P.1 

OAR Box 1252 

Prepped by Candice Davis 

Document Number: 

37) FED REG VOL. 58, NO. 37 2/26/93 

Docket Number: 

A-90-22 

Printed 5/21/2008 11:46:01 AM Sheet 3 7 of 184 
rr 

P.2 

43698 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 166 / Monday,.,August 26, 1996 / Pjoposed^RUles. 

on any governmental entity or the 

private sector. 

List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 935 

Intergovernmental relations, Surface 

mining, Underground mining. 

Dated: August 14,1996. 

Tim L. Dieringer, 

Acting Regional Director, Appalachian 

Regional Coordinating Center. ' 

[FR Doc. 96-21677 Filed 8-23-96; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310-05-M 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY . 

40CFRPart63 

[AD-FRL-5558-3] 

RIN2060-^AC19 

Today's action proposes new. 

definitions that apply to wastewater arid 

wastewater treatment and revised . 

control and compliance provisions for 

wastewater. A new compliance date of 

April 22, 199.9, is being proposed for 

process wastewater, heat exchange 

systems, in-process equipment subject 

to the provisions of § 63.149, and 

maintenance wastewater. The proposed •••. 

. changes to these provisions are 

sufficiently far reaching and complex to 

render those provisions effectively a ';ii} 

~ new rule. The EPA is also proposing a:? 

separate compliance date for wastewater 

streams affected by the omission of M '' 

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 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source 

Categories: Organic Hazardous Air 

PollutantsFrorr,,theSyntheticOrganic- ^porting reqm^ements of the mle 

Chemical Manufacturing Industry and^ V fae proposed amendments to the rule 

Other Processes Subject to the ^ will not change the basic control 

Negotiated Regulation for Equipment requirements of the rule or the level of 

Leaks; Proposed Rule Clarifications\J\* healt h protection it provides. The rule ' 

^"- requires new and existing major sources 

\ to control emissions of hazardous air 

pollutants to the level reflecting 

.AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule: Amendments. G^ P°"" i a "

l s l u u

»

 ltJVB1 reilB"ul8 . ,. —. -. i r4v application oi the maximum achievable 

SUMMARY: On April 22,1994 and jiin9J6%»contro1 technology. 

1994, the EPA issued the National i DATES: Comments. Comments must b 

Emission.Standards for Hazardous Afrsi received on or hpfnra .Sentf-mhgj ^fa 

Pollutants for Source Categories: NPMgge unless a hearing is requested By 

Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants from^September 5,1996. If a hearing is 

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. 

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.G. 

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. 

Environment^ Protection Agency, 

Research-TrianglePark, N.G. 277ii; 

telephone (919) 541-5671. -

•;D6efcetf Dot o 

A-90^23: pontainine the supporting • - .: . 

infdrmatidh fprihe original NESHAP " 

and tMsactibni are available for public 

inspection and-copying between' 8:00 • 

a.m;ari'd;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 StreetSW, Washington, DC. 

20460; or bycalling (202) 260-7548 or 

260^7549. A;reasonable fee may be 

charged for copying. Comments on the 

proposed changes tothe 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) 541T5254 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) 541-5.499. 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.. 

Industry, 

Examples of regulated;je.ntities'. 

Synthetic organic chemical manufacturing industry (SDCMI)' 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. 

Polybutadiehe rubber producers. 

Producers of Captafol®; Captah®; Chlprothalbnil;;Dacthal; and TordonTM acid. 

Producers of Hypalon®;

 ;Oxybisphehoxarsine/1,3i^iisccyanate "(6iPA®); Poiycarbohates; 

Polysulfide rubber; Chlorinated paraffins;,^ndiSyrnmetrical tetrachloropyridine. ' 

Pharmaceutical producers! 
P.3 

• ''y-'.',' "F^eralrfRegister //Vol. 61 , ,No^l66. /. Monday, August 26, 1996 / Proposed Rules 4369 9 

• Category 

• -

Examples of regulated entities 

Producers of Methylmethacrylate-butadiene-styrene resins (MBS); Butadiene-furfural cotrimer; 

Methylmethacrylate-acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene (MABS) resins; and Ethylidene 

norbornene. 

Eiftf 

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 ,

 j 

HON^aie'thdse .whichproduce as 

primary intended products any of the -

., chemicals listed uyfable 1 of 40 CFR ':-' • '• • 

part 63,rsiibpairt F'ahd are located at • 

facilities'that are major sources as . 

defined in sectidrt'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 6.3,-

subpart. I are producers of any of the 

products listed iri'40 CFR part.63, 

subpart Tthat are located at facilities 

that are major sources as defined by 

section 112 of the GA-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 hoards :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 

Boardi 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: a-and-rdbcket@epamail.epa;gov. Electronic; 

comments must be submitted as an 

ASCII file avoiding the use.of special 

characters and any form ofencryption. 

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 22,4994.(59 FR 19402), and 

June 6,1.99.4 (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 Tin 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 94-71364 (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

 l 

CMA and Dow, EPA will take final 

action on the proposed amendment's by 

December 31,1996. As of the date of 

signature of this proposal, the section 

113(g) notice process was hot 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. § 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 to1 

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 

processiwastewater, heat exchange 

systems,:maintenance wastewater, and 

in-process equipment subject to the 

provisions of §63.149. These sections of 

the rule would be extensively, revised by 
P.4 

j*l*jS« ^ 

43700 Federal Register / Vol 61, No 166 / Monday, August 26, f99'6 /Proposed "Rules' 

-"7<3f" 

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 EPAand 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 v 

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 § 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 §63:100 have •--••••:.-

caused confusion and raised concerns as'--: 

to whether other equipment of activities 

notlisted are included in the source. • s 

The proposed revisions to these ' 

paragraphs are intended to improve rule;•'; 

clarity: 

The present wording of paragraph (e) 

of § 63.100 incorporates, inter alia, 

"wastewater and associated treatment . 

residuals" in the source. This text does 

not stateexplicitly 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 § 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 

§ 63.100(g)(3) would explicitly specify 

the procedures to be followed to assign, 

the storage vesselsjto aprocess and tien 

to determine the applicability of the; ; . 

rule.ipue.tp an oversight," the provisions '•• 

currently in § 634G0(g) of subpart F;dp h 

not include instructions regarding 

allpcatipn,.of tanks hi remote.locatipns.,r 

Following issuance of the 1994 rule, 

EPA received inquiries regardingthe'., 

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 facilitatirig.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 § 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 "opefatibnsarid other 

equipment) and would exclude the tank 

farm storage vessel.: Second, if two or 

more cmpus (of those using the tank 

farm storage vesselj'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 

§ 63.100(g)(2). Third, if only one cmpu 

(of those that use the remote storage 
P.5 

•tfiivw-Aif 

•' ]_2^_^2L t^^^iMe^^/ ^ol. 'Sii No. 166 / Monday, August 26, 1996 / Proposed Rules 43701 

vessel) lacksa 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.tp 

the HCJN-will be regulated under the •:•_ 

HON[ and. that storage .vessels that are; -

used to,.facilitate, product distributipn,,; *.. 

wijLbe^fegulatedas^^part,pfthe organic ,;-

liquids distribution.source Categoryjand, 

nptunder^eHQl€^r >-; '•.'•• -,, ^ V ::•••;,;)•. 

