P. 1



# OAR Box 1338 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



## Document

Number: 

# 30 ) F

. R.Apri l 25 , 198 9
Docket Number: 

# A-89-1 0

Printed 6/17/20081:48:06

PM Sheet 30of 105P. 2 

# A-86-/0

Tuesda y Apri l 25 , 198 9



# Part X 

# Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc

y Inten t t o For m a n Advisory Committe e t o Negotiat e a Ne wApproac h fo r Contro l o f Volatil e Organi c Chemica l Equipmen t Leaks ; Notic eP. 3

1794 4 * Federa l Registe r / Vol

. 54 , No

. 7 8 /

Tuesday , Apri l 25 , 198 9 / Notice s
ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENC Y [FR L 3562-8 ] Inten t t o For m a n Advisory Committe e t o Negotiat e a Ne wApproac h fo r Contro l o f Volatil e Organi c Chemica l Equipmen t Leak s SUMMARY

: EP A i s considerin g establishin g a n Advisory Committe e unde r th e Federa l Advisory Committe e Ac t (FACA)

. Th e Committee' s purpos e woul db e t o negotiat e issue s leadin g t o a ne w approac h fo

r regulatio n o

f equipmen t

leak s unde r

Section s 11 1 an d 11 2 o f th e Clean Ai r

Ac t a s amended

. Th e Committe e woul dconsis t of representative s o

f partie s tha t

ar e substantiall y affecte db y th e outcom e o f th e propose drule

. EP A request s publi c commen t o n whether :
• I t shoul destablis h aFedera l Advisory Committee ; • I t ha s properl y identifie dinterest s i t believe s ar e affecte db y th e ke y issue s liste dabove ; • Regulator

y negotiatio n i s appropriat e fo r thi s rulemaking , an dth e exten t t o whic h th e issues , an dprocedure s ar e adequat e an dappropriate

. Thi s notic e als o announce s tha t a n informational meetin g wil l b e hel do n Ma y 1 5 fro m1 0 a mt o 4 p ma t

th e Hal l o

f States , 44 4 N

. Capito l St. , roo m337 , Washington , D C t o discus s th e issue s involve di n th e regulatio n o f equipmen t leaks , an dwhethe r

th e Committe e shoul db e forme dan dnegotiation s proceed

. Thi s meetin g i s ope n an dan y partie s intereste di n th e negotiatio n ar e encourage dt o attend

. DATE : EP A mus t receiv e comment s an d suggestion s b y May 10,1989

. ADDRESS : Comment s shoul db e submitte d(i n duplicate, i

f possible ) t o Ai r Docke t (LE-131 ) RoomM-1500 , Environmenta l Protectio n Agency , Attentio n Docke t

#A89-10,401 M Street , SW. , Washington , DC 20460

. A cop y shoul dals o b e sen t

t o Bo y Ajax , MD-13 , U.S

. EPA , Researc h Triangl e Park , N C 27711

. Docke t

#A89-10 , containin g material s relevan t

t o thi s rulemakin g may b e inspecte da t

U.S

. EP A betwee n 8 a.m . an d4 p.m . o n weekdays , an da reasonabl e fee may b e charge dfo r copying

. FO RFURTHE RINFORMATIO N CONTACT : Fo r informatio n pertainin g t o th e establishmen t

o f th e negotiatio n committe e an dassociate d administrativ e matter s contact : Deborah Dalton , Deput

y Director , Regulator

y Negotiatio n Project , Informatio n an d Regulator y Syste mDivision , U.S

. EP A (PM-223) , 40 1 M Stree t SW. , Washington , DC , 20480 (202 ) 382-5495

. Fo r informatio n pertainin g t o th e regulatio n of

equipmen t

leak s an dth e regulatory issue s t o b e addresse di n th e negotiation , contact : Bo

