[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 166 (Monday, August 26, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 43698-43718]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-21280]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[AD-FRL-5558-3]
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; Proposed Rule
Clarifications
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule: Amendments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On April 22, 1994 and June 6, 1994, the EPA issued the
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. This rule is commonly known
as the Hazardous Organic NESHAP or the HON. In June 1994, petitions for
review of the April 1994 rule were filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit. The petitioners raised over 75
technical issues and concerns with drafting clarity of the rule.
Today's action proposes correcting amendments to the rule to address
the petitioners' issues.
Today's action proposes new definitions that apply to wastewater
and wastewater treatment and revised control and compliance provisions
for wastewater. A new compliance date of April 22, 1999, is being
proposed for process wastewater, heat exchange systems, in-process
equipment subject to the provisions of Sec. 63.149, and maintenance
wastewater. The proposed changes to these provisions are sufficiently
far reaching and complex to render those provisions effectively a new
rule. The EPA is also proposing a separate compliance date for
wastewater streams affected by the omission of nitrobenzene from the
list of compounds subject to the wastewater provisions. The proposed
revisions to the other provisions to the rule are corrections and
clarifications to ensure the rule is implemented as intended. Today's
amendments would also provide some additional compliance options that
would reduce the burden associated with the recordkeeping and reporting
requirements of the rule.
The proposed 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.
DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before September 25,
1996 unless a hearing is requested by September 5, 1996. If a hearing
is requested, written comments must be received by October 10, 1996.
Public Hearing. Anyone requesting a public hearing must contact the
EPA no later than September 5, 1996. If a hearing is held, it will take
place on September 10, 1996, beginning at 10:00 a.m.
ADDRESSES: Comments. Comments should be submitted (in duplicate, if
possible) to: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (6102),
Attention Docket Number A-90-19 (see docket section below), Room M-
1500, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW,
Washington, D.C. 20460. The EPA requests that a separate copy also be
sent to the contact person listed below.
Public Hearing. If a public hearing is held, it will be held at the
EPA's Office of Administration Auditorium, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina. Persons interested in attending the hearing or wishing
to present oral testimony should notify Ms. JoLynn Collins, Waste and
Chemical Processes Group, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711, telephone (919) 541-5671.
Docket. Dockets No. A-90-19 through 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. Comments on the
proposed changes to the NESHAP may also be submitted electronically by
sending electronic mail (e-mail) to: a-and-r-docket@epamail.epa.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general questions, contact Dr.
Janet S. Meyer, Coatings and Consumer Products Group, at (919) 541-5254
or Mary Tom Kissell, Waste and Chemical Processes Group, at (919) 541-
4516. For technical questions on wastewater provisions, contact Elaine
Manning, Waste and Chemical Processes Group, telephone number (919)
541-5499. 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.
Styrene-butadiene rubber producers.
Polybutadiene rubber producers.
Producers of Captafol;
Captan; Chlorothalonil;
Dacthal; and TordonTM acid.
Producers of Hypalon;
Oxybisphenoxarsine/1,3-diisocyanate
(OBPA); Polycarbonates;
Polysulfide rubber; Chlorinated
paraffins; and Symmetrical
tetrachloropyridine.
Pharmaceutical producers.
[[Page 43699]]
Producers of Methylmethacrylate-
butadiene-styrene resins (MBS);
Butadiene-furfural cotrimer;
Methylmethacrylate-acrylonitrile-
butadiene-styrene (MABS) resins;
and Ethylidene norbornene.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. 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 (CA). Processes subject to
the negotiated regulation for equipment leaks (i.e., 40 CFR part 63,
subpart I) are also potentially affected by this action. Processes
subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart I are producers of any of the
products listed in 40 CFR part 63, subpart I that are located at
facilities that are major sources as defined by section 112 of the CA.
To determine whether your facility is regulated by this action, you
should carefully examine all of the applicability criteria in 40 CFR
63.100 and 40 CFR 63.190. 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. Copies of Regulatory Text
The proposed regulatory text is not included in this Federal
Register action because of the length and complexity of the amendments
to the rule. The proposed changes to the rule are discussed fully in
this preamble. The proposed amendments to the rule are available in
Docket A-90-19 or by request from the Air and Radiation Docket and
Information Center (see ADDRESSES) or the EPA contact person listed in
the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. The proposed
rule amendments may also be obtained over the Internet at http://
ttnwww.rtpnc.epa.gov or from the EPA's Technology Transfer Network
(TTN). The TTN is a network of electronic bulletin boards developed and
operated by the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. The
service is free, except for the cost of a phone call. Dial (919) 541-
5742 for up to a 14,400 bits per second modem. Select TTN Bulletin
Board: Clean Air Act Amendments and select menu item Recently Signed
Rules. If more information on TTN is needed, contact the systems
operator at (919) 541-5384.
C. Electronic Submission of Comments
Comments on the proposed changes to the NESHAP may also be
submitted electronically by sending electronic mail (e-mail) to: r-docket@epamail.epa.gov. Electronic comments must be submitted as an
ASCII file avoiding the use of special characters and any form of
encryption. Comments will also be accepted on diskette in WordPerfect
5.1 or ASCII file format. All comments in electronic form must be
identified by the docket number A-90-19. No Confidential Business
Information (CBI) should be submitted through e-mail. Electronic
comments may be filed online at many Federal Depository Libraries.
D. Background on 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 notice, there have
been several amendments to clarify various aspects of the rule. Readers
should see the following Federal Register notices 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); and June 20, 1996 (61 FR
31435).
In June 1994, the Chemical Manufacturers Association and Dow
Chemical Company 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. Today's proposed revisions address all
of the issues raised by CMA and Dow on the April 1994 rule.
With today's action, EPA is proposing clarifying and correcting
amendments to subparts F, G, H, and I of part 63. Following review and
consideration of comments received on today's proposed revisions in
accordance with a settlement agreement reached with CMA and Dow, EPA
will take final action on the proposed amendments by December 31, 1996.
As of the date of signature of this proposal, the section 113(g) notice
process was not yet complete, and, therefore, the settlement was not
final. However, EPA believes it is important to publish the proposed
rule in accordance with the schedule provided in the draft settlement
agreement because of the pendency of the compliance date. When a
settlement becomes final, it will govern the date of signature of the
final rule. As discussed in section III.B, sources subject to the rule
would be expected to be in compliance with the amended provisions for
heat exchange systems, maintenance wastewater, in-process equipment
subject to Sec. 63.149, and process wastewater by April 22, 1999.
Equipment subject to the other provisions of the rule would be expected
to be in compliance by April 22, 1997, unless a compliance extension is
granted. The EPA anticipates finalizing some portions of the proposed
rule earlier than December 31, 1996. For example, the proposal would
eliminate the need for filing some implementation plans that would
otherwise be due December 31, 1996, and would allow the filing of
requests for compliance extensions up to 4 months before the April 1997
compliance date. The EPA will attempt to take final action on these
provisions as soon as possible after the close of the comment period in
order to give sources as much lead time as possible.
II. Overview of Changes to Rule
With today's proposed action, EPA is proposing clarifying and
correcting amendments to subparts F, G, H, and I of 40 CFR part 63.
These proposed amendments include an extension of the compliance date
to April 22, 1999 for process wastewater, heat exchange systems,
maintenance wastewater, and in-process equipment subject to the
provisions of Sec. 63.149. These sections of the rule would be
extensively revised by
[[Page 43700]]
today's proposal. The proposed revisions are intended to remove any
ambiguity and clearly convey EPA's intent, to make the rule easier to
read and implement, and to increase flexibility for the source.
The proposed amendments would also set a separate compliance date
for wastewater streams affected by the omission of nitrobenzene from
table 9 of subpart G. A three year compliance date is being proposed
for process wastewater streams that are subject to control requirements
due to the presence of nitrobenzene due to an error in the April 22,
1994 rule. The compliance date for other emission points remains April
22, 1997.
The proposed revisions to the wastewater sections of the rule have
been redrafted to improve organizational structure and drafting
clarity. One significant clarification would be to the definition of
``wastewater'' which would be revised to incorporate the concept that
only when water is discarded from a process is it subject to the HON
wastewater provisions. Additional changes would be made to the
wastewater provisions to: (1) ensure that streams traveling from one
piece of process equipment to another would be handled appropriately to
avoid emissions to the environment, and (2) ensure that the changes in
the wastewater definitions would not permit sources to dilute their
waste streams prior to the point the streams are considered wastewater,
thus avoiding control requirements. If a HON source owner or operator
wished to ship waste off-site for treatment, the owner or operator may
only ship to a facility that has certified that it will treat the waste
to the standard required by the HON.
In contrast to the significant redrafting of the wastewater
provisions, minor edits are proposed for other sections of the rule. In
addition to removing ambiguity and increasing flexibility for the
source, some revisions would reduce the reporting and recordkeeping
burden for sources. The reporting and recordkeeping revisions would
include changes which: reduce the number of copies of reports that must
be submitted to EPA and the States; provide for alternative, less
frequent recordkeeping of monitoring data where sources show no
violations for prolonged stretches of time; and remove the requirement
for most sources to file an implementation plan.
III. Compliance Date Changes and Other General Changes
A. Applicability of Rule
1. Designation of the Source
In today's amendments, EPA is proposing revisions to Sec. 63.100,
paragraphs (e) and (f) to clarify which equipment is included within
the scope of the source regulated by this rule. These revisions are
being proposed because the drafting and structure of paragraphs (e) and
(f) in Sec. 63.100 have caused confusion and raised concerns as to
whether other equipment or activities not listed are included in the
source. The proposed revisions to these paragraphs are intended to
improve rule clarity.
The present wording of paragraph (e) of Sec. 63.100 incorporates,
inter alia ``wastewater and associated treatment residuals'' in the
source. This text does not state explicitly whether waste management
units, heat exchange systems, or maintenance wastewater are included in
the source. The present designation of the source also does not include
control devices or recovery devices used to comply with this rule. Some
industry representatives have expressed concern that these types of
equipment could be considered subject to section 112(g) of the Act
because the equipment is not part of a source subject to a section
112(d) standard. To address this concern, the EPA is proposing to
revise this paragraph by listing the specific categories of equipment
and types of wastewater included in the source and by adding control
and recovery devices to the items designated to be included in the
source. The EPA is also proposing to revise paragraph (f) of
Sec. 63.100 to reverse the drafting structure to state that the listed
items are included in the source, but are not subject to the control
requirements of the rule. Based on discussions with industry, EPA has
found that reversing the structure would make it more understandable to
the regulated community and would reduce the chance of incorrect
interpretation.
2. Definition of Chemical Manufacturing Process Unit (cmpu)
The EPA is proposing amendments to clarify the definition of cmpu
and the definition of unit operation. The proposed revisions consist of
clarifying that a cmpu consists of two or more unit operations and
correcting the definition of unit operation to refer to the defined
term ``distillation units'' instead of distillation columns. These
proposed changes are expected to clarify the determination of
applicability for facilities with integrated operations.
3. Applicability of Rule to Storage Vessels Located in a Tank Farm or
Marine Terminal
The EPA is proposing amendments to clarify the applicability of the
rule to storage vessels located in tank farms and marine tank farms.
The proposed amendments being added as Sec. 63.100(g)(3) would
explicitly specify the procedures to be followed to assign the storage
vessels to a process and then to determine the applicability of the
rule. Due to an oversight, the provisions currently in Sec. 63.100(g)
of subpart F do not include instructions regarding allocation of tanks
in remote locations.
Following issuance of the 1994 rule, EPA received inquiries
regarding the applicability of the rule to storage vessels that are
physically remote from the cmpu, but are located at the major source
and connected to the cmpu by piping. Some of the inquiries raised
questions regarding the distinction between storage vessels used for
product storage and vessels used more for purposes of facilitating
product distribution. Other inquiries concerned applicability of the
rule where a dedicated product (or raw material) storage tank was
located in the tank farm. Following a review of the rule language and
the underlying analyses for the rule, EPA concluded that the record on
this point was ambiguous and that the rule should be amended to clarify
these issues. The proposed revisions to Sec. 63.100(g) are based on the
concepts presently used in the rule for assignment of equipment that is
shared among several cmpus and on a basic assumption used in developing
the rule that, which is typically a cmpu, includes raw material and
product storage vessels.
The proposed provisions assign a storage vessel to a cmpu based on
three decision rules. First, a storage vessel in a tank farm is
considered to be part of a cmpu only if the cmpu does not have another
intervening, storage vessel for product (or raw material). Where there
is an intervening storage vessel, the boundary of the cmpu would end at
that intervening storage vessel (and any associated transfer operations
and other equipment) and would exclude the tank farm storage vessel.
Second, if two or more cmpus (of those using the tank farm storage
vessel) lack a co-located storage vessel, then the storage vessel at
the tank farm would be assigned to a cmpu, according to the concepts of
predominant use specified in Sec. 63.100(g)(2). Third, if only one cmpu
(of those that use the remote storage
[[Page 43701]]
vessel) lacks a co-located product (or raw material) storage vessel,
then the remote storage vessel would be assigned to that cmpu.
The EPA expects that this assignment procedure will result in
assignment of storage vessels in a manner consistent with normal
management of facility operations. Specifically, it is expected that
storage vessels that are an integral part of operation of a cmpu
subject to the HON will be regulated under the HON and that storage
vessels that are used to facilitate product distribution will be
regulated as part of the organic liquids distribution source category
and not under the HON.