4. petermihatipn'ofApplicability of thev; 

Ruleto'EquTpment-Shared Among '" -'••'''" 

Integrated^Operatiohs •'[••• 

. Today's, proposed arriendments 

include clarifying changes to the 

equipment assignment procedures 

specified in §63.100 (g), (h), and (i) for 

storage vessels, transfer racks, and ' . 

distillation units: Since the HON was 

issuedin April 1994, EP A, 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 

assignmentprocedure 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 ofSubpart F List 

of Regulated Hazardous Organic Air'•'""''. 

Pollutants (HAP's) V ."'•'"••-' 

The EPA has received numerous 

requests for clarification of the 

definition of "Polycyclic organic •-,-

matter";(PpM) 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 

Waste water Provisions. ... 

With respect to compliance date's','the 

filial-rule {promulgated on April 22, -".,": 

1994; provided that existing sources • 

must, be in compliance with; the -'-'.;' 

retirements of subparts F and G no 

later than April.22,1997, unless an 

extension is granted in accordance with 

§ 63..151(a)(6) ofsubpart G or §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. 

§ 63:i00(k)(2) of today's proposed rule. 

First, § 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 § 63.149, and process 

wastewater. Second, §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 § 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 § 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. : ; resources' 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 . 6 ; 

practicable, but in noevent later than, 3. 

years-after the effective date pf such '.'•'. 

standard." The April 22,1994, final rulespecified 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. provide1 , 

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 §63.149, and the proximity to 

the April 1997 compliance date in the . 

originalrule, 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 compliancei 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 

§63.151(a)(6). , : '.. / 

The new three year compliance date 

in § 63.100(k)(2)(ii)(A) for processwaste water streams and in-process 

equipment subject to §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 thesection 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.Th.us.ithere 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 

correctedin 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,BPA is proposing tpiset a 

new-compliance date for wastewaterstreams affected by the error. 

EPA seeks comment on its proposal to 

set new compliance dates in § 63.100, 
P.6 

• •.••V".--v-v-.'.vVi'-^^ 

43702 - v Feaeral^egi^^ 

__^^__^_^_^__ _ ... . . _ ~ • • :.- . ••.. .' ^ •• -•- ••• "•'V'.'i'.t -v.',~-iji'...'.nH.V^'^i5ii£«H&?!-i>j 

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 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 § 63:100, and a new paragraph (g) to ., 

§ 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 irtthe section or 

paragraph that imposes the requirement. 

The current rule does not specify this, 

and this text is being added tp.the rule; ' 

to remove any potential for ambiguity.

 :> 

The new §63.100(k)(9) and § 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 interyal after 

completion of the prewoi ^ 

the rule was originally .drafted itwasv j :

: . 

assumed that this could be,done,' but an 

oversight in drafting language specifying 

this was omitted from the rule, j ..;.... >' 

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 § 63.104 would 

replace the existing provisions in , 

§ 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 monitoringrequirements. 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 § 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-thfough 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 §63.104 would impose a 

redundant requirement; The proposed 

revisions to § 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 detecta leak of ' ' 

process fluids and requires the owner or 

operator to report and correct leaks 

wheh'the'parameter pr condition' V''••^n ••;;._ 

exceeds me nbnnd ranged For facilities 

with such NPDES permit the 

requirements in §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 § 63.104 are 

unnecessary because leaks of process 

fluids would be detected in intervening 

processeqiiipmehf before there- could be'•:•' 

aleakihto the'cooling

 :1yaferrThe:tHircl'* 

exempt category is systems used to cool" 

process fluids that containiejssi'Jhanj5%f,.' 

by weight H^'s. ^i s last categpry of 

heat exchange systemsi;is,bping added \: 

because it is consistent with the intent 

that provisions only;reb^uire mprutoring 

when HAP 'safe present in

 ; )".:'''"'•'•'.•. 

cbnceritfations.greaterthan5% by. -

weight: i'.''.' ' ; .' 

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 fable 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 oncethrough 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 tJhere 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 volatillzatibh in av : 

cooling tower are ethylene glycol arid 

acrylamide. Based on this modeling 
4'f Q. ' '•? 'Zi^g^-zf^^gflSM 

FederalcRegister / Vol. 61, No. 166 / Monday, August 26, 1996 / Proposed Rules 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 ';;-;: -.V;.' 

signifiCTnteiriissionpotential when sent 

through aprocessVcobiing towef.; Also, 

in order to limit monitoring to only 

those compounds calculated to have 

significant emission potential and to 

elimmate unnecessary burden,;prbposed 

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 

§63.104. ... 

The proposed § 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 

§ 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 thereare 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 

wbrfc practices at somje 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 

misfequiremeht. ..-'• 

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 § 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 

§63.104 

Today's proposed.§ 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 r 

samplingwas to be across die cooling 

towen 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 

§63.104 include clarification and 

correction of the existing language that 

defines a leak. The wording of the 

existing provision in §63.104(b)(l)(v) 

has resulted in inquiries regarding the 

proper interpretation. Proposed 

§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 § 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 

§ 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 tie 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 Tulei 

The proposed amendments consist of: 

(i) revisions to the definitions for 
P.8 

43704 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 166 / Monday, August 26, 1996 / Proposed Rules- , 

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 § 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 arid 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 noncombustipn •„ -

control devices used to-comply-with .the. 

process vent, .storage vessel,; aad^u<i--'k 

wastewater provisions in subpart G and} 

the equipment leak prbyisipns bfb V>. 

subpart H- This option would be in ;;'? 

addition to me present performance <,-' 

standard of 98 or 95 percent.removal of, 

total VQC or HAP, respectively, in these 

sections of the rule. This lower hound, ..'• 

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 

rnaximum loading scenariofor 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

 ;J'

; 

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 concentratiori is the;-;• t 

same orlpwer than the outletq'r:;**&<?•: 

concentration during maximum loading 

coriditions.The cost and emission :.r 

control estimates used in development -

of this rule were based on;maximimi: ;w 

design loading conditions.and did not

 s-ci 

reflect operations over the full.rahge of5 

poteritial 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 fiat 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 ,

:

5 

of materials and will remove an ^inequity'•* 

between.requirements for- different types. 

of control equipment. With this '?..;h}.: 

additiorial control alternative, the 

fequireriienrii-for. process vents, stprage></ 

ivessels, 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 alterriative in § 63,172 of . 

subpart H or with the control ''• .'" :•'.". 

requirements for surface'impoundiriehts 

subject to §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 

terrh, "recapture device", to identify 

these devices, which.capture emissions 

and then sendithe 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.)..

 ::v<- .-.': 

However, the rule dbes not indicate how 

'• to treat a non-combustiori device that is: 

not used as a recovery device (as 

? defihedirithe'rule).v; v./;: • '. ' - ' 

; The EPA is.prpposirig to revise tie v: 

, rulein this manner in order, to address;: • 

the regulatory void for non-combustion/ 

• norirrecbyery devices while-preserving. . 

the approach used hi'this rule (and>*:' ;• 

.earlier rules) to differentiate between

 ; ^ 

; process arid control in this industry. ;>. 