b Ajax , MD-13 , U.S

. EPA , Researc h Triangl e Park , NC 2771 1 (919) 541-5579

. SUPPLEMENTAR Y INFORMATION : Outlin e of Notic e I

. EPA' s Regulator

y Negotiatio

n Projec t II

. Volatil e Organi c Chemica l Equipmen

t Lea k Fugitiv e Emissions A

. Nee dfo r Rul e Revisio n B

. Selectio n a s aNegotiatio

n Ite m C

. Ke y Issue s fo r Negotiatio n D

. Potentia

l Interest s andParticipant s III

. Formatio

n o f th e Committe

e A

. Procedur

e fo r Establishin

g a n Advisor y Committe e B

. Participant s C

. Request s fo r Representatio

n D

. Fina l Notic e E

. Tentative Schedul

e IV

. Negotiatio

n Procedure s A

. Facilitato

r B

. Goo d Fait h Negotiatio

n C

. Administrative Suppor

t an dMeeting s D

. Committe

e Procedure s E

. Definin g Consensu s F

. Failur e o f th e Committe

e t o Reac h Consensu s G

. Recor do f Meeting s I

. EPA' s Regulatory Negotiatio n Projec t EP A establishe dth e Regulatory Negotiatio n Projec t

i n 198 3 t o explor e an ddemonstrat e th e valu e o f negotiatio n an dothe r

consensus buildin g technique s fo

r developin g bette r regulation s whic h coul db e implemente di n ales s adversaria l setting

. Negotiation s ar e conducte dthroug h Advisory Committee s chartere dunde r th e Federa l Advisory Committe e Ac t (FACA)

. Th e goa l o

f th e Committe e i s t o reac h consensu s o n th e languag e o r issue s involve di n arule

. I f consensu s i s reached , i t

i s use da s th e basi s o

f th e Agency' s proposal

. Al l procedura l requirement s o

f th e Administrativ e Procedur e Ac t

an dothe r

applicabl e statute s continu e t o apply

. EP A ha s develope dcriteri afo r evaluatio n o

f potentia l item s fo

r negotiation

. T o qualif

y unde r EPA' s selectio n criteria , a n ite mmust :
• B e planne dfo

r proposal ; • Hav e arelativel y smal l numbe r o f identifiabl e parties , i n a n appropriat e balanc e an dmix , wh o hav e agoo dfaith ' interes t i n negotiating ; • Presen t alimite dnumbe r

o f relate d issues , fo r whic h sufficient

informatio n i s availabl e fo

r resolution ; an d
• Hav e atim e facto r

tha t lend s som e urgenc y t o reachin g consensus . Th e seve n negotiation s conducte dt o dat e hav e aide dth e Agenc y i n bette r definin g th e issue s an di n craftin g bette r approaches

. Th e seve n regulator y negotiation s were :
• Nonconformanc e Penalties unde r th e Clean Ai r

Act , a s amended ; Final rule : Augus t

30,198 5

• Emergenc y Pesticid e Exemption s unde r th e Federa l Insecticide , Fungicid e an dRodenticid e Ac t

(FIFRA) ; Fina l rule : January 15,198 6

• Farmworke r

Protectio n Standard s fo r Agricultura l Pesticide s unde r th e Federa l Insecticide , Fungicid e an d Rodenticid e Ac t

(FIFRA) ; Propose drule : Jul y 8,198 8

• Asbesto s Containin g Material s i n School s unde r

th e Asbesto s Hazar d Emergenc y Responsibility Ac t o f 198 6 (AHERA) ; Fina l rule : Octobe r 30,198 7

• Ne w Sourc e Performanc e Standard s fo r Woodburnin g Stove s unde r th e Clean Ai r Act ; Fina l rule : February 26 , 198 8

• Undergroun dInjectio n o f Hazardou s Wast e unde r

th e Hazardou s an dSoli dWast e Amendment s o f 1984

. Final rule : July 26,198 8

• Mino r Permi t Modification s unde r th e Resourc e Conservatio n an d Recover y Ac t (RCRA) ; Final rule : Septembe r

28,198 8 In Decembe r

1986 , th e Progra

m Evaluatio n Divisio n o

f EPA' s Offic e o

f Polic y Plannin g an dEvaluatio n complete da n assessmen t o f th e regulatory negotiation s program . Th e stud y confirme dtha t

negotiatio n i s especiall y appropriat e i n situation s whic h involv e th e resolutio n o f alimite d numbe r o f relate dissues , non e o

f whic h involv e fundamenta l question s o f valu e o r extremel y controversia l nationa l policy

. Th e stud y further

conclude dthat :

