National
Emission
Standards
for
Hazardous
Air
Pollutants
(
NESHAP)
for
Site
Remediation
(
40
CFR
part
63,
subpart
GGGGG)

Background
Information
for
Promulgated
Standards
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Office
of
Air
Quality
and
Standards
Emission
Standards
Division
Waste
and
Chemical
Processes
Group
Research
Triangle
Park,
NC
27711
August
2003
Contents
1.0
INTRODUCTION
1.1
BACKGROUND
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1
1.2
COMMENTERS
ON
PROPOSED
RULE
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1
2.0
RESPONSE
TO
COMMENTS
ON
PROPOSED
RULE
2.1
RULE
SCOPE
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
13
2.1.1
Need
for
Site
Remediation
NESHAP
.
.
.
.
13
2.1.2
Cleanups
Regulated
Under
CERCLA
Superfund
and
RCRA
Corrective
Action
Programs
.
.
.
.
.
15
2.1.3
Cleanups
Regulated
Under
State
and
Voluntary
Programs
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
19
2.1.4
Leaking
Underground
Storage
Tank
Cleanups
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
21
2.1.5
Radioactive
Mixed
Waste
Cleanups
.
.
.
.
22
2.1.6
Cleanups
at
Area
Sources
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
27
2.2
DEVELOPMENT
OF
PROPOSED
RULE
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
28
2.2.1
Selection
of
Regulated
Pollutants
.
.
.
.
28
2.2.2
Selection
of
MACT
floor
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
32
2.2.3
Affected
Sources
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
33
2.2.4
Environmental,
Energy,
and
Economic
Impact
Estimates
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
35
2.3
RULE
APPLICABILITY
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
35
2.3.1
Definition
of
"
Site
Remediation"
.
.
.
.
35
2.3.2
Definition
of
"
Mixed
Waste"
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
38
2.3.3
Small
HAP
Quantity
Cleanup
Exemption
.
.
39
2.3.4
Short
Duration
Cleanup
Exemption
.
.
.
.
41
2.3.5
Addition
of
Other
Exemptions
.
.
.
.
.
.
45
2.4
RULE
EMISSION
LIMITATION
AND
WORK
PRACTICE
STANDARDS
45
2.4.1
Combined
Remediation
Material
Streams
.
.
45
2.4.2
Tank
De
Minimis
Capacity
and
Vapor
Pressure
Cutoffs
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
46
2.4.3
Container
De
Minimis
Capacity
Cutoff
.
.
46
2.4.4
Process
Vent
Control
Requirements
.
.
.
.
47
2.4.5
Equipment
Leak
Requirements
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
48
2.4.6
Requirements
for
Transfer
of
Remediation
Material
to
Another
Party
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
49
2.5
RULE
TESTING,
INSPECTION,
AND
MONITORING
REQUIREMENTS
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
52
2.5.1
Remediation
Material
VOHAP
Determination
Requirements
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
52
ii
2.5.2
Continuous
Parameter
Monitoring
System
QA/
QC
Requirements
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
53
2.6
RULE
IMPLEMENTATION
REQUIREMENTS
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
54
2.6.1
New
Source
Compliance
Date
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
54
2.6.2
Recordkeeping
Requirements
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
55
2.6.3
Startup,
Shutdown,
and
Malfunction
Plan
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
55
2.6.4
Reporting
Requirements
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
56
2.6.5
Initial
Notification
Requirements
.
.
.
.
56
2.6.6
Definition
of
"
Deviation"
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
57
2.7
RULE
RELATIONSHIP
TO
OTHER
RULES
AND
PROGRAMS
.
.
59
2.7.1
Remediation
Activity
Sources
Regulated
By
Other
NESHAP
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
59
2.7.2
Once­
In,
Always­
In
NESHAP
Policy
.
.
.
.
61
2.7.3
Clean
Air
Act
Title
V
Permit
Modifications
62
2.7.4
Facility
Major
Source
Status
.
.
.
.
.
.
63
2.7.5
Rule
Relationship
to
CAA
Section
112
Other
Than
§
112(
d)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
64
2.7.6
Rule
Relationship
to
RCRA
TSDF
Air
Rules
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
64
2.7.7
Rule
Relationship
to
"
Applicable
or
Relevant
and
Appropriate
Requirement"
under
CERCLA
66
2.7.8
Compliance
with
Executive
Order
13045
.
.
67
2.8
OTHER
COMMENTS
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
68
2.8.1
Rule
Format
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
68
2.8.2
Federal
Register
Proposal
Notice
Editorial
and
Typographical
Errors
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
68
1
1.0
INTRODUCTION
1.1
BACKGROUND
We,
the
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA),
proposed
the
National
Emission
Standards
for
Hazardous
Air
Pollutants
(
NESHAP)
for
site
remediation
on
July
30,
2002
(
67
FR
49398).
A
60­
day
comment
period
(
July
30,
2002
to
September
30,
2002)
was
provided
to
accept
comments
on
the
proposed
rule.
An
opportunity
for
a
public
hearing
was
provided
to
allow
any
interested
persons
to
present
oral
comments
on
the
proposed
rule.
However,
we
did
not
receive
a
request
for
a
formal
public
hearing,
so
a
public
hearing
was
not
held.
A
meeting
with
the
EPA
was
requested
by
the
American
Petroleum
Institute
to
present
comments
on
the
proposed
rule,
and
a
meeting
was
held
on
September
5,
2002
at
the
EPA
offices
in
the
Research
Triangle
Park,
North
Carolina.

1.2
COMMENTERS
ON
PROPOSED
RULE
We
received
a
total
of
51
letters
and
e­
mails
regarding
the
proposed
Site
Remediation
NESHAP
from
commenters.
Two
commenters
affiliated
with
the
Department
of
the
Navy
independently
submitted
the
same
set
of
comments;
and
two
commenters
from
the
State
of
Alabama
Department
of
Environmental
Management
each
submitted
two
separate
and
distinct
sets
of
comments.
Table
1­
1
lists
the
names
of
the
commenters
and
their
affiliations
for
each
of
the
comment
letters
and
e­
mails
received
regarding
the
proposed
rule.

Copies
of
each
of
the
comment
letters
and
e­
mails
received
regarding
the
proposed
Site
Remediation
NESHAP
are
2
available
in
the
official
public
docket
for
the
development
of
the
rule
under
Docket
ID
Nos.
A­
99­
20
(
legacy
docket
entry
number)
and
OAR­
2002­
0021.
All
items
may
not
be
listed
under
both
docket
numbers,
so
interested
parties
should
inspect
both
docket
numbers
to
ensure
that
they
have
received
all
materials
relevant
to
the
final
rule.
Table
1­
1
lists
the
legacy
docket
entry
number
for
each
of
the
comments.
This
docket
is
available
for
public
viewing
at
the
Air
Docket
in
the
EPA
Docket
Center
(
EPA/
DC),
EPA
West,
Room
B102,
1301
Constitution
Ave.,
NW,
Washington,
DC.
The
EPA
Docket
Center
Public
Reading
Room
is
open
from
8:
30
a.
m.
to
4:
30
p.
m.,
Monday
through
Friday,
excluding
legal
holidays.
The
telephone
number
for
the
Reading
Room
is
(
202)
566­
1744,
and
the
telephone
number
for
the
Air
Docket
is
(
202)
566­
1742.
An
electronic
version
of
the
public
docket
also
is
available
through
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
and
comment
system,
EPA
Dockets,
at
<
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
edocket/>.
You
can
use
this
web
site
to
view
public
comments,
access
the
index
listing
of
the
contents
of
the
official
public
docket,
and
to
access
those
documents
in
the
public
docket
that
are
available
electronically.

For
the
51
commenters
on
the
proposed
Site
remediation
NESHAP,
the
commenter
affiliations
can
be
grouped
as
follows:

22
­
Companies
Alyeska
Pipeline
Service
Company
Ashland,
Inc.
Boeing
Company
BP
America,
Inc.
ChevronTexaco
Delphi
Facilities
Services
Group
Dow
Chemical
Company
Eastman
Chemical
Company
ExxonMobil
Refining
and
Supply
Company
General
Motors
Corporation
Groundwater
Services,
Inc.
on
behalf
of
Southwest
Shipyard,
L.
P.
Lyondell
Chemical
Company
Marathon
Ashland
Petroleum
LLC
National
Steel
Corporation
Neville
Chemical
Company
3
Panolam
Industries
Pinnacle
West
Capital
Corporation
URS
Corporation
United
States
Steel
Corporation
Valero
Energy
Corporation
Weirton
Steel
Corporation
Woodard
&
Curran
5
­
Environmental/
Public
Interest
Groups
Blue
Ridge
Environmental
Defense
League
Coalition
for
Health
Concern
Coalition
for
Nuclear
Justice
Concern
Citizens
for
Nuclear
Safely
Environmental
Defense
Institute
3
­
Federal
Government
Agencies
Department
of
Energy
Department
of
the
Navy
National
Aeronautics
and
Space
Administration
7
­
Industry/
Trade
Associations
American
Chemistry
Council
American
Forest
&
Paper
Association
American
Petroleum
Institute
Institute
of
Clean
Air
Companies
National
Paint
&
Coatings
Association
National
Petrochemical
&
Refiners
Association
Speciality
Steel
Industry
of
North
America
2
­
Private
Citizens
Mr.
David
B.
McCoy,
Idaho
Falls,
ID
Mr.
Stephen
J.
Washburn,
Cincinnati,
OH
8
­
State/
Local/
Tribal
Governments
State
of
Alabama
State
of
Florida
State
of
Idaho
State
of
Kentucky
State
of
Oklahoma
State
of
New
Jersey
State
of
New
York
State
of
Tennessee
4
2
­
State
Government­
Related
Organizations
Association
of
State
and
Territorial
Solid
Waste
Management
Officials
(
ASTSWMO)
Missouri
Petroleum
Storage
Tank
Insurance
Fund
5
Table
1­
1.

List
of
Public
Commenters
on
Site
Remediation
NESHAP
(
40
CFR
part
63,
subpart
GGGGG)

Docket
Entry
Commenter
Name
and
Address
IV­
D­
01
Uriel
Smith
Regulation
Development
Branch
Division
for
Air
Quality
Natural
Resources
and
Environmental
Protection
Cabinet
Commonwealth
of
Kentucky
July
31,
2002
IV­
D­
02
Alan
Unchurch
Valero
Energy
Corporation
August
9,
2002
IV­
D­
03
James
W.
Haynes,
Director
State
of
Tennessee
Department
of
Environment
and
Conservation
Division
of
Superfund
401
Church
Street
Nashville,
TN
37243­
1538
August
20,
2002
IV­
D­
04
Dal
A.
Desnoyers,
Acting
Director
Division
of
Environmental
Remediation
NY
State
Department
of
Environmental
Conservation
625
Broadway
Albany,
NY
12233­
7011
August
30,
2002
IV­
D­
05
Mark
Vignovic,
Director
Environmental
Control
Weirton
Steel
Corporation
400
Three
Springs
Drive
Weirton,
WV
26062­
4989
September
3,
2002
IV­
D­
06
Chuck
Broscious,
Executive
Director
Environmental
Defense
Institute
Post
Office
Box
220
Troy,
Idaho
83871
September
10,
2002
IV­
D­
07
Sally
B.
Mann,
Director
Office
of
Intergovernmental
Programs
Florida
Department
of
Environmental
Protections
Marjory
Stoneman
Douglas
Building
3900
Commonwealth
Boulevard,
MS
47
Tallahassee,
FL
32399­
3000
September
13,
2002
Docket
Entry
Commenter
Name
and
Address
6
IV­
D­
08
John
Olashuk
National
Steel
Corporation
4100
Edison
Lakes
Parkway
Mishawaka,
IN
46545­
3440
September
20,
2002
IV­
D­
09
Thomas
K.
Scelfo,
Senior
Project
Manager
Woodard
and
Curran
1520
Highland
Avenue
Cheshire,
Connecticut
06410
September
20,
2002
IV­
D­
10
Stephen
J.
Washburn,
PE
9015
Cherry
Blossom
Lane
Cincinnati,
OH
45231­
3805
September
20,
2002
IV­
D­
11
Gregory
A.
Wilkins,
Manager,
Environmental
Support
Corporate
and
Environmental
Safety
Marathon
Ashland
Petroleum
LLC
539
South
Main
Street
Findlay,
OH
45840­
3295
IV­
D­
12
William
C.
Olasin,
Director
Environmental
Remediation
Environmental,
Health,
and
Safety
Ashland,
Incorporated
Post
Office
Box
2219
Columbus,
OH
43216
IV­
D­
13
Gary
King,
Chair
CERCLA
Research
Center
Subcommittee
Association
of
State
and
Territorial
Solid
Waste
Management
Officials
444
North
Capitol
Street,
NW
Suite
315
Washington,
DC
20001
IV­
D­
14
Carol
R.
Eighmey,
Executive
Director
Missouri
Petroleum
Storage
Tank
Insurance
Fund
Post
Office
Box
836
Jefferson
City,
MO
65102
IV­
D­
15
William
R.
Miller
III,
PhD,
Manager
Regulatory
and
Legislative
Interface
Worldwide
Facilities
Group
Ann
M.
Graniti,
Project
Manager
GM
Remediation
Team
Worldwide
Facilities
Group
Troy
Technology
Park,
Building
A
1996
Technology
Drive
Troy,
MI
48083
Docket
Entry
Commenter
Name
and
Address
7
IV­
D­
16
Frederick
J.
Kiehler,
Senior
Staff
Engineer
Delphi
Facilities
Services
Group
5825
Delphi
Drive
Troy,
MI
48098
IV­
D­
17
Joe
Mayhew,
Vice
President,
Regulatory
and
Technical
Affairs
Kerry
Kelly,
Team
Leader,
Waste
Issues
Robert
Elam,
Jr.,
Directory,
Regulatory
and
Technical
Affiars
American
Chemistry
Council
1300
Wilson
Boulevard
Arlington,
VA
22209
IV­
D­
18
Jeffrey
O'Hearn
Corporate
Environmental
Engineer
Panolam
Industries
International,
Incorporated
20
Progressive
Drive
Shelton,
CT
06484
IV­
D­
19
Mark
C.
Barnes
Manager
of
Air
Compliance
Environmental
Affairs
United
States
Steel
Corporation
600
Grant
Street
Pittsburgh,
PA
15219­
2800
IV­
D­
20
Scott
A.
Thompson,
Director
Land
Protection
Division
Oklahoma
Department
of
Environmental
Quality
707
North
Robinson
Oklahoma
City
OK
73101­
1677
IV­
D­
21
John
L.
Wittenborn
Joseph
J.
Green
Counsel
to
the
Speciality
Steel
Industry
of
North
America
Collier
Shannon
Scott,
PLLC
Washington
Harbour
Suite
400
3050
K
Street,
NW
Washington,
DC
20007­
5108
IV­
D­
22
Nancy
J.
Dotson,
Principal
Environmental
Representative
Corporate
Health,
Safety,
Environment
and
Security
Eastman
Chemical
Company
Post
Office
Box
511
Kingsport,
TN
37662­
5054
Docket
Entry
Commenter
Name
and
Address
8
IV­
D­
23
Charles
P.
Feerick
Jr.,
Environmental
Advisor
Downstream
and
Chemicals
Safety,
Heath,
and
Environment
Department
ExxonMobil
Refining
and
Supply
Company
3225
Gallows
Road
Room
8B0230
Fairfax,
VA
22037
IV­
D­
24
Olga
M.
Dominguez,
Director
Environmental
Management
Division
National
Aeronautics
and
Space
Administration
Headquarters
Washington,
DC
20546­
0001
IV­
D­
25
Alison
A.
Keane,
Esquire,
Counsel,
Government
Affairs
David
F.
Darling,
PE,
Directory,
Environmental
Affairs
National
Paint
and
Coatings
Association
1500
Rhode
Island
Avenue,
NW
Washington,
DC
20005­
5597
IV­
D­
26
Scott
Davis,
Manager
Environmental,
Health,
and
Safety
Pinnacle
West
Capital
Corporation
400
North
Fifth
Street
Phoenix,
AZ
85072­
3999
IV­
D­
27
Elaine
A.
Higgins,
PE,
Environmental
Engineer
Groundwater
Services,
Incorporated
(
on
behalf
of
Southwest
Shipyard,
L.
P.)
2211
Norfolk
Suite
1000
Houston,
Texas
77098­
4044
IV­
D­
28
William
Gerald
Hardy,
Chief
Land
Division
Alabama
Department
of
Environment
Management
1400
Coliseum
Boulevard
Montgomery,
AL
36110
IV­
D­
29
Jordan
E.
Jacobsen
Alyeska
Pipeline
Service
Company
1835
South
Bragaw
Street
Anchorage,
Alaska
99512
Docket
Entry
Commenter
Name
and
Address
9
IV­
D­
30
Timothy
G.
Hunt,
Director
of
Air
Quality
Programs
American
Forest
and
Paper
Association
1111
Nineteenth
Street,
NW
Suite
800
Washington,
DC
20036
IV­
D­
31
Ted
Steichen,
Senior
Regulatory
Analyst
American
Petroleum
Institute
1220
L.
Street,
NW
Washington,
DC
20005­
4070
IV­
D­
32
Matthew
Frank
The
Boeing
Company
1200
Wilson
Boulevard
Arlington,
VA
22209­
1989
IV­
D­
33
Donna
Kraisinger,
Vice
President
Health
Safety
and
Environment
BP
American,
Incorporated
333
South
Hope
Street
Los
Angeles,
CA
90071
IV­
D­
34
Joni
Arends,
Waste
Programs
Director
Concerned
Citizens
for
Nuclear
Safety
107
Cienega
Santa
Fe,
NM
87501
IV­
D­
35
Philip
T.
Cavanaugh,
Vice
President
Federal
and
International
Government
Relations
ChevronTexaco
Washington
DC
Office
1401
Eye
Street,
NW
Suite
1200
Washington,
DC
20005
IV­
D­
36
Mark
Donham
Coalition
for
Nuclear
Justice
Rural
Route
1,
Box
308
Brookport,
IL
62910
IV­
D­
37
Andy
Lawrence,
Director
Office
of
Environmental
Policy
and
Guidance
Department
of
Energy
Washington,
DC
20585
IV­
D­
38
David
Plunkett,
Technical
Specialist
Susan
E.
Taylor,
Legal
Department
Paul
Bork,
Legal
Department
The
Dow
Chemical
company
2301
North
Brazosport
Boulevard
Freeport,
Texas
77541­
3257
Docket
Entry
Commenter
Name
and
Address
10
IV­
D­
39
Norbert
Dee,
Ph.
D.,
Director
Environmental
Affairs
National
Petrochemical
and
Refiners
Association
1899
L
Street
NW
Suite
1000
Washington,
DC
20036­
3896
IV­
D­
40
J
Habazin
Neville
Chemical
Company
2800
Neville
Road
Pittsburgh,
PA
15225­
1496
IV­
D­
41
Kathleen
E.
Trever,
Coordinator­
Manager
State
of
Idaho
INEEL
Oversight
Program
1410
North
Hilton
Boise,
ID
83706
IV­
D­
42
William
O'Sullivan,
PE,
Administrator
Air
Quality
Permitting
Program
Bureau
of
Air
Quality
Engineering
State
of
New
Jersey
Department
of
Environment
Protection
Post
Office
Box
27
Trenton,
NJ
08625
IV­
D­
43
Donald
R.
Schregardus,
Deputy
Assistant
Secretary
of
the
Navy
(
Environment)
Department
of
the
Navy
Office
of
the
Assistant
Secretary
(
Installations
and
Environment)
1000
Navy
Pentagon
Washington,
DC
20350­
1000
IV­
D­
44
David
C.
Foerter,
Deputy
Director
Institute
of
Clean
Air
Companies
1660
L
Street,
NW
Suite
1100
Washington,
DC
20036­
5603
IV­
D­
45
John
R.
Evans,
PE,
Manager
Environmental
Affairs
Lyondell
Chemical
Company
One
Houston
Center
1221
McKinney
Suite
1600
Houston,
TX
77253­
3646
IV­
D­
46
Corinne
Whitehead,
President
Coalition
for
Health
Concern
1091
US
641
North
Benton,
Kentucky
42025
Docket
Entry
Commenter
Name
and
Address
11
IV­
D­
47
David
B.
McCoy
Attorney
at
Law
2940
Redbarn
Lane
Idaho
Falls,
ID
83404
IV­
D­
48
Scott
Anderson,
PE
URS
Corporation
2325
Maryland
Road
Willow
Grove,
PA
19090
IV­
D­
49
Sonja
Bazemore
Favors,
Environmental
Engineer
II
Alabama
Department
of
Environment
Management
1400
Coliseum
Boulevard
Montgomery,
AL
36110
IV­
D­
50
Louis
Zeller
Blue
Ridge
Environmental
Defense
League
Post
Office
Box
88
Glendale
Springs,
NC
28629
IV­
G­
1
Zygmunt
V.
Osiecki,
Vice
President
Plant
Engineering
and
Environmental
Services
Neville
Chemical
Company
2800
Neville
Road
Pittsburgh,
PA
15225­
1496
12
2.0
RESPONSE
TO
COMMENTS
ON
PROPOSED
RULE
2.1
RULE
SCOPE
2.1.1
Need
for
Site
Remediation
NESHAP
Comment:
Six
commenters
[
Docket
entries
IV­
D­
08,
IV­
D­
15,
IV­
D­
19,
IV­
D­
26,
IV­
D­
29,
IV­
D­
31]
disagreed
with
our
decision
to
establish
a
NESHAP
regulating
HAP
emissions
from
site
remediation
activities.
The
commenters
argued
that
such
a
NESHAP
is
not
needed
for
several
reasons:
1)
the
level
of
HAP
emissions
from
the
sources
that
would
be
subject
to
the
rule
is
too
low
to
warrant
regulation
by
a
NESHAP;
2)
adequate
air
emissions
controls
already
are
imposed
at
sites
subject
to
risk
assessment;
and
3)
a
NESHAP
discourages
site
owners
and
operators
from
initiating
and
conducing
voluntary
cleanups.
Response:
Section
112
of
the
CAA
requires
that
we
establish
MACT
standards
for
the
control
of
HAP
from
both
new
and
existing
major
sources
of
HAP.
Section
112(
a)(
1)
defines
a
"
major
source"
as
"
any
stationary
source
or
group
of
stationary
sources
located
within
a
contiguous
area
and
under
common
control
that
emits
or
has
the
potential
to
emit
considering
controls,
in
the
aggregate,
10
tons
per
year
or
more
of
any
hazardous
air
pollutant
or
25
tons
per
year
or
more
of
any
combination
of
hazardous
air
pollutants."
(
Emphasis
added.)
We
have
codified
essentially
this
same
definition
into
section
63.2
of
the
General
Provisions
to
Part
63.
We
have
long
interpreted
this
definition
as
requiring
that
all
sources
of
HAP
within
a
plant
site
must
be
aggregated,
so
long
as
the
sources
are
geographically
adjacent
and
under
common
control
(
see
e.
g.,
59
FR
12412,
March
16,
1994).
This
interpretation
was
sustained
by
the
court
in
National
Mining
Ass'n
v.
EPA,
59
F.
3d
1351,
1355­
1359
(
D.
C.
13
Cir.
1995).
A
consequence,
then,
is
that
sources
of
HAP
which
are
part
of
a
major
source,
but
which
would
not
themselves
(
viewed
separately)
be
major
sources,
are
still
classified
as
major
sources
and
are
subject
to
the
requirements
of
CAA
section
112(
c)
and
(
d),
which
command
us
to
list
all
categories
of
major
sources
and
establish
technology­
based
standards
for
those
sources.
The
result,
for
purposes
of
site
remediation
activities,
is
that
all
such
remediations
conducted
at
locations
which,
taken
as
a
whole
are
major
sources,
are
themselves
required
to
be
controlled
by
the
section
112(
d)
standards
we
are
finalizing
in
this
rule.
We
determined
that
there
are
major
sources
of
HAP
where
site
remediations
are
now
being
conducted
or
may
be
conducted
in
the
future
to
clean
up
contaminated
environmental
media
or
certain
stored
or
disposed
materials
that
pose
a
reasonable
potential
threat
to
contaminate
environmental
media.
The
levels
of
HAP
emissions
from
remediation
activities
at
a
given
cleanup
site
depend
on
a
combination
of
site­
specific
factors
including
the
type
of
remediation
processes
used
and
activities
conducted;
the
quantity,
HAP
composition,
and
other
characteristics
of
the
remediation
material;
and
the
time
required
to
complete
the
cleanup.
We
recognize
that
at
some
cleanup
sites
the
levels
of
HAP
emissions
from
the
remediation
activities
will
be
low.
However,
at
other
cleanup
sites
the
potential
level
of
HAP
emissions
from
the
remediation
activities
can
be
substantial
and
appropriate
air
pollution
controls
are
needed
to
protect
public
health
and
the
environment.
We
already
have
established
requirements
under
our
RCRA
hazardous
waste
corrective
action
and
CERCLA
Superfund
programs
which
address
the
air
emissions
from
certain
remediation
activities
based
largely
on
site­
specific
risk
assessments
(
these
programs
are
discussed
further
in
section
2.1.2
of
this
document).
However,
these
requirements
do
not
universally
apply
to
all
site
remediations
with
the
potential
to
emit
HAP.
There
are
site
remediations
not
subject
to
federally­
enforceable
requirements
under
our
RCRA
hazardous
waste
corrective
action
and
CERCLA
Superfund
programs.
To
meet
our
congressional
directive
under
CAA
section
112,
we
are
promulgating
the
Site
Remediation
NESHAP
applicable
to
those
site
remediations
not
subject
to
federally­
enforceable
requirements
that
will
effectively
control
HAP
emissions.
14
Finally,
the
fundamental
objective
of
a
site
remediation
is
to
mitigate
a
detected
risk
to
public
health
or
the
environment
by
successfully
completing
the
cleanup
of
media
or
other
materials
at
the
site
that
is
contaminated
by
a
hazardous
substance.
It
is
commendable
when
a
site
owner
or
operator
voluntarily
initiates
and
conducts
a
cleanup.
However,
the
fact
that
a
cleanup
is
being
conducted
voluntarily
as
opposed
to
being
conducted
to
comply
with
a
Federal
or
State
regulatory
requirement
or
fulfill
a
court
directive
does
not
obviate
or
excuse
the
use
of
appropriate
air
pollution
controls
to
those
site
remediation
activities
with
the
potential
to
emit
substantial
quantities
of
HAP.

