA also believed that this change did not alter the meaning
of the term.
Following publication of the January 17, 1997 final rule, the EPA
learned that industry representatives were concerned that the revised
definition could be read to require absolute uniformity in the biomass
concentration. These industry representatives pointed out that they
believed that such a reading of the definition could preclude any
system from using the simplified compliance approach and the
performance evaluation exemption. It was not the EPA's intent that the
phrase ``homogeneously distributed'' be interpreted this narrowly.
Therefore, on August 22, 1997 the EPA proposed clarifying changes to
the definition of ``enhanced biological treatment system or enhanced
biological treatment process'' and proposed parallel conforming changes
to appendix C to part 63.
Today's action promulgates without any changes, the definition,
proposed in the August 22, 1997 document, of ``enhanced biological
treatment system or enhanced biological treatment process.'' That
definition reads as follows:
Enhanced biological treatment system or enhanced biological
treatment process means an aerated, thoroughly mixed treatment
unit(s) that contains biomass suspended in water followed by a
clarifier that removes biomass from the treated water and recycles
recovered biomass to the aeration unit. The mixed liquor volatile
suspended solids (biomass) is greater than 1 kilogram per cubic
meter throughout each aeration unit. The biomass is suspended and
aerated in the water of the aeration unit(s) by either submerged air
flow or mechanical agitation. A thoroughly mixed treatment unit is a
unit that is designed and operated to approach or achieve uniform
biomass distribution and organic compound concentration throughout
the aeration unit by quickly dispersing the recycled biomass and the
wastewater entering the unit.
The description of a ``thoroughly mixed treatment unit'' in the
definition is intended to convey the concept of an activated sludge
system that is designed and operated to approach or achieve the
characteristics of a completely back mixed system. Because the EPA does
not intend the definition to allow only systems with perfect uniformity
in characteristics, a ``thoroughly mixed treatment unit'' is described
as a unit that is ``designed and operated to approach or achieve
uniform biomass distribution and organic compound concentration.'' This
description is intended to recognize that well-designed complete mix
systems may still have small insignificant stagnant zones or other
minor deviations from complete mixing. This was the intended meaning of
the definition promulgated on January 17, 1997 and is also the intended
meaning of the definition promulgated in today's action.
The EPA received three comment letters in response to the August
22, 1997 Federal Register proposal. While all of the commenters agreed
with the proposed definition of ``enhanced biological treatment system
or enhanced biological treatment process,'' they expressed a concern
that the examples in the preamble did not fully reflect the intent of
the definition. The objections to the first example in the August 22,
1997 preamble were that the discussion referred to the units as having
``uniform'' characteristics instead of ``approaching or achieving
uniform characteristics'' as described in the proposed definition. In
the example, the system that was described as meeting the enhanced
biological treatment system definition was characterized as a well-
designed, well-operated, and well-maintained activated sludge system
that has uniform characteristics in the aeration unit. The EPA agrees
with the commenters that this example only illustrates a hypothetical
ideal system and it would have been more useful to have described the
unit as one that ``approaches uniformity throughout the aeration unit''
instead of as one that is ``uniform.'' The EPA recognizes that it is
[[Page 67790]]
unrealistic to believe that aeration units will have completely uniform
characteristics and also recognizes even well-designed complete mix
systems may still have small insignificant stagnant zones or other
minor deviations from complete mixing. Other relevant aspects of this
first example are that the biological treatment unit of this enhanced
biological treatment system would be thoroughly mixed throughout the
unit and biomass and wastewater entering the unit would be quickly
dispersed throughout the unit. The design of the unit would be such
that thorough mixing and quick dispersion of the biomass and wastewater
entering the unit would occur. The design and operation of the
biological treatment unit would also take into account mixing, quick
dispersion of the biomass and wastewater entering the unit, and the
location of the wastewater inlet with regards to intake suction of
surface aerators and the opportunity for volatilization prior to
biodegradation.