• Negotiate drulemakin g ca n produc e rule s tha t ar e more pragmati c wit

h bette r environmenta l result s whil e stil l meetin g statutor y requirements

.
• Negotiate drule s ar e als o mor e likel y t o b e acceptabl e t o th e affecte d industries , th e publi c interes t sector , an d stat e an dloca l government s involve di n developin g them

. • Negotiatio n may als o resul t i n earlie r implementatio n o

f arul e b y reducin g th e tim e i t

take s t o proceed fro mpropose dt o fina

l rulemaking

. EP A believe s tha t

th e benefit s t o al l partie s o f regulatory negotiatio n ar e substantial , an di s committe dt o continue dus e o

f regulatory negotiatio n an dothe r consensus-base dprocesse s fo r rulemakin g whe n appropriate

.P. 4

Federa l Registe r /

Vol . 54 , No . 7 8 /

Tuesday , Apri l 25 . 198 9 I Notice a 1794 5
II . Volatil e Organi c Chemica l Equipmen

t Lea k Fugitiv e Emissions A. Need forRule Revision Fugitive emission s o f

volatil e organic compounds (VOCs ) fro

m equipmen

t leak s (valves , eta ) contribut e significantly to ai r qualit

y problems . Curren tregulation s adopte d unde r section s 11 1 and 11 2 o f

th e Clea n Air Actand i n State Implementation Plan s (SIPs ) hav e bee n effectiv e i n heightening awarenes s o

f th e significanc e o f

thi s source and i n stimulating contro l efforts . Th e rule s basicall y requir e tha t equipmen ti n plac e b e inspecte d quarterl y for leak s wit

h a portabl e hydrocarbon detector . I

f concentration s i n exces s o f

10,00 0 pp m ar e found , th e componen

ti s identifie d a s a leake r an d maintenance i s required . EP A studie s i n th e earl y 1980s showe d tha ttypica l refineries and chemical plants hav e a n uncontrolled lea k frequenc y o f 1 1 t o 1 2 percen tMaintenance studie s indicat e thi s can b e reduce d b y abou t60-7 0 percen twit h th e curren

tleak detectio n and repai r program. However , th e actual frequenc y rate , an d associate d emission s i n particular, var y widel y and ar e believe d t o b e a function o f origina l design (a& , numbe

r o f valves ) and ag e o f the proces s unit , equipmen tselected , qualit y of maintenance , standar

d operating procedures use d b y the company , trainin

g provided t o employees , and motivation . Recentdata fo r highly toxi c chemical s demonstrat e tha tfrequencie s i n th e CL

0 t o 2 percent rang e ca n b e achieve d i n Som e situations . However , n o on e i s sure wha t combination of

factors guarantee s such results no r ho w t o requir e the m throug h enforceabl e regulations . Mor e importantly , regulator

y approaches currently, bein g use d d o not provide for quantificatio n of emissions . Specifie d quantified emissio n estimate s level s are necessar y t o establis h a base lin e an d EP

A need s residua

l emission s and risk assessment s t o make regulator y decisions . Fo

r example , the analyse s o f EP A proposed rule s tha

twoul d limit benzen e emission s (F

RVol . 53 , No . 145 , Jul y 28,1988 ) ar

e base d o n emissio n estimate s fro

m leak frequencie s typica l o f the refiner

y industry . Thes e ma

y significantly overestimate emission s o f benezene . EP A see s th e nee d for a ne w regulator y approach , base d o n performanc

e and/o r emissions , tha

twil l resul ti n quantifiabl e emissio n levels , giv e creditfor origina

l plan tdesig n and motivat e innovation . Develoin g such a n approachusing EPA' s traditiona l data gatherin g and analysi s approac

h woul d b e ver y difficult , costly , time consuming and controversial . Initia

l contacts ; sugges ttha tth e major industria

l organizations , environmenta l groups and stat e governmen

tassociation s wil l b e receptive , an d ther

e i s goo d potentia

l for identifyin g ne w approache s throug h negotiatio n tha

tare compatibl e wit

h ou r need s an d th e complexit

y o f th e problems . Th e negotiatio n woul d addres s primaril y technical issue s and woul d no t b e polic y oriented . Tn e specifi c goal o f th e negotiatio n woul d b e t o develo p a ne w regulator