The existing definitions in the rule for • 

recovery device and control device 

, reflect the regulatory approach used in: 
ymmm 

P.9 

^^^^^PP^^P^^^^^^^^^%5

 :

^^i'^^'5^f^^';:i'"^ --

:;'^;

'^":; •!;: V:^'S'^^'-V;^S-^-f ^v* - :"<:^?-^;p ^'.-. '---^^r^jya^t^is^^ 

-;^^F6der^l!:Register / Voli 61, No. 166 / Monday, August 26, 1996 / Proposed Rules 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 * 

eqUipmeritppuld be tised to .capture the 

emissions ^d;then send-the material for 

ultimate fiisposall SiriCethese uses of -

 3 

mesetypesoFequipriient do occur and 

the apprbachMsed to di$tinguish'' 

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 d new term to identify this , 

additional category of equipment and to 

explicitly identify this equipment and 

the monitoring reqUirementsin the rule. 

4. Industrial EUrnaces.:',..'... 

In today'sariiendments, the EPA is 

proposirig to include RCRA-regulated 

industrial-furnaces under the HON's 

provisions forhoilers. 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 die HON longer and more 

complex. The EPA-recognizes that some 

confusion may result fromcalling these 

devices "boilers" iri 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 tofusing 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 

regu}atbry 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 combustorganic 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 factorsfthe EPA concluded the 

best approach would be to include 

industrial furnaces within the HON 

definition of "boiler." 

E. Mqnitoring/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

 r 

monitoririgof 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 corhply with the 

current requirement for eontinuoiis. 

monitoring of gas stream flow. 

Therefore, the EPA is proposing to 

revise §63.114(a)(4)(ii) and 

§ 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 postcombustion 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 isproposirig 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 § 63.152(e), were required -
P.10 

43706 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 166 / Monday, August 26;f 

y:^S^i^:^! 

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 3i, 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 

appHcations. 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 arid 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 § 63.152 of subpart G. 

These changes are being proposed'to 

address several Oversightsin 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 me 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 •' 

me definition, it would not be -

permissible for the owner or operator to 

follow the start-up/shutdbwri/ ; • ;-;^:y •'••"; 

malfunction plan because it wduld-hot V ; 

apply.'Since it was intendedthattheI'; 

start-up/shutdowh/malfimctiohplan•;:.v ; 

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 . 1. 

which should be addressed under the-: 

start-up/shutdown/malfunctipri 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 § 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 §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 riot 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 re visions, are •, v; 

proposed to § 63.152, paragraphs,(c) and< 

•(f) to clarify.thatdata recorded during;:;.. 

;

,

.periods'of-startiup/shutdo\^:^^--'-.v-'.;v;. 

malfunction are not excursions and are ; 

Hot to be included in averages of y: ,.. 

monitoring data. These changes are v ;> '•• •.- > 

being made to ensure that it is clear that 

during periods.of start-up/shutdown/,: -•; -f 

malfunction the source is required to •: 

follow the procedures in the startrup/:;;. 

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 

,wpuid'prpyide an alternative;to the;-7 . ,, 

existing provisions in § 63.152(f) for ;'.;' 

data compression systems. These new., 

provisions are expected to reduce '.-'.••.'•• 

recordkeeping burden for some . 

..facilities-.••*'-.-v,' •:'• ..'.;-^.-'.••'•..'.'• '..!>• 

The proposed alternative , 

recordkeeping provisions allow an . -. •: 

owner or operator to use an exceptiononly 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 

mat the:monitoring system be able to: 

(1) Detect abnonrial or "impossible- V. 

data (e.g., temperature reading of 

:-200°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 heen 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 bld:(atthe time it becomes ' ; -

superseded);it maybe discarded 

immediately:.The facilitywould select. 

: the specific Jevelsior the alarm set;.:. 

poihts.consideringthe variabihty of.the. 

i process operations and the control: :. 

deviCe stabihtyimder different 

operating conditions. It is expected that 

. thesealarinsetpoiritswbuldbe..':, 

established fafa level such that j 

: Cdrrective^ction could be takert to 

preveritoccufrerice of a parameter : 

• excursionJ-The alternative provisions "-

allow the owner or operator to retain •• 
P.11 

Monday, August 26, 1996 / Proposed Rules 43707 

only.me'daily;aveiage.: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 nonexcused 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 alternatiye^is required to 

.Votify'-EPA''m'i£e:r^'6tification.-6f 

Compliance Status or periodic report 

with 'updates' ^whenever there is a 

charigeirilthe^frtquency of data 

retention. ';^;--^;-;;-

.'. .^e>propdse'd''alfer^ativesystem''ih 

§ 63:152(g) differs from the alternative 

systemfpr data corripression systems 

provided in § 63.152(f) and the existing 

continuous monitoring requirements in 

that the § 63.152(g) alternative bases 

compliance pn 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 pf 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 reactantr or make as a 

product, any of the brgariic 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 § 63.103(e) aiidj 63.192(k), 

would allow an owner, or operator to 

document the inapplicability ofthe rule 

on the request of an inspector. This 

alternative is being provided because it 

was never EPA's intent to impose an 

. ongoing recordkeeping requireinent on 

sources not subject to the rule and. 

because the current provisions can be 

interpreted to impose such a 

requirement. . 

EPA proposes to revise § 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 riot EPA's intent. \ 

It is also-proposed to revise 

§ 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 § 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 charige.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 § 63.103(d)(1) 

specifies that reports shall be submitted 

ori or before-the relevant dates and the 

provisions in § 63.103(d)(l)(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 ofspecific;-, 

sections in subpart A to subpart H. ,-i 

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 § 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 definitionof;'. 

"flow indicator" and by revising the v. 

regulatory language'specifying the 
P.12 

if&&* 

43708 Federal Register / Vol 61, No 166 / Monday, August 26, 1996 /'Proposed'Rules" 

requirement for monitoring bypass 

lines (e.g. § 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 § 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 wouldrequire that the v; 

emission point be operated at.a level.'.•-.:f? 

substantially below the level of the •..-•-.:~. 

standard (e.g., a TRE greater than 4, a 99 

percent reduction when the rule : j .-

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 areduced .-<;

,?

- '•? 

frequency of rnbriitoring. However, the^; 

EPA requests comment oil. the need for 

a reduced frequency as well.as the . >f ;> 

appropriate criteria for allowing the useof less frequent monitoring (suchas :/u 

once per shift) and the basisfor the,':~f~.;'-;: 

recommended criteria. 

F.Overlapwith Other Regulations V f, 

1. Benzene Waste NESHAP \.; 

The April 22,1994 rule requires that 

sources with wastewater streams subject 

to control requireirients in the HON arid 

Benzene Waste NESHAP (40 CFR part ff: 

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 

§ 63.110(e)(1) thatwould allow some 

consolidation of the inspection, 

monitoring, recordkeeping, and 

reporting requirements of these two • 

NESHAP. 