In the second example in the proposal preamble, the EPA's intent
was to make a general statement concerning the relationship between
system size and location of the inlet and the number of inlets. The
following adjustment to the example clarifies the intent. In smaller
size units that approach a complete back mixed system, thorough mixing
and quick dispersion may be achieved with a round or square tank and
only one influent. For larger scale systems that have more difficulty
reaching the complete back mixed conditions, thorough mixing and quick
dispersion could be achieved by having multiple influents of biomass
and wastewater. In either case, the biological treatment unit would
approach or achieve uniform distribution of organic concentration and
mixed liquor volatile suspended solids (MLVSS) throughout the vessel
where the biological reactions occur.
A plug-flow system is an example of a biological treatment system
that does not meet the enhanced biological treatment system definition.
Plug-flow systems typically occur in long tanks with a high length-to-
width ratio in which longitudinal dispersion is minimal or absent
(Docket number A-90-23, item VII-B-8). Plug-flow systems are not
considered acceptable units for the performance test exemption because
they tend to have higher air emissions at the front of the system where
the concentration is higher. The modeling used to develop the
simplified compliance approach for systems meeting the definition for
an ``enhanced biological treatment system or enhanced biological
treatment process'' did not address plug-flow systems. The EPA did not
evaluate the performance of plug-flow systems in the development of the
three lists for the simplified compliance approach due to the
complexity of plug-flow systems. The wide range in characteristics of
plug-flow systems led the EPA to conclude that these systems had to be
modeled using site-specific characteristics. Consequently, these
systems are required to demonstrate compliance through use of the
procedures in appendix C. The exclusion of plug-flow biological
treatment systems from the simplified compliance demonstration should
not be interpreted as implying that a well designed and operated plug-
flow biological treatment system would not achieve the required removal
of a compound and, thus, not represent an acceptable means of
compliance. If correctly evaluated through the applicable procedures in
appendix C to part 63, they can be acceptable.
Examples of additional biological systems that would not meet the
enhanced biological treatment system definition would be units that are
not thoroughly mixed throughout the aeration unit and that have large
concentration gradients between the inlet and the outlet of the
aeration unit. Such biological units do not quickly disperse the
biomass and wastewater entering the unit throughout the unit and tend
to concentrate the volatile organics in a zone with relatively high air
stripping rates.
Two commenters also objected to an example in which closeness of
influent to the aerators was cited as a factor that would prevent a
system from meeting the definition of enhanced biological treatment
system. The commenters understood the example to be introducing the use
of a criterion of the distance between the influent and an aerator as a
de facto measure of poor mixing. The commenters pointed out that if the
system achieves quick dispersion of the biomass and wastewater entering
the unit, the spatial distance between any aerators or other mixing
equipment and the influent is inconsequential. One of the commenters
noted that simple spatial distance is not the important issue, rather
the issue is whether the influent, recycle biomass, and basin contents
are mixed such that the material which is aerated is a mixture of these
materials rather than the raw influent. One of the two commenters
requested that the EPA delete this example and address this issue
through guidance. Both commenters also requested that the EPA state
that the examples in the preamble are not intended to provide guidance
regarding determinations of whether a system meets the definition of an
``enhanced biological treatment system or enhanced biological treatment
process.''
As a result of these comments, the EPA realized that the example
lacked sufficient specificity to explain the basis for the EPA's
concern. The EPA is therefore correcting this example to read:
Other examples of units that would not meet the definition
include a unit where the influent is introduced close to the intake
suction of a surface aerator, increasing the opportunity for
volatilization prior to biodegradation, and a unit where the
influent is introduced close to a discharge point such that
channeling occurs.
Introduction of the influent close to the intake suction of a
surface aerator is of concern because the more concentrated influent
stream may be picked up and sprayed through the air thereby increasing
losses due to volatilization. It is recommended that the influent be
introduced in the return stream of the aerator to ensure mixing of the
influent and destruction by the biomass before the material is sprayed
through the air by the surface aerators.