y approac h thatcoul d b e a n alternativ e t o o r replacementfo r tiie curren t4 0 CF R61 , Subpar

tV equipmen

t leak rules . Th e negotiatio n woul d addres s th e for

m o f th e approac

h and th e relationshi p betwee n i tand actua l emission s butwoul d no taddres s stringency . Depending upon th e timin g and degre e o f

success , th e results coul d b e use d t o implemen

tth e Agency' s upcomin g decisio n o n benzen e equipmen tleaks . I f thi s i s no tpossible , th e results woul d b e use d i n th e nex t equipmen tlea k standard , whic h wil l probably b e th e hazardou s organi c Nationa l Emissio n Standard s fo

r Hazardous Ai r Pollutant

s (NESHAPs) . B. Selection as a Negotiation Item EP A believe s tiiatth e equpmen tleak regulation s ma

y b e appropriat

e fo r developmentthroug

h tiie regulatory negotiatio n process . EP

A ha s mad e a preliminar

y inquir y o f potential partie s and representative s of

identifie d interests t o determin e i f

thi s item satisfie s EPA' s selectio n criteri a for negotiate d rulemaking . O n th e basi s o f thi s preliminar

y inquiry , EP

A believe s tha tthi s ite m meets it s selectio n criteria an d tha tnegotiation s ca n b e successful . Affecte d interests are smal l i n number , and EPA' s initial contact s indicate tha t a n appropriat

e balanc e and mix o

f group s wil l b e willin g t o participat e i n goo d faith , EPA' s lea d progra m office ha s identifie d a numbe

r of basi c issue s fo r Whic h sufficientinformatio

n i s i n han d (o r wil l b e develope d durin g th e neogitations ) for resolution . C. Key Issues

forNegotiation EP A anticipate s th e ke y negotiatio n question s wil l focu s o n ho w t o establis h a regulator

y approac h thatwill : 1 . Achiev e predictable , quantifiabl e emissio n results 2 . Resulti n the applicatio n o f th e bes t availabl e technology 3 . Be enforceabl e 4 . Exhibitmaximu

m regulator

y consistenc y (e.g. , wit

h stat e permittin

g requirements ; SAR

A reportin

g requirements ) 5 . Provid e incentive s for bette r design s (e.g. , design s tha

tInvolve fewe r component s thathav e th e potentia

l t o leak ) 6 . Provide maximu

m flexibilit

y i n achievin g specifie d results 7 . Minimize administativ e burdens 8 . Provide fo

r predictabl e complianc e 9 . Provide tim

e tha tma y b e neede d t o identify , assess , and implemen twor k practices , equipmen

tand design s tha

t wil l meetemissio n goals . EP A expect s t

o addres s th e followin g specifi c questions : 1 . I s leak detectio n and repai r a n appropriat

e approach ? I

f so , ho w ca

n th e results b e quantified ? Shoul d the definitio n o f

a leak b e lowered ? 2 . Shoul d lea k detectio n and repair b e require d fo r flanges and , i

f so , what frequenc y and leak defintio n shoul d b e applied ? 3 . I s a n emissio n limit(o r a limi to n th e numbe

r o f leakin g components ) a n appropriat

e approach ? Ho w shoul d such a n approac h b e implemented ? 4 . I s a n emissio n limi to n a pe r componen

tbasi s (or a limito

n percent leakin g components ) a

n appropriat

e approach ? Ho w shoul d such a n approac h b e implemented ? 5 . I s ther e a n effectiv e approac

h tha t i s a combinatio n o f

th e above ? D. Potential

Interests and

Participants EP A ha s tentativel y identifie d th e followin g Us

to f possibl e interests an d parties : —Chemica

l manufacturin

g Industr y —Petroleu

m refinin g industr y —industrie s tha

thandl e organi c chemical s i n equipmen

ttha tinclude s valves , pumps , compressions , flange s o r open-ende d line s —Environmental.InterestGroups —Stat e and local ai r pollutio n contro l agencie s —Manufacturer

s o f pump s an d valve s —Consultin

g firms involve d i n plant desig n and equipmen

tspecificatio n —Contractor

s involve d i n constructio n o f

chemica l plant s an d petroleu m refinerie s —Labo r union s —Othe r Federa l agencie s III . Formatio