2.1.2
Cleanups
Regulated
Under
CERCLA
Superfund
and
RCRA
Corrective
Action
Programs
Comment:
We
received
comments
supporting
our
proposal
that
site
remediations
conducted
for
CERCLA
Superfund
and
RCRA
corrective
action
cleanups
not
be
subject
to
the
Site
Remediation
NESHAP
[
Docket
entries
IV­
D­
05,
IV­
D­
08,
IV­
D­
11,
IV­
D­
12,
IV­
D­
13,
IV­
D­
15,
IV­
D­
17,
IV­
D­
19,
IV­
D­
23,
IV­
D­
25,
IV­
D­
26,
IV­
D­
31,
IV­
D­
45].
These
commenters
believe
that
these
RCRA
and
CERCLA
cleanup
programs
do
have
appropriate
provisions
which
provide
for
the
protection
of
public
health
and
the
environment
from
air
pollutants
emitted
from
site
remediation
activities
on
a
site­
specific
basis.
Other
commenters
[
Docket
entries
IV­
D­
06,
IV­
D­
34,
IV­
D­
36,
IV­
D­
46,
IV­
D­
50]
opposed
the
exclusion
of
these
site
remediations
from
being
subject
to
the
Site
Remediation
NESHAP
because
they
assert
that
neither
of
the
RCRA
and
CERCLA
programs
have
air
emission
standards
for
site
remediation
activities
and
that
the
intent
of
CAA
section
112
is
to
establish
NESHAP
for
HAP
emissions
from
these
activities
to
address
these
RCRA
and
CERCLA
regulatory
gaps.
Response:
The
RCRA
hazardous
waste
corrective
action
and
CERCLA
Superfund
programs
do
not
establish
national
air
standards
for
site
remediations.
These
programs,
however,
do
have
provisions
which
provide
for
the
protection
of
public
health
and
the
environment
from
air
pollutants
emitted
from
these
activities
on
a
site­
specific
basis.
As
we
stated
at
proposal,
we
believe
that
the
established
Federal
requirements
provide
an
appropriate
and
effective
regulatory
approach
to
15
address
air
emissions
from
those
remediation
activities
performed
under
CERCLA
authority
as
a
remedial
action
or
a
non­
time
critical
removal
action,
or
under
RCRA
authority
at
permitted
or
Federal
Order
RCRA
corrective
action
sites.
The
Superfund
program
is
designed
to
protect
public
health
and
the
environment
while
providing
the
flexibility
to
use
effective
and
innovative
remediation
approaches
that
best
suit
the
site­
specific
conditions
at
each
CERCLA
site
(
CERCLA
section
121).
The
Superfund
program
conducts
extensive
evaluation
of
the
contamination
at
each
CERCLA
site
(
see
40
CFR
300.430).
As
part
of
the
evaluation
process,
a
decision
document
(
i.
e.,
Record
of
Decision
(
ROD))
is
developed
for
response
actions,
documenting
the
extent
of
contamination
and
the
cleanup
method(
s)
to
be
used
at
the
site.
Under
this
process,
a
site­
specific
analysis,
considering
the
impacts
to
air,
soil
and
groundwater,
is
conducted
and
an
appropriate
remedy
is
selected.
During
the
ROD
process,
the
general
public
is
given
the
opportunity
for
input
in
the
decisionmaking
process
through
public
hearings
and
submission
of
written
comments.
The
public
plays
an
important
role
in
identifying
and
characterizing
site­
specific
factors,
such
as
the
type
of
contaminants,
the
level
and
extent
of
contamination
and
other
site­
specific
factors.
We
believe
this
procedure
results
in
selection
of
the
best
plan
for
cleaning
up
each
site
and
achieving
the
program's
goals.
As
implemented
under
the
requirements
of
RCRA,
hazardous
waste
treatment,
storage
and
disposal
facilities
(
TSDF)
must
obtain
a
permit
specifying
requirements
for
managing
hazardous
waste.
As
a
condition
of
obtaining
this
permit,
facilities
are
required
to
undertake
corrective
action
addressing
releases
of
hazardous
waste
and
hazardous
constituents
from
units
at
the
facility
which
do
not
themselves
require
RCRA
permits
(
solid
waste
management
units)(
RCRA
section
3004(
u)).
For
such
designated
contamination
areas
at
TSDF,
requirements
for
the
cleanup
of
the
contamination
are
included
in
the
facility's
RCRA
permit,
or
Federal
Order
where
applicable.
Such
cleanup
activities
are
known
as
"
corrective
actions."
Although
RCRA
is
a
separate
program
from
Superfund,
the
RCRA
permitting
or
Federal
Order
process
for
TSDF
share
several
significant
characteristics
with
Superfund
cleanup
activities
at
CERCLA
sites.
First,
it
is
also
the
intent
of
the
RCRA
Corrective
Action
program
to
protect
public
health
and
the
16
environment
while
allowing
flexibility
in
choosing
solutions
to
eliminate
or
reduce
site
contamination.
Second,
RCRA
permitting
and
Federal
Order
procedures
involve
the
public
in
the
decision­
making
process
through
informal
public
meetings,
public
hearings
or
written
comment.
Finally,
an
extensive
site­
specific
evaluation
is
performed
at
the
RCRA
facility
to
evaluate
the
extent
of
the
contamination,
while
considering
appropriate
remedies
through
a
multi­
media
(
i.
e.,
air,
soil,
groundwater)
perspective
(
see
also
67
FR
49406
for
additional
explanation).
In
short,
we
view
the
hazardous
waste
corrective
action
program
under
RCRA
and
the
Superfund
program
under
CERCLA
as
the
functional
equivalents
of
the
establishment
of
MACT
standards
under
CAA
section
112.
These
programs,
as
part
of
the
ROD
process
for
Superfund
cleanups
and
the
RCRA
permitting
process
for
corrective
action
cleanups,
require
consideration
of
the
same
HAP
emissions
that
we
do
in
establishing
MACT
standards,
and
provide
opportunity
for
public
involvement
in
these
site­
specific
remediation
determinations.
The
RCRA
and
CERCLA
statues
apply
more
specifically
to
the
remediation
process
than
does
MACT
under
the
CAA
and,
unlike
the
CAA,
authorize
site
specific
means
of
dealing
with
remediation
activities
and
their
associated
HAP
emissions.
We
consequently
are
exempting
these
activities
from
the
MACT
standards
promulgated
in
this
rule.

Comment:
Commenter
[
Docket
entry
IV­
D­
17]
requests
that
the
EPA
clarify
in
the
final
rule
that
the
exemption
for
sites
cleaned
up
under
CERCLA
authority
does
not
require
the
site
to
have
been
listed
on
the
National
Priorities
List
(
NPL).
The
commenter
believes
it
is
the
EPA's
intent
that
the
exemption
in
rule
apply
to
any
site
cleaned
up
under
CERCLA
authority.
Response:
We
have
revised
the
regulatory
language
in
the
final
rule
to
state
that
a
site
remediation
is
not
subject
to
the
Site
Remediation
NESHAP
if
the
remediation
will
be
performed
under
the
authority
of
CERCLA
as
a
remedial
action
or
a
non
time
critical
removal
action.
There
is
no
requirement
for
a
site
to
have
been
listed
on
the
National
Priorities
List
to
qualify
for
this
exemption.

Comment:
Commenter
[
Docket
entry
IV­
D­
21]
requests
that
EPA
clarify
that
a
facility
with
a
permit
issued
by
EPA
or
an
17
authorized
State
to
conduct
corrective
action
under
RCRA
is
exempt
from
the
rule,
whether
or
not
the
facility
currently
is
a
TSDF.
For
example,
a
facility
could
initiate
corrective
action
under
a
RCRA
TSDF
permit
granted
to
allow
the
facility
to
store
hazardous
waste.
After
ceasing
to
store
hazardous
waste,
the
facility
may
modify
the
permit
to
drop
TSDF
status
but
continue
with
the
corrective
action.
Thus,
the
facility
may
not
be
a
TSDF
but
nevertheless
is
performing
a
permitted
RCRA
corrective
action.
Response:
We
have
revised
the
regulatory
language
in
the
final
rule
to
state
that
a
site
remediation
is
not
subject
to
the
Site
Remediation
NESHAP
if
the
site
remediation
will
be
performed
under
a
RCRA
corrective
action
conducted
at
a
treatment,
storage
and
disposal
facility
(
TSDF)
that
is
either
required
by
your
permit
issued
by
either
the
EPA
or
a
State
program
authorized
by
the
EPA
under
RCRA
section
3006;
required
by
orders
authorized
under
RCRA;
or
required
by
orders
authorized
under
RCRA
section
7003.
If
a
particular
site
remediation
does
not
meet
RCRA
corrective
action
conditions,
then
your
site
remediation
is
not
eligible
for
the
exemption
from
the
Site
Remediation
NESHAP.

Comment:
Commenter
[
Docket
entry
IV­
D­
12]
requests
that
the
EPA
expand
the
exemption
to
include
remediation/
cleanups
undertaken
in
compliance
with
a
consent
order.
Response:
The
final
Site
Remediation
NESHAP
exempts
site
remediations
undertaken
in
compliance
with
a
consent
order
to
the
extent
that
the
subject
site
remediation
is
a
RCRA
corrective
action
required
by
orders
authorized
under
RCRA
or
required
by
orders
authorized
under
RCRA
section
7003.
If
a
consent
order
is
one
that
is
not
authorized
under
RCRA
section
7003,
then
it
would
be
subject
to
the
final
Site
Remediation
NESHAP.

2.1.3
Cleanups
Regulated
Under
State
and
Voluntary
Programs
Comment:
Many
commenters
[
Docket
entries
IV­
D­
03,
IV­
D­
04,
IV­
D­
09,
IV­
D­
12,
IV­
D­
13,
IV­
D­
15,
IV­
D­
16,
IV­
D­
17,
IVD
18,
IV­
D­
19,
IV­
D­
20
IV­
D­
21,
IV­
D­
22,
IV­
D­
23,
IV­
D­
25,
IVD
26,
IV­
D­
27,
IV­
D­
28,
IV­
D­
30,
IV­
D­
31,
IV­
D­
32,
IV­
D­
39]
requested
that
in
addition
to
CERCLA
Superfund
and
RCRA
corrective
action
cleanups,
that
other
cleanups
conducted
18
under
Federal
or
State
oversight
not
be
subject
to
the
rule,
where
such
cleanups
are
conducted
following
CERCLA
or
RCRA
requirements.
The
commenters
argue
that
these
cleanups
conducted
under
State
Superfund,
Brownfield,
voluntary
cleanup,
or
other
similar
programs
are
subject
to
emissions
controls
and
requirements
that
are
substantially
similar
to
those
in
the
CERCLA
or
RCRA
programs.
The
proposed
rule
may
produce
excessive
hardship
on
participants
of
State
Brownfield
redevelopment
and
voluntary
cleanup
programs.
This
would
create
a
major
disincentive
to
owners
and
operators
from
participating
in
these
programs,
which
often
provide
a
less
costly
and
a
less
time
consuming
alternative
to
remediation
conducted
pursuant
to
CERCLA
or
RCRA.
Response:
The
final
Site
Remediation
NESHAP
applies
only
to
site
remediations
that
meet
the
three
applicability
conditions
specified
in
the
rule.
The
three
conditions
are:
the
facility
is
a
major
source
of
HAP,
a
site
remediation
is
being
conducted
at
the
facility,
and
a
non­
remediation
activity
is
also
being
conducted
at
the
facility
that
meets
an
affected
source
definition
of
an
another
40
CFR
part
63
MACT
standard.
We
have
determined
that
site
remediations
at
those
sites
that
meet
these
applicability
conditions
warrant
the
implementation
of
air
pollution
controls
to
reduce
the
emission
of
organic
HAP
to
the
atmosphere.
As
discussed
in
our
previous
response,
we
are
exempting
from
the
rule
requirements
those
sites
that
meet
the
rule
applicability
conditions
where
the
site
remediations
are
conducted
for
CERCLA
(
Superfund)
or
RCRA
corrective
action
cleanups.
This
includes
the
site
remediations
in
one
of
39
States
the
EPA
has
authorized
to
date
to
oversee
cleanups
at
TSDF
under
RCRA
Corrective
Action.
Site
remediations
administered
under
these
federally­
enforceable
programs
address
the
organic
HAP
emissions
from
the
site
remediations
on
a
site­
specific
basis.
The
overall
objective
of
any
site
remediation,
whether
it
be
a
Federal
required,
State
required,
or
voluntary
cleanup,
is
to
remove
the
threat
to
human
health
and
the
environment
posed
by
the
presence
of
hazardous
substances
in
the
contaminated
media
and
wastes
that
can
potentially
contaminate
the
media
at
the
site.
However,
the
actions
taken
at
a
given
contamination
site
that
remove
the
hazardous
substances
from
water
or
soil
by
transferring
those
substances
to
the
air
is
not
in
the
best
interest
of
protecting
human
health
and
the
19
environment
from
exposure
to
these
hazardous
substances.
Unlike
CERCLA
or
RCRA
corrective
action
cleanups,
State
regulatory
and
voluntary
cleanup
programs
are
not
uniform
on
a
national
basis,
any
requirements
imposed
on
a
given
site
remediation
are
not
federally­
enforceable
by
the
EPA,
and
the
programs
may
not
specifically
address
site
remediation
air
emissions.
For
these
reasons,
we
cannot
view
these
activities
as
the
functional
equivalent
of
MACT,
and
therefore
we
cannot
justify
extending
the
same
exemption
we
provide
for
CERCLA
Superfund
or
RCRA
corrective
action
cleanups
to
site
remediations
conducted
for
State
regulatory
and
voluntary
cleanup
programs.
Therefore,
we
are
maintaining
the
applicability
of
the
final
rule
to
those
site
remediations
conducted
for
State
regulatory
and
voluntary
cleanup
programs
where
the
site
remediation
meets
the
applicability
conditions
specified
in
the
rule.