The proposed arhendments 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: forGroup" 

•1 wastewater streams in subpart Gfbr*'i; 

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"V ''•• ::;^ 

opportunity to reduce the complexity of 

the compliance demonstration by '•••'• 

reducing the number of separate rules

 : 

ihatapply 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 he altered by this proposed 

arneridmenMo this rule.,•-•-.? •;•'-.•<?•'•;:< v-.;'...:. 

:

'i2'.''Resbur^!G^nseryati6h'Bn^Recbvejry' 

;^(RGf^; ; ^;.;;; :.^v;- : . '.•;;'.;;:."•:• 

; IndevelbpirigtheApril 1994rule,.'-

EPA attempted to adoVess: the problem . 

• of 'Overlapping requirernerits by; 

specifying which provisions apply for 

each' pf the known cases of overlapping ..-. 

rules, These" instructions on overlappinig 

requirements were provided in § 63.110 

of subpart G and irt §63.160 of subpart 

H- Since issuance of the rule, EPA has 

learned that there is another broad . 

categ6ry;of oyerlappingRCRA | ,. .-.;,!; 

requiremerits that was riot.addressed in 

the April 1994 rule. In.today's 

amendments, EPA is proposing •.. 

provisions to allow use of certain RCRArequ.ired m phitbririg to satisfy 

corresponding requirements in subpart 

G and H. These proposed provisions 

would be added to these subparts as . 

§ 63.110(h) and § 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 

anpversight, the April 1994 rule did riot 

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 noriwastewater-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, arid 

reporting requirements Would

 ; •" •; 

significantly increase the cost of ' 

; compliance-demonstrations without 

-providing a correspqr 

enVfrnrimerital benefit: To reduce this 

.^uiim^'ce.Kar^Vurdenifthe EPA is \ 

pfopbsmgto^allow an owner of operator 

to electtb use the monitoring, 

recprdkeepirig; and reportirfg 

requifementsiri4bGFRparts 260y.° '•"'•'• 

tjttbu^h^/^for'fhis rule/?' ' '•'•' '"•v-'"" 

iThe EPAicorisiders this proppsed 

consblidatibtt of overlapping -••:"•>•'• 

monitoring, recordkeeping, and 

reporting requirements to be appropriate 
P.13 

1

*

, ; ^^^7 :

' " /S;:^aW^*«iste Registe r / Vol. 61, No. 166 / I 

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 

witiiRCRA requireriients as ;; 

demonstration1 ofcompliance with the : 

pfocess.verit^trarisferoperatioris, storage 

:;vessels, and/equipment leak provisions 

of the HON.' The,wastewater provisions 

in subpart.G.presently exempthazardous waste incinerators permitted 

under 40 CFR part 270 and boilers and 

industrial furnaces permitted under 40 

CFR part 266 from performance test 

requirements of § 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 

derhonstratiqn was riot riecessairy. This , 

judgment is applicable to the control 

requirements for the non-waste water 

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 

requireriientsin §63.116(b), § 63.128(c),, 

and § 63.139(d)(4) and to add provisions 

to § 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 prbposedchanges 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 

§ 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 aire, 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 

Monday, August 26, 1996 / Proposed Rules 43709 

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 § 63.180(b) and (c), as 

appropriate. From this review, itwasalso determined that sonte of the 

confusion was arising frbrii lack of 

specific statement in applicable sections 

ofthe rule that verification rrionitbring 

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 § 63.168(f)(3) to 

clarify that (1) monitoringis conducted 

according to the procedures specified in 

§ 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 § 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 

§ 63.174 (c)(l)(i) and (c)(1)(a) 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 

§ 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 ofthe 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 

§63.180(b)(4)(ii) was not modified to 

allow this flexibility. The proposed 

amendments to this section ofthe 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 pf § 63.180(b)(2)(i). The 

EPA considered whether this revision , 

should include a requirement to adjust 

the instrument readings lo. 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 . 

adjustriient for the same reasons given 

in the April 22,1994 notice for removal 

ofthe 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 crossreferencing errors and revisions to the 

general recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements in § 63.190(f). The 

proposed amendments to § 63.190(f) are . 

the same as the revisions to § 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 hi the following paragraphs, 

Four sections have been rewritten 

entirely in today's amendments to 

improve Clarity and to incorporate thenew "point of determination" concept 

discussed in sectionTV.Di of this 

preamble. The four sections address: -. 

criteria for determining the Group 1 and 

Group 2 wastewater streams (§ 63.132); ; 

performance standards for process 

wastewater (§ 63.138); procedures for . 

determining Group 1 and Group 2 .' 

wastewater.streariis (§63.144); and 

procedures for demonstrating 
P.14 

r-ti 

43710 Federal Register / Vol 61, No 166 / Monday, August 26, 1996,,/^Ptoft6sedaRules 

compliance (§ 63.145). Also, 

requirements allowing the use of 

floating flexible membrane covers on 

surface impoundments have been added 

to § 63.134, and a section addressing inprocess equipment (§ 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.»-.;,r 

reporting. . - - -, -V; •.;%' f.vjjyjy..--• ' 

As;a result,-today's wastewater, 

provisions are being proposed in % -

§§63.132 through 63.147, in"§ 63.149, in 

tables 8'through 20, in tables 34 through 

37, and in figure 1 of appendix A to 

subpart Gr Deletions include §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-tricnloroethane, 

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 ofthe "enhanced 

biological treatmerit system" definition; 

revisions to the "individual drain 

system" definition; and deletion of, 

definitions for "total volatile organic 

hazardous air pollutant (VOHAP)",.. . 

"volatile organic concentration", arid 

"VOHAP concentration.". ...... 

Changes to some,of the.definitipns,:.... 

especially "wastewater", "recovery;-hx. 

device";:ahd:"pointofgerieratipn", •;:.: 

were necessary due to circularity and a 

lack of specificity in the definitibrisi.The 

definitions were revised to clarify EPA's 

interit concerning which organic HAP*' •. 

containing waters arein-proCess fluids} 

regulated by the provisions in'§:63.149'< 

and which are wastewater and regulated 

by the provisions in § 63:132 through '•--•• 

§63.147. . ' '"•' •"• 

2. Revised Wastewater Definition 

The most significant change proposed 

today to the "wastewater" ^definition is 

the addition ofthe concept of "discard." 

The discard concept is fundamental in 

distinguishing which fluids exiting the 

cmpu are subject to the HON 

wastewater provisions in §§ 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 andxi\.,;, 

regulafory:authprities;more —>:-;;A ,:>c 

sfraightiprward, and the ^rulempre ,Tn ^l • > 

easily implemented. Since fluids in the 

in-process equipment are also ,.. ,,,',; ,rv.. 

controlled by the HON, emission ;: 

reductions will not be affected by this;, 

propose d change . ;. , •.':.-.• \:\'i:.-( •••••. 

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 iri .. 

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." Theneedfor and significance of this change is 

discussed in more detailin sectiori 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" arid to reflect the fact that -

deviations from normal operationsxlb 

occur. ..; -•:. 