n o f th e Negotiatin g Committe e A. Procedure forEstablishing an Advisory Committee A s a general rule , a

n agency o f

th o Federa l governmen

ti s require

d t o compl y wit h the requirement

s o f FAC A whe n itestablishe s o r use s a grou p which include s non-Federa l members a s a source o

f advice . Unde r FACA . a n Advisory Committe

e i s establishe d onl y after bot h consultatio n wit

h GS A an d receip to f a charter. EP

A ha s prepare

d aP. 5

1794 6 Federa l Registe r / Vol

. 54 , No

. 7 8 /

Tuesday , Apri l 25 , 198 9 / Notice s charte r an dha s initiate dth e requisit e consultatio n process . Onl y upo n th e successfu l completio n o

f thi s proces s an dth e receip t

o f th e approve dcharte r wil l EP A for mth e Committe e an d commenc e negotiations

. B. Participants Th e numbe r

o f participant s i n th e grou p i s estimate dt o b e abou t 1 5 an d shoul dno t

excee d2 5 participants

. A numbe r large r tha n thi s coul dmak e i t difficult t o conduc t

effectiv e negotiations

. On e purpos e o f thi s notic e i s t o hel p determinm e whethe r th e standar dtha t

EP A i s developin g woul d substantiall y affec t

interest s no t adequatel y represente db y th e propose d participants

. W e d o no t

believ e tha t eac h potentiall y affecte dorganizatio n o r individua l mus t

necessaril y hav e it s ow n representative

. However , w e firml y believ e tha t

eac h interes t

mus t b e adequatel y represented

. Moreover , w e mus t b e satisfie dtha t

th e grou p a s a whol e reflect s aprope r

balanc e an dmi x o f interests

. C. Requests for

Representation If , i n respons e t o thi s Notice , a n additiona l individua l o r

representativ e o f a n interes t

request s membershi p o r representatio n i n th e negotiatin g group , th e Agency , i n consultatio n with th e facilitator , wil l determin e whethe r tha t individua l o r

representativ e shoul db e adde dt o th e group . EP

A wil l mak e tha t decisio n base do n whethe r th e individua l o r

interest :
• Woul db e substantiall y affecte db y th e rule ;
• I s alread y adequatel y represente d i n th e negotiatin g group . D. Final Notice Afte r evaluatin g th e result s of

th e informationa l an dorganizationa l meetings , an dreviewin g an y comment s o n thi s Notic e an drequest s fo r representation , EP

A wil l issu e afina

l notice

. Tha t

notic e wil l announc e th e establishmen t

o f aFedera l Advisory Committe e an dth e dat e o f th e first meeting , unles s (1 ) EP

A decides , base d o n comment s an dothe r

relevan t considerations , tha t

suc h actio n i s inappropriate , o r

(2 ) i n th e even t

EPA' s charte r reques t i s disapproved

. Th e negotiatio n proces s wil l begi n onc e th e Committe e i s appropriately chartere d an dnotic e i s publishe di n th e Federa l Register . E. Tentative Schedule EP A wil l hol da n informationa l meetin g o n May 15,1969(10am) unti l completion , a t

Th e Hal l o

f States , 44

4 N

. Capito l St. , Washington , D C Thi s meetin g i s open , an dpotentia l participant s ar e encourage dt o attend

. Th e purpos e o

f thi s meetin g i s to : discus s whethe r

negotiation s shoul d proceed , an di

f so , conside r

wha t issue s an dtopic s shoul dan dshoul dno t b e covered , answe r

questions , an daddres s an y othe r procedura l issue s whic h may arise

. I f a n adequat e mi x an dbalanc e o f partie s attendin g th e informationa l meetin g ar e intereste di n participatin g i n anegotiation , EP

A wil l hos t

a n organizationa l meetin g withi n tw o week s to discus s ho w th e negotiation s woul dproceedan dho w th e Committe e woul dfunction

. I

f th e organizationa l meetin g i s successfu l an dcharte r approved , EP

A woul dhol dth e firs t meetin g o f th e Advisory Committe e withi n thre e week s o

f th e organizationa l meeting

. A t

thi s meeting , participant s woul dcomplet e actio n o n an y procedura l matter s outstandin g fromth e organizationa l meeting , determin e ho w bes t t o addres s th e principa l issues , an d begi n t o addres s them