2.1.4
Leaking
Underground
Storage
Tank
Cleanups
Comment:
Many
commenters
[
Docket
entries
IV­
D­
08,
IV­
D­
11,
IV­
D­
12,
IV­
D­
14,
IV­
D­
15,
IV­
D­
16,
IV­
D­
17,
IV­
D­
43]
agreed
with
the
decision
to
modify
the
site
remediation
source
category
listing
to
exclude
remediation
activities
at
leaking
underground
storage
tanks
(
UST)
located
at
gasoline
service
stations.
However,
commenters
argue
that
because
the
types,
sizes
and
purpose
of
UST
used
for
the
storage
of
motor
fuels
or
heating
oils
at
all
types
of
commercial
and
industrial
properties
are
comparable
to
those
located
at
gasoline
service
stations,
then
remediation
activities
associated
with
any
UST
contamination
cleanups
regardless
of
location
should
also
not
be
subject
to
the
Site
Remediation
NESHAP.
Response:
The
rationale
for
our
decision
to
modify
description
for
the
site
remediation
source
category
to
exclude
remediation
activities
from
leaking
UST
located
at
gasoline
service
stations
is
based
on
our
estimates
of
the
total
HAP
emissions
from
a
typical
cleanup
of
contamination
from
the
size
and
types
of
underground
tanks
commonly
used
at
gasoline
service
station
sites.
These
estimates
indicate
that
the
level
of
HAP
emissions
from
these
sites
would
be
significantly
below
the
major
source
threshold
levels
(
i.
e.,
less
than
10
ton/
yr
of
a
single
HAP
or
25
ton/
yr
of
all
HAP)
(
see
67
FR
49400).
Gasoline
service
station
sites
are
area
20
sources.
Site
remediation
was
listed
as
a
source
category
for
MACT
standard
development
to
address
HAP
emissions
at
major
sources
where
remediation
technologies
and
practices
also
are
used
at
the
site
to
clean
up
contaminated
environmental
media
(
e.
g.,
soils,
groundwaters,
or
surface
waters)
or
other
materials
that
pose
a
reasonable
potential
threat
to
contaminate
environmental
media.
Our
decision
was
not
based
on
a
determination
that
UST
contamination
cleanups
regardless
of
location
should
not
be
included
in
the
site
remediation
source
category.
Therefore,
we
believe
that
if
a
leaking
UST
cleanup
is
conducted
at
a
major
source
site
then
it
is
appropriate
(
and
indeed
mandated)
to
require
the
cleanup
activities
comply
with
the
Site
Remediation
NESHAP
requirements.
Comment:
One
commenter
[
Docket
entry
IV­
D­
17]
requested
the
EPA
clarify
that
this
exclusion
applies
to
residential,
farm,
or
gasoline
station
sites
even
when
the
contamination
at
these
sites
has
migrated
from
a
regulated
site.
The
commenter
believes
that
the
EPA
intended
this
result
but
the
proposed
rule
language
does
not
make
this
intent
clear.
Response:
As
stated
in
the
above
response,
the
rationale
for
our
decision
to
modify
description
for
the
site
remediation
source
category
to
exclude
remediation
activities
from
leaking
UST
located
gasoline
service
stations
is
based
on
our
estimates
of
the
total
HAP
emissions
from
a
typical
cleanup
of
contamination
from
the
size
and
types
of
underground
tanks
commonly
used
at
these
sites.
Our
intent
is
to
exclude
from
the
site
remediation
source
category
description
only
those
remediation
activities
required
for
the
cleanup
of
contamination
resulting
from
leaking
UST
physically
located
at
a
gasoline
service
station
(
as
well
as
all
remediation
activities
at
residential
and
farm
sites).
This
action
to
modify
the
description
for
the
site
remediation
source
category
does
not,
and
never
was
intended,
to
relieve
an
owner
or
operator's
responsibility
to
clean
up
contamination
originating
at
his
or
her
site
that
subsequently
migrates
beyond
the
site's
property
boundaries
regardless
if
this
migration
occurs
above
ground
or
underground.

2.1.5
Radioactive
Mixed
Waste
Cleanups
21
Comment:
Six
commenters
[
Docket
entries
IV­
D­
06,
IV­
D­
34,
IV­
D­
36,
IV­
D­
46,
IV­
D­
47,
IV­
D­
50]
opposed
the
proposal
that
site
remediations
conducted
to
clean
up
mixed
waste
(
materials
that
contains
both
hazardous
waste
and
radioactive
materials)
not
be
subject
to
the
Site
Remediation
NESHAP.
These
commenters
argue
that
the
existing
Federal
regulations
for
mixed
waste
are
not
adequately
addressing
the
HAP
emissions
from
remediation
activities
at
existing
facilities
managing
these
types
of
wastes.
Two
commenters
expressed
support
for
the
proposal
[
Docket
entries
IV­
D­
25,
IV­
D­
37].
These
commenter
argue
that
mixed
wastes
are
already
appropriately
and
protectively
managed
under
the
Atomic
Energy
Act
and
Nuclear
Waste
Policy
Act.
Response:
Radioactive
mixed
wastes
(
RMW)
are
wastes
that
contain
radioactive
materials
as
well
as
wastes
listed
or
identified
as
hazardous
under
RCRA.
Radioactive
mixed
wastes
must
be
managed
according
to
RCRA
subtitle
C
regulations.
In
addition,
these
wastes
are
subject
to
standards
administered
by
the
Nuclear
Regulatory
Commission
(
NRC)
under
the
Atomic
Energy
Act
and
Nuclear
Waste
Policy
Act
of
1982
that
address
the
safe
handling
and
disposal
of
radioactive
waste.
In
developing
the
air
standards
under
CAA
authority
for
stationary
sources
that
potentially
may
manage
wastes
also
subject
to
requirements
under
other
legislative
authorities,
we
consider
the
management
practices
required
for
these
wastes
to
avoid
inconsistencies
between
any
CAA
requirements
that
might
be
established
and
existing
requirements
under
the
other
applicable
authorities.
We
reviewed
the
special
nature
of
existing
requirements
for
managing
radioactive
mixed
wastes
with
respect
to
requirements
for
the
control
of
organic
HAP
emissions
we
proposed
to
establish
under
the
Site
Remediation
NESHAP.
In
certain
cases,
the
air
pollution
controls
used
as
the
basis
for
the
standards
under
the
Site
Remediation
NESHAP
are
not
compatible
with
the
NRC
requirements
for
safe
handling
of
radioactive
mixed
wastes.
For
example,
drums
used
to
store
radioactive
mixed
waste
cannot
be
sealed
with
vapor
leak­
tight
covers
because
of
unacceptable
pressure
buildup
of
hydrogen
gas
to
levels
that
can
potentially
cause
rupture
of
the
drum
or
create
a
potentially
serious
explosion
hazard
(
a
hazard
which,
by
any
commonsense
measure,
exceeds
risk
posed
by
emission
of
organic
HAP).
(
See
Air
Docket
ID
No.
OAR­
2002­
0021,
Docket
Item
IV­
B­
1;
see
also
S.
Rep.
No
228,
101st
Cong.
22
1st
sess.
at
168
("
In
cases
where
control
strategies
for
two
or
more
different
pollutants
are
in
actual
conflict,
the
Administrator
shall
apply
the
same
principle
 
maximum
protection
of
human
health
shall
be
the
objective
test").)
The
generation
of
hydrogen
gas
is
a
result
of
the
radiolytic
decomposition
of
organic
compounds
(
i.
e.,
plastics)
and/
or
aqueous
solutions
within
the
container.
Plastics
are
commonly
used
as
a
barrier
to
alpha
radiation
both
in
handling
operations
and
in
waste
packaging.
Over
time,
the
alpha
particle
causes
the
hydrolysis
of
chemical
bonds
within
the
plastic
material
which
results
in
the
release
of
hydrogen
gas.
Likewise,
hydrolysis
of
aqueous
solutions
will
yield
hydrogen.
Additionally,
radiation­
induced
degradation
and
biodegradation
of
organic
low­
exchange
resin
waste,
which
are
also
RMW,
generated
during
water
treatment
at
nuclear
facilities,
can
result
in
the
production
of
gaseous
products
(
i.
e.,
hydrogen
and
carbon
dioxide)
which
in
turn
can
result
in
pressure
buildup
and
failure
of
the
container.
Consequently,
a
drum
used
for
storage
of
radioactive
mixed
wastes
must
be
continuously
vented
through
special
filters
in
accordance
with
technical
guidance
issued
by
the
NRC
to
prevent
the
hydrogen
concentration
in
the
drum
from
reaching
dangerous
levels.
Because
of
pressure
build­
up
inside
the
container,
a
vent
for
gaseous
compounds
is
necessary
to
prevent
failure
of
a
high­
integrity
container
(
i.
e.,
vent
designs
incorporated
into
high
integrity
containers
restrict
the
release
of
radionuclides
from
the
container
into
the
environment
while
allowing
the
gas
to
be
vented).
(
See
RCRA
Docket
Items
F­
91­
CESP­
00046
and
F­
94­
CESF­
S0001,
which
are
part
of
the
administrative
record
for
this
rule.)
In
accordance
with
the
Waste
Isolation
Pilot
Plant
(
WIPP),
Carlsbad,
New
Mexico,
Waste
Acceptance
Plan
(
WAP),
wastes
that
are
to
be
shipped
to
the
WIPP
must
be
in
containers
that
are
vented
to
prevent
the
buildup
of
pressure.
The
container
vents
must
be
filtered
to
ensure
that
no
radioactive
waste
components
are
released.
For
example,
the
Hazardous
Waste
Permit
for
the
WIPP,
dated
November
25,
2002,
in
section
M1­
1d
describing
container
management
practices
states
on
page
M1­
8
...
"
Because
containers
at
the
WIPP
will
contain
radioactive
waste,
safety
concerns
require
that
containers
be
continuously
vented
to
obviate
the
buildup
of
gases
within
the
container.
These
gases
could
result
from
23
radiolysis,
which
is
the
breakdown
of
moisture
by
radiation.
The
vents,
which
are
nominally
0.75
in.
(
1.9
centimeters)
in
diameter,
are
generally
installed
on
or
near
the
lids
of
the
containers.
These
vents
are
filtered
so
that
gas
can
escape
while
particulates
are
retained."
In
addition,
the
permit
in
the
section
describing
the
requirements
for
the
standard
transuranic
mixed
waste
drums
states
on
page
M1­
2,
..."
One
or
more
filtered
vents
(
as
described
in
Section
M1­
1d)
will
be
installed
in
the
drum
lid
to
prevent
the
escape
of
any
radioactive
particulates
and
to
eliminate
any
potential
of
pressurization.
To
comply
with
these
requirements,
the
drum
lid
is
punctured
to
release
any
buildup
of
potentially
explosive
hydrogen
gas
and
a
NUCFIL
filter
vent
is
attached.
The
function
of
a
NUCFIL
filter
vent
is
to
retain
radionuclides
inside
a
container
while
allowing
hydrogen
and
other
gases
(
e.
g.,
VOC)
to
pass
through
to
the
atmosphere.
In
particular,
the
carbon
composite
membrane
used
in
the
filter
vent
does
not
inhibit
the
passing
of
VOC's
from
the
container
into
the
atmosphere.
Because
it
was
judged
an
unsafe
practice
to
store
RMW
drums/
containers
with
tight
covers,
and
because
the
WIPP
Waste
Analysis
Plan
requires
that
containers
be
vented
for
shipment
to
the
WIPP,
the
EPA
determined
that
many
DOE
facilities
may
be
unable
to
meet
the
tight
cover
control
device
criteria
for
containers
as
specified
in
the
proposed
Site
Remediation
NESHAP.
In
addition,
we
were
unable
to
determine,
at
the
time,
if
there
were
any
available
technologies
that
could
be
applied
to
the
RMW
containers
that
would
control
organic
air
emissions
in
a
safe
and
cost­
effective
manner
while
also
complying
with
WIPP
and
other
AEA
and
NWPA
requirements.
Information
gathered
and
reviewed
following
proposal
of
the
Site
Remediation
NESHAP
does
not
indicate
that
the
situation
regarding
the
safety
issue
related
to
storage
of
RMW
has
changed
since
proposal.
The
potentially
conflicting
requirements
for
containers
(
and
other
storage
units)
to
be
vented
under
one
set
of
rules
versus
the
requirements
for
closed,
tight
fitting
covers
under
the
CAA
rules
remains
to
be
resolved.
We
are
not
aware
of
any
available
device
to
control
organic
air
emissions
(
such
as
an
activated
carbon
filter)
that
can
be
used
in
combination
with
a
NUCFIL
filter
vent
on
a
RMW
container.
No
available
technologies
have
been
identified
24
that
could
be
applied
to
the
RMW
containers
that
would
control
organic
air
emissions
in
a
safe
and
cost­
effective
manner
while
also
complying
with
WIPP
and
other
AEA
and
NWPA
requirements.
With
no
known
controls
in
place
on
these
sources,
the
MACT
floor
for
RMW
sources
(
e.
g.,
RMW
containers)
appears
to
be
no
control
beyond
that
already
provided
by
the
NRC
and
other
applicable
regulations.
Codifying
this
literal
perpetuation
of
the
level
of
control
provided
by
another
regulatory
system
as
a
MACT
standard
seems
a
needless
expenditure
of
resources
since
it
would
not
change
existing
practice
or
otherwise
provide
benefits
not
already
provided
by
the
existing
regulatory
scheme.
Therefore,
we
have
retained
in
the
final
rule
an
exemption
from
the
air
pollution
control
requirements
under
the
Site
Remediation
NESHAP
for
remediation
material
management
units
(
e.
g.,
tanks,
containers,
and
surface
impoundments)
managing
RMW.
Although
the
technical
information
and
data
we
have
collected
support
inclusion
of
an
exemption
for
remediation
material
management
units
managing
RMW
from
the
air
pollution
control
requirements
under
the
Site
Remediation
NESHAP,
we
concluded
from
our
review
of
this
information
that
this
is
not
the
case
for
site
remediation
treatment
process
vents
and
equipment
leaks.
The
technical
and
safety
concerns
for
the
required
controls
for
organic
emissions
from
containers
and
tanks
managing
RMW
are
not
an
issue
with
the
controls
required
by
the
Site
Remediation
NESHAP
for
treatment
unit
process
vents
and
equipment
leaks
if
applied
to
remediation
material
streams
that
are
classified
as
RMW.
We
have
not
identified
any
conflicting
regulatory
requirements
that
would
preclude
the
use
of
air
pollution
controls
on
these
sources
as
is
the
case
with
tanks
and
containers.
Also,
since
1990,
remediation
material
streams
classified
as
RMW
have
been
subject
to,
and
in
compliance
with,
the
air
pollution
control
requirements
in
the
national
air
standards
we
promulgated
under
RCRA
authority
to
control
total
organic
emissions
from
hazardous
waste
TSDF
treatment
process
vents
(
subpart
AA
in
40
CFR
parts
264
and
265)
and
equipment
leaks
(
subpart
BB
in
40
CFR
parts
264
and
265).
The
air
pollution
control
requirements
under
these
RCRA
air
rules
are
the
same
as
the
requirements
for
site
remediation
treatment
process
vents
and
equipment
leaks
included
in
this
final
Site
Remediation
NESHAP.
With
demonstrated
controls
in
place
on
these
treatment
unit
and
25
equipment
component
sources,
MACT
for
these
RMW
sources
(
i.
e.,
process
vents
and
equipment
leaks)
would
be
established
at
the
control
levels
required
under
these
rules.
Because
the
technical
issues
related
to
safety
concerns
for
RMW
containers
and
other
storage
units
do
not
apply
to
treatment
unit
process
vents
and
equipment
leaks,
we
have
revised
Site
Remediation
NESHAP
to
limit
the
exemption
to
only
remediation
material
management
units
managing
RMW.
Remediation
activities
involving
the
cleanup
of
RMW
that
meet
the
rule
applicability
criteria
are
subject
to
standards
for
treatment
unit
process
vents
and
equipment
leaks
under
the
final
Site
Remediation
NESHAP.