Urider 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 J;•.''. 

equipment used to recover cheiriicals for 

fuel value, use, reuse, or "sale"; it: 

would seem impossibleT^y ::

i , ;:

y^; : 

defiriitidn^-tb sell a wastewate'r'strearii;. 

or residual extraded from a wastewater: 

stream. In developing the revised 

approach for wastewater, it became 'v 

apparent that using the term "Sale" 

without any qualification in the 

definition of "recovery device" left a 

potential loophole'. A bad actor could 

"sell" ai 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;pjf such tfeatment);;The additional 

. language is intended to remove ;the: 

pbssibility;bfsuch-shamtjrajisactionsby 

^lMitihg the concept of safes to sales for 

the'sarhe general purposes for which 

(iernicals'rnayjbe recovered and.;; ^ 

utilized within^the HON facility V / 

: (i:e.vuse,; reuse;;.6r burning as fiiel)."The 

EPA helieyes^at 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 iri thatthe word "normally". 

np\y 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 Treatrrient.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 distinctionsiamong 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 § 63.145 in section IV.F. of this 

preamble.. 

6. Modified Individual Drain System 

Definition 

The definition for individual drain 

systern_would be modified.to clarify. 

three keyjcqncepts'arid incorporate 

rmnpr ^wording changes. Th e definition 

intbd^y's.proposal would clarify that. 

pnly istatioriary systems are included in 

the definition; ;tJiat,individual drairi 

systems arejUsedtbiCpnyey residuals as 

well as^ wastewater streainsjvand,that the 

iridividual.drain system does not '.-..' 

include; in-process equipment as 

described in §63.149.,.-
P.15 

• & • 

I i 

Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 166 / Monday, August 26, 1996 /. Proposed Rules 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 definitionswould not be 

needed. 

C. Changes;to §63.l3X .''•".' 

hi the-1 April 1994 rule and in today's 

proposed changes to the rule, § 63.132 

provides the instructions on howto •-: 

deterrhipe if a process wastewater 

strearii 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 riot change. 

Determination of whether a wastewater 

stream is Group 1,or Group 2 wbUld stilt 

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 § 63.132 to 

eliminate redundant sections, clarify 

requirements, and change the order of 

the provisions into a more reader 

friendly format. Other proposed chariges 

include use of the point of 

determination concept instead of the 

point of generation concept (discussed 

in IV.D. of this prearhble) and the 

addition of language prohibiting the 

discard of certain organic material into 

water or Wastewater. 

; Language prohibiting the discard of 

ce'rtain organic material into water or 

wastewater would be added as 

§ 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, irito 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 Us 

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 § 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 ofthe 

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 

developmerit of the April 1994 rule; 

EPA emphasized that the distinction 

was based on whether the material arid; 

the unit in which it is managed is an 

integral part ofthe 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 response's, it.is not 

possible to be certain that the emission 

and cost analyses used in development 

ofthe 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 tha.t itwas 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 feplicable arid 

unequivocally specifies the location for 

evaluation of a wastewater stream for 
#~<~14^"S. -

j

 * f'^&CJfa* 

43712 Federal Register / Vol 61, No 166 / Monday, August 26, 1996 / Eroposed-Rules 

P.16 

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 belowthe 1000 ppniw atlO L/niiri 

or greater flowrate or the 10,000 ppniw 

at any flowrate level. ;lJnder the POD 

approach, process units Conveying 

process fluids in the chemical. . 

manufacturing process uiiit 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 requirernents for more 

concentrated streams. The POD 

approach would also make the 

wastewater provisions consistent with 

. the data collected for developtrient 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 irithe 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 arid the '';'•;' 

receiving drain, and venting from•••;.'-•'•.• : "'•; 

junction boxes'; Text was added to r- C' v 

explain that alternative riiethods: (other'--

than the example given in the rule)'•''•':,;

u

\

; 

could bemused to demonstrate that water"' 

seals are maintained properly. ' '":•. 

Clarification was added to the. ';'';' ••''''''• 

requirements concerning the flexible. ; 

shield to describe more fully wherethe';;;. 

shield should be located. The proposed 

clarification for'the venting of junction 

boxes was written to explain the -

difference betweeri 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 turri 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'iriade to the 

process wastewater provisions for 

wastewater.tanks to express more fullyV 

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 (ae wastewater . • 

provisions ofthe HON. The EPA has 

allowed the use of. floating membrane , 

covers in other rules. The EPA 

considered this inquiry anddecided • ,. 

that floating membrane covers wouldbe 

: acceptable for suppressing emissions; ,;; 

from surface impouridmentS; Provisions j 

would he added to the surface • • 

impoundment requirements.derived. ; . 

from the standards in Subpart QQpf 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 tie --.': 

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 wheri the wastewater attempts to 

flow into of out of an area that is sealed 

and me 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;ahd,npt to seal the system such '. 

that grayity"flow systems will be 

inoperative. The concern over potential 

for vapor/lbck 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 

thit-p^eriings shall be equipped with a 

-tight-fitting solid coyer (i.e., no visible 

gaps, cracks, or holes). The EPA believes 

that tMs requirement would minimize 

emissibris 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 ofthe collection system. A tightly 

fitting solid cover-will contact.the. 

manhole framein 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 riot intended for sealing 

is acceptable, For example, a gap 

-betweeri theputer 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 

cbver.arid-th'btbp of the manhole^

 ; 

Plugged of capped holes (such as 

plugged or capped holes to insert a tool 

for removal of a cover) are acceptable. -

Removal ofthe plugs or caps is 

unacceptable; except for the purpose of -

.' conducting those activities'for which • -'.-•• 

me 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 
£>?.:%••:'••'• ••- - " " 

mmffl^P^?-*:*-- ':: •'ri'r•••'•••"-

P.17 

>-$.-: •.;' ^-V-^V-:' • • '^'^?.^"'i^-'.irr-

,

y<^f^fi^fPS^SjSBS!B 

Federal Register /Vol. 61, No. 166 /Monday, August 26, 1996 / Proposed Rules 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 .199.4. 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, th e 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, 

§ 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 § 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 §§63.138, 63:144; and 

63.145 • 

1. General 

Three sections of today's proposed 

rule, §§ 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 § 63.144 in.the April 1994 

rule contained in today's proposaj. are 

reorganization for clarity; addition of 

' methods and an alternative validation 

procedure; deletion of the feriri VOHAP 

•from text; arid 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 

thernostimpact. . -----

2. Changes to § 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 § 63.138 are: reorganization 

for clarity; deletion of recycling and 

process unit alternative, as Control 

options; technical corrections to the 

design stearii 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 

§ 63.138; and clarification of when 

design evaluations may be used to 

derhonstrate compliance instead of 

performance tests. 

3. Deletion of Recycling and Process 

Unit Alternative Options From § 63.138 

The recycling and process unit 

alternative options (April 1994 rule 

paragraphs (b)(l)(i),'(c)(l)(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) ofthe 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 notbe a wastewater 

subject to.the provisions of § 63,138; 

instead, it would be subject to the other 

provisions of the rule such as storage .-

vessels or § 63.149. . .-•':...-••'.. 