4. Determination of Applicability of the Rule to Equipment Shared Among
Integrated Operations
Today's proposed amendments include clarifying changes to the
equipment assignment procedures specified in Sec. 63.100 (g), (h), and
(i) for storage vessels, transfer racks, and distillation units. Since
the HON was issued in April 1994, EPA has received inquiries regarding
the correct interpretation of the text in these paragraphs. Based on
these inquiries and discussions with industry representatives, EPA has
concluded that the questions and concerns are due to minor wording
differences in paragraphs (g) and (h) and the absence of an explicit
statement that paragraph (i) specifies the assignment procedures for
shared distillation columns.
Today's proposed amendments would make the wording and structure of
these paragraphs parallel. Specifically, the proposed revisions would
make the wording of paragraphs (g)(1) and (h)(1) parallel to the
wording in paragraphs (g)(2) and (h)(2), respectively. The proposed new
paragraphs would add provisions to paragraph (i) that address the
assignment of dedicated distillation units and would clarify that the
assignment procedure is for distillation units shared among several
processes. The proposed revisions also clarify the wording of the
requirement to reassess the assignment of the equipment whenever there
is a change in the use of the equipment.
5. Revision to Table 2 of Subpart F List of Regulated Hazardous Organic
Air Pollutants (HAP's)
The EPA has received numerous requests for clarification of the
definition of ``Polycyclic organic matter'' (POM) in table 2 of subpart
F. The nature of these requests indicates that there is confusion
regarding the scope of the definition. To eliminate this confusion, EPA
is proposing to revise table 2 of subpart F to list the specific
compounds that are to be regulated as POM in the HON. The specific
compounds being listed are consistent with the historical working
definition of POM, which emphasizes emissions from incomplete
combustion and pyrolysis processes (49 FR 31680). This change is
expected to improve rule clarity.
B. Compliance Dates
1. Compliance Date Extension for Wastewater Provisions
With respect to compliance dates, the final rule promulgated on
April 22, 1994, provided that existing sources must be in compliance
with the requirements of subparts F and G no later than April 22, 1997,
unless an extension is granted in accordance with Sec. 63.151(a)(6) of
subpart G or Sec. 63.6(i) of subpart A.
Today's proposal would change the compliance date provisions
applicable to HON sources in two significant respects. These changes
are included in Sec. 63.100(k)(2) of today's proposed rule. First,
Sec. 63.100(k)(2)(ii) would set a new compliance date of April 22,
1999, for heat exchange systems, maintenance wastewater, in-process
equipment subject to Sec. 63.149, and process wastewater. Second,
Sec. 63.100(k)(2)(ii)(A) would set a new compliance date that is three
years from the date of final publication for process wastewater streams
and in-process equipment subject to Sec. 63.149 that are subject to
control requirements due to the contribution of nitrobenzene to the
annual average concentration of Table 9 compounds.
The new compliance date for heat exchange systems, maintenance
wastewater, in-process equipment subject to Sec. 63.149, and process
wastewater is being proposed because the changes to these provisions
applicable to HON sources are sufficiently far reaching and complex to
render those provisions effectively a new rule warranting a new
compliance date. In contrast, the changes to other portions of the
April 22, 1994, rule are less extensive, are more in the nature of
corrections and clarifications, and EPA does not believe they
jeopardize sources' ability to meet the April 1997 compliance date.
Section 112(i)(3) of the Act provides that existing sources are to
be in compliance with applicable emission standards ``as expeditiously
as practicable, but in no event later than 3 years after the effective
date of such standard.'' The April 22, 1994, final rule specified a
compliance date applicable to wastewater streams and heat exchange
systems that was three years from the issuance of that rule. Section
112(d)(6) provides authority for the Administrator to revise the
emission standards issued under section 112 ``no less often than every
8 years.'' EPA believes that the authority to revise the standards
inherently includes the authority to set new compliance dates for
revised rules. Any other approach would require existing sources to
come into compliance with potentially extensive revisions immediately,
just as if they were new sources. Obviously, Congress provided EPA
discretion to set a compliance date for existing sources of up to three
years in order to provide time for retrofitting of controls where
necessary. Thus, due to the extensive nature of the revisions to the
provisions applicable to heat exchange systems and wastewater streams,
the creation of requirements for in-process equipment subject to
Sec. 63.149, and the proximity to the April 1997 compliance date in the
original rule, EPA is setting a new compliance date for those
provisions.
EPA believes that two years from the otherwise applicable
compliance date will be sufficient for all sources to come into
compliance with the new wastewater and in-process equipment provisions.
However, should any source be unable to meet that compliance date
because of the need to install controls that cannot be installed by
that date, such source may request an extension of up to one year in
accordance with Sec. 63.151(a)(6).
The new three year compliance date in Sec. 63.100(k)(2)(ii)(A) for
process wastewater streams and in-process equipment subject to
Sec. 63.149 that are subject to control requirements due to the
presence of nitrobenzene, is being proposed because of an error in the
April 22, 1994, rule. Nitrobenzene is a HAP included on the section
112(b) list. However, due to an oversight, it was not included on table
9 (which lists HAPs subject to the wastewater provisions) in the April
22, 1994, rule. Thus, there was confusion as to whether or not the
presence of nitrobenzene in wastewater streams should be a factor in
determining whether such streams were Group 1 or Group 2. This error
was corrected in the December 12, 1995, correction notice (60 FR 63624
(December 12, 1995)). However, due to the extensive changes to the
wastewater provisions and the uncertainty caused by the initial
omission of nitrobenzene from table 9, EPA is proposing to set a new
compliance date for wastewater streams affected by the error.
EPA seeks comment on its proposal to set new compliance dates in
Sec. 63.100,
[[Page 43702]]
paragraphs (k)(2)(ii) and (k)(2)(ii)(A), and in particular seeks
comment on the appropriateness of the particular dates proposed.
2. Timing of Compliance Extension Requests
The April 22, 1994, rule requires that requests for compliance
extensions be submitted one year prior to the otherwise applicable
compliance date. The EPA is proposing to revise this requirement, which
is in Sec. 63.151(a)(6)(i), to allow submittal of requests up to 120
days prior to the compliance date. The EPA is also proposing to add a
new paragraph (iv) to Sec. 63.151(a)(6) that would allow requests
during the last 120 days before the compliance date if the need arose
during that 120 days and if the need was due to circumstances beyond
the reasonable control of the owner or operator. Submission of a
compliance extension request would not stay the applicability of the
rule to the applicant source during the pendency of the request.
The EPA is proposing these revisions in recognition that review of
most requests for compliance extensions can be completed within 4
months and it is unlikely that it would require 12 months to complete
review of the request. The EPA is also proposing to allow submittal of
extension requests up to the compliance date in recognition that
unforeseen difficulties, such as construction or operational
difficulties, can arise in the last moments of compliance planning. The
proposed provisions in Sec. 63.151(a)(6)(iv) are also considered
necessary in the case of this rule because it is unlikely that these
proposed revisions will be final more than 4 months prior to the April
22, 1997, compliance date for certain control requirements. Any changes
in the wording or requirements of the final rule could affect
compliance planning for a source. Therefore, EPA believes that it is
necessary to provide some opportunity for applications for compliance
extension requests after the date that is 4 months prior to the
compliance date.
3. Clarification of Compliance Periods
The proposed revisions to subpart F also would add a new paragraph
(k)(9) to Sec. 63.100, and a new paragraph (g) to Sec. 63.162 to
clarify that when the rule specifies a period of time for completion of
required tasks (e.g., weekly, monthly, quarterly, annual), this refers
to standard calendar periods unless it is specified otherwise in the
section or paragraph that imposes the requirement. The current rule
does not specify this, and this text is being added to the rule to
remove any potential for ambiguity. The new Sec. 63.100(k)(9) and
Sec. 63.162(g) also provide that time periods may be changed by mutual
agreement between the owner or operator and the Administrator, as
provided in subpart A of this part. Finally, this new set of provisions
also provides that if the rule requires completion of a task during
each of multiple successive periods, an owner or operator may perform
the required task at any time during the specified period, provided the
task is conducted at a reasonable interval after completion of the
previous task. When the rule was originally drafted it was assumed that
this could be done, but an oversight in drafting language specifying
this was omitted from the rule.
C. Heat Exchanger Provisions
In today's amendments, the EPA is proposing new requirements for
monitoring heat exchange systems for leaks of process fluids into
cooling water. The proposed Sec. 63.104 would replace the existing
provisions in Sec. 63.104 of subpart F. The proposed revisions are
being made to address issues with the existing provisions related to
the availability of monitoring methods with sufficient analytical
sensitivity, lack of flexibility in some of the requirements, and the
burden associated with the monitoring requirements. The major revisions
to this section of the rule and the reasons for the changes are
described below.
1. Conditions Exempted From Monitoring Requirements
The existing provisions of Sec. 63.104 exempt two categories of
heat exchange systems from the monitoring requirements. The first
exempt category is heat exchange systems operated with a greater
pressure on the cooling water side. These systems were exempted because
any leakage would be into the process fluid, not into the cooling
water, so it is not necessary to monitor the cooling water for the
presence of process fluids. The second exempted category is once-
through heat exchange systems operating with a National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit allowable discharge limit
of less than 1 ppm. These two categories were exempted because the
provisions of Sec. 63.104 would impose a redundant requirement. The
proposed revisions to Sec. 63.104 would extend this exemption to three
additional cases. First, facilities with NPDES permits that require
monitoring of a parameter or condition that would detect a leak of
process fluids and requires the owner or operator to report and correct
leaks when the parameter or condition exceeds the normal range. For
facilities with such NPDES permit the requirements in Sec. 63.104 would
be redundant with the NPDES permit requirement. Second, systems where
there is an intervening cooling fluid (containing less than 5% by
weight of the applicable HAP's) between the process and the cooling
water would be exempted. In these systems, the monitoring requirements
of Sec. 63.104 are unnecessary because leaks of process fluids would be
detected in intervening process equipment before there could be a leak
into the cooling water. The third exempt category is systems used to
cool process fluids that contain less than 5% by weight HAP's. This
last category of heat exchange systems is being added because it is
consistent with the intent that provisions only require monitoring when
HAP's are present in concentrations greater than 5% by weight.
2. Hazardous Air Pollutants Subject to Monitoring Requirements
The April 22, 1994, rule requires owners or operators of
recirculating heat exchange systems to monitor for organic HAP's listed
in table 2 of subpart F, except for four water-reactive HAP's. Today's
proposed amendments would reduce the number of organic HAP's subject to
the monitoring requirement for these recirculating systems. The revised
list of organic HAP's subject this requirement is provided in proposed
table 4 of subpart F. There are no proposed changes to the organic
HAP's subject to the monitoring requirement (found in table 9 of
subpart G) for once-through cooling systems.
Since the April 22, 1994, rule was issued, EPA has received
inquiries regarding the basis for the requirement to monitor for table
2 compounds in cooling water of recirculating heat exchange systems.
Some industry representatives have questioned the inclusion of
compounds that are not on table 9 of subpart G and have argued that
cooling towers are ineffective at air stripping relatively nonvolatile
compounds (i.e., compounds not in table 9) listed in table 2 of subpart
F. In response to these questions, EPA modeled the potential air
emissions of each table 2 compound from a process cooling tower. This
analysis indicated that there are about 23 compounds listed in table 2
of subpart F that have no, or very insignificant, potential for
emissions. Examples of organic HAP compounds that were found to have
little potential for volatilization in a cooling tower are ethylene
glycol and acrylamide. Based on this modeling
[[Page 43703]]
analysis, EPA concluded that it would be appropriate to apply
monitoring requirements to some compounds on table 2 of subpart F as
well as to compounds listed on table 9 of subpart G. This conclusion is
based on finding that there are a number of compounds which have an
insignificant potential for emission from typical wastewater collection
and conveyance systems but which can have fairly substantial losses
when sent through a process cooling tower. Proposed table 4 lists the
compounds modelled to have significant emission potential when sent
through a process cooling tower. Also, in order to limit monitoring to
only those compounds calculated to have significant emission potential
and to eliminate unnecessary burden, proposed table 4 lists specific
glycol ethers instead of the family of compounds. This was done because
different glycol ethers have significantly different physical
properties.
3. Added Flexibility to Monitoring Requirements
The rule currently requires monitoring of cooling water using any
EPA approved method in 40 CFR part 136 as long as the method can
measure concentrations of the compound as low as 1 ppm. Since issuance
of the rule in April 1994, EPA has received information that the
methods in 40 CFR part 136 are not available for some HAP's and that
the additional requirement for measurement sensitivity further reduces
the number of available methods. To correct these implementation
problems, EPA is proposing the following revisions to Sec. 63.104.
The proposed Sec. 63.104 includes provisions that would allow
monitoring of a surrogate indicator of a heat exchanger leak in lieu of
monitoring for specific organic HAP's in the cooling water. This new
option is being proposed because of analytical limitations and costs of
measuring some of the organic HAP's regulated by this provision and
because, in some cases, the intent of this section can be met by using
a surrogate indicator. Proposed Sec. 63.104 also includes provisions
that would allow monitoring of a surrogate indicator such as ion
specific electrode monitoring, pH, or other physical properties of the
cooling water or process operations. The EPA expects that this option
would be useful in cases where there are no EPA approved methods for
any compounds in the process or where there are easily measured process
parameters that provide a reliable indication of heat exchanger leaks.
Under this new alternative, an owner or operator would prepare and
implement a monitoring plan that would specify the parameters that
would be monitored and the criteria which, if exceeded, would
constitute a leak. The owner or operator would have to update the
monitoring plan anytime a substantial leak is detected by methods other
than those described in the plan and identify the methods in the plan
that did not detect the leak. These provisions were developed based on
consideration of existing programs and work practices at some SOCMI
facilities for detecting leaks of process fluids into cooling water. It
is expected that this alternative will be less burdensome than the
existing requirements and may allow use of existing procedures to meet
this requirement.