. Subsequen t

meeting s o

f th e Committe e woul db e hel donc e o r twic e amont h eithe r i n Washington , DC , o r

i n Researc h Triangl e Park , NC , a s determine db y ih e Committee

. Thoug h EP

A ha s no t se t afinal deadlin e for

completio n of

th e negotiation , i t

expect s th e negotiation s ma y las t u p t o si x months

. Th e Agenc y intend s t o terminat e th e activitie s o f th e Committe e i

f i t doe s no t appea r likel y t o reac h consensu s o n aschedul e tha t i s consisten t with Agenc y rulemakin g needs

. IV

. Negotiatio n Procedure s Th e followin g procedure s an d guideline s wil l appl y t o th e Committee , i f formed , unles s the y ar e modifie da s a resul t o f comment s receive do n thi s Notic e o r durin g th e negotiatin g process . A. Facilitator EP A wil l us e aneutra l facilitator

. Th e facilitato r wil l no t b e involve dwith th e substantiv e developmen t

o r enforcemen t o f th e regulation

. Th e facilitator' s rol e i s to :
• Chai r negotiatin g sessions ;
• Hel p th e negotiatio n proces s ru n smoothly ; an d

• Hel p participant s defin e an dreac h consensus . B. Good Faith Negotiation Sinc e participant s mus t

b e willin g t o negotiat e i n goo dfait

h an db e authorize dt o d o so , eac h organizatio n mus t designat e asenio r

officia l t o represen t it s interests

. Thi s applie s t o EP A a s well , an dBob Ajax , Chief , Standard s Developmen t Branch , Offic e o f Ai r Quality Plannin g an dStandards , wil l b e EPA' s representative

. C. Administrative Support and Meetings EPA' s Informatio n an dRegulatory System s Divisio n wil l suppl y logistical , administrativ e an dmanagemen t support
. Meeting s wil l b e hel di n th e Washingto n are ao r

i n Researc h Triangl e Park , NC , a t

th e convenienc e o

f th e Committee

. T o suppor t th e negotiations , EP

A ha s pledge dfund s t o aresourc e poo l whic h th e Nationa l Institut e fo

r Disput e Resolutio n wil l administer

. EP

A expect s tha t

fund s fro m privat e foundation s might als o b e available

. Th e partie s ma y us e th e fund s fo r suc h activities a s training , technica l support , an dothe r

assistanc e whic h th e Committe e deem s useful

. T o giv e committe e member s maximu mfreedom , subjec t t o an y applicabl e lega l constraints , the y wil l determin e th e procedure s unde r

whic h request s fo

r fund s wil l b e mad e an dapproved

. D. Committee Procedures Unde r th e genera l guidanc e an d directio n o

f th e facilitator , an dsubjec t t o an y applicabl e legal requirements , th e member s wil l establis h th e detaile d procedure s fo

r Committe e meetin g whic h the y conside r

mos t appropriate

. E. Defining Consensus Th e goa l o

f th e negotiatin g proces s i s consensus . In th e negotiation s complete dt o date , consensu s ha s mean t tha t eac h interes t

concur s i n th e result

. W e expec t

th e participant s t o fashio n thei r ow n workin g definitio n o f thi s term
. F. Failure of

Advisory Committee to Reach Consensus In th e even t

th e Committe e i s unabl e t o reac h consensus , EP

A wil l procee dt o develo p it s ow n approach

. Partie s t o th e negotiatio n may withdra w a t an y time , i

f thi s happens , th e remainin g Committe e shoul dcontinue

. G. Record

of Meetings In accordanc e with FACA' s requirements , EP

A wil l kee p arecor do

f al l Advisory Committe e meetings

. Thi s recor dwil l b e place di n th e publi c docke t fo r thi s rulemaking

. EP

A wil l announc e Committe e meeting s i n th e Federa l Register . Suc h meeting s wil l b e ope n t o th e public

. Dated : Apri

l 21,1989

. Rober t H

. Wayland , Acting Assistant

Administrator, Office of Policy, Planning and

Evaluation. [F RDoc

. 89-1006

3 File d4-24-89 ; 10:1 7 am

) BILLING COD E 8560-50- H