![[logo] US EPA](../gif/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
3M: Hutchinson, Minnesota
3M: RCRA Air Issues Memo from Jon Kessler to Tom Zosel and Andrew Ronchak
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF POLICY, PLANNING AND EVALUATION
MEMORANDUM
Subject: RCRA Air Issues for 3M Hutchinson Project XL
From: Jon Kessler, Director
Emerging Sectors and Strategies Division
for the 3M-Hutchinson XL Team
To: Tom Zosel, 3M
Andy Ronchak, MPCA
In our discussion on October 10, EPA committed to provide you with a proposal regarding the incorporation of RCRA air requirements (parts AA, BB, and CC) into the overall XL framework of caps and comparable actions tests for addressing air pollutant emissions at 3M's Hutchinson facility. That proposal, developed largely by EPA's Office of Air and Office of General Counsel, is attached. Key elements are:
- Quantification by 3M of any increase in emissions relative to what would have occurred through full compliance with the RCRA regulations.
- Documentation as part of the comparable actions test that these increases have been offset elsewhere at the facility.
- Demonstration that the constituents being reduced under XL are equivalent from a risk standpoint for the constituents whose emissions are being increased from the RCRA units.
- Tie the enforceable Clean Air Act permit requirements that achieve the emission reductions (i.e. the comparable actions test) to the site-specific rule making that grants 3M exemptions from the RCRA requirements.
Note that some of our comments here relate to the measurement of outcomes and estimation of what would have occurred as part of the comparable actions test. These comments will be informed by our more general discussions on the issues of monitoring and definition of the comparable actions test.
RCRA Air Issues for 3M Hutchinson Project XL
Subpart AA: Subpart AA requires that total emissions from process vents on affected recycling-type units be below 3 lb/hr and 3.1 ton/yr, or be reduced by 95% facility wide. Any vent streams that have 10 parts per million by weight (ppmw) or more of organics are required to be quantified for this. If 3M process vent emissions from AA units are above the 3/3.1 values, and they want relief from the AA vent technical requirements, we can include that relief in their site-specific RCRA air rule.
To justify this exemption from RCRA, we need to write an enforceable CAA permit condition (i.e the comparable actions test) requiring that the volume of subpart AA process vent organic emissions in excess of the 3/3.1 values must be controlled elsewhere at the facility. It is incumbent on 3M to calculate what that value is, and to demonstrate that volume is being off-set.
The permit should require 3M to calculate the volume to be off-set, and document that the off-set is occurring as part of the comparable actions test. This would provide flexibility and minimize the State/EPA review burden.
We think the permit should require 3M to report its initial calculations supporting this demonstration, perform an update to that information whenever a facility change occurs that might affect those calculations, and report on those updates periodically in whatever manner we agree to with respect to overall record keeping and reporting issues.
It could turn out that the process vent emissions at 3M are below the 3/3.1 values, but the facility still wants out of the applicability of the AA regulations to avoid demonstrating the vent streams are below 1 0 ppmw, or to avoid the RCRA other monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting (MRR). If that's the case, we'd still write a RCRA site-specific rule, and will need to compare the MRR requirements contained in the 3M enforceable air permit to the subpart AA MRR requirements. We'll need to be able to argue that the permit requirements do a sufficient job of ensuring that the facility is properly complying with all the necessary standards. However, it seems very likely that we will end up with MRR requirements very similar to what is currently contained in the rule.
Subpart BB: Subpart BB requires a leak detection and repair (LDAR) program for certain equipment (pumps, compressors, fittings, valves, open lines, sample ports) that contains hazardous waste with 10% or more total organics. Facilities are required to perform method 21 tests (with sniffer-type instruments) each 6 months, and repair any detected leaks within 5 days. As with AA, we can include relief from these requirements in a site-specific RCRA air rule.
Again, to justify this exemption from RCRA, we need to write an enforceable CAA permit condition (i.e. the comparable actions test) requiring quantification of emissions from BB components and control of those emissions elsewhere at the facility. It is incumbent on 3M to calculate what that value is, and to demonstrate that volume is being off-set.
The permit should stipulate the estimating & off-setting approach to be followed for any piece of equipment for which the facility would like a subpart BB exemption in the context of more general permit language on the comparable actions test.
3M would be required to produce a facility-wide estimate of the volume of emissions from equipment that is applicable to subpart BB. They can do this by using SOCMI leaking equipment emission factors for each affected type of equipment, or site-specific factors if they have developed some. [EPA has similar information that Merck provided for their project which may be of use to 3M in this area.]