The EPA is also proposing to revise the minimum sensitivity
requirement for analytical methods from 1 ppm to 10 ppm. This change is
being proposed to increase the number of methods available for use in
the organic HAP monitoring alternative and to reduce the cost of this
monitoring. The EPA selected 10 ppm as the minimum sensitivity for the
method based on consideration of the detection limits for the EPA 600
series methods.
The EPA also realizes that even with this increase in the minimum
sensitivity to 10 ppm, there will be a few compounds for which there is
no approved quantitative analysis method. Because of this problem, the
existing provisions of Sec. 63.104(b) were revised to specify that the
monitoring of organic HAP's may be to monitor a subset (one or more) of
the organic HAP's in the cooling water. The EPA expects that this
change in the wording of the organic HAP monitoring alternative will
allow monitoring of the compound (or compounds) that can be measured
and will remove the appearance that the monitoring has to be capable of
detecting every HAP at the minimum sensitivity.
4. Miscellaneous Clarifications to Sec. 63.104
Today's proposed Sec. 63.104 would allow sampling across the
cooling tower, at the entrance and exit of each heat exchange system,
or any combination of heat exchangers (e.g., across a cmpu or at a
plant site). The April 1994 rule specified that the sampling was to be
across the cooling tower. The EPA is proposing to revise this
requirement because of concerns that have been expressed that the
present rule is inflexible and requires monitoring at a location that
is less cost effective. The April 1994 rule specified monitoring across
the cooling tower because of public comments received on the proposed
rule. Today's proposed revisions differ from the original proposed
language in that there is more flexibility in the selection of sampling
locations and the terminology has been clarified in that the rule now
specifically defines the convention for entrance and exit of systems.
Today's proposed revisions to Sec. 63.104 include clarification and
correction of the existing language that defines a leak. The wording of
the existing provision in Sec. 63.104(b)(1)(v) has resulted in
inquiries regarding the proper interpretation. Proposed
Sec. 63.104(b)(6) specifies the type of statistical test as well as the
significance level in defining a leak. The EPA requests comment on
whether the revised language will appropriately identify and minimize
the number of false positive indications of a leak.
The proposed Sec. 63.104 would also revise the delay of repair
provisions to allow delay until the next shutdown if a shutdown is
planned within 2 months of determination that delay of repair is
necessary. The proposed revisions to Sec. 63.104 would also allow delay
of repair up to a maximum of 120 days if the necessary parts or
personnel are not available. The April 1994 rule only allows delay of
repair when it can be demonstrated that immediate shutdown for repair
would create more emissions than the emissions that would result from
delaying repair of the leaking heat exchanger until the next shutdown.
The proposed revisions to the delay of repair provisions of the rule
are being made to make these provisions workable and to minimize debate
over modeling of emissions from heat exchanger systems.
D. Control Alternatives
1. Routing Emissions to a Process
The EPA proposes to add provisions to the rule to allow routing of
emissions to a process or fuel gas system as a means of compliance
where appropriate. Currently, subparts G and H are not amenable to use
of recycling to a process or fuel gas system as a means of compliance
with the control requirements. These revisions would allow use of this
compliance approach without defining the process or fuel gas system as
a control device and imposing, in turn, control device monitoring and
recordkeeping requirements. This change is being made to encourage use
of pollution prevention control approaches and to reduce the monitoring
and recordkeeping burden of the rule.
The proposed amendments consist of: (1) revisions to the
definitions for
[[Page 43704]]
process vent and vapor balancing system and addition of definitions for
fuel gas and fuel gas system in subpart F; (2) amendments to the
storage vessels and transfer operations provisions in subpart G; and
(3) addition of a definition of ``route to a process'' and inclusion of
this option in the list of control requirements in subpart H. The
definitions for fuel gas and fuel gas system are based on the
definitions recently promulgated in subpart VV, part 60 and in subpart
CC, part 63 (Refinery NESHAP). The proposed definitions have been
reworded slightly to remove the refinery-specific references and to
refer to combustion devices more generally instead of listing specific
types of combustors.
The proposed amendments to subpart G to allow recycling to a
process for storage vessels and transfer operations require that the
recycled material be used or consumed in the same manner as a material
that fulfills the same function in the process, be transformed into a
material that is not an organic hazardous air pollutant, or be
recovered or incorporated into a product. These restrictions are placed
on this option to avoid the potential for sham claims of recycling. The
proposed provisions for storage vessels also include provisions to
allow limited by-pass of the process or fuel gas system during periods
of maintenance or repair of the process or fuel gas system. These
provisions are necessary because these storage vessels would not
necessarily be emptied during these maintenance periods and emissions
would continue from the vessel. Since more emissions would result if
the rule were to require emptying and degassing of storage vessels
during these periods than if the vessels were allowed to vent to the
atmosphere, provisions are being added to Sec. 63.119 to allow by-pass
of the fuel gas system or process during these periods. These
provisions specify the conditions that must be met during these by-pass
periods to minimize emissions. Similar provisions are not being
proposed for transfer operations because it is not believed to be
necessary. Loading operations can normally be postponed until the
process or fuel gas system is operational again.
The proposed amendments to subpart H consist of addition of a
definition of ``route to a process'' and changes to the control options
for pumps, compressors, etc. The definition of ``route to a process''
incorporates the key concepts used in subpart G provisions for storage
vessels and transfer operations. No provisions have been included in
the proposed amendments to subpart H to allow by-pass during periods of
maintenance or repair of the process or fuel gas system. The EPA does
not believe that parallel provisions are needed for equipment leaks.
2. Lower Bound Concentration Performance Standard
The EPA is proposing to add an alternative performance standard
limit of 20 parts per million by volume concentration limit for
noncombustion control devices used to comply with the process vent,
storage vessel, and wastewater provisions in subpart G and the
equipment leak provisions of subpart H. This option would be in
addition to the present performance standard of 98 or 95 percent
removal of total VOC or HAP, respectively, in these sections of the
rule. This lower bound concentration standard is being added to those
sections of the rule where EPA believes there would not normally be
significant amounts of dilution air and any attempts to circumvent
could be detected. The EPA is proposing this change to the rule to
provide a lower bound concentration level for use in cost effective
design of control devices and recovery devices such as carbon adsorbers
and condensers.
This lower bound concentration performance standard is proposed to
be added to the rule to reflect actual performance of these control
devices and to make the rule's requirements consistent with the
underlying cost and emission analyses for this rule. Most recovery
devices (e.g., condensers, adsorbers, etc.) are designed to achieve a
specific outlet concentration for a maximum loading scenario for a
stream with specific characteristics. The specific outlet concentration
of a given system is a function of the equilibrium and kinetic limits
for the technology and the characteristics of the gas stream and the
cost of the system. For any given design, these devices will typically
reduce emissions to the same concentration level over a relatively wide
range of inlet concentrations. Thus, when the inlet concentration is
substantially below the design maximum loading conditions (and begins
to approach the residual level in the outlet stream) the recovery
device efficiency will decrease. When this occurs the outlet
concentration is the same or lower than the outlet concentration during
maximum loading conditions. The cost and emission control estimates
used in development of this rule were based on maximum design loading
conditions and did not reflect operations over the full range of
potential operating conditions for the SOCMI industry. Therefore, it is
necessary to specify a lower bound concentration performance level in
addition to the removal efficiency in the rule to ensure that this rule
is implemented as intended. Where EPA considered the use of this
alternative to be appropriate, the proposed amendments would add
provisions to specific sections to allow use of the 20 ppm standard.
This addition of a lower bound concentration limit to the
performance standard will also encourage use of devices that recover
and allow for reuse of materials and will remove an inequity between
requirements for different types of control equipment. With this
additional control alternative, the requirements for process vents,
storage vessels, vapor control devices applied to certain waste
management units, and equipment leaks will be consistent with the
requirements for transfer racks.
This lower bound concentration standard is not being allowed as an
option for compliance with the enclosed process unit alternative in
Sec. 63.172 of subpart H or with the control requirements for surface
impoundments subject to Sec. 63.134 of subpart G. The use of this lower
bound concentration limit is considered inappropriate in those
situations because of the large volumes of dilution air involved.
3. Recapture Devices
The EPA is proposing to revise the rule to clarify the requirements
for equipment such as adsorbers, condensers, and scrubbers that are
used to recover materials (but not primarily for use, reuse, or sale),
and are used to meet the control requirements. The proposed amendments
introduce a new term, ``recapture device'', to identify these devices,
which capture emissions and then send the material for ultimate
disposal, revise the definition of control device to include this
concept, and revise various sections of the rule to refer to recapture
devices. Currently, the rule allows the use of control devices and
recovery devices and specifies the applicable monitoring and
recordkeeping requirements by type of equipment (e.g., adsorbers,
etc.). However, the rule does not indicate how to treat a non-
combustion device that is not used as a recovery device (as defined in
the rule).
The EPA is proposing to revise the rule in this manner in order to
address the regulatory void for non-combustion/non-recovery devices
while preserving the approach used in this rule (and earlier rules) to
differentiate between process and control in this industry. The
existing definitions in the rule for recovery device and control device
reflect the regulatory approach used in
[[Page 43705]]
the NSPS standards for process vents associated with distillation
operations, air oxidation reactors, and other reactors. Under this
approach, equipment is considered to be part of the process if the
recovered materials are used, reused, or sold. The NSPS standards for
process vents and the HON process vent provisions treated all
condensers, adsorbers, scrubbers as ``recovery devices'' and never
considered situations where this equipment could be used to capture the
emissions and then send the material for ultimate disposal. Since these
uses of these types of equipment do occur and the approach used to
distinguish between process and control was an integral part of the
data analysis used to support this rule, the EPA concluded that the
best approach would be to define a new term to identify this additional
category of equipment and to explicitly identify this equipment and the
monitoring requirements in the rule.
4. Industrial Furnaces
In today's amendments, the EPA is proposing to include RCRA-
regulated industrial furnaces under the HON's provisions for boilers.
This change is being proposed because industrial furnaces, like other
RCRA-regulated combustion devices, are subject to RCRA requirements
which accomplish the same purpose as some HON provisions. For example,
owners and operators are already required to demonstrate that
industrial furnaces are capable of achieving the RCRA-required
destruction and removal efficiency. A second performance test under the
HON is not considered necessary. By amending the definition of
``boiler'' to include industrial furnaces, the rule would treat
industrial furnaces similarly to other RCRA-regulated combustion
devices.
The EPA has chosen to include industrial furnaces within an
existing HON definition, the definition of ``boiler'', rather than
creating separate regulatory provisions for industrial furnaces
throughout subparts F, G and H. This decision is based on a desire to
avoid making the HON longer and more complex. The EPA recognizes that
some confusion may result from calling these devices ``boilers'' in the
HON, when they are known as ``industrial furnaces'' under RCRA.
However, this potential is small, and can be managed through
appropriate definitions.
The EPA considered several alternatives to using the definition of
``boilers'' to address industrial furnaces. All these alternatives
presented more serious difficulties than using the term ``boilers.''
For example, except for one instance in the wastewater provisions of
subpart G (an error which is being corrected by these amendments), the
HON does not use the term ``industrial furnace.'' In order to use that
term consistently, it would have to be added to multiple locations
throughout three subparts, and a new definition would probably be
needed. In contrast, the provisions for ``boilers'' are already
appropriate for industrial furnaces. Thus, the desired result can be
accomplished with less revision of the regulatory text.
The EPA also considered the option of calling these devices
``incinerators'', because many industrial furnaces more closely
resemble incinerators than boilers, i.e., they combust organic HAP
without producing steam. However, in this case there would still be
confusion because RCRA regulations differentiate between incinerators
and industrial furnaces. Additionally, incinerators and industrial
furnaces are regulated under different subparts of the RCRA
regulations. This would make the HON's cross-references to RCRA
regulations extremely complex, if the EPA attempted to address
industrial furnaces in the existing HON provisions for incinerators. In
contrast, boilers and industrial furnaces are regulated in the same
subpart of the RCRA regulations (40 CFR part 266, subpart H), so that
the existing cross-references may be used without revision. After
balancing all these factors, the EPA concluded the best approach would
be to include industrial furnaces within the HON definition of
``boiler.''
E. Monitoring/Recordkeeping/Reporting Provisions
1. Correction to Monitoring Requirements for Acid Gas Scrubbers
The EPA is also proposing corrections to the requirements for
continuous monitoring of gas flow entering an acid gas scrubber. In
cases where a scrubber is used after a combustion device for
halogenated streams, subpart G currently requires that a flow meter
with a continuous recorder be installed at the scrubber inlet to
measure gas flow. The EPA has received new information that
demonstrates that continuous monitoring of this acid gas stream is
impractical due to the harsh conditions at the scrubber inlet. A
continuous monitoring device would be expected to have a very short
service life due to the combination of high temperature and
corrosivity/low pH. Thus, it would be extremely costly to comply with
the current requirement for continuous monitoring of gas stream flow.
Therefore, the EPA is proposing to revise Sec. 63.114(a)(4)(ii) and
Sec. 63.127(a)(4)(ii) to allow three different options for determining
gas flow. Each of these options would provide sufficient data to
determine a liquid/gas (L/G) ratio for use in monitoring operation of
the acid gas scrubber.