4. Clarification That Treatment in Series 

Is Allowed__—-

Although it is not stated, clearly, the 

April 1994 rule intended that more thari 

one treatment process could be Used to 

comply with the rule. Today's proposed 

amendments would provide provisions • 

for treatment in series in §§ 63.138 and 

63.145 and would clarify EPA's intent. 

Treatment in series maybe 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 §63,138 

The provisions for the 1.megagram ; 

source-wide option would be clarified 

and would be consolidated from 

§§ 63.138.and 63.144 hi the April 1994 

rule into § 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 §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 Methpds624, 625, 1624, and 

1625 and has determined that these 

methods may be used with certain 

. additional requirements. These 

requirements are specified in § 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 isthat 

the method provide a sampling 

approach that would minimize the loss 

bfvolatiles fromthe sample while 

maintaining sample integrity. The 

second criterion is that the method 
P.18 

t - vv» 

43714 Federal Register / Vol 61, No. 166 / Monday, August 2£, 1996 / Proposed Jtules 

defect 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 theses methods to be Used, as . 

alternative methods to Method 305 with 

some additional requirements as : 

specified in the proposed revised rule., 

The EPA is proposirig to allow the use 

of alternative ihethods.based on the 

belief that mose 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 organiccompounds 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 

collectionis-also be eihployed; 

7. Deletion of Tenri"Volatile Organic 

Hazardous.Air Pollutant^;, ,,,.. . 

The EPA found that many in the ; -. -

regulated community found the 

terminology "volatile.organic hazardous 

air pollutant"; (VOHAP) corifusing. The: 

term VOHAP concentration is Used in '•<•:< 

the April 1994 rule to rrieari the weight 

concentiation of Table 9 HAP's as 

determined by Method 305. This meant 

when a'VOHAP concentration was 

required, the results from imethods 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 whileresults •'...-

from other methods would be used as .vj 

measured,(without Fm adjustment). ..," 

With today's proposed amendments;;-::' 

§§ 63.144 and 63.145 pfihe rule^ vvquld ^ 

explicitly state when Fm adjustments ..r'.^ 

are appropriate rather than relying on:.,. 

using the term VOHAP to corivey EPA'S 

intent. The proposed arhendments 

would also rerriove the term VOHAP.;;-•;-

Also under the proposed amendments, -

it would be clarified in §63.144 that . 

annual average concentration may be 

expressed either as adjusted by the'Fm ..... 

.factors or with ho adjustment.

 ; 

8. Changes to §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 §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 § 63.145 

In today's proposal, § 63.145 is 

reorganized to clarify requirements and -i 

provide the reader with anunderstanding of which paragraphs to 

use for demonstrating compliance with • 

the compUance options-in"§ 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 § 63.145; 

(2) conditions.under which a 

performance, testor design evaluation is 

allowed- orundef which neither is.A^"; . 

required are specified.in paragraphs ,-'.•• 

(a)(l).and.(a)(2); and, (3) Clarification of/; 

when Fm adjustrnents are allowed:are •>y 

included throughout the section: These ' 

proposed clarifications were in the 

April 1994 rule hut may have been 

unclear or placed in other sections, 

causing readers/difficulty in 

determining howthesections fit -

>:>

 - :;•:..? 

togetherrithe 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 iriiprbve reader 

comprehension. 

10, Deriiohstrating 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 

:bipdegfaded (Fbip) determinations is •••• 

unnecessarily burdensome, To respond 

- to'these'conCerns, the EPA reevaluated 

theperfbfmaiicedeterminaitiori

 ;

-

requirements for biological treatment 

.•processes and found that adjustments 

Could be rhade'to the requirements. 

:

 consistentyyim the mterit of the rule, 

the EPA's interit was to allow the use 

of biological treatment units that'..-.".' 

achieved fee required mass removal of 

table 9 cofripdunds through -

biodegradationand not through., 

emissions to the atmosphere. Today's 

proposed amendments would add. 

paragraph^) which describes how to 

detertnihe.thesite-specific fraction of 

Table 8 and/or Table 9 compounds 

biodegradatedtFbio); clarify that . 

biological treatment processes must use 

one ofthe 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 ofthe 

Table 8 or Table 9 compounds to be 

used to demonstrate compliance. 

Paragraph (h)—how to determine 

Fbib—is added to make the provisions 

easier to find than in the April 1994 

rule. In addition, § 63.145(h), together 

• with appendix C to part 63, provide 

•: fnore flexibility to the owner or operator 

• to demonstrate compliance for 

biological-treatmentprocesses. 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 

deriionstrate compliance, 

,. When a biological.treatment process 

is used, one of the required mass .. 

.-fembval bptipns;'§,63:i38(f) 6r(g), must 

i bebhosenasthb;cpmpUanceoption, 

this was;EPA's intent iii the April 1994 

rulebutitwas'hbt stated clearly. The ' 

provisions thiat-may be used to - ''•'.•'•• 

demonstrate compliance depend on 

whether the biological treatment process 

:is bpeh of Closed; hi each case,'the -"••:'• 

- propbsed^rUle'specifies which-'

 ! > r

 -

•'•compliance demonstration provision's ' 

•; may be used. 

For open biological treatment .. 

processes, volatilization is an important 
P.19 

Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 166 /Monday, August 26, 1996 / Proposed Rules 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 coriipliance. To 

incorporate this flexibility, EPA looked 

at the Table 9 compounds and 

determinedwhich 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 reevaluatiort 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 fable 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 ari 

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 (Kl) 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 

Kls 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 Kls 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 ofthe procedures specified in 

40 CFR part 63, appendix C, except the 

batch tests procedure, to calculate the 

site-specific Kl. Biological treatment 

units not meeting the definition of an 

enhanced biological treatment system 

are allowed to determine the Fbio using' 

the site-specific Kl 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 § 63.145 

Many of the equations in § 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.fo 

make them consistent. Figure ti n 

appendix A to subpart G lists the new . 

terms. ... . 

13. Compounds Not Required To Be . 

Considered in Performance tests . 

Today's proposal would add 

§ 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 presenfin 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 toJEPA 

certifying that the transferee will 

manage arid treat the, wastewater 

streams or residuals in accordance with 

the HON's provisions, these new . 

provisions replace the existing 

provisions in § 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 

§ 63.132(j) are revised to provide a 

means to allow.transfers of treatment 

responsibility without imposing liability 
P.20 

'>>^$0£0. 

43716 Federal>Register7oV6l. 61, ^ 

for actions of another party ori the , 

owner/operator of the HON source. 

The new provisions allowing for offsite or on-site third party treatment 

require the owner/operator transferring 

the wastewater stream or residual to 

comply with the suppression 

requirements specified in §§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 strearii prior to shipment or 

transport. The bWrier'br operator rhayj ' 

not trarisfer'the' wastewater- stream or';,; 

residual urites's the.transferee has 

• submitted, to EPA a written certification -

that the transferee will manage and 

treat, in accordance with subpart G; ariy 

Group 1 wastewater stream or residual 

removed from-a Group 1 wastewater .•'-' 

stream that was received from a source 

subject to the reqUireiherits of this ' 

subpart. The owner or operator has to 

notify the third party treater that the 

wastewater stream br residual has to be 

handled and treated in accordance with ... 

the requirements pf 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 offsite 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-sitetreatefs.. 

