### Summary of Stakeholder Comments By Topic **(Air Emissions)** Stakeholder: State of Michigan Topic: Hazardous waste air emissions from waste equipment - redundancy with CAA **Com me**  **nt:** Hazardous waste air emissions from waste equipment subject to air use permits and federal Clean Air Act technology standards should be exempt from RCRA 

### . **Stakeholder: ESS Group**  **Topic: Redundancy between RCRA Subpart J and Subparts AA, BB and CC**  **Com me**  **nt: 40 CFR 262.34(a)(1)(ii)** . This section requires large quantity generators collecting waste in tanks to comply with 40 CFR 265 Subparts AA, BB, and CC. For the same reasons as described above for generators collecting wastes in containers, **we suggest that generators collecting wastes in tanks not be required to com ply**  **with 4 0 CFR 265 Subpart AA.**  Stakeholder: Conoco Phillips Topic: **Redundancy between RCRA Subpart J and Subparts AA, BB and CC**  Comment: RCRA Air Emission Standards: **ConocoPhillips Company recommends that EPA evaluate the need for the RCRA air emission regula**  **tions in light of the Clean Air Act Amendments MACT standards and other existing regulatory controls under the Clean Air Act.** 
Stakeholder: State of North Carolina Topic: **Redundancy between RCRA Subpart J and Subparts AA, BB and CC** 

Comment: **40 CFR 2 62.34(a)(1)(i and ii) ref. 40 CFR 265 Subpart AA, BB and CC should be withdrawn**  **from hazardous waste management requirements and managed solely by an air quality regulatory agency.** In North Carolina, most facilities that fall under regulation by 40 CFR 262 .34(a)(1)(i and ii) ref. 40 CFR 265 Subpart AA, BB and CC for hazardous waste air emissions, already are permitted and regulated by the North Carolina Division of Air Quality. Not only is it more practical for hazardous waste air emissions to be permitted under an existing air quality permit, but the air quality regulatory agency could better administer the regulations.
Stakeholder: Electronic Industries Alliance (EIA) Topic: The Subpart BB Tagging, Monitoring, and Recordkeeping Requirements Should be Modified for Large Quantity Generators.Comment: The tagging, monitoring, and recordkeeping requirements in 40 C.F.R. §§ 264, Subpart BB and

265, Subpart BB (“Subpart BB”) were originally intended for treatment, storage, and disposal (“TSD”) facilitie s managing significant quantities of organic hazardous wastes. These facilities have the potential for significant release of volatile organics from valves, pumps, and other connectors. EIA believes that the broad application of these same requirements to LQGs may result in over regulation and recommends that EPA reduce or eliminate the application of the Subpart BBrequirements to LQGs if there is no evidence of any leaks. In practice, at most electronics facilities, the same piping that is subject to Sub part BB, also is subject to 40 C.F.R. §§ 264, Subpart J and 265, Subpart J (“Subpart J”) as a part of a tank system. As such, the piping is inspected daily for leaks in accordance with Subpart J. Such inspections, while not at the same level required by S ubpart BB, clearly reduce the potential value of the Subpart BB mandated tagging, monitoring, and recordkeeping requirements. In fact, in the experience of some in the electronics industry, the only locations where leaks have been detected under Subpart BB have been those areas where the leaks have already been visible and detected by the Subpart J inspections. This is because the nature of the organics used in the electronics industry generally requires that there be a visible leak for the organic to off g as in such a manner that it can be monitored under Subpart BB. As a result, EIA believes that EPA should exempt small tank systems (e.g., less than 10,000 gallons) from the Subpart BB requirements. Moreover, EIA believes that EPA should exempt larger tank systems subject to Subpart J that have not had a visible or monitored leak in two years from the Subpart BB requirements. Moreover, to the extent Subpart BB requirements remain applicable to generators, EIA also believes that there are a number of areas wh ere the Subpart BB requirements should be clarified. These are set forth below:

 Point of Generation: Because of the nature of the clean room environment, the electronics industry requests that EPA clarify at what point a material in a process is generated and Subparts BB and Subpart J apply. Based on existing EPA guidance, it appears that a waste is generated when it leaves the work area. In the clean room environment, this would mean when the piping leaves the clean room environment and goes into the su bfab or similar area. A work area may also include laboratories and equipment cleaning areas which may not be located in clean rooms.

 Unsafe to Monitor: EPA needs to clarify what monitoring is required for connections that are “unsafe to monitor.” As long as a written plan is in placewhich details that monitoring takes place as frequently as practicable, these connections should not n eed to be monitored on a regular frequency as long as they are also inspected daily as part of a Subpart J inspection.

 Signature Authority: The Subpart BB requirements are unclear about who needs to sign the non - detectionnotice (e.g., the environmental engineer or the site manager). EIA believes that the proper signatory should

be the person who is conducting the monitoring.

 Monitoring frequency: The monitoring frequency requirements allow for greater spacing of monitoring when no leaks are detected. However, to extend this monitoring to annual, EPA authorization is required. EIA believes that if no leaks are detected with the initial monitoring, annual monitoring should be allowed at the generator’s risk, without EPA approval.