The first option being proposed would allow owners or operators to
determine gas flow to the scrubber by using the design blower capacity,
with appropriate adjustments for pressure drop. This would provide a
``worst case'' gas flow. If the required compliance demonstration
showed that a scrubber could meet the emission reduction requirements
of subpart G for hydrogen halides and halogens during these worst-case
flow conditions, the EPA anticipates that compliance would also be
achieved during conditions of lower gas flow.
In the second proposed option, the EPA recognizes that some post-
combustion scrubbers, regulated under RCRA, are already required to
determine a L/G ratio to demonstrate compliance with emission reduction
requirements. The EPA is proposing that methods of determining gas flow
which have been utilized to comply with pre-existing RCRA regulations
should also be acceptable for purposes of subpart G. This proposed
option also provides that a determination made before the compliance
date for this rule may be used in the compliance demonstration if it is
still representative.
Finally, the EPA is proposing that owners or operators may develop
a gas flow determination plan. The plan would specify a reliable method
for determining gas stream flow, to provide a representative or at
least a worst-case flow rate during representative operating
conditions. Recordkeeping requirements would apply. The EPA believes
that this performance-oriented option is necessary due to the wide
variety of technologies and process configurations in existence. For
example, many SOCMI combustion units utilize multiple scrubbers in
series. This may require a different approach to determining gas flow,
than when a single scrubber is used.
2. Implementation Plans
With today's proposed amendments, EPA is proposing to remove the
requirement for submittal of implementation plans for existing sources'
emission points that are not included in an emissions average. Under
the April 22, 1994, rule, owners or operators, who have not yet
submitted an operating permit application with the information
specified in Sec. 63.152(e), were required
[[Page 43706]]
to submit by April 22, 1996, an implementation plan for points not
included in an emissions average. On February 29, 1996 (61 FR 7716),
this date was revised to December 31, 1996, to allow time for owners or
operators of sources to consider recent changes to the rule and to
allow for expected further revisions to the rule.
This change is being proposed because it no longer appears that
this report would serve a useful function, and the implementation plan
for points not included in an emission average represents a duplicative
and unnecessary burden with the Notification of Compliance Status. By
December 31, 1996, many, if not most, sources will have already
submitted the information covered by the implementation plan in permit
applications. Any remaining sources will be covered by subsequent
permit applications. Thus, the implementation plan requirement is
redundant and, therefore, unnecessary. Furthermore, the implementation
plan for points not included in an emission average would not have been
subject to EPA approval. Finally, eliminating the implementation plan
requirement would make the HON consistent with later MACT standards for
the same types of emission points which have not required this report.
It should not be inferred from this proposal to eliminate
implementation plans for points not included in an emissions average
that the requirement for an implementation plan for points included in
an emission average will be eliminated. This report is needed to ensure
that a proposed average will meet all the criteria in the rule and that
it will result in credits exceeding the debits. Because of the
complexities and site-specific nature of emissions averaging, this
report will remain subject to EPA approval.
3. Startup/Shutdown/Malfunction Plans
The EPA is proposing to revise several sections in the rule to
clarify the requirements for start-up/shutdown/malfunction periods.
These clarifications include revisions to the definitions of ``start-
up'' and ``shutdown'' and revisions to the monitoring and recordkeeping
requirements in Sec. 63.152 of subpart G. These changes are being
proposed to address several oversights in the original drafting and to
make the requirements for start-ups/shutdowns/malfunctions more
explicit to avoid potential misunderstanding of the requirements.
Revisions are being proposed to the definitions for the terms
``start-up'' and ``shutdown'' to make these terms more consistent and
to extend these terms to include part of a cmpu (such as a wastewater
tank) as well as the entire unit. The present definitions also do not
apply to control equipment used to comply with the rule or to waste
management units. Thus, if there were a start-up/shutdown/malfunction
of an individual item of equipment or an item of equipment not
presently included in the definition, it would not be permissible for
the owner or operator to follow the start-up/shutdown/malfunction plan
because it would not apply. Since it was intended that the start-up/
shutdown/malfunction plan would be followed in such situations, the
definitions are being revised to reflect this intent. The definition of
``start-up'' is also being revised to include activities associated
with initial start-up, testing of equipment, and transitional
conditions due to changes in product for flexible operation units. The
current definition for ``start-up'' erroneously excludes these
activities which should be addressed under the start-up/shutdown/
malfunction plan. The proposed revisions correct these drafting errors.
As part of the correction to the definitions for ``start-up'' and
``shutdown,'' EPA is also proposing to add two paragraphs to
Sec. 63.102(a) to clarify operational requirements during periods of
start-up/shutdown/malfunction. These provisions are necessary to avoid
misuse of the revised definition of the term ``shutdown.''
Revisions are being proposed for several paragraphs in Sec. 63.152
to clarify that monitoring is not required during periods when the
source is not operating and that the start-up/shutdown/malfunction plan
details the monitoring requirements during periods when the plan is
applicable. Currently, the rule does not explicitly address monitoring
requirements during periods when the source is not operating. Because
of concerns that this absence of direction could be interpreted as
requiring monitoring after shutdown of a source, clarifying language is
being proposed to remove any potential for misinterpretation. Minor
revisions are proposed to Sec. 63.152, paragraphs (c) and (f) to
clarify that data recorded during periods of start-up/shutdown/
malfunction are not excursions and are not to be included in averages
of monitoring data. These changes are being made to ensure that it is
clear that during periods of start-up/shutdown/malfunction the source
is required to follow the procedures in the start-up/shutdown/
malfunction plan in lieu of requirements that would otherwise apply to
the affected emission points under subpart G.
4. Alternative recordkeeping provisions
Today's proposed changes to the rule include addition of new
provisions to allow use of an alternative recordkeeping system that
records fewer data points during periods of routine compliance provided
the system meets specified criteria and the system is verified annually
to meet the requirements. The proposed provisions would provide an
alternative to the existing provisions in Sec. 63.152(f) for data
compression systems. These new provisions are expected to reduce
recordkeeping burden for some facilities.
The proposed alternative recordkeeping provisions allow an owner or
operator to use an exception-only recording system provided the system
meets specified criteria and the system is demonstrated to operate
properly initially, annually, and on demand. The new provisions require
that the monitoring system be able to: (1) Detect abnormal or
``impossible'' data (e.g., temperature reading of -200 deg.C on a
boiler), (2) detect inappropriate ``flat-line'' data, (3) alarm at a
set-point that is related to a limit on a parameter range, (4) generate
a running daily average that could be used by plant personnel or to
satisfy an inspector that the system is operating and the parameter is
within established limits, and (5) allow a system check on demand
during normal operations to verify that the system is recording data
properly. A description of the monitoring system, and the most recent
superseded description, must be retained. The current description would
be retained at least 5 years and longer, if it has not been superseded.
It must be retained either on-site or by a method that allows access
within two hours after a request. The most recent superseded
description would be retained for at least 5 years from its creation
but could be stored off-site if it is more than six months old. If the
superseded version is already more than 5 years old (at the time it
becomes superseded) it may be discarded immediately. The facility would
select the specific levels for the alarm set points considering the
variability of the process operations and the control device stability
under different operating conditions. It is expected that these alarm
set points would be established at a level such that corrective action
could be taken to prevent occurrence of a parameter excursion. The
alternative provisions allow the owner or operator to retain
[[Page 43707]]
only the daily average value under most circumstances. If no excursions
occur in a period of 6 consecutive months, the owner or operator is not
required to record the daily average, but must record and retain weekly
at least one parameter value during a period of operation other than a
start-up, shutdown, or malfunction. If a non-excused excursion occurs,
the owner or operator must immediately resume retaining the daily
average value for each day. An owner or operator electing to use this
alternative is required to notify EPA in the Notification of Compliance
Status or periodic report with updates whenever there is a change in
the frequency of data retention.
The proposed alternative system in Sec. 63.152(g) differs from the
alternative system for data compression systems provided in
Sec. 63.152(f) and the existing continuous monitoring requirements in
that the Sec. 63.152(g) alternative bases compliance on demonstration
of a system and records for periods of abnormal operation. The EPA
believes that this alternative provides an opportunity to use current
technology to reduce the cost of monitoring and compliance
demonstration. It is also anticipated that facilities electing to use
these provisions will have better emission control than facilities not
using an early warning type system. Because the system has to pass an
initial, annual, and on demand performance demonstration, EPA believes
that there are sufficient safeguards to ensure the system is operated
properly.
5. Miscellaneous Clarifying Edits to Recordkeeping Requirements
The proposed amendments to the rule include several other revisions
to reduce the recordkeeping burden of the rule in addition to those
described above. First, the proposed amendments include an additional
alternative for cmpus that do not use as a reactant, or make as a
product, any of the organic HAP's listed in table 2 of subpart F.
Parallel changes are also being proposed for similar documentation
requirements in subpart I. The new provisions, which would be added to
Sec. 63.103(e) and Sec. 63.192(k), would allow an owner or operator to
document the inapplicability of the rule on the request of an
inspector. This alternative is being provided because it was never
EPA's intent to impose an ongoing recordkeeping requirement on sources
not subject to the rule and because the current provisions can be
interpreted to impose such a requirement.
EPA proposes to revise Sec. 63.103(c) to remove the requirement for
an owner or operator to maintain copies of reports if the report has
been sent to the EPA Regional Office and the State agency. If the EPA
Regional Office has waived the requirement for submittal of reports to
the Region, the owner or operator is not required to maintain copies of
the reports. This revision is being made due to concern that misplacing
a copy of a report would be a violation, even though the report had
been properly submitted. This was not EPA's intent.
It is also proposed to revise Sec. 63.103(c) to reduce the volume
of records that must be stored on-site. Concern has been expressed that
on-site storage is often limited and more costly than off-site storage.
Subpart F currently requires the most recent 2 years' records to be
stored on-site. The proposed revision would specify that at least 6
months' records either be stored on-site or be available within 2 hours
by any means. The remaining 4 and one-half years worth of records may
be retained off-site. A definition of ``on-site'' would be added to
clarify that the records may be kept anywhere at the source, such as a
central filing area. These changes are being made to clarify what the
necessary records are and to specify the performance objective, and not
the method, that must be used to comply with the requirement.
The proposed amendments to subpart F include revisions to
Sec. 63.103(c)(2) documentation requirements for periods of start-up/
shutdown/malfunction. The proposed changes would make these provisions
consistent with the requirements in subpart A (General Provisions) to
document and report periods in which excess emissions occur. Another
proposed change to reduce burden and simplify the reporting
requirements is the elimination of the difference in submittal dates
for reports sent by U.S. Mail and by other delivery services. This
proposed revision to Sec. 63.103(d)(1) specifies that reports shall be
submitted on or before the relevant dates and the provisions in
Sec. 63.103(d)(1)(i) and (ii) would be removed from the rule. This
change is being made to eliminate an unnecessary restriction.
The proposed amendments include revisions to table 3 of subpart F
to clarify the applicability of specific sections in subpart A to
subpart H. Table 3 to subpart F currently does not explicitly detail
the applicability of the requirements to subpart H, and there are some
incorrect references to subpart A. The proposed revisions to the table
correct these errors.
6. Miscellaneous Changes to Monitoring Requirements
The EPA is proposing to clarify the instrument installation,
calibration, operational, and maintenance requirements that occur
throughout subpart G for instrumental monitoring of control devices.
The current rule requires the owner or operator to follow the
instrument manufacturer's recommendations for installation,
calibration, and maintenance. The proposed revision would allow the
owner or operator to develop a written procedure that provides adequate
assurance that the equipment would reasonably be expected to monitor
accurately. This revision is being proposed because many facilities in
the SOCMI industry do not purchase off-the-shelf monitoring systems.
Instead, it is common in this industry to develop monitoring systems
from equipment purchased from several suppliers. Thus, it is likely
that there are no manufacturer's instructions for the particular system
installed. Even in cases where a monitoring system is purchased and
used without substantial modification, the environment in which the
instrument is operating may differ from the manufacturer's expected
conditions sufficiently to make the manufacturer's recommendations
meaningless or inappropriate. The proposed amendment would provide the
necessary flexibility while preserving the intent to ensure accurate
data.
Today's proposed amendments also clarify that the requirement to
monitor regeneration stream ``mass flow'' in carbon adsorbers means
volumetric flow of the regeneration stream. This requirement occurs in
several places in the rule (e.g., 40 CFR Sec. 63.114(b)(3)). The
language in these sections is being revised because there is concern
that the word ``mass'' might be misinterpreted as prohibiting existing
types of monitoring that meet the intent of the requirement. The
purpose of the requirement is simply to monitor to show that the carbon
beds are being regenerated and maintained properly. While there are
systems that provide a measure of the mass by monitoring several
parameters and converting the results to mass, these systems as well as
volumetric flow metering systems all start with measurements of volume.
The proposed amendments replace all existing references to ``mass
flow'' with ``mass or volumetric flow.''
The EPA is also proposing to amend subpart G by revising the
definition of ``flow indicator'' and by revising the regulatory
language specifying the
[[Page 43708]]
requirement for monitoring by-pass lines (e.g. Sec. 63.114(d)(1)) to be
consistent with the provisions and definitions in subpart H. The
proposed definition includes reference to devices that detect the
potential for diversion of a stream by methods other than ``flow''
monitoring and the by-pass monitoring requirements no longer refer
exclusively to the presence of flow or imply that flow has to be
measured. The revised definitions and rule provisions allow use of any
means that will provide an indication of diversion of the stream from
the control device.