2.1.6
Cleanups
at
Area
Sources
Comment:
One
commenter
[
Docket
entry
IV­
D­
42]
stated
that
the
Site
Remediation
NESHAP
should
not
be
limited
only
to
HAP
major
sources
but
should
apply
to
certain
area
sources.
The
commenter
argues
that
limiting
the
rule
applicability
to
sites
exceeding
the
major
source
threshold
levels
would
result
in
most
site
remediations
being
exempt
from
the
rule
since
the
majority
of
site
cleanups
occur
at
facilities
where
no
manufacturing
or
other
activities
continue
to
occur.
Commenter
recommends
that
site
remediation
activities
be
subject
to
the
rule
if:
1)
process
vent(
s)
of
the
source
operation
emits
more
than
3.0
pounds
per
hour
(
lb/
hr)
of
HAP
or
3.1
tpy
of
HAP,
or
2)
remediation
material
HAP
concentration
is
more
than
10
parts
per
million
by
weight,
or
3)
the
individual
process
vents
involved
in
the
remediation
have
a
flowrate
of
more
than
211
standard
cubic
feet
per
minute
(
scfm)
and
a
HAP
concentration
more
than
20
ppmv.
Response:
Under
the
final
Site
Remediation
NESHAP,
a
facility
that
remains
an
area
source
after
considering
the
HAP
emissions
from
any
existing
sources
plus
the
estimated
potential
HAP
emissions
from
the
anticipated
site
remediation
activities
is
not
regulated
because
it
does
not
meet
the
major
source
applicability
criteria.
To
regulate
these
area
sources,
the
CAA
requires
that
they
be
listed
prior
to
establishing
standards.
An
area
source
can
be
listed
for
regulation
in
one
of
two
ways.
One
method
is
to
list
the
category
for
regulation
in
accordance
with
CAA
sections
112(
k)(
3)(
B)(
ii)
and
112(
c)(
3)
through
the
Urban
Air
Toxics
26
Strategy
(
UATS).
This
requires
that
we
identify
and
list
area
source
categories
representing
at
least
90
percent
of
the
emissions
of
30
HAP
listed
as
presenting
the
greatest
threat
to
public
health
in
urban
areas.
We
published
our
first
list
of
area
source
categories
in
the
UATS
on
July
19,
1999
(
64
FR
38721),
with
subsequent
amendments
on
January
30,
2001
(
66
FR
8220),
June
26,
2002
(
67
FR
43112)
and
November
22,
2002
(
67
FR
70427)
and
site
remediation
activities
at
area
sources
were
not
listed
under
those
actions.
The
second
method
is
to
conduct
an
area
source
finding
for
the
specific
activities
within
the
source
category,
pursuant
to
section
112(
c)(
3)
of
the
CAA.
This
requires
that
we
find
that
the
"
category
or
subcategory
of
area
sources
.
.
.
presents
a
threat
of
adverse
effects
to
human
health
and
the
environment."
Conducting
such
a
finding
is
discretionary
and
we
have
chosen
not
to
conduct
an
area
source
finding
for
site
remediation.

2.2
DEVELOPMENT
OF
PROPOSED
RULE
2.2.1
Selection
of
Regulated
Pollutants
Comment:
We
received
comments
on
our
proposal
to
regulate
the
same
list
of
organic
HAP
compounds
used
for
the
OSWRO
NESHAP
and
not
to
regulate
metal
or
other
inorganic
HAP
under
the
Site
Remediation
NESHAP.
Two
commenters
[
Docket
entries
IV­
D­
34,
IV­
D­
50]
requested
that
we
reconsider
our
selection
of
which
HAP
are
regulated
under
the
rule
to
include
metals
and
inorganic
compounds
listed
as
HAP.
In
particular,
the
commenters
stated
that
beryllium
and
other
heavy
metals
should
be
included
because
these
HAP
cause
harm
to
public
health
and
welfare.
Other
commenters
[
Docket
entries
IV­
D­
08,
IV­
D­
17,
IV­
D­
19,
IV­
D­
21,
IV­
D­
25,
IV­
D­
30,
IV­
D­
39,
IV­
D­
45]
supported
our
decision
not
to
regulate
remediation
activities
that
emit
metal
HAP
or
other
inorganic
HAP.
One
commenter
[
Docket
entry
IV­
D­
24]
stated
that
the
rule
should
be
based
on
an
appropriate
HAP
list
developed
specifically
for
site
remediation
instead
of
using
the
list
for
the
OSWRO
NESHAP
under
40
CFR
63
subpart
DD.
This
list
should
not
include
compounds
for
which
no
analytical
methods
exist
under
EPA
SW
846
or
do
not
exist
in
groundwater.
One
commenter
[
Docket
entry
IV­
D­
45]
noted
that
the
list
of
HAP
in
Table
1
of
the
proposed
Site
Remediation
NESHAP
included
1­
1
dimethyl
27
hydrazine
which
is
not
in
the
list
of
HAP
in
Table
1
to
the
OSWRO
NESHAP,
as
amended
in
1999.
Response:
A
site
remediation
potentially
could
be
required
at
any
of
a
wide
variety
of
industrial
facilities,
manufacturing
plants,
waste
treatment
and
disposal
facilities,
and
other
types
of
sites.
Consequently,
the
contaminating
substances
at
a
site
requiring
cleanup
could
be
any
of
the
organic,
metal,
or
inorganic
chemicals
or
groups
of
chemicals
that
are
listed
as
HAP
pursuant
to
CAA
section
112(
b).
However,
some
of
these
contamination
substances
that
are
also
listed
as
HAP
have
no
or
minimal
potential
to
be
emitted
to
the
atmosphere
from
the
site
remediation
activities
performed
at
the
site
to
clean
up
the
contamination
(
notwithstanding
that
metal
and
other
inorganic
HAP
may
be
present
in
the
material
being
remediated).
In
developing
the
proposed
Site
Remediation
NESHAP,
we
considered
all
of
the
HAP
listed
pursuant
to
section
112(
b)
for
regulation
by
the
rule
(
see
67
FR
49413).
Based
on
the
information
available
to
us
at
proposal
regarding
the
cleanup
of
media
contaminated
with
metals
or
other
inorganic
HAP,
many
of
the
remediation
techniques
used
for
these
cleanups
do
not
release
the
metals
or
inorganic
HAP
to
the
atmosphere.
In
cases
where
remediation
material
containing
a
metal
or
inorganic
HAP
is
burned
in
an
incinerator
or
other
combustion
unit,
the
combustion
unit
must
already
meet
air
standards
under
the
CAA
and
RCRA
that
limit
organic,
particulate
matter,
metals,
and
chloride
emissions.
Therefore,
we
concluded
that
metals
and
other
inorganic
compounds
listed
as
HAP
pursuant
to
CAA
section
112(
b)
do
not
need
to
be
regulated
by
the
Site
Remediation
NESHAP.
We
specifically
requested
comment
at
proposal
on
our
conclusion.
We
received
some
additional
information
from
commenters
supporting
our
decision
not
to
include
any
metal
or
inorganic
HAP
on
our
list
of
regulated
HAP
for
the
Site
Remediation
NESHAP.
We
received
no
information
to
support
a
determination
that
metal
or
inorganic
HAP
are
being
emitted
from
site
remediation
activities
in
quantities
that
warrant
the
development
of
additional
national
air
standards.
Therefore,
we
continue
to
believe
that
metal
and
other
inorganic
compounds
HAP
do
not
need
to
be
addressed
by
the
Site
Remediation
NESHAP.
In
selecting
the
organic
HAP
to
be
regulated
by
the
Site
Remediation
NESHAP,
we
chose
at
proposal
to
be
consistent
with
28
the
approach
we
used
for
the
OSWRO
NESHAP
as
well
as
other
NESHAP
promulgated
for
source
categories
with
large
diversity
in
the
organic
chemical
constituents
present
in
the
materials
managed
at
any
given
facility.
Under
this
approach,
a
specific
list
of
pollutants
is
selected
that
reasonably
ensures
MACT
control
of
the
organic
HAP
emitted
from
the
source.
We
used
this
approach
to
develop
the
HAP
list
for
the
OSWRO
NESHAP
by
evaluating
each
chemical
or
chemical
group
listed
as
a
HAP
in
CAA
section
112(
b)
with
respect
to
its
potential
to
be
emitted
from
a
waste
management
or
recovery
operation
(
see
59
FR
1921).
The
OSWRO
NESHAP
does
not
apply
to
OSWRO
sources
managing
wastes
received
from
site
remediations.
However,
the
data
base
that
we
used
to
select
the
list
of
HAP
for
the
OSWRO
NESHAP
included
remediation
wastes
sent
to
hazardous
waste
TSDF.
We
concluded
that
this
data
base
is
also
representative
of
the
range
of
organic
HAP
chemicals
having
the
potential
to
be
emitted
from
the
sites
requiring
clean
up
of
media
contaminated
with
volatile
or
semi­
volatile
organics
and
other
remediation
material.
Therefore,
we
proposed
that
same
list
of
organic
HAP
used
for
the
OSWRO
NESHAP
also
be
used
for
the
Site
Remediation
NESHAP.
We
requested
comment
at
proposal
regarding
the
use
of
this
list
of
organic
HAP
for
the
Site
Remediation
NESHAP.
We
received
no
new
data
from
commenters,
and
have
not
ourselves
found
additional
data
since
proposal
to
cause
us
to
alter
our
conclusion.
We
continue
to
believe
that
these
data
are
the
best
information
available
representative
of
the
range
of
organic
HAP
chemicals
having
the
potential
to
be
emitted
from
site
remediation
activities,
and
that
it
is
most
appropriate
to
use
the
HAP
list
from
the
OSWRO
NESHAP
also
for
the
Site
Remediation
NESHAP.
When
we
developed
the
HAP
list
for
the
OSWRO
NESHAP,
we
evaluated
each
organic
chemical
or
chemical
group
listed
as
a
HAP
in
CAA
section
112(
b)
with
respect
to
its
potential
to
be
emitted
from
a
waste
management
or
recovery
operation
(
see
59
FR
51921).
The
criteria
used
to
characterize
and
evaluate
emission
potential
was
based
on
a
chemical
constituent's
Henry's
law
constant,
evaluation
of
the
aqueous
and
organic
volatility
characteristics
of
the
chemical,
and
the
ability
of
the
analytical
test
methods
to
quantitate
the
chemical.
Based
on
our
evaluation,
we
developed
the
list
of
specific
organic
HAP
compounds
or
compound
groups
to
be
regulated
under
the
29
rule
(
Table
1
in
the
OSWRO
NESHAP).
We
later
decided
to
delete
eight
chemicals
from
our
initial
list
because
we
concluded
that
there
is
low
potential
for
these
compounds
to
be
emitted
from
OSWRO
(
see
61
FR
34153).
Dimethyl
hydrazine
was
one
of
the
eight
compounds
we
removed
from
the
list.
Table
1
in
the
proposed
Site
Remediation
NESHAP
inadvertently
included
dimethyl
hydrazine
as
one
of
the
regulated
HAP.
We
have
corrected
Table
1
in
the
final
Site
Remediation
NESHAP
to
accurately
reflect
our
intent
by
deleting
dimethyl
hydrazine
from
the
list.
Comment:
One
commenter
[
Docket
entry
IV­
D­
48]
stated
that
the
proposed
Site
Remediation
NESHAP
is
silent
on
control
of
important
non­
HAP,
non­
VOC
compounds
that
might
be
released
as
part
of
site
remediation
activities
such
as
to
ozone
depleting
substances
regulated
under
Title
VI
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
which
have
been
shown
to
reduce
stratospheric
ozone.
Response:
The
Site
Remediation
NESHAP
is
promulgated
under
authority
of
Section
112
in
Title
III
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
(
CAA).
Title
III
does
not
contain
provisions
for
regulating
non­
HAP
compounds.
This
section
of
the
CAA
requires
us
to
list
categories
and
subcategories
of
major
sources
and
area
sources
of
HAP
and
to
establish
NESHAP
for
the
listed
source
categories
and
subcategories.
While
air
pollution
controls
used
to
control
a
particular
HAP
may
also
control
criteria
or
other
types
of
air
pollutants,
the
purpose
of
a
NESHAP
is
to
establish
national
standards
to
address
HAP
emissions
from
stationary
sources.
Since
ozone
depleting
compounds
are
not
HAP
they
are
not
regulated
by
the
Site
Remediation
NESHAP.

2.2.2
Selection
of
MACT
floor
Comment:
One
commenter
[
Docket
entry
IV­
D­
29]
challenged
our
determination
of
the
MACT
floor
level
for
existing
sources
because
it
is
not
based
on
data
that
represent
the
types
of
air
pollution
controls
actually
being
used
at
those
site
remediations
that
are
not
exempted
and
would
be
subject
to
the
rule.
The
commenter
disagrees
with
our
statement
at
proposal
that
the
MACT
floor
for
existing
sources
would
be
more
stringent
than
no
controls.
The
commenter
contends
that
obtaining
data
for
the
sources
actually
subject
to
the
rule
30
would
show
that
the
MACT
floor
level
for
the
existing
sources
at
these
sites
should
be
no
control.
Response:
The
MACT
floor
is
the
minimum
control
level
allowed
for
a
NESHAP
and
is
defined
under
CAA
section
112(
d)(
3).
In
developing
the
Site
Remediation
NESHAP,
we
did
not
make
a
determination
of
MACT
floor
level
for
existing
sources.
As
we
discussed
in
the
preamble
to
the
proposed
rule
(
see
67
FR
49415),
we
chose
not
to
determine
a
MACT
floor
level
for
existing
sources
because,
in
our
judgement,
the
data
available
to
us
were
not
sufficient
to
determine
the
average
emissions
limitation
achieved
by
the
best
performing
12
percent
of
existing
sources
at
site
remediations
nationwide
(
i.
e.,
existing
source
MACT
floor
as
defined
under
CAA
section
112(
d)(
3)).
Instead,
we
based
our
selection
of
control
requirements
for
the
proposed
rule
on
alternatives
beyond
the
MACT
floor.
We
have
reviewed
our
data
sources
to
determine
the
availability
of
additional
information
on
air
pollution
controls
currently
in
use
for
site
remediation
activities.
No
new
data
or
information
to
update
and
supplement
our
original
data
were
provided
by
commenters
on
the
proposed
rule.
We
concluded
that
our
original
database
remains
the
best
available
source
of
information
available
to
us.

2.2.3
Affected
Sources
Comment:
One
commenter
[
Docket
entry
IV­
D­
04]
requests
that
the
affected
"
remediation
material
management
units"
subject
to
the
rule
should
be
defined
more
explicitly.
It
is
the
commenter's
understanding
that
the
types
of
material
management
units
that
the
rule
is
intended
to
apply
to
relate
to
liquids
handling
(
oil/
water
separators,
surface
impoundments,
etc.).
This
should
be
explicitly
stated
in
the
regulations.
Response:
Under
the
final
Site
Remediation
NESHAP,
a
"
remediation
material
management
unit"
is
defined
as
a
tank,
container,
surface
impoundment,
oil/
water
separator,
organic/
water
separator,
or
transfer
system
used
to
remove,
destroy,
degrade,
transform,
immobilize,
or
otherwise
manage
remediation
material.
Also,
included
in
the
rule
is
an
explicit
definition
for
each
of
the
unit
types
(
e.
g.,
a
definition
for
"
tank",
"
container",
etc.).
Finally,
as
31
discussed
in
detail
in
Section
2.3.1
of
this
document,
we
have
revised
the
definition
of
"
remediation
material"
to
clarify
the
term's
meaning
consistent
with
our
intent
that
the
rule
address
HAP
emissions
from
site
remediations
to
clean
up
environmental
media
contaminated
with
HAP
(
e.
g.,
soils,
groundwaters,
surface
waters)
as
well
as
cleanup
at
a
site
certain
stored
or
disposed
materials
that
contain
HAP.

Comment:
Two
commenters
[
Docket
entries
IV­
D­
8,
IV­
D­
19]
requested
clarification
of
application
of
the
rule
to
vacuum
trucks.
Under
the
commenters'
interpretation
of
the
proposed
rule,
a
vacuum
truck
could
be
considered
both
a
container
(
remediation
material
management
unit)
and
a
process
vent.
Additionally,
the
commenters
believe
that
the
installation
of
emission
control
devices
on
vacuum
trucks
is
impractical
and
unnecessarily
burdensome.
Vacuum
trucks
involved
in
short
duration
cleanups
of
contamination
typically
do
not
remain
at
the
site
of
the
remediation
activity
for
more
than
brief
periods
of
time.
Response:
For
the
purpose
of
implementing
the
Site
Remediation
NESHAP,
a
vacuum
truck
is
considered
a
container.
Under
the
rule,
affected
containers
(
except
containers
used
for
waste
stabilization
processes)
are
required
to
use
covers
or
other
types
of
suppression
controls.
We
believe
that
a
vacuum
truck
can
be
readily
operated
in
a
manner
that
meets
these
container
air
pollution
requirements
and
to
do
so
is
not
unnecessarily
burdensome
to
the
owners
and
operators.
Vacuum
trucks
may
qualify
for
the
short
duration
exemption
where
the
cleanup
is
exempted
from
the
container
air
pollution
control
requirements
if
the
entire
cleanup
can
be
physically
completed
within
30
days
and
meet
the
requirements
for
the
exemption
specified
in
the
rule
(
see
section
2.3.4
of
this
document
for
a
complete
discussion
of
this
exemption).

2.2.4
Environmental,
Energy,
and
Economic
Impact
Estimates
Comment:
One
commenter
[
Docket
entry
IV­
D­
29]
stated
that
the
environmental
and
economic
impact
estimates
we
presented
for
the
proposed
rule
overstate
the
nationwide
HAP
emission
reductions
achievable
through
by
this
rule
and
understate
the
costs
of
compliance
with
the
rule.
A
second
commenter
[
Docket
32
entry
IV­
D­
44]
remarked
that
the
cost
of
site
remediation
control
equipment
can
be
very
affordable.
Response:
We
believe
that
our
estimates
of
the
nationwide
environmental,
energy,
and
economic
impacts
associated
with
the
Site
Remediation
NESHAP
are
reasonable.
The
impact
estimates
for
the
proposed
rule
are
based
on
the
best
information
available
to
us
including
remediation
waste
quantity
and
treatment
practice
data
for
the
year
1997
and
earlier.
No
new
data
or
information
applicable
to
the
impact
estimates
was
provided
by
commenters
on
the
proposed
rule.
Since
proposal
we
have
reviewed
our
data
sources
to
determine
the
availability
of
additional
information
to
update
and
supplement
our
original
database
used
for
the
impact
estimates.
We
concluded
that
our
original
database
remains
the
best
available
source
of
information
available
to
us
for
estimating
impacts
for
this
rulemaking.
Furthermore,
the
changes
made
since
proposal
for
the
final
rule
do
not
change
any
of
the
assumptions
we
made
for
our
original
impact
estimates.
Therefore,
we
believe
that
our
impact
estimates
for
the
proposed
rule
remain
valid
and
applicable
for
the
final
rule.