 Recordkeeping: EIA requests that EPA clarify what records need to be retained in the facilities files. In particular, EIA would like clarification on whether, and how long, the following records should be kept: o Annual BB monitoring calibration documentation o Inaccessible points and unsafe to operate o What needs to be tagged (pipe to pipe welds) etc. o Sign - off requirements for non - detection 

### . Stakeholder: PhRMA Topic: C **onflicting repair schedules and leak response requirements between Subparts BB and CC**  Comment: 265. 195 and 265 Subparts BB and CC – **Both of these citations require inspections of tank systems but have conflicting repair schedules and leak response requirements.**  For example, the same pump in a RCRA tank system is required to be inspected daily by 265.19 5 and weekly by 265.1052(a)(2). Also, when a leak is detected, 265.196 requires the tank system be immediately removed from service, but 265.1052(c) allows the generator to make repairs in a timely manner (e.g., within 15 days). If a leak is discovered, this regulatory overlap creates confusion for generators and their regulatory authorities. **PhRMA recommends that EPA eliminate this regulatory overlap. Note that a similar overlap occurs for other**  **equipment (e.g., valves and compressors).**
Stakeholder: PhRMA Topic: Redundancy between RCRA Subpart I and Subparts AA, BB and CC Comment: 265 Subparts AA, BB, and CC

– PhRMA recommends that EPA evaluate the need for the RCRA air emission regulations in light of the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) MACT sta ndards and other existing regulatory controls under the Clean Air Act. **As a general matter, generator facility waste management personnel have found the requirements of Subparts AA, BB, and CC to be very complex and confusing.**  Part of the problem is tha t personnel responsible for managing RCRA hazardous waste are often not familiar with the terms and procedures usedin regulations dealing with air emission controls (such as the various units of measure related to vapor

pressures and heating values, and c alculations required for determining applicability; e.g. in 265.1033, 265.1034, and 265.1084). The other problem is that these rules are written in a way that makes them more confusing than they need to be. They contain numerous cross - references to other sections of these Subparts, as well as to the air regulations. Now that the regulated community and Regional and State agency personnel have had over eight years of experience trying to work with these regulations in their current form, **PhRMA recommends that EPA consider forming a focus group to better understand the**  **specific areas of difficulty, and to develop specific suggestions for improvement.** PhRMA recommends that, at a minimum, sections 265.1080(f) & (g), which are applicable only to one facility , be moved to the end of Subpart CC, or better yet, to an Appendix. These sections go on for many pages and cause unnecessary confusion to readers who are trying to understand the applicable requirements of Subpart CC.
Stakeholder: PhRMA Topic: Update the Subpart BB rules to include revisions to the NESHAPs. Comment: The 265 Subpart BB rules were w ritten based on the Clean Air Act NESHAPs. After the final Subpart BB rules were issued, the NESHAPs were revised. PhRMA recommends that EPA update the S ubpart BB rules to include revisions to the NESHAPs.
Stakeholder: Graphic Arts Coalition (GAC) Topic: Redundancy between RCRA Subpart I and Subparts AA, BB and CC

Comment: .... it is not apparent why Subparts AA, BB and CC were added to the hazardou s waste code. **Emissions generated by containers holding hazardous waste are already regulated under the Clean Air Act and its implementing regulation. These requirements should be eliminated as they are redundant with**  **those imposed under the air pollution control program.** 
Stakeholder: American Petroleum Institute (API) Topic: Redundancy between RCRA Subpart I and Subparts AA, BB and CC Comment: **API requests EPA remove the requirements of 265 Subparts AA, BB, and CC –**  **as subsequent federal Clean Air A** **ct standards, State implementation plans (SIPs) and permit programs required under the Clean Air Act address hazardous waste management air emissions in all but the most insignificant**  **instances.**Many generators applying the requirements of Subparts AA, BB , and CC have found them confusing due to

the complexity of the regulatory language. Facility waste generators are not always familiar with the terminology and practices inherent in the control of air emissions. Examples of unfamiliar requirements are the various units of measure related to vapor pressures, heating values, and calculations required for determining applicability; found in §§265.1033, 265.1034, and 265.1084. There are numerous cross - references to other sections of these Subparts, as well as to the air regulations. These Subparts would not be promulgated in this fashion today, as they would likely not be considered written in plain English. In light of the confusion and duplicative nature of these Subparts, API requests that these requirements be removed, or rewritten to **eliminate the regulatory duplication and aim for a higher standard of comprehension.**  **If EPA will not eliminate or rewrite t he regulations, at a minimum API requests sections**  **265.1080(f) & (g), which are applicable only to one facility, be moved to the end of Subpart CC, or better yet, to an appendix. These sections go on for many pages and cause unnecessary confusion to reade**  **rs who are trying to understand the applicable requirements of Subpart CC.**  

### Analysis of Comments 8 commenters
- 10 comments Hazardous waste air emissions from waste equipment - redundancy with CAA **Redundancy between RCRA Subpart J and Subparts AA, BB an d CC**  **Redundancy between RCRA Subpart J and Subparts AA, BB and CC** The Subpart BB Tagging, Monitoring, and Recordkeeping Requirements Should be Modified for Large Quantity Generators. C **onflicting repair schedules and leak response requirements between Subparts BB and CC**  Redundancy between RCRA Subpart I and Subparts AA, BB and CC Redundancy between RCRA Subpart I and Subparts AA, BB and CC Redundancy between RCRA Subpart I and Subparts AA, BB and CC