7. Manual Recordkeeping Provisions
The EPA is requesting comment on whether the provisions in
Sec. 63.151(g)(3) for manual recordkeeping systems should be revised to
allow requests for approval of monitoring on a less frequent basis than
once every 15 minutes. The EPA has received requests that this
provision allow monitoring once per 8-hour shift (or less frequently)
if the owner or operator can demonstrate that operating parameters for
the control device do not vary significantly over time. Examples of
systems that the requestor believed should require only limited
monitoring include condensers and acid gas scrubbers that vary slowly
over time. The requestor believed that the present rule requirements
impose a significant burden on facilities without automated recording
systems since plant personnel would have to expend considerable time
recording data.
In previous decisions on requests for alternative monitoring
systems for standards established under 40 CFR parts 60 and 61, EPA has
sometimes allowed less frequent monitoring based on consideration of
the level of the actual emissions in relation to the standard and the
control technology stability. These reviews have considered the process
operating characteristics and the nature of the types of control
problems that could occur. In situations where it is extremely unlikely
that a significant emission event could go undetected, less frequent
monitoring has been allowed. If EPA were to revise subpart G to allow
less frequent monitoring for facilities with manual recordkeeping
systems, it is likely that the provisions would require that the
emission point be operated at a level substantially below the level of
the standard (e.g., a TRE greater than 4, a 99 percent reduction when
the rule requires a 95 percent reduction, or a substantially lower
emission rate than allowed), and its availability would be limited to
certain control technologies. Monitoring less frequently than once per
hour might be appropriate for carbon adsorbers and some absorbers but
less frequent monitoring would not be appropriate for equipment such as
condensers. Adsorbers tend to exhibit failure over a relatively long
period of time while condensers can fail quickly if a compressor fails
or if flow rates through the condenser are increased significantly.
Monitoring a condenser once a day could permit a significant undetected
emissions episode. The EPA is not currently proposing a reduced
frequency of monitoring. However, the EPA requests comment on the need
for a reduced frequency as well as the appropriate criteria for
allowing the use of less frequent monitoring (such as once per shift)
and the basis for the recommended criteria.
F. Overlap with Other Regulations
1. Benzene Waste NESHAP
The April 22, 1994 rule requires that sources with wastewater
streams subject to control requirements in the HON and Benzene Waste
NESHAP (40 CFR part 61, subpart FF) comply with both rules. Since April
1994, members of the regulated community have objected that this
requirement unnecessarily increases the cost of demonstrating
compliance and complicates management of environmental programs at a
facility without providing a corresponding environmental benefit. To
address these concerns, EPA is proposing to add a compliance option to
Sec. 63.110(e)(1) that would allow some consolidation of the
inspection, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements of
these two NESHAP.
The proposed amendments would allow an owner or operator to use the
wastewater provisions of this rule as compliance with the provisions of
the Benzene Waste NESHAP provided two conditions are met. First, the
owner or operator must comply with the wastewater provisions of subpart
G. Second, for any Group 2 wastewater or organic stream whose benzene
emissions are subject to control under the provisions of the Benzene
Waste NESHAP, the owner or operator will comply with the requirements
for Group 1 wastewater streams in subpart G for that stream. This
proposed additional compliance option is designed to maintain the
applicability and stringency of existing control requirements for the
Benzene Waste NESHAP while providing an opportunity to reduce the
complexity of the compliance demonstration by reducing the number of
separate rules that apply to the equipment. The number of streams that
are subject to control under the Benzene Waste NESHAP would not be
changed by electing to use this option. The EPA wishes to emphasize
that this additional compliance option would not supersede any
existing, still-effective agreements to take mitigating actions that
were granted in exchange for additional compliance time with the
Benzene Waste NESHAP. These agreements would not be altered by this
proposed amendment to this rule.
2. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
In developing the April 1994 rule, EPA attempted to address the
problem of overlapping requirements by specifying which provisions
apply for each of the known cases of overlapping rules. These
instructions on overlapping requirements were provided in Sec. 63.110
of subpart G and in Sec. 63.160 of subpart H. Since issuance of the
rule, EPA has learned that there is another broad category of
overlapping RCRA requirements that was not addressed in the April 1994
rule. In today's amendments, EPA is proposing provisions to allow use
of certain RCRA-required monitoring to satisfy corresponding
requirements in subpart G and H. These proposed provisions would be
added to these subparts as Sec. 63.110(h) and Sec. 63.172(n).
The April 1994 rule addressed the known overlaps of control
requirements between the RCRA rules in 40 CFR parts 260 through 272 and
the wastewater control requirements of this rule. Due to an oversight,
the April 1994 rule did not specify the applicable requirements in
cases where the same control device (e.g., incinerator or adsorber) is
subject to a RCRA rule and would be used to comply with requirements
for non-wastewater provisions of this rule. Presently, the April 1994
rule would require the owner or operator to comply with the applicable
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting provisions of each rule.
Compliance with both rules' monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements would significantly increase the cost of compliance
demonstrations without providing a corresponding environmental benefit.
To reduce this unnecessary burden, the EPA is proposing to allow an
owner or operator to elect to use the monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements in 40 CFR parts 260 through 272 for this rule.
The EPA considers this proposed consolidation of overlapping
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements to be appropriate
[[Page 43709]]
because the RCRA air rules and the HON have the same objective and
monitor similar operational characteristics of control devices. In
general, the RCRA requirements tend to require more frequent monitoring
and retention of more detailed information. Therefore, it is possible
to use the RCRA data and reports to demonstrate compliance with the
provisions of this rule.
Today's amendments also propose to accept demonstrations of
compliance with RCRA requirements as demonstration of compliance with
the process vent, transfer operations, storage vessels, and equipment
leak provisions of the HON. The wastewater provisions in subpart G
presently exempt hazardous waste incinerators permitted under 40 CFR
part 270 and boilers and industrial furnaces permitted under 40 CFR
part 266 from performance test requirements of Sec. 63.139. These RCRA
air rules were judged to be at least as stringent in controlling air
emissions as this rule so that a second compliance demonstration was
not necessary. This judgment is applicable to the control requirements
for the non-wastewater provisions of this rule. Therefore, it is
proposed to add these rules to the list of controls exempted from
performance tests or other compliance demonstration requirements in
Sec. 63.116(b), Sec. 63.128(c), and Sec. 63.139(d)(4) and to add
provisions to Sec. 63.120(d) to list controls exempt from compliance
demonstration requirements.
G. Proposed Changes to Subparts H and I
In addition to the applicable changes discussed in earlier sections
of this preamble, the proposed changes to subpart H consist of: (1)
clarification of the terms ``repaired'' and ``first attempt at repair''
and clarification of the followup monitoring requirements for
connectors and valves; (2) correction of Sec. 63.180(b)(4) to allow use
of calibration gases other than methane; and (3) miscellaneous
corrections and clarifications to the wording of a few paragraphs.
1. Clarification of Definitions
The EPA is proposing to revise the definitions of the terms
``repaired'' and ``first attempt at repair.'' These proposed changes
are intended to eliminate the confusion that presently exists regarding
what monitoring is required after leaks are repaired. The definition of
``repaired'' presently states that the equipment is adjusted or
otherwise altered to eliminate a leak. The EPA has received inquiries
whether this definition implies that there must be proof by monitoring
data that the leak was repaired. These questions have been raised
because other sections of subpart H impose such a requirement. Because
of inquiries such as these, EPA reviewed subpart H and determined that
the confusion regarding the requirement was due in part to the lack of
specificity in the definition of the terms ``repaired'' and ``first
attempt at repair.'' The proposed amendments to subpart H would revise
these definitions to explicitly include reference to verification
monitoring according to the procedures in Sec. 63.180(b) and (c), as
appropriate. From this review, it was also determined that some of the
confusion was arising from lack of specific statement in applicable
sections of the rule that verification monitoring was required. The
proposed changes to subpart H would correct this problem.
2. Followup Monitoring
The EPA has received inquiries regarding the requirements for
monitoring within 3 months after repair of a leaking valve and the
relationship between this monitoring and the periodic monitoring
required by the standard. The proposed amendments would add provisions
to Sec. 63.168(f)(3) to clarify that (1) monitoring is conducted
according to the procedures specified in Sec. 63.180 (b) and (c) and
(2) the periodic monitoring may be used to satisfy this requirement if
the timing of this monitoring coincides with the timing specified for
the followup monitoring. The new provisions that would be added to
Sec. 63.168(f)(3) would also specify how to consider the results of
this monitoring in the calculation of percent leaking valves should a
leak be detected. These proposed changes would revise the rule to
correct oversights in the original drafting and to ensure that the rule
reflects EPA's intent.
The EPA has also received inquiries regarding whether subpart H
requires followup monitoring of connectors found to be leaking. These
questions have arisen due to a lack of clarity in Sec. 63.174 (c)(1)(i)
and (c)(1)(ii) that these provisions apply to connectors that have been
opened. The proposed change to the rule would clarify this point.
3. Calibration Gases Other Than Methane
The EPA is proposing to revise Sec. 63.180(b)(4) to allow use of
calibration gases other than methane. Since April 1994, some industry
representatives and equipment vendors have expressed concern to EPA
that present restriction to use methane as the calibration gas
precludes use of the procedures in Method 21 which permit calibration
with another reference compound. As discussed in the April 22, 1994
Federal Register, EPA intended to allow the use of reference compounds
other than methane in the calibration gases. However, due to a drafting
error Sec. 63.180(b)(4)(ii) was not modified to allow this flexibility.
The proposed amendments to this section of the rule would revise this
paragraph to allow the use of other compounds when the instrument does
not respond to methane or does not meet the performance specifications
of Sec. 63.180(b)(2)(i). The EPA considered whether this revision
should include a requirement to adjust the instrument readings to a
methane base in order to have the readings on the same basis as
instruments calibrated using methane. The proposed provisions do not
require such an adjustment for the same reasons given in the April 22,
1994 notice for removal of the 1992 proposed rule's requirement of
adjustment for response factors (59 FR 19447-19448).
Changes to Subpart I
The proposed changes to subpart I consist of corrections of several
cross-referencing errors and revisions to the general recordkeeping and
reporting requirements in Sec. 63.190(f). The proposed amendments to
Sec. 63.190(f) are the same as the revisions to Sec. 63.103(c)
discussed in section III. E. 5 of this preamble.
IV. Basis for Proposed Changes to Wastewater Provisions
A. General Comments on Changes to Wastewater Provisions
Today the Agency is proposing amendments to the wastewater
provisions in subpart G that are designed to clarify provisions of the
rule that have been misunderstood by some in the SOCMI industry. If
promulgated, the proposed clarifying amendments would not change the
basic control requirements, predicted emission reductions, or cost of
the rule. A summary of the amendments is provided in the following
paragraphs.
Four sections have been rewritten entirely in today's amendments to
improve clarity and to incorporate the new ``point of determination''
concept discussed in section IV.D of this preamble. The four sections
address: criteria for determining the Group 1 and Group 2 wastewater
streams (Sec. 63.132); performance standards for process wastewater
(Sec. 63.138); procedures for determining Group 1 and Group 2
wastewater streams (Sec. 63.144); and procedures for demonstrating
[[Page 43710]]
compliance (Sec. 63.145). Also, requirements allowing the use of
floating flexible membrane covers on surface impoundments have been
added to Sec. 63.134, and a section addressing in-process equipment
(Sec. 63.149) has been added.
Minor changes are proposed to the sections governing waste
management units, control devices, delay of repair of waste management
units, inspections and monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting.
As a result, today's wastewater provisions are being proposed in
Secs. 63.132 through 63.147, in Sec. 63.149, in tables 8 through 20, in
tables 34 through 37, and in figure 1 of appendix A to subpart G.
Deletions include Sec. 63.131 (reserved since information became
unnecessary with amendments) and the figures and tables 14a, 14b, and
16 to subpart G. The proposed amendments would add a new table 15,
which replaces tables 15a and 15b of the April 1994 rule, and tables 35
through 37 and figure 1, which provides a key to the terms in the
wastewater equations. Fraction measured values (Fm) in Table 34 were
corrected for four compounds: trichlorophenol, Fm=0.11; chlorobenzene,
Fm=1.00; isophorone, Fm=0.51; and 1,1,2-trichloroethane, Fm=1.00. In
addition, tables 11, 12, 17, and 18 were revised.
B. Wastewater Definitions
1. Summary of Significant Changes
Significant changes proposed are: revisions to the ``wastewater''
definition; replacement of the ``point of generation'' (POG) definition
with ``point of determination'' (POD) definition; addition of
``closed'' and ``open biological treatment process'' definitions;
addition of the ``enhanced biological treatment system'' definition;
revisions to the ``individual drain system'' definition; and deletion
of definitions for ``total volatile organic hazardous air pollutant
(VOHAP)'', ``volatile organic concentration'', and ``VOHAP
concentration.''
Changes to some of the definitions, especially ``wastewater'',
``recovery device'', and ``point of generation'', were necessary due to
circularity and a lack of specificity in the definitions. The
definitions were revised to clarify EPA's intent concerning which
organic HAP-containing waters are in-process fluids regulated by the
provisions in Sec. 63.149 and which are wastewater and regulated by the
provisions in Sec. 63.132 through Sec. 63.147.
2. Revised Wastewater Definition
The most significant change proposed today to the ``wastewater''
definition is the addition of the concept of ``discard.'' The discard
concept is fundamental in distinguishing which fluids exiting the cmpu
are subject to the HON wastewater provisions in Secs. 63.132 through
63.147. Together with the point of determination and in-process
equipment concepts, the revised definition of wastewater makes
decision-making for facilities and regulatory authorities more
straightforward, and the rule more easily implemented. Since fluids in
the in-process equipment are also controlled by the HON, emission
reductions will not be affected by this proposed change.