The EPA agrees with the commenters' suggestion that the EPA should
provide detailed technical guidance for determining whether a
biological treatment unit meets the definition of ``enhanced.'' This is
important because the discussion in this document is limited to key
factors and it is necessary to consider all factors that can influence
mixing time and rate of volatilization before concluding that a system
meets the criteria in the definition for enhanced biological treatment
system. The EPA has developed additional information to assist in the
determination of whether a biological treatment unit meets the enhanced
biological treatment system definition. The additional information is
available from the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center and
is also available through the Internet on the TTN website at ``http://
www.epa.gov/ttn.'' The EPA is presently working on additional
information to assist in compliance demonstrations for biological
treatment units that are not thoroughly mixed treatment units and,
hence, do not meet the definition of enhanced biological treatment
system. When this information is available, it will be available from
the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center and from the TTN.
[[Page 67791]]
III. Revisions to Requirements for Determining Site-Specific
Fraction Biodegraded
All comments were supportive of the proposed amendments to revise
the requirements in subpart G for determining site-specific fraction
biodegraded (Fbio). Today's action issues the proposed
revisions without change. Specifically, the EPA is revising
Sec. 63.145(h)(2) to allow use of the batch test procedure in appendix
C for any type of biological treatment system. Today's action also
revises table 36 by combining the list 2 and list 3 compounds into a
new list 2 in table 36. These changes are being made to Sec. 63.145(h)
to provide more flexibility and to simplify this section of the rule.
IV. Revisions to Appendix C To Part 63
All comments were supportive of the proposed amendments to appendix
C to part 63 to reflect the proposed revision of the definition for
``enhanced biological treatment system or enhanced biological treatment
process.'' Today's action issues those proposed revisions without
change.
V. Administrative Requirements
A. Docket
The docket is an organized and complete file of all the information
considered by the EPA in the development of this rulemaking. The docket
is a dynamic file, because material is added throughout the rulemaking
development. The docketing system is intended to allow members of the
public and industries involved to readily identify and locate documents
so that they can effectively participate in the rulemaking process.
Along with the proposed and promulgated standards and their preambles,
the contents of the docket, except for certain interagency documents,
will serve as the record for judicial review. (See the Act section
307(d)(7)(A).)
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the
information collection requirements contained in the rule under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. and
has assigned OMB control number 2060-0282. An Information Collection
Request (ICR) document was prepared by the EPA (ICR No. 1414.03) and a
copy may be obtained from Sandy Farmer, OPPE Regulatory Information
Division; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2137); 401 M St., SW;
Washington, DC 20460 or by calling (202) 260-2740.
These revisions to the rule do not change the information
collection requirements of the rule, and the currently approved OMB
ICRs are still in force for the amended rule. The changes consist of
revised definitions, alternative test procedures, and clarifications of
requirements. The changes are not additional requirements and do not
increase the information collection burden. Consequently, the ICR has
not been revised for these amendments to the rule.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the
EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.
C. Executive Order 12866 Review
Under Executive Order 12866, the EPA must determine whether a
regulatory action is ``significant'' and, therefore, subject to OMB
review and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive 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.
Pursuant to the terms of the Executive Order, the EPA has
determined that this final rule is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' within the meaning of the Executive Order. The amendments
issued today clarify the rule and remove restrictions on use of an
alternative test procedure. These amendments do not add any new control
requirements. Therefore, this regulatory action is considered ``not
significant'' and OMB review is not required.
D. Regulatory Flexibility/Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601, et
seq.), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
Act (SBREFA) of 1996, requires the EPA to give special consideration to
the effect of Federal regulations on small entities and to consider
regulatory options that might mitigate any such impacts. The EPA is
required to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis and coordinate
with small entity stakeholders if the Agency determines that a rule
will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
The EPA has determined that it is not necessary to prepare a
regulatory flexibility analysis in connection with this final amendment
to the rule. The EPA has also determined that this amendment will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit
enterprises, and small government jurisdictions. See the April 22, 1994
Federal Register (59 FR 19449) for the basis for this determination.
The changes to the rule merely clarify existing requirements and
therefore, do not create any additional burden for any of the regulated
entities.
E. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 801, et seq., as added
by the SBREFA of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take
effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report,
which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to
the Comptroller General of the United States. The EPA will submit a
report containing this rule and other required information to the
United States Senate, the United States House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of
the rule in the Federal Register. A Major rule cannot take effect until
60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is
not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. Sec. 804(2). This rule will
be effective December 9, 1998.
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, the EPA
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated
costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to
the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Under
section 205, the EPA must select the least costly, most cost-effective,
or least burdensome
[[Page 67792]]
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 in any one year. Therefore, the
requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Act do
not apply to this action. The EPA has likewise determined that the
action promulgated today does not include any regulatory requirements
that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Thus,
today's action is not subject to the requirements of section 203 of the
Unfunded Mandates Act.
G. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (the NTTAA), Pub. L. No. 104-113, Sec. 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note), directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, business practices, etc.) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standard bodies. The NTTAA requires the
EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency
decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus
standards.
This regulatory action amends a definition and makes clarifying
revisions to appendix C of part 63 to reflect the clarification of the
definition. Thus, this action does not involve any technical standards
that would require the EPA to consider voluntary consensus standards
pursuant to section 12(d) of the NTTAA.
H. Executive Order 12875: Enhancing Intergovernmental Partnership
Under Executive Order 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is
not required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a State, local
or tribal government, unless the Federal government provides the funds
necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those
governments, or EPA consults with those governments. If EPA complies by
consulting, Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to provide to the Office
of Management and Budget a description of the extent of EPA's prior
consultation with representatives of affected State, local and tribal
governments, the nature of their concerns, copies of any written
communications from the governments, and a statement supporting the
need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 12875
requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected
officials and other representatives of State, local and tribal
governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in the development
of regulatory proposals containing significant unfunded mandates.''
Today's rule does not create a mandate on State, local or tribal
governments. The rule does not impose any enforceable duties on these
entities. Accordingly, the requirements of section 1(a) of Executive
Order 12875 do not apply to this rule.
I. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies
to any rule that: (1) is determined to be ``economically significant''
as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an
environmental health or safety risk that the EPA has reason to believe
may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory
action meets both criteria, the EPA must evaluate the environmental
health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain
why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective
and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
This final rule is considered not ``economically significant'' as
defined under Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, is not subject to
Executive Order 13045.
J. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is
not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those
governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084
requires EPA to provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop
an effective process permitting elected officials and other
representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful
and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters
that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.''
Today's rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the
communities of Indian tribal governments. The amendments issued today
clarify the rule and remove restrictions on use of an alternative test
procedure and do not add any new requirements. Accordingly, the
requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to
this rule.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: November 30, 1998.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40 chapter I, part
63 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 63--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
2. Section 63.111 is amended by revising the definition of
``enhanced biological treatment system or enhanced biological treatment
process'' to read as follows:
Sec. 63.111 Definitions.
* * * * *
Enhanced biological treatment system or enhanced biological
treatment process means an aerated, thoroughly mixed treatment unit(s)
that contains biomass suspended in water followed by a clarifier that
removes biomass from the treated water and recycles recovered biomass
to the aeration unit. The mixed liquor volatile suspended solids
(biomass) is greater than 1 kilogram per cubic meter throughout each
aeration unit. The biomass is suspended and aerated in the water of the
aeration
[[Page 67793]]
unit(s) by either submerged air flow or mechanical agitation. A
thoroughly mixed treatment unit is a unit that is designed and operated
to approach or achieve uniform biomass distribution and organic
compound concentration throughout the aeration unit by quickly
dispersing the recycled biomass and the wastewater entering the unit.
* * * * *
3. Section 63.145 is amended by revising paragraph (h) introductory
text and paragraph (h)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.145 Process wastewater provisions--test methods and procedures
to determine compliance.
* * * * *
(h) Site-specific fraction biodegraded (Fbio). The
compounds listed in table 9 of this subpart are divided into two sets
for the purpose of determining whether Fbio must be
determined, and if Fbio must be determined, which procedures
may be used to determine compound-specific kinetic parameters. These
sets are designated as lists 1 and 2 in table 36 of this subpart.