2.3
RULE
APPLICABILITY
2.3.1
Definition
of
"
Site
Remediation"

Comment:
Commenters
expressed
the
concern
that,
as
proposed,
the
rule
applicability
provisions
are
unclear
and
circular.
Several
commenters
[
Docket
entries
IV­
D­
15,
IV­
D­
23,
IV­
D­
24,
IV­
D­
26,
IV­
D­
27,
IV­
D­
30]
requested
that
we
clearly
define
the
term
"
remediation"
or
the
remediation
activities
subject
to
the
rule.
Commenters
[
Docket
entries
IV­
D­
15,
IV­
D­
17,
IV­
D­
22,
IV­
D­
23,
IV­
D­
30,
IV­
G­
1]
also
stated
that
routine
waste
management
activities
(
e.
g.,
tank
clean­
outs,
removing
spent
catalyst
from
reactors,
cleaning
heat
exchangers
and
other
piping,
etc.)
are
not
site
remediation
activities
and
should
be
distinguished
from
site
remediation
activities
subject
to
the
rule.
Response:
We
have
revised
the
regulatory
language
in
the
applicability
section
of
the
final
rule
to
clarify
our
intent
as
to
what
is
a
"
site
remediation"
for
the
purpose
of
33
implementing
the
Site
Remediation
NESHAP.
The
basis
for
all
of
our
revisions
to
the
rule
is
consistency
with
our
intent
that
this
rule
address
HAP
emissions
from
activities
to
clean
up
environmental
media
contaminated
with
HAP
as
well
as
cleanup
certain
stored
or
disposed
materials
at
a
site
that
contain
HAP
and
pose
a
reasonable
potential
threat
to
contaminating
environmental
media.
It
was
never
our
intention
that
the
rule
be
interpreted
to
apply
to
activities
at
a
facility
required
for
management
of
waste
generated
by
routine
equipment
maintenance
activities
or
other
types
of
activities
necessary
to
continue
day­
to­
day
operations
at
a
facility.
In
the
final
rule,
we
have
added
a
new
definition
for
the
term
"
site
remediation"
and
revised
our
proposed
definition
of
"
remediation
material"
to
clarify
the
rule's
applicability
and
to
improve
implementation
of
the
final
rule's
requirements.
"
Site
remediation"
means
one
or
more
activities
or
processes
used
to
remove,
destroy,
degrade,
transform,
immobilize,
or
otherwise
manage
"
remediation
material,"
as
defined
in
the
rule.
Monitoring
or
measuring
of
contamination
levels
in
media,
whether
by
using
wells,
sampling,
or
other
means,
is
not
considered
to
be
a
site
remediation.
We
have
revised
the
definition
of
"
remediation
material"
to
clarify
the
term's
meaning
consistent
with
our
intent
that
the
rule
address
HAP
emissions
from
site
remediations
to
clean
up
environmental
media
contaminated
with
HAP
(
e.
g.,
soils,
groundwaters,
surface
waters)
as
well
as
cleanup
at
a
site
certain
stored
or
disposed
materials
that
contain
HAP
and
pose
a
reasonable
potential
threat
to
contaminating
environmental
media.
The
Site
Remediation
NESHAP
is
applicable
to
those
site
remediations
that
involve
the
cleanup
of
materials
with
the
potential
to
emit
the
HAP
we
have
listed
in
the
rule.
Also,
the
revised
definition
of
"
remediation
material"
used
in
the
final
rule
explicitly
identifies
two
groups
of
materials
considered
to
be
remediation
materials
for
the
purpose
of
implementing
the
rule.
"
Remediation
material"
as
defined
for
the
Site
Remediation
NESHAP
must
contain
one
or
more
of
the
HAP
listed
in
Table
1
of
the
final
rule
(
the
basis
for
the
list
of
HAP
used
for
the
Site
Remediation
NESHAP
is
discussed
in
section
2.2.1
of
this
document).
If
your
site
remediation
does
not
involve
the
cleanup
of
remediation
material
containing
any
of
34
the
HAP
listed
in
Table
1
of
the
final
rule,
then
you
are
not
subject
to
the
Site
Remediation
NESHAP.
The
first
group
of
material
included
in
the
definition
of
"
remediation
material"
addresses
air
emissions
from
site
remediations
to
clean
up
environmental
media
contaminated
with
HAP.
These
materials
are
found
in
natural
environmental
media
such
as
soil,
groundwater,
surface
water,
and
sediments,
or
a
mixture
of
such
materials
with
liquids,
sludges,
or
solids
which
is
inseparable
by
simple
mechanical
removal
processes
and
is
made
up
primarily
of
media.
Our
use
of
the
term
"
media"
for
this
rule
does
not
include
debris
as
defined
in
40
CFR
268.2.
The
second
group
of
materials
included
in
the
definition
of
"
remediation
material"
addresses
air
emissions
from
site
remediations
to
clean
up
materials
containing
HAP
that
are
stored
or
disposed
at
a
site
and
pose
a
reasonable
potential
threat
to
contaminating
environmental
media.
These
are
defined
to
be
materials
containing
HAP
that
are
found
in
intact
(
or
substantially
intact)
containers,
tanks,
storage
piles,
or
other
storage
units.
Examples
of
these
materials
include
solvents,
oils,
paints,
and
other
volatile
or
semivolatile
organic
liquids
found
in
buried
drums,
cans,
or
other
containers;
gasoline,
fuel
oil,
or
other
fuels
in
leaking
underground
storage
tanks;
and
solid
materials
containing
volatile
or
semi­
volatile
organics
in
unused
or
abandoned
piles.
We
do
not
consider
remediation
material
to
include
waste
or
residue
generated
by
routine
equipment
maintenance
activities
performed
at
a
facility
such
as
tank
bottoms
and
sludges
removed
during
tank
cleanouts;
sludges
and
sediments
removed
from
active
wastewater
treatment
tanks,
surface
impoundments,
or
lagoons;
spent
catalyst
removed
from
process
equipment;
residues
removed
from
air
pollution
control
equipment;
and
debris
removed
during
heat
exchanger
and
pipeline
cleanouts.

2.3.2
Definition
of
"
Mixed
Waste"

Comment:
One
commenter
[
Docket
entry
IV­
D­
37]
stated
that
the
term
"
mixed
waste"
is
not
defined
in
the
rule
and
should
be
clarified
in
the
rule.
The
commenter
suggested
regulatory
language
changes
to
clarify
the
exemption
for
mixed
waste.
35
Response:
We
reviewed
the
proposed
rule
regulatory
language
and
decided
that
it
is
appropriate
to
make
several
regulatory
language
changes
in
the
final
rule
to
clarify
the
exemption
for
mixed
wastes.
First,
a
definition
of
the
term
"
mixed
waste"
has
be
added
to
the
final
rule.
Mixed
waste
is
defined
in
Site
Remediation
NESHAP
as
"
waste
that
contains
both
hazardous
waste
and
source,
special
nuclear,
or
byproduct
material
subject
to
the
Atomic
Energy
Act
of
1954"
(
RCRA
1004(
41),
42
USC
6903(
41)).
Formatting
the
exemption
in
terms
of
"
mixed
waste"
rather
than
a
more
general,
broader
term
such
as
"
radioactive
waste
or
material"
is
considered
to
adequately
characterize
the
population
of
radioactive
wastes
and
remediation
materials
that
are
the
target
of
this
exemption.
The
phrase
"
managed
in
accordance
with"
used
for
the
proposed
rule
has
been
changed
to
"
subject
to
applicable"
in
the
final
rule,
as
suggested
by
the
commenter.
The
reference
in
the
rule
to
"
applicable
regulations"
has
been
changed
to
"
applicable
requirements"
to
avoid
any
unintended
confusion
as
to
whether
AEA
activities
conducted
under
DOE
Directives
are
similarly
exempted
from
the
rule.
The
conjunctive
"
and"
between
the
"
Atomic
Energy
Act"
and
"
Nuclear
Waste
Policy
Act"
has
been
changed
to
"
or"
to
clarify
that
the
exemption
applies
to
waste
subject
to
either
statue
rather
than
both
statutes.
Finally,
an
additional
reference,
the
Waste
Isolation
Pilot
Plant
Land
Withdrawal
Act
(
Public
Law
102­
579),
was
added
to
the
exemption
language
to
ensure
that
the
management
of
Mixed
Transuranic
Waste
(
MTRU)
falls
within
the
scope
of
the
exclusion
(
in
addition
to
"
Atomic
Energy
Act"
and
"
Nuclear
Waste
Policy
Act").

2.3.3
Small
HAP
Quantity
Cleanup
Exemption
Comment:
Many
commenters
[
Docket
entries
IV­
D­
17,
IV­
D­
19,
IV­
D­
22,
IV­
D­
23,
IV­
D­
25,
IV­
D­
45]
in
general
support
the
EPA's
proposal
to
exempt
site
remediation
activities
performed
to
clean
up
materials
that
contain
little
or
no
organic
HAP.
Several
commenters
stated
that
the
proposed
limit
of
1
megagram
per
year
(
Mg/
yr)
for
the
exemption
is
too
low
and
should
be
set
at
a
higher
level
such
as
10
Mg/
yr.
Other
commenters
request
that
short
duration
cleanups
should
be
exempt
from
the
calculation
of
total
annual
quantity
of
HAP
contained
in
all
extracted
remediation
material.
The
36
explained
that
such
an
exemption
is
necessary
to
ensure
that
de
minimis
remediation
activities
are
not
subjected
to
the
Site
Remediation
NESHAP
controls
solely
because
of
a
one­
time
short
duration
cleanup
that
is
unrelated
to
the
minor
remediation
activity.
One
commenter
[
Docket
entry
IV­
D­
11]
requested
that
the
calculation
of
total
annual
quantity
of
HAP
contained
in
all
extracted
remediation
material
should
include
a
vapor
pressure
cut­
off
to
exclude
materials
that
have
little
or
no
potential
to
emit
HAP.
Another
commenter
[
Docket
entry
IV­
D­
21]
requested
that
the
1
Mg/
yr
facility­
wide
exemption
should
be
determined
based
on
the
amount
of
HAP
entering
remediation
equipment
(
or
the
potential
to
emit
of
the
equipment).
Response:
As
discussed
in
our
response
in
Section
2.2.1
of
this
document,
the
pollutants
selected
for
regulation
by
the
Site
Remediation
NESHAP
are
organic
HAP.
We
recognize
that
the
purpose
for
many
site
remediations
is
to
clean
up
media
contaminated
with
metals
or
other
non­
organic
substances.
In
these
situations,
we
further
recognize
that
while
the
site
remediation
activities
used
are
selected
to
clean
up
the
particular
metal
or
non­
organic
contaminants,
it
is
possible
that
trace
amounts
of
organic
HAP
substances
also
may
be
present
in
the
remediation
material.
It
is
not
our
intention
to
extend
the
applicability
of
the
rule
to
these
types
of
site
remediations
which
are
designed
and
conducted
to
clean
up
contaminants
other
than
organic
HAP.
We
therefore
have
included
in
the
rule
an
exemption
for
those
site
remediation
activities
performed
to
clean
up
remediation
materials
that
contain
little
or
no
organic
HAP.
We
selected
the
threshold
level
of
1
megagram
per
year
of
organic
HAP
to
be
consistent
with
the
value
we
established
for
a
similar
exemption
under
40
CFR
63
subpart
DD
­
National
Emission
Standards
for
Hazardous
Air
Pollutants
from
Off­
Site
Waste
and
Recovery
Operations.
Commenters
provided
no
new
information
that
justifies
the
need
to
set
the
limit
at
a
higher
level
for
those
types
of
site
remediations
that
the
exemption
is
intended
to
apply.
As
discussed
in
the
next
section
of
this
BID,
the
final
Site
Remediation
NESHAP
also
provides
at
those
facilities
subject
to
the
rule
an
exemption
for
short­
duration
cleanups
that
can
be
completed
within
30
days
from
the
need
to
use
air
pollution
controls
under
the
rule.
There
is
no
organic
HAP
37
quantity
limit
for
this
exemption
and
is
available
for
any
site
remediation
at
a
facility
subject
to
the
rule
that
meets
the
qualifying
conditions
regardless
of
the
organic
HAP
quantity
in
the
remediation
material.
In
contrast,
the
small
HAP
quantity
cleanup
cutoff
is
used
to
determine
an
exemption
of
the
entire
facility
from
being
subject
to
the
Site
Remediation
NESHAP.
The
short
duration
cleanup
exemption
and
the
small
HAP
quantity
cleanup
exemption
are
separate
and
distinct
exemptions
that
are
intended
to
address
different
site
remediation
situations
with
likely
low
organic
HAP
emission
potential.
There
is
no
valid
reason
for
excluding
the
organic
HAP
quantity
in
remediation
materials
from
an
exempted
short
duration
cleanup
from
the
calculation
of
the
total
annual
quantity
of
HAP
used
to
determine
the
overall
applicability
of
the
rule
to
a
facility.
Finally,
the
calculation
of
total
organic
HAP
for
the
purpose
of
qualifying
for
the
small
HAP
quantity
cleanup
exemption
is
based
on
the
total
quantity
of
those
organic
HAP
constituents
listed
in
Table
1
of
the
rule
that
are
contained
in
your
remediation
material.
Table
1
listed
97
specific
organic
HAP.
As
discussed
in
Section
2.2.1
of
this
document,
our
selection
of
which
organic
HAP
that
are
listed
in
this
table
included
evaluating
the
organic
volatility
and
other
characteristics
of
a
HAP
that
affect
its
potential
to
be
emitted
to
atmosphere.
We
excluded
from
the
list
those
organic
HAP
with
little
or
no
potential
to
be
emitted.
Thus,
there
is
no
need
to
also
establish
for
the
exemption
a
vapor
pressure
cut­
off
to
exclude
materials
that
have
little
or
no
potential
to
emit
HAP.

2.3.4
Short
Duration
Cleanup
Exemption
Comment:
Many
commenters
[
Docket
entries
IV­
D­
08,
IV­
DIV
D­
12,
IV­
D­
13,
IV­
D­
17,
IV­
D­
18,
IV­
D­
19,
IV­
D­
22,
IV­
D­
23,
IV­
D­
25,
IV­
D­
26,
IV­
D­
30,
IV­
D­
32,
IV­
D­
40]
in
general
supported
including
an
exemption
in
the
rule
for
short
duration
cleanups
but
requested
a
number
of
revisions
to
the
proposed
exemption.
Commenters
argue
that
the
proposed
7­
day
initiation
period
for
the
time
the
contamination
occurs
and
30­
day
cleanup
period
are
too
short
because
they
do
not
account
for
circumstances
beyond
the
control
of
an
owner
or
operator
which
may
delay
discovery
of
the
contamination
or
38
completing
the
cleanup
within
30
days.
In
some
cases,
a
leak
or
spill
may
not
be
discovered
immediately,
even
when
routine
inspections
of
pipelines,
tanks,
etc,
are
performed.
Furthermore,
although
remediation
activities
to
clean
up
a
spill
often
can
be
completed
within
30
days,
delaying
factors
such
as
delayed
analytical
results,
securing
of
the
site
for
safety­
related
reasons,
extreme
weather,
remote
site
locations,
or
the
need
to
obtain
permits
may
push
short
duration
cleanups
beyond
the
30­
day
period.
Commenter
recommendations
for
revisions
included:
1)
specific
longer
time
limits
ranging
from
45
to
180
days;
2)
allowing
for
two
30­
day
extensions
upon
notification
(
similar
to
the
30­
day
extensions
allowed
for
tanks
under
40
CFR
60
subpart
Kb);
3)
non­
binding
guidance
periods
to
allow
unforseen
circumstances
which
create
unavoidable
delays
in
completing
a
cleanup
within
a
specified
period
(
e.
g.,
within
30
days
unless
good
cause
exists
that
delays
the
cleanup
process);
4)
no
specified
cleanup
period
and
instead
general
regulatory
language
such
as
"
completed
within
a
reasonable
time";
5)
allowable
cleanup
interval
should
be
based
on
the
occurrence
of
the
spill
or
the
discovery
of
the
spill;
6)
provide
for
a
period
of
"
emergency
response"
to
allow
remediation
to
begin
as
soon
as
possible
(
in
keeping
with
the
short­
duration
spill
exemption,
this
period
could
be
set
at
30
days);
and
7)
cleanup
process
should
be
not
be
required
to
be
"
continuous"
(
i.
e.,
performed
every
workday).
Response:
We
reviewed
our
proposed
regulatory
language
for
the
exemption
and
concluded
that
the
proposal
does
not
accurately
reflect
our
intent.
Therefore,
we
have
revised
the
approach
we
use
to
implement
the
exemption.
We
believe
this
revised
approach
preserves
our
original
intent
as
to
which
site
remediations
warrant
exemption
as
well
as
addresses
the
concerns
raised
by
commenters
regarding
the
situations
when
a
short­
term
site
remediation
takes
longer
to
complete
than
initially
planned
and
extends
beyond
the
allowable
time
interval
because
of
circumstances
beyond
their
control.
The
purpose
of
the
Site
Remediation
NESHAP
is
to
control
organic
HAP
emissions
released
to
the
atmosphere
during
site
remediations.
Organic
HAP
emissions
from
in­
situ
treatment
processes
primarily
occur
when
an
air
or
gas
stream
from
the
remediation
process
is
exhausted
to
the
atmosphere.
Organic
HAP
emissions
can
be
released
from
extraction
or
excavation
of
39
contaminated
material
and
the
subsequent
handing,
treatment,
and
disposal
of
these
materials.
The
emissions
do
not
occur
prior
to
the
time
that
these
remediation
activities
actually
start.
We
recognize
that
activities
necessary
to
plan,
arrange,
and
schedule
the
site
remediation
may
take
more
than
30
days.
Also,
we
recognize
that
there
may
be
delays
in
starting
the
site
remediation
due
to
circumstances
beyond
the
control
of
a
site
owner
or
operator
such
as
waiting
for
necessary
permit
approvals
from
a
State
or
local
agency,
or
scheduling
of
personnel
or
equipment
contracted
to
complete
the
cleanup
work.
Furthermore,
a
site
remediation
does
not
occur
until
a
source
of
actual
or
potential
hazardous
substance
contamination
is
discovered.
In
many
cases,
when
the
contamination
is
discovered
may
not
be
the
same
time
that
the
contamination
occurs.
For
example,
the
new
owner
or
operator
of
a
site
may
discover
a
contaminated
source
requiring
remediation
that
occurred
years
earlier
due
to
improper
practices
of
the
previous
site
owner.
We
recognize
that
in
many
situations
it
is
difficult,
if
not
impossible,
for
facility
owners
and
operators,
as
well
as
enforcement
personnel,
to
verify
whether
a
given
site
remediation
is
initiated
within
7
days
of
the
contamination
occurring.
Therefore,
we
decided
to
eliminate
any
conditional
requirements
for
the
exemption
related
to
when
the
contamination
occurred.
Instead,
it
is
more
appropriate
and
practical
to
base
the
time
limit
for
the
short­
term
exemption
on
the
period
that
the
on­
site
work
is
performed
for
those
activities
with
the
actual
potential
to
emit
HAP.
For
the
final
Site
Remediation
NESHAP
we
adopted
the
approach
of
exempting
short
term
site
remediations
that
can
be
completed
within
a
given
number
of
consecutive
calendar
days
as
determined
from
the
day
that
any
action
is
first
initiated
that
removes,
destroys,
degrades,
transforms,
immobilizes,
or
otherwise
manages
the
remediation
materials.
In
adopting
this
approach,
we
exclude
those
activities
that
need
to
be
completed
to
perform
a
site
remediation
but
are
not
responsible
for
the
generation
of
HAP
emissions
from
site
remediations,
namely:
activities
required
to
characterize
the
type
and
extent
of
the
contamination
by
collecting
and
analyzing
samples,
to
obtain
any
permits
required
by
State
or
40
local
authorities
to
conduct
the
site
remediation,
to
schedule
workers
and
necessary
equipment,
and
to
arrange
for
any
contractor
assistance
in
performing
the
site
remediation.
Given
our
revised
regulatory
approach
for
the
short­
term
site
remediation
exemption,
we
re­
evaluated
the
maximum
time
interval
appropriate
for
the
exemption.
We
proposed
a
maximum
time
interval
of
30
days
for
the
exemption.
This
proposed
time
interval
included
time
to
complete
those
sampling,
planning,
and
scheduling
activities
that
needed
to
perform
a
site
remediation
but
are
not
part
of
the
physical
activities
which
cause
HAP
to
be
emitted
at
the
cleanup
site.
Under
the
final
rule,
the
exemption
is
based
on
the
time
interval
required
to
complete
only
those
remediation
activities
that
actually
emit
or
have
a
potential
to
emit
HAP.
We
believe
that
the
physical
part
of
the
site
remediations
we
intend
for
this
exemption
to
apply
can
reasonably
be
completed
within
a
period
much
shorter
than
30
days
(
e.
g.,
1
week,
14
days).
However,
there
are
situations
where
a
remediation
at
a
particular
site
which
normally
should
be
completed
within
these
shorter
periods
cannot
be
due
to
factors
beyond
the
control
of
the
owner
or
operator
that
curtail
or
delay
the
remediation
activities
(
such
as
severe
weather
or
machinery
breakdowns).
Therefore,
we
decided
that
selecting
a
maximum
time
interval
of
30
days
for
the
exemption
will
allow
a
sufficient
period
to
complete
the
types
of
cleanups
we
intend
for
this
exemption
to
apply
to
and
to
provide
a
reasonable
amount
of
leeway
to
account
for
any
unforeseen
circumstances
that
may
develop
at
a
site.
Finally,
it
is
our
intention
that
the
short­
term
exemption
only
be
applicable
to
those
site
remediations
for
which
the
cleanup
of
the
entire
contaminated
area
at
the
site
can
be
completed
within
30
consecutive
days.
The
exemption
is
not
intended
to
be
used
for
longer
term
cleanups
of
contaminated
areas
whereby
the
remediation
activities
at
the
site
are
started,
stopped,
and
then
re­
started
in
a
series
of
intervals
with
durations
less
than
30­
days
per
interval
for
which
the
total
time
of
all
of
the
intervals
required
to
complete
the
site
remediation
exceeds
a
total
of
30
days.
41
2.3.5
Addition
of
Other
Exemptions
Comment:
Several
commenters
request
additional
exemptions
be
added
to
the
final
rule.
One
commenter
[
Docket
entry
IV­
D­
12]
requested
addition
of
an
exemption
to
the
final
rule
for
foundation
and
other
structural
construction
activities
because
they
are
similar
to
a
short
duration
event
that
involves
a
spill,
and
the
construction
process
can
generate
over
a
short
period
of
time,
soils
which
must
be
properly
managed.
Another
commenter
[
Docket
entry
IV­
D­
15]
requested
addition
of
an
exemption
to
the
final
rule
for
site
remediation
activities
that
undergo
comprehensive
risk­
based
assessments
and
are
shown
not
pose
a
significant
risk
to
human
health
or
the
environment.
A
third
commenter
[
Docket
entry
IV­
D­
40]
requested
addition
of
an
exemption
to
the
final
rule
for
existing
low­
volume
but
high­
concentration
(>
500
ppmv
VOHAP)
remediation
material
sources
treated
at
on­
site
wastewater
treatment
facilities.
Response:
We
believe
the
that
exemptions
we
included
in
the
final
rule
are
adequate,
and
there
is
no
need
to
include
the
additional
exemptions
requested
by
the
commenters.