Since the emission factors are developed based on the current integrity of the affected equipment, EPA believes that the permit should require the facility to operate a maintenance program for that equipment. This would help to preserve the current integrity of the equipment, and thus ensure that the emission factors used in the calculations remain valid.
[Merck already has an inspection program that's been in place for years, so EPA is requiring that company to continue that program to ensure that their equipment doesn't degrade, and that their current emission factors stay valid through the life of the project. If 3M has its own LDAR program that includes the subpart BB emission points, the permit should require 3M to continue it; if they don't have one, Merck's program may be of some guidance.]
As with subpart AA, we think the permit should require 3M to report its initial calculations supporting this demonstration, perform an update to that information whenever a facility change occurs that might affect those calculations, and report on those updates periodically in whatever manner we agree to with respect to overall record keeping and reporting issues. The permit should require that if the waste managed in the BB units changes, the leaking equipment emission factors must be re-applied to the new mix/concentration of waste to calculate a new volume of RCRA emissions to be off-set.
Subpart CC: Our understanding is that 3M is seeking no relief from the container requirements or the surface impoundment requirements under subpart CC. Therefore, our comments address only the tank and control device requirements. Subpart CC requires air-tight covers on tanks used to store RCRA hazardous waste. Tanks in which certain waste treatment operations are performed must be completely covered, with all the headspace routed to a control device. The control device is required to achieve 95% destruction or removal of the organics in the vent stream.
EPA believes that the permit should in any case require that hazardous waste be operated with air-tight covers. If 3M has tanks equipped with covers that have open vents, EPA believes that the permit should require them to close those vents and replace them with conservation vents (that are normally closed but open to relieve pressure/vacuum build up from normal operation. These requirements aren't high cost items, so without a very compelling reason, we'd be hard pressed to justify granting exemptions from the CC tank requirements.
If 3M does present a compelling reason, the emissions from the tank would have to be-quantified by doing waste analyses, and using the EPA Water8 model and/or our ChemDat7 model. As with AA and BB, the permit would need to require that 3M performs this estimation, and ensures that the volume of emissions is off-set elsewhere at the facility. Periodic modeling would be needed to verify the size of the required offset as part of the comparable actions test.
As for the control device requirements, EPA believes that offset for these could be incorporated into the overall permit structure as discussed above for AA and BB. In this case, 3M would be required to quantify the volume of organics that are destroyed by the lower efficiency device. compare that to the volume that would have been destroyed with the 95% required device and to offset that volume elsewhere at the facility (i.e. the comparable actions test). The vendor or manufacturer of the control device could probably supply that information needed for the quantification, and would also know if there are any organic compounds that the lower performing control device would miss (e.g. light organics are not controlled by some condenser designs). We could use that information to address the issue of increased risk posed by interconstituent trading, discussed below.
An added tidbit under the subpart CC air rules is that any spent carbon removed from a control device that was used to comply with these air rules must be regenerated or disposed of in a manner to prevent the organics from volatilizing off the carbon. EPA believes that the permit should not grant relief from this requirement, since it provides follow through to ensure that carbon adsorption actually prevents organics from finding their way into the atmosphere.
Risk & Inter-constituent Tradiniz: Since RCRA is a risk-based statute, we're required to ensure that an alternative compliance approach (or exemption) doesn't decrease the protectiveness that would have been achieved by the regulation. Therefore, if 3M is allowing RCRA-regulated constituents to be emitted, in trade for controlling constituents elsewhere at the facility, we need to document that this trade does not increase facility-wide risk.
The easiest approach comes if the same constituents that would have been controlled by RCRA are controlled elsewhere at the facility by the other provisions of the permit (e.g. HAPs regulated under the Clean Air Act). EPA needs 3M to let us know whether this is the case. If so, the defense is straightforward: we're offsetting an equivalent volume of the same constituents, therefore, facility-wide risk must not be increased.
If the constituents being emitted from the exempted RCRA units are different from the constituents being controlled otherwise , we need to be able to defend our position that facilitywide risk is not increased. This would be a matter for further discussion between EPA, MPCA and 3M.
Miscellaneous:
"Double Jeopardy:" In general, if 3M is ever in non-compliance with their CAA permit. requirements, they would also be in violation of the conditions for the RCRA site specific exemption. Therefore, they would be in violation of any RCRA air requirements that the sitespecific RCRA rule had exempted them from.
"Timing:" TheRCRA subpart AA, BB,and CC rules are effective for 3M on December 6, 1996. All controls are required to be in place no later than December 8, 1997. 3M probably needs the site-specific RCRA air rule to be promulgated before 12/8/97. Moreover, because the RCRA rule can not be justified without reference to the XL permit and supporting material (including the Clean Air Act site specific rule), EPA believes that all of these should be proposed simultaneously.