The proposed provisions also differ 

from the existing requirements in '" ; 

§ 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 bya ; 

requirement only fof notice at the outset: 

of such shipiaentsand when there is:a

:

; 

change in the required tjeaurierit. :In -:

A

?-'/ 

drafting the revised/language;:the-';i'' y[\ 

general statements" bf the obligation ori'"• "; 

off-site treaters iri the old § 63.132(j)(3)

 s

y 

have been replaced with explicit cross

 : 

references to the applicable •--..; i^,.-

.requirements.' This 'eharige is proposed!/ 

to provide"a clearer: statement of;the

 r]:

f.i 

applicablefequirenierits arid to '•' '•'•.'

 ; •• 

minimize potential for ••"•'. • - • • • 

misuriderstandirigs/This change is riot•'"' 

considered, to be a substaritive Change in 

the requirements for off-site treaters. 

Another change bf significance in the; '. 

provisions for third party treaters

 : 

concerns the concept of sale. The phrase 

in the opening paragraph of § 63.132(j), 

permitting the sale of Group 1 » 

wastewater streams or residuals "for any 

other purpose'! has been eliminated iii/.' 

the proposed replacement provisions: 

ThisChange is necessary in light of thei, 

revised approkcKto.defiriing, 'V ''_'vv 

wastewater/ JtaMrerit in ihe new';'.;; .;';•;;"'• 

apprSacK'is the^oricept that a 'stjeam is*:; 

not waste wafer' iiriless; it is being: :.'. Sj." 

discarded,'; thus,: the concept bf selling:;;' 

wastewateris.irmbreritiy iricorisisfent; ] 

H:#d(litioh:6f7§63,14.9 arid Table 35^. 

The. proposed aihendments to add &[.x\ 

new § 63.149 arid table 35 tb.subpart G{'?• 

are an outgrowth of the change- frbrh the 

POG concept of the Aprill994 rule to . 

the POD concept in these proposed 

amendments. The purpose of this new. 

sectioriis to ensure that the organic 

HAP Containing fluids are properly ' ' "•'' • 

mariagedin closed systems; Table 35 

lists the applicable requirerrients for 

drain or drain huh, manhole, lift station,' 

trench;; oil/water separator, and'tank. '•' 

I. Proposed Changes to Appendix Cof 

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 G contains instruction on -

how to determine the fraction 

biodegraded in ahiolpgical treatment 

unit.-Today's proposal addresses several 

issues concermhgfAppendix C. The first 

issue cbricerrtsproblems 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 arid experise required to operate : } 

the benchscale reactor. Both bf these 

issu'eswbuld be'addressed byihe 

addition of the Batch tests procedure to 

appeha^xC. th e proposed mle,;-^ ; ;'"'.^.-','' 

ariieridmentswouldallowpwriersarid ,, 

operators to;use tjhehatch-tefefs'tb;' ,'.I••'• 

deteihpriefjfstpr^^^ 

constants for cbmpomids'prtXists 1 arid/ 

or 2 oftbble^^34 treated ma uriif riieetihg 

the definition of aii^enhanced biblpgical' 

treatinent prb'ce^ 

perfofrilahce Wquirementifipr'bje'n;"^;^; 

bioIogical;p^atmeiit: processes for. ' ;' 

further^irifofmatiorii)' ' \ .,,.' " 

: TheBatch tests procedure consists of .<; 

the aerated reactor test and'the sealed•'"i; 

reactbr test; these two tests are less time 

intensive,'imd thereby less expensive, 

thanthe"Method 304 procedure. These 

two tests are used widely in industry tp 

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.. 

Referehcesswere supplied in appendix C 

for ftirther information.;..;,''. 

'•'.\.f*. th^|(ppendix:G requirements would i. 

;be falai^ •-'" 

rCompo^d^resent!

iri the wastewater 

wbiild(npt;be requijced tohaye a site- ' : 

specific, first oriderbiodegfadafion 

^pri_stani;o^ter|rnped.:thepv^eror 

bperatbr-.c^:assume;the first order 

. bipdegradatipn constant is zero for. ariy 

compound as;lpng as, the required mass, 

rempyal ban be demonstrated. 

J; Proposed Changes to Methods 304A 

and304B: •... 

The'EPAis proposing to make minor 

revisions'fb'Methods 3 04A arid 304B 

that would Clarify several pbints and' 

eliminate;pfescriptive details while 

maintairiing'.the quality of the data. 

Methods '304A' afld-'304B are procedures 

that may be used to determine the 

biodegradation rates of organic 

compounds,in biological treatment 

processes. The prbpbsed revisions 

consist of making the terminology 

consistent and allowing more flexibility 

inthesetiip and operation of the 

methods. The section discussing the 

oxygen' control system would be 

clarified. References to reactor or 

bioreactor wouJd be changed to 

benchtbpjbibreactor for consistency. 

Additional flexibility would be added 

throughout; the friethod in nurnerpus 

wayssuch as elimiriating 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 

efflueritcbncentration above the limit of 

quarititafibnyancl, other ways. The EPA 

believes these changes vyill allow 

owners and.bperatbfs more flexibility; 

while mamteinirig the original intent of 

:me:methQd;vRy.:!

,

.i^3.'.- •: •.•^••'- ':,'. 

KyAlternoiiv&Gdn^ 

forindustrial^aste^hter^ir.: "; r;" 

'thaET^heiiev^'that tbday^ .'.U....'.' 

pfopbs"al.:riiak.es the: Wdustiial'.- '."~.]',-:'["'.. 

WastewatCT.ACTjriterrially inconsistent 

vand is;recpffimen(dihg:t^ 

cbhsidefiiifrrevisibhs'tb't^

 :.'.''J'." ;, 

Wastewater'prpvisibns defiiiifions and . 

controljapprbaches as discussed below 

when regulating sources covered by the -

ACT. When issued iri April 1,994, the 
P.21 

^^^§§§l§M^0:^'iW

:::y 

* *• «i »•„.*>• * l

z% 

Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 166 / Monday, August 26, 1996 / Proposed Rules $3713 

ACT consisted of three documents: a 

September, 1992 draft Industrial 

Wastewater Control Techniques 

Guideline (CTG); Revisions to Impacts 

ofthe 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 

Treatirient Storage and Disposal .... 

Facilities in ozone nonattairiment areas. 

In today's action, the EPA is proposing 

fundamental changes to the wastewater 

provisions pf the HON. The EPA 

believes that these proposed 

amendments will result in a more 

effective" and better-understood 

regulation. Thus, some aspects ofthe 

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 viceversa), 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 thebasis for control; the ACT 

addresses VOC emissions and the HON 

is concerned with HAP emissions, the 

HON is a national standard for portions 

ofthe 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

 rtpoint of ; 

determination"; the definition of 

"wastewater" is being revised; arid ; 

requirerherits are being added for 

control of emissionsi from certain inprocess 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; 401M 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, arid clarifications of 

requirements. The changes are not 

additional requirements. Consequently, 

the ICR has not been revised. 

fl.' 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: ..... . . >-... 