2.4
RULE
EMISSION
LIMITATION
AND
WORK
PRACTICE
STANDARDS
2.4.1
Combined
Remediation
Material
Streams
Comment:
Commenter
[
Docket
entry
IV­
D­
17]
stated
that
they
support
the
EPA's
decision
to
allow
mixing
of
wastewater
or
extracted
groundwater
with
other
process
wastewater
at
the
facility
prior
to
biological
treatment,
this
situation
is
not
specifically
addressed
in
the
proposed
regulatory
language.
A
second
commenter
[
Docket
entry
IV­
D­
22]
notes
that
the
regulatory
language
in
the
proposed
rule
always
refers
to
the
concentration
of
the
"
remediation
material"
itself,
not
to
the
combined
stream
managed
in
the
potential
remediation
material
management
unit.
The
commenter
believes
that
to
allow
for
consistency
between
EPA's
intent
as
expressed
in
the
preamble
and
the
actual
rule,
the
rule
needs
revision
to
include
the
measurement
of
combined
streams
to
demonstrate
the
less
than
500
ppmw
criterion
is
met.
42
Response:
Compliance
procedures
are
included
in
the
final
Site
Remediation
NESHAP
for
situations
when
a
remediation
material
stream
is
mixed
or
combined
with
another
material
stream
prior
to
being
placed
in
an
affected
unit.

2.4.2
Tank
De
Minimis
Capacity
and
Vapor
Pressure
Cutoffs
Comment:
Commenter
[
Docket
entry
IV­
D­
18]
notes
that
the
proposed
rule
would
require
that
controls
be
installed
on
any
tank.
The
commenter
suggests
that
instead
the
rule
use
a
de
minimis
tank
size
and
vapor
pressure
should
be
established
for
tanks
where
no
controls
are
required,
similar
to
the
NSPS
for
organic
liquid
storage
tanks.
Response:
The
NSPS
for
organic
liquid
storage
tanks
(
40
CFR
Part
60
subpart
Kb)
does
contain
cutoffs
for
minimum
size
and
vapor
pressure,
however
the
control
requirements
under
the
NSPS
and
the
Site
Remediation
NESHAP
are
different.
The
NSPS
does
not
contain
provisions
specifying
when
a
fixed
roof
is
required.
It
was
not
considered
necessary
to
specify
use
of
a
fixed
roof
in
the
NSPS,
since
for
the
industry
affected
by
that
regulation,
a
fixed
roof
is
used
as
a
matter
of
standard
practice
since
it
is
desired
to
preserve
the
liquid
being
stored.
That
is
not
the
case
when
storing
remediation
materials
in
tanks
so
we
specify
both
Level
1
(
a
fixed
roof)
and
Level
2
(
floating
roof
similar
to
the
NSPS)
controls.
The
Site
Remediation
NESHAP
does
not
require
that
air
pollution
controls
be
used
for
all
tanks
since
those
units
managing
remediation
material
with
an
average
total
volatile
organic
HAP
concentration
less
than
500
ppmw
(
based
on
the
content
of
the
organic
HAP
listed
in
Table
1
of
the
rule)
do
not
have
to
be
controlled.

2.4.3
Container
De
Minimis
Capacity
Cutoff
Comment:
Commenter
[
Docket
entry
IV­
D­
18]
stated
that
the
proposed
rule
includes
a
de
minimis
container
size
of
0.1
m3
(
26
gallons)
below
which
containers
are
not
required
to
use
air
pollution
controls.
The
commenter
believes
that
it
would
be
more
realistic
to
change
this
to
0.2
m3
(
52
gallons)
since
the
typical
container
that
would
be
used
would
be
55
gallons
in
size
which
would
still
be
regulated
while
smaller
43
containers
which
would
be
expected
to
have
reduced
emissions
would
not.
Response:
The
de
minimis
container
size
of
0.1
m3
(
26
gallons)
used
in
the
Site
Remediation
NESHAP
below
which
containers
are
not
required
to
use
air
pollution
controls
is
consistent
with
the
cutoff
size
we
have
historically
used
for
the
container
air
standards
we
have
promulgated
for
waste
management
operations
(
e.
g.,
the
OSWRO
NESHAP
under
40
CFR
63
subpart
DD
and
the
RCRA
air
standards
under
subpart
CC
of
40
CFR
parts
264
and
265).
We
originally
selected
the
value
of
0.1
m3
when
we
were
developing
the
RCRA
air
standards
based
on
a
review
of
hazardous
waste
handling
practices
and
applicable
existing
Federal
rules
regulating
these
practices
for
containers
with
capacities
less
than
55
gallons.
We
believe
that
our
original
basis
for
selecting
0.1
m3
for
the
container
cutoff
value
remains
applicable
and
appropriate
for
the
container
air
standards
under
the
Site
Remediation
NESHAP.

2.4.4
Process
Vent
Control
Requirements
Comment:
Commenter
[
Docket
entry
IV­
D­
44]
contends
that
the
two
compliance
options
the
EPA
proposed
for
reducing
process
vent
emissions
is
less
than
control
levels
typically
being
achieved.
Response:
The
CAA
requires
that
each
NESHAP
reflect
the
level
of
control
that
is
determined
to
be
MACT
as
defined
under
CAA
section
112(
d)(
3).
To
select
MACT
for
the
affected
sources
subject
to
the
Site
Remediation
NESHAP,
we
used
the
control
levels
achieved
by
air
pollution
controls
used
by
existing
sources
to
meet
national
air
standards
for
sources
similar
to
those
sources
that
potentially
may
be
associated
with
site
remediations.
In
the
case
of
process
vent
emissions,
we
determined
MACT
to
be
the
emission
limitations
and
work
practices
being
implemented
to
control
organic
emissions
from
process
vents
on
treatment
processes
used
at
existing
sources
subject
to
the
air
standards
for
RCRA
hazardous
waste
TSDF
under
subpart
AA
in
40
CFR
parts
264
and
265.
Compliance
of
facilities
with
the
RCRA
subpart
AA
process
vent
standards
demonstrates
that
the
control
levels
are
achievable.
The
commenter
provided
no
new
test
data
or
other
relevant
information
that
showed
that
higher
control
levels
than
those
required
to
meet
the
RCRA
subpart
AA
process
44
vent
standards
the
are
being
achieved
for
exhaust
streams
from
process
vents
on
treatment
processes
used
for
site
remediations.
The
air
standards
for
process
vents
established
by
the
final
Site
Remediation
NESHAP
fully
meet
the
CAA
requirements
for
MACT.

2.4.5
Equipment
Leak
Requirements
Comment:
Commenter
[
Docket
entry
IV­
D­
39]
suggests
that
there
should
also
be
a
de
minimis
level
of
the
total
number
of
potential
components
(
pumps,
valves,
etc.)
at
a
site
before
an
owner
or
operator
is
required
to
conduct
a
leak
detection
program
for
equipment.
For
example,
in
pump­
and­
treat
operations
the
number
of
potential
leaking
components
is
generally
small,
and
potential
emissions
from
those
emission
points
would
not
justify
a
leak
detection
and
repair
(
LDAR)
program.
The
commenter
suggests
that
an
affected
source
should
be
exempt
from
the
LDAR
provision
if
the
number
of
potential
components
is
less
than
100.

Response:
The
final
Site
Remediation
NESHAP
requires
that
you
control
fugitive
organic
HAP
emissions
from
equipment
leaks
from
pumps,
valves,
and
other
ancillary
equipment
components
that
contain
or
contact
remediation
material
having
a
total
concentration
of
the
organic
HAP
listed
in
Table
1
of
the
rule
equal
to
or
greater
than
10
percent
by
weight,
and
are
intended
to
operate
for
300
hours
or
more
during
a
calendar
year.
Control
of
these
emissions
is
achieved
by
implementing
a
leak
detection
and
repair
program
or
installing
"
leakless"
equipment.
Use
of
LDAR
programs
at
facilities
has
shown
it
to
be
an
effective
work
practice
for
controlling
fugitive
organic
emissions.
In
situations
where
a
LDAR
program
is
required,
we
believe
that
implementation
of
the
program
provides
an
important
control
measure
regardless
of
the
number
of
components
required
to
be
tested.
Also,
an
owner
or
operator
may
elect
to
comply
with
the
equipment
leak
requirements
under
the
Site
Remediation
NESHAP
by
replacing
all
of
the
affected
equipment
components
with
leakless
components
(
as
specified
in
the
rule),
and
thus
avoid
the
need
to
implement
a
LDAR
program.
Therefore,
exemption
of
affected
sources
from
the
LDAR
provision
when
the
number
of
potential
components
is
less
than
100
or
another
specified
value
is
not
necessary.
45
2.4.6
Requirements
for
Transfer
of
Remediation
Material
to
Another
Party
Comment:
Several
commenters
[
Docket
entries
IV­
D­
8,
IVD
18,
IV­
D­
19,
IV­
D­
22]
opposed
the
proposed
requirements
for
transfer
of
remediation
material
to
another
party
because
they
argue
that
the
requirements
are
unnecessarily
burdensome
on
both
the
shipping
and
receiving
parties
and
adds
paperwork
with
little
or
no
environmental
or
health
benefit.
One
commenter
[
Docket
entry
IV­
D­
12]
expressed
concerned
that
the
proposed
remediation
material
transfer
requirements
pose
an
undue
and
unforeseen
significant
burden
on
transporters
of
remediation
wastes.
Several
commenters
[
Docket
entries
IV­
D­
8,
IV­
D­
16]
stated
the
proposed
rule
is
unclear
as
to
whether
the
remediation
material
transfer
requirements
are
applicable
to
those
facilities
and
activities
that
are
otherwise
exempt
from
the
proposed
rule.
Several
commenters
[
Docket
entries
IV­
D­
16,
IV­
D­
17,
IV­
D­
22]
stated
that
remediation
material
sent
off
site
to
a
RCRA
TSDF
should
not
require
additional
notification.
These
facilities
are
already
regulated
under
the
RCRA
air
rules
in
40
CFR
parts
264
and
265
subparts
AA,
BB,
and
CC.
Finally,
one
commenter
[
Docket
entry
IV­
D­
42]
requested
that
we
clarify
the
applicability
to,
and
requirements
for,
the
receiving
facilities.
Response:
The
objective
of
a
site
remediation
is
to
mitigate
a
detected
risk
to
public
health
or
the
environment
by
successfully
completing
the
cleanup
of
an
area
contaminated
by
a
hazardous
substance.
At
many
remediation
sites,
the
contaminated
material
is
excavated
or
extracted
and
then
shipped
to
another
site
for
treatment
or
disposal.
Simply
moving
contaminated
material
containing
organic
HAP
from
the
cleanup
site
to
another
site
across
town
or
in
another
community
does
not
address
the
potential
for
these
HAP
to
be
emitted
to
the
air
and,
subsequently,
pose
a
risk
to
public
health
or
the
environment.
It
merely
transfers
the
risk
to
another
locale.
Nor
does
such
a
practice
reflect
the
maximum
emission
reduction
achievable,
as
required
by
CAA
sections
112
(
d)(
2)
and
(
d)(
3).
Thus,
there
is
a
need
to
ensure
that
those
remediation
materials
with
the
potential
to
emit
organic
HAP
are
managed
and
treated
in
units
using
appropriate
air
pollution
controls
regardless
of
where
those
units
are
located.
To
address
this
need,
we
are
including
in
the
Site
46
Remediation
NESHAP
the
requirement
that
remediation
material
transferred
to
another
party
or
shipped
to
another
facility
must
be
managed
according
to
the
air
pollution
control
requirements
specified
in
the
rule.
We
believe
that
the
transfer
provision
under
the
Site
Remediation
NESHAP
does
not
establish
requirements
that
are
burdensome
on
either
the
remediation
material
shipping
or
receiving
parties.
We
expect
that,
for
many
of
those
situations
where
a
remediation
material
is
subject
to
the
offsite
transfer
requirements
under
this
rule,
the
material
will
be
sent
to
a
facility
that
is
already
complying
with
the
OSWRO
NESHAP
or
a
hazardous
waste
TSDF
already
complying
with
the
RCRA
air
standards
under
subparts
AA,
BB,
and
CC
of
40
CFR
part
264
or
265.
The
air
pollution
control
requirements
under
the
OSWRO
NESHAP
and
RCRA
TSDF
air
rules
are
effectively
the
same
as
those
required
under
the
Site
Remediation
NESHAP.
Consequently,
it
is
likely
that
many,
if
not
all,
of
the
sites
receiving
the
types
of
remediation
materials
subject
to
the
off­
site
transfer
requirements
will
already
be
using
the
necessary
air
pollution
controls
to
comply
with
these
other
CAA
and
RCRA
air
rules.
Thus,
the
off­
site
transfer
requirements
in
the
Site
Remediation
NESHAP
should
not
impose
a
need
for
these
sites
to
purchase
and
install
new
air
pollution
controls.
Furthermore,
since
both
the
OSWRO
NESHAP
and
RCRA
air
standards
contain
provisions
exempting
material
generated
from
remedial
activities
from
air
emission
controls,
the
transfer
provisions
under
the
Site
Remediation
NESHAP
is
needed
so
that
HAP
emissions
are
controlled
from
remediation
material
received
by
OSWRO
and
RCRA
air
standard
facilities.
While
OSWRO
facilities
and
hazardous
waste
TSDF
already
should
be
properly
equipped
to
receive
and
manage
remediation
materials
from
cleanup
sites
subject
to
the
Site
Remediation
NESHAP,
there
are
no
existing
rules
requiring
all
owners
and
operators
performing
clean
ups
of
contaminated
materials
containing
organic
HAP
to
ship
the
remediation
materials
to
such
facilities.
It
is
possible
that
there
are
special
circumstances
where
remediation
material
is
transferred
to
a
facility
other
than
an
OSWRO
facility
or
a
hazardous
waste
TSDF.
We
also
must
address
the
potential
for
circumvention
of
the
rule's
purpose
at
a
site
where
the
remediation
material
is
simply
excavated
or
extracted
and
then
intentionally
transferred
outside
the
site's
legal
boundaries
to
avoid
47
having
to
use
air
pollution
controls.
Thus,
the
level
of
control
reflecting
MACT
provided
by
the
OSWRO
NESHAP
(
and
the
corresponding
RCRA
subtitle
C
rules
for
air
emissions)
is
not
necessarily
being
provided
for
all
remediation
waste
transfer
operations,
so
a
MACT
standard
would
not
merely
duplicate
existing
regulatory
requirements.
In
those
cases
where
an
off­
site
facility
is
receiving
remediation
material
subject
to
regulation
by
the
Site
Remediation
NESHAP,
but
units
at
the
facility
currently
are
not
using
the
air
pollution
controls
required
by
the
Site
Remediation
NESHAP,
the
facility
owner
or
operator
has
the
option
of
declining
to
accept
the
remediation
material
from
the
cleanup
site
or
installing
the
required
air
pollution
controls
on
just
those
units
that
manage
the
remediation
material.
While
we
believe
that
it
is
essential
that
the
off­
site
transfer
provision
be
included
in
the
Site
Remediation
NESHAP
to
ensure
remediation
materials
from
cleanup
sites
subject
to
the
rule
are
managed
and
treated
in
units
using
appropriate
air
pollution
controls
regardless
of
the
units'
location,
we
have
reviewed
the
proposed
recordkeeping,
certification,
and
notification
requirements
associated
with
the
off­
site
transfer
provision.
We
decided
that
we
can
simplify
the
administrative
requirements
for
the
facility
owners
and
operators
and
still
effectively
implement
and
enforce
the
offsite
transfer
provision.
Therefore,
we
revised
the
final
rule
to
simplify
the
recordkeeping
and
certification
requirements
for
both
owners
and
operators
of
facilities
shipping
as
well
as
receiving
the
remediation
materials.
Finally,
the
off­
site
transfer
provision
is
not
intended
to
trigger
a
Title
V
permitting
requirement
for
the
owner
or
operator
of
a
facility
that
currently
is
an
area
source.
To
address
this
situation,
we
have
added
in
the
final
rule
an
explicit
provision
stating
that
the
acceptance
by
a
facility
owner
or
operator
of
remediation
material
from
remediation
site
subject
to
the
Site
Remediation
NESHAP
does
not,
by
itself,
require
the
facility
owner
or
operator
to
obtain
a
title
V
permit.