* * * * *
(2) Fbio determination. If a biological treatment
process does not meet the requirement specified in paragraph (h)(1)(i)
of this section, the owner or operator shall determine Fbio
for the biological treatment process using the procedures in appendix C
to part 63, and paragraph (h)(2)(ii) of this section. If a biological
treatment process meets the requirements of paragraph (h)(1)(i) of this
section but does not meet the requirement specified in paragraph
(h)(1)(ii) of this section, the owner or operator shall determine
Fbio for the biological treatment process using the
procedures in appendix C to part 63, and paragraph (h)(2)(i) of this
section.
(i) Enhanced biological treatment processes. If the biological
treatment process meets the definition of ``enhanced biological
treatment process'' in Sec. 63.111 of this subpart and the wastewater
streams include one or more compounds on list 2 of table 36 of this
subpart that do not meet the criteria in paragraph (h)(1)(ii) of this
section, the owner or operator shall determine fbio for the
list 2 compounds using any of the procedures specified in appendix C of
40 CFR part 63. (The symbol ``fbio'' represents the site
specific fraction of an individual Table 8 or Table 9 compound that is
biodegraded.) The owner or operator shall calculate fbio for
the list 1 compounds using the defaults for first order biodegradation
rate constants (K1) in table 37 of subpart G and follow the
procedure explained in form III of appendix C, 40 CFR part 63, or any
of the procedures specified in appendix C, 40 CFR part 63.
(ii) Biological treatment processes that are not enhanced
biological treatment processes. For biological treatment processes that
do not meet the definition for ``enhanced biological treatment
process'' in Sec. 63.111 of this subpart, the owner or operator shall
determine the fbio for the list 1 and 2 compounds using any
of the procedures in appendix C to part 63, except procedure 3 (inlet
and outlet concentration measurements). (The symbol ``fbio''
represents the site specific fraction of an individual Table 8 or Table
9 compound that is biodegraded.)
* * * * *
4. Table 36 of appendix to subpart G is revised to read as follows:
Appendix to Subpart G--Tables and Figures
* * * * *
Table 36.--Compound Lists Used for Compliance Demonstrations for Enhanced Biological Treatment Processes (See
Sec. 63.145(h))
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
List 1 List 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acetonitrile........................ Acetaldehyde.
Acetophenone........................ Acrolein.
Acrylonitrile....................... Allyl Chloride.
Biphenyl............................ Benzene.
Chlorobenzene....................... Benzyl Chloride,
Dichloroethyl Ether................. Bromoform.
Diethyl Sulfate..................... Bromomethane.
Dimethyl Sulfate.................... Butadiene 1,3.
Dimethyl Hydrazine 1,1.............. Carbon Disulfide.
Dinitrophenol 2,4................... Carbon Tetrachloride
Dinitrotoluene 2,4.................. Chloroethane (ethyl chloride).
Dioxane 1,4......................... Chloroform.
Ethylene Glycol Monobutyl........... Chloroprene.
Ether Acetate.......................
Ethylene Glycol Monomethyl.......... Cumene (isopropylbenzene).
Ether Acetate.......................
Ethylene Glycol Dimethyl Ether...... Dibromoethane 1,2.
Hexachlorobenzene................... Dichlorobenzene 1,4.
Isophorone.......................... Dichloroethane 1,2.
Methanol............................ Dichloroethane 1,1 (ethylidene dichloride).
Methyl Methacrylate................. Dichloroethene 1,1 (vinylidene chloride).
Nitrobenzene........................ Dichloropropane 1,2.
Toluidine........................... Dichloropropene 1,3.
Trichlorobenzene 1,2,4.............. Dimethylaniline N,N.
Trichlorophenol 2,4,6............... Epichlorohydrin.
Triethylamine....................... Ethyl Acrylate.
Ethylbenzene.
Ethylene Oxide.
Ethylene Dibromide.