3. Replaced Point of Generation With Point of Determination
Today's proposal would change the definition for ``point of
generation'' in two ways--one way a conceptual change and the other a
change in terminology. ``Point of generation'' was changed to ``point
of determination'' to distinguish it from the term, ``point of
generation'' as used in the Benzene Waste NESHAP. ``Point of
generation'' was defined in the April 1994 rule as ``the location where
process wastewater exits the process unit equipment,'' (i.e. exits the
last recovery device). In today's proposal, it has been replaced by
``point of determination'', which is defined as ``each point where the
process wastewater exits the chemical manufacturing process unit.'' The
need for and significance of this change is discussed in more detail in
section IV.D. of this preamble.
4. Recovery Device
The proposed amendments include a revised definition of ``recovery
device.'' The proposed definition of ``recovery device'' differs from
the existing definition in order to reflect the revised approach to the
definition of ``wastewater'' and to reflect the fact that deviations
from normal operations do occur.
Under the revised approach for defining wastewater, a stream does
not become wastewater until it exits the last recovery device. As a
recovery device had been defined as an item of equipment used to
recover chemicals for fuel value, use, reuse, or ``sale'', it would
seem impossible--by definition--to sell a wastewater stream or residual
extracted from a wastewater stream. In developing the revised approach
for wastewater, it became apparent that using the term ``sale'' without
any qualification in the definition of ``recovery device'' left a
potential loophole. A bad actor could ``sell'' a Group 1 stream to an
affiliate for a negligible amount, claim that it was a sale so that the
stream had not yet exited the last recovery device (so it was not
wastewater), and the affiliate could simply dispose of the stream or
residual without treating it in accordance with the HON provisions (and
incurring the costs of such treatment). The additional language is
intended to remove the possibility of such sham transactions by
limiting the concept of sales to sales for the same general purposes
for which chemicals may be recovered and utilized within the HON
facility (i.e.,use, reuse, or burning as fuel). The EPA believes that
such language is broad enough to encompass any sale that is not a sham
since ``use'' and ``reuse'' are very general concepts. The definition
also differs from the existing definition in that the word ``normally''
now modifies the phrase ``used for the purpose of recovering ....''
This change was made to recognize that occasional exceptions to normal
usage can and will arise.
5. Added Definitions for Closed Biological Treatment Process, Open
Biological Treatment Process, and Enhanced Biological Unit
Definitions for closed biological treatment process, open
biological treatment process, and enhanced biological treatment system
would be added to the definitions in subpart G. The new definitions are
necessary to make distinctions among biological treatment processes
which allow the incorporation of more flexible and less burdensome
compliance demonstrations for some facilities. This is discussed in
more detail in the discussion of changes to Sec. 63.145 in section
IV.F. of this preamble.
6. Modified Individual Drain System Definition
The definition for individual drain system would be modified to
clarify three key concepts and incorporate minor wording changes. The
definition in today's proposal would clarify that only stationary
systems are included in the definition; that individual drain systems
are used to convey residuals as well as wastewater streams; and that
the individual drain system does not include in-process equipment as
described in Sec. 63.149.
[[Page 43711]]
7. Deletion of Total VOHAP, VO Concentration, and VOHAP Concentration
Definitions
The EPA proposes to delete the definitions for ``total VOHAP'',
``VO concentration'', and ``VOHAP concentration.'' As discussed in
section IV.F. of this preamble, these terms would no longer be used in
the rule; therefore, the definitions would not be needed.
C. Changes to Sec. 63.132
In the April 1994 rule and in today's proposed changes to the rule,
Sec. 63.132 provides the instructions on how to determine if a process
wastewater stream requires control and the general outline of
requirements for process wastewater streams. The general approach for
determining which wastewater streams are Group 1 or Group 2 would not
change. Determination of whether a wastewater stream is Group 1 or
Group 2 would still be based on the same concentration and flow rate
criteria as the current rule. Control requirements for Group 1
wastewater streams still require that HAP emissions be controlled until
the HAPs are either removed from the wastewater or destroyed. Today's
proposal reorganizes Sec. 63.132 to eliminate redundant sections,
clarify requirements, and change the order of the provisions into a
more reader friendly format. Other proposed changes include use of the
point of determination concept instead of the point of generation
concept (discussed in IV.D. of this preamble) and the addition of
language prohibiting the discard of certain organic material into water
or wastewater.
Language prohibiting the discard of certain organic material into
water or wastewater would be added as Sec. 63.132(f). Specifically,
liquid or solid organic materials containing greater than 10,000 parts
per million of Table 9 compounds may not be discarded into water or
wastewater unless the receiving stream is managed and treated as a
Group 1 wastewater stream. The prohibition would exclude equipment
leaks; activities included in the start-up/shutdown/malfunction plan,
including maintenance wastewater; spills; and samples. This paragraph
would be added to eliminate the potential for dumping of high
concentration organic streams, such as off-specification product, into
the sewer. The EPA seeks comment on the appropriate size of a sample.
D. Basis of Determining Group Status of a Wastewater Stream: Change
From Point of Generation to Point of Determination
The EPA is proposing to revise the rule to base the determination
of applicability of control requirements to a wastewater stream on its
characteristics at the point where the wastewater stream exits the last
recovery device instead of at the point of generation (POG). The new
location for determining the characteristics of a wastewater stream is
being called the point of determination (POD) to distinguish it from
the POG concept used in other air rules for waste and wastewater such
as the Benzene Waste NESHAP. As discussed earlier in the OVERVIEW OF
CHANGES TO THE RULE, this proposed revision is one of several changes
being made to address problems with drafting clarity and structure of
the wastewater provisions. The proposed concept of POD along with the
revised definitions for key wastewater terms and the provisions for in-
process equipment subject to the provisions of Sec. 63.149 is
consistent with the emission and cost estimates used to support the
April 1994 rule.
1. Point of Generation Concept in April 1994 Rule
In the April 1994 rule, the term POG is defined as the point where
the process wastewater exits the process unit equipment. The EPA's
intent with the POG approach was to identify wastewater streams for
control prior to opportunities for losses due to emissions to the
atmosphere, prior to dilution with other wastewater streams, and prior
to partial treatment of the wastewater stream. If dilution or partial
treatment prior to a control determination were allowed, some
wastewater streams that would have required control based on the
concentration criteria would not meet the requirement of the rule for
control and would therefore not be treated.
A fundamental premise of the POG concept is that a clear
distinction can be made between process equipment and waste management
units. In development of the April 1994 rule, EPA emphasized that the
distinction was based on whether the material and the unit in which it
is managed is an integral part of the production process. The EPA has
learned since 1994 that industry has numerous interpretations of the
concept of ``integral to the process'' and hence the POG concept.
Interpretations vary because evaluation of what is integral to the
process takes into consideration economic and process design factors as
well as knowledge of the process and the industry. Because processes
and configurations of equipment in facilities subject to this rule vary
widely, it is difficult to develop a set of criteria that can be used
to make clear distinctions between process and waste management
equipment. The combination of this problem with the ambiguities and the
lack of specificity in the other key wastewater definitions (e.g.,
wastewater) has resulted in a rule that may be misinterpreted. It is
important that the rule be clear and unambiguous so that all parties
interpret its requirements consistently.
Because of issues raised since promulgation of the April 1994 rule
concerning EPA's intent and the difficulty of making the POG
determination, the EPA has reevaluated the POG concept. As part of this
reevaluation, EPA reviewed the data that were used to develop the
emission and cost estimates for the April 1994 rule. It was determined
from this review that the industry responses in 1990 to the section 114
wastewater questionnaires did not reflect a consistent understanding of
what EPA considered to be wastewater and what EPA meant by the concept
of POG. In many cases, the respondents provided information for a
location that was after the point that EPA considered to be the POG. In
a few cases, it was not possible to determine from the process
description and the description of wastewater streams whether the
information was or was not after the POG. Thus, because of the lack of
consistency in the responses, it is not possible to be certain that the
emission and cost analyses used in development of the April 1994 rule
reflected the POG concept in the rule language. Moreover, it is now
apparent that the POG approach is inherently foreign to the way
facility operators view their processes and it is unlikely that this
concept would be generally accepted and understood by the regulated
community. Because of these practical problems, the EPA concluded that
it was appropriate to develop a new approach for the initial point of
evaluation of a wastewater stream. The new approach that would replace
the POG is called the point of determination (POD).
2. Point of Determination Concept in Today's Proposal
The EPA's intent in developing the POD approach is to have a
decision criterion that is replicable and unequivocally specifies the
location for evaluation of a wastewater stream for
[[Page 43712]]
the purposes of control. The POD therefore encompasses each point where
process wastewater exits the last recovery device. This proposed
definition of POD would allow a facility to recover chemicals for fuel
value, use, reuse or for sale for fuel value, use, or reuse. As with
the POG, under the POD approach owners/operators would not be allowed
to mix streams together for the purpose of escaping compliance by the
diluting of wastewater streams to a level below the 1000 ppmw at 10 L/
min or greater flowrate or the 10,000 ppmw at any flowrate level. Under
the POD approach, process units conveying process fluids in the
chemical manufacturing process unit are subject to the requirements
established in Table 35. Table 35 is consistent with the suppression
requirement for a wastewater stream requiring control. Again, the EPA's
intent is to allow process fluids that have recovery potential to be
sent to recovery devices; however, these fluids are required to be
managed so as to minimize the potential for losses due to emissions to
the atmosphere. In addition, making the POD the location after the last
recovery unit would eliminate the need for the recycle option allowed
under the current wastewater provisions.
The EPA believes the POD approach would allow more flexibility than
currently provided in the rule with regard to materials recovery while
eliminating confusion over the initial point of evaluation for a
wastewater stream for the purposes of control and, at the same time,
maintain the suppression requirements for more concentrated streams.
The POD approach would also make the wastewater provisions consistent
with the data collected for development of the rule and with the other
provisions in the rule concerning definition of process. There are no
expected changes in emission reductions or costs associated with this
revision to the rule.
The EPA considers the proposed POD approach to provide a workable
alternative to the POG approach because the HON addresses the other
emission points in the cmpu. The EPA does not believe that the POD
approach would be appropriate for other rules that are not as
comprehensive in the coverage of emission points. The POD concept would
not be appropriate in cases where it is known that the other emission
points would not be subject to any control requirements.
E. Changes to Waste Management Unit Provisions
1. Clarifications to Process Wastewater Provisions
The proposed clarifications to the text concern the mixing of
wastewater in tanks, methods to insure a water seal is maintained, use
of a flexible shield restricting wind motion across the space between
the discharging pipe and the receiving drain, and venting from junction
boxes. Text was added to explain that alternative methods (other than
the example given in the rule) could be used to demonstrate that water
seals are maintained properly. Clarification was added to the
requirements concerning the flexible shield to describe more fully
where the shield should be located. The proposed clarification for the
venting of junction boxes was written to explain the difference between
venting to the atmosphere of junction boxes with gravity wastewater
flow and venting to the atmosphere of junction boxes with wastewater
pumps. Under today's proposed clarification to the provisions, water
sealed junction boxes with gravity flow or systems that operate with
only slight fluctuations in the liquid level are allowed to vent to the
atmosphere through a specified size of vent pipe. Junction boxes with
pumps that turn on and off, allowing the junction box to alternately
empty and fill, are not allowed to vent to the atmosphere due to the
vapor headspace turnover that occurs. Clarifications were made to the
process wastewater provisions for wastewater tanks to express more
fully the EPA's intent to suppress emissions from these systems.
2. Floating Membrane Covers
Since April 1994 the EPA has received inquires as to the reason
floating membrane covers were not allowed under the wastewater
provisions of the HON. The EPA has allowed the use of floating membrane
covers in other rules. The EPA considered this inquiry and decided that
floating membrane covers would be acceptable for suppressing emissions
from surface impoundments. Provisions would be added to the surface
impoundment requirements derived from the standards in Subpart QQ of 40
CFR part 63 for floating membrane covers. The provisions provide the
requirements for the material used for construction of the floating
membrane cover and for the installation of the cover.
3. Individual Drain System Suppression Requirements
Since promulgation of the April 1994 rule, industry has raised
concerns that the individual drain system suppression requirements
would lead to vapor lock in wastewater collection systems. A vapor lock
occurs in a wastewater system when the wastewater attempts to flow into
or out of an area that is sealed and the pressure in the system cannot
equalize, thereby restricting the flow of the wastewater. The EPA's
intent is to suppress emissions from the collection system and not to
seal the system such that gravity flow systems will be inoperative. The
concern over potential for vapor lock to occur in the individual drain
system would be addressed by removing the requirement to gasket and
latch covers or openings.
In today's proposed amendments, the requirement to seal, gasket, or
latch covers or openings in the individual drain system has been
deleted. The proposed amended text would now read that openings shall
be equipped with a tight fitting solid cover (i.e., no visible gaps,
cracks, or holes). The EPA believes that this requirement would
minimize emissions from openings in wastewater treatment systems and
can be met without creating a vapor lock. The EPA recognizes that
normally there will be a ``visible'' point of juncture between the
cover and the opening, such as where a manhole cover contacts the
manhole frame. The point of juncture generally is a thin, visible line
or crack running around the circumference of the cover. These points of
juncture are not prohibited. The intent is to prohibit gaps or openings
that allow air flow into or out of the collection system. A tightly
fitting solid cover will contact the manhole frame in such a way that
there is a surface (cover) to surface (frame) contact. Certain minor
surface irregularities, such as those associated with a manhole cover
manufactured by casting, are acceptable. A gap between surfaces that
are not intended for sealing is acceptable. For example, a gap between
the outer rim of a manhole cover and the inner rim of the manhole is
acceptable, if the actual sealing surface is between the bottom of the
cover and the top of the manhole. Plugged or capped holes (such as
plugged or capped holes to insert a tool for removal of a cover) are
acceptable. Removal of the plugs or caps is unacceptable, except for
the purpose of conducting those activities for which the rule allows
the cover to be opened and provided the plug or cap is replaced upon
completion of the activity. Warped covers that create a gap for air
passage
[[Page 43713]]
are unacceptable. The EPA believes that relaxing the requirements for
tightly fitting solid covers for individual drain systems will suppress
emissions effectively while also allowing small changes in pressure to
occur in the system and, thereby, eliminating the problem from vapor
lock.