2.5
RULE
TESTING,
INSPECTION,
AND
MONITORING
REQUIREMENTS
2.5.1
Remediation
Material
VOHAP
Determination
Requirements
48
Comment:
Commenter
[
Docket
entry
IV­
D­
30]
stated
that
the
testing
requirements
for
obtaining
the
affected
source
exemptions
(
i.
e.,
sampling
and
documentation)
are
unnecessarily
burdensome.
Response:
The
CAA
requires
that
each
NESHAP
contain
provisions
necessary
to
demonstrate
continuous
compliance
with
each
relevant
standard.
The
testing
requirements
included
in
the
Site
Remediation
NESHAP
are
necessary
to
verify
that
a
given
site
remediation
qualifies
for
an
exemption
under
the
rule.
We
believe
these
requirements
are
reasonable
and
are
not
burdensome
to
the
facility
owners
and
operators.
For
many
cases
we
expect
that
a
facility
owner
or
operator
will
already
have
the
necessary
information
needed
to
determine
the
total
organic
HAP
content
or
VOHAP
concentration
of
the
remediation
material
at
the
site
(
as
appropriate
for
the
particular
exemption
the
owner
or
operator
elects
to
meets)
from
the
test
data
and
other
information
collected
from
earlier
sampling
and
testing
used
to
identify
the
need
for
the
site
remediation
and
plan
the
site
remediation
activities.

2.5.2
Continuous
Parameter
Monitoring
System
QA/
QC
Requirements
Comment:
In
general,
several
commenters
[
Docket
entries
IV­
D­
12,
IV­
D­
17,
IV­
D­
23,
IV­
D­
45]
object
to
including
the
EPA
Emissions
Monitoring
and
Analysis
Division's
(
EMAD)
proposed
quality
assurance
and
quality
control
(
QA/
QC)
requirements
for
continuous
parameter
monitoring
systems
in
the
Site
Remediation
NESHAP.
With
regard
to
specific
requirements,
one
commenter
[
Docket
entry
IV­
D­
23]
stated
that
the
proposed
monthly
inspection
requirements
for
temperature,
flow,
pressure,
and
pH
measurement
devices
will
create
control
and
monitor
failures
and
outages,
make
achieving
data
availability
requirements
more
difficult,
result
in
HAP
emissions,
and
increase
the
potential
for
injuries.
The
commenter
also
stated
that
the
proposed
requirement
to
shield
the
temperature
sensor
system
from
chemical
contaminants
is
unnecessary
and
is
so
vague
that
it
is
impossible
to
demonstrate
compliance.
Response:
We
have
deleted
the
proposed
detailed
quality
assurance
and
quality
control
(
QA/
QC)
requirements
for
continuous
parameter
monitoring
systems
(
CPMS)
from
the
final
49
Site
Remediation
NESHAP.
In
place
of
these
requirements
we
have
added
to
the
final
rule
general
requirements
for
owners
or
operators
using
continuous
monitoring
systems
to
prepare
a
site­
specific
monitoring
plan
for
their
CPMS
that
addresses
installation,
performance,
operation
and
maintenance,
quality
assurance,
and
recordkeeping
and
reporting
procedures.
The
rule
specifies
the
topics
to
be
addressed
in
the
plan,
but
does
not
specify
detailed
operation,
maintenance,
and
inspection
requirements
for
temperature,
flow,
pressure,
pH,
and
other
CPMS
measurement
devices.
We
are
planning
to
develop
and
promulgate
a
single
set
of
CPMS
operation,
maintenance,
and
inspection
requirements
applicable
to
all
NESHAP
under
40
CFR
part
63.

2.6
RULE
IMPLEMENTATION
REQUIREMENTS
2.6.1
New
Source
Compliance
Date
Comment:
Several
commenters
[
Docket
entries
IV­
D­
12,
IVD
17,
IV­
G­
1]
expressed
concern
that
affected
site
remediations
that
are
begun
after
the
rule
proposal
date
(
July
30,
2002)
are
considered
to
be
new
sources
and
would
be
required
to
be
in
compliance
with
the
rule
by
the
final
rule
effective
date.
The
commenters
believe
that
this
compliance
date
requirement
could
inadvertently
delay
some
cleanups.
The
commenters
request
that
the
EPA
provide
a
more
reasonable
compliance
period
for
new
affected
sources.
Response:
The
compliance
date
for
new
sources
specified
in
the
final
Site
Remediation
NESHAP
is
reasonable.
Section
112(
i)
of
the
CAA
requires
immediate
compliance
of
new
sources
after
the
effective
data
for
an
emissions
standards
promulgated
under
CAA
Section
112(
d).
The
General
Provisions
to
40
CFR
part
63
defines
in
§
63.2
a
"
new
source"
to
be
an
affected
source
for
which
construction
or
reconstruction
commences
after
the
EPA
Administrator
first
proposes
the
NESHAP.
In
the
applying
this
definition
to
the
Site
Remediation
NESHAP,
a
new
source
is
a
site
remediation
that
is
started
on
or
after
July
30,
2002.
Under
the
final
rule,
existing
site
remediations
subject
to
the
rule
which
were
begun
before
July
30,
2002
must
be
in
compliance
with
the
rule
no
later
than
3
years
after
date
of
publication
of
the
final
50
rule
in
the
Federal
Register.
Owners
and
operators
of
facilities
where
a
site
remediation
has
been
started
on
or
after
July
30,
2002
are
expected
to
be
aware
of
the
proposed
rule
and
its
possible
impact
on
their
site
remediations
with
respect
to
requiring
the
use
of
appropriate
air
pollution
controls
which
may
or
may
not
be
already
in
place.
By
the
time
the
final
Site
Remediation
NESHAP
is
promulgated,
owners
and
operators
of
any
currently
ongoing
site
remediations
meeting
the
General
Provisions
definition
of
new
source
will
have
had
a
least
1
year
to
plan
for
implementing
the
required
air
pollution
controls
to
meet
the
applicable
standards
under
the
Site
Remediation
NESHAP.

2.6.2
Recordkeeping
Requirements
Comment:
Commenter
[
Docket
entry
IV­
D­
19]
requests
that
EPA
revise
the
language
of
proposed
§
63.7881(
f)
to
state
that
the
rule
recordkeeping
requirements
of
proposed
§
63.7933
not
apply
to
remediation
activities
completed
prior
to
the
compliance
date
of
the
Site
Remediation
NESHAP.
The
commenter
would
like
to
insure
that
the
revised
language
reflect
recordkeeping
requirements
will
apply
prospectively
only.
Response:
The
provision
in
the
proposed
rule
§
63.7881(
f),
now
under
§
63.7881(
d)
of
the
final
rule,
is
intended
for
activities
that
are
subject
to
the
Site
Remediation
NESHAP.
A
remediation
completed
prior
to
the
compliance
date
would
never
be
subject
to
the
rule
so
the
recordkeeping
requirements
cited
would
not
apply.
The
provision
in
the
final
rule
has
been
revised
to
clarify
that
only
a
record
demonstrating
compliance
with
the
rule
during
the
remediation
activity
period
is
required.

2.6.3
Startup,
Shutdown,
and
Malfunction
Plan
Comment:
Commenter
[
Docket
entry
IV­
D­
23]
stated
that
the
rule
requires
the
facility
to
develop
and
implement
a
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
plan.
In
reality,
this
requirement
only
has
meaningful
relevance
where
a
vent
stream
is
routed
to
a
control
device.
Otherwise,
this
requirement
should
not
apply.
As
an
example,
this
requirement
would
be
especially
burdensome
and
irrelevant
for
excavated
material
being
stored
in
containers/
roll­
off
boxes.
51
Response:
The
General
Provisions
in
subpart
A
to
40
CFR
part
63
establish
requirements
the
are
generally
applicable
to
each
of
the
individual
NESHAP
promulgated
under
part
63.
Section
63.6(
e)(
3)
in
the
General
Provisions
establishes
the
requirements
for
the
development
and
implementation
of
a
written
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
(
SSM)
plan
for
the
affected
sources
subject
to
an
individual
NESHAP.
A
comprehensive
table
is
included
in
the
Site
Remediation
NESHAP
that
lists
which
of
the
requirements
in
the
General
Provisions
apply
to
owners
and
operators
of
affected
sources
subject
to
the
Site
Remediation
NESHAP.
We
have
revised
an
entry
in
this
table
(
Table
3
in
the
final
rule)
related
to
the
General
Provisions
requirements
in
§
63.6(
e)(
3)
for
developing
and
implementing
a
SSM
plan.
The
SSM
plan
requirements
in
§
63.6(
e)(
3)
do
not
apply
under
the
Site
Remediation
NESHAP
to
affected
containers
required
under
§
63.7900
to
use
either
Level
1
or
Level
2
container
controls.
These
control
levels
require
the
use
of
covers
or
other
suppression­
type
controls
on
drums,
dumpsters,
roll­
off
boxes,
and
other
affected
containers.
The
SSM
plan
requirements
in
§
63.6(
e)(
3)
do
apply
under
the
Site
Remediation
NESHAP
to
affected
containers
required
under
§
63.7900
to
use
Level
3
container
controls
because
this
control
level
requires
the
venting
of
affected
containers
to
a
control
device
(
either
directly
or
by
use
of
an
enclosure).

2.6.4
Reporting
Requirements
Comment:
Commenter
[
Docket
entry
IV­
D­
23]
stated
that
the
proposed
requirement
that
within
24
hours
of
placing
material
in
a
container/
roll­
off,
you
must
submit
a
signed
statement
that
the
cover
meets
the
requirements
of
the
rule
should
be
dropped,
as
it
is
impractical
to
submit
such
a
notice
every
time
you
place
remediation
material
in
a
container/
roll­
off.
Response:
We
agree
with
the
commenter.
The
owner
or
operator
is
not
required
to
submit
a
signed
statement
that
the
cover
meets
the
requirements
of
the
rule
whenever
remediation
material
is
placed
in
an
affected
container
under
the
final
Site
Remediation
NESHAP.

2.6.5
Initial
Notification
Requirements
52
Comment:
Commenter
[
Docket
entry
IV­
D­
25]
stated
that
the
proposed
rule's
initial
notification
requirements
are
unnecessary.
In
particular,
the
commenter
recommends
that
the
final
rule
exempt
existing
source
facilities
from
filing
redundant
notices.
Response:
The
General
Provisions
in
subpart
A
to
40
CFR
part
63
establish
requirements
applicable
to
each
of
the
individual
NESHAP
promulgated
under
part
63.
Under
§
63.9(
b)
the
owner
or
operator
of
a
facility
subject
to
an
individual
NESHAP
must
submit
an
initial,
written
notification
to
the
EPA
within
the
applicable
time
period
identifying
the
facility
and
the
specific
NESHAP
subpart
to
which
the
facility
is
subject.
In
this
case,
the
owner
or
operator
of
a
facility
with
a
site
remediation
subject
to
the
NESHAP
is
required
to
prepare
and
submit
an
initial
notification.
The
Subpart
A
initial
notification
requirements
are
neither
burdensome
nor
unnecessary.
The
initial
notification
is
a
relatively
simple
document
requiring
the
facility
owner
or
operator
to
submit
basic,
readily
available
information
about
the
source
(
e.
g.,
facility
name,
address,
brief
description
of
source).
The
document
serves
important
administrative
purposes
for
the
agency
responsible
for
implementing
and
enforcing
the
Site
Remediation
NESHAP
under
the
NESHAP
program.
It
is
not
appropriate
to
provide
an
exemption
as
requested
by
the
commenter
in
the
final
rule.

2.6.6
Definition
of
"
Deviation"

Comment:
Commenter
[
Docket
entry
IV­
D­
25]
stated
that
EPA's
definition
in
the
rule
for
the
term
"
deviation"
is
inappropriate
because
it
specifically
includes
periods
of
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
(
SSM)
even
though
SSM
periods
are
already
exempted
from
compliance
under
the
rule.
This
is
redundant
and
provides
no
useful
information
regarding
compliance.
Facilities
will
already
be
reporting
"
true"
deviations
under
their
monitoring
reporting
requirements
and
SSM
activities
through
their
SSMP
reports.
There
is
no
need
to
confuse
the
already
overly
complex
recordkeeping
and
recording
requirements
with
unwarranted
and
redundant
data.
The
EPA
should
therefore
exclude
SSM
periods
from
the
definition
of
"
deviation".
Therefore,
the
commenter
recommends
that
the
EPA
revise
the
rule
to
reflect
that
operations
in
accordance
with
53
SSM
plans
are
not
deviations
and
need
not
to
be
reported
as
such.
Response:
For
all
NESHAP,
we
use
a
consistent
approach
for
assuring
continuous
compliance
with
the
relevant
standards
applicable
to
a
source.
Each
NESHAP
requires
that
facility
owners
and
operators
monitor,
record,
and
report
any
time
a
requirement
or
obligation
established
by
the
NESHAP
is
not
met.
This
includes
during
startup,
shutdown,
or
malfunction,
regardless
of
whether
or
not
such
failure
is
allowed
by
a
NESHAP.
This
requirement
applies
to
all
affected
sources.
The
term
"
deviation"
is
explicitly
defined
to
mean
any
instance
in
which
an
affected
source
subject
to
this
subpart
or
an
owner
or
operator
of
such
a
source
fails
to
meet
any
of
the
following:
1)
any
requirement
or
obligation
established
by
this
subpart,
including
but
not
limited
to,
any
emission
limitation
(
including
any
operating
limit)
or
work
practice
standard;
2)
any
term
or
condition
that
is
adopted
to
implement
an
applicable
requirement
in
this
subpart
and
that
is
included
in
the
operating
permit
for
any
affected
source
required
to
obtain
such
a
permit;
or
3)
any
emission
limitation
(
including
any
operating
limit)
or
work
practice
standard
in
this
subpart
during
startup,
shutdown,
or
malfunction,
regardless
of
not
such
failure
is
permitted
by
the
rule.
A
given
deviation
is
not
necessarily
a
violation
of
the
NESHAP.
The
EPA
or
the
agency
with
delegated
authority
to
implement
and
enforce
the
rule
makes
a
determination
if
a
deviation
is
a
violation
of
the
NESHAP.
Periods
of
startup,
shutdown,
malfunction
for
a
site
remediation
activity
are
not
exempted
from
compliance
with
the
NESHAP.
We
recognize
that
air
emissions
from
any
process
can
vary
during
process
startups
and
shutdowns
and
when
there
is
an
equipment
failure,
process
upset,
or
other
type
of
malfunction.
We
also
believe
that,
to
a
reasonable
extent,
many
of
these
events
can
be
planned
for
and
corrective
actions
implemented
that
will
reduce
air
emissions.
Therefore,
as
a
general
provision
for
all
NESHAP
source
categories,
we
require
under
§
63.6(
e)
that
owners
and
operators
develop
and
implement
a
written
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
plan
that
describes
the
procedures
for
operating
and
maintaining
the
source
during
SSM
events
and
the
corrective
actions
that
will
be
taken
during
a
process
or
air
pollution
control
equipment
malfunction.
Assuming
an
acceptable
SSM
plan
is
in
place
for
54
a
facility,
compliance
with
the
NESHAP
during
startup,
shutdown,
or
malfunction
periods
is
determined
by
whether
the
owner
or
operator
implemented
the
appropriate
actions
necessary
meet
the
applicable
requirements
specified
in
§
63.6(
e)(
3).
We
consider
SSM
events
to
be
deviations
to
assure
that
owners
and
operators
continuously
comply
with
the
relevant
standards
in
§
63.6(
e)(
3).
To
minimize
reporting
requirements
associated
with
SSM
events
to
the
extent
possible,
we
allow
owners
and
operators
to
include
information
in
their
semiannual
compliance
reports
on
those
SSM
events
where
actions
taken
were
consistent
with
their
SSM
plan.
A
separate
report
for
a
particular
SSM
event
is
required
only
if
actions
could
not
be
taken,
or
were
not
taken,
consistent
with
the
SSM
plan.

2.7
RULE
RELATIONSHIP
TO
OTHER
RULES
AND
PROGRAMS
2.7.1
Remediation
Activity
Sources
Regulated
By
Other
NESHAP
Comment:
Several
commenters
[
Docket
entries
IV­
D­
11,
IVD
16,
IV­
D­
39]
argue
that
remediation
activities
subject
to
another
NESHAP
(
either
under
40
CFR
part
61
or
63)
should
not
be
subject
to
the
Site
Remediation
NESHAP
regardless
if
the
other
NESHAP
requires
the
source
to
use
air
emission
controls.
Conversely,
one
commenter
[
Docket
entry
IV­
D­
23]
argues
that
for
remediation
activities
subject
to
and
controlled
under
the
Site
Remediation
NESHAP
and
another
Part
61
or
63
rule,
the
owners
and
operators
should
be
allowed
to
comply
only
with
the
Site
Remediation
NESHAP.
Another
commenter
[
Docket
entry
IVD
26]
stated
that
sources
that
are
otherwise
exempt
from
NESHAP
should
not
be
subject
to
this
rule.
Response:
For
a
site
remediation
at
a
given
facility
it
is
possible
that
remediation
materials
may
be
stored
or
treated
in
existing
on­
site
units
already
subject
to
another
NESHAP.
One
example
is
a
pump­
and
treat
site
remediation
to
clean
up
contaminated
groundwater
where
the
extracted
water
is
treated
in
a
steam
stripper.
In
the
development
of
the
Site
Remediation
NESHAP,
we
recognized
that
these
situations
could
occur
and
added
provisions
to
the
rule
to
eliminate
duplication
or
overlap
with
standards
under
other
NESHAP
that
are
applicable
to
the
same
affected
source.
55
At
a
facility
where
a
process
vent
associated
with
a
remediation
treatment
process
or
a
remediation
material
management
unit
is
an
affected
source
and
this
source
is
required
to
use
air
emission
controls
under
both
the
Site
Remediation
NESHAP
and
another
NESHAP,
the
Site
Remediation
NESHAP
allows
the
facility
owner
or
operator
the
option
of
demonstrating
compliance
using
the
air
pollution
controls
required
by
the
other
applicable
subpart
under
40
CFR
part
61
or
40
CFR
part
63.
This
means
you
are
complying
with
all
applicable
emissions
limitations
and
work
practice
standards
under
the
other
subpart
(
e.
g.,
you
install
and
operate
the
required
air
pollution
control
devices
or
have
implemented
the
required
work
practice
to
reduce
HAP
emissions
to
levels
specified
by
the
applicable
subpart).
The
intent
of
this
compliance
option
is
to
prevent
a
situation
where
an
owner
or
operator
already
has
installed
air
pollution
controls
on
the
affected
source,
to
comply
with
another
NESHAP,
from
needing
to
replace
these
controls
with
different
air
pollution
controls
to
comply
with
the
Site
Remediation
NESHAP.
It
is
not
our
intent
that
owners
and
operators
use
this
compliance
option
to
avoid
having
to
use
any
air
pollution
controls
on
the
affected
source.
Therefore,
this
exemption
in
the
Site
Remediation
NESHAP
can
only
be
used
if
the
other
subpart
actually
specifies
a
standard
requiring
control
of
HAP
emissions
from
your
affected
source
(
process
vents
in
the
example).
It
does
not
apply
to
any
exemption
of
the
affected
source
from
using
air
pollution
controls
allowed
by
the
other
applicable
subpart.
Finally,
it
is
not
proper
to
allow
sources
to
not
be
subject
to
the
Site
Remediation
NESHAP
for
the
sole
reason
that
these
sources
have
been
exempted
under
other
NESHAP.
In
cases
where
sources
associated
with
site
remediation
activities
are
specifically
exempted
under
another
NESHAP
(
e.
g.,
the
OSWRO
NESHAP),
the
rationale
for
exempting
these
sources
is
that
site
remediation
is
listed
as
a
separate
category
of
major
sources
on
our
source
category
list
(
57
FR
31576)
and,
consequently,
HAP
emissions
from
the
site
remediation
sources
are
regulated
under
a
separate
NESHAP
(
i.
e.,
the
Site
Remediation
NESHAP).