(l)..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 hi 

:

 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 br 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 v 

today would clarify the fulerand correct 

structural problems .'with the drafting of 

some.sections.,Theproposed.. ^ , ' 

ameridmerits do riot 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 haye a significant economic' 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities and therefore no initial 

regulatory flexibility analysis under 

section 604(a) ofthe Act is required: For 

the reasons discussed in the April 22, 

1994 Federal Register f59 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 -o> 

establish'a plan for informing and 

advising any small governments that 

may be significantly or uniquely 

impacted by the rule. 

The EPAlias determined that the 

action promulgated today.dpes 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 
P.22 

~^^r*.<?s^^f®m!£"<i-.p'- 'f^^^P I 

43718 Federal Register / Vol. 61 , No. 166 / Monday ? Ajtgust 26, 1996 / Proposed Rules 

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 

recordkeepirig requirements. 

. Dated: August.1.5, .1996. ;'.. 

Carol M.jBrowner, • 

AdministratQr.:(f.ivX:;i' .^:,tXi '•'•• 

[FR DbcV96^21280 Filed fe23-96; 8:45;am], 

BILLING CODE 6560-60-P '' '•X- '.'.'• 

FEDERAL EMERGENCY -

MANAGEMENT AGENCY 

44 CFR Part 67 

[Docket No. FEMA-7192] 

Proposed Flood Elevation 

Determinations 

AGENCY: Federal Emergency '-.-;.: 

Management Agency (FEMA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: Technical information or : 

comments are•;requested on the 

proposed base (1% annual chance) flood, 

elevations and proposed base flood 

elevation modifications for the 

communities listed below. The base 

flood elevations and modified base 

flood elevations are the basis for the 

floodplain management measures that 

the community is required either to 

adopt or to show evidence of being 

already in effect in order-to qualify or 

remain qualified for participation in the 

National Flood Insurance Program 

(NFIP). .'•-.-

DATES: The comment period is ninety 

(90) daysfollowirig the second 

publication of this proposed rule in a 

newspaper of local circulation in each 

community. 

ADDRESSES: The proposed base flood -

elevations for. each community are 

available for inspection at the office of 

the Chief Executive Officer of each 

community. The respective addresses ;; 

are listed in the following table, 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael K. Buckley, P.E., Chief* Hazard 

Identification Branch, Mitigation 

Directorate, 500 C Street S.W., 

Washington, D:C. 20472, (202) 646-

2756..: •;'; - ';.;;• ;•',., :,y.,:;,^;;.:,..'':, ,

:

'

:„.. 

SUPPLEMErfTARyWCflMAt^ 

Federal; Emerge^; ^ 

' proposes tp;mi&iS$6temir^^ 

floodeleyatipnsa^SpdifiedhaSe; '.'•;-''w 

flood elevationsforeachcbnimunity;-': '• 

listed below, in'accordance' with Section; 

110 ofthe FloodDisaster Protection Act •-'-

of 1973,4i2 U;S:C. 4104, ahl^CFR:*

a

': f'. : 

67.4(a).; •; •'•;•'..".'^-.;;?;•? .;'•';'.-v^!f:;?""?'' 

,

ITiese.'.propoM'tf!Bas'e','flbqd'^3:.''i'.-'';!*.-;. 

modified base flbbd elevatibrisytbgether 

with the floodplain riiariageriierit criteria 

required by 44 CFR 60.3, are.the 

minimum that are required. They 

should not be construed to irieari;that 

the community must; charige_anyi -; 

existing ordirtancesthaf are more ; ;; 

stringeritin their.floodplain - ,; " 

management requirements. The. . , , ^ 

community may at any time enact =; .j. ; 

stricter requirements of its own, or- . 

pursuant to policies established by other 

Federal, State, or regional entities. 

These proposed elevations areused to. 

meet the. floodplain management. 

requirements ofthe NFIP and are also 

used to calculate the appropriate flood 

insurance premium rates for new ;.. • 

buildings built after these elevations are 

made final, arid for, the contents-in these 

buildings, . 

National Environmental Policy Act ' 

This proposed rule is categorically'.. 

excluded from the requirements of, 44 -

CFR Part 10,'Environmental,VV-,.':,- ft. .', 

Consideratidri. No environmental 

impact assessment has been prepared. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act - ' 

The Acting Associate Director, 

Mitigation Directorate, certifies that this 

proposed rule is exempt from the 

requirements ofthe Regulatory 

Flexibility'Act because proposed or 

modified base flood elevations are 

required by the Flood Disaster 

Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, 

and are required to establish and • 

maintain community eligibility in the 

NFIP. No regulatory flexibility analysis 

has been prepared. 

Regulatory Classification - -: ; : • 

^T^his^rppbsed rule is hqtVsighificant 

regulatory:actibnUnderme Criteria of;, 

:Sbctibn3jD-bf'ExecutiveOrder 12866 of 

-SeptemberS6^19937RegUlatory:'' / 

PliMi^g-dnd Review, 58 FR 51735. • 

ExecuriveOrder 12612, Federalism 

This proposed rule involves'no 

policies that have federalism 

implications under Executive Order 

12612, Federalism, dated October 26, 

1987. ...;. v;:. ;. ; ' 

Executive Order 12778, Civil Justice 

Refonn'r.-C1: ;;';'-;'. 

This proposed rule meets the 

applicable standards of Section 2(b)(2) 

of Executive Order 12778. 

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 67 

-.. Administrative practice and 

procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting 

arid recordkeeping requirements. 

Accordingly, 44 CFR Part 67 is 

proposed to be amended as follows: 

PART 67—[AMENDED] 

. l.,The authority citation for Part 67 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.G.4001 etseq.; 

Reorganization Plan No: 3 of 1978, 3 CFR, 

,1978.Comp., p..329;E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 

3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 376. 

§67.4 [Amended] 

2. The tables published under the 

authority of § 67.4 are proposed to be 

amended as follows 

State, 

California v.:.;.;;.^.:;.' 

••'. - ...,'• • •••• • ' • : 

. .•:'. >>:--.--> ,-,;.-

. ' • 

'•

 ; • '- -

'•.. City/town/county 

Sacramento County 

' (unincorporated

 ;

: 

areas).. 

.':.-•:-. ' '•>.•.'••>l- '• ' 

• ';„.) h :..•••'.••,••:••. • - •:'! • 

.v ^:X.,[-.---;=•-' >;, 

-'•'' '. 

Source of flooding 

Cosumnes River 

^ 

Cosumnes River Overflow 

•_ North of Lambert Road 

Location 

At - confluence with North Fork 

Mokelumne River 

At the Union Pacific Railroad 

Approximately 3,500 feet upstream of the 

Union Pacific Railroad. 

Approximately 7,000 feet upstream pf the 

Union Pacific Railroad. 

Approximately 250 feet upstream of the 

Union Pacific Railroad 

Approximately 1,000 feet upstream of 

Core Road. 

#Depth in feet above 

ground 'Elevation in feet 

(NGVD) 

Existing 

"None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

Modified 

*19 

*19 

*19 

*20 

*17 

*18