4. Repair Time Allowed for Waste Management Units
The April 1994 rule provides that repair can be delayed for up to
15 or 45 days depending on the type of waste management unit. The EPA
has received requests that 45 days be allowed for repair of all types
of waste management units. This change was requested in order to
simplify implementation of the rule. The EPA evaluated the need for
additional time for repairs for some types of units and determined that
the April 1994 rule provisions did not address situations where parts
could not be obtained in the specified time period. In addition, due to
an oversight, Sec. 63.140 did not allow delay of repair when the waste
management unit was taken out of service. As a result, EPA is proposing
revisions to Sec. 63.140 to allow delay of repair when waste management
units are taken out of service and when additional time is necessary to
obtain spare parts. The proposed revisions do not revise the time
provided for repair of some waste management units from 15 days to 45
days.
F. Changes to Secs. 63.138, 63.144, and 63.145
1. General
Three sections of today's proposed rule, Secs. 63.138, 63.144, and
63.145, were rewritten to improve clarity, to incorporate the point of
determination concept, and to add flexibility in the compliance
demonstration for facilities using biological treatment processes to
achieve the control requirements. Revisions to Sec. 63.144 in the April
1994 rule contained in today's proposal are reorganization for clarity;
addition of methods and an alternative validation procedure; deletion
of the term VOHAP from text; and deletion of simple equations that are
unnecessary. These three sections are discussed together because the
changes made to one of them most likely appears in all three of the
sections. A specific change will be discussed where it first appears or
has the most impact.
2. Changes to Sec. 63.138, Process Wastewater Provisions--Performance
Standards for Treatment Processes Managing Group 1 Wastewater Streams
and/or Residuals Removed From Group 1 Wastewater Streams
Section 63.138 contains provisions for control of Group 1
wastewater streams and residuals from Group 1 wastewater streams. The
most significant changes proposed to Sec. 63.138 are: reorganization
for clarity; deletion of recycling and process unit alternative as
control options; technical corrections to the design steam stripper
specifications and removal of unnecessary specification of steam
quality; clarification of compliance demonstration procedures that may
be used for biological treatment processes; clarification that
treatment in series is allowed; consolidation of provisions for the 1
megagram source-wide exemption into Sec. 63.138; and clarification of
when design evaluations may be used to demonstrate compliance instead
of performance tests.
3. Deletion of Recycling and Process Unit Alternative Options From
Sec. 63.138
The recycling and process unit alternative options (April 1994 rule
paragraphs (b)(1)(i), (c)(1)(i), (d)(2)(ii), and (h)(1), and paragraph
(d), respectively) would be deleted from today's proposed rule. Both
options would become unnecessary under the POD concept proposed to
replace the POG concept. The recycling option allowed an owner or
operator to achieve compliance by recycling a process stream to a
process unit. The recycling provisions in paragraph (f) of the April
1994 rule require that the wastewater or residual not be exposed to the
atmosphere and that waste management units in contact with the
wastewater streams or residual comply with control and inspection and
monitoring requirements. With the proposed point of determination
concept, the recycling option would become redundant because as long as
a fluid stays in the process, it would not be a wastewater subject to
the provisions of Sec. 63.138; instead, it would be subject to the
other provisions of the rule such as storage vessels or Sec. 63.149.
4. Clarification That Treatment in Series Is Allowed
Although it is not stated clearly, the April 1994 rule intended
that more than one treatment process could be used to comply with the
rule. Today's proposed amendments would provide provisions for
treatment in series in Secs. 63.138 and 63.145 and would clarify EPA's
intent. Treatment in series may be used whether or not treatment
processes are connected by hard piping. However, inlet and outlet mass
flow rate determination for compliance demonstration differ, depending
on whether hard piping is used to connect treatment processes and
whether a biological treatment process is part of the series.
5. Consolidation of Provisions for the One Megagram Source-Wide
Exemption Into Sec. 63.138
The provisions for the 1 megagram source-wide option would be
clarified and would be consolidated from Secs. 63.138 and 63.144 in the
April 1994 rule into Sec. 63.138 in today's proposed amendments. This
would make the provisions easier to find and understand for the reader.
6. Alternative Methods to Method 305 used in Sec. 63.144
The EPA is proposing to revise the rule to allow use of alternative
methods for Group 1 or Group 2 determinations for process wastewater
streams in lieu of Method 305. The EPA specifically reviewed Methods
624, 625, 1624, and 1625 and has determined that these methods may be
used with certain additional requirements. These requirements are
specified in Sec. 63.144 (b) of the proposed amendments. Other methods
may be used if they are validated by the Method 301 validation
procedure as discussed below. Because the alternative methods determine
actual concentrations of the organic compounds, the fraction measured
(Fm) values listed in table 34 can be used to adjust the alternative
method measurements to a value representative of what Method 305 would
provide.
Method 305 was developed by EPA to identify streams requiring
control for air emissions; therefore, the method was developed
specifically to retain and measure organic compounds of concern from an
air emission perspective. The Office of Water methods (Methods 624,
625, 1624, and 1625) were developed for different purposes and would
not necessarily address air concerns as does Method 305. The EPA used
four criteria of concern from the air perspective to evaluate the
methods. These four criteria were used to ensure that the alternative
method retained and quantified the organic compounds of concern,
generally referred to as target compounds. The first criterion is that
the method provide a sampling approach that would minimize the loss of
volatiles from the sample while maintaining sample integrity. The
second criterion is that the method
[[Page 43714]]
detect the organic compounds of concern. Third, the method must have
adequate up-front quality assurance and quality control to ensure valid
data. Finally, the alternative method must correct for analyte
preparation and analysis bias. That is, the method adjusts to the
actual concentration of the compound in the sample.
The EPA has compared Methods 624, 625, 1624, and 1625 against the
four criteria listed above and proposes to allow these methods to be
used as alternative methods to Method 305 with some additional
requirements as specified in the proposed revised rule. The EPA is
proposing to allow the use of alternative methods based on the belief
that those parties using this alternative approach are following the
procedures specified in the alternative method and are not using some
modified version of the method. One of the additional requirements
proposed consists of employing a sampling and collection procedure that
minimizes the volatilization of organics. For Method 625, EPA proposes
to require corrections to the compounds for which the analysis is being
conducted. For example, Method 624 requires initial calibration of the
analytical system with the target compounds. The four methods also
specify the list of analytes for which the method can be used.
Additional compounds may be added to the four reviewed methods' analyte
lists by using the Office of Water's Alternative Test Procedure (40 CFR
136.4 and 136.5).
Additional methods other than those previously mentioned also may
be used in lieu of Method 305 if a procedure that minimizes loss of
volatile organic compounds during sampling and collection is employed
and if the method is validated in accordance with sections 5.1 or 5.3,
and the corresponding calculations in sections 6.1 or 6.3, of Method
301. Other EPA methods may be validated using Appendix D of part 63,
``Alternative Validation Procedure for EPA Waste Methods'', provided
that a procedure that minimizes loss of volatile organic compounds
during sampling and collection is also be employed.
7. Deletion of Term ``Volatile Organic Hazardous Air Pollutant''
The EPA found that many in the regulated community found the
terminology ``volatile organic hazardous air pollutant'' (VOHAP)
confusing. The term VOHAP concentration is used in the April 1994 rule
to mean the weight concentration of Table 9 HAP's as determined by
Method 305. This meant when a VOHAP concentration was required, the
results from methods other than Method 305 had to be adjusted by the
compound-specific fraction measured factor (Fm) listed in table 34 of
subpart G to convert actual concentration to Method 305 concentration.
When the April 1994 rule specified a HAP concentration, results from
Method 305 were required to be adjusted by the Fm factors to correct to
the actual concentration while results from other methods would be used
as measured (without Fm adjustment).
With today's proposed amendments, Secs. 63.144 and 63.145 of the
rule would explicitly state when Fm adjustments are appropriate rather
than relying on using the term VOHAP to convey EPA's intent. The
proposed amendments would also remove the term VOHAP. Also under the
proposed amendments, it would be clarified in Sec. 63.144 that annual
average concentration may be expressed either as adjusted by the Fm
factors or with no adjustment.
8. Changes to Sec. 63.145, Process Wastewater--Test Methods and
Procedures to Determine Compliance
Section 63.145 contains the provisions that explain how to
demonstrate compliance with the performance standards in Sec. 63.138.
Several significant changes are proposed to this section. It was
rewritten to improve drafting quality, provide clear statements of
EPA's intent, and correct errors.
9. Reorganization of Sec. 63.145
In today's proposal, Sec. 63.145 is reorganized to clarify
requirements and provide the reader with an understanding of which
paragraphs to use for demonstrating compliance with the compliance
options in Sec. 63.138. Three clarifications are of particular note:
(1) ``Representative operating conditions'' for treatment processes and
control devices are specified in paragraphs (a)(3) and (a)(4) of
Sec. 63.145; (2) conditions under which a performance test or design
evaluation is allowed or under which neither is required are specified
in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2); and, (3) clarification of when Fm
adjustments are allowed are included throughout the section. These
proposed clarifications were in the April 1994 rule but may have been
unclear or placed in other sections, causing readers difficulty in
determining how the sections fit together. The reorganized section
would also make provisions for measuring concentration and flow rate
consistent among paragraphs. EPA believes these changes in rule
language will improve clarity and will improve reader comprehension.
10. Demonstrating Compliance for Biological Treatment Processes
Concerns have been raised that the requirements concerning
demonstrating compliance for biological treatment processes are
confusing and the requirement for site-specific fraction biodegraded
(Fbio) determinations is unnecessarily burdensome. To respond to these
concerns, the EPA reevaluated the performance determination
requirements for biological treatment processes and found that
adjustments could be made to the requirements consistent with the
intent of the rule. The EPA's intent was to allow the use of biological
treatment units that achieved the required mass removal of table 9
compounds through biodegradation and not through emissions to the
atmosphere. Today's proposed amendments would add paragraph (h) which
describes how to determine the site-specific fraction of Table 8 and/or
Table 9 compounds biodegradated (Fbio); clarify that biological
treatment processes must use one of the required mass removal options
to comply with the rule; add flexibility in demonstrating compliance
for biological treatment processes; and add provisions that allow a
subset of the Table 8 or Table 9 compounds to be used to demonstrate
compliance.
Paragraph (h)--how to determine Fbio--is added to make the
provisions easier to find than in the April 1994 rule. In addition,
Sec. 63.145(h), together with appendix C to part 63, provide more
flexibility to the owner or operator to demonstrate compliance for
biological treatment processes. The April 1994 rule required owners and
operators using biological treatment processes to demonstrate
compliance using appendix C to part 63 to determine Fbio. Today's
proposal recognizes that for some biological treatment processes, a
less rigorous determination of Fbio is sufficient to demonstrate
compliance.
When a biological treatment process is used, one of the required
mass removal options, Sec. 63.138(f) or (g), must be chosen as the
compliance option. This was EPA's intent in the April 1994 rule but it
was not stated clearly. The provisions that may be used to demonstrate
compliance depend on whether the biological treatment process is open
or closed. In each case, the proposed rule specifies which compliance
demonstration provisions may be used.
For open biological treatment processes, volatilization is an
important
[[Page 43715]]
concern. Therefore, to demonstrate compliance, the owner or operator
must determine the mass of the Table 8 or Table 9 compounds that is
removed due to biodegradation rather than volatilization. If the open
biological treatment process is an enhanced biological treatment
process, the source would have more flexibility in demonstrating
compliance. To incorporate this flexibility, EPA looked at the Table 9
compounds and determined which are more readily biodegraded and which
are more likely to volatilize before biodegradation can occur in an
enhanced biological treatment process.
11. Performance Requirements for Open Biological Treatment Processes
Because of the reevaluation of the Table 9 compounds, the EPA was
able to separate the compounds on Table 9 into three lists which appear
in table 36. These lists would be used together with other provisions
to specify how the source may demonstrate compliance. Table 36 may only
be used for wastewater streams treated in an enhanced biological
treatment system as defined by the proposed revisions to the rule.
The development of the three lists in table 36 was based on the
individual compound's fraction emitted (Fe), fraction removed in a
steam stripper (Fr), and fraction biodegraded in a biological treatment
unit (Fbio). The values for Fe and Fr that were evaluated were based on
analysis performed for the April 1994 rule. Documentation of this
analysis is available in the docket A-90-23. The Fbio values used to
compile the three lists in table 36 were based on default values for an
enhanced biological treatment unit from the EPA Water8 model. List 1
consists of Table 9 compounds that have Fr values approximately equal
to or less than their Fbio values, and Fe values that are in the middle
to lower volatility range. List 3 consists of Table 9 compounds that
have Fr values of 0.99, Fbio values that are considerably lower than
0.99, and Fe values in the higher volatility range. The Table 9
compounds that were left after this evaluation became List 2.