2.7.2
Once­
In,
Always­
In
NESHAP
Policy
56
Comment:
Six
commenters
[
Docket
entry
IV­
D­
11,
IV­
D­
15,
IV­
D­
17,
IV­
D­
23,
IV­
D­
25,
IV­
D­
30]
support
the
EPA's
proposal
to
suspend
its
"
once
in,
always
in"
policy
as
applied
to
facilities
subject
to
the
Site
Remediation
NESHAP.
Several
of
these
commenters
requested
clarification
of
the
suspension
of
the
policy
for
an
area
source
that
exceeds
the
major
source
threshold
by
virtue
of
site
remediation
activities
and
thus
could
become
subject
to
other
NESHAP
standards.
One
commenter
also
states
that
inclusion
of
temporary
activities,
such
as
short­
term
remediation,
in
the
determination
of
major
source
serves
as
a
serious
disincentive
for
remediation
activity.
Another
commenter
[
Docket
entry
IV­
D­
18]
stated
that
owners
and
operators
of
area
source
facilities
that
would
be
subject
to
an
existing
NESHAP
if
it
were
to
become
a
major
source
would
be
hesitant
about
conducting
a
site
remediation
project
at
the
facilities
because
they
would
incur
significant
costs
to
meet
both
the
Site
Remediation
NESHAP
requirements
and
also
any
other
NESHAP
that
they
may
be
subject
to
upon
becoming
a
major
source
The
commenters
request
that
the
EPA
adopt
a
policy
of
not
only
suspending
once
in,
always
in,
but
also
relieving
facilities
of
the
requirement
to
comply
with
other
applicable
NESHAP
standards
if
they
otherwise
would
be
area
sources,
but
for
the
site
remediation
activity.
Response:
We
explained
at
proposal
why
site
remediation
is
a
unique
source
category
(
see
67
FR
49400­
49401).
Because
of
its
uniqueness,
we
specifically
evaluated
how
the
Site
Remediation
NESHAP
could
be
implemented
within
the
framework
of
our
existing
policies
for
implementing
the
NESHAP
promulgated
under
CAA
section
112.
Our
once
in,
always
in
policy
is
that
once
a
facility
or
source
is
subject
to
a
NESHAP,
it
remains
subject
to
that
standard
as
long
as
the
affected
source
definition
or
criteria
are
met.
In
the
preamble
to
the
proposed
rule,
we
discussed
our
decision
that
the
once
in,
always
in
policy
should
not
apply
to
the
site
remediation
source
category
for
those
facilities
that
are
area
sources
prior
to
and
after
the
cleanup
activity.
In
other
words,
once
the
site
remediation
activity
is
complete
and
there
have
been
no
changes
to
the
non­
remediation
sources
at
the
facility,
the
facility
returns
to
area
source
status.
The
definition
of
major
source
under
CAA
Section
112
requires
that
all
actual
and
potential
HAP
emissions
be
57
considered,
so
HAP
emissions
must
be
included
in
determining
major
source
status.
For
facilities
that
become
major
sources
due
to
remediation
activity,
they
have
3
years
to
complete
the
site
remediation
activity,
and
return
to
area
source
status,
before
controls
would
be
required
under
another
NESHAP
for
nonremediation
sources
at
the
facility.
We
believe
the
majority
of
remediation
activities
that
are
controlled
for
HAP
emissions
will
account
for
a
small
portion
of
a
facility's
total
HAP
level,
and
therefore
the
likelihood
of
a
remediation
activity,
assuming
its
emissions
are
well­
controlled,
changing
a
facility's
status
from
an
area
source
to
a
major
source
is
unlikely.

2.7.3
Clean
Air
Act
Title
V
Permit
Modifications
Comment:
One
commenter
[
Docket
entry
IV­
D­
15]
stated
it
is
not
obvious
under
what
circumstances
a
Title
V
operating
permit
must
be
modified
to
reflect
site
remediation
activities.
The
commenter
requests
that
the
EPA
clarify
and
streamline
the
Title
V
requirements
applicable
to
the
site
remediation
source
category.
A
second
commenter
[
Docket
entry
IV­
D­
30]
stated
that
facilities
subject
to
the
Site
Remediation
NESHAP
would
be
required
to
modify
their
Title
V
operating
permits
and
wait
for
issuance
of
the
modified
permit
before
commencing
site
remediation
activities.
This
delay
in
starting
the
cleanup
would
create
an
increased
risk
to
human
health
and
the
environment.
Furthermore,
the
commenter
stated
it
is
not
practical
to
require
a
facility
to
secure
a
Title
V
permit
if
it
is
otherwise
an
area
source,
but
for
the
site
remediation
activity.
This
commenter
also
recommended
that
EPA
develop
guidance
to
streamline
Title
V
permit
modification
requirements
and
that
facilities
that
are
not
otherwise
major
should
not
be
required
to
obtain
a
Title
V
permit.
Response:
Whether
or
not
a
Title
V
operating
permit
revision
procedure
is
triggered
for
a
given
facility
is
a
case­
by­
case
determination
based
on
the
specific
site
circumstances.
Such
determinations
take
into
account
the
specific
terms
and
conditions
of
the
facility's
existing
Title
V
operating
permit,
the
applicable
State's
permitting
regulations,
and
the
specific
actions
being
taken
by
the
source.
Thus,
a
detailed
response
for
specific
site
58
remediation
conditions
at
a
given
facility
is
beyond
the
scope
of
this
BID.
In
general,
Title
V
operating
permits
must
be
revised
when
the
source
wishes
to
undertake
a
change
that
conflicts
with
an
existing
permit
condition.
For
guidance
on
whether
any
Title
V
permit
revision
procedures
would
be
triggered
for
a
specific
site
remediation
activity
you
are
planning
to
conduct
at
your
facility,
you
should
consult
with
the
permitting
authority
that
issued
your
Title
V
operating
permit.
As
to
commenters'
request
to
"
streamline"
the
Title
V
permit
modification
requirements,
we
currently
are
considering
how
best
to
revise
the
Title
V
operating
permit
modification
procedures
for
all
types
of
sources.
We
have
solicited
public
comment
on
this
issue
on
three
separate
occasions
(
two
proposals
(
59
FR
44460
and
60
FR
45530)
and
a
notice
of
availability
for
a
draft
final
rule
(
62
FR
30289)).

2.7.4
Facility
Major
Source
Status
Comment:
Commenter
[
Docket
entry
IV­
D­
23]
stated
while
the
initiation
of
a
site
remediation
operation
may
potentially
affect
a
change
in
source
status
(
i.
e.,
from
area
to
major),
this
does
not
result
in
the
facility
becoming
a
"
new"
affected
source.
The
commenter
requests
that
the
EPA
should
include
a
provision
in
the
final
rule
that
specifically
provides
for
a
3­
year
compliance
period
with
the
underlying
NESHAP
standards
for
those
area
sources
that
become
major
sources
as
a
result
of
implementing
this
rule.
Response:
The
commenter
is
correct
that
a
site
remediation,
regardless
of
when
it
is
initiated,
does
not
affect
the
existing/
new
source
status
of
non­
remediation
sources
at
the
facility
potentially
subject
to
non­
remediation
MACT
standards.
Since
the
time
interval
for
compliance
is
specified
by
either
the
individual
NESHAP
or
section
63.6(
c)(
5)
of
the
General
Provisions
for
area
sources
that
become
major
sources,
we
do
not
think
it
is
appropriate
to
override
those
requirements
in
the
Site
Remediation
NESHAP.

Comment:
Commenter
[
Docket
entry
IV­
D­
23]
is
concerned
that,
in
situations
where
site
remediation
occurs
at
oil
and
gas
production
and
exploration
sites,
the
definition
of
major
source
in
the
Site
Remediation
NESHAP
may
be
inconsistent
with
59
the
definition
of
major
source
in
the
E&
P
NESHAP
(
40
CFR
63.761).
The
EPA
should
clarify
that
the
major
source
definition
in
the
Site
Remediation
NESHAP
is
not
meant
to
supercede
the
major
source
definition
for
E&
P
facilities
as
established
under
the
E&
P
NESHAP.
Response:
It
is
not
our
intent
that
the
major
source
determination
process
in
the
Site
Remediation
NESHAP
supercede
the
major
source
definition
in
40
CFR
subpart
HH
(
Oil
and
Natural
Gas
Production)
or
40
CFR
subpart
HHH
(
Natural
Gas
Transmission
and
Storage).

2.7.5
Rule
Relationship
to
CAA
Section
112
Other
Than
§
112(
d)

Comment:
One
commenter
[
Docket
entry
IV­
D­
15]
stated
site
remediations
not
subject
to
the
Site
Remediation
NESHAP
should
also
not
be
subject
to
other
parts
of
Clean
Air
Act
section
112
(
e.
g.,
§
112(
j)).
Response:
Certain
site
remediations
are
not
subject
to
the
Site
Remediation
NESHAP
based
on
decisions
to
meet
the
legislative
directives
of
CAA
section
112(
d)
for
controlling
HAP
at
major
sources
where
remediation
technologies
and
practices
are
used
at
the
site
to
clean
up
contaminated
media
and
related
materials.
The
basis
for
those
decisions
is
only
relevant
for
requirements
under
CAA
section
112(
d)
and
cannot
be
broadly
applied
throughout
CAA
section
112.
Promulgation
of
the
Site
Rememediation
NESHAP
negates
any
requirements
under
§
112(
j)
for
remediation
activities.

2.7.6
Rule
Relationship
to
RCRA
TSDF
Air
Rules
Comment:
Commenters
[
Docket
entries
IV­
D­
11,
IV­
D­
12,
IVD
16]
stated
that
EPA
has
not
addressed
the
relationship
of
the
Site
Remediation
NESHAP
with
the
applicable
RCRA
air
standards
under
40
CFR
264
and
265
subparts
AA,
BB,
and
CC
which
control
volatile
organic
emissions
from
hazardous
waste
related
activities
at
RCRA
treatment,
storage,
and
disposal
facilities
(
TSDF).
The
commenters
believe
that
the
Site
Remediation
NESHAP
would
overlap
and
may
in
some
cases
conflict
with
the
already
existing
RCRA
air
rules.
The
commenters
request
that
site
remediation
operations
and/
or
hazardous
waste
management
units
that
comply
with
RCRA
40
CFR
60
part
264
or
265
subparts
AA,
BB,
and
CC
be
exempted
from
the
Site
Remediation
NESHAP.
Response:
When
developing
NESHAP
that
may
affect
sources
managing
RCRA
hazardous
waste
sources,
we
recognize
that
the
potential
exists
for
regulatory
overlap
with
other
requirements
we
have
previously
established
under
our
RCRA
authority.
Section
112(
n)(
7)
of
the
CAA
voices
a
strong
preference
for
consistency
of
NESHAP
with
RCRA
standards,
where
practicable.
Similarly,
section
1006(
b)
of
RCRA
requires
that
the
air
standards
be
consistent
with
and
not
duplicative
of
CAA
standards.
The
provisions
of
the
Site
Remediation
NESHAP
have
been
developed
to
minimize,
if
not
eliminate,
regulatory
overlap
to
the
extent
allowed
under
these
different
legislative
acts.

Comment:
Commenter
[
Docket
entry
IV­
D­
05]
is
concerned
that
any
overlap
of
the
RCRA
correction
action
remediation
program
and
the
Site
Remediation
NESHAP
could
create
confusion
and
increase
the
potential
for
misapplication
of
the
various
requirements.
Specifically,
the
commenter
is
concerned
that
the
Site
Remediation
NESHAP
could
be
applied
to
facilities
undergoing
RCRA
corrective
action
as
part
of
EPA's
review
and
approval
of
a
facility's
proposed
RCRA
corrective
action
activities.
The
commenter
requests
EPA's
acknowledgment
that
the
Site
Remediation
NESHAP
is
a
technology­
based
standard
that
need
not,
and
should
not,
be
considered
in
evaluating
proposed
RCRA
corrective
action
initiatives
(
e.
g.,
work
plans
and
reports
regarding,
but
not
necessarily
limited
to,
interim
measures,
RCRA
facility
investigations,
corrective
measures
studies,
corrective
measures
implementation,
and
corrective
action
monitoring).
Response:
Under
applicability
exemptions
to
the
final
Site
Remediation
NESHAP,
remediation
activities
performed
for
a
RCRA
corrective
action
are
not
subject
to
the
NESHAP
if
performed
at
a
TSDF
that
is
either
permitted
by
the
EPA
or
under
a
State
program
authorized
by
the
EPA
under
RCRA
section
3006;
or
required
by
an
order
imposed
by
the
EPA
or
a
State
program
authorized
for
corrective
action
under
RCRA
section
3006;
or
any
facility
as
required
by
orders
authorized
under
RCRA
section
7003.
Determination
of
the
corrective
action
initiatives
needed
at
a
given
facility
is
evaluated
on
a
sitespecific
basis
through
the
RCRA
corrective
action
program.
We
61
do
not
believe
their
should
be
any
confusion
or
misapplication
of
requirements
since
standards
contained
in
the
Site
Remediation
NESHAP
are
essentially
the
same
as
those
contained
in
the
existing
RCRA
air
standards
(
40
CFR
Part
264
and
265
subparts
AA,
BB
and
CC).

2.7.7
Rule
Relationship
to
"
Applicable
or
Relevant
and
Appropriate
Requirement"
under
CERCLA
Comment:
Commenter
[
Docket
entry
IV­
D­
43]
stated
that
although
the
proposed
Site
Remediation
NESHAP
would
exempt
site
remediation
activities
that
are
undertaken
using
CERCLA
authority,
substantive
requirements
in
the
proposed
NESHAP
could
arguably
be
considered
an
"
Applicable
or
Relevant
and
Appropriate
Requirement"
(
ARAR)
under
CERCLA.
Thus,
even
though
the
proposed
regulation
specifically
exempts
CERCLA
remediation
activities,
it
appears
that
the
relevant
portions
of
the
rule
would
be
applied
because
they
address
similar
situations.
To
avoid
inappropriate
use
of
the
Site
Remediation
NESHAP
as
an
ARAR,
the
EPA
should
clearly
state
in
the
final
rule
that
the
requirements
contained
in
the
final
rule
are
not
relevant
or
appropriate
for
remediation
activities
conducted
under
CERCLA
authority.
Response:
Determination
of
whether
a
particular
requirement
is
relevant
and
appropriate
is
a
site­
specific
matter.
Nothing
in
CERCLA
requires
EPA
to
declare
categorically
whether
or
not
a
particular
requirement
is
relevant
and
appropriate
at
the
time
it
is
promulgated.
Therefore,
we
decline
the
commenter's
invitation.
Nonetheless,
as
explained
in
both
the
preambles
to
the
proposed
and
final
Site
Remediation
NESHAP,
we
believe
that
CERCLA,
rather
than
the
requirements
of
this
rule,
provides
the
most
appropriate,
comprehensive
and
effective
approach
to
address
air
emissions
resulting
from
site
remediation
activities
at
sites
addressed
using
CERCLA
authority.
See
67
FR
49406
(
July
30,
2002).
Therefore,
as
a
general
matter
we
do
not
expect
the
Site
Remediation
NESHAP
to
be
an
"
appropriate"
requirement
in
most
CERCLA
response
actions.

2.7.8
Compliance
with
Executive
Order
13045
62
Comment:
Several
commenters
[
Docket
entries
IV­
D­
06,
IVD
34,
IV­
D­
36,
IV­
D­
46,
IV­
D­
50]
contend
that
the
proposed
exemption
of
site
remediations
conducted
to
clean
up
radioactive
mixed
waste
(
RMW)
from
being
subject
to
the
site
remediation
NESHAP
fails
to
comply
with
Executive
Order
13045,
Protection
of
Children
from
Environmental
Health
Risks
and
Safety
Risks.
Response:
Our
decision
to
include
an
exemption
for
RMW
complies
with
Executive
Order
13045,
Protection
of
Children
from
Environmental
Health
Risks
and
Safety
Risks
(
62
FR
19885,
April
23,
1997).
Executive
Order
13045
applies
to
any
rule
that:
(
1)
is
determined
to
be
"
economically
significant,"
as
defined
under
Executive
Order
12866,
and
(
2)
concerns
an
environmental
health
or
safety
risk
that
we
have
a
reason
to
believe
may
have
a
disproportionate
effect
on
children.
If
the
regulatory
action
meets
both
criteria,
we
must
evaluate
the
environmental
health
or
safety
effects
of
the
planned
rule
on
children
and
explain
why
the
planned
regulation
is
preferable
to
other
potentially
effective
and
reasonably
feasible
alternatives
considered
by
the
Agency.
We
interpret
Executive
Order
13045
as
applying
only
to
those
regulatory
actions
that
are
based
on
health
or
safety
risks,
such
that
the
analysis
required
under
section
5­
501
of
the
Executive
Order
has
the
potential
to
influence
the
regulation.
The
Site
Remediation
NESHAP
is
not
subject
to
Executive
Order
13045
because
it
is
based
on
control
technology
and
not
on
health
or
safety
risks.
No
children's
risk
analysis
was
performed
because
no
alternative
technologies
exist
that
would
provide
greater
stringency
at
a
reasonable
cost.
Furthermore,
the
Site
Remediation
NESHAP
has
been
determined
not
to
be
"
economically
significant"
as
defined
under
Executive
Order
12866.

2.8
OTHER
COMMENTS
2.8.1
Rule
Format
Comment:
Three
commenters
[
Docket
entries
IV­
D­
23,
IV­
D­
29,
IV­
D­
38]
stated
that
presenting
many
rule
requirements
in
an
exclusively
tabular
format,
and
extensive
cross­
referencing
to
provisions
in
other
subparts
which
we
used
for
the
proposed
63
rule
makes
the
rule
not
only
exceptionally
difficult
to
comply
with,
but
also
difficult
to
enforce.
Response:
We
have
significantly
revised
the
final
rule's
editorial
format,
organization,
and
regulatory
text.
Many
of
the
requirements
that
were
presented
exclusively
in
tables
in
the
proposed
rule
have
been
moved
back
into
the
regulatory
text
of
the
final
rule
and
the
applicable
tables
deleted.
While
these
editorial
changes
to
the
final
rule
make
it
appear
substantially
different
from
the
proposed
rule,
most
of
the
technical
and
administrative
requirements
remain
the
same
as
proposed.

2.8.2
Federal
Register
Proposal
Notice
Editorial
and
Typographical
Errors
Comment:
Several
commenters
(
IV­
D­
01,
IV­
D­
02,
IV­
D­
09,
IV­
D­
10,
IV­
D­
22,
IV­
D­
48)
identified
typographical
error,
cross­
reference
inconsistencies,
and
other
editorial
problems
in
the
proposed
rule
published
in
the
Federal
Register
notice.
Response:
As
discussed
in
our
response
in
Section
2.8.2,
we
significantly
revised
the
editorial
format,
organization,
and
regulatory
text
wording
of
the
final
rule
eliminating
many
of
the
provisions
and
tables
identified
by
the
commenters
with
editorial
and
typographical
errors.
We
corrected
all
of
the
language
and
citation
errors
identified
by
the
commenters
that
were
still
relevant
to
the
language
we
used
in
the
final
rule.