Hexachlorobutadiene.
Hexachloroethane.
Hexane-n.
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone.
Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether.
Methyl Ethyl Ketone, (2-butanone).
Methyl Chloride.
[[Page 67794]]
Methylene Chloride (dichloromethane).
Naphthalene.
Nitropropane 2
Phosgene.
Propionaldehyde.
Propylene Oxide.
Styrene.
Tetrachloroethane 1,1,2,2.
TolueneTrichloroethane 1,1,1 (methyl chloroform).
Trichloroethane 1,1,2.
Trichloroethylene.
Trimethylpentane 2,2,4.
Vinyl Chloride.
Vinyl Acetate.
Xylene-m.
Xylene-o.
Xylene-p.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
5. Section I of appendix C to part 63 is revised to read as
follows:
Appendix C to Part 63--Determination of the Fraction Biodegraded
(Fbio) in a Biological Treatment Unit
I. Purpose
The purpose of this appendix is to define the procedures for an
owner or operator to use to calculate the site specific fraction of
organic compounds biodegraded (Fbio) in a biological
treatment unit. If an acceptable level of organic compounds is
destroyed rather than emitted to the air or remaining in the
effluent, the biological treatment unit may be used to comply with
the applicable treatment requirements without the unit being covered
and vented through a closed vent system to an air pollution control
device.
The determination of Fbio shall be made on a system
as it would exist under the rule. The owner or operator should
anticipate changes that would occur to the wastewater flow and
concentration of organics, to be treated by the biological treatment
unit, as a result of enclosing the collection and treatment system
as required by the rule.
The forms presented in this appendix are designed to be applied
to thoroughly mixed treatment units. A thoroughly mixed treatment
unit is a unit that is designed and operated to approach or achieve
uniform biomass distribution and organic compound concentration
throughout the aeration unit by quickly dispersing the recycled
biomass and the wastewater entering the unit. Systems that are not
thoroughly mixed treatment units should be subdivided into a series
of zones that have uniform characteristics within each zone. The
number of zones required to characterize a biological treatment
system will depend on the design and operation of the treatment
system. Each zone should then be modeled as a separate unit. The
amount of air emissions and biodegradation from the modeling of
these separate zones can then be added to reflect the entire system.
* * * * *
Appendix C [Amended]
6. Section III of appendix C of part 63, the second paragraph after
(4) is revised to read as follows:
III. Procedures for Determination of fbio
* * * * *
(4) * * *
* * * * *
Select one or more appropriate procedures from the four listed
above based on the availability of site specific data. If the
facility does not have site-specific data on the removal efficiency
of its biological treatment unit, then Procedure 1 or Procedure 4
may be used. Procedure 1 allows the use of a bench top bioreactor to
determine the first-order biodegradation rate constant. An owner or
operator may elect to assume the first order biodegradation rate
constant is zero for any regulated compound(s) present in the
wastewater. Procedure 4 explains two types of batch tests which may
be used to estimate the first order biodegradation rate constant. An
owner or operator may elect to assume the first order biodegradation
rate constant is zero for any regulated compound(s) present in the
wastewater. Procedure 3 would be used if the facility has, or
measures to determine, data on the inlet and outlet individual
organic compound concentration for the biological treatment unit.
Procedure 3 may only be used on a thoroughly mixed treatment unit.
Procedure 2 is used if a facility has or obtains performance data on
a biotreatment unit prior to and after addition of the microbial
mass. An example where Procedure 2 could be used, is an activated
sludge unit where measurements have been taken on inlet and exit
concentration of organic compounds in the wastewater prior to
seeding with the microbial mass and start-up of the unit. The flow
chart in figure 1 outlines the steps to use for each of the
procedures.
* * * * *
7. In appendix C of part 63, section III, in the second sentence of
C. Inlet and Outlet Concentration Measurements (Procedure 3), the
phrase ``uniform well-mixed or completely mixed system'' is revised to
read ``thoroughly mixed treatment unit.''
[FR Doc. 98-32567 Filed 12-8-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