A performance demonstration would not be required for enhanced
biological treatment systems that receive wastewater streams that
require control and that contain only List 1 compounds on table 36. An
example would be an activated sludge unit that meets the proposed
enhanced biological treatment system definition and treats Group 1
wastewater streams that contain only methanol and nitrobenzene (List 1
compounds). A compliance demonstration would not be required because
the only Table 9 compounds requiring control appear on List 1. For
enhanced biological treatment systems treating wastewater containing
compounds on Lists 1, 2, and/or 3, a performance demonstration is
required.
Today's proposal offers several techniques for demonstrating
compliance for an open biological treatment unit meeting the proposed
definition of an enhanced biological treatment system. The
demonstration is performed by estimating the Fbio for the system using
the first order biodegradation constant (K1) and the forms in appendix
C to part 63. The owner/operator may use any of the procedures
specified in 40 CFR part 63, appendix C to calculate the site-specific
K1s for compounds on Lists 1 and/or 2. The owner/operator may elect not
to calculate site-specific biodegradation rate constants but instead to
calculate Fbio for the List 1 compounds using the defaults for K1s in
table 37 and to follow the procedure explained in Form IIA of appendix
C. For compounds on List 3, the owner/operator is allowed to use any of
the procedures specified in 40 CFR part 63, appendix C, except the
batch tests procedure, to calculate the site-specific K1. Biological
treatment units not meeting the definition of an enhanced biological
treatment system are allowed to determine the Fbio using the site-
specific K1 values determined by any of the procedures in appendix C to
part 63 except the proposed batch tests procedure.
The EPA believes that today's proposed revisions to the biological
treatment option adds additional flexibility without sacrificing
reduction of emissions. By separating the Table 9 compounds into 3
lists and allowing different performance requirements depending on the
properties of the compounds on the lists, additional options have been
made available to the owner/operator. The EPA maintained the original
intent of the rule by limiting the additional options to biological
units meeting the definition for enhanced biological treatment systems.
The flexibility allowed by not requiring that the site-specific
fraction biodegraded be determined for all Table 8 or Table 9 compounds
in the wastewater stream is predicated on the underlying assumption
that the wastewater is treated in an enhanced biological treatment
system. The definition for enhanced biological treatment system is
proposed in today's notice. The definition is based on extensive
discussions with individuals knowledgeable in the area of biological
treatment. Well-designed, operated, and maintained activated sludge
systems meet the definition of enhanced biological treatment systems.
12. Equations in Sec. 63.145
Many of the equations in Sec. 63.145 would be revised to make
mathematical corrections or to make the equations consistent with the
rest of the rule. The equations for control devices performance tests--
paragraph (i) in today's proposal--are proposed to be based on the
equation in the process vents section of the rule rather than the
equations in the April 1994 rule. The terms in the equations were
changed to make them consistent. Figure 1 in appendix A to subpart G
lists the new terms.
13. Compounds Not Required To Be Considered in Performance Tests
Today's proposal would add Sec. 63.145(a)(6) which specifies when
compounds are not required to be included in a performance test. These
provisions were added because EPA recognizes that not all Table 8 or
Table 9 compounds are present in a wastewater stream; and not all
compounds need to be measured to demonstrate compliance, i.e.,
measuring a predominant compound may be enough to show the mass removal
necessary to achieve compliance. These provisions would also provide
that compounds present at concentrations less than 1 ppmw at the POD or
compounds present at the POD at concentrations less than the lower
detection limit where the lower detection limit is greater than 1 ppmw
may be excluded from the performance test. This provision was added to
avoid imposing an unnecessary analytical burden.
G. Off-Site Treatment
Today's proposed amendments include provisions to allow owners and
operators of HON sources to transfer Group 1 wastewater streams or
residuals off-site for treatment provided the owner/operator obtains
from the transferee a copy of a written statement submitted by the
transferee to EPA certifying that the transferee will manage and treat
the wastewater streams or residuals in accordance with the HON's
provisions. These new provisions replace the existing provisions in
Sec. 63.132(j) that required that the owner/operator ensure that the
transferee complies with the suppression and treatment requirements of
the rule. The existing provisions in Sec. 63.132(j) are revised to
provide a means to allow transfers of treatment responsibility without
imposing liability
[[Page 43716]]
for actions of another party on the owner/operator of the HON source.
The new provisions allowing for off-site or on-site third party
treatment require the owner/operator transferring the wastewater stream
or residual to comply with the suppression requirements specified in
Secs. 63.133 through 63.137 of this subpart for each waste management
unit that receives or manages a Group 1 wastewater stream or residual
removed from a Group 1 wastewater stream prior to shipment or
transport. The owner or operator may not transfer the wastewater stream
or residual unless the transferee has submitted to EPA a written
certification that the transferee will manage and treat, in accordance
with subpart G, any Group 1 wastewater stream or residual removed from
a Group 1 wastewater stream that was received from a source subject to
the requirements of this subpart. The owner or operator has to notify
the third party treater that the wastewater stream or residual has to
be handled and treated in accordance with the requirements of the rule.
The statements of compliance with the rule by third party treaters
need only be submitted to EPA; the provisions do not contain or
envision any requirements that EPA approve the written statements
before shipments of wastewater streams or residuals to off-site
treaters are permitted. The proposed provisions provide, however, that
EPA may revoke or suspend a certification statement in the event the
off-site treater violates the pertinent HON wastewater provisions. The
proposed provisions also require that the written statement from the
off-site treater contain a statement that EPA has not revoked or
suspended a certification statement within the previous three years.
The intent of this is to provide an adequate incentive for compliance
on the part of the off-site treaters.
The proposed provisions also differ from the existing requirements
in Sec. 63.132(j) for notice from the owner/operator of the HON source
in that the requirement that notice be provided at least once a year in
the case of continuous shipments is replaced by a requirement only for
notice at the outset of such shipments and when there is a change in
the required treatment. In drafting the revised language, the general
statements of the obligation on off-site treaters in the old
Sec. 63.132(j)(3) have been replaced with explicit cross references to
the applicable requirements. This change is proposed to provide a
clearer statement of the applicable requirements and to minimize
potential for misunderstandings. This change is not considered to be a
substantive change in the requirements for off-site treaters. Another
change of significance in the provisions for third party treaters
concerns the concept of sale. The phrase in the opening paragraph of
Sec. 63.132(j), permitting the sale of Group 1 wastewater streams or
residuals ``for any other purpose'' has been eliminated in the proposed
replacement provisions. This change is necessary in light of the
revised approach to defining wastewater. Inherent in the new approach
is the concept that a stream is not wastewater unless it is being
discarded. Thus, the concept of selling wastewater is inherently
inconsistent.
H. Addition of Sec. 63.149 and Table 35
The proposed amendments to add a new Sec. 63.149 and table 35 to
subpart G are an outgrowth of the change from the POG concept of the
April 1994 rule to the POD concept in these proposed amendments. The
purpose of this new section is to ensure that the organic HAP
containing fluids are properly managed in closed systems. Table 35
lists the applicable requirements for drain or drain hub, manhole, lift
station, trench, oil/water separator, and tank.
I. Proposed Changes to Appendix C of Part 63
The EPA is proposing to revise appendix C to part 63 to clarify the
language and to add an additional procedure for determining the
fraction biodegraded in a biological treatment unit. The new procedure
added to appendix C is called the Batch test procedure.
Appendix C contains instruction on how to determine the fraction
biodegraded in a biological treatment unit. Today's proposal addresses
several issues concerning Appendix C. The first issue concerns problems
with concentrations below the detection limit for the effluent stream
from the Method 304 benchscale reactor. Another issue involving the
Method 304 reactor is the time and expense required to operate the
benchscale reactor. Both of these issues would be addressed by the
addition of the Batch tests procedure to appendix C. The proposed rule
amendments would allow owners and operators to use the batch tests to
determine first order biodegradation constants for compounds on Lists 1
and/or 2 of table 34 treated in a unit meeting the definition of an
enhanced biological treatment process. (See the discussion of
performance requirements for open biological treatment processes for
further information.)
The Batch tests procedure consists of the aerated reactor test and
the sealed reactor test. These two tests are less time intensive, and
thereby less expensive, than the Method 304 procedure. These two tests
are used widely in industry to design biological treatment units. Basic
instructions for the two tests are being added to appendix C; however,
these tests should be conducted only by persons familiar with
procedures for determining biodegradation kinetics. References were
supplied in appendix C for further information.
The appendix C requirements would be clarified by explaining that
every compound present in the wastewater would not be required to have
a site-specific, first order biodegradation constant determined. The
owner or operator can assume the first order biodegradation constant is
zero for any compound as long as the required mass removal can be
demonstrated.
J. Proposed Changes to Methods 304A and 304B
The EPA is proposing to make minor revisions to Methods 304A and
304B that would clarify several points and eliminate prescriptive
details while maintaining the quality of the data. Methods 304A and
304B are procedures that may be used to determine the biodegradation
rates of organic compounds in biological treatment processes. The
proposed revisions consist of making the terminology consistent and
allowing more flexibility in the setup and operation of the methods.
The section discussing the oxygen control system would be clarified.
References to reactor or bioreactor would be changed to benchtop
bioreactor for consistency. Additional flexibility would be added
throughout the method in numerous ways such as eliminating the
requirement for a specific size reactor or a specific blower, not
requiring a specific hydraulic residence time, allowing alteration of
the operation of the Method 304 unit to increase the effluent
concentration above the limit of quantitation, and other ways. The EPA
believes these changes will allow owners and operators more flexibility
while maintaining the original intent of the method.
K. Alternative Control Techniques (ACT) for Industrial Wastewater
The EPA believes that today's proposal makes the Industrial
Wastewater ACT internally inconsistent and is recommending that States
consider the revisions to the HON wastewater provisions definitions and
control approaches as discussed below when regulating sources covered
by the ACT. When issued in April 1994, the
[[Page 43717]]
ACT consisted of three documents: a September, 1992 draft Industrial
Wastewater Control Techniques Guideline (CTG); Revisions to Impacts of
the Draft Industrial Wastewater CTG; and the HON wastewater provisions
(as promulgated in 1994) as the model rule. The ACT was issued to
assist States in selecting Reasonably Available Control Technology
(RACT) for control of volatile organic compounds (VOC) from wastewater
at Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers (OCPSF)
Facilities, Pharmaceutical Plants, Pesticide Sources, and Hazardous
Waste Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities in ozone nonattainment
areas. In today's action, the EPA is proposing fundamental changes to
the wastewater provisions of the HON. The EPA believes that these
proposed amendments will result in a more effective and better-
understood regulation. Thus, some aspects of the ACT are inconsistent
with the revised wastewater provisions in the HON, and should not be
used without considering the intent of the control requirements and
these proposed revisions.
The Agency's intent has been and continues to be that the
wastewater collection and treatment control philosophy will be
consistent between the Industrial Wastewater ACT and the HON. Although
the ACT and the HON address somewhat different pollutants (not all
VOC's are HAP's, and vice-versa), the technologies and control
requirements were deliberately made consistent. Specifically, the
wastewater collection and treatment control philosophy is a basic
approach designed to minimize emissions from designated wastewater
streams meeting a certain concentration and flow rate. The approach
requires control of the transfer of the designated streams to a
treatment unit, treating the wastewater to a specified level, and
controlling emissions from the treatment unit. Although the basic
wastewater control philosophy will be the same between the HON and the
ACT, there will be major differences. The Industrial Wastewater ACT and
the HON will continue to differ in the compounds that are the basis for
control; the ACT addresses VOC emissions and the HON is concerned with
HAP emissions. The HON is a national standard for portions of the
chemical industry while the Industrial Wastewater ACT addresses
facilities in ozone non-attainment areas in four separate industry
groups, including a broader definition of the chemical industry. The
EPA still believes the RACT recommendation presented in the Draft
Industrial Wastewater CTG is reasonable; however the State agency
should consider all information presented in the Industrial Wastewater
ACT and the HON along with additional information about specific
sources to which the regulation applies.
To cite a few examples of changes to the HON that should be
considered by those referencing the Industrial Wastewater ACT: the
principle of a ``point of generation'' is being revised substantially
and renamed ``point of determination''; the definition of
``wastewater'' is being revised; and requirements are being added for
control of emissions from certain in-process streams. If the ``point of
determination'' approach is adopted, the State agency should ensure
that provisions similar to those in proposed section 63.149 are also
adopted.
V. Administrative Requirements
A. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements of the previously
promulgated NESHAP 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 1414.02) 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 changes to the NESHAP should have no impact on the
information collection burden estimates made previously. The changes
consist of new definitions, alternative test procedures, and
clarifications of requirements. The changes are not additional
requirements. Consequently, the ICR has not been revised.
B. 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 HON rule promulgated on April 22, 1994, was considered
``significant'' under Executive Order 12866, and a regulatory impact
analysis (RIA) was prepared. The amendments proposed today would
clarify the rule and correct structural problems with the drafting of
some sections. The proposed amendments do not add any new control
requirements. Therefore, this regulatory action is considered not
significant.
C. 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, 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 April 22, 1994 Federal
Register (59 FR 19449), this rule does not have a significant impact on
a substantial number of small entities. The proposed changes to the
rule are merely corrections and revisions that do not add new control
requirements to the April 1994 rule. Therefore, the proposed changes
are also not considered significant.
D. 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
[[Page 43718]]
private sector. Therefore, the requirements of the Unfunded Mandates
Act do not apply to this action.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: August 15, 1996.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-21280 Filed 8-23-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
